iPhone battery only lasts 40 minutes

[cutetopsie]

Dvorak says in the newest TWiT episode that the iPhone only lasts 40 minutes with talk time and the interface is extremely slow and jumpy.

Why do Apple market this in the same product area as the Treo and the rest?

 

[archie]

ummm... it's John C. Dvorak — he does this for trumped up popularity.

 

[MarkY]

I agree with archie. Also, under what circumstances does he say it lasts 40-minutes? Apple would not be so stupid to release a device that performed like that - and I am not an Apple fanboy.

 

[Merlyn_3D]

Um.....Dvorak thinks the iPhone is a mistake, of course he's gonna talk sh*t about it.

 

[GreenHex]

Maybe it's all just a ploy to keep people talking about the iPhone till the time it is released.

Step 1: Make wild claims
Step 1a: Capture everybody's attention
Step 2: Keep publishing reports/ reviews that lower expectations
Step 2a: Lower everybody's expectations
Step 3: Release product with lowered specs
Step 3a: Everybody goes wild...

(nobody ever said I'm not cynical )

 

[marcol]

Dvorak says in the newest TWiT episode that the iPhone only lasts 40 minutes with talk time and the interface is extremely slow and jumpy.

This is what he actually said:

"I got a note from a guy in Cingular and he said...there's lots of issues. He said... the amateur mistake they made is not having a removable battery. He says it's also running... you know you run 20 minutes and you're using up half the battery power. You [got] 40 minutes total talk time... and then he says the interface fouls up all kinds of [ways]."​

I've removed the interjections. Bits in square brackets are my best guess of words I couldn't make out. I didn't hear any mention of the interface being slow or jumpy (and I've listened to that whole section twice). Did you invent that bit?

With respect to battery life and interface problems, it seems to me there are several possibilities:

1) Dvorak made this up.
2) The 'guy in Cingular' is lying, exaggerating or mistaken.
3) The phone does have interface problems and/or bad battery life but this is pre-release hardware and software and these will be fixed in the release version.
4) The phone does have interface problems and/or bad battery life and one or both of these these won't be fixed in the release version.

As with most things iPhone, I'd say we have to wait and see before we can be sure.

Why do Apple market this in the same product area as the Treo and the rest?

I think you're jumping to conclusions far too early (on both whether the phone will have issues and how Apple will market this).

Another Dvorak pearl:

Leo: 'What about SonyEricsson?'
Dvorak 'They're [number] four. They're not even going to be in the game shortly.'​

:shake:

 

[archie]

Maybe it's all just a ploy to keep people talking about the iPhone till the time it is released.

Step 1: Make wild claims
Step 1a: Capture everybody's attention
Step 2: Keep publishing reports/ reviews that lower expectations
Step 2a: Lower everybody's expectations
Step 3: Release product with lowered specs
Step 3a: Everybody goes wild...

(nobody ever said I'm not cynical )

It seems to me this is Microsoft's methodology.

Steve Jobs, on the other hand, has actually sold the iPhone short. There are no wild claims: it's an iPod, a phone and an internet communications device. Nothing more was said. When it comes time for its release, it will offer even more than expected. I gurantee it. This is the Apple way and has been for at least the last decade.

What many naysayers refuse to believe are the benefits of actually using OS X on such a device. The thing is gonna kill.

 

[marcol]

​

What many naysayers refuse to believe are the benefits of actually using OS X on such a device.

The OS certainly seems to be very different to anything we've seen before:

'The iPhone is running an optimised but full version of OS X that weighs in at ?considerably less? than half a GB, according to Apple vice president of worldwide iPod marketing Greg Joswiak.'
​

http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipod-itunes/news/index.cfm?newsid=16927

You don't say 'considerably less than half a GB' if you mean 50 MB. I'd guess just from that phrase at 300-480 GB. Compare that to:

Windows Mobile 5: ~32 MB

http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsmobile/archive/2005/08/19/453784.aspx

It does seem like this is something quite unlike what we've been used to on mobile devices.

 

[Malatesta]

It seems to me this is Microsoft's methodology.

Steve Jobs, on the other hand, has actually sold the iPhone short. There are no wild claims...

:crazy:

You're kidding right? No "wild claims"?

Today Apple is reinventing the phone

Wow, he's so modest. Yup, no hype there. I remember when MS came out and said that...or not.

 

[archie]

Steve Jobs, on the other hand, has actually sold the iPhone short. There are no wild claims...

You're kidding right? No "wild claims"?


Wow, he's so modest. Yup, no hype there. I remember when MS came out and said that...or not.

How soon you forget!

? Revolutionary interface (gives it greater useability and flexibility - and I don't write those two words in any sort of casual manner) that everyone has been trying to copy ever since its been introduced.

? Desktop level applications and features on a phone, as evidenced by the inclusion of OS X as marcol states above.

? Best of class hardware - thinnest phone available, never-before used sensors in a phone.

First phone ever designed with liberal allowances from a cellular provider.

The list goes on.

And apparently I also need to remind you that Apple changed the computer industry when it introduced the Macintosh (everybody has been copying the Mac ever since), it changed the industry when it introduced the iPod (everybody has been copying the iPod every since) ... and now it has already changed the industry with its introduction of the iPhone (and everybody has been trying to copy it ever since and it hasn't even been released yet). This should spell out that they have indeed reinvented the phone, why else would everybody be trying to copy it.

 

[Malatesta]

• Revolutionary interface (gives it greater useability and flexibility - and I don't write those two words in any sort of casual manner) that everyone has been trying to copy ever since its been introduced.

Once again, we'll have to wait to see how it operates when it is actually released.

Outside of visual voicemail and their gimmick of multi-touch I don't see anything ground breaking. Different? Yes. Will it be popular? Yet to be seen. I happen to think they will be out innovated shortly.

Being the "first" in this industry is a very, very fleeting win and is a silly title to claim.

• Desktop level applications and features on a phone, as evidenced by the inclusion of OS X as marcol states above.

We'll have to wait to see if there are any. So far all we've seen is what we've been shown and that does not jive with what you are saying since the installation of OS X applications has not been demonstrated.

Likewise, the notion of carrying around a full desktop OS in a cell phone has not been shown to be a necessary feature for making calls, listening to music nor watching videos. Not sure what the point is really besides taking up a 1/2 gb of storage.

• Best of class hardware - thinnest phone available, never-before used sensors in a phone.

Come on--beating the Moto Q (nearly 1 year old) by a hundredth of an inch is hardly groundbreaking Arch (0.46 vs 0.47). And if you know this industry a thinner device will be out within weeks e.g. the Samsung X828 is 0.31 and the i600 is just as thin as the iPhone (0.46).

As far as sensors--if you require landscape and portrait orientations for your device/OS then yeah, that's a neat tilt sensor. I'm not sure how switching orientations makes a better phone though.

Light sensors are not new on these devices. Even the Q q9 has that now.

First phone ever designed with liberal allowances from a cellular provider.

"liberal allowances"?

So I can install any program I want and do as I see fit with their cellular service? Like Sprint and WM5 phones?

Fact is it is an outlandish and silly claim that they are "reinventing" the phone, especially when you are locked to one carrier and have no-4g or 3g. It's a different and innovative device but I don't think it'll change how people make phone calls.

 

[Fiffer]

when it comes down to it I doubt Apple will release a product with such limitations. Even if it is true about the prototype i would bet they will come up with some sort of solution. Apple is known for quality products and I doubt they will release a product with such a large short coming.

 

[Felipe#WP]

Top 10 Apple products which flopped

 

[Felipe#WP]

Um.....Dvorak thinks the iPhone is a mistake, of course he's gonna talk sh*t about it.

he is trying to point out that apple is going into a market with a lot bigger players, and they wont let apple just walk in and grab a lions share without a fight.

the entrenched players have a lot of money and the will to fight them tooth and nail.

 

[Iceman6]

There are no bigger players than Apple. Apple has 17,000 employees, 173 retail stores, is one of the 500 largest publically held companies in the US. Also, Apple is not going after the phone market. They are going after the iPod market, which they own. Most of their sales will be to people who already own iPods and want to upgrade to an iPod with a phone.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/04/10/ap3596802.html

 

[surur]

There are no bigger players than Apple. Apple has 17,000 employees, 173 retail stores, is one of the 500 largest publically held companies in the US. Also, Apple is not going after the phone market. They are going after the iPod market, which they own. Most of their sales will be to people who already own iPods and want to upgrade to an iPod with a phone.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/04/10/ap3596802.html

Arnt you forgetting about Nokia, with 70 000 employees, a market cap of $90 billion, and a huge retail presence in countless cellphone stores, and a desire to expand into the music phone market?

Surur

 

[marcol]

Arnt you forgetting about Nokia, with 70 000 employees, a market cap of $90 billion, and a huge retail presence in countless cellphone stores, and a desire to expand into the music phone market?

But have you ever used a Nokia phone for music? It's really not a very pleasant experience and is way behind iPod and iTunes. IMO, it's a rather weak part of the S60 package (much of which I love), although I'll concede that it may just be suffering by comparison.

 

[surur]

But have you ever used a Nokia phone for music? It's really not a very pleasant experience and is way behind iPod and iTunes. IMO, it's a rather weak part of the S60 package (much of which I love), although I'll concede that it may just be suffering by comparison.

Actually the only time I ran into a Nokia music phone was when a friend pulled out his Nokia with the micro-drive and proceeded to copy half my music collection to his phone via the mass storage mode. At least I know the phone exists in the wild Apparently the Sony Ericsson Walkman phones are however very very popular, and Ive seen more than a few in the wild.

Surur

 

[marcol]

Apparently the Sony Ericsson Walkman phones are however very very popular, and Ive seen more than a few in the wild.

My daughter has an SE 810i and I've played with it a bit. The interface is really rather nice, largely because it seems to be a shameless copy of the iPod. Sounds good too.

 

[archie]

Top 10 Apple products which flopped

Cyberdog wasn't even actually released. People could download it to try it and then see how advanced it was but because it was still in development and had debugging code in it, it was perceived as being slow in comparison to M$ IE. This is the sad part: as advanced as it was, Steve Jobs axed it in favor of bundling IE with Macs in that infamous Microsoft deal to increase public perception of Apple Computer, Inc. by gaining Microsoft as a "supporter" back in '97.

So, Cyberdog was not a flop. It was merely sacrificed; I suppose anyone unaware of the actual story would see it as a flop (however; the mere mention and memory of this by-gone application by the author brings me to question the authors intent).

How could anything that was a wholly owned subsidy of IBM, then later shut down, be counted as an Apple flop? Seriously!

EWorld wasn't created from AOL, AOL was created from EWorld. I would not call this a failure unless you consider that Apple had to ax it in order to focus and survive.

Apple never sold the Pippin. They licensed it to Bandai. They are the ones that screwed it up with poor marketing and only making it available to one European country, whose name I forget at the moment.

20th Anniversary Macintosh was incredibly beautiful and extremely innovative for its time... and... OK, it was a failure because of the high $7,500 price tag... UNLESS YOU CONSIDER THAT THEY ONLY SOLD THEM TO THOSE THAT WROTE TO THE COMPANY FOR A PURCHASE APPROVAL! IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO SELL IN HIGH NUMBERS. Idiots!

Of course it was discontinued in 1998, that was Apple's 21st Anniversary, the product was the 20th Anniversary Macintosh which was celebrated in 1997. GET IT?!?

Motorola ROKR? Again, wasn't Apple's product.

The Macintosh TV WAS a failure, I'll give them that.

Macintosh Portable? Judge for yourself because I don't know that much about it (yes, I know, shocking ain't it).

Newton. This was obviously NOT a failure. Quite possibly one of Apple's best products ever. It met its unfortunate demise at the hands of Steve Jobs. This was perhaps a mistake of Steve Jobs but the product itself certainly was not a failure. This was a device clearly ahead of its time and was just gaining wide acceptance when it was cut.

That puck shaped mouse - THAT was a failure! Why did they put that as a mere honorable mention. That is the worst thing Apple ever did.

In my opinion, the 17" Titanium Powerbook and the 5300 Powerbook should have been on that list. How could they sell a notebook made of Titanium that would flex when twisted. How could they deliver those 5300 Powerbooks that never once even turned on. I see this event as the catalyst of Apple's downturn in 1995 all the way through 1996 and even into '97. The repair program for this one notebook lasted 7 years. THAT should be regarded as a failure.

So I only see 4 failures. Not bad for a risk-taking company such as Apple who has been in the business for over 30 years.