The total cost of ownership thing is getting to me now...
When a new WinMo device like the Tilt comes on the market for $550 retail, or $350 after subsidies and rebates, you never see articles popping up about the cost of ownership over 2 years. Why do "journalists" feel the need to do this for the iPhone? Just because it is popular? Bah...
At&t Tilt - $350 (at release)
8gig SD Card - $150 (roughly the cost when the Tilt was released)
24 months at $75/mo for minimum voice + data and 200 SMS ($40 v + $30 d + $5 t)
Total = $2300
iPhone 3G 8 gig = $2000
But the iPhone catches flak for it?
The same thing applies to the upcoming BlackBerry Bold. It too will have a $30 data plan, a minimum of a $40 voice plan, and text messaging is separate starting at $5 for 200. If the Bold costs $1 more than the 8gig iPhone 3G, it will be more expensive to own over time. Rumors are saying that the Bold is pretty much guaranteed to cost more to buy (they point to $300 after rebate and subsidies) and there is nothing rumored about needing to purchase an SD card to make up for not having the memory included with the iPhone, that part is a fact. Why not write "articles" about the Bold and use this as a negative for it, like the iPhone?
Speaking of memory, what planet does the author of that article live on? 8 gig is substandard? 16 barely cuts it? I'm sorry, but I can't think of more than a very small handful of phones sold today that come preloaded with that much memory, yet he uses it as a negative for the iPhone?
I am not saying that he doesn't make a few valid points, but the article is generally off base.