1. copernicus's Avatar
    "iPhone integration is also a major feature that was left out of Jobs' presentation. When he showcased Leopard, the iPhone was not yet announced. We now learn that the iPhone runs a scaled down version of Leopard. And because Apple expects the iPhone to be more popular than the iPod, we can expect several enhancements in Leopard that tie in to the iPhone. We reported that Apple is still developing a mystery application for the iPhone that won't be released until the phone's release. This application could run independently from the computer, or have a direct tie in to Leopard. Although Apple offers the iPhone for both PC and Macs, some Leopard specific features are said to be installed in the iPhone, to help 'switch' users to the Macintosh platform."

    Full Article...
    01-29-2007 10:05 AM
  2. Chatter's Avatar
    More popular than the iPod? Right!

    Marc
    01-29-2007 10:07 AM
  3. archie's Avatar
    More popular than the iPod? Right!

    Marc
    You're in denial.

    http://weblogs.hitwise.com/leeann-pr...ch_volume.html
    01-29-2007 02:03 PM
  4. Chatter's Avatar
    More nonsense from you. Why would there be a huge number of hits on iPod, when it's been around for years? IT'S NOT NEWS. To be as big as iPod, it would have to be sold to EVERY one of Cingular's customers in the US.

    And why would I be in denial; I have no dog in this fight.

    Marc
    01-29-2007 02:05 PM
  5. cjdaniel's Avatar
    More popular than ipod, whatta ya smoking dude?
    01-29-2007 02:18 PM
  6. archie's Avatar
    Perhaps you should consider that the iPhone is an iPod... PLUS a phone.

    That makes it more popular than the iPod.
    01-29-2007 02:27 PM
  7. archie's Avatar
    I'm not saying it is going to sell in greater numbers than the iPod it's first year out. That is obviously not going to be the case. I am talking about popularity.
    01-29-2007 02:28 PM
  8. Chatter's Avatar
    So it can sell 5% as many as iPods, but be more popular? You are just spouting nonsense, as usual.

    Marc

    p.s. The typical archie modus operandi is, when proven wrong, to pull a humpty-dumpty and claim that words mean what he wants them to.
    01-29-2007 02:55 PM
  9. archie's Avatar
    No my modus operandi is to thrive on continually proving YOU wrong. And it's so easy.

    Look I didn't start this thread, I was simply chiming in.
    01-29-2007 03:03 PM
  10. surur's Avatar
    The typical archie modus operandi is, when proven wrong, to pull a humpty-dumpty and claim that words mean what he wants them to.
    I'm sure Archie does not care for your attitude of consistently belittling his posts by extrapolating and projecting what it is that you wish to make of his words!!!

    Surur
    01-29-2007 03:06 PM
  11. bruckwine's Avatar
    there is only ONE measure of popularity in commerce...sales...and right now the iPhone stands at zero..I'd LOVE to see it outsell the much cheaper, bigger and more widely-accesorized iPod w/o Jobs simply pulling the pods from the shelf ...or selling the iPhone for $200 -$300 less w/o contracts!
    01-29-2007 03:29 PM
  12. Kupe#WP's Avatar
    Perhaps you should consider that the iPhone is an iPod... PLUS a phone.

    That makes it more popular than the iPod.
    Of the 30 or so iPod users I've discussed this with, none of them are particularly interested in this phone. While they're probably not a representative cross-section of the entire iPod using community, they all felt the phone was cool, but too big, too clunky looking, too clumsy (requires 2 hands to use) for a phone. They plan to continue using their iPods to play music/videos and use their phones to make phone calls ... for the total cost of about $350.00.
    01-30-2007 12:32 AM
  13. Eric5273's Avatar
    they all felt the phone was cool, but too big, too clunky looking, too clumsy (requires 2 hands to use) for a phone.
    It's actually very similar in size to the current 30 GB iPod. It's about the same footprint as the Treo 680, but half the thickness.
    01-30-2007 01:07 AM
  14. Kupe#WP's Avatar
    It's actually very similar in size to the current 30 GB iPod. It's about the same footprint as the Treo 680, but half the thickness.
    Or to compare it to a phone, it's very close in size to the Motorola Q (Q: 4.57" x 2.52" x 0.47", iPhone: 4.5" x 2.4" 0.46"). The folks I'm talking about find my Q something too clunky to hold against their face ... they're iPod owners for crying out loud, not nerds!
    01-30-2007 08:50 AM
  15. Dunc's Avatar
    More popular than the iPod? Right!
    I don't know Marc. But I do know that "these times they are a changing". I think Palm gave us too little too late, and unless they have something revolutionary up their sleeves they have something worry about. I'd love to see Chatter running on either the iPhone or Openmoko. Aren't you just yearning to try something new?!

    Dunc
    01-30-2007 02:56 PM
  16. KMeloney's Avatar
    they all felt the phone was cool, but too big, too clunky looking, too clumsy (requires 2 hands to use) for a phone.
    I can't speak for those 30 people you spoke to, but I don't see "too big, too clunky looking, [and/or] too clumsy."

    Here are my thoughts on it:

    Re: Too big -- It looks no larger than the Treo, yet we know it's thinner than the Treo. Using the Treo -- which I don't find to be "too big" -- as a measuring stick, I'd say that the iPhone should not be too big at all.

    Re: Too clunky looking -- Again, it's thinner than the Treo, so that's out. And, it has no protruding antena, and is mostly smooth on all sides. I think this is about the most streamlined-looking phone out there.

    Re: Too clumsy -- I still don't know what people are basing the "requires two hands" use thing on with this phone. Is it because Jobs used two hands in the address? That can't be it, can it? Heck, the Treo doesn't even require two hands. Sure, it's easier and faster to hold and type with two hands on the Treo -- but if it's easier and faster, then that's the route people will go. But it's not a requirement. My previous Nokia was very small, and two hands on that device didn't make much sense. Then again, texting on that phone with one hand was super-slow, so I'd never consider it "better" that I used one hand to type on it. AT VERY LEAST, the jury must still be out on the whole two-handed thing. I think we just have to wait and see, but I would bet it could be used with one hand.

    /< / /2 /<
    01-31-2007 01:13 PM
  17. Kupe#WP's Avatar
    Re: Too big -- It looks no larger than the Treo, yet we know it's thinner than the Treo. Using the Treo -- which I don't find to be "too big" -- as a measuring stick, I'd say that the iPhone should not be too big at all.
    Yet, as cell phones go, the Treo is big. As PDA phones go, the Treo is average to above average size (especially the ones with the antenna). To people who love their iPod, but don't want a "nerd phone," the Treo is laughably large.
    Re: Too clunky looking -- Again, it's thinner than the Treo, so that's out. And, it has no protruding antena, and is mostly smooth on all sides. I think this is about the most streamlined-looking phone out there.
    It's a cubic rectangle with straight edges and curved corners...without the consideration of the shape of the human hand like an HTC Excaliber or HTC Meteor. I will admit it's very shiny though!
    Re: Too clumsy -- I still don't know what people are basing the "requires two hands" use thing on with this phone. Is it because Jobs used two hands in the address? That can't be it, can it? Heck, the Treo doesn't even require two hands. Sure, it's easier and faster to hold and type with two hands on the Treo -- but if it's easier and faster, then that's the route people will go. But it's not a requirement.
    I think you miss my point. With a Treo (or any other PDA phone with a consolidated keyboard and navigation pointer like the 5-way) you can use it 1-handed...typically without even having to look at the screen or the keys. With the iPhone you're faced with a featureless, smooth surface displaying images under that surface, so you need to hold it with one hand, look at the screen to see what you want to press, then press it with a finger on the other hand. That's for typing, dialing, navigating, everything - period - because there's no other controls. If you try to one hand it, at best you'll just end up guessing about your (virtual) button press since there's no tactile feedback; at worst you'll experience the unintended consequences of a multi-touch digitizer and a big mushing thumb coming together on an otherwise elegant screen.

    If you come from the world of one handed, tiny phone operation (like the ~30 friends I mentioned) with a wholly separate music device for when you want to listen to music (because who wants to do both of those activities at the same time anyway?), then you don't see any use for the iPhone...as a phone replacement. They are all, to a person, exceedingly interested in an iPod replacement that can do the things they saw Stevie J do with his iPhone...but they don't want to make phone calls on it or pay $600 for it.
    01-31-2007 07:11 PM
  18. MacUser's Avatar
    Of the 30 or so iPod users I've discussed this with, none of them are particularly interested in this phone. While they're probably not a representative cross-section of the entire iPod using community, they all felt the phone was cool, but too big, too clunky looking, too clumsy (requires 2 hands to use) for a phone. They plan to continue using their iPods to play music/videos and use their phones to make phone calls ... for the total cost of about $350.00.
    Well, I have an iPod and a Treo. I would love to be able to carry only 1 device. Guess I'm the exception? However, if it's true that people want to have a separate music player from a phone, why are all these new phones coming out featuring their music capabilities? I do love the Christina Aguilera Chocolate commercials--yet I'd never go with Verizon(too expensive).
    01-31-2007 10:08 PM
  19. Kupe#WP's Avatar
    Well, I have an iPod and a Treo. I would love to be able to carry only 1 device. Guess I'm the exception?
    No. According to my friends, you're not so much the exception as just the nerdy guy. BTW, did you know you can purchase an SD card for your Treo and load all kinds of music on it to play? Up to the same 8GB the iPhone will have? That way you can have your music on your phone!
    However, if it's true that people want to have a separate music player from a phone, why are all these new phones coming out featuring their music capabilities?
    You mean the phones that hold nearly as much as a low-end nano? Or the ones that force you to purchase the phones from your wireless service? Like the Moto ROKR or the LG Chocolate? Pass... By this logic, I shouldn't need to purchase a camera either since many phones already have built in cameras. Pass...
    01-31-2007 11:41 PM
  20. Dunc's Avatar
    ...Marc. ...Aren't you just yearning to try something new?!
    Come on Marc, take the bait!
    02-02-2007 08:10 AM
  21. surur's Avatar
    Come on Marc, take the bait!
    Marc didn't do WM, despite Palm putting out WM devices. I doubt he'll do Iphone (professionally, not personally of course) where he will face even more obstacles.

    Surur
    02-02-2007 08:35 AM
  22. KMeloney's Avatar
    I think you miss my point. With a Treo (or any other PDA phone with a consolidated keyboard and navigation pointer like the 5-way) you can use it 1-handed...typically without even having to look at the screen or the keys.
    Makes sense. I see what you're saying. I guess I probably look at my Treo before each activity on it, and probably throughout the activity. But I understand what you're saying.


    If you come from the world of one handed, tiny phone operation (like the ~30 friends I mentioned) with a wholly separate music device for when you want to listen to music (because who wants to do both of those activities at the same time anyway?), then you don't see any use for the iPhone...as a phone replacement. They are all, to a person, exceedingly interested in an iPod replacement that can do the things they saw Stevie J do with his iPhone...but they don't want to make phone calls on it or pay $600 for it.
    Hmm... This makes sense, too. Right now, I have the Treo and an iPod. I can't really imagine "replacing" the iPod with the iPhone for the purpose of being my main music source -- $600 would be really expensive for an iPod (or at least for if to maybe become damaged while only using it for music -- I'd rather bang up my iPod while mowing the lawn while listening to IT)...

    For me, the Mac-to-iPhone-to-Mac integration while being a really good phone would be the selling point for me. The music aspect is a bonus. But if it didn't make calls well, or didn't offer a better exchange of info and overall use experience than the Treo, then I'll be waiting on it.

    /< / /2 /<
    02-02-2007 10:59 AM
  23. Chatter's Avatar
    No, I'm not really interested in the iPhone from a development perspective. Apple is WAY too controlling.

    Marc
    02-02-2007 11:00 AM
  24. mobileman's Avatar
    No, I'm not really interested in the iPhone from a development perspective. Apple is WAY too controlling.

    Marc
    But, iChatter would be awesome.
    02-02-2007 11:18 AM
  25. Chatter's Avatar
    No, Apple thinks they do everything best; they wouldn't allow another email program.

    Marc
    02-02-2007 12:46 PM
26 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD