1. Kupe#WP's Avatar
    How much do the ipods which play video go for?
    ~$350 for the 80gb model
    I'd expect many of the people who buy the iphone will be those upgrading from their ipods.
    Last time I checked, 80gb was approximately 10 times more storage than 8 gb. Why am I paying nearly double for the smaller amount of memory? The 8GB Nano is $249. Is the addition of a touch screen and wireless phone worth $350 (ironically the price of an iPod 80gb)? Will I like this device because it has no 3G? Lack of keyboard (and there for a 2-handed machine)? Cingular's fine service? No wait! - widgets!
    That will probably be the base apple draws from.
    Malleable, math-challenged, trend-following, shiny-device lovers?
    05-22-2007 07:14 AM
  2. marcol's Avatar
    ~$350 for the 80gb model
    The 8GB Nano is $249. Is the addition of a touch screen and wireless phone worth $350?
    iPhone also adds video, messaging, email, web browsing, camera, Google maps, much better PIM apps (not read-only like on the Nano), notes, calculator, etc ... plus those widgets you love, and whatever else Apple throws into the package (their own apps or those made in collaboration with third parties). It seems to me they're aiming at quality not quantity, but even in a simplistic count-the-features analysis it's much more than a Nano plus a phone.
    05-22-2007 09:16 AM
  3. surur's Avatar
    iPhone also adds video, messaging, email, web browsing, camera, Google maps, much better PIM apps (not read-only like on the Nano), notes, calculator, etc ... plus those widgets you love, and whatever else Apple throws into the package (their own apps or those made in collaboration with third parties). It seems to me they're aiming at quality not quantity, but even in a simplistic count-the-features analysis it's much more than a Nano plus a phone.
    Doesn't it depend which phone you pair with that nano?

    I mean, I cant take a 2 year old device like an HTC Prophet free with a contract, have "video, messaging, email, web browsing, camera, Google maps, much better PIM apps (not read-only like on the Nano), notes, calculator" and add a nano at the cost of the nano.

    Simplistic, but true.

    Surur
    05-22-2007 10:50 AM
  4. marcol's Avatar
    I just meant that the iPhone gives you much more than just a Nano plus basic phone functionality. Sorry if I didn't express that too well.

    I mean, I cant take a 2 year old device like an HTC Prophet free with a contract, have "video, messaging, email, web browsing, camera, Google maps, much better PIM apps (not read-only like on the Nano), notes, calculator" and add a nano at the cost of the nano.
    Please don't make me relive my last, very poor experience with HTC hardware! If Apple can't do better than that they're truly screwed.
    05-22-2007 12:17 PM
  5. surur's Avatar
    I just meant that the iPhone gives you much more than just a Nano plus basic phone functionality.
    Basic phones are becoming increasingly rare. Every Java phone can run google maps and gmail these days.

    Surur
    05-22-2007 12:51 PM
  6. PSM's Avatar
    I hope if the iPhone is any kind of success the next revision will split into two models -- the regular model which is basically a really cool feature phone, and an iPhone Pro, a smartphone which is open to 3rd-party software, has support for Office, that kind of thing. I understand Apple not wanting to overwhelm basic users with too many choices and have to deal with 3rd party apps screwing up the phone, etc. But right now there's not enough to get the smartphone and business crowd to come over, and I hope they intend to play to that market as well.

    The old perception of Apple computers only being good for "people who are too stupid to operate a real computer" is definitely not true, but as of now it sounds like they're living up to that stereotype with the iPhone.
    05-22-2007 01:25 PM
  7. mikec#IM's Avatar
    To be successful, the iPhone must be a good PHONE first, and everything else second.

    That is the key. The Treo is a okay phone, but very good PDA. Most complaints about the Treo are for phone performance.

    Everything else is window dressing (albeit very purdy dressin')
    05-23-2007 08:46 AM
  8. PSM's Avatar
    The Treo is a okay phone, but very good PDA.
    Funny, I saw it the other way around when I got mine. I got the Treo 650 after having the v710, which at the time was the best RF phone Verizon had, but I found it made little practical difference, and once I added VolumeCare, the call quality was fine for me.

    But coming from the most high-end of PDAs, mostly Sony's, the Treo was a big step back in some ways -- worse camera, no wi-fi, smaller screen, etc. However, with the death of Sony the idea of a combined phone/PDA was more attractive to me, and I've never regretted it. I've changed the way I use it to suit the strengths of the Treo. It should be interesting to see the iPhone because in some ways it reminds me of Sony's PDA offerings, but with a phone.
    05-23-2007 01:32 PM
  9. Kupe#WP's Avatar
    iPhone also adds video,
    Just like the 80gb iPod I mentioned.
    ...
    messaging, email, web browsing, Google maps,
    All on a slow network which makes them of questionable use if not downright useless.
    05-23-2007 09:03 PM
  10. marcol's Avatar
    All on a slow network which makes them of questionable use if not downright useless.
    Lots of people use all of those at sub-3G speeds, but you won't find me arguing that the iPhone wouldn't be better with 3G. From a personal perspective, as I've said before, there's precious little chance of my getting a 3G-less iPhone, but, even in the UK (which has much better UMTS/HSDPA coverage than the US), I seem to have the minority opinion. This is from the 'iPhone's let downs' section of a recent UK survey:

    Interestingly, the lack of 3G support came down in fifth overall place, with 136 votes. Whether that means people really aren't bothered about it, don't think they'll use it, or thought that the other issues were even more important, isn't clear. I was anticipating the lack of 3G support, in the UK that is now used to the technology, to be a much bigger issue than it turned out to be.

    http://www.iphonic.tv/2007/05/shiny_...ults_pa_3.html

    Of course the iPhone does have Wifi, which will give much faster speeds than any phone network, so perhaps that's a factor.
    05-24-2007 06:22 AM
  11. Malatesta's Avatar
    Lots of people use all of those at sub-3G speeds, but you won't find me arguing that the iPhone wouldn't be better with 3G. From a personal perspective, as I've said before, there's precious little chance of my getting a 3G-less iPhone, but, even in the UK (which has much better UMTS/HSDPA coverage than the US), I seem to have the minority opinion. This is from the 'iPhone's let downs' section of a recent UK survey:

    Interestingly, the lack of 3G support came down in fifth overall place, with 136 votes. Whether that means people really aren't bothered about it, don't think they'll use it, or thought that the other issues were even more important, isn't clear. I was anticipating the lack of 3G support, in the UK that is now used to the technology, to be a much bigger issue than it turned out to be.

    http://www.iphonic.tv/2007/05/shiny_...ults_pa_3.html

    Of course the iPhone does have Wifi, which will give much faster speeds than any phone network, so perhaps that's a factor.
    I've always noticed this about internet speeds: if you have never had 3g or used it, you don't really care about it.

    Like cable modems in the US. People tell me they don't need them b/c they don't surf the 'net much. But it's circular b/c as soon as they get a cable modem, they surf much more.

    Same with 3g. You don't appreciate it until you use it for streaming TV, instant email, large file transfer, or just browsing the internet. I'd expect the same results here in the US too.
    05-24-2007 10:08 AM
  12. marcol's Avatar
    I've always noticed this about internet speeds: if you have never had 3g or used it, you don't really care about it.

    Like cable modems in the US. People tell me they don't need them b/c they don't surf the 'net much. But it's circular b/c as soon as they get a cable modem, they surf much more.

    Same with 3g. You don't appreciate it until you use it for streaming TV, instant email, large file transfer, or just browsing the internet. I'd expect the same results here in the US too.
    So Apple can't lose then? People won't care if it's not there but will love it when they add it?
    05-24-2007 11:18 AM
  13. surur's Avatar
    So Apple can't lose then? People won't care if it's not there but will love it when they add it?
    As usual it just means Apple will feed of the slower, confused, more simplistic consumers (also called sheep), vs the early adopters, and they will be grateful Apple saved them from having to figure things out for themselves, and gave it to them in a shiny box also.

    Shiny = good !!

    Surur
    05-24-2007 11:33 AM
  14. marcol's Avatar
    Same with 3g. You don't appreciate it until you use it for streaming TV, instant email, large file transfer, or just browsing the internet. I'd expect the same results here in the US too.
    Slightly more seriously, here's some relevant data (pdf):

    http://www.mmetrics.co.uk/press/arti...onsumption.pdf

    It does show that 3G drives data usage usage, but not to very high levels. For example, of 3G subscribers 29% access news/information at least once per month, but less than 8% do so every day. This is higher than for non-3G subscribers but still pretty low in my view. The pattern for other data services is much the same.
    05-24-2007 11:35 AM
  15. surur's Avatar
    Slightly more seriously, here's some relevant data (pdf):

    http://www.mmetrics.co.uk/press/arti...onsumption.pdf

    It does show that 3G drives data usage usage, but not to very high levels. For example, of 3G subscribers 29% access news/information at least once per month, but less than 8% do so every day. This is higher than for non-3G subscribers but still pretty low in my view. The pattern for other data services is much the same.
    I'm sure the data for WM smartphone users are very different. I don't say Symbian smartphone users, because we know most of these are just poseurs.

    Surur
    05-24-2007 11:51 AM
  16. Malatesta's Avatar
    Slightly more seriously, here's some relevant data (pdf):

    http://www.mmetrics.co.uk/press/arti...onsumption.pdf

    It does show that 3G drives data usage usage, but not to very high levels. For example, of 3G subscribers 29% access news/information at least once per month, but less than 8% do so every day. This is higher than for non-3G subscribers but still pretty low in my view. The pattern for other data services is much the same.
    Along the lines of what surur was saying, I would like to see it broken down by at least device type.

    I mean, no way could you compare an EvDO ppc-6700 to a say a Moto RAZR and ever expect the same data usage. Simply put, some devices are really meant to take advantage of and use mobile broadband more than others.

    The iPhone looks like a pda/mobile internet device (and is somewhat touted as one) but it lacks those 3g capabilities.

    As far as whether or not they win/loose in that regard, here's my one big problem: Safari

    No doubt a fine browser. Kudos for making it "mobile" (without really watering it down), but over 2.5 g? Last I recalled during the keynote it took rougly 20 secs to load the NYTimes webpage over Wifi...imagine over EDGE? I mean there are reason why full HTML browsers are not popular on devices and it has nothing to do with people not wanting them. But I'll hold final judgement for real world usage when it finally comes out. And wifi will make it easier, assuming you have Wifi access frequently (I personally hate Wifi now--since for ever 10 spots you find in the city, 9 are indivdual pay hot spots).

    On a RAZR or whatever 3g reguarl flip, you don't expect a full browser--you get WAP, which is really lame anyways (talking about driving away usage; most people find WAP so useless why even bother). Then also consider Verizon's "walled garden" approach where they even block you loading Java apps or give you 5gb data limits and you have some serious hinderences to true 3g adoption.

    Once cell carriers just become ISPs (instead of mobile AOLs) then we'll see 3g drive data usage. Instead of lame provider content, 3g devices act like your computer at home, we'll be there.
    05-24-2007 01:03 PM
  17. marcol's Avatar
    No doubt a fine browser. Kudos for making it "mobile" (without really watering it down), but over 2.5 g? Last I recalled during the keynote it took rougly 20 secs to load the NYTimes webpage over Wifi...imagine over EDGE?
    Personally I couldn't agree more, but I do have my doubts that the majority care too much about this. I don't of course have any experience of Safari on the iPhone, but I do use (daily) the Nokia S60 browser which is also based on Webkit. It's easily the best I've used (much better than Blazer, PIE, Opera). Thing is, this is the browser on much the most popular smartphones (Nokias), and still the data usage figures are really pretty low, even for 3G devices.

    Once cell carriers just become ISPs (instead of mobile AOLs) then we'll see 3g drive data usage. Instead of lame provider content, 3g devices act like your computer at home, we'll be there.
    I like you view of the world! The data I'd really like to see are those that compare users with cheap unlimited plans and no walled garden with those that have expensive plans and/or restrictive carriers.
    05-24-2007 01:34 PM
92 ... 234
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD