iPhone, anyone???

Pearl_Diva

Well-known member
Mar 24, 2005
650
0
0
Visit site
We all bought so many 3rd party programs for Treo because they are programs the Treo SHOULD have had but didn't. (A good video and audio player, a good photo displayer, Card Export-like program which makes the treo show up like a drive on your computer, TreoGuard, etc)

If the iPhone has this stuff built in, you won't need 3rd party programs.


Almost every phone overlooks something. It's almost a given. Except Sony Ericsson. Their phones pretty much cover everything. They need to make more smartphones!

Speculation is that there's no IM client on the iPhone. BIG oversight IMO, if that's true. Either Apple will have to provide the app later, or 3rd party developers could fill the void if Apple would let them! And that's only one thing they may have overlooked.
 

Pearl_Diva

Well-known member
Mar 24, 2005
650
0
0
Visit site
Open your mind. Don't live in a beige box with Windows and act like your Palms are tied. Wait until people get their hands on this product and have the chance to get things going. There may be some out there right now.

Remember, you've been playing around with a bug ridden Palm device, with crippled browsers and slow processors. The iPhone is a modern device with a full web browser (third largest) and one of the most stable OS around.


I don't think Surur is a Palm supporter either. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
 

Pearl_Diva

Well-known member
Mar 24, 2005
650
0
0
Visit site
They certainly haven't overlooked proprietary connectors and memory card formats ;) OTOH, they appear to have overlooked stability on the P990.

That's the one annoying thing about Sony period, proprietary formats. But they cover almost all the wants of many phone users. Except no document viewer on non-smartphones, but then why would you need one on a fun phone?

I never used the P990 so I don't know if it's stable or not.
 

Pearl_Diva

Well-known member
Mar 24, 2005
650
0
0
Visit site
If only the phone was sold unlocked at the Apple store, and subsidized by ATT in their stores. Then you could overlook some things. But at $600 for a locked phone, I'm going to pretty much agree with the person who said they are mostly buying this as a status symbol. It's ridiculous to pay $600 for a LOCKED phone!! A few other times ATT pulled that stunt with smartphones, but most people were smart enough to buy unlocked elsewhere or get a contract to lower the price(unless they were really desperate or something). No such option this time!
 

marcol

Well-known member
Aug 31, 2005
762
0
0
Visit site
If only the phone was sold unlocked at the Apple store, and subsidized by ATT in their stores.
It's possible that's what we'll end up with in Europe, at least if this is true:

'Apple might choose a retail-only strategy when it launches its iPhone in Europe, as operators are complaining about the firm's arrogant demands.

"Operators consistently told us, not for attribution, of course, that they had spoken to Apple and found the company 'unbelievably arrogant', making demands that 'simply cannot be justified no matter how hot the product is'," Avi Greengart, a principal analyst at Current Analysis, wrote in an advisory on Monday.

"Several [operators] were adamant that they will never offer the iPhone."'

http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/2191928/european-operators-grumble
 

marcol

Well-known member
Aug 31, 2005
762
0
0
Visit site
Anyway, the people who plan on getting the Iphone seem to be heavily under the influence of the RDF, believing for example you can do VOIP via javascript.
Perhaps Apple will add VoIP to the European iPhone, just to spite the operators :)
 

Malatesta

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2006
450
0
0
Visit site
It's possible that's what we'll end up with in Europe, at least if this is true:

'Apple might choose a retail-only strategy when it launches its iPhone in Europe, as operators are complaining about the firm's arrogant demands.

"Operators consistently told us, not for attribution, of course, that they had spoken to Apple and found the company 'unbelievably arrogant', making demands that 'simply cannot be justified no matter how hot the product is'," Avi Greengart, a principal analyst at Current Analysis, wrote in an advisory on Monday.

"Several [operators] were adamant that they will never offer the iPhone."'

http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/2191928/european-operators-grumble
Interesting article but they overlook the part about how the iPhone also appears to require network authentication via it's Apple's own servers placed "deep within" the Operator's own network, similar to how BB and the Sidekick operate.

I mean I guess they could completely modify the phone to ditch visual VM, other services and overall architecture of the iPhone system, also allowing unlocked phones to flood the market out of their control....but that really, really does not sound like Apple.
 

surur

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2005
1,412
0
0
Visit site
I mean I guess they could completely modify the phone to ditch visual VM, other services and overall architecture of the iPhone system, also allowing unlocked phones to flood the market out of their control....but that really, really does not sound like Apple.

Don't worry, its a a wide-screen iPod, a revolutionary phone, and a breakthrough Internet device! It doesn't need the operators at all!

Actually Apple's strategy to refuse operator subsidies is a very interesting move, and maintains their independence from the operators. Because there is no subsidy there is no reason for some-one to prefer buying from a carrier vs buying from an Apple store. An unlocked Iphone is therefore (nearly) as good as a subsidized device, and Apple can threaten to sever their relationship with a carrier with hardly any loss of potential sales any time they want to.

Its a very bold strategy, and one would have to see if it pays off or not.

However - people who pay full price for a locked phone and STILL lock themselves into a two year contract are idiots.

Surur
 

Jeff DLB

Member
Nov 30, 2004
9
0
0
Visit site
The way I see it, when an application is meant to access data that is the same for everyone--Google Maps, 411-style phone directory lookup, restaurant reviews, weather reports, etc.--a web app is fine in theory (in practice, it's only as good as the network, of course).

However, as soon as you have inherently private or individualized data--passwords, grocery list, budget, inventory of books you own, etc--it is desirable for the app and the data to be local.

I would like to have an iPhone, but I'm keeping my Treo until apps that are equivalent to SplashID and SmartList To Go are available.
 

marcol

Well-known member
Aug 31, 2005
762
0
0
Visit site
Interesting article but they overlook the part about how the iPhone also appears to require network authentication via it's Apple's own servers placed "deep within" the Operator's own network, similar to how BB and the Sidekick operate.
Is that authentication thing any more than rumour? Even if it is couldn't it simply be turned off (in firmware?)?

I mean I guess they could completely modify the phone to ditch visual VM, other services and overall architecture of the iPhone system, also allowing unlocked phones to flood the market out of their control....but that really, really does not sound like Apple.
I don't really buy it either. Even if the non-attributed comments really are from operator employees in a position to know, there's no indication of how many have actually refused to deal with Apple. There is a big different in the phrasing: 'operators consistently' said Apple was arrogant and 'several' said they'd never offer the iPhone. The first implies all operators, the second doesn't. As ever, I suspect that for all involved the bottom line will be the bottom line.
 

hova

New member
May 6, 2003
2
0
0
Visit site
I will get the iphone only if the Data plans are in the sprint price range and if they (AT&T) acquire a faster network like EVDO.
 

Certs

Well-known member
Mar 13, 2005
239
0
0
www.myspace.com
I will get the iphone only if the Data plans are in the sprint price range and if they (AT&T) acquire a faster network like EVDO.

So you will not get an iPhone, for both reasons. Internet = 40-50 dollars/month, and EDGE = 1xRtt (when Ev-DO isn't available and you have that slow Internet connection)
 

oalvarez

Well-known member
Apr 25, 2004
825
0
0
Visit site
hec, i buy all the new devices (to try) and i might just not buy this thing, even if i can return it!

would rather buy a mac laptop @ $1k for the kids to use for school and fun.
 

Malatesta

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2006
450
0
0
Visit site
Is that authentication thing any more than rumour? Even if it is couldn't it simply be turned off (in firmware?)?
I think it is elevated to higher than rumor:

There was an interesting revelation by Charles Dunstone, CEO of Carphone Warehouse, in the annual results webcast yesterday regarding the iPhone. That is, in order for the iPhone to function correctly there is a requirement for Apple (AAPL) servers to be placed deep in the operator's network.
...

...Also by building in effect a walled garden within GSM, Apple will keep a much tighter control on the operator network distribution model.

This also guards against the standard European market tricks of unlocking and reflashing phone operating systems to get around operator device tie-ins.
(source)

I suppose we could say that it's just one CEO who is disgruntled with Apple, bad-mouthing them, but honestly the whole "server on the operators network" idea sounds very much something that Apple would want and do for control purposes: they can role out updates automatically, controll any 3rd party programs (?), limit connectivity e.g. no hacking and most importantly: block unlocking of devices to be sold and resold by non-Apple affiliates.

Could it be turned off? Probably I mean anything is possible but that's like asking if you can turn off BB's BES system or prevent the Sidekick from connecting to Danger's servers. You could, but you're going to severly cripple the device.

Remember this OS/device is like anti-linux: no hacking, no customization and you can't use it just on any GSM service.

In turn, you get exactly what Apple promises the device can do and they deliver a consistent, stable user-experience. That's the trade-off.

Now, like I said for the majority of those who want the iPhone, none of what I just wrote matters. They want the iPhone for what Apple is saying it can do, not what they imagine is possible. That's where WM devices sort of excel: if you can program it, you can do it. Will it be great e.g. using P2P on a WM handset? Probably not but you can at least try.
 

Pearl_Diva

Well-known member
Mar 24, 2005
650
0
0
Visit site
Don't worry, its a a wide-screen iPod, a revolutionary phone, and a breakthrough Internet device! It doesn't need the operators at all!

Actually Apple's strategy to refuse operator subsidies is a very interesting move, and maintains their independence from the operators. Because there is no subsidy there is no reason for some-one to prefer buying from a carrier vs buying from an Apple store. An unlocked Iphone is therefore (nearly) as good as a subsidized device, and Apple can threaten to sever their relationship with a carrier with hardly any loss of potential sales any time they want to.

Its a very bold strategy, and one would have to see if it pays off or not.

However - people who pay full price for a locked phone and STILL lock themselves into a two year contract are idiots.

Surur

But in Europe, how is this going to play out? $600 for a locked phone???
 

oalvarez

Well-known member
Apr 25, 2004
825
0
0
Visit site
again, for either a first time consumer/new user, or one who is in the marketplace for a new phone and new ipod, $600 may not be too much to ask. further, commodity prices are not fixed....prices could change in time.
 

Trending Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
260,011
Messages
1,765,308
Members
441,221
Latest member
CØR