10 Things that "Absolutely suck" about the iPhone. (Yes I have one)

[mikec#IM]

For some reason Jack is saying the iPhone has all the features a consumer needs. Here is just another example that this is not the case.


http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=1204791

Jack the iPhone lacks features even normal phones have, like MMS, Bluetooth OBEX, RINGTONES!!!

I'm sure you will explain only geeks want to send pics via bluetooth.

Surur

Jack, I won't use the slang on ya this time. Hint: it rhymes with "boned".

 

[mikec#IM]

I really doubt all iPhone users are 99% happy with the purchase as Jack seems to think. Just because you buy something doesn't mean you were 99% happy about all features. I'm sure many would rather just have 1 device that covered all bases, but got it anyway for various reasons and still have to use another 'smarter' phone for business. And I'm sure there is a segment who bought it a bit uninformed and went 'there's no chat? WTF?' More example could be given of course. The bottom line is that saying just because they shelled out the bucks means it has what 99% of people need is bogus and not based on anything but Jack's imagination. Are most happy about the purchase? I'm sure they are. Do many want to see more and better features? Of course.

Amen, Brother Braj.

 

[oalvarez]

You know, I'm really not sure why you're still beating this horse to death.

This thread is about reasons why smartphone users (the ones who actually want/need those extra features) might not want an iPhone

how about "Jobs said it was a smartphone"
how about "the battery isn't replaceable"
how about "it doesn't offer 3G"
how about.....

this thread is about why smartphone users might not want an iPhone?

really now.....

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Jack, "defn" is short-hand for definition. It's not l33t or whatever disparaging label you want to apply.

So you meant "As there is not definition of"

Still seems to em we are missing a word or two. Maybe start with an "a" in between "not" and "definition"

I did read it, and it disconfirms your post, that "there is not agreement on "smartphone".

I agree there is not a universally accepted definition of smartphone.

Touchscreens are not required on smartphone.

Your source disagrees with you:

Smartphones can be noted by several features which include, but are not limited to, touchscreen, operating system, and tethered modem capabilities on top of the default phone characteristics.

"Include, but are not limited to" means it it must have the so named but may have additional stuff.

Now if ya wanna argue that by "can" the author meant that that it "may" include one or more of the following you can't say it applies to "touch screens" and that it doesn't include OS or the rest. So if "touchscreens" are optional, then OS's are optional. Either way, wiki's definition, is flawed.

And what about this tether stuff ? Doesn't tethered mean "Attached to a data or power source by wire or fiber" ... er where's my Treo's and the iPhone's tethered modem ? My treo modem is wireless. Flawed again.

http://www.answers.com/topic/tethered?cat=technology

For you to claim there's no defintion (defacto or otherwise) is incorrect.

Never claimed there wasn't one, in fact I claimed exactly the opposite. There's many definitions. Search the forum and read the many many posts on RIM versus Palm sales where the BB as placed in a different reporting category by Canolus (spelling ?) and other industry reporters.

Acoording to this source, a smartphone need not have data capability, strictly a PDA + Phone:

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/smartphone.html

This one says e-mail, phone and PDA programs...no web.

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/wireless/2005/08/23/whatissmartphone.html

You will note that it claims the Nokia Series 40 "

perfectly fits

the definition of a smartphone'. So yes the reason I said "Treos and Treo like devices" is one can hardly compare a Nokia series 40 with a Treo.

So three different web sites, all different definitions. Position re-re-confirmed. For there to be a universally accepted definition, all sources would have to be universally the same. That ain't what's out there....pure and simple. And when I have to explain that when comparing market penetration figures you must do apples and apples and when I have to explain that when comparing phone sales you can't compare one model versus a model line, you can be sure I am not going to leave the blanket smartphone definition out there or I will have Surur coming back extolling that Nokia sold s50 million Series 40's.

Now the definition of what I would call a smartphone more closely follows yours except that I wouldn't "use the word "regular" with regard to internet access. If "regular" implies consistent with the experience you get on a desktop, than no handheld device provides that. Not with mini "mobile" versions having to be written for proper viewing and page navigation an utter nightmare on anything else. The iPhone is leagues above everything else in this respect but currently, our favorite plug ins have not been completed for Safari.

 

[surur]

"include, but not limited to..." does not mean what you think it means...

Surur

 

[marcol]

Smartphone has:
- Phone
- OS that is designed to do more than just phone/camera/WAP web browsing
(ex. Palm/WM/OSX/Symbian/BB)
- MAY have touchscreen
- Has QWERTY keyboard (physical or virtual; one caveat is those Windows "smartphones" that have the T9 sort of input, which was marketed as smartphone, but really is not)
- Has 3rd party apps in some form (generally, this goes along with the OS being open and having an SDK)
- Syncs with desktop PIM
- Ability to read or edit office automation documents
- "Regular" internet access (normal web sites, email protocols, etc.)

There is a defacto one...see my post...I dare you to find a rational disagreement with it.

For starters, you've excluded every Nokia smartphone that doesn't have a QWERTY keyboard. So according to your definition the entire N series doesn't fit the category. By device sales, the N series phones account for about 50% of what most people would call smartphones.

http://www.canalys.com/pr/2007/r2007024.htm

 

[mikec#IM]

Jack, "defn" is short-hand for definition. It's not l33t or whatever disparaging label you want to apply.

So you meant "As there is not definition of"

Still seems to em we are missing a word or two. Maybe start with an "a" in between "not" and "definition"



I agree there is not a universally accepted definition of smartphone.



Your source disagrees with you:



"Include, but are not limited to" means it it must have the so named but may have additional stuff.

Now if ya wanna argue that by "can" the author meant that that it "may" include one or more of the following you can't say it applies to "touch screens" and that it doesn't include OS or the rest. So if "touchscreens" are optional, then OS's are optional. Either way, wiki's definition, is flawed.

And what about this tether stuff ? Doesn't tethered mean "Attached to a data or power source by wire or fiber" ... er where's my Treo's and the iPhone's tethered modem ? My treo modem is wireless. Flawed again.

http://www.answers.com/topic/tethered?cat=technology



Never claimed there wasn't one, in fact I claimed exactly the opposite. There's many definitions. Search the forum and read the many many posts on RIM versus Palm sales where the BB as placed in a different reporting category by Canolus (spelling ?) and other industry reporters.

Acoording to this source, a smartphone need not have data capability, strictly a PDA + Phone:

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/smartphone.html

This one says e-mail, phone and PDA programs...no web.

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/wireless/2005/08/23/whatissmartphone.html

You will note that it claims the Nokia Series 40 " the definition of a smartphone'. So yes the reason I said "Treos and Treo like devices" is one can hardly compare a Nokia series 40 with a Treo.

So three different web sites, all different definitions. Position re-re-confirmed. For there to be a universally accepted definition, all sources would have to be universally the same. That ain't what's out there....pure and simple. And when I have to explain that when comparing market penetration figures you must do apples and apples and when I have to explain that when comparing phone sales you can't compare one model versus a model line, you can be sure I am not going to leave the blanket smartphone definition out there or I will have Surur coming back extolling that Nokia sold s50 million Series 40's.

Now the definition of what I would call a smartphone more closely follows yours except that I wouldn't "use the word "regular" with regard to internet access. If "regular" implies consistent with the experience you get on a desktop, than no handheld device provides that. Not with mini "mobile" versions having to be written for proper viewing and page navigation an utter nightmare on anything else. The iPhone is leagues above everything else in this respect but currently, our favorite plug ins have not been completed for Safari.

So now you are arguing with Wikipedia grammar (ex. inlcudes vs may, etc.)

GMAFB. True, I agree the English language is massacred every day, and people write poorly, but you know that was not their intent!

They list the Moto Q for crying out loud in the same page!

Could you be any more dense? I can't believe this is the same JackPE from the early TC days.


I gave you a definition that is fits. You chose to ignore that, and instead grab other sources to confirm you view.

How about my defintion. Please find ANYONE that make an rational argument against it.

 

[marcol]

Smartphone has:
- Phone
- OS that is designed to do more than just phone/camera/WAP web browsing
(ex. Palm/WM/OSX/Symbian/BB)
- MAY have touchscreen
- Has QWERTY keyboard (physical or virtual; one caveat is those Windows "smartphones" that have the T9 sort of input, which was marketed as smartphone, but really is not)
- Has 3rd party apps in some form (generally, this goes along with the OS being open and having an SDK)
- Syncs with desktop PIM
- Ability to read or edit office automation documents
- "Regular" internet access (normal web sites, email protocols, etc.)

That pretty much covers it. Pretty simple. Guess what - the iPhone is a smartphone.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. It's just stating that fits the category.

For you to claim there's no defintion (defacto or otherwise) is incorrect.

This doesn't even make any sense. By the criteria you cite the iPhone isn't a smartphone. It doesn't have third party apps unless you count web apps or Google maps and it can't edit Microsoft Offices files (presuming that's what you mean by 'office automation documents'). Yet you conclude it is a smartphone. Are you drunk?*

*Disclaimer: I'm on my second glass

 

[mikec#IM]

For starters, you've excluded every Nokia smartphone that doesn't have a QWERTY keyboard. So according to your definition the entire N series doesn't fit the category. By device sales, the N series phones account for about 50% of what most people would call smartphones.

http://www.canalys.com/pr/2007/r2007024.htm

I did not exclude them; they have an OS, just like WM.

I would agree they are a odd beast, with many lacking keyboards.

But they support virtual ones...maybe that should have been my clarification.

 

[mikec#IM]

This doesn't even make any sense. By the criteria you cite the iPhone isn't a smartphone. It doesn't have third party apps unless you count web apps or Google maps and it can't edit Microsoft Offices files (presuming that's what you mean by 'office automation documents'). Yet you conclude it is a smartphone. Are you drunk?*

*Disclaimer: I'm on my second glass

Before you shoot reply to a comment, you should read it.

I said "read or edit", not "read and edit"

"web apps and google maps" count...per Apple's own defintions.

I should annotate "support for keyboards", however.

Still, it's a pretty good definition.

 

[CountBuggula]

This doesn't even make any sense. By the criteria you cite the iPhone isn't a smartphone. It doesn't have third party apps unless you count web apps or Google maps and it can't edit Microsoft Offices files (presuming that's what you mean by 'office automation documents'). Yet you conclude it is a smartphone. Are you drunk?*

*Disclaimer: I'm on my second glass

Oh good I'm not the only one who noticed that. I wonder if he meant to say isn't?

edit: Mikec posted clarification while I wrote this. I still don't buy the Web2.0 apps argument. Fancy web sites do not an application make. Especially when on an airplane.

 

[marcol]

I did not exclude them; they have an OS, just like WM.

You excluded all devices without a QWERTY.

I would agree they are a odd beast, with many lacking keyboards.

All N series devices lack a QWERTY keyboard.

But they support virtual ones...maybe that should have been my clarification.

Now you're just talking nonsense. There are no virtual keyboards, not least for the very good reason that the OS (S60) doesn't support touchscreens.

EDIT: I've taken about out the bit about Mike being drunk. A bit too pot, kettle, black

 

[marcol]

Before you shoot reply to a comment, you should read it.

I said "read or edit", not "read and edit"

Fair point. Sorry. I missed the 'or'.

I stand by the keyboard stuff.

 

[surur]

Like Justice Potter Stewart, regarding smartphones, I know it when I see it, and the iPhone just ain't it. There are many more advanced devices, such as the Helio Ocean for example which are not considered smartphones.

Surur

 

[JackNaylorPE]

For some reason Jack is saying the iPhone has all the features a consumer needs. Here is just another example that this is not the case.

Never said that, more misdirection. I said the missing features that were mentioned in the post I responded to are not high on consumers priority lists.

Jack the iPhone lacks features even normal phones have, like MMS, Bluetooth OBEX, RINGTONES!!!

Name any phone you want. I will post a list of features found in other phones that that unit doesn't have.

MMS - Let's look at AT&T's most popular data plan.....hmmm doesn't have MMS in it.

Ringtones - Oh yes a critical feature for all the "ooh look at me" people.

No device has everything, the question is "is what I get outweighed by what I don't ?" And then question has been resoundingly answered especially by the people paying $167 to break their contracts with their previous carrier.

http://www.oreillynet.com/windows/blog/2007/07/the_iphone.html

Background: I have been using a Treo for over a year. I like the treo, though I don?t love it. The browser is only barely usable, the keyboard is barely usable (one feature they despeaately need is a switch to turn of key-repeat) but much of it is great.....The iPhone is, however: the best PDA I?ve ever had, the best iPod I?ve ever had and (nearly) the best phone I?ve ever had. The more I use it the more I love it.

Setting it all up, registering it and getting my new cell number; soup to nuts took under 10 minutes. ....the on-board keyboard is far better than the physical keyboard offered on the Treo; and the self-correcting software is fantastic......The question of whether it is a problem not having a physical keyboard is more than answered: no problem.

Email is by far the best I?ve seen on a phone, with full graphics, links, etc. Truly impressive. I do wish they had more organization (storage folders, etc.) but I assume that will be in the next version, and it isn?t a problem as I do all that on the desktop; on the iPhone I read and toss.

The O'reilly site points here in giving its nod.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19444948/site/newsweek/page/0/

-The iPhone is the rare convergence device where things actually converge.
-Instead of going through the usual complicated contract signing and credit-vetting ceremony .....you simply buy the thing and go home.
-Setup is a snap.
-In short, e-mail looks more like you?re working on a computer than a clunky phone.
-Web-browsing is where the iPhone leaves competitors in the dust. It does the best job yet of compressing the World Wide Web on a palm-size device. Web pages you wouldn?t dare go to on other phones are suddenly accessible,

Ok now tell me, given what you just read, ya think this former Treo user is gonna bring it back and give al that up cause he didn't get ringtones ?

He does bring up on issue that is a big one for me but alas wasn't immediately available for me when the Treo came out.....voice recognition / dialing. But again, I see a lot of Treos, I see very few who sprung for the $20 to get VoiceDial.

 

[marcol]

Still, it's a pretty good definition.

You're welcome to your personal definition but really you can't claim it's 'de facto' if it excludes the N series.

 

[marcol]

Like Justice Potter Stewart, regarding smartphones, I know it when I see it, and the iPhone just ain't it. There are many more advanced devices, such as the Helio Ocean for example which are not considered smartphones.

I know it when I see it, and I say it is.

Where does that leave us?

 

[surur]

I know it when I see it, and I say it is.

Where does that leave us?

Making our own choices of course. Where else?

Surur

 

[marcol]

Like Justice Potter Stewart, regarding smartphones, I know it when I see it, and the iPhone just ain't it. There are many more advanced devices, such as the Helio Ocean for example which are not considered smartphones.

Just expand on that. In some ways the iPhone is clearly more advanced than the Treo 650 (a device I used for 18 months and for which I have great affection). Is the 650 not a smartphone or is it only advancement in the areas you choose that count in your definition?

 

[JackNaylorPE]

I gave you a definition that is fits. You chose to ignore that, and instead grab other sources to confirm you view.

You asked why I used "Treo equivalent" instead of just saying "smartphones". I answered that the definition of smartphone was not universally accepted. You saad it was and you went out to grab web url's and in support of that you gave the Wikipedia definition .... a definition which we now both agree is flawed.

How about my defintion. Please find ANYONE that make an rational argument against it.

]

I thought your definition was pretty good, it closely resembles my own. But I dare not use it with Surur lurking as he'll be telling me that 250 million Nokia 40 series smartphones were sold.