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

[JackNaylorPE]

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

Surur

I write construction contracts and my "shall include, but not necessarily limited to's" have stood quite a few legal challenges.

 

[surur]

No device has everything, the question is "is what I get outweighed by what I don't ?"

This is about the only sensible thing you have said so far. Of course this is how it works. And sometimes the things people want is pretty intangible, like having an i-Product.

Now for people less swayed by marketing, can you list the features the IPhone has. AFAIK the list is pretty short.

Surur

 

[surur]

I write construction contracts and my "shall include, but not necessarily limited to's" have stood quite a few legal challenges.

Shall include and include are not the same thing.

Surur

 

[CountBuggula]

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

Where does that leave us?

Compromise. Say it's a Feature Phone.

Feature phones do not typically have access to more advanced applications written in native code, such as Symbian.

 

[marcol]

Making our own choices of course. Where else?

That's my point. You can do that with the term 'smartphone' because there's no generally agreed definition. You can't do that (at least not in the same way) with other terms, where the definition is agreed. If I say to you 'is this animal a chicken?' we'd probably agree on the answer because we have a very similar notion of what a chicken is. Ask people on this board if the iPhone is a smartphone and you'll get both yes and no answers. You say it is, MikeC says it isn't etc.

 

[surur]

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?

My definition include 3rd party apps with full access to the hardware, also called native apps.

Surur

 

[marcol]

Compromise. Say it's a Feature Phone.

To honest, I think the term 'iPhone' is good enough for all practical purposes. As I think Jack said before 'it is what is'. This categorisation stuff really isn't very important.

 

[surur]

To honest, I think the term 'iPhone' is good enough for all practical purposes. As I think Jack said before 'it is what is'. This categorisation stuff really isn't very important.

It is important if you want to start comparing things.

Surur

 

[marcol]

My definition include 3rd party apps with full access to the hardware, also called native apps.

Fair enough. Best bet might be if you and mikec step outside and the winner comes back and tells us who's right

 

[mikec#IM]

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.

I agree with the web 2.0 commnet, but I just talking Apple's definition...

 

[marcol]

It is important if you want to start comparing things.

I just knew you'd say that! You're right of course. It's important to Canalys, NPD and the like. It's important to headline writers and thus probably important to manufacturers too. What I was trying to express was that however we categorise it doesn't actually affect the device in your hand, doesn't affect what it can do, doesn't affect your experience of your device. In the end, as a user first and foremost, I do think those things are the more important than any label you might apply.

 

[mikec#IM]

You excluded all devices without a QWERTY.


All N series devices lack a QWERTY keyboard.


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

Again, I posted a correction to support virtual keyboard.

"There are not virtual keyboards"

http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/reviews/item/iTech_Bluetooth_Virtual_Keyboard.php

Opps...you've be pwned too.

I already said the Nokia N-series are odd beasts, but I the general defn still fits.

 

[mikec#IM]

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

I did not claim defacto, and have address the n-series many time.

Keep drinking....

 

[JackNaylorPE]

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.

Sales figures are not imagination. To determine what the market wants is simple....you look at what sells....and then you look at what's not out there that people might want. Out of 150 million phones sold in the US, only 6% of them bought smartphones. To say that more needed them but didn't buy them is ridiculous. If they are still alive and still employed then I guess they really didn't "need" them after all.

 

[mikec#IM]

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

Where does that leave us?

it leaves us with my defn

 

[surur]

I just knew you'd say that! You're right of course. It's important to Canalys, NPD and the like. It's important to headline writers and thus probably important to manufacturers too. What I was trying to express was that however we categorise it doesn't actually affect the device in your hand, doesn't affect what it can do, doesn't affect your experience of your device. In the end, as a user first and foremost, I do think those things are the more important than any label you might apply.

By my definition, it makes a big difference to what a device can do.

Surur

 

[mikec#IM]

Shall include and include are not the same thing.

Surur

He's right Jack. Let's not get the lawyers involved... ;-)

 

[surur]

Sales figures are not imagination. To determine what the market wants is simple....you look at what sells....and then you look at what's not out there that people might want. Out of 150 million phones sold in the US, only 6% of them bought smartphones. To say that more needed them but didn't buy them is ridiculous. If they are still alive and still employed then I guess they really didn't "need" them after all.

Jack, you do realize smartphones are growing faster than the dumb phone market, dont you?

Surur

 

[mikec#IM]

Fair enough. Best bet might be if you and mikec step outside and the winner comes back and tells us who's right

As much as you'd like it, I bet surur could come up with a concise agreement a lot faster than some of the tomes by Jack.

I'm could care less if someone thinks the iPhone is a smartphone or not. Bottom line is that Apple positioned it as such.

 

[marcol]

Duplicate post