It's Official The Iphone Is A Dud!!!

[marcol]

You can get to at least 12 apps from the start menu. I dont see the point in replacing it with a button that takes you to the Programs folder. I think it saves you time on average.

You put your 7 favourite apps on the start menu, and the 5 Most Recently Used contains the other ones. This way you avoid scrolling if you use the Zip utility a lot.

It's a while since I used WM, but as I recall I ended up assigning some Start menu slots to things that weren't apps - like the Today screen button, Programs folder, Settings folder - and assigning other slots to basic 'housekeeping' apps like File Explorer, Find and Help. Add in a few slots for recent apps and pretty soon you're down to just a handful of slots for main apps that are always there. Whether this is ok for you probably depends on your usage patterns, but I found quite infuriating after the simplicity of the Palm solution: hit the home button and all of your apps are there.

 

[marcol]

yes, i think it's much easier to have them on a home screen as well. i don't care for the "push start (hopefully with your finger), select program (hopefully the one you need is on the list). that is one thing i will give Palm, it's home screen, but that's about it!

I seem to recall a comment on Photon (from Ed Hardy at Brighthand possibly) along the lines of 'with Photon you'll be able to everything from one screen'. Sounds more like my cup of tea.

EDIT. Here's the quote from Ed:

With Photon, Microsoft's developers have made great improvements in ease of use. Imagine being able to control every facet of your device from one screen, with one hand. You'll be able to do that with Photon.

http://www.brighthand.com/default.asp?newsID=12490

 

[mobileman]

I'd guess you'd have a home screen and a dedicated hard button to get to it, the way Palm OS, S60 and iPhone do it. That's pretty top of my WM UI wish list.

Exactly....Blackberry, Palm OS, and Symbian users get along just fine without the start menu. Some type of status bar will always be neessary on the top. I would like to see one that goes away when you dont need it.

I dont know how WM treo users can stand the top and bottom bar on a 240x240 device.

 

[marcol]

I dont know how WM treo users can stand the top and bottom bar on a 240x240 device.

Agreed. They're a ridiculous size. I don't know why Microsoft didn't scale them proportionately.

 

[surur]

It's a while since I used WM, but as I recall I ended up assigning some Start menu slots to things that weren't apps - like the Today screen button, Programs folder, Settings folder - and assigning other slots to basic 'housekeeping' apps like File Explorer, Find and Help. Add in a few slots for recent apps and pretty soon you're down to just a handful of slots for main apps that are always there. Whether this is ok for you probably depends on your usage patterns, but I found quite infuriating after the simplicity of the Palm solution: hit the home button and all of your apps are there.

You remember pretty wrong. There are still 7 user assignable slots AFTER Today, Programs and Settings. Help can be kept or left off as needed. Now you are right that there are some apps that you almost always need, like the file explorer and maybe contacts and calender (though these are hard buttons on many devices) but for the average person 7 apps are already a lot of apps. In addition there are also 5 MRU apps which are different from the apps already preselected. On a 240 screen they are small icons on top of the start menu, and on a 320 screen they are added to the list as full entries.

I think the system works pretty well. I think the biggest problem really is the the MRU gets cleared after a soft reset, leading one to have to go to the programs sub-menu, but if you dont reset a lot the system is pretty efficient.

Surur

 

[marcol]

You remember pretty wrong. There are still 7 user assignable slots AFTER Today, Programs and Settings. Help can be kept or left off as needed. Now you are right that there are some apps that you almost always need, like the file explorer and maybe contacts and calender (though these are hard buttons on many devices) but for the average person 7 apps are already a lot of apps. In addition there are also 5 MRU apps which are different from the apps already preselected. On a 240 screen they are small icons on top of the start menu, and on a 320 screen they are added to the list as full entries.

It's true I seem to have forgot some of the precise details, but I certainly remember the frustration! If it works fine for some that's great, all I'm saying is it didn't for me (and as other posts in this thread indicate, I'm certainly not the only one).

 

[AnteL0pe]

And you know this how?

People said the same about the iPhone, AppleTV, Mac minis, iPods, etc.

I just know what makes sense. The iPhones advantage is its big bright screen which would be totally eliminated by making the device smaller. Mobile Safari wont work well on a screen thats much smaller than the one its on.

any real documentation to support your claim?

It was widely reported:


http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/29/verizon-passed-up-apple-iphone-deal/
http://news.com.com/Verizon+Wireless+passed+on+iPhone+two+years+ago/2100-1041_3-6154287.html
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/01/29/verizon_passed_on_exclusive_5_year_iphone_deal.html

 

[Freak4Dell]

I agree with surur. It saves time to just go through the programs in the start menu. I know that I use Google Maps, IE, Solitare, Bubble Breaker, and a couple of other things a lot more than I use some of the other programs, so it's a lot easier for me to hit the start button and scroll down to those programs. I only go to the main programs list when I need to use something like Word or something. Honestly I don't like the POS Home screen. I like the Today screen a lot better because it doesn't look so cluttered with all these icons.

 

[braj]

I just know what makes sense. The iPhones advantage is its big bright screen which would be totally eliminated by making the device smaller. Mobile Safari wont work well on a screen thats much smaller than the one its on.

I'm not saying you're wrong and that an iPhone nano is on the way, but Apple could make a small iPhone sans web browser (but with nice web widgets maybe) that was also a great 2GB iPod.

 

[taylorh]

I'm not saying you're wrong and that an iPhone nano is on the way, but Apple could make a small iPhone sans web browser (but with nice web widgets maybe) that was also a great 2GB iPod.

From the rumors I read, the "iPhone Nano" is really just an iPod with a phone added on, no data functionality (no web, email, widgets, etc.) I'm sure it'd have the PDA capability like the iPod alreay has. But imagine an ipod (video I don't know) with only 1 extra feature, a phone.
Just what I thin you're describing. For that matter I don't think it's really a "nano" but I'm sure it'd be smaller since it doesn't need the giant screen.

 

[AnteL0pe]

I'm not even sure that makes sense. The iPhone was Apple's attempt to create what they though every phone should be, why would they now take out half of that functionality? Could it happen? Of course, but i'm still not sold on it.

 

[braj]

I'm not even sure that makes sense. The iPhone was Apple's attempt to create what they though every phone should be, why would they now take out half of that functionality? Could it happen? Of course, but i'm still not sold on it.

Was it 'what every phone should be' or 'what every $600 phone should be '? What is their take on what every $200 phone should be?

 

[taylorh]

I think it's intended to be bait to get people on an iphone for a low cost, then want to upgrade in the future. I also think there's a market of people who want a music/phone but not pay for a data plan (and not use data.) Though this goes directly against what AT&T is trying to do which is upsell data plans.
I dunno, it's just what I read. I don't know if the iPhone is what a phone should be as much as Apple making a phone people will want to pay for. And there must be a whole untappd market of people that won't pay $600 for any phone. So Apple has to create a "low cost" model.
I'm sure we're all wrong anyway, no one knows what Apple is up to except Apple

 

[rambo47]

I'm quite the Apple Fanboi myself, but no way am I getting a first generation iPhone. Clearly I'm in the minority though. Take a look at Apple after hours:

And it's gone a couple of points higher since this quote was current.

 

[furio]

Actually Apple sold 270,000 iPhones in the first 30 hours (weekend). That ain't bad at all. Considering the estimates they missed were only guestimates by analysts with their own agendas. Jobs expects to sell 1 million iPhones by the end of the quarter, which I think they will hit.

 

[braj]

270,000 is a lot of anything to sell in 30 hours.

 

[AnteL0pe]

So Apple has to create a "low cost" model.

Apple has rarely done that in the past.

270,000 is a lot of anything to sell in 30 hours.

The only problem being that ATT reported that only 147,000 were activated that first weekend and Apple blames the activation delay for the rest of them which I don't buy. I think someone's numbers are off.

 

[ktm97]

In another thread a poster reported palm sold roughly 75k treos per quarter

 

[surur]

In another thread a poster reported palm sold roughly 75k treos per quarter

Palm sold 738 000 Treo's to consumers last quarter, about half WM5 and about 75% in the US.

Surur

 

[TazUk]

Jobs expects to sell 1 million iPhones by the end of the quarter, which I think they will hit.

What will be interesting is seeing how many second hand iPhones are being sold at that point too