Apple cuts back production (iPhone)

In article <[email protected]>,
Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:

> At 09 Aug 2007 10:48:47 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
> > The HTC devices look like they are finally getting the convergence
> > into a single device, and Apple will probably get there eventually as
> > well with future iPhone models.
>
> I suspect Apple will, when they broaden the iPhone line in the future.
> Since no one convergence device will suit everyone's needs (see HTC's
> fairly broad range, for example) the iPhone line will need to expand to
> be anything other than a niche product.
>
I wouldn't call 80% of the market "niche".

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

---

› See More: Apple cuts back production (iPhone)

"Kurt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> At 09 Aug 2007 10:48:47 -0700 SMS wrote:
>>
>> > The HTC devices look like they are finally getting the convergence
>> > into a single device, and Apple will probably get there eventually as
>> > well with future iPhone models.
>>
>> I suspect Apple will, when they broaden the iPhone line in the future.
>> Since no one convergence device will suit everyone's needs (see HTC's
>> fairly broad range, for example) the iPhone line will need to expand to
>> be anything other than a niche product.
>>
> I wouldn't call 80% of the market "niche".
>
>
Does someone have a hard time coping with the fact they got screwed out of
$600?

In article <[email protected]>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Kurt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I suspect Apple will, when they broaden the iPhone line in the future.
> > > Since no one convergence device will suit everyone's needs (see HTC's
> > > fairly broad range, for example) the iPhone line will need to expand to
> > > be anything other than a niche product.
> > >
> > I wouldn't call 80% of the market "niche".
>
> Apple owns 80% of whatever market the iPhone is in?
>
> That's news to....everyone.

Not "owns" but has the features that 80% of all cell phones users
primarily use and want. Not exactly a product designed for a small group
of users.

The uber-PDA that the other poster was drooling over will be confined to
a very small audience.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

At 09 Aug 2007 13:47:56 -0700 Kurt wrote:

> > Since no one convergence device will suit everyone's needs (see HTC's
> > fairly broad range, for example) the iPhone line will need to expand
to
> > be anything other than a niche product.
> >
> I wouldn't call 80% of the market "niche".

80% of what market? 80% of the cellphone market wouldn't take an iPhone,
(or Treo, Blackberry, or WinMo phone) if they were free- simply because a
large percentage of the market has different priorities-like small
phones. The large display of the iPhone makes it undesirable to the size-
is-everything crowd. The lack of tactile numeric buttons makes it
undesirable to the "I just want a phone to make calls" crowd.

The iPhone is too high-end to cature 80% of the market- Apple sells more
Nanos than iPod Videos, right? Not until they offer a $99 (subsidized,
of course) Nano-phone will Apple take a significant chunk of the
cellphone market away from Nokia or Motorola.

Both of those companies understand that the cellphone wars are fought on
two fronts- decent low-end, low-margin entry-level phones for emerging
markets and first-time buyers to create brand-loyalty, and high-end, high-
margin phones to make money. This is why Motorola is having trouble-
the sucess of the RAZR is killing them as it crossed from being a high-
end phone to a low-margin one- they don't sell enough high-end handsets
to offset the popular RAZR's now "RAZR-thin" margins.

Can Apple succeed with only high-end products? Sure- but only as a niche
player, like RIM, Palm, or HTC is.

Wolfgang Puck is successful in his own right, and serves much better food
than McDonald's, but if I had Ray Kroc's money, I could afford to throw
Wolfgang's money away!


--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double
as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles,
but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles."
-Bill Maher 9/25/2003

"Kurt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Kurt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > I suspect Apple will, when they broaden the iPhone line in the
>> > > future.
>> > > Since no one convergence device will suit everyone's needs (see HTC's
>> > > fairly broad range, for example) the iPhone line will need to expand
>> > > to
>> > > be anything other than a niche product.
>> > >
>> > I wouldn't call 80% of the market "niche".
>>
>> Apple owns 80% of whatever market the iPhone is in?
>>
>> That's news to....everyone.
>
> Not "owns" but has the features that 80% of all cell phones users
> primarily use and want. Not exactly a product designed for a small group
> of users.
>
> The uber-PDA that the other poster was drooling over will be confined to
> a very small audience.
>
> --

The same way you drool over your iphone huh ?

At 09 Aug 2007 14:54:12 -0700 Kurt wrote:

> Not "owns" but has the features that 80% of all cell phones users
> primarily use and want.

Rolls Royce has the features 100% of car buyers want (ok, 99%- it's lacks
affordability!) but Hyundai outsells them everyday.

But I'll even disagree with your "80%" figure- where's the tactile
keyboard? Judging by the popularity of Blackberries, Treos, the Blackjack,
Dash, Sidekick, and Q, QWERTY keyboards are a very desired feature
despite how well the iPhone touchscreen works. My old joke about my PPC
phone, when people would ask me what I could do with it, was "I can
browse the web, e-mail, watch movies, play MP3s, GPS- everything but make
a phone call!" because touchscreens are simply inferior to a 12-key
dialpad for dialing a phone!

> Not exactly a product designed for a small group
> of users.

I disagree. Despite our willingness to be geeks, there's a large market
segment that (*gasp*) has absolutely no interest in mobile web usage.
For them, it's just an iPod phone, hampered as a phone by lack of buttons.


> The uber-PDA that the other poster was drooling over will be confined
to
> a very small audience.

Absolutely. I (nor HTC) would ever expect otherwise. It's too big and
complex for "just a phone" users. It's essentially a mini-laptop running
a non-desktop OS that happens to have a phone built-in. A VERY niche
product, which is why HTC (and Nokia, and Motorola, et al) make more than
one model of phone- because the cellphone market has matured into a
variety of niches (features, form factor, style, etc.) Frequent texters
want a different input method, like QWERTY, than an elderly person who
might want big buttons with large numbers, for example. Neither group
will be especially satisfied with your iPhone.

But, using your argument, that the iPhone has "the features that 80% of
all cell phone users primarily use and want" then the Kaiser must do all
100% because it does everything the iPhone can do (although some not as
elegantly) and much more.

Realistically, neither is destined to have a large market share, given
their unusual design (although very pretty, the iPhone isn't exactly as
easy to dial as a garden variety push-button phone), large size
(relatively), and high price tags. Like the Rolls Royce I alluded to
above, neither the Kaiser nor the iPhone will sell as many units as a low-
end RAZR or Nokia's Series 40 line. That's the nature of a big-ticket
niche product.

--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double
as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles,
but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles."
-Bill Maher 9/25/2003

In article <[email protected]>,
Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:

> At 09 Aug 2007 14:54:12 -0700 Kurt wrote:
>
> > Not "owns" but has the features that 80% of all cell phones users
> > primarily use and want.
>
> Rolls Royce has the features 100% of car buyers want (ok, 99%- it's lacks
> affordability!) but Hyundai outsells them everyday.
>
> But I'll even disagree with your "80%" figure- where's the tactile
> keyboard? Judging by the popularity of Blackberries, Treos, the Blackjack,
> Dash, Sidekick, and Q, QWERTY keyboards are a very desired feature
> despite how well the iPhone touchscreen works. My old joke about my PPC
> phone, when people would ask me what I could do with it, was "I can
> browse the web, e-mail, watch movies, play MP3s, GPS- everything but make
> a phone call!" because touchscreens are simply inferior to a 12-key
> dialpad for dialing a phone!
>
> > Not exactly a product designed for a small group
> > of users.
>
> I disagree. Despite our willingness to be geeks, there's a large market
> segment that (*gasp*) has absolutely no interest in mobile web usage.
> For them, it's just an iPod phone, hampered as a phone by lack of buttons.
>
>
> > The uber-PDA that the other poster was drooling over will be confined
> to
> > a very small audience.
>
> Absolutely. I (nor HTC) would ever expect otherwise. It's too big and
> complex for "just a phone" users. It's essentially a mini-laptop running
> a non-desktop OS that happens to have a phone built-in. A VERY niche
> product, which is why HTC (and Nokia, and Motorola, et al) make more than
> one model of phone- because the cellphone market has matured into a
> variety of niches (features, form factor, style, etc.) Frequent texters
> want a different input method, like QWERTY, than an elderly person who
> might want big buttons with large numbers, for example. Neither group
> will be especially satisfied with your iPhone.
>
> But, using your argument, that the iPhone has "the features that 80% of
> all cell phone users primarily use and want" then the Kaiser must do all
> 100% because it does everything the iPhone can do (although some not as
> elegantly) and much more.
>
> Realistically, neither is destined to have a large market share, given
> their unusual design (although very pretty, the iPhone isn't exactly as
> easy to dial as a garden variety push-button phone), large size
> (relatively), and high price tags. Like the Rolls Royce I alluded to
> above, neither the Kaiser nor the iPhone will sell as many units as a low-
> end RAZR or Nokia's Series 40 line. That's the nature of a big-ticket
> niche product.
>
Elegantly and easily are the key. 3 of my friends had no prior interest
in a web-based phone with email because of the PDA stigma. Apple changed
that. Easier to dial than on my Treo.

A whole new segment of the market is now excited about web and email pon
a phone.
Maybe that will translate into some business for the other PDAs

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

In article <[email protected]>,
"Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Kurt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> Kurt <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > I suspect Apple will, when they broaden the iPhone line in the
> >> > > future.
> >> > > Since no one convergence device will suit everyone's needs (see HTC's
> >> > > fairly broad range, for example) the iPhone line will need to expand
> >> > > to
> >> > > be anything other than a niche product.
> >> > >
> >> > I wouldn't call 80% of the market "niche".
> >>
> >> Apple owns 80% of whatever market the iPhone is in?
> >>
> >> That's news to....everyone.
> >
> > Not "owns" but has the features that 80% of all cell phones users
> > primarily use and want. Not exactly a product designed for a small group
> > of users.
> >
> > The uber-PDA that the other poster was drooling over will be confined to
> > a very small audience.
> >
> > --
>
> The same way you drool over your iphone huh ?

Absolutely. So who up here is actually buying a Kaiser immediately?

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

In article <[email protected]>,
"PCs Rule" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Kurt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> At 09 Aug 2007 10:48:47 -0700 SMS wrote:
> >>
> >> > The HTC devices look like they are finally getting the convergence
> >> > into a single device, and Apple will probably get there eventually as
> >> > well with future iPhone models.
> >>
> >> I suspect Apple will, when they broaden the iPhone line in the future.
> >> Since no one convergence device will suit everyone's needs (see HTC's
> >> fairly broad range, for example) the iPhone line will need to expand to
> >> be anything other than a niche product.
> >>
> > I wouldn't call 80% of the market "niche".
> >
> >
> Does someone have a hard time coping with the fact they got screwed out of
> $600?

Don't shed any tears for us. One of my clients just bought 10 for his
company today. Oh, the humanity...

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

At 09 Aug 2007 19:13:16 -0700 Kurt wrote:

> Absolutely. So who up here is actually buying a Kaiser immediately?


As much as I'm drooling over it, I won't buy one immediately for many of
the same reasons I wouldn't buy an iPhone- it's not enough of an feature
improvement over my current phone to justify the cost. My HTC Wizard is
only 18 months old, is running WM6, and has most of the Kaiser's features
(the Wiz lacks internal GPS, but I already have an external one, it has
less RAM/ROM, the screen doesn't tilt and it lacks 3G, which my carrier,
T-Mo, doesn't offer yet.)

While I, like many, am distracted by shiny objects, my phone is a
business tool, and I simply can't justify spending hard-earned money for
incremental upgrades, and I have an unwritten personal rule that I ought
to get two to three years out of a high-end phone (although I never sign
two-year contracts- another personal rule.)

If my Wizard died or was lost, I'd take a hard look at the Kaiser,
particularly if I could convince T-Mobile to give me an account credit
for a year's renewal in lieu of a subsidized phone like I did 18 months
ago.

In a perfect world, my Wizard will last another year or so until T-Mo
gets 3G in place and offers their subsidized version of the Kaiser (or
it's successor)- preferably one that also does UMA for T-Mo's
Hotspots@Home "GoIP" (GSM over IP) service.



--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double
as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles,
but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles."
-Bill Maher 9/25/2003

At 09 Aug 2007 19:10:11 -0700 Kurt wrote:

> Elegantly and easily are the key. 3 of my friends had no prior interest
> in a web-based phone with email because of the PDA stigma. Apple
changed
> that.

Honestly, did "Apple" really change that? Or did the hype and marketing
surrounding the iPhone do it? I know many people with POP/IMAP capable
phones that had no idea they could get their e-mail on their phone- they
just assumed "regular" phones only did texting, and and it took a
Blackberry or a Treo to do e-mail. I just set up e-mail on one of my
wife's co-worker's two year-old Treo because she saw my wife reading her
e-mail on her T-Mo Dash.

IMHO, the best thing about the iPhone is the attention it brought to
features we geeks have took for granted for a long time. If AT&T's
salespeople are up to the task, they'll sell a lot of cheaper MP3 and e-
mail capable phones (like the Blackjack and Sync) to "looky-loos"
checking out the iPhone but balking at a $500 investment.


> Easier to dial than on my Treo.

Fair enough, big virtual buttons beat tiny half numeric/half alpha ones.
However, QWERTY-based keyboards are hardly the gold standard of easy
dialing- that's still the dialpad's forte. I prefer dialing on my
Wizard's touchscreen than on the 4mm square keys on my wife's Dash, but
neither is as easy as ANY of my non-Smartphones (except the ridiculous
circular keypad on my old Nokia 3650- WTF was Nokia thinking in 2003?)


> A whole new segment of the market is now excited about web and email
> on a phone.
> Maybe that will translate into some business for the other PDAs


A case of the high tide raising all boats? Probably.

It's a sad commentary on the entire cellular industry that those iPhone
commercials get away with presenting features like web, media players, e-
mail and Google Maps like they're groundbreaking to have on a phone, when
the 60+ million RAZRs, ROKRs and KRZRs out there, never mind the
smartphones, can already do most or all of it to some degree.

(Again, I accept your premise that the iPhone does it "better" or "easier",
but that's not the message the commercials seem to deliver- they
illustrate the amazing things the phone can do- not how easy it does
them.)


--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double
as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles,
but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles."
-Bill Maher 9/25/2003

On 8/9/07 10:08 PM, in article [email protected],
"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote:

> At 09 Aug 2007 19:10:11 -0700 Kurt wrote:
>
>> Elegantly and easily are the key. 3 of my friends had no prior interest
>> in a web-based phone with email because of the PDA stigma. Apple
> changed
>> that.
>
> Honestly, did "Apple" really change that? Or did the hype and marketing
> surrounding the iPhone do it? I know many people with POP/IMAP capable
> phones that had no idea they could get their e-mail on their phone- they
> just assumed "regular" phones only did texting, and and it took a
> Blackberry or a Treo to do e-mail. I just set up e-mail on one of my
> wife's co-worker's two year-old Treo because she saw my wife reading her
> e-mail on her T-Mo Dash.
>
> IMHO, the best thing about the iPhone is the attention it brought to
> features we geeks have took for granted for a long time. If AT&T's
> salespeople are up to the task, they'll sell a lot of cheaper MP3 and e-
> mail capable phones (like the Blackjack and Sync) to "looky-loos"
> checking out the iPhone but balking at a $500 investment.
>
>
>> Easier to dial than on my Treo.
>
> Fair enough, big virtual buttons beat tiny half numeric/half alpha ones.
> However, QWERTY-based keyboards are hardly the gold standard of easy
> dialing- that's still the dialpad's forte. I prefer dialing on my
> Wizard's touchscreen than on the 4mm square keys on my wife's Dash, but
> neither is as easy as ANY of my non-Smartphones (except the ridiculous
> circular keypad on my old Nokia 3650- WTF was Nokia thinking in 2003?)
>
>
>> A whole new segment of the market is now excited about web and email
>> on a phone.
>> Maybe that will translate into some business for the other PDAs
>
>
> A case of the high tide raising all boats? Probably.
>
> It's a sad commentary on the entire cellular industry that those iPhone
> commercials get away with presenting features like web, media players, e-
> mail and Google Maps like they're groundbreaking to have on a phone, when
> the 60+ million RAZRs, ROKRs and KRZRs out there, never mind the
> smartphones, can already do most or all of it to some degree.
>
> (Again, I accept your premise that the iPhone does it "better" or "easier",
> but that's not the message the commercials seem to deliver- they
> illustrate the amazing things the phone can do- not how easy it does
> them.)
>
>
Welcome to the world of "Marketing"! Never before was it done - so Apple was
just smarter than Moto, Nokia, and the rest of the pack left behind.

"Todd Allcock" wrote:
>
> Honestly, did "Apple" really change that? Or did the hype and marketing
> surrounding the iPhone do it? I know many people with POP/IMAP capable
> phones that had no idea they could get their e-mail on their phone- they
> just assumed "regular" phones only did texting, and and it took a
> Blackberry or a Treo to do e-mail. I just set up e-mail on one of my
> wife's co-worker's two year-old Treo because she saw my wife reading her
> e-mail on her T-Mo Dash.
>

I think you helped illustrate why iPhones' features will get used by more of
its owners, on a percentage basis, than not only regular phones but
smartphones too. *Plenty* of Treo owners, for instance, are like your wife's
friend: they might own one, but really don't use most of its features. Three
of my wife's close friends have Treos. All three have never even connected
them to a computer. I've seen this many times with business users--even IT
business users.

Apple has ensured iPhones will get connected as you have to activate them
via iTunes. AT&T store reps can't do a thing with the iPhone. They can't
even open the box (heck, they have to place the iPhone in a special bag and
seal it). This prevents people from buying it, getting it activated in the
store (possibly at the insistence of an at&t store employee), and walking
out--never fully using the device to its potential. This was, no doubt,
intentional on Apple's part.

I am seeing a whole new group of people actually "using" the iPhone. Many of
them are young, and not your traditional geek/gadget buyer type of person.
I've seen people who never owned a smartphone before using, for instance,
Jailbreak to get into their iPhone, SSH, etc. From this group I've learned
about things common in the iPod world, but not as well known to me. Like
skins for instance. Never used one of those things before. But with all of
the skin talk in the iPhone community I ended up buying one (Best Skins
Ever). It's great. I use Crystal film on the screen, so only used the BSE
for the body. Great combo BTW.

OTOH I've also seen a lot of former Blackberry, Winmob, and Treo users who
now own iPhones.

I've also seen more business users than I anticipated. I am not alone:
"Already many enterprises in the U.S. are asking Sybase and its partners for
ways to use the iPhone for corporate messaging. Such inquiries are also
coming from Europe, where the iPhone is not even yet available."
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2519&tag=nl.e505


> IMHO, the best thing about the iPhone is the attention it brought to
> features we geeks have took for granted for a long time. If AT&T's
> salespeople are up to the task, they'll sell a lot of cheaper MP3 and e-
> mail capable phones (like the Blackjack and Sync) to "looky-loos"
> checking out the iPhone but balking at a $500 investment.
>

If someone really wants an iPhone that's what they'll get it.


--
Mike

At 10 Aug 2007 08:16:32 -0700 Tinman wrote:

> I think you helped illustrate why iPhones' features will get used by
> more of its owners, on a percentage basis, than not only regular phones
> but smartphones too.

Sure- I think it's because you're more likely to fully use the features
of a $600 product than a $99 one.

> *Plenty* of Treo owners, for instance, are like your wife's
> friend: they might own one, but really don't use most of its features.

Agreed, but it's not always due to ignorance. A good friend of mine
bought a Treo 600 in Europe before T-Mo USA even started carrying them
specifically to stop carrying two devices. He didn't want mobile internet
or e-mail (he still doesn't have a data plan)- he just wanted his Palm
PDA and his phone in the same device.

> Apple has ensured iPhones will get connected as you have to activate
them
> via iTunes. AT&T store reps can't do a thing with the iPhone. They
can't
> even open the box (heck, they have to place the iPhone in a special bag
and
> seal it). This prevents people from buying it, getting it activated in
the
> store (possibly at the insistence of an at&t store employee), and
walking
> out--never fully using the device to its potential. This was, no doubt,
> intentional on Apple's part.

Sure it was intentional, but not for the reasons you think! The main
reason is a "smoke-and-mirrors" way of punctuating the idea that this is
so "different" from any other cell phone- look it comes in it's own
special bag... look you activate it at home on your computer...

Similarly, the Toyota Prius used a goofy push-button starter for the same
reason- to pound the idea into your head the first time you use it that
it isn't like any other car, not because that method had any particular
advantage over the traditional one...

And, as a bonus, it prevents Apple stores from having to become AT&T
agents (faxing contracts, calling activations in, etc.)

Other than moving the lines quicker on openng weekend, iTunes activation
is actually a pretty stupid idea. It would seem to me that in-store
phone activation would make more sense since any PHONE related issues or
questions could be handled at the store by (hopefully) knowledgeable
individuals in a two way dialog, rather than ticking boxes for plns and
add-ons on your computer.

iTunes would be used for the "iPod" portion of the device since there's
no other real way to get your music on it anyway, so obviously it's going
to get hooked up to a computer!


> I am seeing a whole new group of people actually "using" the iPhone.
> Many of them are young, and not your traditional geek/gadget buyer
> type of person.

Again, as I mentioned earlier- I've yet to see a single iPhone user
outside of an Apple store, so I can't describe the typical iPhone user
(except maybe as "elusive," or "nebulous.")


> If someone really wants an iPhone that's what they'll get it.

My point was that I'm not sure many really want an iPhone, but rather
might want to do a few things that it does, and for far less than $500.

Apple might have capitalized on the lousy job the wireless industry had
done promoting it's features, but the rest of the industry, particularly
carriers without the iPhone, will fix that going forward.


--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double
as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles,
but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles."
-Bill Maher 9/25/2003

"Todd Allcock" wrote:
> At 10 Aug 2007 08:16:32 -0700 Tinman wrote:
>
>> I think you helped illustrate why iPhones' features will get used by
>> more of its owners, on a percentage basis, than not only regular phones
>> but smartphones too.
>
> Sure- I think it's because you're more likely to fully use the features
> of a $600 product than a $99 one.

That's silly and doesn't take into account the fact that many people with
smartphones paid $500+ and still don't use them.


>
>> Apple has ensured iPhones will get connected as you have to activate
> them
>> via iTunes. AT&T store reps can't do a thing with the iPhone. They
> can't
>> even open the box (heck, they have to place the iPhone in a special bag
> and
>> seal it). This prevents people from buying it, getting it activated in
> the
>> store (possibly at the insistence of an at&t store employee), and
> walking
>> out--never fully using the device to its potential. This was, no doubt,
>> intentional on Apple's part.
>
> Sure it was intentional, but not for the reasons you think! The main
> reason is a "smoke-and-mirrors" way of punctuating the idea that this is
> so "different" from any other cell phone- look it comes in it's own
> special bag... look you activate it at home on your computer...

That is merely your questionable opinion. My conclusion is more plausible,
and is devoid of pro or anti Apple sentiment. And if you could get
away from your anti-Apple sentiment for a moment you might have realized the
bag I referred to was not an Apple or iPhone bag at all (it just says at&t
on it). It's clear Apple didn't want at&t reps fooling around with this
phone.


>
> Other than moving the lines quicker on openng weekend, iTunes activation
> is actually a pretty stupid idea.

After your little diatribe I expected you to say something like this. Buying
an iPhone and activating through iTunes was as easy as it could be. And as a
bonus I did not have to deal with a single at&t rep. Took less than 5
minutes. I've waited behind people buying new phones and it took more time
than that just to gather up their paperwork, phones, boxes, etc. Me? "One
iPhone please. Here's my credit card. Goodbye."


> It would seem to me that in-store
> phone activation would make more sense since any PHONE related issues or
> questions could be handled at the store by (hopefully) knowledgeable
> individuals in a two way dialog, rather than ticking boxes for plns and
> add-ons on your computer.

I don't ever want to get bogged down with cell store employees again.
"Knowledgeable?" Don't make me laugh...

Have you ever activated an iPhone via iTunes? It doesn't seem like it,
because it is brain-dead simple to do. My thoughts are coming from having
intimate knowledge from both sides of the fence. And on the other side of
that fence I was a critical skeptic. I do have an open mind, however.


>
> iTunes would be used for the "iPod" portion of the device since there's
> no other real way to get your music on it anyway, so obviously it's going
> to get hooked up to a computer!

Then why are you *****ing about iTunes activation? You can't have it both
ways.


>
>
>> I am seeing a whole new group of people actually "using" the iPhone.
>> Many of them are young, and not your traditional geek/gadget buyer
>> type of person.
>
> Again, as I mentioned earlier- I've yet to see a single iPhone user
> outside of an Apple store, so I can't describe the typical iPhone user
> (except maybe as "elusive," or "nebulous.")

So your extremely limited anecdotal experience is all you are going by. Got
it.


>
>
>> If someone really wants an iPhone that's what they'll get it.
>
> My point was that I'm not sure many really want an iPhone, but rather
> might want to do a few things that it does, and for far less than $500.

If they walk in fully intending to buy an iPhone they will buy it. Even my
grandmother knows the price, so it ain't gonna be a shock.


--
Mike