Apple cuts back production (iPhone)

In article <[email protected]>,
Todd Allcock <[email protected]> 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.
>
> > *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.

I went from early Palm Pilot, then various other Palms all the way to
Treo 650 for much the same reason, but was excited about having the data
features. Struggled with numerous issues, and needed to purchase several
additional software programs to get things to work well. All that cost
me time and money.
>
> > 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...

But you miss the point the user finally gets a product that works great
right out of the box and activates practically instantly.
No smoke and mirrors about this.


>
> 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...

You obviously aren't a collector car guy. Push button starters go way
back and have a certain cache. They are just as efficient. Fun, too. We
like fun.
>
> 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.

I've never done an easier phone activation than through Apple. I did
have a question (because of adding to family plan) and phone support was
quick and knowledgeable. Activating throiugh iTunes took 2 minutes. Treo
through Cingular was a bit of an ordeal.


>
> 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.")

My whole circle of business peers either have, or will be getting
iPhones. Most of these were Treo users.

>
> > 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.

I bought a Treo 650 two years ago with Cingular 2 year contract. Cost me
$399 minus $50 "rebate" Visa debit card. Spent a another $200 or so on
software. Was originally paying $40 for unlimited data.
You tell me what really cost more.

>
> 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.

Good thoughts, but most of current manufacturers have been foisting
mediocre products on us for years. Motorola had it's day. Someone needed
to shake things up.


>
>

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

---

› See More: Apple cuts back production (iPhone)

Kurt <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:


>
> But you miss the point the user finally gets a product that works
> great right out of the box and activates practically instantly.


Finally? EVERY cell phone I have ever owned worked greast right out of
the box and EVERY phone/PDA has activated quicker than the iTunes
process- I walked out of the store with an activated and fully
functional phone..

> No smoke and mirrors about this.

Agreed- it is simply fanatic blindness to the real world.

>
>
>>
>> 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...
>
> You obviously aren't a collector car guy. Push button starters go way
> back and have a certain cache. They are just as efficient. Fun, too.
> We like fun.
>>
>> 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.
>
> I've never done an easier phone activation than through Apple. I did
> have a question (because of adding to family plan) and phone support
> was quick and knowledgeable. Activating throiugh iTunes took 2
> minutes. Treo through Cingular was a bit of an ordeal.
>
>
>>
>> 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.")
>
> My whole circle of business peers either have, or will be getting
> iPhones. Most of these were Treo users.

And yet here it is, a month and a half after rollout, and there are a
number of us that have yet to see our first one on the street

>
>>
>> > 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.
>
> I bought a Treo 650 two years ago with Cingular 2 year contract. Cost
> me $399 minus $50 "rebate" Visa debit card. Spent a another $200 or so
> on software. Was originally paying $40 for unlimited data.
> You tell me what really cost more.

Two years ago is meaningless data- as the market matured, prices for
like technology declined. The fact is that today, ATT has no
PDA/smartphone over $300 listed on their website, and many of them
(including the $100 phones) are as fully functional as your 650.

Spending money on software is also immaterial, unless the iPhone
came loaded with like software and the purchase of that same software
would be necessary to make today's smartphone as fully functional.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Good thoughts, but most of current manufacturers have been foisting
> mediocre products on us for years. Motorola had it's day. Someone
> needed to shake things up.

A fraction of a percentage of the market is hardly shaking things up.

>
>
>>
>>
>

At 10 Aug 2007 10:29:55 -0700 Tinman wrote:

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

The first wave, perhaps, but the majority of current smartphone users were not early adopters, but waited until prices fell. Take the Treo- it was rare to see them in use when they were $600, but common when they hit $300.

But either way, you're asolutely right that many do not use them to their full potential, and that's fine if that's what they want. (Look at how many people were thrilled about the hack that allowed them to use iPhones without phone service! That's no worse than a Treo without e-mail!)


> That is merely your questionable opinion. My conclusion is more
> plausible, and is devoid of pro or anti Apple sentiment.

I don't have an anti-Apple sentiment. I've said many times that I am impressed by both the hardware and marketing of the iPhone, and have conceeded it does many things better than any other phone, while explaining why it's ommissions make it unsuitable for MY needs. (In the interest of full disclosure, the only Apple product I own is a Nano- nice product, nice design, and does everything _I_ require of it.)

I am unimpressed with many of Apple's decisions concernig the iPhone, however, like locking out 3rd party development. I feel the iPhone has significant shortcomings that 3rd-party developers might've addressed already had they been allowed to. As I've said ad nauseum, it's an excellent piece of hardware hampered by unfortunate decisions. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why a BT GPS can't be used, despite the excellent integration with Google Maps? Or is mentioning that "anti-Apple?"

The real problem trying to discuss the iPhone is that ANY criticism is denounced as "anti-Apple," or worse, spun into a "feature" or advantage. (Who can forget Oxford's now classic "flash eats batteries" to explain the ADVANTAGE of Safari not supporting flash content!)

Now I'm certainly being unfair if I'm suggesting Oxford is typical of iPhone supporters here- he's an idiot-, and his opposite number certainly exists on the "anti-iPhone" side, but don't lump me in with them! (I should also point out to Kurt, if he's eavesdropping, that I'm in NO way suggesting that he's in the Oxford camp! He and I certainly get into it from time to time, but always rationally!)


> 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.

Yeah, it'd be terrible if those reps actually got to learn how to use one to give an effective demonstration! ;-)

I'm just saying the at-home ctivation was as much of a marketing gimmick as anything. Disagree if you like, but frankly, I'm old-fashioned in some respects. If I'm going to buy a cellphone at a retail store, as opposed to online, I'd like it to work when I leave the store. Like most, I'm just as much of a "kid at Christmas" with a new electronic toy, and would've likely Google Mapped my route home on my new iPhone if I'd bought one and was able to.


> 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.

I never said it wasn't, and I think it's an excellent OPTION. I'm just suggesting that it houldn't be the only way. Remember the 8,000 to 10,000 excited iPhone owners who had problems? They wouldn't have if store personnel had to ensure each one worked be for you left the store! Remember the lunatics standing in line with their laptops the first day to activate them before they left the store? I'd have been one of them, if I was buying an iPhone! Also unnecessary if in-store activation was an option.

> 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."


You also wouldn't have to deal with an AT&T rep if Apple stores activated the phones, just like any other "authorized AT&T dealer." They should be able to do that as a courtesy for folks you choose that option.

But that's not a major issue. In your mind I'm "trashing" Apple for daring to suggest anything about the product is based on marketing rather than some zen-like quest for the ultimate end-user experiece. Fine.


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


There are good and bad ones, just like in any endeavor. Again, I think it should be anoption for those who want it.

> Have you ever activated an iPhone via iTunes? It doesn't seem like it,
> because it is brain-dead simple to do.

I'm sure it is. It's also brain dead simple to activate a phone in store because someone else does it for you! Again, what's wrong with choice?

> 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.

Really? You ought to bring it around to the NG sometime. ;-) You've pegged me as anti-Apple because I have issue with SOME of the aspects of the iPhone. It's a nice phone, but not the Second Coming, for crissakes! I'm simply giving my opinions based on my experience in the business (as I've stated before, I owned a Cingular dealership in the late 90's/early aughts,) and as a long-time PDA and smartphone user. I also like counterpointing the complete trolls and idiots like Oxford, but that's just for my own amusment...

I don't have an iPhone vendetta- in fact I was actually interested in owning one after viewing the keynote, until I realized it's shortcomings (for MY NEEDS- YMM, and obviously does, V!) My goal with PocketPCs and Smatphones has been the same from day one- to find a workable laptop replacement. That's my wants/needs list in a nutshell. The iPhone, for that it does well, fails on that count. I realize thats not it's intended function, but it really wasn't with the PPC either- it took the hard work of third-party developers to make that an almost-reality for Windows Mobile. Without 3rd-party support, or a design rethink at Apple, the iPhone will remain a niche product with two markets: a cool iPod phone with webpad, or a "smartphone for dummies," which is a darn shame given that the hardware is capable of so much more.


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


I'm not *****ing about it. You are assuming that any observation questioning the "vision" is anti-Apple heresy. Again, I said I THINK iTunes activation is a marketing gimmick, and I think that it being the ONLY way to activate is inconvenient. Period. If this was Plymouth Colony you'd have me in the stocks by now I'm sure...


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

No, again, it was an observation. Another data point, if you will. You said you've seen enough iPhone owners to clssify them into types. I haven't. At first I thought it was the Coast thing (I live in Denver, and AT&T says most buyers were on the coasts) but I spent the last week in the Bay Area, and opening weekend in New York and didn't see any used there either. Is my observation "anti-Apple"? No, just an observation- I'm actually surprised I haven't seen any yet. I don't believe the hundreds of thousands sold already were just a hoax!

> If they walk in fully intending to buy an iPhone they will buy it.

Agreed. However, many cellphone buyers don't walk into a cellphone store knowing what phone they intend to buy. Some actually try and play with various models before deciding, and I suspect virtually everyone that goes into an AT&T store will want to see an iPhone, even if they have no intentions of buying one if only to see what the fuss is all about.

> Even my
> grandmother knows the price, so it ain't gonna be a shock.

I never said it'd be a shock- but many people who haven't pre-decided to buy one will need to be convinced of it's value to THEM. (Hiding them in hermetically-sealed bags isn't going to help AT&T sell them to anyone who hasn't already decided to buy one, either!)




--

"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 10 Aug 2007 07:28:06 -0500 George Kerby wrote:

> 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.


Agreed, but I think the blame is with the cellular carriers rather than
manufacturers. Apple is in a unique position to show off the features of
the iPhone because there's only one version. How would Motorola show
off, say, Google Maps on a RAZR without disclaming "Java apps may not be
available on Verizon's 'Get It Now' service!" Here in the US, carriers
push their network and it's capabilities over equipment, and
manufacturers have to customize and/or cripple features for individual
carriers. Heck, even the GUI and menus are often different preventing
advertising from being too specific. You could show beautiful people
chatting on their RAZRs in a Moto commercial, but never a "walkthrough"
it's use, a la the iPhone commercials, because that would vary between
carrier versions!


--

"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]>,
Scott <[email protected]> wrote:

> Kurt <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
> >
> > But you miss the point the user finally gets a product that works
> > great right out of the box and activates practically instantly.
>
>
> Finally? EVERY cell phone I have ever owned worked greast right out of
> the box and EVERY phone/PDA has activated quicker than the iTunes
> process- I walked out of the store with an activated and fully
> functional phone..

Both the LG for my wife and my Treo required time on the phonw with
Cingular. I can only speak from experience.


>
> > No smoke and mirrors about this.
>
> Agreed- it is simply fanatic blindness to the real world.

Fact is, you'd hate it anyway.

> >
> >
> >>
> >> 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...
> >
> > You obviously aren't a collector car guy. Push button starters go way
> > back and have a certain cache. They are just as efficient. Fun, too.
> > We like fun.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > I've never done an easier phone activation than through Apple. I did
> > have a question (because of adding to family plan) and phone support
> > was quick and knowledgeable. Activating throiugh iTunes took 2
> > minutes. Treo through Cingular was a bit of an ordeal.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> 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.")
> >
> > My whole circle of business peers either have, or will be getting
> > iPhones. Most of these were Treo users.
>
> And yet here it is, a month and a half after rollout, and there are a
> number of us that have yet to see our first one on the street

Maybe you need to get out more often. <g>
>
> >
> >>
> >> > 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.
> >
> > I bought a Treo 650 two years ago with Cingular 2 year contract. Cost
> > me $399 minus $50 "rebate" Visa debit card. Spent a another $200 or so
> > on software. Was originally paying $40 for unlimited data.
> > You tell me what really cost more.
>
> Two years ago is meaningless data- as the market matured, prices for
> like technology declined. The fact is that today, ATT has no
> PDA/smartphone over $300 listed on their website, and many of them
> (including the $100 phones) are as fully functional as your 650.
>
> Spending money on software is also immaterial, unless the iPhone
> came loaded with like software and the purchase of that same software
> would be necessary to make today's smartphone as fully functional.
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Good thoughts, but most of current manufacturers have been foisting
> > mediocre products on us for years. Motorola had it's day. Someone
> > needed to shake things up.
>
> A fraction of a percentage of the market is hardly shaking things up.
>
I think you get my point but just can't concede.

We already lost the naysayers up here who said it was going to flop the
day it came out. We'll have others like you hammering it until the next
quarterly numbers are released.

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

Kurt <[email protected]> wrote in news:labolide-
[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Kurt <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > But you miss the point the user finally gets a product that works
>> > great right out of the box and activates practically instantly.
>>
>>
>> Finally? EVERY cell phone I have ever owned worked greast right out
of
>> the box and EVERY phone/PDA has activated quicker than the iTunes
>> process- I walked out of the store with an activated and fully
>> functional phone..
>
> Both the LG for my wife and my Treo required time on the phonw with
> Cingular. I can only speak from experience.

Then you admit that your statement that ease of activation and full
functionality out of the box FINALLY coming to the market was patently
false and nothing more than a poor attempt at Apple hype?

>
>
>>
>> > No smoke and mirrors about this.
>>
>> Agreed- it is simply fanatic blindness to the real world.
>
> Fact is, you'd hate it anyway.

Fact is, you're right. The one that I played with for a couple of hours
was bulky, horribly slow and the sound quality was less than ideal.

>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 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...
>> >
>> > You obviously aren't a collector car guy. Push button starters go
way
>> > back and have a certain cache. They are just as efficient. Fun,
too.
>> > We like fun.
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > I've never done an easier phone activation than through Apple. I
did
>> > have a question (because of adding to family plan) and phone
support
>> > was quick and knowledgeable. Activating throiugh iTunes took 2
>> > minutes. Treo through Cingular was a bit of an ordeal.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 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.")
>> >
>> > My whole circle of business peers either have, or will be getting
>> > iPhones. Most of these were Treo users.
>>
>> And yet here it is, a month and a half after rollout, and there are a
>> number of us that have yet to see our first one on the street
>
> Maybe you need to get out more often. <g>

Yeah- the thousands of people I come in contact with every week is
probably too small a population base.


>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > 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.
>> >
>> > I bought a Treo 650 two years ago with Cingular 2 year contract.
Cost
>> > me $399 minus $50 "rebate" Visa debit card. Spent a another $200 or
so
>> > on software. Was originally paying $40 for unlimited data.
>> > You tell me what really cost more.
>>
>> Two years ago is meaningless data- as the market matured, prices for
>> like technology declined. The fact is that today, ATT has no
>> PDA/smartphone over $300 listed on their website, and many of them
>> (including the $100 phones) are as fully functional as your 650.
>>
>> Spending money on software is also immaterial, unless the iPhone
>> came loaded with like software and the purchase of that same software
>> would be necessary to make today's smartphone as fully functional.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > Good thoughts, but most of current manufacturers have been foisting
>> > mediocre products on us for years. Motorola had it's day. Someone
>> > needed to shake things up.
>>
>> A fraction of a percentage of the market is hardly shaking things up.
>>
> I think you get my point but just can't concede.

I don't get your point- it has settled into the status of a rarely seen
and rarely sold phone. Opening numbers were no indication of sales
going forward. You are the one not conceding.

>
> We already lost the naysayers up here who said it was going to flop
the
> day it came out. We'll have others like you hammering it until the
next
> quarterly numbers are released.
>

When it will still have less than 1% of the american market if they hit
their projection.

In the meantime, the Razr 2 comes at the end of the month- a flip phone
with a larger video screen on the outside. Want to bet which phone
sells more by the end of the year? Here's a hint- the Razr is starting
at $250 and will be down to under $100 by Halloween.

At 10 Aug 2007 11:31:24 -0700 Kurt wrote:

> I went from early Palm Pilot, then various other Palms all the way to
> Treo 650 for much the same reason, but was excited about having the
data
> features. Struggled with numerous issues, and needed to purchase
several
> additional software programs to get things to work well. All that cost
> me time and money.


I'm still curious why you had s much trouble with yours. My brother-in-
law had a 600 on Verizon and only had to buy one program to get it do
what he wanted (to add tethering support for his laptop. A feature that
either wasn't part of the 600 to begin with, or removed by Verizon.)

> But you miss the point the user finally gets a product that works great
> right out of the box and activates practically instantly.
> No smoke and mirrors about this.

You keep saying this, but every phone I've ever owned "worked out of the
box" for it's intended functions. Tweaks, 3rd-party apps, etc. are to
improve the item, not repair it. The NetFront browser I bought for my
Nokia 3650 gave my a full HTML browser on a 2003-era phone (the only
program I ever bought for it- it already had a very good e-mail client.)


> You obviously aren't a collector car guy. Push button starters go way
> back and have a certain cache. They are just as efficient. Fun, too. We
> like fun.


I'm aware that push-button starring was all the rage at one time. I even
remember push-button transmissions on early 50's automatics.

My point still stands- why did the Prius get it, and the Camry didn't?
Marketing. Believe me, if Toyota could've got the Prius to start via
thought-control they'd have done it! ;-)


> I've never done an easier phone activation than through Apple. I did
> have a question (because of adding to family plan) and phone support
was
> quick and knowledgeable. Activating throiugh iTunes took 2 minutes.
Treo
> through Cingular was a bit of an ordeal.

I haven't bought a phone in a store in awhile. Over-the-phone
activations for phones I've bought online have gone easily. My last
purchase, my wife's Dash was simplest of all. I ordered it over the phone,
and when I received it I turned it on. It received a text-message that
programmed the SIM and worked.

Again, I have nothing against the at-home activation, I just think a
customer should have the option to walk out of an AT&T (or Apple) store
with a working phone without having to bring his or her laptop with them!


> My whole circle of business peers either have, or will be getting
> iPhones. Most of these were Treo users.


Just curious- is that due to "viral marketing" (meaning are they so
impressed by yours that they now want one), or were they pre-decided like
you were and are just waiting for their contracts to end? (Don't worry-
I'm not preparing any snide jabs or retorts here- it's honest curiosity.
I think the RAZR, for example, sold well virally- it was a unique design
that made people envious. I suspect the iPhone to have a similar effect.
That's why I'm constantly surprized I don't see more (any!) people using
them, I assume they'd attract gawkers.



> I bought a Treo 650 two years ago with Cingular 2 year contract. Cost
me
> $399 minus $50 "rebate" Visa debit card. Spent a another $200 or so on
> software. Was originally paying $40 for unlimited data.
> You tell me what really cost more.

Well, to be fair, you couldn't pay $200 on iPhone software if you wanted
to! ;-)

I was impressed by Apple and AT&T's data pricing. I was certainly
expecting AT&T to go for the standrd "smartphone" rate of $40. $20 is
certainly fair.

> Good thoughts, but most of current manufacturers have been foisting
> mediocre products on us for years. Motorola had it's day. Someone
needed
> to shake things up.

I still blame the carriers- manufacturers have litle incentive to create
good products if Verizon, for example, is going to demand the features to
be removed, so instead, we've been subjected to design innovations (slim,
small, burnished, rubberized, etc.) rather than technological ones.

Take Cingular's 8525. The HTC TyTn version has two cameras- the
traditional caseback one and a small lower-res front cam for video calling.
Ooops, no Video-calling on Cingular, so that had to go, despite the fact
it could also work as a webcam over wi-fi.

Cingular's 2125 smartphone had to lose wi-fi- we wouldn't want someone to
use their own internet connection instead of a $40 dataplan, right?

Apple, thanks to the iPod's success, had the clout to call the shots that
Motorola didn't, because carriers here know most consumers pick the
carrier first, and phone second. Sprint can't get the RAZR? Here's a
Sanyo Katana- close enough. It's thin and is available in pink- what's
the difference?

Nokia must be scratching their heads wondering what they did wrong
looking at the iPhone. Apple accomplshed what they've been dreaming of-
creating a phone so compelling that American consumers would want to buy
it regardless of what carrier it required them to use.



--

"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 10 Aug 2007 11:31:24 -0700 Kurt wrote:
>
> > I went from early Palm Pilot, then various other Palms all the way to
> > Treo 650 for much the same reason, but was excited about having the
> data
> > features. Struggled with numerous issues, and needed to purchase
> several
> > additional software programs to get things to work well. All that cost
> > me time and money.
>
>
> I'm still curious why you had s much trouble with yours. My brother-in-
> law had a 600 on Verizon and only had to buy one program to get it do
> what he wanted (to add tethering support for his laptop. A feature that
> either wasn't part of the 600 to begin with, or removed by Verizon.)
>
> > But you miss the point the user finally gets a product that works great
> > right out of the box and activates practically instantly.
> > No smoke and mirrors about this.
>
> You keep saying this, but every phone I've ever owned "worked out of the
> box" for it's intended functions. Tweaks, 3rd-party apps, etc. are to
> improve the item, not repair it. The NetFront browser I bought for my
> Nokia 3650 gave my a full HTML browser on a 2003-era phone (the only
> program I ever bought for it- it already had a very good e-mail client.)
>
>
> > You obviously aren't a collector car guy. Push button starters go way
> > back and have a certain cache. They are just as efficient. Fun, too. We
> > like fun.
>
>
> I'm aware that push-button starring was all the rage at one time. I even
> remember push-button transmissions on early 50's automatics.

My 63 Dodge Dart had the push button automatic, but the push button
starts go back to the sports cars. Jags had 'em.
>
> My point still stands- why did the Prius get it, and the Camry didn't?
> Marketing. Believe me, if Toyota could've got the Prius to start via
> thought-control they'd have done it! ;-)

Tooling. Prius was ground-up new design.

>
>
> > I've never done an easier phone activation than through Apple. I did
> > have a question (because of adding to family plan) and phone support
> was
> > quick and knowledgeable. Activating throiugh iTunes took 2 minutes.
> Treo
> > through Cingular was a bit of an ordeal.
>
> I haven't bought a phone in a store in awhile. Over-the-phone
> activations for phones I've bought online have gone easily. My last
> purchase, my wife's Dash was simplest of all. I ordered it over the phone,
> and when I received it I turned it on. It received a text-message that
> programmed the SIM and worked.
>
> Again, I have nothing against the at-home activation, I just think a
> customer should have the option to walk out of an AT&T (or Apple) store
> with a working phone without having to bring his or her laptop with them!

Maybe better today. I just remember it wasn't easy and I always buy
online, so it required activation over the phone.
>
>
> > My whole circle of business peers either have, or will be getting
> > iPhones. Most of these were Treo users.
>
>
> Just curious- is that due to "viral marketing" (meaning are they so
> impressed by yours that they now want one), or were they pre-decided like
> you were and are just waiting for their contracts to end? (Don't worry-
> I'm not preparing any snide jabs or retorts here- it's honest curiosity.
> I think the RAZR, for example, sold well virally- it was a unique design
> that made people envious. I suspect the iPhone to have a similar effect.
> That's why I'm constantly surprized I don't see more (any!) people using
> them, I assume they'd attract gawkers.

No, usability was the key thing for them, and all of them were
pre-decided. The advertising was brilliant in showing how it worked.


> >
>
> > I bought a Treo 650 two years ago with Cingular 2 year contract. Cost
> me
> > $399 minus $50 "rebate" Visa debit card. Spent a another $200 or so on
> > software. Was originally paying $40 for unlimited data.
> > You tell me what really cost more.
>
> Well, to be fair, you couldn't pay $200 on iPhone software if you wanted
> to! ;-)

Yes, part of the thrill! Treo had funky mail program, required volume
control software, needed another program to play videos, and a couple
others.
Software incompatibility issues arised. Wanted a better browser than
Blazer, but Opera Mini locked up machine all the time.
>
> I was impressed by Apple and AT&T's data pricing. I was certainly
> expecting AT&T to go for the standrd "smartphone" rate of $40. $20 is
> certainly fair.

This was much-needed. Glad Apple had the clout to get this fixed.
>
> > Good thoughts, but most of current manufacturers have been foisting
> > mediocre products on us for years. Motorola had it's day. Someone
> needed
> > to shake things up.
>
> I still blame the carriers- manufacturers have litle incentive to create
> good products if Verizon, for example, is going to demand the features to
> be removed, so instead, we've been subjected to design innovations (slim,
> small, burnished, rubberized, etc.) rather than technological ones.
>
> Take Cingular's 8525. The HTC TyTn version has two cameras- the
> traditional caseback one and a small lower-res front cam for video calling.
> Ooops, no Video-calling on Cingular, so that had to go, despite the fact
> it could also work as a webcam over wi-fi.
>
> Cingular's 2125 smartphone had to lose wi-fi- we wouldn't want someone to
> use their own internet connection instead of a $40 dataplan, right?
>
> Apple, thanks to the iPod's success, had the clout to call the shots that
> Motorola didn't, because carriers here know most consumers pick the
> carrier first, and phone second. Sprint can't get the RAZR? Here's a
> Sanyo Katana- close enough. It's thin and is available in pink- what's
> the difference?
>
> Nokia must be scratching their heads wondering what they did wrong
> looking at the iPhone. Apple accomplshed what they've been dreaming of-
> creating a phone so compelling that American consumers would want to buy
> it regardless of what carrier it required them to use.

I think the major phone manufacturers could have raised the bar if they
had the determination. I think it's more to do with corporate culture at
these places.

Can you imagine how stifled you'd be as a creative working for ATT?

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

In article <[email protected]>,
Scott <[email protected]> wrote:

> Kurt <[email protected]> wrote in news:labolide-
> [email protected]:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Kurt <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> news:[email protected]:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > But you miss the point the user finally gets a product that works
> >> > great right out of the box and activates practically instantly.
> >>
> >>
> >> Finally? EVERY cell phone I have ever owned worked greast right out
> of
> >> the box and EVERY phone/PDA has activated quicker than the iTunes
> >> process- I walked out of the store with an activated and fully
> >> functional phone..
> >
> > Both the LG for my wife and my Treo required time on the phonw with
> > Cingular. I can only speak from experience.
>
> Then you admit that your statement that ease of activation and full
> functionality out of the box FINALLY coming to the market was patently
> false and nothing more than a poor attempt at Apple hype?

Don't put words in my mouth. I said I spoke from my experience, but
others have had the same. Do a like Google action and hit the forums,
and you'll find many, many others that have had problems.

Activation required a lot of phone time (bought online).
I had Motorolas before that that were time consuming also.
I've never had a set up as easy as with the iPhone. They carefully
thought the activation part through.

I didn't even mention that the Treo had hardware problems out of the box.
Needed to get another one. Had to jump through hoops to get another.


>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > No smoke and mirrors about this.
> >>
> >> Agreed- it is simply fanatic blindness to the real world.
> >
> > Fact is, you'd hate it anyway.
>
> Fact is, you're right. The one that I played with for a couple of hours
> was bulky, horribly slow and the sound quality was less than ideal.

There you go again <g>
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> 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...
> >> >
> >> > You obviously aren't a collector car guy. Push button starters go
> way
> >> > back and have a certain cache. They are just as efficient. Fun,
> too.
> >> > We like fun.
> >> >>
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> > I've never done an easier phone activation than through Apple. I
> did
> >> > have a question (because of adding to family plan) and phone
> support
> >> > was quick and knowledgeable. Activating throiugh iTunes took 2
> >> > minutes. Treo through Cingular was a bit of an ordeal.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> 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.")
> >> >
> >> > My whole circle of business peers either have, or will be getting
> >> > iPhones. Most of these were Treo users.
> >>
> >> And yet here it is, a month and a half after rollout, and there are a
> >> number of us that have yet to see our first one on the street
> >
> > Maybe you need to get out more often. <g>
>
> Yeah- the thousands of people I come in contact with every week is
> probably too small a population base.

I'll hold my comment on that one <g>

>
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> > I bought a Treo 650 two years ago with Cingular 2 year contract.
> Cost
> >> > me $399 minus $50 "rebate" Visa debit card. Spent a another $200 or
> so
> >> > on software. Was originally paying $40 for unlimited data.
> >> > You tell me what really cost more.
> >>
> >> Two years ago is meaningless data- as the market matured, prices for
> >> like technology declined. The fact is that today, ATT has no
> >> PDA/smartphone over $300 listed on their website, and many of them
> >> (including the $100 phones) are as fully functional as your 650.
> >>
> >> Spending money on software is also immaterial, unless the iPhone
> >> came loaded with like software and the purchase of that same software
> >> would be necessary to make today's smartphone as fully functional.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> > Good thoughts, but most of current manufacturers have been foisting
> >> > mediocre products on us for years. Motorola had it's day. Someone
> >> > needed to shake things up.
> >>
> >> A fraction of a percentage of the market is hardly shaking things up.
> >>
> > I think you get my point but just can't concede.
>
> I don't get your point- it has settled into the status of a rarely seen
> and rarely sold phone. Opening numbers were no indication of sales
> going forward. You are the one not conceding.

Like I said, let's see what you say next quarter. I'm buying one right
after this post.

>
> >
> > We already lost the naysayers up here who said it was going to flop
> the
> > day it came out. We'll have others like you hammering it until the
> next
> > quarterly numbers are released.
> >
>
> When it will still have less than 1% of the american market if they hit
> their projection.
>
> In the meantime, the Razr 2 comes at the end of the month- a flip phone
> with a larger video screen on the outside. Want to bet which phone
> sells more by the end of the year? Here's a hint- the Razr is starting
> at $250 and will be down to under $100 by Halloween.

Motorola is playing catchup at this point. They need to practically give
these away in order to get sales.

A friend of mine just got a Motorola Q. Expensive and worst phone he's
ever had. Was expecting a really good smartphone.

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

At 10 Aug 2007 14:51:02 -0700 Kurt wrote:

> No, usability was the key thing for them, and all of them were
> pre-decided. The advertising was brilliant in showing how it worked.

Agreed. I was very impresse by the iPhone ads.

> Yes, part of the thrill! Treo had funky mail program, required volume
> control software, needed another program to play videos, and a couple
> others.


I think the transistion from PDA to phone was less painful for WinMo,
since Windows CE was always a multi-tasking OS, PPCs had always had
(clunky but working) media player software, POP/IMAP support, etc. Palm
had to raise the bar of a typical Palm device quite a bit to get a Treo's
feature set up to snuff. The PPC was always just a phone away from being
a high-end smartphone, whereas Palms started as much simpler (but darn
good) PIM devices.

> Software incompatibility issues arised. Wanted a better browser than
> Blazer, but Opera Mini locked up machine all the time.


You've mentioned that before- I was prowling around Opera's website and
they acknowleged the Treo problems with Mini and had a fix that required
changing a bunch of Java settings to prevent lockups. You obviously
weren't alone with Opera Mini troubles!

> This was much-needed. Glad Apple had the clout to get this fixed.

Agreed.


> I think the major phone manufacturers could have raised the bar if they
> had the determination. I think it's more to do with corporate culture
at
> these places.
Perhaps, but Nokia and LG, among others, have pumped out several
excellent phones that never saw the light of day in the US, since
carriers decide what phones get sold here. (Obviously AT&T and T-Mo
customers can go the unlocked import route, but it's expensive, difficult
to get warranty service and have no carrier tech support available for
data configuration.)

> Can you imagine how stifled you'd be as a creative working for ATT?

But again, that's a carrier- not a manufacturer. Picture if anyone but
Apple pitched the iPhone to a US carier- they'd have said "too weird-
looking- Americans won't buy it. Add a sliding keyboard, or a keyboard
that folds over the top to protect the screen, and get rid of the ability
to copy songs from your PC- we can sell the songs for $2.99 each. Then
make it in three colors- black, silver and red." Without the success of
the iPod, no American carrier would've looked at the iPhone twice.
(Before Tinman jumps in and screams "antiApple bias," that was a dig at
American carriers, not a dig at Apple!) A truly unique design is never
embraced by American carriers. They assume we all want slim flips in
"cool" colors. Look at Verizon's website. I couldn't tell two dozen of
their phones from each other- it was "a roundish flip, another roundish
flip, another roundish flip, the Chocolate, roundish flip, a RAZR,
roundish flip...", etc.

Think of how long we suffered with VGA (or lower!) res cameras on phones
because carriers wanted to keep the filesize low to maximize MMS data
profits! Eurasian-market phones have had 3 and 5 megapixel cameraphones
for years.

Even the anti-Apple crowd should root for the iPhone's success, because
if it fails, it will just reinforce the carriers' beliefs that they
"know" what customers want, and further cement the status-quo.


--

"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]>,
> Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Kurt <[email protected]> wrote in news:labolide-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Kurt <[email protected]> wrote in
>> >> news:[email protected]:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > But you miss the point the user finally gets a product that works
>> >> > great right out of the box and activates practically instantly.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Finally? EVERY cell phone I have ever owned worked greast right out
>> of
>> >> the box and EVERY phone/PDA has activated quicker than the iTunes
>> >> process- I walked out of the store with an activated and fully
>> >> functional phone..
>> >
>> > Both the LG for my wife and my Treo required time on the phonw with
>> > Cingular. I can only speak from experience.
>>
>> Then you admit that your statement that ease of activation and full
>> functionality out of the box FINALLY coming to the market was patently
>> false and nothing more than a poor attempt at Apple hype?
>
> Don't put words in my mouth. I said I spoke from my experience, but
> others have had the same. Do a like Google action and hit the forums,
> and you'll find many, many others that have had problems.
>
> Activation required a lot of phone time (bought online).
> I had Motorolas before that that were time consuming also.
> I've never had a set up as easy as with the iPhone. They carefully
> thought the activation part through.
>
> I didn't even mention that the Treo had hardware problems out of the box.
> Needed to get another one. Had to jump through hoops to get another.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > No smoke and mirrors about this.
>> >>
>> >> Agreed- it is simply fanatic blindness to the real world.
>> >
>> > Fact is, you'd hate it anyway.
>>
>> Fact is, you're right. The one that I played with for a couple of hours
>> was bulky, horribly slow and the sound quality was less than ideal.
>
> There you go again <g>
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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...
>> >> >
>> >> > You obviously aren't a collector car guy. Push button starters go
>> way
>> >> > back and have a certain cache. They are just as efficient. Fun,
>> too.
>> >> > We like fun.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >
>> >> > I've never done an easier phone activation than through Apple. I
>> did
>> >> > have a question (because of adding to family plan) and phone
>> support
>> >> > was quick and knowledgeable. Activating throiugh iTunes took 2
>> >> > minutes. Treo through Cingular was a bit of an ordeal.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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.")
>> >> >
>> >> > My whole circle of business peers either have, or will be getting
>> >> > iPhones. Most of these were Treo users.
>> >>
>> >> And yet here it is, a month and a half after rollout, and there are a
>> >> number of us that have yet to see our first one on the street
>> >
>> > Maybe you need to get out more often. <g>
>>
>> Yeah- the thousands of people I come in contact with every week is
>> probably too small a population base.
>
> I'll hold my comment on that one <g>
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > 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.
>> >> >
>> >> > I bought a Treo 650 two years ago with Cingular 2 year contract.
>> Cost
>> >> > me $399 minus $50 "rebate" Visa debit card. Spent a another $200 or
>> so
>> >> > on software. Was originally paying $40 for unlimited data.
>> >> > You tell me what really cost more.
>> >>
>> >> Two years ago is meaningless data- as the market matured, prices for
>> >> like technology declined. The fact is that today, ATT has no
>> >> PDA/smartphone over $300 listed on their website, and many of them
>> >> (including the $100 phones) are as fully functional as your 650.
>> >>
>> >> Spending money on software is also immaterial, unless the iPhone
>> >> came loaded with like software and the purchase of that same software
>> >> would be necessary to make today's smartphone as fully functional.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >
>> >> > Good thoughts, but most of current manufacturers have been foisting
>> >> > mediocre products on us for years. Motorola had it's day. Someone
>> >> > needed to shake things up.
>> >>
>> >> A fraction of a percentage of the market is hardly shaking things up.
>> >>
>> > I think you get my point but just can't concede.
>>
>> I don't get your point- it has settled into the status of a rarely seen
>> and rarely sold phone. Opening numbers were no indication of sales
>> going forward. You are the one not conceding.
>
> Like I said, let's see what you say next quarter. I'm buying one right
> after this post.
>
>>
>> >
>> > We already lost the naysayers up here who said it was going to flop
>> the
>> > day it came out. We'll have others like you hammering it until the
>> next
>> > quarterly numbers are released.
>> >
>>
>> When it will still have less than 1% of the american market if they hit
>> their projection.
>>
>> In the meantime, the Razr 2 comes at the end of the month- a flip phone
>> with a larger video screen on the outside. Want to bet which phone
>> sells more by the end of the year? Here's a hint- the Razr is starting
>> at $250 and will be down to under $100 by Halloween.
>
> Motorola is playing catchup at this point. They need to practically give
> these away in order to get sales.
>
> A friend of mine just got a Motorola Q. Expensive and worst phone he's
> ever had. Was expecting a really good smartphone.
>
>
Expensive ? With verizon and a 2yr contract it's 179.99
Lot cheaper then 500-600 for the Iflop.

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

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

> No, again, it was an observation. Another data point, if you will. You said
> you've seen enough iPhone owners to clssify them into types. I haven't. At
> first I thought it was the Coast thing (I live in Denver, and AT&T says most
> buyers were on the coasts) but I spent the last week in the Bay Area, and
> opening weekend in New York and didn't see any used there either. Is my
> observation "anti-Apple"? No, just an observation- I'm actually surprised I
> haven't seen any yet. I don't believe the hundreds of thousands sold already
> were just a hoax!

It is odd that you have not seen a single one. After your first post in
a thread stating that last Sunday, I have kept my eye open and I have
seen several every day this past week.

--
Charles

At 10 Aug 2007 22:21:21 -0400 Charles wrote:

> It is odd that you have not seen a single one. After your first post in
> a thread stating that last Sunday, I have kept my eye open and I have
> seen several every day this past week.

I agree it's odd! I'm wondering where they're all hiding! ;-)


--

"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
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Kurt <[email protected]> wrote in news:labolide-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Kurt <[email protected]> wrote in
>> >> news:[email protected]:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > But you miss the point the user finally gets a product that
>> >> > works great right out of the box and activates practically
>> >> > instantly.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Finally? EVERY cell phone I have ever owned worked greast right
>> >> out
>> of
>> >> the box and EVERY phone/PDA has activated quicker than the iTunes
>> >> process- I walked out of the store with an activated and fully
>> >> functional phone..
>> >
>> > Both the LG for my wife and my Treo required time on the phonw with
>> > Cingular. I can only speak from experience.
>>
>> Then you admit that your statement that ease of activation and full
>> functionality out of the box FINALLY coming to the market was
>> patently false and nothing more than a poor attempt at Apple hype?
>
> Don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't put words in your mouth- you said it almost verbatim.


> I said I spoke from my experience,

That's not the way you positioned it and not what you said.


> but
> others have had the same. Do a like Google action and hit the forums,
> and you'll find many, many others that have had problems.


I find some, but a very small portion of the population.





>
> Activation required a lot of phone time (bought online).

Last one I bought online took less than five minutes, including the time
to dial.

> I had Motorolas before that that were time consuming also.
> I've never had a set up as easy as with the iPhone. They carefully
> thought the activation part through.

No they didn't. The fact that you were unable to handle the technology
previously doesn't mean that Apple did anything. Having to travel with
an unactivated phone to get it activated is moronic.


>
> I didn't even mention that the Treo had hardware problems out of the
> box.

See similar stories (via Google) that speak to iPhone hardware problems.

> Needed to get another one. Had to jump through hoops to get
> another.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > No smoke and mirrors about this.
>> >>
>> >> Agreed- it is simply fanatic blindness to the real world.
>> >
>> > Fact is, you'd hate it anyway.
>>
>> Fact is, you're right. The one that I played with for a couple of
>> hours was bulky, horribly slow and the sound quality was less than
>> ideal.
>
> There you go again <g>

Go again? I voiced my experience with it, moron.

>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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...
>> >> >
>> >> > You obviously aren't a collector car guy. Push button starters
>> >> > go
>> way
>> >> > back and have a certain cache. They are just as efficient. Fun,
>> too.
>> >> > We like fun.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >
>> >> > I've never done an easier phone activation than through Apple. I
>> did
>> >> > have a question (because of adding to family plan) and phone
>> support
>> >> > was quick and knowledgeable. Activating throiugh iTunes took 2
>> >> > minutes. Treo through Cingular was a bit of an ordeal.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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.")
>> >> >
>> >> > My whole circle of business peers either have, or will be
>> >> > getting iPhones. Most of these were Treo users.
>> >>
>> >> And yet here it is, a month and a half after rollout, and there
>> >> are a number of us that have yet to see our first one on the
>> >> street
>> >
>> > Maybe you need to get out more often. <g>
>>
>> Yeah- the thousands of people I come in contact with every week is
>> probably too small a population base.
>
> I'll hold my comment on that one <g>

No -go for it. Between commuting, working and leisure time, I see quite
a few people in the course of a week. None of them have produced an
iPhone.

>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > 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.
>> >> >
>> >> > I bought a Treo 650 two years ago with Cingular 2 year contract.
>> Cost
>> >> > me $399 minus $50 "rebate" Visa debit card. Spent a another $200
>> >> > or
>> so
>> >> > on software. Was originally paying $40 for unlimited data.
>> >> > You tell me what really cost more.
>> >>
>> >> Two years ago is meaningless data- as the market matured, prices
>> >> for like technology declined. The fact is that today, ATT has no
>> >> PDA/smartphone over $300 listed on their website, and many of them
>> >> (including the $100 phones) are as fully functional as your 650.
>> >>
>> >> Spending money on software is also immaterial, unless the iPhone
>> >> came loaded with like software and the purchase of that same
>> >> software would be necessary to make today's smartphone as fully
>> >> functional.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >
>> >> > Good thoughts, but most of current manufacturers have been
>> >> > foisting mediocre products on us for years. Motorola had it's
>> >> > day. Someone needed to shake things up.
>> >>
>> >> A fraction of a percentage of the market is hardly shaking things
>> >> up.
>> >>
>> > I think you get my point but just can't concede.
>>
>> I don't get your point- it has settled into the status of a rarely
>> seen and rarely sold phone. Opening numbers were no indication of
>> sales going forward. You are the one not conceding.
>
> Like I said, let's see what you say next quarter. I'm buying one right
> after this post.

That's not what you said, but thanks for proving that you are incapable
of keeping your own story straight.

>
>>
>> >
>> > We already lost the naysayers up here who said it was going to flop
>> the
>> > day it came out. We'll have others like you hammering it until the
>> next
>> > quarterly numbers are released.
>> >
>>
>> When it will still have less than 1% of the american market if they
>> hit their projection.
>>
>> In the meantime, the Razr 2 comes at the end of the month- a flip
>> phone with a larger video screen on the outside. Want to bet which
>> phone sells more by the end of the year? Here's a hint- the Razr is
>> starting at $250 and will be down to under $100 by Halloween.
>
> Motorola is playing catchup at this point. They need to practically
> give these away in order to get sales.

Motorola has sold somewhere in the magnitude of 100 times the number of
Razrs when compare to Apple. The trick is that Motorola gets their
price for the phone- the carriers are the ones marking it down and
writing off the loss.

>
> A friend of mine just got a Motorola Q.

Good for him- why didn't he get a precious iPhone?

> Expensive and worst phone he's
> ever had.

Expensive? $99 at most places these days.

> Was expecting a really good smartphone.
>

Then he didn't do his research real well, did he?

"Todd Allcock" wrote:
> At 10 Aug 2007 10:29:55 -0700 Tinman wrote:
>
>> That's silly and doesn't take into account the fact that many people
>> with smartphones paid $500+ and still don't use them.
>
> The first wave, perhaps, but the majority of current smartphone
> users were not early adopters, but waited until prices fell. Take the
> Treo- it was rare to see them in use when they were $600, but
> common when they hit $300.
>

Yes it would be nice if the iPhone will subsequently offered at a lower
price (with rebate, etc.). Indeed I expect that to happen. Actually it
"almost" is true now...

....because I just found out that my iPhone doesn't count as a subsidized
phone purchase with at&t. In other words I can get any deal, right now, that
at&t currently offers to new subscribers on another phone (I don't have to
add another line). I verified this at my local at&t CS, at an at&t store,
and on at&t's Website (it shows my iPhone line as being eligible for
upgrades). Indeed I have the Website open and am deciding on a phone. The
only drawback is that I have to extend my contract by another 3 weeks (no
biggie, and if I knew this when I bough the iPhone I would have done it
then).

So I just need to decide whether to get one of the free phones to keep as a
spare, a Blackjack to Ebay (unopened), or something else. Might even go for
a Curve and Ebay that. They seem to be going for $500 on Ebay, and I can get
it for $250. Either way getting the extra phone helps mitigate the cost of
the iPhone, IMO.


>
> I don't have an anti-Apple sentiment.

The reason I mentioned that is because you seem to dwell on the iPhone. But
I didn't mean to imply you were a direct opposite of, say, none/Oxford.


>
> The real problem trying to discuss the iPhone is that ANY criticism is
> denounced as "anti-Apple," or worse, spun into a "feature" or advantage.

I am sure you can see that some people seem to like to bash it for the sake
of bashing it. That just seems pointless to me. Either buy it or not. And if
not move on. And I am no Apple apologist--I don't even own anything Apple
besides the iPhone.


> Now I'm certainly being unfair if I'm suggesting Oxford is typical of
> iPhone supporters here- he's an idiot-, and his opposite number certainly
> exists on the "anti-iPhone" side, but don't lump me in with them!

LOL. I definitely won't do that.


>
> But that's not a major issue. In your mind I'm "trashing" Apple for
> daring
> to suggest anything about the product is based on marketing rather than
> some zen-like quest for the ultimate end-user experiece. Fine.

No, it's when you use statements like smoke-and-mirrors (which implies
something that doesn't work at all), and start threads wondering where all
the iPhones are that has me wondering why this product has caught your ire
so much.


>> 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.
>
> Really? You ought to bring it around to the NG sometime. ;-)

I do. The reason I came to the Cingular NG was primarily because of the
iPhone announcement. But I didn't blindly buy it, nor blindly trash it. I
discussed it here (and elsewhere: despite what it seems like lately this
group really doesn't have much iPhone discussion). I also criticised it
here, and at one point doubted I could ever give up my Treo for it. But I
did, and it's working out well.

But what I meant about open mind was discussing the iPhone here in an open
forum (OK, newsgroups!). It would be very easy to stick to discussions on
iPhone forums, but I do like to hear constructive criticism.

Again, didn't mean to paint you as some kind of Anti-Apple crusader (nor am
I anything like the Apple-or-nothing crowd).


--
Mike