Time Magazine: The iPhone Dials Up the Competition

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...635816,00.html

---

› See More: Time Magazine: The iPhone Dials Up the Competition

On 2007-06-25 22:26:42 -0500, Screw the iPhone <[email protected]> said:

> I just think it's funny as HELL to see everyone wetting
> their pants over a piece of **** PHONE that NO ONE has yet put their
> hands on.

You've already decided it's a piece of **** without having ever put
your hands on one. Hypocrite lately?

--
JR

On Jun 25, 8:26 pm, Screw the iPhone <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:12:52 -0700, Michelle Steiner
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Screw the iPhone <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> On 26 Jun 2007 02:42:55 -0000, [email protected] (Meg) wrote:
>
> >> >http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...635816,00.html
>
> >> I'm gonna laugh my ass off when you whiney little babies get your
> >> precious i(diot)Phones and discover what a horrible piece of **** it
> >> actually is.
>
> >> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!
>
> >I'll grant that you're an expert on ****, seeing as how that's what
> >you're made of, but that doesn't mean that you know **** about cell
> >phones.
>
> >You're just jealous because even though a child can use one intuitively,
> >you're too stupid to figure it out.
>
> You wish. I just think it's funny as HELL to see everyone wetting
> their pants over a piece of **** PHONE that NO ONE has yet put their
> hands on. Do you think you could hold the grandstanding to a minimum
> until you actually have real life experience with the thing, or is
> your life *THAT* empty???


The iPhone looks like a nice peice of equipment, but the biggest beef
I have with it is a lack
of an SDK for 3rd party companies, freeware developers, etc. to write
software on it that runs
on the "bare metal" of the phone. This hardware has a hell of a lot of
potential, but if Apple decides
"no SDK", then it's little more than a pretty device, and at the price
it's being sold at, I expect more
than a souped up V-cast style "teenybopper" phone. Personaly, I
wouldn't buy it until an SDK is
released for it.

Also, it appears "Meg" is Astroturfing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
which is bound to piss
people off.

zeez <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 8:26 pm, Screw the iPhone <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:12:52 -0700, Michelle Steiner
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Screw the iPhone <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 26 Jun 2007 02:42:55 -0000, [email protected] (Meg) wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...635816,00.html
>>
>>>> I'm gonna laugh my ass off when you whiney little babies get your
>>>> precious i(diot)Phones and discover what a horrible piece of ****
>>>> it actually is.
>>
>>>> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>> I'll grant that you're an expert on ****, seeing as how that's what
>>> you're made of, but that doesn't mean that you know **** about cell
>>> phones.
>>
>>> You're just jealous because even though a child can use one
>>> intuitively, you're too stupid to figure it out.
>>
>> You wish. I just think it's funny as HELL to see everyone wetting
>> their pants over a piece of **** PHONE that NO ONE has yet put their
>> hands on. Do you think you could hold the grandstanding to a minimum
>> until you actually have real life experience with the thing, or is
>> your life *THAT* empty???

> The iPhone looks like a nice peice of equipment, but the biggest beef
> I have with it is a lack of an SDK for 3rd party companies, freeware
> developers, etc. to write software on it that runs on the "bare metal"
> of the phone. This hardware has a hell of a lot of potential, but if Apple
> decides "no SDK", then it's little more than a pretty device, and at the
> price it's being sold at, I expect more than a souped up V-cast style
> "teenybopper" phone. Personaly, I wouldn't buy it until an SDK is released for it.

Me neither, but I realise I'm nothing like who its aimed at.

Bet it will do as well as the ipod did, just because
it integrates a decent phone with a media player.

Tho plenty will already have one of those, so it remains to be
seen how much effect being very late to market will have.

> Also, it appears "Meg" is Astroturfing
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

Just mindlessly wanking.

> which is bound to piss people off.

In article <[email protected]>,
Screw the iPhone <[email protected]> wrote:

> You wish. I just think it's funny as HELL to see everyone wetting
> their pants over a piece of **** PHONE that NO ONE has yet put their
> hands on.

Yeah. It's going to work different than all the videos and demos we've
seen once we actually have one, right **** brain?

In article <[email protected]>,
Screw the iPhone <[email protected]> wrote:

> Aww, does it really make you *that* uncomfortable when someone doesn't
> get as big of a boner as you about a stupid ass phone THAT HASN'T EVEN
> BEEN RELEASED YET??? I could understand it if it were next week and
> we were reading *real* reports from *real* people about their *real*
> experiences with the i(diot)Phone. But, it's not, and all else is
> conjecture until it happens. Now, go back to creaming your jeans
> waiting for your i(diot)Phone.

Ahahahah...typical talk from a future customer. We'll see who the idiot
is when you're still holding out because of all the **** you talk.

"Ura Dippschit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Screw the iPhone <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Aww, does it really make you *that* uncomfortable when someone doesn't
>> get as big of a boner as you about a stupid ass phone THAT HASN'T EVEN
>> BEEN RELEASED YET??? I could understand it if it were next week and
>> we were reading *real* reports from *real* people about their *real*
>> experiences with the i(diot)Phone. But, it's not, and all else is
>> conjecture until it happens. Now, go back to creaming your jeans
>> waiting for your i(diot)Phone.
>
> Ahahahah...typical talk from a future customer. We'll see who the idiot
> is when you're still holding out because of all the **** you talk.

I know sure as **** can't live without a third mp3 player. Especially one
with so much storage and expandable as well!

In article <[email protected]>,
Screw the i(diot)Phone <[email protected]> wrote:

> It's a PHONE, goddammit.

No it's NOT, goddammit. Since you are too ****ing dense to know WHAT it
actually is, maybe it's time you shut the **** up!

"Screw the i (diot) Phone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:33:18 GMT, Ura Dippschit <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> Screw the i(diot)Phone <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> It's a PHONE, goddammit.
>>
>>No it's NOT, goddammit. Since you are too ****ing dense to know WHAT it
>>actually is, maybe it's time you shut the **** up!
>
> Says the lemming. It's a phone, which is why it's being sold by a
> PHONE COMPANY for use with a PHONE COMPANY'S service. Get it? Good.
> Next.
>


Ura doesn't care what it is. He just know Steve Jobs told him he can't live
without one. So, he can't live without one.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote:

> zeez <[email protected]> wrote:

> > The iPhone looks like a nice peice of equipment, but the biggest beef
> > I have with it is a lack of an SDK for 3rd party companies, freeware
> > developers, etc. to write software on it that runs on the "bare metal"
> > of the phone. This hardware has a hell of a lot of potential, but if Apple
> > decides "no SDK", then it's little more than a pretty device, and at the
> > price it's being sold at, I expect more than a souped up V-cast style
> > "teenybopper" phone. Personaly, I wouldn't buy it until an SDK is released
> > for it.
>
> Me neither, but I realise I'm nothing like who its aimed at.
>
> Bet it will do as well as the ipod did, just because
> it integrates a decent phone with a media player.
>
> Tho plenty will already have one of those, so it remains to be
> seen how much effect being very late to market will have.

I wouldn't consider Apple to be "very late" to this market. True, some
other devices that combine these capabilities have existed for some
years. But the market for them has never really taken off and gone
mainstream.

Apple introduced the iPod into a market that was in a similar state.

[snip]

--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006

ZnU <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> zeez <[email protected]> wrote

>>> The iPhone looks like a nice peice of equipment, but the biggest beef
>>> I have with it is a lack of an SDK for 3rd party companies, freeware
>>> developers, etc. to write software on it that runs on the "bare metal"
>>> of the phone. This hardware has a hell of a lot of potential, but
>>> if Apple decides "no SDK", then it's little more than a pretty
>>> device, and at the price it's being sold at, I expect more than a
>>> souped up V-cast style "teenybopper" phone. Personaly, I wouldn't
>>> buy it until an SDK is released for it.

>> Me neither, but I realise I'm nothing like who its aimed at.

>> Bet it will do as well as the ipod did, just because
>> it integrates a decent phone with a media player.

>> Tho plenty will already have one of those, so it remains to
>> be seen how much effect being very late to market will have.

> I wouldn't consider Apple to be "very late" to this market.

More fool you. High end phones with all sorts of extra capability
have been around for a hell of a long time now, years, literally.

> True, some other devices that combine these capabilities have existed for some
> years. But the market for them has never really taken off and gone mainstream.

Yes, and it wont now, you watch.

Most want a much cheaper phone that combines
phone, media player, camera etc capability.

And those who want to be able to do email etc mostly
want a real keyboard, not a touchscreen one too.

> Apple introduced the iPod into a market that was in a similar state.

Nope, nothing like it. You dont need much controls wise for a media
player and the ipod design is rather elegant and well done in that regard.
And virtually everyone didnt already have a media player at the time that
the ipod showed up. Virtually everyone already has a cellphone now and
most of those already have a media player now too if they use one much.
Hordes of them have a media player/phone/camera combined already.

Yes. I'm happy with my Sammy 'Sync' 3.5G (tethered 350 kbps up &
down), 2 Gig MP3 / WMA player w Bluetooth stereo headset, $125 on
eBay. Who NEEDS an iPhone? Not me.

SoCalCommie

"The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot
is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud
of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a
feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance
that leads to war." - Sidney J. Harris

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ZnU <[email protected]> wrote
> > Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
> >> zeez <[email protected]> wrote
>
> >>> The iPhone looks like a nice peice of equipment, but the biggest
beef
> >>> I have with it is a lack of an SDK for 3rd party companies,
freeware
> >>> developers, etc. to write software on it that runs on the "bare
metal"
> >>> of the phone. This hardware has a hell of a lot of potential,
but
> >>> if Apple decides "no SDK", then it's little more than a pretty
> >>> device, and at the price it's being sold at, I expect more than
a
> >>> souped up V-cast style "teenybopper" phone. Personaly, I
wouldn't
> >>> buy it until an SDK is released for it.
>
> >> Me neither, but I realise I'm nothing like who its aimed at.
>
> >> Bet it will do as well as the ipod did, just because
> >> it integrates a decent phone with a media player.
>
> >> Tho plenty will already have one of those, so it remains to
> >> be seen how much effect being very late to market will have.
>
> > I wouldn't consider Apple to be "very late" to this market.
>
> More fool you. High end phones with all sorts of extra capability
> have been around for a hell of a long time now, years, literally.
>
> > True, some other devices that combine these capabilities have
existed for some
> > years. But the market for them has never really taken off and gone
mainstream.
>
> Yes, and it wont now, you watch.
>
> Most want a much cheaper phone that combines
> phone, media player, camera etc capability.
>
> And those who want to be able to do email etc mostly
> want a real keyboard, not a touchscreen one too.
>
> > Apple introduced the iPod into a market that was in a similar
state.
>
> Nope, nothing like it. You dont need much controls wise for a media
> player and the ipod design is rather elegant and well done in that
regard.
> And virtually everyone didnt already have a media player at the time
that
> the ipod showed up. Virtually everyone already has a cellphone now
and
> most of those already have a media player now too if they use one
much.
> Hordes of them have a media player/phone/camera combined already.
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote:

> ZnU <[email protected]> wrote
> > Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
> >> zeez <[email protected]> wrote
>
> >>> The iPhone looks like a nice peice of equipment, but the biggest
> >>> beef I have with it is a lack of an SDK for 3rd party companies,
> >>> freeware developers, etc. to write software on it that runs on
> >>> the "bare metal" of the phone. This hardware has a hell of a lot
> >>> of potential, but if Apple decides "no SDK", then it's little
> >>> more than a pretty device, and at the price it's being sold at, I
> >>> expect more than a souped up V-cast style "teenybopper" phone.
> >>> Personaly, I wouldn't buy it until an SDK is released for it.
>
> >> Me neither, but I realise I'm nothing like who its aimed at.
>
> >> Bet it will do as well as the ipod did, just because it integrates
> >> a decent phone with a media player.
>
> >> Tho plenty will already have one of those, so it remains to be
> >> seen how much effect being very late to market will have.
>
> > I wouldn't consider Apple to be "very late" to this market.
>
> More fool you. High end phones with all sorts of extra capability
> have been around for a hell of a long time now, years, literally.
>
> > True, some other devices that combine these capabilities have
> > existed for some years. But the market for them has never really
> > taken off and gone mainstream.
>
> Yes, and it wont now, you watch.
>
> Most want a much cheaper phone that combines phone, media player,
> camera etc capability.

It might take a couple of years and a couple of price cuts. It did for
the iPod. But it will happen. The iPhone probably won't end up quite as
dominant as the iPod, because its attachment to a single network (at
least in the US) will cause some people to look elsewhere, but it's
going to be a major factor.

> And those who want to be able to do email etc mostly want a real
> keyboard, not a touchscreen one too.

Doubt it. Remember, this is a smart phone primarily for the iPod
demographic, not for business types who mostly use the device for
e-mail.

And it's not clear to me that the on-screen keyboard doesn't work just
as well as a physical keyboard. If you mash a couple of adjacent keys on
a physical keyboard, it has no idea which one you were trying to hit. If
you do the same on touch-screen keyboard, it can probably figure out
where the center of your finger was and recover. Plus there's the auto
correction feature.

Plus, with an on-screen input device, you can customize things for every
app. For instance, the on-screen keyboard that comes up when you type in
the URL field of Safari actually has a single key you get hit to insert
".com".

> > Apple introduced the iPod into a market that was in a similar
> > state.
>
> Nope, nothing like it. You dont need much controls wise for a media
> player and the ipod design is rather elegant and well done in that
> regard.

And the iPhone has just about the best designed UI I've ever seen on an
actual product that's actually available to the public. Even most
unlikely concept product UI demos one sees don't look as good.

> And virtually everyone didnt already have a media player at
> the time that the ipod showed up. Virtually everyone already has a
> cellphone now and most of those already have a media player now too
> if they use one much. Hordes of them have a media player/phone/camera
> combined already.

However, most of those people don't use the media player functions of
their phones, because they use iPods instead. The market has shown that
it greatly values iPods over other media players. I would expect it
would greatly value an iPod phone over other media player phones, for
all the same reasons.

Plus, people replace their phone and media player every couple of years
anyway. And the iPhone isn't all that expensive compared with the cost
of an iPod + a phone. (If you restrict your choice of phone to one of
the few others with a decent web browser, anyway.)

--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006

ZnU <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> ZnU <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> zeez <[email protected]> wrote

>>>>> The iPhone looks like a nice peice of equipment, but the biggest
>>>>> beef I have with it is a lack of an SDK for 3rd party companies,
>>>>> freeware developers, etc. to write software on it that runs on
>>>>> the "bare metal" of the phone. This hardware has a hell of a lot
>>>>> of potential, but if Apple decides "no SDK", then it's little
>>>>> more than a pretty device, and at the price it's being sold at, I
>>>>> expect more than a souped up V-cast style "teenybopper" phone.
>>>>> Personaly, I wouldn't buy it until an SDK is released for it.

>>>> Me neither, but I realise I'm nothing like who its aimed at.

>>>> Bet it will do as well as the ipod did, just because
>>>> it integrates a decent phone with a media player.

>>>> Tho plenty will already have one of those, so it remains to
>>>> be seen how much effect being very late to market will have.

>>> I wouldn't consider Apple to be "very late" to this market.

>> More fool you. High end phones with all sorts of extra capability
>> have been around for a hell of a long time now, years, literally.

>>> True, some other devices that combine these capabilities
>>> have existed for some years. But the market for them has
>>> never really taken off and gone mainstream.

>> Yes, and it wont now, you watch.

>> Most want a much cheaper phone that combines phone,
>> media player, camera etc capability.

> It might take a couple of years and a couple of
> price cuts. It did for the iPod. But it will happen.

I doubt it with market penetration, essentially because a phone
is much more locked to the telco than a media player ever is
and most care about what their phone plan is costing them, it aint
just the sticker price on the hardware that matters with phones.

> The iPhone probably won't end up quite as dominant as the iPod,

Nothing like it in fact, if only because so many want a dirt cheap phone instead.

The phone market is VERY different to the media player market.

> because its attachment to a single network (at least
> in the US) will cause some people to look elsewhere,

And because even if the network is acceptible, the calls plan may not be.

> but it's going to be a major factor.

I doubt it, if only because its so late to market. Everyone who wants a high end
phone already has one and its unlikely to be their first high end phone either.

>> And those who want to be able to do email etc mostly
>> want a real keyboard, not a touchscreen one too.

> Doubt it.

Have a look at the high end phones.

> Remember, this is a smart phone primarily for the iPod demographic,

If thats so, they're ****ed because so many already
have a phone and media player and camera combined.

Very late to market with theirs again.

> not for business types who mostly use the device for e-mail.

Sure, its not going to appeal to too many of those, just because it has no keyboard.

> And it's not clear to me that the on-screen keyboard doesn't work
> just as well as a physical keyboard. If you mash a couple of adjacent
> keys on a physical keyboard, it has no idea which one you were
> trying to hit. If you do the same on touch-screen keyboard, it can
> probably figure out where the center of your finger was and recover.

That doesnt really happen enough to matter much.

The problem is more that the screen is filled with the
touchscreen keyboard on those tiny screens and so you
cant read the email you are replying too at the same time.

Doesnt matter with a GPS where you are only entering a street
and town name and you get to select from a list once you have
typed a couple of letters, but email cant be done like that.

> Plus there's the auto correction feature.

Sure.

> Plus, with an on-screen input device, you can customize things
> for every app. For instance, the on-screen keyboard that comes
> up when you type in the URL field of Safari actually has a single
> key you get hit to insert ".com".

Sure, it would be fine for browsing, just not for emails.

And anyone with a clue uses favourites with browsing anyway and
a touchscreen does those even better than a physical keyboard.

>>> Apple introduced the iPod into a market that was in a similar state.

>> Nope, nothing like it. You dont need much controls wise for a media
>> player and the ipod design is rather elegant and well done in that regard.

> And the iPhone has just about the best designed UI I've ever
> seen on an actual product that's actually available to the public.

Sure, but it remains to be seen what they have done about back in the computer.
If its anything like the iPod there, its pretty primitive back in the computer.

> Even most unlikely concept product UI demos one sees don't look as good.

My main reservation is with the the two finger approach,
cant see that being too viable in a phone where you mostly
hold it in one hand and use the other on the screen.

Maybe you wont do the two finger stuff enough to matter tho.

>> And virtually everyone didnt already have a media player at
>> the time that the ipod showed up. Virtually everyone already
>> has a cellphone now and most of those already have a media
>> player now too if they use one much. Hordes of them have a
>> media player/phone/camera combined already.

> However, most of those people don't use the media player
> functions of their phones, because they use iPods instead.

That is just plain wrong when their phone has a media player.

> The market has shown that it greatly values iPods over other media players.

Yes, but its different when the phone is also a media player as most are now.

> I would expect it would greatly value an iPod phone over
> other media player phones, for all the same reasons.

Maybe, but the problem Apple has is that they already have those media player
phones because Apple is so late to market with theirs and its locked to AT&T too.

> Plus, people replace their phone and media player every couple of years anyway.

Sure, thats certainly one thing in Apple's favour, but you dont see
too many change platform completely. Thats what ****ed the Mac.

> And the iPhone isn't all that expensive compared
> with the cost of an iPod + a phone.

Thats not a valid comparison, you should be comparing it with other media player phones.

> (If you restrict your choice of phone to one of the
> few others with a decent web browser, anyway.)

There's plenty with that capability now, with media player and camera and often GPS as well.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote:

> ZnU <[email protected]> wrote

> > It might take a couple of years and a couple of
> > price cuts. It did for the iPod. But it will happen.
>
> I doubt it with market penetration, essentially because a phone
> is much more locked to the telco than a media player ever is
> and most care about what their phone plan is costing them, it aint
> just the sticker price on the hardware that matters with phones.

The major carriers in the US are all fairly competitive on price. AT&T
isn't at a particular disadvantage there.

[snip]

> >> And those who want to be able to do email etc mostly
> >> want a real keyboard, not a touchscreen one too.
>
> > Doubt it.
>
> Have a look at the high end phones.

Um. Well, yes, if you assume that people want what existing phones
offer, and not what the iPhone offers, then of course the iPhone won't
amount to much. But since the issue we're discussing is, basically,
whether people want the iPhone, assuming at the start that they don't
isn't a valid thing to do.

[snip]

> Doesnt matter with a GPS where you are only entering a street
> and town name and you get to select from a list once you have
> typed a couple of letters, but email cant be done like that.

OK, but unlike for the Blackberry, e-mail is not the "killer app" for
the iPhone. The media player function is, and to a lesser extent
probably the mapping and web browsing functions. Not to mention just the
slick all-around UI, for everything from SMS to contact management to
conference calling. All of these benefit from the fact that almost the
entire face of the device is covered with a screen, instead of half of
if being taken up by a physical keyboard.

[snip]

> > Even most unlikely concept product UI demos one sees don't look as good.
>
> My main reservation is with the the two finger approach,
> cant see that being too viable in a phone where you mostly
> hold it in one hand and use the other on the screen.
>
> Maybe you wont do the two finger stuff enough to matter tho.

The two-finger stuff is mostly used for resizing images and such, using
a pinching motion with the thumb and index finger of the same had. So,
it's fine one-handed.

> >> And virtually everyone didnt already have a media player at
> >> the time that the ipod showed up. Virtually everyone already
> >> has a cellphone now and most of those already have a media
> >> player now too if they use one much. Hordes of them have a
> >> media player/phone/camera combined already.
>
> > However, most of those people don't use the media player
> > functions of their phones, because they use iPods instead.
>
> That is just plain wrong when their phone has a media player.

Not in my experience, it's not. Many phones sold these days have a music
player function. Most users don't even know their phone has it. And even
if they did, they wouldn't want to use a media player that didn't sync
with iTunes automatically, since that's where they probably have their
music.

[snip]

> > Plus, people replace their phone and media player every couple of years
> > anyway.
>
> Sure, thats certainly one thing in Apple's favour, but you dont see
> too many change platform completely. Thats what ****ed the Mac.

Most people don't really think of mobile phones as "platforms", though.
Switching from a Motorola phone (or whatever) to an iPhone isn't nearly
like switching from Windows to the Mac. The vast majority of users have
no third-party applications at all and no data beyond contact
information and photos, all of which can be ported over (well, if their
current phone can sync it to a computer at all).

> > And the iPhone isn't all that expensive compared
> > with the cost of an iPod + a phone.
>
> Thats not a valid comparison, you should be comparing it with other media
> player phones.

The market has clearly expressed that "media player" does not equal
"iPod".

I suppose we could compare it to all the other iPod phones. After Apple
makes more models. <g>

[snip]

--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006