Apple cuts back production (iPhone)

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

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

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

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

---

› See More: Apple cuts back production (iPhone)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



--

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

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

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

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

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


> Easier to dial than on my Treo.

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


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


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

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

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


--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


--
Mike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


--

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


--
Mike

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"

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.