iPhone in the UK is a major disaster, *official*, suck my cock,Apple!

[email protected] wrote:

> 26,000 activations -
> hahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahaha

I certainly wouldn't mind raking in 26,000 * £899 in the space of a
fortnight.

---

› See More: iPhone in the UK is a major disaster, *official*, suck my cock,Apple!

[email protected]am declared for all the world to hear...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > 26,000 activations -
> > hahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahaha
>
> I certainly wouldn't mind raking in 26,000 * £899 in the space of a
> fortnight.

It's a very poor sales number for such a highly touted device. Interest
will now tail off.
--
Regards
Jon

Jon wrote:
> [email protected]am declared for all the world to hear...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> 26,000 activations -
>>> hahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahaha
>> I certainly wouldn't mind raking in 26,000 * £899 in the space of a
>> fortnight.
>
> It's a very poor sales number for such a highly touted device. Interest
> will now tail off.

Either that, or it will take off when they knock £200 off the price like
they did in the States. If I had any wish to own an iPhone, I certainly
wouldn't have bought it this early.

"Calum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jon wrote:
>> [email protected]am declared for all the world to hear...
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> 26,000 activations -
>>>> hahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahaha
>>> I certainly wouldn't mind raking in 26,000 * £899 in the space of a
>>> fortnight.
>>
>> It's a very poor sales number for such a highly touted device. Interest
>> will now tail off.
>
> Either that, or it will take off when they knock £200 off the price like
> they did in the States. If I had any wish to own an iPhone, I certainly
> wouldn't have bought it this early.


It is the HP35 effect.

Hewlett Packard introduced the HP 35 pocket calculator in 1972. It replaced
the HP 9100A desktop calculator that cost $$$$.

Initially it was £600, but fell to £200 within 18 months. It had good
accuracy, full scientific functions, LED display and reasonable battery
life, but to put it into perspective cost about half the annual grant for a
physics undergraduate at the time (so I didn't buy one)..

Nowadays you can buy one with greater accuracy, looong battery life, more
functions (including hex, stats etc.) in the pound shop.

Similarly the first true pocket phones (Technofone Mk1) cost £2,000 + VAT
from Excel in 1986, and I did buy one. These days you can get a SIM free
mobile phone with similar basic+ functionality for ~£20.

Why Apple thinks it hype the market with an underspec, overweight, over
priced and locked phone when there are plenty that are better, cheaper and
less restricted on the market beggars belief. Hopefully once they have sold
up in their captive and fan based market it will literally beggar them.
Apple were getting punished in the PC market until they came up with the
iPod, which did have a slight edge until all the MP3 players caught up, why
they think they can capture a mass market with an inferior and more
expensive product is a mystery.

"R. Mark Clayton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Calum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Jon wrote:
>>> [email protected]am declared for all the world to hear...
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 26,000 activations -
>>>>> hahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahaha
>>>> I certainly wouldn't mind raking in 26,000 * £899 in the space of a
>>>> fortnight.
>>>
>>> It's a very poor sales number for such a highly touted device. Interest
>>> will now tail off.
>>
>> Either that, or it will take off when they knock £200 off the price like
>> they did in the States. If I had any wish to own an iPhone, I certainly
>> wouldn't have bought it this early.
>
>
> It is the HP35 effect.
>
> Hewlett Packard introduced the HP 35 pocket calculator in 1972. It
> replaced the HP 9100A desktop calculator that cost $$$$.
>
> Initially it was £600, but fell to £200 within 18 months. It had good
> accuracy, full scientific functions, LED display and reasonable battery
> life, but to put it into perspective cost about half the annual grant for
> a physics undergraduate at the time (so I didn't buy one)..
>
> Nowadays you can buy one with greater accuracy, looong battery life, more
> functions (including hex, stats etc.) in the pound shop.
>
> Similarly the first true pocket phones (Technofone Mk1) cost £2,000 + VAT
> from Excel in 1986, and I did buy one. These days you can get a SIM free
> mobile phone with similar basic+ functionality for ~£20.
>
> Why Apple thinks it hype the market with an underspec, overweight, over
> priced and locked phone when there are plenty that are better, cheaper and
> less restricted on the market beggars belief. Hopefully once they have
> sold up in their captive and fan based market it will literally beggar
> them. Apple were getting punished in the PC market until they came up with
> the iPod, which did have a slight edge until all the MP3 players caught
> up, why they think they can capture a mass market with an inferior and
> more expensive product is a mystery.
>

with style...........other mobile phones HAVE become boring.

well done Apple for sticking your neck out.

"Richard Tobin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> R. Mark Clayton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Why Apple thinks it hype the market with an underspec, overweight, over
>>priced and locked phone when there are plenty that are better, cheaper and
>>less restricted on the market beggars belief.
>
> I think it's because they have a
>
>>captive and fan based market
>
> They do seem to be pushing it a bit too far even for the fans
> recently: viz the rebate for US iPhone purchasers after the outrage
> when they cut the price.
>

But it wasn't a rebate, it was just a $100 voucher and with limitations.


> -- Richard
> --
> "Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
> in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

"Fergus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "R. Mark Clayton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Calum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Jon wrote:
>>>> [email protected]am declared for all the world to hear...
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 26,000 activations -
>>>>>> hahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahaha
>>>>> I certainly wouldn't mind raking in 26,000 * £899 in the space of a
>>>>> fortnight.
>>>>
>>>> It's a very poor sales number for such a highly touted device. Interest
>>>> will now tail off.
>>>
>>> Either that, or it will take off when they knock £200 off the price like
>>> they did in the States. If I had any wish to own an iPhone, I certainly
>>> wouldn't have bought it this early.
>>
>>
>> It is the HP35 effect.
>>
>> Hewlett Packard introduced the HP 35 pocket calculator in 1972. It
>> replaced the HP 9100A desktop calculator that cost $$$$.
>>
>> Initially it was £600, but fell to £200 within 18 months. It had good
>> accuracy, full scientific functions, LED display and reasonable battery
>> life, but to put it into perspective cost about half the annual grant for
>> a physics undergraduate at the time (so I didn't buy one)..
>>
>> Nowadays you can buy one with greater accuracy, looong battery life, more
>> functions (including hex, stats etc.) in the pound shop.
>>
>> Similarly the first true pocket phones (Technofone Mk1) cost £2,000 + VAT
>> from Excel in 1986, and I did buy one. These days you can get a SIM free
>> mobile phone with similar basic+ functionality for ~£20.
>>
>> Why Apple thinks it hype the market with an underspec, overweight, over
>> priced and locked phone when there are plenty that are better, cheaper
>> and less restricted on the market beggars belief. Hopefully once they
>> have sold up in their captive and fan based market it will literally
>> beggar them. Apple were getting punished in the PC market until they came
>> up with the iPod, which did have a slight edge until all the MP3 players
>> caught up, why they think they can capture a mass market with an inferior
>> and more expensive product is a mystery.
>>
>
> with style...........other mobile phones HAVE become boring.
>
> well done Apple for sticking your neck out.

And there was a massive gap in the market for someone to bring out a phone
with a good intuitive interface. You may not agree that Apple have hit the
target but surely anyone would agree that virtually all current mobile
phones have ridiculously bad UIs, even for achieving simple things.

Apple is also exploiting the power of the brand, just as Gucci does when it
sells a women's handbag for £750.

Sarah Brown <[email protected]_uce_please.com> wrote:

> Agreed, and the iPhone should up the game. My own view is that what
> Apple have done, however, is brought out a good intuitive interface
> with a phone, rather than the other way round, so there's a choice -
> decent phone, clunky interface, or decent interface, feature-poor
> phone.

For most phone users, the interface is the only thing that really
counts. The bells and whistles are secondary. I say 'most users', but of
course there are some for whom the bells and whistles really count. They
won't get an iPhone. More important right now is the price. I reckon
Apple wre going to have to learn more about the market, but I'm sure
they will.

And who knows, maybe they're right? In which case they clean up.
Otherwise, they learn.
--
Peter

>
> For most phone users, the interface is the only thing that really
> counts. The bells and whistles are secondary. I say 'most users', but of
> course there are some for whom the bells and whistles really count. They
> won't get an iPhone. More important right now is the price. I reckon
> Apple wre going to have to learn more about the market, but I'm sure
> they will.

MMS included in 'Bells & Whistles' ??? These are *basic* features that
nearly all phones (even bottom of the range) have.
Also, how many times do you see people meeting in the street, with something
they'd like to share on their phone. -
"Hang on, switch you're bluetooth on, and I'll send it to you.... Oh,
sorry..... I can't. I have an iPhone......."

I cannot *believe* such BASIC features are not on the iPhone......

In message <[email protected]>
Sarah Brown <[email protected]_uce_please.com> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> MichaelJP <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > And there was a massive gap in the market for someone to bring out a
> > phone with a good intuitive interface.
>
> Agreed, and the iPhone should up the game. My own view is that what
> Apple have done, however, is brought out a good intuitive interface
> with a phone, rather than the other way round, so there's a choice -
> decent phone, clunky interface, or decent interface, feature-poor
> phone.

So, how good is the iPhone's UI for texting?

Dave

Dave Higton <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]
> So, how good is the iPhone's UI for texting?

I think it's excellent. I've now got used to the virtual keyboard and
the autocomplete feature and can send a text way faster than on any
phone I've owned. Only phones with real qwerty keyboards are faster for
me. The conversations appearing as they do in iChat is good too for the
way I use text messaging.

--
Andy.

Matthew Long <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]
> MMS included in 'Bells & Whistles' ??? These are *basic* features that
> nearly all phones (even bottom of the range) have.
> Also, how many times do you see people meeting in the street, with something
> they'd like to share on their phone. -
> "Hang on, switch you're bluetooth on, and I'll send it to you.... Oh,
> sorry..... I can't. I have an iPhone......."
>
> I cannot *believe* such BASIC features are not on the iPhone......

They may be considered basic features but they aren't features I use so
their exclusion is irrelevant to me.

--
Andy.

In article
> > > And there was a massive gap in the market for someone to bring out a
> > > phone with a good intuitive interface.
> >
> > Agreed, and the iPhone should up the game. My own view is that what
> > Apple have done, however, is brought out a good intuitive interface
> > with a phone, rather than the other way round, so there's a choice -
> > decent phone, clunky interface, or decent interface, feature-poor
> > phone.
>
> So, how good is the iPhone's UI for texting?
>
> Dave

I think the predictive texting is far and away the best I have ever used
on a phone. You can be very imprecise and type almost every letter wrong
on some words and it still works out what you were trying to say.

The supposed back to back tests of the keyboard compared to other phones
in the US recently were crap as they just had the users entering random
letters and not proper words. Had it been real sentences then the iPhone
would have won easily.

Andy Fraser <[email protected]> wrote:

> Matthew Long <[email protected]> wrote:

> > I cannot *believe* such BASIC features are not on the iPhone......
>
> They may be considered basic features but they aren't features I use so
> their exclusion is irrelevant to me.

I suspect more users are like Andy than are like Matthew. Whereas
*everybody* uses the whizzy UI.
--
Peter

Peter Ceresole <[email protected]>:
> Andy Fraser <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Matthew Long <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > I cannot *believe* such BASIC features are not on the iPhone......
>>
>> They may be considered basic features but they aren't features I use so
>> their exclusion is irrelevant to me.
>
> I suspect more users are like Andy than are like Matthew. Whereas
> *everybody* uses the whizzy UI.

I agree. The UI is the best and most important thing about the iPhone.

I have used Bluetooth all of once to receive a file from another mobile.
I think this sort of thing is quite common amongst teenagers (it was, in
fact, a teenager who sent me the file by Bluetooth).

b.

--
<[email protected]> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`Nam et Hannibalis apud Romanos iam ante Sangunti excidium celeberrimum
nomen erat, et Scipionem Hannibal eo ipso quod adversus se dux potissimum
lectus esset praestantem virum credebat.' -- Titus Livius, _Ab Urbe Condita_