On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:46:17 +0100, "Gareth"
<hotmail.com@dgareth_nospam.com> wrote:

>> So... just by not having to pay for one of the bolt ons one saves £135
>> over the term of the contract, or £7.50/mo.
>
>Nope, if you select a £35 a month online tariff you have the option to
>change the included bolt on (02 to 02 calls) for one of your choice.

The same as with the link I posted then?

>> Therefore the 'value' of o2's iPhone contract is in line with the
>> standard o2 tariff of similar spec, but the iPhone one has more
>> included.
>>
>> [1] Source:
>> http://www.o2.co.uk/mobilestariffs/t...monthlytariffs
>>
>> [2] Source: http://www.o2.co.uk/iphone/paymonthly
>
>Really? Despite the fact that the £35 a month tariff includes 600 minutes
>plus *1000* texts for non iPhone customers.

So... go into an o2 store, buy an iPhone 3G on the £35/mo tariff and
then buy another phone on a £35/mo tariff. No contest, the iPhone is
cheaper over the duration of the contract, even if the handset you
chose on the comparable tariff is free and the iPhone is £99.

>>>Once you add the (unnecessary) wi-fi add on to the cost of a mainstream O2
>>>plan it looks as if the iPhone plan isn't such good value for money
>>
>> Can you please clarify why unlmimited use of Cloud hotspots is
>> unnecessary? How else are you going to get unlimited Cloud access for
>> free?
>
>It isn't for free - clue: you're paying for it in the cost of the contract.
>The other point is - what if you don't want to or need to use Cloud.

Then you don't need to use it, it still costs the same as a standard
£35/mo non-iPhone tariff.

>>>...- the
>>>relative lack of minutes and texts offsets the advantage of the included
>>>data use.
>>
>> Rubbish, "relative lack of minutes and texts" the standard £35/mo o2
>> tariff (linked at source [1] above) provides the exact same number of
>> minutes as the £35 iPhone tariff (linked at source [2] above).
>
>Already dealt with that one.

No, you didn't.

>> It's the
>> same price as the normal o2 tariffs and includes the same amount
>
>Oh no it's not (can't be bothered with the markup).

Let me know which tariff in source 1 to compare to source 2 then. The
iPhone tariff is better value for money for what one gets in the
package.

>> - so
>> what's it pretty poor value for money in comparison to? A mirror
>> image tariff by the same network both priced at exactly the same price
>> with exactly the same number of inclusive minutes and texts?
>>
>>>...It's a bit
>>>odd though that there's no flexibility built in to the iPhone plan to
>>>remove
>>>wi-fi access and add more minutes or texts instead.
>>
>> Is this an option in standard o2 tariffs then?
>
>Yes - those £35 or over.

Nokia n95 on £35 tariff with web bolt on (and no Cloud) = £35/mo +
£149.99 for phone. So £35 x 18 + £149.99 = £779.99 whereas iPhone 3G
(with Cloud) = £35 x 18 + £99 = £729 so the iPhone is still cheaper.

>>>The quality of the iPhone puts me off (build quality and hardware specs)
>>>and
>>>the way that the phone is locked down to a particular network via a
>>>corporate slickness that would (almost) put M$ to shame isn't good either.
>>
>> What's your issue with build quality?
>
>It's ****.

<taps iPhone 3G on desk> Seems to work for me, what's your exact
problem with the build quality or is it just a personal opinion?

><snipped>
>
>> I don't know if you've got an n95 or not but the camera is FAR from
>> perfect. Here's a shot I took in Germany last year using my n95:
>>
>> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/hayn0r/1763236974/sizes/o/in/set-72157602725112655/>
>> <-- That image has *not* been recompressed or altered in any way -
>> that's the original. That really is bad quality, isn't it, even
>> though that photo was taken on the highest quality settings.
>
>It's crap but what do you expect when you ask a camera phone lens to take a
>valley panorama shot in poor light?!

POOR LIGHT? Fair enough, I don't have a degree in Photography, but I
do have a GCSE in it, but even I can see that there is NOT poor light
in that photo.

The photo from the n95 is overly smooth with excessive sharpening
going on. You can even see the over-sharpening going on with the
1024x768 version of that photo...

>> Now here's a random photo I took with my old Olympus c5000Z in 2004,
>> which is also five megapixels:
>>
>> <http://flickr.com/photos/hayn0r/2749006417/sizes/o/> <-- Look at the
>> detail. Same megapixels, but the image returned from the n95 is far,
>> far inferior.
>
>Actually it isn't - the same issues are apparent: lack of focus on the
>horizon being a main one (the Olympus is also using very aggressive noise
>reduction in the foreground).

....Whereas the 1024x768 version of the c5000Z photo has far more
detail visible in it, noise reduction or not.

>> The n95 might well say "five megapixels" on the side, it might save at
>> the same resolution, but the quality is utter **** compared to an old
>> 5mp camera bought in 2004, is it not?
>
>I would expect a dedicated camera to be better - at least I should hope it
>is. The lens should be better. I have a 10 year old 1.6 megapixel camera
>that produces better valley pictures than the N95. My point was/is that the
>N95 will produce very good photos which, in most cases, are almost as good
>as a dedicated multi purpose camera (portrait shots are a strong point of
>the N95).

So you've stepped back from "It's even possible to use the N95 as a
replacement for a dedicated camera" then?

>Your German valley shot would cause most sub £700 SLRs to struggle.

The photo wasn't meant to show that the n95 was going to struggle, it
was a representation of the overall fuzzy image quality.

>>>...third party apps and browsing functionality are concerned. It's even
>>>possible to use the N95 as a replacement for a dedicated camera - the
>>>quality isn't too far off and most people wouldn't notice the difference.
>>
>> Well, there are squillions of apps in the appstore...
>
>Yes, in the bloody Apple Store - but not in many other places.

So it's bad that Apple have put it all in one place and made it easily
searchable and a huge number of apps are free and Apple don't charge
the publisher a penny to give their software away for free.

>> 153 books, 43 business tools, 49 educational tools, 139 entertainment
>> tools, 49 finance apps, 406 games, 66 health & fitness apps, 51
>> lifestyle apps, 47 music apps, 39 navigational tools, 21 news apps, 29
>> photography related programs, 97 productivity tools, 51 reference
>> tools, 34 social networking apps, 33 sports related, 51 travel, 164
>> utilities and 7 weather apps this hour in the appstore. Which exact
>> tool isn't available on the iPhone that you require, either paid for
>> or free?
>
>Homebrew or third party apps able to use the GPS hardware?

Yup. Even the Google search 3rd party app (free through AppStore)
uses it as do a number of other free apps. GPS code was included in
the SDK.

>> Nokia's "Download!" utility was okay, if a bit clunky, but didn't
>> feature that amount of content. And if I did download something from
>> AllAboutSymbian and went through the process of trying to feed it to
>> my n95 then most of the time the SIS file would say it had expired.
>> However, I do know that all of the Apps listed above in the AppStore
>> will actually work on my iPhone and if I upgrade to another one, or
>> switch to an iPod Touch then I'm not going to have to buy them again
>> like Nokia wanted everyone to do with their game offerings.
>
>Wow, buy the iPhone and emerge from the chrysalis of corporate spin as an
>Apple fanboy. Some Apple fans would buy an MP3 of Steve Jobs farting. Maybe
>that's a bit unfair - it would have to be for sale on iTunes as well.

So you're not going to address any of the good points I raised in that
paragraph then?
--
-- Nick ICQ: 9235201 EMAIL & MSN: [email protected]
-- Triumph Tiger 955i -- http://www.bgn.me.uk -- Touch -
-- LOTR#4 SKOGA#8 DS#7 BOTAFOT#159 BOTM#2 FBOTY#06 PM#11


› See More: iPhone on PAYG