Originally Posted by Korean_Boi

lawl, why are you so against the iphone?

Just one distribution channel: Cingular.

Commitment to sell 20 million copies ... that's 20+% of Cingular's customers. Never happen.

Nothing new. Just eye candy.

Poor design: No removable battery, many product weaknesses.

This thing is gonna bomb.

lawl, why are you so against the iphone?

Originally Posted by Korean_Boi

lol wht harsh insight

Just one distribution channel: Cingular.

Commitment to sell 20 million copies ... that's 20+% of Cingular's customers. Never happen.

Nothing new. Just eye candy.

Poor design: No removable battery, many product weaknesses.

What part of any of that *****s any sort of recipee for success?

This thing is gonna bomb.

lol wht harsh insight

i just think iphone wont be a popular seller.

i bet you guys are forgetting the original iphone

the rokr e1
i think the iphone will unravel like the rokr did, comes out with a blast

so expensive!! aaaah! im not buying it :]
next thing ya kno
CLEARANCE PRICE
FREEwith two year commitment

Originally Posted by Korean_Boi

apple on the other hand...

You're right KB. This iPhone is simply old technology dressed up in a new package. Nothing revolutionary here. Plus the business model stinks. They have one sales channel - Cingulbar - and they think they are going to sell 20 million phones to Cingulbar customers. That's totally kooky.

Jobs will probably get fired later this year over his poor management in rolling this mess out.

Originally Posted by AppleiPhones

I beg to differ - Apple is an "experience manufacturer" and you can bet the experience they will bring to the market of making calls on a cellular device will outshine the other players.

That's just BS. If you want to be an Cult of Apple KoolAid drinker, that's fine but you aren't entitled to make things up. Apple in no way has any experience manufacturing cell phones.

The reasons Apple will fail on this iPhone mess have been detailed. Your only response is to offer rah-rah rather than facts and cogent arguments. That is not post content worth reading.

i think SE has the walkman covered

apple should stick with ipods, it's a proven model which everyone likes, but they still suck, cz their warranty lasts a year for 250 dollar piece of electronic and itunes messes up all the time, and my ipod freezes up frequently too.maybe macs, i have a mac mini in my car, but still. i mean cmon.. they make u pay 60 bux their protection program... my craftsman torque wrench has lifetime on it... i paid 20 bux for it... keep it in my car all the time never let me down...

apple on the other hand...

well this link can explain it
Fs/ft:ipod W/ Issues - PbNation

theres my $.02 on the iphone...

Originally Posted by wirelessfan

Motorola is a phone manufacturer, not a computer or a software company.

Apple is a computer and a software company, not a phone manfacturer

I beg to differ - Apple is an "experience manufacturer" and you can bet the experience they will bring to the market of making calls on a cellular device will outshine the other players.

Originally Posted by ats5053

the iphone may be lacking features that qualify it as a smartphone, but it's hardly a second-rate cell phone. especially considering companies like motorola, with much experience in the cell phone industry, still think it acceptable to release phones like the razr with seriously outdated OS software.

Motorola is a phone manufacturer, not a computer or a software company.

Apple is a computer and a software company, not a phone manfacturer.

It may be understandable that a phone manufacturer doesn't get the software angle as effectively as they should, even if they make good phones.

It is not understandable that a computer and software company can't get the software angle right in combination with the reality that they also can't get the phone design right either.

In other words, Motorola may have it 1/2 right and 1/2 wrong; but, Apple looks like they get it 100 percent wrong ... not the right technology and not the right form factor.

even if the iphone is not technically a smartphone, i disagree with mr. carlaw. i spent $300 on my last cell phone and just short of $200 on my ipod nano. the smaller iphone still has a larger hard drive than my nano, and the iphone, even without full support for third party software, is still much more functional than my current cell. i would easily pay $500 to consolidate phone, wifi internet browsing, and portable mp3 player in one sleek device.

secondly, in one paragraph, the phone is reviewed by mr. solis as a "very high-end feature phone" and in the last paragraph reviewed by carlaw as a "second-rate cell phone". the iphone may be lacking features that qualify it as a smartphone, but it's hardly a second-rate cell phone. especially considering companies like motorola, with much experience in the cell phone industry, still think it acceptable to release phones like the razr with seriously outdated OS software.

i think the iphone is far from a POS, while i agree it may be unreasonable to call it a smartphone without full support for third party software.

From Cellular News ... The iPhone is No Smartphone - Report

The iPhone is No Smartphone - Report

Apple's iPhone was the talk of the town after its January 9 launch. Industry observers were by and large impressed with the new device, praising its user interface, innovation, and seamless integration. But two senior ABI Research analysts -- wireless research director Stuart Carlaw, and principal mobile broadband analyst Philip Solis -- point out that while the iPhone is undoubtedly clever and capable, it is not correct to call it a smartphone, as much of the media has done.

ABI Research defines a smartphone as a cellular handset using an open, commercial operating system that supports third party applications. The iPhone runs the Apple Macintosh computer operating system, OS X, so at first glance it would seem to fall into the smartphone category, which might help justify its announced $500+ pricetag. But, says Solis, "It turns out that this device will be closed to third party applications. Therefore we must conclude at this point that, based on our current definition, the iPhone is not a smartphone: it is a very high-end feature phone."

Feature phones' functionality (dictated by the software which controls the hardware) is closed and controlled by an operator or the device manufacturer, whereas smartphones are supported by a third-party ecosystem, where competition in the software space creates applications that add value. "Sure," concedes Solis, "feature phones have third party applications too - but these are relatively weak and limited applications that work with the middleware such as Java and BREW. Applications designed for smartphones can be written to access core functionality from the OS itself, and are therefore usually more powerful and efficient. The competition in an open environment also yields more cutting edge, rich applications."

Stuart Carlaw adds, "Consumers will not be willing to settle for a second-rate cell phone just to have superior music. Apple must get the phone engineering part of the equation right, and it is difficult to see how they will accomplish that with no track record in the industry. Even though they are working with some prominent suppliers, the task of putting all of the building blocks together cannot be underestimated."