Mitch <[email protected]> wrote in news:081220071653052205%[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>, Tinman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> CozmicDebris wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm currently running my phone with a 32 gig
>> > micro card.
>> >
>>
>> I call bull**** on this.
>>
>
> Jeez, no kidding.
> A microSD card at 32 GB? And it just happens that 'cozmic' uses this
> item, which conveniently supports a (bizarrely inappropriate) claim?
>

Except if you read further, I'm not- the phone supports 32 gig, the card
currently in the phone is only 8. I misspoke and corrected it almost
immediately.

In article <[email protected]>, Tinman <[email protected]>
wrote:

> CozmicDebris wrote:
> >
> > I'm currently running my phone with a 32 gig
> > micro card.
> >
>
> I call bull**** on this.
>

Jeez, no kidding.
A microSD card at 32 GB? And it just happens that 'cozmic' uses this
item, which conveniently supports a (bizarrely inappropriate) claim?

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in news:5v01j.82$mk6.60
@fe089.usenetserver.com:

> At 21 Nov 2007 13:19:41 -0600 CozmicDebris wrote:
>
>> But if I were an iPhone owner and had 3G speeds, I wouldn't need the
>> data card. I'd save money.
>
> Somehow, I assume neither AT&T nor Apple have placed "saving their
> customers money" at the top of their To-Do list! ;-)

No argument here. But I think the days of the "blind sheep" cellular
consumer are coming to an end. For a while, the technology and industry
advanced faster than most consumers could keep up with. With it now being
a mature market, consumers are much more discriminating and more
knowledgeable about services available.

>
>
>> I deal with a number of large attachments on any given day, so the
>> ability to pull them down quickly becomes an issue. Going on a snipe
>> hunt for wifi just doesn't make sense. In addition, I do sometimes
>> participate in internet conferences while commuting. EDGE doesn't
> handle
>> these real well.
>
>
> Fair enough...
>
>
>> I see it as Apple trying to tell people what they need without
>> having a clue about the true contents of the list.
>
> That's a hard point to argue with! I think they've developed a certain
> hubris from their success with the iPod- look how long it took for them
> to add video playback to the Nano, despite the numerous number of
> competitors products already offering it in that form-factor.
>
>
>

And it has been their downfall before- man yApple products have met with a
quick death because of that attitude that they know what's best for the
public.

At 21 Nov 2007 13:19:41 -0600 CozmicDebris wrote:

> But if I were an iPhone owner and had 3G speeds, I wouldn't need the
> data card. I'd save money.

Somehow, I assume neither AT&T nor Apple have placed "saving their
customers money" at the top of their To-Do list! ;-)


> I deal with a number of large attachments on any given day, so the
> ability to pull them down quickly becomes an issue. Going on a snipe
> hunt for wifi just doesn't make sense. In addition, I do sometimes
> participate in internet conferences while commuting. EDGE doesn't
handle
> these real well.


Fair enough...


> I see it as Apple trying to tell people what they need without
> having a clue about the true contents of the list.

That's a hard point to argue with! I think they've developed a certain
hubris from their success with the iPod- look how long it took for them
to add video playback to the Nano, despite the numerous number of
competitors products already offering it in that form-factor.

At 21 Nov 2007 14:09:33 -0500 Don Udel (ETC) wrote:

> Except that Cozmic can swap cards or use bigger cards when they become
> available. Of course Oxy likely swaps memory like he swaps
batteries ;-)

VERY funny! ;-)
On the swapping front, while that's certainly possible, I haven't done it
much since getting a one-slot device. I have too many system files (IE
cache, mail attachments, etc.) and programs intalled to make swapping
cards easy. It's more like trying to hotswap your C: drive!

Back in days of dual-slot devices, I could keep one card in permanently,
and swap out the second for maps, music, videos, etc.

I still like removable cards of course- it's far faster and easier to
swap out a few 200MB movies for a trip via card reader than by USB-cable
or BT connection to the device!

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in news:bM_0j.173
[email protected]:

> At 21 Nov 2007 10:37:22 -0600 CozmicDebris wrote:
>
>> I screwed up- the phone is capable of reading to 32 gig. It's an 8
gig
>> card.
>
> Same as an iPhone... ;-)
>
>
>> I'm more apt to do whatever it is on my laptop with a data card-
>> it's convenient and doesn't require going on a wifi snipe hunt.
>
> See, it's working already- if you were an iPhone owner, AT&T'd be
> collecting the $20 for data and you wouldn't be using it! ;-)


But if I were an iPhone owner and had 3G speeds, I wouldn't need the
data card. I'd save money.



>
>
>> Searching for wifi is counterproductive. Being able to turn on your
>> phone and know that high speed data is available would eliminate the
>> data card and laptop option.
>
> Frankly, EDGE works fine for me on T-Mo- I don't find the lack of 3G a
> hardship. Currently if I need more speed and WiFi isn't available, I
> could always remote into my desktop and use it to do whatever I need.
> But it's not like I'm downloading XP Service Packs over the phone- my
> remote work uses mostly e-mail, and web-based data lookup and/or
entry,
> with the occasional ftp or remote terminal access, and remote play
> includes, well, THIS- I've made virtually every post from my Wizard
using
> the QMail client.

I deal with a number of large attachments on any given day, so the
ability to pull them down quickly becomes an issue. Going on a snipe
hunt for wifi just doesn't make sense. In addition, I do sometimes
participate in internet conferences while commuting. EDGE doesn't handle
these real well.

>
>
>
>> I have very good luck with my voice dialing- even on BT it rarely
>> presents the wrong number to dial, even in the car
>>
>
> In my experience it depends on the number of contacts stored- the
smaller
> the number, the less likely they have similar patterns- with 600 or so
on
> the phone, I occasionally get errors, especially between family
members
> or company branches, since part of the name matches.
>
>> If you have to force people to use functionality, what does it say
for
>> it's true usefullness?
>
> Again, I suspect it was done to standardize the "iPhone experience"-
> Visual Voicemail is so much a part of that concept, I suspect the
> decision was made to be sure all iPhones had dataplans.

I see it as Apple trying to tell people what they need without having a
clue about the true contents of the list.

>
>
>

At 21 Nov 2007 10:37:22 -0600 CozmicDebris wrote:

> I screwed up- the phone is capable of reading to 32 gig. It's an 8 gig
> card.

Same as an iPhone... ;-)


> I'm more apt to do whatever it is on my laptop with a data card-
> it's convenient and doesn't require going on a wifi snipe hunt.

See, it's working already- if you were an iPhone owner, AT&T'd be
collecting the $20 for data and you wouldn't be using it! ;-)


> Searching for wifi is counterproductive. Being able to turn on your
> phone and know that high speed data is available would eliminate the
> data card and laptop option.

Frankly, EDGE works fine for me on T-Mo- I don't find the lack of 3G a
hardship. Currently if I need more speed and WiFi isn't available, I
could always remote into my desktop and use it to do whatever I need.
But it's not like I'm downloading XP Service Packs over the phone- my
remote work uses mostly e-mail, and web-based data lookup and/or entry,
with the occasional ftp or remote terminal access, and remote play
includes, well, THIS- I've made virtually every post from my Wizard using
the QMail client.



> I have very good luck with my voice dialing- even on BT it rarely
> presents the wrong number to dial, even in the car
>

In my experience it depends on the number of contacts stored- the smaller
the number, the less likely they have similar patterns- with 600 or so on
the phone, I occasionally get errors, especially between family members
or company branches, since part of the name matches.

> If you have to force people to use functionality, what does it say for
> it's true usefullness?

Again, I suspect it was done to standardize the "iPhone experience"-
Visual Voicemail is so much a part of that concept, I suspect the
decision was made to be sure all iPhones had dataplans.

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> At 21 Nov 2007 09:08:41 -0600 CozmicDebris wrote:
>
>> GPS is found on the majority of US phones.
>
> No, E911-compliant A-GPS is. User-accessible satellite GPS (like the
> Nokia N95 or AT&T Tilt has) is a rarity. I didn't expect it have
> that, but I expected BT GPS support, at least.
>
>
>> User-expandable memory is
>> another shortcoming- I'm currently running my phone with a 32 gig
>> micro card.
>
> Wher on Earth did youfind a32GB microSD? I thought they weren't due
> out until next year? (For just a bit more than an entire iPhone
> costs!)


I screwed up- the phone is capable of reading to 32 gig. It's an 8 gig
card.

>
> My HTC Wizard doesn't support SDHC, so I'm using a 2GB quite
> comfortably (700MB still free.)
>
> The iPhone's 8GB is roomy enough for most people- my bigger beef with
> it's lack of memory slot is for quick-n-dirty file transfers. Card
> readers make it easier to schlep data on and off a phone.

Exactly.

>
>
>> But look at the real features that folks are looking for. I'll give
> you
>> the GPS piece, but whether I'm using the phone over EDGE ove over the
> high
>> speed connection, that would not affect the amount of data going
>> across
> the
>> network.
>
> Sort of- you'd be less like to download large files or do a lot of
> browsing at EDGE speed than at 3G. You'd also be more likely (or
> desperate!) to find a Hotspot for those uses if your cellular data was
> slow!

Nope- I'm more apt to do whatever it is on my laptop with a data card-
it's convenient and doesn't require going on a wifi snipe hunt.
Searching for wifi is counterproductive. Being able to turn on your
phone and know that high speed data is available would eliminate the
data card and laptop option.

>
>
>> Voice dialinbg and expandable memory would have no impact on the
>> network.
>
> True- Voice dialing was probably left off for it's "potential
> embarrassment" like the camcorder. Since the press hammered the
> Newton for it's good but not perfect handwriting recognition years
> ago, I suspect Apple tries to avoid any similar debacles. My phone,
> like most, is a lousy "camcorder"- Apple left the video recorder
> feature out, because, most likely, it sucked, like most phones. I'm
> guessing voice dial suffered the same fate. Voice dial works 90% of
> the time for me on my HTC- more in quiet places or if I yell at my
> phone like an idiot, less in a moving car (where I need it more!)

I have very good luck with my voice dialing- even on BT it rarely
presents the wrong number to dial, even in the car


>
> As far as a memory card slot goes, that's like BT OBEX- it's omission
> prevents trading songs!

No need for that- iTunes already does an effective job of preventing the
sharing.

>
>
>> But if the network has the capacity to move the data, why not give
>> the option to move up?
>
> We're talking about AT&T here... ;-)
>
> Again, I feel that giving optional levels of data plans would've
> naturally given customers the desire to also have "no thank you" as an
> option, and without a dataplan, Visual Voicemail- one of the
> "revolutions" of the iPhone goes AWOL. (Yeah, I know any phone can get
> it-
> I've used it myself since well before the iPhone release!)

If you have to force people to use functionality, what does it say for
it's true usefullness?

>
>> But AT&T really doesn't have the network to adequately provide
>> service
> for
>> a phone of this type.
>
> Fine, but like I said, once Verizon said no, what were the options?
> Go "unlocked" and you lose carrier feature and advertising support, go
> with Sprint or T-Mo, and you lose potential market share.
>
>> True 3G performance is limited geographically. This
>> phone screams to have even average functionality- it was rushed to
> market
>> and will ultimately pay for that.
>
>
> Only from those of us who expected more from it.


I simply expected it to live up to the corporate hype of being the most
technologically advanced device to ever hit a cell network. It falls
far short of that mark.

> AT&T has 60 million
> users who put up with that network everyday. (And I think it's
> perfectly adequate, but what do I know- I use T-Mo- any network seems
> robust to a T- Mo user!) Now those 60 million, most ofwhom use
> dumbphones can move up to an "iPod phone." It's a convergence device
> that instead of marrying a $300 PDA with a $99 phone, married an $300
> iPod with one. In that respect, it's a perfectly adequate phone. Not
> really a smartphont, but more of a "savant-phone." It just "coulda
> been a contenda..." Sad, really.
>
>
>
>

"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> CozmicDebris wrote:
>>
>> I'm currently running my phone with a 32 gig
>> micro card.
>>
>
> I call bull**** on this.
>
>

Yep- got to admit a mistake here- the phone's capable of reading 32 gig.
I'm using an 8 gig card right now.

I got a little ahead of myself.

At 21 Nov 2007 09:08:41 -0600 CozmicDebris wrote:

> GPS is found on the majority of US phones.

No, E911-compliant A-GPS is. User-accessible satellite GPS (like the
Nokia N95 or AT&T Tilt has) is a rarity. I didn't expect it have that,
but I expected BT GPS support, at least.


> User-expandable memory is
> another shortcoming- I'm currently running my phone with a 32 gig micro
> card.

Wher on Earth did youfind a32GB microSD? I thought they weren't due out
until next year? (For just a bit more than an entire iPhone costs!)

My HTC Wizard doesn't support SDHC, so I'm using a 2GB quite comfortably
(700MB still free.)

The iPhone's 8GB is roomy enough for most people- my bigger beef with
it's lack of memory slot is for quick-n-dirty file transfers. Card
readers make it easier to schlep data on and off a phone.


> But look at the real features that folks are looking for. I'll give
you
> the GPS piece, but whether I'm using the phone over EDGE ove over the
high
> speed connection, that would not affect the amount of data going across
the
> network.

Sort of- you'd be less like to download large files or do a lot of
browsing at EDGE speed than at 3G. You'd also be more likely (or
desperate!) to find a Hotspot for those uses if your cellular data was
slow!


> Voice dialinbg and expandable memory would have no impact on the
> network.

True- Voice dialing was probably left off for it's "potential
embarrassment" like the camcorder. Since the press hammered the Newton
for it's good but not perfect handwriting recognition years ago, I
suspect Apple tries to avoid any similar debacles. My phone, like most,
is a lousy "camcorder"- Apple left the video recorder feature out, because,
most likely, it sucked, like most phones. I'm guessing voice dial
suffered the same fate. Voice dial works 90% of the time for me on my
HTC- more in quiet places or if I yell at my phone like an idiot, less in
a moving car (where I need it more!)

As far as a memory card slot goes, that's like BT OBEX- it's omission
prevents trading songs!


> But if the network has the capacity to move the data, why not give the
> option to move up?

We're talking about AT&T here... ;-)

Again, I feel that giving optional levels of data plans would've
naturally given customers the desire to also have "no thank you" as an
option, and without a dataplan, Visual Voicemail- one of the
"revolutions" of the iPhone goes AWOL. (Yeah, I know any phone can get it-
I've used it myself since well before the iPhone release!)

> But AT&T really doesn't have the network to adequately provide service
for
> a phone of this type.

Fine, but like I said, once Verizon said no, what were the options? Go
"unlocked" and you lose carrier feature and advertising support, go with
Sprint or T-Mo, and you lose potential market share.

> True 3G performance is limited geographically. This
> phone screams to have even average functionality- it was rushed to
market
> and will ultimately pay for that.


Only from those of us who expected more from it. AT&T has 60 million
users who put up with that network everyday. (And I think it's perfectly
adequate, but what do I know- I use T-Mo- any network seems robust to a T-
Mo user!) Now those 60 million, most ofwhom use dumbphones can move up
to an "iPod phone." It's a convergence device that instead of marrying a
$300 PDA with a $99 phone, married an $300 iPod with one. In that respect,
it's a perfectly adequate phone. Not really a smartphont, but more of a
"savant-phone." It just "coulda been a contenda..." Sad, really.

CozmicDebris wrote:
> Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> At 20 Nov 2007 17:53:01 -0600 CozmicDebris wrote:
>
> GPS is found on the majority of US phones. User-expandable memory is
> another shortcoming- I'm currently running my phone with a 32 gig micro
> card.


Wow! I sure would like one of those. Is that a 32gb SDHC card?

Where'd you purchase yours and how much did they hit you for it?

CozmicDebris wrote:
>
> I'm currently running my phone with a 32 gig
> micro card.
>

I call bull**** on this.


--
Mike

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> At 20 Nov 2007 17:53:01 -0600 CozmicDebris wrote:
>
>
>> And other than the GUI, it offers nothing not available on other
> phones.
>
>
> True, but other than 3G, it doesn't really LACK any hardware found on
> other phones either. (Satellite GPS recivers are found on so few
> phones, I didn't count the lack of one as a minus.)

GPS is found on the majority of US phones. User-expandable memory is
another shortcoming- I'm currently running my phone with a 32 gig micro
card.

>
>> With the exception of the screen, nothing you mention above is unique
> to
>> the iPhone, and the other functions mentioned come with a ton more on
>> many phones on the market.
>
>
> True- again, I'm not saying the iPhone represented any leap of
> technology-
> just that it had, on paper, everything it needed to be a great
> smartphone- nice screen, lots of flash memory, WiFi and BT.
>
>
>> I do- they are so anal about touting the battery life that anything
>> requiring any decent amount of power is probably not going to be
> offered
>> or authorized for release. And anything found to be contraryto their
>> position will simply be crippled through a software update.
>
> I agree that's the reality- I just offered the alternate "what if"
> reality if Apple had allowed unfettered development.
>
>
>> Then shame on them for deciding to put out a phone with such limited
>> functionality.
>
> Amen. I'm on your side there!
>
>> > I think of it as a high-end phone crippled for marketing reasons.
>> >
>> Crippled for marketing reasons? Please expand on that.
>
> I'm not suggesting the missing features themselves are marketing
> advantages ("iPhone! Now with even slower data!"), but that certain
> marketing features _necessitated_ the crippling.
>
> My theory is that the crippling comes in three types- capitulating to
> AT&T, to the music industry, and to "ease of use."
>
> Disabling BT GPS and iTunes purchases over EDGE were to save data
> usage, negotiated away to AT&T in return for a nice cheap unlimited
> $19.99 data plan- between the "real web" browser, a decent e-mail
> client and Visual Voicemail (which is essentially just a push e-mail
> account) the iPhone would likely use more data than most phones
> allowed to use AT&T's $19 data plan. Google Maps eats A LOT of data
> when navigating, but not so much grabbing a set of static directions.
> So, IMO, getting the cheap data plan necessitated crippling any
> additional "data siphons" like live Google Maps navigation or iTunes
> downloads over EDGE.

But look at the real features that folks are looking for. I'll give you
the GPS piece, but whether I'm using the phone over EDGE ove over the high
speed connection, that would not affect the amount of data going across the
network. Voice dialinbg and expandable memory would have no impact on the
network.

>
> Lack of third-party development (to be replaced, IMO, by "limited" 3rd
> party development!) was a sacrifice to ease-of-use, and I assume lack
> of BT file transfer was a nod to the record companies- look at the MS
> Zune, for example- it's WiFi features are crippled to prevent sharing
> of non- DRM'd content, so I assume Apple's masters (the record
> industry) weren't happy with the idea of you beaming a CD you ripped
> yourself from your iPhone to mine, so non-iTunes initiated file
> transfers had to go. But, hey, if you want to market it as the "best
> iPod ever," you do what you have to!

All good and valid points.

>
>
>> There is no reason GPS, voice dialing, or high speed data would
>> present a problem to anyone. AT&T stands to generate much more
>> revenue through GPS apps and data price plans if the functionality is
>> there.
>
>
> But again, if my theory is correct, that $19 dataplan on a million
> iPhones was more important than a $40 PDA dataplan on a few. I think
> the "usual" $40 PDA plan would've been a significant barrier to sales
> if it'd been forced on all iPhone subscribers like the $19 plan is.
> Making multiple data tiers or making data optional complicates the
> marketing message of "easiest phone to activate ever."

But if the network has the capacity to move the data, why not give the
option to move up?

>
>> The only
>> one that stands to lose is Apple, as they don't receive a portion of
>> that incremental revenue stream.
>
> x% of everyone's $20, beats x% of a few $40s, some $20s and many $0s!
>
>
>> AT&T was desperate to find a differentiator and Apple was desperate
>> to find a carrier after being turned away by Verizon. This is
>> vintage early 90's marketing by Apple- jumping into something without
>> properly evaluating the downside.
>
>
> Nah, there's no downside to choosing AT&T as long as Verizon was
> determined not to bite- AT&T has 60 million customers, and the
> hardcore legion of Apple fans would switch to any carrier the phone
> required them to.
>

But AT&T really doesn't have the network to adequately provide service for
a phone of this type. True 3G performance is limited geographically. This
phone screams to have even average functionality- it was rushed to market
and will ultimately pay for that.

>
>
>

At 20 Nov 2007 17:53:01 -0600 CozmicDebris wrote:


> And other than the GUI, it offers nothing not available on other
phones.


True, but other than 3G, it doesn't really LACK any hardware found on
other phones either. (Satellite GPS recivers are found on so few phones,
I didn't count the lack of one as a minus.)

> With the exception of the screen, nothing you mention above is unique
to
> the iPhone, and the other functions mentioned come with a ton more on
> many phones on the market.


True- again, I'm not saying the iPhone represented any leap of technology-
just that it had, on paper, everything it needed to be a great
smartphone- nice screen, lots of flash memory, WiFi and BT.


> I do- they are so anal about touting the battery life that anything
> requiring any decent amount of power is probably not going to be
offered
> or authorized for release. And anything found to be contraryto their
> position will simply be crippled through a software update.

I agree that's the reality- I just offered the alternate "what if"
reality if Apple had allowed unfettered development.


> Then shame on them for deciding to put out a phone with such limited
> functionality.

Amen. I'm on your side there!

> > I think of it as a high-end phone crippled for marketing reasons.
> >
> Crippled for marketing reasons? Please expand on that.

I'm not suggesting the missing features themselves are marketing
advantages ("iPhone! Now with even slower data!"), but that certain
marketing features _necessitated_ the crippling.

My theory is that the crippling comes in three types- capitulating to AT&T,
to the music industry, and to "ease of use."

Disabling BT GPS and iTunes purchases over EDGE were to save data usage,
negotiated away to AT&T in return for a nice cheap unlimited $19.99 data
plan- between the "real web" browser, a decent e-mail client and Visual
Voicemail (which is essentially just a push e-mail account) the iPhone
would likely use more data than most phones allowed to use AT&T's $19
data plan. Google Maps eats A LOT of data when navigating, but not so
much grabbing a set of static directions. So, IMO, getting the cheap
data plan necessitated crippling any additional "data siphons" like live
Google Maps navigation or iTunes downloads over EDGE.

Lack of third-party development (to be replaced, IMO, by "limited" 3rd
party development!) was a sacrifice to ease-of-use, and I assume lack of
BT file transfer was a nod to the record companies- look at the MS Zune,
for example- it's WiFi features are crippled to prevent sharing of non-
DRM'd content, so I assume Apple's masters (the record industry) weren't
happy with the idea of you beaming a CD you ripped yourself from your
iPhone to mine, so non-iTunes initiated file transfers had to go. But,
hey, if you want to market it as the "best iPod ever," you do what you
have to!


> There is no reason GPS, voice dialing, or high speed data would present
> a problem to anyone. AT&T stands to generate much more revenue through
> GPS apps and data price plans if the functionality is there.


But again, if my theory is correct, that $19 dataplan on a million
iPhones was more important than a $40 PDA dataplan on a few. I think the
"usual" $40 PDA plan would've been a significant barrier to sales if it'd
been forced on all iPhone subscribers like the $19 plan is. Making
multiple data tiers or making data optional complicates the marketing
message of "easiest phone to activate ever."

> The only
> one that stands to lose is Apple, as they don't receive a portion of
> that incremental revenue stream.

x% of everyone's $20, beats x% of a few $40s, some $20s and many $0s!


> AT&T was desperate to find a differentiator and Apple was desperate to
> find a carrier after being turned away by Verizon. This is vintage
> early 90's marketing by Apple- jumping into something without properly
> evaluating the downside.


Nah, there's no downside to choosing AT&T as long as Verizon was
determined not to bite- AT&T has 60 million customers, and the hardcore
legion of Apple fans would switch to any carrier the phone required them
to.

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in news:3tI0j.40249
[email protected]:

> At 19 Nov 2007 23:11:35 -0600 CozmicDebris wrote:
>
>> Great- here's the original topic of the the thread:
>>
>> The iPhone is an overhyped, under-powered, technologically challenged
>> gizmo, at best.
>
> I diagree, (*gasp*) at least WRT the hardware. The iPhone, IMO, is a
> neat chunk of silicon- high-res multi-touch screen, long battery life,
> WiFi, BT, tons of memory, etc. On paper, it SHOULD be one of the best
> smartphones out there. Unfortunately, the software design decisions
have
> stood in the way.

And other than the GUI, it offers nothing not available on other phones.
With the exception of the screen, nothing you mention above is unique to
the iPhone, and the other functions mentioned come with a ton more on
many phones on the market.

>
> Imagine what this thing could be doing right now, if a full SDK was
> released back in June with the phone? Do you think it'd still lack BT
> GPS support? Voice dial? etc.?

I do- they are so anal about touting the battery life that anything
requiring any decent amount of power is probably not going to be offered
or authorized for release. And anything found to be contraryto their
position will simply be crippled through a software update.

>
> Most (with the exception of 3G, of course) of the iPhone's "missing
> features" were design decisions, not missing capabilities of the
device's
> hardware.

Then shame on them for deciding to put out a phone with such limited
functionality.

>
>> Despite unfounded claims to the contrary, it is a mid-
>> tier
>> phone at best with a glitzy UI.
>
> I think of it as a high-end phone crippled for marketing reasons.


Crippled for marketing reasons? Please expand on that.

>
>> Many of the "ground-braking"
>> features touted by the fanbois already existed on other phones, and
in
>> many cases the other phones provide better technology. The list of
>> features missing from it are nearly as long as the features provided
on
>> it.
>
> But again, other than 3G, what couldn't be added if desired? Picture
an
> N95 with a low-end Nokia's software on it. It'd be a neat piece
> of hardware crippled by it's software- THAT's the iPhone in a
nutshell-
> what possible features were left out for "ease of use" or by bowing to
> the wishes
> of Apple's partners (AT&T, music companies, etc.) we don't know.

There is no reason GPS, voice dialing, or high speed data would present
a problem to anyone. AT&T stands to generate much more revenue through
GPS apps and data price plans if the functionality is there. The only
one that stands to lose is Apple, as they don't receive a portion of
that incremental revenue stream.

AT&T was desperate to find a differentiator and Apple was desperate to
find a carrier after being turned away by Verizon. This is vintage
early 90's marketing by Apple- jumping into something without properly
evaluating the downside.

>
>
>