Where's the 'You' in iPhone?
|
Steve Jobs must have broadcast some wicked reality distortion field yesterday. Even some of my colleagues got caught by it. |
Apple's CEO was in near-perfect form during the Macworld keynote, as he unveiled the long-anticipated iPhone. Apple is getting tons of rave responses--and for a product that isn't scheduled to ship for six months.
Colleague David Morgenstern rains praises on Apple's approach to user design: "Apple's team in Cupertino has stopped the market with this product." David makes some astute observations about Apple's approach to details that matter.
But I see some glaring oversights when it comes to other details that are going to matter more, basics like battery life and durability. I predict some big problems for the iPhone, once people start using it for more than 5 or 10 minutes with Apple executives expectantly standing close by.
The phone is beautiful, the user interface is breathtaking and Jobs is ever so charming and convincing when the sell is harder than it appears to be.
David knows the problem: "I admit that it can be hard to check reality while in the bubble of a Steve Jobs Macworld demo. He is the master of such demonstrations and the Mac-phile crowd hangs on every word from his gigantic projected mouth seen on the tall-and-wide screen in the Moscone Center."
So, what's wrong with iPhone--a device I admittedly haven't seen close up? Distance may be why I have clearer perspective.
It's a work of art. What's that saying about how looks can be deceiving? The iPhone looks good, but it may not be rugged enough. The beautiful iPhone, with one full side the screen, is sure to be marred by everyday use. But the user will expect the beauty to remain, not fade. Apple took huge flak over the original iPod nano, because it was easily scratched; surely the iPhone would receive no less reaction.
People hang masterpieces, not put them in their pockets or purses.
Even if the iPhone proves to be scratch-resistant, which I strongly doubt, fingerprints and smudges will leave impressions. Sure, they can be wiped away, but who would want them? Mmm, I wonder what will be the long-term impact of stubble or full-grown beards rubbing against the touch-screen.
More troubling are user expectations about ruggedness. Most cell phones are pretty tough. How often are they dropped? It's not hard to imagine what could happen to the iPhone's screen when dropped on the pavement from someone's pocket or purse.
The battery is fixed. It's my understanding that the iPhone's battery is not removable, which bucks against sensible cell phone manufacturing convention. Battery life is important in a mobile. Heck, Cingular supplied two batteries with my Samsung BlackJack, and I easily get about 5 hours of talk time.
Battery life is complicated by functionality. By branding the device a phone, Apple made telephony the core functionality and user priority. The other functions are going to sap battery life. I agree with David that Apple gets the small usability details right, but that's an approach that could work against the iPhone. There are plenty of multifunction phones out there, but usability limitations restrict realistic usage beyond a couple features. The iPhone's great usability will make several, battery-draining functions appealing to use. The cross-country plane flight that drains an iPod battery is going to be a liability for a telephony device with fixed battery.
It's not a phone. Whatever iPhone is, it's not a mobile phone, nor should it really be marketed as one. The marketing should have been as a fifth-generation iPod. Apple kept the focus on the primary functionality of music, positioning video as an extra benefit; it's not primary. Better marketing would have been: It's an iPod with a touch-screen--oh, and it's a phone, too. As a phone, the main expectations will be around telephony, with music and other stuff as extras.
The device concept is brilliant and trend-setting for an iPod or a versatile and affordable pocket computer. A small computer carries different expectations about durability, which could have benefited user expectations about iPhone. Even the roughest users surely must treat their laptops more gingerly than their cell phones. The laptop screen is understandably breakable.
The features are all the same regardless of the positioning: phone, iPod or mini-Mac. But the user expectations change based on which function is marketed as primary.
The price is high. The iPhone costs too much for most people. Even the overly energetic and enthusiastic Macworld audience seemed to silence at the price. In the United States, people expect free or nearly free phones.
As example: Cingular only sells two phones for more than $250, the Cingular 8525 and Palm Treo 750. Both phones sell for around $400, after $100 rebates. The iPhone will sell for $499 or $599, depending on whether it's a 4GB or 8GB model.
For a mini-Mac, $600 is a bargain. Usage creates different expectations about price.
My former JupiterResearch colleague Michael Gartenberg and I discussed the phone this morning. "As you know, no one pays for expensive phones here, but they do pay for expensive iPods," he said.
His comment supports my earlier contention that Apple should have positioned the device as a touch-screen iPod that also is a cell phone. That said, Gartenberg disagreed about initial response to the pricing.
"The masses with $500 are going to not care at all," Gartenberg said. "They'll see this thing and make it the must-have item for 2007." He added that Apple was "brilliant to price it high."
If price and beauty are the definition of chic, he could be right. But the "masses with $500" may also have great expectations about the iPhone staying crisp and scratch-free.
Data speed is insufficient.. As a mini-Mac, the iPhone offers many data-centric features. But the device only supports Cingular's EDGE network, rather than 3G. The aforementioned Windows Mobile-based Cingular 8525 and Palm Treo 750 are both 3G devices. While Wi-Fi makes up for some of what's missing, EDGE diminishes the iPhone's appeal compared with 3G devices. Connectivity is probably the least of the iPhone's usability shortcomings.
Users expectations will be too high. Apple's iPod success, rumors leading up to the Macworld announcement and the device itself foster unrealistic expectations about the iPhone experience.
Even if Apple delivers an exceptional experience--the "Wow" Microsoft touts in Windows Vista marketing--expectations could be even higher. Durability, ruggedness and battery life are fundamentals Apple should have given greater priority. New features like the face-proximity sensor are only as good as basics like battery life. One or two fatal flaws can cripple an otherwise breakthrough device.
Time to market is another consideration. June is so far away, even for Apple, which tends to announce closer to product availability. Apple's fanatic product secrecy and insistence on controlling all messaging are the real reason for such an early announcement. The FCC approval process would have disclosed the iPhone--before Jobs could do his show and tell--unless Apple announced it many months before availability.
Six months is an enormous amount of time for a device people want today. The hype is now, so the time to sell is now. Motorola announced the breakthrough Q a long time before its availability with Verizon. The Q didn't look as breakthrough when released, because other manufacturers responded and consumers' memories are short. Today's rock star is tomorrow's geriatric rocker.
Better stated: The reality distortion field will fade. People will come back to their senses and ask what really matters to them in a mobile. The answers will be basics, like good telephony, long battery life, small size and low price. Which of these attributes apply to the iPhone?
Comments (51)
Cisco owns the iPhone name and has since 1999. Apple cannot release a product with the same name.
Posted by Dan Budny | January 10, 2007 12:20 PM
"People will come back to their senses and ask what really matters to them in a mobile."
OSX users have more money than common sense. The iphone will sell very well to this market.
Posted by DosFreak | January 10, 2007 1:10 PM
You know Apple has something good when a blog called "Microsoft Watch" feels compelled to report on it.
Posted by Chris L | January 10, 2007 2:24 PM
I thought the iPhone was perfect looking at http://apple.com/iphone But obviously not.
Posted by puppet | January 10, 2007 2:43 PM
So six months seems to be a long time to wait for a product? How long has Microsoft been touting Vista??? And once it does ship it make take months before the product and device drivers are shipped to make it actually work with your hardware!!!
Posted by Jim | January 10, 2007 2:45 PM
Joe Will Cox S. is clearly jealous
Posted by Zack | January 10, 2007 2:48 PM
As an exponent of Microsoft you have absolutely no credibility when voicing opinions about user experience, tight software/hardware integration, industrial design, delivering compelling products or even delivering finished products.
Posted by David | January 10, 2007 2:56 PM
The issue I have is no tactile feedback for use as a phone. Imagine trying to dial while driving (for those where such an act is legal, of course :-). How the heck do you do that without a keyboard?
It's hard enough with my BlackBerry 8700's tiny keys... with no keys? You've got to be kidding...
Posted by Doug | January 10, 2007 3:12 PM
It´s so funny to hear Microsoft People or fans talk about "design", "innovation", "Easy to Use" and "Security", Those goy does not have a clue about those issues but they have opinion for everything. When Bill Gates talks about the future, one can be sure that that will be not the way to go, But when ever those guys at apple talks about the future, you better get prepare to buy more apple shares.
Posted by Viktor | January 10, 2007 3:18 PM
The funniest punchline to come out of MacWorld was [b]Microsoft Phune[/b].
The criticisms in this article are slight. The few hands-on testers (Gizmodo, for instance) say it works as advertised.
The iPhone is purely an early adopter, big-money item right now. But then, so was the first iPod.
Talking about the possibilities of scratching is hardly worthy of an story.
Posted by Steve G | January 10, 2007 3:54 PM
Doug - if you're dialing a phone using the Blackberry keyboard while driving - STOP. You're bound to be a menace on the road. You might as well be swiggin down a bottle of bourbon while you're at it.
Joe - Are you saying that you get 5 hours talk time on both batteries of your Blackjack? In that case that's nuts! The iPhone gets 5 hours talk time on one charge. That said, it would be nice to have the option to have removeable batteries.
Dan - Apple are in negotiations with Cisco to use the iPhone name.
Posted by Avrum Blume | January 10, 2007 4:02 PM
"Even if Apple delivers an exceptional experience--the "Wow" Microsoft touts in Windows Vista marketing--expectations could be even higher. Durability, ruggedness and battery life are fundamentals Apple should have given greater priority. New features like the face-proximity sensor are only as good as basics like battery life. One or two fatal flaws can cripple an otherwise breakthrough device"
Wow, you're good Joe--You should get a job with Fox.
Talk about reality distortion.
Posted by bond co. stooge | January 10, 2007 4:10 PM
Joe, you must be a PC user cuase your ignorance for a prodcut you have not touched is absurd. This phone is 5 yaers ahead of anything out there and the fact that it runs on Mac OS X is amazing but then again you're probably still waiting for vista, what a joke. Please, do not give your opinion on products you have not even seen. You are also one of the ones that said the zune will beat the ipod. Micrososft should RUN real fast and when finished HIDE.
Posted by Anthony | January 10, 2007 4:19 PM
Joe,
RE: Art
Apple usually doesn't make such grevious ID mistakes twice. I would figure they would take a cue from the PSP's rather indestructable screen, rather than repeat out of the original Nano playbook. Besides, you really ought to wait beyond the 1st gen. iteration for any product.
RE: Battery
Although it might be nice to have a larger battery, or ability to swap out, charging from a wall, car charger, USB hub, or laptop should be sufficient. Standardizing the connection (proprietary iPod or USB) actually simplifies and makes charging more accessible (one car charger for fewer devices?). Besides, at this thin, do you really think you could design something like this with comparable battery life without compromising structural strength? And have you actually read some of the hands-on torture testing of Nano's? or any iPod, for that matter?
RE: Core Competency
Until we get hands on use in real life, I think this point is speculative. Obviously, this is a marketing event. I'm interested in seeing how other smartphones fare in comparison for ease of use as a phone, come June 2007.
RE: Dollar pricing
See the early adopter mention posted above. Meanwhile, check on the whole proliferation of iPod models from an initial high cost model introduction. They have priced for pretige and market penetration, and very likely will succeed. Would you actually bet stock $$ on Zune? Or Blackjack? This device, besides lower memory for now (which is likely a reasonable temporary limitation for all phone manufacturers), is still just a 1st gen. product, with a bright future as technology continues to mature.
RE: EDGE
Even with EVDO, latency is still a large issue for casual browsing. However, the way that this phone architecture is designed, keeping more of the heavy lifting on the phone in the OS and applications positions this phone much better than other smartphones. For wireless data, all smartphone manufacturers labor under similar restraints. Cingular's 3G rollout will help, and likewise, by the time 4G really rolls out with a decent price, iPhone should be multistandard. iPhones specs are hardly set in stone.
RE: FUD
I cannot foresee a stronger product hitting the market this year. True, the speed of the device might lag when loaded down, but even Blackberry cannot boast such a large 3rd party pool of developers, nor such a powerful OS platform. It will be interesting to see how easily desktop size applications and applets and widgets will scale. It is an interesting tactic to leverage a full OS to establish position in the competitive, growing cellular data device market.
In general, I find this a weak article. Mostly strawman arguments. Apple not only has waited for a germinal moment to launch, they are also well positioned. Naysay all you want...it will help me buy more AAPL stock.
Posted by e chang | January 10, 2007 4:45 PM
I'm just wondering how long MS have been trying to get folks to buy into Windows CE, and their new generation of Windows "smartphones". Is it five years ? Eight ? Twelve ?
Apple come on the scene with an absolutely beautifully operating system and phone, first time.
Therein lies the difference. The Windows Smartfone is an appalling piece of design - horrible to use, crashes, freezes (usually whilst trying to answer a call), terrible battery life. The User Interfaec ? OMG.
I had one for a year. It went in the bin. Not an unusual place, as according to wireless carriers, windows mobile phones suffer a 50% RTM (Return to manufacturer) rate- the worst in the business. Is this because its fragile, or because people destroy them in frustration ?
If this is the current MS benchmark, then I can see no reason why the iPhone cannot trounce it first time around.
The phone to beat in the marketplace now is the BlackBerry Pearl. This'll be an interesting summer.
Nokia, Erikkson, Sony, Samsung - all need to pick up their game. They might be the dominant providers in this marketplace, but the have to react to this new disruptive influence in their marketplace...
---* Bill
Posted by Wild Bill | January 10, 2007 4:51 PM
Dan, you're right, Cisco owns the name iPhone. I heard that Apple is working with Cisco to get some rights to the name. (It remains to be seen if Cisco actually grants the rights though!)
About Joe coming from a Microsoft publication, I don't see why it should matter. Battery life is a concern regardless! Also, is it possible to replace the battery after it eventually goes? Apparently not. And $500-$600 for a phone is extremely high.
Posted by Jeff | January 10, 2007 4:51 PM
The best retort to the critics (most with a built-in Microsoft bias that shines like the sun) is to have them look at the YouTube video of "If Microsoft Had Built the iPod". You can bet that Microsoft wishes they had thought of this first. For sure they will copy it - that's all they know how to do. Apple is following the classic roll-out pattern for a new and innovative product: price high for early adopters, identify/fix problems in subsequent product releases, roll-out new versions at lower price points with less features before competitors claim the low entry points and then pack more features into your premium line to create higher value. While others attempt to do this, Apple has been executing nearly flawlessly for some time now. Good for them.
Posted by Scott in Raleigh | January 10, 2007 5:00 PM
MS should think twice when they start to comment.
When iPod appeared, what it did? If You now what "blue sea" means in corporate world, Apple did it. It created a whole new marketarea.
"There is no future for MPplayers, they will disappear soon".
Like TV. Or internet. Hell, we need only 5 computers in whole wide world.
"Distance may be why I have clearer perspective".
Yep Joe. Vista is still coming. And You are looking to the distance. Not where everything happens.
Anyways, iPhone has one feature wich is very, very special: MULTItouchscreen. And it is a PATENTED multitouchscreen by Apple.
It is not a stylus with one touchpoint. It is a MULTITOUCH.
Do You belive that such technology will stay in a phone? It will be on most Apple designs: computercs, iPods, displays...
What comes to those OSX comments: stupidiest comment came out from a Nokia executive today in Finland. "It is not so good as our Symbian OS. OSX will not operate with wintel. Symbian works. We have so many applications in Windows that works with Symbian".
iPhone does what Jobs said: "After today I don’t think anyone is going to look at these phones in the same way"
Posted by Andy | January 10, 2007 5:47 PM
The iPhone is not a phone? Did you watch the demo? Did you see how the iPhone changed its interface based on what was happening? Did you see how easy it was to switch between calls, conference calls, and drop one call and keep another going? Did you see how the iPhone found phone numbers in email and html and gave the used an easy way to dial them? Did you see how easy it was to work with contacts? THE USER EXPERIENCE is the true innovation of the iPhone, making it the ultimate mobile phone. It's easy to make calls!
Do you have keys for shortcuts to important functions? Do always remember what they are?
Posted by D Loudin | January 10, 2007 5:57 PM
Sore Loser.
Posted by Leonardo Picado | January 10, 2007 6:11 PM
This reminds me of a moment back in 1973 when Hewlett Packard introduced the HP-35 scientific calculator. It made everything else in the genre look stone-age by comparison, and the product represented a level of engineering expertise and industrial design no other company could match. IMO Apple has just pulled off a similar product intro. Bill Hewlett is smiling.
Posted by Ed T | January 10, 2007 6:18 PM
It just sucks that you can't load your own apps on it. This makes it more of an iPodPhone than a real iPhone.
Posted by Danny | January 10, 2007 7:16 PM
This is delicious! Mr. Wilcox is clearly a Microsoft apologist. Since his feeble criticisms are apparently the strongest they can muster, that's confirmation that the gap between the iPhone and the other "smart" phones is indeed enormous. It took Microsoft ten years to match the Mac UI with Windows 95. Today's gap between the iPhone and its competition is similar to the gap between Mac '84 and DOS. But since clearly Mr. Jobs has learned history's lessons, it's safe to assume he's not doomed to repeat his mistakes of the past.
The important conclusion? It's a great time to own Apple Stock!
Posted by Chris Jones | January 10, 2007 8:08 PM
One word re: this article: barf!
Posted by Smeagol | January 10, 2007 8:35 PM
IMHO the real Achilles' heel of the iPhone is having Safari as the only browser. Data plans can be VERY expensive especially when roaming. The data charges could even dwarf the price of the iPhone. Having a lowly WAP browser to get selected bits of info could really save $$.
Yes, if you are a high powered exec then $$ is no object, but to have broad appeal Apple needs to reel in the masses.
Posted by DougD | January 10, 2007 9:10 PM
The iPhone is what it is. I think it is marketed as the iPhone because Apple didn't want to call it the next iPod. Remember when the 5th gen iPod was released? It was just the 5th gen iPod that played video. Everyone wanted a phone/iPod so they didn't have two devices in their pocket and have to stop their iPod and yada yada yada. Anyway, Apple has delivered what everyone wanted. An iPod/phone. I think Apple is getting ready to release the 6th gen, genuine, Video iPod.
The reason I think this is...the iPhone only comes in 4gb and 8gb models. People will soon run out of storage room. I think the Video iPod (minus the phone) is just around the corner with possibly a 100gb or maybe slightly more storage capacity (flash or otherwise).
Posted by David | January 10, 2007 9:12 PM
People remember Apple products. It's not like the iPhone is a Motorola 345XCW43342, it's the iPhone. Apple's brand name is worth a ton, more than many will admit.
Posted by scepia | January 10, 2007 10:40 PM
Look at Cingular's J.D. Powers satisfaction ratings for call quality, customer care performance, billing satisfaction, and overall satisfaction. In my region they are awful.
http://www.jdpower.com/telecom/ratings/wireless/index.asp
The last time I looked at Consumer Reports, they also poorly rated Cingular.
If you want to use iPhone, that's the cell phone carrier that you are stuck with.
Posted by JohnJ | January 10, 2007 10:58 PM
Anthony wrote: "Joe, you must be a PC user cuase your ignorance for a prodcut you have not touched is absurd...You are also one of the ones that said the zune will beat the ipod."
Anthony,
I've used Macs since 1998 and have several Macs--and iPods, too.
I never said Zune would beat iPod. Apple's music player is the clear leader. Microsoft is starting out way behind. Zune is a good music player. But iPod is better. Even if Microsoft were to make Zune a great music player, catching iPod would be difficult.
Joe
Posted by Joe | January 10, 2007 11:44 PM
Scott in Raleigh wrote: "The best retort to the critics (most with a built-in Microsoft bias that shines like the sun) is to have them look at the YouTube video of 'If Microsoft Had Built the iPod'."
Scott,
Microsoft made the video for its folks inside the company, to make a point about its own marketing. It worked. The Zune packaging is evidence.
Joe
Posted by Joe | January 10, 2007 11:49 PM
Chris Jones wrote: "This is delicious! Mr. Wilcox is clearly a Microsoft apologist.:
Now Chris,
Who's the apologist? For Mac now, are you?
This post only mentions Microsoft once, and not really favorably. I am no Microsoft apologist. Someone else is sure to accuse me of being a Mac apologist, by pointing out things Apple could fix before bringing iPhone to market. :)
Joe
Posted by Joe | January 10, 2007 11:59 PM
"I am no Microsoft apologist."
That sure sounds like Nixon saying, "I'm not a crook."
Posted by anona | January 11, 2007 1:21 AM
"I am no Microsoft apologist."
That sure sounds like Nixon saying, "I'm not a crook."
Posted by anona | January 11, 2007 1:23 AM
i think you are right, about the phone being priced wrong. But people have been over paying for smart phones time and time again, they are just starting to stop and thing about it. (i.e. all the treo's before the 750; full retail on one is close to a grand, when you can get a blackberry for a fourth)
I think people will buy the ipod side though, deeming that they can get an flight's worth of ipod and half a days worth of talk time.
I do think this device is a step in the right way, being that it bring all the things we want together;phone,music,pda,camra.
Posted by Carl | January 11, 2007 2:20 AM
I find it amazing where people say, Oh but Apple is so ahead of the curve...
Don't make me laugh! Look at the Nokia N95 that will be launched. http://www.nokia.ch/german/phones/phone_models/n95/index.html
This phone has the following features:
- Quadband, 3G, WiFi, etc, etc
- 5 MegaPixel camera
- DVD quality video encoding
- Kick butt sound and MP3
- AND the usual smart phone stuff.
In other words Apple is creating an outdated phone as it was launching its "revolution"
Give me a freaken break Apple!
Posted by Christian Gross | January 11, 2007 6:01 AM
Why does people who write about Microsoft always want to comment on what Apple does? The iPhone has absolutely nothing to do with the traditional PC/Operating system business. By commenting on the iPhone when it has little to do with Microsoft or Apple's traditional business, Joe Wilcox is inviting people to call him a Microsoft apologist or an Apple basher, whether its true or not.
Posted by leland | January 11, 2007 8:26 AM
Alrighty, let's take each of his points in turn...
Even if the iPhone proves to be scratch-resistant, which I strongly doubt, fingerprints and smudges will leave impressions. Sure, they can be wiped away, but who would want them?
The "multi-touch" touchscreen is the most revolutionary user interface to arrive in years. It is breathtakingly spectacular. Fingerprints and smudges come with the territory. How does Joe Wilcox expect to get around this? He is being too anal. Users will acclimate.
More troubling are user expectations about ruggedness. Most cell phones are pretty tough. How often are they dropped?
It's better to compare the iPhone to other high-end devices, such as iPod, Sony PSP, and Palm PDAs. How tough are they? Owners learn to take better care of their expensive purchases. You don't treat them like disposable cellphones.
It's my understanding that the iPhone's battery is not removable, which bucks against sensible cell phone manufacturing convention.
It's a reasonable design trade-off. You want ultra-thin? You have to give up user-replaceable batteries. It hasn't hurt iPod sales (especially iPod nano).
The cross-country plane flight that drains an iPod battery is going to be a liability for a telephony device with fixed battery.
C'mon, who the hell carries an extra battery for his cellphone?! Most cellphone users have gotten used to running out of juice at the most inappropriate of times. THAT'S the current reality.
Better marketing would have been: It's an iPod with a touch-screen--oh, and it's a phone, too. As a phone, the main expectations will be around telephony, with music and other stuff as extras.
The features are all the same regardless of the positioning: phone, iPod or mini-Mac. But the user expectations change based on which function is marketed as primary.
In the United States, people expect free or nearly free phones.
Yes, but the iPhone is about to turn the cellphone industry on its ear. Present conventions don't matter. The iPhone is not merely a cellphone with a wimpy MP3 player and feeble Internet access. It's a full-fledged iPod, a video iPod with a big screen, a cellphone, and a powerful mobile computer with desktop-class apps. There is nothing on the market that can even remotely match it. This is a truly revolutionary product. And this is how Apple will market and price it.
But the device only supports Cingular's EDGE network, rather than 3G.
Jobs stated explicitly during the keynote that 3G will be coming in a future iteration of the product.
June is so far away, even for Apple, which tends to announce closer to product availability. Apple's fanatic product secrecy and insistence on controlling all messaging are the real reason for such an early announcement. The FCC approval process would have disclosed the iPhone--before Jobs could do his show and tell--unless Apple announced it many months before availability.
This control over secrecy has served Apple very well in the past and I think it's smart to stick to this strategy. There is no way that other manufacturers will be able to mount a product response within six months--the iPhone is so far ahead of the pack and Apple has patented the hell out of it.
The entire article smacks of sour grapes. Joe's "clearer perspective" falls short of a true understanding of the current market situation.
Posted by Richard Eng | January 11, 2007 8:46 AM
There's too much hype to this whole marketing shindig. It's as partisan and as non-informative as most political campaigns.
First, I'm going to say that I'm an IT person so my view is going to be slanted in favor of features over aesthetics. I don't mind learning a few procedures that aren't innately intuitive. I know some people convulse at the thought of reading the manual but that's life.
Second, I'm not a big music freak, nor do I like to watch movies on screens that fit into the palm of my hand. Perhaps that's great for dorm living but, let's face it, dorm living is not what most cell phones are about nor are most companies willing to bet the farm on such a niche market.
My ideal cell phone will be a 3G modem, bluetooth capable device that runs at broadband speed and does not constrain me to a handful of minutes per month before charging me a fortune.
For now, I don't buy cell phones. The office provides what I need and if Cingular or whoever can't give me a way to stay where I am and fix something, why would I pay top dollar for a fancy phone?
From my experience, Edge isn't good coverage, EVDO isn't much better, and all of the cell providers don't want their PDA phones generating the kind of IP traffic that a PC would generate.
For the most part, an Apple phone would probably do the same thing that my Apple computer does. That is, to sit around and do nothing unless I'm looking for a change of pace. I don't have the disposable income for such things, therefore, I'm just going to categorize the iPhone the same way I categorize most things, Apple. It's a preppie status symbol and, like most preppies, a disruptive nuisance in the office.
Posted by Greg | January 11, 2007 9:25 AM
Christian Gross said: "AND the usual smart phone stuff."
That was Steve Jobs' point...we don't want the usual smartphone stuff! All the smartphones on the market suck. They have terrible user interfaces. The BIG selling point of the iPhone is its incredible interface (touchscreen and software). In combination with the OS X-driven mobile computer (great web surfing) and 3.5" video iPod, how can the Nokia N95 compare?!
Posted by Richard Eng | January 11, 2007 9:25 AM
To Richard Eng:
I encourage you to look at some analyst reports on mobiles and what people expect from them. Among the top features: Small size, long battery life, low price and telephony. How well does iPhone meet these criteria?
No question, it's a beautiful device with a compelling user interface and lots of promise. The previous post got to the features and promise.
Plenty of "revolutionary" products failed in the marketplace for many reasons. I don't expect a flop, because people like you will rush out to buy iPhone. I'd buy one if there was 3G.
The mobile phone should be a platform. Web 2.0 is the means to open that platform. Apple's phone could be the device that leads the way. Apple just needs to fix a few fundamentals, first.
Posted by Joe | January 11, 2007 1:04 PM
Well, of course, Apple will highlight the fundamentally new functionality of this product: the cellphone. But I give consumers enough credit to recognize that it's more than just a cellphone (unlike today's "smartphones" which have second-rate implementations of media player and mobile computer). If consumers understand the nature of this new product category, then they will have somewhat different expectations of it (especially regarding ruggedness, price, size).
I agree that if Apple markets it as a traditional cellphone competitor, then it won't be entirely successful. But that's NOT Jobs' intention--he wants to revolutionize the cellphone market.
For my personal take on this development, go here:
http://richardeng2005.blogspot.com/2007/01/ces-2007-apple-iphone.html
Posted by Richard Eng | January 11, 2007 4:39 PM
I own a smartphone running Microsoft OS. Have had it for years.
I don't own an iPod or any other mp3 player.
I will buy iPhone as soon as possible. Apple has taken the great design of the iPod and married the functionality of a cell phone. I don't care if you call it a phone or an iPod. I don't make tons of calls per day, but would like to listen to music. The rest is just gravy on the side.
Posted by Bob | January 11, 2007 5:27 PM
iPhone fall behind the phones in Japan.
Posted by Brick | January 11, 2007 9:14 PM
Joe, you're right, the iPhone is a bad idea. Neither Microsoft nor anyone else should think about making a device like it. Even if Apple makes a couple billion dollars from sales, we all know it's all smoke and mirrors, and it'll never last. I'll bet that the iPhone we saw at MacWorld Expo will be obsolete in 4 years and something else will have replaced it. I wonder what that might be and who will market it? What do you think, Joe?
Posted by meatofmoose | January 13, 2007 9:33 PM
Take a word of advice and do what Walt Mossberg at WSJ has said, simply, that he cannot render an opinion (credible) before he gets his hands on the device.
I can say credibly that Apple has created something worthwhile, as everyone, including "Microsoft Watch", is commenting on. Why you are commenting on iPhone, I have no clue.
Posted by Joe Alien | January 17, 2007 2:36 PM
I've never read articles here before, I just happened to link to this article from another site.
When I first saw the release of the Iphone a few weeks ago, I was impressed. Beautiful piece of technology, nice features, etc. The price was the only point of concern for me and decided I would need to wait well past June for the price to come down to a level I'm willing to pay for a phone.
Joe's article did bring up a few good points: If I drop it, am I screwed? When the battery goes, do I have to buy a new one outright? etc. The musc and video would be secondary to my needs but make a cell phone upgrade with the bells and whistles an interesting prospect. In the same way that Joe's article was interesting, some of the comments were equally though provoking. I own a laptop and I'm careful not to drop it. I wipe fingerprints off on occassion, but will live with them until that time comes.
What I fail to understand is those that question Joe's right/intention/intrigue in commenting on an Apple product. Certainly, MS has been trumped again by Apple. Joe should comment on this. Will MS respond? How poorly? But for those who feel Joe does not have a place to comment on Apple's product lines, especially one that he has not personally seen, what gives you the right to comment on an unseen MS product (Vista)?
Don't get me wrong, I think Vista is going to be a terrible buy for the first 12-18 months at least. Maybe it will be a good investment around the same time the Iphone is.
Posted by Mackb | January 25, 2007 1:58 PM
I have one. You were so wrong; I love it
Posted by Lee | July 8, 2007 8:12 PM
i bought the iphone 2 week after it was out. Yes beautiful, not at all durable. it slipped out of my hand at a arm to leg angle hit the floor and bam busted. The glass front shattered. It still works however i was told that insurance will not cover it , and i will have to get a rental to usae while it is sent away to be repaired.
Posted by sondra althaus | September 12, 2007 11:18 PM
responding to dannys comment: you cannot put appts. in it unless you put them in notes! how old school, also it will lock up @the drop of a hat. And why must you go to view my message.com just to look @ a text mutimedia pix from someone???
Posted by sondra althaus | September 12, 2007 11:26 PM
hahahaa, looking back and considering what Apple did come out with in terms of marketing your advice for iphone marketing is
H-I-L-A-R-I-O-U-S-!-!-!
puts all your advice toward ms in terms of marketing in an interesting light as well...
Posted by haha | January 17, 2008 6:47 AM
the iPhone is amazing yu and yur post suck
there's nothing hard about that
seriously
Posted by bond co. stooge is soo right | June 16, 2008 7:44 AM