iPhone impressions and opinions

On 15-Jan-2007, at 23:51, David Ross wrote:
> I'm betting Apple went with Cingular as they have the only
> real GSM/SIM card network in the US.

What? Where'd you get that idea? T-Mobile is GSM and always has been.

> Sprint/Nextel and Verizon will have to wait till Apple catches up
> to the GSM/SIM
> marketplace.

You are confused. Apple has no catching up to do, the iPhone is a
quad-band GSM as is just about every other current GSM phone on the
market. It will work on all four GSM frequencies (850, 900, 1900,
and 2100 IIRC)

On 16-Jan-2007, at 11:06, Marshall Clow wrote:
> At 7:00 PM -0700 1/15/07, Google Kreme wrote:
>> On 15-Jan-2007, at 16:15, Marshall Clow wrote:
>>> I think the question to ask is:
>>> "What will be replacing the current 30 GB and 80 GB 'video iPods'?"
>>
>> I expect 60GB and 120GB widescreen iPods with Coverflow
>
> Sure - but that leaves out a bunch of the details.
> I think that customers will expect a "iPhone without the phone
> bits", and that, frankly, is a very interesting device.

And one I think we will get...

eventually.

However, the next iPods I expect to be just what I said. No wifi, no
iChat, just a widescreen ipod with larger drives and, of course, no
click-wheel.

Dave Scocca wrote:

I believe GSM phones--because of the SIM card approach--are also much easier to unlock and move around than are CDMA phones. Another reason for the GSM effort to take center stage, and hence for the choice of Cingular.

And others have cited further reasons for Apple to choose the GSM system.

I have heard the Nokia is phasing out production of all CDMA phones so I'd not be surprised if this was another reason for Apple to concentrate its effort in a market that other manufacturers see as a longer term winner. In Australiasia GSM is taking a decent share of the mobile phone market away from CDMA.

I wonder what Apple has up its sleeve for Japan where the cellular technology is, AFAIK, different from both CDMA and GSM. Surely they won't be passing on that huge market.

John Wolff, Hamilton, NZ

On 1/17/07 07:53, "Travis Butler" <tbutlerbirch.net> wrote:

> The other reason I've seen publicly given for choosing Cingular is that
> they were the only ones willing to 'meet Apple's terms.' I've read this
> in more than one place and I may be getting the details mixed up, but
> the impression I got is that Apple wanted to make sure that the network
> provider didn't try to cripple the phone functionality (isn't Verizon
> notorious for crippling Bluetooth and other direct data transfers
> between computer and phone, so that you have to use their data services
> to get stuff on/off the phone?). In fact, weren't a lot of the iPhone
> rumors suggesting that Apple would have to do their own cell network or
> set up as an MNVO in order to make a phone work the way they wanted?
> This could be Apple's answer, that they only went with a network willing
> to meet their terms.

The other reason for Cingular is that there's only two GSM providers of any
size in the US, Cingular/AT&T and T-Mobile, and T-Mobile simply isn't big
enough for this.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

Marshall Clow wrote:
> At 7:00 PM -0700 1/15/07, Google Kreme wrote:
>> On 15-Jan-2007, at 16:15, Marshall Clow wrote:
>>> I think the question to ask is:
>>> "What will be replacing the current 30 GB and 80 GB 'video iPods'?"
>>
>> I expect 60GB and 120GB widescreen iPods with Coverflow
>
> Sure - but that leaves out a bunch of the details.
> I think that customers will expect a "iPhone without the phone bits",
> and that, frankly, is a very interesting device.

It's the only way I'd want an iPhone: without the phone. When I leave
the house I often have three electronic devices hanging on my belt, my
cell (a cheap LG folding model), my iPod (3G 40 Gb), and my PDA (Palm
Tungsten T5). Now that I have a handheld GPS (Garmin GPSMAP60CSx; I got
around the "software doesn't work on a Mac" problem by buying the map
set I need from Garmin on a pre-loaded chip), it could well be four.

But I have no real interest in replacing four devices with one, for many
reasons. There's the peripherals factor. (iPhone on a Bose sound dock?
 Not likely, given the form factor. iPhone with an iTrip? Maybe, but
I'd have to buy one of the new ones that work with the latest iPods.
Will it charge with an iGo? With a new "tip", maybe.) With many
devices I can mix and match based on my needs. My cell phone is almost
always with me. It often winds up in the back pocket of one of my
cycling jerseys (probably not such a great environment for a high end
electronic device), and then it's usually the only device I'm carrying.
 (If I decide to use the GPS, it clips to the handlebars.) But the most
important reason is that my cell phone, even though I don't actually
make or receive calls on it that often, approaches being critical
infrastructure. I'd hate to lose it just because I forgot to hit the
pause button on the iPod part and drained the (non-replaceable!) battery.

But as a replacement for the T5, the iPhone-without-the-phone would be
very attractive, particularly if I could put the software I wanted on it
like I can on my Powerbook. My most frequent use of the T5 is to read
my email in places where I don't have an Internet connection and don't
want to carry a laptop. The mail client on the T5 is OK, but it doesn't
deal with HTML mail at all well, and has a hard limit of around 100K for
the size of a message. An iPhone-without-the-phone with a copy of
Thunderbird installed would be very nice to have.


--
Paul Schinder
schinderpobox.com

On Jan 16, 2007, at 1:51 AM, Randy B. Singer wrote:

> Paul Guinnessy said:
>
>>
>> Everyone seems to be thinking Apple should throw everything but the
>> kitchen sink into this first version of the iphone.
>
>
> I think that a number of users will be disappointed with the first
> iPhone
> because they expect it to be a business device. It isn't one. It is
> more
> of a home user or ordinary user type of device.

I think it's aimed at both sides of the market, and in addition to
myself, there are many high end business users who would love to
consolidate multiple devices in an easy to use and attractive format.
The unified screen/keyboard, better display and voicemail screening
alone are reason enough for many Blackberry users (who are primarily
business users; it doesn't have many must-have features of interest
to consumers) to become switchers. The combination of productivity
features that are unduplicated + entertainment features make iPhone
very appealing to the entire high end mobile market, and make Jobs'
sales projections seem achievable.

For a vast number of businesses, mobile communications are no longer
a luxury, they are a necessity. The initial roll out with a low price
point of $500 is a demonstration that Apple is aiming at the high end
of the market, and I think that it's fair to assume Cingular isn't
going to give away iPhone services at its lowest bargain rates.
Corporate and business budgets are prime targets for these services,
and many companies routinely pick up the cost of fancy handsets,
increased services, etc.

iPhone is not just an iPod + phone combination; the Motorola product
turned out to be a flop in the marketplace.

>
> This is in keeping with Apple's philosophy since Jobs returned to
> Apple.
> Prior to that Apple tried like crazy to have the Macintosh appeal
> to the
> business world, and they failed miserably and almost killed
> themselves in
> the attempt.
>
> When Jobs returned Apple entirely gave up on the enterprize and all
> vertical markets except for the "creative" ones.

Keep in mind that the creative side of the business is one of the few
areas that willingly forks over big bucks on the latest and greatest
machines. Print and film/video graphics and sound files are huge, and
any boost in speed, display capability and productivity results in
profitability for end users. Targeting this market, and introducing
Final Cut Pro, were a very smart move by Apple.

Marilyn

On 17 Jan 2007, at 14:01, Google Kreme wrote:

> market. It will work on all four GSM frequencies (850, 900, 1900,
> and 2100 IIRC)

1800 is the missing frequency in there - 2100 is used for UMTS/3G.

        f

On Jan 17, 2007, at 5:53 AM, Travis Butler wrote:

> (isn't Verizon
> notorious for crippling Bluetooth and other direct data transfers
> between computer and phone, so that you have to use their data
> services
> to get stuff on/off the phone?).


No, that would be Cingular, actually.

[I usually think of Verizon in this context. There was a very popular phone a few years ago (Mot V551?) which Verizon shipped with BT disabled. -Andrew ]


Scott Wyant
Information Systems Analysis and Design LLC
310.839.0958
scott_wyantsbcglobal.net
swyantgmail.com

There is a controversy, and maybe even a lawsuit, brewing over LG's newly
announced Chocolate KE850 phone. It is strikingly similar to the iPhone!

http://www.slashphone.com/89/6073.html



Randy B. Singer

Co-Author of:
The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th and 6th editions)

OS X Routine Maintenance
http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html

Google Kreme wrote:
> On 15-Jan-2007, at 23:51, David Ross wrote:
>> I'm betting Apple went with Cingular as they have the only
>> real GSM/SIM card network in the US.
>
> What? Where'd you get that idea? T-Mobile is GSM and always has been.

Yes but living in NC it's very apparent T-Mobile is still not nationwide with their own towers.

>> Sprint/Nextel and Verizon will have to wait till Apple catches up
>> to the GSM/SIM
>> marketplace.
>
> You are confused. Apple has no catching up to do, the iPhone is a
> quad-band GSM as is just about every other current GSM phone on the
> market. It will work on all four GSM frequencies (850, 900, 1900,
> and 2100 IIRC)

Catch up to DEMAND.

My point was that with Cingular Apple can go nationwide in the US
(T-Mobile can't offer that) and go worldwide with little or no hardware
changes except to maybe packaging and labels.

Scott Wyant wrote:
>
> On Jan 17, 2007, at 5:53 AM, Travis Butler wrote:
>
>> (isn't Verizon
>> notorious for crippling Bluetooth and other direct data transfers
>> between computer and phone, so that you have to use their data
>> services
>> to get stuff on/off the phone?).
>
>
> No, that would be Cingular, actually.
>
> [I usually think of Verizon in this context. There was a very popular
> phone a few years ago (Mot V551?) which Verizon shipped with BT
> disabled. -Andrew ]
>
Well this could turn into a "he said she said" but a friend just dumped
Version for Cingular so he could buy Moto Razor phones with all features
working. Plus when he's in Europe he can just buy a SIM card for use
while there. Verizon took away most of the phone features on the same
phones. Basically anything that would eliminate the need for a monthly
fee service from Verizon.

On 1/18/07 00:17, "Scott Wyant" <swyantgmail.com> wrote:

>> (isn't Verizon
>> notorious for crippling Bluetooth and other direct data transfers
>> between computer and phone, so that you have to use their data
>> services
>> to get stuff on/off the phone?).
>
> No, that would be Cingular, actually.

Verizon does it too

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On 1/17/2007 10:17 PM, "Scott Wyant" wrote:
>> (isn't Verizon notorious for crippling Bluetooth and other direct data
>> transfers between computer and phone, so that you have to use their data
>> services to get stuff on/off the phone?).
>
> No, that would be Cingular, actually.

Definitely Verizon. Cingular does have a few restrictions, but for the most
part their phones work as expected. Verizon, on the other hand, has been
notorious for disabling Bluetooth file-transfer features as well as the
ability to transfer media directly to your phone via a cable. Want to use
your favorite MP3 as a ringtone? With Cingular, it's often possible; with
Verizon, your only option is to hope they offer it as a for-fee ringtone.

On 1/17/07 at 10:09 PM, jwelchbynkii.com (John C. Welch) wrote:

> On 1/17/07 07:53, "Travis Butler" <tbutlerbirch.net> wrote:
>
> > The other reason I've seen publicly given for choosing Cingular is
> > that they were the only ones willing to 'meet Apple's terms.' I've
<snip>
> > order to make a phone work the way they wanted? This could be
> > Apple's answer, that they only went with a network willing to meet
> > their terms.
>
> The other reason for Cingular is that there's only two GSM providers
> of any size in the US, Cingular/AT&T and T-Mobile, and T-Mobile
> simply isn't big enough for this.

Sure, if you were going to have to choose one exclusive carrier. I
thought the argument was over why there *had* to be an exclusive
carrier, though - most of the anti-Cingular sentiment seems to think
that Apple should have sold the iPhone unlocked for use with any GSM
provider.

The technical issue with voicemail infrastructure support is at least
clear-cut and relatively simple to explain, assuming one's willing to
listen, but resolving it is equally clear-cut; either you support it or
you don't, but it's a technological barrier theoretically fixable by any
GSM carrier. (Indeed, some of the commentary I've read seems to be
hoping that Apple will force the issue of improved infrastructure with
all the GSM carriers.)

Issues like terms of service (does Apple get a cut of the carrier fee?
Does the carrier get a cut of iTunes revenue?), device activities and
and feature lockout (ringtones? direct music downloads? Computer synch
and data transfer? VOIP?) are a lot fuzzier and a lot more political,
and that's where there's room for argument over whether Apple could or
should have compromised to get more carriers on board.


Travis Butler
tbutlermac.com

>>(isn't Verizon notorious for crippling Bluetooth and other direct
>>data transfers between computer and phone, so that you have to use
>>their data services to get stuff on/off the phone?).
>
>No, that would be Cingular, actually.

Cingular certainly didn't cripple my S710a (which rocks, but they no
longer sell it) and I haven't heard any reports of them crippling
other phones. (I've heard that RAZRs can't sync over Bluetooth, but
I think that's Motorola's fault.)

Which phones has Cingular (as opposed to the manufacturers) crippled?


[I think it's pretty much agreed that Verizon is worse in this respect, so let's let this branch of the thread die out. -Adam]


~ Kiran <entropyio.com>
--

<http://www.io.com/contradance/> 857-928-9700 (mobile)

At 10:17 PM -0800 2007/01/17, Scott Wyant wrote:
>On Jan 17, 2007, at 5:53 AM, Travis Butler wrote:
>
>>(isn't Verizon
>>notorious for crippling Bluetooth and other direct data transfers
>>between computer and phone, so that you have to use their data
>>services
>>to get stuff on/off the phone?).
>
>
>No, that would be Cingular, actually.
>
>[I usually think of Verizon in this context. There was a very
>popular phone a few years ago (Mot V551?) which Verizon shipped with
>BT disabled. -Andrew ]

        Sprint disabled DUNS (Dial-up Networking via Bluetooth), and
then enabled it on the Treo 6x00 series in response to customer
complaints.

        Verizon disabled DUNS on the Treos, and has never enabled it
(at least through my 650 -- I suppose they could have relented on the
later models, but doubt it).

--
Chris Pepper: <http://www.reppep.com/~pepper/>
                             <http://www.extrapepperoni.com/>
Rockefeller University: <http://www.rockefeller.edu/>

On 1/19/07 at 9:45 AM, Kiran Wagle <entropyio.com> wrote:

> (I've heard that RAZRs can't sync over Bluetooth, but I think
> that's Motorola's fault.)

Just to correct this observation, or at least provide one opposite
experience, my (Cingluar-provided) Motorola RAZR syncs over Bluetooth
via iSync to Address Book and iCal on a daily basis with no problems.

- Todd

Based on the store below, one might say that Apple is entering an
"interesting" market with iPhone. (Yes, Apple is trying the top end
of this market, and that does make a difference--of degree, not kind,
I think.)

<http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075-2556564,00.html>

   --John

On Jan 22, 2007, at 2:31 AM, johnbaxterlistsmac.com wrote:

> Based on the store below, one might say that Apple is entering an
> "interesting" market with iPhone. (Yes, Apple is trying the top end
> of this market, and that does make a difference--of degree, not kind,
> I think.)
>
> <http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075-2556564,00.html>
>

This is a good assessment of the market for mobile phones, and I
think it doesn't mention iPhone because this product will clearly be
a hybrid phone/PDA/music player/computer and maybe game player. It's
an important distinction, particularly when Apple is clearly selling
a high end product. When Steve Jobs said that Apple was "going to
make some history here today," I think he was right. It will eat in
to the market for cell phones, as iPod/iTunes did for the music
market, but it currently in a class by itself.

The high end of the phone market is also more profitable, which is
ultimately what stockholders and Wall Street looks at.

Marilyn

On 1/21/07 11:31 PM, "Todd Ruston" <toddhackneyponies.com> wrote:

> Just to correct this observation, or at least provide one opposite
> experience, my (Cingluar-provided) Motorola RAZR syncs over Bluetooth
> via iSync to Address Book and iCal on a daily basis with no problems.

Works for me too with a Razr provided by T-Mobile.
--

Allen Watson . Writer/Webmaster [ p. 503 .281 .0250 m. 503 .916 .9411
e. watson.allencomcast.net
homepage.mac.com/allen_a_watson/