Well it would be cheaper for the consumer, because you can get unlimited data plans for not too much, but unlimited voice plans are expensive and rare.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple iPhone Apps Coming, but Limited
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well it would be cheaper for the consumer, because you can get unlimited data plans for not too much, but unlimited voice plans are expensive and rare.
I'm afraid it's too expensive for that market segment.
Anyway; I'm not going to encourage anyone of my friends to get one. As it is it's just a flashy and (very) expensive toy. Need to take a look at those Treos now. *sigh*
I concur, mostly.
It seems clear enough that MR provides people with the opportunity to disregard economics, the mean wants and needs of consumers, and demand that products are developed and released that cater to their uses or projected uses and preferences, no matter how obscure and esoteric they may be.
But I have some reservation in saying that the complaining is bad or unhealthy; that it has anything to do with a lack of sunlight. For one thing, I learn a lot from other peoples complaints. Complaints may or may not make good points, they may remind you of something, and they may introduce you to something else.
It also seems like the complaining is, in some cases, a component of an intensive and broad analysis of a tricky optimization problem. What is the right solution given number of important factors: how much power can a device have, how big can it be, who are we making it for, how much will it cost, when will it be released, what color will it be
Did you watch the keynote? Apple offers a link directly to the iPhone intro, you can start with that...
Not for the upper 1% (at least) of that market. Many high-end nonsmartphones cost that much. And considering it has a full-fledged iPod built-in, it's not THAT expensive.
Thank you for the one of the only intelligent comments on this thread! The rest of you may now proceed with you tantrums.
Exactly what I was going to say. Who needs MS office apps when you can get Google Docs and SpreadSheet via browser. We need to start moving away from client-side apps to server-side apps going forward.
Anyway, most of the people complaining here are installing cracked 3rd party apps on thier phones anyway. The same people are complaining about Apple TV not being able to play their bit torrented pirated/ripped movies in divx. The same people playing pirated/copied games on the xbox360, ps2, DS, PSP etc...
Apple controlling 3rd party apps gives back what developers deserves...money for their creativity, time and effort! Good on Apple.
Controled distribution of 3rd party apps like they do with widgets through Apple's website (even with more restrictions, probably purchase through itunes) is a good thing for control quality. Slow and deliberate opening of this new platform is prudent. Many apps are needed, sound recording widget springs to mind but with release being five months away it is more important to assure a quality experience at release and the consumer's initial impression of the device at release for marketing is more important short term. Developers will want to get onboard in do time if it is a sucess. The iPhone is the best new product in years... It will change everything but it will take some time to develop its own market.
Uh, yeah, I did, and the way Steve was bashing current smartphone interfaces (and not "regular" cellphones), it was clear he was positioning the iPhone to be a competitor to smartphones. And you need to have real software expandability if you want to be considered a smartphone.
i kinda thought along these same lines.... i wouldn't want to install some shareware i thought was cool only to have the phone crash on me at a critical moment, and then i have to search high and low on the net to figure out what could be causing the crash.
however, i think it's gonna take, oh, five minutes for some hacker to figure out how to install other software onto it....
however, i think it's gonna take, oh, five minutes for some hacker to figure out how to install other software onto it....
Thank you for the one of the only intelligent comments on this thread! The rest of you may now proceed with you tantrums.
These "tantrums" are the sort of thing that get Apple to fix some of these issues before June.
Because the apps are crucial for a smartphone. Just like for any computer.
Not acceptable. Sounds like Microsofts wet dreams about controlling your computer.
First, I didn't want Apple to release a phone that much.
Second, the hardware is *amazing*! That's all the point! If it were a lackluster device, I wouldn't care at all. But it's a fantastic machine that will be crippled to death just because I can't run the software on it I want.
Oh, and of course this is just my opinion. Why would I post someone else's?
But not if you want to compete with smartphones...
The three concepts rolled into the iPhone that he repeated over and over again are where Apple's focus is. "Smartphones" like the Treos and Blackberrys are really the only phones out there with integrated email and web access. That's what Apple is competing with.
There's a business model that would work perfectly with this phone, but Cingular won't play ball. Cisco wanted in the game in return for the iPhone name: http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html
The business model is this:
Cingular provides access to the SS7 telephone network, in an access neutral manner. When you're away from home or the office, your voice and data traffic go over GSM. When you're within range of an open WiFi access point, your voice traffic goes over the Internet to a VOIP endpoint back at Cingular. Your phone registers on the appropriate network, and Cingular routes incoming calls accordingly. A bonus of this plan to the consumer is that now Cingular has coverage at your house in the sticks, even if there's not a cell phone tower for miles. Your phone works in the middle of your office building where no cell signal can reach, without any expensive premise buildout on Cingular's part.
Cisco has the technology to do this, and I think there's evidence that Cisco wanted to push Apple into collaborating in a GSM/VOIP network agnostic view of the world where cell phone companies provide what they provide best (SS7 and GSM access) while Apple provides what they provide best (an open user experience). And Cingular couldn't imagine that world, and Apple needed Cingular to launch this thing more than they needed the name from Cisco.
And it's a real shame, because Cisco and Apple have the right vision, but Apple sold out that vision to prop up Cingular's dying view of the world.
Data cheaper than voice? Gouging?
This doesn't make sense to me.
If data rates are actually cheaper than "voice" rates, why aren't the phone companies using VoIP themselves? If it's actually cheaper, it would make sense for them to do that. Unless this is just price gouging or something.
(I am not familiar with the mobile phone industry.)
This doesn't make sense to me.
If data rates are actually cheaper than "voice" rates, why aren't the phone companies using VoIP themselves? If it's actually cheaper, it would make sense for them to do that. Unless this is just price gouging or something.
(I am not familiar with the mobile phone industry.)
Many include executables, although I'm not sure if any of Apple's default ones do (I suspect not). For example, my Transmit widget contains a compiled app, as do many others.
Do you know if Cisco will work with someone else then to make the open one happen?
Thank you for being the voice of reason. Every year it amazes me the amount of whiny bitching Apple users, who usually end up being hypocrites. RTFA.
A toy? That's what some Windows users used to say about the Mac. Just because the iPhone, which is still almost six months away from hitting the street, doesn't do what you want it to?
I agree that eventually Apple is going to have to open it up to developers, but not at the beginning. The last thing they need is to release a phone that's unstable because of some third-party app, and the best way to prevent that is to control every aspect of the device.
I've been looking at the Treos too, and I'm not happy with what I see. The screens on the WM models are too small, and the boards at TreoCentral are filled with complaints about the 700p.
The iPhone may or may not fill the bill for me, but at least I'm going to reserve judgment until I can try one for myself.
I'm reading a lot of passion for 3rd party apps, but I'm not seeing any real examples of why Apple needs them to succeed. There's a couple of medical apps that might be important for doctors, but that's not a huge market segment anymore. Someone mentioned SlingPlayer which looks like a direct competitor to iTunes. Someone mentioned SSH and VLC which probably caters to an even smaller user segment than doctors...
Skype, I think would be great but politically tough for Apple.
Where's the need here, folks?
Skype, I think would be great but politically tough for Apple.
Where's the need here, folks?
They do, internally. They don't yet have an acceptable wireless pipe to get TCP/IP out to the phone with a decent QOS to support voice. But once it hits the tower, it gets converted to VOIP and shuffled out to their central offices to get routed either down their TCP/IP network (if it's going to another subsciber) or to the SS7 network if it's going to someone else.
The voice over radio and the infrastructure required there is still the expensive part of the network, and that's really the part that reflects in the current rates. VOIP won't really cut that down much, as the tower costs don't really change.
Not To Expensive
I remember when the Motorola RAZR V3 was $500. Now everyone and their mother has one. Razr Wikipedia Link
I would pay $500 just for that fancy iPod interface, only if it had more storage though
I remember when the Motorola RAZR V3 was $500. Now everyone and their mother has one. Razr Wikipedia Link
I would pay $500 just for that fancy iPod interface, only if it had more storage though
Doesn't even make me hesitate. I could care less about 3rd party apps on the iphone.