Bricking is fine, 3G undesirable & the closed system's better

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by ElectricHermit, Sep 28, 2007.

  1. ElectricHermit macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    #1
    Whilst it would be great if iPhone was already 3G, open to developers and not tied to one carrier in each territory, I think people who rant and rave about these things now are crazy fools. It's not a fanboy thing, it just makes sense.

    It's all about brand-building. Doesn't anyone remember the run-up to iPhone? A good deal of the FUD was about battery life. Early rumors bragged that iPhone would need two batteries, one for the iPod, and one for the phone. By going 2G, Apple lost a good amount of data speed, in exchange for battery life.

    Does anyone remember when 3 Mobile launched in the UK? Endless griping about coverage. That would have been iPhone and AT&T in 2007.

    And what about usability. Isn't the user interface the one thing that iPhone reviews almost all agree to praise?

    My point it this: imagine a world where the iphone lost battery faster, where data coverage was patchy, and where 3rd party software integration was unreliable. Imagine a second-gen iPhone seeking to remedy these problems. It would have been too late for the hype-of-the-year, written off in a thousand blogs and reviews.

    Now come back to this world: reliable battery life, good coverage, and a stable UI. The iPhone is flawed in many ways (I repeat, I'm not a fanboy), but it hasn't been written off. Instead, it's 'too expensive' and 'not 3G'. But imagine what happens when they do perfect 3G integration, when phone networks have better 3G coverage, and they can take time to build a stable UI with 3rd-party development. When carriers have seen the iPhone prove its worth, and are willing to make available services like visual voicemail, and inexpensive unlimited data plans.

    Isn't it time we accepted that Apple got this the right way round?
     
  2. atari1356 macrumors 68000

    atari1356

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    #2
    But it's so much easier to complain than to think! ;) :D
     
  3. sanford macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Location:
    Dallas, USA
    #3
    Ooh, a brain. Where did you find one of those around here?

    Thanks for the rational thought; much appreciated.
     
  4. carfac macrumors 65816

    carfac

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    #4
    I am with ya on the 2G thing. I wish it was faster, but it works OK. Besides, at least here, there is no 3G infrastructure. So maybe I could have had a 3G, but I couldn't have used it... and 2G is better than that.

    And, for my usage, I am actually OK with the current battery life.

    However, I would not have minded a slightly thicker iPhone for an exchangeable battery.

    I also do not think the closed system is a benefit to anyone but Apple. Where would the Macs be if you could only use iWorks on it?
     
  5. iWizzard macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    #5
    ElectricHermit: you do now that there are other regions in the world other than your one right?

    EDGE seem to suck sins you cant do two things at the same time. For example dl a file and talk on the phone. (newer used edge)

    And it is not 2003 anymore, The operators has actually been building more 3G masts. In Sweden the cover is 99-100% (PDF

    And the battery argument i baffling it is not a real smart phone without 3G ! also ALL phones (except low end) in Europe and Asia has had 3g for years, it is not 3g that is an battery hog it is the ipod part and big screen.
     
  6. ElectricHermit thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    #6
    There are? Crumbs, I had no idea. :p

    All well and good. 3G is better for all the obvious reasons you list. Except 3G undoubtedly consumes more power than 2G. Clearly the "ipod part and big screen" isn't a major drain, or everyone would be complaining about battery life (QED). 3G iPhone would certainly have had poorer battery performance than the current one for its size - maybe not much worse, and maybe the phone should have been fatter to accommodate it. Etc etc

    You're missing my point, anyway. I'm not arguing that 3g isn't worth having, but that Apple have successfully established iPhone's early reputation with their existing stragegy. A fatter iPhone, or one with poorer battery, smaller screen, scratchy casing, could well have died.

    Also, now I've had a chance to read about some of these "other regions in the world" of which you speak, I would like to add that the USA was always going to have to work for Apple before anyone else could get this. Their 3G isn't as ubiquitous, and (for reasons I alluded to before), their carrier choices were rightly limited before launch.

    It isn't that I disagree with iPhone wish-lists, or the right for fans to ask for improvements. I just think we're already taking for granted the iPhone's success, when the advice offered to Apple on these forums - if heeded during the iPhone's development - could have contributed to a device flawed in all the ways which Apple-haters expected. This way, the iPhone succeeds, and has a future to play with :).
     
  7. ElectricHermit thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    #7
    I agree. But where would the iPhone be if Apple hadn't been able to ensure a seamless interface and smooth OS, in the time available to them at launch?

    If, in time (6-12 months), Apple don't open iPhone, I will be ready to criticise them. As it is, I stand by my original assertion that this way made good 'brand sense'.
     
  8. QuarterSwede macrumors G3

    QuarterSwede

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    #8
    I quite agree with you ElectricHermit. Apple definitely knew what they were doing in using Edge instead of 3G. First, their home base is in the US where the current major data infrastructure is Edge (at least on AT&T). Second, Jobs already stated that the 3G chips that were available when they were making the phone were too large and sucked too much power. Third, the 2G iPhone surely will have 3G now that chips are leaner both physically and power wise.

    As far as not allowing true 3rd party development, I'm not sure what Apple was thinking with that one. Sounds like a bullet in the foot to me.
     
  9. jediistar macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    #9
    So very true, so very very true. The senseless and the oblivious are the ones purchasing and the ones getting burned with maybe a dozen or so actually knowing that they are taking a purchased risk but that has to amount to like I don't know, four people.
     
  10. BanjoBanker macrumors 6502

    BanjoBanker

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Location:
    Mt Brook, AL
    #10
    Total Agreement

    I too agree with Electrichermit. Apple wanted the iPhone to work like all Apple products from the start. This is not a MS product where the customers are the beta testers. 3G is all well and good, but the primary mission of the iPhone is to be a PHONE. I have used 3G phones in Europe and the battery life sucks! My business associates overseas all carry spare batteries for their phones. I can't count the times I have had a call interrupted by the caller's battery dying. The Apple bashers would have a filed day if pathetic battery life were the norm on the iPhone. I rarely surf the 'net with my iPhone outside of hot spots, and I am sure I am not alone. The sending and receiving of mail via EDGE is fine. I firmly believe that Apple and Co made the right call on the iPhone. Judgeing by the sales, I appear not to be alone in my view. There will never be any product, form Apple or anyone else, that is all things to all people. :cool:
     
  11. LeviG macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Location:
    Norfolk, UK
    #11
    Um you're going to have the same issue as this with the edge network in the UK, o2 only have about 30% uk coverage according to current reports, well thats just the big cities then :rolleyes:

    Clouds wifi isn't great in the rural areas either meaning most people will be browsing the internet either from home or via normal gprs which is something I've been able to do (and many others) for around 3 years on my p900.

    Actually thinking about it o2 coverage where I live is actually the worst coverage out of the 5 big mobile companies in the UK, vodafone, orange, t-mobile and even 3 all have better coverage than o2 here and the only one without 3g is yep you guessed it o2.

    Can you tell I think apple got the provider wrong in the uk :D
    I also think the packages are wrong for a phone, they've been created to recoup some of the extra costs by reducing the talk allowance by offering unlimited (in reality its limited but a fup is unlimited in the uk) edge/gprs/wifi web access. Think about it most people buying the iphone are going to get board with using the internet on a phone and it will be used more for phone calls so the lower package is going to recoup a fair bit of cash from the people misjudging their needs.
     
  12. ElectricHermit thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    #12
    Excellent point. It does depend how fast they can/will ratchet up that coverage.

    On the unlimited data point, I believe Cloud will be fair (from people I know at work who use their current 'unlimited' offering with their laptops).

    With O2, I'm actually fairly worried. Yesterday, I saw that O2 had announced data plans for all its non-iPhone customers. The O2 Web Bolt On costs £7.50 and has a monthly 'fair usage' total of 200MB a month, which O2 reckon equates to 1,400 pages. At the iPhone UK launch Matthew Key (CEO of O2) said of the iPhone data contract (my bold for emphasis), "There is a limit: 1,400 internet pages per day would break the deal as part of fair usage agreement."

    So, do we think UK iPhone users are actually going to get 'unlimited=200MB a day' like he said, or 'unlimited=200MB a month' like he is now selling all his other customers ?

    It's a fairly important difference! Besides the relative risk of breaking the fair usage policy, it either means the iPhone contracts come with retail data costs of £7.50 included, or they cover you for around £230 of data . If it's the latter, it makes those expensive contracts look a lot less expensive. What do we think?
     
  13. sanford macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Location:
    Dallas, USA
    #13
    The bottom line that Hermit here has stated: there are concessions in the iPhone's design and in accessibility to third-party enhancements to create a great product that just works. A completely open, 3G device with some of the interface advancements of iPhone could have been created by some other company running on, say, a Linux platform. It could have been sold unlocked. You could add or delete software as you please. It would have short battery life or be huge, work intermittently and not transparently to the user, wind up with conflicting 3rd party apps on it causing it to crash in the middle of a phone call, it would be at least somewhat larger and weigh at least little more. It would be a valid, useful product for some, but not for Apple's target demographic. Apple is trying to capture the whole age and use range of the average iPod crowd with a mobile communications device that also does the iPod thing. More or less, they've done it, more or less, thanks to the limitations they placed on it.

    p.s. Don't know about the screen, but it's not the iPod that nails the battery. I use airplane mode even when I'm not on an airplane as a quick "Do Not Disturb" mode while I'm working; listen to music for hours and hours and hours and the battery indicator doesn't even budge. In my experience it's plain old voice phone calls that whack the battery the most.

     
  14. trevreyno macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    #14

    I'm fairly sure it will be the latter 'unlimited=200MB a month'

    No doubt we will get some clarification in the next few days from o2 along the lines of-

    "What Matthew meant to say was.......":(
     
  15. MarkPB15 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    #15
    Honestly I'd love to have 3g and I live in Philly, where the infrastructure is implemented. That being said, the only time I want 3g is when I am out in the burbs. I hit hotspots every 3 feet so I would never use it in the city. The only time it is annoying is when I am in the car driving around the city and frankly I shouldn't be using it while I drive. The other time is when I walk around, but actually the iPhone does a superb job of hopping wireless spots as I walk.

    This is Apple's first phone and frankly it has some productivity shortcomings, but in terms of interface, it is so ahead of anything that sometimes I feel like I am holding a future device. I mean OS X is great on my macbook and the original iPod was very impressive for its time, but I have never used a device that felt so ahead of its time in my life.
     
  16. Plutonius macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #16
    Apple is trying to maximize profit and shareholder satisfaction so in terms of this criteria, they are making the right moves.
     

Share This Page