Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Is there a physical reason that the original iPhone and iPod touch can't run 4.0?

Applejuiced said:
I never remember Apple promising any added features for the future when the 2G iphone was released.
Click to expand...

Where were you at launch? EVERYONE else knew that Apple was going to give updates and new features.

For one of a zillion public examples, this typical article from July 6 2007:

"Apple has clearly stated that it plans to offer software update to improve and add to the features of the iPhone. This should be easily done since the device uses OS X and can be updated via iTunes. "

Mossberg even wrote that Apple had told him they would add Flash support within a couple of months via an update.

People buy a device for what its features are and what it can do for them at the time of purchase. Not for what may be comming or maybe not down the road 3 years later. The logic of buy it now and hope in the future it will be better to fit your needs in nonsense IMO.
Click to expand...

While that logic might fit many devices, getting free updates to add missing functionality has always been a key selling point of the iPhone. (And being charged for the same updates has been a part of owning an iPod touch. lol)

Heck, for a year after launch fanboys were still telling potential buyers not to wait, because "MMS / video / whatever was coming any second". Just search the archives.

Apple themselves stated that they were using a 24 month revenue recognition in order to provide free updates and new apps and functionality.
 
kdarling said:
Where were you at launch? EVERYONE else knew that Apple was going to give updates and new features.

For one of a zillion public examples, this typical article from July 6 2007:

"Apple has clearly stated that it plans to offer software update to improve and add to the features of the iPhone. This should be easily done since the device uses OS X and can be updated via iTunes. "

Mossberg even wrote that Apple had told him they would add Flash support within a couple of months via an update.



While that logic might fit many devices, getting free updates to add missing functionality has always been a key selling point of the iPhone. (And being charged for the same updates has been a part of owning an iPod touch. lol)

Heck, for a year after launch fanboys were still telling potential buyers not to wait, because "MMS / video / whatever was coming any second". Just search the archives.

Apple themselves stated that they were using a 24 month revenue recognition in order to provide free updates and new apps and functionality.
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying with people expecting more from Apple but assumptions and speculations wont get you far.
Look at Mossberg on July 2007 saying that Apple told him within a few months the iphone will get flash. And now a Verizon iphone and a while ago about the Ipad on Verizon etc.....
If you go by stuff like that you will still be praying and hoping for an iphone on Verizon. Same deal with many other wireless providers telling their customers that the iphone is comming soon to their network :D
I like to believe in Santa Clause too but I try to stay in reality and see things more logically.
In the end Apple is in business to make money and by putting out new hardware and software to make people wanting to upgrade and keep purchasing their products is basically how the corp system works. Cant blame them for wanting to profit with their game changing OS and devices.
 
kdarling said:
So what?

Free software updates and additions have already been firmly established as normal and expected by now.

(That was a rolling 24 month period btw, not starting only from June 2007 of course.)
Click to expand...

At any point, are you sure you want to expose a 1st Gen iPhone to OS 4? It won't be a happy ending, I can assure you that. The 1st Gen was touted as the first phone to receive certain features because it's OS could easily be updated thru iTunes.

Notice everyone knows certain features can work, while other can't be added. A good example would be auto-focus on the camera. It ain't happening because its a hardware thing. Now, I do understand Apple gets all BS on people with stuff like MMS.
 
jav6454 said:
At any point, are you sure you want to expose a 1st Gen iPhone to OS 4? It won't be a happy ending, I can assure you that.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that running 4.0 on an iPhone 3G will be a happier ending? They're the same internals.
 
Bat Commander said:
Are you saying that running 4.0 on an iPhone 3G will be a happier ending? They're the same internals.
Click to expand...

PR my friend. Like I said before, iPhone 3G has been sold up until now, so it would be PR disaster for Apple to drop support out of the blue in comparison to the 1st Gen which got all the way up to OS 3. It's much easier to drop a model that hasn't been sold in years and barely anyone uses.

Compare that to iPhone 3G, which was bought by a lot of people and is still being sold.
 
Bat Commander said:
Are you saying that running 4.0 on an iPhone 3G will be a happier ending? They're the same internals.
Click to expand...

Definetelly wont be a happy ending :)
If Apple leaves stuff out that the 3G wont do but the 3GS will people will get mad. If they try to include everything people will whine and complain that it runs very crappy, slow and unstable etc...
If they dont offer the 4.0 update people will still cry and say that Apple abandoned them etc....
Then you will get people like Thespaz saying that Apple can make everything run as 2.2.1 on an iphone 3G with 4.0 but they dont want to "optimize" their firmware so people will be forced to update :D
You cant win and obviously you cant make everyone happy.
In the end it comes down to personal choice.
You want to update to the latest iphone and OS go ahead if not dont.
Crying about it on the internet wont make any difference.
Thanks for sharing though.
 
Applejuiced said:
Definetelly wont be a happy ending :)
If Apple leaves stuff out that the 3G wont do but the 3GS will people will get mad. If they try to include everything people will whine and complain that it runs very crappy, slow and unstable etc...
If they dont offer the 4.0 update people will still cry and say that Apple abandoned them etc....
Then you will get people like Thespazz saying that Apple can make everything run as 2.2.1 on an iphone 3G with 4.0 but they dont want to "optimize" their firmware so people will be forced to update :D
You cant win and obviously you cant make everyone happy.
In the end it comes down to personal choice.
You want to update to the latest iphone and OS go ahead if not dont.
Crying about it on the internet wont make any difference.
Thanks for sharing though.
Click to expand...

Off-topic a moment... How in the world did TheSpaz get banned? Did he finally hit a chord with Teh Mods?
 
jav6454 said:
PR my friend. Like I said before, iPhone 3G has been sold up until now, so it would be PR disaster for Apple to drop support out of the blue in comparison to the 1st Gen which got all the way up to OS 3. It's much easier to drop a model that hasn't been sold in years and barely anyone uses.

Compare that to iPhone 3G, which was bought by a lot of people and is still being sold.
Click to expand...

Hmm... it seemed to me that you were implying that the original iPhone would run too slowly on 4.0.

I know that they're dropping support for the first gen. I understand that they don't want to officially support the oldest iPhone anymore. We get it. You just keep saying how the original iPhone wouldn't be able to keep up with 4.0, but you make no mention of the iPhone 3G.

If they did make a first gen compatible 4.0, it would run exactly the same as it does on an iPhone 3G. You just wouldn't get 3G internet or GPS.

Remember, the original iPhone can send MMS too.
 
AbSoluTc said:
See below..




People with "plenty of money" don't say "what little income I have". Maybe a poor choice of words? I don't know. I am going by what you said. I don't know who you are and your just another person on the net. I go buy what I read. If money is not an issue, you shouldn't bring it up in the discussion.
Click to expand...

Nice job of taking things out of context to make your arguement sound better.

Yes - I have plenty of money to buy a $200 phone and pay the extra $10 a month over what I'm paying now. No - I don't drive a new car, nor do I have a water heater with WiFi, bluetooth, or USB.

Does that clear things up for you?

BTW - if it's so "completely obvious" why did you still buy into it? Lol.
Click to expand...

Because it wasn't completely obvious 27 months ago. I'm surprised you couldn't figure this one out on your own.

Apple is not to blame here. It's the way the MOBILE phone market works. It always has. Nobody raised a stink when companies were putting out new models ever 6 months to a year. The only reason they are now, is 1 - they paid much more for it...
Click to expand...

The price sounds like an important consideration to me.

...and 2 - they think just because it's a "computer" it should be upgradeable to the end of time.
Click to expand...

No, not till the end of time. Just till the point where the virtually identical iPhone 3G has it's support dropped. I also don't expect it for free at this point - I would be perfectly willing to pay the same OS upgrade price as iPod touch users.
 
I believe the 24-month lifecycle that was brought up early in this thread. At least in their home market, most iPhones are sold on a 2 year contract. For those two years, the user is bringing in a fairly guaranteed revenue stream. After that, there is a better chance that the phone will be sold or moved on to another network, etc. I'm sure from Apple's POV, they don't see the need to continue development once the revenue has moved elsewhere.

This also has the side benefit of encouraging users who have long been on the $15 data plan to upgrade which moves them to the $30 data plan.

I realize this may be frustrating at face value for an end-user, but Apple is a business first and foremost. Presumably the 2g iPhone is meeting your needs now, why would the presence of a newer OS prevent it from doing so in the future?
 
zhenya said:
I believe the 24-month lifecycle that was brought up early in this thread. At least in their home market, most iPhones are sold on a 2 year contract. For those two years, the user is bringing in a fairly guaranteed revenue stream. After that, there is a better chance that the phone will be sold or moved on to another network, etc. I'm sure from Apple's POV, they don't see the need to continue development once the revenue has moved elsewhere.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly what I meant. Apple wanted to provide ongoing updates to customers throughout the lifetime of the product. Not just bug-fixes, but all new features.

Apple adopted a subscription-model of accounting - where the revenue of the iPhone (which Apple gets all in one lump) is treated as arriving as a series instalments over a two year period. Two years was chosen a the "lifetime" of the device.

This has nothing to do with contracts or carriers.

C.
 
zhenya said:
Ok, that's fine, but I'm doubtful that it's just coincidence that they decided on a 'two year lifecycle' and also require two year contracts....
Click to expand...

24 months is not a co-incidence. It's two different parties both picking the same figure for the lifetime of a phone.

In the UK we see both 18 and 24 month contracts being offered.

C.
 
Carniphage said:
24 months is not a co-incidence. It's two different parties both picking the same figure for the lifetime of a phone.

In the UK we see both 18 and 24 month contracts being offered.

C.
Click to expand...

Two parties, yes, but the AT&T was certainly involved in revenue planning with Apple. It's not like it was decided completely independently. I realize the iPhone is a world phone, but products are usually heavily influenced by their home markets.
 
zhenya said:
Two parties, yes, but the AT&T was certainly involved in revenue planning with Apple. It's not like it was decided completely independently. I realize the iPhone is a world phone, but products are usually heavily influenced by their home markets.
Click to expand...

They might have agreed on a figure - but it is irrelevant to Apple.
With the exception of the unsubsidised deal relating to the first iPhone. Apple get all of the money up front.

This includes the cash from the purchaser and the subsidy from the network.

Internally, Apple chose to recognise the revenue as a two year stream of cash. This is the same for 18 month, 24 month and unlocked unsubsidised handsets. However the contract is structured, Apple pretends it is seeing a 24 month stream of cash.

Using these accounting rules, after two years, Apple can not offer free functional upgrades.

It could chose to charge for them. But I think it prefers to send out a simpler message:

Upgrade!

C.
 
Applejuiced said:
Yes, I think he took it too far and he got out of controll in a few threads acting a fool :D
Then created a 2nd handle and that got banned also.
Click to expand...

Wow, so no more Spaz huh?? I can barely imagine a world. :p

of course I'm sure he'll make a new handle. one that won't be easily recognized as him (since creating a second account is against forum policy... TheNewSpaz? Really? Think they wouldn't notice that one... :rolleyes:)

Now the challenge will be to identify him.. hmm.....
 
Mad Mac Maniac said:
Wow, so no more Spaz huh?? I can barely imagine a world. :p

of course I'm sure he'll make a new handle. one that won't be easily recognized as him (since creating a second account is against forum policy... TheNewSpaz? Really? Think they wouldn't notice that one... :rolleyes:)

Now the challenge will be to identify him.. hmm.....
Click to expand...

Yes, that shouldnt he hard at all :D
 
Carniphage said:
They might have agreed on a figure - but it is irrelevant to Apple.
With the exception of the unsubsidised deal relating to the first iPhone. Apple get all of the money up front.

This includes the cash from the purchaser and the subsidy from the network.

Internally, Apple chose to recognise the revenue as a two year stream of cash. This is the same for 18 month, 24 month and unlocked unsubsidised handsets. However the contract is structured, Apple pretends it is seeing a 24 month stream of cash.

Using these accounting rules, after two years, Apple can not offer free functional upgrades.

It could chose to charge for them. But I think it prefers to send out a simpler message:

Upgrade!

C.
Click to expand...

I think that we are saying pretty much the same thing but somehow not understanding one another! :)
 
For those who are interested, an explanation of the original and new accounting methods is here at Roughly Drafted.

With either method, Apple has basically said that two years is the limit of free software updates, the cost of which comes out of what the device sells for.

(Apple could've chosen a much longer timeframe of course, but then they'd also have to charge iPod touch users much less for updates. And there'd be less incentive for people to move on after two years.)

Speaking of which...

Judging from what they charged iPod touch users, Apple is claiming that at least $20 per phone is going toward software updates. Sound right, or too low?

Fifty million phones x $20 = one billion dollars stashed away just for phone updates

Man, for that much money, a dev team should deliver incredible onboard video editing, real voice control, and a full Bluetooth stack. And even a Flash player that works well :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back