So, you want an iPhone...
I'm going to semi-bring out my professsional geek hat, such as it is. In my day job, part of my work involves dealing with enterprise cell phone accounts and figuring out mobile device strategies that will add value. Sometimes this means adding things that are cool and sometimes it means advocating really boring and seemingly obsolete things. But the upside is that I do get to spend a lot of my time reading and thinking about the usability of technology and the value that these technologies bring to various business units. Given that, I've been intrigued about the iPhone and have to admit that I was initially tempted to get one before I started thinking about it.
There are a lot of things to like about the iPhone. It's a nice looking iPod to start with, complete with the cool Cover Flow view that will let you see cover art. It's nicer than any of the other music phones out there. (Although if you can't get the best, the Samsung Upstage is a cheap alternative for Sprint customers and the Verizon Chocolate is still pretty cute even if the memory tops off at 2 GBs if you get an additional micro SD card.)
The touch sensor screen really is revolutionary, since multi-touch usability on a phone is really unprecedented. The HTC Touch has a single-touch interface that isn't bad as cell phones go, but it's nowhere near as intuitive or flexible as the iPhone's touch interface. The LG Prada is a Korean phone that has a similar look and a one-finger touch screen interface, but it's only offered overseas at this point.
The Safari browser should be a whole lot nicer than the crap that passes for web browsers on most phones. I'm going to assume that OS X is going to be more stable than Windows Mobile 6 and Symbian, although the Blackberry OS is pretty stable as well. The media player is also going to be great since it'll be supported by iTunes. Don't worry, phamos818, iTunes 7.3 will get fixed. I know it will. It has to, right?
The battery life is supposedly spectacular according to everyone who's pre-tested it. It will pull from Wi-Fi internet connections, which will provide blazing fast internet connections. And the big screen will definitely allow you see more than you would see with a typical phone.
So, what's not to like?
Unfortunately, there are still a few weaknesses to the iPhone that'll keep me from buying one even though I'm definitely an Apple Fanboy who works with cell phones.
First of all, the iPhone is missing iChat, which is one of my favorite applications. The lack of an instant messaging tool at a time when instant messaging is becoming a business standard and is definitely an OMG teenage tool is tough to deal with. I've actually found that I use my Blackberry for IM at least as often as I use it to send emails. The lack of that instant communications channel is actually a big deal for a multi-ended communications tool like the iPhone is supposed to be. In addition, there is no MMS available, meaning that you can't send video, pictures, or audio messages directly to other phone users. Considering that MMS is a pretty standard technology in cell phones nowadays, it means that the iPhone's immediate communications methods are limited to voice calls and standard text messaging. That's not horrible, but it's hardly the multimedia extravaganza that Apple is known for.
Second, when the iPhone isn't around an open Wi-Fi network, it runs on EDGE, which is a slow wireless Internet network. ATT's Operation Fine EDGE was a $50 million dollar investment meant to speed up the EDGE network in anticipation of the iPhone's launch. However, that speed increase is probably going to move the network's average speed from about 40-50 kpbs to about 100-150 kpbs with a peak of about 200 kpbs. Remember having a 56 kpbs Internet connection back in the dialup days? It's not that much different when you're doing Internet stuff on the phone. I think Apple made this decision because the EDGE network will help conserve battery and they're hoping that all the other cool things about the iPhone will help make the connection more efficient. But there's only so much you can do to make a dialup connection more efficient and I'm betting that a million new iPhones being used won't make the network any faster. Can superior software make up for a network that's 4-5 times slower, especially when your web browser supposedly downloads and displays real home pages instead of the crappy cell phone versions? I don't think so.
In comparison, both Verizon and Sprint use EV-DO Rev A networks, which have average speeds of 400-700 kpbs with peaks around 1.5 Mbps. Apple initially actually wanted to go with Verizon Wireless for the iPhone launch, but Verizon didn't want to give up the marketing control that cell phone carriers are accustomed to having over product in the United States. It's a shame for US users, who will have to deal with an inferior network as a result, but probably a plus for international users when the iPhone eventually launches in Europe, since iPhone 1.0 is getting its bugs worked out on a GSM network instead of our practically US-only CDMA network that Verizon and Sprint use. And even if the iPhone had all-the-time access to a decent wireless network, it can't be used as a tethered modem. A lot of the smartphones and Blackberries currently available can be used to provide Internet connectivity at decent broadband speeds to your laptop, but the iPhone can't do that, either. This is more of a business application than an entertainment one, so it's not as important to the iPhone's core audience.
Third, the iPhone doesn't have a removable battery. Since a Lithium ion battery only has about 300 charges in it, power users are probably going to use up their battery about a year into their two year contract. At that point, they can't just flip a new battery into their phone. No, they actually have to go to an Apple store or possibly mail their iPhone back to an Apple location so that the battery can be replaced. That's just not a good idea and I'm really not sure why Apple did this. I think it's because the battery door and the space needed for a removable battery take up a lot of space and the iPhone needed to be super skinny for marketing and design purposes. Even so, Apple has been in the laptop business for years and knows that they couldn't ever get away with having non-removable batteries for the Powerbooks and MacBooks. Why would cell phones be any different when they're even more cheaper? Also, fj rightly points out, the battery door actually serves a purpose in keeping the phone structurally sound. Unless Apple is planning for nobody to ever drop their phones, there are going to be a lot of iPhones with bent battery connections or leaking batteries in the next year that are going to make people unhappy. You can't remove the SIM, either, so you're stuck with paying AT&T's rip-off international roaming rates if you use the phone out of the US.
Fourth, the iPhone doesn't have GPS. Although GPS isn't a must-have, it is becoming an increasingly popular feature for high-end and mid-range phones. Working Google Maps with GPS would have been really hawt, but the iPhone can't do it. And it's not like ATT can't support a GPS phone, since the ATT Blackberry 8800 does have GPS and Google Maps. The Helio Ocean also supports both GPS and Google Maps and looks pretty slick as well with its dual-slider look and relatively large screen. Unfortunately, it runs off the Sprint network, so if you don't get Sprint reception, you don't want Helio, either. Maybe it would have been too hard to put a GPS radio into the iPhone or they don't have a good GPS software available that would work on the iPhone, but it seems like a pretty cool function to leave out. Who doesn't want an iPhone that tells them where to go? ;)
Fifth, there's currently no enterprise email ability for the iPhone, meaning that you can't put your business email on the phone. You can use any webmail interfaces and the iPhone also supports Yahoo push-mail, but who uses Yahoo email at work? The iPhone does also support IMAP, so there is a hack-around for those inclined to figure it out, albeit one that's a security risk and isn't encrypted like the Blackberry solution. However, if you don't have an out-of-the-box solution for syncing to an Exchange or Lotus Notes server, (although it looks like Visto is working on a solution to this for Q4) that takes out a whole lot of functionality for the rich business tools that would like the "ooh-shiny" of an iPhone and want their companies to pay for it. There are rumors that Apple is about to license Microsoft ActiveSync, which would give them a direct-push solution for corporate email, but it hasn't come out yet. If you want email, stick to the Blackberry, either the Pearl available through T-Mobile and ATT or the Blackberry 8830 available through Verizon Wireless and Sprint. The Sprint version also is unlocked, meaning that you can use any SIM card for phone service overseas and it's a possible alternative to the unlocked Nokia phones for use overseas. I can't really recommend the Windows Mobile phones, even though some of them are damned nice in many other respects, because they still have the annoying ability to Blue Screen of Death at random times. Microsoft is really working on it, though. I think they're about a year away from having a legitimately good OS, at which point RIM and Nokia may be in real trouble.
It's odd that the iPhone would launch without supporting the business population yet, but these gaps are probably why they aren't selling iPhones to corporate accounts yet. (By linking to this, I don't have to positively confirm or deny our own corporate experience in pursuing the iPhone for our employees, though you can probably guess what my answer would be.)
Those are my main worries about the iPhone. Some people have pointed out that the touch keyboard might not work so well and that people with big fingers would have trouble with them. I thought this might be a problem, but then I started thinking about Treo and Blackberry keyboard keys. Those buggers are TINY. I have fairly nimble fingers and I was a cellist, but I've yet to develop anything resembling touch-typing skills on a Blackberry. I'm sure that real users will probably get used to typing on the iPhone soon enough and the on-screen keys look at least as large as the rice grains that pass for keys on most smartphones.
Also, the iPhone does have some media liabilities. Its camera is 2 megapixels with no flash, which is pretty ordinary for today's cell phones. Verizon Wireless has had the Samsung A990 for about a year, which is a nice 3.2 megapixel camera phone and Nokia has a bunch of great N-series camera phones with Carl Zeiss optics, which is currently headed by the N95. And Sony Ericsson about about to come out with the Cybershot K580, a 5-Megapixel camera and 8-GB walkman, much like the iPhone. The iPhone camera was definitely an afterthought in comparison. Again, not a big deal to me because I'm not a camera person. But the iPhone camera is definitely not a first-class mobile camera like a lot of the other features.
The iPhone doesn't do video capture, either. At a time when you can take classes in cell phone cinema, it seems odd that the iPhone wouldn't record video. It's not such a big deal for me, but I think it would be for your average cell phone groupie. After all, with the i-suite of video and picture products, you'd think that recording video would be a valuable addition. Then again, cell phone videos do usually suck, as the linked Wired blog suggests. Perhaps, it's good enough just to be able to see video. But if that's the case, it's a shame that iPhone only has a relationship with Youtube and doesn't have any established programming. I like YouTube, but if mobile TV really is the future, the iPhone could have been a window into the future of TV programming and Apple could have been at the forefront. Apple likes taking bets on emerging technologies, right? I guess they think that YouTube-like content is going to be more interesting (or cheaper) than standard TV.
Despite all my negative comments, i think the iPhone is a really impressive piece of technology and I could definitely see a market of people who would pay $500-$600 for it. And that price is actually a very important aspect of the iPhone. For all the people asking "who would pay $600 for a phone," they're not seeing the other side, which is "how would you know it was any good if it didn't cost $600?" That might seem like a bizarre argument at first, but it's actually a vitally important marketing concept: a product usually only has one chance to be priced at its true value and that's at its launch when there are no comparable products. That's where the iPhone is now and they've determined that their combination of iPod, phone, Internet, touch screen, coolness, and brand recognition are worth $600. They're probably right, too.
Contrary to popular belief, there actually are even more expensive cell phones out there. The Nokia N95 can be used with either T-Mobile or AT&T and costs about $700 for a feature set that I think is every bit as impressive as the iPhone and gives a choice of carriers just by changing the SIM card, although it's in a much more traditional and techy cell phone set up that would probably intimidate casual users. If the N95 supported wireless broadband speeds in the US (currently, it only handles high speed internet in Europe,), I'd be all over the N95. But they can get even more expensive than that. Bang & Olufsen and Samsung combined last year to make The Serene, which is definitely one of the oddest phones I've ever seen. It goes for well over $1,000. And there's always crap like $52,000 diamond-encrusted phones or the gold-plated Dolce and Gabbana RAZR, but those phones really aren't priced because of their design or functionality.
So, what would I actually get if I had the money? The iPhone is tempting, but I'm going to wait until they have a faster internet connection and GPS, both of which I'm betting will be in iPhone 2.0. The Helio Ocean is an excellent texting/typing phone that also has a lot of media functionality at half the price of the iPhone. And the Blackberry Pearl is as cute as a good email phone can get and I'm a big fan of the trackball in the middle of the phone. I think I'd go with the Nokia N95 with the one caveat that I'd want to have that phone in Europe where I could have a fast Internet speed. So, I guess that means I have to move to London or Edinburgh or Prague or Paris. Darn. ;) Somehow, I think I wouldn't mind...
There are a lot of things to like about the iPhone. It's a nice looking iPod to start with, complete with the cool Cover Flow view that will let you see cover art. It's nicer than any of the other music phones out there. (Although if you can't get the best, the Samsung Upstage is a cheap alternative for Sprint customers and the Verizon Chocolate is still pretty cute even if the memory tops off at 2 GBs if you get an additional micro SD card.)
The touch sensor screen really is revolutionary, since multi-touch usability on a phone is really unprecedented. The HTC Touch has a single-touch interface that isn't bad as cell phones go, but it's nowhere near as intuitive or flexible as the iPhone's touch interface. The LG Prada is a Korean phone that has a similar look and a one-finger touch screen interface, but it's only offered overseas at this point.
The Safari browser should be a whole lot nicer than the crap that passes for web browsers on most phones. I'm going to assume that OS X is going to be more stable than Windows Mobile 6 and Symbian, although the Blackberry OS is pretty stable as well. The media player is also going to be great since it'll be supported by iTunes. Don't worry, phamos818, iTunes 7.3 will get fixed. I know it will. It has to, right?
The battery life is supposedly spectacular according to everyone who's pre-tested it. It will pull from Wi-Fi internet connections, which will provide blazing fast internet connections. And the big screen will definitely allow you see more than you would see with a typical phone.
So, what's not to like?
Unfortunately, there are still a few weaknesses to the iPhone that'll keep me from buying one even though I'm definitely an Apple Fanboy who works with cell phones.
First of all, the iPhone is missing iChat, which is one of my favorite applications. The lack of an instant messaging tool at a time when instant messaging is becoming a business standard and is definitely an OMG teenage tool is tough to deal with. I've actually found that I use my Blackberry for IM at least as often as I use it to send emails. The lack of that instant communications channel is actually a big deal for a multi-ended communications tool like the iPhone is supposed to be. In addition, there is no MMS available, meaning that you can't send video, pictures, or audio messages directly to other phone users. Considering that MMS is a pretty standard technology in cell phones nowadays, it means that the iPhone's immediate communications methods are limited to voice calls and standard text messaging. That's not horrible, but it's hardly the multimedia extravaganza that Apple is known for.
Second, when the iPhone isn't around an open Wi-Fi network, it runs on EDGE, which is a slow wireless Internet network. ATT's Operation Fine EDGE was a $50 million dollar investment meant to speed up the EDGE network in anticipation of the iPhone's launch. However, that speed increase is probably going to move the network's average speed from about 40-50 kpbs to about 100-150 kpbs with a peak of about 200 kpbs. Remember having a 56 kpbs Internet connection back in the dialup days? It's not that much different when you're doing Internet stuff on the phone. I think Apple made this decision because the EDGE network will help conserve battery and they're hoping that all the other cool things about the iPhone will help make the connection more efficient. But there's only so much you can do to make a dialup connection more efficient and I'm betting that a million new iPhones being used won't make the network any faster. Can superior software make up for a network that's 4-5 times slower, especially when your web browser supposedly downloads and displays real home pages instead of the crappy cell phone versions? I don't think so.
In comparison, both Verizon and Sprint use EV-DO Rev A networks, which have average speeds of 400-700 kpbs with peaks around 1.5 Mbps. Apple initially actually wanted to go with Verizon Wireless for the iPhone launch, but Verizon didn't want to give up the marketing control that cell phone carriers are accustomed to having over product in the United States. It's a shame for US users, who will have to deal with an inferior network as a result, but probably a plus for international users when the iPhone eventually launches in Europe, since iPhone 1.0 is getting its bugs worked out on a GSM network instead of our practically US-only CDMA network that Verizon and Sprint use. And even if the iPhone had all-the-time access to a decent wireless network, it can't be used as a tethered modem. A lot of the smartphones and Blackberries currently available can be used to provide Internet connectivity at decent broadband speeds to your laptop, but the iPhone can't do that, either. This is more of a business application than an entertainment one, so it's not as important to the iPhone's core audience.
Third, the iPhone doesn't have a removable battery. Since a Lithium ion battery only has about 300 charges in it, power users are probably going to use up their battery about a year into their two year contract. At that point, they can't just flip a new battery into their phone. No, they actually have to go to an Apple store or possibly mail their iPhone back to an Apple location so that the battery can be replaced. That's just not a good idea and I'm really not sure why Apple did this. I think it's because the battery door and the space needed for a removable battery take up a lot of space and the iPhone needed to be super skinny for marketing and design purposes. Even so, Apple has been in the laptop business for years and knows that they couldn't ever get away with having non-removable batteries for the Powerbooks and MacBooks. Why would cell phones be any different when they're even more cheaper? Also, fj rightly points out, the battery door actually serves a purpose in keeping the phone structurally sound. Unless Apple is planning for nobody to ever drop their phones, there are going to be a lot of iPhones with bent battery connections or leaking batteries in the next year that are going to make people unhappy. You can't remove the SIM, either, so you're stuck with paying AT&T's rip-off international roaming rates if you use the phone out of the US.
Fourth, the iPhone doesn't have GPS. Although GPS isn't a must-have, it is becoming an increasingly popular feature for high-end and mid-range phones. Working Google Maps with GPS would have been really hawt, but the iPhone can't do it. And it's not like ATT can't support a GPS phone, since the ATT Blackberry 8800 does have GPS and Google Maps. The Helio Ocean also supports both GPS and Google Maps and looks pretty slick as well with its dual-slider look and relatively large screen. Unfortunately, it runs off the Sprint network, so if you don't get Sprint reception, you don't want Helio, either. Maybe it would have been too hard to put a GPS radio into the iPhone or they don't have a good GPS software available that would work on the iPhone, but it seems like a pretty cool function to leave out. Who doesn't want an iPhone that tells them where to go? ;)
Fifth, there's currently no enterprise email ability for the iPhone, meaning that you can't put your business email on the phone. You can use any webmail interfaces and the iPhone also supports Yahoo push-mail, but who uses Yahoo email at work? The iPhone does also support IMAP, so there is a hack-around for those inclined to figure it out, albeit one that's a security risk and isn't encrypted like the Blackberry solution. However, if you don't have an out-of-the-box solution for syncing to an Exchange or Lotus Notes server, (although it looks like Visto is working on a solution to this for Q4) that takes out a whole lot of functionality for the rich business tools that would like the "ooh-shiny" of an iPhone and want their companies to pay for it. There are rumors that Apple is about to license Microsoft ActiveSync, which would give them a direct-push solution for corporate email, but it hasn't come out yet. If you want email, stick to the Blackberry, either the Pearl available through T-Mobile and ATT or the Blackberry 8830 available through Verizon Wireless and Sprint. The Sprint version also is unlocked, meaning that you can use any SIM card for phone service overseas and it's a possible alternative to the unlocked Nokia phones for use overseas. I can't really recommend the Windows Mobile phones, even though some of them are damned nice in many other respects, because they still have the annoying ability to Blue Screen of Death at random times. Microsoft is really working on it, though. I think they're about a year away from having a legitimately good OS, at which point RIM and Nokia may be in real trouble.
It's odd that the iPhone would launch without supporting the business population yet, but these gaps are probably why they aren't selling iPhones to corporate accounts yet. (By linking to this, I don't have to positively confirm or deny our own corporate experience in pursuing the iPhone for our employees, though you can probably guess what my answer would be.)
Those are my main worries about the iPhone. Some people have pointed out that the touch keyboard might not work so well and that people with big fingers would have trouble with them. I thought this might be a problem, but then I started thinking about Treo and Blackberry keyboard keys. Those buggers are TINY. I have fairly nimble fingers and I was a cellist, but I've yet to develop anything resembling touch-typing skills on a Blackberry. I'm sure that real users will probably get used to typing on the iPhone soon enough and the on-screen keys look at least as large as the rice grains that pass for keys on most smartphones.
Also, the iPhone does have some media liabilities. Its camera is 2 megapixels with no flash, which is pretty ordinary for today's cell phones. Verizon Wireless has had the Samsung A990 for about a year, which is a nice 3.2 megapixel camera phone and Nokia has a bunch of great N-series camera phones with Carl Zeiss optics, which is currently headed by the N95. And Sony Ericsson about about to come out with the Cybershot K580, a 5-Megapixel camera and 8-GB walkman, much like the iPhone. The iPhone camera was definitely an afterthought in comparison. Again, not a big deal to me because I'm not a camera person. But the iPhone camera is definitely not a first-class mobile camera like a lot of the other features.
The iPhone doesn't do video capture, either. At a time when you can take classes in cell phone cinema, it seems odd that the iPhone wouldn't record video. It's not such a big deal for me, but I think it would be for your average cell phone groupie. After all, with the i-suite of video and picture products, you'd think that recording video would be a valuable addition. Then again, cell phone videos do usually suck, as the linked Wired blog suggests. Perhaps, it's good enough just to be able to see video. But if that's the case, it's a shame that iPhone only has a relationship with Youtube and doesn't have any established programming. I like YouTube, but if mobile TV really is the future, the iPhone could have been a window into the future of TV programming and Apple could have been at the forefront. Apple likes taking bets on emerging technologies, right? I guess they think that YouTube-like content is going to be more interesting (or cheaper) than standard TV.
Despite all my negative comments, i think the iPhone is a really impressive piece of technology and I could definitely see a market of people who would pay $500-$600 for it. And that price is actually a very important aspect of the iPhone. For all the people asking "who would pay $600 for a phone," they're not seeing the other side, which is "how would you know it was any good if it didn't cost $600?" That might seem like a bizarre argument at first, but it's actually a vitally important marketing concept: a product usually only has one chance to be priced at its true value and that's at its launch when there are no comparable products. That's where the iPhone is now and they've determined that their combination of iPod, phone, Internet, touch screen, coolness, and brand recognition are worth $600. They're probably right, too.
Contrary to popular belief, there actually are even more expensive cell phones out there. The Nokia N95 can be used with either T-Mobile or AT&T and costs about $700 for a feature set that I think is every bit as impressive as the iPhone and gives a choice of carriers just by changing the SIM card, although it's in a much more traditional and techy cell phone set up that would probably intimidate casual users. If the N95 supported wireless broadband speeds in the US (currently, it only handles high speed internet in Europe,), I'd be all over the N95. But they can get even more expensive than that. Bang & Olufsen and Samsung combined last year to make The Serene, which is definitely one of the oddest phones I've ever seen. It goes for well over $1,000. And there's always crap like $52,000 diamond-encrusted phones or the gold-plated Dolce and Gabbana RAZR, but those phones really aren't priced because of their design or functionality.
So, what would I actually get if I had the money? The iPhone is tempting, but I'm going to wait until they have a faster internet connection and GPS, both of which I'm betting will be in iPhone 2.0. The Helio Ocean is an excellent texting/typing phone that also has a lot of media functionality at half the price of the iPhone. And the Blackberry Pearl is as cute as a good email phone can get and I'm a big fan of the trackball in the middle of the phone. I think I'd go with the Nokia N95 with the one caveat that I'd want to have that phone in Europe where I could have a fast Internet speed. So, I guess that means I have to move to London or Edinburgh or Prague or Paris. Darn. ;) Somehow, I think I wouldn't mind...