Touch Screens on Smart PhonesbluedeerJune 27 2007, 23:40:28 UTC
I think a lot of people underestimate the usefulness of a touch screen on a phone. I've owned a Treo, I've owned a PPC6600 and I've owned a regular Cellphone. Navigating a Cellphone's basic menu with a D-Pad is very simple, not too complex and pretty straightforward. But when you begin adding features like the ability to add a ton of programs, especially those that may need a keyboard, a touch screen is a MUST. I think the Motorola Q is an incredibly useless device. Over half of the unit is taken up by keyboard, and it has the /SAME/ OS as a Treo 700, and NO touch screen. I use my Treo a lot, and the touch screen is indispensible
( ... )
Re: Touch Screens on Smart PhonestugrikJune 28 2007, 00:04:30 UTC
When it comes to WM, keep in mind that the PPD and Smartphone editions have two different core UI design targets. If you're used to one you'll most likely hate the other
( ... )
Re: Touch Screens on Smart PhoneschipotleJune 28 2007, 00:25:07 UTC
Tugrik beat me to more or less the same observation I'd have made -- I think while the iPhone and the PPC6800 are both in the "smart phone" category, the iPhone is placing more of an emphasis on the phone part and the PPC6800 is placing more of an emphasis on the "Windows computer in your pocket" aspect.
I think Apple's whole approach really hinges on whether people will look at the iPhone as being a great video iPod with some really well-designed smart phone capabilities, or as a snazzy smart phone that happens to be an audio/video player. The first approach (possibly) justifies the high price if customers look at it as "the amount I'd have spent on the iPod plus the amount I'd have spent on a separate phone"; judged solely on its merits as a PDA, though, the iPhone gets lapped by several competitors. (I hadn't seen the 6800, but I'm pretty sure I've seen one of its earlier relatives, and liked it.)
I think some of what's going on here, at least from my own perspective, is that for those people not in the target market-and I consider myself firmly outside the target market (I tend toward "as cheap as possible" for cell phone use, and I'm hanging onto my money in the vain pretense that one day I'll be able to own real estate)-is that the level of hype is just...baffling. Okay, it's a phone and an MP3 player. And...so? No offense intended to anyone who's seriously considering getting one. But I'm having trouble justifying spending around a month's rent on the first month of having a portable phone, and then a tenth of that thereafter, unless the device can actually start working miracles. It's felt an awful lot like the main argument I've heard in favor of it is, "It's an Apple iPhone! Come on, don't you get it?" To which the answer is a perplexed, "...um, no, actually!"
I don't necessarily think it's going to die on launch, and I don't actually begrudge anyone a desire for it. But...it's not that big a deal, is it?
Well, this sort of mass consumer hysteria doesn't actually happen very often. And this is what's fascinating in an armchair sociology way; it's easy to write it all off as marketing-created hype, but if marketing alone could actually create this kind of publicity storm, we'd be seeing this happen quarterly, not once every few years. Furthermore, when this happens, I can't recall another time it's been over something as seemingly utilitarian as a phone.
It's hard to know what effect the iPhone will have on the cellular phone industry, but no cell phone has had as much potential to turn a *lot* of things in the field, from user interface design to the business relationship between carriers and phone makers, completely upside down. The buzz about the iPhone seems to signal that there's a pretty significant segment of the market that's dissatisfied with current cell phone offerings and/or business models.
There seems to be a bit of an Ouroboros thing going on here, though: there's a lot of hype because a lot of hype was generated. Where did it all start, though, and why is it such a big deal? I acknowledge that Apple has made some interesting and innovative products before (and has also coughNewtoncough done some things that haven't quite worked out), but...well, maybe it's my overall introverted nature that makes me not quite go gaga over a phone. I simply can't justify that sort of cost on something like that, given the amount that I use a phone in normal day-to-day operations. (And I've been dissatisfied with cell phone business models for a long time, but $70/month is not the direction to go to address that! :-)
On reading the specs of the iphone, they almost looked dumb-downed for the reason that they can upgrade it. No built in IM client (give third party support a week for this though), it runs off the EDGE network instead of the G3, it's memory is a fraction of that of a real ipod player.
Give it a few months for the ipod upgrades to come out, the price to drop, and the specials and software to be there. This release is for the techiephiles that are in the hi-end market segment. The ones that have to have the best and newest the day it comes out. Everyone else needs to sell the hype and wait 6 months. Especially if you already have an established sidekick :)
The 4/8 gig of memory is the same as the iPod nano. Whether we'll see a hard-drive based version of the iPhone down the road remain to be seen. (My guess is that a future iPhone will just have more flash memory, but the widescreen touch woo woo parts will show up on an iPod.)
My guess has always been that Apple started designing the iPhone without knowing what carrier they were going to be successful at bending over negotiating with. If they'd put higher-speed data in it initially, that would have limited their choices, and they needed to be able to say they could just walk away. I have a suspicion that Apple at first figured they'd be ending up using T-Mobile; last year, the two companies were making vaguely friendly statements at one another, and T-Mobile has been explicitly pushing the EDGE and Wi-Fi combination on their smart phones. But T-Mobile is used to being able to get their way with everything, and Apple is used to being able to get *their* way with everything... and from all appearances it's pretty damn hard to beat Steve
( ... )
Comments 8
Reply
Reply
I think Apple's whole approach really hinges on whether people will look at the iPhone as being a great video iPod with some really well-designed smart phone capabilities, or as a snazzy smart phone that happens to be an audio/video player. The first approach (possibly) justifies the high price if customers look at it as "the amount I'd have spent on the iPod plus the amount I'd have spent on a separate phone"; judged solely on its merits as a PDA, though, the iPhone gets lapped by several competitors. (I hadn't seen the 6800, but I'm pretty sure I've seen one of its earlier relatives, and liked it.)
Reply
I don't necessarily think it's going to die on launch, and I don't actually begrudge anyone a desire for it. But...it's not that big a deal, is it?
Reply
It's hard to know what effect the iPhone will have on the cellular phone industry, but no cell phone has had as much potential to turn a *lot* of things in the field, from user interface design to the business relationship between carriers and phone makers, completely upside down. The buzz about the iPhone seems to signal that there's a pretty significant segment of the market that's dissatisfied with current cell phone offerings and/or business models.
Reply
Reply
Give it a few months for the ipod upgrades to come out, the price to drop, and the specials and software to be there. This release is for the techiephiles that are in the hi-end market segment. The ones that have to have the best and newest the day it comes out. Everyone else needs to sell the hype and wait 6 months. Especially if you already have an established sidekick :)
Reply
My guess has always been that Apple started designing the iPhone without knowing what carrier they were going to be successful at bending over negotiating with. If they'd put higher-speed data in it initially, that would have limited their choices, and they needed to be able to say they could just walk away. I have a suspicion that Apple at first figured they'd be ending up using T-Mobile; last year, the two companies were making vaguely friendly statements at one another, and T-Mobile has been explicitly pushing the EDGE and Wi-Fi combination on their smart phones. But T-Mobile is used to being able to get their way with everything, and Apple is used to being able to get *their* way with everything... and from all appearances it's pretty damn hard to beat Steve ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment