What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up-Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
93 Comments
- defectDS, on 10/12/2007, -6/+42They better. The keynote was going so well until they announced the price. Then they went even further and announced that it was only Cingular. Then they really lost me at the madatory 2-year contract. I wish they would announce an unlocked iPhone. If it weren't for the 2-year contract with Cincular, this thing would have been Apple's new "killer app." I am extremely curious to see how this all palys out in the end. Who knows, they have 5 months to make all the changes they need.
- SpacemanSpiff01, on 10/12/2007, -4/+39I'm laughing at the thought of an iPhone shuffle.
Tagline? Calls are random. - RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37Here's a bit of history. The iPod was introduced 23 October 2001. Itunes for Windows and the iPod Nano were released two years later on 16 October 2003 and 6 January 2004, respectively. The iPhone will be a Cingular exclusive for the next two years. Coincidence? I think not. They are repeating the same exact plan that they had for iPod. Apple is going to spend the next two years ironing out the bugs in their phone, refining its design, perfecting its manufacturing processes, etc. After two years, they will have the expertise and their exclusivity deal with Cingular will be over. Only then will they go mass-market with an "iPhone Nano." They know it won't sell until then. What they want is two years of shakedown with early adopters who are tolerant of bugs and high prices. They may rush this but I doubt it. Corporations tend to be "conservative." They learn from history and have things planned out years in advance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod - PojkePojke, on 10/12/2007, -4/+36Isn't this obvious? It's marketing - they're pulling out the big guns now so that fashionistas and mac lovers will buy it. If they released a smaller, "dumbed down version", hardly anyone would choose to buy the "smart phone" version. This way, they get the trendsetters and wannabes buying up the iPhone. I don't doubt that they have smaller versions (iPhone nano) in the prototype phases and are just waiting for the iPhone trend to get a bit stale before reinjecting it with something slightly different. Make no mistake, they've only just dipped their feet in the mobile phone game.
- jollyroger814, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32i would imagine it would be tough to call it an iPhone without a phone though.
- wqwert, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15If you're complaining about the price, imagine what it would be if cingular weren't throwing money at apple to be the only provider. A non-subsidized iPhone...I wouldn't be surprised if it retailed for $999.
- stoppedcode12, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Apple is trying to shoot for the moon with the iPhone. What they should've done is release a video ipod of the same form factor as the iPhone with a 100gb HD and wifi(ability to surf the web and custom widgets would be awesome) + bluetooth, and leave it at that. It would sell like hotcakes.
- greatblackowl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8iPod nano was introduced in late 2005. Good points, though. The iPod really became popular around the 2004 - 2005 timeframe, years after it came out and when the prices started falling. Probably the iPhone will shake out the same way-- a luxury item at first, and then more commonplace with falling prices.
- titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You got buried for sounding and being an idiot.
- Kickersny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"I'm laughing at the thought of an iPhone shuffle.
Tagline? Calls are random."
Would certainly make drunk dialing easier! - unamas, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8by taking out the camera?
- UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12Like Jobs said, he wishes it could be $100 and everyone could afford one. In this 2 year time span the iPhone will become better and less expensive. We'll look back at the first gen iPhone and laugh. Ha!
- marcushe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Software development is a sunk cost. There's no reason to not include everything software-wise that's in the main iPhone. It only costs more to develop a "lite" edition like Microsoft does with it's multiple versions of Windows.
Hardware wise, the iPhone can't get much smaller without losing functionality.
I would, however, like to see just a cell phone Apple, and not only a smart phone.
Steve said in the CNBC / Nightline interview that he would like to get the price down to $100 over the years. Remember the iPod started at $400, and the RAZR at a ridiculous $800. - 00011000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4that'll come when we have blanket WiMax across the US/World. Then there will be no need for the wireless carriers. Apple will develop their own VOIP protocol or use iChat and the rest is history.
It's seems blatantly clear to me where Apple is going with all this. Especially considering Google CEO being on the board and the rumours of Google buying up huge swathes of dark fibre to create their own network.
Apple NEED the cell carriers right now because it's what the general public know and have. (SIM cards)
Once the general public get used to the idea of VOIP (which they will in the next few years), and there's ubiquitous WiFI and using VOIP is as seamless as using the cell networks, they we'll see Apple releasing an ipod without the cell phone chips.
sorry for going so O/T - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4NERRRRRD RAAAAAGGGGGEEEEE!
I bet typing that got your neckbeard all sweaty. Calm down fatty. - mattc908, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3When you say well I dont understand while its only cingular. A few major factors play in here. First off Cingular has the larget Market Share in the US. Followed by Verizon. In Europe T-Mobile has the largest MarketShare followed by Cingular. So Cingular is very popular here and there. Problem is verizon is almost non-existant in Europe.
Factor to Verizon is still on old crummy CDMA, first off its harder for phone to be compact and more powerful, due to the chipset to handle CDMA is different and out of date. Apple doesnt like to advertise crummy technology.
Cingular on the other hand is on GSM and has a 2g/3g network. Much faster datatransfer, and chipsets can be more compact. (as described above cingular is more dominant also). - monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think that's a given, considering iPhone is a new line of Apple product. They'll at least have 3 versions of iPhone, just like the iPod.
- fitzfan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Taking out the camera, the video player, the "internet communicator." I think it is very smart of Apple to only have 4 and 8 gig models, so it does not replace big capacity ipods. 4 or 8 gigs of video isnt too much, so people will still buy a regular video ipod with a 100GB HD.
- rnelsonee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I also have problems envisioning a lower-end version. Not necessarily for the storage space though - it's more than that. The 'experts' might be right from a business sense (sell the big-ticket item first to first adopters who are willing to pay the premium), but Apple doesn't always follow the normal, dry business plan. Apple releases consumer products that meet Jobs' very high standards. Jobs won't let anything unsatisfactory go on sale.
The iPhone can be watered down in two ways - hardware and software. As far as hardware, the storage isn't going anywhere lower than 4 GB (flash memory only gets cheaper, and 2 GB just isn't that much space). They could make a bigger one, but Apple has already miniaturized the components and has all the board designs and layouts. Probably wouldn't save them that much to release one with a larger firmware board, or one with more layers. Obviously, multi-touch is going to stay with the iPhone - it's the device's defining feature. The only real way to make this thing cheaper is to take out the camera (how much is a lens and CMOS sensor, $8?), Bluetooth (Apple sells BT for $30, so it probably costs them $15), or WiFi. I think WiFi is the most likely component to go - it's at least $30 out of Apple's pocket, it adds a little weight, the antenna takes up space, and worst of all, it's power-hungry). They could also reduce the chip's power/features. The iPhone doesn't really need Core, does it? That might be another option.
Software is even harder to pare down (well, it's harder to see how/why they would do it, I mean). Apple already has all the software written. The iPhone runs OS X, which Apple designers are obviously very familiar with, and Apple doesn't pay any other companies for licensing or anything. And they've already reduced OS X to run on the iPhone, so the work on rebuilding it is already done Aside from making the cheap iPhone run faster (if they reduce the processor), there's zero reason to remove any software. - thomas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What I really want is them to release the iPhone with out the phone part. Not that I don't like the phone part its just we don't have cingular in South Dakota.
- RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4You're right. For the record, I meant the Mini. The Mini was released at the two year mark, not the Nano.
- Mediaright, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Apple might release a lower end version of the phone like the iPods and notebooks!!!
...No freakin' DUH!
By the way, Jobs said in a CNBC interview that they'd love to sell it cheaper, but that they just can't right now. These technologies are so new right now but their prices will come down and so will the tag on this phone. - razorpit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2An iPhone Shuffle would be great if you could create a phone list of all of your black book phone numbers. Go out Friday night have a few drink, hit the make a call button and then wait and see who you get! Sounds like a winner with the college crowd!
- broscup, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think the whole Cingular deal was to keep iPhone from being leaked. The more people involved, the more chance that word would get out. Now that the cats out of the bag, other companies will sign on. Apple's not stupid, they know that the more carriers they have, the better their sales will be. It's still amazing that nothing was leaked for 30 months.
Oh yeah, cheaper version would be nice, but what features do you get rid of. They were all so cool. Actually, I want more features. Like Skype when in a wi-fi hot spot to save on minutes. - themonkman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To get certain features like visual voicemail, you'd have to lock the phone into a particular carrier. Without an agreement with the carrier, do you really think they are going to take their time to develop certain server side features that add such value without knowing for sure that they are going to get something out of it? Of course not. This is how the world works. It's a web of agreements between multiple companies. Does it suck that it has to be that way? Yeah, it does. Is it ever going to change. I seriously doubt it.
- digga, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Mmmm birdPhone... cheep cheep!
- cintronben, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You know it's awesome. Stop complaining.
- Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Doesn't encoded movies in iPhone's resolution occupy about 300-400 megs? Which means that the cheap iPhone will have the capacity of 10-13 movies, while the big one will have twice that movie capacity. Don't you think that 10 movies are plenty enough for the go? I mean, WTF, when you got bored of one of those you just change it with another, it's not that they always be the same 10 movies, they'll be in rotation. iPod is already an overkill, it's cheaper to buy a 2.5" pocket HD + a nano, than the overpriced Apple's solution.
- mikeroySoft, on 10/19/2009, -1/+2"capacious"... nice word =)
- Kerr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I think one can almost say 100% with certainty that Apple will release a cheaper if you will "iPhone nano" version, it will take some time though.
- liveinabin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lower end? How about a higher end model, with 3G with HSDPA and a 3+ Mp camera and a decent method of text messaging. Maybe then it could be competitive outside the US. As it stands, the iPhone is YEARS behind the kind of stuff we're using now.
- drjekelmrhyde, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Hey wasnt it some law passed making cell compaines unlock their phones
EDIT
http://www.gearlog.com/2006/11/the_unlocked_phones_ruling_the.php - xioner, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3As cool as the iPhone is, I don't really care too much about the phone features.
Now, if they released a version without the phone and with a large HDD, that would sell me.
$500 + a 2 year contract is too much for me to afford for a phone, but $500 for a widescreen iPod with a hard drive, the touch interface and WiFi (or $400 for one without WiFi)... that would have me sold as soon as I could save up the cash! - sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hehe, by the time it comes out in Australia it's going to be cheap and bug-free. That is untill it is bundles with the crap they call a telecommunications service here (Telstra).
- hmvh1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4i would mind the iphone minus the phone.
- cambrown99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There's also the matter of where else this technology will pop up in Apple's line. Imaging a MacBook with a touchscreen rather than a trackpad (as was alluded to in a patent application a couple of months back) or even just a regular iPod with all of the functions except the phone. The iPhone is just the tip of the iceburg for what's coming next.
- BangoSkank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How much lower end can they get? 1 gig for 300 with a two year contract?
- LoganT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think they should just make an iPhone with no internal storage. I mean, I don't plan on using my cell phone as an MP3 player and taking it out would lower the price by a lot.
- petejonesrn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We need a digg-down button for "pure speculation".
- asdfrewq, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Also, what use is that huge screen when you only have 4GB storage?
- marinist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"I shall name it...iPhony"
- thing-fish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Is it right to consider the Nano as "low-end"? It's at the bottom of the price scale for Apple, but that doesn't make it "low-end." It serves a different need for consumers, and it's a need that happens to be met with a lower priced machine. The different need is that the people I see at the gym with these strapped to their arm don't need video that the expensive ipod provides and do need small size and light weight that the expensive ipod does not provide. If anything, in my area the teeny nano has a bigger cool factor than the big ipod, not a trait of "low-end"
- slappingturtle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I want Apple to offer a model without the phone and with more storage.
- mokeyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I just want an ipod/phone combo with a clickwheel so I don't need to carry my ipod about. I don't need or want a giant touch screen and PDA functions. Also I want something I can drop without worrying about it. My phones get much abuse - which is why I have a Nokia 1110 and an iPod shuffle.
- seaner, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Can't wait for the iPhone shuffle with no screen. It just randomly shuffles through your contact list and call somebody.
- babyfacedoll411, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes! Don't need expensive cell phone or web browsing service. I already have a cellphone that is thin and tiny and the service is inexpensive. Suits me fine. What I want is a touch widescreen ipod with a capacity minimum of 30GB. 60GB would be even better.
- Raidenwolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I want a Itronix Tough phone or a super nerf phone. When some one pisses me off I can throw the phone and it still works. Or if it gets caught on the seatbelt and falls out of my holster it still works. And if I'm drunk and peeing while on the phone it should be water proof and float so I don't have to stick my hand in the yellow water. Or when I'm having a boring conversation I can use the phone to play fetch with my dog and it still works.
- Freeskier, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I would love to have a lower end model with a 4 or 8 gig hard drive and phone capabilities. Basically take the SLVR i have now, install a real iPod version of Itunes, give me 4 or 8 gigs, built in headphone jack (Those crummy EMU to headphone jacks are the worst. To replace a broken one through cingular costs 20 -blam-ing dollars?!) Keep the same form factor. Price it at ~300 bucks and I'm sold. I don't need all that other crap that comes on it. I'm sure other people would love it but I sure don't need it.
- Freeskier, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0a 3 MP camera is useless. The Samsung phone that verizon carries with a 3.1 MP camera has horrible image quality. I took a few shots with it and was completely disappointed in the image quality. The optics are horrible on camera phones so increasing the number of pixels on the phone rarely does any good. 2 MP will be just as good as 3 MP with the crummy optics they will use. I agree about 3G though
- promethean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The iPhone has a 2 megapixel camera.
-
Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is