ocia.net— This article takes an in-depth look at the soon-to-be-released iPhone and compares many of its features to a phone that you can purchase today. The findings may surprise you.
May 21, 2007View in Crawl 4
Yes, the PJB-100 was almost two and a half times the size of the original iPod, and weighed 65% more, but at 20-30GB it also had four to six times the capacity. There were other, more appealing HD based players by the time the iPod came out; the PJB-100 was merely the first of its kind. Apple's success is not due to innovations in hard drive size or battery life. I think you can attribute the iPod's success to four factors:1. An interface suited to browsing and managing the volume of songs possible on a hard drive based player;2. Form factor and style;3. The iTunes Music Service was the first reasonable music download service;4. The Apple brand name, and associated marketing.
One more thing: While the PJB-100 is large by today's standards, it was about the same size and weight as portable cassette players and significantly smaller than CD players.
In my opinion, a multi-touch screen in the iPhone could be compared to the Accelerometer in the PS3 controller: A few apps/games might use them very well, and be easier to use. But for most of the time it will be useless.(I have not, obviously, seen everything the iPhone does with the screen. I just don't think it's such a revolution)
Apple already said there won't be support for third party applications, and that this isn't OSX on a phone, this is a highly modified and stripped down version of OSX built specifically for a phone. Just because an app runs on your mac doesn't mean it will on your phone.
Equivalent features may be one thing, but the iPhone looks sooo much better. Good example is the Motorola RAZR. It was incredibly popular because it look hot, even though it was an unreliable and rubbish phone.
longbow486May 22, 2007
@mrmarkham"I'll be in line on June 19th with $600 in hand, for sure."i'll take my 600$ and buy a round trip to hawaii for two weeks.
ethergnatMay 22, 2007
Yes, the PJB-100 was almost two and a half times the size of the original iPod, and weighed 65% more, but at 20-30GB it also had four to six times the capacity. There were other, more appealing HD based players by the time the iPod came out; the PJB-100 was merely the first of its kind. Apple's success is not due to innovations in hard drive size or battery life. I think you can attribute the iPod's success to four factors:1. An interface suited to browsing and managing the volume of songs possible on a hard drive based player;2. Form factor and style;3. The iTunes Music Service was the first reasonable music download service;4. The Apple brand name, and associated marketing.
ethergnatMay 22, 2007
One more thing: While the PJB-100 is large by today's standards, it was about the same size and weight as portable cassette players and significantly smaller than CD players.
aninhumerMay 22, 2007
In my opinion, a multi-touch screen in the iPhone could be compared to the Accelerometer in the PS3 controller: A few apps/games might use them very well, and be easier to use. But for most of the time it will be useless.(I have not, obviously, seen everything the iPhone does with the screen. I just don't think it's such a revolution)
betterthMay 22, 2007
Apple already said there won't be support for third party applications, and that this isn't OSX on a phone, this is a highly modified and stripped down version of OSX built specifically for a phone. Just because an app runs on your mac doesn't mean it will on your phone.
slapthemonkeyMay 22, 2007
Exactly. Till the time its not in the market and consumer start using it, cannot comment.
dpace32May 22, 2007
i have a 700P and the third party support rocks! i cant imagine leaving the PALM OS
trent31May 23, 2007
Equivalent features may be one thing, but the iPhone looks sooo much better. Good example is the Motorola RAZR. It was incredibly popular because it look hot, even though it was an unreliable and rubbish phone.