Waiting for iPhone v2.0

[whmurray]

Originally Posted by surur

I, of course, disagree. In this case the motivation counts. Apple consciously decided to use 2002 technology when everyone else was already 3G for 2 years now, to "protect their uses from battery life issues", and in the process deprived their users of the choice of sacrificing battery life for speed.....

All readers of this site should understand by now that design is difficult; it always involves hard choices. One should not infer malice in making the choices (any more than one should infer malice when stupidity will serve) because one might have chosen otherwise.

That said, I am willing to take Apple at their word: "We wanted all iPhone users to have a similar experience." Since AT&T still has 3G in only a small number of markets (yes, I know that they list every small town in Texas as a "market."), that means EDGE.

(Yes, I will buy a 3G iPhone as soon as it is available, in spite of the fact that there is still no 3G coverage in my market, thirty miles from NYC. Admittedly, Fairfield County is not as densely populated as NYC; that is why we live here. On the other hand, it is not exactly rural New Jersey either.)

[Rene Ritchie]

Many (most) iPhone users are Windows users, who most likely moved from iPod rather than Mac motivations.

While that means they are used to vacuous promises (Cairo? WinFS?) and poorly realized deliverables (Vista? WinMob? Zune?), they are also used to tightly integrated devices that try to do a few things really well (iPod) rather than just implement feature-bloat is clumsy, kludgy manner (back to WinMob).

Many devices had Wi-Fi and browsers before Apple, but Apple delivered a revolutionary implementation. Many devices played music before the iPod. None of them, however, has mass user-centric appeal. iPhone does (just look at the customer satisfaction scores -- you know Balmer's looking!)

[surur]

Originally Posted by Rene Ritchie

iPhone does (just look at the customer satisfaction scores -- you know Balmer's looking!)

Probably customer self-satisfaction.



Smug Alert!

Surur

[whmurray]

Originally Posted by surur

Probably customer self-satisfaction.



Smug Alert!

Surur

Well, perhaps. I admit to being more satisfied with my iPhone than with my Treo.

That said, at the top of my wish list is 3G on GSM. I have been waiting on Apple for a year but I have been waiting on Palm since the introduction of the 650. How much are you willing to bet that Palm will introduce 3G on GSM before Apple? How about the announced list price of the phone? (And yes, as I noted in an earlier post, the real problem is the glacial roll-out of 3G by AT&T. I might be more patient if they were not promoting "More bars in more places.")

[marcol]

Originally Posted by whmurray

How much are you willing to bet that Palm will introduce 3G on GSM before Apple?

Lots.

http://www.palm.com/uk/en/products/s...750/index.html

[whmurray]

Originally Posted by marcol

Lots.

http://www.palm.com/uk/en/products/s...750/index.html

Wow! Only $800! (same as the unlocked 650) Non-US only. WM, no Wifi.

Of course the beauty of GSM is that one should be able to use it in the US on a roaming agreement. One could put a US sim in it. However, would hardly be worth it unless one was in one of the markets that supports UMTS.

[marcol]

Deleted duplicate post

[marcol]

Absolutely no way I'm buying an 18-month-old Wifi-less phone at this point (even you took the bet )

[Rene Ritchie]

Palm has done Wi-Fi for WinMob for a long time...

[marcol]

Originally Posted by Rene Ritchie

Palm has done Wi-Fi for WinMob for a long time...

"Done" as in not built it into any phone they've made? At the time of the 750 launch Palm blamed its absence on Microsoft's implementation in WM, IIRC.