Note: When I posted this earlier, I inadvertently chopped off the bottom few sentences. I’ve since added the “chopped-off” part back in.
[Photo: At the Macworld expo, the throng of pilgrims paid homage to the iPhone. Detail from photo, below]
Just spent three hours wandering around the Macworld Expo floor. Here’s a quote I over-heard from more than one person at the massive Apple display area. “I wish they’d just sell a version without the phone.” Me too. It is a beautiful little piece of composite material running OS X with wifi and a touch screen with cute two finger dragging commands. It’s totally envy-drool stuff. It has all sorts of patented (”more than 200 patents,” said Jobs, what seemed more than 200 times) technologies that allow it to do things like go from vertical to horizontal display when you turn it sideways (something that is hard to explain but brings a smile to you when you see it). It also is a $500 Mac that will depend on a “cloud” model of data storage. The idea is that you store all of your data on the web — Google and Yahoo! were both on stage and will, certainly, both have their versions of such solutions. Think of a version of Flickr/iPhoto integrated into it, for example.
That it’s a cell-phone, so what? Yes, I’ll probably be an early adopter, but I doubt I’ll use the Cingular service. (Perhaps this is merely my bias against all things phone-like coming through. Perhaps it’s just because I think talking on the phone is enough for a cell-phone to do.) Indeed, I think the Cingular’s CEO presentation today served as a great metaphor for how odd the juxtaposition of “cell phone” and “Apple product” is. He presented boiler-plate “great partners” cliches from note cards, for god sakes. It’s worth tracking down to view it as a parody: “Hello, I’m an Apple CEO.” “Hello, I’m a Telco CEO.”
What’s more: Why should I have to be a Cingular customer to use iPhone’s phone? Not that I’m a fan of any cell-phone service, but I have a longterm, businesswide relationship with Sprint that I’m not going to unravel no matter how cool the iPhone is. I have several people interwoven with the Sprint relationship and it would be crazy to blow that up. Anyway, why should Apple have an exclusive deal with only one cell-phone provider? It would be like them offering TV show downloads on iTunes from only one network or music downloads for only one record label. Great for a novelty, but longterm success comes from having the most options possible. If they want to start out with Cingular for technical reasons, fine. But the deal that was announced today sounded like an exclusive, longterm relationship. That’s crazy. The more I think about it, the more I think I won’t be purchasing an iPhone until there’s no phone on it and it’s called iPod II or something.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
[...] Seems to directly conflict Apple’s own messaging…especially the notion that OS X / Safari widgets can be used on the phone. RSS or otherwise. “That it’s a cell-phone, so what?” - Rex Hammock [...]
January 9th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
lol, then it wouldn’t be a phone
January 9th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
if you’re not going to use cingular’s service, than you’re paying $500 for a widescreen nano with wifi? lol. btw, if you think talking is what a cell phone is for, why do you have a treo and not a basic phone? because the treo offers tools you can use in addition to making calls. i remember someone posting about tethering and how great it was. who was that?
come on, you follow the tech world enough to know this isn’t uncommon. rim signed a deal with tmo to offer the pearl exclusively for x months. the same happened with the treo, the razr, the fill in the blank new and shiny must have device. assuming, as is likely the case, that the phone will eventually move to other carriers, they couldn’t exactly say that with the cingular guy standing there. cingular wanted apple bad because they wanted switchers. if his steveness said “cingular for 3 months, and then cdma and a tmo version by september or october” waaaaaaaaaay too many people would just wait.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:17 am
I use the Treo for one reason: EVDO and bluetooth. Actually, that’s two reasons. I use it because I can have web access on my computer even when there’s no wifi around. It allows me to save money when I use it from hotels and airports that charge me for wifi access. I spend so much time in airports and hotels that it made sense. As for the Apple/Cingular arrangement, I hope you are correct. However, the announcement today made it sound like the exclusivity arrangement was for a long time — not just a few months.
January 10th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
I’m sure that Apple at least considered alternate networks and technologies. I have little doubt that they narrowed the field down to GSM (what Cingular uses for their network) for at least the initial release since GSM is used world-wide while CDMA is limited to a few large installations and is not capable of roaming. CDMA providers generally require handset customization beyond just being fixed to their network too. I’m disappointed that they only list EDGE connectivity for Internet instead of HSDPA. Maybe a CDMA version supporting EVDO will come out.
January 10th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Hey Ceeesco! - That didn’t take very long:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/10/D8MIN5CO0.html
January 12th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
[...] As for Steve Jobs and the success of Apple, I am a student of the man and his products and his strengths and weaknesses. I have already blogged how I think the iPhone is (except for the phone part) a wonder to behold. I feel certain it will change the world in ways people who are doing all the analyzing today haven’t considered. I say that because, as with lots of things Apple does, the market does find uses for the products they create because the company focuses relentlessly on elegant design and intuitive interface rather than features and protocols geeks view as holy grails. What people do with the products after they purchase Apple products often account for their success. [...]
January 29th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
[...] The hardware of the iPhone is pretty obvious stuff. But in an odd way, and something noted by Rex Hammock’s Weblog, the phone aspects of the iPhone are almost besides the point. It would be a killer product even if it didn’t make phone calls. [...]
February 26th, 2007 at 7:51 am
[...] Later: From a couple of emails I’ve received informing me on the wonders of the iPhone, apparently some drive-by readers of this post don’t realize I’ve been served Kool-Aid by the man. [...]
September 5th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
[...] When I attended Macworld in February, I wrote, “The least impressive thing about the iPhone is that it’s a phone.” Several times, I’ve suggested that getting an iPod with all the iPhone features except the phone” would be a good thing. So, yes, I like what I’ve heard about the iPod touch. I guess, I’m just not a “phone” person, as I primarily use the iPhone in every way possible, but don’t really talk on it that much. Again, that may just be me. [...]