Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications Technology (Apple) Wireless (Apple) Hardware Technology

NYTimes Speculates On the Next iPhone 302

Posted by timothy
from the made-entirely-of-raisins-and-sulphur dept.
Achromatic1978 writes "The NYT has a story on the next revision of the iPhone, and discusses what will become of the iPhone, now that the hype is starting to slow (Jobs goal for 2008 was ten million iPhones sold — as of the first quarter, only 1.7 million have left the shelves). The WWDC is the rumored release date for a next version, and Jobs has promised that this year will see a 3G iPhone released."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NYTimes Speculates On the Next iPhone

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 29, 2008 @03:21PM (#23590597)

    1.7 million x 4 = 6.8 million in 2008. Maybe Jobs meant to round up to the nearest 10 million...
    • Re:Round it up! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lepton68 (116619) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @03:57PM (#23591117) Homepage
      You must include all the phones sold in 2007. At the launch, Jobs said they would sell ten million phones by the end of 2008. I believe they will have no problem exceeding the goal. The 3G phone will sell very well, and they have made agreements for it to be sold in many more countries.
    • by KingSkippus (799657) * on Thursday May 29, 2008 @04:07PM (#23591237) Homepage Journal

      It would have helped if they had found some way to work with Verizon and other carriers. It will be a cold day in hell (or, at least until Verizon gets considerably worse and AT&T miraculously improves in virtually every area of their service) before I switch to AT&T.

      The iPhone looks cool. It's the kind of gadget I'd probably be interested in. A lot of my friends agree. But of all the people I know that wants one, only one actually got one. Everyone else is waiting for that exclusive deal to AT&T to expire and has said they're not switching carriers to get one. (Or, for that matter hacking their phone, either.)

      Why companies deliberately lock themselves into agreements with other companies like this is beyond me. Maybe it's working for them. But given how far it looks like they're going to miss their target, it kind of looks like it's not.

      • by geekoid (135745)
        This is like the iPod.
        Out for a smaller market, sees success, gets expanded.
        I hope that's the plan for the iPhone. If I could ahve just bought a phone, put my chip in it(or transfer the data from my current phone) and continue to use my plan, I'd have one.

      • I'll tell you why (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It makes perfect sense for AT&T to enter into an agreement like this. This makes them the sole provider of an artifically limited resource (service for an IPhone). Given that there is any demand at all for the IPhone, this can only mean good news for AT&T.

        But why did Apple enter into this agreement? It artifically restricted their market to those who are willing to accept AT&T as a service provider. That will clearly send some potential buyers away to competing products. Why would you do th
        • by Geoffrey.landis (926948) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @04:52PM (#23591963) Homepage

          ...I can think of two reasons:

          ...2) Steve Jobs is a control freak

          I'm not at all sure I agree with this, but I do see a lot of advantages in Apple's "control freak" theory. Basically, in the iPhone model, the phone and the carrier are a single integrated structure. The exclusive agreement gives them the ability to dictate exactly what the service provides and how. So the customers are buying a system, not a set of parts that they assemble into their own system.

          Having been part of a lot of situations in which each vendor says that the problem isn't in their part of the system, it's in the other guy's part, I can see a lot of advantage to them in keeping tight control (so the pieces do play well together), and even some advantage to the customer (in that when things fail, they don't get run around in circles trying to figure out which vendor to go to,)

          • by Crazyswedishguy (1020008) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @05:46PM (#23592691)
            First, let's keep in mind that Apple pitched the iPhone to Verizon (I believe even before pitching it to AT&T). Verizon and Apple were unable to find an agreement.

            It was obviously in AT&T's interest to secure an exclusivity agreement. Whether the iPhone deal would have fallen through without such an exclusivity clause, I don't know.

            Now, let's remember that most of the world is GSM/HSDPA-based, and distributing a CDMA/EV-DO (Verizon) phone would require essentially the development of a new iPhone (to a certain extent).

            Finally, let's remember that AT&T had to implement certain new network features for the iPhone, notably to support visual voicemail. I'm sure that Apple was happy to have an exclusive agreement in order to have more control over the services available.

            In the end, distributing the iPhone through Verizon would certainly increase the addressable market (but if you consider the global market, only marginally). Nevertheless, I'm sure that AT&T compromised in order to obtain the exclusive deal and that both companies benefited from it.
        • by hey! (33014) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @06:14PM (#23592993) Homepage Journal
          Well, I may have misunderstood, but I thought that Apple demanded and received a cut of the service fees customers paid AT&T.

          So, Apple's incentive was that they made more money.

          Also, I think there is an element of long term strategy. Nobody knows better than Jobs that big, splashy product launches can be followed by more big splashy product launches.

          I bet a lot of people switched to AT&T just to get an iPhone. I bet there aren't a lot of people who would be willing to spend the launch price for an iPhone on their carrier, who didn't eventually get one.

          So, think of it this way: Apple probably sold as many iPhones as they could make at a price that was shocking, but not utterly insane. Naturally they could manufacture more at an insane price, but they probably wouldn't have made more profit, and certainly not as much of a splash. The way the whole iPod thing works is you've got to see somebody else with one, then want one for yourself.

          Now notice that as soon as the demand slackened, they dropped the price, which means they're watching the adoption curve carefully. When they've milked the universe of people willing to switch to AT&T for everything they can (demonstrating their monster clout to all the other carriers at the same time), they'll have a new, really cool iPhone waiting. If they've calculated things right, this will be right around the time their exclusive deal with AT&T runs out.

          Which means that a whole bunch of people who've been sitting on the fence because of AT&T will be able to get one with their current carrier -- for a hefty consideration. It'll be like the second coming of Beatlemania, or like Jobs was peddling an elixir that cured cancer and increased your sex appeal by 800%.

          It will be like nothing you've ever seen before.

          Anyways, that'd be Jobsian strategic thinking. He stays ahead by planning ahead.
      • Good luck - verizon? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by mveloso (325617) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @04:42PM (#23591815)
        Until Apple gets another CDMA carrier,Verizon users will be SOL. Why support another technology when you can do GSM and get most of the world?
      • by painandgreed (692585) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @07:24PM (#23593869)

        Why companies deliberately lock themselves into agreements with other companies like this is beyond me. Maybe it's working for them. But given how far it looks like they're going to miss their target, it kind of looks like it's not.

        I'll explain what is going on since nobody else seems to have an idea for me to use my mod points on. As I understand it, several of the key features of the iPhone such as the visual voice mail that set it apart from other phones and make it function the way Apple wanted it to for the user, require back end support by the telco company to do so. Why does a telco company go the extra effort to support just one brand of phone? Because they get an exclusive deal. So, AT&T agreed to handle back end support for iPhone features, and in return got their exclusive contract from Apple. After that deal is over, or if you can get an unlocked iPhone, you'll be able to set it up on another service, but some features they have been advertising simply won't work because there is no backend support. Some people might not notice so it's a non-issue from the start for them, others might be willing to deal with AT&T for those features. Like any feature, it's only good if you use it. Apple however is touting those features because it is what sets them apart from the other phones and provides the usability that they are known for rather than just another geek toy.

      • re: Verizon (Score:3, Interesting)

        by King_TJ (85913)
        It's interesting how everyone seems to have their favorite "pet" cellular provider, that they swear up and down is FAR better than the competition.

        I'm honestly convinced that MUCH of this is just "voodoo" - caused by complex interactions among multiple factors. (EG. You have the right make and model of phone, happen to live and work in the right places that are close to a certain carrier's towers, and/or haven't had any billing hassles with your present carrier.)

        I believed all the "hype" and claims of var
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      1.7 million x 4 = 6.8 million in 2008. Maybe Jobs meant to round up to the nearest 10 million...
      The rounding error is probably just a result of Apple's switch to Intel.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by norminator (784674)
      Don't forget that carriers in a lot of countries around the world have just barely made agreements with Apple in the last few weeks. There will probably be a pretty good size increase in sales coming up, with or without the 3G version. Or maybe those agreements are all pending the 3G iPhone... In either case, I think the rest of the year will see a pretty good increase in the rate at which iPhones are being sold.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 29, 2008 @03:27PM (#23590665)
    Jobs: "We'll just release 4 more versions of the iPhone this year and the same 1.7M painfully hip people will have no choice but to buy them, each time!"
  • by Tackhead (54550) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @03:28PM (#23590667)
    "Wireless. About as much space as a nomad. Still Lame?"
    - Steve Jobs, wondering if we're finally satisfied.
  • So, short sell Apple because they will not perform up-to expectations? Or will Jobs pull one of his a** and somehow sell another 9 million units?
    • So, short sell Apple because they will not perform up-to expectations? Or will Jobs pull one of his a** and somehow sell another 9 million units?

      Don't underestimate Steve Jobs, you're talking about the mastermind who after 30 years has managed to dominate an entire 3% of the computer market.
      • by raddan (519638)
        How much of the computer market do you dominate?
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 29, 2008 @04:15PM (#23591363)
        I know you're joking, but Apple is in many ways the most successful PC manufacturer. By differentiating its products, it is able to charge higher margins, and hence earn higher profits, which has given the company a market capitalisation about as high as IBM's, and far higher than those of HP, Dell, et al.

        When Apple tried to compete for market share in the 90s, it did make some gains, but almost went bankrupt in the process, because margins collapsed. Steve Jobs, in contrast to the Apple management of the 90s, has always followed a strategy of selling high-priced, differentiated products, and that's why Apple never went the way of Commodore or Atari in the 80s (even though Commodore had much higher market share), and managed to recover from near death in the 90s, under market-share-driven management, after Jobs returned.

        The fact is, Apple may only have 3 pc or so of the market, but as long as that 3 pc prefer Macs enough over other PCs that they're willing to pay a premium for them, Apple can earn a higher profit. It doesn't matter if the other 97 pc prefer PCs (and it's probably less than 97 pc who actually do), because they have so many choices (Dell, HP, Fujitsu-Siemens, etc) that it's difficult for any of the manufacturers serving that 97 pc to earn margins anywhere close to Apple's.

        Incidentally, I'm not in the 3 pc (or 5 pc, 10 pc, whatever) who prefer Macs to Windows PCs, so I would only buy a Mac if it was the same price or less for equivalent hardware, including warranty, expected maintenance costs over the life cycle (eg new batteries, upgrades) and so on. So, Steve Jobs would be stupid to try to sell to people like me when he can sell to the ones willing to pay more.

        I sometimes wonder what a company with Bill Gates running the management/technical side and Steve Jobs running the marketing/design side would have produced. Microsoft may be more successful overall, but both of those guys are the top entrepreneurs of their generation by far, and have been extremely successful with different business models (with a focus on market share for Microsoft, versus product differentiation for Apple).
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Good point. Apple's market share for computers is currently about 6.5% of the computer market, putting it at about one third that of the largest computer vendor, Dell, at 17%. Apple's strategy seems to have worked a lot better than most of the other companies that were manufacturing computers in 1984-- IBM dominated the market back then, and they tanked.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          No, Apple is the most successful computer maker because they're making computers that THEY LIKE to use.

          This is success.
  • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @03:35PM (#23590757) Journal
    Given the ways Apple has crippled the iPhone it seems to me that a well designed open platform has the potential to blow them out of the water.

    So how is Open Moko coming along? And are there other candidates that appear to be beyond the vapor stage?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Coopjust (872796)
      OpenMoko has the Neo1973 out for developers), they're trying to get the V2 (with Wi-Fi, Quad-band compatibility, and other new goodies) called the FreeRunner to market. At $400, it's expensive, but considering that a commitment is not required, it's not bad at all.

      Sadly, I hear the current software isn't that stable (they ARE still developing it), and without a deal to land these in stores, it faces an uphill battle for adoption, at least in the USA.

      Personally, I'm waiting to see how Android turns out.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Yeah, Linux on desktops was a tough sell too, since it isn't in stores. Don't underestimate "it's got Linux and I can hack it".

        I'll buy a FreeRunner (despite the dumb name) as soon as it's available, which sounds like it will be pretty soon. Steve says [openmoko.org] he might get phones as soon as June 1, which is only 3 days from now.

        $400 (or 10% less, in 10-packs) is no big deal, considering the absolute cheapest service plans seem to run about $30/month. People complained about the iPhone's upfront cost, too, but mo
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 29, 2008 @04:02PM (#23591173)
      I disagree. Much as it is disappointing, I don't think an open platform phone will "blow" the iPhone out of the water any more than Linux is currently blowing Windows out of the water. Consumers choose style and functionality, and business choose features. The "open" platform will only be successful inasmuch as it is a means to those ends.

      As for the article, I think it's obvious the iPhone hype is lessened, but that doesn't mean sales are bad. The way I see it, they've already sold 1.7 million phones this year without a major revision. 10 million seems attainable.
      • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @04:40PM (#23591783) Journal
        Consumers choose style and functionality, and business choose features. The "open" platform will only be successful inasmuch as it is a means to those ends.

        Which is why I think an open platform can displace iPhone.

        It takes a major bump in functionality to displace an entrenched market player. If the iPhone weren't crippled an open phone platform would have much the same adoption dynamics as Linux vs. Microsoft/Apple desktops: A sliver and gradual growth.

        But the iPhone IS massively crippled, and attempts to un-cripple it are met with update-to-brick attacks as Apple tries to protect its revenue model and that of its carrier partner(s). And it seems likely that competition could lead them to uncripple it broadly and rapidly enough to prevent a market shift.

        This leaves the open platform with an opportunity to make massive functionality improvements and additions that Apple/AT&T-etc. can't or won't match. And that could driver the shift.

        As Ubuntu has shown, you no longer have to be a geek to use the advanced feature set of an open platform. The same could be true of an open phone platform: Out of the box already far more functional than iPhone (or whatever), download new whiz-bangs with a few touches as it is developed and you decide you want it - or get your retailer's service department to do it for you for a very nominal fee (or the techie in the next cube or your internet-savvy kid to do it for nothing).
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by p0tat03 (985078)

          But the iPhone IS massively crippled, and attempts to un-cripple it are met with update-to-brick attacks

          There's no evidence of this. Only one firmware update has bricked phones, and this was found to be due to an *improper unlock procedure* that overwrote some data, but not others, resulting in a very confused updater and hence, the bricking. You cannot seriously expect Apple to bend over backwards to make sure they're not bricking hacked phones.

          And if you look back into interwebnet history, you will see that the iPhone Dev Team released a patcher that "fixed" the broken unlock, and from that point forwar

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          The problem is, most people won't find the iPhone crippled, and those that go with an open platform will quickly find out why the iPhone is crippled. Unless you are only talking about the same people who use Linux.

          As Ubuntu has shown, you no longer have to be a geek to use the advanced feature set of an open platform.

          But most people don't want the advanced feature set. They want a basic one that works well with everything, all the time.
  • by a1056 (1296899) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @03:35PM (#23590761)
    as much as the next guy. I also love my iPhone, and get quite fanboyish about it, but why is this news? People have been speculating about what the next iPhone will be since the last one came out of the gate. Just because the NY Times puts out pretty much the same story as everywhere else on the internet does not make it news. The article is just a nice concise retread of all the news stories out on the iPhone for the last few months.
  • Summary (Score:5, Funny)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @03:35PM (#23590765)
    Here, let me summarize the article for those not willing to read it: "We know the new iPhone is coming and it will have new features but we don't know what they are beyond 3G but we'll speculate to expand our word count so this is an actual article rather than a short sentence."
  • So much more data (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Average (648) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @03:36PM (#23590769)
    The iPhone users use 30x the data of others. That's because Mobile Safari is about 30x better than the competition.

    I use an iPod Touch (iPhone minus the phone) as a portable web browser. Some great jail-broken apps (helluv'a ebook reader), too. Amazing experience, yet with mind-boggling weaknesses, too (copy and paste, people???). I'm hoping Opera 9 is going to catch up, because there were other advantages to more conventional PDAs, but, Mobile Safari is just too good to go away from.
    • by Coopjust (872796) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @03:43PM (#23590889)
      I think that part of the reason for the greatly increased data usage is the fact that the iPhone rate plans (which are actually priced pretty well) have much more reasonably priced data plans than the competition.

      The fact that Mobile Safari performs well helps, but my phone is easy enough to use online, I just can't see paying $50 for the data usage on top of my already exorbitant rate plan with AT&T...
    • by Colonel Korn (1258968) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @04:07PM (#23591247)

      The iPhone users use 30x the data of others. That's because Mobile Safari is about 30x better than the competition.
      The "30x the data of other users" includes the vast majority of users who don't have data plans at all, so you should have said: That's because iPhone users all have data plans.
  • Let's see... they tied their fortunes to a pretty unpopular company, AT&T, in exchange for kickbacks and didn't even try to get Verizon, the largest mobile phone service, to sell a version of their phone.

    Genius, I tell you. Genius.

    Most of the Apple fans I know didn't buy an iPhone because of the AT&T decision. Most of them are still not planning on getting one because they hate AT&T more than they like Apple.
    • by Coopjust (872796) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @03:45PM (#23590917)
      What do you mean they didn't even try to get Verizon? Verizon rejected Apple iPhone deal - USATODAY.COM [usatoday.com]...
    • by a1056 (1296899) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @03:50PM (#23590985)
      I doubt that going with AT&T over Verizon has had that desvastating an effect on their sales. I personally would not have bought one if it were Verizon as I had AT&T before and most of my friends and family do as well (yay free mobile to mobile). I think its more an issue that they chose to only make one phone with only one radio system. Either way they were going to alienate someone. In addition its likely a better move to go with AT&T because that opens the doors into Europe with GSM over CDMA.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by robertjw (728654)

        I doubt that going with AT&T over Verizon has had that desvastating an effect on their sales.

        AT&T probably wasn't a bad choice since they are the largest carrier with 71 million subscribers. Thing is, that's less than a 1/3 of US cell phones. If they had offered a version for Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile, they could have tripled their available market.

        Obviously the terms they offered to Verizon weren't acceptable, so their greed has resulted in lower sales. Very simple.

        With carriers offering different levels of service, and all the 'contract extensions' when buying new phones, it c

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mgblst (80109)
          Obviously the terms they offered to Verizon weren't acceptable, so their greed has resulted in lower sales. Very simple.

          But probably more money. So which is better, more sales, or more profit? The deal they stuck with ATT seems to be very lucrative to Apple. Apple could have sold out a long time ago, with their OS, even with the ipod, but they stuck to their way of doing business. Not going for the lowest commmon denominator.
      • by Firehed (942385)
        And I wouldn't have bought one on Verizon as a former Verizon customer who was happy for the excuse to leave them. Not that I like AT&T, but at least they don't charge you to un-gimp their phones because bluetooth somehow costs Verizon $5/month.

        However you're absolutely right about the single radio system thing. If they're going to only choose one (and having to figure out compatibility is decidedly un-Apple), you can be damn sure that they're going to go with the global standard, even if the screwbal
    • by Reality Master 201 (578873) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @03:54PM (#23591061) Journal
      Tying the hardware to CDMA doesn't make much sense if you're planning on selling the device in other parts of the world, in particular Europe. And note that the device was designed with a quad-band GSM radio, so it's possible they were thinking ahead to non-US sales.
    • Verizon isn't that great as well. Having both Verizon vs. Cingular (It wasn't ATT at the time of the deal) Was generally the same plans, In my area the service is about the same. However because people can't keep their current carrier would be an issue. Why change companies just to get an iPhone is silly. I had AT&T before I got an iPhone, but if I still had Versizon I probably wouldn't have switch. As the reason for my iPhone was my Wife killed her current phone. So I get a new phone and she gets my o
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by faust2097 (137829)
      If they'd gone with Verizon they would have had to produce a GSM version immediately for sale [almost] everywhere else in the world. The fact that it's a quad-band phone shows that they were thinking beyond the US from the very beginning.

      Japan and Korea, the other 2 big CDMA markets already have very a entrenched smartphone market as well.
    • Most of the Apple fans I know didn't buy an iPhone because of the AT&T decision. Most of them are still not planning on getting one because they hate AT&T more than they like Apple.

      My hate for AT&T is strong, and I haven't bought an iPhone yet in part because of that.

      However, if it'd been Verizon, I'd be even more unlikely to buy (as in "probably never"). Verizon is arguably as bad or worse than AT&T in terms of general evil towards their customers.

      Not that a non-evil mobile operator exists.
      • by bonehead (6382) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @04:10PM (#23591293)
        I've had service from all of the viable carriers in my area (T-Mobile is available, but there bad coverage makes them non-viable around here). The fact is that if you want to have a cell phone, then you're going to have to deal with a shitty company. They ALL suck.

        As a result, I pretty much choose my carrier based on who has the phone I want.

        As for the objections to getting stuck in a contract, all I have to say is WTF? If I'm going to spend $400 for a phone, I'm doing it with the intention of using that phone for at least a few years. And since we've already established that ALL of the carriers suck, I don't really see the advantage in being able to switch to a different one.
        • One Advantage (Score:5, Insightful)

          by weston (16146) * <westonsd.canncentral@org> on Thursday May 29, 2008 @04:15PM (#23591365) Homepage
          As for the objections to getting stuck in a contract, all I have to say is WTF? If I'm going to spend $400 for a phone, I'm doing it with the intention of using that phone for at least a few years. And since we've already established that ALL of the carriers suck, I don't really see the advantage in being able to switch to a different one.

          I pretty much agree with everything else you wrote, but there's one advantage in being able to switch: the carrier will be slightly less inclined to treat you like dogcrap in order to keep you from leaving.

          • by bonehead (6382)
            Emphasis on "slightly".
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Gat0r30y (957941)
            This is the problem with market collusion. The carriers all agree to create a big barrier to leaving their service (275$ charge to quit). Even if they remove that barrier (as they may have to soon) - they are still in collusion and will probably continue to screw us all (think SMS, it costs what 4000% more than data even though its on the same network?)
      • by geekoid (135745)
        This is, or course, just an anecdote, but my experience with Verizon has been nothing short of excellent. That have gone above and beyond the few times I had an issue.
        Hell, the lowered my DSL price mid-contract. They had no obligation to do so, but the included current customer in a deal they were running.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Maudib (223520)
      AT&T does offer a major advantage over Verizon: actual 3G.

      Sorry but CDMA EVDO is nothing like the speeds I can get on AT&T's 3G network. I have both (a work phone and a personal phone) and there is no comparison between the two services. AT&T 3G offers vastly superior transfer speeds and far lower latency. More often then not my tethered blackjack is faster then the wired network at hotels.
  • by Brit_in_the_USA (936704) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @03:41PM (#23590855)
    One on 3G there is bandwidth to do video conferencing (fit a vga camera on the LCD screen side and off you go). I guess a whole new data plan from AT+T specific for video calls minutes, but punters will snap it up. Win for apple, Win for ATT.
    • by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Thursday May 29, 2008 @04:22PM (#23591509) Homepage

      Does this really matter? I know this has been "the next big thing" with telephones since at least the 80s, but let's be logical.

      1. People don't care.

        If they did, we'd have it on our land lines and such already. The customer has spoken, they much prefer the ability to roam around the house with a cordless phone than to have a video chat.

      2. It's a cell phone.

        People want to walk around with them. They want to drive while using them. They want to eat at restaurants, use restrooms, and anything else you can think of. They don't want to have to stand still and stare at something for the duration of a phone call.

      3. Battery life.

        You think the talk time on an iPhone is nice? How about with 3G where they may, through some feat of engineering, manage to get 1/2 to 2/3s that? Now engage the CPU to manage things, and video encoders and decoders (since the CPU won't be able to keep up with encoding it), and run the camera all the time. Guess how long your video chat will last. I'd say 15-30 min would be an impressive feat.

      4. Other Stuff.

        You'll need a camera on the front of the phone. That means either it's in a bad spot to take pictures, it needs to be turnable, or you need to have two. Of course I can already video conference using iChat if I'm near my computer. I often don't want people to see me when I'm talking to them (often doesn't add anything to the conversation, just takes away my attention to other things around me).

      5. I'm pretty sure we'd have something by now (at least 1 FPS video or 15 FPS postage stamp video) on most phones if people cared. I think my phone supports voice and video SMS. Anyone actually use those?

        Video conferencing is one of that those amazing technologies that seems to make a great demo but almost no one seems to care about for an actual product.

  • 10 million iphones? What makes him think that people with foreclosures & collapsing currency are going to give a shit about running out and buying a new gizmo? It's just a phone & my old one still works fine. Homeless people will not work for iphones.
    • by cowscows (103644)
      Yeah the economy is sucking and times are tough for many, but there are still lots and lots of people out there with more than enough money to buy a fancy phone. There's also the fact that 10 million is a pretty small number when you consider how many people use mobile phones. Not to mention the fact that Apple's starting to expand to many other countries, where the economy hasn't had as many issues and where currency values aren't a concern. 10 million seems entirely reachable.
    • "What makes him think that people with foreclosures & collapsing currency are going to give a shit about running out and buying a new gizmo? "

      What makes you think that the entire US population is tied up in foreclosures? You know that the US population just rolled 300 million, right?
  • by gorim (700913) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @03:50PM (#23590979)
    Folks, once the 3g iphone is released, tons of markets will be opened opened up: Japan - big time! The Japanese *will* buy this. China SE Asia (Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand) All of these places had 3g networks in place well ahead of the US. There is a reason the iphone didn't land in those places yet, it didn't have 3g!
    • by prockcore (543967) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @04:17PM (#23591423)
      The reason the iphone didn't land in those places yet is because it's not CDMA.
    • by Coopjust (872796) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @04:18PM (#23591429)
      Japan is CDMA, so they'd have to make a new phone (which, thanks to the exclusivity contract, they couldn't sell in the US). China is CDMA, Korea is CDMA, I believe Thailand is still PHS, I also believe that D-AMPS is in use in Malaysia, and Thailand is actually GSM.

      There *are* GSM networks in some of those countries, but they don't have as nearly as much coverage as the other systems...
      • by gorim (700913) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @05:20PM (#23592357)
        Having lived in Japan, Thailand, and Malaysia, you absolutely don't have your facts straight. Those countries all have modern 3G/UMTS networks. I bought phones in both Japan and Malaysia 3 years ago that did both GSM and 3G everywhere in the region and world (except 3G in US because USA used different frequencies.) Korea is CDMA only but I never went there...
    • by abolitiontheory (1138999) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @04:24PM (#23591535)
      I agree. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the obvious connection between the weak sales of the first gen iPhone in Q1 and the impending release of the second generation iPhone in Q2. Don't you guys see? Q1 is *always* the weakest quarter, saleswise. not to mention you can't even buy the 1st gen iPhone from the website anymore, and like the article said, local supplies are drying up. What does that matter when millions of people buy the 2nd gen iPhone in the month(s) after release?

      Besides this, didn't Jobs say he wanted to sell 10M iPhones by2008, not in 2008? Geeze and I'm not even a Mac fanboi (double checks). I hear a lot of unjustified bashing and it seems like people are missing basic ques. 3G + deals in foreign countries + techno-lust + the Christmas season and business apps = easily 10M iPhones by the end of the year, I say.

    • All of these places had 3g networks in place well ahead of the US. There is a reason the iphone didn't land in those places yet, it didn't have 3g!
      Let's just be clear--Verizon and many other operators in the US have had 3g for the past 5 years. *AT&T* didn't have much rollout before recently, it's not a US vs rest of the world situation!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MBCook (132727)

      That's the kind of thing I'm thinking. They've only sold 600,000 of them a month. Only?.

      That's a great sales pace for anything, especially when it costs $400+ and needs a big monthly contract. I mean, are comparing this to the iPod? The iPod was new and had a great interface. Cell phones are already insanely common, and available free (with contract). That contract also keeps you from switching. That's quite a bit to overcome for sales.

      How many of any given model of blackberry do the carriers sell a month

  • Numbers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Strange Ranger (454494) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @03:53PM (#23591023)
    If they want to boost their numbers, they should hurry up with the darn release.
    They aren't going to attract new buyers with hype like last time. Most people who really want one have one.
    Their biggest untapped market are the people who are holding out for v2. I'm one of them.
    The iPhone would serve me very well. But I generally don't buy version 1 of anything.
    Especially when it's so crippled. Jail breaking stuff like pseudo-GPS, lack of Cut & Paste, printing, file transfer, heck it's on the network but it's almost a dumb terminal.
    We version 2 holdouts are Apple's biggest iPhone 2 market. Let's go Apple, what are you waiting for?

    Oh yeah, and it better be good.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by whisper_jeff (680366)
      Let's go Apple, what are you waiting for?

      I could be mistaken, but I believe the answer is "June 9th, 2008."
  • by nguy (1207026) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @03:56PM (#23591097)
    There has been speculation about a higher-resolution camera, possible support for digital video recording, a slightly bulkier and more curved case, and the addition of a global positioning system receiver that would allow new Web services tied to a person's location.

    These are all standard features on many Nokia and Windows Mobile phones.

    Apple is still just trying to catch up. The only reason for strong US sales is that US carriers have been pushing such feature-poor phones that even the iPhone seems like an improvement.
    • by geekoid (135745)
      Yes, but those phones have no style.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Don_dumb (927108)
        But you only pay *once* for those phones. I'm not buying an expensive phone AND an expensive phone contract. One or the other, not both.

        That's why it hasn't taken off in the UK (and possibly Europe), double the price with less features than other phones, style doesn't make up the difference.

        Or were you making a joke? I just can't tell any more.
    • by MBCook (132727)

      The iPhone was not the best in every class of every feature. I know there are camera phones with 5MP cameras in them.

      But in the thing that counts most, the iPhone is miles ahead of any phone I've used: the interface.

      Are you really going to stand there and tell me that Windows Mobile has an interface 1/3 as nice as an iPhone? It's no comparison.

      You're right about features (which are mostly there thanks to world economics, just disabled thanks to greed).

  • I seem to remember that when Jobs launched the iPhone, he said he wanted 10 million sold by the end of 2008. He didn't say all in 2008 - he was including the ones sold in 2007. At that rate, they're past halfway there.
  • Permanently and unchangeable.
  • by Daemon69 (892528)
    I'm not saying that the ability to utilize Microsoft's Push technology for Exchange will make up an 8 million unit defecit, but I know a lot of businesses/corporations out there passed over the iPhone for the lack of integration. In short, it was a great consumer phone, but not such a great business phone. There will be a lot of new iPhone purchases where I work once the 2.0 software is available, regardless of the hardware it goes on.
  • by whjwhj (243426) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @04:20PM (#23591487)
    The iPhone will easily top 10 million in 2008. For a concise and logical explanation as to why, read this:

    http://www.macworld.com/article/133636/2008/05/10_million_iphones.html [macworld.com]

    whj
  • Exchange! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DorkRawk (719109)
    One of the key things that has made the iPhone a non option for people in the market for a $400 phone (outside of gadget geeks) is its lack of Exchange support. The primary market for smart phones is still business users and the primary platform for email/scheduling in business is Exchange (I'm sure many of you have examples where this is not the case and I'm sure many of you get by with IMAP forwarding of your Exchange email, but in the vast majority of organizations Exchange = email/calendar). Most busi
  • by forrie (695122) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @05:06PM (#23592167)
    I've become quite frustrated and disillusioned about the iPhone. Once the bells and whistles wore off, I've seen the obvious: it's essentially a featureless, fancy phone.

    Apple's apparent apathy toward consumer feedback and requests for functionality is a serious turn off. Irregardless of whether it's a first-generation device or not, it seems they spend more time and effort trying to keep this phone "locked down" than in pursuing more useful functionality.

    I'm sick of having to visit viewmymessage.com (which doesn't always work well) every time someone sends an MMS. The iPhone is devoid of basic document viewing capabilities, the camera is average.

    At this stage, after a slightly buggy 1.1.4 release, the fact that I must "jailbreak" my phone to make it more useful is rather sad. This little phone is capable of so much more.

    I'm not alone in this feeling; several of my friends and co-workers who have the phone are growing tired of it.

    Conversely, RIM/Blackberry seems to have done it right when it comes to useful phones. Their Blackberry Bold (due in July for AT&T) will be 3G, can do iTunes, the screen size is the same as the iPhone, a real QWERTY keyboard, etc.

    That will be my new phone. The iPhone will very likely become an overpriced, featureless paperweight (unless I sell it).

    I love Apple computer systems, they are top notch, but I feel they messed up with the iPhone. From what I've heard of the 3G phone, there's no motivation for me to hang out and spend more money on the product line.

    What I found very disappointing recently was when I posted a politely critical message about the slow development cycle of iPhone features on discussions.apple.com that got "moderated" (read: deleted) with a private response saying I wasn't allowed to be critical of Apple's internal processes.

    Not only was that generally petty, I think it speaks volumes (image control, etc).

    Goodbye, iPhone...

  • by gig (78408) on Friday May 30, 2008 @02:41AM (#23596699)
    The actual goal is to sell the 10 millionth iPhone before the end of 2008, not to sell 10 million during 2008. An iPhone odometer that started at zero at launch in June 2007 is going to click over to 10,000,000 at some point. Apple's sales goal states that will happen before 2008 is done.

A method of solution is perfect if we can forsee from the start, and even prove, that following that method we shall attain our aim. -- Leibnitz

Working...