Verizon's Challenge To the iPhone Confirmed 423
misnohmer writes "Verizon has just launched a new set of ads confirming the rumors of its upcoming iPhone competitor: 'Unlike previous Android phones, the Droid is rumored to be powered by the TI OMAP3430, the same core that the iPhone and Palm Pre use, and which significantly outperforms Qualcomm 528MHz ARM11-based Android phones that exist today. Droid will also be running v.2.0 of Android, with a significantly upgraded user interface. The Droid poses a different and more significant challenge to the iPhone than any other phone to date. The Palm Pre could have been that challenger, but it lacked the Verizon network, and users were unimpressed with the hardware. According to people who've handled the device, the Droid is the most sophisticated mobile device to hit the market to date from a hardware standpoint. When you combine that with the Verizon network, you've got something that is most definitely a challenger to the Jesus phone.'"
Lacked the Verizon network? (Score:2, Insightful)
So what? It's on Sprint, it can roam on Verizon's network. The Pre isn't a challenger not because of the network, but because people were waiting for the much better HTC Touch Pro 2.
More to the point, WinMo phones like the TP2 remain years ahead of the competition in terms of functionality, but people are too stupid to use them.
IPhone. Blah Blah Blah (Score:4, Insightful)
The iPhone is only popular because it's from Apple. For years the IPhone didn't have:
IM
MMS
Cut/Paste
MP3/AAC ringtones
Video recording
Bluetooth A2DP
There's many other great phones and carriers that easily surpass the IPhone and AT&T's shit network by a long-shot (Blackberry Tour, Palm Pre, HTC Pro)
Re:Finally...The iphone killer (and it's not from (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought we passed the point where every new cellphone was the 'iPhone Killer'. Guess not. Slow news day, even for a Sunday. Back to bed.
Just Don't Get It (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but we've heard "this is the iPod killer" too often and it's the exact same song and dance as this new round of "this is the iPhone killer."
Re:Advert for the verizon network? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Palm Pre could have been that challenger, but it lacked the Verizon network, and users were unimpressed with the hardware.
From a hardware standpoint, the Pre is pretty impressive, although I can't comment on the software not having used one. But it failed because 'it lacked the Verizon network'? What is this supposed to mean? Every other network in the USA is so bad that a device has to be on Verizon to succeed?
And people wonder why all of the major handset manufacturers except Apple consider the US market a waste of their time...
But (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem was never with their network (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Advert for the verizon network? (Score:4, Insightful)
What's funny is Sprint phones can and do roam on Verizon. Since I switched to Sprint (from AT&T), I've been able to surf the web on my phone on the DC metro by roaming on Verizon towers - for free. (Of course, now GSM towers for AT&T/T-Mobile are going up in the DC metro too.)
I like how at first the OP mentions that the Droid has the same hardware as the Pre and later in the post says that users aren't impressed with the Pre's hardware.
Also, the Samsung Moment coming out in 2 weeks for Sprint has an 800MHz ARM-based CPU, where the one powering the Droid is apparently only 600MHz (I'm assuming that since the design is similar, the clock speed is a valid way to compare the performance of the CPUs; could be wrong on this).
As far as running Android 2.0, anyone with an Android phone can upgrade to that. That's one of the great things about Android in the first place.
In the end, though, I wish Motorola and Verizon good fortune launching this phone, because anything that increases Android (or Linux in general - Maemo is nice) adoption on consumer phones is cool with me. IMO Apple is so control freakish that they are firmly in "evil" territory, much more so than Microsoft.
most sophisticated mobile device? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:IPhone. Blah Blah Blah (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the iPhone was/is popular because it enables me to do useful things that I could not (and cannot) do as well with any other phone currently available. That simple.
Cut and paste? It's been out for months now, never used it. MMS? Never used it. MP3/AAC ringtones? Always supported, (you have to change the file extension is all), but actually never used them. Video recording? Never used it (and yes I have a 3gs.) I could go on, but literally all the features you bitch about are things that I don't want/never would use. Maybe you really do need them, but frankly I could give a crap less.
What I do use is an application for tracking my blood sugar. And another application for tracking my weight-training log. And another app that functions as a pedometer when I go walking/running. And another app that tracks my weight. Oh yeah, and an app that lets me do Go problems on my phone. And Kindle for iPhone. And... the list could go on ad infinitem, but the point is that your little checklist doesn't begin to encapsulate what makes this the best possible device for me.
Before iPhone, I had a Treo, I had a Blackberry, I had Windows Mobile. I hated them and never used even the features that came with them. With iPhone I use everything that comes with it and then some because the iPhone makes it easy. Could I figure out how to do this stuff on, say, my Blackberry? Yes. Was it fun? Hell no. Was it easy to find apps? No. Did the apps cost $1.99 each? No.
So, sorry, but the iPhone is not popular just because it's from Apple. It's popular because it works.
why aren't they using the new TI OMAP3530 @720MHz? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why aren't they using the new TI OMAP3530 @720MHz? That should give them an advantage over the older OMAP3430 @600MHz.
It's the applications, stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
I truly don't think Apple has anything to worry about. The iPhone's greatest strength is not the iPhone itself, but the App Store--the 10's of thousands of applications, games, etc. that are already available for it. The quality of these applications has improved markedly over the past year, and it's going to continue to improve. What does Android have? They say "thousands", but market realities being what they are I'm sure that the quality and development time that has gone into these thousands just isn't there. "There's an app for that" about covers it--with my iPhone, I know that whatever I'm doing I will have a choice of several apps that do it.
Can Android catch up? Probably eventually. But I think it's going to be difficult. First, Apple's already got a huge lead, and this is a self-perpetuating cycle. Huge lead means more developers, which means huge lead continues. Second, I think that in the long run Android's hardware diversity will hurt it when it comes to (for example) games--it's a pain for game developers to have to test on a wide variety of devices, and many of them may not bother until Android has proved itself as a platform. Last, it's worth remembering that Apple still commands a huge lead in the all-important digital content market. This creates a big incentive for people with large iTunes libraries to stay with iPhone.
Is Verizon's network better? Yes, probably. However, it's also reaching saturation. I live in a very rural area and have both an iPhone (personal) and a Verizon cell phone (work), and I pretty much get coverage everywhere I go. And let's not forget that AT&T's going to provide adequate coverage for 90+% of the population anyway, even if they do get spotty in rural areas.
Re:Lacked the Verizon network? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just Don't Get It (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason I bought an iPhone was primarily because (finally) they got browsing right. I've always wanted a portable Internet device that happened to have a phone, and Apple delivered. For the record, I *despise* Apple-the-company, but the iPhone simply was that good. And that goes for a lot of the other features that the iPhone has. They don't have every feature, they just get the features they have to work in a smooth, elegant way.
Another case in point was the video camera. They didn't include video until they could do it "right" with the 3GS, and the video is damn good. The video you could get on the older phones through jailbreaking sucked balls.
And I want to emphasize this: I bought an iPhone *despite* Apple's marketing, which I can't tell you how much I hate. And despite Apple's slavish followers, which I also hate. The phone is just that good.
Re:What is the attraction to the iphone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Its applications were all irrelevant to me
All 100,000?
I'm curious to know what it was you were looking for that didn't exist.
The iphone isn't 'must have', but its certainly nice to have- which isn't something I can say about any 'smart' phone previously. I haven't used android- maybe it is/will be better, but the iphone is already very good.
Re:Just Don't Get It (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't the RDF that makes people like the iPhone, it's the fact that the UI only sucks slightly. It's the same reason people like Macs. For post people, any reasonably modern phone or computer does far more than they need. With an iPhone, they only spend a little bit of time fighting the UI. With something like a Series 60 phone, they spend most of the time fighting the UI. Same with the iPod. The UI had a lot of flaws - I filed a number of usability bug reports - but it was nowhere near as bad as most of the competitors available when it launched.
Once someone's switched, it's easier to keep them, because mentally they aren't comparing their current iPod/iPhone/Mac to what Apple's competition has available now, they're comparing it to what they switched from. Fortunately for the handset manufacturers, Apple still has a tiny share of the mobile phone market, so you can do very well without making people switch; you don't have to be better than the iPhone, you just have to be better than what they have now (which is easy) and cheaper than the iPhone (also not hard). The personal music player market is different, because Apple has over 70% of that already, although stand-alone media players are becoming rare now even cheap phones can store 8GB of music.
Hardware, schmardware, is it pleasant to use? (Score:3, Insightful)
"According to people who've handled the device, the Droid is the most sophisticated mobile device to hit the market to date from a hardware standpoint. When you combine that with the Verizon network, you've got something that is most definitely a challenger to the Jesus phone.'"
Oh? When I hear that "according to people who've handled the device, the Droid is the most comfortable, pleasant-to-use device to hit the market to date," then I'll pay attention.
I don't really know how Apple does it. Their UI and usability aren't all THAT great, yet they consistently manage to turn out stuff that really is usable. Maybe the mystery is how everyone else manages to screw it up. With the average gadget, it takes about ten minutes before you come across something so inexplicably, bafflingly sucky that you just can't figure out how it ever could have gotten out the door. Of course, I've worked in a company where the CEO dictated UI decisions and, unfortunately, had _bad_ taste. And I've also worked in a big company where the marketers simply would put down "ease of use" as a bullet point, and from that point on everyone just assumed the product had it because it was on the list.
I still can't figure out what Apple did that made iTunes the first viable online music store, or made the App Store the first viable software store for smart phones. It seems as if all they did was to avoid gross stupidity. That must be a lot harder to do than you'd think.
Afterthought: It occurs to me that one area in which vendors do get the usability consistently right, or at least "good enough," are digital cameras. I wonder why digital cameras are easy, or at least POSSIBLE to use, and cell phones aren't? I notice that digital camera makers do seem to be willing to spend a few extra cents to give the controls different shapes and turn in different directions, instead of confronting you with a uniform sea of buttons.
Re:It's the applications, stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Know your history. The Apple ][ had a huge amount of software available when the IBM PC was introduced. Anyone remember how many titles were available for the 5150 when it launched?
Re:Just Don't Get It (Score:2, Insightful)
Article aside. The Android platform has a real chance of dethroning the iPhone platform as well as the Blackberry platform for many of the same reasons that PCs beat our Macs. It is only a matter of time before a blockbuster Android phone comes out because any company can make one for any network. Then it will only be a matter of time before another one comes and another one and so on. Not one of these phones may have the popularity of the iPhone, but put together they may leave Apple in the dust. The tipping point will be when software developers shift resources from Apple aps to Android aps. If that happens, Android will start running away.
Typo in Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
I am so sick of Verizon taking EVERYTHING good and finding ways to make to make it pointlessly crippled and useless.
Will this phone have tethering? Probably, but it's going to be disabled unless you pay $79.99 a month.
Will this phone have contact and calendar syncing? Probably, but it's going to be disabled unless you pay $5.99 a month.
Will this phone have music support? Definitely, but it's going to be severely crippled unless you pay $12.99 a month.
Take your network and SHOVE IT.
Re:IPhone. Blah Blah Blah (Score:4, Insightful)
he kind of did with the list of things that he does do with his iPhone.
BTW... what defines a market leader is the company that everyone looks to to beat or the company that everyone looks to for the trendy new blah blah blah.
Apple is a leader in the market. If you define market leader to be the company that sells the most, then there are a lot of markets who's leader is a generic brand.
Re:IPhone. Blah Blah Blah (Score:4, Insightful)
For years only few phones had good email and browsing. The iPhone was great because it did, and was also integrated, from day one, to the then emerging cloud via google and .mac. It was also integrated to iTunes, and not dependent on cell company music services. For some this is a plus, as it makes it easy to rip tracks and put it on the phone.
But you are correct. There are many phones that some thinks surpass the iPhone, and those people should absolutely buy those phones. No one says that everyone should have an iPhone. All that happens is that people complain that the iPhone does not do everything. But we live in a competitive market place and the iPhone can do it's thing, and the others can do their thing. What is to be seen is whether Verizon, with the clearly superior network in the US, can put out a better integrated product than Apple.
What also remains to be seen is if data integrity can be assured with these other services. I have never lost data because Apple servers went bust. True, I pay extra for the service, but I think that others are going to consider the data retention service as part of the monthly fees, especially if using Android or MS Windows Mobile.Both MS and Google has recently caused data loss for at least some customer. Not a very good start for their cloud computing strategy.Perhaps they don't care about data retention, since these devices are mostly considered toys, and that is why they include such critial features such as MP3 ringtones and A2DP. That will leave Blackberry and iPhone for those that just need to get work done, so we can go and play in the real world.
Re:Advert for the verizon network? (Score:3, Insightful)
I bought a Pre for the simple fact that it WASN'T on the Verizon or AT&T network, and I'm constantly impressed with it (AT&T has personally dicked me over on a large bill when they where Cingular, and Verizon has done the same to more than a few of my friends). It does seem a little unfortunate that an HTML/CSS/JavaScript based API prevents some really cool things that the iPhone does like 3D games, but I didn't buy a smartphone because I wanted a Nintendo DS, and the Pre is more than capable of handling all the tasks I need it to quite well, and the Sprint 3G network is great here in Boston.
Bad advertising (Score:3, Insightful)
I am really wanting a great android phone to come out, because everyone does better work in an environment with competition.
But I don't like the initial ads, and here's why - because they read like they were targeted straight at a Slashdot reader.
The read like someone who has seen, and paid attention to, every Apple ad and every Slashdot story about lacking multitasking or not being as open as other phones. In fact the ad even says in big huge letters "Open development environment" - it a major ad targeting the general consumer!
Consumers do not care about that. They don't care how open or closed the development environment is, the mantra is "show me the apps". The iPhone is just multi-tasking enough with mail and a few other things actually running in the background, and now alerts, that people generally don't notice the lack of multitasking except for edge cases.
I think they could have focused more on what made Droid great, not what technical people perceive as lacking in the iPhone.
I have similar feels for Palm ads, I think the interface and OS is fantastic, but the ads have a very hard time explaining why you might like the phone. Honestly all Palm had to do was play the intro video [youtube.com] (or variant of same formatted for TV screens) during a commercial and sales probably would skyrocket. There's nothing wrong with Palm hardware really, it's quite good at the moment even if a little weaker than the 3Gs.
I find it odd that so many people ignore the marketing lesson the iPhone taught at launch - if your product is good, simply show it working and let it speak for itself..
Re:Advert for the verizon network? (Score:5, Insightful)
I went another way with that quote: Oh, it could have been a challenger except that it wasn't on a good network and the hardware wasn't great? Really? Well, my old Nokia could have been a challenger, except for that part about not being a smartphone and having no data capabilities. I also made a phone out of cardboard, and it could have been a challenger except for the fact that it didn't work at all.
Re:Windows Mobile (Score:1, Insightful)
You are 100% correct.
I was trying to avoid the iPhone tax (extra cost) and got a WinMo phone ...... to make the story short, I returned it after 3 days of nothing but headaches and got an iPhone 3GS. ..... because I never heard it ring. (and No, it wasn't set to vibrate and sound was enabled) ...... it keept freezing every time I tried to set it up.
- The interface looked nice, but it was pretty much unusable. I had to click multiple menu windows do what I wanted.
- It froze at least 10 times during the 3 days I had it.
- Missed multiple phone calls
- Would not connect to my WiFi
The main issue was the constant crash that would require manual reboot. The OS would freeze while I was trying to learn how to use it.
In the end, it was better to just buy something that works and not waste time with something that had the same qualities as a paperweight.
Re:Just Don't Get It (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's worth mentioning, I think, that there is a connection between the difficulty of creating an iPod killer and creating an iPhone killer. If you want to kill the iPhone, you have to build an iPod killer into your phone.
You aren't going to beat the iPhone at its own game by putting in faster processors, having flashier interfaces, creating some half-assed app store. You certainly aren't going to beat the iPhone by relying on the superiority of the Verizon Network. What people have to remember is that when the iPhone first came out, it didn't have the App store, it didn't have any 3G capabilities at all, and it still flew off the shelves. Why was that?
People miss the obvious. First, the carrier had virtually no influence on the phone, so the phone was built to service the customer and not to steer customers toward carrier services. That's not insignificant. But much more importantly, people were already committed time and money to using the iTunes/iPod combination, and the iPhone let them have an iPod in their smartphone.
I know, people are going to say, "But I can play MP3's on my phone!" Yeah, but what's the experience like? Is the GUI as clear, sensible, and responsive as the iPhone? What's the experience of getting that music onto your phone? Does it sync new songs automatically? Does it sync the metadata, including things like play-count and ratings? Can you make smart playlists on your computer and sync those to your phone? What online music stores are supported on your phone? Does the carrier try to make you buy music from them for prices higher than iTunes or Amazon? Is your phone an iPod killer?
If people want to beat the iPhone, they shouldn't disregard the importance of the iPod in the iPhone, nor the relative ease of using iTunes. Not only does iTunes provide a method for managing media, but it links directly into the #1 music retailer in the US. The purchasing process couldn't be easier, and you can even buy directly from the iPod, iPhone, or AppleTV. If you want to beat Apple, you have to beat that level of integration.
So what you need is an online store and software that allows you to manage all your media in one place, and you need to hook that into the phone. Then the phone itself needs to be as capable an MP3 player as the iPhone. Only when you have all that squared away does it make sense to worry about your own app store. Don't try to run before you can walk.
Re:IPhone. Blah Blah Blah (Score:2, Insightful)
"he kind of did with the list of things that he does do with his iPhone."
Yes, but he didn't justify how the iPhone does it better than other phones that offer equivalent or identical features like he claimed the iPhone does. I'm not saying the iPhone doesn't do it better, it'd just be nice to know how or why, rather than asserting that it does without any justification.
"Apple is a leader in the market. If you define market leader to be the company that sells the most, then there are a lot of markets who's leader is a generic brand."
So what measure are you using to quantify Apple as a leader? Certainly they led with the app. store and with their touch interface, no one can really argue that. However, whilst they led with those features, they were also led by others when it came to 3G, MMS, Browser on a phone and many, many other features. Apple is only really a leader in the market so far as touch interfaces and app stores go, but beyond that? They're certainly only a follower- in fact, they were arrogant enough initially to suggest that features like MMS, 3G and so forth weren't needed, only to end up conceeding and having to include them. This is the problem with the suggestion that Apple is a leader- for everything they lead on, there's still plenty that they're simply wrong about, or get led on. What they have going for them is the things they lead on are generally style related, and style sells pretty damn well- the iPhone interface looked so much slicker than pretty much anything else around at the time and when most people see a phone, it's that that they notice, not the underlying features. This is something Apple already demonstrated before with the iPod in that it certainly wasn't the first MP3 player to market, it certainly wasn't the most feature packed, but it was sure as hell the best looking.
I think the parent's point was that it's silly to come out with generic comments such as "the iPhone does it better" without justifying that. Similarly, it's wrong to suggest Apple is a market leader based on some arbitrary undefined metric because whilst for some metrics it is, there are plenty where it is unquestionably not.
This is the problem with Apple debates, you have those that are staunchly for the company, and those that are staunchly against with no objective middle ground and realisation that like pretty much anything, it has it's good points, and it has it's bad points, whether it has more good than bad or vice versa, is usually down to personal opinion, but to suggest it's entirely good or entirely bad is merely dishonest. It'd be nice if Slashdot grew the fuck up and was capable of objective, reasoned debate when it came to Apple and the likes but it just seems to be a pit of rabid fanboys resembling brutal all or nothing roman gladiator games of old rather than a group of smart, intelligent people having insightful discussions.
Re:Advert for the verizon network? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like astroturfing to me. I've never heard of ANYONE complaining about the Pre due to its network.
And, you are completely correct. You can hate the phone; you can hate the network. But, you can't hate the phone because of the network.
Re:Advert for the verizon network? (Score:4, Insightful)
From a hardware standpoint, the Pre is pretty impressive
Except that it is made out of plastic and it flexes, so it feels flexy and looks cheap next to the aluminum and glass iPhone. Not knocking it, that is just a lot of peoples' complaints.
But it failed because 'it lacked the Verizon network'? What is this supposed to mean?
Verizon and AT&T are the largest US mobile carriers in the US in terms of numbers of subscribers (around 60 million). Sprint is a few million people behind and some of their former customers are still annoyed with their customer service. Verizon is also owned by Vodaphone, which has a much larger international market presence.
Re:Advert for the verizon network? (Score:1, Insightful)
THIS. Hate to break it to anyone who thinks otherwise, but a "network" is a Network is a network when it comes to cellphones... the only factor is coverage and switching capacity ( which you could define as "the network" I supposed ) but it's not like they have any amazing techology different from, say Sprint.
I am an iPhone zealot, and I was so glad to see the Palm Pre being so good of a device. Everything out there was crap beforehand and it will keep Apple on their toes.
Blackberry is no threat.... they already dominate the market in the business world... where iPhone won't likely gain support anyway. Consumers had no realistic choice before the Pre, and Android was so far filled with empty choices.
Remember folks, google has lots of capital to leverage, but when you look at any product they've ever actually produced... they're only evolutionary.... they have never produced anything revolutionary. Help the most successful thing the ever brought to the world ( other than their search engine ) was the background adoption of ajax and google maps. Neither one of these is revolutionary in retrospect. They just did it the best. They don't have enough focus to skill is actually making an OS or marketing to the masses.
Android, fortunately can be whatever people want to make it. That's also a double edged sword, however, because you're giving the phone companies the keys to your car, and they are the least inspired, most greedy of the bunch. They probably have to have employee training courses on how to develop things peope actually want, rather than how to squeeze out extra cents from people by making voicemail menus awkward. /Been reading and contributing to slashdot since '98 and will forever remain an anonymous coward ( even though it hardly ever gets seen anymore thanks to the filters...meh )
Re:Finally...The iphone killer (and it's not from (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a pretty rash conclusion. Maybe they didn't implement copy and paste with a "yank board" for the same reason they didn't use Dylan as its primary language, not because of NIH but because it's obscure and unusual and does not meet market expectations.
Apple's Problem is (Score:3, Insightful)
The iPhone is a one trick pony, there are 8-10 Android phones now coming out, and that number will quadruple next year. Were seeing Android for flip phones putting it in areas Apple has yet to try to touch. Android will catch up with the iPhone in units deployed, even AT&T has Android units out there, and they're more than happy to trot that one out so they can likely put Apple in a bind. If the Droid is any indicator, Verizon will not be carrying the iPhone anytime soon which limits Apple's choices. I'm sure they shopped the iPhone to just AT&T and Verizon. Apple would not put it with a 2nd tier company, and Sprint has not been viable since it's acquisition of Nextel.
Their only choice today would be T-Mobile once their HSPDA+ upgrades are complete, Apple can say "Oh Look 21Mbps!", but by then LTE will be in full swing with Verizon, and they'll go "Ooh the iSlow or the LTE Droid at 30Mbps".
The phone makers were caught blindsided by the iPhone and now it's their turn to put Apple in a bind. Apple's choices are to stay closed and relegate itself to the "Other Phone" or open itself up and see OS X on more phones. Owning a iPhone myself I hope they stay closed, I've about had it with the battery life of the iPhone, and iTunes quirks.
Songbird + Andorid wil rock.
Re:Bad advertising (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lacked the Verizon network? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Windows CE was and still is garbage. Changing the name and adding more code hasn't helped it at all. (Big surprise.)
Unlike desktop Windows, backwards compatibility and installed base don't matter here. Microsoft needs to throw it out and START OVER. (Or buy something that works.)
Instead, Microsoft is so far behind everyone else, Windows mobile has become a joke.