[haesslich]

Well, to respond to some of your points...

Originally Posted by Phoenix

It may very well be as you and others have suggested, but that's going to be an awful lot of money and commitment right out of the gate for the average person just so they can get their hands on this thing. I think when people spend a lot of money on any one device, expectations are much greater.

People aren't used to loading software onto a phone because as you suggest, the majority of phones people are sporting are dumb phones that don't have the capability in the first place. But many, many people are used to ripping, downloading, and uploading songs, photos, and videos to iPods, which this iPhone offers. They'll be using this device as a PIM and an email client, so there will be the uploading and managing of new data sets there. So I don't think the idea of loading software is much of a stretch beyond that. Not to mention, this iPhone and its given feature set are going to free peoples' minds and very possibly increase their desires and expectations yet even more, as a result.

You know, the iPod's been doing VERY well for a device which 'only plays music' and only recently started offering video AND game functionality on top of the built-in alarm feature. The majority of phones sold these days are NOT smartphones; they tend to fall into either the category of fashion phones (RAZR, KRZR, various RAZR knockoffs), camera phones (the Sony Ericsson Cybershots, etc), and MP3 phones... or the very, very basic phones that are harder and harder to come by these days that have none of the above features. Most of the phones you'll see in the stores are either basic camera phones, basic MP3 phones, or phones which combine the above three categories to some degree or another.

What do people use their phones for on the bus, in public while waiting for someone, or otherwise when they have a moment? From what I've seen, their usage tends to fall into one of three categories:

1) Phone use: this is obvious. Chatting on the phone, talking to friends, looking up phone numbers.

2) Text Messaging: Text messaging is pretty cheap on most plans, and it's a lot faster than phoning, plus doesn't require real-time interaction so you can send a quick message to a friend '@ the park', 'lol', 'k, c u soon', and so forth.

3) MP3/Camera use: I've combined these activities into one category, as they represent the employment of a secondary feature of most phones; I've seen people using these in place of an iPod Nano (rarely), or else to take photos or scan through photos they've taken.

How long has the iPod been around? Since 2000 or so: I remember when the computer store I worked at first got these, about two years after the Nomad Jukebox and Archos had come out. Downloadable games became available for the iPod since 2004-2005ish, when the 5th Gen iPods came out supporting video and color screens. Prior to that, it was possible to flash Linux onto an iPod or even run a (slow) version of Doom on them but for the bulk of users, it wasn't really a big thing. Now, how many people do you see playing Solitaire or Bejewelled on their iPods? How many people now are playing games on their iPods, compared to the people who use them for music? How many are using these to store photos (a capability which has been around for the past two or so generations) and view them?

Just because they're uploading music to the thing doesn't mean they'll use it for other purposes, even if it's possible to do so. The addition of video playback to iPods hasn't resulted in a rush of people (aka: the non-technogeeks) trying to install applications to them. Their desires and expectations seem rather low, or else they just want the damned thing to play music and don't care about the other possibilities.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Remarks about this device being marketed to "mom and dad" requires some clarification, as moms and dads come in all ages. But to be more specific, and although there are exceptions to the rule, I don't see this device as receiving a big response from most who are forty and older. Not initially, anyway; later on I think this will change more. Along with that age group, I just don't believe as many people as some think, are going to consider it so crucial to have iPod and internet functionality in their phone that they'll commit to a great cost and a two year contract, as well as a potential switch to a new service provider, especially considering that most people own dumb phones. So for starters, I don't see this iPhone as being marketed to the average person who's currently satisfied with their RAZR or fashion phone; I see this iPhone as being catered to a group somewhere in between the average RAZR owner and us - a group who will have a bit more knowledge and higher expectations from the start (although not quite at our level).

The contract issue is where things get sticky - if I was a Cingular user, I MIGHT be tempted to get one, just because my current Nokia's a 'not-so-smartphone' which the iPhone would easily take the place of, having similar features (camera, music capbility, web browsing) along with a few bonus features mine currently doesn't have (WiFi, touchscreen interface, Widget capability). However, some articles have stated that the estimated 'price-to-build' for the iPhones, based on the parts involved, is around $250... which leaves Apple a lot of headroom should the item sell poorly, to do price cuts to encourage adoption. Motorola's been doing this with the RAZR v3's and v3i's over the past few years, to the point where the once-expensive fashion phone ($399 with contract) has dropped to bargain-basement prices... and the $500 pricetag doesn't seem so excessive in a marketplace that recently saw people shelling out $600 for a PS3 that didnt' even have a lot in the way of games available for it.

Considering that this unit theoretically replaces a $250 iPod Nano 8GB (price from the Apple store) that cost the same, plus whatever phone they may have had prior, it's not THAT horrible a deal. Expensive, yes, but not completely out of the question.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

As this iPhone will undoubtedly increase peoples' awareness (including even those who don't own one) of the possibilities and other similar devices such as WM phones (as frequent comparisons will arise), and which I don't think will take long, this could provide yet another opportunity for their expectations to increase. And once they realize that their precious iPhone won't allow for the kind of customization WM allows for the same price, I believe they're going to be disappointed.

There are personal media players which do a lot more than the iPod do, but look at what people are buying - iPod, iPod Nano, iPod Shuffle 2nd Gen, etc. I don't see a lot of disappointment there - you're projecting your expectations on others. Those who WANT the extra customizability, and are willing to invest the extra time (and money - remembering that most of the applications you're talking about are often commercial) to customize said units tend to know enough to go right for a smartphone based on Windows Mobile or Symbian Series 60.

Being simple but stylish has NOT hurt Apple's bottom line any the past 6 years.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

I would think the iPhone would evolve in response to this, which is not out of the question considering that this is the most technologically advanced portable device Apple has ever released. They must have realized there's a group of people out there who aren't geek-classified, but whose expectations are increasing beyond that of what a RAZR can fulfill, otherwise, I don't believe Apple would've spared the time and expense of making the iPhone in the first place. So it's conceivable to think that they would adopt that line of reasoning with its evolution, as well.

As technology continues to evolve, becoming more pocketable and affordable, and as a result, more commonplace, larger amounts of people these days are increasingly becoming technologically aware. I don't think the idea of data uploads, customization, and management is as big of a deal for many people as it once was. And this iPhone, with all of its features, will help to prove some of this. Software downloading isn't much of a stretch beyond that. So although this is a great first effort from Apple, I think peoples' expectations will very possibly be greater than we sometimes realize.

But we'll see. If not at first, I believe they will be very soon after people have a chance to use the device for awhile. The honeymoon will end and they'll long for more capability.

It's been six years, and I don't see people talking about how limited their iPods are - they offer JUST enough functionality to satisfy them, without getting needlessly complex. Remember; the more that a device can do, the more complicated and problematic the interface usually becomes. There's a reason that PDA phones usually come with a slide-out keyboard, touchscreens, or end up having special launchers and docks; they NEED them to operate most of the functions, and thus have menus which go 3-4 levels deep in order to allow users the ability to access every one of their functions. In comparison, a simple phone usually has a main menu, and maybe 2-3 layers if you're going into the guts of it to adjust something highly advanced for it, if that.

We'll see where Apple's decision to make application development in-house will lead it; it's hurt the Mac OS X series as a whole, although whether the lack of software for that platform relative to Windows is due to the relative expense of the hardware up till recently or due to the position Apple takes with content creation is a question that will take time to resolve. Previously, the problem was due to the expense of the hardware as well as the fundamentally different processor architecture provided by the PowerPC and earlier 68000-series platforms versus the relatively uniform x86 environment; now... we'll see.

Seriously, though - how many people do you know willingly download applications to their phones, even when they're able to do so? And the way Jobs targeted the iPhone launch goes against your assertion that it's aimed for people who have 'higher expectations of a phone' beyond dialing out and listening to music; the presentation he made suggests it's for thsoe people who want a phone that's relatively easy to use, can sync with iTunes, and which can browse the web... not for the heavy-duty gearheads who want to be able to modify every part of the OS.

I DO know a lot of people who have problems with smartphones primarily because of the menus you have to go through to do anything, and because Windows Mobile tends to be a tad clunky even in Smartphone version for basic usage. Palm has made great strides with making Windows Mobile usable in a phone situation (look at how many people cheered the simpler interface, ease of looking up items in the address book, ease of dialing), but it has a long way to go to be simple enough for most users while retaining the power that the OS promises. Plus, I'll readily admit that I HATE converged PPC/phone devices because of the menus; even with the addition of softkeys, I find that WM isn't very usable as a phone and almost always requires two hands to do anything unless it has a touchscreen.

A big complaint I hear about most phones is that they're getting too hard to use, which is probably why Alltel's CellTop experiment is so interesting; they're unifying the menu structure, and setting things up so that most of the phone features are easily accessible with little more than two or three button presses. The other way around this is to put dedicated application buttons on the phone, such as camera phones which have dedicated camera buttons or easy ways to enable the camera feature (the Sony-Ericsson k790i/k800 allows you to activate the camera with the camera button, or just sliding down the lens cover)... but this results in an ugly, overbuttoned phone (the more buttons on there, the easier it is to inadvertantly activate something). One of the iPhone's interesting features in this respect is what appears to be a simplified interface to most of its features... and I do wonder how they'll do.