I like the lack of physical buttons, it's just something to get use to like the keyboard on anything smaller than a standard sized keyboard. Physical buttons seem so passe, for current devices, this is the 21st Century isn't. I thought techies I would love the idea, especially when that is next and logical step in the evolution of the keyboard.
__________________
Making use of mobile tech like no other.
I think Apple have it right. This is a consumer phone, aimed at consumers with little or no interest in tinkering. They just want a device that does what it says on the tin...
I understand what you're saying, and there may be truth in that.
On the other hand, I think for $500 or $600 and a two year contract with Cingular (and even more if Apple sells it unlocked), it's much too high of a price to not have the ability to load aftermarket apps and customize the device to suit your own needs. Besides, virtually all of the people who buy this thing will own a Mac or PC anyway (which will be necessary to take advantage of many of the iPhone's features), and they manage to load software onto those machines, so why would this be any harder?
This is a very expensive, high-end device, and I would tend to think many people who spend this kind of money on it are going to expect more.
I realize that we "Techies" have more knowledge than most, but sometimes I think we underestimate people.
Either way, we'll find out in about six+ months.
You know, the people who own RAZRs and other fashion phones don't seem to care much about installing extra software - either it's slow or else they dont' want to pay the phone company (who provides the software for most phones which aren't WM or Palm) an extra couple of dollars PLUS the data fees. Remember that most of the phones out there right now do NOT run Windows Mobile or Palm - they run Symbian 60 (Nokia) or else the customized Linux installs of Motorola and Sony-Ericsson; they're the majority of the market, and most of the programs available for them are usually available only through the marketplace that the phone company provides; things like Java-based games primarily, with the odd 3D title. \
Most people only download ringtones to their phones, or upload photos and videos from these things, and only now has music become fairly popular due to the arrival of relatively cheap external storage (the SD card family). Most of them do NOT install extra software - do not make the mistake that you, the PDA user or PDA-phone user, is 'the average Joe' that they're aiming this for; this is being aimed for your parents or for those teenagers or 20-somethings on the bus who use their phone as an MP3 player or as a camera, who want something pretty to look at and which can do a few other things.
Maybe 10-20% of people who get phones which can download programs really DO download any applications - and these are usually the games the cell phone company provides, unless the phone is a Nokia in which case it's easy to add new software (due to a fairly active S60 development community). If you've looked at the marketplace that cell companies provide, you'll notice that they dont' sell much in the way of games or applications - most phones include basic trackers, alarms, and so forth already. What they DO have in large quantities are the things that really sell; ringtones, MP3's, the odd wallpaper or theme. Thus, I can see Apple's position that a closed development system would be beneficial - a lot of people who program for phones usually create games, if anything. If you want a more complex application, you jump straight to Palm OS or Windows Mobile - and these are NOT the people who are being targeted by the iPhone's hype machine.
Between the iPod functionality of the iPhone and the novelty of the touch interface, we're seeing that Apple is going after the same people it always has - the fashionistas, the True Apple Believers, and the people who want a simple plug-and-play solution for music and video but who dont' need a lot of extras like additional applications... and who probably wouldn't use them anyways. For the rest of us, there's HTC and other PDA-phone companies... and man, has HTC stagnated over the years. Maybe this'll revive the HTC of old, which brought beautiful devices like the original h1900 to market, which were stylish and somewhat useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattEarp
I like the lack of physical buttons, it's just something to get use to like the keyboard on anything smaller than a standard sized keyboard. Physical buttons seem so passe, for current devices, this is the 21st Century isn't. I thought techies I would love the idea, especially when that is next and logical step in the evolution of the keyboard.
From some of the reviews I've seen, there are complaints among some of the reviewers that it's hard to get used to the virtual keyboard and they've occasionally had issues with it detecting the key to the left or right of the one they're 'pushing' being entered instead, so I wonder whether the virtual keyboard that Apple's using is ready for prime time yet.
Physical keys have one advantage - you can see if they've been pushed in or not, which is good for 'touch-typing'; with the virtual keyboard, there's no feedback until you see it entered on the screen, by which time it may be too late to correct things (once you miskey 3-4 letters, according to one reviewer at PCWorld, it's pretty much impossible to correct the mistakes - you have to trash the whole word and start over).
You know, the people who own RAZRs and other fashion phones don't seem to care much...
You have some good points there. I hear what you're saying. But I'm not entirely convinced of who the target audience is (although I have my ideas) or that they won't care much.
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.
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 and an expensive data account and a potential switch to a new service provider they may not even like or be ready to switch to (cancellation fees, anyone?); especially considering that most people own dumber phones that they may already be satisfied with. 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).
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.
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 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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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..
I have to say that by my definition, RAZR etc are smart phones. Provided, that is, you are talking lowercase smart phone, rather than Smartphone :-)
It is almost impossibe to find a phone that doesn't have most of the following features:-
camera
email
calendar
sync with PC features
web browser
feature expansion via Java or Flash
music player
video player
Flash and Java have the ability to give the phone applications that can do almost anything.
These add up to a smart phone. In other words, the vast majority of new phones acquired in the last two years are 'smart'.
I don't doubt for a second that lots of people are now used to downloading ringtones, pictures and video. Downloading and installing applications is a less common thing, but it would be wrong to imagine tha tis not a growing market.
I strongly believe Apple are marketing the iPhone at consumers who like the canned device model - a device that switches on and works. It will come with plenty of software and toys to keep the majority of users happy, but over the next couple of years the more adventurous users will demand more expandability. Then the iPhone will be forced to evolve into something that can challenge Symbian and Windows Mobile for versatility and expandability.
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..
I have to say that by my definition, RAZR etc are smart phones. Provided, that is, you are talking lowercase smart phone, rather than Smartphone :-)
It is almost impossibe to find a phone that doesn't have most of the following features:-
camera
email
calendar
sync with PC features
web browser
feature expansion via Java or Flash
music player
video player
Flash and Java have the ability to give the phone applications that can do almost anything.
These add up to a smart phone. In other words, the vast majority of new phones acquired in the last two years are 'smart'.
I don't doubt for a second that lots of people are now used to downloading ringtones, pictures and video. Downloading and installing applications is a less common thing, but it would be wrong to imagine tha tis not a growing market.
I strongly believe Apple are marketing the iPhone at consumers who like the canned device model - a device that switches on and works. It will come with plenty of software and toys to keep the majority of users happy, but over the next couple of years the more adventurous users will demand more expandability. Then the iPhone will be forced to evolve into something that can challenge Symbian and Windows Mobile for versatility and expandability.
I wouldn't call the a smart phone - smart phones, at least from the old definition I'm used to, allow you to run and install productivity applications which don't need Java to operate: my s60 phone, for example, can run OggPlayer and a photo editing suite, although the latter takes up a LOT of system RAM and I don't really use it.
Applications have been a bit of a non-starter since the Java/BREW platforms were deployed 3 years ago mostly because of two things, from what I can tell: expense of program, and limited utility of said programs. Most of the 'applications' I see are either games, or else things like movie listings or similar which don't do all that much. AIM and other programs for instant messaging have to be already part of the ROM, and can't be added like they can in Windows Mobile or Palm devices... which means that if your phone doesn't come with that type of client built in, you're not going to be able to use it. Plus, the data charges on TOP of the purchase prices for those limited-purpose applications tends to be a bit of a drag on widespread usage of them.
Or, to put it another way, how many people do you know who download more than one or two free games onto their phone, or are willing to pay to do so? Yes, they're available, but how many people really do it, compared to those who are happy to drag out a GBA, DS, or PSP and then play those while on the go?
I do agree that the iPhone is directed towards people who want a limited, but simple to use, device; I'm one of those people, in all likelihood; my PDA takes over most of the functions that the 'smart' phone would do.. and it's easier to use than Windows Mobile SP because of the touchscreen and more powerful processor. PLUS it means that I don't kill my phone's charge handling PDA-based activities, which is an important consideration most smartphone designers don't take into account: the more functions you have, and the more they're used, the greater the drain on the phone's battery... which means no calls can be made if it's out of juice - negating the phone's utility.
This MAY drive a development of the iPhone towards more 'open' application development, but it may also set things up so that Apple will start selling widgets directly to consumers or allow others to create Widgets which will run on the iPhone, which would increase its utility while avoiding the so-called security issues that the closed OS is supposed to protect carriers from. Heck, Cingular and others may start selling Weather and Traffic widgets of their own, designed to interface with their own networks... and this may well succeed better than the Java-based applications they've been trying to sell to date.
One more problem with Java-based apps: a lot of phones have different specifications, hardware-wise, which makes deployment a PITA when it comes to programs. Smartphones have one advantage in that they tend to have fairly standard requirements to run the OS the phone uses in the first place, which makes programs a little easier to code for them (and Palm and MS along with Nokia make their SDK's available, which eases the development process a bit) and the environments are a lot more homogenous than they'd otherwise be.. so you don't have to worry about whether you've got X or Y feature on the phone; it just has to have Windows Mobile 5 and 32MB of RAM (a minimum for WM Smartphone, it seems) and you're good.
Most of the 'applications' I see are either games, or else things like movie listings or similar which don't do all that much.
I think you would see things differently if you actually had one of these phones. I took a little time trying to find software for my wife's RAZR and found applications that can replicate pretty-much everything I do with my PocketPC - not that I know if they are better/worse/same as the PPC software, but the applications are there. Same for my Nokia 6682 and E62, except that for these I can say for sure that the applications are at least as good as the PPC equivalents.
I have little doubt that your average teenager is more interested in ringtones and soft-porn images of their favourite movie stars than PIM clients. Never forget, though, that today's teenager is tomorrow's business user. Just because it may be true that your typical phone user TODAY is not so interested in installing applications that this makes such a feature irrelevant or undesirable, because you can be sure they'll be using their phones for more things tomorrow.
Most of the 'applications' I see are either games, or else things like movie listings or similar which don't do all that much.
I think you would see things differently if you actually had one of these phones. I took a little time trying to find software for my wife's RAZR and found applications that can replicate pretty-much everything I do with my PocketPC - not that I know if they are better/worse/same as the PPC software, but the applications are there. Same for my Nokia 6682 and E62, except that for these I can say for sure that the applications are at least as good as the PPC equivalents.
I have little doubt that your average teenager is more interested in ringtones and soft-porn images of their favourite movie stars than PIM clients. Never forget, though, that today's teenager is tomorrow's business user. Just because it may be true that your typical phone user TODAY is not so interested in installing applications that this makes such a feature irrelevant or undesirable, because you can be sure they'll be using their phones for more things tomorrow.
I use a Nokia running s60. My sister runs a Motorola RAZR... and outside of the games which come on it, she doesn't seem much into downloading them. The other phones I've seen used in public (on the bus, waiting for things in line, etc) are usually being used for IM or maybe Snake or similar simpler games which are usually built into the ROM. As I noted, Symbian s60 phones from Nokia are among those I consider a smartphone, primarily because they're easier to install productivity applications to. The RAZR ones I've seen, but tend to discount due to the observations I've made in public. You and your wife may be using these, and the programs ARE there and available... but I dont' see them being used often in public.
Most BUSINESS people, on the other hand, are using HP iPaq phones, Blackberries, or Treos, or at least the ones I usually run into at work or downtown. Most of them don't seem to be using their RAZRs for heavy PIM work, from what I can tell - contact lists, the odd alarm or appointments, and so forth seem to be the limit there.
With the convergence of PDAs into phones, you're right in one area - it's almost inevitable that people will be using their phones for much more than just taking calls in the future. At the same time, the iPhone isn't apparently intended for people who'll be wanting 50 things running on their phone at once; those people tend to be the ones who know enough to get a Treo or some flavor of Windows Mobile phone (thanks to HP, Asus, etc). Also, as noted, I suspect that the Widget functionality the iPhone offers may actually take over for a lot of applications for the less-technologically savvy users; they're relatively safe as they're scripts (in other words, they're doing the same thing Java is supposed to do: run in a sandbox which doesn't interfere with the rest of the system's operations), and they potentially provide a lot of light functionality without going too far into the OS.
One thing a phone CANNOT afford to do is crash - the early RAZRs have a reputation for crashing, from what I've seen personally (my sister) and from what I've garnered talking with multiple people who sell the buggers at various cell phone companies. Closing the OS development a bit MAY prevent issues with 'bad apps' crashing the phones (which is good)... but it may not. We'll see how the market votes in a year or so, to see if Apple's stance is borne out or not.
I can say safely that the iPod's popularity has NOT been hurt by its relative lack of applications or the ability to install new features/programs short of changing the OS that operates it. Simplicity has its virtues, as much as we laud versatility.
You and your wife may be using these, and the programs ARE there and available... but I dont' see them being used often in public.
I didn't gather your emphasis on see as in 'on the bus with my own eyes' from your previous post. I agree totally that you rarely see people out in public doing anything but amuse themselves with their phones.
Well ... not like that, you understand ops:
I think you and I are in agreement over how we see the iPhone and the use of phones in general. Really our only point of disagreement is in the definition of a 'smart' phone.
You and your wife may be using these, and the programs ARE there and available... but I dont' see them being used often in public.
I didn't gather your emphasis on see as in 'on the bus with my own eyes' from your previous post. I agree totally that you rarely see people out in public doing anything but amuse themselves with their phones.
Well ... not like that, you understand ops:
I think you and I are in agreement over how we see the iPhone and the use of phones in general. Really our only point of disagreement is in the definition of a 'smart' phone.
I define smartphone as having an OS which is fairly standard across devices: this means that a WM phone is a smartphone, a Nokia s60-based phone is a smartphone, while a Nokia using the older S30 OS or a Motorola or LG are not; the OS is the key here, since otherwise you've got programs which say "Requires: Nokia 6000, Samsung a720, Motorola v660" instead of "Nokia s60 OS, 3MB storage". That's a LOT easier to write programs for; Java does its bit in allowing usage of the same source code across platforms with minimal rewriting... but being able to write and know that the platform you're writing the code for has the same capabilities (or at least, the same MINIMUM capabilities) encourages more development. Like I said, my s60-based phone has a photo editor loaded into it, along with a music player... and the advantage is that by doing so, I've added OGG support (including ringtones) to a phone which didn't natively support it (it only does MP3 natively). That's expandability for you, and that's a smartphone (or in my case, a not-so-smartphone).
One thing which may encourage application adoption beyond standardizing OS's and interfaces across phones may be a marketplace-wide reduction in data pricing, however; right now, if I intended to download software to my phone, I either have to download it onto PC then send the application to my phone with BT or else I have to buy it from the phone company and THEN pay extra for the data charges. Reducing the cost of a voice-and-data plan would probably encourage me to buy more programs online, or at least to make use of the web functionality that it offers.
Cingular's pricing for the voice-and-data plan that has been proposed for the iPhone SHOULD be of some concern to Apple; too costly a plan, and the phone itself may become an albatross around Apple's neck, no matter whether or not it can sync with iTunes: if I have to pay $80 a month for the voice-and-data package on TOP of the $500 I shell out for the phone... well, I could get a $250 iPod Nano and import an LG phone and be done with it.
Incidentally, the above rumor (I've seen prices as high as $100/mo for a combined voice/data package quoted for the iPhone) is one reason I believe that Apple made a BIG mistake tying itself to one provider. If they'd sold the phone by itself for $500 or so, and made it quad-band PLUS 3G capable (reducing the need to have separate phones for EU/Asia and North America), they'd probably be in an even better position. It's a bit like if they'd sold the iPod back in 2000 but tied it to AOL so you had to get an AOL membership to download music and ALSO had to pay extra data fees because you'd have to dial up AOL to get to the iTunes store... and couldn't rip your own music. I suspect that the iPod would've tanked if they'd tied it the way the iPhone is currently locked down to one provider.
Most of them don't seem to be using their RAZRs for heavy PIM work, from what I can tell - contact lists, the odd alarm or appointments, and so forth seem to be the limit there. 
ops: 
Linear Mode
LinkBacks (?)
