nerdbrain's Profile

Chris, to be honest, you really don't have a case. You're mounting a baseless attept justify something that is semantically indefensible. The thing is, you can't just say a PDA is a PDA 'because I say so'. Ok, you say it's a "neutered" PDA and that what makes a "full" PDA is one that "allows" constomers to add applications as they see fit. The iPhone may not allow open 3rd party software development, but to say it's neutered is sensationalist. (It's better to say it may not be useful to you - although you don't fully know yet. The existence Google Maps indicates anything is possible. In fact, there is a roughlydrafted article that talks specifically about this. And you know what, it sums up my experience with Palm 3rd party software. Abysmal. Most of the third party stuff is like putting sticking plaster on a broken leg. And you get charged for the pleasure of putting crapware on your device. Give me an out-of-the-box device that's useful. Opening and editing Word documents is a moot feature. Simply because as of yet you can't do half the things (layout, etc.) you can do on the desktop. All you really need is a simple text-editor. Most people don't have to edit and send Word documents on the fly either. Editing on the fly may provide for some increased productivity, but most often returning to the desktop to finish the more complex tasks is necessary. As per your limping "smart phone" description, saying "existing smartphone users" see the lack of an open platform as a reason to disqualify iPhone as a "smartphone". Que? Anyway, as I say, I think applying that word to a device, especially for the purposes of your analysis, is dubious, at best. - MSOG P.s. Sorry to be a stickler, but the lack of well reasoned debate online is becoming quite scary. I haven't read your other stuff, but I get the feeling that people just get up in the morning and if they decide the earth is flat they'll say that. And even when they are challenged (or proved wrong) they persist. Maybe it's just a game, or that anything that generates ad views is good. God damn the ads. :)

As per my previous comment, substitute contract for tarrif(s) where ever it occurs. It's a lot clearer that way. - MSOG

What exactly counts as a Personal Digital Assistant? Does the lack of an open third party software platform preclude the iPon from being called a "smart phone"? In fact, I think that the phrase "smart phone" is a dubious description. But if it has to be used, I think it must be separated from the PDA moniker. It's just not useful. What might be useful in your analysis is describing what makes a good Personal Digital Assistant, or a "smart phone". I feel the iPhone is best described as neither. No PDA has ever had the kind of usability the iPhone has out of the box. Second, many of the so-called "smart phones" are lacking in useful, smart, well executed features. However, you may be unto something with your iPhone-being-widescreen iPod conclusion. I just don't think it has anything to do with the whole PDA/"smart phone" conundrum. But you need a more convincing argument, as Apple are only aiming for 10m iPhones in the first yr. They at a rate of about 50m iPods a yr already. Think about that. Another thing. Why do people insist on making conclusions based on unfounded assumptions? Take a previous comment that iPhone will come attached to an expensive Cingular 2yr contract. How do they know this? In fact, we can reasonably assume, given the special circumstances of this deal, that Cingular (AT&T) have arranged iPhone-specific tariffs, which may be different to what we're accustomed to. - MSOG

This thread of argument suggests why Apple's recent success with the iPod is no fluke. Indeed, even Bill Gates had, early on, called the whole iPod phenomenon a fad. We can now see why he got this completely wrong. First of all, the iPod has become a standard of sorts for the consumers of digital media players, as rogueprof has suggested. People buy iPods nowadays because it is what they are most familiar with. Those who own them are most likely going to buy them again because they have become accustomed to them - and because they know that there is a whole ecosytem of third-party devices, software and support out there for it. Just think of how much iPod/iTunes-enhancing software there is out there. So, the ecosystem has become sigfincantly important to both Apple's iPod and the businesses that benefits from it. However, I do agree with Chris Seibold that iTunes Music Store is also a significant factor in the popularity of the iPod. Ben Hall and Chris are actually in agreement on this point, dispite Ben's apparent feelings to the contrary. People do buy iPods because, in a sense, getting useful access to iTMS means that there is an easy and convenient way to get additional music for their iPods - if they so desired. I've over-heard people asking where they can get music for their iPods. People *do* base their decision on buying an iPod on more than just the "cool" factor or well designed interface. They want to know that the device has an easy to understand warrenty; they want to know that they can enhance it's usability; they want to know that, if they get bored of their collection, they don't have to throw away their iPods, because the service they want isn't compatible with the iPod. When you opt-in in this way, your hope is to be able to exert some kind of discerning influence over what kind of service is delivered to you in the future - regardless of whether you'll use it. I have satelite in my house. I don't get all of the channels because I don't pay for them. But a significant, and largely subconscious, factor in choosing my provider is the fact that if I did want additional content there are a plethora of good channels that I can add to my basic package. To be sure, I bought the service I have, in the first place, simply because I wanted a tv service that was better than terrestial. I also chose my provider because they are well-known for having a good, effecience service, and have a really great selection of channels. (The expandability of the service is a bonus.) The fact that Ben Hall's purchasing behaviour goes contrary to his own argument that iTMS is not a factory is a good example of how this works! Chris Seibold's article, however, which is simply about Job's apparent baiting technique is most interesting. It makes so much sense. It is, however, an inevitably. Unless, ofcourse, Microsoft get's Sony, Creative, Samsung, and all of the other device makers, as rogueprof suggests, to agree on a standard connector/interface - and possibly Window's supported featureset - for their products. Seems unlikely. That's why Jobs stated it with such conviction. Even if he *is* baiting Microsoft, they also know that its true. As iPod becomes ever more popular, and Apple more of a consumer electronics company, Microsoft will find competing against Apple difficult. It needs flexability to win in the short term. Supporting devices in a 17% market bogs it down and stifles innovation. It must compete with Apple on better terms. Playsforsure just don't work. (Isn't it interesting, though, that Jobs refered to Apple as a consumer electronics company - *not* a computer company? By his comments is he not suggesting that Apple is following a CE model, not a traditional computer company model. Even more interesting Richard Doherty, of analyst firm Envisioneering Group, as stated on CNNMoney.com, recently described Apple as "the world's largest consumer electronics comapny! Significantly bigger than giant Sony. Atleast in terms of market capitalisation.) ---NB