Simon’s Blog

Comments

1. Asam Bashir wrote:

   It’s not the perfect iPhone yet at 1.0, but should be by 2.0 if they add 3G and GPS.

   Yes there are problems, the deal isn’t perfect, Apple is obviously going to make a lot of money with this. I will be getting one on an O2 contract as I’m not tied to any exisiting contract at the moment.

   This bit of news just made my day though,

   http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/09/26/truphone.voip.on.iphone/

   As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve been using Truphone on my E65 and this was one of my reasons for getting the Nokia. So to hear that it should be possible to get it working on iPhone is great! Free VOIP calls over WIFI to 40 int landlines will more then make up for lack of O2 minutes….

   Posted 26 Sep 2007 at 10:49 pm ¶

2. Asam Bashir wrote:

   PS, I figure I might as well get on an O2 contract now then even if they release an iPhone v2.0 in Q1 2008 it’ll be an easy upgrade and a case of just buying iPhone v2.0 and swapping in the O2 SIM.

   If I need to suppliment mobile to mobile call minutes I can just add some Truphone credit.

   Posted 26 Sep 2007 at 10:54 pm ¶

3. Asam Bashir wrote:

   One further point about hacking the iPhone. There are two types of things you can do to an iPhone, the first is unlocking it fully so that it can accept any SIM on any network, the second is to install third-party apps. I think from what I’ve glanced over in the Mac press, Apple is making a distinction between unlocking and third-party apps. Unlocking is far more risky as modifications are made to actual iPhone OS X files which would could be replaced after software update. Third-party apps, like for example adding Terminal.app, are basically ignored as are for example third-party apps in /Applications in Mac OS X.

   http://iphone.macworld.com/2007/08/the_iphone_hacking_kit_step_by.php

   Once you’ve got Terminal.app in there, the whole UNIX core is a Bash command away.

   So, with true VOIP over either EDGE or WIFI, a Terminal.app that won’t be harmed by software updates, the option to upgrade when the 3G v2.0 does arrive, are you still saying this is an unattractive proposition?

   I’m already using an EDGE phone, my E65, and you know what, I haven’t really come across a need for 3G as I’m always near WIFI when I actually need. Yes I can’t play all that rubish 3G content like they have on Orange which I tried for 3 days on a N95. It was a waste of time. I’d actually prefer a video player as I’ve found out that the easiest way to go for free quality content is to hook up EyeTV on my iMac and record my pick from all the free view channels and have them exported in high quality iPhone ready content ready for sync.

   I don’t really care about camera and video, if I’m serious about photography I’d get a proper camera - 2 Meg for a quick pic is good enough for the tasks you’d not be that bothered about quality.

   All these people sitting around writing emails on phones, I don’t get it, why bother, if you’ve got some serious email to do that’s what your laptop is for.

   I think for reading US experiences I’m getting back the message that there are more benefits overall with the iPhone compared to any thing else out there.

   I had a N95 3G HSDPA blinkity blu bla, stupid brick had a two hour battery life and a GUI that makes you want to throw the damn thing away - do I want that, no thank you. I’ll take 3G when it’s a refined technology with a killer 3G app - thus far it has neither….

   Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 2:56 am ¶

4. simon wrote:

   Asam said:
   
   So with true VOIP over either EDGE or WIFI, a Terminal.app that won’t be harmed by software updates, the option to upgrade when the 3G v2.0 does arrive, are you still saying this is an unattractive proposition?

   I think an iPhone version 2.0 with 3G has potential. At the very least that should make iPhone the best mobile web brower. It would need some other improvements too though to make it compelling for me (see the wish list in my post).

   The fact that so much of the interesting action around iPhone 1.0 is about hacking to allow third-party applications just shows that Steve Jobs has a lot to learn about the mobile space. He fundamentally doesn’t understand the issues around third-party applications. The things he has said about third-party apps really make him look dumb.

   What part of “people want third-party apps on their phones” doesn’t he understand? Apple should be focussed on a killer set of Java APIs for iPhone; but it seems they’re more interested in getting Flash to work because Jobs thinks that “no-one uses Java anymore”. Yet more cluelessness on his part: what part of “people install tens of millions of Java apps on mobile phones every month” doesn’t he understand? And what part of “Apple doesn’t have the resources to either develop all the great applications that could be developed for MacOS X mobile, or to build relationships with the developers of those apps” doesn’t he understand?

   Not only does this kind of thing make him *appear* dumb, it might mean that he actually *is* dumb. I won’t even mention the fact that he believes the iPhone virtual keyboard is better than a Blackberry keypad. It just isn’t. It’s obvious it isn’t, even before you try it (if you don’t want to take my word on this, maybe you’ll take Stephen Fry’s?)

   Obviously iPhone 2.0 isn’t out yet. Sure, it should be a simple upgrade… but that doesn’t alter the fact that I have no use for iPhone 1.0. And given Steve Jobs lack of understanding (let alone vision) surrounding mobile, I don’t feel inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that iPhone 2.0 will be an amazing improvement over iPhone 1.0. For example, better “Starbucks integration” doesn’t count as a improvement to my mind.

   I hope future iPhones are great. I’d like to have a reason to buy an iPhone, because I think the user interface to Mac OS X mobile is fantastic. I guess the future of iPhone depends on whether Steve Jobs has the ability to learn fast or not.

   Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 6:43 am ¶

5. Mr X wrote:

   I don’t think that Steve is dumb - though he is occasionally wrong. He knows his market and how to sell to it - a fully keyboard in buttons make a smart phone look geeky - only attracting people like Stephen Fry - he’s is one of kind - not a large market I’m sure you’ll agree.

   I don’t think anyone will disagree that physical buttons allow one handed use, tactile use and faster entry and that a stylus is more precise than an pudgy finger.

   But no-one will also disagree that keyboards break, reduce screen size ( flip down ones have their own problems ),and are generally smaller than you’d like, styluses get lost and can be fiddly.

   So the question is - is the trade off worth it? The problem that keyboards etc have is that their value is fixed - whereas in the software area there is potentially much larger potential for improvement - for example optional voice recognition and improved guestures, programmable aliases - STFU expanding to ‘I hear what you are saying and are fully cognizant of your perspective…..

   One of the things that Jobs has emphasized more than once - but perhaps people don’t believe it yet - is that they are viewing the iPhone as a living device - something that can and will be updated via software.

   Why is this important? The product cycle in mobile phones is brutally short, cutting into margins, confusing consumers who just want the same phone as last time but can’t find it.

   If they can pull it off, the totally software approach means they can out iterate the competition and yet maintain margins to support strong R&D. They can also innovate yet retain a consistent physical branding look.

   I think the lock out of unknown third parties ( Apple has third party developers - they just have to work closely with Apple ) at this time is a partly because they don’t want to be encumbered by backwards compatibility right now - they want to move as fast as possible.

   Finally I think the emphasis on serverside apps is not completely doomed - the things that are missing are pervasive & fast networks ( actually the pervasive bit is harder and has been largely solved for phones ) and a decent client platform. While a native or Java platform is going to offer more options the web is good enough for a lot of applications - even if the web browsing in the iPhone, although class leading, is not quite there yet. For example is facebook usable on the iPhone?

   Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 10:59 am ¶

6. simon wrote:

   Re: Market size for QWERTY phones.

   Blackberry has around ten million subscribers, with subscribers regularly buying new handsets. That is, they sell twice as many handsets as they add new subcribers. They have shipped around twenty million handsets to date. 80% of their revenue is from handsets. Revenues are probably about $4B per year, with profits of about $400M (difficult to say for sure, cos they’re growing fast).

   It will be interesting to see how long it takes Apple to overtake Blackberry in terms of numbers of users.

   Re: screen size. You have problems either way. A virtual keyboard takes up screen real estate; so anytime you use it, expect most of your screen to be obscured. I think a better design is a slider hardware QWERTY keypad like HTC does. The only problem is HTC designs are a bit chunky. I’m sure Apple could make a much sleeker design.

   I agree with you about server-side apps. There are really huge opportunities there. However, I would say iPhone Safari has such a bad implementation of JavaScript (super slow) as to be unusable for *sophisticated* AJAX-style apps. I would expect that to improve with time.

   I also agree that Apple has a good strategy with regard to regular updates.

   I don’t buy your “can’t open up for third-party apps cos we’re moving fast” argument though. Not one bit. As you know, if you program your apps in Java, you are essentially isolated from the underlying hardware-OS platform. The truth is: Steve Jobs badly misjudged the demand for third-party apps on iPhone developed by any developers. I don’t know if Steve Jobs is dumb; but he has certainly said really dumb things about third-party apps on mobile phones; and Java. He was sufficiently dumb that he chose to ignore the fact that almost the whole mobile phone market allows open third-party app development (from cheap feature phones to smart phones). And he was sufficiently dumb that he thought that browser apps was a “sweet solution” to this problem.

   As I said before, what part of “people want to install apps on their mobile phones” doesn’t he understand? Maybe the buzz around Installer.app on the iPhone will hammer the point home to him.

   Oh, and one more thing…

   O2’s so-called “unlimited” data plan that goes with iPhone is *actually* limited to 200MB per month. Totally laughable. It was dumb of Jobs to sign a five-year exclusive contract with a carrier that is so clueless.

   Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 11:32 am ¶

7. Mr X wrote:

   Ten million is a lot and then not that many if you look at the wider market. Aren’t they planning to go past that in a single year? As you say it will be interesting to see if/when Apple surpass that.

   I think we are both agreed that on a small form factor device input is going to be a challenge however you do it for the foreseeable - heck input is an issue for desktops and they have acres of space.

   re: java - that’s ok if you use the Java look and feel - but surely apple would want a native look at feel - how long would that take? Or maybe they would need to write a UI kit specifically - also they need to add the appropriate connectivity hooks - and how to they map gestures to the Java api? It’s not totally straightforward.

   Sure developers want access - but do consumers care? Maybe I don’t use phones enough to understand - perhaps you can help me by listing three killer 3rd party apps you’d like to see if it was opened up. Does anything other than games and ring tones make any real money on phones? I have no idea.

   People want to - the sort of people that can hack phones or are perhaps to use a hack - I don’t think that’s the mainstream customer that Apple is gunning for.

   Don’t get me wrong as a developer I’d want the phone open - the question is will the majority of Apple customers care?

   Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 1:07 pm ¶

8. Asam Bashir wrote:

   Steve Jobs would be dumb if he wasn’t making money, but he fact is he is, and the iPhone is selling very well - so at this stage, from a business perpective and not our personal geek inclinations, has he got it wrong? They’re not going for the BB market just yet, we’re in early days like the iPod v1.0.

   Keyboard: one word ‘BlueTooth’ - so many of the current iPhone 1.0 limitations could be addressed if Bluetooth was addressed properly. The relativity unsophisticated Bluetooth inomplementation in v1.0 seems to be a power saving compromise, so for version 2.0 there is huge potential when combined with sophisiticated power saving 3G chipsets.

   Even now with 1.0 though, all Apple has to do is enable use with the new razor thin Aluminium Bluetooth keyboard and it would make a lot of people happy. It’s ironic that I can use my Nokia E65 with an Apple Bluetooth keyboard but I won’t be able to do same with iPhone 1.0.

   Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 3:17 pm ¶

9. Asam Bashir wrote:

   Just in case anyone missed it, the most excellent review by caMMac (http://cammac.org.uk) honorary and active member,

   http://www.stephenfry.com/blog/?p=3

   Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 3:33 pm ¶

10. Simon Brocklehurst wrote:

    Re: a great implementation of Java for iPhone. Not trivial; but not rocket science either. I really hope Apple is getting on with this… but the rumour mill suggests they’re more interested in Flash. So be it.

    Re: Killer 3-rd party apps. Off the top of my head.

    1. Every retro game on the planet (Space Invaders, Defender, Galaxians, Pacman etc. etc.)

    2. Usable instant messaging client that talks to all major IM platforms

    3. Free VOIP (a la Truphone, Skype etc)

    5. Video player that plays more formats than Apple’s video player does

    6. ShoZu.com

    7. Radar.net

    8. Google mobile applications (not just Google web services that Apple decides to write clients for)

    9. A client that talks to Exchange server over the air

    10. SSH client

    11. Photo editor

    12. Native Atom/RSS reader

    Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 3:56 pm ¶

11. Asam Bashir wrote:

    My main feature request relates to ‘Share Mac’ features of the new finder in Leopard (it’s here soon) - I’d like to see this fully integrated into iPhone so that with the Remote Admin features you can take advantage of unlimited data access and use VNC like technology to display your Mac desktop on the iPhone. Even a simple implementation of existing cover-flow technology to browse your files on a Mac (via dot Mac) would be very useful - This however would make it even easier to hack the iPhone, so it would need a sophisiticated implementation.

    And yes, iChat - but that will wait till we have a front camera on iPhone 2.0..

    Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 4:38 pm ¶

12. simon wrote:

    Asam said,
    
    “I think from what I’ve glanced over in the Mac press, Apple is making a distinction between unlocking and third-party apps.”

    Nope…

    http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2007/09/27/3rd-party-apps-disabled-in-iphone-1-1-1/

    http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/steve-jobs-girds-for-the-long-iphone-war/

    Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 6:20 am ¶

13. simon wrote:

    Mr X wrote:
    
    People want to - the sort of people that can hack phones or are perhaps to use a hack - I don’t think that’s the mainstream customer that Apple is gunning for.

    Don’t get me wrong as a developer I’d want the phone open - the question is will the majority of Apple customers care?

    These are really critical questions. I don’t *know the answers. Here’s what I *think* though…

    I don’t think Apple *can* be gunning for “mainstream” customers with iPhone - the deal they are offering with iPhone is super-expensive compared to the competition. In other words, I doubt the average iPod customer is going to see iPhone as a good deal cf iPod which is a good-value product.

    If I’m right, then we will see slow sales of iPhone going forward, after the hardcore Apple fans have all got their iPhones. On the topic of hardcore fans, it’s interesting that Apple seems not to care about these people e.g. see the current debacle over their deliberately breaking their customer’s phones that have been modded.

    This looks like a massive PR disaster to me (much bigger than the recent price drop where Jobs had to backtrack and offer a $100 rebate) . I wonder if Steve is getting caught up in his own reality distortion field? Did he not *know* just how many of the iPhones Apple sold have been modded because the iPhone doesn’t work the way the people that bought it wanted it to work? Did he not foresee that breaking so many of his customers phones would cause them to voice their unhapiness loudly for the whole world to see?

    Jobs sees this as a game of cat and mouse between Apple and the “hackers”. I see this as more evidence of dumbness, making life difficult for some of his most important customers that evangelise his company’s products. Talk about not getting it…

    Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 9:12 am ¶

14. Mr X wrote:

    What’s the difference between a iphone and an itouch? Access to the phone network - pure and simple - that’s what defines a ‘phone’.

    Therefore he can’t make a ‘phone’ unless he keeps the networks sweet - that may change in the future - maybe they will bid for spectrum in the great digital switch over, or wireless truly becomes pervasive ( note Apple are very keen to do no toll data deals - suggests that’s where they think the longer is ).

    Bearing this in mind - lets go through your list.

    Re: Killer 3-rd party apps. Off the top of my head.

    1. Every retro game on the planet (Space Invaders, Defender, Galaxians, Pacman etc. etc.)
    Accept the games one - and so do Apple - they have worked with third parties on games even if they haven’t opened it up entirely.

    2. Usable instant messaging client that talks to all major IM platforms

    Keep networks sweet.

    3. Free VOIP (a la Truphone, Skype etc)
    `
    Keep networks sweet.

    5. Video player that plays more formats than Apple’s video player does

    As you say they are interested in supporting flash - and have managed to push youtube to provide compatible content - they recognize this one - but they are also playing the ‘promote’ quicktime game.

    6. ShoZu.com
    7. Radar.net
    Fair enough - I think apple offers limited functionality via .mac
    - the interesting implementation detail here is that they do it via email - if radar.net and shozu.com also had email gateways then you could do it as well.

    8. Google mobile applications (not just Google web services that Apple decides to write clients for)
    Fair enough - but surely these are just temporary things while a full browser is not available?

    9. A client that talks to Exchange server over the air
    Only relevant for 40% of business users - no home users.
    Server-side solutions - anyway if MS opened the MAPI protocol as the EU have been asking for the last ten years, then it might be easier.

    10. SSH client
    Come on - that’s a nice niche.

    11. Photo editor
    Killer?

    12. Native Atom/RSS reader
    Don’t understand why they removed the native reader in safari and put the online one on - it might be to aggregate polling and reduce network bandwidth in response to the networks fears.

    I summary the only killer ones I think you have on the list are 1, 2 & 3 - games they are addressing if slowly, 2&3 they can’t yet as they need to keep the networks sweet - perhaps the biggest reason for excluding third party development is to stop these sort of apps being developed!!!!

    As for the comment about mainstream versus price - well price is the easiest thing to change - as they have already shown.

    Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 10:11 am ¶

15. simon wrote:

    Mr X said,
    
    What’s the difference between an iPhone and an iTouch? Access to the phone network - pure and simple - that’s what defines a ‘phone’.
    
    Not quite. The truth is - the differences are more that. Apple has done the minimum with the iTouch that they could get away with; to try to encourage iPhone sales. iTouch has no camera. iTouch has no speakers (bit silly for a music player). iTouch has no email client.

    Re: IM. IM isn’t a bandwidth hog. Plenty of mobile carriers allow IM clients to be installed on phones. And, if you pay for a high-end all-you-can eat data tarif, they’ll let you do VOIP and video streaming too. If Apple chooses to do business exclusively with backward-looking carriers, that’s their problem. Apple’s business will suffer as a result.

    Apple needs to balance its natural desire for increasing revenues and profits (e.g. by selling the iPhone handset profitably as well as taking a 40% share of the monthly fee), with focussing relentlessly on the needs of their customers. It seems to me that they’re in danger of swinging the needle away from the interests of their customers…. and if they do that, ultimately, it won’t be good for their business.

    Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 3:35 pm ¶

16. Lally wrote:

    3G will come. Steve’s said so himself (it wasn’t in this version b/c it killed the battery).

    Camera? that’s likely to improve as apple has a chance to start tweaking the device. This is v1.0

    Opening it up? Donno about that one. Apple has open (e.g. Java) moods and closed moods. Probably Steve defaults to closed unless someone convinces him of something else.

    Blackberry? When has apple *ever* worked well with enterprise needs? If they do push, it’ll probably end up being through .Mac, but I doubt it. See below.

    Unlocked? Apple needed someone with experience in the phone market. Verizon didn’t give them what they wanted, so they went with Ma Bell. Apple made a deal with her to get in the market, and they’ll have to abide by it. In the mean time, they’re building a brand and will later have the ability to leverage it. If that means unlocked, that’d be great — but we’ll see.

    Two possibilities:
    1. As the locked ones are at unlocked prices, they could always go solo. Considering how they’ve been fighting record companies about iTunes pricing, they may go this way to sell more iPhones. (iTMS was never a profit center for apple, just a way to sell iPods).
    2. Apple’s getting a cut of the monthly fees. They may just offer the phone on all the major carriers and call it ‘good enough.’ Showing how many people switched to AT&T just for the iPhone should let them negotiate some revenue-sharing deals.

    Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 9:58 pm ¶

Post a Comment