Im sorry, but the iPhone whatever isnt worth a tinker's damn. Like most of apple's products, it will be done better, cheaper and be generally more widely used when it is done by someone else. I do not now, nor have I ever understood the fascination with the Apple brand.

As far as the phone thing goes, are you all who got conned into buying the first iPhones still using Preperation H from the last little bit of lovin that Steve Jobs gave you? Its less that a year or so from the last over-priced monstrosity, now they want to bill you AGAIN, with another 2 year contract, with a mobile carrier that isnt all that good.

To be honest, it looks like Verizon will win the phone wars, and the limited number of Apple enthusiasts will not make a dent in Verizon dominance, at least in the North East. And I would think that iPhone users would feel shame, rather than pride, at their ownership. iPhone users are chumps, gullible, and used like Pavlov's dogs to pump up Jobs and co.

Screw someone once, shame on you, screw them again and you just might be Apple....

Okay, so you hate Apple, and that's fine. (I hate Dell.)

But "like most of Apple's products, it will be done better, cheaper and be generally more widely used when it is done by somebody else"? It makes me wonder if you've heard of the iPod.

Other companies have been trying to do better, cheaper and more popular versions of the iPod more or less since it was introduced. The most recent market share figures show Apple with 71 percent of the music player market, Sandisk with 11 and that iPod-killer known as the Zune with 4.

And phone manufacturers have spent the last 18 months trying to catch up with the iPhone, with essentially no luck. Considering the extremely short product cycles in the wireless business, that should tell you something, particularly because Apple actually announced the product about six months before it was released. (It's actually kind of amusing to watch ads for competing products - Verizon had one in the Christmas season in which various teenagers talked about their phones and ticked off one feature on each one that was like something on the iPhone, as if nobody would notice that none of the Verizon phones had the full feature set.) As has been the case for the iPod, the new iteration of the iPhone software and hardware addresses a lot of the issues that customers had raised about the original and adds other features as well.

Of course, the response to all of this is that the Mac was overtaken by the PC. Leave aside for a moment that there's never been a serious argument that Windows has been better than the Mac OS for any sustained period, and certainly not since OS X was introduced. (Now if you want to say Linux is better, you may have an argument, but the number of Linux boxes out there is much smaller than the number of Macs.) According to NPD, Apple has a 14% share in the PC market, and has been experiencing significant growth the last several years, while recently the PC market as a whole has been essentially flat. In other words, Apple is taking market share away from Windows PCs. In fact, Gartner says that Apple increased sales by 32% in the first quarter, much more than any of its competitors.

I don't have any particular love for Apple, they are often overrated. But they've been true innovators, and innovation costs money, especially in the beginning. The iPhone changed the way people use their phones, everybody I know that owns one loves it. They're not *all* under Jobs's spell. So is Apple perfect? Far from it. But you don't have to deny their history of innovation and ability to match form and function to make that case. Their ability to innovate and charge high prices is what gets the cheaper competitors into the market in the first place.

Apple has always been a bit of a cult, and cult followers dont find $600 too much to pay for the first iPhone; I have no wish to deny them.I wonder how much of the devotion is just to be anti Microsoft, but again, choose your poison.

If the author hates AT&T so much, he can go to Hongkong or Taiwan and pick up a smuggled 3G iPhone, Insert your T mobile SIM card and keep going; you might pay just a bit more than $199.

I am waiting to see how much my carrier Singtel is going to charge for the iPhone here; rumour says about us$500, which would be ridiculous, but half of this would be acceptable - my current plan costs us$15 a month; to get carriers like Singtel on board, Apple will have to allow unlocked phones because of local anti monopoly regulations; to me this is another Apple surrender to reality

Seriously, I agree with yuenck. If you don't mind having a cracked iPhone 1.3 Apple doesn't approve of, why not just find a way to get an open iPhone 2? I find it highly unlikely you couldn't get one from overseas or that somebody won't find a way to crack "local" ones.

In regard to Sprint, it's likely far from down and out. The huge losses are a result of horrible merger with Nextel, but its core business is still solid. Further, its data service for its PocketPC phones is better and faster for a much lower price ($15/month unlimited). I have a Sprint Mogul and some of my friends have iPhones. I'll agree that the iPhone might look somewhat cooler. The battery life is better. But I have yet to find something my phone can't do that their iPhone can. But there are many things I can do on my (completely legitimate) Mogul that they are stuck without. I'm waiting for the Diamond to come out, which looks like it'll do even more, and, most likely, still more than iPhone 2. Judging from the pictures it'll look cool enough. So I won't do the spiel about blind Apple obedience and trying to be cool and unique just like everybody else. But I'd expect more from the author, who seems like a technically savvy guy.

Of course you know that Apple had a chance to rule the PC market earlier on and blew it due to some really crappy business decisions. And, while in some respects the Apple machines are good, they never have the software I want for them, upgrading them is either prohibitively expensive or impossible and the initial outlay tends to be around 2 times the price of a PC. I am not arguing for Microsoft by any means. My new laptop is inflicted with the nightmare that is Vista. MS is almost like an abusive relationship, they do horrible things to you to see if you still love them enough to stay with them. Or, in the case of Windows for PC, have no real alternative.

The iPod as an MP3 player was a brilliant idea and Apple ran with it. I guess thats a consolation prize for having pissed away the chance to rule the world of personal computing. Still, because I dont do fashion or care what others think about my goods and chattels, when I buy an MP3 player, it will be what gives me most bang for the buck, which means it will almost certainly not be an Apple product.

And as for the iPhone, I think it is apalling that they would force you into a contract with a specific carrier. Again, Jobs is acting in his usual control freak manner concerning his gizmo du jour. I laugh when people spend more for a phone than they would for a full function laptop. Its better still when the company slashes the price shortly after they have taken many of their adherents for a huge ride. And, the suckers will probably line up for this next one as well. I am not sure what people really 'need' from a phone, I use mine to call people. It does all the things that most phones do, an plays MP3s, takes pictures, movies, has a full keyboard, plays video, can do the GPS thing (if I pay the money for it) etc. Its not that I dont like Apple, but since my Apple IIe long ago, I have not found any reason to buy another. Additionally, the author made several rediculous statements concerning the iPhone and its potential impact on ATT business.

I dont know if he could have soft soaped it any more than he did if he tried. Its sad, I peruse Slate for thoughtful analysis and the occasional chuckle, not for someone that has a teen crush on a phone...

"And, while in some respects the Apple machines are good, they never have the software I want for them, upgrading them is either prohibitively expensive or impossible and the initial outlay tends to be around 2 times the price of a PC."

1) What software can't you find on MacOS that isn't a very esoteric special case (ie, CAD)?

2) Twice the price of a PC? Just flat out incorrect if you're comparing (figuratively) apples to apples.

There's nothing wrong with disliking Apple or their products, but you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about.

I am an interaction and user experience designer, someone who makes a living by making products, mainly websites, easier to use. This includes interface design and optimization. As you might imagine, my profession is full of talk about Apple and its wondrous interfaces. However, the interface isn't the key to Apple product success. It's *marketed* as the key, but the reality is somewhat different.

The iPod breaks a lot of usability rules, and in many ways its interface and support systems are bloated pieces of crap. (Downloading *another* 60-MB "upgrade" two months after the last one? Dude. No.) Why is it so successful? Because it locked up music with iTunes, just as Windows locked up the desktop. Once you do that, you run into Metcalfe's Law: the usefulness of a network (or networked product, actually or metaphorically) is equal to the square of the sum of its users. The usefulness increases at such a rate that it usually overcomes any difficulties of use...plus, just like Amazon is for books and EBay is for auctions online, the "sole solution" becomes stamped in people's brains and is very difficult to eradicate. Ask ten users: what is the primary pirate way to download music, and what is the primary legal way? Your answers are going to be Kazaa/Limewire/BitTorrent (since they're free, they can keep up a little bit better with Metcalfe's, thereby inspiring some diversity)...and iTunes.

This is why Windows is so widespread. It's also going to stay that way, even with the Vista nightmare. It doesn't matter if Macs get along with PCs; PCs, the dominant force, need to be compatible with Macs, and there are a million reasons why that won't happen.

A really interesting thing is that Apple went first. Going first is often suicide in many industries--a "fast follower" can just copy everything you did right and avoid all the mines you set off. The interesting thing we're finding out, though, is that going first may be the way to go when it comes to certain network-y niches. It's probably possible to create a better iTunes. Hell, there's probably one already. But iTunes is so established that this essentially doesn't matter. MySpace and Facebook are similar examples. The only problem is that this is unlikely to be as successful when it comes to the iPhone. The interface can be replicated, the features can be replicated (in fact, speaking as a professional designer, I would leave out all the ones people don't actually use, and there are plenty...this thing defines feature creep), and the network (the ability of the phone to make calls) cannot be made exclusive, since someone somewhere has a network they'll offer you for a good price. Oh, and you can slash the cost. This phone should cost $100 without any service requirements. A truly evil, talented team could make a phone that calls people and offers GPS for $75. Watch for it.

.

The thing I use a computer for, other than work, spreadsheets, powerpoint etc is gaming. Historically, the Apple platform has been extremely poorly supported by most game companies. Additionally, the bulk of freeware and the like that I have used in the past would only work on PCs and not on Macs. This may have changed in recent years, I dont know, as I have not even considered a Mac for purchase in the last 10 years or so. But again, given the closed software architecture of Apple products, I think the software issue was and will remain a major concern for anyone buying a computer.

And as for you comment about price, I think it is you who is unaware of the pricing structure of modern computers. The base price for a Mac notebook is twice of the cost of a equally (or better) appointed PC. Dont believe me? check any computer sales circular in your local paper. The same goes for desktop models as well, roughtly a 2:1 acquisition cost. This is before we factor in the cost of upgrades to monitors, etc, or memory, video cards etc. It may be that as you approach the upper reaches of capability, this price differential decreases, but thats not my economic strata. I am a grad student, so I buy whatever it is I can get with foodstamps, or the moral equivalent thereof.

As someone that is training to professionally have a clue about what I am speaking of, I find it humorous to be accused of cluelessness. But, after a few short moments of surfing, it seems that my assertions of price were in fact correct. Again, I do not know how the software industry has changed to accomodate Macs, nor do I play computer games any longer, which obviates most of my concerns. I would recommend, however, having a firmer grasp of the facts at hand before being insulting to a fellow poster.

A MacBook is 1100 bucks. Which PC notebook with equal performance is half that price?

Also, which PC, comparably equipped, is half the price of the $1200 iMac?

You say you did a few short moments of surfing, but you fail to share the results. Perhaps you haven't taken the grad class yet on presenting an argument effectively?

As far as notebooks go, mine has more capability (2 GB onboard, 160 GB HD) than the comprable iBook. I also have a dual core processor and same front side bus speeds and clock speeds. Additionally, the monitor has a greater size than the 13" screen of the iBook (screen size on Macs has always been historically poor). My notebook was under $500 when I bought it in Dec, I can only imagine how much more you can get for the same amount now. I generally have some idea of what I want/need a machine to do and how much a machine that fulfils my requirements costs, and again, for around $500 you can get a desktop that equals or exceeds the capabilities of the bottom of the line Mac.

You assume that it is important to me to present my side of this discussion in such a way to sway or convince you, which I will assure you is not the case. Personally, I dont care what you think and I didnt do the brief search I did to bolster my assertion in the face of your overwhelming intellect. I looked it up briefly to make sure I was comfortable with what I stated as being the case, and I am. The history of Apple dictates that their products and services are as insulated from competition as they can make them, and by and large their fanbase of loyal, cult-like adherents are the only thing keeping them from bankruptcy. The iPod was and remains a core area of their business and was a stunning coup of marketing and synergy that will continue to yield profit for the Apple corp for many years to come. however, as it was earlier and most ably noted earlier in this thread, the iPod is in no way shape or form the best product for the job at hand and to paraphrase the poster, it may merely be retail inertia that permits this continued dominance.

And as far as my argumentative capability and capacity, in the scientific community the measure is something called 'peer review'. all grants and manuscripts are judged by this method and any failure to meet the standard required by the 3-7 reviewers of your work equals failure to publish or fund. There are no classes to learn this, its trial and error. Having said that, I am in the process of writing and submitting 2 grants that I have every belief will hit the payline. 'Nuff said.

Yes, I assumed you wouldn't be presenting evidence to back up your claims.

Hold on though, you're applying for grants? GRANTS? Wow. I mean, now I seriously don't know what to say. A graduate student, and applying for grants. I'm very impressed.

Hopefully your grant applications feature convincing arguments with supporting evidence and are written in a more direct manner than your long-winded, illogical, and pretentious comments here.

By the way, I was so busy being amazed with finally speaking with someone who is attending graduate school that I forgot to inquire as to what field you're studying.

I'd like to know so that I may be on the lookout for your certainly-forthcoming and brilliant contributions. Actually no, I'd like to know so that I can be assured that my own field is sufficiently distant.

This conversation is definitely got off the subject. But since the matter is up: you can definitely get a PC for much less than a Mac. I'm about to get new Lenovo laptop for $599.
(http://www.microcenter.com/si­ngle_product_results.phtml?pro­duct_id=0281102)

See if you can find a new MacBook with a 15" screen for a similar price. The Apple website doesn't list anything under $1,999. It has a faster processor, granted, but if I just want a sub-$1,000 laptop, apparently Apple is not an option.

For comparison, I customized a 15" MacBook and a 15" Dell XPS. I changed to a 250 GB hard drive to the MacBook to make it comparable. The price on the MacBook came to $2,049 (http://store.apple.com/1-800-­MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore­.woa/9084002/wo/a737qJN160zX2a­rYEle1HKKQqB1/5.?p=0)

I then customized a Dell XPS laptop to have similar features. With everything as equivalent as I could make it, the price came to $1,324. (http://configure.us.dell.com/­dellstore/config.aspx?oc=dycwh­n1&c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&kc=pr­oductdetails~xpsnb_m1530 , you have to change the processor, hard disk, and video card to match the Mac mentioned above).

Not quite twice as much, but close. And if you find a new MacBook for $599, let me know.

Can you get a PC for less than a Mac? Yes, invariably. Is a Mac twice as expensive as a similarly equipped PC? Not even close. The XPS vice the MacBook Pro is a poor comparison, but yes, the XPS is cheaper. On the other hand, a MacBook at $1100 is unbeatable compare to the 13" XPS, and the iMac desktops can't be matched either. Let's also remember that with any laptop, weight is a feature we pay for.

I don't want to be pedantic, but this "Mac is twice the cost of a PC" argument is twice as old as the Internet, and these days it's simply untrue. Yes, there are PCs that are cheaper than some Macs, and there are some Macs cheaper than some PCs, but unless you're comparing similar machines, you're just wasting your time.

You're correct, though: if you're looking for a sub-1k laptop, Apple's not your brand. They'll probably never compete in that price range anyway, as they've consistently chosen not to market low-end hardware.