iPhone lust fading fast

Comrade,
Your RIM, Palm and Motorola cheques are in the mail...

How can you and many others call this a $1975 piece of equipment. You cannot include the price of the monthly bill because everyone already pays a monthly bill! Include the cost to break a previous contract (if not AT&T), fine. Include the extra $20 to have unlimited internet, fine. But don't include the cost of the entire bill, its just not accurate.

I believe I have a 1-year agreement with Verizon for Broadband, that must mean it costs me over $400 to access this website.

I echo Bob's comment. This article is so stupid and biased, by including what are, in fact, very competitive rates compared with the Blackberry T-Mobile account that i have. So the only additional cost is the phone itself, which INCLUDES an ipod and tremendous web functionality. Viewed in context with the fact that almost any business user spends at least $100/month on service fees alone, the $600 cost of the iphone spread over two years is almost insignificant. My question is: what is the hidden agenda of this article?

The iPhone is not $1975, or $2000, or what ever other number you want to invent. If you insist on this disinformation, then what are the TRUE cost figures for the Blackberry or other smart phones? What is the service contract from AT&T, Verizon, Spint and the others?

Given that you have made a major error in your story, then why should we believe the other claims in your so called article or, for that matter, any of your articles?

"How can you and many others call this a $1975 piece of equipment. You cannot include the price of the monthly bill because everyone already pays a monthly bill!"

Yager probably holds lots of Microsoft or Motorola stock. Next, he'll be factoring in the cost of buying a car to drive to the Apple store to buy the phone!

Nothing but FUD.

Amusing how you are ignoring the fact that the iPhone is not a static device, which your little berry phone with the itsy-bitsy dark screen and the ugly looking keyboard is.

You can tell someone is being paid by the competition when they drag out the fact that the iPhone also has a contract.

Duh!

I was paying $60 for just a phone, now I'm paying $80 for a phone and unlimited data.

Sounds good to me.

More FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt)

From Blackfriars - Now let's get this straight. Assuming sales figures are what we and other financial analysts say they are, Apple just successfully presided over the largest and most successful consumer electronics launch in history as measured by dollars, pulling in somewhere north of $300 million the first weekend. Given what we know about Apple's costs, particularly their lack of advertising cost, it may also turn out to have been one of the most profitable launches in history as well. And so what's the prescription? Add power-sucking 3G service, cut the price so Apple doesn't make as much profit, and make the device more bulky to beef up the battery. I'm glad these guys aren't running Apple -- if they were, it would be Motorola.

Of course, anyone who has followed the iPhone saga knows that most of the reporters and analysts writing stories like this have never actually used or seen an iPhone (or for that matter actually tested how long the battery runs) and 2) are usually completely wrong because they just don't want to figure out something new.

So, Apple just rolls out the most profitable launch of a product in consumer electronics history, but "iPhone lust is fading fast" because InfoWorld predictably runs a smear piece on it? Okay... gotcha...

iPhone is upgradeable over iTunes. Most missing features are software based and will be added in the next 2 to 4 months.

An iPhone plus a minimum AT&T 2 year contract is the same price or less than a free smart phone plus minimum Verizon 2 year contract.

Get that! The iPhone costs the same as a free smart phone from competing carriers.

Besides that, an iPhone will have good resale value in 2 years for the Widescreen, WiFi iPod part alone.

A free, non upgradable, no resale value, smart phone from Verizon is the worst $1975 investment a cell phone user could make.

What is "Fading" is the credibility of Infoworld, and the FUD of haters, as Web 2.0 developers steadily add features and credibility that is making the iPhone more and more superior to the unimaginative alternatives.

Of course, an apples to apples comparison wouldn't be fair (sarcasm). Saying the iPhone is a $1975 iPod is way more dramatic. Really is correct. When talking about a Motorola Q, does Infoworld report that it's a $2095 smartphone? ($80 voice+data plan and $175 phone) Of course not. Someone has an unfair axe to grind so they have to spin the info in as unfair a way as possible.

This article caught my eye because of the misinformation it posts...you lose all credibility like many of the hypocritical pundits of the world, who in a sinister way try to persuade opinion by shaping articles using misleading information, or leaving out information that levels the playing field. This article is laughable and beneath any savvy reader.

It would be nice to see a detailed comparison to the Motorola Q and other Smartphones instead of all the hype.
I finally got the Q this spring, and was quite suprised with the quality of it and the verizon dataplan, although I'm guessing I bought it half-way through it's product life-cycle, and I expect there's an enhanced version in the works.
I don't personally use an ipod or portable mp3 player, so the added capability of the iphone seems unnecessary. But given there is a large ipod market, that's probably a good selling point for that audience.

I don't understand the anger of some of these responses. Yaeger might be completely wrong, but so what?

You mean like the $2600 Treo 650 I got from Sprint that doesn't render web pages even close to properly and is much slower than even the edge based iPhone?

Tom - I am disappointed.

I usually agree with your point of view but this article is so skewed and artificial that I can only conclude that it was written to regain some credibility with the Microsoft fan boys that have been accusing you of being in the Apple camp.

And please, your rationalization in your subsequent blog [that you had to write about what is - not what could be] is pathetic. Too many tech pundits set up an "as is" fact case and then do a straight line projection to some undefined point in the future. I expected better from you.

Tom,
the only reason you got professionals to read this lame article was the PRICE!!! I saw the phone in the store and $500.00 is high but i now know when i read your next article i will have to look up your data for wrong info this IT email has been A+ till today and i will be looking for more of your articles to avoid reading them unless i have time to look up your sources. Sorry your editor need to watch your news items more we are going to read the e mails
news they send but don"t LIE to us we are professionals!!!

I said what most of you wanted to say

I don't have anything to say about the Iphone, but infoworld has a bad habit of always casting the leader in a negative light. Microsoft is always a loser and some obscure brand of linux is always making strong advances to knock it out of the box. I'm pretty tired of their negative editorialism masquerading as journalism.

Hmmm...not good. What did Apple do to you? Is the iPhone really not developer friendly? Is it really two years MANDATORY service?

Like all media articles, this one is designed to sell. Surely another story about the frenzy or how good the iPhone is wouldn't sell. The bogus headline and costs are the eye candy needed to stand out. My suggestion is to try one for yourself; as a corporate customer I did and I LOVE it.

I suggest the author try other media selling stories like:

iPhone found on mars

Paris Hilton used iPhone from jail to text friends

iPhone saves trapped dog in well

iPhone puts out forest fires

Iphone solves world hunger

All of the above would be as effective eye catchers and as valid as the author's story.

Since the 2 year contract is mandatory and unavoidable the MINIMUM cost over a two year period after purchasing an iPhone is $1,975. That's like leasing a car and only taking into account the money required to be put down at the time of purchase...and not the recurring monthly payment. Here's a question for you: If you had to guess...how many people that are interested in purchasing an iPhone were ever in the market for purchasing a Blackberry or comparable device. If I had to guess...it's probably far less than 20%. Most are enamored by the look of the product or the effectiveness of the Apple marketing machine...and it is extremely effective. Apple generally makes a very solid product and the iPhone looks to be a continuation of that track record. But the prohibitive cost, in my opinion at least, is going to keep it from being the accessory owned by seemingly every teenager in schools across the country like the iPod is. My nephews and niece each have an iPod (be it the Nano or video iPod)...but none of them can afford the $500 to $600 up front price not to mention the monthly service...especially considering that they or their parents not so long ago forked out $250to $300 for said iPod . Many corporations / business people will be turned off by the incompatibility with their work applications / messaging services. Does this mean that the iPhone won't go on to be a huge success? Of course not...it just means that maybe...just maybe...the iPhone is not the end all / be all product of all time.

If you want to show total cost for device plus mandatory service, fine; just do it for all devices mentioned in the comparison lest the statement becomes, at best, misleading.

More significantly, the target markets are different. As the poster above mentioned, the iPhone has incompatibilities with corporate mail systems. Add to that the inability to remotely wipe information, and other security related issues and you can see that the iPhone isn't destined to compete with BlackBerry, et al. for the enterprise corporate base. But who cares? Apple is marketing this product not to corporate use, but to reasonably well heeled technology adopters. True, there is crossover but the iPhone and BB are not going to chip any significant sales off of each other. I carry a Samsung Blackjack because my company has contracts with AT&T/Cingular and it works beautifully with Exchange server without needing GoodLink or BB servers. I would definitely prefer to carry the beautiful product from Apple, but I need a corporate tool.

Having said all of that, I must ask: Why wasn't any of that said in the article?

I think the point all you Apple Fanboys are missing is that he's referring to the cost from a BUSINESS standpoint, not a CONSUMER standpoint. Businesses are not going to be running out and purchasing the iPhone en masse because it just doesn't do a whole lot for their business, whereas the Blackberry or Treo actually does.

Why is that so hard to understand? Because you are blinded by pizazz. ;)

If InfoWorld actually HAD a print version anymore, I would have canceled my subscription. The credibility of most of the "journalists" is seriously eroding with every anti Apple, Pro MS article they print. You might as well give Balmer the by line on these articles.
I'm pulling my rss sub from this and all InfoWorld associated publications!

I'm finding it kinda amusing watching all the rabid response from the devoted Apple fans!

I personally chose ages ago to never purchase Apple products (despite often having good features) simply because they aren't open architecture so you get locked in to an expensive cycle of always having to buy Apple sanctioned accessories etc. The repair cycle is also another Apple money making venture (can you change the battery yourself?).

So to me this article seems eminently consistent with virtually any Apple product, they always build in a way of locking customers in. I don't play that game.

Steve

Good lord, could people spew any more bile over this?

It's not misinformation. To buy another smartphone, AT MOST you are forced into a data plan (maybe). The iPhone forces you to sign into a new 2-year contract for an iPhone-specific plan. That, by definition, is part of the $1975 investment. A Treo is an investment in the device itself, and MAYBE the data package (if you don't already have one), not a new contract (unless you want the discounted equipment price).

Also notice how nobody bothered to touch on his arguement of the fact that there is no third party support. There is wisdom to that decision, however, it makes the device very impractical from a business user perspective.

Face the facts, people. The iPhone is a fun toy, and little more. It's not stopping me from wanting one, but practicality says I'm better off with my old 4G iPod 20GB and my Treo. I'll wait until the price drops significantly and buy myself a used one.

You apple kids slay me! :-) if anybody says anything about something steve stuffs down your throats that is anything short of gushing praise, you whine! hope you're all happy being the dumb followers of the pied piper of sunnyvale. he is surely laughing all the way to the bank, while you support his closed system of software tyranny! good luck, dupes!

Look the price is correct just like every other smart phone when you take into account the 2 year contract and phone cost. The iPhone under performs period. At $500 it should match the hardware spec of the Cingular\ATT 8525 and then add the iPod capability but it doesn't so you are immdiately ripped off. By all means it does look good graphically but from a business user perspective which all smartphone have been judged by in the past it fall short period no arguments. Unfortunately it is the business sector that has driven the smartphone market not the general cosumer. It is just to hard for the average Joe to justify or find a way to write of a $500 expense and use it to its full capabilty. forget about who wants one on an annual basis. Which of you will go out and buy one annually or in volume of 10-20 or more annually? Not many. since 2000 I have purchase about 4 different Windows Mobile PDA Phones as they have been upgraded somewhat yearly with new and enhanced features at $300-$600 a piece. Google Maps works on my phone, On Demand for getting New Weather, Traffic, Dirrections, Stock Reports, Movie & Entertainment Information, Etc.; MobiTV, XM Radio via the Web all these additional things,etc. all these mature apps from 3rd party developers and Microsoft. Plus syncs to my PC Office Apps fairly easily. So today you are getting beat tomorrow I will say as long as sales and improvements to drive those sales maybe I will say something different. today you are Beta testing an outdated device from a hardware and functionality perspective for a device that will be behind in features for another 2 years. Forget about the iPod feature argument replaceable or the ability to add storage media is where the future is from that perspective. All the devices play and store music. No replaceable batter or media slot common that was the easiest thing to add and Apple didnt even give that to you. ATT should have demanded 3G capability. I used Google Maps on the iPhone and it took 40 seconds to load the Maps. On my new PocketPC phone with Google Maps for free by the way 5-10 secs. on a 3G network.

I saw my first iPhone this weekend and it looked cool but I would never buy one (I have solid cell phone and MP3 player). However, as I read many IT Web sites daily, it strikes me that Apple fans who comment on these articles are truly a nasty lot. When I read your comments I feel bad for the Apple user who must defend their purchase - shouldn't you be secure in knowing you're happy with your decision and not lash out at a journalist who is paid to have an opinion? Please - you really make PCs users look like a classy bunch here (BTW - Sorry to hear about all the security flaws in Apple devices coming to light, I guess that's what happens when the target it painted on you).

I'm in agreement with doug, Apple fans are too quick to say apple is better with no backup besides "less hacks/spyware." Wait till apple is as common as windows and you get just as much crap thrown at you. I know an apple freak that praises his mac but knows nothing about the differences between a mac and a pc with linux/unix, but spouts these grandiose claims about his mac.

***News Flash*** Mobile Internet access is mad expensive, no matter what phone or provider you use.

The issue here is that Apple is marketing iPhone as the best iPod ever.

How about someone who likes iPods because they don't really try to be anything else but a portable media player with a conveniently short and catchy name, plays their ripped CDs beautifully, plays podcasts, and works really well with a solid media player software that runs on their Windows XP box? What if they'd be otherwise fine with the free phone they got from their cell provider and their $30/month voice-only plan? What if they don't like the coverage (or service) they get from AT&T in their area?

That's who this is a $1975 iPod to. They might as well spend a little extra and buy a MacBook Pro.

I think that if you can't understand that, then you have very little real appreciation for what has made iPod so successful over all its competitors in its market.

And yes, I do know quite a few iPod owners who share this view.

Sometimes I think these articles are written to get people's fur up.

I think it's time to unsubscribe from this newsletter