iPhone

Is $38,000 too much to pay for an iPhone?

When Apple shipped the new iPhone, it lowered the price. But what does an iPhone really cost? How about $38,000? Or would you believe over $200,000? Deciding the true costs of the iPhone.

When Apple shipped the new iPhone, it lowered the price. But what does an iPhone really cost? How about $38,000? Or would you believe over $200,000? Let's explore the true costs of the iPhone.

------------------------------------------

When Apple launched the iPhone, it lowered the price to $199 for an 8GB model and $299 for the 16GB model. Of course, Apple and ATT giveth, and Apple and ATT taketh away. At the same time they lowered the base price of the iPhone, the cost of a service plan for the iPhone went up by $10 a month, increasing the total cost of ownership.

But what if you sat out the iPhone completely? Just how much money would you have if you didn't buy an iPhone at all?

Well, the answer depends on a couple of factors. Just straight up, if you added together the price of a 16 GB iPhone, the cost of activation, and the cost of a two-year data plan (with the optional unlimted texting) you'd wind up paying $3,934.76. That's the cost of about 2 MacBook Airs.

Where it gets interesting is if you took that same $3,934.76 and, rather than paying Apple and ATT, you invested that money. Even though the stock market isn't the best place to be right now, let's assume you took the money and invested it in an S&P 500 Index Fund. The rate of return there for the past 5 years has been 7.58%. If you didn't add to the lump sum and just let it grow for 30 years, you'd wind up with $37,966.25.

Going one step further, what happens if you take the cost of Apple and ATT's data and texting plan and paid yourself by investing that amount monthly rather than giving the money to them? The combined cost of an unlimited voice/data/texting plan for the iPhone is $149.99 a month. If you invested that money every month for 30 years at the same 7.58% rate, you'd have $205, 370.14 in the bank.

So, in either case, as you can see over time a $299 iPhone can wind up costing you a lot of money.

What's the alternative?

Of course, you're not getting nothing for the future $38,000 that the iPhone is costing you. You have the flexibility to talk, text, and access the Internet from pretty much any place in the country and wherever 3G service is available. You pay for quite a bit of freedom of movement and access to data and people.

One alternative is to just stick with the basic cell phone service you have for flexible voice access and a laptop and the nearly ubiquitous free WiFi services that are available. It's a little less convenient, but you can save some money in the long term.

If you already have a SmartPhone or Blackberry with data service, the savings aren't as clear. Even so, comparing the costs of the data plans and what you're actually getting by migrating to the iPhone can be an interesting mental task. It might be tempting to dump that ancient BlackBerry for a shiny new iPhone, but if you're not getting that much in return, why bother?

The bottom line for IT leaders

When any sexy new device comes out, it's tempting to just jump at it. This is especially true when a vendor does a bait and switch, lowering the cost of entry but hiding an overall price increase under service fees or something like that. Take a look at the total cost of the device. And if need be, run the numbers to see just how much money you're losing in the long run by comparing the cost to what you'd have in the long run by investing the same amount of money.

98 comments
CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

That opportunity cost is going to be the same for anything you could spend $3,934.76 on. But $3,934.76 over two years is too much too pay for something that doesn't have an engine and either wheels or a propeller.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Or long legs...well, MAYBE for long legs if they are nice enough, it's still cheaper than marriage.

daswafford
daswafford

Based on the way things have been going for the last 6 months I'd say you would likely be seeing a loss for the first several years of your investment which makes investing a moot effort at that point.

Chilli.Benz
Chilli.Benz

Actually, this is a very good article, except that it has nothing to do with the iPhone. The same principle would apply to any cell phone and cell phone plan. Indeed it would apply to any "unnecessary" product, whether that be a cell phone, a dishwasher, a low milage-high maintenance automobile, or a face lift. It seems a bit disingenuous to target the iPhone without mentioning this. It is nice to see that someone in America still seems to understand the concept of opportunity cost though!

John Sheesley - TechRepublic Pro
John Sheesley - TechRepublic Pro

There was no attempt to target the iPhone per se for any other reason other than the fact that it's the latest Gotta Have Gadget. In the last paragraph of the post, I mentioned that the same logic can be used for any device, not merely the iPhone itself. But we've become such a consumeristic society, that everyone wants to have their cake, eat it, and charge it on the credit card too rather than looking at the implications and alternatives. That's what I was trying to get at.

Vulpinemac
Vulpinemac

I guess you just like to carry the concept of "too expensive" to the ridiculous. Just taking your first concept--investing in the stock market--is blown all out of proportion simply because you invested that money for 30 years. The iPhone itself wouldn't last that long. On the other hand, if you'd invested it for, say, the expected life of the phone of maybe 5 years, then your numbers would be much, much lower (but still a profit.) And as you say, by investing that money instead of buying an iPhone you lose the communications that you would have had using that iPhone, and possibly miss out on an even bigger investment windfall by not learning about it until too late. So that means you'd still have to obtain some form of communications device with the same general capabilities (i.e. Internet, cell phone, texting, etc..) So now you're back into the quandary of having to spend even more money (you invested the first amount) to purchase a phone and service; maybe less than an iPhone, but would it be as good? To me your concept lacks all merit. It sounds to me like your idea ends up costing more than buying the iPhone originally.

david_sinkins
david_sinkins

How much would TechRepublic save if they took your salary and invested it in a savings account instead of paying your wages. The argument is spurious at best and can be applied to any chosen service or purchase. What is needed is actual cost vs benefit information and not a argument that is simply a reach to fill a required deadline. Tsk, tsk.

eric.l.harris
eric.l.harris

I don't see what the reason to not purchase one is. The plans are the same, the 3G access cost is the same as any other 3G device. How many times have you been some place and wanted to check if another store had something at a lower cost, what time the movies were playing, the hours of that restaurant down the street. Those putting up a fight are scared of change or just too cheap to adopt it. Technology costs money, plain and simple.

TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827
TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827

You don't spend all that money up front. You purchase the phone, and then each payment is n-1 months away from the endpoint. The last payment you would have made to AT&T instead is the last payment into the fund, with no interest. I don't feel like doing the math, but it will be substantially less. Now, where did the 30 years come from. To be a valid comparison, you need to simply see how much you have at the end of the contract period, I guess assuming 7.58% interest (tad high in this economy). Now, during that time, did you have other wireless service or do without? Subtract the lower amount from the savings. I will concede that I have zero desire nor see the need for an iPhone, it is expensive, but let's get real. You can do this with anything. Imagine I didn't buy that sea-doo... TripleII

John Sheesley - TechRepublic Pro
John Sheesley - TechRepublic Pro

You're right. I should have done a Net Present Value of the cost of the subscription over two years at the 7.58% and added that to what the original investment of the iPhone was, not merely added it all up as if you were paying upfront. The reason I didnt was because the difference wasn't significant enough to get past the point that the cost of an iPhone for two years was more than the cost of two MacBook Airs. Nor, admittedly did I take into account the cost differences between the iPhone and some other device currently in use. The exercise assumed you didn't currently have a smartphone and maybe just had a simple voice-only plan where the cost is minor. As for the 30 year time period, the reason I chose 30 years is because it's a time frame that most people are used to thinking of long term investments - retirements, mortgages and that type of thing. The 7.58% is high in the current economy, but I felt safe using it because the time period stated was stretched over 30 years and 7.58% represents the rate of return of a standard S&P 500 Stock Index fund over the last 5 years. Finally, as I mentioned before, I felt comfortable stretching the time frame out for value comparison because as I've said elsewhere, at the end of two years if you buy the iPhone you have either a valueless brick, have to continue to sink $ in a contract, or you've upgraded to something else and gone one. In essence the money is gone. Invested, at the end of the 2 year contract time, you still have the original investment and it can continue to grow for as long as you want, in this case - 30 years.

u8myicepop
u8myicepop

Ha. Then I shouldn't buy anything and just invest like crazy until I die. Then again, I have enough money to last me a lifetime, unless I buy something.

dean
dean

"..if you added together the price of a 16 GB iPhone, the cost of activation, and the cost of a 2 year data plan (with the optional unlimted texting) you???d wind up paying $3934.76. That???s the cost of about 2 MacBook Airs." With respect, no, it is not the real cost of the MacBook Airs, unless you plan to use the Air laptops without any network support. Virtually no one will be able to be even a fraction as productive, working on an Air with no network connection, as they will be with the always-connected iPhone. Factor in the real cost of supporting a well-connected laptop and the iPhone will look a lot more practical. Give me horses for courses -- the Air for typing & browsing, the iPhone for its always-with-me-&-always-connected mobility. Always having the right tool at hand in any situation will never be as cheap as making do with just one Swiss Army Knife. dean hoofnagle dean@mountainapplecompany.com

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

There are thousands of purchases that we make without thinking about the consequenses of not saving that money for the future. It's rarely taught outside of b-school and when it is most people tune-out. For example, fortunately for the auto industry most people haven't a clue as to what they're throwing away when they lease or finance new cars; People who otherwise consider themselves "poor" would be millionaires by retirement if they only understood the implications. You could just as well apply the logic to spending $5/day at Starbucks.

D W
D W

Yep that is whole lot of money, how about shopping around for maybe a Moto Q and signing up with Verizon ? The story also notes texting, another article at another forum dsl reports, noted sms is not running on the Iphone so texting might be a challenge to boot.

nicholasyoung
nicholasyoung

Absolutely! As I've discussed with many individuals, and will post here - when people are wowing over the 3G network, I quickly point out that my phone has run on the network for the last year, and I felt like a latecomer to the 3G craze. The data really isn't much faster than a halfway decent dialup connection. What about the fast speeds they've promised? If you're sitting next to the tower, maybe, but otherwise it's just BS from AT&T. All in all, while the original iPhone pioneered some very cool features, it was disappointing. The 3G iPhone is more so.

Vulpinemac
Vulpinemac

... which is not to introduce new technologies, but rather to make them much, much easier to use. Fine, so your phone has run on 3G for a year... Mine has run on it longer. And you want to know something? 3G has been useless to me because I honestly can't use the features it has. They're too hard to access on a display that too small to make it even worthwhile to try! Texting is next to impossible and the photos it takes are poor quality at best. On the other hand, the iPhone makes all of these features easy to access and fun to use, meaning the service provider makes more money off the user by actually having more users [i]use[/i] these features. No, the iPhone did NOT pioneer these features. The 3G iPhone just makes using them faster and more reliable.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

bottom feeder alert!

Vulpinemac
Vulpinemac

Would it help you to know that I have NEVER changed my alias?

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

get bent! I am not your friend in any way. You don't have any friends that's why you changed your alias again so yuo could come back and proce you are still a loser.

Vulpinemac
Vulpinemac

Do a little more research, my friend. Stop jumping to conclusions and proving my statements for me.

a.southern
a.southern

I get my emails forwarded to my phone, and it's a great little phone with built in camera, torch, and I can even talk on it. It -can- play mp3s should I really want to, it -can- play low-res video if I want to. Best of all is I get all these cross network minutes and texts for free via a cashback clause (which has never let me down to date). Why pay for an iPhone? I hate apple macs (despite having once made a vacuum cleaner for johnathon Ive, its more that I've got five fingers on my right hand, why would I use a one button mouse designed for dolphins or people with flippers? -AS

Vulpinemac
Vulpinemac

[i]... I hate apple macs (despite having once made a vacuum cleaner for johnathon Ive, its more that I've got five fingers on my right hand, why would I use a one button mouse designed for dolphins or people with flippers?"[/i] The Apple mouse has had more than one button now for years, though I admit I personally don't like its 'feel.' Even so, it is very easy to plug in almost any multi-button mouse on the market and use it just the same as any mouse on Windows. Even the Control-Click needed from the one-button mouse to give the right-click equivalent is already programmed into OS X. As for the iPhone vs other phones, I, too, have a phone with all those capabilities you mention(except for the torch (flashlight for us Americans)) but you know something? None of those capabilities is easy to use, which is what the iPhone is all about. The iPhone really doesn't have anything new in itself, but it makes using its features really easy to use by comparison, which IS new.

a.southern
a.southern

(obviously not inferring you are personally lobotomised) Aparently I've got quite short fingers on my right hand. I need to use two hands to press and click a mouse at the same time. Anyway, functions: Flashlight ("Torch"): Slide lens cap, press "#" Easy enough. Play MP3/Radio: insert hands-free kit(for radio) press side music button. Easy and not socially obnoxious. Take photo: Slide lens cap (does an iPhone have a lens cap?) take photo. Reassign any function you want to hot keys: simple menu action performed once by yourself or your tech savvy friend. As to being out of date on the apple mac front, Why would I go near a Mac? when it's too "Overdesigned" and has no real design software for it? Why would I use an iPod and tie myself to buy music from one repository for the duration of my MP3 player's life? Why do I want to pay for celebrity endorsement by enimem etc when I think the guy is an a$$? (If you disagree, please name me one proper engineering design program that works on a Mac) My phone costs me ?12ukp a year (?24USD ish) and I can talk for up to 500 minutes per month inclusive (never "free") and 550 text messages. My battery life (with upgraded ?3.00ukp/$6USD battery) is about a week and a half on standby or about 10 hours talk time, and if that fails, battery out, spare battery in and I'm talking again. Is the iPhone battery easy to remove? How long does it last normally? Reasonable quality photos, easy to get, can be transferred via all sorts - including infra red (my favourite). The last time I heard anyone with an engineering background speak supportively about apple Macs was when one right-on uni prof said "Hey, we use these because they are pretty robust for SDK and have nothing to do with Bill Gates. - Gates then proceeded to buy into mac. Now I'd use the opposite arguement: "I won't buy a Mac because Al Gore is a director of the company, and it promotes a rapid and fashionable turn over of high tech consumer products." I hope you agree that is another of Gore's dichotomies. Macs are severly over rated, over marketed and hence over priced. I do like some aspects, but these are highly outweighed by price and actual functionality.

flausher
flausher

Urrm, well this isn't really a valid argument at all, you're saying that instead of spending money on the iphone, you invest it, and therefore make money? A: that doesnt mean the Iphone COSTS you that much, and B: this can be said at about almost anything, but of course, if we spend our lives investing all our money, whats the point of it? shouldn't we enjoy for the little time we're here?

a.southern
a.southern

Pile of cash here (granted, in USD), or an iPhone here (with monthly rates attached). I think the best counter arguement is that the iPhone would be worn out/old hat in 18months time, so you'd need to add on the cost of a new phone each 2 years. He's also not accounted for the charging times/cost. How much is that in today's electricity prices?

flausher
flausher

But my point still stands I'm afraid, You can always ALWAYS spend your money elsewhere, and most of the time it could be more practically/wisely spent, but if we start like that, then where do we stop? because really we only need a one bedroom house with no TV for a family of four, because they can all share the same room? just squeeze in the beds? but of course, life would suck. I question whether the Iphone is a good gadget or not, and whether its worth spending my money on one, considering that it may not be as good as expected, and therefore may be an excessive price for what you get, but thats not the point I'm getting at. I'm just saying that, for example, with the money i could save from not playing on my 360 3 times a week from the elctricity bills and not buying it in the first place, and not having the TV etc. and investing that money i could've made alot of money out of it. but money to do what with? invest some more? where do you stop?

a.southern
a.southern

asda payg seem to charge about 3p per minute pay as you go. Anyone who takes an expensive phone on a night out is probably going to get lumbered as the desig.Driver as they probably won't want to get shanted drinking until they fall on the floor or throw up or fall on the floor and then throw up. As they'll get robbed. or vomit on it whilst searching for the local kebab shop on their 3G. ;P

a.southern
a.southern

Funny, I've just returned from China, and they seem to want to move from having a family of four in one room to having a room each and a iphone each. They are just buying the phones before the houses......

lauterm
lauterm

It's hard to read all that text on my tiny iPhone screen. I kid. I don't own one. I guess I just didn't read well enough. The points in your reply are valid, and your post in general does make a good point. I think the point I was trying to get at is that only a very small fraction of people would actually invest the money. Very few people need two Airs (or one for that matter). I think you could have used better alternatives, but then again it may just be me that can't relate to your alternatives. :-P

flausher
flausher

Okay. so you save this money that you don't spend on an Iphone. you go to the shop, and buy yourself two Macbook airs. fantastic. Now. Your friend billy (I like that name..) wants to go out tonight, and your old phone's contract has expired. so you try to ring him on one of your macbook airs, but are unsuccesful. you try on the other, but again, come up with negative results. Eventually after going round his house, and manually arranging things, and going out two hours late because you couldn't arrange things easily over the phone, you then realise your favourite club is full, and so decide you'll easily search the 3G internet for somewhere that might be good to go in a nearby town/city. unforetuneatly you didn't take your macbook air(s) with you because all though they are small for laptops, are still quite big. also, they don't have 3G. so, that night ends badly... I don't mean to sound mocking, but yes money can be spent on different things in different ways, but its the use of item you've bought it for. I'm sure very few people go to buy themselves a top of the range car, and then realise that in egypt they could get 500 Camels for the same price! its all relative. The Iphone fits alot of peoples needs, thats the truth, and while the money could be better spent on say a HTC Diamond (I have one. its brilliant.) which is an alternate phone, therefore an alternate option, alternate things to spend your money on that aren't relevant to the person buying them's needs are completely pointless...

John Sheesley - TechRepublic Pro
John Sheesley - TechRepublic Pro

I didn't merely point out the fact that you either spend the money on an iPhone or save and invest it. I did point out that there are other alternatives for using the money - such as just purchasing two MacBook Airs and doing the same thing with your current cellphone and the two Airs. However, you can't and shouldn't ignore the time-value of the cost of a purchase along with the alternatives you can use for the item in question.

lauterm
lauterm

If I quit buying food too, I could invest all that money too. Plus, it would lessen the amount I need to save for retirement! The article presents a false dichotomy. It presents "buy an iPhone" vs. "invest your money". Whereas in reality there are quite a number of points in between wherein most of us will fall. I will not buy an iPhone, but I will have to buy some cell phone. Even if I choose to buy no cell phone, I am far more likely to spend the money on something else rather than investing it.

The 'G-Man.'
The 'G-Man.'

You can do that kind of calculation with almost anything! Cable TV ISP Car Any Subscription based item.... Just another sensationalist TR headline in my opinion. How about we invest the money saved in not choosing to browse or buy any TR or CNET items, invest it and come up with a strap line that says "TR's free membership costs X thousand dollars!" That or let's at least look at the TR Pro subscription money and make the same calculations...

John Sheesley - TechRepublic Pro
John Sheesley - TechRepublic Pro

Yes, you can indeed do that type of calculation with just about anything, and maybe more people should rather than just plunking down purchases on credit cards at 20+% just to get the latest thing. If you want to go down the laundry list, we can but seeing as how you mentioned the cost of a TRPro membership, let's just go there. Agreed, there's a time-value argument that can be made for the investment in the subscription. However a more valid evaluation for the value proposition can be made through the opportunity costs involved in a given project and money saved by the items in the subscription. There are nearly 400 downloads in a TRPro subscription designed to save time in an IT Pro's career. So, let's say you have to design a lunch and learn program for your organization. You're being paid say $35/hour currently. Do you want to take the 3 hours necessary to put together each presentation, or a little over $100 a throw? Not to mention the lost productivity time of doing other things for those 3 hours? Or would you prefer to get one download out of 400 from a $99 TRPro sub in about 15 minutes that already has 15 presentations ready to go - the Microsoft Office 2007 Lunch and Learn? No matter how you make the comparison, the amount of money saved in opportunity costs outweighs the cost of the sub or even that of the cost of investing the subscription money instead.

The 'G-Man.'
The 'G-Man.'

but before (above) in Apples to Apples you were questioning the fact that the stock tip could have come from any other source than that of an iPhone. You then go on to list benefits of the TRP program - the 'features' of the device if you like. Stock Tip was a feature of the iPhone and so validates it's use and so the comment (in my opinion). I agree TRP is a good source of information - just thought it would make an interesting comparison tool in this instance. Edit - typo

jonathan.ludwig
jonathan.ludwig

When i read articles like this, i really start to question why i bother coming to tech republic at all... First, you should really compare apples to apples. Why are you comparing 2 yrs (the length of an iphone contract) to a 30 year investment? The end total after 2 years on the investment is a shade over $4550 not anywhere near 38,000. But, regardless what about the benefits of having the phone? I'm on my way out of town for 2 weeks on vacation when i get a call from my financial advisor who has a "hot deal". I tell him to email me his report information. I check my mail and agree, so i call him back as i'm boarding my plane. His suggestion was stellar, and my investment has now made me an additional . Suddenly, that initial $4,000 iphone purchase is one of the best things i've done. I get the point of this article about not jumping on new technology without weighing all of the real costs, but this is just poorly written garbage...

John Sheesley - TechRepublic Pro
John Sheesley - TechRepublic Pro

I clearly pointed out that there are advantages to having the device to begin with. You must have missed that point entirely. Those advantages need to be weighed against other options for achieving the same results and the cost of the investment to begin with. Beyond that, it's perfectly legitimate to compare the 2 year contract to the 30 year investment. At the end of the 2 year contract you have to either extend the contract and keep paying or you have a useless brick. In either case you're out the $3900. It's gone and lost. If you choose to invest the money instead, at the end of two years you still have the original investment and how much it's grown as you said. And it KEEPS growing past then. I was being merciful by stopping it at 30 years. Besides, your fantastic stock tip could have come in just as easily on a $10 TracPhone as the $299 iPhone. You could check your email from a laptop using a free WiFi hotspot in the airport. That laptop being may be one of the two MacBook Airs you could have bought if you had avoided the iPhone to begin with... In any case, the iPhone doesn't magically make hot stock tips appear...

Thinking Different
Thinking Different

What a laugh. I could save even more money just eating Beans and Rice everyday and skip all that expensive meat and vegies. Why did you not write about all the money people would save not eating meat or vegies or by not owning a car or even a house as people can live in tents. Yea I would stay alive and have more money but I would not be happy doing it. The really nice thing about owning an iPhone occurs when you really need information now and you can actually get it. Since the cost for the plan is no different than the Blackberry and you can also get the full internet and use some valuable applications to boot I see it is far better to get an iPhone.

IloveNY!
IloveNY!

Would make for less friends I think... lol Sorry I could not resist that. This thread is getting more and more amusing as I read it!

veeesta
veeesta

Any cost could arguably be turned into some fantastic amount of money in 10, 50 or 3 billion years. Fact is, I wasn't put on this earth for the express purpose of seeing how large a nest egg I can birth. Then of course comes the dumb stuff -- you're at an interview for a large juicy contract and you didn't bring your iphone to impress anyone BUT it gives you a microthin edge over the other guy simply because the decision maker loves everything apple and now thinks you're a good fit. How much money did you save that time? I wonder how much money I would save if I ate bargain brand potato chips from a low-end grocery store vs. exotic chips from some organic chain? Well, probably not much, but let's assume a stock market return of 50% and whalaahh...instant billionaire just from the potato chip switch man! This article was an exercise in mental masturbation and not much more.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I know you mentioned the web access being more convenient than owning a Blackberry, but Blackberries are not really up to speed with other devices these days either. Most smart phones have touch screen with handwritig recognition, WinMobile6, better network security, better mail control, better CRM apps etc. and they even play REAL music, as opposed to the i-Tunes "wannabe music". To me, the i-Phone is like a TV dinner and the smart phones are steak and potatoes (seeing as you are into food analogies). Its just somehing else for kids to buy (or push their parents to buy) so they can text message and play skate videos to other teeny boppers). It's NOT a business device, though you suggest that those are the differentiating features that make it appealing. It's just like the i-Pod is just an alternative to owning a real MP3 player (not that most MP3 are THAT much better than i-Tunes quality) but at least others are not propritary, play WAV and often even FLAC formats for full audio quality (which can really be appreciated with good headphones!). This is a good gadget for students or men who want a toy that don't really conduct much business etc. The silly third party apps are dodgy are best (most were still in beta stages when Apples deicded to push the release for the phone), so even when you load it up with apps. half of them are useless or buggy. They just aired a tech show the other day that went through teh immense number of apps available for i-Phones, out of teh pages advertised i think they found three that did what they were supposed to do, PATHETIC! The Smart Phone on th eother hand, has effortless MS Office connectivity/integration and will read and create Word docs, Excel spreadsheets, Power Point presentations etc. (AT NO EXTRA COST!) It will create, store and save PDF's, run the MAJOR portable CRM applications like Goldmine, Maximizer and ACT, while synchng everythng to your notebook or desktop via bluetooth when in range. (Mine synchs while I drive to clients, notebook in the car, phone on my hip and away it goes). Web surfing is great, nice colour display, flips the screen to landscape when you slide out the QWERTY keyboard, for those who don't want to write on the screen etc. So what's this abotu how i-Phone trumps teh Blackberry? The main purpose was to offer a smart phone clone for the masses, as SmartPhones are generally used for business. They were seeking an end user market segment that business devices generally DON'T cover. i-Phone? Maybe I'll get one for my nephew (13 this year) but even my own kid (21) would think it was a half assed gadget that doesn't stack up to the real business machines that are available today (and have been for well over a year now). Apple is just playing "ME TOO" with this device, it's not cutting edge, it's not unique technology, just a cut down, proprietary version of others that have been around for quite a while. Its really the Windows ME of the PDA market. Nothing special but it does work for those who don't rely on it for business and just don't know any better. Mind you, I think Blackberries are a waste of time these days too, pretty much just a cell phone with a QWERTY keyboard.

Vulpinemac
Vulpinemac

[i]Most smart phones have touch screen with handwritig recognition, WinMobile6, better network security, better mail control, better CRM apps etc. and they even play REAL music, as opposed to the i-Tunes "wannabe music".[i] I'll ignore the misspelling here; I've touched on that subject before. However, the rest of this is based on generalities and lack of knowledge. As long as any part of the smart phones you mention rely on Windows Mobile, the rest of that is very subjective. After all, Windows of all flavors is a favorite target of malware creators. However, I give a flat "lie" to your statement that [i]"... they even play REAL music,..."[/i] As long as ANY device is using MP3 or any of the other current digital technologies, they are NOT playing real music. Only very recently has anyone come up with a way to record digital at a rate sufficient to [i]approach[/i] analog quality. Here your statement is flat wrong. [i]" To me, the i-Phone is like a TV dinner and the smart phones are steak and potatoes (seeing as you are into food analogies). Its just somehing else for kids to buy (or push their parents to buy) so they can text message and play skate videos to other teeny boppers). It's NOT a business device, though you suggest that those are the differentiating features that make it appealing."[/i] I'm really glad you qualify this statement. But you miss out on one major point: your description exactly fits the [b]first generation[/b] iPhone, not the 3G model. While it is still lacking in some of the features some [i]claim[/i] they need in a smart phone, most people don't really need those capabilities in their phone, they need a true hand- held computer with phone capabilities. That's a significant difference. [i]"It's just like the i-Pod is just an alternative to owning a real MP3 player (not that most MP3 are THAT much better than i-Tunes quality) but at least others are not propritary, play WAV and often even FLAC formats for full audio quality (which can really be appreciated with good headphones!)."[/i] This goes back to what I said above. WAV and FLAC are only less compressed than mp3, they are hardly any better as long as the sampling rate is so low. Once the sampling rate gets into the megahertz range AND the file size can be kept to a reasonable size, portable digital players will approach analog quality. [i]"The Smart Phone on th eother hand, has effortless MS Office connectivity/integration and will read and create Word docs, Excel spreadsheets, Power Point presentations etc. (AT NO EXTRA COST!) It will create, store and save PDF's, run the MAJOR portable CRM applications like Goldmine, Maximizer and ACT, while synchng everythng to your notebook or desktop via bluetooth when in range. (Mine synchs while I drive to clients, notebook in the car, phone on my hip and away it goes). Web surfing is great, nice colour display, flips the screen to landscape when you slide out the QWERTY keyboard, for those who don't want to write on the screen etc."[/i] Ummm... why would I want all of that in something so small as to be essentially useless? What you describe would be much easier to use on a tablet about the size of a paperback book. At least then I could SEE what I'm looking at! How much [b]did[/b] you pay for this thing? [i]"So what's this abotu how i-Phone trumps teh Blackberry? The main purpose was to offer a smart phone clone for the masses, as SmartPhones are generally used for business. They were seeking an end user market segment that business devices generally DON'T cover."[/i] This is the first thing you've said that I agree with. This is also Apple's specialty: bringing professional grade capability to the consumer in a form that is easy to use. I'm willing to wager that the ease-of-use will add up to increased productivity in the workplace as well. [i]"Apple is just playing "ME TOO" with this device, it's not cutting edge, it's not unique technology, just a cut down, proprietary version of others that have been around for quite a while."[/i] Apple has never played "me, too." While they have almost never actually 'invented' the technologies they use, they go out of their way to make it easier to use than their competition. The original iPhone was never marketed to the "smart phone" crowd, but many of its adopters and a majority of the hackers that created their own apps for it tried to push it there. The iPhone 3G is still not intended to replace the Blackberries full capabilities--at least not yet. But third-party software may just take it there for real. [i]"Its really the Windows ME of the PDA market. Nothing special but it does work for those who don't rely on it for business and just don't know any better."[/i] Oooo... VERY bad analogy there! No, it's essentially Apple's form of Windows Mobile, and I think it will prove itself to be as good if not better than WinMob for that purpose in time.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Whatever, just because someone is not an Amti-Mac zealot that doesn't mean they are for MAC either, nor does it place them as a Windoze fanboy or Linix or anything else for that matter. I don't like blue cars, which doesn't mean I like red cars. just because fish swim, everything that swims doesn't automatcally become a fish. I like many aspects of Mac, COMPUTERS, I like many aspects of Vista (it really has some useful benefots over XP) I also see a great place for Linux on the backend, just as I do the Novell NOS. I know it's hard to get your head around, but not everyone who dislikes something becomes a fan of the alternatives.

Vulpinemac
Vulpinemac

[i]"As for your judgement, you go on to illustrate how poor it is anyway. "if it weren't for your long standing here, I'd see you as one of the anti-Mac non-zealots that are constantly trolling these boards and others." yes that is great judgement that even YOU know is wrong, proving that the conclusions you draw are incorrect."[/i] To wit, if I am wrong about you NOT being an anti-Mac non-zealot, then that must be exactly who you are. I have not tried to be 'clever,' Oz... I have, despite your emotional outbursts, tried to offer reasoned debate on points you yourself introduce.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

First of all, you couldn't insult me if you tried. You are a non entity on a web forum, and absolutely invisible voice with no credibility behind it. because I have done more in my life than you can fathom, that would be your shortcoming, not mine. I have been in teh business for decades, working in many areas with many touring bands. My name is all over the industry, I have numerous credits on numerous recodings etc. It can be proven to those who I feel a need to prove it to. If you understood marketing and contract obligations, you would be able to understand why I use an alias here, but unlike yourself it doesn't change in order for me to make another comment. As for your judgement, you go on to illustrate how poor it is anyway. "if it weren't for your long standing here, I'd see you as one of the anti-Mac non-zealots that are constantly trolling these boards and others." yes that is great judgement that even YOU know is wrong, proving that the conclusions you draw are incorrect. Just don't try and appear to be clever if you aren't, you really haven't done too well at it here.

Vulpinemac
Vulpinemac

I will grant you that FLAC is better. The high sampling rate allows you to approach analog quality. But I have to ask you: just how big is a 2-channel 32-bit 1Mhz- sampling-rate copy of, say, the Beatle's "Yellow Submarine?" I'm talking just the song, not the album. The more you talk about what you do and what you have done, the more credibility you lose with me, btw. You remind me of my step-father who claims to have been everywhere and done everything, but can't prove any of it in any way. I'm not trying to insult you, but if it weren't for your long standing here, I'd see you as one of the anti- Mac non-zealots that are constantly trolling these boards and others.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

get a life and learn about what you are talking about first. When you grow up an gain credibility, you can try again. To touch on one issue, there is NOTHING you can teach me about audio or recording audio, NOTHING, I promise you that. I have been managing and recording bands from all over the globe for nearly 30 years now. My HTC will play FLAC formats, which can actually offer far higher bitrate than a WAV file. You'll have ot look up FLAC for yourself, it is NOT a compressed format.

jheisler1
jheisler1

I am going to guess that you have never used a BB (Blackberry) in a corporate environment with a BES server, or you would never make this statement. "but Blackberries are not really up to speed with other devices these days either." At my company we used Palm Handsprings, then Plam Treos, then Treos running Win Mobile. Along they way we also had Compaq mobiles and HP, and I can tell you nothing comes close to the BB. You see the big problem is "while synchng everythng to your notebook or desktop via bluetooth when in range." The BB syncs to the server, and your notebook syncs to the server, thus it does not matter if your notebook is on the other side of the world. It still syncs. And yes this real-time wireless sync still works with Act, Goldmind and more importantly real CRMs like MS CRM or SAP. The BB can also host real-time information from companies custom apps. For example all of our RSMs can look-up qty, price, delivery dates and past customer's orders and POs in real-time on the BB. Now back to the iPhone, where they are talking about Exchange integration, where does this beat your "Smart Phone" the answer is that the iPhone is now not dependent on a local sync, as it syncs with the server making it a competitor to the BB, on exchange. It may not be long before the iPhone can run the same corporate apps as the BB can due to the fact that it is difficult to program for the BB due to Rim's controls. However, apple has made it very easy to program apps for the iPhone. As to the question, is an iPhone worth 30,000, what if your stock tanks, it is worth -30,000? And do you think the iPhone is going to last 30 years, the life of the investment. Bad question with bad expectations. Lets look at this example in 3 years (the life of the plan, and the life of a corporate phone) the money earned in investing is $3,796.63. Now, this little bit of money should be earned by a good sales person in a week or less. So if the iPhone enables users to preform their job better, with timely information that allows them to close the deal, or get the contact then you better believe it is worth it. Just as a BB is.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Yet you compare the BB to antiquated technology in order to justify them? Yes I have used an owned several BB's and hated them all, mainly because they are just built cheap and do not last. MS is a basic CRM solution that can be plugged in to ingegrate with other MS products, funny enough, so do all teh competitors. Its a sales funnel clone with some basic unified messaging offerings that's been around for a while now, I am licenced ot sell it but don't bother, nobody wants it it seems. However does that mean that the i-Phone is better, because you like your BB? nope. As for Act, Maximizer and Goldmine, they are whatever you make them become. whether basic CRM, or full resource management tools. I have no need to synch to a server, none at all. I just synch to my notebook, which it automatically does when in range, no drawback there, unless I had an i-Phone of course. Palm? I didn't say anything about Palm.

John Sheesley - TechRepublic Pro
John Sheesley - TechRepublic Pro

Possibly people should think differently about owning cars, houses, iPhones, big screen TVs, and the rest. Or at the very minimum buying above and beyond their needs just because it's 'cool'. Arguably, this consumer-driven society is self-destructing under a weight of debt driven by wanting too much of needless things. And we don't even have to talk about food like you mention to see where things are overblown. I'm just arguing against the knee-jerk purchasing of a gadget to satisfy a fuzzy 'need'. There may be other alternatives to doing the same thing and a way to: A) save money in the long run and 2) keep from feathering the pocket of someone else while spending yourself into the poor house. But hey, enjoy life now. Just don't be complaining to future generations to support you in your old age with Medicare and Social Security because you were too busy living it up now and couldn't save for the future.

Vulpinemac
Vulpinemac

You make a good point here. But there is a difference between "need" and "want." If we lived by "need" alone, would we have cars? Would we have technology at all? Really, once the plow was invented, we didn't really "need" anything more. Everyone could grow their own food or barter their skills to fill other people's needs. On the other hand, throughout history people have "wanted" more. They "wanted" their work easier. They "wanted" to travel between points A and B faster. Etc. This helped to spawn technology to the point that the technology became the next generation's "need." Today is no different. Older people today look at technology and can't believe anyone can even "want" what is on the market now, much less "need" it. If it were just a case of "need" we wouldn't have gone beyond the creation of the old brick cell phones. Heck, the first cell phone I laid my hands on looked exactly like a plush, custom- designed in-house wired telephone. The thing was HUGE! Over 9" by 9" and weighed over 5 pounds! The things today are so tiny that it's almost impossible to type on the keyboards, when they have one. So why does the iPhone suddenly have people "needing" to own one? Well, for some it [i]is[/i] the "cool factor." But for others Apple has made the iPhone one of the easiest cell phones on the market to actually use for multiple purposes. While it's not yet up to the supposed convenience of a Palm Pilot? or other PDA, it [i]is[i] easier to use than those. this alone makes it desirable. Is this sufficient reasoning?

PureCoffee
PureCoffee

And the congregation said, "Amen John!"