Matt Warman of the Telegraph decided to inform users not to buy the next iPhone. It wasn’t pretty. Charlie’s thoughts after the jump. Here’s what Gruber had to say about this article…
Matt Warman wins the race as the first major technology writer to trash the unreleased next-generation iPhone, sight unseen.
You can find the original article here.
When Apple first launched the iPhone in 2007, it was leaps and bounds ahead of its nearest rivals. But now the handset is a triumph of marketing over functionality. And it’s so ubiquitous it’s not even cool any more.
I love that argument. This is going to be good.
Here are ten reasons why, whatever is announced at the forthcoming launch, there’s no point buying the iPhone 4G:
Well… it won’t be called that. This is starting off real good.
1) It’s expensive: Buy the top-of-the-range Blackberry or Android handset and you will still pay a lot less than the extortionate prices Apple charge. If the iPhone weren’t made by Apple, networks would have had to start giving it away on £30 a month tariffs years ago.
No. The Vertu Singature is expensive. Depending on your plan on UK carrier O2, the iPhone is free, on some plans it cost £149.00; just like the Dell Streak, Blackberry 8900/9700/Storm 2 or Sony Vivaz. We all know the upfront cost of the device aren’t really the costly part. Try again Matt.
2) It’s anti-technology: When the iPhone launched it was cutting edge – now as other manufacturers announce, for instance, that you can use their phones as shareable wifi hot spots, Apple says no. Not because of some spurious “user experience” argument, but because of economics. When will they learn that it’s customers – supply and demand – that should dictate feature availability?
Yes, the 185,000 apps in the App Store are anti-technology. Tethering is coming, at least in the states. Apple didn’t say no. Quit making things up. Here’s one for supply and demand regarding Apple. Weren’t you the one arguing in #1 that this device was expensive and that carriers weren’t “giving it away”? That’s nice #1 and #2 contradicted each other.
3) No Flash: The iPhone, the phone that promised to put the web into everybody’s pockets, can’t even show you most of it, because it can’t handle Flash graphics. Google Android can, in the latest version (OS 2.2), and it’s going to be available free on a lot of budget tariffs.
Oddly the most legitimate argument here. Flash doesn’t play nice with Macs, why risk it? Honestly, how much are you missing out on?
4) No multitasking: Tried instant messaging on an iPhone? Oh yes, you have to open the app to see if you’ve got a message. Genius. If Apple announces multitasking next it will be an improvement – but there’ll be no apology for the way it’s treated customers in the past, and no guarantee it won’t behave similarly shoddily in the future.
This article was titled “not to buy Apple’s new iPhone 4G” – I’m assuming that whatever device you are talking about is going to have iPhone OS 4… The one with multitasking. Might want to edit number four. As for your supply and demand problems, see my above mockery of your hypocritical argument strategy.
5) Its battery life is terrible: This isn’t a problem unique to Apple, but look at phones by companies such as HTC – multitasking, better cameras, better screens, all draining their batteries far more – and yet the iPhone, with its undemanding technology, still only offers equal performance.
Apple’s device is set to have the highest resolution screen of any device, the iPhone’s battery is still quite good and if the iPad shows any look into the future – it’s going to be improved. Imagine if Flash was on the iPhone?
6) Developing apps for it is costing you money: The special version of the BBC iPlayer, of Natwest Phone Banking, of Eon’s meter reader – developing all of these came out of money that could have been channelled away from a self-important minority and towards more generally useful ideas.
Umm… Developing apps on other platforms is free? Developing on Flash is costly and closed, developing on HTML5… not so much. Considering that the iPhone OS is still a huge part of the market, it would seem that developing for the iPhone would be good. Supply and demand? In addition, developing on the Android OS and Windows Mobile is also costly and the latter some might argue is pointless. If it wasn’t worth it, the BBC wouldn’t bother. Oh yeah, I already mentioned that.
7) It comes with offensively bad headphones: Sit next to somebody using the original iPhone or iPod headphones and you can hear everything they can. It’s another example of Apple charging premium prices, but delivering a dressed up, budget product.
And the device that comes with better headphones is? Whatever the case… OEM headphones aren’t good. This is one of the ten reasons not to buy the device. I’m thinking that you didn’t put much thought in this.
It’s not very well designed: Use the iPhone as a phone and it’s not got great reception, nor is it particularly comfortable to use for long periods. It’s a computer that happens to have a phone bolted on – jack of two trades, but master of neither.
Ummm… Say what? The reception has nothing to do with Apple. The Droid is really more comfortable?
9) It charges for satnav: In an age when Nokia and Google Android provide completely free mapping and satnav facilities, the cheapest way you can turn your overpriced iPhone into a satnav is with a £19.99 app. Bargain.
Google Maps works fine for a lot of people.
10) Those iPod docks are holding back better technologies: As every hotel increasingly thinks it should provide iPod docks, the momentum behind this technology is only growing. But if it wasn’t for the iPod and iPhone’s ubiquity, there’d be more wifi radios, more new technologies and a range of different options, competing and driving innovation.
The reason there is momentum is because… people like the device. Go see the innovation points above.
While I assumed Matt hasn’t seen the device, seems he hasn’t been keeping up with the news. And Steve thought print media was the problem.
