Some more information about the Apple iPhone is keep hitting the web: the ARM CPU is apparently made by Samsung, applications will only be developed by third party companies that have a license agreement with Apple and make sure they follow specific guidelines (and possibly the apps will only be available by iTunes) while other sources say that the iPhone indeed runs a modified version of Darwin with a few OSX components (incorrectly reported by Slashdot today that it’s not). Desktop OSX apps won’t run on the iPhone of course. David Pogue also has two FAQs on the product (1,2).
More iPhone Info
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Quite an arrogant statement to make.
What makes you so sure that your sources are any more reliable than Slashdots are?
Slashdot’s “source” was just a random guy who did a news submission. And yet, they posted his submission.
> What makes you so sure that your sources are any more reliable than Slashdots are?
Do you think I would fall for that? 😉
Edited 2007-01-14 00:15
So let me get this straight. It doesn’t have the same core as OSX, or the same interface, and doesn’t run OSX apps? Well next time someone tries to tell me my OpenBSD box is behind OSX, I’ll just say it IS OSX. The core is different, the interface is different, and it doesn’t run OSX apps but apparently that doesn’t apply to the imposter running on the iPhone either.
So let me get this straight. It doesn’t have the same core as OSX, or the same interface, and doesn’t run OSX apps? Well next time someone tries to tell me my OpenBSD box is behind OSX, I’ll just say it IS OSX. The core is different, the interface is different, and it doesn’t run OSX apps but apparently that doesn’t apply to the imposter running on the iPhone either.
Yep, you’re right, just like the imposter sitting on my desk at school that purports to run Windows XP. I’m unable to install applications on this desktop, so it is clearly an imposter. Oh, and FIY, Linksys wireless routers didn’t run Linux either by your logic, since you can’t install KDE on it.
And again I ask, who says it doesn’t have the same core? There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that proves that Darwin isn’t running on the iPhone. None. Nada. Zip.
As for a different interface…..friggin duh! Look at the screen size man. You’re delusional if you think a 3.5″ screen on a cell phone would run the same interface I’m using on my 20″ widescreen. Linux on the Linksys router doesn’t run the same interface as most desktop Linux installs either.
As for the apps, this has nothing to do with what OS it is running. Steve Jobs could release an iMac running OS X with no ability to install apps if he pleased. This is a licensing and contract issue and has absolutely nothing to do with the operating system. The same restriction could be applied to a Palm or Windows Mobile handset.
You are almost entirely correct with your points, however, it doesn’t change what I said or make me wrong. Steve Jobs said point blank “The iPhone runs a full version of OSX.” Five seconds of common sense will lead you to call bullshit on good old Steve.
FIY, Linksys wireless routers didn’t run Linux either by your logic, since you can’t install KDE on it.
Sorry I have to call you out directly on this one. Complete BS. OSX would be different if you couldn’t install apps on it and it came with a different interface (which is the case), Linux would not. Why? Because OSX as a complete OS includes Aqua. Linux is a command line OS using GNU tools. There is absolutely no reason you would ever have to install X, KDE, GNOME, or anything graphical for it to qualify as Linux.
Well of course it doesn’t run a full version of OS X. I never disputed that, and I do call bullshit on Steve. In-fact, I specifically said that the iPhone and desktop versions of OS X would be different. What I’m saying is that you seem to be believe that “It doesn’t have the same core as OSX”. You’ve failed to prove that, and unless you work at Apple, you are simply unable to.
You also stated that “Well next time someone tries to tell me my OpenBSD box is behind OSX, I’ll just say it IS OSX.” That is a horrible example. A trimmed down version of OS X is still OS X in my mind. A completely different system, such as OpenBSD, which isn’t released by the same company is not an adequate example, at least in any sane person’s mind.
Also, who defines what OS X is? If you’re arguing that a slimmed down OS X is not OS X, then this argument amounts to little more than a semantics debate, and is utterly pointless.
If you take a look at the iPhone section of the Apple website you would notice that in every page it’s cited as “OS X”.
Now, go to the “Mac OS X” section and find some place where it is cited as simply “OS X” (without the “Mac”).
It’s just a little difference to all of us, but I’m sure that Apple marketing guys did it with a reason behind.
Besides, it’s a prototype so things can change.
The point is its claimed as the full version of OS X, when it clearly isn’t. Its a severely cut back and redeveloped version, even if it is based on the OS X kernel.
Its different from the Linksys routers saying they are running Linux because Linux is a kernel. If the someone says that their Linksys router is running the full Ubuntu on it, even if they have the Ubuntu kernel running on their router, they aren’t running the full Ubuntu. Ubuntu is a full software stack, starting from the kernel going to a set of default applications, just like Windows is the same, and the same with OS X as well.
I just watched Steve’s keynote and I can’t recall a single time when he used the words “full version of OS X”.
We’re all just random guys (and gals). Don’t try to point at Slashdot and convince people your version is more factual when everything at this point is pure speculation.
Edited 2007-01-14 02:13
…it’s going to be an overpriced, underpowered, over-hyped, vendor-locked in, beautifuly designed and easy to use Apple device…
Oh well, those will sell like hot cakes…or not
(but they definately won’t get my bucks).
Lakedaemon
…it’s going to be an overpriced, underpowered, over-hyped, vendor-locked in, beautifuly designed and easy to use Apple device…
Well, let’s see. The iPod was all of those things, especially at release. Sometime this year Apple is going to sell their hundred millionth. Something tells me the formula works.
They won’t get my bucks on this one either, simply because I can’t afford it. But make no mistake: most people place a lot of value on beautiful objects that work well; and for those who can afford it, the price is just another selling point. Even an inherently valueless object can be made to seem valuable if the price for it is high enough.
It is a smartphone…. name one of the big guys that does not do just that?
BTW… I would not say it is under powered… you need to watch the demo… it has more power than all the other phones on the market and is better integrated with all its features than anything out there.
example of well planned design: When you search google maps for a location, the bubble pops up and you can tap the phone number to call the location.
It isn’t even out yet, and I’m already sick of hearing about the iPhone. Sheesh, let’s just let Apple release it, and evaluate it from there.
Oh, and I find it hilarious that people are already rating it on CNet!
http://reviews.cnet.com/Apple_iPhone/4505-6452_7-32180293.html?part…
> What makes you so sure that your sources are any more reliable than Slashdots are?
Anything’s more reliable than /.
In Soviet Slashdot, article dupes you!
Eugenia is completely right to say that Slashdot is incorrect. Yes they are incorrect.
Come on, a whole compagny is saying that their phone that they designed is running OS X, the tech spec of the iPhone is listing OS X as the operating system (note that it is called OS X, not Mac OS X). And someone now who does not have single clue of what he/she is talking about is coming with the idea that the iPhone doe not run OS X, and we should believe such an unverified information?
Come on, is someone here saying that Apple is lying or what? Why? How stupid is this!!!!!!
Anyone a little bit aware of OS X, knows that Darwin is able to be ported on virtually any platform out there, this is a matter of fact. So if it does run on ARM, that’s not surprising at all!!! Apple is free to customize its own OS for a phone, and decide to keep it closed and which application is running on it. That’s their OS, they can do that.
Again all of this is plain stupid, Apple is saying that the iPhone runs OS X, that’s it. How they do it, that’s their business!! Anyone saying that this information is wrong without a single proof is just speading plain BS.
Come on, is someone here saying that Apple is lying or what? Why? How stupid is this!!!!!!
No. The “stupid” thing is to think that because Apple calls something OS/X it’s the same OS/X as runs on a MAC.
“OS/X” is Apple’s name. They can use it however they want.
Anyone a little bit aware of OS X, knows that Darwin is able to be ported on virtually any platform out there, this is a matter of fact. So if it does run on ARM, that’s not surprising at all!!!
The ARM OS developer community is fairly small and we all tend to know about each other. Darwin is an open source project and a port of it to ARM should have shown up on the radar, but it hasn’t.
There are several possibilities, listed in no particular order:
1) The guess that Samsung is supplying an ARM process is wrong and the iPhone runs an X86 instruction set
2) Apple has managed to do a Darwin port to ARM without the ARM community being aware.
3) It’s “OS/X” because Teh Steve says so and Darwin isn’t involved. Perhaps Apple has ported the non-open ports of OS/X to some other platform than Darwin
4) The proccessor is neither ARM nor X86
It’s fun to speculate, but none of us have any real idea unless we’re actually working on iPhone. None of the people I know who are working on it are talking.
It’s also fun to speculate why Apple is being so coy about such mundane issues as which processor they’re using. My speculation is that if too much info becomes too widely known this early, they’re afraid that an Asian ODM will be able to get a knock off out in the rest of the world before they get the US version out. Since there’s really not that much to iPhone, that’s a real risk.
Markoff: “And what are you thinking about Flash and Java?”
Jobs: “Java’s not worth building in. Nobody uses Java anymore. It’s this big heavyweight ball and chain.”
Markoff: “Flash?”
Jobs: “Well, you might see that.”
Markoff: “What about YouTube–”
Jobs: “Yeah, YouTube—of course. But you don’t need to have Flash for YouTube.”
I noticed that too… Does Jobs just not know what he’s talking about, or is YouTube going to change by the time the phone comes out.
Also… Jobs’ comment on Java was related to the Web browser. This doesn’t NECESSARILY mean that Java won’t be supported by the OS. If it were to be implemented (in the OS), it would be a big plus in terms of the variety of games out there that they could market for this thing. On the other hand, Apple might see it as a potentially hackable backdoor to the no-third-party-app rule…
Either Jobs is not up to speed on how YouTube works, or he has more “close work” going on with Google…. Perhaps Apple is working with Adobe and google on developing a subset of flash that will run nicer on the iPhone hardware allowing youtube videos to play.
the former however seems most likely and I do not see how he can forgo flash (I agree though about java… the most maintained java apps are run completely server side with J2EE and JSP)
Markoff: “And what are you thinking about Flash and Java?”
Jobs: “Java’s not worth building in. Nobody uses Java anymore. It’s this big heavyweight ball and chain.”
Either he clarifies and means “on the desktop” for Swing apps or he means both server-side and client-side which Steve would be wrong.
Of course I’m hoping WOF 6 is pure ObjC 2.0 and Cocoa.
In this context, I think it applies to two things: 1. Applets on the Web and 2. J2ME which is already big on (other) phones.
It’s weird, it would seem making Java run on it would be much easier than Flash, since the source to Java is available (and Apple already has contracts allowing them to build custom versions of them, since they supply the OS X one), whereas Flash is closed source software that depends entirely on Adobe’s willingness to port/distribute it for the iPhone.
Edited 2007-01-14 03:35
BREW sucks, Qualcomm control every software maker that want to develop for BREW, iPhone will also sucks.
Edited 2007-01-14 01:01
in slashdots pronouncement?
Is it in the facts:
The Apple Phone will have an ARM processer
Darwin does not run on ARM
Or in the conclusions:
The Apple Phone will not run Darwin
The Apple Phone will not run OSX
I can’t follow up every fact, tidbit, rumor, or rumor of a rumor….can somebody sum it up for me in 50 words or less?
Edit: To give slasdot credit, they did say that it would not run OS X in “any meaningful way”. Even from what we know, this is certainly arguable.
Edited 2007-01-14 01:01
That means it’s not running on an Intel (or PPC) core. That means it’s not running OS X in any meaningful sense (Apple can brand toilet paper as running OS X if they like).
Apparently the submitter has never heard of something the software industry calls “porting”. Linux didn’t run on AMD64 in 1997 (due to it not existing at the time), so does that mean that AMD64 based computers don’t run Linux in a meaningful way? In-fact, Openstep was very widely ported to numerous different arch. before Apple aquired it. For all we know, in Apple’s secret labs, OS X has been running on 15 different arch. just in-case. If the submitter feels it isn’t running in a “meaningful way” because of Apple’s restrictions, which could be implemented just as easy on an Intel processor, then he should just come right out and say it.
“Darwin, the BSD based operating system that underlies what Apple has previously been calling OS X, does not run on ARM processors.”
Again, only as far as we know. Apple may have internally developed an ARM based version of Darwin. The submitter is merely guessing.
The Darwin / Apple Public Source licensing agreement says the source would have to be made available if it is modified and sold (paraphrased; read it yourself). A Cingular rep has said the iPhone version of the OS source will not be made available. It will be closed, like the iPod OS and not like Darwin. So if it ain’t Darwin, it ain’t OS X (in any meaningful way).
A giant load of steaming BS right here. The 3rd party code in OS X is NOT licensed under the APSL, but instead under the BSD license. It is Apple’s code that is licensed under the ASPL, and Apple is free to relicense said code under ANY license agreement they see fit, open or proprietary. Some 3rd party can’t file claims against Apple for Apple violating a license agreement with Apple. That is simply preposterous.
An InfoWorld article on an FBR Research report breaks down iPhone component providers and lists Samsung as the chip maker for the main application / video cpu. So, that leaves the question… What OS is this phone really running? Not Linux or the source would need to be open.”
again, Samsung being the provider makes no difference, as said above. It’s called “porting”. It really leaves no question in my mind. If some reputable source disputes Apple’s claim, as opposed to some ill-informed and clueless Slashdot submitter waving his hands while spewing garbage, maybe then we should all revisit the issue.
In-fact, none of the sources linked to from Slashdot even ATTEMPT to support the submitter’s claims as far as I can tell.
With that said, let’s just ignore what was posted on Slashdot for the rest of this thread, as it is all hot-air with no substance.
>Darwin does not run on ARM
Darwin has been ported to ARM.
>The Apple Phone will not run Darwin
You are wrong.
Darwin has been ported to ARM.
Do you have a source for this? It wouldn’t surprise me, if it had been, but I’m unaware of it.
Steve Jobs saying: “The iPhone will run OS X.” 😉
“but I’m unaware of it.”
Correct! you ARE unaware of what apple has going on in there labs!
Correct! you ARE unaware of what apple has going on in there labs!
Nah, that I am aware of.
I notice that Eugenia still hasn’t posted any supporting evidence for her claim of a Darwin port to ARM.
“I notice that Eugenia still hasn’t posted any supporting evidence for her claim of a Darwin port to ARM”
So what is the problem? Rewrite some assembly routines and hook up already existed drivers to the Mach?
A couple of programmers can do it in reasonable time.
“I notice that Eugenia still hasn’t posted any supporting evidence for her claim of a Darwin port to ARM”
So what is the problem? Rewrite some assembly routines and hook up already existed drivers to the Mach?
A couple of programmers can do it in reasonable time.
The “problem” is the lack of evidence that the copule of programmers have done it already.
I’ve said several times in this thread that the port is doable. I’m just waiting for evidence that it has been done.
Darwin has been ported to ARM.
Really? I can’t find any information to back that up. Do you have any sources?
Darwin has NOT been ported to ARM. I was looking for it for my Archie, no Darwin
> Darwin has NOT been ported to ARM. I was looking for it for my Archie, no Darwin
Try here:
http://www.nt.gov.au/dcm/theterritory/index.php?menuID=175
Lot’s of OSes can run on the ARM architecture, but this doesn’t mean they will all be shipped on the iPhone.
Darwin never ran on x86 before last year too, how do we know for sure if OS X does not work on ARM processor.
The hell Darwin never ran on x86 until last year. It’s ran on x86 since its inception. It was just never released until last year.
What’s really strange is that there’s no bluetooth synching even though bluetooth is built in. Perhaps they though that you might as well recharge the device anyway while you’re at the computer, but still…
Why waste all this time speculating what the iPhone is going to be or run? Why not just wait and see? Non-licensed developpers won’t be able to develop for it anyway, apparently.
I’ve had a v.quick look around the net and can’t find anything with substance but I seem to remember reading somewhere that modern phones require at some ‘hard’ real-time features in order to service things like the GSM stack amongst others.
Whilst I know nothing about this type of thing I thought I read on ‘Linux Devices’ that various companies have been working on RTOS patches for the kernel for sometime now. I also /think/ that a similar option is available for BSD (Wasabi???)
My point being that this type of thing alters an OS kernel in many ways simply because it has to in order to allow granularity and to impose strict limits on response times. It’s also my understanding that this is no trivial engineering matter. It takes time and money.
The amount of abstraction layers needed in a modern ‘traditional’ desktop or server OS would be crippling.
It’s possible that Apple rolled their own without outside assistance which is unlikely, but perhaps not impossible.
My gut feeling is that they simply don’t have the engineering capacity to do this kind of thing without outside help, either commercial or ‘community’. I’m guessing that they bought a license for ‘something’
This isn’t a dig at Apple. It seems to be common for handset manufacturers to buy in software technology.
I suspect that they have leveraged a few OSX technologies, but only in a very basic way and with massively reduced functionality. Some basic API’s may be similar for comfort reasons but thats it.
Windows Mobile and Windows Vista are very different creatures. I see no reason for Apple to do things differently.
If I’m barking up the wrong tree I’m sorry. I hope this post has been food for thought…
I’ve had a v.quick look around the net and can’t find anything with substance but I seem to remember reading somewhere that modern phones require at some ‘hard’ real-time features in order to service things like the GSM stack amongst others.
This is a commonly held belief within the industry, and is certainly one that is widely stated by the vendors of ‘hard’ RTOSes.
It’s wrong, and there are several phones on the market that demonstrate that clearly.
Audio requires very careful handling in a phone, but if you do that right you can easily do the phone with a Unix-like OS.
While Apple is unlikely to have left all of the trappings of OS/X in place, there’s no reason they couldn’t have simpy turned off a lot of the desktop stuff, done a customized UI and used the kernel and runtime from OS/X.
what makes you think you can’t install KDE on a Linksys router?
Ohh! you’re thinking you can’t because the Linksys doesn’t have a screen!
Sorry, bud, there’s this little thing called X11, yea, it means you can run your GUI over a network, so, assuming you have the storage space, a Linksys router could run KDE, albeit not so well.
At least until you can buy one unlocked and without the Cingular service.
iPhone OS X = NewtonOS 3.0. Apple invested over a half-billion dollars into Newton, seems logical they’d re-use the code.
I guess not:
– The UI is totally different (no reuse)
– Newton OS isn’t alive since 1997 (not uptodate: WiFi, bluetooth, …)
– Newton OS isn’t compatible with the current OS X technologies (core things)
– Newton OS most likely isn’t written for the current CPU in iPhone
– After 10 years of not maintaining Newton OS, it’s developers will have lost all knowledge about it
Usage of Newton OS will cost more than it gains (IMHO)
Edited 2007-01-14 12:43
I’m really surprised at how confused the technical story around the iPhone is. I’ve seen three fairly well researched articles conclude quiet differently about who is supplying what to Apple for the phone.
I didn’t pay attention when the iPod was introduced, but is this coyness about the product contents typical of Apple?
>I didn’t pay attention when the iPod was introduced, but >is this coyness about the product contents typical of >Apple?
I think it is. Apple’s business model is :
1) “reinvent” a device
(take a device, give it a beautiful case and design the UI in the most logic/easy/user friendly way possible)
2) pre-announce the device (but don’t sell it yet) and make people speculate/speak about the device with passion and for months before it is sold.
-> great publicity and it creates an urge to buy it…
(people will wait in queus for it)
3) when you begin to sell it, there will be long queues of people that wil have been waiting for it to be sold for weeks. And the numbers of sales will be high in the first days.
-> some more free publicity….it prints into the minds of the people that the device is THE THING TO HAVE, THE PRESENT TO MAKE…
4) The more sale Apple does, it’s famous as a company of beautiful working high quality devices…
And that leads to profit.
Seems to me like they succeeded with phase 1 and 2 for the iphone.
If I were Apple, I would use the feedback provided by the speculation about iphone (free great market study) to
decide what will be and won’t be in the first generation iphone whent it is sold.
Now, if I was another company, I would use what I saw of the Apple presentation to improve my phone line (-> i.e. improve the UI…the design of the other phones is already good enough) and make them better than Apple’s products. (yet you won’t have the publicity…and there is the beautifully sync to the os matter that is difficult to counter with windows…)
Learn and improve upon it
It can’t be named Mac OS X, cause Mac means (Mouse Actionated Computer), and this…”thing” is not mouse actionated
About what run’s inside, or what hardware have into…Who knows?!, apple can change all, have diferents prototypes, or maybe have waporware, and we here, doing her free marketing.
now that is something i never thought of before. now…what does apple stand for?
It’s a joke, but maybe..A Pretty Phone is Less Efective?
I thought Mac was simply short for Macintosh, Steve’s favorite variety of Apple….
Apple owns Mac OS X so they may define it as they choose. Did he say it runs OS X 10.4 or 10.5? No. And yet those are two versions of the same operating system, even though some apps will only run in 10.5
Under the same logic, when Steve said the iPhone runs a full version of Mac OS X, he was essentially saying “Mac OSX (Mobile) is a mobile optimized and fat trimmed version of the Desktop OS, not a new mobile operating system.”
I don’t own a Mac (all the ones I’ve used are owned by someone else) and I don’t own an iPhone, but if this could have been a good Smartphone with e-mail and calendaring without depending on something like Exchange, with good third party app support like I have my Symbian I’d have bought one tomorrow.
Honestly, a phone that doesn’t run Java games or applications and is available with only one network? Have you even used a mobile phone Steve?
As it is, it’s a limited phone that plays MP3s with absolutely nothing compelling about it. Sorry Steve, but just because it has ‘i’ in front of it it doesn’t mean people are going to jump.
The phone will run a version of OS X, and this will very likely be a port of Darwin. I do however find Mr. Jobs’ statements to this effect of “It runs a full version of OS X” a little… deceptive.
My Windows Mobile Device runs Windows. The iPhone will run OS X. Taken in this way fine. But that is not what Steve was trying to spin on the stage. MS has made a clear distinction between the two OS lines, Mr Jobs seems to make us think there is only one line on the Apple side of the world.
Even if it is a full version of OS X though, who cares? It should not be in dispute that current OS X applications will not run on it. Nor is there much question that it is a locked down platform (at least for initial release) that does not allow for 3d party products or development.
The interface, input methods, and applications are all different. Further, 3d party apps will not for the time being be able to be made (if ever). This makes the fact of whether the iPhone runs OS X or not sort of moot.
The iPhone looks to be an impressive product, but it is somewhat constrained in its use. Beyond branding the iPhone running OS X seems to have little in common with what the vast majority of the world would think of when you say “This product runs a full version of OS X.”
The iPhone is running an optimised but full version of OS X that weighs in at “considerably less” than half a GB
http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipod-itunes/news/index.cfm?newsid=16927
Is in full effect. Why is it that when Mr. Jobs introduces the iPhone, no one points to the Nokia 770 (and now 880) for its obvious similarities. After all, it’s an Internet Tablet with a slightly larger form factor than the iPhone, but with a much higher resolution screen. The only thing it lacks is the “phone” part, but I think if you ask most people on this forum and others whether they’d rather their “ultra portable PC” be integrated or separate from their phone, most people would say “separate.” Look at the whole fiasco of how people are pissed it only supports Cingular…
well the whole point of the iphone is that it’s a cool…phone. It’s not supposed to be a pda. I think this really competes with the Danger sidekick, which is also pretty closed.
Phones have a much bigger market than pdas. Most people want ipods and they want phones so here is their solution.
I, on the other hand, am more interested in something that would help keep track of stuff and not really into popular culture (except for games!) so I was never into the ipod.
I think this really competes with the Danger sidekick, which is also pretty closed.
Indeed it does compare with the Sidekick, which has been on the market for a while and costs 1/3 as much, does most of what the iPhone does, and doesn’t have any of the limitations that the iPhone will still have in six months.
The Sidekick, by the way is not closed. Danger has a developer’s program, (developer.danger.com) and I suspect that Apple will eventually have one along the same lines for iPhone.
The approach of requiring developer applications to be certified and only downloadable through the service provider is a compromise with the carriers over their desire to control the content of the phone.
This is not, as Teh Steve indicated, about the security of the phone network, but rather is about the desire of the carrier to reduce their support costs.
I have a sidekick 3, and to compare it to the iPhone is a joke. It has better text entry capability for SMS and IM, but in every other way it gets trounced by the iPhone. Media playback is pathetic and basically useless, using it as a phone is much harder because you have to rotate the screen open first to make a call, and then close it (you don’t have to, but its significantly harder to make calls without typing in the name). The web is just crap, just crap. Same for email, its not nearly as good. it doesn’t use a standard mini jack like the iPhone, Doesn’t have the seamless syncing like an iPod or iPhone, The photo app is crap, absolutely crap. Basically, the entire OS is crap. And i didn’t think it was so bad until i watched the iPhone demos. Then i realized what i’ve been missing: quality software married to powerful and elegant hardware. Thank you Apple!!
It has better text entry capability for SMS and IM, but in every other way it gets trounced by the iPhone.
Well, not in every other way:
1) You can change the battery on a Sidekick 3.
2) You can buy one today.
3) For 1/3 the cost of the iPhone
4) It does EDGE.
5) It does removable media.
6) You can get third party aps for it.
But you’re right that it is difficult to do an apples to apples comparison between phones that are available now for 1/3 the price and phones that will be available in six months.
By the way, you can make calls without rotating the screen on a sidekick. You simply use the trackball, scroll and click. It’s only slow if you have a big contact list and you have to scroll to someone down the list you haven’t called recently.
I would be surprised if Danger or Palm move quickly on an iPhone direct competitor, but over the next six months I fully expect Motorola and Nokia to surpass it.
Don’t be surprised when the iPhone hits the market if it’s not an also run compared to what’s there then.
>1) You can change the battery on a Sidekick 3.
I don’t know a single person who owns and uses a second cell battery. I’ve dropped my cell phones numerous times over the years, and almost every time the battery cover falls off. To me, an integrated battery is a better feature than user replaceable. If the battery dies within the warrantee period, its replaced free. If after the warrantee, then it’ll cost a couple extra bucks to have it replaced by Apple or T-Mobile. Heck, not many people own second laptop batteries, and thats a much more useful feature.
>2) You can buy one today.
You got me there, but thats not really a feature. Maybe we should wait 6 months and compare whatever products are available. As it stands, the Sidekick 3 could be close to seeing a new version by then (or maybe it’ll just be cheaper), and the iPhone will probably have significantly updated software, more memory or a cheaper price. Apple has pulled upgrade moves like this before (MBP), and they’ve never announced a hardware product this far in advance.
>3) For 1/3 the cost of the iPhone
I paid $300 bucks for my sidekick. I see its $200 now for the regular version (AFTER MAIL-IN REBATE, YUK). Designer versions, which still don’t come close to the sexiness of the iPhone, are $400. Thats cheaper than the iPhone, but 1/3rd is comparing the low end price of one phone to the high end of another. 1/3 would be $167 or $200, depending on the model iPhone. You could also be biased for
Apple and say the iPhone is only $100 more, when comparing the 4GB model to the designer Sidekick. And once again, this isn’t actually comparing the product in the sense of its power, features, and usability. This is why they shouldn’t be compared. iPhone is in a different product segment but has a significantly higher price. Do you see car magazines comparing the Ford Mustang to a Porsche? Sorry for the car analogy:P
>4) It does EDGE.
Just about every smart phone does EDGE (at a minimum). But how well does it make use of it? Thats the point. EDGE is a catch-phrase, a bullet on a presentation. How its capabilities are implemented is what’s important. Saying it does EDGE is like saying it has GSM (well duh)
>5) It does removable media.
So you have to pay more money to have the memory capacity of an iPhone. Well, currently a 4 GB stick is $70, and an 8GB stick is $190 via online retailer. So an 8GB designer sidekick is actually $590, only $10 bucks cheaper than the 8GB iPhone. Starting to sound like the price difference isn’t all that big. Sidekick 3 has 6MB built in. That is pathetic. for some reason, the external memory can’t be used for storing my email messages/text messages/contacts etc. Only photos and music (which is next to worthless due to its horrible UI and no sync). Crippled
>6) You can get third party aps for it.
Again, you can get 3rd party apps for all smart phones. Are you going to argue that they both have color screens and speaker-phone, and therefore are comparable? Apple will have 3rd party apps too, and they will be of higher quality than on any other platform because Apple doesn’t want crap put in its phones and will hold the master-key, namely iTS. Most, if not all, of the apps for the sidekick have limited utility and would compare poorly to an equivalent from Apple.
Lets not compare these 2 phones, as its unfair for both of them. In fact, it will always be tough to compare the iPhone to other phones. The iPhone will always be lets configureable/feature packed, but far sexier, user friendly, and just plain DIFFERENT.
I heard that Microsoft is coming out with its own operating system you can install on the iPhone:
Windows iPhone Home edition …