At this point, I think there are really only three legitimate complaints about the iPhone:
1. It only runs at EDGE speeds. Sure, it loads pages fast once it connects, but 3G would make it sing.
2. The chrome bezel around the screen – iPod touch is way classier.
3. It’s tied to a single network in each country where it’s available.
Well, according to Apple COO Tim Cook, maybe we won’t have to live with the last one for very long (and we all pray that 3G is coming any day now…). According to MarketWatch, Cook said that Apple wasn’t wedded to the exclusive, single-carrier business model.
While that sounds like great news for anyone that wants an iPhone on T-Mobile, his meaning is actually unclear. While I’d love to say that this is a clear rift with AT&T and iPhones will start popping up unlocked for everyone direct from Apple, that would be a lie.
Absent other information, it sounds more to me like Cook is saying that Apple is open to bringing the iPhone to new markets without tying up with a specific carrier. In other words, South Africa, you may have your pick of iPhone carriers. Let’s hope it eventually makes it back to the U.S.
Apple ‘not wedded’ to iPhone sales model – MarketWatch
Via Digg.
Tags: iphone, apple, tim cook, announcement
26 responses to “Tim Cook: Apple ‘not wedded’ to iPhone sales model”
One other little, but very annoying thing, is that there is only one signature for all email accounts. You should be able to set one signature per account. It syncs accounts with Mail so why not signatures? But the major thing is of course that it’s not unlocked. Here in the Middle East, Apple forces their customers to hack their iPhones so they can be used here.
They should just sell an iPhone and discontinue the iPod touch. It would be up to the consumer to active the phone feature at their whim. It seems silly to me to juggle two products that practically do the same thing, yet differ in features Camera/Volume Toggle/Speakers/Bluetooth (iPhone) vs. Touch.
VoIP on the touch is already here, so enabling, lets say Skype to work (for those that don’t have a cellular plan) using the phone.app would be awesome. Adding an iSight to the front of the iPhone would be kickass… bleh, i’m getting ahead of myself.
They should just sell an iPhone and discontinue the iPod touch. It would be up to the consumer to active the phone feature at their whim. It seems silly to me to juggle two products that practically do the same thing, yet differ in features Camera/Volume Toggle/Speakers/Bluetooth (iPhone) vs. Touch.
VoIP on the touch is already here, so enabling, lets say Skype to work (for those that don’t have a cellular plan) using the phone.app would be awesome. Adding an iSight to the front of the iPhone would be kickass… bleh, i’m getting ahead of myself.
Go Australia! Given that third-party forcing may be illegal here (http://tinyurl.com/3bl6ka), I have hopes that this about-face applies to the Oz market.
Personally I’d say there are four real complaints about the iPhone, in order of importance:
1. No MMS support.
1. No video camera.
2. No flash support in Safari.
3. No 3/3.5G.
Even though they don’t speak English, why forget the huge potential of the rest of America, Europe, Asia and Africa? Apple seems to have some problems there. Time perhaps for Steve to load his private jet with a load of executives to see for themselves while he is flying around the world.
Just a comment on the three points made:
1. It only runs at EDGE speeds.
As I understand it 3G is an energy hog. One report I read indicated that a phone running 3G would run down within an hour of internet use. I am online all the time with my iPhone and it still lasts for days. I mean… how slow is slow? Are we talking seconds, a minute, many minutes? I can live with it!
2. The chrome bezel around the screen – iPod touch is way classier.
I understand… the iPhone has a cool factor, but really… it sells because it works, not because of a bezel!
3. It’s tied to a single network in each country where it’s available.
I’ll give you that. But on second thought… I had to switch to AT&T and haven’t had one single problem with the service, so I don’t understand all the complaints. Sprint would wink out on me at the most inconvenient times, and I won’t even start on T-friggin’-Mobile!
Just my two-cents worth!
I personally think the chrome bezel on the iPhone is way more upscale than the iPod Touch. The iPod Touch looks cheap to me with that plastic-looking edge. Chrome, baby! Chrome!
I can get on board with 1 & 3 though.
Flunky,
The Touch is 1/3 thinner than the iPhone and has 100% more memory.
Hardly seems like a good idea to lose all that if you don’t need the phone functions!
@Jeff
You’re right!
I would still love a touch with a volume toggle/speakers/bluetooth/camera… oh, and how about headphones with the pause/next track remote on ’em… sigh. I wonder of the extra bulk the iPhone carries is due to these components. If so, i wouldn’t mind a bulkier Touch.
Your ” Previous Entries – Next Entries” links seam to be broken, btw.
http://cultofmac.com/
http://cultofmac.com/page/2/
http://cultofmac.com/page/3/
are all the same.
I’d look at AT&T for the answer, not Apple. In the NYTimes I believe it said that AT&T’s revenues were up about $1B, but profits were not “significantly” higher. It said Apple was likely getting at least $15 per subscriber – maybe more, and that the cost of an iPhone user was more than other more standard plans. The clamor for 3G will only make AT&T’s cost even higher. So maybe AT&T is telling Apple they’re willing to drop exclusivity and keep most of the subscription revenue for themselves. Would you rather have $1B in revenues with $800MM in costs, or $300MM revenue and little extra cost?
I’d guess that Apple is trying to shop iPhone access around to see what the other carriers will pay, and use it as the baseline. AFter all, if AT&T just suddenly pulls the plug, Apple’s iPhone subscription revenues will disappear without new carriers willing to pay royalties.
I’d like to see a CDMA version of the iPhone. While it may not be the standard for the rest of the world, the U.S. certainly has a more extensive and better CDMA network than GSM. There are many parts of the country (rural areas especially) where there is good CDMA coverage but very little GSM. Also, it’s undeniable that the CDMA EVDO high speed network is far more extensive (and better) than GSM’s 3G. I know it’s been said many times, but I’d give anything for a Verizon iPhone. I really wish Jobs had given in a bit to Verizon and had signed a deal with them.