Except for all the artificial limitations (no background processes is a huge let down) and the fact that Steve Jobs can crush your iPhone businesses if he chooses.
How is it a let down? For two years, two releases, two versions of software and one beta of OS 3 it hasn't been present. It's only ever been mentioned by Apple to say they aren't doing it, and always they've been discussing, advertising and working on push notifications as an alternative.
Given all that, why were you in any way expecting it?
Maybe because it's possible on competing smartphones?
I was curious about the new features in IPhone OS 3 and decided to take a look at the list. Copy and paste? MMS? Voice memos? Search? You've got to be kidding me. The competition has had that stuff for ages.
If Apple couldn't deliver that stuff on day one that's fine, but it should have been released in an update shortly afterward. It's absurd that 2 years later people are still waiting for basic functionality that's been available elsewhere the whole time.
Don't get me wrong. Although I choose not to use the iPhone, I still like it. Despite the fact that it does some very basic things badly or not at all, it does have some neat features and has driven the competition to work a little harder. The iPhone made mobile app stores commonplace. The 'find my phone' and 'remote wipe' features are very cool and I haven't seen those on another phone. I'm looking forward to how the competition responds.
What does bother me, though, is all the Apple apologists coming out of the woodwork to brush all of their faults under the rug. Apple does some good things and some not so good things. In my opinion, a lot of the features in this update are things that people should not still be waiting for. I also think we don't need to be in the habit of excusing the lack of background applications. We're so fond of innovation, yet this missing features prevents the kind of innovation happening on other platforms.
Then by the performance of the competition, we have to surmise that either users don't care about said features, or said features have such flawed execution that the majority of its target users simply choose not to use it.
I would lean to the latter. Sending MMSes on most phones is a pain, recording a voice memo less so, but still convoluted. Search? Oh boy, yeah, some phones have this, but it's an even greater pain to get to.
And this is where usability rears its big ugly head again - the one thing that software engineers tend to ignore (because they themselves do not demand it). It's turned out that all along the UI has been the magic key to everything. For better or for worse, Apple hasn't just made the iPhone easy to use, they've made it fun to use, and that's something the competition has yet to clone.
> we have to surmise that either users don't care about said features, or said features have such flawed execution...
No this doesn't follow. It is a logical fallacy. Just because a product is successful doesn't mean that it has all the features people want. If the advantages of a product make up for it's shortcomings then people will buy it. By your logic you would have to argue that video wasn't a feature people cared about. Or better yet that Windows was the ideal desktop OS.
It really is sad how these Apple fanatics are so keen to point to a whopping 30% US smartphone market share (more like 10% worldwide) as proof that it is everything people want and yet when confronted with the unrivaled dominance of another product (e.g. Windows) they are more inclined to dismiss the users as people who don't know better.
Then by the performance of the competition, we have to surmise that either users don't care about said features, or said features have such flawed execution that the majority of its target users simply choose not to use it.
That's a strong statement that I can't agree with completely. We can probably agree that most users don't care about most features other than dialing. When I asked why scrolling through a contact list on a Motorola RAZR is so slow the response I got is that most users don't use the contact list.
If most people don't use most of the features of their phones that's fine. But I do, and giving me a prettier package isn't going to change the fact that it doesn't have the features I'm already using. Apple is clearly more interested in less demanding users and have made a boatload of money that way. That's fine too.
But if you want to talk smartphones for power users, I think the iPhone has been missing some important features. In other areas, they've clearly surpassed the competition. This is a good thing for everyone. Even though I don't use an iPhone I've got a much better browser on my phone because of it.
Personally, there's no way I'm buying a smartphone that doesn't do MMS or copy/paste when there are others that do this in addition to just about everything else the iPhone can do. But I put a premium on features instead of user interface and it's not as if the worthwhile competitors' user interfaces are from the stone age.
The competition hasn't exactly been left destitute since the release of the iPhone either. If anything, their product line ups have only gotten stronger even if market share has decreased. Sure, Nokia is in the toilet, but I think it probably has more to do with the fact that they've more or less been sitting on their asses for a few years than the iPhone. I won't even bring up Windows Mobile because it's just sad. Blackberry, excluding the Storm, is looking better and better. Despite the fact that the design and build quality of the T-Mobile G1 is a cruel joke, Android is something worth getting excited about. If someone puts it on nice hardware we could end up with a very cool phone.
Really? You're deciding on a phone based on MMS and copy/paste? That seems like such a small (and overweighted slice of the pie...)
My favorite case of this feverish feature list fetishizing is Nokia, whom never fails to deliver amazing phones with every feature imaginable, all of which are so badly hindered by a dated, clunky OS that renders most of them useless.
Last time I used an N95 it took me 7 clicks from the map screen (and four sub-menus!) to get the phone to find me on the map. Sure, GPS was available before Apple got there; but could most people use it?
There's a chicken and egg situation when it comes to features like MMS, copy/paste, and search - the number of users is directly correlated with its usability and discoverability. Sure, there is a demographic that will never use the feature in any case, but IMHO the fact that many phones have these features but are barely used is more a testament to the difficult UI than the notion that some people just don't want it.
I agree that Apple has sparked a renaissance of sorts in the cell industry - a do or die if you will. This is good for everyone - BlackBerry is getting better every day, Nokia is woefully behind, MS is still twiddling their thumbs, and everyone else is basically a non-player (including Android, for the time being anyway).
I am perpetually at a loss for what this term means. On the one hand you're describing these features as "basic" but on the other they're for "power users". Is that not a contradiction?
I think you are trying argue semantics instead of any particular point, but I'll clarify things anyway. When MMS, for example, has been available for years from every major carrier in the US on even some of the cheapest phones I would consider it a basic feature. The fact that many people don't use it doesn't change that. If that were the case, you could just as easily make the argument that text messaging doesn't necessarily need to be included because most people don't use it.
The bottom line is you can't sell me a so-called smartphone in a pretty package and sing the praises of all its bells and whistles when it doesn't have the features I use on a daily basis. When you can get MMS on a free phone from MetroPCS it seems like a pretty glaring omission on the iPhone.
I'm not just picking on Apple. I was using Apple products long before it was the cool thing to do and I happen to like them, but let's be realistic. I owned a Sidekick a couple years back and had the same complaint. The thing is marketed as this socially connected, multimedia phone and it can't even do MMS. The 4 year old POS Nokia I switched from was able to do that. The Sidekick was, rightfully, ripped for this so I don't understand why Apple gets a free pass.
That's true but let's look at what the competition to the iPhone was mostly lacking:
-Fully functional modern web browser
-Good GUIs (some exceptions)
-High quality screen with good visual design and font rendering
-Intuitive multi-touch interface
-Good integration for media syncing/playback
-A lot of pre-iPhone SmartPhones (RIM specifically) didn't even have 802.11 wifi
-Good attachment viewer (All Office formats including 2k7)
As of 1 year ago:
-Full Exchange support
-VPN support
-Excellent SDK with a fully integrated distribution system and free development tools.
So while your point is valid that it did take Apple about 2 years to fully build iPhone OS into a mature OS I would say it's also absurd that other SmartPhone platforms were so far behind in the above areas. It works both ways doesn't it? I would never buy a phone without a fully functional modern web browser again. I don't care if it has the best copy & paste and voice memos ever. It's all about what features a large variety of people find the most important. Users did purchase their phones fully knowing they did not have copy & paste, MMS, voice memos, etc.
I modded you up because you make some good points. That the iPhone delivered features that the competition probably hadn't even thought of is beyond dispute. I think the fully functional web browser is the iPhone's biggest contribution. It's the only reason I have a decent browser on my non-iPhone.
I want to make it clear that I think the iPhone is great even though I choose to use something else. The iPhone isn't for me. I've tried it and I want to like it, but I just don't. It's impossible for me to type on the screen. There are some minor usability annoyances. I've grown accustomed to a few things that the iPhone doesn't do. Not to mention, I've been an ATT customer in the past and I don't think they provide particularly good service.
That said, I still want to see the iPhone succeed because it means I, and every other consumer, get to reap the benefits of healthy competition. There's no doubt that the iPhone kicked just about everybody in the ass when in came out, but while Apple has been feeding us excuses for why we don't need the features they don't provide, the competition has been busy implementing some of their best ideas. I've purchased 2 smartphones since the iPhone was released and both have fully functional browsers, app stores, good SDK's and acceptable multimedia capabilities. They've both been capable of doing things that the iPhone can't do-- either due to design or policy-- while the most obvious disadvantage compared to the iPhone has been the number of applications available. My point is it's a more level playing field than it was a couple years ago.
I'm not sure it's fair to say that customers bought iPhones knowing that they did not have MMS, voice memos, etc. It's not like it's written in big print somewhere that it doesn't do these things. Most early adopters probably found out after they bought the phone. I think it's easy to assume that the iPhone has these features when you're upgrading from a 3 or 4 year old subsidized POS that has them.
Which just goes to show how little those things mattered. The theory is those things are "basic", but the reality is that the company both succeeded and surpassed the competition without them.
So Apple chose not to, or couldn't, deliver them sooner. So Apple chose different priorities. It's not absurd, ridiculous, apologistic and it's not a "fault".
