waffle

Waffle is a weblog.
The author of Waffle, some guy in Sweden, also occasionally writes stmts.net.

writing

(Waffle passed out from exhaustion in March 2012 and is now coming back online.)

Wonders, Lisa, or Blunders?

Graham, or if we’re to follow the trend of referring to each other by weblog name, mr A. Single Pixel calls my post yesterday a “blunder” and me (by proxy of “Waffle”) “spectacularly wrong-headed”.

Point by point, as we go along:

  • Yes, Visual Voicemail is indeed fantastic.
  • Yes, iPhone is an amazing phone even without Visual Voicemail (even if Visual Voicemail could indeed push someone off the fence onto fertile “I’m getting one” soil).
  • Yes, there are estimates thrown around noting that Apple gets $18 monthly for each AT&T plan sold in conjunction with the iPhone. Regardless of the accuracy of the number, it’s established that revenue-sharing does happen. (And that’s “sharing”, meaning “going both ways”. Otherwise, it’s “revenue-giving”.)
  • Yes, iPhone will probably help make phones more featureful.
  • And yes, iPhone’s designation of the “Invention of the Year” is completely deserved.

You’ll note that I agree with most facts Graham cites. However, that’s not where my post was going. It tried to point out the absurdity in a (very) locked-down phone somehow clearing the road for more open phones, and as I have noted several times before, how ridiculously customer-unfriendly the US mobile phone network market is. (I’ve taken more flak for this; Scott Stevenson asked me to step out of my Ivory Towerâ„¢, and if that’s how it comes off, then too bad. I don’t mean that any other market is phenomenal, just that the US market in particular is bad.)

It’s not even economically debatable if Apple could sell the same iPhone for under $500. Of course they could, with margins too. It’s up in the air whether any US providers would like to provide Visual Voicemail for anything less than an exclusive deal, but luckily, there are also somehow a few billion people outside the US who would like to buy phones.

Graham even spells out that I (“some people”) “clearly still don’t understand” why Apple went with a network. I understand perfectly that they went with a network (it is the current popular model for selling a phone in the US), why they went with a network (Visual Voicemail) and even why they went with AT&T (AT&T gives them money. They like money.). I just hate that that’s how it is, particularly because it has set the tone for the same model for the iPhone in the rest of the world. Apple now has a successful model and it’s not going to be afraid to use it.

If you seriously think Apple couldn’t have sold the iPhone without locking it to a network, you’re looking at the market through the lens of status quo. Palm looked at the mobile phone market assuming status quo in the face of heated iPhone rumors last November, proposing that “PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.“. You may have noted what a difference a year makes.

If the iPhone paves the road for better (or less crippled) phones, it’s because it’s a good phone. Not for any other reason.

At the end of the day, I think like so many other people that the model – or, the mobile phone network market – sucks. However, don’t confuse that with me hating the phone – or, the mobile phone market. I’m not; in fact, quite the opposite. More on this later.

Comments

  1. The ivory tower thing was just a side comment that I never assigned too much weight to. I’m not sure it really makes sense in hindsight.

    In any case, this is a lot of stabbing in the dark. The discussions happened behind closed doors. The US mobile market seems to be protected by a barrier equivalent in mass to the Great Wall of China. Given those circumstances and any other number of variables that only the lawyers are aware of, I think it’s entirely possible that this is not such a simple equation.

    Also, I think it’s worth considering the visual voicemail is just one example of what can happen when the phone and network can deploy new software simultaneously.

    By Scott Stevenson · 2007.11.02 23:29

  2. I assigned it no further weight myself. I take only about every 30th of your words (and fifth of your links) seriously. ;)

    Of course it’s not a simple equation. But there’s also nothing saying it couldn’t also tip over on the other side.

    There’s promise in deploying new software on either ends, and Apple’s been good at this historically, first by simultaneous hardware and software release and then by simultaneous server software and client software (read: some of the usable parts of .Mac).

    It remains to be seen how they’ll work with the carriers, though; nothing like Visual Voicemail has been announced since (the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store famously has a “Wi-Fi” in it, although that’s probably just for the speed) and they’d need to roll it out in four simultaneous countries with four different carriers.

    By Jesper · 2007.11.02 23:51

  3. Everyone talks about AT&T “giving” Apple money or that the phone is “subsidized”. How ’bout looking at it like: AT&T has a contract with Apple, AT&T pays Apple to provide: - support for the iPhone - software updates and enhancements - simple software and the back end structure for signing up to AT&T - retail network for iPhone sales and funnel subscribers to AT&T - advertising

    These are not inconsiderable benefits to AT&T

    By http://openid.aol.com/klasseng · 2007.11.05 20:45

  4. [...] or Jesper as he prefers to be known, posted a reply about the iPhones-should-be-unlocked [...]

    By Pixelated posts » Blog Archive · 2007.11.05 21:04

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.