You're viewing an article in iPO's historic archive vault. Here, we've preserved the comments and how the site looked along with the article. Use this link to view the article on our current site: Why I Hate The iPhone

Editorial

Dave The Nerd - Why I Hate The iPhone

Thursday, September 6th, 2007 at 11:45 AM - by

Recently I was asked the question, "Why is it that you hate the iPhone?" The surprising thing about that question is that I don't hate the iPhone at all. But I can see why so many of you would think I do.

After all, given that I own multiple companies with promiment presence in the Mac and Apple space, you would almost expect me to have one. I almost expect me to have one. But I don't. And when colleagues ask me if they should get one, more often than not I find myself talking them out of it.

There are a few reasons for this which I'd like to explain.

Jaded Nerd
I've been in this technology business a long time. My early days were spent chasing down all the problems with early adopters trying to use the Next Big Thing, only to find myself on the bleeding razor's edge of something that never worked right. So the build-up to the iPhone definitely brought back all the hell I went through with people blindly buying over-hyped products only to find that they weren't reliable.

The iPhone was over-hyped, for sure, but it's NOT unreliable. Apple made certain that it works properly. To do this, though, they had to limit its capabilities out of the box lest some piece of application interoperability that no one thought to test crashed and burned all of the device's mystique.

It's Not a Smartphone
Of all the people I've talked to and reviews I've read, the folks who love the iPhone are those who were on the fence about whether or not they might need a "smartphone" in the first place. Once they got the iPhone, they loved all the new functionality they had.

Going from a RAZR to an iPhone has got to be a wonderful experience. Going from a Treo or a BlackBerry to it ... not so much.

I've been a Treo guy for well-over two years and I have yet to see one committed BlackBerry, Treo, or Windows Mobile smartphone user adopt the iPhone in full without adding the caveat of compromise. It's because they know what they're missing. All that third-party support, all of the ability to customize, and heck, the beauty of copy and paste are unavailable on the iPhone! Yes, the iPhone runs OS X and that in and of itself had us all excited at first. But the (current) implementation thereof is quite limited. Sure, you can hack the heck out of it, and thank goodness for that, but "corporate America" isn't going to adopt something they have to hack to get it to work with their systems. All the true smartphones out there warmly welcome third-party applications to be added to them to allow the device to really shine.

Boiling it down: What serious business user could consider using a "smartphone" that has no ToDo list and only syncs with iCal? Not me.

I'm Chicken
Don't get me wrong -- I do have a bit of technolust for the device. I've spent a not-quite-so-trivial amount of time considering how I could go about making the iPhone work for me. But the end result is a plan so full of compromises and "temporary" workarounds in hopes of better functionality down the road that I'm scared to death to pull that trigger. I am ridiculously happy with my Treo 650. It syncs with Now Up-To-Date, my calendar of choice, I can archive my SMS with Missing Sync (another great third-party app), and I can sync with Yojimbo where I keep all of my notes for various projects. Best of all, I use a third-party IMAP email client, ChatterEmail, that affords me true e-mail nirvana: I have the same, fully-synced, inbox on my phone that I have on my desk at home and at work. If I reply to a message on my Treo and then file it, back at my desk the message is in the archive and the reply is in my sent folder. And it fully (and truly) supports IMAP IDLE for those times when I really want instant notification of incoming messages... from any compliant IMAP server.

You're all thinking: yeah, well, the iPhone can do most of that. And you're right, but most is not what I'm after. I have all of it already! Would I like the iPhone's web browser? You bet your bottom I would. But, to me, that's not worth the tradeoffs.

Instead of calling it a smartphone, the iPhone is a cell phone combined with an iPod. And if I were a RAZR user, I bet I would have loved getting one but, for now, I'll stick with what I've got. I have a feeling you folks will let me know when they've got the kinks worked out.

Dave Hamilton is President and CEO of The Mac Observer, Inc and BackBeat Media, and producer and co-host of TMO's Mac Geek Gab Podcast. He has worked in the computer industry for 15 years, doing time as a consultant, trainer, network engineer, webmaster, and programmer. In his earlier consulting days, he worked on the Mac, all the various Windows flavors, BeOS, a few brands of Unix, and it is rumored he once saw an OS/2 machine in action. Before that he ran some of the earliest Bulletin Board systems, but most of the charges have since been dropped, and not even the FBI requests that he check in more than twice a year.

Dave maintains his blog at DaveTheNerd.com

17 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

A guest said: (hide)

Thu Sep 06, 2007 1:00 pm

Thanks for your thoughts. I definitely agree there are some strong limitations. It appears that the company is still in very early development of this products. I wasn't aware that the iPhone was missing a todo list that seems a like a ridiculous omission.

Jobs submitted that the intention was to have web apps function as the third party apps, but this is odd to say the least as it's impossible to always be online.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Thu Sep 06, 2007 1:32 pm

You are not the target audience/demographic.

Apple was not trying to replace the Blackberry or Treo, they were trying to get crappy RAZR out of people's hands.

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 1002 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Sep 06, 2007 1:42 pm

I actually got a research call the other day focussed on cell phones, the major companies, and about 1/4 of the call (5 minutes out of 20) with iPhone related questions. They seemed most interested in what I knew about the iPhone and how the AT&T/Apple tie-in affected my willingness to buy. I'm sorry, but for-frigging-get it with switching to AT&T. I have a family account with 4 phones going on 6 this year, Sprint is very easy to do business with, and we're not changing. Furthermore, I have a really nice flip phone (Sanyo M1) that does everything I need from a phone and isn't too fragile to take to the beach or the gym. An iPhone would be a second phone for me. And I'm open to that, but it needs to work with call forwarding, SMS forwarding, picture forwarding, etc. and it needs to be on the same plan as my other phone.

Someone is realizing that the AT&T tie-in is a showstopper for some/many potential customers, or these research surveys wouldn't be out there. Despite Jobs' claims, the level off in sales in not about the price of the phone.

Quote this post ↓

Dave said:

member since 11 Jun 2001 with 227 posts, TMO Staff, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Sep 06, 2007 1:59 pm

Guest wrote:
You are not the target audience/demographic.

Apple was not trying to replace the Blackberry or Treo, they were trying to get crappy RAZR out of people's hands.

You're absolutely right.

The problem is, they publicly targeted the thing as a smartphone, talking about how it was better than Blackberry, Treo, etc., and how they were going to get 1% of the smartphone market. So there are a lot of people like me out here that thought, "hey sure, I could get one of these," only to find out that it's not at all targeted at the market they're trying to claim.

Quote this post ↓

vasic said:

member since 09 Aug 2005 with 279 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:00 pm

Dave,

Apple never targeted any specific audience with the iPhone. Analysts, columnists, reviewers, bloggers and all other media that participated in the pre- and post-launch hype was instrumental in making it appear that iPhone was after BlackBerry, Treo or other smartphones out there. Apple's intention was to sell this to as many consumers as possible. When you look at the specifications of the device, you can't help but notice that it is clearly not going after BlackBerry.

Now, it is clear that iPhone is a runaway hit. That is the reason so many purchasers are trying to shuehorn it into the enterprise and transform it into a smartphone device. What is amazing is that even when Apple deliberately avoids trying to make a smartphone, people still think it's better as a smartphone than many real smartphones out there.

And for Bosco: As for AT&T being a showstopper, I have been through: Omnipoint/Voicestream/T-Mobile; original (TDMA) AT&T; Sprint (CDMA; before Nextel); MCI/Verizon, and there was absolutely NO DIFFERENCE whatsoever in coverage quality, customer service, pricing, etc. Coverage was varied (where one worked, the other didn't and vice versa), but over all the same. In the end, I preferred GSM carriers, since they allowed you to use different phones with the same SIM card. They also allowed me to unlock and use my own phones abroad, with local SIM cards. In the end, the AT&T decision was obviously the only choice. CDMA technology (Sprint, Verizon in the US) precludes device from being anything more than a domestic player in a small US market. Therefore, GSM was the only way to go for Apple. When you must choose between T-Mobile and Cingular/AT&T, there is no contest.

For all those who just can't (for any reason) do AT&T, there's always a free cellphone with another carrier and iPod Touch...

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:15 pm

vasic wrote:
Dave,

Now, it is clear that iPhone is a runaway hit. ...

That is why they knocked $200 off the price, because they were selling so many they got tired of counting the money?

Quote this post ↓

Dave said:

member since 11 Jun 2001 with 227 posts, TMO Staff, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:17 pm

vasic wrote:
Dave,

Apple never targeted any specific audience with the iPhone. Analysts, columnists, reviewers, bloggers and all other media that participated in the pre- and post-launch hype was instrumental in making it appear that iPhone was after BlackBerry, Treo or other smartphones out there.

Actually, you're quite wrong about this. Go back and watch the Steve Jobs Macworld Expo 2007 keynote. It was there that Apple announced the iPhone, and it was there that Jobs had slide after slide showing how it compared to -- and was better than -- the Blackberry, Treo, Q, etc.

So yeah, it was Apple who started all of this, not the rest of us.

I agree with your speculation though: internally, I bet their target audience was much different. For the media play, though, they sold the smartphone option since, after all, that's what best matched their pricing range (and still does).

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 1002 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:55 pm

vasic wrote:
For all those who just can't (for any reason) do AT&T, there's always a free cellphone with another carrier and iPod Touch...

I think the point I was trying to make was that there are people with money to burn on cool tech gadgets like the iPhone that are on the sidelines because of the AT&T exclusivity. And for the record, my grandfather got the only free phone in my family cell plan deal. Everyone else got really cool phones in the $200+ range.

Quote this post ↓

vasic said:

member since 09 Aug 2005 with 279 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:09 pm

Bosco

Your point is clearly taken. My conclusion here is that while AT&T works no better or worse than any other carrier here in Manhattan, there are large swaths of the country where mileage varies widely among carriers. For those unlucky enough to be in an area where AT&T sucks, I can feel the frustration. They will always be a very vocal minority for whom Apple, regrettably, won't be able to do much. Perhaps one day AT&T improves in their area, in a way that would be enough for them to switch.

Quote this post ↓

buttercupboxer said:

member since 10 Jan 2007 with 16 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:19 pm

Well thought out.

The iPhone is typical Apple. Invent or revamp a product into a really good product with style. Push the envelope on it's tech development, market the heck out of it and watch the results trickle down into other companies and products. Then you have the resources to make even better products.

I like this model better than the 'mediocre' development model.

Quote this post ↓

rjackb said:

member since 08 Dec 2005 with 37 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:44 pm

vasic wrote:
Dave,

...As for AT&T being a showstopper, I have been through: Omnipoint/Voicestream/T-Mobile; original (TDMA) AT&T; Sprint (CDMA; before Nextel); MCI/Verizon, and there was absolutely NO DIFFERENCE whatsoever in coverage quality, customer service, pricing, etc. Coverage was varied (where one worked, the other didn't and vice versa), but over all the same...

Thanks for pointing out that all cell phone companies suck in some locations yet all are great in other locations. In other words, the quality of your cell phone signal with a particular carrier all depends on where that carrier has cell towers in relation to where you use your cell phone--and that varies wildly. So making a blanket statement that "AT&T sucks" only reflects one's own experience and is simply inaccurate for many other people. I've been an AT&T Wireless/Cingular/AT&T Wireless customer for about 10 years now because their coverage and signal quality where I live and where I use my cell phone (currently an iPhone) is excellent.

Quote this post ↓

rjackb said:

member since 08 Dec 2005 with 37 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:15 pm

.

Dave wrote:
Boiling it down: What serious business user could consider using a "smartphone" that has no ToDo list and only syncs with iCal? Not me

First of all, the iPhone has, quite obviously, never been intended for business users. Why do I say that? Because you can't even begin to activate an iPhone if your AT&T account is in any way associated with a business account. Secondly, I'd wager my first-born child that a To-Do list application will be added to the iPhone via a software update at some point and probably sooner than later. I think a To-Do list was no doubt planned for the iPhone but time constraints didn't allow it to be adequately tested in time to be included in the initial release. Finally, I don't know what you're wanting to sync with besides iCal--please explain.

Quote this post ↓

Dave said:

member since 11 Jun 2001 with 227 posts, TMO Staff, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:13 am

rjackb wrote:
First of all, the iPhone has, quite obviously, never been intended for business users.

Agreed. As discussed, it was Apple who called it a Smartphone out of the gate (or, rather, while still IN the gate).

rjackb wrote:
Secondly, I'd wager my first-born child that a To-Do list application will be added to the iPhone via a software update at some point and probably sooner than later.

One would hope. The only thing that makes me think they won't is the lackluster To-Do support in iCal. Given what they think we need in that regard, it's possible that one may never appear in the iPhone

rjackb wrote:
Finally, I don't know what you're wanting to sync with besides iCal--please explain.

Wow... there's enough here for a whole other editorial. Suffice to say that iCal may work fine for *very* light calendaring, but begins to break down very quickly if you have to do any heavy lifting at all. And if you need to manage To-Dos and track them, you're completely out of luck. Even my wife, who otherwise could probably use iCal, has been unable to switch because of its weak To-Do support. The app simply hasn't yet matured. I hope it does. Until then, I will continue using Now Up-To-Date (and presumably Nighthawk when it ships).

Quote this post ↓

kevinolive said:

member since 14 Nov 2003 with 8 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:30 am

Being all caught up in the Apple induced iPhone euphoria, I bought one on July 3 thinking that it would solve my multi-device problems. I had a razr and a palm T|X. While I liked the look of the razr much more than my previous phone, a siemens s56, the address book was atrocious—I hated it. (The Siemens phone was a much better phone except for the fact that it needed a new faceplate and keypad and there were no replacement parts to be found.) So when the iPhone was announced, I decided to wait until December to buy it to allow for price adjustments and whatever few kinks were found to be worked out. As I said, I got caught up in the hype and bought one at significant expense as well as the $200 early termination fee of my previous carrier. It was a strong euphoria because I actually forgot about that fee.

All of that said, the iPhone does not replace the palm. I could get by without the games, gadgets, and file storage, but I need my todo list, database (SmartList To Go) and my shopping list (HandyShopper); well, at least one game would be good. I just don’t see a good way to implement that over the web. At a minimum, I would have to run my own server as I don't trust all of my data to a third party to keep safe.

So, now I carry an iPhone and a Palm T|X and anxiously await the day that Apple decides to open the iPhone up for third part software. I’m not going to hold my breath waiting.

One more thing, the iPhone does not fully replace an iPod either. I used my 40GB iPod as an alarm clock, waking to music of my choice, but sold it, and my nano, in preparation for the iPhone. I was rather dismayed to find that I could only select ringtones for my alarm sound. I was happy to see that Ambrosia Software introduced iToner ($15)—which alleviated the problem. Granted, Apple's recent $2 ringtone solution would work but at a greater expense.

Quote this post ↓

Small White Car said:

member since 02 Jul 2004 with 1960 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:39 pm

Anonymous wrote:
That is why they knocked $200 off the price, because they were selling so many they got tired of counting the money?

No, because many similar iPhone parts are in the iPod touch they'll be buying a LOT more of those parts so Apple can get them even cheaper now.

Additionally, the iPhone sold well at $599 because there was nothing else like it. Now, because of the iPod Touch, there is. They had to lower the price because of this new competition. (Competition from themselves, but still competition.)

In short, there are a couple of reasons why the iPhone price went down and they pretty much all have to do with the iPod Touch coming out.

Quote this post ↓

praus said:

member since 01 May 2003 with 28 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sun Sep 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Seems pretty clear that OS X is gonna get a really nice To-Do list once leopard comes out. Wasn't a To-Do list one of the big features in the new OS X? My guess is, once it comes out next month we will see a new To-Do list on the iPhone too.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:37 pm

the iPhone doesn't just sync with iCal you retard. It also sync with Outlook on a PC. I'm not an expert and i knew that

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.