Chris Galloway

Survey Says iPhone too Expensive

by

In a U.S. study of 379 people, most of whom own iPods and are familiar with the iPhone, respondents said they are not willing to pay $499/$599 for the iPhone, but would go as far as to switch mobile phone providers if the price drops.

Here’s the breakdown of responses:

  • 26 percent of respondents said they’re likely to buy an iPhone at some point
  • 6 percent of this 26 percent said they’d pay over $400 for it
  • Only 1.8 percent of all respondents said they’re willing to pay $400+ for iPhone
  • 38 percent of all respondents said they would be willing to spend over $200
  • 58 percent of non-Cingular customers who were very likely to purchase an iPhone said they would switch from their current mobile provider

Will the iPhone price drop? Apple introduced Apple TV and said it would debut at $399, but it actually hit the market at $299. Some analysts say the iPhone price will drop, but it may happen only after early adopters grab their iPhones at $499/$599.

Apple & Cisco: Friends At Last!

by

Apple & Cisco

Tech giants Apple and Cisco kissed and made up today after a six-week brawl over, get this, a name. Yeah, “iPhone” actually. Silly if you ask me.

Apple agrees. Last month it said “We [too] think Cisco’s trademark lawsuit is silly…there are already several companies using the name iPhone for Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) products.”

Well just because everyone else is doing it doesn’t mean you should, too, Apple. Didn’t your mother ever teach you that?

Nevertheless, the two companies agreed to share the iPhone trademark and said their products would “work together in the future.” Good for them.

200 iPhone Patents: Invention vs. Innovation

by

The fact is, the iPhone features very little in terms of new technology. What makes Apple’s iPhone remarkable, rather, is the way in which already-existing inventions are combined to create a unique, user-friendly experience.

So why is Apple applying for 200 patents on the iPhone, a device which most would argue is an innovation, not an invention? Steven Wellman at InformationWeek points out:

Apple didn’t invent the MP3 player; they just innovated it and made it mainstream. Ditto with the Mac and graphical user interfaces. Apple is incredibly good at making technology chic, easy, and, most importantly, fun-to-use.

Wellman sums up two viewpoints on the issue: while some say that patents on innovations are unneccessary because the “rewards of the market — i.e. strong product sales” are reason enough to innovate, others argue that “both inventors and innovators need patents to give them a profit incentive to invent or innovate.” (emphasis mine)

Do you think companies have a right to patent their innovations, even if the technology isn’t technically new?

Video: Microsoft CEO Laughs at Apple iPhone

by

Check out this video where Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer laughs at Apple’s iPhone, “the most expensive phone in the world,” because, he says, “it doesn’t appeal to business customers because it doesn’t have a keyboard, which makes it not a very good email machine.”

He’s right, the lack of tactile response could be a killer for iPhone. What do you think?

iPhone May Infringe on Quantum Research Patents

by

Quantum Research

Southampton-based Quantum Research is keeping an eye on iPhone because it thinks the mobile device’s touch sensors may infringe on its patents.

“The description of the iPhone suggests it uses a rear-surface touch screen and has proximity sensing which can tell if it is held to the ear. That’s a QR capability,” said Duncan Bryan, Quantum licensing director.

If Apple uses “charge transfer technology” in its iPhone, then it has infringed on Quantum’s patent, according to Bryan.

Read more

Apple to Get a Cut of Cingular iPhone Profits

by

Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs doesn’t play nice. Back in 2005, when asked about an iPod mobile phone, Jobs said Apple would have to get through many “orifices [i.e. cell phone service providers] to get to the end users.”

Well it seems Jobs has made it through these orifices, because not only did Apple establish a deal with Cingular (now AT&T) for the iPhone service, it managed to get around Cingular’s usual demands to control most of “every detail from processing power to the various features that come with the phone,” said the Wall Street Journal.

With the iPhone, Apple convinced Cingular that it knows Web surfing and multimedia better than they do. Apparently, this was important enough to Cingular that they agreed to give Apple a cut of the revenue generated from subscribers, even though AT&T won’t get a penny from iPhone sales. Is that a price worth paying to be the exclusive carrier of the Apple iPhone?