Why does the iPhone have the flaws it does?

xoxyx

I'm sure there's a simple answer to my question (probably profit related), but I don't understand why the iPhone (and iPad) have such simple flaws.

For example, why can't I use the internet and listen to the radio on my iPhone without jailbreaking it? Why??

And why isn't there a radio installed? It doesn't have to be in the phone; they can do what Nokia did and put a teeny receptor in the headphones. The radio apps are pain - even in the city centre I lose reception constantly. Ok, I can probably go out and buy such a thing seperately, but it comes as standard on other phones. It would be nice if the iPhone made the effort.

And, is the Flash thing a licensing issue? But Flash is so handy. Is it really not worth the money?

I'm sure there are more, but these are the things that put me off my iPhone, which, otherwise, I love very, very much. But the next time I'm buying something like this, I'm going to do my research much more carefully!!!

professore

Buy an Android phone.

xoxyx

Not really an answer, but thanks for your time.

dougs09

theree are a lotot of stuff that te iPhone doesnt have that most other phones out on the market have already. heck, we're only after getting a flash for our cameras, in the fourth gen model, and nokias have had them for god knows how long, apple seem to have a tendency to drip feed us new features each new generatioin that comes out, my guess is, the next gen iPhone will have a radio tuner.

i think it's just apples way to get so much interest in the new model, and based on the new feature, it will make a lot of people upgrade and buy the new model, i mean if this iPhone 4 hadnt had a flash, then i'd have been reluctant to change from my 3GS

xoxyx

Yeah - I know what you're saying Dougs. I only recently read about new sleeping apps being unlocked, so, after you buy your iPhone, Apple decide that the time is right and releases new features.

I don't like this though. I bought a phone, not Final Fantasy VII. I want everything available to me straight away rather than having to wait.

Their tactics are obviously working to an extent, shown by their sales, but, if another phone is on the market offering the same features but with no waiting time, it would be very difficult for them to compete.

xoxyx

And more so, if the new features we were waiting for were nifty little devices that would improve our lives slightly, but that we didn't really need, I would understand. Like, you buy an iPhone and, after 90 days, you get (complete uninspired example here) an app that gives you vouchers for certain shops, you'd be willing to clock up those 90 days to get this treat.
However, if you get an iPhone and you can't listen to the radio properly, and then, maybe, in the future, you can buy an upgrade for lots of money, with the radio installed - which is a service offered in the first place by previous mobile providers - I don't see the hook.

eamon234

z_topaz wrote: »

Yeah - I know what you're saying Dougs. I only recently read about new sleeping apps being unlocked, so, after you buy your iPhone, Apple decide that the time is right and releases new features.

I don't like this though. I bought a phone, not Final Fantasy VII. I want everything available to me straight away rather than having to wait.

Their tactics are obviously working to an extent, shown by their sales, but, if another phone is on the market offering the same features but with no waiting time, it would be very difficult for them to compete.

There are loads of phones on the market with the same features and they ARE competing and winning so what's your point? No-one's forcing you to buy an iPhone if you don't like it's features or restrictions buy something else. It's their product they can do what they want with it.

Tom Dunne

To answer these questions, you have to look at the context in which the phone was designed.

Obviously, it was designed in the US, where the mobile phone market was vastly different to the rest of the world. While we were all humming along on GSM, the US was a vast, fragmented, non-standardised market.

I remember calling one of the mobile phone operators for a friend who was unable to send SMS text messages back to Ireland. The support person had never heard of SMS and couldn't fathom why my friend's phone could just send an e-mail. And this was in 2005.

Likewise with MMS - it has only become popular in the US over the past number of years, it just wasn't important to them.

And so on with a number of other features that we, in Europe take for granted, such as the FM radio.

Apple didn't want to design a phone, they wanted to design a platform, i.e. the operating system. Yes, one of the devices on this platform can make phonecalls, but the others cannot. Hence the focus is on the platform, not the phone.

xoxyx

eamon234 wrote: »

There are loads of phones on the market with the same features and they ARE competing and winning so what's your point? No-one's forcing you to buy an iPhone if you don't like it's features or restrictions buy something else. It's their product they can do what they want with it.

My point is the title of my post. I'm not complaining (as such); I'm just wondering why Apple have such a cool device out with such fundamental flaws.

dougs09

i still love my iPhone, regardless of its flaws, yes, i'm one of steve jobs mindless brainwashed zombies

xoxyx

Tom Dunne wrote: »

To answer these questions, you have to look at the context in which the phone was designed.

Obviously, it was designed in the US, where the mobile phone market was vastly different to the rest of the world. While we were all humming along on GSM, the US was a vast, fragmented, non-standardised market.

I remember calling one of the mobile phone operators for a friend who was unable to send SMS text messages back to Ireland. The support person had never heard of SMS and couldn't fathom why my friend's phone could just send an e-mail. And this was in 2005.

Likewise with MMS - it has only become popular in the US over the past number of years, it just wasn't important to them.

And so on with a number of other features that we, in Europe take for granted, such as the FM radio.

Apple didn't want to design a phone, they wanted to design a platform, i.e. the operating system. Yes, one of the devices on this platform can make phonecalls, but the others cannot. Hence the focus is on the platform, not the phone.

Really? That's very interesting. I have a tendancy to think of the States as miles ahead of us, but I forget that there is so much of it that is behind.

Could you explain more about the operating system though? Were they just trying to come up with a generic OS or were they aiming at something in particular?

pyramuid man

z_topaz wrote: »

And, is the Flash thing a licensing issue? But Flash is so handy. Is it really not worth the money?

Because they can. They can design a platform that does not support flash and can force web developers to conform to their standard of HTML5.

The iPhone is one of the most popular handsets in the world. They can do what they want because people have to follow this or be left behind. Simple as.

Also flash is a resource hungry pig of an animation tool. It would slow down their precious little phone.

Tom Dunne

z_topaz wrote: »

Could you explain more about the operating system though? Were they just trying to come up with a generic OS or were they aiming at something in particular?

Where is Apple making it's money? Is it the devices themselves? Or is it the App Store?

I am not sure myself, but if you have one Operating System, now IOS4, running across a number of must-have devices (i.e. the iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch), you have a massive market for applications. They take a cut from the sale of the software, plus they charge developers a fee for developing software.

Plus, look at iTunes - they have a number of devices that are capable of displaying all manner of content (songs, movies, books).

Hence why the focus is on the operating system, not device functionality.

galvo_clare

Because they can get away with it because a large numer of customers
care more about style than features.
I'm not one of those 'my phone is better than yours merchants' but
you must do the research before buying. I wanted a phone that was
good at email and had a qwerty keyboard and after researching the
available models, I decided on Nokia's E71, which is serving me very well.
Of course, you can't have everything and I'd like a bigger screen for
web browsing, but that would mean changing to a touch screen, which
I'm not too keen on.
My next phone may be a touch screen and may even be an iPhone
but I wouldn't have considered it before the fourth version came out.
Previous versions, to my mind, were more toys than serious business
devices.
The bottom line is that Apple will not, on past history, give you all the
latest bells and whistles and as long as they depend on styling for sales
and as long as their customers make buying decisions based on
style over features, they will probably continue that policy.

z_topaz wrote: »

My point is the title of my post. I'm not complaining (as such); I'm just wondering why Apple have such a cool device out with such fundamental flaws.

georgiemcgrane

z_topaz wrote: »

is the Flash thing a licensing issue? But Flash is so handy. Is it really not worth the money?

With regard to flash - its very simple really. If Apple had of allowed flash to run on the iPhone from the start there would be NO app store. Flash developers would be creating custom applications that run in a browser and as such would work across iPhones / Android / BummbleBerrys etc...

As it stands however, third party runtimes (like java or flash) which operate inside their own virtual machine (for want of a better description) would undermine what Apple is trying to do with "their" platform. They would have had no control over what people can install and run on their devices. Normally this would be a bad thing except for the fact that Apple have provided a first class development kit that allows developers to create applications (and make money from it) along with taking specific advantage of the hardware capabilities of the device such as the camera, internet connection, accelerometer etc.. and provide users of the iPhone hundreds of thousands of ways to uniquely use their iPhone all whilst ensuring that those apps conform to a universal standard of quality that protects the user experience.

georgiemcgrane

galvo_clare wrote: »

My next phone may be a touch screen and may even be an iPhone
but I wouldn't have considered it before the fourth version came out.
Previous versions, to my mind, were more toys than serious business
devices..

Any chance you can quantify that "Toys" comment. ? ? ? Ive been an iPhone user for over 2 years and I dont think there is anything "toyish" about it. Maybe some fart apps - ill give u that, but then thats more about the user than the abilities of the device.

Tom Dunne

georgiemcgrane wrote: »

With regard to flash - its very simple really. If Apple had of allowed flash to run on the iPhone from the start there would be NO app store. Flash developers would be creating custom applications that run in a browser and as such would work across iPhones / Android / BummbleBerrys etc...

I completely and utterly disagree.

And here's why - have you actually used a device that has Flash on it? I have. It runs on my Nokia N900, and without fail, any website that is heavily dependent on it runs like a pig. I love muzu.tv but can't use it on the N900, I love Grooveshark, but it is a pain to use on the N900. I am sure there are many more out there.

As much as I hate to admit it, Jobs is right - Flash, in it's current incarnation (version 9), doesn't run very well on mobile devices.

blaz

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I completely and utterly disagree.

And here's why - have you actually used a device that has Flash on it? I have. It runs on my Nokia N900, and without fail, any website that is heavily dependent on it runs like a pig. I love muzu.tv but can't use it on the N900, I love Grooveshark, but it is a pain to use on the N900. I am sure there are many more out there.

As much as I hate to admit it, Jobs is right - Flash, in it's current incarnation (version 9), doesn't run very well on mobile devices.

That's because those specific flash application were not written for mobile devices. If the iPhone originally had flash, by now all those applications that are available in the AppStore would instead be flash applications, optimized to run on the iPhone.

Tom Dunne

blaz wrote: »

That's because those specific flash application were not written for mobile devices. If the iPhone originally had flash, by now all those applications that are available in the AppStore would instead be flash applications, optimized to run on the iPhone.

But isn't that the whole idea of Flash that you don't have different versions?

A "one size fits all" approach?

blaz

Tom Dunne wrote: »

But isn't that the whole idea of Flash that you don't have different versions?

A "one size fits all" approach?

Where did you get that idea? Flash was never designed for mobile devices. That they were actually able to make it run is amazing in itself. You have to consider that flash is much more powerful then regular HTML, so it obviously requires more resources.

Now that Android supports flash there will probably be more flash sites that are optimized for mobile. If Apple supported it, there would be many many more, simply because of the popularity of the Jesus Phone (tm).

pyramuid man

georgiemcgrane wrote: »

Any chance you can quantify that "Toys" comment. ? ? ? Ive been an iPhone user for over 2 years and I dont think there is anything "toyish" about it. Maybe some fart apps - ill give u that, but then thats more about the user than the abilities of the device.

I completly agree. There are many enterprise features on the iPhone that make it quite a powerful business phone.

whiterebel

Apple make big money off small margins on iTunes songs. They make nothing off radio. Have you now guessed why they have been so slow to introduce radio to their devices?

I made this point on another thread. Apple can't put everything into either an iphone or iPad without blowing cost out through the roof. Look at teardowns of their products when they come out first and there isn't a lot of money to be made. However 3-4-5 months into the product cycle volumes are steady and they can force the prices for components down. They are then making better money at the end of the product cycle, and the whole thing starts again with the latest release. plus they have better idea of what will fit better while still making the design as compact as possible. Look at the much vaunted HP Slate that was going to wipe the floor with the iPad - Windoze OS, USB connections, SD slots etc, etc, etc. Then dropped by HP as it is too expensive to make. They could make an iPad killer, but it would cost twice the price.

mad muffin

I don't see them as flaws. I see them as omissions, That quite frankly I can live without.

I can happily live without these omissions on the iPhone That I couldn't live with, on say an Android phone.

RGDATA!

z_topaz wrote: »

I'm sure there's a simple answer to my question (probably profit related), but I don't understand why the iPhone (and iPad) have such simple flaws.

For example, why can't I use the internet and listen to the radio on my iPhone without jailbreaking it? Why??

this bugged me but as of OS4 you can do it with most radio stations. i listen to 95% of my radio on wunderradio, which now supports multi-tasking. i don't think the RTE stations have updated their apps to take advantage of OS4 yet, but i'm sure they will in time, and you can listen to them anyway on the likes of wunderradio.

georgiemcgrane

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I completely and utterly disagree.

And here's why - have you actually used a device that has Flash on it? I have. It runs on my Nokia N900, and without fail, any website that is heavily dependent on it runs like a pig. I love muzu.tv but can't use it on the N900, I love Grooveshark, but it is a pain to use on the N900. I am sure there are many more out there.

As much as I hate to admit it, Jobs is right - Flash, in it's current incarnation (version 9), doesn't run very well on mobile devices.

It's ok if u disagree, fact remains I'm right. If flash was allowed on the iPhone there'd be a real difficulty in having the app store as economically viable as it is. But they don't have to say that simply because as you did say flash runs bad on mobile devices. Flash developers don't concern themselves with limited processing power or resources so they can deign for agnostic targets.

Tom Dunne

georgiemcgrane wrote: »

It's ok if u disagree, fact remains I'm right.

And what makes you more correct than me?

georgiemcgrane wrote: »

If flash was allowed on the iPhone there'd be a real difficulty in having the app store as economically viable as it is.

Again, I disagree. Flash apps will never compete with native apps on any device, be it computer or mobile phone. There is too much of an overhead running Flash. Same goes for Java. Why isn't there a Flash app store already for computers run by Adobe?

Sure, you can have plenty of eye-candy and quite sophisticated apps, but in terms of raw processing power (for example, 3D games), native will always have the advantage over Flash or Java.

whiterebel

Tom Dunne wrote: »

And what makes you more correct than me?



Again, I disagree. Flash apps will never compete with native apps on any device, be it computer or mobile phone. There is too much of an overhead running Flash. Same goes for Java. Why isn't there a Flash app store already for computers run by Adobe?

Sure, you can have plenty of eye-candy and quite sophisticated apps, but in terms of raw processing power (for example, 3D games), native will always have the advantage over Flash or Java.

I definitely believe it would take from the app store if flash were a viable alternative, and hence a loser for Apple. The fact that it runs badly on mobile is their perfect excuse. If HTML5 ran badly I think Apple would be a lot more accommodating in fixing it. As it is, they don't want flash near their machines. Seeing the performance hits on the desktops sometimes, i can't really blame them.

Pittens

blaz wrote: »

That's because those specific flash application were not written for mobile devices. If the iPhone originally had flash, by now all those applications that are available in the AppStore would instead be flash applications, optimized to run on the iPhone.

No they wouldn't. The iPhone OS has the same capabilities as OS X, more or less - a huge sdk ( Objective C and C) - and on OS X Air can run in flash where it is decidedly unpopular. I doubt if you could even do a RSS app in Flash, or do a tableview properly. Simple games, yes. But that is it.

Anyway, thats not the only reason. Flash is a resource hog.

Pittens

georgiemcgrane wrote: »

It's ok if u disagree, fact remains I'm right. If flash was allowed on the iPhone there'd be a real difficulty in having the app store as economically viable as it is. But they don't have to say that simply because as you did say flash runs bad on mobile devices. Flash developers don't concern themselves with limited processing power or resources so they can deign for agnostic targets.

Not concerning themselves with limited processing power is not very good design.

georgiemcgrane

Guys lets not forget that apple have done things that others have not, one of the little mentioned features they have presented is something that I wish i could avail of. on the current nano there is a native radio, and not only that u can pause live radio. and continue listening when ur ready. i wish i had that feature in my car SO MUCH, so many times i have to hop out of the car and go into the shop or something and i wish i could just hit a button on the dash to pause the radio. they havent rolled it into other devices (such as the iphone) but they have the tech. Can anyone o here name another brand that has that feature? ? ? ? ?

kjl

whiterebel wrote: »

Look at the much vaunted HP Slate that was going to wipe the floor with the iPad - Windoze OS, USB connections, SD slots etc, etc, etc. Then dropped by HP as it is too expensive to make. They could make an iPad killer, but it would cost twice the price.

The slate is back and runing windows. http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/20/hp-slate-500-surfaces-on-hps-site/

kjl

Right so we have been side tracked a bit, the reason flash is not allowed on the iOS is because it can attack security vulnerabilities in the OS which of course is retarded because you can jailbreak the phone anyway. Jobs has had a long time hatred of flash since early days when it crashed the mac.

He probably saw the html 5 implementation and figured it was a nicer standard and that he could make an impact.

Back to the original OP question, You are right the phone isn't perfect, but jailbreaking it make it come a lot closer. You complain about no radio, but I could offer an alternative point that nokias NEED to have the headphones to play radio because thats where the antenna is, iPhones can play the radio without this need. Another thing I find very useful is when I in my car, I can tune into dublin stations when Im not in Dublin. Also you get more detailed information about whats playing, who is the dj and how to get in contact.

I just bought my fourth iPhone and you couldn't get me back on a nokia, I feel absolutely retarded using the nokia joystick now, there is no intuity to the navigation at all. Plus, now as I have been doing is so long, I can type faster on an iPhone than any of my mates with physical keyboards.

I'm not a fanboy at all, but I think the iPhone in combination with the dev team is a winning combo for a phone.

Red Alert

HTML5 is better than flash, since it's an open standard, not an Adobe one. It's ironic people complain that Apple will not implement Flash on the device when it's a proprietary runtime environment made by Adobe. For me it's a feature that annoying marketing ads just don't run - the iPhone now commands sufficient marketshare that anybody using Flash should rethink their decision.

whiterebel

kjl wrote: »

The slate is back and runing windows. http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/20/hp-slate-500-surfaces-on-hps-site/

I doubt it will ever see the light of day with the features we were told it would have originally.

kjl

whiterebel wrote: »

I doubt it will ever see the light of day with the features we were told it would have originally.

No, infact the leaked documents were quite accurate. HP has been working in silence about this but has confirmed it. Expect a release in late 2010 eary 2011.

The slate will rock as well, will be so nice to have control over our device.

I said no to the iPad the second i saw it didnt have a front facing cam, the only reason I would buy it is to develop for it, as I already do iPhone dev.

Fat_Fingers

Missing features are not flaws but deliberate. Apple’s only/main focus is US market. They have been extremely successful there with idiot-proof concept and stylish looking Iphone. Europe is more advanced but still good enough market for them, what they lack in features they compensate with style and ease of use + massive advertising push. Iphone is not and will never be market leader in technology otherwise we would have them with 8Mb + cam, real multitasking, analogue and digital radio , DTT .... What is standard in developed Asian countries will take a long time to come in Europe and US.
I know people will say N900 or some other phone is better.. That is true for one section of users. For non technical majority Iphone is the king of the hill at the moment. It might be hard for technical savvy people to understand that but its the reality. Next time you are in the gym look around you. We know Apple should be ashamed for supplying absolutely awful headphones but vast majority finds them good enough.

Apple have selectively taken technologies that were out there and gave them style and ease of use. They know their market (US) very well.
Sure their advertising is a bit of “Lord of the Rings” and cringe inducing .. “magical device” , “This changes everything. Again” “Multitasking – done the right way”... awful, bloody awful..

I personally think Apple’s Achilles' heel is Steve Jobs. They would do well to keep Steve Jobs away from emails.

Pittens

Fat_Fingers wrote: »

Missing features are not flaws but deliberate. Apple’s only/main focus is US market. They have been extremely successful there with idiot-proof concept and stylish looking Iphone. Europe is more advanced but still good enough market for them, what they lack in features they compensate with style and ease of use + massive advertising push. Iphone is not and will never be market leader in technology otherwise we would have them with 8Mb + cam, real multitasking, analogue and digital radio , DTT .... What is standard in developed Asian countries will take a long time to come in Europe and US.
I know people will say N900 or some other phone is better.. That is true for one section of users. For non technical majority Iphone is the king of the hill at the moment. It might be hard for technical savvy people to understand that but its the reality. Next time you are in the gym look around you. We know Apple should be ashamed for supplying absolutely awful headphones but vast majority finds them good enough.

Apple have selectively taken technologies that were out there and gave them style and ease of use. They know their market (US) very well.
Sure their advertising is a bit of “Lord of the Rings” and cringe inducing .. “magical device” , “This changes everything. Again” “Multitasking – done the right way”... awful, bloody awful..

I personally think Apple’s Achilles' heel is Steve Jobs. They would do well to keep Steve Jobs away from emails.

The main thing about the iPhone is the OS and the SDK. The "camera" is just something you stick in. iOS - like OS X - can easily multi-tasck pre-emptively. They choose to take it out to preserver battery - adding more code to curtail the natural pre-emtiveness of the iOS.

If the Nokia 9500 is so great lets see it scale to a full desktop OS.

Tom Dunne

Pittens wrote: »

If the Nokia 9500 is so great lets see it scale to a full desktop OS.

There you go.

Running Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu and even Windows 95.

Oh, and did I mention Android?

whiterebel

Pittens wrote: »

The main thing about the iPhone is the OS and the SDK. The "camera" is just something you stick in. iOS - like OS X - can easily multi-tasck pre-emptively. They choose to take it out to preserver battery - adding more code to curtail the natural pre-emtiveness of the iOS.

If the Nokia 9500 is so great lets see it scale to a full desktop OS.

The camera isn't something you just "stick in" if you want to preserve the form. Look at the discussion recently about how they would have to make the iPod Touch much thicker to fit in the 3 MP camera from the iPhone. Instead of a bulge in the middle, they would have to bring it the same thickness from top to bottom, ruining the design they have.

Gadget.Repair

z_topaz wrote: »

My point is the title of my post. I'm not complaining (as such); I'm just wondering why Apple have such a cool device out with such fundamental flaws.

I find everytime something new comes out that its missing lots of thing that would make it better,

But if the phone had everything you wanted why would you buy the next new model

Apple has a long list of things the iphone needs and could have included in the 4 but what would they have for the iphone 5,

by not giving everything you want they create a longer life for there product, by releasing the next gen, better faster stronger but still not everything you want till the next gen.......

rivalius13

kjl wrote: »

No, infact the leaked documents were quite accurate. HP has been working in silence about this but has confirmed it. Expect a release in late 2010 eary 2011.

The slate will rock as well, will be so nice to have control over our device.

I said no to the iPad the second i saw it didnt have a front facing cam, the only reason I would buy it is to develop for it, as I already do iPhone dev.

The slate will be an enterprise device, expect it to bore on arrival.