Another journalist retracting the garbage he printed first time round about the iPhone.

AMAZING what happens when one is equipped with all the FACTS rather than hearsay and guesswork isn't it?

ALL of a sudden iPhone becomes first choice.

Before you pseudo-journos post FUD about the iPhone again perhaps you should know what you are talking about first?

Makes a nice change to get things right huh?

It was VERY clear from Jan 07 that the Apple knows what it is doing with iPhone and is going to dominate the mobile industry within a few years. You are supposed to be in the industry for crying out loud - what is wrong with you that you couldn't see this before?

Dullard.

The market stats your article quotes refer only to the US market. Globally Nokia and Symbian are way ahead of iPhone or RIM.

* Price: 100% is better then 70%. If a user can download it from my web site which I already have and paid for, then I can keep 100% of the money to me, compared to Apple which will give only "certified" apps the privilege to be sold.

* Restrictions: Forget apps like firefox, Skype, Opera, Java etc.. Why? because Apple decide "no no". With Android, anyone can port/write an app to the Android framework and give/sell it. (Keep in mind that Google hasn't revealed some central place for Android apps yet). If I can develop/port something which is better than Apple is offering, then I cannot give or sell it - quite a nasty limitation.

* Development Environment: I can code within Linux, Mac, Windows, even FreeBSD or anything with X86 processor that can run Eclipse, compare that to Mac only.

Those are quite big issues that limit applications availability to IPhone.

I think you'll find that 41/28% split refers to the USA. The USA, having only just woken up to the possibility of smartphones, is a barely-significant market. Sorry if that hurts American pride, but there you go.

Oh, and Ty... STFU, fer chrissakes.

You think you'll get 100% but lets face it, what is better:

100% of £100

or 70% of £1000?

Apple will quality assure your application (so it's not a buggy piece of s***), promote it on one of their websites and take away the hassle of receiving payment (and all the scammers and fraudsters), plus you don't have to devise a licence key system.

Don't forget that you need to pay for your hosting and your credit card handling with that 100%. And that you'll need to build, or buy a web shop. And provide support for confused shoppers. And handle fraud. And.. What's that they say about the price of lunch?

Good luck pulling in the eyeballs and wallets on your 100% no-name website, that's never going to attract anyone unless they're specifically looking for it. If Apple have got their predictions right, then by the end of 2008 there will be 10,000,000 iPhone users trawling the iPhone App Store looking for Apps to please and tease. 70% of a good slice of that could make you very rich indeed.

Or possible just qualify his statements.

"First some stats: the iPhone has 28 per cent of the smartphone market share".

No it doesn't.

According to the referenced Canalys research the iPhone has 28% of the smartphone marketing IS THE USA.

Considering the massive lead Sybmian based phones have over everyone else put together in the rest of the world the iPhone DOESN'T have 28% of the smartphone market.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that "71% of web access" figure based on mobile browsers accessing Google?

If that is the case then it's complete garbbage. For starters, who actually uses google on a day-to-day basis? It's there for searching. All of the websites I want to access on a daily basis I have bookmarked. It's very rare for me to visit google when mobile because I'm connecting for a fixed purpose. strongly suspect this is the case for a lot of tech-savy people. The fact that a large number of iPhone users are using google says more about the profile of iPhone users than it does about web useage stats.

Secondly, any half-decent web browser on a proper smartphone will tell the website it is a full browser, not a mobile one, in order to ensure it doesn't get some crappy cut-down wap rubbish designed for a basic phone with a tiny screen.

So that 71% figure is utterly meaningless.

"At the enterprise level, too, demand is high"

Really? You sure about that? Our company certainly won't touching the things with a bargepole. None of the companies my friends work for will be either. In fact I have yet to hear of a single buisness with any plans to replace Blackberrys with iPhones.

I would like to see some sort of evidence for this kind of statement.

"iPhone has 28 per cent of the smartphone market share"

That sounds unlikely, too. Which market, precisely? If you are talking about the European market it sounds especially doubtful, unless you are prepared to do some rather convoluted statistics juggling.

This looks to me like a copy & paste job from Apple's marketing material, certainly not serious journalism. Reg, please do a little bit more vetting of your published authors - this should never have made it.

PS: I love the degree of religion Apple seems to incite in its users. Ty is a prime example. Although its sad just how stupid people can be, its still quite funny :)

"PS: I love the degree of religion Apple seems to incite in its users. Ty is a prime example. Although its sad just how stupid people can be, its still quite funny :)"

Although not quite as sad and funny as the degree of venom and hatred that comes from people who don't have one and don't want one and seem SOOO desperate to prove why they don't want one. Now that is sad.

Before anyone starts flaming me, I actually like the iPhone except for the lack of a true keyboard/3g but i am tempted to still get one. However taking things from a developer point of view, I have noticed the following good/bad things..

1) Good: Lack of keyboard + forced touchscreen imput should result in a lot of new game styles just like the wii/ds did!

2) Good: Unlimited data! Online gaming (Even if turn based only etc). However Nokia's n-gage may have the edge on this over wi-fi gaming which is already workable on a lot of Series60's.

3) Bad: Force quit when a call comes in. According to the public SDK doc for the iPhone, whenever a call comes in your "3rd party app" is terminated. This could be really annoying, you could be very close to winning some great game... your almost there... yes your going to do it.... ah bugger a call, thats fucked my game off and i'll have to do the level all over again.

On a side note its worth pointing out that the increase in mobile web data from google may be due to the fact that your FORCED to pay for unlimited data, therefore everyone uses it, when every other phone contract around charges you by the kb then you don't need to wonder why people don't use it.

No. There are two major limitations - no running in the background, and no access to telephony. In other words, no background caching of RSS/video, and no spiffy and usable SMS application, to take just two examples.

Of course, people seem to forget that this SDK is for both iPhone and iPod Touch, and given that the latter lacks telephony, this could arguably be a case of keeping the platform coherent.

The requirement that development takes place on a Mac is another hurdle, and one they're unlikely to remove, as it helps drive sales of Macs.

And, as others have pointed out, the article is both USA-centric, and seems to be more based on marketing boilerplate rather than any original research.

However, the SDK and tools look attractive, and the AppStore is a huge help for any small-time developer. If I give in and get myself a Mac, I'll definitely get the iPhone SDK as well.

I don't have one, but I presume people are using google on their iPhone because they can. I've tried to use it on my SEk750i, and while Google has made it almost usable for WAP on a tiny, tiny screen, it is still pants.

As pointed out. The iPhone may well have 28% of the US market, but certainly not the global one. Same goes for the RIM stats.

77.3 million Symbian based phones shipped last year. One in five Japanese phones are now running Symbian. Furthermore, 65% of Japanese 3G phones are Symbian based.

There is a world outside the US you know.

I'm sure the app gets a chance to save its state, so it's not so much forced quit as forced pause. You're supposed to write apps that save and restore their state quickly and automatically. For example, in calculator, camera etc. if you go to another app then back to the original one it takes you right back where you left off. The issue is more for certain apps that *need* to carry on doing something in the background, eg. listening for an incoming IM message. They're likely to be in the minority though, and there may be workarounds in due course (eg. I'm only hypothesizing but I could imagine apps might be able to register on a port or keep a socket open so they get woken up when there's incoming data, without actively "running" in the meantime)

"The requirement that development takes place on a Mac is another hurdle, ... it helps drive sales of Macs."

Yes, I can envision lots of high-productivity types who will spend months developing an app for a large marketplace -- maybe $20K worth of labor -- plus a few hundred for a device to test it on, but couldn't possibly afford $600 for a development machine.

Yet another glaring omission in Apple's foolish plan!

Oh, btw: the "no background apps" rule is a limit to some types of apps, but not to having games automatically save their state when they're interrupted. People seem committed to showing how little experience they have in evaluating software platforms.

I examined 10 factors that put Apple in an unassailable

position in the mobile platform wars and reviewed the weaknesses of iPhone competitors in:

Who can beat iPhone 2.0?

http://counternotions.com/2008/03/10/iphone2-competitors/

"First some stats: the iPhone has 28 per cent of the smartphone market share compared with primary competitor RIM at 41 per cent, according to Canalys."

Ah yes... how to make your numbers look good - make sure you get placed in a category where you''' be #1.

Regardless of the fact Apple placed the word "phone" in its name, the iPhone is *not* a smartphone, it is a PPC with phone capabilities... and I, for one, would like to know how it stacks up against competitors when placed in the proper category.

Next, they'll be calling the new PSP a "smartphone". Dimwit PR people.

""PS: I love the degree of religion Apple seems to incite in its users. Ty is a prime example. Although its sad just how stupid people can be, its still quite funny :)"

Although not quite as sad and funny as the degree of venom and hatred that comes from people who don't have one and don't want one and seem SOOO desperate to prove why they don't want one. Now that is sad."

May I suggest you look up the definition of 'irony' ?