3 ms·
I don't think we disagree about the $99 upfront -- my interpretation of it is just that Apple has chosen to be a bit less aggressive than would be competitively
by grandalf 16y ago
I don't think we disagree about the $99 upfront -- my interpretation of it is just that Apple has chosen to be a bit less aggressive than would be competitively optimal.
As for quality, I'd argue that at least 9 out of 10 people would judge the iPhone 4 to be superior in quality (build quality, app quality, usability) compared to any Android phone if given each phone for a few months.
You are correct about turn by turn, though the Mapquest 5 app for iPhone gives spoken turn by turn is 98% as good as Google's nav. Apple has really dropped the ball on nav and mail apps and that may account for 1 in 10 people preferring Android.
A friend got the latest/greatest Android phone a few weeks ago and returned it due to abysmal battery life. I really don't think the issue has been resolved... Is anyone using these phones before they are released? Why don't they ship with a battery that will last a full day? Another friend using an Evo 4G is getting 2 hours per battery and carries around 3 batteries just to get through the day. I didn't test this, but I think based on his usage that an iPhone 4 would last a full day with his usage pattern.
- mcantelon 16y ago>I don't think we disagree about the $99 upfront -- my interpretation of it is just that Apple has chosen to be a bit less aggressive than would be competitively optimal. Well, looking at the graph featured in the article I'd say it's high time they get optimal. ;)
- grandalf 16y agoI think it's a case of not wanting to risk messing with such a cash cow (it is resulting in strong profitability). I admit it is very perplexing... both why Apple hasn't responded with a $0 (with contract) iPhone, and why Google has allowed the Android experience to be so mediocre.