Apple’s iPhone was the talk of the town after its January 9 launch. Industry observers were by and large impressed with the new device, praising its user interface, innovation, and seamless integration. But two senior ABI Research analysts — wireless research director Stuart Carlaw, and principal mobile broadband analyst Philip Solis — point out that while the iPhone is undoubtedly clever and capable, it is not correct to call it a smartphone, as much of the media has done.
ABI Research defines a smartphone as a cellular handset using an open, commercial operating system that supports third party applications. The iPhone runs the Apple Macintosh computer operating system, OS X, so at first glance it would seem to fall into the smartphone category, which might help justify its announced $500+ pricetag. But, says Solis in a press release, “It turns out that this device will be closed to third party applications. Therefore we must conclude at this point that, based on our current definition, the iPhone is not a smartphone: it is a very high-end feature phone.”
Feature phones’ functionality (dictated by the software which controls the hardware) is closed and controlled by an operator or the device manufacturer, whereas smartphones are supported by a third-party ecosystem, where competition in the software space creates applications that add value. “Sure,” concedes Solis, “feature phones have third party applications too – but these are relatively weak and limited applications that work with the middleware such as Java and BREW. Applications designed for smartphones can be written to access core functionality from the OS itself, and are therefore usually more powerful and efficient. The competition in an open environment also yields more cutting edge, rich applications.”
Stuart Carlaw adds, “Consumers will not be willing to settle for a second-rate cell phone just to have superior music. Apple must get the phone engineering part of the equation right, and it is difficult to see how they will accomplish that with no track record in the industry. Even though they are working with some prominent suppliers, the task of putting all of the building blocks together cannot be underestimated.”
More info: http://www.abiresearch.com/products/service/Mobile_Devices_Research _Service
Correct. Apple’s iPhone is not a so-called “smartphone.” It’s much, much more; as Tim Bajarin, principal analyst with Creative Strategies, said of Apple’s iPhone, “This goes beyond smartphones and should be given its own category called ‘brilliant’ phones.” At least initially, iPhone users will get software from just one source. Thankfully, that sole source, Apple Inc., just happens to make the best software in the world. Apple understands very well that too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the broth.
In the future, we expect Apple to follow along the lines of iPod and vet third-party software (ie., games) to ensure the best possible iPhone user experience. When the first iPhone game from Electronic Arts appears for sale on the iTunes Store, will ABI Research then define iPhone as a “smartphone?” As if it matters what ABI Research’s definition happens to be. Apple doesn’t usually conform to someone else’s definitions, they often creates new ones.
Related articles:
Research in Motion downgraded due to Apple iPhone competition – January 23, 2007
RealMoney: Apple just blew up the whole damn mobile-phone supply chain with its new iPhone – January 11, 2007
eWeek: Apple iPhone fallout: ‘They must be crying in Nokia-ville and other telephony towns today’ – January 10, 2007
Jefferies downgrades Motorola on fears of market share loss to Apple iPhone – January 10, 2007
The massive FUD campaign against Apple’s iPhone ramps up – January 10, 2007
Time: ‘iPhone could crush cell phone market pitilessly beneath the weight of its own superiority’ – January 09, 2007
Analyst: Apple iPhone should be given its own category – ‘brilliantphone’ – January 09, 2007
Apple debuts iPhone: touchscreen mobile phone + widescreen iPod + Internet communicator – January 09, 2007
Right. It is not a smart phone, but rather an intelligent design phone.
smart phone is an oxy moron, especially the ones that run Windows.
3rd-party software is all good, but it should be tested and sold by Apple, so that security won’t be jeopardized.
A rose by any other name…
The guy is right.
The Apple iPhone is not smart.
In the Real World of corporate enterprise information technology
we know that Apple products are toys — pretty looking toys —
but not real tools of commerce and industry.
No serious Fortune 500 corporate CEO is going to use an Apple
product to command his vast enterprise.
The iPhone is eye candy for Apple rabid base of fanatics but its
capabilities can’t compare with the industrial strength of Windows
and microsoft’s enterprise products designed for the Real World
of business information technology.
If you want a real useful smartphone buy a Windows-based $99 dollars
microsoft phone from Verizon. The guys at Verizon will never let a toy
from Apple to run on the best cell phone carrier network in the U.S.A.
Verizon disables Bluetooth for a good reason. American corporate
enterprises don’t like bluetooth and the viruses it can brings.
Verizon is the most Apple unfriendly cell phone network in the U.S.A.
for a very good reason. Apple is not liked by the Real World of IT and
Verizon is the best network for the Real World of IT. Corporate America
doesn’t use Apple products and Verizon will never use Apple products.
If you want to be productive get a cellphone from Verizon, and a cheap
Windows smartphone — and Windows Vista Enterprise Edition.
If you want to be unemployed and have time to waste get a contract with ATT
and let Cingular and Apple’s useless toys drive you all the way to the unemployment
office.
Real jobs and the Real World of Enterprise IT are for Windows users, exclusively.
SMARTPHONE DEFINITION: Does your phone “crash” and lock up a lot? You have a smartphone!
I have heard this from the folks SELLING the smartphones. They ALL crash, however, the MOST crash-prone are WINDOWS based smartphones, which crash far more often than the Palm OS based designs.
It is the THIRD PARTY software that does it, of course. Apple sees this, knows this, and will avoid them, of course.
IPhone SmartOwner Category.
At this point in the evolution of the cell phone no one should be thinking about third party apps. At least not untill they get the OS right, it’s like putting a sky scraper on a foundation of mashed potatoes. Cell phones as a rule suck. Apple is trying to change that by creating a new foundation and this guy is worried about the obsevation deck seat colors. Forking idiot.
>Challenging Apple to out-engineer you is a recipe for disaster.
Boy, no kidding, my blood still runs cold when I think about the interview I read some years back with the head of the iPod division. The interviewer asked him how was Apple going to handle losing all that iPod shelf space when the other players start to ‘take over’. Hehe… Dude, shouldn’t have done that!
Who cares if it a ‘smart phone’ SMART ASS!!!
The iPhone is truly the “stupid phone”. It allows even the stupidist people to do everything anyone ever wanted to do on a so-called “Smartphone”, which, as we all now know, wasn’t so “smart” after all. It was just the best they could do.
I find it all too convenient that ABI Research’s definition chooses to be so narrow.
Let us deconstruct:
“…a cellular handset…”
Okay.
“…using an open, commercial operating system…”
Um, why is this necessary to be ‘smart’? Its not. Neither open nor commercial are necessary for an OS to allow a cellular headset to be ‘smart’.
“… that supports third party applications…”
Strike two. The whole objective of being ‘smart’ is simply to have the capability be extensible.
To mandate the exact method of how to be extensible is overdefining, for what it claims is that there is only one way to proverbially “skin the cat”.
For example, it is quite clear today that the iPod is an extensible product, one that supports 3rd party applications such as external speakers, headphones, FM modulars, etc … yet none of these extensions alter or impinge upon the iPod’s internal software.
IMO, ABI Research’s definition simply smacks of trying to define a smartphone as merely a product that is open enough to offer business opportunites for 3rd Party Vendors to make money from it.
-hh
Well, that guy has a point.
I bought my current phone for exactly the reason of installing software beyond
the factory default apps. I didn’t have to buy a higher rated model just for
getting specific software features.
My Symbian phone runs Doom, a Gameboy emulator (yes, non-essential but
nice to have) and more importantly, a GPS software with all maps on the
internal memory card (read: no subscription fees for trip planning).
Why should I settle for less functionality and flexibility than that what
I’ve got right now ?
I just hope that iSync phone support in OSX does not take the same route
as third party MP3 player support after the introduction of the iPod.