Login:
Password:

Report: Apple IPhone Not a Smartphone

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

January 25, 2007, 12:31 PM

A report from wireless industry analyst firm ABI Research released today proclaims that the new Apple iPhone does not fall within the firm’s standard definition of a smartphone, due to restrictions Apple has placed on the phone against the inclusion of third-party applications.

By ABI’s definition, a smartphone is “a cellular handset using an open, commercial operating system that supports third-party applications.” Apple’s announcement two weeks ago that its iPhone would run OS X – essentially an adaptation of its Macintosh edition of Unix – led many to believe the iPhone could open up a world of possibilities for consumer-conceived functionality.

But then in an interview with Newsweek’s Steven Levy, Apple CEO Steve Jobs stated emphatically that despite its OS X roots, the Apple iPhone would be closed to third-party apps, remarking, “You don’t want your phone to be an open platform...Cingular doesn’t want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up.”

As ABI describes, the functionality of feature phones is controlled by the operator, device manufacturer, and/or carrier, where smartphones “are supported by a third-party ecosystem. Thus ABI principal mobile broadband analyst Philip Solis to comment today, “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.

“Sure, feature phones have third party applications too,” Solis continued, “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.”

Whether the Apple iPhone resides on the smartphone or feature phone side of the fence is not a certainty among mobile analysts, especially those that already proclaimed the device “more than a smartphone” just after Jobs’ initial announcement at Macworld. Two weeks ago, M:Metrics VP and senior analyst John Jackson told PDA Street, “The decision to design the iPhone with a smartphone orientation catapults Apple into the mobile computing business and squarely against Microsoft and the Nokia NSeries.”

The resolution to this problem matters, because some analysts will evidently be tracking the Apple iPhone as a component of the smartphone market. Two weeks ago, Jobs boasted his company’s goal of capturing 1% of the overall worldwide cell phone market - about 10 million users – by the end 2008. M:Metrics projects about 6.15 million total smartphone users in the US alone. The entire smartphone market worldwide, analysts estimate, amounts to about 50 million units per year, so selling an entire fifth of that amount in just two years’ time seems a tad impossible.

On the other hand, if the Apple iPhone isn’t a smart phone, then the ratio suddenly doesn’t look quite that steep.

Two weeks ago during our CES coverage, Frost & Sullivan vice president and chief analyst Dr. Gerry Purdy, on the day after the announcement, could hardly contain his excitement over the device, especially its possibilities for opening a third-party support network. “I would hope that they’ll build an ecosystem that embraces and supports third-party developers to allow the platform to be extended,” Dr. Purdy told BetaNews. “Whether they’ll actually get partners to build iPhones, we already saw that happen and be considered in the Mac days. That may not happen, but I think it certainly has the opportunity to be an ecosystem that allows third-party developers to build applications.”

Unfortunately, ABI analyst Stuart Carlaw has a sobering message that may not please the veteran Dr. Purdy. “Consumers will not be willing to settle for a second-rate cell phone just to have superior music,” said Carlaw, though without stating the Apple iPhone was “second-rate” outright. “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.”


Update ribbon (small)

1:15 pm January 25, 2007 - This afternoon, Info-Tech Research principal analyst Carmi Levy offered BetaNews his take on the issue of whether the Apple iPhone qualifies as a smartphone: "The iPhone is worthy of being categorized as a smartphone by virtue of the way it integrates voice and data functions into one device," Levy told us. "While its inability to support the installation of third party applications will significantly limit its ability to penetrate the enterprise market, this limitation alone does not justify the removal of the smartphone label. It is as much a smartphone as any other converged device that has been introduced previously.

"The definition of 'smart' has nothing to do with its ability - or lack thereof - to support third party apps," he continued. "Precisely what we call it means little to the consumers that will ultimately be purchasing the product. Names and labels mean nothing; what really matters is the bottom-line functionality of a given device and its ability to meet specific end-user needs."

Add a Comment (32 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By philosopher_dog

posted Jan 29, 2007 - 9:28 AM

Duh... iPhone=stupid phone by any definition. How much imagination does it take to buy a real smart phone? It might not have pretty album covers and come in a lady purse design though, but you'll still be cool. Don't worry.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Jan 28, 2007 - 7:02 PM

Hey, why stop with the description of the phone?

Give yourselves more credit. This entire 'debate' is dumb.

Score: 0

By tappa113

posted Jan 26, 2007 - 7:26 AM

"Report: Apple IPhone Not a Smartphone"

Yeah this is so true!! Cause the old definition of a smart phone is just dumb! ;)

Score: 0

By DaveBG

posted Jan 25, 2007 - 11:58 PM

It may even make........phone calls.

Score: 0

By JoshDev

posted Jan 25, 2007 - 5:55 PM

From other comments Apple has made it sound like they will allow some 3rd party programs, but that they'll have to go through some type of approval process. While this may seem like a pain, from a users standpoint I think it really is the right way to go. I'm not sure if anyone else has had to deal with installing a recommended 3rd party program on a Treo, only to find that while running it, it clears out all settings and renders your phone useless. I've already had to go through the joys of a hard reset on my Treo 650 4 times.

The key for Apple will be whether or not they can develop enough programs to satisfy current "smartphone" users.

Score: 0

By GS5

edited Jan 25, 2007 - 5:21 PM

It won't take long before someone finds a way to install third party apps on it. Since it's running a stripped down version of OS X I'm pretty sure Skype will be available soon enough.

Anyone see the iPhone skit on Conan? If only Apple could incorporate some of those features:-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLo1USJIkgY

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Jan 29, 2007 - 8:23 AM

It's not really OSX. It's running on a Samsung processor, not an Intel proc. That means it cannot be running the 10.4+ kernel. So at best, it's running pre-Intel, but more likely, it's a special trimmed-down variant that only allows Apple to install additions. That's always been Apple's approach.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Jan 25, 2007 - 2:58 PM

What cracks me is all this premature speculation based on what little was revealed at MacWorld. That was a prototype. Expect it to be quite a bit different when it hits the shelves.

Score: 0

By DJInsomniac

posted Jan 25, 2007 - 3:41 PM

Yeah, but don't tell other people that. They won't understand that simple little fact.

Score: 0

By phenomnaruto

posted Jan 25, 2007 - 2:51 PM

LOL NO SKYPE FOR YOU APPLE FANBOYS .... now that just makes it seem like the phone wont take off too much unless your an uneducated rich boy/girl.

If the phone does take off, microsoft will just come out with something better, cheaper and that uses third party software and I will buy it, while laughing at the apple fanboys who will still be wasting minutes making phone calls, while i get free phone calls .. thanks to Googles free wi-max program in san francisco

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Jan 26, 2007 - 10:25 PM

What an idiot!

But calling an MS fanboy an idiot is redundant!

And when you buy your MS cell phone, you won't have Skype either!

As Skype killed the whole US cell phone bit!

Duh!
Go back to bothering your mom to read the back of the cereal boxes for you.

Score: 0

By templar™

posted Jan 29, 2007 - 8:55 AM

Skype can be easily installed on the phone. And it's free.

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Jan 25, 2007 - 7:45 PM

MS is a software company. They don't care what runs it, as long as they get pay for it. They already has an mobile OS out there, and tons of 3rd party apps.

Score: 0

By AntiochMedia

posted Jan 25, 2007 - 4:25 PM

Um. So, you like Zune?

Score: 0

By phenomnaruto

posted Jan 25, 2007 - 7:55 PM

Zune is not a phone

Score: 0

By Desides

posted Jan 26, 2007 - 12:08 AM

They're working on it.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Jan 25, 2007 - 2:27 PM

"The iPhone is worthy of being categorized as a smartphone by virtue of the way it integrates voice and data functions into one device," Levy told us.

Well, by Carmi's definition, is there any phone release within the last 2 to 3 years not a smartphone? If I buy a smartphone, that mean I can customize it the way I want it, or else, what is it "smart" if you can't do anything to it.

Score: 0

By Das mod

posted Jan 25, 2007 - 2:21 PM

seems to me that
Carmi Levy is an apple fan boy ...

Score: 0

By Desides

posted Jan 25, 2007 - 1:45 PM

I remember the CEO of Palm saying that it took them years to figure out how to make a decent phone, and that Apple wasn't just going to walk in and figure it out. Sure, buddy.

As far as the definition of a smartphone... the only reason people use third-party applications on these things is because the included applications suck. Apple seems to have fixed that little problem.

Score: 0

By DotNet_Coder

posted Jan 25, 2007 - 4:01 PM

"As far as the definition of a smartphone... the only reason people use third-party applications on these things is because the included applications suck. Apple seems to have fixed that little problem."

Really? That's interesting because I don't use 3rd party apps because the built in ones suck. I use 3rd party apps to enhance the functionality of my device. If the particular functionality isn't built into the device, then I either buy a 3rd party app to fill that need or I write it myself.

Bottom line is that any device that is supports a closed, non-expandable architecture is one that is pretty much going to get stale quickly. Not to mention the fact that whatever the street price may end up being, I'm sure that a lot of people are not going to want to pay extra to Apple just to be able to add this application or that one.

Let's not forget, when Apple chose this path, they also forced themselves into having to develop applications for the iPhone in-house. Which means they have to pay everyone involved with the development process. That can raise the price of a simple notepad replacement up by over 100%. So, for my Windows smartphone, I can buy a notepad replacement for 24.99 or write one myself for free. For the iPhone, that 24.99 could end up being as much as 59.99 for the same functionality and I have no possiblity of being cheap.

That is the fundemental flaw here.

Score: 0

By frankwick

posted Jan 25, 2007 - 3:12 PM

From what I've read, Apple has been working on this since the 2002 time-frame. That's why some of the features seem 'old.'

Score: 0

By templar™

posted Jan 25, 2007 - 3:08 PM

Not exactly. I install 3rd party apps on my phone more because I want to extend the phone's functionalities.

I can now use my phone as an RSS feeds reader, dictionary, Skype, bus guide, GPS device, remote control, etc., thanks to 3rd party apps.

Score: 0

By Desides

posted Jan 25, 2007 - 5:07 PM

"I install 3rd party apps on my phone more because I want to extend the phone's functionalities."

In other words... because the included software doesn't do something you want it to. Otherwise known as sucking.

Score: 0

By templar™

posted Jan 26, 2007 - 2:59 AM

Well. By your definition, ALL phones (incl. iPhone) suck. What's important to me may not be important to the person next to me. No single phone can accommodate everyone's needs out of the box.

And ALL OS (incl. OS X) suck because you need to install 3rd party software sooner or later.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Jan 25, 2007 - 1:38 PM

Sheesh. That's the dumbest "definition" I've seen in a long time. Since when does any product cease to be what it "was" because it doesn't support extending it?

Score: 0

By Dev3lop3

posted Jan 25, 2007 - 1:05 PM

So to be smart you have to use other companies' 3rd part apps? hahaha, Laughing Out Loud!

Time to redefine the definition of "smartphone"

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted Jan 25, 2007 - 1:01 PM

Report: No s*** Sherlock

Score: 0

By linkdup

posted Jan 25, 2007 - 12:56 PM

I still want it. lol

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jan 25, 2007 - 12:55 PM

"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."

Just saying--the same argument was made about the iPod too, and we've seen what happened there. Not saying the iPhone will be as big of a shakeup as the iPod was, but we certainly shouldn't be saying Apple will be second rate either.

I'm interested to see what happens with this--particularly if Apple succeeds. What will Microsoft do if it becomes a big hit, I wonder?

Score: 0

By DotNet_Coder

posted Jan 25, 2007 - 3:53 PM

The iPod hit because there was a mass-market appeal. Mostly EVERYONE wants (or needs) a MP3 player. So, they had the entire market to sell to.

As for breaking into the smartphone market, that's going to be much more difficult.

SmartPhones initially were targeted to business consumers, and they still pretty much are. My teenage daughter has no need to connect to an Exchange server for her email and thus doesn't have a need to get a device intended originally for business applications.

The iPhone isn't going to be able to even come close to any real business market that is dominated by Microsoft. Without any kind of enterprise configuration capabilities (like being able to control smartphones from a central location and such) and without even so much as an enterprise strength email client, the iPhone is going to be a tough sell to business consumers. Add to that the lack of 3rd party apps, and you pretty much negate any possiblity of any corporate adoption. For instance, the senior management at my company all have smartphones with a custom-built application that notifies each of us about various conditions in the company. This is entirely a 3rd party app as we wrote it and it is managed via Active Directory. So, how is the iPhone, with it's closed architecture going to be worth anything to us?

Maybe it will do well in the consumer market, but that remains to be seen.

~dnc

Score: 0

By ethana2

edited Jan 29, 2007 - 12:42 AM

I'll just wait for the next open moko. So I can make my own apps for random peripherals like real-time blood sugar monitors for ppl with diabetes and stuff. As far as I'm concerned, closed source is already dead. Long live the open community. Oh, yeah. M$, Apple and the RIAA? Go to ---Post terminated---

Score: 0

By ethana2

posted Jan 29, 2007 - 12:58 AM

...France.

Score: 0