What Constitutes a Smartphone?

As it is 2010 already, it has almost been three years since I first wrote about the iPhone. Without much fanfare, it has been nearly a year since I upgraded my Nokia N95 to the N97 phone. And now, we have iPhone OS version 4 coming soon in the summer. So where do I stand now? With news of the new iPhone OS version 4 and the unfortunate accidental discovery of a prototype 4th generation iPhone recently, let's take another pulse...

First, we start with the elimination of my quips of the iPhone since I last wrote about it.

1. Multitasking: FINALLY! Sort of. Apple finally allows a pseudo form of multitasking. Instead of doing full multitasking just like Nokia's Symbian or Microsoft's Windows Mobile OS (except for the upcoming version 7), the iPhone now allows some sort of multitasking by giving the application access to resources via seven predefined APIs. Never mind the fact that Nokia's Symbian OS has been able to do TRUE multitasking since 1997! Any technical guru can do a bit of a research and realize that Nokia's Symbian OS has the most advanced multitasking capability for a portable operating system. Apple's prior reason for not including multitasking is the argument on drain on battery life. Well, that is a line of horse crap that we all have heard before, and now replaced with other baseless reasons. Remember the argument that the 3G chip was not included in the initial iPhone because for fear of battery drain? Ha!
Status: With this new feature, albeit limited and inferior to even Palm's WebOS, and far inferior to Nokia's Symbian OS, I am willing to give the iPhone a green light on this point.

2. Text Input: Well, the iPhone OS version 3 released in June of 2009 finally introduced a landscape keyboard as I wanted and complained about years ago. But it doesn't go far enough.
Status: Yellow light. Why yellow? It still does not address my desire to perform text input using just one hand, unless you have an unusually large hand and thumb with equally amazing dexterity. For me, text input should be simple and fast, and should not give you carpal tunnel syndrome. Too many buttons all spaced tightly together calls for microscopic accuracy for the motor and coordination functions of the hand. This is where Nokia's Symbian OS shines, with the excellent predictive text entry system using just the numeric pad. If the iPhone also offers this as an additional alternative to text input, it will be green all around. This is the very reason why I avoid full QWERTY smartphones like Nokia's E71 or BlackBerry's offerings.

3. Search: The iPhone OS version 3 finally introduced a Spotlight search feature. Nokia's Symbian S60 OS had this feature for years, and it definitely is a prerequisite for what constitutes a smartphone.
Status: Green light here.

4. Cut, Copy & Paste: This feature was initially released in iPhone OS version 3, and I truly applaud this! Not only did Apple include a feature that is a prerequisite of what a smartphone should have, it implemented the feature superbly! But did Apple really have to wait three revisions of the operating system to include a smartphone prerequisite?
Status: Green light all around for this feature!

5. Multimedia Message Service (MMS): (Or what you non-technical people call picture text messages.) It is very sad to have to include this, as this feature is such a basic feature that it should have transcended the need to be a prerequisite of a smartphone, but a prerequisite of all modern cell phones! Considering that dumbphones all around have this feature for years, I am glad that Apple finally brought this feature to the iPhone with OS version 3.
Status: Green light.

6. Assisted GPS Receiver: The second generation of the iPhone finally introduced the inclusion of a GPS receiver. What's really interesting of note here is that while Apple claimed an unacceptable battery life if the 3G radio chip was included, Apple introduced both the 3G chip and GPS receiver together in the second generation of the iPhone! Total BS on the battery drain excuse! But whatever. I'm glad Apple finally included this.
Status: Green light.

7. Video Recording: The third generation of the iPhone supports video recording. Finally.
Status: Green light here.

8. 3.5 mm TRRS Connector (audio jack): Well, the second generation of the iPhone, starting with the iPhone 3G, eliminated the recessed plug, thus making all aftermarket standard earphones a choice for the consumer.
Status: Yellow light. Why yellow light? Well, until Apple commits to keeping this plug free and clear, unlike what they did to the iPod Shuffle with the new authentication chip, I am extremely cautious of Apple's future line of products, the 4th generation of the iPhone included. Granted, so far the three generations of iPhone do not have this, but they all are not good enough a phone for me to consider owning.

Second, let's look at the list of quips that is still persistent, which still prevents me from ever considering the iPhone.

1. Bluetooth: I still don't understand why Apple included the Bluetooth radio but won't allow it to do many smartphone functionalities normally found in other smartphones for years. The initial release of the iPhone OS allows only HSP profile, or the ability to connect to wireless earphones. The next "major" change was with iPhone OS version 3, where A2DP profile support was added, which allows the iPhone to connect to wireless stereo audio devices. The final "major" change is with the new iPhone OS version 4, where a limited HID profile is to be added, which allows only keyboards (not any other HID devices) to be connected.

Seriously?!? The Bluetooth receiver is already there! Why perform software controls on what profiles can be used? For years, both dumbphones and smartphones have employed the OBEX profile, which allows transfer of any kind of files and contact vCards between Bluetooth-enabled phones. And for years, both dumbphones and smartphones have employed the HFP profile, which allows hands free connection to devices that enable hands free communication while driving. The fact that Audi was the first auto manufacturer to include Bluetooth HFP in its Audi A8 back in 2002 is a testament that Bluetooth enabled phones, both dumb and smart, had this HFP profile for years! DaimlerChrsyler and Acura offered Bluetooth HFP in 2003. Today, you can't find a car that does not offer the Bluetooth HFP connectivity as an option, including low end cheap rides!

2. PIM Synchronization: A basic smartphone should have the ability to synchronize basic PIM information. It is no secret that the intermediary catalyst of synchronization is the most important software that joins a smartphone and a computer in holy synchronization. Well, let's face it. Apple's iTunes is inferior when it comes to synchronization. For one, its inability to treat Calendar events in a flexible manner really puts iTunes to shame. For another, iTunes can only synchronize with Mac OS X Mail (on the Mac OS X platform) and Microsoft Outlook (on both the Mac OS X and Windows platforms). Whereas Nokia allows the entire PIM synchronization to happen between 5 widely used PIM software on Windows, as well as PIM software on Mac OS X via its iSync synchronization software.

3. Tethering: Sure, the iPhone OS version 3 offered tethering, but the damning part here is that it allows the carrier to decide whether to offer this or not. Why can't I buy an unsubsidized iPhone that comes with tethering enabled? Sure, blame the carrier. But once the AT&T exclusivity deal is over, what's to prevent Apple from going to another carrier for exclusivity, and thus leaving that option to the carrier as well? I'll believe wide open tethering when I see this available.

Furthermore, the kind of tethering the iPhone is capable of is strictly the use of the iPhone as a modem while connected to a computer. What about the kind of tethering where you can use your PC while connected to the iPhone to read and send SMS (aka text messages)? If I'm at work or home and sitting in front of my PC, I don't want to have to pick up my phone to type out a reply message when I receive an SMS. I'd rather do it all using my computer, using the keyboard I am already in the middle of using!

4. Battery: No matter the technology or device, I have always been wary of companies who are not forthcoming with their battery capacity details. In fact, these companies prefer to hide behind ratings such as Watt-Hours (WHr) and specs that cannot be achieved in real world tests such as X hours of talk time, which are usually estimates if everything else is off other than talking. It has been universally accepted since the invention of batteries in the nineteenth century that battery capacity is measured in ampere-hour (Ah), or milliampere-hour (mAh) for smaller batteries. Apple chose not to disclose their battery capacity, and worse, chose not to allow customers to replace the battery on their own! If the battery of the iPhone reached its end of life prematurely, you have to go without an iPhone for a period of time while your iPhone is being serviced. In today's day and age, and the reliance on cell phones as mission critical to life itself, who wants to be without a phone for days? Worse, if your iPhone battery dies out of warranty, you are either forced to buy another iPhone, or pay an exorbitant amount of money to replace the battery, which may not be a brand new one anyway!

5. Custom Ringtone: Even dumphones for years allow you to select any music file you have on the phone to be a ring tone. For the iPhone, custom ringtone was not a feature until a subsequent update to the OS. But when it became available, you had to pay for it. And not only that, it was an arduous process. You can't just go to your music library or player on the phone, and just select it as a ringtone. No, you either have to pay for it from iTunes, use a third party application or Garage Band, or use a 17-step procedure using iTunes. WTF?!?

6. Useless Camera: Granted, I'll give the iPhone engineers kudos for doing a great job of using software to optimize picture quality without the aid of a flash in dark surroundings. That is in itself a feat that needs recognition. But seriously, no flash? While manufacturers of both dumb and smartphones have evolved from including a bland flash to double flash to LED flash to now Xenon flash, Apple has yet to include even a flash! Now, to be fair, the recent discovery of a 4th generation prototype of the iPhone has a flash, so this may not be a total lost cause. But two questions still remain: 1) What kind of a flash will be included, and 2) What kind of a camera lens will be utilized? Am I going to hear that it will just have regular flash bulb instead of LED or Xenon because of fear of battery drain?

7. iPhone Premium Tax: This is technically a non-issue now, but still affects a large group of customers. And for all practical purposes, it is of no fault of Apple. For users of iPhone, not just limited in the United States, customers are forced to pay more for their data plan to the tune of up to double the price of a similar unlimited data plan. Sure, you can blame AT&T, but once the exclusivity contract ends, what's to prevent subsequent carriers from assessing this? It is now a non-issue, since AT&T has began adopting the same double charge of unlimited data plan for all phones designated at its discretion as a smartphone, if purchased from AT&T. But for customers like me, who have fulfilled my contract obligation and paying month to month, I can still buy any unsubsidized phone and retain my lower monthly unlimited data cost.

In summary, even with the numerous improvements made by Apple on its iPhone hardware and OS, none of the improvements are compelling enough for me to accept the iPhone. Don't get me wrong, the iPhone's UI is arguably the best out there as far as cellular phones go, but it's like a beautifully decorated cake with no real nutrition in it. At the end of the day, you're left with a cellular phone that makes pretty graphics and transitions and much to be desired when it comes to functionalities.

Sure, if all I wanted was a cellular phone, the iPhone will fit the bill and more. But as a smartphone? It is nothing but an overpriced cellular phone that isn't smart enough. Which brings us to the point of my title: What Constitutes a Smartphone?

It is important to note that there is no industry standard in defining what a smartphone should be. But a general consensus is that a smartphone should offer advanced capabilities with computer-like functionalities. And in my point of view, a smartphone should offer said advanced capabilities that can help users work smarter, not harder. And a smartphone should be a good converging device, for a device that only offers phone calling capabilities alone hardly can be considered a smartphone. Because, how much more advanced can you do turn a phone if not for other capabilities?

Having said that, here are my reasons why I consider the iPhone a semi-smartphone:
1. How can the iPhone be a smartphone if it cannot perform the full duties of a standard PIM synchronization? A cellular phone in itself is a holder of many personal information, and by extension, it should be able to seamlessly synchronize your personal information with whatever PIM software you choose. Granted, the latest iPhone OS allows wireless synchronization using Microsoft's ActiveSync technology, but that relies on the fact that you rely on the Internet for PIM storage. A good portion of technology users still rely on their PIM software on their own computer for all important and private information. Not many are willing to fully utilize free sites like Gmail and Google Calendar for their truly private information. And for those who rely on Microsoft's ActiveSync technology on the iPhone with their corporate PIM server, not many are willing to place personal information on their work servers.

2. A smartphone must be one where its basic core functionality as a phone is portable and usable no matter the situation. The solution for this has been created and accepted for years, in the form of Bluetooth's HFP profile where the smartphone can be used for hands free driving. If this technology is widely used for years, and universally adopted, why does Apple who already includes the hardware technology restrict such adoption via its own OS software? I see so many iPhone users in cities like mine where talking while holding the phone is illegal use their earphones for phone conversation! Maybe if these drivers used just one earphone instead of both, I would feel safer. A smartphone is one which seamlessly integrates into the publicly adopted technology and exploits it, not restricts it.

3. A smartphone, given its ability to perform more than one functionality should allow its user to use multiple said functionalities simultaneously without restrictions. In this day and age where multithreading is widely used in many technologies, it does not make sense to put a powerful workhorse of an iPhone into a single threaded device. Sure, the latest iPhone OS version 4 may support pseudo multitasking, but I don't think it is enough.

4. Likewise, a smartphone should be a device that is able to perform advanced functionalities of other smartphones created and widely adopted before it. The iPhone raises the benchmark for UI, but strangely lowers the benchmark on other functionalities which are widely adopted as core functionalities of smartphones and even some dumbphones. A smartphone should always evolve forward, not backwards. All other smartphones, be it the Nokia, RIM or Android, are still evolving forward, despite a few of their own fallings. But at least they're evolving forwards, not backwards.

5. A smartphone with its advanced operating system should let its user decide what application he/she deems useful. If the application is poorly written, so be it. Let the free development world decide what application should flourish and which should fail, based on customer experience. A smartphone should not be a closed ecosystem where the application for such platform is subject to the phone manufacturer's purview. If the argument is made that such restrictions are required to protect laypeople using said device, then by essence the device is no longer a smartphone, as it caters to non-technical people.

The same argument can be made for BMW 7 customers: If you're not technologically savvy, don't get the iDrive system option! Either do not offer the advanced iDrive system as an option for the benefit of laypeople, or offer it and call it an advanced car control system and let the customers who chose it accept it with all its inherent learning curve. A smartphone is a device with advanced capabilities that are not meant to be picked up without any learning curve. If advanced capabilities are removed for fear of customers' inability to learn, then don't call the reduced device a smartphone.

Having said all that, I suspect that the day I will finally own an iPhone will be the day Apple comes out with iPhone OS version 8, or 20. And even then, I just may not get the iPhone simply for the fact that I cannot replace my own battery. But stay tuned to this blog for years, and we'll see if I end up converting to the iPhone, or abandon my love affair for the Symbian operating system and choose something else like the WebOS or Android.

A Reason Why I Hate Apple

When the car was invented, one of the first interfaces between man and machine was the steering device. The original cars came with tillers, but it was quickly replaced by a steering wheel. This basic method of interface revolutionized the entire automotive industry.

Imagine if the very simple steering wheel was patented. Or worse yet, the whole concept of an adjustable direction wheels in a vehicle was patented. If that had happened, there won't be as many automotive manufacturers out there today as there are, simply because someone patented those and hampered innovation. But the means of achieving automotive steering has always been patented, such as worm and sector, recirculating ball, rack and pinion, and variable rack and pinion. In fact, if either the steering wheel or the whole concept of adjustable direction wheels were patented, all these innovative ways of doing the same thing will never come to fruition, and we will be so far behind the technological curve as it stands today.

Now, think of that analogy, and apply that to Apple's interim CEO Tim Cook and his recent hint towards possibly suing companies that produce multi-touch screens. In my point of view, that is akin to patenting the steering wheel, or the whole adjustable direction wheel concept.

Seriously? Yes, Apple can patent, as they did, how the multi-touch works, and its approach. But simply calling other companies who happened to have multi-touch behavior a rip-off? That's going slightly too far. I am pretty sure that the Palm Pre has totally different ways of achieving human-machine interaction with its multi-touch screen than Apple's iPhone, despite having the very basic conceptual idea. The same is probably true with Samsung's TouchWiz system.

I think the whole idea of calling others ripping off Apple's multi-touch system is completely out of line. If they truly believe that, then the first company who came up with gestures should sue Apple for stealing that idea. If that were the case, I'm sure Apple will fight back with something like, "Well, the logic and magic behind how it translates from physical to system interaction movement is totally different." And that would be acceptable, and Apple can rest easy.

In my analogy, the multi-touch input is the steering wheel input. The different mechanisms that allow the multi-touch in the iPhone is the underlying software, and its counterpart in the analogy is the different steering mechanisms such as the worm and sector, recirculating ball, rack and pinion, and variable rack and pinion steering methods.

Bottom line? Apple's got to stop being a greedy little bitch and stop making all these outlandish threats. If they decide to sue others for emulating multi-touch interface, albeit in different methodologies as Apple's, then I sure hope that this silly pursuit of greed will bankrupt their tight asses. (The tight asses reference will be discussed more later with another reason why I hate Apple blog entry.)

And thus my one reason why I hate Apple.

Yet Another iPhone Commentary

So last night, I met a nice guy (whose name shall remain anonymous) who was a staunch iPhone fanatic. He works in the technology field just like me. And we had a HUGE debate about my Nokia N95 versus his Apple iPhone, after a mutual friend explained that I was that iPhone hater who wrote that blog. Apparently, he had read my previous post reviewing the iPhone.

He started off with telling me how flawed my reviews were. As he picked one by one each of my points I had mentioned, the underlying theme of the debate had turned into technology. My argument was that 3G technology has been around for so many years, why would a bleeding technology company such as Apple not incorporate 3G? His response was that by including 3G, the iPhone will have to be thicker and the battery life will be shorter.

My response was that the inclusion of 3G in the iPhone wouldn't have made a significantly thicker iPhone than it is today. Furthermore, battery life should not be a factor, because everybody knows 3G inherently burns more energy. If you take the same car and drive down the same highway, but in one instance you drive it at 65 miles per hour in just the third gear, and in another instance you drive it at the same speed but in fifth gear, it becomes a no brainer that you wouldn't go nearly as far on the same tank of gas if you limit yourself to just the third gear. But you would have unbelievably high torque to work with.

Another reason why battery life wouldn't matter is because if Nokia's Symbian software could include the ability for me to set the phone to use just GSM, 3G, or combination of both depending on priority, why couldn't Apple have done the same thing? Steve Jobs' claim that the inclusion of 3G in the iPhone will drastically drain the battery. But that's assuming that it is operating on 3G only. Is there a need to be tied to the 3G protocol when you're not using your phone, just sitting there waiting to receive a call? No. A smart computer company such as Apple could have easily added similar toggle, just like Samsung has with its Blackjack, or any other company that manufactures 3G capable phones.

A point that no one in the iPhone camp want to even address is the fact that, yes, 3G protocol can eat up your battery juice pretty fast, but in real life, does it? Think of it this way... We all know from dslreports.com that AT&T's 3G network is capable of downloading at 1 Mbps (megabits per second), almost as fast as high speed DSL Internet connection at home. Not to mention that I have routinely hit that transfer rate for the most part of my web browsing time. But the older EDGE technology network (which iPhone relies on for its Internet browsing) only has the transfer rate of 100 kbps, which amounts to about 10% of the 3G download speed.

So if I were to go to a data-heavy website like MySpace.com, I might have burned up more battery juice at the rate I download the page, but it would only take me about 5 seconds to complete the page download on my N95. Compare that to the iPhone, which may take about 15 to 20 seconds to complete the page download. Sure, the battery consumption rate is slower on the iPhone than my N95, but you spend almost 4 times longer burning up the battery. In the end, isn't that negligible? It's like burning gas at 20 miles per gallon (rate) if you drive a distance of 20 miles at a faster speed, versus burning gas at 35 miles per gallon (rate) over the same distance but at a crawling speed. In the end, you spend more time burning gas just to cover 20 miles, even though the rate of gas burn-off is slower while driving slowly than driving fast.

Why can't iPhone lovers not understand this mere fact? Expert unbiased reviews have not deducted points off of the Nokia N95 in any comparison tests to the Apple iPhone because 3G uses more battery, mostly because they know this fact. But go to a web site that practically puts Apple on the altar as its god will always use this 3G battery utilization as a "winning" argument, never mind the fact that it'll take the iPhone longer to download the same content.

During this debate about the inclusion of the 3G chip, I theorized that the true reason why Apple did not include the 3G chip is probably because they want the iPhone to be as profitable as possible. Currently, any cellular phone manufacturer who includes 3G capabilities pay a small fee to Qualcomm, because Qualcomm holds the patents on some, if not most, of the underlying 3G communication technologies. It's either that, or they pay Qualcomm to use Qualcomm's chips in the cell phone. Either way, it eats into the profitability of a cellular phone. But my friend wouldn't hear of this.

Now, I suspect this is the case, because Apple only decided to bring a 3G-capable iPhone to the market "sometime in 2008" well after Nokia's legal battle with Qualcomm has commenced. Qualcomm feels like they deserve to be paid licensing fees for the use of their 3G technology, whereas Nokia's argument is that such a universally broad application should become public domain. Of course, the legal battle between these two companies is far from over, but I strongly suspect, as do Steve Jobs, that Nokia will prevail in the end. Once Qualcomm's claim to key 3G technology becomes public domain, Apple can include any 3G chipset they want for a lower cost than now. Of course, once the legal battle ends favorably for Nokia, well, the price of existing 3G phones will drop like flies from the sky, and future models will start selling for cheaper. My whole point here is that I don't think it is mere coincidence that Steve Jobs would hint at a 3G version of the iPhone when the legal battle between Nokia and Qualcomm got heated up in the last two months.

On a final note regarding 3G, Steve Jobs have also said that he is waiting for a company to provide a 3G chipset that could use lower power. There are some in the industry who believe that Broadcom's new BCM21551 chipset might be the answer to Steve Jobs' prayers, but let's not forget that companies like Broadcom do not sell their products exclusively to a single original equipment manufacturer. In fact, when Broadcom announced its revolutionary chipset, they have also indicated that they have sent samples of the chip to several companies. So by the time the iPhone includes 3G with lower battery consumption than it is today, let's not forget that companies like Nokia will probably be using the same thing from Broadcom or similar from another chipset manufacturer that will even out the playing field. All of a sudden, the same Nokia N95 manufactured after the adoption of the new chip becomes less power hungry! (Just like the same Xbox 360 built after October 18, 2007 suddenly became less power hungry, because Microsoft began using the Falcon motherboard. Same product, but a vast improvement due to the availability of better raw materials.)

Now, another sore point of discussion I had with this friend was regarding the browser. I don't understand why Apple fans seem to claim that the Safari browser is entirely Apple's brainchild. Only Apple fanatics who are also true technology enthusiasts will realize that the Safari web browser is based on the open source development of WebKit. I told him that for almost three years now, the Symbian S60 operating system (which Nokia has implemented on the Nokia N95, as well as the majority of the N series) has always included web browsers based on the very same open source WebKit. In fact, Nokia's decision to ditch their own home-brewed browser for the open source WebKit was announced on November 2, 2005!

What I could not get across to my friend was the fact that Nokia for a while has been able to browse the full Internet long before Apple's claims in their iPhone advertisements that the iPhone is the first to be able to browse the real Internet Internet. His defense? He doesn't watch TV, so he isn't aware of the specific television advertisement I was referring to. Never mind the fact that all of Apple's iPhone advertisements are available for viewing on Apple's website.

What bothers me the most is that most people share the same misconception as my friend, that the Safari browser is purely Apple's own technology. And even on Apple-centric websites, they have written in articles in such a way that they call the open source WebKit the "Safari WebKit," as if WebKit was a product of Apple! How would you feel if you put Shell gasoline in the Honda, and begin calling the same gasoline the Honda gasoline? And then further perpetuate the misleading fact by talking about other products, like a Land Rover, that it copied Honda by using the Honda gasoline? Seriously! WebKit is not Apple's product, much like the gasoline is not Honda's product!!!

Of course, my friend thought the Safari browser was based on the KDS, which I thought was kind of weird in the fact that KDS is a shell environment for Unix. I countered the fact that it was based on the same engine as Mozilla, which of course he disputed. In reality, the Mozilla browser is not based on the open source WebKit. I thought it was because a few months ago, Mozilla has publicly opined that they might ditch the Gecko engine and base Mozilla 2.0 on WebKit. I thought the decision had been made, but a quick research revealed not to be the case. So I was wrong in stating that the Safari browser uses the same technology as Mozilla-based browsers.

In any case, his whole closing argument was that all my points of review on the iPhone was all flawed, basing purely on the fact that consumers are willing to get the iPhone because they are well aware of the limitations iPhone has. To this point, I strongly disagree that any of my arguments are flawed, because if a consumer never has owned a real smartphone like some of Nokia's offering and then make the jump to the iPhone, it is by far a huge step forward including the limitations. But for early technology adopters like myself, for whom the N95 is his fifth real smartphone in as little as four years, it is certainly a hard pill to swallow and accept the iPhone when you know that all the features you've relied on just don't exist in the iPhone. Can you imagine having lived with a mouse on a computer for several years, but then Apple makes a sleek new computer but left out the mouse, leaving you with just the keyboard? Once you're accustomed to certain new technology features, especially for years, and especially when such features are already common standards from most manufacturers, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever for Apple to exclude those features in the iPhone.

That is why I maintain that the iPhone was a rushed project. Apple should have waited longer before launching the iPhone. I suspect that they couldn't wait a day longer because the Nokia N95 was already a one year old smartphone. I also suspect that Apple knew that Nokia has been developing a touch interface for years now that they thought if Apple rushes through the iPhone development and become the first to put a touch interface product in the market, then it doesn't matter who came up with the idea first. And in business sense, that is absolutely true. But it all still boils down to the fact that the iPhone, other than its touch interface, is still a far inferior product than any of the "new" generation of smartphones from Nokia that has been around for a couple years.

Who knows? Maybe Steve Jobs will finally realize his mistakes (making his target sales goal and fattening up the company's bottom line with an inferior product hardly counts as a mistake, right?) and fix everything that is wrong with the current iPhone come 2008. But I'll wait till that day comes before I pass judgment. If it passes my standards and expectations of what a converging smartphone should be, then don't be surprised that I might simply ditch my Nokia N95 for the Apple iPhone 2.0.

Stay tuned for a future review of the second generation iPhone. =)