I don’t know - GPS never really worked well for me on my desktop. I had to find a place to plug it in before every turn. 
All this stuff has not been available for decades on desktops. First, a lot of people didn’t have broadband, and the broadband they did have was slow. Second, old PCs with 256 M of memory at best and 100 MHz processors couldn’t do TV. If you ever tried to do normal surfing with an old box, you’d see what I mean - the average page which loads in seconds takes minutes.
Hasn’t that slowed down quite a lot?
It used to be that PCs fell out of favour very quickly, but I’ve noticed a remarkable slowdown in that, especially in processor speed and memory. My PC’s now 3 years old and still runs brand new games; I upgraded the video card, but only to increase performance a little. The processor and memory are still industry standard. I’ve NEVER before had a 3-year-old PC that wasn’t seriously showing it sage, but this one’s still very fast.
I was encoding RealMedia and RealAudio files for clients in the 90’s and building them into web sites to stream. It streamed just fine for me on a 100MHz PowerMac 7100 with a 756K connection, though clearly those specs were not standard at the time. For a while, I was using a 1999-model Mac G3 with a 350 MHz processor as a DVR. It had no limitations for recording and direct playback, though burning to DVD took all night (and then some).
And when I say GPS, obviously that’s not been built into desktops, but is a standard feature of phones going back quite some time. At one point circa 2005, I was forced to upgrade my phone because it would no longer work on Verizon’s network without GPS. As for maps on desktops, I’m talking things like MapQuest on the web and Thomas Guide on CD. And once you’ve got MapQuest and a phone with a GPS…
They all use the same network technologies, but they do not share the same network. It’s a marginal case, but I spend a fair amount of time in a remote location where only one carrier has decent coverage, so I stick with them.
Who knows about handset subsidies, that’ll be strictly confidential. However, I got unlimited texts, 750 minutes of calls per month and unlimited internet (subject to a fair use that I’ve never been close to) on a then-brand-spanking-new HTC Magic Android phone, for roughly $42 a month, free handset on an upgrade. They’re going to let me upgrade months early on the 18-month contract, and I’ll get the HTC Incredible (the Nexus One equivalent I think) for no additional cost to me if I keep the same contract terms. This strikes me as a bit cheaper than what US people on here say they are paying.
So I guess competition is fiercer in Europe? UK, anyway.
There is a lot of demand for the latest and greatest phones, but there are also dozens of companies making phones, and they’re all competing with each other to grab that money. Lots of companies are trying to grab marketshare rather than maximize profits, because they’re looking at the future and want to continue to be a player. The market is highly competitive and highly volatile which means it’s tough for any one company to grab much of that money, and what money the manufacturers do make gets burned through just to stay in place.
What handset manufacturers are struggling financially? Genuine question.
Cell phones, like luxury cars and expensive sneakers, are also seen as status symbols. Plus you have the consumers who want to be on the cutting edge and always buying the biggest and best technologies. So do to things like that (leading edge consumers and status symbols) cell phones have a strong incentive to constantly advance.
I don’t know if it is just apple that markets to those consumer demographics, but they seem to make their devices with those consumer groups in mind.
Do you have even the slightest shred of evidence to back up this assertion?
Every iPhone ad I have ever seen just shows the phone itself and the apps - have you seen an ad showing how it will make you sexier if you own it? I haven’t.
It’s the second best selling mobile phone product line of all time, so I doubt very much that they fired its designers. However, they sort of gave up on developing new products when they realized how well the RAZR was selling, and got into all sorts of trouble sales-wise later on.
IIRC, the head honcho who was responsible for most of the success of the RAZR --for most of the leadership in its design and marketing – passed away unexpectedly. Oddly, it was right after he had finished attending a party in his honor for the success of the RAZR.
You don’t think Apple markets to early adopters? They are brilliant at doing this. They have great styling to make their stuff instantly recognizable, they charge a premium price, they keep things secret to build up the buzz, they somehow have the press eating out of their hands, they got Jobs elevated to rock star status, and they rigorously do not compare themselves to anyone else, even when they are playing catchup. It is not a matter of being sexier, it is a matter of being able to show off that you paid a lot of money for one of the first versions.
I don’t much like Apple, but I have to admit they are marketing geniuses. Selling tons of product to early adopters is great for your margins. Being to be able to charge double the cost of comparable products is every product managers dream, but only Apple pulls it off without a monopoly position.
“Early adopters” and “fashion conscious” are two completely different things. When you are a company which makes ground-breaking products, of course many of your customers are going to be early adopters. That doesn’t mean they are buying it to look “cool,” like Wesley implied.
The Apple brand certainly goes for lifestyle branding - “I am a Mac, I am PC”. Forgotten that?
Once again, this says NOTHING about fashion.
Errr, yes it does. Did you ever see any of the ads?
Hip Guy vs Office Drone
Unconventional vs. Conventional
There’s nothing wrong with marketing stuff like this, and Apple have been very successful at it. I’m **amazed ** that you have missed this strand.
More than that it was fit, attractive, smart, witty, clever, charming, hip, young guy vs doughy, balding, clumsy, awkward, foolish, dimwitted, middle-aged dead-end guy.
If you missed all of that in those ads, beowullf, I don’t know whether to pity or envy your social blindness.
For the kids.
Are you guys clueless, or what?
When have you seen ANY ad where the person using the product wasn’t hip and attractive (except those that deliberately poke fun at the person)?
Look at Microsoft’s new campaign - a hip, attractive and French girl saying she invented Windows 7.
But I digress - this was discussing the iPhone, and I’m not sure I’ve even seen a person in any iPhone ads - have you?
I just want to say that I’m a PC guy to the core - and I love those “I’m a Mac, I’m a PC” ads. Every once in awhile I find myself mumbling “that’s not quite true” while watching one, but I love them anyway.