Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

That was Apple's argument in their case against Qualcomm's licensing costs.

I always thought that was a weak stance.

An iPhone without calls is just an iPod touch, which clearly doesn't have the appeal of an iPhone.




Except the Touch didn't have a data connection. 'Voice calls' isn't the killer feature of a contemporary smart phone, an always-on internet connection is.


Indeed. If iPod touches had cellular radios in them, I wouldn't need an iPhone — but then they'd probably also cost the same, so I'd just get an iPhone anyway.


Is a celular radio really $400 or so? Or why is there such a different pricing scheme?


The iPod touches also have lower-quality displays, lower-capacity batteries, base units have less storage capacity, usually have older or slightly underpowered A chips, and lower-quality materials leading to a slightly inferior build quality compared to iPhone.

(Also, iPod touch hasn't been updated for three years)


That is true today, but when back when the iPhone was released they were almost identical, sans the cellular radio, speaker, and microphone.


I call about 2 hours a week and still manage to use my phone more than 20 hours a week. Is calling still the primary function of my "phone"?

We just call it phone because that's what we attached a computer to, but it's more like a pocket computer with LTE modem for most people. I'd call it Pocket PC if I could!


Microsoft's trademark on Pocket PC is most likely dead, as it hasn't been seen in commerce in a long time, so you can probably call whatever you like a Pocket PC


In many countries they're just called "mobiles" or something to that effect in the local language. Originally short for "mobile phone" but it shortens down nicely generic.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: