Why the iPhone isn't really revolutionary.

Innovation, the Internet, gadgets, and more.
June 29 2007 11:54 AM

iPhony

Why Apple's new cell phone isn't really revolutionary.

Steve Jobs with the Apple iPhone
Click image to expand.
Steve Jobs with the Apple iPhone

When the word iPhone appears in Apple press releases, the word revolutionary is rarely far behind. But what counts as revolutionary? In Apple's case, the bar is high. Since the 1970s, the firm has changed both the personal computer and music industries. Will the iPhone fundamentally alter the structure of the wireless world as well?

Not yet. The iPhone's style and user interface are pathbreaking, and (as the iPod proved) aesthetics do matter. But the iPhone is—so far—not a product that will turn any industry inside out. Seen as a phone, the iPhone is striking. Seen as a small computer, it's limited, and compromised by the existing business models of the wireless industry. Saying the iPhone is a pointless gadget is a bit too strong. But it isn't yet a revolutionary device.

Advertisement

It is in some ways astonishing that AT&T and Apple are partners at all. AT&T is the oldest of the old school—the most ancient major high-tech firm in the United States, founded in 1878. Unfazed by spending the last 23 years in suspended animation (after the great breakup of 1984), AT&T is back to its classic business model: own the largest networks and everything on them. Apple, meanwhile, is the original hippie computer company, a child of the 1970s, not the 1870s. At least in its origins, Apple is an ideological foe of IBM and AT&T. (Remember that 1984 ad?) Considering that these firms were born on the opposite sides of the tech Kulturkampf, the iPhone cannot help but be a little strange.

Most obviously, the iPhone is locked, as is de rigueur in the wireless world. It will work only with one carrier, AT&T. Judged by the standards of a personal computer or electronics, that's odd: Imagine buying a Dell that worked only with Comcast Internet access or a VCR that worked only with NBC. Despite the fact that the iPhone costs $500 or so, it cannot yet be brought over to T-Mobile or Verizon or Sprint. AT&T sees this as a feature, not a bug, as every new iPhone customer must commit to a two-year, $1,400 to $2,400 contract.

If Apple wanted to be "revolutionary," it would sell an unlocked version of the iPhone that, like a computer, you could bring to the carrier of your choice. An even more radical device would be the "X Phone"—a phone on permanent roam that chose whatever network was providing the best service. Imagine, for example, using your iPhone to talk on Sprint because it had the best voice coverage in Alaska, while at the same time using Verizon's 3G network for Internet access. Of course, getting that phone to market would be difficult, and Apple hasn't tried.           

The iPhone does have Wi-Fi access, which is a giant step forward. Wi-Fi has been kept off American cell phones for years, for reasons that have never passed the smell test ("for security reasons" or "to protect battery life"). The real reason the cell providers have kept Wi-Fi out? To keep consumers eating up minutes on the carriers' networks and to prevent people from grabbing ringtones and other media from their computers, which the industry calls "revenue leakage."

But while the iPhone has Wi-Fi, it doesn't let you do one very obvious thing with its Wi-Fi connection: make phone calls. In an ideal world, you might want to use AT&T when on the road and have your phone switch automatically to Skype or Vonage when at home, since they're much cheaper and can have better voice quality. But Apple hasn't yet hinted at this possibility. AT&T, meanwhile, probably prefers to cheer on Verizon's ongoing efforts to sue Vonage out of existence.

  Slate Plus
Political Gabfest
Oct. 31 2014 1:29 PM You, The Gabfest, and a Hotel Room Win tickets to attend a taping of the Political Gabfest, live from David’s Chicago hotel room.