Ultimate Death Match: iPhone Versus RAZR

by Chris Seibold Jan 17, 2007

As much as Steve was pushing the iPhone as a competitor for smart phones, and Steve was pitching that concept harder than a head high Nolan Ryan fastball, the truth is that the iPhone is only going to take on smart phones as a side project, the iPhone’s real target is the Motorola RAZR. Why the RAZR? Because at one time the RAZR was cool, the RAZR was status and the RAZR was hip.

Forgive a momentary tangent: your car, your phone, your computer do most definitely not make you cool or hip. You can’t spend your way to hipness. Well, unless you spend money on tattoos, leather jackets and smoking.

Back to the point, the market that Apple is really after isn’t the smart phone market, it is the people who need to be cool market, the people who bought the first cell phone, then bought the first startacs and then bought the first RAZRs. In other words, the iPhone is aimed squarely at those with disposable income who must be cool.

The objection at this point is obvious: if the iPhone is really aimed at those who believe that status comes with a price tag why did Steve spend so much time comparing the iPhone to smart phones? The answer is not obvious at first but it is simple: to justify the price. Smart phones are the most expensive cell phones on the market, if Steve had thrown the iPhone up against a $29.00 RAZR and revealed the $499 price tag the iPhone would have seemed wildly overpriced even factoring in the price of a nano, a cell phone and a camera.

That notion seems ludicrous right? Everyone who saw the keynote saw what the iPhone can do, comparing it to a RAZR is unadulterated lunacy, right? Before dismissing the argument out of hand let’s have an old fashioned bake off. This time instead of comparing Adobe Photoshop filters across platforms, we’ll compare the capabilities of the iPhone to the capabilities of the RAZR. A little spec sheet throw down so to speak.

                                                                                                     
FeatureiPhoneRAZR
Text messages··
Camera2 Mpx1.3 Mpx
.mp3··
video··
contacts··
calendar··
battery lifeblowssucks
Internet browserSafariWAP
gameswidgets·
bluetooth··
WiFi·
.mp3··
Screen size·
Physical keyboardnopekinda
Memory4GBWho Cares
Price$499basically free

The list is carefully chosen to show that, under the best of circumstances, the RAZR can perform the lion’s share of the iPhone’s functions. The fact that the RAZR is, on paper, almost a match for the iPhone noted it is time for a little reality.

The RAZR is a pretty horrible device when push comes to shove. As a phone it is nice, the clamshell design wraps about the head with a certain anatomical precision but that is where the usefulness ends. Want to send a text message with your RAZR? Good freaking luck, there is a reason that text messengers write messages in the easiest way decipherable and it has more to do with the limitations of the keyboards than stupidity of the U5ER5. Want to listen to .mp3s? Entirely possible in theory but in reality (particularly if you use the vile Verizon) it is a lot harder than it should be. Battery life? Pathetic. The user interface? Ah ahahaha, right up there with instruction manuals written in English by native mandarin speakers with a single semester of English.

It’s true, it’s true as a device for anything other than calling and looking cool the RAZR sucks. So the actual bar for the iPhone to surpass is now set. The iPhone doesn’t have to be a better choice for the corporate world than the Blackberry, it just has to be a better phone than the RAZR.

Now here’s the rub, the iPhone will be worse than the RAZR. First, we have to consider the primary use of the device: calling. The RAZR wins this challenge hands down. Where the iPhone has a melted bar of soap form factor the RAZR enjoys the clear advantage with the clamshell design. Where the iPhone must be ogled to place a call, RAZR owners can dial by feel. Finally, RAZR owners can go for pink, iPhone wannabes can opt for, well, iPhone black.

That, most would agree, is the end of the RAZR’s advantages. The iPhone will be easier to use for everything else. Text messages? iPhone wins. Digital audio player? iPhone. Internet browsing? iPhone. Watching videos? iPhone. The list continues and aside from calling, there is not a single place the iPhone loses out to the RAZR.

The iPhone ‘wins’ are impressive but the overall effect is negative. People use their RAZR for calls and that is about it. That won’t be the case for the iPhone. With internet browsing that actually works, with a video player that is almost watchable, with an iPod inside there will be no barrier to taking full advantage of the iPhone’s capabilities. Taking advantage of capabilities is another way of saying sucking down the iPhone’s battery life and running up the cell bill. The five hour battery life people never worried about with the RAZR will become a major impediment with the iPhone. Users who just wanted a phone will soon find themselves surfing the internet and paying for data with the iPhone. When users mentally compare the iPhone to their previous phone, the previous will seem simpler and less troublesome.

All in all, Apple has made a lustworthy product, sure the iPhone doesn’t do anything new but making something easy to do (say “Hi” 128k Mac) can be revolutionary. That is also the iPhone’s undoing, Steve said calls were the “killer app” and then bundled four more killer apps on the phone. Apps people will use, apps that will drain the battery. If every application was equally unimportant, no big deal but when the battery is gone because an iPhone user has been browsing Apple Matters archives you can bet they’ll blame the phone and not themselves. Then the RAZR will look mighty sweet.

Comments

  • Platform is right. It’s the advantage of the multi-touch UI, more flexibility, more potential. It single-handedly (in the right hands that is) takes the phone from “device” to “platform”.

    Benji had this to say on Jan 18, 2007 Posts: 927
  • What is it with the 5 hour talk time people harp on?

    For cryin out loud, the Samsung Blackjack, the new smartphone hotness clearly states its 5.5 hour talk time.

    Using the 3G capabilities slices your total battery time in half.

    And if anyone actually pays attention, the “rated” battery life is never the same as in real life.

    Nathan had this to say on Jan 18, 2007 Posts: 219
  • heck, I bought a Nokia 8801 which at the time was retailing well above the iPhone’s launch price.

    And it doesn’t do squat. Just makes calls on a tiny screen.

    But its a beautiful, elegant design. I love using it (the slide mechanism is absolutely satisfying everytime you use it). Loving a gadget is worth more than the money you pay for it. The iPod has proven that beyond any argument.

    I think Apple is going for that in the iPhone. Yes, they expounded on the features in comparison to smartphones. But as the author notes, its really all about the cool.

    Some people, and Breeble is probably one of them, would think I’m insane to pay that much for the Nokia when it doesn’t do my laundry. They may even go so far as calling me shallow.

    But hey, people love things in life that make no practical sense. But that’s what makes life enjoyable. We are emotional creatures, not Borg-like automatons that discount form over function. Heck, why does a Picasso go for over $80 million dollars when all it does is sit in the dark on a wall? Because it inspires, causes enjoyment, etc etc. Just like my Nokia, and just like the iPhone.

    Nathan had this to say on Jan 18, 2007 Posts: 219
  • Ah Nathan, I see what you’re getting at. The iPhone battery life is no worse than the most obvious competition. This undoubtably true but the iPod’s battery life will seem worse because people will actually use the ‘net and such.

    To use an illustration: When I had my first iBook I was awed by the battery life, that thing worked for three days off a full charge! A month later I finally got broadband and the the iBook couldn’t make it through a single day. It wasn’t the battery life that had changed, it was my use habits. In RAZR v iPhone the same will occur. While the RAZR’s or any other phone/PDA battery life will get me through the day it won’t be the same with the iPhone. Not because the iPhone battery has less power but just because I’m more likely to use the exended functions.

    Chris Seibold had this to say on Jan 18, 2007 Posts: 354
  • The nokia 8801 looks, well, freakin awesome! How can such a cool phone come about without a huge media spalsh? I don’t know but if Apple hadd released that you’d be hearing how apple had finally made a phone that was just a phone or something. I’m pretty sure I want a 8801

    Chris Seibold had this to say on Jan 18, 2007 Posts: 354
  • I think the last line suggests otherwise - that there will be future apps. from both Apple as well as other developers, though their functionality & quality will be tightly controlled by Apple…

    What’s the difference between that and apps that run on the RAZR or any other cell phone?  Unlike a true “platform” in which anyone can write an app and make it available, you have to go through Apple/Cingular/whoever for approval the way you would with any other cell phone.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Jan 19, 2007 Posts: 2220
  • Because it inspires, causes enjoyment, etc etc. Just like my Nokia, and just like the iPhone.

    Dude, if you’re inspired by a cell phone, then you’re right about what I’d say about that.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Jan 19, 2007 Posts: 2220
  • Dude, people are inspired by YouTube, the second coming of America’s Funniest Home Videos for pete’s sake.

    I have no problem being inspired by a tool that has been elegantly designed.

    Nathan had this to say on Jan 19, 2007 Posts: 219
  • I also heard that Frank Gehry is inspired by squiggly lines, but that shallowness doesn’t prevent him from being called the greatest architect of the last hundred years.

    Nathan had this to say on Jan 19, 2007 Posts: 219
  • Yep, Chris you nail it on the head. There is so much compromise going on at the handheld device level you just can’t win.

    Batteries are woefully behind other tech. I remember back when the first black PowerBooks were introduced in 1999, and just to play a DVD there had to be special hardware acceleration to play full screen video. Fast forward to today and you can play full screen video on an iPod. But what about battery life? Still stuck at similar power capacity.

    I do think the iPhone promises a lot. Great battery life, it can’t promise, but it does offer similar life just as every other phone. Get this, my Nokia barely survives a day and it has a 208x208 screen without 3G/wifi. But the iPhone is still a host of bad compromises.

    The iPhone still abides by the PDA/phone form factor and it suffers. we won’t be seeing a true revolutionary mobile device until battery tech, miniaturization, and input has been advanced at least 2x’s the current state of the art.

    Nathan had this to say on Jan 19, 2007 Posts: 219
  • I also heard that Frank Gehry is inspired by squiggly lines, but that shallowness doesn’t prevent him from being called the greatest architect of the last hundred years.

    I’d argue that it’s less shallow to be inspired by squiggly lines than a mass consumer product.  But that’s just my humble opinion.  I don’t really think it’s worth fighting about.  If you’re inspired by a phone, then more power to ya.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Jan 19, 2007 Posts: 2220
  • Keep in mind that the iPhone uses two batteries, one for the iPod and one for the PDA/phone (that presumably also powers the display.

    While that’s an interesting compromise in terms of preserving as much battery life for the phone as possible, assuming that you’ll be listening to the iPod more hours than you’ll be talking on the phone, I can’t help but think of the volume of space taken up by those batteries that could be used for some other feature.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Jan 19, 2007 Posts: 2220
  • yes it is worth debating. The Eames have inspired countless designers to design better and better products for everyone.

    yet the Eames designed mass consumer products. If more designers were like the Eames, the world would be a much much much better place.

    Beeble your crassness (funny word that is) really frightens me.

    Nathan had this to say on Jan 19, 2007 Posts: 219
  • The Eames have inspired countless designers to design better and better products for everyone.

    Are you a designer?

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Jan 19, 2007 Posts: 2220
  • I just clicked the link ‘Nathan’. Impressive.

    WAWA had this to say on Jan 19, 2007 Posts: 89
  • Page 2 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3 >
You need log in, or register, in order to comment