I didn't say the iPhone camera is great, Heck I have my Canon EOS 20D and Fujifilm FinePix F10 for that. They are both like 4.5 stars. But, I'm just saying since somebody keep the score on N800&iPhone, it should be count right.

A 2 megapixel phone camera won't replace a digicam?

What about my 2MP digicam? The CCD finally gave out, so it's time for a new camera. While I'm not the biggest iPhone fan, it's a flash away from replacing my camera, since I realized a long time ago that I simply don't *need* more than 2MP for snapshots.

For anything beyond snapshots, I need an SLR, a few lenses, a bag of filters, a flash, and possibly a floodlamp. Then I need three types of color film, minimum, and possibly a few rolls of B&W film, both ISO 25 and ISO 100, depending on what I'm shooting.

Fact is, you're either taking shots which need a crapload of detail, or something quick to show to your friends and family. The middle-ground isn't there for most consumers.

Yea, there are, look for all the new cool phone in Japan. They are all like 4-5MP, some even take good picture rival those old 3MP you have. They are just not being offer to the US market. If you like to know why, ask you Cell carrier.

Cell carriers are absurdly restrictive in their offerings. It's insane. I wish we had a truly open market in the US.

the iphone is a complete piece of junk in my opinion... Yes, I am anti-apple/ipod but seriously.. Ipod had nothing innovative in it.. any company could have made something like that (and they do)... Ok ok i do admit the scrollwheel and the nano actually were 2 innovations no other company has come up with but the rest is just junk... They even stole Creatives navigation system~

As for the iphone.. Whats new besides the multitouch? Apple always sacrifices a lot of great features/hardware qualities and still tends to charge you.. why? looks.. everything apple comes up with is priced mostly for the looks (everybody probably already knows this but i'd like to point it out for the iphone specifically).. ipod, macbook, lcds, desktops, and now iphone - all overpriced products due to just cool looks..

i personally don't care about the looks TOO much v.s. the hardware/features. some of you may have read my other post about choosing the 770 over the 800 primarily for the case and looks.. now im not a two face but the n800 looks pretty ugly imo and i don't really need the extra ram, webcam, etc.. although i would love to have more internal memory on the 770~

For my money, if I'd ever buy a smartphone again, it'd be the FIC Neo1973, provided it ever gets past the developer stage.

http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS2986976174.html

Then again, my next cellphone will probably be the cheapest Bluetooth-enabled model I can find that automagically pairs with NokiLLO and doesn't have Nokia's infamous Bluetooth leak (anyone who's ever tried Bluejack on the P910 will know that Nokias are easy prey for that prankster).

Or, if Nokia keeps disappointing me with the "Internet" Tablet platform, it might turn out to be the FIC after all.

Looks to me like the iPhone, when it comes out in 6 months from now, will include a still image digital camera not a video camera. Comparing taking a still image at 2 Mpixel to a VGA video stream is a little like comparing apples and oranges.

That along with the inclusion of a GSM phone, likely a planned-obsolescent non-replaceable battery, wildly inferior screen resolutions and no third-party apps allowed, it baffles me why anyone thinks they are competitors. It is far more similar to an upgraded Qtopia Greenphone (or, like Karel mentioned, the FIC Neo1973 which has twice the screen resolution of the iPhone) ... but with none of the openness.

Yeah, these are really not competitive products IMO. The people who would buy one will not likely buy the other. Two different audiences.

Thats right!!!
thats why a vain mac user like me has been using macs for the past 15 years... those Mac IIsi sure were really really stylish machines... please! I have heard these spurious pro-windows arguments before. Apple, not always, but quite often integrates new technologies as a standard long before other companies do (take wifi for example). This stuff about Macs being underpowered and overpriced is for the most part unwarranted. Besides, I don't mind paying the premium price for the pleasure of using OSX anyday over a half-baked OS like windows or many linux desktops distros for that matter (sorry, flame on). Sure I prefer open source, but no one puts the amount of attention to detail that Apple does to its products.

That having been said, I don't particularly care for ipods and its navigation system, or what MP3s have done to my music listening experience.

I also see lots of shortcomings with the iphone. But I see some potential too.
I'm happy to finally have a smartphone that'll sync with OSX seamlessly (my Nokia e61 does not). Its also nice to have a email device that seems dependable that's not a crackberry. The 770 email client was really lacking in this respect. However the crappy iphone screen resolution will make my 770 still dance circles around it in terms of web surfing experience. Lack of 3g and gps are also big iphone detractors.

Also Apple's not successful at what they do because they are innovators. They are great at what they do, because of the obsessive attention to detail they put into their products. Nothing in the original 1984 Mac was all that new. Those ideas were recycled from Xerox PARC. And hardware-wise nothing in the iphone is all that new, but you can almost bet that the UI and the software will be well polished.

From most of your statements it seems that you are unfamiliar with Apple before the advent of the ipod and the second coming of steve jobs. Were you even born when the first mac came out in 1984. Did you have to deal with the hell that was DOS and OS2? Why don't you go back to trolling slashdot n00b.

I don't worship apple, but I know the contributions they've made over the years to computing, and at least I don't curse at my computer everyday like my coworkers who use windows.

flame on.

1) Apple's all about fit and finish.
2) Apple's all about ease of use.
3) Apple's all about selling the best possible product to the average consumer.

The iPhone seems to fit right in with these targets, and really, what price would you pay for something that does the basics, but does them well? Mobile email, even on a Blackberry, is lacking in a few big desktop features. Mobile browsing on anything south of the 770 is pretty much junk, for that matter. I'm not saying that the iPhone is as good as the 770 on that front, but it's as good as you can get with that screen, I'll bet.

As for the platform/performance arguments, let's leave it at this: My 867 MHz AlBook is still more usable than comparable PC laptops from the same era, and I'm running Tiger on it quite comfortably. Yes, a modern laptop would be able to play more games, crank out much more work in Photoshop, etc., but as a general purpose computer, it's more than adequate. Apple squeezes a ton of functionality out of their hardware, well more than you see from Microsoft, which is probably the one good thing about Apple's control from the software down to the silicon.