Point is, it's JUST a user experience. Functionality wise, at best it's average. You'd swap something that works, for something prettier that doesn't?

Well-put, Suvana - thanks.

It seems to have a better than average screen, especially at the new price. Legibility is function.

Since when are user experience and functionality mutually exclusive? Solid UI's that can be quickly learned and navigated directly correlate to solid functionality.

While it's true that the core feature-set wasn't completely revolutionary; the simple, yet profound improvements made completely blew the competition out of the water. Internet connectivity on a phone wasn't new; but having a fully functional browser on a screen that actually made using it worth while? Second to none. Text messaging isn't new, but threaded conversations? Amazing. Voicemail is as old as the phone; but offering voicemail on demand, completely different.

Wow. I started typing something eerily similar to Shawn, until I read his comment. The thing is, the iPhone comes from a company that has already established itself as the ushering in of a new generation of technology, and the culmination of that into a new product is worth it.

The point here - and everywhere else comparing the Apple experience with pretty much any other - may be the difference between experience and perception address... hands, anyone?

- allright, I'll elaborate: The story surrounding the iPhone (and most other Apple things) is one of a piece of hardware that does what you want and need it to IN A DISTINCTLY PLEASURABLE, ACCESSIBLE AND NICE MANNER, whereas the story of, say, a Blackberry is one of A HIGHLY ADVANCED ITEM WITH A FEATURE SET AND VERSATILITY THAT IS BEYOND ANY NEED YOU CAN EVER HAVE.

In other words, iPhone is about what you want to do and how to have the best experience doing it (now), Blackberry is about what you percieve to be important to have and consider crucial enough to learn how to do (sometime in the future).

One is not better than the other - but we, the consumers, seem to have grown accustomed to the latter story. I mean, let's face it, most of us have cellphones (even regular, non-smart ones) with lots of features we never use and never miss using.

Sometimes it would be nice to have one that did only what you need from a phone, only did it really, really well, and looked really cool at the same time... oh wait...

(don't have one yet tho - they're supposed to launch here in Denmark next month. Yay!)

Jesper, good point... I think manufacturers have a tendency to pack in ever more features - but consumers tend to reward those products that are simple and effective.

More reading here... "In praise of old, dependable technology": http://goodexperience.com/2007/07/in-praise-of-old-dependable-te.php

Absolutely - I imagine that, at the meetings when a new gadget's feature set is decided, each one represents some target demographic or some such thing, a group of people who'll really appreciate a particular feature of the item.

The logic, then, is that more features = more buyers.

What seems to be forgotten is that all of these features have to reside in the same, sometimes small, always limited, space - risking that the target users either can't find the feature they (may in fact) need, or they can't use it because the limited space doesn't allow for a decent interface for the user to interact with.

I, for one, would never buy a Blackberry (to stick with that example), simply because even a picture of it intimidates me - I can't imagine feeling comfortable interacting with the mass of keys, knobs and buttons I see...

(side note on Suvana's point: - no, to get a pretty thing that doesn't work in place of an ugly one that does is stupid. The iPhone, however, really handles well, if the look of glee on the faces of iPhone owners I know - even after months of ownership - is any indication)