iPhone OS 4.0

"I was unaware the manufacturers of processors will charge you less if underclock them." They don't, and that's my point. Apple paid for a 600+MHz processor for the models predating the 3GS, and they underclocked it to 400MHz. The 3GS has an 800+MHz processor, but it's underclocked to 600MHz. So the 3G (and "2G") is capable of running at a speed that the 3GS runs now, but they refuse to fix that, even though they can. Now do you see my point? "Or are you just trying to make Apple look bad at any cost?" They do a good enough job all by themselves - at every cost, mind you. "My guess is that should a developer put adds in a paid for app, they will suddenly find their sales plummeting." Riddle me this, Batman: Will Apple require that apps be listed on the App Store as containing ads? If not, how do you propose that sales could plummet if a person doesn't know until after they buy the app.

@rrode, smiddlehurst, et. al. I'm not sure how this makes WP7 feel outdated in the least. As far as I have read, Apple has implimented the exact same multitasking model as Microsoft - pause and resume, except for specific code (hub plugins for WP7, specific APIs for audio and IMs for iPhone).

@Mark I'd like to see someone actually try and show that the iPhone multitasking is anything better, or even much different from what WP7 will be. From what I've seen, it's no different at all, and Microsoft was first to announce their method. Once again, Apple is just catching up by offering theirs as a me-too product with the same functionality as others.

"They don't, and that's my point. Apple paid for a 600+MHz processor for the models predating the 3GS, and they underclocked it to 400MHz. The 3GS has an 800+MHz processor, but it's underclocked to 600MHz." Was a 400Mhz chip available at that time? Or did Apple buy the chip that was available? If there was a 400Mhz chip and Apple still choose to buy the higher speed chip, then you have a good point. If however, that slower chip was not available, then you are really treading on thin ice with your argument. As has been pointed out, heat & power consumption are more than valid reasons to underclock a chip. That is in no way a rip off. If they did clock the chip as high as it could go and they battery life dropped off by 1/3 or the phone overheated, I doubt many people would care about that extra speed. "Riddle me this, Batman: Will Apple require that apps be listed on the App Store as containing ads? If not, how do you propose that sales could plummet if a person doesn't know until after they buy the app." I have no idea if Apple will require listing up front about apps containing iAd. That would be nice if they did, and I for one would support that. The first few people who bought the app would likely be screwed, but would likely post poor reviews and ratings which others would then see and choose to not purchase that app if they have no desire for ads. Or is that logic just a little out of reach for you to think of on your own?

"Was a 400Mhz chip available at that time? Or did Apple buy the chip that was available? If there was a 400Mhz chip and Apple still choose to buy the higher speed chip, then you have a good point." The chip is a 600+MHz device, underclocked. There were plenty of 400MHz chips available at the time. The 2G and 3G use a standard Samsung ARM 600+MHz processor, but it's clocked at only 400MHz, which is pretty much the same as what's in cheaper smartphones of the time (even earlier too - I had a 416MHz ARM processor in my HTC PPC-6700 from 2005). Instead, they wasted money on component costs on something that might look good on paper, but in reality is just a sham.

"The iPhone is different, they entered an already saturated market, and they have made a huge dent at the expense of other companies, but Blackberry (in the US) and Symbian (in the world) are still number 1." That's an interesting statement, due to one thing that backs it up: "Microsoft handles enterprise computing needs (and the needs of most home computer users) better than Apple, Apple handles the needs of integrated devices such as phones or media players (now tablets) better than MS." Windows Mobile devices have always targetted businesses for the most part, mostly due to Exchange, but also because of Microsoft's partner messaging on integrating their entire stack. So if Windows Mobile doesn't have a big presence in the consumer space, what businesses did the iPhone really dent? They made it big in the consumer smartphone industry, but there weren't really any major players in that industry to dent in the first place.... They still haven't made a huge impact against Blackberry and Symbian, and yet Blackberry has already had gains over Windows Mobile. So what market share has iPhone really claimed at the expense of other companies really? I don't see it really. They might have made the smartphone popular for consumers, but there's not much else you can say about it.

"Do you really think that Apple was able to implement their multi-tasking and have it ready to demo in just a few weeks time? REALLY?! AND have other third party apps taking advantage of it??? ***REALLY??!!??!!***" Oh COME ON! Microsoft already had multitasking in Windows CE. All they did was adapt it so that applications would pause and resume, or be forced to quit if their status was reported to be already suspended (saving the state may or may not be implemented by the developer). It's just like how you have different power management states based on usage - S1 standby, to S3 sleep, to hibernate. Background services continue to run if necessary. It's an evolution of their already existing Windows CE background task management, which was available years ago. Yes, Apple is playing catch up.

@meason: Developers will probably realize that the App Store isn't the panacea of free-flowing cash that they thought it would be, now that the market is oversaturated. You can credit Apple for not only building, but also letting collapse under its own weight, the 3rd-party app market for their mobile platform in record time.

"but also with prearranged purchase contracts" Now that is an interesting thought. I wonder if Apple got a great deal on the chips due to quantity. This is one company that always plans ahead, so you may be onto something there. Its quite possible they signed a contract for millions of these chips and got a great price, known that at the time they would not be able to clock them as fast as they are capable of running right away, but that within a years time, they would be able to work out the heat/power issues.

Doing a little research (about 5 mins on google) it appears that the Samsung ARM processor in the 3GS costs about $15. It also appears many other phones at the same time did the same thing as Apple, using that same chip operating at a lower clock speed. So, given the price, it is really not costing the customer more. A cheaper chip would only be a few dollars less, and its not like Apple would lower the price of the phone by $5 or $10 if the chips cost $10 instead of $15. If anything Apple is hurting themselves since they could have squeezed a few dollars more profit from each phone. In the end, its likely that Apple choose to use a chip rated for for a higher clock speed and run it slower than use a chip rated at a lower clock speed and run it full throttle. That would likely use less power and give off less heat, while providing the same performance. The more I think about it the more it makes sense and appears to be the best decision. This gives them the performance they want with the stability, power usage and heat they require. So, it may cost a few dollars more, but that is more than worth it.

"It is STILL however at the expense of other companies when they themselves could have picked up those new customers." Huh? That's like saying (hypothetically) that Microsoft has gained market share over Apple on 3D video picture frames, because Apple hasn't entered the market yet. "Windows Mobile devices have long targeted Business customers I agree, and while I think Activesync is a superior model than having a dedicated BES server, RIM has clearly taken the lead in that market." That's a different story though. RIM hasn't taken the lead from Windows Mobile. Windows Mobile was never the business smartphone leader. In fact, RIM's business marketshare has remained fairly steady, as has Windows Mobile. RIM has gained in consumer spaces slightly, but none of the platforms mentioned on the Gartner chart were ever targetted to solely consumers in 2008 in any measure of volume. The iPhone increased interest in consumer smartphones, but it still hasn't had a huge impact on business smartphone platforms, because it just isn't one. You can see that from the chart too.