This Just In: iPhone Doesn’t Cure Cancer

So there’s an article by Tim Wu over at Slate about how the iPhone isn’t as revolutionary as Apple makes it out to be. John Gruber has done a pretty good job in the past few days deconstructing some of the anti-iPhone articles out there but he seems to have missed Wu’s so I thought I’d give it a go. While I hardly think of myself as a Mac cultist I dislike poor analysis and that’s essentially what Wu’s article is.

The central argument of the piece is that the iPhone doesn’t do enough. It’s not enough that Apple got AT&T to implement visual voicemail. It’s not enough that they got AT&T to allow a phone to switch between a cellular network and a Wi-Fi network. It’s not enough that they got AT&T to allow activation through iTunes. No all of these things aren’t enough because the iPhone doesn’t cure cancer.

OK, so that’s not what Wu says. Instead he takes to task Apple for releasing a phone that while doing all these things doesn’t switch seamlessly between different cellular networks (?!), doesn’t allow the Wi-Fi to be used to make phone calls and doesn’t allow applications to be run that weren’t written by Apple.

The first point is so ridiculous I had a hard time believing Wu meant what he’d written. He honestly thought the iPhone should be able to ‘roam’ between different carriers? Why would AT&T or indeed any carrier allow this? Does anyone think this will ever happen? In what other industry is this even allowed? Sure, it’d be nice if the iPhone did this. It’d be nice if the iPhone were free, too. That the iPhone isn’t the only device you will ever need to own (ever) shouldn’t be a reason why it’s not revolutionary.

I agree with Wu that the second and third points are strikes against the iPhone but I fail to see how either significantly take away from everything else the iPhone offers. Does this mean it’s not revoluntionary in its gesture-based interface and successful convergence of a phone, an iPod and an ‘Internet communication device’?

Of course not. Let’s call a spade a spade. This is an article written by someone who can’t review the iPhone but still wants to capitalise on iPhone-mania. Wu could have at least written a standard ‘don’t buy an Apple version 1.0 release’ article like everyone else in this boat but maybe that would have required actual research into past Apple products. Much easier just to look at the iPhone web site and then make up a list of fantasy items that aren’t there. I’m sorry to give traffic to Slate because I know that’s why this article was written in the first place but I’m hoping any short-term gain is outweighed over the long-term. This is poor writing and should be called as such. For shame, Slate, for shame.