<![CDATA[What happened to iPhone's cover shoot? - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA[What happened to iPhone's cover shoot? - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA[What happened to iPhone's cover shoot?]]> because print media covers are glorified envelopes, and i'm not too sure that apple ever goes after the pre-release sharing of product info required to get that type of coverage. it's just too risky (re leaks) and, fundamentally, it doesn't need it. think of all the info shared on the qt by all the gigantic companies exhibiting at ces, which was concurrent with macworld...and do we remember any of it? nope. covers don't matter to many people outside of the pr industry.

JonathanSalemBaskin

]]> <![CDATA[What happened to iPhone's cover shoot?]]> The iPhone is not for sale, not available even to demo at retail outlets, and possibly not complete. Having to conform to a long list of "don't try that"s would result in an article that offered no advantage over publicly available information, and could actually anger readers.

Perhaps iPhones will reach the media well after the keynote but somewhat before they are available for purchase.

iamnewhere

]]> <![CDATA[What happened to iPhone's cover shoot?]]> The only thing amazing about the iPhone (since mp3+touchscreen+phone is nothing new) is that Apple is developing it. The fact its completely touch screen scares me in regards to its functionality.

I had a phone from Europe last year, the motorola A1010.. It was completely touch screen and could do about anything even GPS Navigation right out of the box. The reason I dumped it? No keyboard/all touch screen.

Besides, I don't think theres a single sole out there (atleast in their target demographic) that doesn't know about the iPhone allready.

Whocares

]]> <![CDATA[What happened to iPhone's cover shoot?]]> because it was *too* awesome.

x23

]]> <![CDATA[What happened to iPhone's cover shoot?]]> What rfayed said... wasn't worthy. After all the wait and hype, it isn't really next gen. And by the time it's available it will have serious (probably more affordable) competition.

huygir

]]> <![CDATA[What happened to iPhone's cover shoot?]]> uh...because the iphone is weak?

rfayed

]]> <![CDATA[What happened to iPhone's cover shoot?]]> Ah, who cares? Jobs presentation of the iPhone was like the climax, do we really need to still look at it afterwards? I mean, what do you want to do next, cuddle?

jcc123

]]> <![CDATA[What happened to iPhone's cover shoot?]]> @DrD

I agree. Also, the TV coverage of the iPhone was HUGE. So that, coupled with the blanket web coverage, was probably enough to satisfy J_bs.

I think something overlooked though is the fact that an in-depth magazine piece would HAVE to discuss the possibility of trademark infringement, and I can't imagine Apple wanting that to get any more pub than it's already gotten...

brif

]]> <![CDATA[What happened to iPhone's cover shoot?]]> You think that maybe with the InterWeb and all that i-stuff, that a magazine cover shot was:

a) Not really of any importance in a connected world
b) Way too much of a potential security leak for the secret project

Magazines are becoming somewhat irrelevant for current stories, as the Web is so much faster at getting them to your attention.

Still good for in-depth stuff and comment, but cr@p for news.

DrD

]]>