[dkokelley]

Why would they want to pay more for iPhones with locked out features (like calls and email) instead of cheaper iPods? For the price of an iPhone, you're just a little bit away from an iPad, which in terms of retail style, is as hip as it gets.

[vaporstun]

> Why would they want to pay more for iPhones with locked out features (like calls and email) instead of cheaper iPods?

My guess is that they want a persistent network connection for the devices and it ends up being cheaper to just use the cell network for data with an iPhone than it would be to outfit every one of their stores with adequate wi-fi coverage for an iPod, ensure sufficient bandwidth on their outgoing network to support all devices, and they may have lower maintenance costs in the long run as they will not have to pay IT staff or other support to keep the wireless network maintained and, over time, upgraded.

[anrope]

The article mentions that Lowe's has already been working to offer wifi in their stores, so it doesn't seem like too much of a reach to just use ipods.

It seems like it would be expensive to have 25 cell phone data plans per store, but maybe they are able to cut some sort of corporate deal.

[vaporstun]

Right, I did read and notice that in the article, but the distinction I'd make is that there is a big difference from "having wifi at their stores," and covering every inch of a those very large stores. Many of them are >100K square feet[1]. To cover that adequately with wifi, in a fashion such that their business can reasonably rely on it at all times, is a significant investment. I'd guess that they are going to have wifi near the customer service desk or whatever so they can outwardly say, "we have wifi!" but not bother attempting to offer adequate coverage with the rest because, in addition to being quite large, they are often filled with items that would significantly attenuate wifi signal. (such as copper pipes, metal shelving throughout the store, etc.)

[1] http://media.lowes.com/history/

[mcantelon]

>Why would they want to pay more for iPhones with locked out features (like calls and email) instead of cheaper iPods?

...Or even cheaper Android devices.

[alttag]

A little bit of fly-by fanboy there. I don't mind the claim, but I suspect there's a host of reasons. Perhaps there are some enterprise lock-out features (the article mentions this), a (slightly) higher bar to rooting, a known repository of "safe" apps (although these might be blocked), an appeal to customers' sensibilities (subjective "cool" factor), ...

... or maybe they just got a good deal as Apple works to unload back stock in preparation for the pending iPhone 5 debut.

You might argue with all of these criteria. I'm just saying that it's likely the company had a reason, and a considered response is better than Android v. iPhone sniping.

[silvestrov]

Being able to get (almost) the same model in the next many years might be important too: they don't need to update all their training, and system administration is simpler long-term with only a single type of phone.

Apple is the new Microsoft, who was the new IBM.

[pnp]

Looks like two reasons. First to differentiate Lowe's from Home Depot which is using Motorola devices (Android?).

Second, I imagine they will use the devices as actual phones to contact the employees. No need to PA a clerk to pick up a phone. Just forward the call.

[count]

Honest questions:

a) Are equally powerful android devices really cheaper?

b) Does Android have any form of 'policy' or 'corporate' control capability like IOS devices do?

I've not seen anybody talking about 'b' anywhere, but I honestly haven't been looking very hard.

[dkokelley]

According to the article the iPhone may have been chosen for the cool factor.