[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/