"Apple really did nothing with the iPhone that they don't do with other products: they take a stagnant tech market with products with confusing and slight technical variation but identically frustrating functionality, they solve human interface issues, integrate already existing technology, and sell it to everyman using the best marketing team on the planet."

This. I still find it humorous that kitacek's innocent comment on a video game - not a phone - led down this pathway.

The argument you should be making that I could get on board with is the price you're willing to pay for a service. If you need a mobile device to make a phone call - and you don't mind if the interface is a pile of dogshit - then the cheapest hunk of plastic is the way to go. I certainly don't purchase a product so I can peel the fresh plastic off and then gush about how much better it is, so you don't need to keep implying that's my motive. (I own an iphone 1.0, btw. 4g? More like Edge) I encouraged a coworker to get a pay-as-you-go service plan, because she intended to use her cellphone as in frequently as possible. Budgeting is not the same as an appreciation for good design (see: usefulness).

It is hard to talk good design - in architecture, landscape architecture, industrial design, computers, product design, package design, illustration, etc - without referencing Apple, and the iphone.

In no way am I castigating you for not owning a smartphone - I just think your outright dismissal of them is misguided. We all don't wear black turtlenecks and smugly sip lattes while we mock non-smart phone users.