Apple vs. Wireless Carriers?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

According to Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_17/b3930001.htm), Verizon Wireless, Sprint and Cingular are planning on providing music downloading services to their wireless customers later this year.

This is in direct competition to Apple's current iTunes service. The article notes that the wireless cell phone audience tops 1.4 billion customers worldwide, making it an huge market.

As a result of this, Apple has seen resistance to acceptance of iTunes enabled phones from Wireless carriers. The widely publicized Motorola iTunes phone (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/03/20050310012739.shtml) has seen unexpected delays -- likely related to the same issues. Even so, according to the Businessweek article, Motorola does expect availability of the service (and iTunes phone) on at least one mobile phone network this summer.

[Blackheart]

Mmmmmmm, Apple Wireless Carrier please

[Gorbag]

Is this yet another case of Motorola holding Apple back, i wonder???

[GodBless]

If Apple spreads iTunes around then it won't loose its popularity. If it doesn't then iTunes will no longer be a standard and something else will.

[paulypants]

Music model getting alot more complicated, oh well time to shift some focus back on CPUs!!

[Some_Big_Spoon]

Well, whoever offers it gets my business.. for what it's worth.

[arn]

Is this yet another case of Motorola holding Apple back, i wonder???

no. it looks like it's wireless carries not wanting to be cut out of the $$.

arn

[min_t]

Lemme guess. They'd rather have windoze media player. Just go with iTunes and save some research, testing dollars. You wonderful phone companies.

[Dr. Dastardly]

Screw the downloads! Wheres my iPhone!

[rendezvouscp]

Is this yet another case of Motorola holding Apple back, i wonder???

I don't think so, it mainly has to do with the iTunes service that Apple and Motorola want to roll out. The carriers won't be getting as large of a cut with the iTunes service than with their own solutions. And, the Apple/Motorola solution enables you to transfer music from your computer, which is against the carriers own ways right now. To them, if you can't transfer music, then you'll have to pay for everything, which makes them more money in the end. However, for Apple/Motorola, Apple's already making music from the iTMS, and this just broadens their horizons.
-Chase

[Hiroshige]

This is definitely a huge area in which Apple needs to be very involved. It should not be hard to do a Shuffle-Cell Phone. But Apple probably doesn't need to get out of it's core competence and go into cell phone manufacturing. It needs to partner. Such a partnership should be very advantageous to whichever company (ies) Apple partners with.

[pounce]

like most folks with an ipod, i don't want the music on my phone and that kind of thing doesn't interest me. while i don't want apple to lose out on this kind of thing, i'm not convinced it is where the digital music delivery is really going to be happening on any significant level.

[denm316]

The funny thing is that on a mobile phone they will charge $1.99 or more per song. Rigtones on Verizon Wireless are $1.99, I can only imagine what a real song will cost.

As for Verizon they basically crippled the Bluetooth features of the Motorola v710 so that people could not transfer ringtones to thier computers, as with everything related to cell phone multimedia...it will be a ripoff.

[PlaceofDis]

stupid wireless carriers and greed, i doubt that this is Moto's fault, its the carriers not wanting to lose money on a project that they dont realize wont work.....sure there are billions of people with cell phones, but how many actually download ringtones, graphics, and now songs? i know i would never download a song to my phone, and im sure new phones will be needed for this service too, thus further limiting the audience

[denm316]

This is definitely a huge area in which Apple needs to be very involved. It should not be hard to do a Shuffle-Cell Phone. But Apple probably doesn't need to get out of it's core competence and go into cell phone manufacturing. It needs to partner. Such a partnership should be very advantageous to whichever company (ies) Apple partners with.

See I think Apple will need to partner with a carrier and then make an iPhone, meaning it seems like it is the carriers holding Apple back and not the phone companies.

[legalnut]

and sell the phone (GSM version that is) without carrier subsidies in electronics stores (as Sony will do with their Walkman phone) ... all I can say is that carriers are one greedy bunch are they not satisfied with the HEFTY data charges incurred with downloads of songs 3-6 Mb each, they even want a cut of someone else's business... let them start their own business but don't exclude others .... can someone say:
A N T I T R U S T !!!

[dongmin]

Even so, according to the Businessweek article, Motorola does expect availability of the service (and iTunes phone) on at least one mobile phone network this summer.So if Sprint, Verizon, and Cingular are not on board, are we assume that T-Mobile will be carrying the iTunes phone? They were the first, I believe, to support SE's superior compatibility with iSync. Sounds good to me.

[tex210]

I recently dropped my wireless to go back to landline. I just don't like the way the carriers are dragging their feet with connection speed. I had actually planned on dropping my cable and using dsl or dial instead, but dealing with the phone company's customer service kinda put the kabash on that for a while.
Greed is blatant and these companies don't even care if they lose customers to competition. 1.99 a ringtone... :eek:

[macorama]

Verizon Wireless, Sprint and Cingular are planning on providing music downloading services to their wireless customers later this year.

Talk about being behind the 8 ball!

[sigamy]

I'm a gadget freak--I've owned more PDAs and computers than I can remember but I hate phones. I hate cell phones. (I guess it has something to do with the fact that I have no one to talk to.)

The public has created these greedy beasts and now we all are going to pay for it. $30/month for a cell phone, on top of the land line that most of us still have. This is just the beginning. Cell phones are going to become our digital wallets. It will be a cell phone with bluetooth that is used to electronically pay for our groceries or a soda out of a vending machine. These guys want it all and they have the installed base to get it.

One of these carriers is going to be the next Microsoft.

Downloading songs to a cell phone? Sounds just about as crazy as a $500 hard drive based MP3 player did a few years back.

[Yvan256]

like most folks with an ipod, i don't want the music on my phone and that kind of thing doesn't interest me. while i don't want apple to lose out on this kind of thing, i'm not convinced it is where the digital music delivery is really going to be happening on any significant level.

The worst thing is, they really believe they'll have a success on their hands while still being able to lock down their customers.

iTMS + iPod is a success because the price is right and the DRM doesn't crap on its users.

See the "ringtones cost 1.99$ and can't even be transfered to/from computers" comment above/below.

[GrannySmith_G5]

And the negative rating threads continue. We are on a roll now, I'm just waiting to read "Apple bought out by Emachines".

[rosalindavenue]

The funny thing is that on a mobile phone they will charge $1.99 or more per song. Rigtones on Verizon Wireless are $1.99, I can only imagine what a real song will cost.

As for Verizon they basically crippled the Bluetooth features of the Motorola v710 so that people could not transfer ringtones to thier computers, as with everything related to cell phone multimedia...it will be a ripoff.

Amen Brother. Apple has nothing to worry about-- the carriers will totally screw this up. I have a Verizon Treo 600. I like it very much b/c I would carry a phone and palm anyway. However, I dont use ANY of the wireless features becuase they are low quality, they dont work 50% of the time, and they are ridiculously expensive. Unlimited wireless is $50 a month and is much slower than a 56K modem, even in Manhattan. (There is no wifi-- which I'm sure was dictated by the carriers). The email forwarding client is a buggy joke that destroys emails at will. If they do try to sell songs, they'll be $8.50 a piece, they'll take 2 hours to download, there will be additonal bandwidth costs, and the songs wont work on anything but the phone. Itunes will always be preferable.

[SFVCyclone]

now that is some BAD news :mad: i was really looking forward to cingular carrying the phone, but thats some big time BS, i think apple should make its own carrier some how connected to the itunes store.

[MikeBike]

What kind of Fools are these guys?
NOBODY will be buying songs for 1.99 when they can get a superior experience on a IPOD. They'll just roll out these expensive services and fold after a year or two, just demonstrating that Apple's already got this thing rolled up.

What ever happened to my PDA Phone?
How many people are taking photo's and transmitting them to other callers, once you get killed by the price of these transfers, it's a feature that stops getting used.

[Le Big Mac]

like most folks with an ipod, i don't want the music on my phone and that kind of thing doesn't interest me. while i don't want apple to lose out on this kind of thing, i'm not convinced it is where the digital music delivery is really going to be happening on any significant level.

Yeah, I can't see much value in being able to download directly to my phone. Would I be interested in a cell phone equipped with iTunes? Probably--I could see the value in one device instead of two, whether built by apple or licensed. But I'm happy to download music at home at night--not while sitting at a cafe.

So, in short, I don't see much worry for Apple here. Especially since the cell cos. will undoubtedly cripple every phone feature anyway.

[Object-X]

What's to keep Motorola from using it's MeshNetworks (http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,,4882_4172_23,00.htm) initiative to create the nessecary connections to Apple's iTunes web service and others? This technology can work along with tradition phone technology making Wireless service providers irrelevant and unnecessary to access Apple's technology. So, let them do what they want; technology can provide away around them.

[varmit]

Why is it that carriers are going to be stupid this way. I, and most people, will never buy a song that I can only have on my phone, nor wait the long ass time for it get downloaded just to say on my phone. If anything, I want it on my central hub for my music, and that is the computers in this day in age. From there, music can be put onto or into anything the person wants. So ***** the carriers, I'm stickink with my iPod and iTunes. I already have a good phone. I don't need it to play only 20 songs since that is all it can carry when my iPod can hold up to 10,000, and I can hook into my Mac and my Car.

RIAA and Cell phone carriers are Dumbasses! They would replace lawyers at the top of the hate list, but they employ lawyers to do their dirty work, so lawyers get to stay at the top of the list for now.

Sorry for the rant.

[denm316]

I honestly cant see any real benefit in the downloading of actual DRM'ed musical content for a wireless phone whether it is from iTMS of The Verizon Wireless Ripoff Cafe'.

I think the nice feature of iTunes on a phone would be the ability to add some songs to listen to while at the gym. I have to have my phone with me all the time for emergencies at work(IT related). Therefore it would be nice to have a playlist or two on memory card inside my phone, therefore making it so I only need to carry one device. Not that carrying my iPod shuffle weighs that much more but I think you know what I mean.

[zelmo]

I understand why the greedy cell carriers don't like the iTunes business model, since they want a big ol' slice of that revenue pie for themelves. Who wouldn't? But if the current cost of ringtones is any barometer, they will likely price themselves out of any slice at all in the long run.
Let's assume there are actually plenty of folks (I don't know any of 'em personally) who want music on their cell phone. Of that group, how many will be willing to pay upwards of even $1.00 for a song that probably won't also play on an iPod or computer and can't be burned to disk (yes I am making broad, sweeping and possibly baseless generalizations here - sue me :rolleyes:), when they can pay less for a song from iTunes or even Napster?
The carriers will stave off a Motorola Tunes phone long enough to take their shot, and then they will realize that no one wants to pay $2.99 for a song to play on a cell phone.
Then, Apple and Motorola will have an opening for their iTunes phone, and it'll be over before Verizon knows what hit them.

[iJaz]

These greedy bastards make me sick.
They will learn their lesson the hard way, I hope. Download insanely priced, crazy drm'ed, crap quality songs to a cellphone, what a joke.

[rikers_mailbox]

If the wireless carriers are keeping their customers from using iTunes enabled phones, that just reeks of anti-trust and unfair competition. Wireless carriers are nothing more than a service provider, not unlike home internet providers. What if, say, SBC suddenly forbid access to iTMS because they were offering their own online music store. NO WAY!!

I want an Apple branded (or at the very least an iTunes enabled) phone already. There is so much potential for another consumer-level device from Apple in this field. But that's OT, so I won't get into it.

Arg.

[aegisdesign]

We already have these services in Europe.

In Germany for instance, Vodafone charge about 2 Euro per download. ie. Twice the price of iTunes. They've 500,000 songs online. You can burn it to CD 3 times. It's in 128kbit AAC format too but with yet another incompatible DRM wrapper. Only available on 3G networks though, not the old GPRS networks.

It's being advertised on the TV here in the UK too although I couldn't tell if it was available yet in the UK. I'm not on 3G so can't try it and in any case my main mobile is on the Orange network. Only my second mobile is on Vodafone.

The problem would be that if the money is going to Apple with their iTunes store, then the mobile operators wouldn't get their cut.

The deliberate restrictions you get in the US like Verizon switching off Bluetooth and the mad costs of SMS in the USA between networks just wouldn't wash with us here.

[chaos86]

i have a crappy old nokia 2210 and it does everything i want it to do. it makes calls. it sounds like a telephone when it rings. it remembers the last few numbers i dialled. you get it? telephone-like functionality. i dont give a about a changable ringtone. i usually feel it vibrate and answer it before the ring sound even happens. on the other pocket, i have an ipod. it does what its supposed to do too. plays music. you know: music-player-like functionality. my point is WILL YOU PEOPLE STOP TRYING TO MUSH ALL MY GADGETS INTO ONE GADGET THAT WORKS HALF AS WELL AND COSTS TWICE AS MUCH!!




sorry ive been needing to say that for a while now.

[JohnHummel]

Let's pretend that you could get any song you wanted onto your cell phone. For $0.99.

One problem: how do you get it off? Only a CD? Onto your other digital players? Onto your computer? The article itself says the wireless companies know this:

<blockquote>The two sides also have very different perspectives on how digital music stores should work. Verizon, Sprint, and Cingular are expected to charge about $2 for wireless downloads when they introduce their services, or twice the 99 cents per song on iTunes. They figure they can charge a premium for the convenience of getting songs anytime, even though customers most likely won't be able to listen to those songs anywhere but on their phones, at least initially. One knowledgeable source close to Apple says the operators are simply being unrealistic if they expect customers to pay $2 or $3 for a song, especially with restrictions. "If you can get something for a buck, why would you buy it for $3?" says the source. "Do they think people are that dumb?"</blockquote>

Now, if I could carry around my cell phone and order a song to play there for $0.99, and when I get home all of those songs I purchased auto-downloaded to my computer - <em>then</em> I'd be interested. My wife and I have talked about how cool it would be to have a button on your radio marked "bookmark". When you hear a song you want to buy, you can "bookmark" it, so when you get home your computer says "Oh, here's those songs you wanted to buy, the albums they came from, who sings them, and other versions. Which ones do you want, and will that be Paypal or Credit Card?"

The wireless companies have a good start, but except for a few people with poor impulse control and have to have the song RIGHT NOW, it's not going to do nearly as well as the iPod/iTunes combination.

I'm personally waiting for the day the major carriers get competition either from WiMax systems (just use Vonage or Skype on your WiMax portable phone), or one of them wakes up and figures out they can get more customers by letting the customers have choice in their phone technology, not dictatorships. (Which is why the US mobile phone system is pretty much a whole generation behind Japan and Europe.)

[sigamy]

WILL YOU PEOPLE STOP TRYING TO MUSH ALL MY GADGETS INTO ONE GADGET THAT WORKS HALF AS WELL AND COSTS TWICE AS MUCH!!

I hear you and most macrumors users hear you ,but for every one of us there are 100,000 regular Joe's out there who want one device. They don't care about quality, remember most of them buy Dell PCs.

These are the people who don't mind a .3 megapixel picture taken from a camera phone. For them it is good enough. Low bitrate WMA files will be good enough too.

Your cellphone is going to be come your driver's license, debit card, credit card, passport, voice and data communications device, camera, game device, MP3 player and mobile video player.

It's going to happen. As I said before, one of these carriers is going to be the next M$

[WeeBilly]

All I want is a GOOD cellphone that will sync my contacts and calendar with Mac. The key word here is GOOD. I have yet to find a phone that I actually like. I do not want nor do I need goofy ring tones and I certainly wouldn't pay $$ for them. I have an iPod so I have little interest in putting music on my phone.

My contract is up in June with my current carrier and I'm willing to switch to which ever carrier accepts an Apple designed phone.

I just want a phone with Apple's ease of use.

[1macker1]

I dont blame the carriers for wanting a bigger piece of the pie. If the songs downloaded from iTunes could be used as a ring tone, then the carriers are gonna get the short end of the stick. The ring tone business is going to be a billion dollar market, and I dont blame them for not wanting to miss out.

[aegisdesign]

Let's pretend that you could get any song you wanted onto your cell phone. For $0.99.

One problem: how do you get it off?


Almost every phone in Europe comes with Bluetooth now since the laws were changed to ban driving and using a phone at the same time and direct cable kits are really cheap too. You can get them from most market stalls for pennies. That's how we do it here. Quite a few 3G phones also have SD cards.

I have to say though, Bluetooth takes ages to transfer a song. It'd be ok for the occasional song but otherwise a few albums worth is unbearable.


Now, if I could carry around my cell phone and order a song to play there for $0.99, and when I get home all of those songs I purchased auto-downloaded to my computer - <em>then</em> I'd be interested. My wife and I have talked about how cool it would be to have a button on your radio marked "bookmark". When you hear a song you want to buy, you can "bookmark" it, so when you get home your computer says "Oh, here's those songs you wanted to buy, the albums they came from, who sings them, and other versions. Which ones do you want, and will that be Paypal or Credit Card?"


I don't think it's far off at all. There's a service in the UK called 'Shazam'. You dial 2580 on your phone and hold it up to the music you're listening to. It thinks for a few seconds and then sends you an SMS with the title of the song. I don't think it'd take that much of a leap for it to send you the song as an MMS instead and charge your phone bill.

http://www.shazam.com/

Also, trials of Digital Radios with a button on them to 'purchase this song' are currently running. You just hit the button and it sends your computer an mp3, aac or wma.


I'm personally waiting for the day the major carriers get competition either from WiMax systems (just use Vonage or Skype on your WiMax portable phone), or one of them wakes up and figures out they can get more customers by letting the customers have choice in their phone technology, not dictatorships. (Which is why the US mobile phone system is pretty much a whole generation behind Japan and Europe.)

You're not wrong, although WiFi based phones are going to be fun still. I was working out what impact Skype users would have on a public hotspot I'm involved with a few days ago. It's not pretty for the little guys.

[zelmo]

surprise, surprise (http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000130040666/)

[rikers_mailbox]

surprise, surprise (http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000130040666/)

My head a splode.

How can the carriers get away with this?! They are service providers! They have no right to control the content.

[JohnHummel]

surprise, surprise (http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000130040666/)

Guess my next phone will not be coming from Verizon or Sprint, then.

How about you, Cingular? You want to take a crack at it?

[riversky]

A local guy from Subpop records here in Seattle said the carriers are not willing to first, not make a lot of money themselves instead of locking in low prices where Apple makes the most, second feel Apple could control online music worldwide, and third Apple would require one to license FairPlay and the carriers won't have that. The music industry, not so much Subpop, as the larger European companies regret giving Jobs (an American) like Bill Gates a ton of power in this market. First OS with Windows then online music with Apple. They are looking for ways to slow iTunes dominance.

[zelmo]

My head a splode.

How can the carriers get away with this?! They are service providers! They have no right to control the content.

Fact is, they underwrite the cost of the cell phones with their service agreements. If they don't want to carry a phone that conflicts with their "business model", it is their choice. Ultimately, they will come to the realization that there is no revenue for them in music downloads, at least not at the price points they plan. Once that occurs, you'll see phones that can carry music from your computer, and that can purchase songs from iTunes. Ultimately, the best the carriers will get is billing for the airtime charge for the dl time.

[nagromme]

Yes the market of "mobile phone owners" is huge... but then again so is Apple's market with iTMS: "computer owners" (iPod is not required).

And the market of "mobile phone owners who want music on their phone and are willing to settle for slow downloads and insanely awkward searching and then pay three times as much for music that can't even be burned to CD or played on their computer or their iPod" is probably a bit smaller number :D

Competition is good, but this sounds like an even SMALLER niche than subscriptions.

Now, someday a device will be able to do "all things" WELL. It can be an excellent phone AND an excellent music player AND an excellent way to buy music. I'm sure Apple will be a part of that when it happens, and I don't blame the carriers for trying for a share of that income. But that day is a long way off.

Blocking people from buying music on their computer and using the phone as a player is pretty rotten--that function is not using the carriers' network, so it should be between the phone makers and the music stores. Forcing people to use the carriers' networks--making a WORSE user experience--just as an excuse to charge MORE...? No thank you. Reminds me of carriers forcing Bluetooth phones to have Bluetooth functions disabled.

That's the kind of thinking that will STOP phones from ever becoming truly excellent all-in-one devices.

And it's the kind of thinking that keeps me from owning a mobile phone. I could sure use one--but the industry doesn't yet offer an experience worth what they'd charge me.

[PretendPCuser]

like most folks with an ipod, i don't want the music on my phone and that kind of thing doesn't interest me. while i don't want apple to lose out on this kind of thing, i'm not convinced it is where the digital music delivery is really going to be happening on any significant level.

I have zero interest in listening to music on my phone.

I am imagining what's keeping the major carriers from going with Apple is they want to use a subscription service. Because otherwise, what? You're going to store tunes you bought from your phone *on* your phone? Or is it going to be flash based memory resident in the phone? Removeable? A subscription service seems more likely. It's easier for the big companies to see "your phone bill will be charged for your subscription....have fun.....don't steal music." They get your money and they are done with you till next month. Can you imagine the strain on the wireless network with people making that many transactions and downloads for songs?

I can't make a phone call cause you have to have the latest britney spears song? No thanks.

[svenr]

... Ultimately, the best the carriers will get is billing for the airtime charge for the dl time.If you copy songs directly from your Mac/PC to the phone, there won't be ANY airtime charges for anything though. Otherwise, I'm sure, those carriers would be much cooler with the whole thing...

[Silencio]

It's not just the wireless providers that want to get > $1 per song: the idea has record industry execs drooling, as well. They also see it in their best interest to break Apple's dominance and try to squeeze more money out of their back catalogs. I seem to recall reading a quote from an anonymous record exec to that effect posted on AppleInsider a couple of weeks ago, but I can't track it down.

[zelmo]

If you copy songs directly from your Mac/PC to the phone, there won't be ANY airtime charges for anything though. Otherwise, I'm sure, those carriers would be much cooler with the whole thing...

Yes, but if it is a true iTunes-enabled phone, you'd be able cell minutes to dl songs right to the phone and sync later with your computer (or iPod?). Hence, a potential, albeit small, revenue source for the carriers to fight over.

[Jamvan]

Your cellphone is going to be come your driver's license, debit card, credit card, passport, voice and data communications device, camera, game device, MP3 player and mobile video player.

I hope not. Do you know how many times I've misplaced my cell phone? Talk about identity theft. We'd have to walk around with the things permanently tethered to us!

I, myself, have a 40GB iPod photo and a 5 year old Samsung SCH-8500. My iPod plays any one of my 9000+ songs whenever I want it to. I'm emotionally attached to it because I'm emotionally attached to the songs in it. It's a device to escape, if even in 4 minute increments, all the "noise" around us.

On the other hand, my phone rings, I answer it, I hang up. blech. I leave my cell phone behind because I hate talking on the phone, I hate telephone solicitors, and I hate how rude and impolite people on cellphones can be. It's a tool that keeps you connected and I don't like to be connected all the time.

I think you know where my priorities are.

[nagromme]

If you copy songs directly from your Mac/PC to the phone, there won't be ANY airtime charges for anything though.

Nor would that COST the carriers anything because they are providing no part of that experience. It's irrelevant to the carriers. They may as well charge you a per-minute rate to use the Calculator function of your phone.

If they think that buying music DIRECTLY to your phone has value, then they can offer that option and charge what they like. That's a real service they are providing, even though I can't imagine people wanting it :o

But don't block the services people DO want--like PC interconnection (be it Bluetooth or music).

[rlreif]

and sell the phone (GSM version that is) without carrier subsidies in electronics stores (as Sony will do with their Walkman phone) ... all I can say is that carriers are one greedy bunch are they not satisfied with the HEFTY data charges incurred with downloads of songs 3-6 Mb each, they even want a cut of someone else's business... let them start their own business but don't exclude others .... can someone say:
A N T I T R U S T !!!

thank you!
ive been wondering when somebody would say it... I dont see why phone makers dont start selling their phones unlocked with all the intended features in electronics shops.... you can already buy phones this way, but its such a small market that the carriers still have say on the initial design. seems to me somebody could launch one product that by itself could end this greed by the carriers if it had the appeal of the ipod.

make a phone camera (not a camera phone) by putting GSM hardware on an existing 5-7 mp camera... the ultra compacts already have a screen, battery, buttons, etc... adding GSM hrdware would not have to make them much bigger. have a USB port for putting pics, and other data onto phones... use bluetooth for smaller stuff, but be able to use it with everything.... not just what the carriers want. They would be powerless to stop something likke this short of changing GSM specs

[zelmo]

It's not just the wireless providers that want to get > $1 per song: the idea has record industry execs drooling, as well. They also see it in their best interest to break Apple's dominance and try to squeeze more money out of their back catalogs. I seem to recall reading a quote from an anonymous record exec to that effect posted on AppleInsider a couple of weeks ago, but I can't track it down.

I vaguely remember what you are referring to. Wasn't the quote more along the lines of the RIAA bristling because Apple wouldn't let them deviate from the $0.99 per song charge, when they'd prefer to charge less for back catalog stuff to move more volume and also charge premium rates for the hot new songs people are clammoring for?

[aprilfools]

I am convinced that Apple is only marketing to a youth driven market anymore and will probably figure out how to make it happen. Kids would like this to happen for sure. My thoughts are this.... Let a wireless phone be a wireless phone, Let iTunes music store exist for your computer so that you can purchase music and add it an MP3 player (iPod ect..) Thats cool stuff. But it is not important to download music to your cell phone. If it is important than chances are you must be a youth. I am in my forties and no one I know in my age bracket could give a %$*& about dowloading songs to your cell phone. I am not a dinasaur and I like all the latest toys too but come on.

[aprilfools]

i have a crappy old nokia 2210 and it does everything i want it to do. it makes calls. it sounds like a telephone when it rings. it remembers the last few numbers i dialled. you get it? telephone-like functionality. i dont give a about a changable ringtone. i usually feel it vibrate and answer it before the ring sound even happens. on the other pocket, i have an ipod. it does what its supposed to do too. plays music. you know: music-player-like functionality. my point is WILL YOU PEOPLE STOP TRYING TO MUSH ALL MY GADGETS INTO ONE GADGET THAT WORKS HALF AS WELL AND COSTS TWICE AS MUCH!!




sorry ive been needing to say that for a while now.

YES. AMEN AMEN AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[swissmann]

The iPod is no longer so revolutionary. It needs to be a combination of at least two of the following for it to stay on top in my opinion: iPod, Phone, Gaming Device, PDA, Camera, etc. Of course I would love to see all of the things combined into one unit (my pockets would be a lot lighter).

[bbyrdhouse]

i have a crappy old nokia 2210 and it does everything i want it to do. it makes calls. it sounds like a telephone when it rings. it remembers the last few numbers i dialled. you get it? telephone-like functionality. i dont give a about a changable ringtone. i usually feel it vibrate and answer it before the ring sound even happens. on the other pocket, i have an ipod. it does what its supposed to do too. plays music. you know: music-player-like functionality. my point is WILL YOU PEOPLE STOP TRYING TO MUSH ALL MY GADGETS INTO ONE GADGET THAT WORKS HALF AS WELL AND COSTS TWICE AS MUCH!!




sorry ive been needing to say that for a while now.

I agree, although I do think an ipod/pda device would be very useful and if it came from Apple you know it would be good.

[dan-o-mac]

The iPod is no longer so revolutionary. It needs to be a combination of at least two of the following for it to stay on top in my opinion: iPod, Phone, Gaming Device, PDA, Camera, etc. Of course I would love to see all of the things combined into one unit (my pockets would be a lot lighter).

It never was revolutionary, it's an mp3 player. :rolleyes:

[aprilfools]

The iPod is no longer so revolutionary. It needs to be a combination of at least two of the following for it to stay on top in my opinion: iPod, Phone, Gaming Device, PDA, Camera, etc. Of course I would love to see all of the things combined into one unit (my pockets would be a lot lighter).

A hundred years ago nobody needed any of this stuff (CELL PHONES, PDA's COMPUTERS, DIGITAL CAMERAS etc..) and everyone got along just fine. But nowdays companies market to convince you that "you need this" and excellerate what is considered revolutionary. My phone is good enough just being a phone.

[svenr]

Nor would that COST the carriers anything because they are providing no part of that experience. It's irrelevant to the carriers..In a sense there are "costs" involved: opportunity costs.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to speak for them and I hate this situation as much as everyone else here. I'm just saying you can see where they're coming from, why it's not irrelevant for them to try and get a slice of the multi-billion dollar pie, and why they're trying such desparate steps, even if it will most likely not work out for them the way they go about it.

[pcharles]

It is bad enough that we have one handed idiots driving while talking,now we want to add music to the mix. I am sure that will be really safe.

[JohnMacDonald@M]

The article states 'a quarter of the world's population already has a mobile phone' and then extrapolates 1.4 billion.

This just can't be true. Maybe a quarter of those with coverage, but I still doubt it.

[jebarne]

Actually, it wouldn't be difficult For apple to become an MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network Operator) and offer their own Wireless Service. Virgin Mobile, Amp'd, Qwest and others are all providing the marketing and the device selection, screen savers and ringtones but using the big 3 to actually deliver the service.


They have an intensely loyal consumer base, tremendous brand recognition and could probably do well as an operator.

[nagromme]

It needs to be a combination of at least two of the following for it to stay on top in my opinion: iPod, Phone, Gaming Device, PDA, Camera, etc.
That would be great. In fact, I'll speculate and say it WILL be great.

But not until the device can do all those things WELL and not compromise. If anyone can do it Apple can. But I don't see it happening any time soon, and I don't WANT it to happen until/unless it can be done right. I don't want my music player to be less simple and more bulky.

Any combination of the iPod with another device right now would likely be a step backwards. The exception is when the "other function" is purely an extra added on--something nice that you can use or ignore. The iPod has many such functions already--and I like them (my iPod is all the PDA I need already). But in those cases, the "other function" isn't done WELL--it's basic rather than thorough and complete. So it doesn't truly replace another device. That's OK, but it is what it is and no more. For now...


In a sense there are "costs" involved: opportunity costs.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to speak for them and I hate this situation as much as everyone else here. I'm just saying you can see where they're coming from, why it's not irrelevant for them to try and get a slice of the multi-billion dollar pie, and why they're trying such desparate steps, even if it will most likely not work out for them the way they go about it.


Yeah, I know what you're saying. Really, it's in their best interest NOT to have phones do anything other than wireless communication. They make nothing from calculators, games, or files transferred from a PC.

Maybe the phone hardware makers who DO benefit from being able to sell those functions will prove to be a useful counter to carriers' greed.

[dicklacara]

Why is it that carriers are going to be stupid this way. I, and most people, will never buy a song that I can only have on my phone, nor wait the long ass time for it get downloaded just to say on my phone. If anything, I want it on my central hub for my music, and that is the computers in this day in age. From there, music can be put onto or into anything the person wants. So ***** the carriers, I'm stickink with my iPod and iTunes. I already have a good phone. I don't need it to play only 20 songs since that is all it can carry when my iPod can hold up to 10,000, and I can hook into my Mac and my Car.

RIAA and Cell phone carriers are Dumbasses! They would replace lawyers at the top of the hate list, but they employ lawyers to do their dirty work, so lawyers get to stay at the top of the list for now.

Sorry for the rant.

I've not seen it mentioned...

Say you start the download of a typical song:

1) how long will it take?
2) will there be bandwidth/minutes charges in addition to the price of the song
3) can you send/receive voice/text/images while the song is downloading
4) what does downloading/playing songs do to the battery (how many songs could I download & play before I need to recharge)?
5) do the providers have enough bandwith on their networks to do this on a large scale-- millions of users downloading millions of songs 24/7

[virividox]

i just want a phone fully integrated with my os :) that would be brilliant itunes or no itunes

[thirdwaver]

I am so damn irritated with the money grubbing cell phone companies. They nickel and dime me to death all day long. While I appreciate the service they provide, I wish they'd leave me the hell alone with what I do with the device itself. I honestly believe they'd tax me for using the calculator on my phone if they could find a way.

They should just resign themselves to grabbing every penny they can when it comes to me making use of their communications infrastructure (i.e. data and voice) and let me use the phone I OWN along with the computer I OWN and the music I OWN however I wish.

I'd say it was my two cents but I'd be worried that a phone carrier would take them.

Sean

[jayscheuerle]

A little double-sided sticky tape between my phone and shuffle and my problem is SOLVED!

[1macker1]

People will pay 1.99 per song. Hell they already pay 1.50 for ringtones.

[svenr]

A little double-sided sticky tape between my phone and shuffle and my problem is SOLVED!
ROTFL! :D

[Diavilo1]

When i got my latest phone, i looked for one w/o any option of a camera and i couldn't find any and the ones with cameras were more expensive because of that. So if phones starting coming as music players, guess what, i won't buy one of those until they don't make them without anymore. What a waste of money.

[elo]

First, there's no evident antitrust problem here. A violation of the Sherman Act requires either monopolization (distinguishable from monopoly, particularly as the term is commonly used, but definitely not in play here) or an anticompetitive agreement between horizontally aligned entities. Mere unilateral decisions to not carry this service, even though they are anticompetitive, are not illegal. This is akin to airlines raising their prices on particular market segments because others have raised their prices. The net effect is anticompetitive, but lacks the agreement required to prove an antitrust violation.

Having said that, though, the result is very unfortunate. I know Sprint has refused to carry some beautiful Samsung phones (that were, in fact, made just for Sprint) because of features that were not specific to their Vision service. They all use some lock-in tactics that are frustrating to consumers and refusing to give the go ahead to Motorola's iTunes phone is probably such an example. I personally don't think too many people want to purchase music through their phone, but they would love to interface with the computer and play Apple's AAC files on non-iPod devices. Hopefully, at least one carrier will step up to the plate.

[Thataboy]

the level of stupidity of these carriers is astounding. WHO would pay for this.... never mind prices 200% higher than itunes!

apple has nothing to be worried about. people don't want all this bs... they want phone, sms, maybe email.

as higher data bandwidth comes, then its important for quicktime to get on the phones.

ideally, id like to see apple create a mobile OS (maybe called Gala :) ) for smartphones and phones. That way they can leverage and promote apple technology while letting phone hardware companies stick to what they're "good" at. palm os is a dead horse, and windows, hell no.

[d.perel]

I don't even CARE about iTunes on phones anymore! Just get me a cool looking Apple-designed Phone already!!!!!!!!! :p

[synergy]

When i got my latest phone, i looked for one w/o any option of a camera and i couldn't find any and the ones with cameras were more expensive because of that. So if phones starting coming as music players, guess what, i won't buy one of those until they don't make them without anymore. What a waste of money.


You and me both. There are many cool phones I would be but for the fact they have a camera. Why you ask? My employer does not allow them.
Doubt I would buy a music playing phone either unless it was unecumbered by the cell provider.

[Frobozz]

Who ARE the people who want to listen to music on their cell phones? I just don't get it. You can hold like 50 songs, you suck up your battery life, and you have to plug in headphones into your phone. I don't have a land line. I don't want to suck up my cellphone battery with music playing.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think it's a terrible idea. I'm sure some people will play with it for novelty or for a ringer-- but an iPod killer it's not. People carry a communication device and a music device and there's nothing wrong with that! *gasp*

[Bubbasteve]

Here is my complaint about the idea of this music phone...well at least on my i730, I get less than a day and a half of battery life (and that's not counting talk time)... I have about 3-5 hours of talk time...unless they make a great battery for cell phones, I don't see a whole lot of people utilizing their cell phones as iPods. The reason why I'm holding out on switching from Nextel to Cingular is because I am curious if I can send some already downloaded songs from my computer to my ITMS phone (or iPhone what ever) and use them as ringtones instead of buying them... or will this iTunes phone simply download music from the ITMS and then you can transfer it to your computer via bluetooth....if anyone knows the answer to this will you please tell me! :confused:

[tennisbum]

the concept is cool, no doubt. but in reality, just not practical. most mobile phones don't have stereo headphone output. you listen to the songs through crappy speakers. now, if you can use it as ringtone, maybe there's something worth looking into. but wireless carriers want to charge you a whole lot more for ringtones. so i don't think they'll allow downloaded songs to be used as ringtone. (so they can have multiple income streams from the same song.) and what about transfering the music to other devices? so many complications there........

[tennisbum]

Who ARE the people who want to listen to music on their cell phones? I just don't get it. You can hold like 50 songs, you suck up your battery life, and you have to plug in headphones into your phone. I don't have a land line. I don't want to suck up my cellphone battery with music playing.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think it's a terrible idea. I'm sure some people will play with it for novelty or for a ringer-- but an iPod killer it's not. People carry a communication device and a music device and there's nothing wrong with that! *gasp*

well, some corporate executives have to justify the cost of their salary for something, right.... ;-)

[cubist]

Fact is, they underwrite the cost of the cell phones with their service agreements. If they don't want to carry a phone that conflicts with their "business model", it is their choice. ...

I'm sick to death of hearing that MYTH. It is a MYTH - a LIE - that American consumers are so willing to save a few bucks on their phone that they are willing to be locked to a single carrier for two years or more. The fact is, ALL the American cell carriers lock their customers in simply because they can get away with it. They're a bunch of greedy jerks.

Just try to find a place to buy unlocked phones and cell service with no commitments in the US. It's not possible. The US consumer is being ripped off and sold lousy service at premium prices.

[Chip NoVaMac]

no. it looks like it's wireless carries not wanting to be cut out of the $$.

arn

And without regulation of the industry - the consumer pays through the nose....

Essentials like energy, water, and communications need regulation to protect the consumer.

[hulugu]

The iPod is no longer so revolutionary. It needs to be a combination of at least two of the following for it to stay on top in my opinion: iPod, Phone, Gaming Device, PDA, Camera, etc. Of course I would love to see all of the things combined into one unit (my pockets would be a lot lighter).

It would be wonderful if your phone, PDA, PSP, iPod and (shudder!) camera were intigrated into one single exceptionally well-designed device, something akin to a Powerbook you could fit in the palm of your hand, but this will be a long time in coming. The problem is simply interfaces, what works for a PDA (stylus, keyboard) is too complex for just simply dialing a phone number, while the system for fast-scrolling through a hundred albums or so doesn't really work with just a 10-key pad. The problem is really about how one works with these devices, and while you can probably make speech fix several of these problems (e.g. iPod play all Dylan tracks you still have to create a really good interface.

At the same time, the technology hasn't really gotten there, the phone drops calls, the battery doesn't last nearly long enough, the camera takes blurry pictures (and no flash or zoom), the PDA can't hold enough information (your music, photos, vCards, games all take up a lot of space), and you don't have a really good way of shuffling this information around (solvable by 3G, BT, WiMax?, Firewire 800). Now, the PSP is maybe the first good step, but it has one really terrible achillies heel: lots of its abilities are proprietary.

The next evolution, maybe the iSlate?, will have to be more like a laptop than a cell phone, more open to new things, more flexible than your phone or your iPod.

I think and I daresay hope that this little venture by the cell phone companies fails, people should be able to move their data as they wish without running into roadblocks or tollbooths. I hope everyone keeps buying iTMS songs and finds a way around the carriers.

And by the way, ringtones are easily the biggest waste of money since Sea Monkeys.

[hulugu]

They may as well charge you a per-minute rate to use the Calculator function of your phone.


Don't give them any ideas! That's a real revenue stream you're not paying them for; they're losing money because of your freeloading.

[aegisdesign]

Who ARE the people who want to listen to music on their cell phones? I just don't get it. You can hold like 50 songs, you suck up your battery life, and you have to plug in headphones into your phone. I don't have a land line. I don't want to suck up my cellphone battery with music playing.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think it's a terrible idea. I'm sure some people will play with it for novelty or for a ringer-- but an iPod killer it's not. People carry a communication device and a music device and there's nothing wrong with that! *gasp*

Er, me.

I don't really want to carry around an iPod and a phone when I'm out on my bike and a hard disk based player would just get trashed eventually. My phone takes up to 2MB cards in it's side and plays OGG, MP3 and AAC just as well as an iPod does. Sure it's got a crappy interface but once I press play, I tend not to touch the thing again for a few hours. Furthermore, it has bluetooth headphone capability - I don't use it myself yet as the bluetooth headphones are a little pricey and heavy. The battery lasts about 4 hours of music play - longer than I need generally.

It also has ssh, html email and a web browser, so I can support my business even out in the hills without having to also take a PDA. The phone cuts off the music when a call comes in so I can be out yet still not miss a call - that may or may not be an advantage to you. ;-)

It's a compromise, sure, but it's one small-ish Sony Ericsson p910i or a phone, a PDA and an iPod. No contest, the p910 wins for me.

Now if only iTunes supported syncing playlists to memory cards I'd be extremely happy as otherwise the only downside is transferring songs manually to the cards.

Most new phones in the UK now are coming with card slots for storing songs on. The USA might still be at the arguing stage, but over here it's a reality already.

[zelmo]

I'm not really interested in listening to music on my phone. What I AM interested in, is a phone with a clean, intuitive interface like Apple can design. When I think of Apple getting involved in designing a cellular product, having iTunes download capability is way below my radar, and having the ability to load up a hdd or removeable card with a few hours of music is only slightly more enticing than a cheesy camera phone.

The cell carriers see dollar signs dancing in their eyes, they just fail to see the two-foot thick glass wall blocking them from ever cashing in.

[jwhitnah]

no. it looks like it's wireless carries not wanting to be cut out of the $$.

arn
Ironically, they need Apple to make this work. iPods/iTMS is the dominant player. Right now if I buy from Apple throgh iTMS there is no middle man. Even with that, there is barely any profit. If phone companies try to take a share, there will be super slim profit. Moreover, if each compay sets up there own service, it will be confusing and never really catch on (like non-iTMS'). Also, what are these phones going to hold? They can't be more than a small flash player. It all seems a little half-baked any not very appealing to me. I could be wrong.

[rlreif]

I'm sick to death of hearing that MYTH. It is a MYTH - a LIE - that American consumers are so willing to save a few bucks on their phone that they are willing to be locked to a single carrier for two years or more. The fact is, ALL the American cell carriers lock their customers in simply because they can get away with it. They're a bunch of greedy jerks.

Just try to find a place to buy unlocked phones and cell service with no commitments in the US. It's not possible. The US consumer is being ripped off and sold lousy service at premium prices.


what are you high??
type "unlocked gsm phones" into google and see what you find.
there are thousands of places that sell unlocked versions of every phone. yes they cost more. hence the subsidy.... Americans are so stupid that they will "save a few bucks by being locked in... and having all the features that makes that phone so good turned off"

i dont feel sorry for you or anybody... if you are dumb enouggh to get your phone directly from your wireless carrier then you are locked in to them, and locked out of the cool features.

[macnulty]

i have a crappy old nokia 2210 and it does everything i want it to do. it makes calls. it sounds like a telephone when it rings. it remembers the last few numbers i dialled. you get it? telephone-like functionality. i dont give a about a changable ringtone. i usually feel it vibrate and answer it before the ring sound even happens. on the other pocket, i have an ipod. it does what its supposed to do too. plays music. you know: music-player-like functionality. my point is WILL YOU PEOPLE STOP TRYING TO MUSH ALL MY GADGETS INTO ONE GADGET THAT WORKS HALF AS WELL AND COSTS TWICE AS MUCH!!




sorry ive been needing to say that for a while now.

swish, and you saved me from extra typing, though I have an motorola

[macnulty]

Er, me.

I don't really want to carry around an iPod and a phone when I'm out on my bike and a hard disk based player would just get trashed eventually. My phone takes up to 2MB cards in it's side and plays OGG, MP3 and AAC just as well as an iPod does. Sure it's got a crappy interface but once I press play, I tend not to touch the thing again for a few hours. Furthermore, it has bluetooth headphone capability - I don't use it myself yet as the bluetooth headphones are a little pricey and heavy. The battery lasts about 4 hours of music play - longer than I need generally.

It also has ssh, html email and a web browser, so I can support my business even out in the hills without having to also take a PDA. The phone cuts off the music when a call comes in so I can be out yet still not miss a call - that may or may not be an advantage to you. ;-)


A difference in taste, I do carry an iPod and my phone while cycling. One on my left one on my right, for balance you. I don't want my music cutting out on a call, especially when I can just look at the banner and slip it back into my pocket. As far as supporting my business, sorry not while I'm cruising the byways and highways of Pennsylvania jamming to some SRV

[angelneo]

I have been using my mobile as a mp3 player for quite some time. But it is always a hassle to look for new mp3 and transfer it to my phone through active sync (I am using a windows mobile OS phone....). I would be really happy if I can make it much more easier (aka iTunes). It's time the mobile phone makers break away from the service provider...

[bellis1]

what are you high??
type "unlocked gsm phones" into google and see what you find.
there are thousands of places that sell unlocked versions of every phone. yes they cost more. hence the subsidy.... Americans are so stupid that they will "save a few bucks by being locked in... and having all the features that makes that phone so good turned off"

i dont feel sorry for you or anybody... if you are dumb enouggh to get your phone directly from your wireless carrier then you are locked in to them, and locked out of the cool features.

Do people really still buy locked phones. I thought that went out with Sprint. No, seriously. Actually a flexible carrier like T-Mobile will actually give you the codes to unlock your phone if you are a reliable customer. Every american (I am one) should get with the program and support GSM networks and the related phones. If your not getting flexibility your supporting inflexibility. And if you pay $1.99 for a ringtone and think your going to get a song for less than .99 then you are part of the problem not the solution. Cut your ties and move on and don't give these mediocre companies the money they don't deserve. BTW, when is high speed mobile connections coming to T-mobile? They are joking if they think I am going to pay for hotspots let alone music. If only I lived elsewhere, like the frickn cold UK or maybe avian influenza, sars, dengue plagued southeast asia. The price we pay...

[Frobozz]

Er, me.

I don't really want to carry around an iPod and a phone when I'm out on my bike and a hard disk based player would just get trashed eventually. My phone takes up to 2MB cards in it's side and plays OGG, MP3 and AAC just as well as an iPod does. Sure it's got a crappy interface but once I press play, I tend not to touch the thing again for a few hours. Furthermore, it has bluetooth headphone capability - I don't use it myself yet as the bluetooth headphones are a little pricey and heavy. The battery lasts about 4 hours of music play - longer than I need generally.

It also has ssh, html email and a web browser, so I can support my business even out in the hills without having to also take a PDA. The phone cuts off the music when a call comes in so I can be out yet still not miss a call - that may or may not be an advantage to you. ;-)

It's a compromise, sure, but it's one small-ish Sony Ericsson p910i or a phone, a PDA and an iPod. No contest, the p910 wins for me.

Now if only iTunes supported syncing playlists to memory cards I'd be extremely happy as otherwise the only downside is transferring songs manually to the cards.

Most new phones in the UK now are coming with card slots for storing songs on. The USA might still be at the arguing stage, but over here it's a reality already.

I see your point. But let me save you a lot of frustration. Get an iPod Shuffle and be done with it. :-)

[Westside guy]

I know most everyone believes the wireless providers are making money hand over fist; but frankly I suspect their margins have been dropping fast for quite a while - and that's the problem. Cellular airtime is becoming a commodity, and it's very hard to make lots of money selling a commodity. The only way to really make money is by providing high margin add-on services. It's why Dell pushes all those add-ons to their cheap bargain-basement computers. It's why car dealers try to sell you the extended warrantys.

The wireless providers want the phones to be the commodity product rather than the wireless service, so that they themselves can provide the added-value components. Unfortunately for them that model makes little sense. There's no getting away from the fact that it really doesn't matter whose airtime you have, but it does matter whose phone you have. They can try to bully this all they want; but all that needs to happen - and it will happen - is for T-Mobile (or someone else seeking the competitive edge) to start selling the "cool phones". People will be stampeding away from the other guys, and their house of cards will tumble. It might take six months, it might take a year; but it will happen.

[Balin64]

I don't actually think that this will affect Apple. If this is implemented as other wireless add-ons... well. I would like to see the wireless companies work as a whole to make this happen.

By the way: I am actually getting pretty damn tired of my cell phone... or maybe I just need to get a new phone number; I don't like so many people calling me at their whim. :o I'm such a misanthrope...

[Chip NoVaMac]

Do people really still buy locked phones. I thought that went out with Sprint. No, seriously. Actually a flexible carrier like T-Mobile will actually give you the codes to unlock your phone if you are a reliable customer. Every american (I am one) should get with the program and support GSM networks and the related phones. If your not getting flexibility your supporting inflexibility. And if you pay $1.99 for a ringtone and think your going to get a song for less than .99 then you are part of the problem not the solution. Cut your ties and move on and don't give these mediocre companies the money they don't deserve. BTW, when is high speed mobile connections coming to T-mobile? They are joking if they think I am going to pay for hotspots let alone music. If only I lived elsewhere, like the frickn cold UK or maybe avian influenza, sars, dengue plagued southeast asia. The price we pay...

Would love to. I am in the market and was looking at Sprint (who I had at one time), Cingluar, and T-Mobile. The problem I had with T-Mobile was the size of their network. Too limited. So I am left with the other two. Trying decide between the two now. Thinking doing the Treo 600.

[toaster_oven]

Ironically, they need Apple to make this work. iPods/iTMS is the dominant player. Right now if I buy from Apple throgh iTMS there is no middle man. Even with that, there is barely any profit. If phone companies try to take a share, there will be super slim profit. Moreover, if each compay sets up there own service, it will be confusing and never really catch on (like non-iTMS'). Also, what are these phones going to hold? They can't be more than a small flash player. It all seems a little half-baked any not very appealing to me. I could be wrong.

i totally agree- "half-baked" was the term I was thinking of. i personally don't want to listen to music on my mobile (although some people do, aparently)... they aren't going to make much money off this.

-TO

[Chip NoVaMac]

One thought on the "all-in-one" solution is that battery life is not great for cell phones at this point.

[uberman42]

I don't care how the carriers can hype it, but music downloads via cellphone carriers is still two or more years away from being robust enough to give the consumer a good experience.

i would like a phone to be able to connect to my powerbook via firewire and manage the phone that way. I don't need to wait 2.5 hours to download my copy of Frampton Comes Alive! while my phone exhausted its batteries trying to download the darn.

:mad:

[Philsy]

This thread shows the difference between the US and Europe. Americans still seem very anti-mobile and don't want phones that do everything.

In the UK, for instance, there are more mobiles than people and it's become a part of everyday life that we've come to accept is very useful. Adding additional functionality to phones has to a good thing, even if you don't want to use all the options. Camera phones are very handy - you can take pictures when you don't have a camera, and immediately email or MMS them to people. Great!

The whole point of music downloads is that it would appeal to 12-18 year olds who don't have credit cards and so could buy songs using their phone credit. These kids don't worry about having hundreds of songs - they'll delete the old ones when they get bored with them. Neither are they bothered about transferring songs to a computer, although that would be simple using Bluetooth.

It's also important to differentiate between song downloads (which would be of iTunes quality) and ringtones, which are short and reduced quality.

So, whether you like it or not, this is going to happen. Sure, it's not going to appeal so much to us grown-ups, but we're not the largest market for phones and music.

[wnurse]

and sell the phone (GSM version that is) without carrier subsidies in electronics stores (as Sony will do with their Walkman phone) ... all I can say is that carriers are one greedy bunch are they not satisfied with the HEFTY data charges incurred with downloads of songs 3-6 Mb each, they even want a cut of someone else's business... let them start their own business but don't exclude others .... can someone say:
A N T I T R U S T !!!

1. Have you ever bought a cell phone at full price?
2. Can you imagine the number of people willing to pay full price for a cell phone? The answer. extremly insignificant number of people.
3. It's not antitrust. Just because they reject the itunes phone and want to develop their own services is not antitrust. If it was, ipod itself would indicate apple had antitrust issues. The ipod only supports one DRM and one online music store (itunes). Can't have your cake and eat it too.

[wnurse]

These greedy bastards make me sick.
They will learn their lesson the hard way, I hope. Download insanely priced, crazy drm'ed, crap quality songs to a cellphone, what a joke.

wow. a lot of people are really angry that apple was not able to fleece the carriers. Hmm, does anyone know the market for ringtones?. Billions. Ringtones are just snippets of songs. You think verizon is just selling you songs?. please!!.. they are selling you songs as ringtones, when you turn on your phone, a song plays. You can have a song for each entry in your phone book, etc. A song for each entry in your address book. Play tetris and listen to your favorite songs etc. When verizon offers full songs and charge the same they have been for ringtones, do you know what the market for that will be?. Billions!!!!!. It will not magically shrink just because the ipod exist. The ipod has existed for a while now and ringtones are still a billion dollar market. What i see in this forum is just bitterness. Personally, if i was a ceo of a cell carrier, i would have rejected apple itunes phone too. The cell companies are not in the business of making apple money. They are not subsidiaries of apple. Besides, if they find customers dont want their songs at 1.99, they can always drop it to 99 cents. They'd be making the money, not apple. They wouldn't have to share a dime with apple. Apple is clueless in this market. Which cell maker (nokia, motorola, samsung) has ever demanded a portion of the cell profits in the past?. none!!. they make the cell phones, verizon provides the services. Never in the past has a cell phone maker gone to a cell carrier and say... we are offering you this phone and by the way, we are getting part of the profits. Which cell carrier is foolish enough to accept that business model? Motorola should have known better. Can't believe they let apple snucker them into making this phone. If apple wants a piece of this pie, they need to say to carriers, ok, we sell you the music at bulk, you resell to your subcribers at whatever price. If they fail, apple would still make their money. If they succeed, apple would still make their money. Apple cannot cut the carriers out of the picture. Apple cannot tell them to subsidize a phone but then demand that they be the ones making the money. Regardless of whether i was a greedy CEO of a cell company or totally altrustic, i would never agree to apple terms. It's financial stupidity.
And apple fans should not start railing about flexibility and choice. The ipod only allows one DRM standard (don't give me that crap about burning your cd and then transferring to ipod or mp3 on ipod, thats junk). Apple limits choice, so apple shouldn't be surprised if others limit choice. If apple limits choice and is successfull, why wouldn't verizon, etc be just as successfull limiting choice. What makes apple so special that they are the only ones who can limit choice and succeed?. Whatever!!.

[rickag]

.... Besides, if they find customers dont want their songs at 1.99, they can always drop it to 99 cents. They'd be making the money, not apple....

Not really, initially Apple didn't make any money @$0.99 and only recently has been slightly above break even in selling tunes @$0.99. iTunes exists to sell iPods and computers(I hope). This is unsettling enough for the music industry, they're beginning "pot banging" to try and get Apple to alter their agreements to increase the price on new releases and possibly lower prices on older tunes.

The phone companies in this country are greedy. Quite possibly Apple and Motorola may intro their new phone outside the U.S. first with more willing carriers. The US lags virtually the entire planet in cell phones.
:D

edit: forgot to add that IF, big if here, Apple/Motorola offer the phone without carrier tie-ins, maybe the could start their own "Do The Math" ad campaign. Maybe Apple could give any Motorola phone buyer a rebate worth $0.49/song on their next 200 purchases.

[dicklacara]

Ironically, they need Apple to make this work. iPods/iTMS is the dominant player. Right now if I buy from Apple throgh iTMS there is no middle man. Even with that, there is barely any profit. If phone companies try to take a share, there will be super slim profit. Moreover, if each compay sets up there own service, it will be confusing and never really catch on (like non-iTMS'). Also, what are these phones going to hold? They can't be more than a small flash player. It all seems a little half-baked any not very appealing to me. I could be wrong.
Ya' know, someone posted that:

1) Apple makes little on each song because they are paid for by credit card and Apple must pay a percentage on each iTMS transaction to the cc company.

2) Phone companies bill each month and are paid directly (check or electronic) and don't have any cc fees (though there is a 30-day float)

Seems to me that a system could be setup that:

1) allows cell phone users to buy through ITMS
2) pay thru the phone company cell phone account
3) download songs to either pc or phone

Essentially, Apple would sell the songs to cell customers for the same price, but bill the phone company directly.

The phone company would make the percentage that Apple usually pays to the credit card company

Appropriate fees for services by each party could be negotiated.

The phone companies could take advantage of Apple's existing infrastructure to "Test the water" at little startup cost or ramp-up time.

Songs could be:

1) downloaded on demand from/to the phone
2) downloaded on demand from/to the computer
3) marked for download from the phone but downloaded to the computer(where bandwidth and battery-life are not the major concern)
4) exchanged/played on computer, phone and iPod, alike

Seems to me that the size of the pie would grow, the providers would make money appropriate to the service they supply, and the customer would get more choices.

[MacWhispers]

As far as the cellphone becoming tomorrow's iPod killer, I suggest that everyone reading this take a couple of minutes and conduct a little experiment.

Set your cell phone on the desk or table in front of you. Now, get the earbuds you use with your iPod and set them next to the cell phone. Try a few minutes of several alternate actions: cell phone to ear, as though talking... earbuds in ears, as though listening to music... now, add in a few normal cell phone activities... scrolling back through recent calls to find and dial a number... voice dialing a call or two (if your phone does that)... think about your actions. Think about those earbuds in your ears. Think about caryying and handling the cell phone through this constant mix of activities through the course of a day.

Now... think about your music collection growing and existing on your cell phone, not on your Mac or PC.

Finally, after all of this exploratory thinking and playing around, ask yourself this question: Is it remotely possible to make that platform work as a mass market digital music system?

Folks, the cell phone guys have obviously not done this simple exercise, and have no clue about how real people really want to own and manage their music. This entire period of optimistic predictions of digital music succeeding in any big way through the cell phone system is complete nonsense, little more than the self-serving fantasies of a few very wealthy, stupidly greedy telecom industry executives.

Cellphones dethroning standalone, PC-based digital music? Yeah... right.

[legalnut]

3. It's not antitrust. Just because they reject the itunes phone and want to develop their own services is not antitrust. If it was, ipod itself would indicate apple had antitrust issues. The ipod only supports one DRM and one online music store (itunes). Can't have your cake and eat it too.

I liken cell phone carriers to "common carriers" as such they should not try to shut out other companies trying to conduct business over their network ... they can obviously start their own similar businesses if they so desire but not keep others from using their network to start/enhance their businesses ...

[ScubaDuc]

thank you!

make a phone camera (not a camera phone) by putting GSM hardware on an existing 5-7 mp camera... the ultra compacts already have a screen, battery, buttons, etc... adding GSM hrdware would not have to make them much bigger. have a USB port for putting pics, and other data onto phones... use bluetooth for smaller stuff, but be able to use it with everything.... not just what the carriers want. They would be powerless to stop something likke this short of changing GSM specs

These phones already exists here in Europe However, even though I have an unlocked phone there are still some of the features don't seem to work right. This is because the providers do not like to give the info needed to configure the phones as they prefer you to buy one of theirs (pre-config) where you have to use bandwith to transfer stuff, so they can charge.

How is it that in the US I could not find a "pay and go" SIM card to drop in my spare tri-band for when I visit?

[aegisdesign]

I see your point. But let me save you a lot of frustration. Get an iPod Shuffle and be done with it. :-)

One of those would be useful when I DON'T want to hear my phone but unfortunately, since I'm never really not available for supporting my customers, being able to hear my phone ring is of major importance to me. It's quite nice that they don't know I'm actually out mountain biking instead of sat in front of a computer and I'm not tied to a desk 9-5. All the best biking is done in office hours when the trails are empty. ;-)

If they add bluetooth capability to an iPod such that it switched off when the phone rang, then I'd consider it. Otherwise I'm carrying the phone, it may as well do everything.

I'd have to add that if Apple came out with a phone/iPod/PDA combined unit about the size of my p910i with a decent interface on it then I'd buy one in a shot. Phone OS's like Windows Mobile and Symbian majorly suck for usability and Palm's efforts are just too big and clunky to stick in your pocket.

[aegisdesign]

I liken cell phone carriers to "common carriers" as such they should not try to shut out other companies trying to conduct business over their network ... they can obviously start their own similar businesses if they so desire but not keep others from using their network to start/enhance their businesses ...


Surely all Apple needs to do is write a Java midlet version of iTunes or a Symbian .SIS version. Let users download it to their phone and bypass the phone companies completely. If the phone companies put a block on accessing the iTunes store on their phones there would be hell. I doubt UK operators would even contemplate doing it, the UK regulator would be on their backs in no time and most certainly the EC anti-competition commission.

[Tcnorman]

Well, whoever offers it gets my business.. for what it's worth.

Yep I am switching to whoever wants to support iTunes. I think some of these big carriers should think of that before just rejecting the idea.

[madmaxmedia]

Right now if I buy from Apple throgh iTMS there is no middle man. Even with that, there is barely any profit.

Ummm, Apple is the middle man. They may not make much money, but they are the middle man. And they are accepting lower profits not for our good, but as a strategy to sell more iPods. They do this since they own both the hardware and service sides, whereas the carriers only own the service side. Throw the music industry in this mix, and you have a lot of various companies not wanting to get left out.

I hate this ongoing crap with the carriers, but it's not a black and white thing. Everyone is battling for position, and everyone including Apple has a stake in it.

What is really annoying is the practice by carriers of restricting hardware features to push their own wireless services. But that's a choice every consumer makes themselves- get a free phone with a contract, or pay more for a phone and not be tied to a contract.

Even then at least we have a choice- we can still buy unlocked phones (EBay is a pretty good source.) Most people don't know their phones are locked, and probably don't care since they don't know they can send free MIDI files to their phone for ring tones...

[madmaxmedia]

Cellphones dethroning standalone, PC-based digital music? Yeah... right.

They don't think that any more than they think Java phone games are going to replace an XBox or PS2 (well, except for maybe Nokia and their NGAGE...)

It's not about replacing or dethroning iPods or anything else. It's about trying to generate some supplemental higher-margin revenue from 'value-added' services, since their core business is becoming commoditized like regular landline phone service.

People on this forum are not the type of customer they are going for with their $3 music downloads. They are going for the non-tech teens who may or may not have an iPod, but will still buy a few songs just like they buy a few odd songs for ringtones.

This is like selling $5 popcorn and sodas at the movie theater. It's not going to dethrone the supermarket, but these higher-margin extras often make up much of the actual profit.

[wnurse]

I liken cell phone carriers to "common carriers" as such they should not try to shut out other companies trying to conduct business over their network ... they can obviously start their own similar businesses if they so desire but not keep others from using their network to start/enhance their businesses ...

Even then, it's still not anti-trust. Apple is not trying to go into the carrier business. The common carrier rule applied to other companies wanting to resell same services as the common carrier. Apple wants to use the carrier network just as much as real wants to use ipod. If it's ok for apple to shut out real music content and napster music content, etc, then it's ok for verizon to shut out apple. Apple does not want to offer cell service, they want to offer their DRM music over cell networks. It's the exact same issue as napster wanting to offer their DRM music on the ipod. Again, can't have your cake and eat it too.

[wnurse]

Surely all Apple needs to do is write a Java midlet version of iTunes or a Symbian .SIS version. Let users download it to their phone and bypass the phone companies completely. If the phone companies put a block on accessing the iTunes store on their phones there would be hell. I doubt UK operators would even contemplate doing it, the UK regulator would be on their backs in no time and most certainly the EC anti-competition commission.

Now that the users have the itunes midlet, how would they get the music?
I presume they can go to the itunes store and then what do you think will happen?. Users will then be charged a data download fee. It will end up being the same price. You pay 99c for a song but then you pay 1.00 to download it to your phone. How does that help?. Is apple going to demand that the carriers allow data downloads for free if the data comes from the itunes store?. That i would like to see!!!.. i would not be shocked if it cost more to get songs on your phone through an itunes midlet than through the cell company own interface. What, u think u are the first to think of this?. You cannot bypass the phone companies. No one can. It's their network. This is a silly idea, hope apple is not foolish enough to consider it.

[Loge]

People on this forum are not the type of customer they are going for with their $3 music downloads. They are going for the non-tech teens who may or may not have an iPod, but will still buy a few songs just like they buy a few odd songs for ringtones.

So for once, kids have to pay more than adults for something, instead of the other way round. :p

[aegisdesign]

Now that the users have the itunes midlet, how would they get the music?
I presume they can go to the itunes store and then what do you think will happen?. Users will then be charged a data download fee. It will end up being the same price. You pay 99c for a song but then you pay 1.00 to download it to your phone. How does that help?. Is apple going to demand that the carriers allow data downloads for free if the data comes from the itunes store?. That i would like to see!!!.. i would not be shocked if it cost more to get songs on your phone through an itunes midlet than through the cell company own interface. What, u think u are the first to think of this?. You cannot bypass the phone companies. No one can. It's their network. This is a silly idea, hope apple is not foolish enough to consider it.

I've got some data allowance included with my plan and always have spare minutes which I can make data calls with. 1400 minutes a month is more talking than I can do. It'd cost me nothing extra to download around 10 songs a month.

Some of the data plans are outrageously expensive though so I don't disagree with your reasoning but for those of us that already have decent data provision then why not make it available. There's also enough people that don't pay attention to the small print so probably think they are getting it cheaper from iTunes. ;-)

[jeffbax]

I want an Shuffle / Phone mix so badly, I would love to only carry around one gadget... specially an Apple phone, all current phones leave sour tastes in my mouth.

Unfortunately, as seen with the rise of those terrible commercials advertising ****ing wallpapers that people pay like $2.99 per week for, I wouldn't be surprised to see people pay the high price for these songs :(

I hate the US Cellphone market, it sucks compared to the likes of Europe.

[dicklacara]

So for once, kids have to pay more than adults for something, instead of the other way round. :p
Now... if we only had some way to tell them apart...

[Philsy]

I've got some data allowance included with my plan and always have spare minutes which I can make data calls with. 1400 minutes a month is more talking than I can do. It'd cost me nothing extra to download around 10 songs a month.

Some of the data plans are outrageously expensive though so I don't disagree with your reasoning but for those of us that already have decent data provision then why not make it available. There's also enough people that don't pay attention to the small print so probably think they are getting it cheaper from iTunes. ;-)

I think the idea of a Symbian version of iTunes makes a lot of sense - it means anyone could buy music using a 3G phone. It's unlikely to cost much if you have a decent deal with your provider. Maybe a third party developer could come up with it?