Apple Phone in Early '07? [Archive]

View Full Version : Apple Phone in Early '07?

MacRumors

Sep 15, 2006, 06:27 PM

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

ThinkSecret claims (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0609phone.html) that Apple will finally be releasing the long awaited Apple Phone in early 2007.

The rumor site claims that after scrapping a ground-up design, they've decided to go with "several off-the-shelf parts for what will be the first of at least two or three different phones" in the first part of 2007.

The phones are said to include high-end features such as a 3-megapixel camera, 2.2-inch display and complete iTunes/iPod integration. As well, the phone will not be limited to 100 songs as current iTunes phones are.

Earlier this week we posted an artist rendition (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060913215342.shtml) of one of Apple's phone prototypes.

UberMac

Sep 15, 2006, 06:30 PM

Bubbasteve

Sep 15, 2006, 06:31 PM

If by early '07 TS means this Tuesday then yes.....early '07 it is :cool:

notmenotyou

Sep 15, 2006, 06:31 PM

3MP iPod camera phone?!?!? i'll be the first one in line to have it:p

vouder17

Sep 15, 2006, 06:31 PM

I don't really see this happening, if apple is going to take the risk of entering this competitive market, I see them doing it with a very innovative 'new' product.

prady16

Sep 15, 2006, 06:33 PM

sounds more like it!
I don't expect iphone this christmas, though that would be absolutely great!

w_parietti22

Sep 15, 2006, 06:33 PM

3mps???? :eek: are sure its not supposed to be 1.3?

vouder17

Sep 15, 2006, 06:34 PM

3MP iPod camera phone?!?!? i'll be the first one in line to have it:p

there are a number of phones out in Europe already that have 3MP cameras, Nokia N73 and the sony ericsson w800i to name a few.

Edit: its the Sony ericsson K800, not the w800

UberMac

Sep 15, 2006, 06:37 PM

there are a number of phones out in Europe already that have 3MP cameras, Nokia N73 and the sony ericsson w800i to name a few.

Well the w800i has a 2MP Camera, the K800 does have a 3MP camera though. All the same - lot's of half decent camera phones over here! :D

Uber

bowzer

Sep 15, 2006, 06:38 PM

It'd be sweet if the phone had an iSight, you could dock it on your computer and video chat with ppl in ichat. (Well, great for people like me who have a g4, and no isight already)

vouder17

Sep 15, 2006, 06:39 PM

Well the w800i has a 2MP Camera, the K800 does have a 3MP camera though. All the same - lot's of half decent camera phones over here! :D

Uber

Sorry, thanks for pointing it out:o

rdrr

Sep 15, 2006, 06:42 PM

3mps???? :eek: are sure its not supposed to be 1.3?

Verizon has the Samsung A990 which is a 3.2 Megapixal camera phone. :)

camomac

Sep 15, 2006, 06:44 PM

there are a number of phones out in Europe already that have 3MP cameras, Nokia N73 and the sony ericsson w800i to name a few.

Edit: its the Sony ericsson K800, not the w800

why is the US so far behind Europe with this kind of technology?

(edit: maybe it isn't i haven't shopped for a phone in nearly a year)

dashiel

Sep 15, 2006, 06:45 PM

A shame about scrapping the idea of a ground up design - I hope that doesn't lead to a lack of innovation. That's what really leads Apple along! Although if they just make a killer phone (I'm sure they will at some point...) it's bound to sell buckets loads!

Uber

the ipod wasn't a ground up design either.

portal player had the software, pixo designed the UI, toshiba had the new 1.8" hard drives and tony fadell who came up with the whole idea was an outside vendor who pitched the ipod to real networds first (who turned them down, genius).

now admittedly, it was apple, jobs and ives' that took a good idea and refined it to being the great product introduced in '03, but the ipod was an interesting break from apple's NIH syndrome. so much so that i question the TS report about apple going for a ground up design.

theman5725

Sep 15, 2006, 06:46 PM

why is the US so far behind Europe with this kind of technology?

(edit: maybe it isn't i haven't shopped for a phone in nearly a year)
Because US cell phone carriers suck. :/

Thanatoast

Sep 15, 2006, 06:46 PM

Glad to hear that they're considering making 2 or 3 different phones. That way I can get my smartphone while others can get their regular phones.

Koodauw

Sep 15, 2006, 06:46 PM

rdrr

Sep 15, 2006, 06:48 PM

I have posted this link before but with the latest news maybe they will tap Motorola shoulder again. Look at the Motorola e690, looks a lot like what people have been envisioning in an Apple phone.

http://board.phonehk.com/viewthread.php?tid=190533&extra=page%3D1

BornAgainMac

Sep 15, 2006, 06:48 PM

quigleybc

Sep 15, 2006, 06:50 PM

I think the iPhone is going to beat out G5 powerbooks for the most annoying front page rumor.

MegaSignal

Sep 15, 2006, 06:51 PM

bdj21ya

Sep 15, 2006, 06:51 PM

I hear that in Japan 6 to 7 megapixels is more common for the phones.

rdrr

Sep 15, 2006, 06:52 PM

I thought 10 Mega Pixels were possible with some tech that is suppose to arrive at the end of this year for phones.

I wonder if the new phone was like the original iPod Shuffle. You wear it around your neck. That would be funny. I would like the Star Trek Next Generation phone were you tap it on your chest to call people and it automatically goes into speaker phone. That was sort of like the shuffle concept with simple controls and no screen. Even works with iTunes.

Hmmm that is an intresting thought. I saw a demo, over a year ago, of a wireles VoIP phone at Dartmouth University that did just that. They wear them around their neck or use a clip, but it was voice activated, and they actually called them their "Star Trek badges".

http://www.vocera.com/

darwen

Sep 15, 2006, 06:53 PM

why is the US so far behind Europe with this kind of technology?

(edit: maybe it isn't i haven't shopped for a phone in nearly a year)

It is. I believe this is because of the pricing. Europe is much cheaper when it comes to price-per-minute. My guess is the american companies tried to get as much money for as little functionality as possible from the get go (a simple American business tactic) and they are now catching up. There is more demand now so companies have no choice but to innovate and are unfortunately behind Europe. This is all just my guess.

whenpaulsparks

Sep 15, 2006, 06:54 PM

as a proud owner of a SLVR L7, which i love to DEATH (greatest phone ever), i probably won't be buying one in 2007. maybe 2008? depends on what service it's on. if it's on cingular like the L7, then i'll get one without thinking twice.

jnguyen

Sep 15, 2006, 06:54 PM

What are the odds of them using this new phone idea and turning it into a smartphone, maybe restarting the Newton project? As opposed of just having iTunes compatibale features only?

needthephone

Sep 15, 2006, 06:57 PM

Sounds good. I want this phone!

To me its optics which are just as important as how many MP's. I have a 2MP Nokia 6280 which is OK but its let down by poor optics- For a camera I would rather a Nikon SLR any day

mmmcheese

Sep 15, 2006, 06:58 PM

A shame about scrapping the idea of a ground up design - I hope that doesn't lead to a lack of innovation. That's what really leads Apple along! Although if they just make a killer phone (I'm sure they will at some point...) it's bound to sell buckets loads!

Uber

This doesn't mean they will just re-brand a phone...it might just mean they are buying transmitters/etc. from other sources rather than engineering their own. Depending on what they buying "off the shelf," this only makes sense...why re-create the wheel?

Of course they may end up just re-branding a phone, but that doesn't really seem like the Apple thing to do.

MegaSignal

Sep 15, 2006, 06:59 PM

the ipod wasn't a ground up design either...

...now admittedly, it was apple, jobs and ives' that took a good idea and refined it to being the great product introduced in '03, but the ipod was an interesting break from apple's NIH syndrome. so much so that i question the TS report about apple going for a ground up design.

Wasn't the iPod introduced in late 2001?

What is NIH syndrome?

Thanks

rdrr

Sep 15, 2006, 07:00 PM

I think the iPhone is going to beat out G5 powerbooks for the most annoying front page rumor.

HA! :p

No the iPhone posts/rumors, will have to go on for at least another six months before it reaches that status. This is still in the Apple tablet stratusphere. :D

Tommyg117

Sep 15, 2006, 07:07 PM

ok, but what cell phone provider are they going to use? Cingular? Verizon? I have verizon and really want them to have it.

dondark

Sep 15, 2006, 07:08 PM

3mps???? :eek: are sure its not supposed to be 1.3?

Damn, Americans are so out-dated. Prolly cuz of those cheap ass Tele Providers.

nemaslov

Sep 15, 2006, 07:10 PM

then why can't McGiver (MacGiver) make it right now?:D

davey-nb

Sep 15, 2006, 07:11 PM

the ipod wasn't a ground up design either.

now admittedly, it was apple, jobs and ives' that took a good idea and refined it to being the great product introduced in '03, but the ipod was an interesting break from apple's NIH syndrome. so much so that i question the TS report about apple going for a ground up design.

...I think you'll find.

Yes, check Wiki...

FatDaddy 64.5

Sep 15, 2006, 07:14 PM

Wow. I just ordered my MBP on Wen. Looks like I'll be sending that back for the upgrade.

daddy-mojo

Sep 15, 2006, 07:17 PM

the ipod wasn't a ground up design either.

portal player had the software, pixo designed the UI, toshiba had the new 1.8" hard drives and tony fadell who came up with the whole idea was an outside vendor who pitched the ipod to real networds first (who turned them down, genius).

now admittedly, it was apple, jobs and ives' that took a good idea and refined it to being the great product introduced in '03, but the ipod was an interesting break from apple's NIH syndrome. so much so that i question the TS report about apple going for a ground up design.

I still have and use my original 5gb ipod. Came out before christmas, but after 9/11. I remember thinking how expensive it seemed & the state of the country at that point and wondered if anyone would buy it, I got mine in the spring of '02.

dashiel

Sep 15, 2006, 07:26 PM

Wasn't the iPod introduced in late 2001?

What is NIH syndrome?

Thanks

you are correct, brain glitch on my part, i'm looking at by 1g ipod purchased the weekend they were in stores -- i really should know better.

NIH = not invented here. apple was notorious for this behavior in the 80s and 90s, much to their detriment, and success.

Dr.Gargoyle

Sep 15, 2006, 07:26 PM

This doesn't mean they will just re-brand a phone...it might just mean they are buying transmitters/etc. from other sources rather than engineering their own. Depending on what they buying "off the shelf," this only makes sense...why re-create the wheel?

Of course they may end up just re-branding a phone, but that doesn't really seem like the Apple thing to do.
Apple will most likely buy a platform from a manufacturer like SonyEricsson. That doesnt mean it will look or feel like a SonyEricsson. LG has bought platforms from SE and they differ quite a lot from SE's phones.

Doctor Q

Sep 15, 2006, 07:28 PM

By 2007, those specs won't sound as impressive.

szark

Sep 15, 2006, 07:33 PM

What is NIH syndrome?

NIH = not invented here. apple was notorious for this behavior in the 80s and 90s, much to their detriment, and success.

Just to further clarify -- NIH syndrome is when a company chooses not to use technologies invented by other companies in its own products. They prefer to design and build the entire package themselves, in-house.

I'm not that interested in an iPhone. Apple would need to add some very unique features for me to consider buying one.

n-abounds

Sep 15, 2006, 07:34 PM

It's funny...and I say this not as a rumor...just coincidence.

There was a guy in a pizza place I went for lunch that was showing his friends his phone. And it was white. I thought that was a little odd because I don't think I've ever seen a white phone, and odd that someone was showing it off.
But it was a flip-phone and it was ugly, and it had lots of seams...

aswitcher

Sep 15, 2006, 07:36 PM

tortoise

Sep 15, 2006, 07:37 PM

The phones are said to include high-end features such as a 3-megapixel camera

Who the hell needs a 3MP camera on a phone? The optics are horrendous (never mind the sensor element), so there is really no good use for that kind of resolution. I'd rather they put the money elsewhere...

MattyMac

Sep 15, 2006, 07:38 PM

not too bad...wish it was alot sooner, but I guess I'll have to wait:(

rdrr

Sep 15, 2006, 07:39 PM

...
Widgets?
...

Widgets would be a phone killer... Some of the widgets out there consume a lot of memory.

hondaboy945

Sep 15, 2006, 07:41 PM

3MP iPod camera phone?!?!? i'll be the first one in line to have it:p

You and all the rest of us. HAHA.

hondaboy945

Sep 15, 2006, 07:42 PM

Widgets would be a phone killer... Some of the widgets out there consume a lot of memory.

what about enough built-in memory.

MattyMac

Sep 15, 2006, 07:43 PM

ChrisA

Sep 15, 2006, 07:43 PM

I thought 10 Mega Pixels were possible with some tech that is suppose to arrive at the end of this year for phones.

The weak link is the lens. Basic physics says that the resolving power of a lens is proportional to it's diameter divided by the wavelenght of light. Light is not going to change any time soon so if you want to get a clear sharp image you need a certain physical diametr lens. If for some reason you can't have a big lens then what's the point of using a 10MP sensor? Actually if the device is size constrained using fewer pixels on the same size sensor (larger pixels) will improve low light performance. Bottom line: There is an optimum number of pixels, more is not better.

On the other hand if you are selling to un-educated buyers "we got more MPs" is good for marketing purposes even if it is counter productive on technical grounds

Doctor Q

Sep 15, 2006, 07:43 PM

Just to further clarify -- NIH syndrome is when a company chooses not to use technologies invented by other companies in its own products. They prefer to design and build the entire package themselves, in-house.

I'm not that interested in an iPhone. Apple would need to add some very unique features for me to consider buying one.What if it supported NuBus cards?

OK, that was a (bad) joke, since I think NuBus was one of those Apple-only inventions from the past.

But why would you NOT want Apple's phone, szark? Is is that you don't want a camera phone or music phone in the first place, or that you expect it to be priced too high? Without knowing more about it, how do we know it's not going to be at least as good as the phones we have now? Plus an Apple logo.

ChrisA

Sep 15, 2006, 07:48 PM

rdrr

Sep 15, 2006, 07:51 PM

what about enough built-in memory.

Most current phones have 64 MB of memory. According to actviity monitor, simple widgets like Gas, and Sol take between 6.2 - 8 MB of memory, where the more gui type of widgets take 20 - 32 MB of memory. Put that load on a typical phone with a OS and apps like iChat, iTunes, etc... It won't fly unless you can cram 1 GB into iPhone.

QuarterSwede

Sep 15, 2006, 07:56 PM

bdj21ya

Sep 15, 2006, 07:57 PM

Apple being a California based company certainly must know about the new law just signed that prohibits hand held cell phone use while driving a car. (Reasonable law if you ask me) with this new law we can assume the phone will have some kind of "hands free" interface. It would be very hard to sell a high end phone that can't be used in a car in California. Apple must know this, the law has been in the works for some time.

It's a stupid law and not enforced. I talk on my phone all the time, while driving a stick shift with no problems. You just have to be willing to take the phone away from your ear when you need two hands.

That said, I really prefer using my bluetooth headset, and I hope Apple does include bluetooth with the phone, if only just for voice.

Also, Apple should look into the idea of wireless headphones/controllers while ignoring battery problems. Who cares if you have to double the size of the device as long as you're just leaving the device in your pocket or backpack, controlling it with a wireless remote, and experiencing it with wireless headphones. I'm not saying there aren't other problems with this, but I am saying that Apple shouldn't be afraid of the iPod getting bigger again to provide battery life for some new features (e.g. widescreen)

dondark

Sep 15, 2006, 07:57 PM

I'll be very tempted if it has;
3MP
All the display info in the latest iPods
BT
4-8 GB
Full iLife intergration (iSync, iTunes, iPhoto, iCal, Address book (with pictures), Mail)
Earphones (Pref BT and acts as hands free)

Desire
3G?
iChat with BT for Audio?
Widgets?
WiFi
IR remote feature
Light / Flash

Two Choices: Good design Apple Style with decent Camera and Music Quality
about $399
Or, Smart phone like with the feature above.(it means iLife , iChat for live video chat), they only need a good cpu,gpu and wifi for these.
about $599

hondaboy945

Sep 15, 2006, 08:00 PM

Most current phones have 64 MB of memory. According to actviity monitor, simple widgets like Gas, and Sol take between 6.2 - 8 MB of memory, where the more gui type of widgets take 20 - 32 MB of memory. Put that load on a typical phone with a OS and apps like iChat, iTunes, etc... It won't fly unless you can cram 1 GB into iPhone.

If the iPhone is half of the product that the iPod is, it should have a decent harddrive. I think that this would allow for whatever software, songs, movies,or whatever you want. Just take 2 gigsof the drive and partition it off for the OS. But, I could be wrong.

bdj21ya

Sep 15, 2006, 08:01 PM

The biggest reason phones suck today is because the interfaces are horrible (SE's being the best of them all). Motorola's phones are nice but their UI's are awful. What I am expecting from Apple is an easy to use phone that looks great and has, nothing less than, an excellent UI. Of course it'll work with iSync ... that's just obvious.

Hear hear! It bugs me no end that every time I use my Motorola phone's user interface I see obvious ways it could have been better, if anyone had bothered to put 5 minutes of thought into it. For example, menus should be able to be controlled by numbers. That way you can memorize a code to get to functions you use frequently, and you don't have to look at the screen or click up and down arrows all day long. (This is how my Samsung phone was)

bdj21ya

Sep 15, 2006, 08:04 PM

Most current phones have 64 MB of memory. According to actviity monitor, simple widgets like Gas, and Sol take between 6.2 - 8 MB of memory, where the more gui type of widgets take 20 - 32 MB of memory. Put that load on a typical phone with a OS and apps like iChat, iTunes, etc... It won't fly unless you can cram 1 GB into iPhone.

Cram 1GB? Have you seen the 8GB iPod Nano? What are you talking about? Isn't flash memory capable of being used for running processes, or is it too slow?

hondaboy945

Sep 15, 2006, 08:05 PM

Cram 1GB? Have you seen the 8GB iPod Nano? What are you talking about? Isn't flash memory capable of being used for running processes, or is it too slow?

thats whatI was thinking. But we could both be wrong.

aswitcher

Sep 15, 2006, 08:06 PM

Widgets would be a phone killer... Some of the widgets out there consume a lot of memory.

I figure they could sort that out. Widgets only activate when button pushed etc.

aswitcher

Sep 15, 2006, 08:06 PM

Wow...that would be ideal! Mucho $$ too.

Oh, and GPS of course ;)

aswitcher

Sep 15, 2006, 08:07 PM

Two Choices: Good design Apple Style with decent Camera and Music Quality
about $399
Or, Smart phone like with the feature above.(it means iLife , iChat for live video chat), they only need a good cpu,gpu and wifi for these.
about $599

$599...I would expect at least 8GB, likely 16GB or a HDD (ala Nokia) to make that worth that price point for me ($1000 AUD roughly). Also video playback.

etoiles

Sep 15, 2006, 08:15 PM

It's a stupid law and not enforced. I talk on my phone all the time, while driving a stick shift with no problems. You just have to be willing to take the phone away from your ear when you need two hands.

...this law just got passed (today?). It won't be enforced until July next year, I think.

I wouldn't say it is stupid. The other day, I saw a woman driving a big SUV, a cellphone in one hand and an icecream in the other :eek:

dondark

Sep 15, 2006, 08:22 PM

$599...I would expect at least 8GB, likely 16GB or a HDD (ala Nokia) to make that worth that price point for me ($1000 AUD roughly). Also video playback.

Did you see any PDA phone couldnt play video? $599 actually is a very low price. Many high-end PDA phones are selling close to $1000 even without a hard drive.
BTW, $1000 aud is $755 USD

miketcool

Sep 15, 2006, 08:26 PM

why is the US so far behind Europe with this kind of technology?

(edit: maybe it isn't i haven't shopped for a phone in nearly a year)

GPS, whay arent you accurate? Oh right, security issues....

Higher resolution cameras are a security problem for the time being.

Chundles

Sep 15, 2006, 08:39 PM

...this law just got passed (today?). It won't be enforced until July next year, I think.

I wouldn't say it is stupid. The other day, I saw a woman driving a big SUV, a cellphone in one hand and an icecream in the other :eek:

It's been law in the whole country here for many years, not a stupid law at all and I've seen it enforced many times. If you're driving that's where 100% of your attention should be, just because you've got away with it before doesn't mean you always will.

mdntcallr

Sep 15, 2006, 08:51 PM

I think the iPhone is going to beat out G5 powerbooks for the most annoying front page rumor.

You are sooo right!!

of course if apple keeps us going with the merom laptops or holds out too long on blu-ray. those will come up close also.

etoiles

Sep 15, 2006, 09:19 PM

It's been law in the whole country here for many years, not a stupid law at all and I've seen it enforced many times. If you're driving that's where 100% of your attention should be, just because you've got away with it before doesn't mean you always will.

I agree.
I should have said: the law has just been passed in California, sorry.

asphalt-proof

Sep 15, 2006, 09:25 PM

Ok I think Steve is just playing with the rumor sites. First is was "G5 Powerbooks next Tuesday" Now its "iPhone next Tuesday, quarter, macworld, whatever." I think its just his way of palying a practical joke on us plebes. Probably sits back, snorts derisively whenever he sees this and throws a towel at his personal servant (whose name is Steve Ballmer).

HecubusPro

Sep 15, 2006, 09:32 PM

Cram 1GB? Have you seen the 8GB iPod Nano? What are you talking about? Isn't flash memory capable of being used for running processes, or is it too slow?

It may raise the price of the phone, but putting 8GB flash memory into an iPhone would be awesome. I just held one of the new nano's at my local Apple Store today and it's size is perfect as is the weight. The storage portion of the phone is not going to be a problem from that perspective.

GregA

Sep 15, 2006, 09:33 PM

I believe this is because of the pricing. Europe is much cheaper when it comes to price-per-minute.
Also in the US and Canada, you pay to receive a phone call. Not so in Europe, or Australia... if you only answer calls it costs you nothing.

Many people here buy a cheap phone on a cheap plan and say "It's for others to contact me, and for emergencies". Of course in reality someone pays to call them, and when they make their occassional call it costs a lot... still, the concept removes the barrier to people buying a phone.

The main thing I've noticed travelling is there's far more young people with cell phones here than in the US. btw... Australia has more active cellphones than people now.

HecubusPro

Sep 15, 2006, 09:37 PM

Apple being a California based company certainly must know about the new law just signed that prohibits hand held cell phone use while driving a car. (Reasonable law if you ask me) with this new law we can assume the phone will have some kind of "hands free" interface. It would be very hard to sell a high end phone that can't be used in a car in California. Apple must know this, the law has been in the works for some time.

As a Los Angeles resident, this makes me very happy. I've been following it, and I'm happy Arnold gave it his go-ahead.

I'm sure Apple will also be selling loads of peripherals including hands free headsets. I have a bluetooth headset and I love it. Anyone who use's cell phones these days and doesn't use a cell phone is an idiot, IMO.

Want to hear me really rant about this subject, go here...
EDIT: I took the URL out becuase the link had a naughty word in it (and I don't want to get in trouble :) ). If you're interested in seeing my rant, feel free to PM me.

funkychunkz

Sep 15, 2006, 09:37 PM

I think if anythingm it could hurt apple's image. I don't really see why they should tangle themsleves in the phone buisness. What's out there is good enough, and unless they make more of a blackberry than a cell phone with great features, I really don't care for any rumors regarding it.

dmelgar

Sep 15, 2006, 09:40 PM

'07? They've been planning for for years is seems like and '07 is the best they can do? I figure the biggest issues are dealing with the US telcos. They want the UI to look like they dictate. They want to charge for music download/transfer to the phone. Apple has not succeeded in getting movies studios to back iTV and iTunes. They may not have luck with telcos either.

Seems like all the good products are being delayed or havent happened. iTV, 07, iPhone 07, new video ipod... missing.

iMacZealot

Sep 15, 2006, 10:13 PM

If, for example, someone is using Verizon Wireless, would the Apple Phone work for them? In other words, how "universal" would this phone truly be? Would it be able to compete in international markets?

(edited: clarification)

There are two main types of cell phone system: CDMA and GSM. The Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) was created in France throughout the 80's and the EU endorsed it as their official system, which caused it to spread globally. Meanwhile, across the pond, we were sitting on our little keisters and our brick analog phones and then a company called Quallcomm decided to do something six years after GSM had publically been out and they created a popular version of CDMA. CDMA is currently used by Sprint and Verizon (and I think a few Canadian carriers) and is pretty much only existent here in America. GSM is present in 78% of the world's markets.

With that said, GSM phones will not work on CDMA networks and vice versa. If Apple does make a phone, I think it would be GSM in order to capture most of the international market as well as the US. CDMA is very limited because it is not used anywhere besides a few carriers here in America.

Mac Fly (film)

Sep 15, 2006, 10:30 PM

It's September. There's three months until Christmas. Apple wont wait that long around this time of year without holding another consumer based event. What will the event be about? Or more importantly, what products will be at this event? Well there will be one product, one major one. The iPhone®. It's coming, and my bet is, it's coming before Christmas.

MattyMac

Sep 15, 2006, 10:42 PM

I don't know if I can wait until MacWorld:(

Mac Fly (film)

Sep 15, 2006, 10:50 PM

I don't know if I can wait until MacWorld:(
Then read my comment, it's above yours.

iMacZealot

Sep 15, 2006, 10:50 PM

pavetheforest

Sep 15, 2006, 11:01 PM

I would ditch my verizon plan the instant it came out...

prady16

Sep 15, 2006, 11:01 PM

I was just watching the Bill Gates interview on 'The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch' on CNBC and when asked by Donny "What do you carry in your wallet and whats on your ipod?", he replied:
"I don't carry an ipod. I think carrying music on my mobile phone is much better. Some people might be doing that in the future." (chuckles)

Indicating the iPhone or the rumored mobile phone capabilities in Zune?

Mac Fly (film)

Sep 15, 2006, 11:06 PM

The cool new iPods almost always come out at Macworld....before every kid's parents throw the christmas paper from the iPod released in September.
May I remind you:

iPod's:
1G 23 Oct 2001
2G 17 July 2002
3G 28 April 2003
4G/Photo July 2004
5G 12 Oct 2005
5G (enhanced) 12 Sep 2006
6G (not ready yet)
iPhone® Clear some space under that (Walnut) tree.

Besides this is not an iPod, it's an iPod Phone®

GregA

Sep 15, 2006, 11:44 PM

'07? They've been planning for for years is seems like and '07 is the best they can do? It seems that Apple has a choice.

1) Make a simple phone, make it look good and work well.
2) Take phones to a new level

I'd happily have a #1, but if their choice is #2 they may be trying to achieve things that mobile phones haven't done before.

The most obvious of these would be to be a wireless VoIP phone - for use at home (ie iChat over Airport), as well as at work, at hotspots they've negotiated with (possibly a big play in conjunction with Google wireless?), and roam to 3G cellphone networks the rest of the time. This sort of thing may be a little complex :)

iMacZealot

Sep 16, 2006, 12:01 AM

May I remind you:

iPod's:
1G 23 Oct 2001
2G 17 July 2002
3G 28 April 2003
4G/Photo July 2004
5G 12 Oct 2005
5G (enhanced) 12 Sep 2006
6G (not ready yet)
iPhone® Clear some space under that (Walnut) tree.

Besides this is not an iPod, it's an iPod Phone®

What about the iPod mini or shuffle?

In retrospect, I should've said product and not just iPod. That's where they release all the toys.

iMeowbot

Sep 16, 2006, 12:10 AM

[Gates interview]

Indicating the iPhone or the rumored mobile phone capabilities in Zune?
That's not speculation, a Zune phone is part of their stated plans (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-09-14T213034Z_01_N14304886_RTRIDST_0_OUKIN-UK-MICROSOFT-ZUNE-PHONE.XML).

Silentwave

Sep 16, 2006, 12:23 AM

Who in their right mind would want a microsoft phone :eek: :eek:

afields

Sep 16, 2006, 12:49 AM

man, I really don't hope it takes that long....my contract ends in november. oct/nov seems like a better idea for sales. pweeeze apple? :o

cyclone84

Sep 16, 2006, 12:52 AM

Good god, calm down until this thing is actually released. What is the point of getting so hyped up over this RUMOR (which is all it is at this point)?

DrFrankTM

Sep 16, 2006, 01:19 AM

3mps???? :eek: are sure its not supposed to be 1.3?

I don't recall the brand of the phone, but I've seen a cellphone with a 5MP camera here (in South Korea). The phone was rather big, but it'd be an o.k. format if it doubled as an iPod with decent storage space.

EDIT: And I don't follow cell phones all that closely, so there might be higher-res ones that I haven't seen.

cadillaccactus

Sep 16, 2006, 01:33 AM

http://www.gigapxl.org/

kaneda

Sep 16, 2006, 01:41 AM

100 songs.. that's it? Come on! they can do better than that! at least 4 gb...

DrFrankTM

Sep 16, 2006, 01:43 AM

Just a quick thought... It's been mentioned in other threads, but I really think the camera has to be able to swivel in some way if we want to be able to take pictures of stuff in front of us while looking at the screen, and have video chats too (during which you want the camera and the screen to both be facing you). I don't recall seeing decent mock-ups that address this issue.

puuukeey

Sep 16, 2006, 01:47 AM

I have breaking news on the new super secret iPhone. here are some features just added to prototype #62QE91Z-004.2

• teledildonics
• 8 tracks of 88.2 kHz
• extra bnc outputs
• midi jack for ring tones
• 9 core processor
• stamps your passport
• microwavabe
• optional wood paneling
• tv and radio tuner
• dolby digital encoding
• brita filter
• updated version of manhole
• hypercard
• digdug
• dictionary
• todo list
• windows media support
• distributed processing support
• 802.11ntrails
• stereoscopic viewfinder
• soap dispenser
• silicon graphics core
• limewire, torrent, napster
• crank generator
• pet moneky
• built in projector
• band name generator
• bill gates voodoo doll
• address book preloaded with shrubyas rolodex
• built in ipod dock
• LEDS... LOTS OF EM!!!!!
• taste and smell sensor
• navigation system
• google maps
• zippo

more here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=233708&page=9)

Tymmz

Sep 16, 2006, 02:28 AM

the first time i voted "negative", because i'm tired of those phone rumors.

diogowerner

Sep 16, 2006, 03:15 AM

the first time i voted "negative", because i'm tired of those phone rumors.

did the same... for the same reason...

i'll believe in iPhone only when i see one...

Analog Kid

Sep 16, 2006, 03:32 AM

why is the US so far behind Europe with this kind of technology?

(edit: maybe it isn't i haven't shopped for a phone in nearly a year)
Because we don't ride trains... Asia, Europe have idle time commuting where they can fiddle with the functions on a phone-- we're too busy flipping people off and trying not to get killed. Americans use the phone to talk and that's about it.

Analog Kid

Sep 16, 2006, 03:40 AM

This is the most credible of the iPhone rumors I've seen so far-- in no small part because it didn't have a picture attached... The feature set sounds right, the move away from doing everything from the ground up sounds right. There's a lot of companies that have put a lot of effort into building technologies for cell phones-- it would be foolhardy for Apple to think they could do everything better. Get into the market with something that innovates in one small area-- even if that's just in its support for iTunes. Once you understand the market a little better, improve on the pieces you think you can.

freddiecable

Sep 16, 2006, 03:44 AM

They will probably base their design from Ericsson or another platform. LG does not develop the mobile plattform for their mobile phones - they buy them from Ericsson - then they design around it. It's faaaar to expensive to build mobile technology from ground up...

But - Apple has to innovate when it comes to integration and interaction with the phone AND of cource the design.

I'm buying one the second it's out.

A shame about scrapping the idea of a ground up design - I hope that doesn't lead to a lack of innovation. That's what really leads Apple along! Although if they just make a killer phone (I'm sure they will at some point...) it's bound to sell buckets loads!

Uber

dextertangocci

Sep 16, 2006, 03:57 AM

I' SO sick of iPhone rumours:rolleyes:

The iPhone will NOT be released..... EVER!

Analog Kid

Sep 16, 2006, 06:09 AM

GPS, whay arent you accurate? Oh right, security issues....
This is off topic, and maybe I'm misunderstanding to boot... Are you saying GPS isn't accurate? It's been running at full accuracy for years now-- you can get to a couple feet with WAAS, better than a centimeter using differential techniques. The principle limitation on accuracy is atmospheric effects, not security concerns.

Bakerman

Sep 16, 2006, 06:21 AM

MacSA

Sep 16, 2006, 06:53 AM

So many conflicting rumours, clearly nearly all are BS.

buffalo

Sep 16, 2006, 08:28 AM

I'll believe it when I see it. These phone rumors are getting old.

peharri

Sep 16, 2006, 08:41 AM

Somewhere in Culpertino, Steve Jobs is working out who he told they'd originally been working on a from the ground up design that they've now "scrapped"
(http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2842617&postcount=318)

I don't believe this rumour either. Leaving aside the major reasons I've dismissed iPhone rumours before, there's the fact that I can't see any reason or evidence for Apple initially starting off by trying to design the circuitry itself. There's no need to, it's more expensive than licensing off the shelf parts, it requires skills very different from those you'd use designing a G5's Northbridge (for example), it means more regulatory hurdles and it really doesn't help much with your design.

The notion Apple ever even spent time considering designing their own, especially given their success with the iPod, is just too far out to be worthy of serious consideration.

Apple would have started off by basing the iPhone on off-the-shelf components, not switched to that model midstream.

I am more and more convinced that given the real, unambiguous*, rumours are coming (allegedly) from people inside Apple leaking information, that this is a sting, as I partially wrote satirically yesterday. I don't believe there's a single engineer working on this project.

* Firmware of iPod nano just means nano's iTunes and iTunes for ROKR are likely built from the same codebase. Remember neither are based on the Portalplayer software, and Apple isn't going to reinvent the wheel. "iTunes Phone Driver" refers to the ROKR driver, and Apple's website specifically says that's what it's for. Uploading of pictures and other features in the latest iTunes Phone Driver may simply point to updates in iTunes for Phones, or even making the code more generic. All of these pieces of evidence have logical explanations that, on occasion, contradict the notion they're part of some roll-out of an iPhone. The only evidence we have for an iPhone is actually that people like Arn are convinced that their sources are reliable. Ok, I believe you Arn. But you'll forgive me for not believing the story makes any sense.

zim

Sep 16, 2006, 09:57 AM

* Firmware of iPod nano just means nano's iTunes and iTunes for ROKR are likely built from the same codebase. Remember neither are based on the Portalplayer software, and Apple isn't going to reinvent the wheel. "iTunes Phone Driver" refers to the ROKR driver, and Apple's website specifically says that's what it's for. Uploading of pictures and other features in the latest iTunes Phone Driver may simply point to updates in iTunes for Phones, or even making the code more generic. All of these pieces of evidence have logical explanations that, on occasion, contradict the notion they're part of some roll-out of an iPhone. The only evidence we have for an iPhone is actually that people like Arn are convinced that their sources are reliable. Ok, I believe you Arn. But you'll forgive me for not believing the story makes any sense.

I agree with you and what you said about the Firmware in my opinioin is just that, refering to the ROKR... in fact when I updated an old machine it actaully said that as the description in the software update.

And if Apple does make a phone then great! Our market here in the US sucks for phones and phone services. I had a friend visit from China and she had this amazing motorola... all touch screen, did her email, web, everything on it.. when she charged something she got an auto email saying you just charged something, it was amazing.

I think if anything needs to change here in the US to make phones any better it is our service plans, not adding in cameras and iTunes abilities... those are just gimmicks to make you think you have a better service. I think apple could make a better phone but it would be limited to what our US service plans can offer.

miranderm

Sep 16, 2006, 10:19 AM

I would love to see an Apple Phone with these features:

- At least 4 GB storage, preferably 8 GB.
- 3G (UTMS) / 2G (GSM) combo
- iPod/iTunes/Addressbook/iCal integration (duh!)
- BlueTooth
- less than 100g
- clamshell or candybar, no slider please

For less than 600 euros I would buy it instantly.

The market screams for an Apple phone. The above architecture is a basic excellent expected product. Still even a video ichat internet communicating device ( of course camera capable )
would be "hot" for the market inroading mac populace. C'mon Steve this cant be that challenging!!

rtdunham

Sep 16, 2006, 10:28 AM

I really think the camera has to be able to swivel in some way if we want to be able to take pictures of stuff in front of us while looking at the screen, and have video chats too I don't recall seeing decent mock-ups that address this issue.

My Sprint Samsung A900 does that.

jwdsail

Sep 16, 2006, 10:49 AM

Hmmm that is an intresting thought. I saw a demo, over a year ago, of a wireles VoIP phone at Dartmouth University that did just that. They wear them around their neck or use a clip, but it was voice activated, and they actually called them their "Star Trek badges".

http://www.vocera.com/

So a quad-band gsm iPhone based on the new clip shuffle? Perfect! Speaker phone mode or BT headset .. voice activated.. Sync the phone number and voice dialing through an updated AddressBook. Perfect!

;-)

jwd

Silentwave

Sep 16, 2006, 11:05 AM

Please apple, Please make it soon. I've just killed ANOTHER phone :(

prady16

Sep 16, 2006, 11:36 AM

That's not speculation, a Zune phone is part of their stated plans (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-09-14T213034Z_01_N14304886_RTRIDST_0_OUKIN-UK-MICROSOFT-ZUNE-PHONE.XML).

But then why would he say "Some people might be coming up with that soon" ?

rtdunham

Sep 16, 2006, 12:53 PM

I would love to see an Apple Phone with these features:
- less than 100g

you're setting a high bar. my samsung a900, considered a very small RAZR-like phone, weighs 100g and lacks most all of the other feaures you want. (ex: the extended life battery adds 30g and even with it, the samsung's criticized for poor battery life)

Old Smuggler

Sep 16, 2006, 01:02 PM

if they are using off the shelf parts it sounds like its going to be like every other phone which blows

HecubusPro

Sep 16, 2006, 01:10 PM

The market screams for an Apple phone. The above architecture is a basic excellent expected product. Still even a video ichat internet communicating device ( of course camera capable )
would be "hot" for the market inroading mac populace. C'mon Steve this cant be that challenging!!

I don't know if the market in general is screaming for an Apple phone, but it would certainly add an interesting element to an oversaturated market filled with crap product.

SeaFox

Sep 16, 2006, 01:18 PM

why is the US so far behind Europe with this kind of technology?

(edit: maybe it isn't i haven't shopped for a phone in nearly a year)

It's certainly why I haven't. I wouldn't say the U.S. is so much behind the rest of the world (although that is true) but keep in mind U.S. carriers are all about keeping people locked into contracts. It's much easier to get a phone and change providers in Europe because they don't do hardware locking to network and prepaid is more proliferant. You can get lots of these great phones (by the way, they do make 10 megapixel camera phones now) if you buy them online, paying retail prices.

The problem is most U.S. consumers are cheap as far as I can tell, most will not pay at all for a phone and even few will pay more than $100. The carriers cannot afford to subsidize these phones because even with them partially covering the cost a consumer will be looking at an over $250 cost with a contract..

The U.S. cell phone is behind other countries because the U.S. cell phone network is behind other countries. We're just now getting 3G out in most of the country but Japan has had it and two way video calls for years.

If I could afford it and was willing to take the gamble of learning a new UI, I would get the Nokia N73. But it's hard to justify spending that much on a cell phone for me and I'm more familiar with Nokia series 40 phones.

bordenkecher

Sep 16, 2006, 01:31 PM

i dont know if anyone has said this yet, but why dont they just turn a ipod into a phone instead of turning a phone into an ipod... seriously, an 80gig ipod w/ the ability to call and text people and etc. alhtough, i suppose the tech isnt there to make it small enough for the average consumer to enjoy

SeaFox

Sep 16, 2006, 01:38 PM

EagerDragon

Sep 16, 2006, 01:51 PM

Did you see any PDA phone couldnt play video? $599 actually is a very low price. Many high-end PDA phones are selling close to $1000 even without a hard drive.
BTW, $1000 aud is $755 USD

I have to disagree on the price point.

For $1000 you can get a low level 17" iMac. Why would I want to pay that for a frikking phone?

$600 buys you a nice Mini with a dual core. Why pay that much for a phone?

The phone sweet spot is $299, with bluetooth, camera (optional), full pda capabilities, nice screen, voice command, 256 meg internal mem, 2-4 gig flash, new antenna design to pull in weak signals, open so that you can move it from carrier to carrier.

Something like that would sell like hot cakes. Not only that but it would beat a lot of the phones out there in price, usability, and coolness.

donlphi

Sep 16, 2006, 01:54 PM

I'm soooo over the iPhone idea. I'm sort of hoping Apple comes out with iTelegraph or iMorse Code. RETRO IS VERY IN RIGHT NOW!

donlphi

Sep 16, 2006, 01:58 PM

I have to disagree on the price point.

For $1000 you can get a low level 17" iMac. Why would I want to pay that for a frikking phone?

$600 buys you a nice Mini with a dual core. Why pay that much for a phone?

The phone sweet spot is $299, with bluetooth, camera (optional), full pda capabilities, nice screen, voice command, 256 meg internal mem, 2-4 gig flash, new antenna design to pull in weak signals, open so that you can move it from carrier to carrier.

Something like that would sell like hot cakes. Not only that but it would beat a lot of the phones out there in price, usability, and coolness.

If you can connect a small but full sized bluetooth keyboard to it, I wouldn't mind haviing something that is ultra portable. It could even act like a phone, but I would like to see a smaller macbook available.

I know your dealing with screen real estate issues, but I wouldn't be using it to create movies for disney pixar.

Mac Fly (film)

Sep 16, 2006, 02:20 PM

I'm soooo over the iPhone idea. I'm sort of hoping Apple comes out with iTelegraph or iMorse Code. RETRO IS VERY IN RIGHT NOW!
Retro is always in, it's never out. That's why it's retro. Like it or not, the iPhone is coming, and I think it will be here in by the end of Novenber, cause Apple wont go from now until the end of the year without another consumer based event. They're on a roll right now, and they wont let Christmas pass by without releasing that thing.

iMeowbot

Sep 16, 2006, 02:29 PM

But then why would he say "Some people might be coming up with that soon" ?

The BG quote was "I don't carry an ipod. I think carrying music on my mobile phone is much better. Some people might be doing that in the future." (chuckles)"

"Carrying music on my mobile" would be the "future" thing (never mind that there are already phones that do this, and even phones and PDAs running Windows Mobile that do this...)

suzerain

Sep 16, 2006, 02:44 PM

Well, here's what I'm hoping for. (Crazy, I know, but I think there's a chance, because Apple's a computer company, and they seem to approach everything with the computer as the center of everything.)

I want a GSM phone with VoIP capabilities, so it will work with either Vonage or Skype. That way, I can pay way less money...

(Obviously, it has to have bluetooth and sync-ability, but I don't undersstand why people here even consider that optional...Apple created iSync, after all.)

Silentwave

Sep 16, 2006, 02:45 PM

I don't like the sound of "off the shelf" parts. That sounds like Apple is going to rebrand an existing phone or place the guts of another company's phone in their casing.

I'm don't want a piece-of-@#$% Motorola handset inside a nice brushed steel Apple form. Which is who I imagine they would partner with.

If you're listening Apple, I'm interested in the iPhone. I buy my phones outright and I'm not interested in changing carriers (currently on T-Mobile). So you better sell it yourself and hardware unlocked.

I'll agree about the motorola thing! I've had my share of Moto handsets over the years and I've hated every single one. My primary complaint? underpowered and unresponsive. LAG! I would like it if they would just stick a Core Solo ULV in there and we'll be good! ;)

I'd love it to be unlocked too. But they'll probably make it GSM so i'll need to switch networks. Unless they're REALLY nice and make it GSM/CDMA like my Samsung A790 (about to be on my third of those- they have a knack for survival unless you hurl them onto concrete 5 feet below you as hard as you can throw them). I'd pay tons of money for that.

Rhema

Sep 16, 2006, 02:54 PM

ok, so...I wrote this really really really long message, and by the time I had submited it, I had been logged out, and so I lost the whole message. So I'm going to re-write it, but in a much shorter version

Basically I listed all the Ideas I had for the Apple Smartphone. What made the message so long was that I also explained why I wanted each type of feature. I'm going to try and stay away from doing that this time and just list the features but keep in mind that I agree that a lot of these things are a stretch.

- first, call it iMobile instead of iPhone
HARDWARE
- have a full size screen that is a touchscreen.
- have the screen slide up to reveal the keyboard
- have atleast 30 gigs of storage.
- iSight that can rotate. For taking images and having the screen as a viewer, and having the iSight pointed at you for video conferencing
- Use the EvDO technology that the sony treo700 uses that is supposed to be "near broadband speeds"

SOFTWARE
- iPod interface
- mobile iTunes Store, able to download music, shows, and movies on the go.
- ability to record sounds and voices
- ability to record video
- mobile versions of Mail, Address Book, Calender, iPhoto (displaying photos you take or upload) and able to sync perfectly
- mobile Safari
- mobile stickies (more like a notepad type feature)
- bluetooth ( using headsets, but also using the phone as a remote for keynote and the soon to be released iTV
- radio tuner ( i know this is pretty simple, but why not?)
- GPS like system, or atleast a built in mobile google maps? (possibly even mobile google earth
-mobile iChat (since iChat can connect to aim and other services)
- mobile widgets (my sidekick has a lot of programs that you can download for it, most of them being a lot more powerful than most widgets) imagine having the "find the cheapest gas station" widget, get our your phone, bring it up, put in the zip code of wherever you happen to be, see where the cheapest place to get gas is.
- the ability to remote desktop into your mac. (would have to install software on your mac that would create connection for you) gives you the ability just to browse through you desktop's files, if you forgot a file that you need and lets you download it on to your phone.
- Also, lets you use the phone as a bluetooth modem for your computer.

I'm sure there is more..but I'll stop there

jholzner

Sep 16, 2006, 03:03 PM

QuarterSwede

Sep 16, 2006, 03:21 PM

It's certainly why I haven't. I wouldn't say the U.S. is so much behind the rest of the world (although that is true) but keep in mind U.S. carriers are all about keeping people locked into contracts. It's much easier to get a phone and change providers in Europe because they don't do hardware locking to network and prepaid is more proliferant. You can get lots of these great phones (by the way, they do make 10 megapixel camera phones now) if you buy them online, paying retail prices.

The problem is most U.S. consumers are cheap as far as I can tell, most will not pay at all for a phone and even few will pay more than $100. The carriers cannot afford to subsidize these phones because even with them partially covering the cost a consumer will be looking at an over $250 cost with a contract..

The U.S. cell phone is behind other countries because the U.S. cell phone network is behind other countries. We're just now getting 3G out in most of the country but Japan has had it and two way video calls for years.

If I could afford it and was willing to take the gamble of learning a new UI, I would get the Nokia N73. But it's hard to justify spending that much on a cell phone for me and I'm more familiar with Nokia series 40 phones.
I hear you on that. Just check out DoCoMo's (http://www.nttdocomo.co.jp/english/product/function_icon/index.html) phones (Japanese).

mrblah

Sep 16, 2006, 03:55 PM

The problem wasnt the 100 song limit. It was the RIDICULOUS usb 1 speed and the way itunes would delete and then reupload every song on your phone if you wanted to add 1 song to the playlist. I have a slvr and waiting for 100 songs to fill up would have been insane. It takes practically 1 minute per song. Overall the itunes integration with the phones was horrendous, pretty much unusable. Once you finally got the songs on the phone it was a good music player, but getting the songs on the phone is a nightmare. Maybe Apple knew all along that they would enter the phone market and intentionally jacked up itunes phones?

EagerDragon

Sep 16, 2006, 05:47 PM

Who in their right mind would want a microsoft phone :eek: :eek:
Microsoft is an expert at that. All their software phones home, so why not got the distance? LOL:eek:

jagolden

Sep 16, 2006, 08:01 PM

:/why is the US so far behind Europe with this kind of technology? :/

(edit: maybe it isn't i haven't shopped for a phone in nearly a year)
Because US cell phone carriers suck. :/Because US cell phone carriers suck. :/

The real reason many foriegn cell phone providers and services are way ahead of the US is an old one:

The US has had superior LANDLINE service for decades. As foreign countries began to develop worthwhile telephone service (in telephone history, relatively recent), thye opted for more that was not locked in to landlines and the progression of technology gave them a good lead, as opposed to the US which, sure, adopted cell phone use, but the landline service infrastructure that was already in palce held them back-why shell out for new tech when we can plug the old tech and rake in the money. It's funny, the US initial lead actually turned to a disadvantage for them (us).

Europe is so far ahead of the US in what and how cell phone technolgy is used.

SeaFox

Sep 16, 2006, 08:49 PM

I'd love it to be unlocked too. But they'll probably make it GSM so i'll need to switch networks. Unless they're REALLY nice and make it GSM/CDMA like my Samsung A790 (about to be on my third of those- they have a knack for survival unless you hurl them onto concrete 5 feet below you as hard as you can throw them). I'd pay tons of money for that.

Hardware locked doesn't mean GSM or CDMA. That's about what the actual radio equipment is inside the phone. I'm talking about the programming done to the phone so it will only work with one provider's network. T-Mobile and Cingular both use GSM (T-Mobile: 1900mhz, Cingular: 850mhz mostly), but you can't just take one phone to the other even though most phones from both providers support both frequencies. You would have to apply a text command to the phone to allow that.

I recently had to replace my phone (which was locked to T-Mobile) because I lost it, and I got a Cingular-branded phone which was factory unlocked. I just put my T-Mobile SIM in and it works for voice. GPRS required a call to support, and it has boot and shutdown screens w/ the little orange guy on them, but for the most part it works fine.

I also hate carrier branding on handsets. Which is why I want Apple to sell it unlocked. If they partner with Cingular (given that's how the ROKR went) I'll have to 1) buy at a Cingular dealer, 2) find someone/thing to unlock it from Cingular's network, and 3) still have the dumb Cingular logo ON THE PHONE.

Most handsets today don't have replaceable covers (which is how I usually handle this), or even if they do the carrier will put their branding on a part that is not replaceable.

chukronos

Sep 16, 2006, 09:38 PM

I am not sure if it is a smart move for apple to enter into the cell phone market. There is a lot of competition and I think resources could be used better elsewhere. But it seems Apple knows a lot more about it than me.

pink-pony115

Sep 17, 2006, 01:52 AM

When will the iPhone rumors end? Can't you people see it won't happen?

Philberttheduck

Sep 17, 2006, 02:02 AM

When will the iPhone rumors end? Can't you people see it won't happen?

Then I'll be the first to laugh in your face as I gloat everywhere you post.

(iono how serious you were) Unlike the stupid G5 PB rumors, the fact that cellphone chips, etc. can fit into something as thin as a RAZR and couple that with how thin a nano is, it's going to happen sooner than you'd think.

Macnoviz

Sep 17, 2006, 06:14 AM

I don't really see this happening, if apple is going to take the risk of entering this competitive market, I see them doing it with a very innovative 'new' product.

I think the cell phone market is crowded, but so was the MP3 player market in 2001, there are really no killer phones out there, and not one phone really has a good UI, the same problems occur, everything is too complex, and it's hard to learn. Give us a clickwheel, clever Apple GUI, and functions people use, or will use, for a decent price, and you can really take on the market. the first years with very modest margins, but once the 3th party market starts joining in, you'll have the ipod effect all over

ok, but what cell phone provider are they going to use? Cingular? Verizon? I have verizon and really want them to have it.

Ugh, Americans and their providers. We may not have "free" ahum phones , but at least when you buy a cell phone, you know it will work with every company, and everywhere. And no hidden costs.

iAlan

Sep 17, 2006, 07:02 AM

It may be difficult but one would hope Apple will bring the iPhone (or whatever it ends up being called) to Japan and other countries if it does in fact launch such a phone initially in the US.

Let's wait and see...

billyboy

Sep 17, 2006, 08:28 AM

:/

...the US which, sure, adopted cell phone use, but the landline service infrastructure that was already in palce held them back-why shell out for new tech when we can plug the old tech and rake in the money. It's funny, the US initial lead actually turned to a disadvantage for them (us).

Europe is so far ahead of the US in what and how cell phone technolgy is used.

Within the US, innovate or die, and elegant solutions to technology seem to be a purely Apple idea. US cell phones and cars, to name but two, seem to be archaic in design and function compared to elsewhere in the world. With that latest gold trimmed Cadillac SUV the size of a small bus and a 1980´s flip up phone, the US is all set to lead the way to retro.

JeffDM

Sep 17, 2006, 01:02 PM

(by the way, they do make 10 megapixel camera phones now) if you buy them online, paying retail prices.

Are they any good? I've never seen a phone with a good camera, 10MP phone sounds like 10MP of grainy nasty pictures to me.

If the iPhone is half of the product that the iPod is, it should have a decent harddrive. I think that this would allow for whatever software, songs, movies,or whatever you want. Just take 2 gigsof the drive and partition it off for the OS. But, I could be wrong.

That would make the phone way too large. Unfortunately, the market has shifted to smaller phones such that they are harder to use than necessary, but that makes them easier to carry. A phone that's a little larger than a nano might be accepted, something that's as large as the 5G probably won't, that would make it the largest phone on the market.

syriana

Sep 17, 2006, 02:17 PM

If you're listening Apple, I'm interested in the iPhone. I buy my phones outright and I'm not interested in changing carriers (currently on T-Mobile). So you better sell it yourself and hardware unlocked.
I could bet Aplle experience is done by the hardware/software/channel tied. Looking at the iPod + iTunes + iTunes Store, I'm pretty sure they would use their own Virtual Mobile operator channel, tied with their phone...

rish

Sep 17, 2006, 04:59 PM

I don't really see this happening, if apple is going to take the risk of entering this competitive market, I see them doing it with a very innovative 'new' product.

Hi people. Take a quick look at this working prototye.

http://www.cameraphonefocus.co.uk/minor_brands/pilotfishsynaptics_onyx_button.php

I understand that Synaptics is a company Apple already has a working relationship with.

It kinda gets the juices flowing when you consider the possibilities. No more crap mobiles, I hope.

Regards

HecubusPro

Sep 17, 2006, 05:27 PM

Hi people. Take a quick look at this working prototye.

http://www.cameraphonefocus.co.uk/minor_brands/pilotfishsynaptics_onyx_button.php

I understand that Synaptics is a company Apple already has a working relationship with.

It kinda gets the juices flowing when you consider the possibilities. No more crap mobiles, I hope.

Regards

Yeah, that candy bar picture has been floating around awhile. I'm just not a fan of it though. It doesn't look comfortable unless you use a hands-free device, and it seems as if all kinds of fingerprints, dust and dirt, and muck would show up way too easy on its' surface. All the pretty lights and images just make it too busy looking.

HecubusPro

Sep 17, 2006, 05:29 PM

Are they any good? I've never seen a phone with a good camera, 10MP phone sounds like 10MP of grainy nasty pictures to me.

I agree. There's no way I would ever want a 10mp camera. I think 5 or 6 tops for me, and that might be pushing it for a normal camera. I like to send a lot of the pictures I take through phone mail, and it just seems a 10mp photo would take a long time to send due the large size of the file. A 1.5mp camera on my cell phone works good for me right now.

One Bad Duck

Sep 17, 2006, 05:49 PM

OK, so if the apple phone is coming (I bet apple are going to call it anything but iphone) it will certainly rock the boat in the market, however there is one thing the ipod is good for that a cellphone will never be able to reach.

I was thinking the other day as I boarded my flight if all ipods became cellphones we would cease to be able to use them on planes, which is probably not much for some people but if you have one device that handles everything then you are inevitably going to get on a plane with it.

I think i might sugest to apple to put them ahead of the rest of some way of disabling the phone part of the "Nano + Phone" or whatever it looks like so it wont bring the plane down as one listens to one's own trippin hip hop mixin vibes.

what d'you reckon guys?

-1BadDuk-

pengu

Sep 17, 2006, 07:07 PM

Ugh, Americans and their providers. We may not have "free" ahum phones , but at least when you buy a cell phone, you know it will work with every company, and everywhere. And no hidden costs.

Amen. the US dont use GSM, do they, it's CDMA, right?

Here (australia) we have both, kinda. All carriers run GSM, and while there is some locking of handsets (if you get a "free" phone on a contract) you can pay it out early, or move to a different carrier when the contract expires, or just buy your own phone.

The dominant (51% govt. owned) carrier also operates a CDMA network in regional areas because of its better range. This is planned to be replaced with a single 3G network.

I could NEVER imagine this whole "i want that phone by xyz carrier doesnt have it". Aren't you americans supposed to demand the best of everything!?

As for there not being a decent phone, personally i find my SE P910i Smart Phone great (i even have an Aqua theme on it :D )

guzhogi

Sep 17, 2006, 07:54 PM

I was looking through the Nibs in iTunes 7 and found this window titled "Phone Prefs". Who knows, this can just be for the iTunes Motorola phones.

DVK916

Sep 17, 2006, 07:59 PM

There are two main types of cell phone system: CDMA and GSM. The Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) was created in France throughout the 80's and the EU endorsed it as their official system, which caused it to spread globally. Meanwhile, across the pond, we were sitting on our little keisters and our brick analog phones and then a company called Quallcomm decided to do something six years after GSM had publically been out and they created a popular version of CDMA. CDMA is currently used by Sprint and Verizon (and I think a few Canadian carriers) and is pretty much only existent here in America. GSM is present in 78% of the world's markets.

With that said, GSM phones will not work on CDMA networks and vice versa. If Apple does make a phone, I think it would be GSM in order to capture most of the international market as well as the US. CDMA is very limited because it is not used anywhere besides a few carriers here in America.

You are wrong. CDMA is also in SK and Japan. Most 3G users in Japan are on CDMA2000 a varient of CDMA that is used in the U.S.

Here there are carries that offer free unlimited incoming calls too. I have a plan, 40 a month and I get 500 out going minutes to anyone in the U.S or Canada, plus unlimited incoming minutes from anyone. I also have free internet on my phone, and 500 text messeges.

kashimo

Sep 17, 2006, 08:13 PM

A few months ago it was reported that Apple was in talks with Softbank (formerly Vodafone Japan) to ofer and support the iPhone.

Currently Softbank has started a promotion with Apple where you buy a phone and get an iPod Nano. It is called Talk. Rock. Could this be hints of things to come in Japan?

http://www.vodafone.jp/special/

iMacZealot

Sep 17, 2006, 08:33 PM

You are wrong. CDMA is also in SK and Japan. Most 3G users in Japan are on CDMA2000 a varient of CDMA that is used in the U.S.

I meant on a 2G level; I wanted to make things simple so that he/she could understand. And don't forget about the popular W-CDMA technologies, such as UMTS/HSPDA which is used by Cingular and soon T-Mobile in the US.

And Japan's 2G PDC technology is by the way TDMA based and not CDMA! Although their 3G technologies I believe are CDMA based.

pengu

Sep 17, 2006, 08:36 PM

plus unlimited incoming minutes from anyone.

OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.

maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).

Im sorry, but if you all accept crappy CDMA phones specific to a carrier, and paying for incoming calls, you are kidding yourself if you think you are anything but backwards. (i wont go into the whole metric thing :P )

iMacZealot

Sep 17, 2006, 08:48 PM

OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.

maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).

http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/servicePlansOptionsV2/FreeClearFairFlexiblePlans.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=1436723&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_SCID=ECOMM&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_PCode=None&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_cartState=group

pengu

Sep 17, 2006, 08:54 PM

http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/servicePlansOptionsV2/FreeClearFairFlexiblePlans.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=1436723&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_SCID=ECOMM&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_PCode=None&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_cartState=group

um.. ok im not sure that is really a response. that just tells me that you can add a phone to your plan for $10.

DVK916

Sep 17, 2006, 08:56 PM

OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.

maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).

Im sorry, but if you all accept crappy CDMA phones specific to a carrier, and paying for incoming calls, you are kidding yourself if you think you are anything but backwards. (i wont go into the whole metric thing :P )

Sprint has free unlimited incoming calls. Also some providers have unlimited incoming and outgoing calls if you don't travel beyond your city.

Also CDMA isn't crappy it offers higherspeed than HSDPA while using less spectrum.

CDMA Rev A offers 3.8 down and 1.8 up in only 1.25 mhz of spectrum versus HSDPA of up too 14mbps down and 2 up in 5 mhz of spectrum. But with Rev B which is a software upgrade CDMA will have around 16mps down and 10mbps up in 5mhz of spectrum.

iMacZealot

Sep 17, 2006, 08:59 PM

um.. ok im not sure that is really a response. that just tells me that you can add a phone to your plan for $10.

Hmmm, link must've been wrong. But Sprint has free incoming plans. They are:

$49.99/month 300 outgoing add'l min $.45 unlimited night & weekend
$59.99/month 500 outgoing " " " " " " "
$79.99/month 800 outgoing " " " " " " "
$99.99/month 1000 outgoing " " " " " " "

pengu

Sep 17, 2006, 09:18 PM

Also CDMA isn't crappy it offers higherspeed than HSDPA while using less spectrum.

ok.. see, i never said TECHNICALLY it was crap. OK, so CDMA can have higher speed than 3G GSM. ITS A MOBILE PHONE. what the hell do you need 14mbps for?

a jet car that goes 300mph on a drag strip is NOT better than a Audi/Merc/BMW/Bentley/etc that only does 250mph, but can drive on a normal road.

for consumers, it (CDMA) is crap. you are so used to having to choose a phone based on what your carrier supports (or vice-versa) that you can't see how that is a problem. GSM (which uses a SIM card) offers so much more flexibility. hell. I can take my phone to any country with a GSM network, put in a sim card, and VOILA i am connected (not that i need to worry anyway, with vodafone global roaming)

iMacZealot

Sep 17, 2006, 09:22 PM

ok.. see, i never said TECHNICALLY it was crap. OK, so CDMA can have higher speed than 3G GSM. ITS A MOBILE PHONE. what the hell do you need 14mbps for?

a jet car that goes 300mph on a drag strip is NOT better than a Audi/Merc/BMW/Bentley/etc that only does 250mph, but can drive on a normal road.

for consumers, it (CDMA) is crap. you are so used to having to choose a phone based on what your carrier supports (or vice-versa) that you can't see how that is a problem. GSM (which uses a SIM card) offers so much more flexibility. hell. I can take my phone to any country with a GSM network, put in a sim card, and VOILA i am connected (not that i need to worry anyway, with vodafone global roaming)

There are GSM carriers here that do that, too, you know. It's not all CDMA here.

DVK916

Sep 17, 2006, 09:23 PM

ok.. see, i never said TECHNICALLY it was crap. OK, so CDMA can have higher speed than 3G GSM. ITS A MOBILE PHONE. what the hell do you need 14mbps for?

a jet car that goes 300mph on a drag strip is NOT better than a Audi/Merc/BMW/Bentley/etc that only does 250mph, but can drive on a normal road.

for consumers, it (CDMA) is crap. you are so used to having to choose a phone based on what your carrier supports (or vice-versa) that you can't see how that is a problem. GSM (which uses a SIM card) offers so much more flexibility. hell. I can take my phone to any country with a GSM network, put in a sim card, and VOILA i am connected (not that i need to worry anyway, with vodafone global roaming)

WRONG GSM does NOT work in Japan. You can't go to any country and use it. Japan doesn't have GSM.

pengu

Sep 17, 2006, 09:25 PM

WRONG GSM does NOT work in Japan. You can't go to any country and use it. Japan doesn't have GSM.

ok. see, if you actually READ my post, you would know that I said
I can take my phone to any country with a GSM network

iMacZealot

Sep 17, 2006, 09:29 PM

(oops, double clicked submit)

iMacZealot

Sep 17, 2006, 09:29 PM

And there are several ways to dial abroad using a US carrier.

Cingular (GSM) is $1.29/min in Europe. (About .68 pounds in the UK)
Verizon (CDMA) has dual CDMA/GSM phones that are $1.49 in Europe. (about .79 pounds.)
Sprint (CDMA) also has some dual CDMA/GSM phones that are also $1.49 a minut in Europe.

Although the best deal is with T-Mobile (GSM)> $.99 in Europe. (Or .52 pounds)

So we, too, have international choices.

whoooaaahhhh

Sep 17, 2006, 09:56 PM

Does anybody here remember a time when we didn't have to load up macrumors and find more rumors that wildly unsubstantiated? The days before iPhones, Video iPods, and, although before my time, G5 Powerbooks? I know that if I hear one more rumor about the iPhone of Video iPod, my head is going to explode.

Badandy

Sep 17, 2006, 11:31 PM

OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.

maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).

Im sorry, but if you all accept crappy CDMA phones specific to a carrier, and paying for incoming calls, you are kidding yourself if you think you are anything but backwards. (i wont go into the whole metric thing :P )

O no! Our cell phone technology is behind that of Europe's, where the small, congested spaces make it easier to unveil new cell technologies! The horror...

HecubusPro

Sep 18, 2006, 12:05 AM

O no! Our cell phone technology is behind that of Europe's, where the small, congested spaces make it easier to unveil new cell technologies! The horror...

Agreed. The U.S. is pretty much behind everyone else as far as cell phone technology goes. Do I care? No. My cell phone takes and gives calls. Who cares if it can take 30MP photos and watch steaming TV and movies and play Crysis at 120fps and pay my bills and rob convenient stores and solve world hunger? When I get a new cell phone and the salesman starts running off at the mouth at how cool it is and all the groovy things it does, I stop him and ask, "can I call people on it?" If the answer is yes, then I'm happy. :D

iMacZealot

Sep 18, 2006, 12:10 AM

Agreed. The U.S. is pretty much behind everyone else as far as cell phone technology goes. Do I care? No. My cell phone takes and gives calls. Who cares if it can take 30MP photos and watch steaming TV and movies and play Crysis at 120fps and pay my bills and rob convenient stores and solve world hunger? When I get a new cell phone and the salesman starts running off at the mouth at how cool it is and all the groovy things it does, I stop him and ask, "can I call people on it?" If the answer is yes, then I'm happy. :D

LOL I just need a phone that has decent service in my area, a decent camera phone, text messaging, and I'm set. It doesn't hurt if it looks cool, either. But I don't really care about 3G right now. Hardly anyone has a 3G network here in Denver.

iMacZealot

Sep 18, 2006, 12:23 AM

Amen. the US dont use GSM, do they, it's CDMA, right?

Here (australia) we have both, kinda. All carriers run GSM, and while there is some locking of handsets (if you get a "free" phone on a contract) you can pay it out early, or move to a different carrier when the contract expires, or just buy your own phone.

I could NEVER imagine this whole "i want that phone by xyz carrier doesnt have it". Aren't you americans supposed to demand the best of everything!?

Dear God, please check your info before posting. We have many GSM carriers, and you can buy certain CDMA phones and use them on a different CDMA network. And you were talking about international roaming in other posts, well, we have that, here. Even CDMA that you bash so much has roaming options. My brother is using a dual CDMA/GSM phone on Sprint right now in London. And the international roaming rates are cheaper with US carriers compared to Vodafone Australia, depending on countries. We also have 3G CDMA and GSM based Cingular uses W-CDMA, so you're not the only ones there, either.

pengu

Sep 18, 2006, 12:27 AM

I never ONCE claimed you dont have GSM carriers. I claimed (and maintain) that CDMA is crap for consumer choice. and what you pay for calls is irrelevant. they dont charge you more/less because of it being CDMA/GSM/analogue/a tin on a string.

iMacZealot

Sep 18, 2006, 12:36 AM

I never ONCE claimed you dont have GSM carriers.
the US dont use GSM, do they, it's CDMA, right?
________________________________________

I claimed (and maintain) that CDMA is crap for consumer choice. and what you pay for calls is irrelevant. they dont charge you more/less because of it being CDMA/GSM/analogue/a tin on a string.

Then why do you hate CDMA so much? There are ways of unlocking CDMA phones and using them on other networks.

And the reason why I talked about international roaming rates was because you said in a nutshell that we couldn't bring our phone to another country.

pengu

Sep 18, 2006, 12:51 AM

Then why do you hate CDMA so much? There are ways of unlocking CDMA phones and using them on other networks.

And the reason why I talked about international roaming rates was because you said in a nutshell that we couldn't bring our phone to another country.

There are ways of walking on the moon. Doesnt mean its particularly consumer-friendly.

I brought up using a phone internationally because of the technical compatibility of using GSM over CDMA. price is irrelevant. the fact that "some cdma phones are gsm compatible" is proof that CDMA has very limited use worldwide.

so basically. IF your CDMA carrier has a phone that you like AND is GSM compatible, you can take it and roam.

or. you can accept that while it may be technically superior (i said MAY. speed isnt everything) CDMA is a very tiny pocket of the mobile market.

iMacZealot

Sep 18, 2006, 12:54 AM

There are ways of walking on the moon. Doesnt mean its particularly consumer-friendly.

I brought up using a phone internationally because of the technical compatibility of using GSM over CDMA. price is irrelevant. the fact that "some cdma phones are gsm compatible" is proof that CDMA has very limited use worldwide.

so basically. IF your CDMA carrier has a phone that you like AND is GSM compatible, you can take it and roam.

or. you can accept that while it may be technically superior (i said MAY. speed isnt everything) CDMA is a very tiny pocket of the mobile market.

The only reason why CDMA is basically only in the US is because it was still being developed while the EU jumped on GSM and endorsed it for every country. If your reason why CDMA is terrible is due to limited use, then, that's at best poor reasoning.

Compatiblepoker

Sep 18, 2006, 12:56 AM

Because US cell phone carriers suck. :/

Don't forget our lovely service providers like hmmmm AT&T. They've gotta be the worst company of all companies. Their customer service means putting people on hold for 2-3 hours.

Anyway, Im looking forward to the Apple phone. My $50 gophone just isnt cutting it anymore.

pengu

Sep 18, 2006, 01:01 AM

If your reason why CDMA is terrible is due to limited use, then, that's at best poor reasoning.

ok. how many times do i have to say this. BAD FOR CONSUMERS. the average joe is locked to whatever phone the carrier offers, or whatever carriers offer the phone. you dont go looking for a car saying "i hope they have this for Shell (ie: petrol -its NOT gas. it is a liquid - company)!", do you?

iMacZealot

Sep 18, 2006, 01:04 AM

There are ways of unlocking CDMA phones and using them on other networks.

:rolleyes:

pengu

Sep 18, 2006, 01:16 AM

There are ways of walking on the moon. Doesnt mean its particularly consumer-friendly.

google seems to just keep giving me results that say either:

"send it to <insert generic dodgy address here> and i will unlock it"
"you can't do it"
"you need an SPC code from the carrier."
"you need a null cable"

my point is. you cant just walk into a SonyEricsson (or nokia, etc) store, buy a phone and say "im going to use this on xyz CDMA carrier"

iMacZealot

Sep 18, 2006, 01:18 AM

google seems to just keep giving me results that say either:

"send it to <insert generic dodgy address here> and i will unlock it"
"you can't do it"
"you need an SPC code from the carrier."
"you need a null cable"

my point is. you cant just walk into a SonyEricsson (or nokia, etc) store, buy a phone and say "im going to use this on xyz CDMA carrier"

I thought you wanted the greatest honest to goodness top of the line phone! Why would you want to keep your old phone if you switch to a new carrier?

pengu

Sep 18, 2006, 01:28 AM

ezekielrage_99

Sep 18, 2006, 01:35 AM

I'm still not too sure what to make out of these "iPhone next tuesday" rumors, from one point of view the iPhone sounds very Apple and a very much a possiblity.

But there's the sceptic in me which points out the plain fact that the iPhone rumors have been going on for at least 10 months with very little plausable information from credible sources about the potential product.

Personally I am not gearing myself up for a dissappointment, but if Apple does release the iPhone and depending on the price and feature then I may look into buying it.

And the other big question to ask will it be available for people who don't live in the US :confused:

iMacZealot

Sep 18, 2006, 01:36 AM

because the p910 when released was a $AU1300 phone. i dont want to be paying for that TWICE (no phone is free. u either pay up front or you pay in your monthly contract) if i change carrier. you dont get a new Mac because you change ISP, do you?

If you sign up for two years with one carrier, then you better think harder if you're going to switch a few months later.

But CDMA carriers will unlock your phone. I haven't tried it, but I've heard of Sprint or Verizon unlocking phones. It doen't happen that often since it requires quite a bit of reprogramming, but it's possible.

Koodauw

Sep 18, 2006, 01:43 AM

I'm sure I late getting into the argument, and that fanboyism depending on what network youre own will not change, but I really think GSM does have better voice quality than any other network.

iMacZealot

Sep 18, 2006, 01:48 AM

I'm sure I late getting into the argument, and that fanboyism depending on what network youre own will not change, but I really think GSM does have better voice quality than any other network.

I think the two of them are hard to compare. In this arguement, I'm not advocatinig CDMA, I'm just trying to show that there's no need to bash them as they are hard to compare.

CDMA and TDMA both get the job done; they divide up bandwidth so that multiple users can use a base station at the same time. They way they do that is just different. That cliche phrase of "comparing apples to oranges" applies to the age old question of GSM vs. CDMA.

ezekielrage_99

Sep 18, 2006, 01:56 AM

I think the two of them are hard to compare. In this arguement, I'm not advocatinig CDMA, I'm just trying to show that there's no need to bash them as they are hard to compare.

CDMA and TDMA both get the job done; they divide up bandwidth so that multiple users can use a base station at the same time. They way they do that is just different. That cliche phrase of "comparing apples to oranges" applies to the age old question of GSM vs. CDMA.

You're right it's just like the ages old Mac verses PC debate can't really compare them.

It really comes down to want you need to do and how much you are prepared to spend.

iMacZealot

Sep 18, 2006, 02:34 AM

You're right it's just like the ages old Mac verses PC debate can't really compare them.

It really comes down to want you need to do and how much you are prepared to spend.

It's not even the technology's price that's the difference, that's decided by another company. it's the technologies that are hard to compare.

peharri

Sep 18, 2006, 08:33 AM

OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.

maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).

No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.

Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)

That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)

(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)

Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.

Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?

You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.

Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.

peharri

Sep 18, 2006, 08:52 AM

I'm sure I late getting into the argument, and that fanboyism depending on what network youre own will not change, but I really think GSM does have better voice quality than any other network.

(Before I begin, quick terminology comment: I'm going to avoid "CDMA" and use the term "IS-95" instead - I try to avoid using terms like "CDMA" and "TDMA" because it generally confuses people. Many think the next version of GSM, UMTS, is actually IS95, because it incorporates a CDMA air interface called W-CDMA, for instance. Others think GSM is the same thing as the D-AMPS/IS-136 system used by (the various phone companies that became) Cingular until they started moving to GSM because both have a "TDMA" air interface and IS-136 is usually called "TDMA".) In practice, UMTS and IS95 have almost nothing in common, UMTS is a revision of GSM, and GSM has almost nothing in common with IS-136. )

There's no way to compare the two. Both IS-95 and GSM implement a variety of different codecs that are provided differently by different operators. In the area I live, Cingular (GSM) tries to force many phones to use something called AMR-HR, which has "acceptable" voice quality when you have good reception, and drops to barely incomprehensable with any deterioration in signal strength. T-Mobile (GSM) clearly doesn't, and I can talk and listen to someone with both of us sounding like we're on a landline with one bar of signal. On the same phone.

Likewise, Verizon (IS-95) uses some awful bitrate codec for its network where I live (I believe they're heavily oversubscribed here) where pretty much everyone sounds like they're dying from some serious lung problem, and Sprint PCS (IS-95 too) doesn't and generally the call quality, at medium to good reception, seems pretty much ok. Sub-landline, but not seriously so.

With the variety of voice codecs the operators use, you can't really make a fair judgement merely on the basis of network technology. Either the operator's cheap, or it isn't. IS-95 was chosen by many networks on the basis that it's spectrum efficient (ie it's cheap), but on the other hand Sprint PCS was always content with call drops when I used it to handle network overloading rather than seriously compromising on call quality. Cingular's move to GSM has caused problems in that it's using a significantly less spectrum efficient technology than the technology it replaced, so Cingular's had to, in many places, hopefully temporarily, use the crappy half-rate codecs to boost capacity until it can get more towers online.

I wouldn't use voice quality as a way to judge the technologies.

pengu

Sep 18, 2006, 09:34 AM

You are right. I make a call. i expect to pay for it. i dont expect the person im calling to get billed for the damn call.

and. as for pricing. yes, vodafone have a 1c/sec flat rate on calls. but. i pay $79/month and at the end of the my account has a automatic refund (of sorts) applied, so anything up to $500 in calls/txt/etc is included in the $79.

i DO use my mobile for most calls. i use my landline maybe once a week, because it has a better speakerphone if im using it for a long time.

peharri

Sep 18, 2006, 10:00 AM

You are right. I make a call. i expect to pay for it. i dont expect the person im calling to get billed for the damn call.

The other way of looking at it is that the mobile user has made a technology choice. They shouldn't expect other people to pay for their technology choice. A system where each person pays to connect to the network and decides how they want to pay for that is inherently fairer, even if it makes it harder for people to choose to subsidize the systems of others.

(Remember too that in the majority of cases, most US users have a fixed bill because of the high number of bundled minutes coupled with the huge unmetered portions of their bills. It's not the case that we get billed for the incoming call in the majority of cases. If it's made at peak time, from a different network, then yeah, we'll use bundled minutes, but most of us end up with large amounts of bundled minutes free at the end of the month despite this. And you never have to accept an incoming call.)

and. as for pricing. yes, vodafone have a 1c/sec flat rate on calls. but. i pay $79/month and at the end of the my account has a automatic refund (of sorts) applied, so anything up to $500 in calls/txt/etc is included in the $79.

That doesn't sound like a bad plan, that's unusually good outside of the US from what I've researched, though most of my research has been limited to the UK.

i DO use my mobile for most calls. i use my landline maybe once a week, because it has a better speakerphone if im using it for a long time.

If I were back in Britain, I couldn't substitute a cellphone for a landline because of the incoming calls issue. It's simply not fair to my family or friends to make them pay through the nose to contact me. I might use one for the bulk of my outgoing calls, but for incoming calls, it wouldn't be right.

An ideal compromise, in my view, would be for the operators to provide two numbers on every phone, a caller pays and a mobile party pays (with the latter being treated as ordinary airtime, or unmetered according to a fixed monthly charge), but alas I don't think the operators would ever do something that could potentially undermine their interconnect revenues like that.

Neither solution is perfect. The US seems better at the moment because of the emphasis on unmetered usage. At least unmetered incoming calls are an option here. But the downside is the lack of a practical PAYG system.

wnurse

Sep 18, 2006, 02:47 PM

Who in their right mind would want a microsoft phone :eek: :eek:

90% or so of the rest of the world that uses windows. Why do you ask?

wnurse

Sep 18, 2006, 02:55 PM

Are they any good? I've never seen a phone with a good camera, 10MP phone sounds like 10MP of grainy nasty pictures to me.

By definition, 10MP phone cannot be as grainy as a 3MP phone. You do realize when someone says 10MegaPixel phone what they mean right?.
10 million pixels per square inch (before the tech police come out, this is a basic definition. I am aware an image does not have to be a square).

mr.suff

Sep 18, 2006, 05:45 PM

By definition, 10MP phone cannot be as grainy as a 3MP phone. You do realize when someone says 10MegaPixel phone what they mean right?.
10 million pixels per square inch (before the tech police come out, this is a basic definition. I am aware an image does not have to be a square).

its not 10 million pixels per square inch. 10 million pixels is the overall size of the image ie x by y, at about 150-300 dpi, i think, but its defo not 10mp per inch^2
but anything above 3-5 mp in a phone becomes a useless waste because the sensor is stupid small.

matt

Misplaced Mage

Sep 18, 2006, 06:58 PM

There's no way to compare the two. Both IS-95 and GSM implement a variety of different codecs that are provided differently by different operators. In the area I live, Cingular (GSM) tries to force many phones to use something called AMR-HR, which has "acceptable" voice quality when you have good reception, and drops to barely incomprehensable with any deterioration in signal strength. T-Mobile (GSM) clearly doesn't, and I can talk and listen to someone with both of us sounding like we're on a landline with one bar of signal. On the same phone.

Likewise, Verizon (IS-95) uses some awful bitrate codec for its network where I live (I believe they're heavily oversubscribed here) where pretty much everyone sounds like they're dying from some serious lung problem, and Sprint PCS (IS-95 too) doesn't and generally the call quality, at medium to good reception, seems pretty much ok. Sub-landline, but not seriously so.
Verizon and Sprint have used EVRC (Enhanced Variable Rate Codec) for several years now. EVRC, in turn, replaced QCELP (a.k.a. Qualcomm PureVoice). Down the road we should see EVRC replaced by SMV (Selectable Mode Vocoder), 4GV (Qualcomm's Fourth Generation Vocoder), or VMR-WB.

With the variety of voice codecs the operators use, you can't really make a fair judgement merely on the basis of network technology. Either the operator's cheap, or it isn't. IS-95 was chosen by many networks on the basis that it's spectrum efficient (ie it's cheap), but on the other hand Sprint PCS was always content with call drops when I used it to handle network overloading rather than seriously compromising on call quality. Cingular's move to GSM has caused problems in that it's using a significantly less spectrum efficient technology than the technology it replaced, so Cingular's had to, in many places, hopefully temporarily, use the crappy half-rate codecs to boost capacity until it can get more towers online.

I wouldn't use voice quality as a way to judge the technologies.
Well said! People must understand that the codecs for digital phones in use today were originally designed to squeeze voice through a very narrow upstream pipe—typically 9.6kbps and under—resulting in different approaches to the problem of quality vs. bandwidth given the processing power available in phone chipsets at the time. Now that upstream data bandwidth and portable processing power are becoming less of a problem, we should start hearing improvements as newer codecs are adopted by the carriers in the phones they sell their customers. And I'm sure they'll trumpet the fact when they do. :D

caccamolle

Sep 18, 2006, 06:58 PM

whatever and whenever it shall be, it won't be too soon.

I just will buy it, hopefully we can do so, unlocked, independently of the carrier. Today's phone are just plain crup.

Unfortunately it will have a camera, it appears, which really sux, I hate those cell phone cameras especially here in the US where we are so behind that they charge you a fortune to send pics with the phone.

GregA

Sep 18, 2006, 07:18 PM

10MP phone cannot be as grainy as a 3MP phone.
A 10megapixel phone will record more clearly the low quality picture that comes from these tiny lenses.

It will be a much larger file, and won't look much better than a 3MP. Still, as the lenses improve this will change.

Silentwave

Sep 18, 2006, 07:44 PM

A 10megapixel phone will record more clearly the low quality picture that comes from these tiny lenses.

It will be a much larger file, and won't look much better than a 3MP. Still, as the lenses improve this will change.

There IS a limit as to what can be done at a given price point. Eventually the cost of a good lens for it will outweigh the benefits.

Sticking a 10mp sensor in a phone to me is ridiculous. Very few people ever need 10mp, and if they do they get a real camera instead. Not only does the phone have a very limited set of potential lens features, but the lens will generally be low quality and poorly corrected unless you spend a significant amount of money for a good one. Even then size will become an issue.

All a 10mp phone will do is be unusable in anything but superb light. It'll probably have even worse dynamic range than existing phones, record murky detail, and have the poorest signal to noise ratio on the planet.

Dr.Gargoyle

Sep 20, 2006, 04:22 AM

Nokia will according to a swedish site (http://mobil.mkf.se/ArticlePages/200609/18/20060918085929_MOB699/20060918085929_MOB699.dbp.asp) will release their first true GPS cellphone (integrated GPS reciever) within two weeks.
If Apple want to enter the cellphone market they better get going...

tortoise

Sep 20, 2006, 03:40 PM

The only reason why CDMA is basically only in the US is because it was still being developed while the EU jumped on GSM and endorsed it for every country. If your reason why CDMA is terrible is due to limited use, then, that's at best poor reasoning.

Finally, someone gets it right.

CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.

Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.

While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.

iMacZealot

Sep 20, 2006, 09:00 PM

LCC

Sep 21, 2006, 04:18 AM

Let's hope there is the ability to import large address books with multiple contact numbers. Most cell phones allow you up to 500 contacts; some up to 1,000 (with a maximum of three numbers per contact).

The memory is there for the music, allow Power Users the choice of dedicating it to contact numbers and other data. The only other option is to carry around a bulky PDA phone.

peharri

Sep 21, 2006, 09:10 AM

Finally, someone gets it right.

CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.

There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.

1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)

2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)

By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)

The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.

3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.

I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.

Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.

Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.

No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.

GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)

GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.

The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.

Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.

This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?

While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.

Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.

andrew050703

Sep 21, 2006, 11:05 AM

sorry to interrupt on the network discussion, but has anyone got anything new to share/discuss on the iPhone (unless I read the thread wrong ;))?

Can it really offer all that functionality (from the patent report) in a candybar style phone, or will they have to release two - a funtional one, for ipodding/texting/phoning; and a pda for office work on the move (& everything else?

iMacZealot

Sep 21, 2006, 06:32 PM

Great breakdown, peharri. :)

jose fuertes s.

Sep 25, 2006, 12:31 PM

i think LG's new phone is quite similar.
http://xataka.com/archivos/2006/09/25-lg-sb610-otro-movil-extrafin.php