Palm CEO on Apple iPhone Threat

[MacRumors]

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

MercuryNews.com (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/columnists/16057579.htm) reports on comments by Palm's CEO Ed Colligan on the persistent rumors that Apple will be introducing a Apple phone in the near future.

Overall, Colligan was not concerned about Apple's possible entry into the smart-phone market.

"We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,'' he said. "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.''

Colligan does theorize that Apple might offer their phone with Wifi technology and distribute the phone in Apple stores rather than through the traditional wireless carriers, such as Cingular or Verizon.

Apple has been rumored to have paired (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060926075521.shtml) with Cingular for their 2007 launch of the iPhone. Recent announcements, however, have cast some doubt (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/11/20061102152115.shtml) on this arrangement.

[Alex Urchin]

Wasn't it exactly the same story with the iPod?

[Chaszmyr]

Just because Palm thinks it's that hard to make a phone doesn't necessarily mean that Apple would have had the same difficulties.

[amols]

Yeah sure...I hope they do know who makes iPods :)

[kansast]

"We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,'' he said. "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.''

I wonder if it will be interesting to revisit this quote in a year or two ? :D
One can hope.

[G5Unit]

Hasen't Apple been working on the iPhone for "a few years" at least?

[spicyapple]

wasn't it exactly the same story with the ipod?
It would be fun to speculate what features Apple brings to the iPhone that could revolutionize the cell phone industry? My guess is 1) ease of use in updating contacts, calendar, emails 2) iPod music integration 3) high quality 640x480 mpeg4 videos and 4) leveraging in flash memory pricing

[baxterbrittle]

They do know whom they're talking about right? I mean they say PC manufacturers yet palm are producing windows mobile pieces of junk. Windows mobile is the biggest piece of ***** operating system - it would not be hard to come up with something a lot better (for Apple at least). And the Palm OS is very dear to my heart, but not exactly cutting edge and palm don't even own that anymore.

Palm are washed out, end of story.

[Old Smuggler]

palms os is severely outdated
the only thing they have going for them is the abundance of software out
i own a palm and will ditch it when something pda, osx feel comes from apple

if apple makes their phone centered on a PDA and Confrencing rather than
"its an ipod and a phone"
i think they will gain some substantial ground

having the ability to use the pda phone as an ipod would not be out of the question but solely a ipod phone ? i think they would be cutting their profits to a certain age group of potential buyers

[Object-X]

The problem with Palm is they are on their way out. They got what? Treo? How long can that last? PDAs are over. So it's all about the phones now.

They have to be worried. Apple has the midas touch. Whatever Apple get's into they change. Apple has a way of innovation that changes all of the dynamics. They weren't the first with the iPod, but their entrance into digital music has changed the whole music industry, not just digital music players.

Apple could very well do the same thing with an Apple branded phone. Integrating it into the whole computer experiance in ways we can't even predict. To claim it takes years to make a phone "right" is just proof that Palm has very little to offer.

The future of phone technology is going to change rapidly and dramically over the next few years. Apple can make billions of dollars in this market. They are going to go for it, and they will leverage their existing products to make it happen and to offer something new. Everyone is fixated on the iPod, but it's the integration with OS X that has the most interesting potential.

Video iChat on your phone? Internet services? Email? Address? Calendar? Have you used a Palm or Blackberry? They are OK for what they do, but they could be so much better...a lot better. What they are missing is exactly what Apple has to offer -- and it isn't music.

[CHROMEDOME]

It would be fun to speculate what features Apple brings to the iPhone that could revolutionize the cell phone industry? My guess is 1) ease of use in updating contacts, calendar, emails 2) iPod music integration 3) high quality 640x480 mpeg4 videos and 4) leveraging in flash memory pricing

Ok...and the MSRP for that phone would be 800 bucks with a 10 year contract with cingular.

People need to realize that apple products are somewhat overpriced so I can see a great apple phone with great features but with a contract the phone is going to be extremely expensive.

[Mechcozmo]

blah blah blah Our hardware is incredibly expensive for what you can do with it blah blah blah Our software is older than XP blah blah blah blah Our new software is more delayed than Vista blah blah blah Our products kicked the Newton's arse a decade ago blah blah blah Apple can't beat the clear market leader blah blah blah

I've been waiting for Palm OS 6 to come out for just about five years now. I'm not buying a new Palm... I'll just stick to my b0rked Tungsten|T. Programmed life expectancy, ha! But damn, that Soylent Green is tasty!

[caliguy]

palms os is severely outdated
the only thing they have going for them is the abundance of software out
i own a palm and will ditch it when something pda, osx feel comes from apple

if apple makes their phone centered on a PDA and Confrencing rather than
"its an ipod and a phone"
i think they will gain some substantial ground

having the ability to use the pda phone as an ipod would not be out of the question but solely a ipod phone ? i think they would be cutting their profits to a certain age group of potential buyers

Yeah exactly, I totally agree. I've never been turned on by the iPhone/iPod 2-in-1 rumours. To me, iLife integration and conferencing is way more important. I actually prefer they keep the two (iPod+iPhone) separate. I don't want my music listening to be disturbed by calls.

[miketcool]

Did Apple say the same thing when someone challenged their Newton?

[yankeedoodle]

Wasn't it exactly the same story with the iPod?

Yep. And Palm doen't even know how to make a PDA right... Sorry, just my 2 cents and as much as I hate Microsoft: If there is one single thing that Microsoft's dullness department has overlooked so far it's the Pocket PC... Have a look at them next time you are in a store, compare them; have a look at their multitasking features, watch online TV on them -- they are by far not perfect and tend to crash (that's the Microsoft part in it) -- but they are still worlds better than any Palm out there.

I wish Apple would not only enter the phone business but also come back into the PDA market and show the Microsoft folks how to do it the Apple way. The Newton was fantastic and much ahead of it's time. In 1993 people just didn't know how to handle a PDA and didn't know how to integrate it into their daily workflow. Today, we are used to carry our iPods around wherever we go -- so if Apple could manage to enter the phone and PDA business via the iPod as a well known, emotionally positive vector (people buy the iPod because they want to listen to music and find out that it can also do much more than just play back U2 tracks), they could have a tremendous success.

[rikers_mailbox]

Apple doesn't need to deliver a revolutionary phone-like device to grab marketshare. It's more about integrating a device within the system... and that is something Apple is good at.

Phones, new features, and additional functionality are a dime-a-dozen. New bells and whistles are added all the time, that's not what the market needs. Someone (hopefully Apple!) needs to take some of these advancements and deliver a products that integrates them in a logical and intuative way.

[PODshady]

I would buy a Palm Treo BUT their GUI needs a lot of work.... it is very ugly and this could be the reason that they have found it "difficult" to get people to like their smart-phones. If Apple comes out with an iPhone (and I hope they do) it would blow anything Palm can come up with out of the water. Apple is well known for well designed products and if the iPhone's GUI is even half has nice as the GUI in Mac OS X it will be way better than the Palm Treo and all those Windows Mobile devices.

[Belly-laughs]

"PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.''

Not PC guys, but good industrial and interface designers will. Starting with a clean sheet with little or no knowledge on the subject is an advantage; you tend to have different perceptions on how things work/could work. This gives a far greater idea base with simpler implementations as a result.

Advantage Apple.

[LordJohnWhorfin]

oops

[glowingstar]

HEY! who's he calling a "PC guy"??! :mad:

[LordJohnWhorfin]

There's absolutely no reason for concern. It's not like Palm has any market share left to worry about.

[geese]

[QUOTE=Macrumors;3080145"We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,'' he said. "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.'' .[/QUOTE]

I remember the head of Atari saying something similar about Sony's Playstation.

[FarmerBob]

Just because Palm thinks it's that hard to make a phone doesn't necessarily mean that Apple would have had the same difficulties.

Apple can't make a proper OS much less a working phone. Get real. They have a ton of really good patents, as per all the latest leaks, but it will be a very long time before we see, if at all, them all together in the iPhone we would expect from Apple.

And Cingular is long out of the picture. They went elsewhere.

Also having been part of the cellular revolution, I know full well that the individual carriers will want the operations software of the "iPhone" contoured to their liking so much that it will defeat the purpose of the piece. Over the years many manufacturers have pulled phones from carriers because the level of bastardization of the phone software that the carrier required messed up the phone so much that the phone maker didn't want to be blamed for an inferior product. In the US there is no such thing as a truly accepted fully operational unlocked unit. Elsewhere in the world that is mostly how you buy a phone. Phone first, then a carrier. Not the other way around.

[dernhelm]

Hasen't Apple been working on the iPhone for "a few years" at least?

No, the rumor mill has been grinding on the iPhone for several years. Apple hasn't necessarily been working on it for that long.

[rt_brained]

From The Desk Of Steve Jobs:

[macintel4me]

HEY! who's he calling a "PC guy"??! :mad:
Exactly! Maybe I'm reading too much into this quote, but the "PC guy" remark makes me think that the "Palm guy" is already angry knowing he is about to get his clock cleaned. Time will tell. No doubt, however, that I'd rather put my money on Apple than Palm. Gheez.

[toots66]

Elsewhere in the world that is mostly how you buy a phone. Phone first, then a carrier. Not the other way around.

Not in the UK it isn't. It's very difficult to get a new contract without a phone. You can buy phones SIM-free but the high initial price puts most people off (if they know about them at all) because the networks here provide most phones 'free' with 12 or 18 month contracts. And most customers expect a new 'free' phone every 12/18 months, even though this will cost them more in the long-term. It's been going on for years and this is unlikely to change until one network breaks ranks but that would put them at a disadvantage.

How would this situation affect an Apple phone? I cannot see Apple changing their software to suit the network and that might rule out a couple of them. The networks have their own systems in place for selling music, at a higher price than iTMS, so any kind of iPod functionality in the phone would probably put them all off. A single network might be interested if they feel that the features in the Apple phone will gain them new customers.

End-users would still be able to buy a phone separately and use their existing SIM of course. But as this is so different to the entrenched practice in the UK, it would have to be a very good device.

[dernhelm]

Not PC guys, but good industrial and interface designers will. Starting with a clean sheet with little or no knowledge on the subject is an advantage; you tend to have different perceptions on how things work/could work. This gives a far greater idea base with simpler implementations as a result.

Advantage Apple.

So Apple has an advantage here because they have no experience in a market where it traditionally takes to get a device right? No, Apple doesn't have an advantage, any more than they did with the iPod - but they didn't need that advantage then either.

Apple could change the way phones are made as well, but only if they rethink the device from the ground up. Most phones have too many features that it takes too long to figure out how to use, don't have enough battery life, and are too painful to get hooked up to your computer so you can transfer photos and songs back and forth. Apple has the synchronization stuff down. If you can sync it like an iPod - and charge it in the process, its already leaps above most phones out there. But they cannot miss the interface.

If they want a camera on it (optional in my opinion) they have to make it dirt simple to use (scroll wheel to zoom, middle button to snap) and to get the photos taken on it into iPhoto. Otherwise, skip it altogether. And please don't make me fumble around to find the right button to hit to answer a call. Open it to answer the call, close it to hang up. And if you aren't going to put the number buttons in a tranditional layout - don't put them on there at all. I don't have the time or energy to learn some idiotic circular arrangement. I'd rather you put the numbers up on a touch screen and let me smudge up my phone than deal with a non-standard button arrangement. It also has to be hearty - I don't have time for a phone that stops working if I drop it 3 feet onto a carpeted floor.

It goes on and on. And that is why the interviewee is saying it's so hard. Apple does a pretty good job of industrial design, but even they may need an iteration or two to get it right. And in the mean time the current players could play some catch up.

[emotion]

What's he banging on about? By "PC guys" who does he mean? Microsoft?
If this is the case is he saying that Windows Mobile (the OS he's stupidly paying for some of his products) isn't up to scratch? I can't see Palm surviving the year if he's this mixed up.

I have been using PDAs for years. I like using them. I've tried quite a few and where Windows CE (and variants) fail is they try and be too computer like. Palm OS is nice in that it does the simple stuff that you need on the move (and in meetings etc) well. It would be hard for Apple to figure this out and improve on the situation. They already have half the software written (iSync, iTunes, iPhoto).

The only thing Apple need to decide is: to they try and tackle the hard problem for a PDA/smart phone ie. data input. How do you write text on the device. This is the thing that killed the PDA market imo and why you see so many devices with thumbboards these days instead of (or as well as) touch screens. If they don't they have an extended iPod. Which might work out ok.

The other problem is the data rates mobile phone carriers charge. They need to be EDGE/HSDPA, flat rate and VOIP enabled. Not many carriers can manage that (T-Mobile are close in the UK though).

OK, rant over :)

[cecildk9999]

A single network might be interested if they feel that the features in the Apple phone will gain them new customers.

End-users would still be able to buy a phone separately and use their existing SIM of course. But as this is so different to the entrenched practice in the UK, it would have to be a very good device.

I think T-Mobile might fit this bill, at least in the US. I remember seeing a story here earlier in the year where T-Mobile said its vision was aligned with Apple (but not necessarily a partnership; abc article here (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=2537247)). T-Mobile wants to win customers, and a sleek new phone that's easy to use may get some real good word of mouth. Of course, Apple can still sell the phone separately, but the key would be to get all of the carriers to pick it up. If a T-Mobile pairing could build a base and generate some strong 'switcher' sales, other companies may want to jump on the bandwagon as quickly as possible.

[BeyondCloister]

What's he banging on about? By "PC guys" who does he mean? Microsoft?

Being a company that produces PDAs (Personal Digital Assistants) then he is probably refering to PCs actual meaning of Personal Computer (the term popularised by Apple Computer a long time ago).

[j26]

Not in the UK it isn't. It's very difficult to get a new contract without a phone.

It's easy enough to get a Pay-as-you-go sim card. You can get a contract sim card easily enough, but then again if you're getting a free phone you might as well - then you can hang on to it and use it as a backup if something goes wrong with your main one.

The high price of a sim-free phone is a bummer though.

[emotion]

I think T-Mobile might fit this bill, at least in the US. I remember seeing a story here earlier in the year where T-Mobile said its vision was aligned with Apple (but not necessarily a partnership; abc article here (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=2537247)).

Interesting reading that abc article and fits with my impression of T-Mobile in the UK too.

I'm definitely not signing up for a new phone yet! :)

[JRM PowerPod]

Apple doesn't need to deliver a revolutionary phone-like device to grab marketshare. It's more about integrating a device within the system... and that is something Apple is good at.

Phones, new features, and additional functionality are a dime-a-dozen. New bells and whistles are added all the time, that's not what the market needs. Someone (hopefully Apple!) needs to take some of these advancements and deliver a products that integrates them in a logical and intuative way.





THIS IS EXACTLY HOW APPLE WILL CAPTURE THE MARKET

[Dr.Gargoyle]

No, the rumor mill has been grinding on the iPhone for several years. Apple hasn't necessarily been working on it for that long.
I do think I remember an interview with an Apple of official where the interviewer asked something about a possible Apple iPhone and got a reply claiming that Apple haven't been sitting idle.
I have no doubt that Apple have been working on this for years. The problem is that Apple has a lot to live up to when it comes to design and GUI. They just can't afford another Rokr fiasco.

[BRLawyer]

Did Apple say the same thing when someone challenged their Newton?

No, because Apple alone took the (correct) decision of withdrawing the Newton from the market at a time when safekeeping of resources and efforts was a crucial factor for the company.

In fact, the Newton had much better prospects at its last days, instead of its market introduction period...in the beginning, handwriting recognition was far from good, the device was underpowered and little demand existed...

The bottomline is: when a CEO starts talking too much, this means he IS worried...it was the same for Creative, Real and now Palm...they are almost dead with their crappy PDAs, just as Microsoft with its zillionth iPod-killer and Windows.

[bigandy]

That quote from Palm's CEO sounds like the mad ramblings of someone very worried their market share is about to plummet completely... :rolleyes:

[mkrishnan]

I remember the head of Atari saying something similar about Sony's Playstation.

Yeah, they might even be right, but this definitely sounded inordinately defensive. If Palm's position were really secure, their attitude should be along the lines of "Let Apple do whatever it wants. We'll just keep making the best phones." But.... it wasn't.

[Bonte]

Video iChat on your phone? Internet services? Email? Address? Calendar? Have you used a Palm or Blackberry? They are OK for what they do, but they could be so much better...a lot better. What they are missing is exactly what Apple has to offer -- and it isn't music.

iChat is definitely going to be hugely important for Apple but so is letting all these features work seamlessly together with Windows users. The few options Apple has in this regard is making the iPhone Mac only or with Windows compatible apps or just bring osX to PC and be done with it.

If we look at all the devices we want from Apple, they all need tight integration with the OS. An Apple branded iPod, iPhone, iTV, iSmart, iCamera, etc.. will be on the market sooner or later, so Apple will make and support countless Windows Apps or be osX only. I strongly believe that opening up osX will be easier to do and has a higher long term potential.

[MarcelV]

.....but with a contract the phone is going to be extremely expensive.
Or it's just an Ipod with phone functionality (whatever the looks), and will cost 399.00. No contract, no lock in. Apple buyers already spend that money on hardware, and you can probably a pretty noce phone for that amount. So, why do you think it will be locked in with a carrier for x years? there is no need for, as they are not going after the commodity (100.00 and less) market on this. If they did, would be a big mistake.

[p0intblank]

Talk about a bold assumption... Steve Jobs isn't stupid. He knows what needs to be done to make cell phones innovative and easy to use. After all, he does own the world when it comes portable music players. :rolleyes:

Palm is just scared, that's all. It's kind of cute, really.

[borisadmin]

Or it's just an Ipod with phone functionality (whatever the looks), and will cost 399.00. No contract, no lock in. Apple buyers already spend that money on hardware, and you can probably a pretty noce phone for that amount. So, why do you think it will be locked in with a carrier for x years? there is no need for, as they are not going after the commodity (100.00 and less) market on this. If they did, would be a big mistake.

Exactly, they're a premium brand who have never been afraid to be expensive. Apple couldn't care less about the current practices of the network operators, they've been burnt by partnerships already. If they do an iPhone they will control the user experience and make sure it a) works for the user's interests, not the network operator; and b) looks as stylish as possible. Then they dare the network operators to exclude their highest-value customer segment who will want the phone no matter what the cost. If they crack the model the cheaper versions will come later.

[zim]

I'm hoping for Apple to sell them. I think it is about time we break away form the buy into the plan get your phone deal. I would be willing to pay for a phone if it was of good quality and had usable features.. unlike the junk phones that I have had.. my current phone doesn't even have a working screen but since I was told it is my problem I decided why fix it? none of the options ever worked with my mac :mad:

[BornAgainMac]

He is correct. "PC guys" won't be figuring this out. I am looking forward to Apple's ideas on phones and the keynote comparing it to other phones. It will bring some laughs.

[emotion]

iChat is definitely going to be hugely important for Apple but so is letting all these features work seamlessly together with Windows users. The few options Apple has in this regard is making the iPhone Mac only or with Windows compatible apps or just bring osX to PC and be done with it.

If we look at all the devices we want from Apple, they all need tight integration with the OS. An Apple branded iPod, iPhone, iTV, iSmart, iCamera, etc.. will be on the market sooner or later, so Apple will make and support countless Windows Apps or be osX only. I strongly believe that opening up osX will be easier to do and has a higher long term potential.

Agreed. Another way for Apple to proceed here is to make the phone compatible with Outlook/iTunes on windows etc etc so that it's still perfectly usable but the experience is just that much better on OSX. This will lead people into buying Macs which is always Apples aim.

I don't see OSX on generic PC hardware any time soon. Even though I would love to see that happen in many ways.

[cecildk9999]

I wouldn't mind having Apple sell them (and I'm guessing they will to some degree), but we also have to think in terms of the market as is. If I can get a free phone through my provider every x years, I'm going to do that instead of buying outside the company (even if it is crap). If I can get an upgrade for between $50 and $300, I might consider it when I'm in the store renewing my plan. Apple can gain presence only by going through established channels; it's not to say that you won't be able to buy one in an Apple store, just that consumers who like to do comparison shopping when they get their phones might like to see an iPhone in a TMobile/Verizon/3rd party carrier store.

[heisetax]

The problem with Palm is they are on their way out. They got what? Treo? How long can that last? PDAs are over. So it's all about the phones now.

They have to be worried. Apple has the midas touch. Whatever Apple get's into they change. Apple has a way of innovation that changes all of the dynamics. They weren't the first with the iPod, but their entrance into digital music has changed the whole music industry, not just digital music players.

Apple could very well do the same thing with an Apple branded phone. Integrating it into the whole computer experiance in ways we can't even predict. To claim it takes years to make a phone "right" is just proof that Palm has very little to offer.

The future of phone technology is going to change rapidly and dramically over the next few years. Apple can make billions of dollars in this market. They are going to go for it, and they will leverage their existing products to make it happen and to offer something new. Everyone is fixated on the iPod, but it's the integration with OS X that has the most interesting potential.

Video iChat on your phone? Internet services? Email? Address? Calendar? Have you used a Palm or Blackberry? They are OK for what they do, but they could be so much better...a lot better. What they are missing is exactly what Apple has to offer -- and it isn't music.



I know that many Blue Tooth features of my Motorola cell phone is disabled by Verizon. Even if Apple would make the best cell phone possible, how many of those great featues do you think the cell phone companies would actually allow the use of.

Remember simple things like ring tones, photos & such could easilly be transferred from the cell phone to your home computer. But this is not usually allowed. Could this be because the cell phone companies allow these features only to add to their revenue stream, not to give the cell phone user some additional user or usuable feature?

Unless the an Apple cell phone was available from all cell phone service providers & without many of the cell phone features disabled, do you think that it could be a success?

Bill the TaxMan

[hana]

Do you see some common arguments.....

ipod......zune

palm......iphone

[mdntcallr]

i am sure apple is finding the world of phone carriers complex and difficult.

The biggest hangup of theirs is probably the sale of media and ringtones. They simply probably do NOT want Apple to provide the solution. Even if Apple's storefront is better, they will not want money going elsewhere.

that said, Apple's best option here is to simply launch the product themselves. Offer a GSM phone that is unlocked. The phone companies will get a clue later on when people want the product

[zim]

i am sure apple is finding the world of phone carriers complex and difficult.

The biggest hangup of theirs is probably the sale of media and ringtones. They simply probably do NOT want Apple to provide the solution. Even if Apple's storefront is better, they will not want money going elsewhere.

that said, Apple's best option here is to simply launch the product themselves. Offer a GSM phone that is unlocked. The phone companies will get a clue later on when people want the product

I 150% agree! Cell communications need to open up. Contracts and locked phones will keep the phone industry from growing and maturing in the same way computers did.

[freeny]

I am skeptical about the iphone myself and am waiting to see what apple will offer. I have never felt part of the "cell phone generation" and find all the bells a whistles superfluous. I am hoping apple will add features that I will actually want and use. What they are, I dont know, but perhaps apple can tell me what I want?

Givin apples history and reputation I will give them the benifit of the doubt...

[daneoni]

I dunno, i dont think buying an iPhone is feasible for at least another year. For me at least, just not excited about it at all. First off, it'll be the first ever Apple phone meaning there will be some niggles, also it'll be a candy bar. The only candy bar phone i can tolerate is a smart phone. Some thing tells me the iPhone WON'T be a smartphone from the ground up. It'll be a phone with *some* smart phone abilities.

Also, like most recent rumored products from Apple, its probably been waaay overhyped and will end up being a dissapointment.

Palm shouldn't be so confident though. Apple is the same company that made Michael Dell eat his words.

People shouldn't discount palm yet either.

[cherrypop]

Herein will lie yet another concrete example of the difference between Steve Jobs and everyone else.

I'm not saying that the iPhone will be a sure-fire hit. In fact, I fully expect a lot of Apple fans to be disappointed with the first revision.

But Apple gets IT and won't have a failure on its hands simply by combining a phone and an iPod. Hell, that's why I use my Sony Ericsson W810i over my iPods: one device in my pocket.

[corywoolf]

i think they would be cutting their profits to a certain age group of potential buyers

I completely disagree. Apple would reach a larger audience with a candy-bar style phone that is sub $250. If they can just release an inexpensive version and a souped up version shortly after, they could really kill Palm.

[tobefrnk]

Ok...and the MSRP for that phone would be 800 bucks with a 10 year contract with cingular.

People need to realize that apple products are somewhat overpriced so I can see a great apple phone with great features but with a contract the phone is going to be extremely expensive.

Nokia already has phones (their N series (http://www.nokia.com/nseries/index.html?lang=en&country=US#product,n93)) capable of 640x480 30fps vid at $800 unlocked. I don't see an Apple Phone with these capabilities being THAT much more and certainly cheaper if Apple is the provider for the phone service as some people are speculating.

[sachamun]

I dunno, i dont think buying an iPhone is feasible for at least another year. For me at least, just not excited about it at all. First of, it'll be the first ever Apple phone meaning there will be some niggles, also it'll be a candy bar. The only candy bar phone i can tolerate is a smart phone. Some thing tells me the iPhone WONT be a smartphone from the ground up. It'll be a phone with *some* smart phone abilities.

Also, like most recent rumored products from Apple, its probably been waaay overhyped and will end up being a dissapointment.

Palm shouldn't be so confident though. Apple is the same company that made Michael Dell eat his words.

People shouldn't discount palm yet either.

The most sensible thing i've heard so far...

[Mac Fly (film)]

HEY! who's he calling a "PC guy"??! :mad:
Exactly, Mac guys are though. Actually nobody is walking anywhere, very bad analogy. Apple isn't going to walk in, they're are going to use their thought processes, thier leadership, thier skills, thier talents, thier expirence, and their knowhow, to proove there's a reason why Apple makes things better then the other, and they will once again be proven right, I hope.

[Seasought]

Contracts and locked phones will keep the phone industry from growing and maturing in the same way computers did.

I think this is largely what keeps a bitter taste in my mouth regarding buying cell phones at all. I'm still using a crappy, standard-issue phone for my provider as 1.) the phones available to my provider are not to my taste or 2.) The ones I do like are ridiculously expensive.

Perhaps the root of the issue is that I simply don't talk on my cell that much any way. :D

[war]

I wish Apple would keep features at a minimum. My current phone has so many features that I don't use. I don't care if it can surf the internet nor do I care if it can take pictures. Could I just get a phone with a great address book that syncs really well with my mac? I just want an excellent way to keep control of my contacts, that's it. Any mobile phone companies out there listening? Stop putting features in that I don't care about.

[macFanDave]

"PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.''

I think John Hodgman could easily make a great cell phone quickly -- it's one of the areas of his expertise! ;)

For the record, Apple did just "walk in" to the MP3 market and figured it out pretty quickly. Perhaps the idea that making devices is complicated is why Palm went from being the "next big thing" to obscurity. Apple has an excellent track record of making things simple. Applying that philosophy to cell phones would be mighty powerful especially compared to the bloated victims of chronic feature creep.

I regard the market of PDA's to be a colossal failure. Sure, it's a niche market that makes some money for a slimmed-down Palm and a division of Microshaft, but it could have been so much more if it were done well.

[radio893fm]

Mr Palm, Apple fan boys:

The perfect smart phone has already been created and is out in the wild: SONY ERICSSON P990.

Wifi, location free, 2 mp camera with flash, keyboard, MP3 player, videos, etc. Now if only Apple would open the iTunes so it can sync with some other devices than the iPod would be very nice...

[twoodcc]

well i can't wait for the new phone. i think it's gonna be a hit.

[Mr_Ed]

...
Apple could change the way phones are made as well, but only if they rethink the device from the ground up. Most phones have too many features that it takes too long to figure out how to use, don't have enough battery life, and are too painful to get hooked up to your computer so you can transfer photos and songs back and forth. Apple has the synchronization stuff down. If you can sync it like an iPod - and charge it in the process, its already leaps above most phones out there. But they cannot miss the interface.

If they want a camera on it (optional in my opinion) they have to make it dirt simple to use (scroll wheel to zoom, middle button to snap) and to get the photos taken on it into iPhoto. Otherwise, skip it altogether. And please don't make me fumble around to find the right button to hit to answer a call. Open it to answer the call, close it to hang up. And if you aren't going to put the number buttons in a tranditional layout - don't put them on there at all. I don't have the time or energy to learn some idiotic circular arrangement. I'd rather you put the numbers up on a touch screen and let me smudge up my phone than deal with a non-standard button arrangement. It also has to be hearty - I don't have time for a phone that stops working if I drop it 3 feet onto a carpeted floor.
...


I couldn't agree more. I still think a cell phone should be, first and foremost, a decent telephone! If it stops working after I drop it on carpet, or the person at the other end sounds like they are taking through a "tin can", or if the reception "goes down more frequently than a five dollar hooker" and it drops calls, I don't really give a rat's ass about a built in camera, video, music player, fancy ringers, or any of the other "bells and whistles" that seem to be a marketing priority these days. Then there's the whole battery life issue. I don't want to caught off guard with a dead phone late one night because I happened to be in the mood for music that day and used the phone as a music player all day. Give me a good telephone, and decent features that enhance that function (BT hands free, sync, etc.) first. Then worry about the other gimmicks.

[Object-X]

I know that many Blue Tooth features of my Motorola cell phone is disabled by Verizon. Even if Apple would make the best cell phone possible, how many of those great featues do you think the cell phone companies would actually allow the use of.

Remember simple things like ring tones, photos & such could easilly be transferred from the cell phone to your home computer. But this is not usually allowed. Could this be because the cell phone companies allow these features only to add to their revenue stream, not to give the cell phone user some additional user or usuable feature?

Unless the an Apple cell phone was available from all cell phone service providers & without many of the cell phone features disabled, do you think that it could be a success?

Bill the TaxMan

To answer your question: yes, I think it will be a success.

First, there are the rumors that the phone will be sold unlocked. If true, then the carriers will have no control over what features a phone has or can use.

Secondly, most of the features we are talking about are Internet related. As long as the phone has the ability to connect to the Internet all of Apple's .Mac services can be reached.

Last, but not least, Apple has a history of innovating around intrenched limitations. One of the reasons Apple has been successful in changing market dynamics with their products is because they change the game.

Keep in mind that this will just be the first phone of many. It is quite possible that some sort of wireless VOIP phone could bypass cell phone networks entirely. I don't think that will happen at the beginning, but it is a future possibility. Perhaps what is behind the Apple Google connection. Remember, I said Apple has a way of changing market dynamics with their technology.

I don't believe Apple would ever allow some other company to dictate to them what features or technology they can use. If cell phone carriers had that kind of control Apple would simply stay out. This more than anything leads me to believe the "unlocked" phone rumors; that would be very consistant with Apple's way of doing business.

[rtdunham]

It would be fun to speculate what features Apple brings to the iPhone that could revolutionize the cell phone industry? My guess is 1) ease of use in updating contacts, calendar, emails 2) iPod music integration 3) high quality 640x480 mpeg4 videos and 4) leveraging in flash memory pricing

Good post. I'm still waiting for a phone that will easily (and thoroughly) sync with my Address Book and iCal, and I'm on the mac platform. So even some of the features you describe would be of immediate value to a lot of mac users.

But I'm guessing a slick phone that made it easy to have one's songs, contacts, and calendar always at hand would be a major force in the "Switch" campaign as well. Imagine if the phone/iPod windows users were using in the future could also do all those extra things--from the mac platform. I think a lot would find that irresistable.

[rtdunham]

...it was the same for Creative, Real and now Palm...they are almost dead with their crappy PDAs

I like my Treo a lot. But what i really want is its capabilities (better executed) in a phone the size of a RAZR or Samsung A900. Maybe that can be done, maybe not.

[ryanw]

Just like "some PC guy's" named Apple didn't just waltz right in on sony's discman market ownership with a thing called the iPod. Apple isn't just some random "PC Company", they're innovative and they do intense study groups to determine what works and what doesn't with the majority of consumers.

I "Personally" always feel that there is one or two tweaks or features missing from an apple application. For example the ability to change which search engine to use in Safari, or the ability to change what map website the address book uses to pull up a mailing address in a map, the ability to burn a list of songs in iTunes without making a playlist, etc... BUT these lack of tweaks are actually what the consumers LOVE about apple's software. There are enough options to make it functional and not too many options to clutter the interface to scare away the consumer.

I still believe apple could burry options deep in preferences instead of just not have them at all, after all, no consumer goes through the preferences, only power users. But again, the power user isn't the majority of the consumers. So we'll see if apple can take over the phone market. I know I'd buy one.

[lamina]

If Apple came out with a PDA, I would buy it in a split second. I am in the market for a PDA, but I don't like the feel of the Windows OS or whatever is on them.

I would want it to be slightly wider than the current 5th gen iPod, with the same height, and all virtual controls.

Come to think of it, why not just make a full screen iPod with PDA capabilities, especially bluetooth. Bluetooth wouldn't be too useful for song transfers (isn't it limited to 1 megabit/s?) but for calendar files and contacts, even pictures, it would be perfect.

Ohh Apple please come out with a PDA. I don't even want the cell phone feature.

[mkrishnan]

Good post. I'm still waiting for a phone that will easily (and thoroughly) sync with my Address Book and iCal, and I'm on the mac platform. So even some of the features you describe would be of immediate value to a lot of mac users.

My experience with Symbian (Series 60) is that it does a very thorough sync'ing using iSync.... and of course there are many, many phones that do at least a loosely passable job... even my cute but dumb RAZR. Are you serious or joking?

[SiliconAddict]

iPod Phone == phone + music

Palm Treo == Tool

Threat averted. Life can go on as usual. :rolleyes:

[GekkePrutser]

i am sure apple is finding the world of phone carriers complex and difficult.

The biggest hangup of theirs is probably the sale of media and ringtones. They simply probably do NOT want Apple to provide the solution. Even if Apple's storefront is better, they will not want money going elsewhere.

that said, Apple's best option here is to simply launch the product themselves. Offer a GSM phone that is unlocked. The phone companies will get a clue later on when people want the product

I think Apple is already working on moving in on the world of carriers. The O2 Ireland network is so into Apple that their shops are practically Apple stores with a few phones on the side. I'm not saying that this is directly due to the iPhone coming out because it has been like this for years, but it might have helped when this was negotiated.

Networks are always looking for ways to set themselves apart from the others because they basically offer the same (including rates). The iPhone will be associated with the iPod as a fashion item and being a reseller of them will be an excellent opportunity for a network to differentiate itself. Especially when the others won't take it up.

I'd say Apple will have no problem at all getting their phones on the networks' shops.

[RichP]

I have to agree with some previous posters on here; its not going to be the featureset, but the implementation.

I have a Samsung Smartphone, and WinMobile isnt terrible, but its far from smooth or an enjoyable use. That being said, when you have "real" internet (aka not something that is just for phone use) and "real" Instant Messaging, you begin to actually use these things. The T-Mobile Sidekick, although a bit geared to the younger crowd, its a very good device in terms of its functionality and user interface.

I basically see the iPhone as a better designed, better user interfaced, and EXTREMELY easy to charge and Sync with a computer. Just like an iPod. All these phones lack in the sync department, Apple could dominate this (which, apart from the user interface, is the thing that sets the ipod apart. Plug it ina and it just works, no fuss)

Expect to see it sold through Apple unlocked, around 400-450 dollars. People used to pay that for an iPod, they will do so for a phone. Especially when there are VERY expensive ringtones, songs, etc. Apple will be the more economical choice in light of the expensive "services" the providers offer.

The industry will change. MS will release the "Pune" in 3 years to kill iPhone. In brown.

[vincebio]

Mr Palm, Apple fan boys:

The perfect smart phone has already been created and is out in the wild: SONY ERICSSON P990.

Wifi, location free, 2 mp camera with flash, keyboard, MP3 player, videos, etc.


yeah. except they forgot to put RAM in it...and the firmware is crap so far..and the battery last about...erm, 24 hours..and they wont support mac..ever!

great phone though!:)

[Clive At Five]

Okay, I've heard here a lot, that people want simple integration/syncronization with iTunes, iPhoto, iCal, & Address Book. These are all, (minus iTunes) 100% Mac-Centric. PC users would only get integration/syncronization with iTunes. What good is that to them? At that point you only have iPod + Phone.

So Apple has a choice: Mac-Centric or not.

Knowing Apple, their first choice is "not" (which doesn't mean it will start out that way, but we'll just have to wait to find out). Apple would then have to either write iCal et al. for Windows or build in support for Outlook, ...uh... photo viewer... whatever PCs use for photos.

Both are daunting tasks.

Conclusion: In order for Apple to make a phone as good and as universal as the iPod, it will have to accomplish one of the aforementioned daunting tasks.

Making a phone for Mac users would be a walk in the park, because 1) it's such a small microcosm, 2) It's an environment that they are familiar with.

Making a phone for everyone will not be as easy. HOWEVER, Apple is great at building OSes (the iPod OS is simple & intuitive and I have no doubt that they will do the same with a phone) and Apple is great at integration with software, so even though there will be hurdles to overcome, Apple will eventually churn out a phone that is simple and is loved by everyone.

I also think there won't be a single serious Mac-User who won't have one. It'll just be too handy to have a device that will sync easily with the awesome Mac software.

-Clive

[j26]

Okay, I've heard here a lot, that people want simple integration/syncronization with iTunes, iPhoto, iCal, & Address Book. These are all, (minus iTunes) 100% Mac-Centric. PC users would only get integration/syncronization with iTunes. What good is that to them? At that point you only have iPod + Phone.

So Apple has a choice: Mac-Centric or not.

Knowing Apple, their first choice is "not" (which doesn't mean it will start out that way, but we'll just have to wait to find out). Apple would then have to either write iCal et al. for Windows or build in support for Outlook, ...uh... photo viewer... whatever PCs use for photos.

Both are daunting tasks.

Conclusion: In order for Apple to make a phone as good and as universal as the iPod, it will have to accomplish one of the aforementioned daunting tasks.

Making a phone for Mac users would be a walk in the park, because 1) it's such a small microcosm, 2) It's an environment that they are familiar with.

Making a phone for everyone will not be as easy. HOWEVER, Apple is great at building OSes (the iPod OS is simple & intuitive and I have no doubt that they will do the same with a phone) and Apple is great at integration with software, so even though there will be hurdles to overcome, Apple will eventually churn out a phone that is simple and is loved by everyone.

I also think there won't be a single serious Mac-User who won't have one. It'll just be too handy to have a device that will sync easily with the awesome Mac software.

-Clive

There's no reason why they will choose to exclude syncing with mac applications. iTunes for everyone, and extras for mac users. And really they would only have to write something that would deal with Outlook to cover most Windows users to keep everyone happy.

[nbs2]

I couldn't agree more. I still think a cell phone should be, first and foremost, a decent telephone! If it stops working after I drop it on carpet, or the person at the other end sounds like they are taking through a "tin can", or if the reception "goes down more frequently than a five dollar hooker" and it drops calls, I don't really give a rat's ass about a built in camera, video, music player, fancy ringers, or any of the other "bells and whistles" that seem to be a marketing priority these days. Then there's the whole battery life issue. I don't want to caught off guard with a dead phone late one night because I happened to be in the mood for music that day and used the phone as a music player all day. Give me a good telephone, and decent features that enhance that function (BT hands free, sync, etc.) first. Then worry about the other gimmicks.

I'll agree as well. One feature that Apple might be able to captalize on, if they do sell direct to consumers rather than through carriers, would be resolution of the bells/whistles problem.

For some people, a phone isn't a phone unless is has a 3MP camera, takes 640x480 video, etc. For others, all they want is basic PDA functionality. Would it be possible for Apple to offer a BTO option? I mean, Camera/Video is generally listed under a single menu option, and it wouldn't be that difficult to design the firmware to only display the category if the Camera is installed. To make things easier, Apple could stock one or two basic models in their stores, and leave people to go to apple.com for customizations...Any reason why this couldn't work?

[Clive At Five]

There's no reason why they will choose to exclude syncing with mac applications.

I never said they would.

-Clive

[Clive At Five]

I'll agree as well. One feature that Apple might be able to captalize on, if they do sell direct to consumers rather than through carriers, would be resolution of the bells/whistles problem.

For some people, a phone isn't a phone unless is has a 3MP camera, takes 640x480 video, etc. For others, all they want is basic PDA functionality. Would it be possible for Apple to offer a BTO option? I mean, Camera/Video is generally listed under a single menu option, and it wouldn't be that difficult to design the firmware to only display the category if the Camera is installed. To make things easier, Apple could stock one or two basic models in their stores, and leave people to go to apple.com for customizations...Any reason why this couldn't work?

Other than confusing everyone with too many options, no.

If you're a teenage girl, your phone has to have a camera on it, meaning you'll have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's complicated.
If you're a hiker, maybe you're going to want a phone with GPS, meaning you'll have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's complicated.
If you're a huge multitasker, you're going to want PDA-functionality, meaning you'll have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's complicated.

Very few people, I feel, will want a bare-bones phone... meaning most will have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's too complicated for most people to do.

So in short, no, I don't think that'll work. Good idea, though. That way you'd get a phone with the features you want without the crap that you don't want. Unfortunately, as far as a particular model of phone goes, it's either all or nothing... and I don't think Apple will want to release 18 different models of phone, each with different capabilities... that's worse than BTO.

-Clive

[cr2sh]

Wouldn't it be something if Apple sold one of the first unlocked phones from the get-go.

You walk into an Apple store, they have the iPhone in GSM form.. and you get a trade-in discount for your old phone.. the Apple reps pop-out your sim card, transfer your contacts.. and hand you an ipod like phone that has all your old info in it and works with your current plan.

:eek:

[vincebio]

Wouldn't it be something if Apple sold one of the first unlocked phones from the get-go.

You walk into an Apple store, they have the iPhone in GSM form.. and you get a trade-in discount for your old phone.. the Apple reps pop-out your sim card, transfer your contacts.. and hand you an ipod like phone that has all your old info in it and works with your current plan.

:eek:

im pretty sure thats what steevie boy has in mind ;)

[ChrisA]

Here is my prediction:

The number one characteristic of the first generation of Apple phones will be that they a "#$+@ expensive".

What does this mean? A concept they teach in business school is how to set a price to maximize profit. It's easy to see that if you price it to low you sell a zillion units but loose money and if priced to high you don't sell any so there is a sweet spot where the number of units sold times the per unit margin is maximized. In theory you can write an equation to model this then do some math to find it's maximum point. (remember: set the derivative to zero then solve for X from Calculus 101?) So much for theory. I doubt they will do that. I think Apple will price these higher then the theoretical "best" price. This way they sell far fewer units then they otherwise would. This let's them grow their service side of the iPhone business at a manageable rate. If Apple's business plan is sane they can't be going for a large share of the cell phone market

OK so in short they use a high price to throttle sales to a rate their service can support. I'm thinking this will be a $500 phone with a $99/month minimum contract. Basically you ain't going to get a free Apple iPhone with your $29.00/month 2 year contract.

Apple is partnering with an air-time provider so they will not get to keep much of the per-month fee, they will have to make money up front with hardware sales unless they can offer some non airtime monthly service like .mac

[cr2sh]

Apple is partnering with an air-time provider so they will not get to keep much of the per-month fee, they will have to make money up front with hardware sales unless they can offer some non airtime monthly service like .mac


No. I don't see apple "partnering" with anyone. This will be an Apple phone... the carriers will line up to sell the next hot thing. If Apple "partners" with Cingular.. the phone loses part of its apple identity... I don't see it happening. Plus it invites someone else to the table.. I don't understand why Apple would do this.

Ah gotcha, with the max/min talk. NM.

[nbs2]

Other than confusing everyone with too many options, no. <snip>

You break my heart. Something tells me that this won't be the phone for me. I would put money on it having the one thing I don't want - a camera. I don't want it, I don't need it, and it's a pain to have one.

Although, I was thinking that there would be just a couple of BTO options - maybe a camera and BT - not an entire gamut of BTO possabilities. I agree that too many would be expensive (and the firmware would end up too complicated).

[inkswamp]

"We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,'' he said. "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.''

Oh fercrissake! These corporate types just never learn, do they? Remember when digital photography came along and Kodak said it was not worth the time to bother with? Remember when music stores and music player companies sat around and ignored the iPod and iTunes? Remember when Microsoft wasn't so sure about this new fad called the Internet?

You either learn from history or you repeat it. If Apple unveils some interesting new take on the cell phone, these same guys are going to be crying foul over it, and yet they've had all the time in the world to prepare for it and--better yet--do something really innovative on their own. I hope Apple does pull off another iPod-style shake-up. I despise the way most cell phones are (over)designed and don't function the way you would expect. I'd love to see Apple come at it from their own design viewpoint and freak everyone out.

[Clive At Five]

You break my heart. Something tells me that this won't be the phone for me. I would put money on it having the one thing I don't want - a camera. I don't want it, I don't need it, and it's a pain to have one.

Although, I was thinking that there would be just a couple of BTO options - maybe a camera and BT - not an entire gamut of BTO possabilities. I agree that too many would be expensive (and the firmware would end up too complicated).

I think I would sold on a camera if and only if it takes >3MP shots & syncs w/ iPhoto... and the phone costs less than $300. :-P

-Clive

[scu]

Wasn't it exactly the same story with the iPod?

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I remember when Napster and Rio laughed at the iPod and iTunes, and 5 years later.:rolleyes:

[JoeG4]

Palm makes nothing but garbage.

The management of the company, in fact, was so pathetic that they ended up selling out to big MS and making PPC-based phones like everyone else. Ever since that day, I have no interest for any of the garbage they make - and I was lusting after their stupid overpriced and ugly PDA phones before they made that decision.

[MacQuest]

Wasn't it exactly the same story with the iPod?

Exactly. :rolleyes:

How are Rio, Creative, and all the other "iPod Killer" product manufacturers like Sony doing nowadays in the digital music player market? :p

Rio's out of business and Creative is now part of the "Made For iPod" accessory community? :eek: Walkman? what the H*LL is that?! :confused:

Take notes Palm. History repeats itself. :cool:

[aarond12]

im pretty sure thats what steevie boy has in mind ;)

I never buy "locked" phones anymore. Yeah, unlocked ones cost more because they're not subsidized by the cell phone companies, but if service sucks or I go overseas (which I frequently do), I can get another company's SIM and put it in my phone. Voila! It works!

I have a Sony/Ericsson W810i with 2GB memory card. Its tiny screen only allows 176x144 video (MPEG-4 or 3GP at 30 frames per second), but that also becomes an advantage. Full-length movies at that screen resolution only take up 150-200MB. I use FFMpegX to compress movies for my phone.

The phone also has a 2 megapixel camera with true autofocus and macro, and plays MP3 and AAC/MP4 audio files with its built-in speaker or outstanding earphones. It has a FM radio with RDS, plays Java games, has Bluetooth and can be used as a Bluetooth controller/mouse or modem on Macs and PCs, it supports EDGE high-speed Internet, it can run the Java version of Opera but it also has a decent built-in browser, and is fully supported by iSync. And it's tiny.

Okay, Apple... that's your yardstick. Come up with somethings significantly better. I know you can do it.

-Aaron-

[swingerofbirch]

So Palm is saying Apple can't make a phone as good as Palm. Palm makes smart phones, which I don't even know that Apple is making. But let's say they are. A smart phone is a cell phone combined with a PDA. Which leads to my question: didn't Apple invent the PDA with Newton, or did Palm come first?

I always assumed the Newton came first since everyone always says Newton's failing was being ahead of its time, but I might be wrong.

But nonetheless, you have to think that there must be valuable technology and learninge experience Apple has for having made both the Newton and the iPod that they would use in making a phone.

[zv470]

"We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,'' he said. "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.''

It's this kind of thinking that is behind the failure of Palm today.

[k2k koos]

I am very excited to see what Apple is going to make of a mobile phone (or whatever it will be). iChat integration would be great, but even greater still, is an EASY way to use iChat to communicate with the rest of the world. Not just MSN, but Yahoo and a host of other services, why don't they all sit down and either use all formats, or agree upon a common standard so that everyone can contact eachother, just like we can do by using a phone! Which is where we started this thread about. About that 'PC guy' remark, Apple is in the Mac business when it comes to computers. Not PC's. (Yes I know a Mac is a PC in a sense, but it's far more developed, and sexy, yes I said it, sexy!Macs are sexy, and they also work well for those who are not sensitive to that appeal)
I think that whatever Apple is going to introduce, is going to be innovative beyond belief.

Whether the market will accept it and buy it in great numbers we'll see, but Apple has a far greater appeal to the general public than it had say 10 years ago?

[iris_failsafe]

Apple learned that with their old music player, you know the one before the iPod, oh wait there wasn't one...

[TequilaBoobs]

apple knows hot to create sexy products and market a gotta-have-it item, and with the cell phone market fickle yet fervent, a brand name like apple with premium brand badging and daring design could make big waves and have their loyal fanbase purchase yet another apple product in a different arena... i think its a good risk on apples part and will probably make me shares go up.

[dgaust]

Living in Australia, we don't have many technological advantages over the US, but the telecommunications strategy is one.

We, in general, do not have locked phones over here, nor crippled ones like your companies currently provide but they are still subsidised by the telecoms.

I currently have an 02 XDA II Mini, and if Apple did release a phone with even basic PDA features, wi-fi and bluetooth I would dump this Microsoft POS immediately.

The hard thing to get right about a PDA with phone, is that it is a PDA with a phone component added in. It doesn't work brilliantly.

I have no doubt that Apple would do a much better job integrating all the different components together for a seamless experience, even with V.1 of the product.

[YS2003]

From The Desk Of Steve Jobs:

That's an old graffiti. With new one, you have to do two strokes for "K." I miss the first graffiti.

[JoeG4]

Actually, I just realized the real irony in this comment Palm made!

:D :D

It's rather funny, Palm is saying "PC guys" can't design a phone, but last I checked, Palm got their butt whooped so bad by some "PC guys" that run a little company called Microsoft, that all of their new products run that OS!

Hypocritical, no? :eek: :D

[bloodycape]

yeah. except they forgot to put RAM in it...and the firmware is crap so far..and the battery last about...erm, 24 hours..and they wont support mac..ever!

great phone though!:)

If I am not mistaken the phone is Linux base which does mean Apple support from my knowledge of Linux pdas.

[bloodycape]

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I remember when Napster and Rio laughed at the iPod and iTunes, and 5 years later.:rolleyes:

The ipod almost just caught up to rio in terms of audio.

[SiliconAddict]

Palm makes nothing but garbage.

The management of the company, in fact, was so pathetic that they ended up selling out to big MS and making PPC-based phones like everyone else. Ever since that day, I have no interest for any of the garbage they make - and I was lusting after their stupid overpriced and ugly PDA phones before they made that decision.

They sold out to MS because the idiots at Palm couldn't find their butt with a flashlight and both hands. Seriously in 2001 the CEO of Palm stood infront of a crowd at CES and stated our users don't want color, sound etc. It was the beginning of the end because by the time they figured out that yes. Not only do users want color and sound they also want the ability to multitask. Something that POS (Notice that Palm OS and Peice of **** share the same acronym.) STILL to this day doesn't really do. Well it sort of does it in a craptacular manner. My point is Palm doomed them selves because they had management who didn't have a clue or simply didn't have the resources to really revamp the OS from the ground up. I'm willing to bet there is legacy code in POS that dates back to v1. Because POS never had its OS X its Windows 2000. It never had its rewrite. All Palm has been doing is slapping on a new addition to the house and calling it NEW and improved!
It isn't. It sucks and the Pocket PC or Windows Mobile (ick I hate that name.) kicks the living snot out of POS right now in pretty much every way imaginable. Heck Palm is so lost that they are trying to pull an Apple. they purchased some *nix company in China that has experience with mobile versions of *nix and right now is trying to migrate POS over to a *nix flavor of OS.
Unfortunately unlike Apple its too little, too late.
Palm went to Windows because they didn't want to stay stuck in the mobile equivalent of DOS.

[cyberone]

colligan:

I went through 8 - eight - treo 650, because the hardware quality was so poor, not to mention the constant resets.

now, imagine, i have a phone without a reset button. no, its not a palm device.

and i bet the iphone wont have a reset button.

your phones were decent - compared to the competition - three years ago with the announcement of the 650.

others have long overtaken you. and you have no answer.

I bet you cant wait to see that iphone and realize what you've all missed.

[SiliconAddict]

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I remember when Napster and Rio laughed at the iPod and iTunes, and 5 years later.:rolleyes:

The difference? For all intents and purposes the iPhone is a toy. phone + music. there is nothing wrong with catering to the average consumer. But the simple fact is businesses will not give it even a half second thought before they move on. Yes admittedly we have yet to see the final specs and features but without a touch screen and without a thumb keyboard the business world will pat Apple on the head, tell them that "awww isn't that cute", and walk away. Its not a business tool its a consumer product. A product that will sell like mad in traditional phone vs. iPhone markets but Blackberrry/Treo vs. iPhone? Not a chance in [bleep].

PS- That being said I WANT to be proven wrong. I want Apple to provide an expierence that covers music\contacts\calendar\todo\e-mail all in one sexy device but watching Apple over the years I've lost faith they they will try anything daring. Anything that really does take on the big guys. I'm willing to bet that whatever is released will be music\phone and if you are REALLY lucky limited calendar\contacts with no way to imput info. Prove me wrong Apple. Please.

[connorhays]

the iphone will beat treo out

[cyberone]

the iphone will beat treo out

i buy iphones for the whole family if they com with a full keyboard version.

[ZorPrime]

The difference? For all intents and purposes the iPhone is a toy... Its not a business tool its a consumer product. A product that will sell like mad in traditional phone vs. iPhone markets but Blackberrry/Treo vs. iPhone? Not a chance in [bleep].

PS- That being said I WANT to be proven wrong. I want Apple to provide an expierence that covers music\contacts\calendar\todo\e-mail all in one sexy device but watching Apple over the years I've lost faith they they will try anything daring. Anything that really does take on the big guys. I'm willing to bet that whatever is released will be music\phone and if you are REALLY lucky limited calendar\contacts with no way to imput info. Prove me wrong Apple. Please.

Excellent and poignantly expressed points. The first iPhone, if/when is materializes might most likely be a phone v iPhone scenario competing against something like Sony's W950i (http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start?ProductSKU=W950&Dept=audio&CategoryName=pa_mobile_phones).

It would definitely be awesome if Apple could get the users to drop their CrackBerries for something more wholesome. j/k :eek:

P.S. It's been a while since I've posted, so please forgive my late interjection into the middle of this conversation. :o

[Dunepilot]

I personally don't see why Palm would actually be concerned about an iPhone anyway. It'll be a product targeted towards the consumer market, not the business market.

Palm's main market these days looks to be corporate, and their main competitor must surely be RIM. If you look at how many corporations (and public bodies, like local councils) are providing their employees with Blackberries, not Treos, that must be concerning for Palm.

I've never been in the sort of job where my employer would provide me with a Crackberry, but push-email seems to have taken off at a corporate level in a big way.

Incidentally, I just bought a Treo for my personal organisation and I love it (my last PalmOS device was an IBM C3). I'm sure Apple isn't interested in this though. The first iPhone will integrate the iTunes/phone experience, and also give slightly extended functionality to accessing Address Book. I also predict it'll have some sort of 'menu' button like the Apple Remote

[bousozoku]

I personally don't see why Palm would actually be concerned about an iPhone anyway. It'll be a product targeted towards the consumer market, not the business market.

Palm's main market these days looks to be corporate, and their main competitor must surely be RIM. If you look at how many corporations (and public bodies, like local councils) are providing their employees with Blackberries, not Treos, that must be concerning for Palm.

I've never been in the sort of job where my employer would provide me with a Crackberry, but push-email seems to have taken off at a corporate level in a big way.

Incidentally, I just bought a Treo for my personal organisation and I love it (my last PalmOS device was an IBM C3). I'm sure Apple isn't interested in this though. The first iPhone will integrate the iTunes/phone experience, and also give slightly extended functionality to accessing Address Book. I also predict it'll have some sort of 'menu' button like the Apple Remote

Well, I've recently heard some speculation about a smart device from Apple to go along with the consumer device and if Palm is hearing the same whispers, I'd think it would be a bit concerning. However, Palm just introduced the Treo 680p, so it may not matter as much, once that has been deployed on various carriers' networks.

[Dunepilot]

Well, I've recently heard some speculation about a smart device from Apple to go along with the consumer device and if Palm is hearing the same whispers, I'd think it would be a bit concerning. However, Palm just introduced the Treo 680p, so it may not matter as much, once that has been deployed on various carriers' networks.

Yeah, I have too, but I don't buy it, really. If you look at Apple's products aimed at professionals/businesses, they're exclusively either Macs or software/software houses they've acquired. I don't think Apple is likely to break with the success it has had offering consumer hardware like the iPod. The iTV will follow in that tradition.

For the record, I really like PalmOS. It does what it's supposed to do very well. What concerns me is the way the companies (or have they reamalgamated now?) are being led in a strange direction - the move to Windows Mobile looks to me like Palm/Palmsource trying to hedge their bets rather than properly marketing what they have had going for them all these years. Time will tell whether it's a good business decision, and whether the PalmOS survives at all. I, for one, hope that it does.

If I remember correctly, Palm software and products were originally developed by a group of ex-Apple employees, weren't they? I think they're the same faction that struck out for a bit by starting Handspring (later brought back into the fold).

[bousozoku]

Yeah, I have too, but I don't buy it, really. If you look at Apple's products aimed at professionals/businesses, they're exclusively either Macs or software/software houses they've acquired. I don't think Apple is likely to break with the success it has had offering consumer hardware like the iPod. The iTV will follow in that tradition.

For the record, I really like PalmOS. It does what it's supposed to do very well. What concerns me is the way the companies (or have they reamalgamated now?) are being led in a strange direction - the move to Windows Mobile looks to me like Palm/Palmsource trying to hedge their bets rather than properly marketing what they have had going for them all these years. Time will tell whether it's a good business decision, and whether the PalmOS survives at all. I, for one, hope that it does.

If I remember correctly, Palm software and products were originally developed by a group of ex-Apple employees, weren't they? I think they're the same faction that struck out for a bit by starting Handspring (later brought back into the fold).

I like PalmOS too, though I cannot decide on a device to replace my Handspring Visor Deluxe. I wanted the Treo 700p but it's too expensive. The 680p looks a better price but still a bit expensive and out of sync with my phone timeframe. A scratch-and-dent Tungsten T|X looks good, though.

As far as I know, the people who started Palm (and later, Handspring), Jeff Hawkins and Donna Dubinsky, didn't work for Apple. However, I've seen some people who credit Trip Hawkins, but he was the man who started Electronic Arts and he did work for Apple. I expect that when the Newton team was disbanded, they went to Palm or Handspring.

The WinCE, errr Mobile...something Pocket something else versions are designed for complete compatibility but have been said to lack certain things that the PalmOS versions have--and vice versa, I suppose.

[iMeowbot]

"We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,'' he said. "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.''
I do see what he's getting at there, Apple haven't done a portable device that can stand on its own in several years now. The iPod arrangement works so well because much of the dirty work was offloaded to the host computer.

A lot could depend on how much Apple learned from what Newton got right and wrong, and how much knowledge disappeared (or didn't) with its retirement.
From The Desk Of Steve Jobs:
62559
OK, now seeing that creeped me out. I need to turn that chart into a font.

[biggarthomas]

A friend of mine heard from someone who works at Rim that they and Apple are working on a phone! If I thoght that this news would do anything to Apple or Rim stock, I would not be telling you. I already own Apple and cannot see Rim's advancing any more than a few points on the news.

[rubberduck007]

The industry will change. MS will release the "Pune" in 3 years to kill iPhone. In brown.




Should that not be PRUNE?


:p

[Stella]

A friend of mine heard from someone who works at Rim that they and Apple are working on a phone! If I thoght that this news would do anything to Apple or Rim stock, I would not be telling you. I already own Apple and cannot see Rim's advancing any more than a few points on the news.

My future wife's ( who I don't know yet ) cat said Apple would be buying a stake in Symbian and slapping an OSX like interface theme on it.

Oh, that would be so good, if they did - using the #1 Smartphone OS in the world.

[Phobophobia]

My future wife's (who I don't know yet) cat said

Did the cat also happen to take any photos of unreleased products in elevators?

[Stella]

Did the cat also happen to take any photos of unreleased products in elevators?


Wow. How did you guess? :p

The pictures were taken using the camera on the actual Apple device.

[geese]

I already own Apple and cannot see Rim's advancing any more than a few points on the news.

You own Apple do you? My! You've kept a very low profile!

[MrCrowbar]

You own Apple do you? My! You've kept a very low profile!

OMG STEVE IS HERE!!!

Besides that he probably is, good one geese. :p

[SandynJosh]

Apple learned that with their old music player, you know the one before the iPod, oh wait there wasn't one...

Oh yah, there was one. It was a CD player that was soooo bad hardy a soul bought it and it's barely remembered. I think it happened while Steve was at Next abd the idjuts were in control of of Apple. It may have set a record for a short lifespan, not counting Microsoft's vaporware that was never spawned.

[SiliconAddict]

Oh yah, there was one. It was a CD player that was soooo bad hardy a soul bought it and it's barely remembered. I think it happened while Steve was at Next abd the idjuts were in control of of Apple. It may have set a record for a short lifespan, not counting Microsoft's vaporware that was never spawned.

o.O Mactracker has no information on this. Do you have links? I would be very interested in seeing a pict of it.

[iMeowbot]

o.O Mactracker has no information on this. Do you have links? I would be very interested in seeing a pict of it.
The product was called PowerCD (http://guides.macrumors.com/PowerCD).

[SandynJosh]

In looking over all the ideas generated in this thread and all the trends going on in the world, I'm lead to wonder if a consumer iPhone makes as much sense as it would seem to at first blush. Sure, the numbers can be great, but the profit potential is nearly nil.

Hasn't the consumer iPhone by now become a commodity product? More features are being tucked in rather then reducing the cost further and the base cost of contracts are at an all time low. I don't think it would be wise for Apple or anyone else to enter a relatively mature commodity market.

RIM has mapped out a good chunk of the business market, but it still is vulnerable. But is the business market alone worth the risk at this point?

I suspect that Apple's stragegy is to leverage off the iPod market base in such a way that it becomes an easy choice to buy the new iPhone. For example, many of the newest cars will have a place to integrate the iPod into the sound system. Aircraft companies are making a similar provision for the audio AND the video. Tons of other manufacturers have made in-home equipment to hold and access the information stored in the iPod.

Imagine, if you will, the new iPhone nesting in all them iPod-friendly ports. In the car, it becomes a hands free cell phone with voice recognition dialing and a high-quality speakerphone (aka, the car's sound system). Now imagine either a business person using the system as he cruises between appointments, or a group of teens using it as they cruise the streets on a Friday night. Both productive for one and way cool for the other group.

All of the above done without adding much at all to a basic phone/iPod, just the pure iPod base being leveraged. Now add a few user interface features and a couple of bells and whistles to appeal to a broad range of users and you hit the ground running.

It's the more specific user related want list that next needs to be addressed and that's where it gets dicey. That might be best marketed as additional features that could be added as needed.

For example, not everyone needs GPS. However, let's go back to the automobile with the iPod port in the dash. Now using the new iPhone with the GPS option, a person can travel to an unfamiliar place with ease. They may not have bought the GPS option in the beginning, but they bought the ability to add the option when they made their decision. It's similar to computers in this regard. Oftem a computer isn't purchased with the full load of RAM but a computer that can't be expanded has a harder go of it even if it is superior... i.e. the history of the early Mac.

A good camera phone with some image stabilization would serve a lot of people. Would it be better as an option that might bulk up the phone a little but could be slipped on and off as needed?

However apple does the iPhone it will need to integrate it into the existing iPod port structure for maximum penetration right out of the gate. And then, let's not forget the soon-to-be-released iTV. How might that integrate a phone's utility?

I hinestly can't imagine a good answer to that last question, but my mind is still reeling with the unanswered question of why Steve would pre-announce a product after not doing so since 1983.

[Some_Big_Spoon]

I've been holding off on the smart phone thing until Apple comes up with something that makes sense. I've tried palm and windows mobile phones and both are so clunky. I'm sure I could reasonably learn their quirks and incorporate them into my life, but I don't want to. I just want it to do what it's supposed to and get out of my way, just like my macs and my ipod. The "solutions" out there now force you to do it their way.

[mdriftmeyer]

Apple doesn't need to deliver a revolutionary phone-like device to grab marketshare. It's more about integrating a device within the system... and that is something Apple is good at.

Phones, new features, and additional functionality are a dime-a-dozen. New bells and whistles are added all the time, that's not what the market needs. Someone (hopefully Apple!) needs to take some of these advancements and deliver a products that integrates them in a logical and intuative way.

I second this insight. The market has been exposed to the gimmicks and now that the package has worn thin they are looking for an intuitive, durable and reliable phone that has some features you'd expect in a computer but mostly a phone that can be used with any carrier and doesn't need to be updated every 9 months.

[bousozoku]

Oh yah, there was one. It was a CD player that was soooo bad hardy a soul bought it and it's barely remembered. I think it happened while Steve was at Next abd the idjuts were in control of of Apple. It may have set a record for a short lifespan, not counting Microsoft's vaporware that was never spawned.

Someone who worked across the aisle from me had a PowerCD connected to his Mac and it was really nice, but it was way too expensive. Then again, you could say that about any of the equipment at the time. It's become much better but the value is often not apparent to the majority of the people.

[SandynJosh]

Someone who worked across the aisle from me had a PowerCD connected to his Mac and it was really nice, but it was way too expensive. Then again, you could say that about any of the equipment at the time. It's become much better but the value is often not apparent to the majority of the people.

If I remember right, when a person removed the PowerCD from its stand to listen to the music on the run it failed to give good performance. Apple forgot to include any buffer memory and skips were more the event then not. At the time, less expenisive protable CD players had such buffer memory, so it was a real dumb move on Apple's part.

[BoRegardless]

I wish Apple would keep features at a minimum. Stop putting features in that I don't care about.

How about letting users DELETE any feature they don't want (Delete or Hide, I don't care but get rid of them unless I specifically want it: never use games, calculator, ring tones, color screen is worthless in sunlight...the list goes on)

[R0bert]

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/6825/2003902622332125549_rs.jpg

[k2k koos]

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/6825/2003902622332125549_rs.jpg

Is this the phone that all telemarketing firms are going to use, calling you up at random trying to sell you something you don't want? Say a Palm treo?

[abrown2]

I think the iPhone is going to be awesome! Since when can apple not jump in? Where did iTunes come from? That was almost instant! The iPhone should be equipt with similar programs such as iTunes and iPhoto. What I want to see is a 35" HD Television come out by Apple!

[ClimbingTheLog]

They do know whom they're talking about right? I mean they say PC manufacturers yet palm are producing windows mobile pieces of junk. Windows mobile is the biggest piece of ***** operating system - it would not be hard to come up with something a lot better (for Apple at least). And the Palm OS is very dear to my heart, but not exactly cutting edge and palm don't even own that anymore.

Palm are washed out, end of story.

To illustrate your point, PalmOne (if that's what the PalmOS Group is called this month...) is doing the aforemnetioned ground-up rewrite of PalmOS now (it should be available to devs soon if they're on schedule) and it's based on Linux. Stable, massively featureful, full PalmOS 5 backward-compatibility, and futureproof.

Yet the hardware arm of Palm has said it might not buy the new sytem from the software arm. I have to imagine this has to do with posturing/playing the good little beoch to Microsoft. We know what happens to companies which partner with Microsoft... that they have proves prima facia that they're unequipped to run a company.

[QuarterSwede]

Yet the hardware arm of Palm has said it might not buy the new sytem from the software arm.
That's like shooting yourself in the foot! Morons!

[SandynJosh]

That's like shooting yourself in the foot! Morons!

Hehehe...more like shooting a bit higher.

[kingtj]

PDA Phones aren't "on the way out", but the problem is, manufacturers haven't figured out how to give the public what they really want in one.

Palm may not be so foolish with their statement discounting Apple, only because they're probably right that Apple isn't really going to put a dent in their particular market.

I've seen so many realtors, insurance agents, company CEO's, and other traveling salespeople relying on Treo phones every day, and it's largely because they need the PDA functionality plus the cellphone.

Most realtors in my area can use the IR port on a Treo to automatically open the lock-boxes on properties they want to show, for example.

If Apple releases an iPhone, I think they'll be concentrating on good integration of the cellphone and a music player ... not so much a PDA, a la the Newton.


The problem with Palm is they are on their way out. They got what? Treo? How long can that last? PDAs are over. So it's all about the phones now.

They have to be worried. Apple has the midas touch. Whatever Apple get's into they change. Apple has a way of innovation that changes all of the dynamics. They weren't the first with the iPod, but their entrance into digital music has changed the whole music industry, not just digital music players.

Apple could very well do the same thing with an Apple branded phone. Integrating it into the whole computer experiance in ways we can't even predict. To claim it takes years to make a phone "right" is just proof that Palm has very little to offer.

The future of phone technology is going to change rapidly and dramically over the next few years. Apple can make billions of dollars in this market. They are going to go for it, and they will leverage their existing products to make it happen and to offer something new. Everyone is fixated on the iPod, but it's the integration with OS X that has the most interesting potential.

Video iChat on your phone? Internet services? Email? Address? Calendar? Have you used a Palm or Blackberry? They are OK for what they do, but they could be so much better...a lot better. What they are missing is exactly what Apple has to offer -- and it isn't music.

[virus1]

hahahaa... ROFL...

this guy is a fool...

i wonder if creative said the exact same thing back in 2001 reguarding mp3 players?

[0010101]

For those of you who may have forgotten, or are too young to remember, Apple has had more than it's share of Cleveland Steamers.. and an iPhone would just be another turd in the punchbowl.

iPod was a hit because nobody at the time of iPods introduction made anything like it. Sure, there were other players out there, but nothing came even remotely close to the features, size, and ease of use.

The cellular phone market is a whole different playing field, with dozens of established manufacturers with a significant head start (decades) and an established user base.

Apple has about as good a chance of entering the cell phone market as LG does entering the MP3 player market.

While there are folks out there who would buy any piece of plastic that Steve Jobs wiped his rear with and stuck an 'i' in front of the name, in order for it to appeal to the masses, it's going to have to be cool looking, feature rich, and perhaps most importantly, widely available, and inexpensive.

Apple doesn't do inexpensive very well.. and 'playing with others' isn't one of their strengths, either. Both are requirements to enter an already highly competitive cell phone marketplace.

Apple needs to get back to what they do best, which is innovate in untapped or barely tapped markets where they really stand out and shine against the competition.. Apple II, Original Macintosh, iPod, etc. Not jump into an already saturated market with little to distinguish themselves between the competition but a pretty case.

[jesteraver]

Hopefully the iPhone will a handy cell phone...


Software::
- Mac OS X (mobile version)
- iTunes
- iPhoto
- Quicktime
- iChat
- Safari
- Skype (downloadable)

Hardware::
- 3 - 5 megapixel camera w/auto-focus (photo taking)
- VGA (front of phone for video conferencing ... similar too the ones found in iMac / Mac Book / Mac Book Pro)
- Touchscreen
- WiFi
- Bluetooth
- GSM / HSPDA (3.5 G)
- 8 Gb NAND Flash
- 3" Colour Display

Would be nice to be able to have a Mac Book / Mac Book Pro of sorts too fit in your pocket?! Or is that just me?

I would throw away my Nokia N80 and get that.

One thing hopefully it be similar to a Nokia N61. If so plus with the stuff I posted, it would destroy any multimedia phone on the market. Plus would be smaller than an OQO.

*Crosses-fingers*

[zim]

Apple has about as good a chance of entering the cell phone market as LG does entering the MP3 player market.

Apple doesn't do inexpensive very well.. and 'playing with others' isn't one of their strengths, either. Both are requirements to enter an already highly competitive cell phone marketplace.

Apple needs to get back to what they do best, which is innovate in untapped or barely tapped markets where they really stand out and shine against the competition.. Apple II, Original Macintosh, iPod, etc. Not jump into an already saturated market with little to distinguish themselves between the competition but a pretty case.

LG does make an mp3 player (http://www.lge.com/products/category/list/audio_portable_mp3%20player.jhtml).

I believe that Apple's success has been based on the simplicity of the product not on how rich in features it is. Cell phones are currently overly complex, attempting to do more then what their intent was, which is where I think Apple can make a difference. Removing complexity is what Apple does best.

As for playing with others, Apple has constantly made attempts to bridge the gap between PC and Macs. Look at the early PowerMacs when apple had translation tools, and the ability to read PC formated disks.

"Apple doesn't do inexpensive very well"
- Simplicity comes at a price.

[GeckoHH]

I am positive that Apple will bring a twist into the mobile telephony market, something revolutionary nobody could think that it will work.

And in 2 years from now everybody will state: Yes, Apple did it again.

I bet they do the following:

- Follow the KISS (Keep it stupit simple) concept and build on there current iPOD success!

The new iPhone will be a WIFI iPOD with Skype (or something alike) build in. A high quality camera and Bluetooth Stereo Wireless will complete the hardware.
The software will allow "on the go" chat, blogging, videocasts, RSS and a mobile safari browser.

Strategy: Replace the need for an iPOD&#180;s and provide the best personal communication tool

- Eliminate traditional phone contracts with MobilePhone operators.

Apple will aquire "FON" and build the largest hotspot community in the world where every iPhone user can communicate for free.

This is my prediction. :)
Jens

P.S. Too bad for palm, but it is not enough just to build the best smartphone. You need to win the community...

[emotion]

I am positive that Apple will bring a twist into the mobile telephony market, something revolutionary nobody could think that it will work.

And in 2 years from now everybody will state: Yes, Apple did it again.

I bet they do the following:

- Follow the KISS (Keep it stupit simple) concept and build on there current iPOD success!

The new iPhone will be a WIFI iPOD with Skype (or something alike) build in. A high quality camera and Bluetooth Stereo Wireless will complete the hardware.
The software will allow "on the go" chat, blogging, videocasts, RSS and a mobile safari browser.

Strategy: Replace the need for an iPOD´s and provide the best personal communication tool

- Eliminate traditional phone contracts with MobilePhone operators.

Apple will aquire "FON" and build the largest hotspot community in the world where every iPhone user can communicate for free.



Y'know as far fetched as some might say a lot of that is there's something that makes a lot of sense there too.

If so I'm not surprised Steve keeps seaying that he has something cool coming soon in interviews!

[houser]

I think that is exactly right on all accounts and not farfetched at all.
The only things is that the phoneclient will simply be Ichat and not skype.
best
jtm


The new iPhone will be a WIFI iPOD with Skype (or something alike) build in. A high quality camera and Bluetooth Stereo Wireless will complete the hardware.
The software will allow "on the go" chat, blogging, videocasts, RSS and a mobile safari browser.

Strategy: Replace the need for an iPOD´s and provide the best personal communication tool

- Eliminate traditional phone contracts with MobilePhone operators.

Apple will aquire "FON" and build the largest hotspot community in the world where every iPhone user can communicate for free.

This is my prediction. :)
Jens

P.S. Too bad for palm, but it is not enough just to build the best smartphone. You need to win the community...

[emotion]

I think that is exactly right on all accounts and not farfetched at all.
The only things is that the phoneclient will simply be Ichat and not skype.


People have noticed recently that ichat isnt the best tool for the job that it's meant to do. An overhaul (as part of leopard?) would need to take place and could be part of the whole strategy.

[0010101]

I know LG makes an MP3 player.. when I said Apple has about as much of a chance entering the cell phone market as LG has entering the MP3 market, what I was referring to is POPULARITY and MARKET SHARE.

When I said Apple doesn't have a history of 'working well with others', I was referring to other companies.

You don't just wake up one day and start selling phones.. there are a whole lot of other companies involved.. most importantly, a cell phone service provider. One who is willing to pay Apples per unit price and give the phone away for next to nothing in exchange for an end customer contract.

That's how the majority of cell phones are sold.. not walking into target and plunking down $250 and it's yours.. but signing a contract for a year or more and getting the phone at a significantly reduced rate, or even 'free'.

In order to be successful in the cell phone market, you need to have more than one cell service provider on board, willing to push your phones, and you have to do it at a price point thats comfortable for both the manufacturer of the phone, and the guy selling the phone.

Then in order to do that, you have to offer that particular provider something special.. like a special model available only at that particular provider. Which means Apple would have to either stick with a single carrier, or have multiple models.

Then finally, you have the convergence factor. I know a lot of people with cell phones. I know a lot of people with PDA's. I know a lot of people with MP3 players.

I don't know a lot of people who want all three devices wrapped up into one unit.

An iPod with the ability (but not a requirement) to connect to cellular networks to download content, I can see and think would be a hit.

Being able to add OPTIONAL, basic phone functions and texting to such a unit for those interested in such a thing, not bad.

But a full blown 'iPhone'? Big mistake.

[BRLawyer]

But the funniest thing will be when Apple introduces iPhone and achieves a success similar to that of the iPod...fanboys will come in droves to say that phone X has "FM tuners" or phone Y has "GPS blabla", without understanding that it's not the feature set that makes a winner, but integration AND simplicity...on verra!

p.s.: and yep...without carrier agreements, no chance for a good story...most people get new phones WITH subscriptions that reduce such cell phone prices a lot...period.

[0010101]

Well the funny thing really is that Apple hasn't ever said they were going to make an iPhone, and all this rumor and speculation is based on a .org domain name and a whole lot of circumstantial evidence.

Let's not forget 'iPod' was originally the name they were going to call a sit in internet kiosk type thing, not a music player.

Apple could very well just be cooking up a cellular capable iPod to enable wireless downloads from the iTunes store directly to the device.. which makes way more sense than trying to jump into an already saturated market with low profit margins and tremendous competition.

[MikeTheC]

I wouldn't mind having Apple sell them (and I'm guessing they will to some degree), but we also have to think in terms of the market as is. If I can get a free phone through my provider every x years, I'm going to do that instead of buying outside the company (even if it is crap). If I can get an upgrade for between $50 and $300, I might consider it when I'm in the store renewing my plan. Apple can gain presence only by going through established channels; it's not to say that you won't be able to buy one in an Apple store, just that consumers who like to do comparison shopping when they get their phones might like to see an iPhone in a TMobile/Verizon/3rd party carrier store.

I'm of two minds on this. First, I think Apple would have a problem with cell phone providers who wouldn't want to extend service to hardware not purchased through them. Why should they? They're not getting a kickback on the phone. And besides, these people buying their phones from outside sources are just a minority of users, anyhow. A minority they may feel fully capable and even justified in ignoring.

The second thought is: how many people here remember when car dealerships were exclusive dealerships? That is, a Pontiac dealer only sold Pontiacs, a Mercury dealer only sold Mercurys, a Ford dealership only sold Fords, etc. All of that began to fade away in the mid-1980s. Now you have dealerships that sell multiple brands. My point here being that this whole "exclusive" and "main squeeze" rationale used in the cell phone industry is just as carved in stone as the car dealership thing "was".

[MikeTheC]

I know that many Blue Tooth features of my Motorola cell phone is disabled by Verizon. <---snip---> Remember simple things like ring tones, photos & such could easilly be transferred from the cell phone to your home computer. But this is not usually allowed. Could this be because the cell phone companies allow these features only to add to their revenue stream, not to give the cell phone user some additional user or usuable feature?

I'm glad when I got my RAZR I didn't go with Verizon. I can and have BT transferred photos and sounds between my PowerBook and my phone. Heck, I even have Eric Idle as a messenger getting nailed in the chest by an arrow and saying "Message for you, sir" as my voicemail notification. (Most apropos, I thought.)

And yes, obviously I can see why they'd want to do that. I've sent many megs of data back and forth, and I've have had to pay a small fortune to do that if I was going through my carrier (Cingular, btw). BT cuts that all out completely.

This is an example of what I hate about the computer industry, and without going into a long, multi-paragraph dissertation on the matter, companies are so [blankety-blank-blank] greedy that they are unwilling to allow their customers to do very much with their products without having to keep forking over cash to them. This is not the way to have a successful business with legions of hard-core, loyal customers. But then, business thinking these days is so incredibly short-term that the whole concept of really turning your customers into long-term repeat customers is not even a goal they find worth bothering to strive for. Pay lip service to, yes; actually do, no.

[MikeTheC]

i am sure apple is finding the world of phone carriers complex and difficult.

The biggest hangup of theirs is probably the sale of media and ringtones. They simply probably do NOT want Apple to provide the solution. Even if Apple's storefront is better, they will not want money going elsewhere.

that said, Apple's best option here is to simply launch the product themselves. Offer a GSM phone that is unlocked. The phone companies will get a clue later on when people want the product

I 150% agree! Cell communications need to open up. Contracts and locked phones will keep the phone industry from growing and maturing in the same way computers did.

What Apple has to rely on is the eventual tendency of companies' adversarial and predatory tendencies to overcome their collective complacency. This could take quite a while.

Consider this. Let's say Apple does something along the lines we're predicting, and sells their phones. Before we plunk down our money, we go around to the various cell carriers and inquire if they'll let us bring our phone to their network. They say either "NO!" or "Not at this time."

Do you still spend your money on Apple's product? I mean, what good's a cell phone (especially if it's more than just a few dollars) if you can't even talk to anybody on it? So, the cell phone companies basically keep Apple from going anywhere, and since they would do this from the start, they could ultimately report back to their bosses (and then onto their shareholders) that, "Oh no, we didn't really screw ourselves out of a lucrative market." on the premise that it isn't lucrative until tons of people are in that market (none of whom would be, since this is basically a giant "chicken-n-egg" scenario with the onus and the expense all stuck squarely on the shoulders of the general public.)

What would make absolutely more sense is for Apple to simply start up their own network. They've already acquired some assets in this area, haven't they? So why not bide their time until they can really roll the thing out? And since it is relatively common practice for cell towers to have more than one (sometimes several) carriers' equipment mounted on them, Apple could buy into who's-ever network they needed to get one of the "lesser third party" broadcast equipment sets that's already out there among the masses.

It could operate something like how Claris used to work, being a division (but a spun-off one) of Apple. It would be an interesting back-door type of approach to the whole equation.

[MikeTheC]

Other than confusing everyone with too many options, no.

If you're a teenage girl, your phone has to have a camera on it, meaning you'll have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's complicated.
If you're a hiker, maybe you're going to want a phone with GPS, meaning you'll have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's complicated.
If you're a huge multitasker, you're going to want PDA-functionality, meaning you'll have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's complicated.

Very few people, I feel, will want a bare-bones phone... meaning most will have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's too complicated for most people to do.

So in short, no, I don't think that'll work. Good idea, though. That way you'd get a phone with the features you want without the crap that you don't want. Unfortunately, as far as a particular model of phone goes, it's either all or nothing... and I don't think Apple will want to release 18 different models of phone, each with different capabilities... that's worse than BTO.

-Clive

I agree with you totally on this one, Clive.

The problem with "the masses" out there (especially in the U.S.) is that they are so uneducated, unsophisticated, unsavvy, and generally lazy, that ANY solution that isn't served up to them, lock stock and barrel, on a silver platter, automatically will wind up excluding probably a bit north of 70% of the population, and that might simply be me being a bit generous.

Heck, in this country, people don't even educate themselves enough to know not to put scorchingly-hot coffee between their legs in a fast-food drive-through. And having had five years' experience as tech support at Sony Electronics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_CISC) I can tell you that most people don't know -- and don't want to know -- anything about the devices they use. They've grown up and been raised to simply hand the keys to their lives over to someone else. Otherwise, if they had to actually use their minds and *think* something through, well, they don't have time for all that.

Sorry to rant here a bit, but it's the truth. Heck, I've dealt with that at every retail company I've ever worked at, at least to some extent.

[peharri]

Consider this. Let's say Apple does something along the lines we're predicting, and sells their phones. Before we plunk down our money, we go around to the various cell carriers and inquire if they'll let us bring our phone to their network. They say either "NO!" or "Not at this time."


The only mobile carriers in a position to do this are the cdmaOne/CDMA2000 ones (Verizon, Sprint PCS, etc.) If Apple makes a GSM or UMTS phone, the carrier has little or no say in whether you use it. T-Mobile and Cingular will, by next year, be running both types of network in the US, and both already run GSM.

The real influence the cellphone companies (at least, the ones not stuck in the 1980s as far as their network infrastructure goes) have on phone purchasing is the ability to subsidize phones that fit their model. This, in practice, usually means rebranding. Cingular is pretty good on that score and rarely insists on more than some ugly logos printed on the phone (unfortunately their network is not the greatest GSM implementation in the world.) T-Mobile, in my experience, is somewhat worse, though not always for bad reasons. For example, they'd probably insist on "My Faves", a proprietary five person phonebook, being grafted on to whatever UI an "iPhone" has, in return for any substantial subsidy.

The fact Apple can't expect carriers to subsidize their phones is one issue they have to deal with. I'm more concerned though with Apple becoming a minority player, with its phone tied to a music store whose success was, in major part, to do with the giant marketshare it had, and thus Jobs's ability to force the labels to compromise on prices.


What would make absolutely more sense is for Apple to simply start up their own network. They've already acquired some assets in this area, haven't they? So why not bide their time until they can really roll the thing out? And since it is relatively common practice for cell towers to have more than one (sometimes several) carriers' equipment mounted on them, Apple could buy into who's-ever network they needed to get one of the "lesser third party" broadcast equipment sets that's already out there among the masses.


Apple would need not merely infrastructure but spectrum to actually start a carrier. They have neither.

Purchasing a carrier is an interesting pipe dream and would terrify the crap out of most shareholders. Mobile telephony is a long term thing, with very little return on investment yet for most people who've invested in it. It's not even a good time to get involved, most companies are rolling out 3G networks and 4G, in the shape of WiMAX, is already being released in some areas.

Were they to do the carrier thing, the best they could hope for would be to be an MVNO. This would be a major change of business model. It has so many ramifications I don't know where to begin.

[TequilaBoobs]

i hope apple comes out with a shoe phone, something the pink panther or inspector gadget would use.

[MikeTheC]

They sold out to MS because the idiots at Palm couldn't find their butt with a flashlight and both hands. Seriously in 2001 the CEO of Palm stood infront of a crowd at CES and stated our users don't want color, sound etc. It was the beginning of the end because by the time they figured out that yes. Not only do users want color and sound they also want the ability to multitask. Something that POS (Notice that Palm OS and Peice of **** share the same acronym.) STILL to this day doesn't really do. Well it sort of does it in a craptacular manner. My point is Palm doomed them selves because they had management who didn't have a clue or simply didn't have the resources to really revamp the OS from the ground up. I'm willing to bet there is legacy code in POS that dates back to v1. Because POS never had its OS X its Windows 2000. It never had its rewrite. All Palm has been doing is slapping on a new addition to the house and calling it NEW and improved!
It isn't. It sucks and the Pocket PC or Windows Mobile (ick I hate that name.) kicks the living snot out of POS right now in pretty much every way imaginable. Heck Palm is so lost that they are trying to pull an Apple. they purchased some *nix company in China that has experience with mobile versions of *nix and right now is trying to migrate POS over to a *nix flavor of OS.
Unfortunately unlike Apple its too little, too late.
Palm went to Windows because they didn't want to stay stuck in the mobile equivalent of DOS.

This is one of those times where, if MacRumors.com had a Karma Points system (and if I, in turn, had some Karma points) I would Karma-bump the heck outta this post. It's so true, and it's so absolutely dead-on in it's critical analysis of the situation that there's little, if anything, to be added to it.

Apple went to "something else", starting with the Copeland project, because they realized even way back then in the B.S. (that is, Before Steve -- hey, lookie, another awesome acronym!) that Mac OS Classic was a technological cul-de-sac. It was exactly as SilliconAddict has described PalmOS -- er, I mean POS. (You know, I really, really, really have to remember that one. God, I'm still laughing over it as I write this.)

Even Microsoft went to "something else", although unlike Apple they chose to go with their own in-house-developed successor, since DOS 8bit, Win8, Win16, and Win9x code was essentially an obsolete OS technology.

So here we have Palm, arguably one of the greatest innovators (though not really a pioneer, as the kudos and credit for that goes to Apple's Newton development group) of PDAs ever, going down the same hole into the same quagmire that plagued the likes of Commodore, Sony's BetaMax, etc. You'd think with all the MBAs and other college-educated people they've hired over the years that this would be abundantly obvious *and* fundamentally core to their business operational mindset. However, it's quite clear that it isn't.

Thus go the way of all who do not study history and learn from it.

[hayesk]

All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.

On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.

A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.

I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.

Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.

[MikeTheC]

To illustrate your point, PalmOne (if that's what the PalmOS Group is called this month...) is doing the aforemnetioned ground-up rewrite of PalmOS now (it should be available to devs soon if they're on schedule) and it's based on Linux. Stable, massively featureful, full PalmOS 5 backward-compatibility, and futureproof.

Yet the hardware arm of Palm has said it might not buy the new sytem from the software arm. I have to imagine this has to do with posturing/playing the good little beoch to Microsoft. We know what happens to companies which partner with Microsoft... that they have proves prima facia that they're unequipped to run a company.

I hate to keep dragging my personal employment history into the discussion here, but this is *hardly* the first time this kind of factor has been in play.

I worked for what was, until (talk about timing!) April 1st of this year, a fully-Sony-staffed technical support facility. We provided tech support for Sony computers, monitors, CLI&#201; PDAs, WebTV, Satellite tv, TVs, DVD players, VCRs, phones, all the Business and Professional stuff, etc. Yet (with the exception of B&P), our facility competed for tech-supporting our products with other tech support agencies out there, including our own out-sourced tech support partners.

Sony frequently would not include their own subsystems (CD-ROMs, DVD-ROMs, writers, etc.) in their own products because they wouldn't (some say "couldn't" but I don't buy that) let themselves have their own inventory cheap enough in a lot of cases. Heck, for that matter, it wasn't until sometime in early 2004 (basically 1 year and change before we all got kicked out) that they switched from 500MHz P3-based Hewlett-Packard desktop computers as our actual "agent workstations" to 3.2GHz P4-based VAIOs. For that matter (and yes this is a rant, but it's also pertinent to this aspect of the discussion) it wasn't until like the last year-and-a-half, maybe not-quite-two-years of our operations that they managed to get more than a handful of current-model Sony computer products into the building AND into the hands of those of us doing the tech support. (The reason for this largely relates to the fact that we as the "tech support" division were the red-headed step-child, and basically a money pit, and we had to actually *buy* our own products at regular retail prices from our manufacturing divisions, instead of them sending them to us.) Now, make of that what you will.

I go into this to basically say that it doesn't surprise me to see any company playing the "house divided" strategy. The only problem is that it is a losing strategy. Whether religious or not, people should at least look *this* up in the Bible as a basic, common sense 101 lesson on how not to run your personal life or your business. Ah, but I digress...

[MikeTheC]

hahahaa... ROFL...

this guy is a fool...

i wonder if creative said the exact same thing back in 2001 reguarding mp3 players?

And so was then-Sony head Nobuyuki Idei, who turned down Steve Jobs' business proposition to bring them aboard on ITMS. No, Sony frackin' insisted on going with Connect.

And so was Commodore back in the 1980s when they so arrogantly believed they didn't need to advertise or honor their cooperative advertising agreements with their dealers, or really help to grow and support their dealers, since "We are Commodore! People will come to *us* for computers!"

So many stupid people... so little time...

[MikeTheC]

i hope apple comes out with a shoe phone, something the pink panther or inspector gadget would use.

Would you believe agent Maxwell Smart?

https://www.cia.gov/spy_fi/graphics/shoe_phone.jpg

[0010101]

Apple could very easily set up their 'own' cell network.. the same way Virgin Mobile, TracPhone, and several other cell phone companies have done.

Not by building towers and cell sites.. but by buying blocks of numbers from an existing large carrier and rebranding it as their own.

Of course, for voice and text usage, this gets expensive for the customer.. but for things like downloads of video and music files, they could simply tack on a 'wireless' surcharge.

For instance, a particular iTunes song could cost say.. $2 if downloaded with a computer.. but $2.50 if downloaded 'direct to iPod'.

It would work very simular to the way those 'pre-paid' cell phones work. You buy the iPod from the store, no contract to sign, no comitments. Take it home and 'activate' it for wireless access, then pay for what you download, and pay nothing if you never use the wireless features.

iPod wireless. Don't talk. Listen.

Send me a free 17" MacBook Pro and you can have that slogan, Steve!

That makes perfect sense to me. Especially since the data center Apple just bought would be the perfect rig of the increased download demand, as well as billing for such a service.

[TequilaBoobs]

Would you believe agent Maxwell Smart?

https://www.cia.gov/spy_fi/graphics/shoe_phone.jpg

thats wat im talking abooot, but i hope apple cleans up the interface a bit... hehe

[MikeTheC]

All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.

On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.

A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.

I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.

Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.

The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?

The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.

Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).

Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.

I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.

The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.

From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.

Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.

And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.

And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."

Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.

So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.

All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.

Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...

If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.

[MikeTheC]

thats wat im talking abooot, but i hope apple cleans up the interface a bit... hehe

Ok, how about this:

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/720/shoephonezt7.png

[ZorPrime]

i hope apple comes out with a shoe phone, something the pink panther or inspector gadget would use.

Very retro.. ;)

[ZorPrime]

[QUOTE=MikeTheC;3091231]Ok, how about this:

you read my mind! :eek: :)

[peharri]

Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...

If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.

There are already GNU/Linux based cellphones. And what about the iPhone implies that it would be open in a way that, say, an average Nokia isn't? I appreciate they ported GNU/Linux to the iPod, but for the most part the reason similar things haven't happened on more regular cellphones has been an issue of the amount of work involved, with it being somewhat harder to write a GSM stack from scratch and port a kernel than it is to simply port an off-the-shelf kernel. (And I guess there's the additional issue that there are six zillion cellphones using about one quillion completely incompatible hardware platforms, whereas there are only a handful of MP3 players and only one that's achieved marketshare heaven.)

[MikeTheC]

There are already GNU/Linux based cellphones. And what about the iPhone implies that it would be open in a way that, say, an average Nokia isn't? I appreciate they ported GNU/Linux to the iPod, but for the most part the reason similar things haven't happened on more regular cellphones has been an issue of the amount of work involved, with it being somewhat harder to write a GSM stack from scratch and port a kernel than it is to simply port an off-the-shelf kernel. (And I guess there's the additional issue that there are six zillion cellphones using about one quillion completely incompatible hardware platforms, whereas there are only a handful of MP3 players and only one that's achieved marketshare heaven.)

Oh, sure. But GNU/Linux could slowly introduce a standardized set of cell phone hardware platforms to build from, just like Intel and AMD and ATI (now a part of AMD, of course) and NVidia produce reference platform hardware that then anyone can make a compatible motherboard/daughter card from, what needs to happen is to have one particularly successful and particularly popular cell phone interface, and then (potentially) everyone would be clamoring to sell it to their customers.

Now, the difference between cell phones and computers is in the history. Cell phones achieved popularity and mass market penetration before a unifying hardware platform or OS platform came into being; whereas computers didn't achieve that kind of success until afterward. So really the dynamic and all the sequencing here is different.

[SandynJosh]

The real influence the cellphone companies (at least, the ones not stuck in the 1980s as far as their network infrastructure goes) have on phone purchasing is the ability to subsidize phones that fit their model.

The fact Apple can't expect carriers to subsidize their phones is one issue they have to deal with.

NEWS:
November 23, 2006 CNN
NEW YORK (AP) -- Cell phone owners will be allowed to break software locks on their handsets in order to use them with competing carriers under new copyright rules announced Wednesday.

Given the above news, NO cellphone company may soon be subsidizing ANY phones.

[MikeTheC]

NEWS:
November 23, 2006 CNN
NEW YORK (AP) -- Cell phone owners will be allowed to break software locks on their handsets in order to use them with competing carriers under new copyright rules announced Wednesday.

Given the above news, NO cellphone company may soon be subsidizing ANY phones.

Well, it's a totally separate subject that's off-topic for this thread, but I would like to quote one single sentence from the related CNN news article.


The new rules will take effect Monday and expire in three years.

So, here's my question: If these rights are so important and have been recognized as being so important, then why would they want to deliberately sunset those same laws? Something here doesn't smell right.

[peharri]

NEWS:
November 23, 2006 CNN
NEW YORK (AP) -- Cell phone owners will be allowed to break software locks on their handsets in order to use them with competing carriers under new copyright rules announced Wednesday.

Given the above news, NO cellphone company may soon be subsidizing ANY phones.

All it says is that cellphone owners can break the locks. It doesn't say cellphone operators have to help them. It also refers to specific instances where the software itself has to be modified to unlock a phone. It is already legal, because it's not a copyright violation, to unlock, for example, Nokia phones, whose locking code is actually algorithmically generated and therefore requires no copyright violation to use.

Truth is, most countries have no laws against breaking SP locks, and many countries, notably most in Europe, have laws forcing operators to unlock phones on demand. And yet most countries still have operators that sell subsidized phones in exchange for contracts. SP locks are there not so much because the phone is subsidized so much as to help enforce the contract, and reduce churn by making it more expensive to switch carrier.

So no, this change will make no difference as far as subsidized handsets go.

[0010101]

NEWS:
November 23, 2006 CNN
NEW YORK (AP) -- Cell phone owners will be allowed to break software locks on their handsets in order to use them with competing carriers under new copyright rules announced Wednesday.

Given the above news, NO cellphone company may soon be subsidizing ANY phones.

Sure they will. They give you the phone at a discounted rate, or free, if you sign a service contract for X number of years.. which is how they get their money back.

The new rules are intended for people who buy the phones at full price, or decide to move to a competing carrier after they have fulfilled their obligations under their service contract/agreement.

The people this might sting would be outfits like Virgin Mobile, TracPhone, and other 'pre-paid' wireless companies, who often sell their phones at or below cost because they'll make up the money in sold airtime.

They hook you with the low price and no contract or monthly fee, but then sock you with .25 cents a minute or more airtime charges.

[peharri]

Oh, sure. But GNU/Linux could slowly introduce a standardized set of cell phone hardware platforms to build from, just like Intel and AMD and ATI (now a part of AMD, of course) and NVidia produce reference platform hardware that then anyone can make a compatible motherboard/daughter card from, what needs to happen is to have one particularly successful and particularly popular cell phone interface, and then (potentially) everyone would be clamoring to sell it to their customers.

That would take a degree of cooperation and coordination I've never seen in that environment. There's also the not-so-small issue that there is, so far as I can see, no public, free-software, GSM, UMTS, or IS-95/AMPS stacks and someone would have to write one.

...in an environment where, as yet, they can't even run the software they write. Porting the Linux kernel to the iPod and Nintendo DS was relatively simple, Linux pre-existed, and it was Linux's built-in functionality - the ability to run GNU - that was desired. But a cellphone OS needs to, fundamentally, be a cellphone at the end of the process.


Now, the difference between cell phones and computers is in the history. Cell phones achieved popularity and mass market penetration before a unifying hardware platform or OS platform came into being; whereas computers didn't achieve that kind of success until afterward. So really the dynamic and all the sequencing here is different.

Bear in mind the race for standards isn't even close to over right now. The most popular standard in the US, CDMA2000, appears to be about to become completely obsolete. UMTS is going to get a new air interface courtesy of the 3GPP Long Term Evolution project, and WiMAX is starting to be deployed, initially as an Internet access system, but in the long term - well, who knows? All you need is SIP phone software running over it and...

And that's all "By 2010" stuff. While all of this is in the air, there's no real notion of where these devices are heading in terms of capabilities.

So the hardware certainly isn't settled. The upper layers of cellphone operating systems are likely to be in flux. It just doesn't strike me as likely that the iPhone is going to come about as some great unifying force, where every cellphone maker will go "You know what? We should use the same hardware as Apple, but put GNU/Linux on it." More likely, the various custom systems will continue to make up the mainstream, both on the software and hardware side, with radically different phones getting their own radically different OSes.

[dlowe402]

I have had a lot of Apple products in my life (see below) and I have a Treo650. I would dump it in a heartbeat and pick up an iPhone. Especially if it has intigration with iLife apps. I'm sick of having to run flakey software just to hear my phone. I'm on my second 650 in 6 months (Speaker quit working) and while the Palm OS is outdated, I wouldnt touch Windows Mobile with a 10' pole. I'm excited with the prospect of an Apple phone.

My Stuff:
Mackbook Pro 15" 2.16 ghz w/Glossy Screen:D
Powerbok 12" (Cat killed it though) :mad:
Silver iPod mini
iPod Shuffle
Palm Treo650
Wife's Stuff:
Intel iMac Core Duo 2ghz
iPod Nano
Other:
iMac G5
20gb Ipod (Sons)
Pink iPod Mini (Daughters)
Airport Wireless Home Network

[cr2sh]

I just bought a Nokia 6682 and find the Symbian OS Smart Phone to be a wonderful phone. I will not be buying an iphone unless it comes in GSM with a mobile browser, full email POP support, instant messaging photo/video and mmp3 playback... and even then it won't be worth the cost.... they better pull something out of the bag because this phone rules!

[Linito]

it's a ******** phone! why does palm ceo opinion count?:confused:
they suck at inovating they're PDA's are crap...

[cr2sh]

it's a ******** phone! why does palm ceo opinion count?:confused:


One word for you: Treo.

:confused: