PDA

View Full Version : iTunes on Motorola Phones


MacRumors
Jul 26, 2004, 08:38 PM
Apple announced today (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jul/26motorola.html) that Motorola and Apple are partnering to bring iTunes Music Player to next-generation Motorola phones.

Motorola, Inc. and Apple today announced they are partnering to enable millions of music lovers to transfer their favorite songs from the iTunes jukebox on their PC or Mac, including songs from the iTunes Music Store, to Motorola’s next-generation “always with you” mobile handsets, via a USB or Bluetooth connection. Apple will create a new iTunes mobile music player, which Motorola will make the standard music application on all their mass-market music phones, expected to be available in the first half of next year. *

This represents the first officially supported use of Protected AAC iTunes on 3rd party hardware.

bryantm3
Jul 26, 2004, 08:40 PM
that seems useful for all the people that don't have the money to buy an iPod, but still want to listen to music.

musicpyrite
Jul 26, 2004, 08:44 PM
I wonder how this will effect iPod sales.....

dizastor
Jul 26, 2004, 08:45 PM
I guess this means no more Apple branded cell phone rumors.

arnette
Jul 26, 2004, 08:45 PM
woah, cool.

sounds like there will be come cool ringtones in the future. Too bad I've been a recently converted Nokia-man. Though my V300 Motorola wasn't all that bad.

davefan6435
Jul 26, 2004, 08:45 PM
i hope you can use the songs as ring tones

themacrobaye
Jul 26, 2004, 08:46 PM
YES! This is the kind of news we love to hear! Apple teaming up with other companies (esp one like Motorola (esp after knocking them off for IBM)) to make next generation software available for next generation phones.

You know what this also means?

The excellent possibilty of an iPod PDA or a Newton, or something of that sort... if Apple developes iTunes for a cell phone, imagine what they could do with it for their own (future) products!

iPhone, welcome to planet Jobs.

ifjake
Jul 26, 2004, 08:46 PM
now to see if my wireless provider can use motorola.

michaelrjohnson
Jul 26, 2004, 08:48 PM
So.... after you transfer them, what can you do with them?

bathysphere
Jul 26, 2004, 08:49 PM
i wonder if a current phone like the e398 would be able to download use the itunes application, through a firmware upgrade or just download the app.

idkew
Jul 26, 2004, 08:50 PM
i also agree this is a big hint there will be NO apple iPhone.

for what its worth arn, the frame for this article rendered incorrectly in firefox 0.8:

nuckinfutz
Jul 26, 2004, 08:51 PM
I guess this means no more Apple branded cell phone rumors.

No my friend. On the contrary this step brings us even closer to the the possibility of an Apple Phone. This means Apple has squeezed the Quicktime frameworks down to a size that mobile phones can handle.

This is surely a feature of Quicktime 7. We'll know more soon enough but this is very encouraging news. This portends the potential for set top boxes with iTunes support or PDAs. This is step one in what is going to be hopefully an avalance of iTunes licensees.

Porchland
Jul 26, 2004, 08:53 PM
I guess this means no more Apple branded cell phone rumors.

I'll be curious to see how this develops. I'm guessing it will start as a basic phone that holds a 256MG flash card -- good enough for 50-60 songs. You could have an "iPhone" playlist on your iTunes. Motorola could grow it later as the cost of flash cards continues to come down.

gensor
Jul 26, 2004, 08:53 PM
next 12 months trying to figure out how Motorola phone users can downloand Real songs to the iTunes/Apple player on the Motorola phone. Copy, Copy, Copy. We plan to change our name to "RealCopy".

Stella
Jul 26, 2004, 08:53 PM
I'm very surprised Nokia didn't partner... since they are by far number 1.

Hope iTunes comes to Symbian in the near future... port to Series x0 and UIQ and you'll get access to a lot of phones automatically.

HOWEVER... cell phones aren't ideal for playing music - their battery life is way too short.. at the moment.



Apple announced today (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jul/26motorola.html) that Motorola and Apple are partnering to bring iTunes Music Player to next-generation Motorola phones.



This represents the first officially supported use of Protected AAC iTunes on 3rd party hardware.

Porchland
Jul 26, 2004, 08:56 PM
i also agree this is a big hint there will be NO apple iPhone.

for what its worth arn, the frame for this article rendered incorrectly in firefox 0.8:

I don't know why this couldn't BE the iPhone. Co-branding shouldn't be considered a deal-breaker; I mean, if it wasn't co-branded, it would still be made by Qualcomm or Erikson or some other mobile manufacturer.

Then again, one could read the fact that this announcement came from Motorola's web site as an indication that it won't be the last deal with a phone manufacturer. Maybe the iPhone is just further down the road.

leftbanke7
Jul 26, 2004, 08:57 PM
And you guys said that Apple had dropped Motorola for good. ;)

Porchland
Jul 26, 2004, 08:59 PM
next 12 months trying to figure out how Motorola phone users can downloand Real songs to the iTunes/Apple player on the Motorola phone. Copy, Copy, Copy. We plan to change our name to "RealCopy".

Ladies and gentlemen, Buckwheat is dead. More later.

Thom_Edwards
Jul 26, 2004, 09:01 PM
this is better than great! i don't think it means an apple iphone, but it does mean apple is extending its reach. kind of like java is now. there is no such thing as a sun pda, but there sure are plenty of java apps. or like folger's teaming up with black & decker making that one-cup coffee maker. neither company is going too far out of their niche, but instead collaborating to make the Next Big Thing. (ok, that is probably the worst metaphor ever, but i just saw one on tv and i might want one...)

apple makes great software, and motorola makes really small electronics. i say bring it, and keep it coming

hokka
Jul 26, 2004, 09:10 PM
I wonder if iTunes would work with this sexy phone - to be released tomorrow and be available to buy in Sept. If so, I'm getting one!

hokka
Jul 26, 2004, 09:11 PM
"It won’t be officially announced until tomorrow, but we’re very impressed that Motorola was able to keep their new razorthin V3 cameraphone a secret for this long, since this is one of those phones that you just can’t help blabbing about. It’s a mere 14mm thick, with a casing made mostly of titanium and pretty much everything else you hope for in a handset this thin, like a built-in digital camera, Bluetooth, a 4,096 color external LCD, and a 262,000 color main LCD. Due out in September with an expected price somewhere around $700 US."

Blurb from Engadget

jerk
Jul 26, 2004, 09:12 PM
No my friend. On the contrary this step brings us even closer to the the possibility of an Apple Phone. This means Apple has squeezed the Quicktime frameworks down to a size that mobile phones can handle.

This is surely a feature of Quicktime 7. We'll know more soon enough but this is very encouraging news. This portends the potential for set top boxes with iTunes support or PDAs. This is step one in what is going to be hopefully an avalance of iTunes licensees.

It is surely also a feature of Mac OS, or Apple if you like, and I am quite sure they háven't squeezed the entire company with Jobs and all in there.

FYI:
You can make a decoder that is entirely independant of quicktime, and that is probably what they have done. I can't even guess why you think they have ported quicktime to the phone. They already have MPEG4 in there, that is probably as close to quicktime as you will ever get with it.

I don't get the big deal here, many new phones can play MP3.

Lancetx
Jul 26, 2004, 09:13 PM
This just goes to prove that Apple is willing to work with worthy partners when it comes to their music strategy. Obviously HP, BMW, Motorola and AOL fall into that category, while chumps like Real Networks do not...

ifjake
Jul 26, 2004, 09:13 PM
i didn't think of this earlier. i was under the impression that Apple's previous plan for the music store was as a tool for encouraging iPod sales. now it seems like they're letting it stand more on its own. i was thinking previously that it would be great if apple made a PDA version of iTunes, but i thought they wouldn't as it would probably have a negative impact on iPod sales. now this just confuses me.

bryantm3
Jul 26, 2004, 09:14 PM
i also agree this is a big hint there will be NO apple iPhone.

for what its worth arn, the frame for this article rendered incorrectly in firefox 0.8:
i use firefox 0.8 and it didn't **** up for me

tex210
Jul 26, 2004, 09:14 PM
See Steve... all that research and development for the iPad is useful... now release it at Paris, right before the Newton conference and make us happy, or I'll have to start dreaming of the day you retire. :D

jerk
Jul 26, 2004, 09:16 PM
I'm very surprised Nokia didn't partner... since they are by far number 1.

#1 only by sales, not really in any other sense, but if this really takes of probably most phones will get it sooner or later, as well as other gadgets.

outerspaceapple
Jul 26, 2004, 09:16 PM
wowzer, wtf is the big deal? phones have been able 2 play songs for a while. This is NOT going to be that big of an attraction to new customers, however it IS going to generate alot of revenue 4 our favorite little tech company. Think about it, why pay an extra 50 to 100 dollars for a phone that origionally costs 150, when u can spend that 200-250 on an ipod mini? i see little or no effect to the positive or negative for this one. Now, it *would* be cool to see a phone with a compact flash card, say around 4GB in it...

Jalexster
Jul 26, 2004, 09:16 PM
This is good news. Apple is continuing partnerships with other companies. Good news for everyone.

I don't think this will affect iPod sales. And even if it did, I think apple will get a percentage of the money from each phone purchase.

Anyway:

"Mummy, Mummy! I want an iPod!" - Child
"But you can get this nice phone instead, for less than that AUD$650 bastard, I mean iPod" - Mother
"That phone is teh sux0r, it's not made by iPod, I want an iPod!" - Selfish Child
"What do you mean 'made by iPod'?" - Curious Mother
"iPod make the best things. They are great!1!!11!!" - Stupid Child
"iPod is made by Apple you know" - Knowladgeable Mother
"APPLE IS TEH ULTIMETE SUX0R!!!1!11!!111!!!11111!!!1! The iPod dosen't even work on Apple computers mother! You sure are stupid! iTunes is made by Microsoft, and only works on Windows!" - ****ing stupid Child


And that is the reason why this won't affect iPod sales. Because people are stupid.

Porchland
Jul 26, 2004, 09:16 PM
I wonder if iTunes would work with this sexy phone - to be released tomorrow and be available to buy in Sept. If so, I'm getting one!

Probably not. From the press release: "...expected to be available in the first half of next year." I can't imagine they'd announce in February or March of 2005 that, hey, now you can download iTunes on the phone you bought six months ago.

tex210
Jul 26, 2004, 09:16 PM
This just goes to prove that Apple is willing to work with worthy partners when it comes to their music strategy. Obviously HP, BMW, Motorola and AOL fall into that category, while chumps like Real Networks do not...

I believe Palmone to be worthy, unless Apple has something to bring to party.

davefan6435
Jul 26, 2004, 09:18 PM
that phone is coolest thing i have seen in my life i want one now!

jerk
Jul 26, 2004, 09:18 PM
"It won’t be officially announced until tomorrow, but we’re very impressed that Motorola was able to keep their new razorthin V3 cameraphone a secret for this long, since this is one of those phones that you just can’t help blabbing about. It’s a mere 14mm thick, with a casing made mostly of titanium and pretty much everything else you hope for in a handset this thin, like a built-in digital camera, Bluetooth, a 4,096 color external LCD, and a 262,000 color main LCD. Due out in September with an expected price somewhere around $700 US."

Blurb from Engadget

So far it sounds like any other modern phone, except for the exceptionally high price. If it doesn't do more, only an idiot would buy one.

pkradd
Jul 26, 2004, 09:20 PM
Apple is not getting into the PDA or Phone business. They have said that consistently and this proves it. Motorola makes mobile phones in their own factories. They have the ability to make phones for various service providers. This means dozens of providers that offer Motorola cell phones across the U.S, Canada and other parts of the world, including NEXTEL, will exclusively offer software that will enable the owner to download songs from his iTunes library. Sound quality will probably not be as good as a dedicated iPod. It's a different market then music players. There will be some overlapping but Apple is smart as it will also encourage possible purchase of dedicated MP3 players as well, i.e. the iPod. This will all come about next Spring. Good strategic thinking here beating M$ to the punch!

reyesmac
Jul 26, 2004, 09:22 PM
Apple can use this chance to come up with a design for a color interface that can be used on an iPod. They can test out new ideas without taking the risk of making a color iPod when the time is not right. I hope they use this opportunity to try out some real crazy stuff since they don't have to worry as much about battery time.

HenMaster6000
Jul 26, 2004, 09:23 PM
assuming that the phone will have flash memory, doesn't this idea conflict with apple's model of "whole library on music-device" as opposed to "select some songs for the day?". From what I understand, that was one of the big selling points of the iPod (and still is). All apple can do for moto is lend them the "Apple" name, b/c motoTunes on a cellphone's bound to be clunky.

Surprise me steve...

tex210
Jul 26, 2004, 09:23 PM
So far it sounds like any other modern phone, except for the exceptionally high price. If it doesn't do more, only an idiot would buy one.

Notice the size? Compare to other equally featured phones... come back when you find one that is it's equal. Size in a device you carry around is a huge deal... just look at the Powerbooks.

applekid
Jul 26, 2004, 09:26 PM
Apple still needs to still pull rabbits out of its hat to stay number in legal music downloads. A surprise like this is great. Keep expanding the market. Good plan for Apple.

No hard feelings about the G4s, I guess? ;)

Stella
Jul 26, 2004, 09:29 PM
#1 only by sales, not really in any other sense, but if this really takes of probably most phones will get it sooner or later, as well as other gadgets.

..yes... in this case if you partner with #1 then you'll get the most potential users.. isn't that the idea? Whoops, we're talking about apple here - where apparently number of users doesn't matter. :-P

( most Motorola phones I've seen just plain suck, not to mention boring ).

Applexilef
Jul 26, 2004, 09:31 PM
DAMN IT! I HAVE A NOKIA! :mad: :mad: :mad:

NeoMayhem
Jul 26, 2004, 09:32 PM
This represents the first officially supported use of Protected AAC iTunes on 3rd party hardware.

Windows PC's are not 3rd Party anymore?

Porchland
Jul 26, 2004, 09:35 PM
Four announcements in the last year with four respected companies gives me a lot of hope that Apple will continue to raise its profile in a very brand-conscious manner. Apple is going to continue to seek out cream-of-the-crop companies to push the brand, and I think there's plenty of opportunities out there more high-profile projects.

A few I'd like to see:
* Another major auto deal for iPod. Maybe Volvo or something hip and new like Scion.
* A major corporate workstation announcement like the long-rumored FedEx switch-over to Apple.
* Something with Starbucks, which has something in the works with HP.

mudflapper
Jul 26, 2004, 09:36 PM
Although, I would have loved to see Apple partner with Sony-Ericsson since their mobiles are the closest thing to an iPhone yet. Of course, we all know Sony just unveiled their new alleged "iPod killer". DOH!

This is BIG news tho and hopefully a peek into the near future where mounds of 3rd party manufacturers license AAC, thereby making Apple millions and millions of dollars, increasing their market share,which may lead to lowered pricing, etc. Hey, ya never know.

mud

jerk
Jul 26, 2004, 09:37 PM
Notice the size? Compare to other equally featured phones... come back when you find one that is it's equal. Size in a device you carry around is a huge deal... just look at the Powerbooks.

It is 14 mm think and doesn't look really small. I have had phones both thinner and smaller than that, though my current is 16 mm think and probably about the same size, hard to tell. Look for it yourself, you will find it anywhere.

14 mm is about 9/16 of an inch for those of you that only know that silly old system.

It does have a nice star trek look on the keyboard though. But if the buttons are good reamins to see, it looks that it doesn't have real mechanical buttons.

gerrycurl
Jul 26, 2004, 09:38 PM
music on my mobile phone? what good is that unless the phone can store a cd or so of music. Also, battery life on my motorola phone is bad enough already, do you really want such a feature? Sketchy details...

Although, anyone see the PR lady's name: SHANNON SWALLOWS

HAHAHA, sounds hot if you ask me! :eek: :eek: :eek: :D :D

fixyourthinking
Jul 26, 2004, 09:39 PM
I don't know why this couldn't BE the iPhone. Co-branding shouldn't be considered a deal-breaker; I mean, if it wasn't co-branded, it would still be made by Qualcomm or Erikson or some other mobile manufacturer.

Then again, one could read the fact that this announcement came from Motorola's web site as an indication that it won't be the last deal with a phone manufacturer. Maybe the iPhone is just further down the road.


Apple has done this before.

The Quicktake 200 Camera was a Fuji DS7 camera - they were no different. The Apple Quicktake however used a better JPEG compression technology (read as quicktime) - that was especially developed for the Quicktake. Apple also created it's own system level camera reading and editting software.

I think this could represent a possible new hardware direction and unlike many have suggested I think this DOES possibly mean an Iphone from Apple could be in the works. Except this time, unlike the iPod that is Windows and Mac; the iPhone will be for Macs ONLY, the Moto version will be for everyone else.

Semi unrelated - a smaller footprint of iTunes would also be easier to emulate - possibly giving Linux a better shot at a quality iTunes solution.

outZider
Jul 26, 2004, 09:43 PM
Please, oh please, let this be on the Motorola A1000 this fall. Mmmm Symbian 7 + UIQ + iTunes. Yes. Please. Now. *takes wallet out*

mainstreetmark
Jul 26, 2004, 09:47 PM
And that is the reason why this won't effect iPod sales. Because people are stupid.

*affect* iPod sales.

:)

må¥å
Jul 26, 2004, 09:53 PM
I think this whole thing is going to play as such,

Apple teams up with MOTO to create iTune mobile for MOTO and other phones.

Buy a mobile phone get the tast of how iTunes works, handles, feels. And then jump on with iPod or iPod mini.

or a promotion buy a Moto phone and get 50 dollars off any iPod or iPod mini.

Taste the water and then jump in heck if you can afford an over $100 phone what is another 200 for a mini.

Jalexster
Jul 26, 2004, 09:59 PM
*affect* iPod sales.

:)

Fixed it.

nuckinfutz
Jul 26, 2004, 10:01 PM
FYI:
You can make a decoder that is entirely independant of quicktime, and that is probably what they have done. I can't even guess why you think they have ported quicktime to the phone. They already have MPEG4 in there, that is probably as close to quicktime as you will ever get with it.

I don't get the big deal here, many new phones can play MP3.

You're not thinking about the box man. It's the DRM that's unique here not the fact that the phone plays music. Remember the DRM is embedded in the file but it is Quicktime that manages the policy. This is a lot bigger than many of you realize. QT with Fairplay DRM is ready to be licensed out and that's a huge step for Apple.

I don't rule out Apple making an attempt to make their own phone someday. If they do they will wait until they can provide a phone that would meet their standards for features/quality and a phone that covers a wide area. Phones seem to be in transition right now and it'll be a couple of years before things settle down IMO. Apple might be ripe for a nice product by then.

mikeyrogers
Jul 26, 2004, 10:01 PM
If Apple and Motorola have such a strong partnership, then WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO ADD COMPATIBILITY TO MY BLUETOOTH V600?!?!

I just don't get it. They love each other, but Motorola's best (bluetooth) phone is having the hardest time on the Mac.

Also, if this issue gets resolved, I wonder if they will add this new "always with you" feature to existing phones (like the V600) or if you have to buy a brand new phone... :confused:

mullmann
Jul 26, 2004, 10:02 PM
In the next day or two, Nokia will probably announce that in the interest of consumer choice, it has reverse-engineered the Apple-Motorola code and all iTunes songs will play on Nokia phones, too.

Jalexster
Jul 26, 2004, 10:07 PM
In the next day or two, Nokia will probably announce that in the interest of consumer choice, it has reverse-engineered the Apple-Motorola code and all iTunes songs will play on Nokia phones, too.

Then they will team up with Real.
But we will fight! We will win! APPLE WILL WIN!

cr2sh
Jul 26, 2004, 10:11 PM
Wow, to think... I'll soon be able to buy a phone that plays iTunes and that has an antenna that breaks off easily....

:rolleyes:

Motorola phones bite my ass.

hokka
Jul 26, 2004, 10:13 PM
Then they will team up with Real.
But we will fight! We will win! APPLE WILL WIN!

Nokia are already using Real as their media player, today I just got a movie in the email from a friend's new 7260, it's definitely a Real file, opens with Real and with an extension of .3gp. And I have seen it on their other phones, e.g. older 3650

mangophreek
Jul 26, 2004, 10:27 PM
If Apple and Motorola have such a strong partnership, then WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO ADD COMPATIBILITY TO MY BLUETOOTH V600?!?!

I just don't get it. They love each other, but Motorola's best (bluetooth) phone is having the hardest time on the Mac.

Also, if this issue gets resolved, I wonder if they will add this new "always with you" feature to existing phones (like the V600) or if you have to buy a brand new phone... :confused:

That's my big question. When is the support for the V600 coming? I just spent $600 Canadian on one (with a 2 year warantee) and if Moto's next line of phone's has iSync support with Bluetooth but my V600 doesn't I'm going to be livid. Livid I say. But I did buy it knowing full well it will take some go-arounds to use it with my Powerbook 17" so I guess I can't complain. But I can complain about the shipping delays and not having my Powerbook after 3 weeks with 1-3 business days quoted. Boo, Apple, Boo.

V600 support would make my year.

unsigned
Jul 26, 2004, 10:32 PM
I think this whole thing is going to play as such,

Apple teams up with MOTO to create iTune mobile for MOTO and other phones.


Is there any reason that Apple can't design a phone with Motorola? In the same way that Sony designs Ericsson phones? Apple may not have the infrastructure or the interest to create and distribute a whole new mobile platform. But they do have a history of working with Motorola to design products (Apple designed the G3 and G4, didn't they? Or at least, it was a collaboration).

Maybe one of the ways that Apple can mature as a company is through this kind of cross-brand manufacture. Right now, they're making iPods for HP to sell under their brand name - taking advantage of HP's huge distribution network and name.

Can't they make a phone with Motorola, designing the case and interface? And sell it as an AppleMotorola, or whatever?

I think Steve was quoted once as saying that the reason they never did a phone is because they had a hard time working with the national carriers. Motorola already has all of that in place.

Apple's biggest assets are, according to Steve at the iPod introduction, design and miniaturization. Why not share those skills with other brands?

nagromme
Jul 26, 2004, 10:33 PM
i was under the impression that Apple's previous plan for the music store was as a tool for encouraging iPod sales.

It is--and Motorola phones won't hurt iPod sales much at all. A phone can't replace an iPod's capacity (yet), and it can't replace Apple's patented wheel UI. A dedicated iPod is still the ideal music device. And now you can share music with an iPod and a phone--which could HELP iPod sales. Want a music player, jukebox, and/or online store? Why not choose iPod and iTunes, since they're already supported by your phone?

The whole "iTunes system" has expanded, and that's good for mindshare and for marketshare. It's also one more little thing keeping Microsoft WMA at bay.

And there's a good chance Apple will make license money off of every phone, too. That, and not the song sales, is where direct profit will come from here. (But the indirect, long-term benefits are greater.)

I see the day when one device CAN do all things well... PDA, ultraportable phone, camera, music, mobile gaming. But right now, a device can do one thing well and the others are just "nice extras." It doesn't make sense for Apple to make an all-in-one phone device now. Maybe never. But it also doesn't make sense for them to lock Apple technology OUT of those devices that ARE being made. They'll want an early start in the industry or else they're just giving it away to MS. So getting iTunes and QuickTime onto third-party phones makes perfect sense.

An analogy: iPod's calendar is very handy, but it probably doesn't kill PDA sales.

stephenli
Jul 26, 2004, 10:33 PM
OMG! Motorola battery life sucks
all of my colleague's motorola phone die within half year
why not NEC / NOKIA / Panasonic / Samsung..... :mad:

TomSmithMacEd
Jul 26, 2004, 10:40 PM
This is cool, but the first thing that came to my head was... They are partnering with Motorola again... Why? Let's hope it works out of the best.

dontmatter
Jul 26, 2004, 10:40 PM
This just goes to prove that Apple is willing to work with worthy partners when it comes to their music strategy. Obviously HP, BMW, Motorola and AOL fall into that category, while chumps like Real Networks do not...

AOL is better than real? AOL is the BOTTOM of the pile. It was just a good deal for apple, that's all.

iMeowbot
Jul 26, 2004, 10:41 PM
You can make a decoder that is entirely independant of quicktime, and that is probably what they have done. I can't even guess why you think they have ported quicktime to the phone. They already have MPEG4 in there, that is probably as close to quicktime as you will ever get with it.
Apple have ported/licensed QuickTime for all sorts of different embedded platforms, from cameras on up. The new Moto phones would be easy to support, since they will be running nothing out of the ordinary, a Linux kernel with the usual J2ME etc. available. They will need to use QuickTime because these phones will be supporting iTunes' DRM. (The embedded versions of QuickTime are much, much smaller than their desktop equivalents. It'll fit fine.)

animefan_1
Jul 26, 2004, 10:52 PM
That's my big question. When is the support for the V600 coming? I just spent $600 Canadian on one (with a 2 year warantee) and if Moto's next line of phone's has iSync support with Bluetooth but my V600 doesn't I'm going to be livid. Livid I say. But I did buy it knowing full well it will take some go-arounds to use it with my Powerbook 17" so I guess I can't complain. But I can complain about the shipping delays and not having my Powerbook after 3 weeks with 1-3 business days quoted. Boo, Apple, Boo.

V600 support would make my year.

According to this article from Thinksecret, http://www.thinksecret.com/news/isync15.html, iSync 1.5 will have more support for Moto phones. They don't mention the V600, but the do say 'newer phones from Motorola and Sony Ericsson', Maybe this update will 'make your year'. :)

notmenotyou
Jul 26, 2004, 11:00 PM
....Can't they make a phone with Motorola, designing the case and interface? And sell it as an AppleMotorola, or whatever?......



AppTorola..... :D

beatle888
Jul 26, 2004, 11:24 PM
that phone is coolest thing i have seen in my life i want one now!

no doubt. for the first time in my life i actually want a cell phone. and im no spring chicken. man they did a nice job on that one.

FelixDerKater
Jul 26, 2004, 11:25 PM
Now to get this into SonyEricsson phones...

dethl
Jul 26, 2004, 11:26 PM
Mr. Jobs, please repeat after me: CDMA

I personally want to see these phones on networks other than GSM. Apple, get these to the CDMA market!

FelixDerKater
Jul 26, 2004, 11:33 PM
Mr. Jobs, please repeat after me: CDMA

I personally want to see these phones on networks other than GSM. Apple, get these to the CDMA market!

Please repeat after me... GSM! Sprint and Verizon won't move on though, since they have spent so much money on their current PCS networks.

iMeowbot
Jul 26, 2004, 11:37 PM
Nokia are already using Real as their media player, today I just got a movie in the email from a friend's new 7260, it's definitely a Real file, opens with Real and with an extension of .3gp. And I have seen it on their other phones, e.g. older 3650
3GPP isn't a Real thing, it's an MPEG4 extension from an industry consotrium (http://www.3gpp.org/). QuickTime supports it too.

beefcake
Jul 26, 2004, 11:39 PM
My Motorola phone from 1 year ago is a piece of junk. Buttons randomly don't register, drops calls, battery life is sucked up by the huge color screen. Though I have nothing but good things to say about my G4, so I'll wait until this comes out to pass judgment on Motorola.

Kingsnapped
Jul 26, 2004, 11:42 PM
I still stand by my decision to buy a V600

... yesterday.

I can still get those songs on the phone, it just takes a little time. Hopefully we will get firmware updates, rather than just new phones with the features.

zucruw
Jul 26, 2004, 11:53 PM
maybe its just me, but having headphones and wires all over the place for a device your constantly using and puttin up to your ear seems like something i wouldn't do. a very small percentage of cell phone users use that hands free ear piece thing, and i would have to imagine not too many people would want regular headphones attached to their phone. an ipod is different because you don't always have to be taking it out of your pocket, and its primary function is to play music (plus you don't have to put an ipod up against your face). i just don't see how anyone really thinks this is cool. i mean, is the music going to be played through a speaker? if so, then where can you really listen to it? hardly anywhere.

appleface
Jul 26, 2004, 11:55 PM
i didn't think of this earlier. i was under the impression that Apple's previous plan for the music store was as a tool for encouraging iPod sales. now it seems like they're letting it stand more on its own. i was thinking previously that it would be great if apple made a PDA version of iTunes, but i thought they wouldn't as it would probably have a negative impact on iPod sales. now this just confuses me.

you can chalk moto's fone up on the "more marketshare" board if you're looking for answers.

also, the all-in-one handheld computer-phone-music-gaming-gps-internet-microwave (maybe not microwave) gadgets are just a matter of time, and this will be a quality step (i'm confident of that because of apple's commitment to good design) in that direction. i thought i'd throw my pennies at you.

heisetax
Jul 26, 2004, 11:58 PM
OMG! Motorola battery life sucks
all of my colleague's motorola phone die within half year
why not NEC / NOKIA / Panasonic / Samsung..... :mad:

But my 2 Motorola V60's are over 2 years old now. If what you say is always true, then how are mine working. And I can connect with my ISP with this phone as well.

titok16
Jul 26, 2004, 11:58 PM
There's an article about this on TheMacMind, top article
http://www.themacmind.com

appleface
Jul 27, 2004, 12:03 AM
i wonder if i'll ever be using apple's click wheel to dial a telephone number. how well would that work? just dreaming of new designs.

jerk
Jul 27, 2004, 12:04 AM
Apple have ported/licensed QuickTime for all sorts of different embedded platforms, from cameras on up. The new Moto phones would be easy to support, since they will be running nothing out of the ordinary, a Linux kernel with the usual J2ME etc. available. They will need to use QuickTime because these phones will be supporting iTunes' DRM. (The embedded versions of QuickTime are much, much smaller than their desktop equivalents. It'll fit fine.)

I guess the issue really is what you call quicktime. Ok, they have ported the DRM and the audio decoder, possibly with help from code they had.

I for example wouldn't call the darwin streaming server a "quicktime port", eventhough it has small parts of quicktime code in it.

Desktop quicktime is much more, in additition to a bunch of encoders and decoders, but it sound like you are knew that.

The Tuck
Jul 27, 2004, 12:36 AM
Here's the Motorola keynote, with a special cameo video chat appearance by our man, Steve Jobs to talk a little bit about iTunes for phones. Some of that stuff looks really sweet!!! I've gotta get one of those.

Keynote (http://www.videonewswire.com/VWP/Custom/23951/frameset.asp?e=23951&w0=824&h0=60&w=320&h=240&sh=388&sw=504&s=True&ch=True&sm=False&c=False&c1=False&mc=False&p=False&i=True&pp=False&cp=True&v=True&a=True&sid=37983&aid=39262&pl=&pr=&st=ps&num=9999&y=19810&u=0&pid=99&pt=1&pc=False&qo=False&cuts=0&t=Motorola+Webcast)

GFLPraxis
Jul 27, 2004, 12:38 AM
This just goes to prove that Apple is willing to work with worthy partners when it comes to their music strategy. Obviously HP, BMW, Motorola and AOL fall into that category, while chumps like Real Networks do not...

You're listing AOHell as worthy? I'd put it in the chumps category.

Anyway...
http://www.iphone.org
Interesting, eh?

JeffTL
Jul 27, 2004, 12:59 AM
While the licensing will no doubt be successful for both Apple and Motorola, wouldn't Apple be better off just to find a way to produce a high-end iPod with a cell phone built in? The logical way would be some sort of physical metaphor with a rotary dial -- though most of the iPod target audience likely has little or no experience with rotary dialing, so designwise rotary emulation might be more of an implementation of physical constraints than a feature. Having to drag from one point to another on the touchwheel to input a number would be a good failsafe to try to prevent butt calls, but with the adoption of the click wheel for the white iPod, there is plenty on the wheel already. People buy Apple hardware because of elegant design -- overloading one control is confusing. A mic could be included between the screen and wheel at any rate, though this would rightfully leave Belkin and Griffin rather upset.


So for dialing, that leaves a few options:

1. Dial address book entries only, and no means of producing tones for menu systems -- so you can forget voicemail, which is mostly essential for cellular.

2. Buttons around the scroll wheel, not unlike the Nokia 3650, I suppose. This would allow numeric input for the dialing system (though not prohibiting dialing per #1) as well as Touch Tone generation for menu systems. Buttons would have to be touch buttons to maintain the beneficial lack of moving parts and large enough for practical use.

3. TouchTone keypad on the back, perhaps as a slide-down of some sort (but then that becomes jammed . Again, no moving buttons that can become stuck et cetera. Again, #1 is not rendered impossible by this.


Of the three, #2 seems the best option if it could be done correctly. Or iTunes could be licensed to a cellular company, which is no doubt cheaper for all parties involved and produces a better end product.

This will probably not cannibalize iPod sales much because fancy cell phones are rather expensive and this doesn't sound like it'll have anywhere near as much storage per dollar as an iPod (which has so much room that most can only conceivably fill it legally if they are using it for data backup etc. as well), if people are buying it rather than other cell phones primarily for music abilities.

Bearing in mind the complexity of the above listed alternatives and relatively small market for adding a telephone to the iPod, this seems to be the best course of action...as I imagine that there are plenty of people who will want to buy it.

Abstract
Jul 27, 2004, 01:00 AM
In the next day or two, Nokia will probably announce that in the interest of consumer choice, it has reverse-engineered the Apple-Motorola code and all iTunes songs will play on Nokia phones, too.
Nokia, get Real. :p

I think Apple agreed to get with Moto because Moto phone designs are the nicest, IMO. Sony would probably use ATRAC3 anyway, so that wouldn't have worked. Plus they don't look as nice. They ARE better with Mac's, though, which is why it doesn't make sense? Will Apple and Moto make the V600 compatible with Macs as a token gesture of peace and harmony (ever!?!)?

iryan
Jul 27, 2004, 01:28 AM
Either this is the iphone- (the lesbian sister of the ipod) or apples attempt to enter the wireless phone market- but why would I want my music on my phone when i have my iPOD? Hence the iphone-

iryan-

G4-power
Jul 27, 2004, 01:40 AM
I'm very surprised Nokia didn't partner... since they are by far number 1.

Don't be surprised. I come from the homeland of Nokia mobile phones, and I've used a Mac for my whole life. Nokia just doesn't care about Macs/Apple. SonyEricsson have got a good relationship with Apple, so I guess they could've done the same what Motorola's doing.
On Nokia phones, I'm not sure but IIRC they have only recently (1-3 years) provided compatibility at all with a Mac. Still SonyEricsson's sync much better.

evolu
Jul 27, 2004, 01:48 AM
Wow, so apple is now developing for 4 OSs - OSX, Windows, iPod's OS, & Motorola's OS.

I've said this before: I could see apple getting into the mobile phone OS business. There's an incredible amount of growth to be done with mobile phones. Could you imagine what it would be like to navigate a cell phone with an iPod interface?

visor
Jul 27, 2004, 01:54 AM
You're listing AOHell as worthy? I'd put it in the chumps category.

Anyway...
http://www.iphone.org
Interesting, eh?

rofl, I can set up a page like that in 15 minutes at most.

Windowlicker
Jul 27, 2004, 01:56 AM
I'm very surprised Nokia didn't partner... since they are by far number 1.

they also are the number one PC supporter.. sadly.

visor
Jul 27, 2004, 01:57 AM
Either this is the iphone- (the lesbian sister of the ipod) or apples attempt to enter the wireless phone market- but why would I want my music on my phone when i have my iPOD? Hence the iphone-

iryan-

if the iphone comes with 20gig HD... it's got a bunch of advantages - keyboard for songsearching for example. you can download songs right with the phone... you can even make some calls with it ;) and a phone is always with me anyway.

rogo
Jul 27, 2004, 02:00 AM
To the moron posting above, the new Moto phone looks ridiculously cool. For some of us, design is worth $700. The phone has no new features beyond the v600 except that the v600 is a behemoth and so-so looking. The v3 is gorgeous. I want one.

To everyone, this announcement is big. It's a harbinger. Do people still believe The Big Lie (tm) that Apple is doing all this music store stuff to sell iPods? I have a bridge to sell you if you do.

PBGPowerbook
Jul 27, 2004, 02:05 AM
Main questions:

This news brief tells us nothing about whether these are iDEN or GSM or TDMA or 3G phones, or where they'll be released, or whether this will be a firmware update to existing phones or whether there'll be brand new handsets, or anything. For the "no hard feelings" people, I think it's quite a stretch to equate Moto the mobile phone maker to Moto the microprocessor maker. Of course there's no hard feelings, they're totally different divisions of a huge corporation and Apple wants to make more money.

With those questions unanswered this isn't so exciting yet.

evolu
Jul 27, 2004, 02:15 AM
http://www.motorola.com/seamless_mobility/

so pretty!

dstorey
Jul 27, 2004, 02:15 AM
does anyone know what OS motorola uses? isn't it embedded linux? As there si no quicktime or itunes for linux, couldn't this be step towards linux support. Having said that, I'm not so sure there has/will be a itunes port for this, not the full version anyway. Apple already has a version of iTunes that works well on low powered, small devices and thats the iTunes already in the iPod. It'll probably be the iPod version that gets ported to linux or whatever is being used, or maybe moto has agreed to use whatever os is in the ipod and apple/moto/whoever makes the os are expanding it to add more apps. With these smart phones having camera support, it's not too much of a strech to imagine apple porting a iphoto mini of some sort that manages the images on the phone and auto downloads them into albums on iphoto when the phone is being synced. While they are at it, iChat to some sort of sms support would be nice, with rendezvous...sorry..OpenTalk support.

Hopefully this will spread to other phones quickly. I wouldn't be so sure about sony eriksson using atrac, them and sony are very much independent.

PHARAOHk
Jul 27, 2004, 02:31 AM
That was embarrassing to watch the keynote. Cheesy conversation and a bunch of demos didn't even work and needed a backup? Why hasn't the CEO of a phone company ever had a video conference? What the hell kind of preparation or even thought was put into that? The camera work even sucked.

Steve really is a very good speaker. I have never seen another demo nearly as good as Apples EVER. You are going to Alaska ha ha ha ha ha ha?

Steve Ballmer on the other hand.....

garybUK
Jul 27, 2004, 02:44 AM
The only real application for this that I can see at the moment, is on 3G handsets. Maybe if they have a mobile iTunes Music Store, with downloadable songs over 3g? The networks can cope because people download ringtones at the moment.

If the handsets have minimum 512mb ram then this would probably take off.

The market is currently too saturated with mobile phone handsets that can already play mp3's etc and isn't a really advertised feature.

Motorola arn't renound for the best or nicest looking of mobile phones in the market. Apple should, once they have test with Motorola, be looking to people like Samsung, LG etc.. to make this more widespread.

Belly-laughs
Jul 27, 2004, 02:47 AM
If it doesn't do more, only an idiot would buy one.

The exact same phrase was used after the launch of the iPod...

iMeowbot
Jul 27, 2004, 02:55 AM
While the licensing will no doubt be successful for both Apple and Motorola, wouldn't Apple be better off just to find a way to produce a high-end iPod with a cell phone built in? The logical way would be some sort of physical metaphor with a rotary dial

Hm.

Ummmmmm, no.

leenoble
Jul 27, 2004, 02:57 AM
So does that phone pictured above with the Star Trek interface use the keypad screen for displaying video too, or is it hard coded to have just the keypad on?
I only ask because if it is a multifunctional screen, a future version could draw itself an iPod style scroll wheel there instead of numbers when iTunes was active could it not?

iMeowbot
Jul 27, 2004, 03:11 AM
So does that phone pictured above with the Star Trek interface use the keypad screen for displaying video too, or is it hard coded to have just the keypad on?
You can't see it in that picture, but it's a cut metal keypad. The pretty colors are backlighting.
I only ask because if it is a multifunctional screen, a future version could draw itself an iPod style scroll wheel there instead of numbers when iTunes was active could it not?
That would be cute but not Apple-ish. I'd expect them to make it act as much as possible like the rest of the phone's functions.

You can get a better look at the V3 keypad here (http://sg.motorola.com/pcs/phones.asp). Click on the "reveal more" link.

csimmons
Jul 27, 2004, 03:18 AM
Don't be surprised. I come from the homeland of Nokia mobile phones, and I've used a Mac for my whole life. Nokia just doesn't care about Macs/Apple. SonyEricsson have got a good relationship with Apple, so I guess they could've done the same what Motorola's doing.


???

Last I read, SE has a great relationship with Apple, plus SE phones are the only phones that reliably interface with the Mac, unlike Moto phones. My K700i works beautifully with my TiBook via iSync.

applefans
Jul 27, 2004, 03:40 AM
I will figure that would be the beginning of the end of flash card MP3 players, which Apple would compete in. The motorola phone with MP3 ability can certainly replace those players that can only hold less than a hundred songs :o

Bob Knob
Jul 27, 2004, 03:51 AM
I had a discussion with a higher level rep for Alpine a few months ago (one of my business partners has another business in the car stereo world) and the subject of the iPod-Alpine stereo came up. His only comment was that they were waiting for the final version of some software from Apple.
When the BMW thing was announced, and Alpine set shipping dates, both closely followed by the iPod software update I figured that this must be the software Alpine was waiting for... but now I wonder if there is in fact a scaled down version of iTunes running in the BMW and Alpine stereos.

voodoofish
Jul 27, 2004, 04:23 AM
This just goes to prove that Apple is willing to work with worthy partners when it comes to their music strategy. Obviously HP, BMW, Motorola and AOL fall into that category, while chumps like Real Networks do not...

Well Real compete directly with Quicktime do they not?

stephenli
Jul 27, 2004, 04:29 AM
But my 2 Motorola V60's are over 2 years old now. If what you say is always true, then how are mine working. And I can connect with my ISP with this phone as well.

I could only say that you are lucky or my colleauges are too unlucky. Motorola's Design is getteing better and better (I mean GSM, not 3G....)
However I still dare not to get one....

voodoofish
Jul 27, 2004, 04:32 AM
#1 only by sales, not really in any other sense, but if this really takes of probably most phones will get it sooner or later, as well as other gadgets.

I've just recently upgraded my phone and I was considering switching from Nokia to Motorola (the V600 as it was quad-band), but then I kept reading about all the bizarre things Motorola do to their phones - for example, in the phonebook you can store more than one number under each persons' name, but when you browse through the phonebook they show up as separate entries, which means I'm gonna get like every person's name in my phone book showing up at least twice, which is just ridiculous. Also, despite the fact Nokias have done this for years, the Motorola *still* can't hold people's addresses nor can it save their birthdays in the calendar. The thing that finally did it for me was when I read that the ring & vibrate mode *still* vibrates first and then rings!! It's so ridiculous how unintuitive is that??? So I just decided that I couldn't deal with switching from a Nokia, which actually behaves how I would logically expect it to.


So yeah I do think it's a shame that Apple have partnered with Motorola over Nokia, because even though Motorola's eating away at Nokia's market share, through their products it's still obvious Nokia's based in the most mature mobile market in the world, whereas Motorola's based in one of the most bizzarre mobile markets in the developed world.


[Perhaps the chose not to go with Nokia since Nokia have supported AAC for years, but not the flavour iTunes uses (I don't really understand all the different versions of AAC, but basically non-DRMed iTunes AAC files won't play on a Nokia), and none of Nokia's PC suites or their recently released Nokia LifeBlog will work on a Mac. I think the real reason they chose Motorola is because most American's still seem to use Motorolas, and Apple does seem to often be a bit short sighted when looking it's own countries border lines]

maddav
Jul 27, 2004, 04:57 AM
Well Motorola are releasing a PDA/Phone (MPX) that runs Pocket PC, it would be easier to include it in that, but I'm not sure if Steve Jobs really wants to give the protected AAC decoder to a Microsoft application! (or is that just my thought?)

voodoofish
Jul 27, 2004, 05:05 AM
To the moron posting above, the new Moto phone looks ridiculously cool. For some of us, design is worth $700. The phone has no new features beyond the v600 except that the v600 is a behemoth and so-so looking. The v3 is gorgeous. I want one.

To everyone, this announcement is big. It's a harbinger. Do people still believe The Big Lie (tm) that Apple is doing all this music store stuff to sell iPods? I have a bridge to sell you if you do.


It's actually really ugly and wide, like a big ugly square in your pocket.


If you want a nice looking phone, get a Nokia stainless steel or titanium phone, or pretty much any Samsung phone, all though all the samsungs tend to look the same which kinda spoils it.

AmigoMac
Jul 27, 2004, 05:15 AM
*****! :D Whenever I want to think about updating my portable devices, comes a rumor/news of this magnitude and changes my projects :eek: I've been in the mobile communications business since 4 years ago and my personal experience with Motorola phones hasn't been the best, twice a year I've tried some Moto's and their OS is far away from Nokia's and SE's ... Those are pretty simple to use, I do hope they come with an "Apple-ish" interface, nice camera (1.3 MP won't be that bad ;) ), Bluetooth is for sure built-in, but address book groups syncing has been always terrible ... Maybe it's the time to increase iPod-Mini size and put the 4 GB in the phone ... :cool: , wasn't there news about 2GB drives? ... I use a Nokia 3650, does everything nice, apart from groups syncing ... But I want a better camera ... Hurry up Mac-Torola! :p or I'll get my second Nokia by then...

...My work colleges are from Finland, using Sony-Ericsson is not the first choice ... :rolleyes:

voodoofish
Jul 27, 2004, 05:31 AM
Mr. Jobs, please repeat after me: CDMA

I personally want to see these phones on networks other than GSM. Apple, get these to the CDMA market!

It's so funny when Americans go on about CDMA, they're always like 'well when you take into account handset design & features vs coverage then CDMA is just about better than GSM' but it's like hello, outside of North America you don't have to weigh up anything vs. anything because all phones just use GSM.

GSM also has 1.1 Billion users worldwide and can use their phones in over 200 countries worldwide. GSM only countries also tend to be more up-to-date with phones anyway - for example, in the UK over 2/3rds of the population now live in areas with 3G coverage, whereas in the US only a handful of cities have 3G coverage, which has only just gone live recently, whereas we've had 3G for over a year and can even roam to a number of different countries with it.

(Look at this quote from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/23/one_billion_people_use_gsm/

"In the last twelve months, GSM added nearly 198 million new users - more than CDMA, the second-placed mobile technology, had in its global customer base at the end of 2003.")

So basically, if Apple want to get iTunes into as many hands as possible, there will be GSM phones, but since Apple is so super-duper American (and since Motorola is American and thus tends to make alot of CDMA phones), it is very likely there will also be CDMA phones with iTunes support.

AmigoMac
Jul 27, 2004, 05:41 AM
Originally Posted by dethl

Mr. Jobs, please repeat after me: CDMA

I personally want to see these phones on networks other than GSM. Apple, get these to the CDMA market!

----------

dethl repeat after me :

Apple makes computers, Motorola phones ...

It's not up to S. Jobs to decide the network, they for sure want too many customers as possible, and they are worldwide by now and Europe runs GSM ... maybe the project involves those who "Call different"
;) ... or those CDMA operators will go behind MS services... let's see in 1 year and good luck!

jwhitnah
Jul 27, 2004, 05:58 AM
I wonder if this has anything to do with iSync 1.5?

swissandrew
Jul 27, 2004, 06:08 AM
I think we could be looking at a more integrated offering when we consider what else can be used on a phone.

Using mobile technology like Musikube's (http://www.musikube.com) it is possible to both recognise a song from a 3 second or so 'snapshot' or recognise it from a bar code printed on an ad, concert ticket etc.

Now if this is then integrated into the ITMS then someone with a mobile could hear music (for example in a bar), get the name, buy the track from ITMS onto their phone and then store it back into their Mac / PC next time they synched, all within a matter of seconds. Maybe there is a revenue sharing arrangement between Motorola and Apple for songs purchased this way.

Secondly, my understanding (please correct if I'm wrong) is that sales of ringtones is currently higher than sales on singles. This would enable Apple & Motorola to get into that market.

On it's own the technology seems limited (unless phones start getting compact drives like the iPod Mini) as most people buy phones to make calls, send messages. High end phone users (where the phones have more memory) are probably also more likely to want a iPod as they are early technology adopters. Start thinking about new ways of behaving from integrated technology and then a whole new market becomes available which pushes sales to both ITMS and potentially Motorola.

Of course, just adding ability to play tunes bought on ITMS increases it's penetration. People buying tracks using a mobile device will want to use it immediately so giving a phone the capability to play these tracks enables ITMS to be used from a phone, giving the opportunity to get much better market penetration (incidently it is unlikely a store which gives listening access for a subscription will work in the mobile field where data is charged per unit rather than a fixed-per-month cost like broadband)

This all becomes possible because only iTunes (ignoring the Real thing) can handle tunes bought on ITMS and that leads the market - people will want to buy one copy which can be used on all devices, that the publishers are willing to sell electronically (because the rights management is good). It helps Apple establish the standard in purchased music which then benefits Motorola sales.

It could be a very smart alliance.

Andrew

BornAgainMac
Jul 27, 2004, 06:36 AM
Finally, a Flash based mp3 player for iTunes protected music. I'll take one.

whooleytoo
Jul 27, 2004, 06:47 AM
i wonder if i'll ever be using apple's click wheel to dial a telephone number. how well would that work? just dreaming of new designs.

You could simply use the wheel to scroll through the numbers using the wheel, then click the centre button to select, but that would be difficult to do accurately unless you do so slowly.

The other alternative would be to show the numbers in a group of 4 (1..4, 5..8 etc) on screen, in the positions North, East, South, and West. Then you use the scroll wheel to move to the right group, then press the button in the corresponding (N-E-S-W) position on the click wheel to select the right digit.

This would be a faster method of entry, since you don't have to be accurate with the scrolling to a single digit, you just have to get it within four.
You could easily apply the same method for text entry on the iPod.

A final method would be slightly different, arrange letters in groups of 6 or so, then scroll to the required group, select using the centre button, then scroll to the required letter. Although it requires two clicks to select any letter, it still means you're selecting from a shorter list which is easier to do accurately and quickly.

Add a phonebook, and text prediction, and I don't see any problem doing this without modifiying the iPod's look very much at all.

210
Jul 27, 2004, 06:56 AM
I think this is good news as it will make more people aware and use iTunes more than before and maybe more aware of Apple products. It's also good that Apple realizes that there is a lot of competition out there and so should try and be a few steps ahead to remain on top. All good news for iTunes/Music Store/iPod.

But what about their computers? I'm glad they don't want to lose popularity for their music products, but shouldn't they be a little concerned about Macs' dwindling marketshare? How can Apple turn the tide on this? Maybe they should persuade these companies they're partnering with to use Macs ;)

virividox
Jul 27, 2004, 07:09 AM
as long as motorola isnt in charge of making chips ;) hehe

obiwan
Jul 27, 2004, 07:40 AM
as long as motorola isnt in charge of making chips ;) hehe

I reckon Apple are making friends with Motorola again, just in case IBM don't deliver the goods. - I mean, we're still waiting for that 3Ghz G5 they promised...

iMeowbot
Jul 27, 2004, 07:48 AM
I reckon Apple are making friends with Motorola again, just in case IBM don't deliver the goods. - I mean, we're still waiting for that 3Ghz G5 they promised...
Motorola doesn't make PowerPC chips any more. The Freescale IPO happened about a week ago.

Machead III
Jul 27, 2004, 07:54 AM
Whilst this is all very exciting, I am really waiting for Apple to tie up the final loose ends in it's Music venture and move onto the onbvious next one, Movies.

It may be some time, but it's practically guaranteed the Jobster will work on On Demand online movies and more excitingly, some kind of software/device that augments the cinema going experience etc.

But for now, I guess music is the scene, but I have my mini, I have had all my music on iTunes for months now and I buy a song or two every week, my music life has successfully entered the 21st century, but film is where it is gonna be at.

Anyone agree?

Chip NoVaMac
Jul 27, 2004, 07:56 AM
I'll be curious to see how this develops. I'm guessing it will start as a basic phone that holds a 256MG flash card -- good enough for 50-60 songs. You could have an "iPhone" playlist on your iTunes. Motorola could grow it later as the cost of flash cards continues to come down.

With compact flash cards going to 8GB there are many possibilities. Including the same MicroDrive that is used in the mini Ipod.

Yvan256
Jul 27, 2004, 08:00 AM
for what its worth arn, the frame for this article rendered incorrectly in firefox 0.8:

And for what it's worth, I get weird characters in Opera 7.53 on WinXP:

plus_c
Jul 27, 2004, 08:14 AM
Originally Posted by dethl

Mr. Jobs, please repeat after me: CDMA

I personally want to see these phones on networks other than GSM. Apple, get these to the CDMA market!

----------

dethl repeat after me :

Apple makes computers, Motorola phones ...

It's not up to S. Jobs to decide the network, they for sure want too many customers as possible, and they are worldwide by now and Europe runs GSM ... maybe the project involves those who "Call different"
;) ... or those CDMA operators will go behind MS services... let's see in 1 year and good luck!

I'm sure that Motorola will release both CDMA and GSM versions of this phone...they've done so for pretty much every other phone they've got (T72x series, C33x series, C35x series, v60, etc.) Perhaps the reason why we didn't hear about the network protocol they're using is because they're going to use all of them?

AmigoMac
Jul 27, 2004, 08:15 AM
And for what it's worth, I get weird characters in Opera 7.53 on WinXP:

Look in your menu for "Text encoding" change to western, it would help, or change to anything else... I'm pretty sure it will be ok...

1macker1
Jul 27, 2004, 08:25 AM
Do these guys do anything that's not music related anymore.

JeffTL
Jul 27, 2004, 08:51 AM
Hm.

Ummmmmm, no.


The dial, there, is from the best phone ever made. I still use one :)

But I never said take the dial from a Western Electric, shrink it, and put it on the iPod. I was thinking more along the lines of numbers in the touchwheel, which must be "dragged" along the wheel clockwise to a simulated fingerstop (really just a silkscreened bar) to confirm the numeric input. No need to wait for a returnstroke, so it'd be only a bit slower than key input and (so far as I can imagine) swifter than scrolling around in circles to select digits and individually confirming them with the select button. The key is that it be simulated rather than actual -- rotary dials by necessity have moving parts, and iPods have to be able to take some crap.

The clickwheel iPod, though, already has enough on the wheel. Perimeter buttons (no room on the iPod without MAJOR redesign for a proper telephone keypad) or even something in software suddenly look pretty good.

the_mole1314
Jul 27, 2004, 08:55 AM
This sounds like good news, lets just hope they expand this more....

Trimix
Jul 27, 2004, 08:59 AM
So far it sounds like any other modern phone, except for the exceptionally high price. If it doesn't do more, only an idiot would buy one.

I = idiot :)

datafatmunger
Jul 27, 2004, 09:08 AM
Maybe Motorola and Apple could talk about getting iSync to work for Mot's v300, v400, v500 and v600 phones too. :)

jsw
Jul 27, 2004, 09:13 AM
To those who wonder why not Nokia:

You will see this capability in Nokia phones. I wouldn't worry about it.

jj2003
Jul 27, 2004, 09:27 AM
???

Last I read, SE has a great relationship with Apple, plus SE phones are the only phones that reliably interface with the Mac, unlike Moto phones. My K700i works beautifully with my TiBook via iSync.

Nice to hear. Does it work out-of-the-box or does it need some updates?

SE states that K700i is Apple compatible, but on the other hand Apple does not list it as an iSync compatible device. I tried it in a store and did not get it working easily with my powerbook and chose to buy (a big :( Nokia 6600 instead.

I probably just made some silly error during the setup, as I was not familiar with iSync or Bluetooth before, but I got that Nokia working, although the syncing is damn slow.

jsw
Jul 27, 2004, 09:29 AM
I'm very surprised Nokia didn't partner... since they are by far number 1.they also are the number one PC supporter.. sadly.

Nokia has just started revamping their approach to software in support of its phones, as well as software running on top of Symbian (until now, they've focussed on Symbian and on Windows support for it - and the reason for Windows support is primarily that Nokia doesn't really know how to do non-phone software, and Windows was the easiest thing to get to work and provided the biggest bang for the buck). So I wouldn't be surprised to see (1) better applications and application support, and (2) more platforms with access to the phones.

One reason? SavaJe (http://www.savaje.com/). They have a working J2SE (yes, standard edition, not J2ME) platform running on a number of phones, from Moto to Sony/Ericsson to Nokia to Samsung. It's not a rumor. I saw it on a Nokia 3650 - Swing on a 3650. Pretty cool. I live about 15 miles from them, and a neighbor works for them and showed me the phone after they announced the platform support last month or so.

So... SavaJe allows operators to stop caring about where they get their phones, since they can just run the same J2SE apps on any of them. Nokia is most affected, because they are so tightly tied into Symbian, and, if Symbian ceases to matter, Nokia's phones cease to matter unless they start catching in some of the area that they've fallen short. So expect Nokia to actually start listening to customer needs and wants instead of just making whatever and assuming it'd be purchased.

agentmouthwash
Jul 27, 2004, 09:55 AM
Apple had no choice but to do this. They know this is the next step.
People don't carry video players in their pockets, but they do carry
phones. Sony-Ericsson will probably announce a Similar thing that
works with the Sony-music service. This is Apple just trying to stay
ahead in the game.

besides, Ipods already sync with Addressbook and ical. it's only logical
that the future ipods will have phone capabilities.

www.iphone.org still links to the Apple website!

danieluk
Jul 27, 2004, 10:10 AM

danieluk
Jul 27, 2004, 10:13 AM

encro
Jul 27, 2004, 10:16 AM
Nice to hear. Does it work out-of-the-box or does it need some updates?

SE states that K700i is Apple compatible, but on the other hand Apple does not list it as an iSync compatible device. I tried it in a store and did not get it working easily with my powerbook and chose to buy (a big :( Nokia 6600 instead.

I probably just made some silly error during the setup, as I was not familiar with iSync or Bluetooth before, but I got that Nokia working, although the syncing is damn slow.

S700i (K700i) isn't currently implemented in iSync. You should have waited as SE phones are much better than Nokia.

nmk
Jul 27, 2004, 10:19 AM
I think this is the best iTunes/iPod news I've heard in a long time. I think, in the long run, people will start using their phones to listen to Music and view video content. Currently, storage space is a limitation. However, with hard drives becoming smaller and more power efficient, eventually phones will make great multi purpose multimedia devices. Apple should get a major presence in this market while it's still developing. Anything that pushes AAC and fairplay is a win for Apple.

encro
Jul 27, 2004, 10:21 AM
Disappointing News, I swore to myself that I would never purchase another Motorola product again.

I would have hoped the deal was with Symbian as that would have been a better base to start with given the larger variety of higher quality phones available from Sony-Ericsson and Nokia.

jj2003
Jul 27, 2004, 10:24 AM
Thanks for the link, but anyone else having problems playing this? Sticks at 99% when loading...

I did not get it working in Safari, but here's a direct link to the .ram file

Keynote (http://video.vdat.com/playfile.asp?brand=VN&file=37983_39262.rm&stream=rg2)

jj2003
Jul 27, 2004, 10:27 AM
You should have waited as SE phones are much better than Nokia.

Well, unfortunately that was not an option.. I needed the phone when I needed it. But hey, it is always possible to upgrade

:)

Lancetx
Jul 27, 2004, 10:36 AM
AOL is better than real? AOL is the BOTTOM of the pile. It was just a good deal for apple, that's all.

As lowly as AOL may be, there is no way they're lower than Real at the bottom of the junk pile, not even close. At least AOL still has millions of subscribers although they're losing more and more of those everyday.

kotovasii
Jul 27, 2004, 10:40 AM
The excellent possibilty of an iPod PDA or a Newton, or something of that sort...

iPhone, welcome to planet Jobs.

Jobs: Apple developed, but did not ship Apple PDA

By Kasper Jade
Published: Monday, June 7, 2004

AppleInsider Exclusive:
Speaking from the Wall Street Journal's D: All Things Digital conference this afternoon in Carlsbad, Apple CEO Steve Jobs made a number of interesting statements. Most notably, Jobs confirmed that Apple had designed its own PDA device, but canned the project just prior to bringing it to market....
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=484

danieluk
Jul 27, 2004, 10:50 AM

whooleytoo
Jul 27, 2004, 10:52 AM
Speaking from the Wall Street Journal's D: All Things Digital conference this afternoon in Carlsbad, Apple CEO Steve Jobs made a number of interesting statements. Most notably, Jobs confirmed that Apple had designed its own PDA device, but canned the project just prior to bringing it to market....
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=484

I still think that quote was quite ambiguous. All he states there is that they didn't ship one - did he ever specifically state Apple had designed or built one?

Jobs has commented several times on his reluctance to enter the PDA market - perhaps this is nothing more then him saying "we're glad we didn't".

nullcc
Jul 27, 2004, 11:22 AM
From what I understand, Ringtones ARE a huge and gigantic market.
Something like $1.5 billion this year projected (Maybe next year?).

I read a story about some software that made ringtones out of normal MP3s and put them on your phone, and naturally they were sued.

People seem to love to spend money on a song for their phone.

Imagine, if you will, instead of going to your carrier's ring-ring page, you just boot up iTunes on your phone and download your songs straight there.

You could have all the AAC rings you want!


... Probably unlikely...
No doubt the Cingulars and Verizons of the world wouldn't want someone else cutting into their $2-a-download stuff for 99¢.

And probably the RIAA would want to start its own Mp3-ring store.


Oh well, it was fun while it laster.

Doctor Q
Jul 27, 2004, 11:26 AM
How long before we are using iTMS to buy tunes for our home doorbells, tunes for our microwave buzzers, tunes for our bedside alarm clocks, and tunes for our automobile horns?

voodoofish
Jul 27, 2004, 11:35 AM
Thanks for the link, but anyone else having problems playing this? Sticks at 99% when loading...

Did that to me, and I just paused and pressed play and then it played fine. I too thought it was an awful keynote, especially when the CEO guy was like 'now i'm going to do this keynote all by myself' as though the fact that the CEO of motorola could now finally use motorola phones was something worth boasting about, and then in the end he didn't even do it himself anyway!! It's like if your own CEO finds your phones hard to use, what is the general public supposed to do!??!

ericmooreart
Jul 27, 2004, 11:37 AM
So how many songs will you be able to get on a phone? Will the phones use swapable memory cards? Seems a phone with enought memory to hold a decent amount of songs will cost more then an ipod mini.

I'm betting on a iphod (iphone) ;)

voodoofish
Jul 27, 2004, 11:49 AM
From what I understand, Ringtones ARE a huge and gigantic market.
Something like $1.5 billion this year projected (Maybe next year?).

I read a story about some software that made ringtones out of normal MP3s and put them on your phone, and naturally they were sued.

People seem to love to spend money on a song for their phone.

Imagine, if you will, instead of going to your carrier's ring-ring page, you just boot up iTunes on your phone and download your songs straight there.

You could have all the AAC rings you want!


... Probably unlikely...
No doubt the Cingulars and Verizons of the world wouldn't want someone else cutting into their $2-a-download stuff for 99¢.

And probably the RIAA would want to start its own Mp3-ring store.


Oh well, it was fun while it laster.



In Europe (the most mature mobile phone market) ringtones are worth l-o-a-d-s of money, and the iTMS Europe was expected to sell them when it launched. Loads of companies sell them besides the network carriers - for example, all the music channels (ie. channels like MTV except they actually play music videos) are full of ringtone adverts, and they now sell those mini-sized CDs (the ones you get on top of drinks in the US, the same sized ones that won't work on a slot-loading CD-Drive, they're the same size as GameCube game discs) as CD Singles that include ringtones to download onto your phone in an effort to boost sales.


However, the ringtone market is expected shrink as more and more people figure out that the latest phones will play MP3s as ringtones, which means that basically it'll cost people nothing to use any ringtone they like. Given the fact that the iTMS is going to be built into the most fancy phones, you'll prolly be able to use iTMS songs as ringtones themselves.


However, it does surprise me that you can't buy iTMS songs from your phone - this service has been offered in the UK for a while now on O2 (http://www.o2.co.uk/o2-digital-music-player.html) and is also being offered by Orange and T-Mobile in the UK (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16956). You can also download clips from MTV onto your mobile from three's 3G network http://www.three.co.uk/explore/services3/mtv.omp

JoePike
Jul 27, 2004, 12:00 PM
So how many songs will you be able to get on a phone? Will the phones use swapable memory cards? Seems a phone with enought memory to hold a decent amount of songs will cost more then an ipod mini.

I'm betting on a iphod (iphone) ;)

If they can pack 2GB onto a compact flash card now, or I've seen 1GB on one of those crazy little pen drives, that's a decent number of songs right there, especially just for ringtones. And what else are you going to do with music on a phone? Probably not listen to it on the crappy external speaker (if the phone even has one), and certainly not plug in one of those hands-free devices and listen to songs in only one ear.

I can see how all this talk would lead some to believe there might be an iPod/phone or some similar device eventually. But the problem is that by-in-large these swiss army knife multi-function devices haven't really taken off, mostly due to price and also size. Sure, there are those that use them, particularly businesspeople, but John Q. Consumer doesn't want to buy a device the size of a PDA (or an mp3 player, in this case) and use it for their cell phone every day, because it's just too bulky. I'd sure like to see Apple give it a try, but it likely will not happen.

Lastly, if this device ever does come to market, they would certainly not call it an "iPhod" as you suggest. It sounds like a noise a person might make when deathly ill, which leads me to think it wouldn't be easily marketable. Let's stick with iPhone, shall we? Especially since Apple turns out to have iphone.org on their servers. If anything on this thread could make me to start to sway in the direction of Apple EVER releasing a cellular device, that would be it. Very cool, thanks to danieluk and agentmouthwash for that gem of information.

All for now,

-Joe

voodoofish
Jul 27, 2004, 12:02 PM
Apple had no choice but to do this. They know this is the next step.
People don't carry video players in their pockets, but they do carry
phones. Sony-Ericsson will probably announce a Similar thing that
works with the Sony-music service. This is Apple just trying to stay
ahead in the game.

besides, Ipods already sync with Addressbook and ical. it's only logical
that the future ipods will have phone capabilities.

www.iphone.org still links to the Apple website!


Although, this article (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2724432) in the Economist has a reason why they wouldn't -

"They are also, says Dr Bull, far more selective about answering their mobile phones. That suggests that adding phone functionality to the iPod would be a bad idea, since it would facilitate intrusion."

wPod
Jul 27, 2004, 12:51 PM
though i will try my hardest to only by a cell phone that acts like a cell phone, this is a good move on the part of apple!!! i think this is a much better move than creating an iPod with a built in cell phone!

AmigoMac
Jul 27, 2004, 12:59 PM
From what I understand, Ringtones ARE a huge and gigantic market.
Something like $1.5 billion this year projected (Maybe next year?).

I read a story about some software that made ringtones out of normal MP3s and put them on your phone, and naturally they were sued.

People seem to love to spend money on a song for their phone.

Imagine, if you will, instead of going to your carrier's ring-ring page, you just boot up iTunes on your phone and download your songs straight there.

You could have all the AAC rings you want!


... Probably unlikely...
No doubt the Cingulars and Verizons of the world wouldn't want someone else cutting into their $2-a-download stuff for 99¢.

And probably the RIAA would want to start its own Mp3-ring store.


Oh well, it was fun while it laster.



I have a Nokia 3650, I just take one of my tunes, play it with Quicktime, select the part of the song I want, export it as a .wav file, send it to my phone via bluetooth, save it, go to settings and voilá! my ringtone is the first 15 seconds of Monsters Inc.'s soundtrack :D ... nice eh? ;)

Chip NoVaMac
Jul 27, 2004, 01:04 PM
Apple had no choice but to do this. They know this is the next step.
People don't carry video players in their pockets, but they do carry
phones. Sony-Ericsson will probably announce a Similar thing that
works with the Sony-music service. This is Apple just trying to stay
ahead in the game.

besides, Ipods already sync with Addressbook and ical. it's only logical
that the future ipods will have phone capabilities.

www.iphone.org still links to the Apple website!

Can't believe with as many cell phone companies out there that Apple will do their own phone. The shame of it is that us Sprint users will probably do without yet again.

sinisterdesign
Jul 27, 2004, 01:10 PM
so Moto is back in our picture, huh? i think this whole deal came out of Steve & Moto arguing about the G3 chips. "what the hell are we supposed to do w/ all of these chips we produced for you??!?" "i don't know and i don't care. stick them in your phones for all i care."

ok, maybe not.

interesting partnership, though. in a roundabout way, it does seem like it could cut into iPod sales. i mean, i could get 4GB of music for the gym on a mini or i could get 512MB of music, a phone and a camera in the same size/weight.

i'm not a big fan of the all-in-one phones yet. they do a bunch of stuff OK, but it's still not going to replace my PDA, iPod or digicam. [tech envy] although i have to admit, that Moto V3 Razor (http://www.mobile-review.com/review/motorola-v3-en.shtml) is s l i c k .[/tech envy]

mgescuro
Jul 27, 2004, 01:39 PM
Well, the Music Store eeks out a tiny profit every quarter now. I guess with a couple million songs per week sold, it is able to sustain itself. BUt if you're only selling 100,000 or so songs per week, there's no way to breakeven. That's why Roxio is going to run into some trouble.

As for APple... iPods are high margin devices and they sell 800,000 a quarter or about 2.5 million a year or more!

A phone with the capability of syncing to iTUnes on a Mac or PC will complement the iPods. You don't expect to have a hard drive based phone. That's just silly. However, it's not unreasonable to have an SD-based phone. ANd with SD's running to the 1GB range now... 250 songs on your phone doesn't sound all that bad. ANd even using a 512 MG SD card, 125 songs isn't all that bad either.

iPods do what they do best... they play music. Some people ahve phones permanently attached to their hip. SO why not take some of your music with you?

And who knows... with mobile iTUnes, it's not totally out of the realm of reason that Apple release a PocketPC or PalmOS v5/6 version. I mean, MediaPlayer has a version and so does real. QuickTIme already has mobile standards implemented. It's just that a viable product isn't out yet.



i didn't think of this earlier. i was under the impression that Apple's previous plan for the music store was as a tool for encouraging iPod sales. now it seems like they're letting it stand more on its own. i was thinking previously that it would be great if apple made a PDA version of iTunes, but i thought they wouldn't as it would probably have a negative impact on iPod sales. now this just confuses me.

Misplaced Mage
Jul 27, 2004, 02:43 PM
Can't believe with as many cell phone companies out there that Apple will do their own phone. The shame of it is that us Sprint users will probably do without yet again.

I can see Apple co-branding a phone built by someone else, but not build their own phone. There are a huge number of international, federal, industry, and carrier regulations that cell phones have to conform to, and the system interoperability testing is hideously complex (it makes 802.11 look like a walk in the park). Apple would basically have to hire away a substantial chunk of the RF and test engineers presently working for the current cell phone manufacturers to get the necessary experience up front, and build a substantial new testing infrastructure before it could even begin to consider building its own phone from scratch. Not impossible, true, but expensive and time consuming, especially to build just one product instead of an entire product line. How much easier would it be to let one of the existing companies handle the phone hardware design, test, and manufacturing, leaving Apple to concentrate on the handset design, user interface, and phone features -- convincing the various carriers to support the more advanced ones (like a music store) that would need back end support to function?

SiliconAddict
Jul 27, 2004, 02:43 PM
If there is an ounce of justice in the universe Apple will develop this software and then delay it for a few months while Jobs BS's Moto telling them its almost done its almost done. :rolleyes:

sinisterdesign
Jul 27, 2004, 03:14 PM
If there is an ounce of justice in the universe Apple will develop this software and then delay it for a few months while Jobs BS's Moto telling them its almost done its almost done. :rolleyes:

nice

Apple programmer to Moto: "where's the iTunes software? uh...yeah, we're just making it (what should i tell him, guys?) FASTER! yeah, we're just over here making it faster. yup. we'll get it to you soon, just keep marketing it to the public..."

;)

Lanbrown
Jul 27, 2004, 03:28 PM
No my friend. On the contrary this step brings us even closer to the the possibility of an Apple Phone. This means Apple has squeezed the Quicktime frameworks down to a size that mobile phones can handle.

This is surely a feature of Quicktime 7. We'll know more soon enough but this is very encouraging news. This portends the potential for set top boxes with iTunes support or PDAs. This is step one in what is going to be hopefully an avalance of iTunes licensees.

What do you mean squeezed it down? Have you seen some of the processors that are available just for the mobile phone market? They are at over 200MHz, can support up to 256MB of DDR RAM, MMC/SD cards will soon be at 4GB. Storage and processing are no longer limitations. The next generation chips will be available later this year and provide 3D acceleration.

The only bad news of this whole announcement is that it is with Motorola. They should have teamed up with somebody a little bigger, a deal with Symbian and Nokia would have been the ticket. Now you are talking market penetration. Motorola has lagged behind in the mobile phone market for quite some time. Ever since the digital era they have been behind the times.

Lanbrown
Jul 27, 2004, 03:35 PM
#1 only by sales, not really in any other sense, but if this really takes of probably most phones will get it sooner or later, as well as other gadgets.

And Motorola is #1 in what? It took them how much longer then everyone else to get a CDMA phone out? All because they wanted to do their own chipset and the first version was such a lousy product, no major carrier sold it. It's taken them how long to get a camera phone out? They were part of Symbian but sold their stake and they never sold a major phone with Symbian on it. Not too long ago, Motorola was #1 in terms of DOA within the first thirty days. Even companies that just got into mobile phone manufacturing in were producing better quality products. At onetime a Motorola was a quality phone.

Lanbrown
Jul 27, 2004, 03:48 PM
Mr. Jobs, please repeat after me: CDMA

I personally want to see these phones on networks other than GSM. Apple, get these to the CDMA market!

The CDMA market is small in regards to GSM. GSM is around 1 billion users worldwide; CDMA is less than 200,000. In the US, GSM/TDMA is around 50% and CDMA has the other 50%.

ClimbingTheLog
Jul 27, 2004, 03:48 PM
Please repeat after me... GSM! Sprint and Verizon won't move on though, since they have spent so much money on their current PCS networks.

Move on to what? GSM is tdma/fdma based. CDMA uses spread-spectrum technology and supports higher data rates and more dense bandwidth usage. 3G rollouts are almost always built on the CDMA 2000 standard. GSM is easier to eavesdrop on and uses higher power. It also works very poorly in hilly terrain.

In Europe, at least GSM has swappable SIM cards, but the US hegemony has seen to it that it's hard to do here if you can do it at all.

Most new buildouts use CDMA. What do you know about GSM that we don't?

Lanbrown
Jul 27, 2004, 04:12 PM
Move on to what? GSM is tdma/fdma based. CDMA uses spread-spectrum technology and supports higher data rates and more dense bandwidth usage. 3G rollouts are almost always built on the CDMA 2000 standard. GSM is easier to eavesdrop on and uses higher power. It also works very poorly in hilly terrain.

In Europe, at least GSM has swappable SIM cards, but the US hegemony has seen to it that it's hard to do here if you can do it at all.

Most new buildouts use CDMA. What do you know about GSM that we don't?

Higher power is easily disputed; most phones; GSM and CDMA both are at the same transmission level. I can bring up the CDMA phone that Motorola tried to sell, it transmitted at the same power level as the handheld analog ones.

I can move my SIM card to another phone. It’s the phones that are locked, not the card. I just don’t buy phones from the provider, no big deal.

3G GSM is called UMTS, which is CDMA. The CDMA providers in the US decided not to adopt what the GSM providers were going to use and continue to go their own way. This only means it costs them more money to buy equipment. Economies of scale are in favor of GSM. Even a 3G GSM build out uses GSM for the phone portion.

dontmatter
Jul 27, 2004, 04:34 PM
I think we could be looking at a more integrated offering when we consider what else can be used on a phone.

Using mobile technology like Musikube's (http://www.musikube.com) it is possible to both recognise a song from a 3 second or so 'snapshot' or recognise it from a bar code printed on an ad, concert ticket etc.

Now if this is then integrated into the ITMS then someone with a mobile could hear music (for example in a bar), get the name, buy the track from ITMS onto their phone and then store it back into their Mac / PC next time they synched, all within a matter of seconds. Maybe there is a revenue sharing arrangement between Motorola and Apple for songs purchased this way.

Secondly, my understanding (please correct if I'm wrong) is that sales of ringtones is currently higher than sales on singles. This would enable Apple & Motorola to get into that market.

On it's own the technology seems limited (unless phones start getting compact drives like the iPod Mini) as most people buy phones to make calls, send messages. High end phone users (where the phones have more memory) are probably also more likely to want a iPod as they are early technology adopters. Start thinking about new ways of behaving from integrated technology and then a whole new market becomes available which pushes sales to both ITMS and potentially Motorola.

Of course, just adding ability to play tunes bought on ITMS increases it's penetration. People buying tracks using a mobile device will want to use it immediately so giving a phone the capability to play these tracks enables ITMS to be used from a phone, giving the opportunity to get much better market penetration (incidently it is unlikely a store which gives listening access for a subscription will work in the mobile field where data is charged per unit rather than a fixed-per-month cost like broadband)

This all becomes possible because only iTunes (ignoring the Real thing) can handle tunes bought on ITMS and that leads the market - people will want to buy one copy which can be used on all devices, that the publishers are willing to sell electronically (because the rights management is good). It helps Apple establish the standard in purchased music which then benefits Motorola sales.

It could be a very smart alliance.

Andrew

Nice post! I approve.

And the listening and telling you what it is feature is incredible. it's the one thing that would make me get a more than cell phone. How many times do you hear something and want to know what it is, and maybe get it? ALL the time for me. a one button tag to say, hey, like this song, on a playlist of all songs you heard through the day would be awesome. I'd even use it for itunes, so I could hit F5, say, when listening to music, to say that I want to put this song in a playlist, without having to actually go into itunes and add the song to the playlist. Is there a name you could give of software using this music recognition feature, until it's in an itms phone?

dontmatter
Jul 27, 2004, 04:43 PM
so Moto is back in our picture, huh? i think this whole deal came out of Steve & Moto arguing about the G3 chips. "what the hell are we supposed to do w/ all of these chips we produced for you??!?" "i don't know and i don't care. stick them in your phones for all i care."

ok, maybe not.

interesting partnership, though. in a roundabout way, it does seem like it could cut into iPod sales. i mean, i could get 4GB of music for the gym on a mini or i could get 512MB of music, a phone and a camera in the same size/weight.

i'm not a big fan of the all-in-one phones yet. they do a bunch of stuff OK, but it's still not going to replace my PDA, iPod or digicam. [tech envy] although i have to admit, that Moto V3 Razor (http://www.mobile-review.com/review/motorola-v3-en.shtml) is s l i c k .[/tech envy]

I dunno, I'm not picturing it really competing. The ipod mini didn't reduce ipod sales, did it? It's more likely that people looking for a music player will buy a music player, and people looking for a full featured cell phone will buy this, love the music feature, and want a bigger one. Meanwhile, they'll have bought itms songs for the cell, and have itunes for the cell, so they won't even look at dell's or rio's.

Good move, I say.

fatbarstard
Jul 27, 2004, 04:46 PM
My Kyocera 7135 sucks... but wonder whether this groovy new phone will be available in international markets where iTMS isn't... like where I live....

AmigoMac
Jul 27, 2004, 05:05 PM
Higher power is easily disputed; most phones; GSM and CDMA both are at the same transmission level. I can bring up the CDMA phone that Motorola tried to sell, it transmitted at the same power level as the handheld analog ones.

I can move my SIM card to another phone. It’s the phones that are locked, not the card. I just don’t buy phones from the provider, no big deal.

3G GSM is called UMTS, which is CDMA. The CDMA providers in the US decided not to adopt what the GSM providers were going to use and continue to go their own way. This only means it costs them more money to buy equipment. Economies of scale are in favor of GSM. Even a 3G GSM build out uses GSM for the phone portion.

Analog phones have more SAR value than digital phones, you may move SIM cards between GSM phones, both SIM cards & Phones can be blocked by software, pretty easy for providers, USA CDMA & GSM Phones are not compatible, for those who wonder about this ;) , 3G GSM doesn't exist at all, UMTS is the third generation of mobile communications , GSM is the second one... UMTS is based on WCDMA, pretty similar to CDMA, yes, it's based on it, theoretically, but still a huge difference in signal sampling, data rates & channels spreading, 3G CDMA is the US version of UMTS, 3G CDMA does exist and the difference between those systems is the motivation to the 4th generation of mobile communications, already on the way, big companies are working on standards, this way they could use roaming everywhere, that's the big failure of UMTS, because it was supposed to be
"Universal mobile telecommunication system" but hopefully 4G will be ...

I'm not sure what you mean about that "3G GSM" phones use a portion of GSM, I hope you meant, that it is necessary to include both systems into one phone because you may want to change your platform on the way, what if you have your phone on UMTS mode and receive a call on your GSM side? it requires a lot of work, between antenna, filters, decoders and channel detectors to build this... UMTS works from 1.9 GHz to 2.1 GHz
GSM bands are different... 850/1900 USA 900/1800 Europe

Stella
Jul 27, 2004, 05:19 PM
<sarcasm>
If apple do make a cellphone or co-brand you can guarentee it'll be CDMA, so perfect for the usa market..

There is no way they'll make a GSM phone.. despite GSM being vastly more popular world-wide.. they'll have next to no american customers.

Hell with freeze over first before Apple cater specifically for the majority of the planet.
</sarcasm>

ClimbingTheLog
Jul 27, 2004, 05:59 PM
Higher power is easily disputedOK, so do so. CDMA samples power levels every couple milliseconds and adjusts accordingly.
I can bring up the CDMA phone that Motorola tried to sell, it transmitted at the same power level as the handheld analog ones.You could, but then somebody would just point out that one bad implementation doesn't mean a standard is bad.
I can move my SIM card to another phone. It’s the phones that are locked, not the card.Umm, no, most SIM cards are locked. T-Mobile will reportedly unlock your SIM card after 4 or 6 months if you get to a knowledgable rep. and they have a 'good' policy.
I just don’t buy phones from the provider, no big deal.Calling plans have the cost of a phone built into them, that's the way US providers work. Yeah, it sucks, but c'est le vie. For some people money is an object.
3G GSM is called UMTS, which is CDMASo, the GSM providers chose CDMA - that's telling, isn't it?
This only means it costs them more money to buy equipment.Are you accounting for the added users per cell? Even GSM backers admit that CDMA is typically less expensive per user to deploy.
Economies of scale are in favor of GSM. Are you running Windows on a Dell?
Even a 3G GSM build out uses GSM for the phone portion.Did you expect them to ditch compatibility with their installed base? And, I can still intercept a GSM call because it uses FDMA for channel allocation.

Pablo
Jul 27, 2004, 06:53 PM
The CDMA market is small in regards to GSM. GSM is around 1 billion users worldwide; CDMA is less than 200,000. In the US, GSM/TDMA is around 50% and CDMA has the other 50%.

Verizon (one of the CDMA carriers) probably has 200,000 users in Houston alone. I'm not sure how many CDMA customers there are in the US (or worldwide), but as Verizon added 1.5 million users in the 2nd quarter of this year (http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040726/telecoms_verizonwireless_1.html), the numbers are much, much higher than you state.

Granted, it's still behind GSM as far as numbers, only because the US decided to let the market decide the standard rather than handing down an edict and subsidizing the networks.

SandyL
Jul 27, 2004, 07:33 PM
Umm, no, most SIM cards are locked.
Wrong (http://geckobeach.com/cellular/intro/unlocking.asp). It's the handsets which are locked.

jerk
Jul 27, 2004, 08:24 PM
So, the GSM providers chose CDMA - that's telling, isn't it?


As stated above, the non US 3G standard is NOT the US (qualcomm) CDMA cell phone system thing, both are CDMA in it's real sense: Code Division Multiple Access, a spread spectrum modulation, but they are not the same. The non US 3G standard is called UMTS, and they call the modulation W-CDMA to make it sound a little better than CDMA (which it probably is).

So saying that the US went it's own way is still valid, and also that the US may have to pay a little more to go their own way again. US even tried to make Iraq CDMA to get a wider spread outside the US.

weev
Jul 27, 2004, 08:28 PM
I'm very surprised Nokia didn't partner... since they are by far number 1.

What is the logic here? Apple is not number 1 either, you must mean that Nokia should partner with M$oft.

Apple and Motorola have been in business together before, its a rekindling of a recent alliance.

And a benefit to both, Apple moves into phones in a small way, and motorola into portable music players.

Bring it on.

Stella
Jul 27, 2004, 09:43 PM
What is the logic here? Apple is not number 1 either, you must mean that Nokia should partner with M$oft.

Apple and Motorola have been in business together before, its a rekindling of a recent alliance.

And a benefit to both, Apple moves into phones in a small way, and motorola into portable music players.

Bring it on.

LOL..
Just because Apple isn't number means they shouldn't partner with the number 1 in cellphones...

To be honest I prefer SonyEricsson over Nokia...

Motorola - over on think secret they suggest PBs may be refreshed to include Motorola G4 Extended processors which are as fast as 2Ghz..!!


@Jerk
> US even tried to make Iraq CDMA to get a wider spread outside the US.
Yep.. that was pretty stupid...
us Sentors didn't want European countries to benefit from Iraq contracts (just because they excercised their *democratic* rights and voted against an invasion of Iraq), instead the us prefered Iraq to be incompatible with its neighbours.. pretty f?cked up if you ask me..

Lanbrown
Jul 27, 2004, 10:07 PM
Analog phones have more SAR value than digital phones, you may move SIM cards between GSM phones, both SIM cards & Phones can be blocked by software, pretty easy for providers, USA CDMA & GSM Phones are not compatible, for those who wonder about this ;) , 3G GSM doesn't exist at all, UMTS is the third generation of mobile communications , GSM is the second one... UMTS is based on WCDMA, pretty similar to CDMA, yes, it's based on it, theoretically, but still a huge difference in signal sampling, data rates & channels spreading, 3G CDMA is the US version of UMTS, 3G CDMA does exist and the difference between those systems is the motivation to the 4th generation of mobile communications, already on the way, big companies are working on standards, this way they could use roaming everywhere, that's the big failure of UMTS, because it was supposed to be
"Universal mobile telecommunication system" but hopefully 4G will be ...

I'm not sure what you mean about that "3G GSM" phones use a portion of GSM, I hope you meant, that it is necessary to include both systems into one phone because you may want to change your platform on the way, what if you have your phone on UMTS mode and receive a call on your GSM side? it requires a lot of work, between antenna, filters, decoders and channel detectors to build this... UMTS works from 1.9 GHz to 2.1 GHz
GSM bands are different... 850/1900 USA 900/1800 Europe

I was referring to the 3G standard that the GSM providers are using; hence the 3G GSM compared to the 3G services that the CDMA carriers in the US are using.

The CDMA carriers could have used UMTS but they chose not to. There is a migration path to UMTS but not from EV-D0 to UMTS, well, at least not an easy one. So it was a failure because Verizon and Sprint made it a failure.

If you have a 3G phone, the 3G is not the portion that is used to make the phone calls.

I know the bands are different. I have extensive background in mobile communications.

Lanbrown
Jul 27, 2004, 10:29 PM
Verizon (one of the CDMA carriers) probably has 200,000 users in Houston alone. I'm not sure how many CDMA customers there are in the US (or worldwide), but as Verizon added 1.5 million users in the 2nd quarter of this year (http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040726/telecoms_verizonwireless_1.html), the numbers are much, much higher than you state.

Granted, it's still behind GSM as far as numbers, only because the US decided to let the market decide the standard rather than handing down an edict and subsidizing the networks.

Sorry less than 200 million, a far cry from 1 billion for GSM. CDMA only got a foothold as TDMA was tested by many carriers and they just didn't like it. So used it, others did not. The ones that didn’t like it went with CDMA, as it was much more readily available as compared to GSM equipment in the cellular frequencies.

Lanbrown
Jul 27, 2004, 10:33 PM
OK, so do so. CDMA samples power levels every couple milliseconds and adjusts accordingly.
You could, but then somebody would just point out that one bad implementation doesn't mean a standard is bad.
Umm, no, most SIM cards are locked. T-Mobile will reportedly unlock your SIM card after 4 or 6 months if you get to a knowledgable rep. and they have a 'good' policy.
Calling plans have the cost of a phone built into them, that's the way US providers work. Yeah, it sucks, but c'est le vie. For some people money is an object.
So, the GSM providers chose CDMA - that's telling, isn't it?
Are you accounting for the added users per cell? Even GSM backers admit that CDMA is typically less expensive per user to deploy.
Are you running Windows on a Dell?
Did you expect them to ditch compatibility with their installed base? And, I can still intercept a GSM call because it uses FDMA for channel allocation.

Motorola on their first CDMA phone made their phone 600 mw, where the spec called for 200. An analog handheld operated at 600. Guess what, the phone was a complete failure as the performance was lousy.

I never said the standard was bad. I showed ONE instance, which is enough to make that a mute point.

No, the phone is locked. I can use my SIM card in any unlocked phone. If the phone is locked, the SIM will only work if it's from the same provider the sold the phone. I have multiple phones and move my SIM card easily between them and only one phone was purchased from the carrier. If I try to use the SIM in a phone from a different provider that’s locked, it will not work. This also means if someone wants to go from one carrier to the next, their phone won’t work with the new carrier until it’s unlocked.

It’s true they subsidize the cost, but whenever you want a new phone they want you to sign a new contract. However, not all carriers offer all of the phones. You may want something different then what they offer. In the CDMA world, you need to provide them the ESN of the phone for it to work. Some carriers can be picky about adding a phone they do not sell.

CDMA is a technology, nothing more. There are different flavors of CDMA. TDMA is used more then CDMA. Cable modems currently use TDMA; telco-switching equipment does as well. If you make a call, it is GSM.

Have you seen the CDMA equipment? If you look at the 2G CDMA equipment, the equipment was huge. Verzon uses Nortel equipment a lot. First generation sites were two cabinets, second generation was one. It's competitors are half the size and offer the same capacity. It is also just added on to the switch rather then being integrated in. This requires more work for routine maintenance.

And you don't think someone can't listen in to a conversation that is made by a CDMA phone?

Even a CDMA switch uses TDMA.


The 2.5, 2.75 and 3G are mainly used for data applications, with a few being used for voice.

Lanbrown
Jul 27, 2004, 10:37 PM
As stated above, the non US 3G standard is NOT the US (qualcomm) CDMA cell phone system thing, both are CDMA in it's real sense: Code Division Multiple Access, a spread spectrum modulation, but they are not the same. The non US 3G standard is called UMTS, and they call the modulation W-CDMA to make it sound a little better than CDMA (which it probably is).

So saying that the US went it's own way is still valid, and also that the US may have to pay a little more to go their own way again. US even tried to make Iraq CDMA to get a wider spread outside the US.

Qualcomm still makes money on UMTS as they hold many patents on CDMA. The royalties they are receiving are ever increasing and will probably soon surpass those of their preferred CDMA.

The US won't have to pay anything, carriers like Verizon and Sprint will end up paying more. AT&T Wireless, Cingular and T-Mobile will all be using UMTS, as will some other providers.

AmigoMac
Jul 27, 2004, 11:32 PM
I was referring to the 3G standard that the GSM providers are using; hence the 3G GSM compared to the 3G services that the CDMA carriers in the US are using.

The CDMA carriers could have used UMTS but they chose not to. There is a migration path to UMTS but not from EV-D0 to UMTS, well, at least not an easy one. So it was a failure because Verizon and Sprint made it a failure.

If you have a 3G phone, the 3G is not the portion that is used to make the phone calls.

I know the bands are different. I have extensive background in mobile communications.

Pls again, there is NO 3G GSM, GSM is one step forward from TDMA and AMPS, 3G is UMTS in europe or CMDA2000 in USA, is exactly the same as if you referred to the first 15 AL PB as a Titanium... ;) , it's based on it but is different... I need you extensive background to clarify what 3G portion you mean to, what is 3G for you? , I need to extend my foreground :rolleyes:

I hope you are not talking about GPRS/EDGE when saying 3G GSM ...

jerk
Jul 27, 2004, 11:36 PM
Qualcomm still makes money on UMTS as they hold many patents on CDMA. The royalties they are receiving are ever increasing and will probably soon surpass those of their preferred CDMA.

Yes, they would patent every darn screw if they could so that they will always be able to get money from each other, and trade patents with each other which is actually an important piece of this business.

The US won't have to pay anything, carriers like Verizon and Sprint will end up paying more. AT&T Wireless, Cingular and T-Mobile will all be using UMTS, as will some other providers.

And where are Verizon's and Sprint's CDMA markets again? I don't say that it will be much more expensive, since I have no idea about that, but I do say that that is where the cost will end up, if any.

Lanbrown
Jul 27, 2004, 11:50 PM
Pls again, there is NO 3G GSM, GSM is one step forward from TDMA and AMPS, 3G is UMTS in europe or CMDA2000 in USA, is exactly the same as if you referred to the first 15 AL PB as a Titanium... ;) , it's based on it but is different... I need you extensive background to clarify what 3G portion you mean to, what is 3G for you? , I need to extend my foreground :rolleyes:

I hope you are not talking about GPRS/EDGE when saying 3G GSM ...

I was REFERRING to the 3G services being offered by the GSM carriers. Their 3G is different from the 3G services being offered from the CDMA carriers. So if someone just says 3G, you don't know which they are talking about.

Once again you are wrong; UMTS is available in the US as is CDMA2000. UMTS is not Euro limited. Both are 3G, both are different from one another though.

Lanbrown
Jul 27, 2004, 11:54 PM
And where are Verizon's and Sprint's CDMA markets again? I don't say that it will be much more expensive, since I have no idea about that, but I do say that that is where the cost will end up, if any.

And where are AWE, Cingular and T-Mobile USA again?

Let's try it a different way. The equipment makers can make one piece of equipment and use it anywhere in the world, the frequencies just need to be changed. This allows more to be sold and thus their costs can be recouped much more quickly and thus, prices can be lower. Compare that to CDMA, which has a much smaller user base. Which equates to higher prices.

AmigoMac
Jul 28, 2004, 12:15 AM
I was REFERRING to the 3G services being offered by the GSM carriers. Their 3G is different from the 3G services being offered from the CDMA carriers. So if someone just says 3G, you don't know which they are talking about.

Once again you are wrong; UMTS is available in the US as is CDMA2000. UMTS is not Euro limited. Both are 3G, both are different from one another though.

When you talk about 3G, you SHOULD know what they are talking about, those "3G services" are known as 2.5 G, it's the introduction, people must know what they might be able to get if they move to 3G, I know UMTS is US available but as US operators decided to stay by CDMA2000 and no Euro-operator has CDMA2000, then is known that UMTS is the european standard ;) .... Again, GSM (GPRS/EDGE) & CDMA-ONE are still 2G, anything they give as 3G service is just a small look into new possibilities, those services are 2G and known as 2.5 G , pretty different ;)

voodoofish
Jul 28, 2004, 06:48 AM
I can see Apple co-branding a phone built by someone else, but not build their own phone. There are a huge number of international, federal, industry, and carrier regulations that cell phones have to conform to, and the system interoperability testing is hideously complex (it makes 802.11 look like a walk in the park). Apple would basically have to hire away a substantial chunk of the RF and test engineers presently working for the current cell phone manufacturers to get the necessary experience up front, and build a substantial new testing infrastructure before it could even begin to consider building its own phone from scratch. Not impossible, true, but expensive and time consuming, especially to build just one product instead of an entire product line. How much easier would it be to let one of the existing companies handle the phone hardware design, test, and manufacturing, leaving Apple to concentrate on the handset design, user interface, and phone features -- convincing the various carriers to support the more advanced ones (like a music store) that would need back end support to function?


There's actually a really good article about that here - http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2628495


It talks about how you can now use off the shelf components etc. to make your own mobile phone cheaply, which is what some network operators are doing in Europe to try and integrate their network services tightly into the phone. I've used Orange's SPV before, but it runs Windows Mobile and so is like the least user friendly phone I have ever used. This could be an easy way for Apple to make their own phone, although I don't know if they actually would.

voodoofish
Jul 28, 2004, 06:55 AM
When you talk about 3G, you SHOULD know what they are talking about, those "3G services" are known as 2.5 G, it's the introduction, people must know what they might be able to get if they move to 3G, I know UMTS is US available but as US operators decided to stay by CDMA2000 and no Euro-operator has CDMA2000, then is known that UMTS is the european standard ;) .... Again, GSM (GPRS/EDGE) & CDMA-ONE are still 2G, anything they give as 3G service is just a small look into new possibilities, those services are 2G and known as 2.5 G , pretty different ;)

They actually also use UMTS in Japan (not on NTTDoCoMo though, it's on Vodafone and another carrier I think), and I'm pretty sure they use it in Asia aswell. AT&T wireless also use UMTS (http://www.attwireless.com/umts/), so actually it is not just the European standard but a global standard.

I think you have 2G, 2.5G and 3G all mixed up, GPRS is 2.5G and EDGE sometimes refered to as 2.75G. In Europe we've had 3G for over a year, and the only things on it that aren't available on 2.5G are video calling and higher-quality streaming video clips. Three (the oldest 3G network) also offers enhanced location based services, but I think that is only on handsets with built in GPS.

voodoofish
Jul 28, 2004, 07:08 AM
I'm not sure what you mean about that "3G GSM" phones use a portion of GSM, I hope you meant, that it is necessary to include both systems into one phone because you may want to change your platform on the way, what if you have your phone on UMTS mode and receive a call on your GSM side? it requires a lot of work, between antenna, filters, decoders and channel detectors to build this... UMTS works from 1.9 GHz to 2.1 GHz
GSM bands are different... 850/1900 USA 900/1800 Europe

Perhaps they mean that 3GSM (the GSM association renamed UMTS to 3GSM to make it clear it's the upgrade path from GSM) phones can seamlessly fall back onto GSM networks without dropping the call. I'm on Three, which doesn't have a GSM network. You can roam onto one at no cost, but this means that dropped 3G calls won't fall back onto the GSM network as they are not actually the same network (the base station have separate network codes etc.). My dad works for a GSM network though, and his 3G phone will switch between 3G and GSM networks during a call seamlessly because they are the same network (ie. have the same network code etc.).

voodoofish
Jul 28, 2004, 07:13 AM
Qualcomm still makes money on UMTS as they hold many patents on CDMA. The royalties they are receiving are ever increasing and will probably soon surpass those of their preferred CDMA.

I recently read that 25% of Qualcomm's royalties are now from UMTS and barely anyone uses it compared with GSM, so once it takes off the royalties are likely to be huge.

stephenli
Jul 28, 2004, 07:14 AM
They actually also use UMTS in Japan (not on NTTDoCoMo though, it's on Vodafone and another carrier I think), and I'm pretty sure they use it in Asia aswell. AT&T wireless also use UMTS (http://www.attwireless.com/umts/), so actually it is not just the European standard but a global standard.

NTTDoCoMo's 3G service "FOMA" is using UTMS (in a older standard though). Another carrier KDDI AU is using CDMA 2000, they are already progress to CDMA 1x EV-DO (2.4Mbps), which they claim themselves as "boardband mobile phone". UTMS and CDMA 2000 are both global standard.

In addition, the oldest 3G carrier is not "3", but NTTDoCoMo.

voodoofish
Jul 28, 2004, 07:21 AM
If you have a 3G phone, the 3G is not the portion that is used to make the phone calls.

Acctually it is, at least on UMTS. 3G has higher call capacity than GSM, so when many of the European carriers are criticised for paying so much for 3G lisenses, sometimes the argument is put forward that they where worth it for the extra call capacity alone (although to be honest I've never really had a problem placing calls on a GSM network).

voodoofish
Jul 28, 2004, 07:40 AM
NTTDoCoMo's 3G service "FOMA" is using UTMS (in a older standard though). Another carrier KDDI AU is using CDMA 2000, they are already progress to CDMA 1x EV-DO (2.4Mbps), which they claim themselves as "boardband mobile phone". UTMS and CDMA 2000 are both global standard.

In addition, the oldest 3G carrier is not "3", but NTTDoCoMo.

I was talking about in the UK, as the other 3G carriers here so far only let you use data-cards on their 3G networks and so do not actually have any other "3G services" besides data (data is really the only useful 3G service, everything else other than video calling can be done on 2.5G and no one wants video calls anyway. Three sells is self over here on voice calls at under half the price of the GSM networks). There's not too much point talking about Japanese carriers as their phones tend not to work elsewhere in the world (apparantly they can roam on GSM networks but I don't think you could just import them and stick a SIM in, except for the Vodafone 3G phones of course.).

Also, having CDMA 2000 in two countries does not really make it global - you could argue that CDMA is global, but in reality it is not used outside of North America, South Korea, India and Australia, whereas the only one of those countries where GSM is not used is in South Korea. I can already roam in a number of countries with my UMTS phone (eg. Italy, Hong Kong, Japan, Australia) and not only that but can also use it to roam on existing GSM networks. I doubt there are many 2G networks to roam on with a CDMA 2000 phone, let alone 3G ones - it is hard to tell, since whenever I go on the international bit of a CDMA carrier's website it just goes on about GSM handset rentals ;)

You can find a list of all the GSM networks around the world here - http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/index.shtml

djdarlek
Jul 28, 2004, 07:44 AM
I wonder if iTunes would work with this sexy phone - to be released tomorrow and be available to buy in Sept. If so, I'm getting one!

I'm sure this is somewhere on the board.. but over here without a contract they are going to cost £700!!!! Thats nearly $1400!

What pains me more is why they chose to work with Motorola? Who the hell has a Motorola phone? I have been consistantly impressed by Sony Erricson's efforts for the last couple of years, and there are so many Mac-ish programs that intergrate well with those handsets (romeo/salling clicker/address book)!

As for why they didnt plump for Nokia the no.1 handset maker.. they probably wanted someone that designs classy phones, not ugly, boring and common phones.

AmigoMac
Jul 28, 2004, 07:51 AM
They actually also use UMTS in Japan (not on NTTDoCoMo though, it's on Vodafone and another carrier I think), and I'm pretty sure they use it in Asia aswell. AT&T wireless also use UMTS (http://www.attwireless.com/umts/), so actually it is not just the European standard but a global standard.

I think you have 2G, 2.5G and 3G all mixed up, GPRS is 2.5G and EDGE sometimes refered to as 2.75G. In Europe we've had 3G for over a year, and the only things on it that aren't available on 2.5G are video calling and higher-quality streaming video clips. Three (the oldest 3G network) also offers enhanced location based services, but I think that is only on handsets with built in GPS.

I do Know the existence of UMTS in asia, but still there is a "Japan WCDMA" standard, they adopted it first that europe, when I said some posts ago that UMTS failed to be the "Universal" thing it should be , it's because of the existence of CDMA2000 and it makes the next step in mobile communications and it will be 4G, I'm not mixing 2G, 2.5G and 3G , I'm slowly clarifying that it's not proper to say 3G GSM when talking about the third generation of mobile communications, I said already that GPRS/EDGE services are part of the 2G and it's kinda example of what people can get when/if moving to 3G, it will be slower than people think, maybe more than 10 years because GSM has got a lot of money from operators and big companies, GSM (2G) won't be forgotten it will be there till people find it slow and boring when other people can get better services and the prices will be competitive, ... what do you mean with "The old 3G network" when 3G is just born :confused: ... Oh and sure, Europe has UMTS, vodafone going ahead because of their market position and investment, but not for over a year, in Germany is less than that and still other countries have to start...

UMTS should be "Universal"
GSM should be Global ...
ohhh! and 3GSM is still 2G but with some 3G services, so it won't be more than 2.5 G ;)

Lanbrown
Jul 28, 2004, 08:18 AM
Pls again, there is NO 3G GSM, GSM is one step forward from TDMA and AMPS, 3G is UMTS in europe or CMDA2000 in USA, is exactly the same as if you referred to the first 15 AL PB as a Titanium... ;) , it's based on it but is different... I need you extensive background to clarify what 3G portion you mean to, what is 3G for you? , I need to extend my foreground :rolleyes:

I hope you are not talking about GPRS/EDGE when saying 3G GSM ...

3G is not tied to a specific spec/standard. UMTS is 3G; EV-DO is 3G. Since they are quite different, one needs to know which 3G someone is talking about. All GSM carriers will be offering UMTS, not EV-DO. Verizon and Sprint will offer EV-DO. How did US operators decide to stay with EV-D0 when UMTS is being offered in the US?

I never said GPRS/EDGE was 3G. CDMA is one step from AMPS as well. First generation was AMPS. Second generation was GSM, TDMA and CDMA. Third generation is UMTS and EV-DO, both of which use CDMA technology. GPRS/EDGE as well as 1XRTT are in between 2G and 3G.

You are the one that is confused.

Lanbrown
Jul 28, 2004, 08:24 AM
I recently read that 25% of Qualcomm's royalties are now from UMTS and barely anyone uses it compared with GSM, so once it takes off the royalties are likely to be huge.

Yes and Qualcomm will be forced to accept it and not treat it like the redheaded stepchild like they do now. The GSM base is huge compared to IS-95 (CDMA) and once it's gets to over 50% they cannot deny it.

Lanbrown
Jul 28, 2004, 08:31 AM
Acctually it is, at least on UMTS. 3G has higher call capacity than GSM, so when many of the European carriers are criticised for paying so much for 3G lisenses, sometimes the argument is put forward that they where worth it for the extra call capacity alone (although to be honest I've never really had a problem placing calls on a GSM network).

Suuuuuure they do. Nokia has the 6630 (not released that supports UMTS) and that’s it for UMTS supported phones from them. Wow, look at the choice one has. While there are some 3G phones out there, the installed base is very limited. Even that Nokia phone will use the GSM network for calls and use the 3G portion for data. Down the road they will converge.

AmigoMac
Jul 28, 2004, 09:27 AM
3G is not tied to a specific spec/standard. UMTS is 3G; EV-DO is 3G. Since they are quite different, one needs to know which 3G someone is talking about. All GSM carriers will be offering UMTS, not EV-DO. Verizon and Sprint will offer EV-DO. How did US operators decide to stay with EV-D0 when UMTS is being offered in the US?

I never said GPRS/EDGE was 3G. CDMA is one step from AMPS as well. First generation was AMPS. Second generation was GSM, TDMA and CDMA. Third generation is UMTS and EV-DO, both of which use CDMA technology. GPRS/EDGE as well as 1XRTT are in between 2G and 3G.

You are the one that is confused.

Originally Posted by Lanbrown

3G GSM is called UMTS, which is CDMA. The CDMA providers in the US decided not to adopt what the GSM providers were going to use and continue to go their own way. This only means it costs them more money to buy equipment. Economies of scale are in favor of GSM. Even a 3G GSM build out uses GSM for the phone portion.


*Cough*

You started mixing concepts ;)

I will put it this way...

- When you say 3G GSM you meant 3GSM which is really 2.5 G

- I never read the post about 3G GSM = UMTS ;)

- UMTS uses WCDMA

- When I say UMTS is the european standard is because in Europe there is no CDMA2000 operator, I know that asia has 3G services as well but still divided into US & Europe ...

Lanbrown
Jul 28, 2004, 10:46 AM
Originally Posted by Lanbrown

3G GSM is called UMTS, which is CDMA. The CDMA providers in the US decided not to adopt what the GSM providers were going to use and continue to go their own way. This only means it costs them more money to buy equipment. Economies of scale are in favor of GSM. Even a 3G GSM build out uses GSM for the phone portion.


*Cough*

You started mixing concepts ;)

I will put it this way...

- When you say 3G GSM you meant 3GSM which is really 2.5 G

- I never read the post about 3G GSM = UMTS ;)

- UMTS uses WCDMA

- When I say UMTS is the european standard is because in Europe there is no CDMA2000 operator, I know that asia has 3G services as well but still divided into US & Europe ...

I never mixed anything. I think you are cofused when someone says CDMA that you think they are the same.

Who in Europe is using CDMA2000? You say it's still divided.

Direct from the GSM Association:
"3GSM represents third generation services delivered on an evolved core GSM network. 3GSM services are delivered at a technical level on third generation standards developed by 3GPP, which utilise air interfaces for W-CDMA and, in some specified markets, EDGE."

notmyname21
Jul 28, 2004, 11:17 AM
You know what this also means?

The excellent possibilty of an iPod PDA or a Newton, or something of that sort... if Apple developes iTunes for a cell phone, imagine what they could do with it for their own (future) products!

iPhone, welcome to planet Jobs.

I've been waiting for an Apple cell-phone. And this might be the first step towards the iPhone, or iMove in the PDA case.

ClimbingTheLog
Jul 28, 2004, 11:25 AM
Wrong (http://geckobeach.com/cellular/intro/unlocking.asp). It's the handsets which are locked.

Go Google for 'default SIM PIN'.

SIM cards can have a PIN # and some providers set it and program the phone to automatically enter it.

You have to get the default PIN # from them to use the SIM in a different phone.

ClimbingTheLog
Jul 28, 2004, 11:39 AM
As stated above, the non US 3G standard is NOT the US (qualcomm) CDMA cell phone system thing, both are CDMA in it's real sense

Right, it doesn't matter who the vendor is, CDMA is the superior modulation. You get better coverage, lower cost, higher call density, better security and less interference than if you're using FDMA/TDMA.

You may very well be able to get GSM cell antennas for less than CDMA, I don't know, but if you have to put up 3x more cell sites it's going to cost more than if you just buy more expensive antennas to begin with.

Now if Motorola would just bring out the software-defined radio phones, like they promised last year, the issue would be largely moot.

Stella
Jul 28, 2004, 12:26 PM
Motorola phones are popular in north america. I didn't see one until I came to Canada, and really, the majority of them SUCK. They are very backwards compared to other manufacturers such as SE, Nokia, Siemens etc.

Again, its apple's short-sightedness, catering for the usa... if Apple had vision, they would be partnering with SE or Nokia which are popular worldwide.. Motorola phone are popular only in north america.



What pains me more is why they chose to work with Motorola? Who the hell has a Motorola phone?

rog
Jul 28, 2004, 12:37 PM
Seems pointless. Why wouldn't someone buying from iTMS just use their iPod? Does anyone go to iTMS if they don't have an iPod? How many songs can a phone hold anyway. I don't get it.

whooleytoo
Jul 28, 2004, 12:46 PM
Seems pointless. Why wouldn't someone buying from iTMS just use their iPod? Does anyone go to iTMS if they don't have an iPod? How many songs can a phone hold anyway. I don't get it.

While newer phones are as expensive (if not more so) as an iPod, in most of Apple's main markets the majority of people would already own a phone. Indeed, the number of current and future phone owners dwarf iPod sales, so it's a huge potential market.

Judging by Jobs' comments, he clearly feels iTunes on phones will complement rather than replace the iPods, but I think he may be underestimating the pace of change in the phone market. Certainly, it won't be too long before the high-end phones rival the iPod Minis' capacity.

There is already a very lucrative market among (mostly young) phone owners for ringtones - if the Motorola phones will allow the iTunes songs to be played as ringtones too, I think they may be onto a winner.

Lanbrown
Jul 28, 2004, 12:53 PM
Right, it doesn't matter who the vendor is, CDMA is the superior modulation. You get better coverage, lower cost, higher call density, better security and less interference than if you're using FDMA/TDMA.

You may very well be able to get GSM cell antennas for less than CDMA, I don't know, but if you have to put up 3x more cell sites it's going to cost more than if you just buy more expensive antennas to begin with.

Now if Motorola would just bring out the software-defined radio phones, like they promised last year, the issue would be largely moot.

Ummm, the frequency is the biggest part. In the US the cellular band (800MHz) provides better coverage then the PCS band (1900MHz). If you take a look at Sprint, they mainly have 1900MHz; Verizon has more in the cellular band then the PCS, but they both use the same CDMA technology. GSM is the same way; it can operate on both bands. Cellular provides much better distance and penetration then PCS does.

The antennae in the phone also plays a huge part.

AmigoMac
Jul 28, 2004, 01:00 PM
I never mixed anything. I think you are cofused when someone says CDMA that you think they are the same.

Who in Europe is using CDMA2000? You say it's still divided.

Direct from the GSM Association:
"3GSM represents third generation services delivered on an evolved core GSM network. 3GSM services are delivered at a technical level on third generation standards developed by 3GPP, which utilise air interfaces for W-CDMA and, in some specified markets, EDGE."

Read again, I said before, twice already, europe is by UMTS, no euro-operator has CDMA2000, about who is divided, go back some posts, I said ASIA ;)

About the quote from the GSM Association:

Do not mix 3G services with 3G platform ... far different things, "On GSM core" still 2G, known as 2.5G and as someone said before 2.75 G as well

MMS is a 3G service, but because I use MMS doesn't mean my phone is a 3G one

nsb3000
Jul 28, 2004, 01:35 PM
Apple announced today (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jul/26motorola.html) that Motorola and Apple are partnering to bring iTunes Music Player to next-generation Motorola phones.



This represents the first officially supported use of Protected AAC iTunes on 3rd party hardware.

It is about time...

ftaok
Jul 28, 2004, 03:23 PM
Seems pointless. Why wouldn't someone buying from iTMS just use their iPod? Does anyone go to iTMS if they don't have an iPod? How many songs can a phone hold anyway. I don't get it.
Of course there are people who buy from iTMS and do not have iPods. I'm one of them. I'm sure there are many others.

I like iTMS because I've been burned too many times when buying a $13 CD with only 1 or 2 good songs. iTMS allows me to buy the songs I like and burn them onto CDs for my car and home stereo. After all, iTunes did exist long before the iPod.

I'll probably end up upgrading my cell phone long before I get an iPod. Being able to use my cell phone as a poor man's iPod would be great.

Chip NoVaMac
Jul 28, 2004, 05:33 PM
Of course there are people who buy from iTMS and do not have iPods. I'm one of them. I'm sure there are many others.

I like iTMS because I've been burned too many times when buying a $13 CD with only 1 or 2 good songs. iTMS allows me to buy the songs I like and burn them onto CDs for my car and home stereo. After all, iTunes did exist long before the iPod.

I'll probably end up upgrading my cell phone long before I get an iPod. Being able to use my cell phone as a poor man's iPod would be great.

i agree, I am more likely to use my PB than I am the iPod....

Stella
Jul 28, 2004, 09:25 PM
Seems pointless. Why wouldn't someone buying from iTMS just use their iPod? Does anyone go to iTMS if they don't have an iPod? How many songs can a phone hold anyway. I don't get it.

Short sightedness.

More people have cell phones than iPods.
If a person didn't have an iPod but wanted to download music and had the ability to use their cellphone they would.

The new SonyEricsson P910 can use 1Gig memory sticks... just one example... Cellphones can hold more memory than you may think ( that is, if Apple make a SE (Symbian) version of iTunes).

I expect many people who don't have an iPod use iTMS regardless.

macridah
Jul 29, 2004, 12:29 AM
I was going to give up on my motorola v60, but I'll wait for these new phones. It also better have iSync capabilities.

Philsy
Jul 29, 2004, 03:15 AM
Seems pointless. Why wouldn't someone buying from iTMS just use their iPod? Does anyone go to iTMS if they don't have an iPod? How many songs can a phone hold anyway. I don't get it.

I assume that these phones will have a mini version of iTunes Music Store software, thus allowing you to download tracks immediately without going via your computer. The iPod can't do that. This would make the phones immediately attractive to kids, especially if the download fee could be debited from the phone account. The same kids aren't going to be worried about storage capacity - pop music to them is disposable.

jared_kipe
Jul 31, 2004, 03:00 PM
I used to have a high-end MOTO phone, but it wasn't such a good phone. But this almost makes me want one.

jerk
Jul 31, 2004, 03:38 PM
Suuuuuure they do. Nokia has the 6630 (not released that supports UMTS) and that’s it for UMTS supported phones from them. Wow, look at the choice one has. While there are some 3G phones out there, the installed base is very limited. Even that Nokia phone will use the GSM network for calls and use the 3G portion for data. Down the road they will converge.

You have no idea what you are talking about, most major phone suppliers have had UMTS phones for months, even Nokia with it's 7600 for example.

And no, they WILL NOT send the phone call through the GSM network, it will use the UMTS network. They fallback to the GSM network, they are all dual mode UMTS/GSM (at least all I have seen), and of course the higher data speeds aren't available with the GSM network.

Just eat it - most of the world except US and Japan uses GSM (900 & 1800), and UMTS is growing on the very same markets.

jerk
Jul 31, 2004, 03:48 PM
Let's try it a different way. The equipment makers can make one piece of equipment and use it anywhere in the world, the frequencies just need to be changed. This allows more to be sold and thus their costs can be recouped much more quickly and thus, prices can be lower. Compare that to CDMA, which has a much smaller user base. Which equates to higher prices.

Now this is getting really confused - that is exactly what I said.

voodoofish
Aug 1, 2004, 04:59 PM
ohhh! and 3GSM is still 2G but with some 3G services, so it won't be more than 2.5 G ;)

See you still don't know what you're talking about.

From http://www.gsmworld.com/technology/3g/index.shtml -
"The technology on which 3GSM* services will be delivered is built around a core GSM network with a Wideband-CDMA (W-CDMA) air interface, which has been developed as an open standard by operators in conjunction with the 3GPP standards development organisation. Already over 85% of the world's network operators have chosen 3GSM's* underlying technology platform to deliver their third generation services. 3GSM* is a key element of GSM-The Wireless Evolution."

Loge
Aug 1, 2004, 05:15 PM
Makes a lot of sense for Apple. It's a completely different market segment to the ipod market. Also expect they will be used as ringtones, unprotected music files can already be used this way. The ringtone market will decline dramatically in the next few years as it becomes apparent it's about the most expensive way of purchasing music there is.

voodoofish
Aug 1, 2004, 05:57 PM
Suuuuuure they do. Nokia has the 6630 (not released that supports UMTS) and that’s it for UMTS supported phones from them. Wow, look at the choice one has. While there are some 3G phones out there, the installed base is very limited. Even that Nokia phone will use the GSM network for calls and use the 3G portion for data. Down the road they will converge.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Nokia also has the 6650 (nokia.com/phones/6650) and 7600 (nokia.com/phones/7600), both of which are currently available, and both of which I have used. They *both* will place calls over either GSM or UMTS (in fact I am doing it right now, you can tell that it's a UMTS connection because GPRS is still active; with GSM, GPRS is put on hold when you make calls, plus it says 3G in place of the normal network indictor shown on NOKIA phones.)

The network I am on does not have a GSM network!!!! If you look at the network carrier list of networks available in my house, you can see that 3 shows up as separate 3G and 2G networks - this is because the 2G network is actually O2, 3 rents airtime from their network so that you can still make calls when there is no 3G coverage. When I move out of 3G coverage, my call is dropped - this is because the call was made over a 3G connection, not a GSM one!!!!! Note how on Orange, the 2G and 3G signs are together - this is because it is one network but with both GSM and UMTS coverage. When there is no 3G coverage on Orange, the phone will not drop a 3G call but hand it over to the GSM network. This is not because the call was actually made over GSM, but simply because it is one network and UMTS was designed to integrate with existing GSM networks.


Think about it - there are no GSM networks in Japan, but there *are* UMTS networks - I can even use my phone on them (see http://www.three.co.uk/explore/coverage/intCountry.omp?cid=31510). If UMTS phones made voice calls on GSM networks and only used UMTS for data, how could anyone make voice calls on Vodafone Japan???????


Here is one of the many articles that gives the UMTS voice capacity argument that I cited - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/12/17/3g_is_coming_ready/

Here's the relevant bit, in case you stuggle to find it:

But what about the killer app? Maybe there doesn't need to be one, certainly so far as densely populated Europe is concerned. Here, the driving factor will "quite probably will be the need for more voice capacity to supplement the strained GSM
urban networks. While UMTS is often portrayed as
'expensive,' the reality of the situation is that the
hardware cost-per-voice channel is less than one-half the cost of GSM."




Here's some more: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/27/mobile_infrastructure_spending_to_rebound/

http://www.portel.de/news/view_redsys_artikel.asp?id=3969

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/35216.html (nice quote: "The specification delivers substantially enhanced capacity for voice... traffic")

voodoofish
Aug 1, 2004, 06:24 PM
MMS is a 3G service, but because I use MMS doesn't mean my phone is a 3G one

MMS is actually 'carrier independent' or something, which basically means that it doesn't require any particular network technology as such to function. This is why you can get MMS on CDMA networks even though it was originally introduced with GSM phones. The minimum you need for it though is 2.5G, so it is a bit confusing to call it a 3G service, which is why I would only call video calling a 3G service, but even that's wrong as there where video phones for GSM networks (they where chunky and had poor battery life so you've prolly never heard of them - you can see a picture of them here http://www.mobileshop.org/history/future.htm - note how it is written before UMTS networks have been built and is talking of the arrival of video phones - i think it uses HSCSD as Orange developed the phone, I think before GPRS was availble, and Orange is the only UK network with HSCSD (HSCSD was around ages before GPRS and works at 28.8kbps)), so really you shouldn't talk of 3G services.


Yeah, so to relate this back to the iTunes announcement, to provide iTMS downloads direct to mobiles would not require 3G as it is already being done with 2.5G GPRS, but these downloads are at more like 64kbps music quality than 128kbps, so in order for it to work you would really need to use 3G connections (or 2.75G EDGE, which runs at 236.8kbps, but I don't think it's really being deployed outside of the US - it prolly is in some asian markets, like Singapore, but these markets are going to be small as Asia as a whole is not that wealthy).

voodoofish
Aug 1, 2004, 06:47 PM
While newer phones are as expensive (if not more so) as an iPod, in most of Apple's main markets the majority of people would already own a phone. Indeed, the number of current and future phone owners dwarf iPod sales, so it's a huge potential market.

In the UK, and I think this is true for Europe as a whole, mobile phones tend to be given away free on 12 months contracts, and there is little to be gained by not taking one. You can save £60 a year by not getting a new phone, but when you could get a phone worth £300 for that £60 extra why would you not want to? (I talk in terms of years because when you buy a new contract phone you are usually tied to a 12month contract). You can even get Nokia smartphones free, and the very latest Nokia 1megapixel camera phone is likely to be free in a few months (nokia's previous smart phone is free). Nokia's new business phone, the 6230, which has removable memory cards and will play AAC files (though I don't think Apple's) is also free.

So yeah, basically what I'm saying is phones that already have the spec needed to run iTunes on them are already free in Europe on contract, and are likely to be reasonable on pay as you go by the time the MOTO-itunes phones are released, so price should not really be an issue here (from looking at the websites of mobile carriers in the US, it looks as though voiceminutes are alot cheaper in the US but the handsets much more expensive, even with two year contracts. That is why I am on Three even though it will drop calls when you move out of 3G coverage, because calls on it are 6 times cheaper than on the four original GSM networks).

voodoofish
Aug 2, 2004, 05:39 PM
It's also interesting to note Nokia have been selling phones capable of playing AAC since 2001 (http://www.nokia.com/phones/5510) and DRM has been available on phones for years, dating back to when they introduced monophonic ringtone sending over SMS which sparked off the whole ringtone industry. So in many ways, this announcement is rather insignificant - the only thing that makes it noteworthy is that fact that Apple is actually working with a third party company.

I find it particularly poor that you cannot buy songs over the air, as many people have phones that don't have a computer, and since operators decide the subsidy given to handsets it makes sense to keep them on your side (It is worth noting that in the UK alone there are three carriers that already have their own over-the-air music download service, and one carrier over which you can stream music videos, so a this the iTunes-Moto store is already using out of date technology half a year before it's even launched!!).

Loge
Aug 3, 2004, 02:07 AM
I find it particularly poor that you cannot buy songs over the air, as many people have phones that don't have a computer, and since operators decide the subsidy given to handsets it makes sense to keep them on your side (It is worth noting that in the UK alone there are three carriers that already have their own over-the-air music download service, and one carrier over which you can stream music videos, so a this the iTunes-Moto store is already using out of date technology half a year before it's even launched!!).

This doesn't mean mobile operators can't sell over the air; just that I can buy a song in one place (iTMS), using my broadband connection, and then use it another (my mobile phone), rather than having to pay for the same song twice.

Of course, the mobile operators may not like it because they are left out of the value chain. And the bundling of handsets with contracts will not last forever, once people realise how uncompetitive it is.

markie
Aug 11, 2004, 01:26 AM
Wow, Apple partnered with a BAD cell phone vendor. Motorola's are a phone I'd definitely avoid, at least their CDMA phones. Their reception isn't as good in my experience as, oh, just about anything else. My Lg VX4400's the best reception I've seen, my Kyocera Slider is darn good too and my Nokia 3585i was also well above average. Most LG's and Nokia's are really good. Most Kyocera's are okay (the Slider's well above their norm). Most Moto's are poor performers, in my humble opinion. Of course, it all varies depending on network type, network infrastructure vendor, etc. Moto's might be the best on some networks. But for me, it woulda been nice if Apple had partnered with LG or somebody!

gilfrishman
Aug 11, 2004, 01:52 PM
I sure hope Apple and Motorola will get together on Bluetooth before this happens - or we'll all need to buy a $30 USB cable from Motorola since that is the only way for Macs and Motorola cells to communicate currently.

I find the inability of my Macs to use Bluetooth to sync with my V600 Motorola cell quite silly.

voodoofish
Sep 3, 2004, 05:00 PM
This doesn't mean mobile operators can't sell over the air; just that I can buy a song in one place (iTMS), using my broadband connection, and then use it another (my mobile phone), rather than having to pay for the same song twice.

Of course, the mobile operators may not like it because they are left out of the value chain. And the bundling of handsets with contracts will not last forever, once people realise how uncompetitive it is.

But you wouldn't have to pay for it twice - once you've downloaded it to your phone, you could sync it back onto your PC. I mean, if you had an iPod with you, you wouldn't really use iTunes on your mobile, and if you don't have an iPod with you then your phone won't be able to hold very many tunes (even 512MB memory cards aren't that big compared to iPods and cost more than many phones anyway!). Therefore, once you're bored of the tunes you have with you, it would be tempting to buy a tune whilst on the go.

I agree handset subsidy will probably stop eventually - for example, easyMobile is trying to launch which would be sold on a SIM only basis (easy is a brand of cheap companies which started with easyJet, a successful budget airline. I say trying because it still needs to get a physical network to agree to carry its calls). However Three, which is sold on cheap voice minutes *and* cheap handsets (like £150 for a £400 phone and 6000 voice minutes over a year) - has still only managed to get 1 million customers when the big four networks have 10-13 million each. The big four network's prices are similar and so people often tend to care more about which phone they're getting rather than which price plan when buying a new phone. I think the situation is similar in much of Europe, where there are even less than four big networks in many countries.

Tcnorman
Sep 4, 2004, 03:22 PM
I sure hope Apple and Motorola will get together on Bluetooth before this happens - or we'll all need to buy a $30 USB cable from Motorola since that is the only way for Macs and Motorola cells to communicate currently.

I find the inability of my Macs to use Bluetooth to sync with my V600 Motorola cell quite silly.

They said that they will be offering both the usb cables and bluetooth connections. Im thinking that it will work.

MacFan26
Sep 5, 2004, 04:01 AM
Either this is the iphone- (the lesbian sister of the ipod)
lesbian sister of the ipod? Where did that come from??

I think if this deal manages to take off, we'll see it in other brands. Which would be great, since I have Samsung. :)

edit: quote

Chip NoVaMac
Sep 5, 2004, 08:04 PM
lesbian sister of the ipod? Where did that come from??

I think if this deal manages to take off, we'll see it in other brands. Which would be great, since I have Samsung. :)

edit: quote

Maybe as much as the republican side of the iPod.... :D

wdlove
Sep 6, 2004, 10:49 AM
I was going to give up on my motorola v60, but I'll wait for these new phones. It also better have iSync capabilities.

My wife has a PowerBook. She currently is with Verizon for her cellphone service. She is interested in the Motorola, especially if Steve has it working with the Mac via Bluetooth and iSync.

CHess
Sep 11, 2004, 03:08 PM
Of course there are people who buy from iTMS and do not have iPods. I'm one of them. I'm sure there are many others.

I like iTMS because I've been burned too many times when buying a $13 CD with only 1 or 2 good songs. iTMS allows me to buy the songs I like and burn them onto CDs for my car and home stereo. After all, iTunes did exist long before the iPod.

I'll probably end up upgrading my cell phone long before I get an iPod. Being able to use my cell phone as a poor man's iPod would be great.

Yea, until recently, I purchased iTMS songs without an iPod. With a Powerbook with me wherever I went, I didn't really need an iPod. I ran iTunes and listened to my music collection through headphones while using my laptop. I could also burn mix CDs to take with me in my car.

However, I was finally bitten by the iPod bug a few weeks ago! I still have my laptop with me wherever I go, but I now have a mini too. :D

dross
Sep 13, 2004, 04:32 PM
Now if I could get it to work with my Treo 600 I would be realy excited.

lhvide@oceandev
Sep 14, 2004, 11:46 AM
i wonder if i'll ever be using apple's click wheel to dial a telephone number. how well would that work? just dreaming of new designs.

It looks like Nokia has copied the clcikwheel interface from the iPod. Nokia 7280 (http://nokia.com/nokia/0,,62356,00.html) The 7280 has no traditional alphanumeric buttons, only a clickwheel-type interface. All phone numbers are input through your computer and bluetoothed to the phone I presume?

whooleytoo
Sep 14, 2004, 09:06 PM
It looks like Nokia has copied the clcikwheel interface from the iPod. Nokia 7280 (http://nokia.com/nokia/0,,62356,00.html) The 7280 has no traditional alphanumeric buttons, only a clickwheel-type interface. All phone numbers are input through your computer and bluetoothed to the phone I presume?

Funny how they specifically mention the 7280's Mac compatibility, but no mention of Windows.