Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple iPhone Integration and a Media Device? (Patents)
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Analog Kid
macrumors G3
I think this site needs more users who talk about content and spend less time complaining about what goes on what page... It's not like there are so many posts that the good stuff is scrolling right off the bottom.Arcady said:
As far as the phone, I keep thinking someone needs to get past the everything in the phone model and towards the phone as a gateway to information you have elsewhere. .Mac integration would be a start, but I'd prefer to have direct access to my home Mac. Address book, iTunes, photos, etc.
I know Apple is pushing .Mac hard, but even as someone who has ponied up the $100 since it came online, I'm getting kind of tired of the tie-ins. I'd rather see it as an enhancement, not something else you need to make your iWeb purchase worthwhile.
I've got a Mac, I've got broadband and a static IP. I want the phone to be able to find my machine and make use of it. Granted, static IPs are becoming pretty uncommon for home users, but there are ways to link to dynamic IPs as well.
Spanky Deluxe
macrumors 603
An Apple phone would have to be simply revolutionary for me to bother buying it. There's no chance of me switching from Nokias any time soon, I've just been disappointed with everything else out there and I doubt Apple can do that much new! I'd like to believe in a cool phone product that would interest me enought to buy it but I doubt it'll happen. 🙁
cycocelica
macrumors 68000
weg
macrumors 6502a
Macrumors said:
How is it possible that Apple can get a patent for such a triviality?? Technically, all my Google Talk and Skype numbers are stored in a database, and I find it quite easy to make a call to those numbers...
EDIT: Oh, before somebody says "yeah, but Google Talk and Skype don't run on a cell phone":
Netgear Skype phone, Skype for Windows Mobile
Spanky Deluxe said:
You just copied this post from late 2001, replaced "mp3 player' with "phone", and "Creative/iRiver/Sony" with "Nokia", didn't you?
😉
Analog Kid
macrumors G3
To really know, you'd have to look at the claims. You'd be amazed how many trivial patents are issued. Most of the talk centers on the discussion (such as the Spotlight patent thread), but the only things protected are the claims.weg said:
The rest of the text in the patent can serve to show where a company plans to apply the innovation, though.
kskill
macrumors member
ezekielrage_99
macrumors 68040
Is this another one of those "iPhonies" going around the web again?
When I am using my G5 PowerBook and uploading videos to my Video iPod while chatting on my iPhone about how good the specs are on the Intel iBook then I'll believe it......
Until I see iPhone in an Apple store I wont be getting to excited.
When I am using my G5 PowerBook and uploading videos to my Video iPod while chatting on my iPhone about how good the specs are on the Intel iBook then I'll believe it......
Until I see iPhone in an Apple store I wont be getting to excited.
celebrian23
macrumors 65816
I guess for me the issue is, how is apple going to market such a phone to windows users? That's why the ipod didn't flop- it was compatible fully with both platforms. Tell me as a current windows user what this phone can do for me.
jimN
macrumors 6502a
Arcady said:
You're right, adding a 'page 3' would definitely increase traffic - sure all the UK residents will back me up on this one. Although having said that it normally only takes a couple of prime shots of macs with shells off to get the average forum poster's juices flowing!
For more information on third page stories check out The Sun newspaper - welcome to a world beyond apple.
jimN
macrumors 6502a
xUKHCx said:the picture is the really really old mock up of a sony ericsson (iirc) definately a fake. Just a youtube link to this picture
I quite like it! Very plain but not fiddly as a consequence (hate the flat buttons on the current motorolas). Plus the ubiquitous click-wheel. For me an apple phoen doesn't have to be a revolution, it just has to work (perfectly).
longofest
Editor emeritus
celebrian23 said:
possible Apple marketing:
*It will play your iTunes, and WELL (not like previous attempts with MOTO)
*It will probably sync with Outlook on PC, but they might add that functionality after they launch (serve macs first)
*It will be sexy, and you will drool over it
*It is Apple, therefore you will want it
Some of those you may think are ridiculous, but remember that Apple right now has huge brand weight that it can throw. Apple is basically synonymous with "cool", so unless they intro something that is completely stupid, they will get a good response.
MrCrowbar
macrumors 68020
I'd love to have an apple phone. Although I am a technocrat, I don't like modern phones because of their inteface. I love the old nokias for the simple menus, but the newer models tend to have a much too complicated interface (for a phone).
Apple has always managed to make great and simple intefraces for complex mashines. If there wasn't text messagong and writing notes into a calendar, a clickwheel would be perfect for dialing (like the old phones you see in retirement castles with dialing wheels). With a touchscreen however, possibilities are endless, especially when it has multitouch (you could type with 2 thumbs like most advanced cell phone users do). I'd love a full screen iPod with some kind of front row on it (replace DVD by Phone in the main menu). AutoSync with iCal, iTunes, iCal, iPhoto and AdressBook would make it perfect.
Apple has always managed to make great and simple intefraces for complex mashines. If there wasn't text messagong and writing notes into a calendar, a clickwheel would be perfect for dialing (like the old phones you see in retirement castles with dialing wheels). With a touchscreen however, possibilities are endless, especially when it has multitouch (you could type with 2 thumbs like most advanced cell phone users do). I'd love a full screen iPod with some kind of front row on it (replace DVD by Phone in the main menu). AutoSync with iCal, iTunes, iCal, iPhoto and AdressBook would make it perfect.
Not gonna happen...again
Please, guys...let's put this rumor to rest...an Apple iPhone is probably the thing Apple is LEAST interested in...the market IS saturated, margins are low as hell...
Besides, Apple has stated that it has little to add in terms of features/offers...
A mobile phone with iTunes and click wheel? Possible...but foolish anyway.
Please file this under "loss-making projects", will ya?
Please, guys...let's put this rumor to rest...an Apple iPhone is probably the thing Apple is LEAST interested in...the market IS saturated, margins are low as hell...
Besides, Apple has stated that it has little to add in terms of features/offers...
A mobile phone with iTunes and click wheel? Possible...but foolish anyway.
Please file this under "loss-making projects", will ya?
patent details
Looking at the patent, all that's novel is that the remote device is handheld. There's certainly prior art for that, as handheld tablets have been used for that prior to 2002. Being able to attack at least some of the claims is certainly doable but that's not what a company wants to do. Companies what to deny infringement, not deny validity. It will be really difficult to deny infringment on claim 1, but really easy to invalidate it.
Accessing databases from a phone is doable today in a variety of forms. That's what data access was originally used for after all. Pocket Express is a clear example. You can look up phone numbers and addresses, 1-click add them to your address book, 1-click call them, and 1-click map them. This sort of thing is commonplace but, of course, that's all the better for the patenter. The goal is to obtain a broad patent on the obvious. Apple has appeared to have accomplished just this.
What Apple intends to offer to the market is not revealed in this patent. Perhaps access to your address book kept online. That would be nice, but considering it's a subscription service why wouldn't I pay $25 a year to have access to the entire phone directory instead? Maybe they'll offer that too. At any rate, Apple could offer this through existing smartphones. They don't need their own phone to do it. If Apple does indeed introduce a phone that they differentiate in this manner, it would be par for the course for them. Nothing other than a potentially interesting take on existing ideas coupled with hardware lockin. Apple is likely to offer more than this, or at least I hope so.
Looking at the patent, all that's novel is that the remote device is handheld. There's certainly prior art for that, as handheld tablets have been used for that prior to 2002. Being able to attack at least some of the claims is certainly doable but that's not what a company wants to do. Companies what to deny infringement, not deny validity. It will be really difficult to deny infringment on claim 1, but really easy to invalidate it.
Accessing databases from a phone is doable today in a variety of forms. That's what data access was originally used for after all. Pocket Express is a clear example. You can look up phone numbers and addresses, 1-click add them to your address book, 1-click call them, and 1-click map them. This sort of thing is commonplace but, of course, that's all the better for the patenter. The goal is to obtain a broad patent on the obvious. Apple has appeared to have accomplished just this.
What Apple intends to offer to the market is not revealed in this patent. Perhaps access to your address book kept online. That would be nice, but considering it's a subscription service why wouldn't I pay $25 a year to have access to the entire phone directory instead? Maybe they'll offer that too. At any rate, Apple could offer this through existing smartphones. They don't need their own phone to do it. If Apple does indeed introduce a phone that they differentiate in this manner, it would be par for the course for them. Nothing other than a potentially interesting take on existing ideas coupled with hardware lockin. Apple is likely to offer more than this, or at least I hope so.
whooleytoo
macrumors 604
To be honest, I'd quite happily shell out for a new phone if it had the feature set of existing phones (3G, Bluetooth, camera etc., easy to use UI) PLUS one feature - speed. The sluggishness of phone UIs really bugs the hell out of me.
Fotek2001 said:
Well, the problem with an iPhone in Japan is above all else a problem of service and context. Service, in that here you can get a phone for free and pay special rates based on family, lover, schoolchildren, etc payment plans. Phones come with cameras and other funky features like TV, IM-like free chat, email, Java and Brew games, Internet service, GPS, international service, and every other gimmick. Contextually, even if Apple could provide the service, it is expected to come in a phone that is small...none of this gigantic keyboard-sporting two-handers, no bulky brick-like models. There was a photo of an American cell phone here recently, something about it being thin or whatever...here, the context is that there are already all sorts of phones, which necessarily must be small and yet often packed with features - a messy art that has been perfectly imperfected. Or imperfectly perfected.
Notably, one company (Tu-ka) played smart and made a simple cell phone for older people and anybody who wants to cut the crap (hey, I rarely use most of those bells and whistles anyway)...Tu-ka scored on that one. Apple cannot beat Tu-ka's simplicity, assuming they include features beyond a mobile phone. If they go beyond, they need email, cell mail, and a camera, along with tunes, and a color screen. Then they need a keypad that will allow for Japanese character input, which is impossible to make easier (50 phonetic letters + conversion dictionary + converion method all in about, 10 keys = chaotic finger exercises). If they could make a serious and easy to use fancy iPhone, great, but then try to sell it with the competing forerunners that have essentially done a fairly good job of it already, and you get a country the iPhone won't enter. Maybe if it were as thin as the Nano when folded shut, in other words, so extremely great a design that it will make ripples and open new doors, but otherwise, even Mac users will think twice before buying.
Apple is doing an ORB type service
The first time I used ORB to stream my home music collection to my phone, I thought, "Why do I need an iPod with a hard drive any more?" Anybody who has used that can see the future. If you can stream your home music (and perfect video btw) to a device anywhere you can get cellular service, the device can be even smaller and can theoretically "hold" infinite amounts of data. If you haven't checked out ORB, do so to see what I mean (it's free!). This wouldn't really kill the iPod either as there are tons of times you wouldn't be in a service area or would want instantaneous access. Even better reason to integrate it into a phone, thus the iPhone rumors.
If Apple comes out with a phone and doesn't have this functionality built in, they're idiots.
The first time I used ORB to stream my home music collection to my phone, I thought, "Why do I need an iPod with a hard drive any more?" Anybody who has used that can see the future. If you can stream your home music (and perfect video btw) to a device anywhere you can get cellular service, the device can be even smaller and can theoretically "hold" infinite amounts of data. If you haven't checked out ORB, do so to see what I mean (it's free!). This wouldn't really kill the iPod either as there are tons of times you wouldn't be in a service area or would want instantaneous access. Even better reason to integrate it into a phone, thus the iPhone rumors.
If Apple comes out with a phone and doesn't have this functionality built in, they're idiots.