Apple's iPhone to wirelessly stream YouTube content

[AppleInsider]

Apple said Wednesday that its eagerly awaited iPhone will allow users to enjoy YouTube’s originally-created content when it begins shipping on June 29.

A new Apple-designed application on iPhone will wirelessly stream YouTube’s content to iPhone over Wi-Fi or EDGE networks and play it on the devices 3.5 inch display, the Cupertino-based company said in a statement.

To achieve higher video quality and longer battery life on mobile devices, YouTube has begun encoding their videos in the advanced H.264 format, and iPhone will be the first mobile device to use the H.264-encoded videos.

“iPhone delivers the best YouTube mobile experience by far,” said Apple chief executive Steve Jobs. “Now users can enjoy YouTube wherever they are—on their iPhone, on their Mac or on a widescreen TV in their living room with Apple TV.”

Over 10,000 videos will be available on June 29, and YouTube will be adding more each week until their full catalog of videos is available in the H.264 format this fall.

iPhone will include the Apple-designed YouTube application when it goes on sale in the US on June 29. The Apple handset will be available in a 4GB model for $499 (US) and an 8GB model for $599 (US) through Apple’s retail and online stores, and through AT&T’s retail stores.



YouTube now on Apple TV

Apple also said Wednesday that YouTube is now live on Apple TV. Owners of the $299 streaming media hub can download the free update via the device's built-in software update feature located under the "Settings" menu.

AppleInsider has published a photo gallery of the update process. [ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2881)

[solipsism]

Excellent!

Now we need savvy developers to create a program that will grab (from your home Mac) newly downloaded videos from your torrents, split the files into 10 minute segments, upload to YouTube and make it private for personal viewing on your iPhone.

Or, send an specialized email to your home Mac that will auto grab a previously saved video and do exactly what I specified above.


PS: And before anyone thinks this could be a last minute decision by Apple, if you recall that extra icon I mentioned after the new commercials came out, well, it looks like we now have the answer.

[nvidia2008]

Dumb question, when I try to update my AppleTV using the remote and wirelessly connected to the Intarweb, I can't see any YouTube stuff. :???: ...Trailers and stuff okay, no YouTube :(

[macfly]

so how does one search for content on the apple TV?
does this mean you can now plug in a keyboard and type ?
or is it just somehow browsing?

[Atlas]

This makes me even more excited about the iPhone. Now I can carry less videos on my phone and more music ^_^

[AWAL]

soo when's the AppleTV YouTube update coming?

[sandau]

soo when's the AppleTV YouTube update coming?

its here. turn on your apple tv and go update the software in the settings.

[anantksundaram]

W.O.W.

This is truly big. Throw in Skype too at some point..... please!?

[BlackSummerNight]

Why in the name of all that's sane is this something to be excited about. If I have a WiFi enabled phone, with a so called "FULL Browser", and with Youtube support, why wouldn't I be able to stream video.

[jido]

Please correct:
Apple said Wednesday that its eagerly awaited iPhone
Thanks!

Edit: correction done :-)

[eAi]

You can see what Apple are doing here - they're releasing features and press releases every few days to keep the iPhone in the news... Clever :)

[BlackSummerNight]

You should be able to use Skype soon. Someone will write Skype for iPhone soon. REAL SOON.
W.O.W.

This is truly big. Throw in Skype too at some point..... please!?

[solsun]

Dumb question, when I try to update my AppleTV using the remote and wirelessly connected to the Intarweb, I can't see any YouTube stuff. :???: ...Trailers and stuff okay, no YouTube :(


Same thing here.. The update didn't work.. After downloading, Apple TV restarted but is still running software version 1.0. I'm trying it a second time now.

[jdmlight]

Why in the name of all that's sane is this something to be excited about. If I have a WiFi enabled phone, with a so called "FULL Browser", and with Youtube support, why wouldn't I be able to stream video.
Because if YouTube hadn't started converting their videos to H.264, they would still be in Flash format - which the iPhone can't play. Plus, I'm sure a dedicated application designed for a small screen is easier to use than a website designed for a bigger screen.

[allstaruk]

Please correct:

Thanks!

There's no spelling mistake here.

[artse]

Same thing here.. The update didn't work.. After downloading, Apple TV restarted but is still running software version 1.0. I'm trying it a second time now.

There's 2 steps: After the download, did you select Update... I don't remember the exact words.

[BlackSummerNight]

**SLAPS FOREHEAD** I forgot about the no flash support.
Because if YouTube hadn't started converting their videos to H.264, they would still be in Flash format - which the iPhone can't play. Plus, I'm sure a dedicated application designed for a small screen is easier to use than a website designed for a bigger screen.

[allstaruk]

Oh - apologies...

[JeffDM]

There's no spelling mistake here.

I was puzzled too, but that is because the poster corrected it. The part in the story is wrong. Here is the part in the story:

Apple said Wednesday that it's eagerly awaited iPhone

[solsun]

There's 2 steps: After the download, did you select Update... I don't remember the exact words.


Yes, I did both steps... The exact words were "update now" or "update later."

However, after repeating the whole process a second time, it is now working... The servers are probably just overloaded.

[caliminius]

Because if YouTube hadn't started converting their videos to H.264, they would still be in Flash format - which the iPhone can't play. Plus, I'm sure a dedicated application designed for a small screen is easier to use than a website designed for a bigger screen.

I might too generous in my interpretation, buy I think he was more getting at the idea that Apple is claiming the iPhone provides the "full web" experience yet doesn't (as fas as is known) support Flash. At work, Flash isn't installed and I've stumbled upon numerous sites that don't function fully without it. Likewise, at home on my Mac, I've stumbled upon numerous sites that don't play well with Safari. Put those two together and you're going to have a less than stellar web experience on the iPhone.

Note to Apple: Why don't you quit wasting time helping YouTube re-encode their videos, and instead spend time re-encoding the iTunes Store video content in 720p so there's a reason to actually buy the AppleTV?

[joeYYY]

So this is the mysterious 12th iPhone app that folks were talking about after analyzing one of the iPhone adds. Am I right?

Its intersting that this app was also introduced for AppleTV. I wouldn't be surprised that in most cases an app written for one produce could work on the other.

Who knows maybe the next app will be a mobile ITNS (or for AppleTV the ability to buy directly from ITNS).

[artse]

Note to Apple: Why don't you quit wasting time helping YouTube re-encode their videos, and instead spend time re-encoding the iTunes Store video content in 720p so there's a reason to actually buy the AppleTV?

Amen! :rolleyes:

[BlackSummerNight]

They should have a way to download directly from iTunes music store to the phone.

[solsun]

Note to Apple: Why don't you quit wasting time helping YouTube re-encode their videos, and instead spend time re-encoding the iTunes Store video content in 720p so there's a reason to actually buy the AppleTV?


The problem is not Apple not wanting to upgrade the content, the problem is reaching an agreement with the content providers (ie the tv networks and Hollywood studios) which will allow them to sell HD content.. Apple doesn't own the content in the iTunes store, they are licensing it. Licensing HD content is a whole different deal.

[BlackSummerNight]

None of the games from aol.com ( which has some great poker games) work with my Mac.
I might too generous in my interpretation, buy I think he was more getting at the idea that Apple is claiming the iPhone provides the "full web" experience yet doesn't (as fas as is known) support Flash. At work, Flash isn't installed and I've stumbled upon numerous sites that don't function fully without it. Likewise, at home on my Mac, I've stumbled upon numerous sites that don't play well with Safari. Put those two together and you're going to have a less than stellar web experience on the iPhone.

Note to Apple: Why don't you quit wasting time helping YouTube re-encode their videos, and instead spend time re-encoding the iTunes Store video content in 720p so there's a reason to actually buy the AppleTV?

[anantksundaram]

I might too generous in my interpretation, buy I think he was more getting at the idea that Apple is claiming the iPhone provides the "full web" experience yet doesn't (as fas as is known) support Flash. At work, Flash isn't installed and I've stumbled upon numerous sites that don't function fully without it. Likewise, at home on my Mac, I've stumbled upon numerous sites that don't play well with Safari. Put those two together and you're going to have a less than stellar web experience on the iPhone.

Note to Apple: Why don't you quit wasting time helping YouTube re-encode their videos, and instead spend time re-encoding the iTunes Store video content in 720p so there's a reason to actually buy the AppleTV?

The fact that it would be less than 100% fully-functional web is something I can expect and live with, given the size of the device (since, even if it was 100%,the screen size would naturally limit the overall quality of the navigation experience). That said, I agree with you about 720p. I would buy @TV in a jiffy.

And, why don't they just enable Flash and be done with it!?

[Bacillus]

Bandwidth and data transfer cost…that is the question. Sounds good, but w/ an expensive data plan, where MB’s are metered at a specific rate, then this can become rather expensive.

I’m not up on the latest plans of ATT, but I would think you are given X amount of MB’s and are changed for use thereafter.

[BlackSummerNight]

They have various plans ranging from 1Meg 5Meg to....Unlimited. I know it's a .01 charge per k if you go over you limited amount.
Bandwidth and data transfer cost…that is the question. Sounds good, but w/ an expensive data plan, where MB’s are metered at a specific rate, then this can become rather expensive.

I’m not up on the latest plans of ATT, but I would think you are given X amount of MB’s and are changed for use thereafter.

[mstone]

And, why don't they just enable Flash and be done with it!?
I know, it makes no sense to me either. If you are going to say "it's not kind of sort of the Internet. It is the Internet" then it has to support Flash. Otherwise it is just kind of sort of...

Simply reencoding the video does not replace Flash. Authoring in Quicktime is not quite the same as Flash when it comes to buttons and menus the way You Tube currently works in a regular browser.

[caliminius]

The problem is not Apple not wanting to upgrade the content, the problem is reaching an agreement with the content providers (ie the tv networks and Hollywood studios) which will allow them to sell HD content.. Apple doesn't own the content in the iTunes store, they are licensing it. Licensing HD content is a whole different deal.

I believe much of the content (at least TV shows) available on iTunes is already available at 720p on XBox Live. I don't have an XBox 360 to know how much content is available in HD there, but it seems pretty clear the networks are willing to sell HD content online (unless MS entered into an exclusive deal for the HD content, but I can't really imagine the networks going for that).

And while I'm creating a wish list, I wish Apple would start a Complete My Season system like the Complete My Album feature.

[CRHain88]

So, apple added new demos to their website about iPhone. Did anyone else notice that the eMail app says something to the affect of "Sent from my iPhone." I'm wondering if this is a default tag, like yahoo puts on every message, or if it is just a removable signature?

Now, that's not going to stop me from getting a phone, but I'd be disappointed if I can't remove that, only because I HATE tag-lines in eMail messages.

I'm also not happy about the YouTube icon. It seems like an eye sore next to the modern, colorful icons, and then you have a 60s looking TV? Both youTube and Notes looks like they don't belong. Ahh well? Like I said, that won't stop me from buying the phone

[melgross]

**SLAPS FOREHEAD** I forgot about the no flash support.

It isn't just flash.

With H.264 encoding, the video's will download much more quickly. If you have to wait for a couple of minutes before play begins, particularly for the iPhone, then you won't bother.

Now that we see the iPhone's capability with this, the H.264 makes more sense. It wasn't really needed for the ATv, but with EDGE, it's required.

[melgross]

I might too generous in my interpretation, buy I think he was more getting at the idea that Apple is claiming the iPhone provides the "full web" experience yet doesn't (as fas as is known) support Flash. At work, Flash isn't installed and I've stumbled upon numerous sites that don't function fully without it. Likewise, at home on my Mac, I've stumbled upon numerous sites that don't play well with Safari. Put those two together and you're going to have a less than stellar web experience on the iPhone.

Note to Apple: Why don't you quit wasting time helping YouTube re-encode their videos, and instead spend time re-encoding the iTunes Store video content in 720p so there's a reason to actually buy the AppleTV?

Apple isn't helping YouTube.

720p will come when Apple thinks there is a big enough market for it, and the studios concur.

[melgross]

They should have a way to download directly from iTunes music store to the phone.

Jobs already explained why Apple won't be doing that. Why don't you respond to what he said?

Also, do you really want to download a 4 MB song at a max (theoretical, but actually about half that) of 80 Kb/s?

At a "real" download speed of 40kb/s that would take about 13 minutes 20 seconds. A VERY enjoyable experience.

I really don't think that any sane person would.

[MacGregor]

The problem is not Apple not wanting to upgrade the content, the problem is reaching an agreement with the content providers (ie the tv networks and Hollywood studios) which will allow them to sell HD content.. Apple doesn't own the content in the iTunes store, they are licensing it. Licensing HD content is a whole different deal.

Exactly, both Apple and ISP's want you downloading as much as possible so that you pay more. It is the content providers that put the brakes on this.

[BRussell]

Exactly, both Apple and ISP's want you downloading as much as possible so that you pay more. It is the content providers that put the brakes on this. Hmm? How do you pay more to Apple or to ISPs by downloading more? I don't think content providers are limiting Apple's movie/TV resolution. If they have the HD versions, I'm sure they'd let Apple sell them.

[TenoBell]

Here is an explanation as to the problem with Flash on the iPhone.

The last thought I had was about the lack of Flash on the handset. I’ve done a lot of work with Flash on the desktop lately on Windows and I have to say that despite Adobe’s efforts to modernize their infrastructure, Flash is still a very primitive technology with strong roots in education CD-ROMs on Mac OS 9 — they’ve made tremendous strides in terms of rapid application development and deployment, but I don’t think performance or reliability has ever really been on Adobe’s radar with this product.

Some of the problems I’ve encountered include random crashes on shutdown, enormous memory leaks in the runtime (a leak in something that draws at 24fps is a huge issue!) — not to mention Flash’s notoriously awful performance. On the application side, many Flash applications (no naming names) written to run in Flash in a browser just don’t care about performance or resource utilization because most web applications have a process lifetime of a page view, or about 10 seconds. Finally, in a mobile context, consider the effect that Flash’s inefficient programming model will have on battery life. The last thing to remember is that the Flash runtime’s performance is about 4-20x worse on Mac OS X than it is on Windows — I bet Apple evaluated its options and decided it didn’t want to have its browser experience marred by Adobe’s lack of focus. You can also bet that with all the crazy user-space scaling tricks that iPhoneSafari does, Flash wouldn’t work.

This isn’t to say that Flash on the handset wouldn’t be useful, but if you consider the use cases it’s really not as big a deal as you might think.

http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/06/13/iphone-sdk/

[BlackSummerNight]

What are you talkin about 80K, do you live in a 3rd world country. On my el'cheapo DSL connection I get 3M (2.75M) downloads. I'm 100% sure you're talking about dl'ing over the Edge service, but I'm not. It has Wifi built in, why not put it into good use. I have no idea what SJ said about not allowing iTunes downloads, but I'm sure it was a bullshit reason.
Jobs already explained why Apple won't be doing that. Why don't you respond to what he said?

Also, do you really want to download a 4 MB song at a max (theoretical, but actually about half that) of 80 Kb/s?

At a "real" download speed of 40kb/s that would take about 13 minutes 20 seconds. A VERY enjoyable experience.

I really don't think that any sane person would.

[melgross]

Hmm? How do you pay more to Apple or to ISPs by downloading more? I don't think content providers are limiting Apple's movie/TV resolution. If they have the HD versions, I'm sure they'd let Apple sell them.

It isn't whether they would LET them sell them.

It under what conditions they would let them sell them.

I'm sure that every studio would LET Apple sell their movies, but so far, they haven't.

Why? Money.

Apple isn't exactly known for its cooperation.

Even though Apple now sells movies for less, people here still complain that it's too high.

What would the studios want for 720p content then?

[melgross]

Here is an explanation as to the problem with Flash on the iPhone.

The last thought I had was about the lack of Flash on the handset. I’ve done a lot of work with Flash on the desktop lately on Windows and I have to say that despite Adobe’s efforts to modernize their infrastructure, Flash is still a very primitive technology with strong roots in education CD-ROMs on Mac OS 9 — they’ve made tremendous strides in terms of rapid application development and deployment, but I don’t think performance or reliability has ever really been on Adobe’s radar with this product.

Some of the problems I’ve encountered include random crashes on shutdown, enormous memory leaks in the runtime (a leak in something that draws at 24fps is a huge issue!) — not to mention Flash’s notoriously awful performance. On the application side, many Flash applications (no naming names) written to run in Flash in a browser just don’t care about performance or resource utilization because most web applications have a process lifetime of a page view, or about 10 seconds. Finally, in a mobile context, consider the effect that Flash’s inefficient programming model will have on battery life. The last thing to remember is that the Flash runtime’s performance is about 4-20x worse on Mac OS X than it is on Windows — I bet Apple evaluated its options and decided it didn’t want to have its browser experience marred by Adobe’s lack of focus. You can also bet that with all the crazy user-space scaling tricks that iPhoneSafari does, Flash wouldn’t work.

This isn’t to say that Flash on the handset wouldn’t be useful, but if you consider the use cases it’s really not as big a deal as you might think.

http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/06/13/iphone-sdk/

Despite that, flash is still the most important standard on the web for the purpose it has.

Apple could, and should have, solved this problem by buying Macromedia when they put themselves up for sale, instead of letting it go to Adobe.

[mstone]

Flash runtime’s performance is about 4-20x worse on Mac OS X than it is on Windows — I bet Apple evaluated its options and decided it didn’t want to have its browser experience marred by Adobe’s lack of focus. You can also bet that with all the crazy user-space scaling tricks that iPhoneSafari does, Flash wouldn’t work.

Maybe MS will port SilverLight to iPhone so we can have at least some application environment for multimedia other than AJAX

[TenoBell]

Selling iTS directly to the device also breaks the relationship with the computer managing and storing the content. Distributing content to the device for viewing or listening.

[melgross]

What are you talkin about 80K, do you live in a 3rd world country. On my el'cheapo DSL connection I get 3M (2.75M) downloads. I'm 100% sure you're talking about dl'ing over the Edge service, but I'm not. It has Wifi built in, why not put it into good use. I have no idea what SJ said about not allowing iTunes downloads, but I'm sure it was a bullshit reason.

Where does your brain live?

Haven't you been reading all about what the iPhone can, and can't do?

Have you been sleeping throughout the entire six months of everyone else knowing that the iPhone only can use ATT's EDGE network, which until now, only worked up to 40Kb/s, and that is quickly being upgraded to run at 80kB/s, which will actually just be an effective 40Kb/s?

Haven't you seen all the articles just here on Ai about this?

Haven't you seen all of the arguing about how all of us think this sucks?

WiFi is a joke.

Haven't you been seeing all of the talk about the lack of 3G?

No, I guess not.

[TenoBell]

Despite that, flash is still the most important standard on the web for the purpose it has.

In one way it may not be missed since most phones cannot display flash. Many websites use flash in really annoying ways. So it may not be so bad.

This may push Adobe to improve Flash, especially if the iPhone is a big seller. YouTube switching to .H264 is a big coupe for the format. I can only see this improving things all around.

[TenoBell]

WiFi is a joke.

In comparison to what?

[BlackSummerNight]

http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
Go read the Tech Specs. Who needs 3G when there is Wifi. WTF you mean Wifi is a joke? Do you even know what Wifi is.
Where does your brain live?

Haven't you been reading all about what the iPhone can, and can't do?

Have you been sleeping throughout the entire six months of everyone else knowing that the iPhone only can use ATT's EDGE network, which until now, only worked up to 40Kb/s, and that is quickly being upgraded to run at 80kB/s, which will actually just be an effective 40Kb/s?

Haven't you seen all the articles just here on Ai about this?

Haven't you seen all of the arguing about how all of us think this sucks?

WiFi is a joke.

Haven't you been seeing all of the talk about the lack of 3G?

No, I guess not.
3G coverage is a joke.

[melgross]

In comparison to what?

Teno, we both live in NYC. I don't know your attempts to find WiFi networks, but I've done some.

When in Manhattan, one of the areas with the highest concentration of WiFi networks in the world, I have found that while walking those streets with a wiFi network detector, that except for a few areas, I can walk for 15 minutes without finding a WiFi signal.

Most of the time when I do, it requires a password to use.

Outside of Manhattan, the situation is far worse. Cruising the outer boroughs in a car, I have found almost no WiFi at all.

Most of the country is in much worse condition. So is the rest of the world.

When you are using a cell, you don't want to have to wander the streets until you can find a usable WiFi connection. You want to do what you want, NOW. That's the entire point to it.

I really don't want to have to find a Starbucks, or yecch, a MacDonalds to download a song. Do you?

[JeffDM]

In one way it may not be missed since most phones cannot display flash. Many websites use flash in really annoying ways. So it may not be so bad.

Flash is annoying, but so many legitimate sites use it for nifty UI stuff too, doing stuff I don't think can be done on any other common web technology. I don't think one can get a true picture of how many web sites use Flash unless one actually uses a flash blocker.

[melgross]

http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
Go read the Tech Specs. Who needs 3G when there is Wifi. WTF you mean Wifi is a joke? Do you even know what Wifi is.

3G coverage is a joke.

I have to say that your posts have had the highest percentage of inanity than any other poster here, and that's saying a lot.

[BRussell]

Selling iTS directly to the device also breaks the relationship with the computer managing and storing the content. Distributing content to the device for viewing or listening. I think you're right, and buying music over your phone has largely been seen as yet another way for cell companies to gouge customers.

But: Remember that iTunes/iPods have a new feature that allows you to sync (purchased) music from your iPod to your computer. I think it's very possible that this could be a lead-in to allowing people to buy music via the iPhone.

[JeffDM]

http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
Go read the Tech Specs. Who needs 3G when there is Wifi. WTF you mean Wifi is a joke? Do you even know what Wifi is.

3G coverage is a joke.

Let's just say that WiFi coverage is spotty at best. With cellular data, at least you don't have to worry about your data source every few hundred feet. Open hot spots are insecure, and under almost all circumstanses, it's a pain to enter keys for the encrypted hot spots, assuming that you can get the keys.

3G certainly doesn't have that great of coverage right now, but where it is, it's more consistent, and it has far more potential than WiFi. Citywide WiFi meshes so far have been unsatisfactory and impractical that I've heard.

[melgross]

I think you're right, and buying music over your phone has largely been seen as yet another way for cell companies to gouge customers.

But: Remember that iTunes/iPods have a new feature that allows you to sync (purchased) music from your iPod to your computer. I think it's very possible that this could be a lead-in to allowing people to buy music via the iPhone.

Jobs doesn't agree. He believes that as you would have to sync what's on the phone to the computer anyway, you might as well download it from there in the first place.

He does have a point. But, I think he also understands, as I pointed out, that downloading a song over EDGE won't be a friendly experience.

Perhaps, next year, if 3G comes to the phone, that will change.

[Project2501]

Let's just say that WiFi coverage is spotty at best. With cellular data, at least you don't have to worry about your data source every few hundred feet. Open hot spots are insecure, and under almost all circumstanses, it's a pain to enter keys for the encrypted hot spots, assuming that you can get the keys.I'm agreeing with you about wifi coverage versus cellular coverage, but how about sitting in startbucks sipping coffee, your phone could use that time to dl song over wifi, or airport lounges waiting for your next flight, wouldn't it be nice to have fresh tunes for your next flight?

[drmoto]

http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
Go read the Tech Specs. Who needs 3G when there is Wifi. WTF you mean Wifi is a joke? Do you even know what Wifi is.

3G coverage is a joke.

If you have Wifi coverage, chances are you have a computer nearby. Why on earth would you use the tiny screen then? Wifi on a phone hence makes little sense to me. I realize it may make a lot of sense for some people, but if I have a multimedia device I don't want to hunt for a connection to use the multimedia.

3G coverage through AT&T is a joke. I actually have the service through AT&T's "broadband connect" and we have coverage pretty much around our offices and a little down the freeway. In many other places, even right along major freeways, it is impossible to connect reliably at all - even at slow speeds.

Blame Apple for being too cocky and not working something out with Verizon or Sprint, who both have EXCELLENT 3G coverage nationwide.

Video over EDGE is a joke though. H.264 quality per kilobit is not that much better than the new Flash video formats. Apple pushes H.264 because it is well integrated into OS X, to advance its Quicktime penetration, and so that it doesn't have to deal with Adobe as much, whose Flash performance on Mac is still lagging significantly behind Windows imo.

[BlackSummerNight]

adddddd

[JeffDM]

I'm agreeing with you about wifi coverage versus cellular coverage, but how about sitting in startbucks sipping coffee, your phone could use that time to dl song over wifi, or airport lounges waiting for your next flight, wouldn't it be nice to have fresh tunes for your next flight?

I think it's a nice idea, though the airport lounges I've been in have been paid networks, steeply priced at that.

[TenoBell]

When in Manhattan, one of the areas with the highest concentration of WiFi networks in the world, I have found that while walking those streets with a wiFi network detector, that except for a few areas, I can walk for 15 minutes without finding a WiFi signal.

Very true. There are multiple signals all over Manhattan the problem is finding an open unblocked signal. But you are right in that there will only be certain spots an open signal will be found. There is free WiFi in several city parks. Hopefully eventually the city get its municipal WiFi plan in action.

I don't think one can get a true picture of how many web sites use Flash unless one actually uses a flash blocker.

I'm sure that's true. It seems Apple weighed its options and came to conclusion that the iPhone would be worse off with flash than without.

[melgross]

I'm agreeing with you about wifi coverage versus cellular coverage, but how about sitting in startbucks sipping coffee, your phone could use that time to dl song over wifi, or airport lounges waiting for your next flight, wouldn't it be nice to have fresh tunes for your next flight?

You mean, standing in a crowded Starbucks, shoulder to shoulder with people you don't know, who are constantly looking over YOUR shoulder at your screen?

Since the average Starbucks has no more than about 9 seats, with the biggest, and also the most crowded, having no more than about 18, your chance of getting a seat with that cup of coffee is slender, at best.

[BRussell]

Jobs doesn't agree. He believes that as you would have to sync what's on the phone to the computer anyway, you might as well download it from there in the first place.

He does have a point. But, I think he also understands, as I pointed out, that downloading a song over EDGE won't be a friendly experience.

Perhaps, next year, if 3G comes to the phone, that will change. Jobs has said a lot of things that we later found out he didn't really believe.

I just don't see why they would have enabled this new feature for iPods unless it was intended to allow for the possibility of downloading directly to a portable device. The idea of using it to transfer tracks from one computer to another doesn't make sense, because you can only transfer iTunes-purchased tracks.

[melgross]

Jobs has said a lot of things that we later found out he didn't really believe.

I just don't see why they would have enabled this new feature for iPods unless it was intended to allow for the possibility of downloading directly to a portable device. The idea of using it to transfer tracks from one computer to another doesn't make sense, because you can only transfer iTunes-purchased tracks.

I think he does believe it. That doesn't mean that his views won't change, as they did with mobile video.

But, as I said, it's the lack of a high speed network that is the biggest problem for phone downloads right now.

I would agree that Apple MIGHT be working on an interface for the phone that's more suited for the low rez than the current iTunes is, for when high speed does come to the phone. But, that's just a guess.

[MacGregor]

If you have Wifi coverage, chances are you have a computer nearby. Why on earth would you use the tiny screen then? Wifi on a phone hence makes little sense to me. I realize it may make a lot of sense for some people, but if I have a multimedia device I don't want to hunt for a connection to use the multimedia.

3G coverage through AT&T is a joke. I actually have the service through AT&T's "broadband connect" and we have coverage pretty much around our offices and a little down the freeway. In many other places, even right along major freeways, it is impossible to connect reliably at all - even at slow speeds.

Blame Apple for being too cocky and not working something out with Verizon or Sprint, who both have EXCELLENT 3G coverage nationwide.

Video over EDGE is a joke though. H.264 quality per kilobit is not that much better than the new Flash video formats. Apple pushes H.264 because it is well integrated into OS X, to advance its Quicktime penetration, and so that it doesn't have to deal with Adobe as much, whose Flash performance on Mac is still lagging significantly behind Windows imo.

First there are plenty of times when you could use wifi on a phone EVEN if you are near a computer ... WORK. This is how you can do some personal business without needing the office pc.

Second, I like Verizon the best where I am, but 3G is not necessary for some of this stuff. Email, SMS, etc. are fine at low bandwidth and streaming video is too much for 3G anyway. The only real thing that I think is hurt is the mapping app while driving around. i would think ATT probably would slow this down.

Third, no one is going to download music on their phone in any great volume. Wait to do it in iTunes.

Last, H.264 is not just about keeping QT in the mix, though that is a good idea, it is about the ability for H.264 to scale from iPhones to Macs to maybe HDef. It should become the standard and it is up to Adobe to get FLASH up to better standards if it wants to go beyond animation and crappy YouTube. That means porting the thing to run better with CoreAnimation, etc. Devices are fast enough now where almost any codec should be able to translate to others almost in real time. Video over EDGE may be a joke, but it is not meant to be the primary means of watching video in the first place.

My Verizon contract will be up about the time AT&T upgrades its system and the bugs get worked out of the first 100,000 iPhones.

[Project2501]

You mean, standing in a crowded Starbucks, shoulder to shoulder with people you don't know, who are constantly looking over YOUR shoulder at your screen?

Since the average Starbucks has no more than about 9 seats, with the biggest, and also the most crowded, having no more than about 18, your chance of getting a seat with that cup of coffee is slender, at best.Whoa, that has to be most negative attitude I have come across today. Truth to be told I have visited only one starbucks in my life, not living in states and all. Those were mere examples where it would be nice to be able dl directly from iTunes and wifi is present. Here in Finland for example there are some municipal tryouts to cover whole cities with wifi connection, also street cafes(no starbucks here) are slowly opening their access points to visitors. Of course wifi coverage is not nearly as good as it is with cellular networks (2 X ~99% of whole country), but when it's there why not use it?

[melgross]

First there are plenty of times when you could use wifi on a phone EVEN if you are near a computer ... WORK. This is how you can do some personal business without needing the office pc.

Second, I like Verizon the best where I am, but 3G is not necessary for some of this stuff. Email, SMS, etc. are fine at low bandwidth and streaming video is too much for 3G anyway. The only real thing that I think is hurt is the mapping app while driving around. i would think ATT probably would slow this down.

Third, no one is going to download music on their phone in any great volume. Wait to do it in iTunes.

Last, H.264 is not just about keeping QT in the mix, though that is a good idea, it is about the ability for H.264 to scale from iPhones to Macs to maybe HDef. It should become the standard and it is up to Adobe to get FLASH up to better standards if it wants to go beyond animation and crappy YouTube. That means porting the thing to run better with CoreAnimation, etc. Devices are fast enough now where almost any codec should be able to translate to others almost in real time. Video over EDGE may be a joke, but it is not meant to be the primary means of watching video in the first place.

My Verizon contract will be up about the time AT&T upgrades its system and the bugs get worked out of the first 100,000 iPhones.

I would never encourage someone to use a work connection for personal business unless they know that their company has specifically said that it was ok.

Not only have people been fired over that issue, but the courts have affirmed that the company can determine what their network can be used for, and that they have the right to disallow personal usage.

Once that option is gone, WiFi becomes much less interesting.

[melgross]

Whoa, that has to be most negative attitude I have come across today. Truth to be told I have visited only one starbucks in my life, not living in states and all. Those were mere examples where it would be nice to be able dl directly from iTunes and wifi is present. Here in Finland for example there are some municipal tryouts to cover whole cities with wifi connection, also street cafes(no starbucks here) are slowly opening their access points to visitors. Of course wifi coverage is not nearly as good as it is with cellular networks (2 X ~99% of whole country), but when it's there why not use it?

We have Starbucks almost every other street in Manhattan. All are small. Most all are full, all the seats taken, and have lines at the counter. There are even lines for the bathroom. How should I feel?

[Project2501]

We have Starbucks almost every other street in Manhattan. Most all are full, all the seats taken, and have lines at the counter. There are even lines for the bathroom. How should I feel?I'm sorry you have to queue for your java, It rarely happens here so I couldn't foresee that it was touchy subject:lol:, Here we have plenty of unpopulated forest with excellent cellular data connections and I guess soon wifi connections as well, if you ever consider change of scenery ;)

[BlackSummerNight]

Some companies actually want you to use their Wifi. Of course not for anything illegal, but they want it to be used. The company I'm currently employed for is such a company.

[mstone]

I'm sorry you have to queue for your java, It rarely happens here so I couldn't foresee that it was touchy subject:lol:, Here we have plenty of unpopulated forest with excellent cellular data connections and I guess soon wifi connections as well, if you ever consider change of scenery ;)

Not to mention, much better coffee than they serve at Starbucks.

[TenoBell]

Whoa, that has to be most negative attitude I have come across today.

A virtual taste of New York City :)

[badNameErr]

3G coverage is a joke.

Only in the US.

[badNameErr]

You should be able to use Skype soon. Someone will write Skype for iPhone soon. REAL SOON.

Until Apple releases REAL development tools for the iPhone that's not going to happen.

[MacGregor]

I would never encourage someone to use a work connection for personal business unless they know that their company has specifically said that it was ok.

Not only have people been fired over that issue, but the courts have affirmed that the company can determine what their network can be used for, and that they have the right to disallow personal usage.

Once that option is gone, WiFi becomes much less interesting.

So the office would rather you use the office pc and phone to do personal business?!

[mrpiddly]

Why scale down you tube when we could get the who ****ing site and alot more with the addition of flash and java. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[CRHain88]

Apple chose EDGE because it's readily available in the US

Apple chose WiFi because many media packages (at least AT&Ts plan) only allow 5 MBs of transfer via EDGE before additional charges occur. Thusly, when the phone can pick up a WiFi signal, it will default to the free source of connectivity.

Many places offer free WiFi, hotels, work, coffee shops, schools, libraries at home etc. I WILL be using the device in the home because that's just what I do. I watch full movies on my iPod while lying in bed with my computer right next to me, only because it allowed me to toss and turn as I pleased without have to keep the television in my eyesight.

Also note that the iPhone isn't just the internet. It's more an iPod at heart than anything. No it's a phone you say? I don't believe that. Because in the end, the Phone iPod, or iPod that has a Phone isn't as catchy and sweet as the iPhone.

Lastly, Apple like EarthLink. EarthLink trials can be found on a new mac (at least when I bought mine). Earthlink is partnering with the city of Philadelphia to create a WiFi city for just 20 some odd bucks a month. So soon, I can go anywhere in this city and use my internet connection.

[MacGregor]

Why scale down you tube when we could get the who ****ing site and alot more with the addition of flash and java. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Because the resolution is better and the resources are smaller. QT for H.246 and no need for Flash or java. Not my choice, but it is a logical choice for the first version.

Do you mean to tell me that the Flash and java implementations on other smart phones are really all that great? I have only seen a few smart phones and they didn't look very good or fast.

[iPeon]

Why scale down you tube when we could get the who ****ing site and alot more with the addition of flash and java. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Java... Flash... ugggh... I would love to see both of those hogs obsolete once and for all.

[JeffDM]

Are you guys sure you aren't confusing JavaScript with Java? They aren't synonymous. I am certain that JavaScript is on iPhone's Safari, that is the "J" in the AJAX, what is needed for Web 2.0 web sites. I don't think YouTube uses Java.

[mrpiddly]

Java... Flash... ugggh... I would love to see both of those hogs obsolete once and for all.

The real point is that they arnt. Two many sites use them now to just completly ignore them. I dont think that the iPhone can change this either as how many sites will completly redesign themselves just for the iPhone?

[nvidia2008]

Let's just say that WiFi coverage is spotty at best. With cellular data, at least you don't have to worry about your data source every few hundred feet. Open hot spots are insecure, and under almost all circumstanses, it's a pain to enter keys for the encrypted hot spots, assuming that you can get the keys.

3G certainly doesn't have that great of coverage right now, but where it is, it's more consistent, and it has far more potential than WiFi. Citywide WiFi meshes so far have been unsatisfactory and impractical that I've heard.

Jobs doesn't agree. He believes that as you would have to sync what's on the phone to the computer anyway, you might as well download it from there in the first place.

He does have a point. But, I think he also understands, as I pointed out, that downloading a song over EDGE won't be a friendly experience.

Perhaps, next year, if 3G comes to the phone, that will change.

3G in Europe and Asia and Australia is far outstripping WiFi or WiMax in terms of reliable all-the-time coverage. Agreed. Asia will most definitely have a 3G iPhone in 2008. IMO.


I'm agreeing with you about wifi coverage versus cellular coverage, but how about sitting in startbucks sipping coffee, your phone could use that time to dl song over wifi, or airport lounges waiting for your next flight, wouldn't it be nice to have fresh tunes for your next flight?

Yes, this will be nice. Not yet though, until 3G in the US is really developed well over the next few years.


Java... Flash... ugggh... I would love to see both of those hogs obsolete once and for all.

True enough. Flash can be done well, and it has its uses. Java I wish would just frucking DIE ALREADY PIECE OF SH*T MOTHRF@@#!@#!@ Arghghghghghghg.

Anyone that has extensive Flash development, while championing the format for certain websites, will see the disadvantages it has for the iPhone (Apple Apologist attitudes or not).

Anyone remember WAP? Now that's a real joke. Safari on iPhone is at least better. Full browser support, maybe down the line.

I mean, we'd never thought a Mac could run IE7 for Windows side by side Safari on a practical day to day basis, no?

[nvidia2008]

...as how many sites will completly redesign themselves just for the iPhone?

Those that care about the iPhone user base. Those that don't, will be better to use since the Flash ads and banners (vertical or horizontal) won't load :D

Right now with Safari 3.0 (it's actually quite stable) I can see the AppleInsider site well without any pop unders/ pop ups which used to plague me for a while when using Firefox.

On an iPhone the AppleInsider site will look better because no Flash Ads... :devil::D:D8-)

[nvidia2008]

Despite that, flash is still the most important standard on the web for the purpose it has.

Apple could, and should have, solved this problem by buying Macromedia when they put themselves up for sale, instead of letting it go to Adobe.

I think Apple would have definitely very seriously thought about Macromedia. However, with its longer term plans vis-a-vis (spelling?) iPhone, iTunes, Leopard, etc, too much to handle going into 2009/2010.

The most important thing around Macromedia selling time was Adobe and Macromedia software being solid Universal Binaries, which they pretty much are now. CS3 is WAAAAY, like a million times plus one, more stable than CS2 Rosetta. The designers in our office pretty much stopped complaining about their iMac 17" Core2Duos (our budget not that huge) since I requested 2GB RAM for them, and more so no complaints and more productive since the bosses encouraged install of CS3.

Santa Rosa iMacs and dropping 2GB RAM prices will see some kickass iMac 20" 4GB RAM machines. Run Parallels, have many CS3 apps open at once, plus browsers, chatting, office (2008!! arrghh come already), etc etc.

[TBaggins]

3G coverage is a joke.

Only in the US.


Actually, more like "only in the US, and only under HSDPA/UMTS" (i.e. ATT's 3G).

Sprint and Verizon's EVDO 3G networks have pretty good coverage now, and should be very good by the end of the year.

Even so, Apple should've considered going HSDPA/EDGE with the iPhone, like Samsung did with the Blackjack. Battery life may have been a concern (3G uses a lot of power, and the iPhone has a huge, power-draining screen already), but even so, the ability to switch back and forth between 3G and EDGE would've been awesome. :\

It's not like ATT's 3G coverage is going to suck forever. Should be decent (or close) in a year. But I guess they wanted to insta-obsolete all the iPhone 1.0s, so iPhone 2.0 sales would be even higher?

Brrr-rrr. I hope Apple really isn't that eval. :(


.

[nvidia2008]

....It's not like ATT's 3G coverage is going to suck forever. Should be decent (or close) in a year. But I guess they wanted to insta-obsolete all the iPhone 1.0s, so iPhone 2.0 sales would be even higher?

Brrr-rrr. I hope Apple really isn't that eval. :(

I'm sure obsoleting the first gen iPhone is a good part of the plan. That is kinda evil. The thing is, the market is so craving something like this that Apple could be good in this sense, get something out there on 2G EDGE, and yes, in 2G not 3G mode my SonyEricsson V600i lasts a whole lot longer, and all I sacrifice is some choppy blocky video clips *and* unusable "video chat" *and* exorbitant data costs.

We need to move past this rubbish small-screen 3G nonsense onto proper [3G unlimited data plans fast internet on your mobile device] stuff. This will leapfrog WiFi and WiMax in terms of convenience and coverage, if it doesn't already.

Mobility is the new black going into 2008. Desktops will be more related to those that do regular office job hours and in any case these desktops at home, work, or in retail, will also act as internal servers (distributed file storage, for TimeMachine, web host testing devices, personal/family/corporate video/music/movies, etc. etc.) ... with the real hardcore "server in server room" stuff for production-level enterprise/internet-wide 24/7/365 stuff.

OMG why do I sound like I'm writing a brochure....??? :wow:

[TBaggins]

sry, double post.

[TBaggins]

I'm sure obsoleting the first gen iPhone is a good part of the plan. That is kinda evil. The thing is, the market is so craving something like this that Apple could be good in this sense, get something out there on 2G EDGE, and yes, in 2G not 3G mode my SonyEricsson V600i lasts a whole lot longer, and all I sacrifice is some choppy blocky video clips *and* unusable "video chat" *and* exorbitant data costs.

Yup. So glad I'm not getting iPhone 1.0. The planned obsolescence angle may make Apple a lot of money, but it sure isn't playing nice with customers... and may hurt them in the end, if any credible competitors step forward faster than anticipated. :\

We need to move past this rubbish small-screen 3G nonsense onto proper [3G unlimited data plans fast internet on your mobile device] stuff. This will leapfrog WiFi and WiMax in terms of convenience and coverage, if it doesn't already.

Mobility is the new black going into 2008. Desktops will be more related to those that do regular office job hours and in any case these desktops at home, work, or in retail, will also act as internal servers (distributed file storage, for TimeMachine, web host testing devices, personal/family/corporate video/music/movies, etc. etc.) ... with the real hardcore "server in server room" stuff for production-level enterprise/internet-wide 24/7/365 stuff.

OMG why do I sound like I'm writing a brochure....??? :wow:

A brochure? LOL, maybe. But the point you make is a very good one. Apple should commit to mobility across its lineup. Even MacBooks should be able to take advantage of 3G cards (and rumor has it Apple will be doing this- kinda points out the silliness of arbitrary lack of upgradability, don't it though?), and of course it goes without saying that the next iPhone MUST be 3G. And if WiMax amounts to anything, Apple should support it also, and not be the last to do so.

"Broadband anywhere" is going to be a fairly big deal. Apple should be in the front of the parade.

.

[TenoBell]

Yup. So glad I'm not getting iPhone 1.0. The planned obsolescence angle may make Apple a lot of money, but it sure isn't playing nice with customers...

Well every electronic product we buy has some type of planned obsolescence. What would be the point of Playstation 3 or XBox 360? None of us have any idea when Apple would introduce a new iPhone. The video iPod has not had a major update in nearly two years.

Apple has said each iPhone will receive free software upgrades for two years. Which means Apple needs to put in hardware today that will handle new software two years from now. Apple may not make a radically new iPhone in that time.

[solipsism]

Those that care about the iPhone user base. Those that don't, will be better to use since the Flash ads and banners (vertical or horizontal) won't load :D

Right now with Safari 3.0 (it's actually quite stable) I can see the AppleInsider site well without any pop unders/ pop ups which used to plague me for a while when using Firefox.

On an iPhone the AppleInsider site will look better because no Flash Ads... :devil::D:D8-)
Not adding Flash is a strategic move for Apple. Personally, I'm glad as I find Flash much more of an annoyance than a welcome addition to a webpage.

Even MacBooks should be able to take advantage of 3G cards (and rumor has it Apple will be doing this- kinda points out the silliness of arbitrary lack of upgradability, don't it though?), and of course it goes without saying that the next iPhone MUST be 3G. And if WiMax amounts to anything, Apple should support it also, and not be the last to do so.
Intel is doing this. Remember Centrino and how Intel added 802.11 to their chips? Santa Rosa was originally going to have HSDPA and WiMax. Obviously, neither happened, but they are still working to get them ready for the next platform due out next year.

[solipsism]

Well every electronic product we buy has some type of planned obsolescence. What would be the point of Playstation 3 or XBox 360? None of us have any idea when Apple would introduce a new iPhone. The video iPod has not had a major update in nearly two years.

Apple has said each iPhone will receive free software upgrades for two years. Which means Apple needs to put in hardware today that will handle new software two years from now. Apple may not make a radically new iPhone in that time.


Don't cha love it? If Apple revamps a product quickly they are screwing the customer; if Apple doesn't revamp a product quickly they are screwing the customer.


Did they say two years or is that speculation? They have moved to a new 24 month accounting system and have stated they will offer free upgrades, but I don't recall an appended timeframe.

[nvidia2008]

Don't cha love it? If Apple revamps a product quickly they are screwing the customer; if Apple doesn't revamp a product quickly they are screwing the customer...

Heh. :D ...By the way YouTube showed up in AppleTV w00t.

[TBaggins]

Well every electronic product we buy has some type of planned obsolescence. What would be the point of Playstation 3 or XBox 360? None of us have any idea when Apple would introduce a new iPhone. The video iPod has not had a major update in nearly two years.

Well, obviously. But there's planned obsolesence, and then there's near-instant obsolescence. No 3G on the iPhone is an example of the latter, insofar as the 'Internet in your pocket' aspect of it goes.

Take a look around... even midrange US phones far cheaper than the iPhone have had 3G on them for a year now, higher-end phones, two years. WiFi isn't really a good stop-gap... as Forbes says, its not as common as people think and is often not free.

Given that, and the fact that not having 3G leaves the only real door open to a competitor (imagine a touch-screen 'iPhone wannabe', cheaper, and advertising that its '10x faster' than the iPhone, by virtue of having 3G), Apple will have to come out with a 3G iteration of the iPhone reasonably quickly, likely within a year.

To use your own example, its not so much like releasing a PS3 or Xbox360, but releasing a PS3 or Xbox360 with dial-up only, and then next year, releasing one with broadband. Ugh. :(

And somewhat unnecessary, considering that there are phones that do HSDPA(3G) and EDGE, and that the major drawback of going 3G (battery life) appears to be less of an issue than previously thought, considering that the iPhone is now posting batt life specs that are quite a lot better than its competition (8 hours talk time, etc.)


Apple has said each iPhone will receive free software upgrades for two years. Which means Apple needs to put in hardware today that will handle new software two years from now. Apple may not make a radically new iPhone in that time.
See above... they'll likely have to come out with iPhone 2.0 before then. And ATT's 3G coverage will be decent within a year, not two. I highly doubt ATT'll want said 3G network to go untapped by the iPhone for long, when an iPhone 2.0 could be helping them sell even more data plans.

Finally, supporting a product with free software updates for two years doesn't mean that you you're not bringing out new models before then. If you bought a Mac when Tiger first came out, you've been receiving free sofware updates to Tiger for over two years now, with 10.4.10 being posted just a day or two ago.

So, did Apple stop bringing out new Macs since early-2005? :\

.

[TBaggins]

Don't cha love it? If Apple revamps a product quickly they are screwing the customer; if Apple doesn't revamp a product quickly they are screwing the customer.
More like, if they release a product that they know will be insta-obsoleted, they are screwing the customer. :\

Don't get me wrong, as an iPod and as a phone, the iPhone will still be very good, of course. But not going HSDPA(3G)/EDGE on a $500-600 phone, when competing phones (such as the Blackjack) have been doing this for 6 months now, and with battery life on the iPhone turning out to be very good, i.e. apparently able to handle 3G's power drain?

I dunno solip... I have to wonder what they were thinkin'. :???:

Perhaps they didn't get the power management thing well and truly down until recently, and originally thought that battery life might end up being far less, which would then rule out power-hungry 3G... and of course the iPhone does not have a removable battery, so the usual 'carry a spare batt to swap in and out' solution that works for other phones is a no-go here. :(

Now it turns out that the power situation is probably fine... and just in time to release a 3G iPhone in Europe and Asia, which are more advanced markets than the US, and where a lack of 3G really would hurt the iPhone a very great deal.

It all kind of comes together... 'cept that iPhone 1.0 users in the US are kinda screwed, as you say, if they're really interested in the Internet experience of the thing.

.

[TBaggins]

Not adding Flash is a strategic move for Apple. Personally, I'm glad as I find Flash much more of an annoyance than a welcome addition to a webpage.
Flash is good to have, though. For example, a lot of CBT (computer-based training) relies on it, because nearly every web browser supports Flash, and the movie file sizes you get with it are nice n' small.

Intel is doing this. Remember Centrino and how Intel added 802.11 to their chips? Santa Rosa was originally going to have HSDPA and WiMax. Obviously, neither happened, but they are still working to get them ready for the next platform due out next year.
WiMax I knew about (Intel is heavily into pimping it), but HSDPA I did not. Good stuff. I'd hope they'd also have EVDO 3G support for the US, as here it is far more widely-deployed than HSDPA is.

Rumor has it that Apple is going to be including a 3G card adapter for MacBooks in the coming months (perhaps next revision), so whichever way we get 3G, it should all be good. *crosses fingers* :)

.

[mstone]

Flash is good to have, though. For example, a lot of CBT (computer-based training) relies on it, because nearly every web browser supports Flash, and the movie file sizes you get with it are nice n' small.

Ditto that.

I bet we will see Flash on iPhone pretty soon. I remember when the first Intel Macs shipped they had a beta Flash plugin. Adobe is a little slow sometimes.

m

[melgross]

Only in the US.

No. Only for ATT.

[melgross]

So the office would rather you use the office pc and phone to do personal business?!

That's not what I said. I don't see how you could have gotten from what I did say, to that.

Network is network. does it matter whether it's from the PC Ethernet network, the WiFi PC network, or any other network? No, of course not.

I didn't mention the phone, because we weren't taking about the phone, but the same thing applies, obviously.

[melgross]

3G in Europe and Asia and Australia is far outstripping WiFi or WiMax in terms of reliable all-the-time coverage. Agreed. Asia will most definitely have a 3G iPhone in 2008. IMO.

Yes, this will be nice. Not yet though, until 3G in the US is really developed well over the next few years.

Some of you guys not in the US have a strange view of what is actually happening here. It seems as though a few who are here do as well. I suppose that's true because those here who have this odd view don't have a cell network that does have 3G over most of its range (ATT), or don't want to pay for it, so don't understand what's available.

They all do. Let that be clear.

ATT has the least developed 3G network, by far. Don't compare the US to anywhere else by what you've heard about ATT.

[melgross]

Yup. So glad I'm not getting iPhone 1.0. The planned obsolescence angle may make Apple a lot of money, but it sure isn't playing nice with customers... and may hurt them in the end, if any credible competitors step forward faster than anticipated. :\

I'm waiting too.



A brochure? LOL, maybe. But the point you make is a very good one. Apple should commit to mobility across its lineup. Even MacBooks should be able to take advantage of 3G cards (and rumor has it Apple will be doing this- kinda points out the silliness of arbitrary lack of upgradability, don't it though?), and of course it goes without saying that the next iPhone MUST be 3G. And if WiMax amounts to anything, Apple should support it also, and not be the last to do so.

"Broadband anywhere" is going to be a fairly big deal. Apple should be in the front of the parade.

.

Apple's machines can take advantage of any 3G cards that will fit in the slot, and have drivers.

Sprint, for example, lets me use my Treo 700p as a Bluetooth modem for any Mac having Bluetooth. That way I can use Sprints EVDO network.

So, it's not really up to Apple. That's what their WiFi, Bluetooth, and 34 pin slot are for.

[TenoBell]

Well, obviously. But there's planned obsolesence, and then there's near-instant obsolescence. No 3G on the iPhone is an example of the latter, insofar as the 'Internet in your pocket' aspect of it goes.

That's only one scenario. There are a couple of ways it could go. Apple could release the iPhone on June 29th with 3G hardware. And use a firmware update later to activate it.

Apple could release phones in Europe and Asia without 3G, and roll out 3G on future models of the phone. There is no way for us to know at this point exactly what will happen.

Take a look around... even midrange US phones far cheaper than the iPhone have had 3G on them for a year now, higher-end phones, two years. WiFi isn't really a good stop-gap... as Forbes says, its not as common as people think and is often not free.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/06/12/business/0612-biz-sub-webPHONE.jpg

Which phones support 3G? Which phones support EDGE? Which phones even support WiFi?

Given that, and the fact that not having 3G leaves the only real door open to a competitor (imagine a touch-screen 'iPhone wannabe', cheaper, and advertising that its '10x faster' than the iPhone, by virtue of having 3G), Apple will have to come out with a 3G iteration of the iPhone reasonably quickly, likely within a year.

I doubt simply a touchscreen 3G phone will out-compete the iPhone. Very very few people (in the US) actively search for phones that have 3G, or base their phone buying decisions on 3G.

To use your own example, its not so much like releasing a PS3 or Xbox360, but releasing a PS3 or Xbox360 with dial-up only, and then next year, releasing one with broadband. Ugh

they'll likely have to come out with iPhone 2.0 before then. And ATT's 3G coverage will be decent within a year, not two. I highly doubt ATT'll want said 3G network to go untapped by the iPhone for long, when an iPhone 2.0 could be helping them sell even more data plans.

My point is that its pure speculation at this point. They may, they may not.

So, did Apple stop bringing out new Macs since early-2005

The computer market is entirely different from the handheld electronic market. The fact that the video iPod has not received a major upgrade in two years while facing new competition is more akin to how the iPhone will compete.

[TBaggins]

I'm waiting too.
Smart man. :) Though I may be grousing a bit overmuch... EDGE may not be all that bad. It just won't be anywhere near good, either.


Apple's machines can take advantage of any 3G cards that will fit in the slot, and have drivers.
Yep, but with MacBooks (not MB Pros), the only slot is already taken up by the Airport Extreme card. So you end up choosing between having WiFi and 3G. For a lot of people that sucks, because they have cable modems and wireless routers, like me.

I get 6 Mbps at home via my wireless router. With current 3G, I'd be getting around one-tenth that. But of course I still want the 3G when I'm out and about. So I want both WiFi and 3G.

Sprint, for example, lets me use my Treo 700p as a Bluetooth modem for any Mac having Bluetooth. That way I can use Sprints EVDO network.
Yeah, that is a good solution... but of course, not everyone has a bluetooth 3G phone yet (though they should, dammit :) ).

And bluetooth (the spec is evolving) seems like could lag behind 3G.... your Treo 700p's BT 1.2, for example, is fine for EVDO Rev A, but won't come close to taking full advantage of Rev B (9 Mbps!!), which should start rolling out late this year (I won't even get into Rev C/UMB, which is scary-fast). And its not like your phone is ancient by any means... came out only a year ago.

So, it's not really up to Apple. That's what their WiFi, Bluetooth, and 34 pin slot are for.
Well, in the case of MacBooks (not MB Pros, which have a slot other than the Airport card slot), I'm happy to hear that Intel plans to integrate 3G and WiMax into future chipsets, and that Apple is thinking of including a seperate 3G card adapter/slot.

.

[TBaggins]

That's only one scenario. There are a couple of ways it could go. Apple could release the iPhone on June 29th with 3G hardware. And use a firmware update later to activate it.
I don't think they can do that. 3G requires a separate and different radio from GSM/GPRS/EDGE. One that I don't think is in the iPhone.

Apple could release phones in Europe and Asia without 3G, and roll out 3G on future models of the phone. There is no way for us to know at this point exactly what will happen.
I highly doubt it. Europe and Asia are more advanced cellular markets than the US, where expectations (and competition) are higher for phones, and where 3G is well-established. Releasing the iPhone in those markets without 3G is suicidal, and Apple understands this.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/06/12/business/0612-biz-sub-webPHONE.jpg


Which phones support 3G? Which phones support EDGE? Which phones even support WiFi?


Not a great graphic, considering that it missed the fact that the Samsung Upstage is 3G. :\
It's also missing key competitors like the Samsung Blackjack, Motorola Q, Blackberry 8830 and Treo 700 series, all of which are 3G. In other words...http://www.twcenter.net/forums/images/smilies/emoticons/sign_wtf.gif

Its just not a good or representative graphic. Most smartphones are 3G these days, and have been for awhile. Ditto even midrange flip phones. Feel free to look around and verify this.

A somewhat better graphic (that could easily be larger than 20 phones, its just that's what searches on PhoneScoop are limited to):

http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/finder_results.php?m=s&w=s&sao=y&avr=r&av_1=y&av_2=y&dsr=r&ds_64-100=y&ds_100-90000=y&f30r=r&f30_4=y&f30_6=y&f30_8=y&f30_12=y&f6r=r&f46r=r


... As you can see, there's no shortage of high-end 3G phones these days. :)


I doubt simply a touchscreen 3G phone will out-compete the iPhone. Very very few people (in the US) actively search for phones that have 3G, or base their phone buying decisions on 3G.
Yes, and few people think $500-600 is a good price for a cell phone too.

Point is, the iPhone's customer base are high-end customers, i.e. the kind who actually do care about things like 3G.

Far as competitors go, an alternative doesn't have to be better than the iPhone, it merely has to be 'good enough' while being cheaper, touchscreen, and 3G. That is what all the major phone makers (Nokia, Motorola, LG, Samsung) are stampeding towards. They know they can't out iPhone the iPhone.


My point is that its pure speculation [that Apple will make a US 3G iPhone next year] at this point. They may, they may not.
They kind of have to. Lack of 3G hurts them some even in the US, due to the high-end nature of the market segment they're going after.

I dunno Teno... late this year/next year, 3G is going to 9 Mbps, at least. What does Apple do, say that dial-up speed (EDGE) is just tres awesome? Hem and haw and say, "Well, there's a lot of them there coffee house hot spots, an' some of 'em are even free."? :wow:

The computer market is entirely different from the handheld electronic market. The fact that the video iPod has not received a major upgrade in two years while facing new competition is more akin to how the iPhone will compete.
You know as well as I that the current vid Pod upgrade cycle is

1) far from ideal, and only acceptable due to its competition being weak (hi Zune)
2) rather unique, in that the vid Pod is waiting on a touchscreen makeover, and can't debut earlier than late this year, for fear of upstaging/cannibalizing the iPhone

And not the same thing as the computer market? I'm not sure anymore. Given the iPhone's price point and the fact that its more computer than cellphone (runs OS X and the 'real Internet'), I'd have to say the two markets are converging some, at least for the products Apple makes. In any case, free software updates for iPhone 1.0 for two years still in no way prevent Apple from coming out with an iPhone 2.0 whenever it feels it needs one... which will likely be sooner than later.

.

[melgross]

Smart man. :) Though I may be grousing a bit overmuch... EDGE may not be all that bad. It just won't be anywhere near good, either.

We'll see in a few days.


Yep, but with MacBooks (not MB Pros), the only slot is already taken up by the Airport Extreme card. So you end up choosing between having WiFi and 3G. For a lot of people that sucks, because they have cable modems and wireless routers, like me.

That's true. I don't like WiFi at home anyway. I wired my house for 1Gb Ethernet.


I get 6 Mbps at home via my wireless router. With current 3G, I'd be getting around one-tenth that. But of course I still want the 3G when I'm out and about. So I want both WiFi and 3G.

Outside, except in certain, limited areas, and circumstances, WiFi simply doesn't exist. 3G will be a far more USEFUL choice.


Yeah, that is a good solution... but of course, not everyone has a bluetooth 3G phone yet (though they should, dammit :) ).

And bluetooth (the spec is evolving) seems like could lag behind 3G.... your Treo 700p's BT 1.2, for example, is fine for EVDO Rev A, but won't come close to taking full advantage of Rev B (9 Mbps!!), which should start rolling out late this year (I won't even get into Rev C/UMB, which is scary-fast). And its not like your phone is ancient by any means... came out only a year ago.

These things are coming. In a few, short, years, we will have what we want. These are all still relatively new technologies. It takes time until they're deployed, and even longer before most people understand, and want them.


Well, in the case of MacBooks (not MB Pros, which have a slot other than the Airport card slot), I'm happy to hear that Intel plans to integrate 3G and WiMax into future chipsets, and that Apple is thinking of including a seperate 3G card adapter/slot.

.

I'm sure that we will see all of these technologies integrated.

While that won't make people who want it NOW happy, that's the way it always is, isn't it?

[TBaggins]

Outside, except in certain, limited areas, and circumstances, WiFi simply doesn't exist. 3G will be a far more USEFUL choice.

Well, it will be, once EVDO Rev B rolls out. Faster than my cable modem, and everywhere too? At that point, I'll be like "WTF do I still have a cable modem and wireless router for?". :D

But right now, home wifi (cable modem plus wireless router plus airport) is good to have. I can dload an eppy of Battlestar Galactica or Weeds or Scrubs in just a few minutes. With EVDO Rev A, it'd take a couple of hours.

The depressing thing is that 3G appears to be ramping up in speed far faster than home internet service. My home internet speeds, while fast, haven't budged much in the last year or two. But in a year, EVDO will be ten times faster.

Frankly, the US sucks at home broadband. Japan already has 100 Mbps internet to many homes. :(


I'm sure that we will see all of these technologies integrated.

While that won't make people who want it NOW happy, that's the way it always is, isn't it?
Yeah. Though its not like 3G hasn't been around for a couple of years already in the US, though.

.

[TenoBell]

I don't think they can do that. 3G requires a separate and different radio from GSM/GPRS/EDGE. One that I don't think is in the iPhone.

Well...they slipped 802.11n into the MacBook/MBPro. "n" requires a different radio and dual antenna than required for b/g.

Releasing the iPhone in those markets without 3G is suicidal, and Apple understands this.

I'm sure you are right but Apple does not always do what everyone thinks they should.

As you can see, there's no shortage of high-end 3G phones these days

You are right but.....

Lack of 3G hurts them some even in the US, due to the high-end nature of the market segment they're going after.

The only place I hear people so adamant about wireless data speeds is on the internet. I guarantee if I ask people I know with Blackberry's and Treo's what type of data network does their phone use or its speed, they will have no idea.

At this point 3G is not really a big selling point in the US. Where I do agree with you. If people clearly see that the iPhone is noticeably slower and other phones are noticeably faster that could be a negative against it.

[melgross]

Well, it will be, once EVDO Rev B rolls out. Faster than my cable modem, and everywhere too? At that point, I'll be like "WTF do I still have a cable modem and wireless router for?". :D

I question just what speeds we really do need for a phone.

Considering its much lower resolution, even video's will be fairly small. But, everything gets faster, so it will happen. It could kill WiFi entirely.

But it will never get as fast as a land line.


But right now, home wifi (cable modem plus wireless router plus airport) is good to have. I can dload an eppy of Battlestar Galactica or Weeds or Scrubs in just a few minutes. With EVDO Rev A, it'd take a couple of hours.

The depressing thing is that 3G appears to be ramping up in speed far faster than home internet service. My home internet speeds, while fast, haven't budged much in the last year or two. But in a year, EVDO will be ten times faster.

Frankly, the US sucks at home broadband. Japan already has 100 Mbps internet to many homes. :(

It's much cheaper to do wireless than it is to do wired. Putting towers up is expensive, but obtaining right of way, and then laying cables is far more expensive. Verison will have spent over $18 billion by 2010 just laying enough FIOS to reach 18 million homes.

Sure, small countries with a few population centers, or very high tax rates will get the highest speeds first. The US is very spread out. What cost S Korea $100 billion to do, will cost at least a couple of trillion here. It will take longer.

Verison has announced that their FIOS will be bring the max speeds from 50 Mbs to 100 Mbs shortly.



Yeah. Though its not like 3G hasn't been around for a couple of years already in the US, though.

.[/QUOTE]

[TBaggins]

Well...they slipped 802.11n into the MacBook/MBPro. "n" requires a different radio and dual antenna than required for b/g.

The 802.11n software update doesn't magically make new hardware appear. It only makes 802.11n possible for Macbooks and MBPs that already have the hardware built in. From apple.com:

These Macs have the 802.11n hardware built-in:

* MacBook Pro with Intel Core 2 Duo
* MacBook with Intel Core 2 Duo
* Mac Pro with AirPort Extreme option
* iMac with Intel Core 2 Duo (except the 17-inch, 1.83GHz iMac)

Please make sure you have one of these Mac computers before purchasing the 802.11n Enabler software. It is not compatible with other Mac models.

Thus, a software or firmware update to the iPhone isn't going to magically make 3G radio hardware appear that isn't in there already.

And it doesn't seem to be in there, since Jobs and ATT are talking about bringing out new models of iPhone that will have 3G:

Jobs himself was already pointing towards future models in his keynote speech at Macworld San Francisco. He mentioned in passing that the company's choice of GSM network support via EDGE would allow it to produce a 3G wireless phone and "many other amazing things" in the near future.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/01/15/apple_cingular_claim_victory_over_eachother_say_mo re_iphones_in_queue.html

Also:

3G iPhone could arrive overseas by early 2008

Even though its vanguard cellphone isn't yet out the door, Apple is allegedly preparing a quick follow-up model with 3G wireless installed.

... a Swedish firm has received assurances from its liaison at the provider that the [iPhone] would arrive as soon as September -- and, startlingly, that a version of the handset with 3G (third-generation) wireless Internet access would be in the provider's hands as soon as January of 2008. The contact at the carrier was especially confident, sources said.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/02/23/3g_iphone_could_arrive_overseas_by_early_2008.html


I'm sure you are right but Apple does not always do what everyone thinks they should [releasing a 3G phone for European and Asian markets]

See link above. Apparently, even if the initial European release isn't 3G, a follow-up model will appear quickly that is 3G.

.

[TBaggins]

I question just what speeds we really do need for a phone.

Considering its much lower resolution, even video's will be fairly small. But, everything gets faster, so it will happen. It could kill WiFi entirely.

True. And I'd agree getting up into stupid-fast wireless speeds (EVDO Rev B and up) is more useful for laptops than iPhone-type devices... but who knows what uses they'll eventually find for it.

It's much cheaper to do wireless than it is to do wired. Putting towers up is expensive, but obtaining right of way, and then laying cables is far more expensive. Verison will have spent over $18 billion by 2010 just laying enough FIOS to reach 18 million homes.

Sure, small countries with a few population centers, or very high tax rates will get the highest speeds first. The US is very spread out. What cost S Korea $100 billion to do, will cost at least a couple of trillion here. It will take longer.

Verizon has announced that their FIOS will be bring the max speeds from 50 Mbs to 100 Mbs shortly.

But it [wireless] will never get as fast as a land line.

All very excellent points.

However, regarding speed, keep in mind that 3G (actually, 4G in this case) is slated to become scary-fast... EVDO RevC/UMB is allegedly capable of 280 Mbps!!! :wow:

And its only a couple of years away from deployment. Will even fiber to the home be able to keep up? I dunno.

.

[TenoBell]

Thus, a software or firmware update to the iPhone isn't going to magically make 3G radio hardware appear that isn't in there already.

Here is what I originally said, "Apple could release the iPhone on June 29th with 3G hardware, and use a firmware update later to activate it."

You said "I don't think they can do that. 3G requires a separate and different radio from GSM/GPRS/EDGE. One that I don't think is in the iPhone."

Then I said "Well...they slipped 802.11n into the MacBook/MBPro. "n" requires a different radio and dual antenna than required for b/g." The point being the radio and antenna were in the laptops but a software update was required to make them useful.

Somehow that bring us to you claiming that software will not magically make non-existent hardware appear.

Jobs himself was already pointing towards future models in his keynote speech at Macworld San Francisco. He mentioned in passing that the company's choice of GSM network support via EDGE would allow it to produce a 3G wireless phone and "many other amazing things" in the near future.

He said that but Jobs does not always mean what he says and does not always say what he means. Having inert 3G hardware in the phone to be activated later is one way to accomplish what he has said.

3G iPhone could arrive overseas by early 2008

So now we can count on some Swedish firm to have definitive info on Apple's future plans?

[melgross]

True. And I'd agree getting up into stupid-fast wireless speeds (EVDO Rev B and up) is more useful for laptops than iPhone-type devices... but who knows what uses they'll eventually find for it.





All very excellent points.

However, regarding speed, keep in mind that 3G (actually, 4G in this case) is slated to become scary-fast... EVDO RevC/UMB is allegedly capable of 280 Mbps!!! :wow:

And its only a couple of years away from deployment. Will even fiber to the home be able to keep up? I dunno.

.

All wireless is theoretical. At best, it is actually half the speed, and more often, less than one third. When signal isn't great, it's often no better than a fifth.

Land line speeds are close to what the companies state. My DSL is always within 20% of the delivered speed. My home 1 Gbs Ethernet network is within 10% of stated speed.

As backbone speeds continue to rise, FIOS will go even higher. I've seen a couple of studies that show with that multiplexing, FIOS can hit 1 Gbs.

[melgross]

So now we can count on some Swedish firm to have definitive info on Apple's future plans?

Emmm. It's those Swedish girls, you know. Even Jobs can't resist spilling the plans.

[TenoBell]

^ Yeah, every man has his carnal weakness.

[TBaggins]

Here is what I originally said, "Apple could release the iPhone on June 29th with 3G hardware, and use a firmware update later to activate it."

You said "I don't think they can do that. 3G requires a separate and different radio from GSM/GPRS/EDGE. One that I don't think is in the iPhone."

Then I said "Well...they slipped 802.11n into the MacBook/MBPro. "n" requires a different radio and dual antenna than required for b/g." The point being the radio and antenna were in the laptops but a software update was required to make them useful.

Somehow that bring us to you claiming that software will not magically make non-existent hardware appear.

I'm sorry Teno, but odds are, you're engaging in some wishful thinking here.

If there was a 3G radio in the iPhone, just waiting to be activated by a software update, Apple would've said something by now. 3G helps them sell iPhones, and lack of 3G is one of the big slams against the iPhone, in article after article, editorial after editorial. Apple could take away one of the biggest (perhaps the biggest) reasons NOT to buy an iPhone simply by saying, "Oh yeah... and there's a 3G radio in there. Just give us time to do the software update."

Also, if there's 3G hardware already in the iPhone, why is Jobs careful to point out that future iPhones will have 3G? :\

I wanna be with you on this one Teno, I really do, because it would be awesome if it were true, but I just think you're hoping overmuch.

...Oh, and I'm sorry if I lumped you in with the folks who think that the 802.11n software update was all that was required to make 802.11n happen on MacBooks and MBPs. I've heard that from other people, it's wrong, and I'm tired of telling them its wrong. I think my reflex is to 'shoot on sight' on that one right now... my bad. ;)


[Jobs] said that but Jobs does not always mean what he says and does not always say what he means. Having inert 3G hardware in the phone to be activated later is one way to accomplish what he has said.
Again, I really admire your ability to hope.

So now we can count on some Swedish firm to have definitive info on Apple's future plans?
Sounds higher percentage than thinking the iPhone will be successful in Europe without 3G.

But you're right... those damn, crafty, untrustworthy... Swedes. :lol:

In any case, if the Euro iPhone doesn't have 3G at launch, you can bet that a 3G version will be following shortly thereafter. Because that's a market where consumers have had 3G for awhile, and expect it. If Apple drags ass over there on that, they can likely kiss that market good-bye. :(

.

[TBaggins]

All wireless is theoretical. At best, it is actually half the speed, and more often, less than one third. When signal isn't great, it's often no better than a fifth.
Even at half-speed, Rev C looks awesome. 140 Mbps would be incredible, you must agree. It's tough to complain about that.

Land line speeds are close to what the companies state. My DSL is always within 20% of the delivered speed. My home 1 Gbs Ethernet network is within 10% of stated speed.

As backbone speeds continue to rise, FIOS will go even higher. I've seen a couple of studies that show with that multiplexing, FIOS can hit 1 Gbs.
If Verizon can start deploying 1 Gbps FIOS straight to the customer's home by 2009 (when EVDO Rev C/UMB is slated to start deployment), then they are my new and powerful gods. :)

.

[TenoBell]

I'm sorry Teno, but odds are, you're engaging in some wishful thinking here.

Its not necessarily my wish. My point is that no one knows what Apple is going to do. There are a couple of options Apple has with 3G and at this point its all speculation.

It would be a mistake for people to get it into their heads that Apple will introduce a 3G iPhone at MW '08. When Apple has said no such thing. January '08 comes with no 3G iPhone and people are upset.

Its just as likely what we get on June 29th is what we will have for awhile.

If there was a 3G radio in the iPhone, just waiting to be activated by a software update, Apple would've said something by now.

That's difficult to say. Over the past week Apple has steadily announced updated specs and new features for the iPhone. Today in the video they verified that the iPhone will open PDF, Word, and Excel documents. New information is likely to continue through the week. With bigger announcements before Friday.

...Oh, and I'm sorry if I lumped you in with the folks who think that the 802.11n software update was all that was required to make 802.11n happen on MacBooks and MBPs.

Oh ok that did confuse me.

3G helps them sell iPhones, and lack of 3G is one of the big slams against the iPhone

I only hear this issue raised on the interweb. Out in real life the only complaint I hear about the iPhone is the price.

In any case, if the Euro iPhone doesn't have 3G at launch, you can bet that a 3G version will be following shortly thereafter.

Yes the logic of how Apple is doing this is confusing right now. It doesn't make any sense to introduce an iPhone right now without 3G then introduce one with 3G months later. You will piss off the people who bought an iPhone early and could impact scale of economy.

Apple also has no recent precedent of releasing products around the world that have different specs. It wouldn't be smart because that also hurts the scale of economy. If they are using 3G at all they should have in all phones.

[TenoBell]

I guess where we differ. Is I don't believe the majority of people are going to look at the iPhone and care whether it uses EDGE, GSM, CDMA, EV-DO, WiMAX, or whatever.

Where I can agree. If other phones are noticeably faster searching the internet than the iPhone. That could be a problem.

[melgross]

Even at half-speed, Rev C looks awesome. 140 Mbps would be incredible, you must agree. It's tough to complain about that.

It sure would be incredible! I don't think we'll see it too soon. They still have problems with gen 1.


If Verizon can start deploying 1 Gbps FIOS straight to the customer's home by 2009 (when EVDO Rev C/UMB is slated to start deployment), then they are my new and powerful gods. :)

.

I don't know if it will be done by 2009, but I'm willing to bet that it will be in place before 2012. The repeaters are now working. That was a big step. I'm pretty sure that the fiber that Verison is laying can do multifrequency light, and there are other methods of multiplexing without even using that.

The great thing is that once the cable is laid, it costs much less (though it's still expensive) to upgrade the nodes and repeaters. The boxes in the house might have to be changed though, depending on how they handle that part of the drop.

[melgross]

I guess where we differ. Is I don't believe the majority of people are going to look at the iPhone and care whether it uses EDGE, GSM, CDMA, EV-DO, WiMAX, or whatever.

Where I can agree. If other phones are noticeably faster searching the internet than the iPhone. That could be a problem.

What I would like to know, and I'm sure the numbers are out there, is just what percentage of people both here, Europe, Japan, and the rest of the world, are using 3G in those areas where it is available.

Of course, Apple, the cell manufacturers, and the cell network providers know this.

If we had all of those numbers, if would help us to understand what the situation really is.

[TBaggins]

It would be a mistake for people to get it into their heads that Apple will introduce a 3G iPhone at MW '08. When Apple has said no such thing. January '08 comes with no 3G iPhone and people are upset.

The problem is that Apple has already raised such expectations by releasing an iPhone 1.0 that lags behind even most common midrange phones these days in terms of data speeds. Its not unrealistic for consumers to expect the iPhone, which is cutting edge in so many ways, to go to 3G ASAP. Especially considering that the iPhone really encourages Internet usage in every possible way, except data speed. :\

Jobs saying that 3G iPhones were in the pipeline is just the icing on the expectations cake.

Its just as likely what we get on June 29th is what we will have for awhile.

Frankly, I would be shocked if we were here a year from now, and Apple still hadn't announced or released a 3G iPhone.

That's difficult to say. Over the past week Apple has steadily announced updated specs and new features for the iPhone. Today in the video they verified that the iPhone will open PDF, Word, and Excel documents. New information is likely to continue through the week. With bigger announcements before Friday.

Watch and learn Teno. No 'secret 3G' announced though launch week. Launch day getting closer, closer, hoping, hoping.... nah. Drat. Then someone will do an iPhone teardown a couple of weeks later, and there won't be any UMTS/HSDPA radio in there. Sad to say. :(

Oh ok that did confuse me.
Yeah, sorry about that.

I only hear this issue raised on the interweb. Out in real life the only complaint I hear about the iPhone is the price.
Yeah, there are some people out there who are going to buy the iPhone because its hot, or the latest trend, or whatever. Those people are not technically inclined, and don't even really know what 3G is. Put them in the same room as a halfway slick cellular salesman, and the iPhone could be based on 1980s analog technology and they'd still buy it. :err:

People like that guarantee that the iPhone is going to have absolutely no problems selling out at launch.

The problem is, what happens down the road. Can the trendies keep the sales coming six months, a year, two years down the road? We can say that "Well, the iPod is bought partly by trendies, and its still going strong and is moving 10 million units a quarter"... but most of that are relatively cheap Nanos and Shuffles, not $500-600 units (in fact, there isn't an iPod in that price range). Plus the commitment of being in a long-term contract, the cost of service, and the cost of the data plan. Whew.

At these prices, at some point you have to start selling to a more discerning crowd to keep the momentum going. A crowd that actually knows what high-speed data is, and wonders why the heck a $600 iPhone doesn't have it, when $99 phones do. :\

And that's just the US. In Europe and Asia, where Apple is less of a household name, where the cellular market is more sophisticated and 3G has been around longer, Apple runs into that crowd a whole lot sooner.

Yes the logic of how Apple is doing this is confusing right now. It doesn't make any sense to introduce an iPhone right now without 3G then introduce one with 3G months later. You will piss off the people who bought an iPhone early and could impact scale of economy.
The most logical theory I've heard revolves around power management and battery life.

3G sucks more juice than EDGE, you already have a very large screen sucking lots of power, and Apple perhaps was initially unsure that they'd be able to get battery life to the point where the iPhone was viable with 3G. This was made extra critical by their design choice to have the battery be non-removable. :err:

Also, ATT's 3G coverage is still pretty poor, and Apple could err on the side of "well, the customers are not missing much yet" with no 3G (though of course ATT's 3G coverage will be much better in a year or so). Plus, they could use WiFi as a cover, and have, to some effect.

However, final iPhone battery life specs appeared just this week, and it looks like any power management issues have been resolved... battery life now looks great. So now the road is clear to do a 3G version.

No doubt they want to, for Europe and Asia. And then they'd likely want to circle back and release it in the US, for the holdouts/more discerning customers. And to head off any high-end phone competitors that will be appearing, no doubt touting their inclusion of 3G as a selling point over the iPhone.

After all, speed is a very easy thing to sell on: :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cicguTDA6wE


Apple also has no recent precedent of releasing products around the world that have different specs. It wouldn't be smart because that also hurts the scale of economy. If they are using 3G at all they should have in all phones.

I think they will have it in all phones, it'll just take a bit of time. See above.

.

[TBaggins]

What I would like to know, and I'm sure the numbers are out there, is just what percentage of people both here, Europe, Japan, and the rest of the world, are using 3G in those areas where it is available.

Of course, Apple, the cell manufacturers, and the cell network providers know this.

If we had all of those numbers, if would help us to understand what the situation really is.
Basically, 3G is popular in Asia (specifically, 'richer Asia', i.e. Japan and Korea), and is ramping up fairly rapidly from a low base in the US and Europe, with Europe quite a bit further along:

According to industry reports, there are currently 151 3G license holders operating in 56 countries and 207 3G-networks globally, serving a total of 200 million 3G users worldwide.

In Asia, 3G subscribers have reached a market share of 38% while 62% of the total mobile subscribers are 3G enabled in Japan and Korea, respectively.

http://www.quicklybored.com/content/?p=1160

Some graphics:

http://www.cdg.org/technology/3g/resource/images/3gworldupate/ENG/Fig5.gif

http://www.cdg.org/technology/3g/resource/images/3gworldupate/ENG/Fig4.gif



In the US, 3G still has a-ways to go (we are way behind Japan and Korea in 3G penetration), but guess what'll drive demand for it? Yep, mobile 'internet rich' devices like... the iPhone. ;)

.

[TenoBell]

Of course, Apple, the cell manufacturers, and the cell network providers know this.

Which is why Apple may not worry about 3G in the near term.

Watch and learn Teno. No 'secret 3G' announced though launch week. Launch day getting closer, closer, hoping, hoping.... nah. Drat. Then someone will do an iPhone teardown a couple of weeks later, and there won't be any UMTS/HSDPA radio in there. Sad to say.

I'm not saying Apple will do this. Honestly I'm not emotionally invested in 3G.

My two basic points are that Apple has a couple of options and this is one they could do. The other is the fact that no one knows what Apple will do. Many try to predict, but at best its a shot in the dark.

Jobs saying that 3G iPhones were in the pipeline is just the icing on the expectations cake.

Frankly, I would be shocked if we were here a year from now, and Apple still hadn't announced or released a 3G iPhone.

People constantly accuse Apple hardware of being over priced and under featured. But that criticism has never forced them do anything any quicker or any different from what they've decided to do. I don't believe it'll be any different with the iPhone.

However, final iPhone battery life specs appeared just this week, and it looks like any power management issues have been resolved... battery life now looks great. So now the road is clear to do a 3G version.

If this is the theory. The battery issues have been resolved, then there is no reason we cannot have 3G now. Which leaves me to believe the battery wasn't the problem.

[TBaggins]

Sry, double post.

.

[TBaggins]

Which is why Apple may not worry about 3G in the near term.
Guess it depends by what you mean 'near term'.

In the US, of course, iPhone 1.0 will be launching next week with 2.5G. And they may even try to launch it in Europe late this year without 3G as well... at first anyway, even though its not such a great idea.

But in Asia... wow. The Asian launch is slated for 2008, where two of the key and richest markets, Japan and Korea, already have 3G penetration rates of over 50%, and increasing rapidly. By 2008, it will be hard to find a handset over there that isn't 3G.

So, the iPhone is going to launch over there without it, and expect to be succesful? Uhh... no. :\

And this is probably why Apple scheduled the launch in this way... they wanted to be 110% certain they'd be able to offer a 3G iPhone to a market that would absolutely demand one. Intelligent planning.


People constantly accuse Apple hardware of being over priced and under featured. But that criticism has never forced them do anything any quicker or any different from what they've decided to do.
That does not seem to be true. I seem to remember the G4 Cube being price cut in an attempt to 'save' it, in response to a lot of feedback saying that, while people liked the Cube, they didn't think it was worth near what Apple was charging for it.

Apple is stubborn, sure, but they're not suicidal. If lack of 3G is dragging the iPhone down in a market, they'll rectify the situation. And if its obvious that the iPhone can't be successful in a market without it, it'll launch with it (hi Asia).

Jobs has already stated that 3G iPhones are in the pipeline. I don't see a major conflict here. The question is obviously not whether we'll get 3G iPhones, but rather, how soon.


If this is the theory. The battery issues have been resolved, then there is no reason we cannot have 3G now. Which leaves me to believe the battery wasn't the problem.

If only it were that easy. Adding the required additional 3G radio to the iPhone isn't as easy as snapping one's fingers. For one thing, it takes up space in what is a very slim form factor, so some redesign may be necessary. And of course, following that, there would need to be additional and exhaustive testing of the new version. Did you check out the USA Today article, where they went into how much they tested the iPhone? It was impressive:

Thandu is one of about 200 field technicians who have been secretly testing the iPhone and looking for technical glitches for more than 10 weeks and counting. AT&T routinely tests new devices, but the iPhone has been different, Thandu says. The technicians have logged more than 10,000 hours on the phone, including more than 5,000 hours of voice calls and near 5 gigabytes of data usage. Most phones, he says, get about half that much test time.

...For the actual testing, technicians frequented all the places where consumers go: office buildings, subway platforms, stairwells, elevators, crowded bars, sprawling suburban malls and congested city streets. They also showed up incognito at Apple and AT&T stores.

To test iPhone's durability, Thandu says, they doused it with water, dropped it on concrete and bounced it off sidewalks.


In short, if the power management problems were fixed only recently (and given that the battery life times given at MWSF were different and a lot shorter than the ones given recently, I have to conclude this), no, we would not be set to get a 3G iPhone 'now'.

But in '08? Likely. 8-)

.

[Squall58]

hey, i like both YOUtube and iphone also, if wirless can make it moreconvinence. i will don't need the upcoming tool (http://www.imtoo.com/youtube-video-converter.html)to download youtube video to my iPhone

[cloud167]

hey, i like both YOUtube and iphone also, if wirless can make it moreconvinence. i will don't need the upcoming tool (http://www.imtoo.com/youtube-video-converter.html)to download youtube video to my iPhone

it is helpful~guys.thank you . but it is a pity a little relation about iPhone

[melgross]

Basically, 3G is popular in Asia (specifically, 'richer Asia', i.e. Japan and Korea), and is ramping up fairly rapidly from a low base in the US and Europe, with Europe quite a bit further along:

According to industry reports, there are currently 151 3G license holders operating in 56 countries and 207 3G-networks globally, serving a total of 200 million 3G users worldwide.

In Asia, 3G subscribers have reached a market share of 38% while 62% of the total mobile subscribers are 3G enabled in Japan and Korea, respectively.

http://www.quicklybored.com/content/?p=1160

Some graphics:

http://www.cdg.org/technology/3g/resource/images/3gworldupate/ENG/Fig5.gif

http://www.cdg.org/technology/3g/resource/images/3gworldupate/ENG/Fig4.gif



In the US, 3G still has a-ways to go (we are way behind Japan and Korea in 3G penetration), but guess what'll drive demand for it? Yep, mobile 'internet rich' devices like... the iPhone. ;)

.

Thanks a lot for those figures. I haven't been home much the past two days. I don't often have time to find this stuff.

I find the numbers to be interesting. Something to think about.

[melgross]

One thing I think I can say with confidence is that, at least here in the US, for now, most people buying an iPhone will have *never* used 3g . Therefore, they won't have anything to compare the experience to.

When I first bought my Samsung i300, years ago, my internet experience was pretty slow, but the fact that I could get on at all was incredible. I would think that many people will have that same feeling. And, as bad as it may be (I certainly won't give up my present Sprint 3G for it), it's better than the speeds I had gotten several years ago.

Most people will be pretty happy.

[TBaggins]

One thing I think I can say with confidence is that, at least here in the US, for now, most people buying an iPhone will have *never* used 3g . Therefore, they won't have anything to compare the experience to.

When I first bought my Samsung i300, years ago, my internet experience was pretty slow, but the fact that I could get on at all was incredible. I would think that many people will have that same feeling. And, as bad as it may be (I certainly won't give up my present Sprint 3G for it), it's better than the speeds I had gotten several years ago.

Most people will be pretty happy.


All that assumes that people won't be comparing the experience to their home or office broadband. Many will, even it is a bit unfair.

That's what happens to a device nicknamed "the Jesus Phone". Expectations are sky high. :\

I think it'll be more like, "Many people won't like slow-ass EDGE, but will forgive it because most else about the iPhone is pretty awesome." :)

.

[solipsism]

All that assumes that people won't be comparing the experience to their home or office broadband. Many will, even it is a bit unfair.

That's what happens to a device nicknamed "the Jesus Phone". Expectations are sky high. :\

I think it'll be more like, "Many people won't like slow-ass EDGE, but will forgive it because most else about the iPhone is pretty awesome." :)

.

Don't forget that the iPhone is not limited to EDGE, but will auto-connect to open WiFi when available.

I did a rudimentary survey a couple weeks ago with my laptop and iStumbler and found that almost every place I went on a regular basis: home, Dunkin' Donuts, the office and the airport all had free WiFi.

Hell, it might even be cheaper for AT&T to invest in free WiFi hotspots at poplar vendors than it would be to through money at 3G. I'm in no suggesting that and wish AT&T would jump aboard the WiMax bandwagon (4G) instead of waiting for the next big thing come around.

[melgross]

All that assumes that people won't be comparing the experience to their home or office broadband. Many will, even it is a bit unfair.

That's what happens to a device nicknamed "the Jesus Phone". Expectations are sky high. :\

I think it'll be more like, "Many people won't like slow-ass EDGE, but will forgive it because most else about the iPhone is pretty awesome." :)

.

I'm not so sure they will. It's a totally different device, on a different network.

[TBaggins]

Thanks a lot for those figures. I haven't been home much the past two days. I don't often have time to find this stuff.

I find the numbers to be interesting. Something to think about.

No prob. Though to further clarify some of the numbers:

In the Korea graphic, "3G CMDA 2000 1x", probably isn't. If it doesn't say EVDO, then its likely 1xRTT, or 2.5G. There's still some folks who insist on mis-classifying things. I've heard EDGE referred to as 3G, again, it's not.

Still, you can see from the graphic that 3G (EVDO) is more popular than 2.5G over there, and increasing rapidly.

For the North American graphic, 'CDMA 2000' can refer to both 2.5G and 3G, and the figures aren't broken out for each. If I were to take an educated guess, I'd say only about 10% of the North American market are currently 3G subscribers, but the number is ramping up fairly quickly.

In Europe, 3G penetration rates seem to be a bit better than that, but not by as much as I previously thought. Some countries, like Italy, have pretty decent 3G penetration rates (around 25%), but the average gets dragged down by Eastern Europe and even a few 'rich Europe' holdouts like Greece. :\

But over there, as here, its ramping up too. Some predictions I've read say that Europe will be 60% 3G by 2010, but that could be a bit high.

.

[TBaggins]

I'm not so sure they will. It's a totally different device, on a different network.


C'mon Mel. You know that consumers are neither reasonable, nor logical. :\

.

[TBaggins]

Don't forget that the iPhone is not limited to EDGE, but will auto-connect to open WiFi when available.

I did a rudimentary survey a couple weeks ago with my laptop and iStumbler and found that almost every place I went on a regular basis: home, Dunkin' Donuts, the office and the airport all had free WiFi.

Yeah, but not everyone lives in larger, tech-savvy cities. It's nice, but I don't think its a full solution.

Also, if a lot more people start using up bandwidth at said free hot spots due to the iPhone, do they all remain free? :\


Hell, it might even be cheaper for AT&T to invest in free WiFi hotspots at poplar vendors than it would be to through money at 3G. I'm in no suggesting that and wish AT&T would jump aboard the WiMax bandwagon (4G) instead of waiting for the next big thing come around.

They probably won't go WiMax. Their solution for 4G is something called UMTS Revision 8 (LTE), the standards for which are only now being finalized. There'll probably be a year or more gap between Sprint's WiMax network being widely deployed and LTE being in a lot of places, but that's nothing new for ATT/Cingular... they've been 12-18 months behind Verizon and Sprint in 3G deployment for a long time now.

.

[melgross]

C'mon Mel. You know that consumers are neither reasonable, nor logical. :\

.

Who is?

What I meant though, is that while they may think that it's slower, and it is, they will write it off to it being a phone.

[TBaggins]

Who is?

What I meant though, is that while they may think that it's slower, and it is, they will write it off to it being a phone.


I hope you're mostly right. But I still have the sinking feeling that we're going to be hearing a significant amount of negative comments from "disappointed" users on this subject, and worse, the press will be jumping all over it.

I'm sure Dvorak has his hit piece on this already written. :p

.

[TenoBell]

Well, look at the USA Today article you posted. ATT is staking its own fortune on the success of the iPhone. Investing 50 million to speed up EDGE. 200 technicians spending tens of thousands of hours field testing the iPhone. Sending hourly reports back to Apple. There are likely hundreds of other early testers out there using the iPhone everyday. I've read there are way's for Apple to optimize software for ATT network and EDGE's slower bit rate so that it doesn't feel slow. ATT and Apple have both built the hype to a fever pitch and both seem to be satisfied with its performance.

No it won't be as fast as Verizon or Sprint. But for now its likely good enough for the general consumer market. I think excellent design and ease of use will be prove more important than a faster network.

[melgross]

I hope you're mostly right. But I still have the sinking feeling that we're going to be hearing a significant amount of negative comments from "disappointed" users on this subject, and worse, the press will be jumping all over it.

I'm sure Dvorak has his hit piece on this already written. :p

.

There always people not happy about an Apple product, and it becomes very public. But while we've seen many articles about Apple's woes with their laptops, and iPods, many of it right here, it doesn't seem to have affected their sales.

[solipsism]

Well, look at the USA Today article you posted. ATT is staking its own fortune on the success of the iPhone. Investing 50 million to speed up EDGE. 200 technicians spending tens of thousands of hours field testing the iPhone. Sending hourly reports back to Apple. There are likely hundreds of other early testers out there using the iPhone everyday. I've read there are way's for Apple to optimize software for ATT network and EDGE's slower bit rate so that it doesn't feel slow. ATT and Apple have both built the hype to a fever pitch and both seem to be satisfied with its performance.

No it won't be as fast as Verizon or Sprint. But for now its likely good enough for the general consumer market.

It will be interesting to see how much slower these "optimizations" will make other AT&T phones in comparison. I can see a great many current AT&T customers getting pissed but most of them will ultimately purchasing an iPhone instead of switching carriers, IMO.

[solipsism]

There always people not happy about an Apple product, and it becomes very public. But while we've seen many articles about Apple's woes with their laptops, and iPods, many of it right here, it doesn't seem to have affected their sales.

You're dead wrong here, Melgross. Apple notebook sales were only up 94% over the previous year instead of 95% because of all these negative comments from nay-sayers.

[melgross]

You're dead wrong here, Melgross. Apple notebook sales were only up 94% over the previous year instead of 95% because of all these negative comments from nay-sayers.

Ya know, I had a feeling I should have said something like that in the post, or someone else would.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/ad/bash.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

[TBaggins]

You're dead wrong here, Melgross. Apple notebook sales were only up 94% over the previous year instead of 95% because of all these negative comments from nay-sayers.

I think, when things are going well, it's easy to get complacent and assume that you're always doing the right thing. That's right about when things start to go wrong. :(

Sadly, Andy Grove had it right... "Only the paranoid survive." :\


PS-

Oh, and of course, Engadget is already reporting that the iPhone user experience with EDGE is slow, and that YouTube doesn't work well at all on EDGE (well, duh):

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/23/new-details-about-the-iphone/

.

[TBaggins]

Well, look at the USA Today article you posted. ATT is staking its own fortune on the success of the iPhone. Investing 50 million to speed up EDGE. 200 technicians spending tens of thousands of hours field testing the iPhone. Sending hourly reports back to Apple. There are likely hundreds of other early testers out there using the iPhone everyday. I've read there are way's for Apple to optimize software for ATT network and EDGE's slower bit rate so that it doesn't feel slow. ATT and Apple have both built the hype to a fever pitch and both seem to be satisfied with its performance.

No it won't be as fast as Verizon or Sprint. But for now its likely good enough for the general consumer market. I think excellent design and ease of use will be prove more important than a faster network.

I hope you're right, though I personally don't think it's going to be all roses.

Side note: ATT spending 50 million to improve their EDGE network is really not much at all.

Large carriers like ATT and Verizon routinely spend 5 to 6 billion dollars a year on their networks. They have to, or they get left behind. :wow:

So, the 'Fine EDGE' program, if it cost that, was less than 1% of ATT's capex this year.

.

[TBaggins]

Side note #2:

Anyone else getting tired of the AI forums being down so much? They seem to be on their back more than a Bangkok masseuse, if you'll pardon the comparison.

I've spent a good amount of time over at MacRumors lately, not by choice, and I gotta say that if this keeps up, I may be giving up on AI.

Great site, but what's the point if I end up going over to MR anyway half the time because AI's on the fritz again? Blah. :no:

.

[melgross]

Side note #2:

Anyone else getting tired of the AI forums being down so much? They seem to be on their back more than a Bangkok masseuse, if you'll pardon the comparison.

I've spent a good amount of time over at MacRumors lately, not by choice, and I gotta say that if this keeps up, I may be giving up on AI.

Great site, but what's the point if I end up going over to MR anyway half the time because AI's on the fritz again? Blah. :no:

.

It's true. The part that bothers me the most though, and I've tried to bring it up, with no response, is that we never get informed about problems. Every other site is good about that, except MOSR, which is the other reason I don't go back there any more.