iPhone to sport metal casing and virtual click-wheel?

[AppleInsider]

Morgan Stanley analyst Rebecca Runkle in a research note released Wednesday said she is high in her convictions that Apple will launch an iPhone device in the first half of 2007 and offered some specific findings from unnamed sources.

"While we view the supplier list, build forecast and exact launch timing as dynamic over the next month, our recent supply chain conversations give us high conviction in a [first half 2007] iPhone launch," she wrote. "We expect Steve Jobs to announce the iPhone at Macworld or in a separate event early next year.

To date, the analyst says her sources have turned up two flash memory-based models: a $599 4-gig and $649 8-gig. "We assume a slightly lower list price to be conservative," she said.

According to Runkle, the design of iPhone will be slightly larger than the "full screen LCD; 3.5 inch (28x21)" and approximately 4/10ths of an inch thick. It will include a virtual click-wheel/soft-touch design and be a bit wider than the iPod nano but also thinner than a video iPod.

From her checks, the analyst believes the iPhone will sport a metal casing design similar to the iPod nano and be available in "multiple colors including black, white, silver and possibly others."

In terms of functionality, Runkle expects camera, digital audio playback and video. Also likely, but not confirmed, are email and calendar functionality, she said.

Similarly, the analyst is a bit uncertain about which wireless carrier will support the device, but said Cingular is "likely" in the US market.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[nufase]

Seems a bit too $$ to me. Unless that is the unlocked no contract price.

But I'm a bit hesitant to believe anything that someone with a name like "Rebecca Runkle" has to say.

This report shouts fake to me.

[S10]

metal casing.... I hope they'll get signal reception and battery life to be acceptable..
I have a Nokia 8800.. beautiful metal phone.. but signal reception is crap and the battery doesn't last a day. Can't wait to change this phone for another, but similarly beautiful, design.

[mark wiechmann]

All those analysts keep saying the same..."well we think it's going to have a click-wheel AND metal casing, I mean that's not even news.. Everyone who read a bit about it, thinks so. And a new screen-size isn't to wow either I think.

*I'm thinking the iphone is going to replace one or more of the ipod family and put a phone in it. (i'm not a analyst, just hoping )

[TednDi]

Have you heard about the financial services bonuses this year?

For that much $$ they could do better than read these forums.

C'mon go out and get some real info people.

[Eduardo]

Originally Posted by mark wiechmann

...
*I'm thinking the iphone is going to replace one or more of the ipod family and put a phone in it. (i'm not a analyst, just hoping )

I don't really see that happening (assuming, of course, that all these mobile rumours are true). The mobile and stand-alone iPod family cater to different markets. If these rumours do pan out, Apple will most likely keep the ipod family as it is (keeping in mind any new additions to the family---"true" video iPod 'I am looking at YOU'").

Just my thoughts...

[fahlman]

Originally Posted by nufase

Seems a bit too $$ to me. Unless that is the unlocked no contract price.

But I'm a bit hesitant to believe anything that someone with a name like "Rebecca Runkle" has to say.

This report shouts fake to me.

Yep, She's issuing fake information in a note to her clients so their portfolio will decrease in value. What a smart idea that would be.

[dancm2000]

This is an odd time to introduce a new phone. The idea of a cell phone tower is fading technology. Soon these towers will be converted to broadband internet towers, a la Wimax, and you'll be using VoIP software to make ALL calls. Apple, and everyone else, knows this.

But the infrastructure isnt there yet for iChat (VoIP) only phone, so they need to do something in the meantime for bandwidth. I dont think they can keep putting the iPhone off either. Otherwise the iPhone becomes the Zune.... late. This guy thinks apple is going to go ESPN route and buy bandwidth:

http://ce.seekingalpha.com/article/22383 (also linked on macnn.com)

I would think Apple would do better to make a deal with the carriers. As long as verizon has proved that they understand the basic concepts of math. (verizonmath is a hilarious site) Still, we won't see what Apple can really do until the infrastructure is there for a true VoIP type mobile phone.

[IdleWanderlust]

sounds fake. as of now if the phone does exist then I will believe what kevin rose has to say about it, not someone from an investment firm that could be just trying to push more stock.

[Slewis]

WiMax is one completely overlooked Possibility for Apple staying independant...

[draizor]

Nah, she's got nuthin'! I say the woman is bluffing...

[vinney57]

What's all this WiMax bollocks? Where is the global WiMax network. Rubbish.

Oh and Rebecca's just making shit up.

[dancm2000]

Originally Posted by Slewis

WiMax is one completely overlooked Possibility for Apple staying independant...

Its just not ready yet. The only US company using even a precurser to WiMax is Clearwire, and their speeds are still too slow to compete with Cable and DSL. There are more test sites beign conducted around the globe, but security and speed is going to keep the fastest 802.16 networks from the US for at least a year or two.

From WimaxForum.org

"Mobile network deployments are expected to provide up to 15 Mbps of capacity within a typical cell radius deployment of up to three kilometers"

three kilometers? Weak. It gets slower the further away you get.

Still, eventually Apple to going to need to provide Aiport with 802.16 compatibility. I think Intel's influence will only help move that along. Remember that "device" they were working on together?

[BlackSummerNight]

Mobile VoIP..you must be kidding. VoIP isn't widely deployed to consumers yet. Vonage and other VoIP carriers are doing ok, but the number of new subscribers is dying down. In 5 years, maybe, but I think that's pushing it.

Originally Posted by dancm2000

This is an odd time to introduce a new phone. The idea of a cell phone tower is fading technology. Soon these towers will be converted to broadband internet towers, a la Wimax, and you'll be using VoIP software to make ALL calls. Apple, and everyone else, knows this.

But the infrastructure isnt there yet for iChat (VoIP) only phone, so they need to do something in the meantime for bandwidth. I dont think they can keep putting the iPhone off either. Otherwise the iPhone becomes the Zune.... late. This guy thinks apple is going to go ESPN route and buy bandwidth:

http://ce.seekingalpha.com/article/22383 (also linked on macnn.com)

I would think Apple would do better to make a deal with the carriers. As long as verizon has proved that they understand the basic concepts of math. (verizonmath is a hilarious site) Still, we won't see what Apple can really do until the infrastructure is there for a true VoIP type mobile phone.

[kcdstudios]

Originally Posted by Slewis

WiMax is one completely overlooked Possibility for Apple staying independant...

agreed. long time ago one of the rumors was that apple was going to install towers in their retail stores (or near). how hard would this actually be?

[MovieCutter]

A perfect example of how these analysts have no clue what the iPhone is or what it will look like. We're getting conflicting reports from different analysts, and they're all full of sh**.

[1984]

Lets not forget there are supposed to be two different phones. A basic nano-like version and an advanced multifuntion device. This sounds like the latter. I think they are getting the specs and prices mixed up between the two.

[Louzer]

Originally Posted by Slewis

WiMax is one completely overlooked Possibility for Apple staying independant...

What do you mean "independent"? A company does not need to market its phones through the carriers to be used on them. You can bring your own phone and just buy the service. The only downside is that you have to pay full price for the phone, not get it subsidized like all the restricted crap the wireless companies sell.

[Louzer]

Originally Posted by 1984

Lets not forget there are supposed to be two different phones. A basic nano-like version and an advanced multifuntion device. This sounds like the latter. I think they are getting the specs and prices mixed up between the two.

Yeah! How come analysts can't keep all those rumors and made-up crap organized? The next thing you know they'll be saying the new tablet mac is going to have a docking port for the iWalk. I mean, come on guys!

[gordy]

Why didn't she just go ahead a pull a rabbit out her ass while she was at it...

Analysts...

[filburt]

What is this "full screen LCD; 3.5 inch (28x21)" mean? Does 28x21 correspond to number of characters? The phone industry stopped quoting number of lines (or characters) long ago. I assume full screen means the entire front area is LCD.

[ecking]

Originally Posted by dancm2000

This is an odd time to introduce a new phone. The idea of a cell phone tower is fading technology. Soon these towers will be converted to broadband internet towers, a la Wimax, and you'll be using VoIP software to make ALL calls. Apple, and everyone else, knows this.

But the infrastructure isnt there yet for iChat (VoIP) only phone, so they need to do something in the meantime for bandwidth. I dont think they can keep putting the iPhone off either. Otherwise the iPhone becomes the Zune.... late. This guy thinks apple is going to go ESPN route and buy bandwidth:

http://ce.seekingalpha.com/article/22383 (also linked on macnn.com)

I would think Apple would do better to make a deal with the carriers. As long as verizon has proved that they understand the basic concepts of math. (verizonmath is a hilarious site) Still, we won't see what Apple can really do until the infrastructure is there for a true VoIP type mobile phone.

That may be, but the end user doesn't know that it's waiting for new tech. Appl has to act now whether or not they want to because more and more people are getting into music phones, no matter how under functional and useless most of them may be.

[macinthe408]

This phone needs to start riots when it comes out. Anything short of that and it will be considered a failure. But what amazes me is that this "phone" has generated more publicity than any other phone that actually exists. Think about that for one second? Then again, we've all been duped by vaporware, but this can't be called vaporware since Apple has never confirmed/denied that they're working on one.

And then you have the Microsoft tactic, which is to release a 1.0 product ASAP, then talk about how it's going to rule NEXT YEAR. It's like those signs I always see at bars: FREE BEER TOMORROW.

[thadgarrison]

Who in God's name would spend $600 for a phone. That's ridiculous. I think even hardcore Apple fans will raise an eyebrow at that.

I think they'll need to label it something other than a "phone" in order for it to sell. They'll need some kind of catchy vague name and it'll need to do everything - phone, camera, music, photos, video, email, chat, calendar, appt. book, etc.

Then, maybe, you'll be able to get rich people to purchase enough to drive the price down.

[david_oc]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

From her checks, the analyst believes the iPhone will sport a metal casing design similar to the iPod nano and be available in "multiple colors including black, white, silver and possibly others."

Here's the give away. The analyst know Apple's signature colour is white, with black and silver popular alternatives for varying brands. She knows the nano, Apple's most popular iPod, is made of metal. They must go together.

When has Apple ever made something where the metal was WHITE?

She's working off available info to make a prediction (which is fine and what analysts are meant to do). Unfortunately, she didn't spend enough time looking at the info leading to the mistake about the colour. This exposes the fact that she doesn't have inside info, merely publicly available info which she was too careless to examine properly.

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by thadgarrison

Who in God's name would spend $600 for a phone. That's ridiculous. I think even hardcore Apple fans will raise an eyebrow at that.

I think they'll need to label it something other than a "phone" in order for it to sell. They'll need some kind of catchy vague name and it'll need to do everything - phone, camera, music, photos, video, email, chat, calendar, appt. book, etc.

Then, maybe, you'll be able to get rich people to purchase enough to drive the price down.

This analyst is way off base...unless Apple has actually devised a tiny phone that you swallow like a pill, which then attaches to your brain stem to scan for thoughts of placing phone calls.

On the other hand, can this analyst be fired for sheer stupidity?

[Denton]

Originally Posted by dancm2000

This is an odd time to introduce a new phone. The idea of a cell phone tower is fading technology. Soon these towers will be converted to broadband internet towers, a la Wimax, and you'll be using VoIP software to make ALL calls. Apple, and everyone else, knows this.

IP is a bad way of delivering voice. The information in voice conversations must be delivered sequentially, and IP was not designed to do that. You will never see VoIP replace technoligies that were designed from the beginning to deliver voice.

[BlackSummerNight]

ahmen! VoIP is a nice alternative, but it will never relpace legacy Telephony.

Originally Posted by Denton

IP is a bad way of delivering voice. The information in voice conversations must be delivered sequentially, and IP was not designed to do that. You will never see VoIP replace technoligies that were designed from the beginning to deliver voice.

[vinney57]

Originally Posted by thadgarrison

Who in God's name would spend $600 for a phone. That's ridiculous. I think even hardcore Apple fans will raise an eyebrow at that.

I think they'll need to label it something other than a "phone" in order for it to sell. They'll need some kind of catchy vague name and it'll need to do everything - phone, camera, music, photos, video, email, chat, calendar, appt. book, etc.

Then, maybe, you'll be able to get rich people to purchase enough to drive the price down.

Maybe you should wait until THE FUCKING PRODUCT EXISTS.

[rickag]

This is the Future Hardware forum, I think?

[BlackSummerNight]

I agree with the poster with $600 being too much for a phone. He was only commenting on the speculation of the product that every analysts seem to know but not know what it is.

Originally Posted by vinney57

Maybe you should wait until THE FUCKING PRODUCT EXISTS.

If they can sell it as a MP3 player/phone/video player, I can see them selling it at that price. Now that I think about it, I paid 350.00 for my current smartphone with a contract. So 600 for a phone minus a contract sounds about right.

[MacTel]

Originally Posted by nufase

Seems a bit too $$ to me. Unless that is the unlocked no contract price.

But I'm a bit hesitant to believe anything that someone with a name like "Rebecca Runkle" has to say.

This report shouts fake to me.

Yep, if it isn't free with a service plan then I don't want it!

[dancm2000]

Originally Posted by MacTel

Yep, if it isn't free with a service plan then I don't want it!

Seriously, we all want the all-in-one device, but if it means $600 then I'll just continue duct taping my Nano to my Moto L2.

[Slewis]

Um... I just said WiMax was an option, not a sure thing.

[mikeben]

This "phone" will likely be a great first step towards the soon-to-be day when everyone carries a SINGLE device that is a phone, a PDA, a camera, a BlackBerry, a video camera/player, a music player, a game player, and an information retrieval/storage device. And it will HAVE to be stylish, light, small, and give you access to Everything, Everywhere. And it be a must-have item with a no-contract price much, much higher than the reduced price that ALL phones now have when you sign up with a provider. $600 will seem CHEAP! The cellular providers (Cingular, Verizon, etc) have the networks in place to do this. I think Apple is just recognizing the days of the independent MP3 player are numbered.

[BlackSummerNight]

There was a article that quoted SJ as saying, "I believe that smartphones are the only viable challengers to the iPod." I think this is true. I've made the jump from iPod to smartphone.

Originally Posted by mikeben

This "phone" will likely be a great first step towards the soon-to-be day when everyone carries a SINGLE device that is a phone, a PDA, a camera, a BlackBerry, a video camera/player, a music player, a game player, and an information retrieval/storage device. And it will HAVE to be stylish, light, small, and give you access to Everything, Everywhere. And it be a must-have item with a no-contract price much, much higher than the reduced price that ALL phones now have when you sign up with a provider. $600 will seem CHEAP! The cellular providers (Cingular, Verizon, etc) have the networks in place to do this. I think Apple is just recognizing the days of the independent MP3 player are numbered.

[Ireland]

I'm having trouble waiting for this/these phone(s), I know i'll just have to wait, but for such a long wait this better be done right. It's been in concept since at least 2002 (possibly since iPhone.org/'99), so lets hope the boys over at coop intend to impress me.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Also likely, but not confirmed, are email and calendar functionality, she said.

Come on.. If this phone doesn't have a calander I'll get sick.

Don't know why I'm adding this here, but I got a Wii, with 2 Wiimotes

[macinthe408]

I just want to start a side thread about quantum computers. I know they don't exist yet, but I want to challenge some information I've heard about what they can do and what they can't do.

First of all, this new quantum computer should have lots of RAM. Like 600,000 TB. Also, it should be a 16-CPU system, no less.

Additionally, if it's priced over $24,000, that's BS. They need to target this computer to be around $12,000, because, honestly, who would pay more for a quantum computer? Nobody.

It should have a calendar, spreadsheet, word processing, and built-in video games. Not to mention, four cameras (for 3-D video conferencing), and a Ultra Blu-Ray optical drive (which hasn't been invented yet, but they should start and it should cost no more than $1,330).

The quantum computer's case should be hot pink with polka-dots, although in reality we should be able to design our case online since we're paying alot for it.

I know the quantum computer hasn't even been announced, but I just want to get the mouths working on this since we're all expert armchair analysts (look at our work on the unannounced iPhone!) who know exactly what the world needs!

[audiopollution]

Originally Posted by macinthe408

I just want to start a side thread about quantum computers. I know they don't exist yet, but I want to challenge some information I've heard about what they can do and what they can't do.

First of all, this new quantum computer should have lots of RAM. Like 600,000 TB. Also, it should be a 16-CPU system, no less.

Additionally, if it's priced over $24,000, that's BS. They need to target this computer to be around $12,000, because, honestly, who would pay more for a quantum computer? Nobody.

It should have a calendar, spreadsheet, word processing, and built-in video games. Not to mention, four cameras (for 3-D video conferencing), and a Ultra Blu-Ray optical drive (which hasn't been invented yet, but they should start and it should cost no more than $1,330).

The quantum computer's case should be hot pink with polka-dots, although in reality we should be able to design our case online since we're paying alot for it.

I know the quantum computer hasn't even been announced, but I just want to get the mouths working on this since we're all expert armchair analysts (look at our work on the unannounced iPhone!) who know exactly what the world needs!

[junkie]

1) I think people are trashing this report for no reason. These are all reasonable predictions and for as much as you may criticize her, Ms Runkle has found a way to get paid for doing what you all are doing for free - so cheers to her.

2) Part of the mixed up reports in my opinion might be confusion about 2 devices. One being a new full sized ipod with one side being a full 16:9-ish display for video. The other being an iPod phone with a size in between the current iPod and nano.

Now for the iPod I would make a reasonable guess that this will be a GSM-type device, so Cingular is probably to most likely partner if there is one. Verizon Sprint would not be an option.

Second, I personally think that Apple will have a camera in these which will allow mobile video conferences between devices and between people who are on iChat. This will explain why for a while now all new macs have a video camera in the display.

Third, this iChat integration will be just one form of .mac integration which will further include address-book sync.

Those are my prediction based on my own isolated speculation - not having talked to anyone inside.