or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › iPhone - Looks like the rumors were true...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPhone - Looks like the rumors were true... - Page 4

post #121 of 211
There is a fallacy here, I think, between speculating whether iPhone will be an iApp or hardware.

Application support (including the extant Address Book and iChat, and possibly Mail) is a given. Hardware is not. But it's occurred to me that Apple has a couple of ways of bringing hardware phones into their digital hub without trying to out-Nokia Nokia. Look at most of the phones out there: They are designed to be essentially self-contained and autonomous, which means that the designers are forced to pack a lot of information into a tiny screen, and force their customers to manipulate it with a hopelessly impoverished interface. This means that people pay for all the features and then don't use them, or grumble as they do use them.

Now, look at the iPod: Its capabilities are determined by what its interface can easily support, and the interface is dead simple. You can hold the iPod and access every bit of its functionality with one hand. The name identifies it as a generic container, and it's designed to be extensible. The MP3 playing ability is just a "killer app."

So, to bring phones neatly into the digital hub, here's what Apple has to do: Add Bluetooth to the iPod. Now, iPod can sync with Address Book, so it can also update a cell phone's address book. A person can navigate to an address book entry and have the iPod tell the cell phone to call over Bluetooth.

Now, that's absolutely minimalist, and not altogether sufficient. You can sync the phone with the Mac, after all, and cut the iPod out altogether. So here's my idea:

Right after the iPod was released, it was noted that the 1/8" plug was deeper than the standard variety, allowing Apple to send additional information through that wire. I've read that the actual working bits of a cellphone could fit on a fingernail. So, put the working bits in the iPod. Now, sell a headset with a mic' whose jack fits all the way into the iPod's plug. iPod now knows it can make phone calls. So you use the scroll wheel to find the person you want to call, and call them. The hardware and software interface to the iPod is no more complex, and the headgear is not significantly more complicated. This would, I think, handle the majority of what people actually want out of a cell phone, except that it would be much easier to learn and to use. And it would also play MP3s.

Obviously, this ignores the PDA/cellphone integration trend. But so what? As soon as Apple goes there, they're supporting another platform, and the iPod's dead-simple interface, which is optimized for retrieval, becomes a liability. They're competing directly with the most profitable lines offered by Sony, Nokia, Sony-Ericksson, and others, which buys them nothing. People who want the advanced functionality of the high-end cell phones can simply buy one, and both iPod and the Mac will integrate it comfortably into the Digital Hub. The one thing that would complete it is if the iPod (or the Mac) could query the phone for new contacts, etc., and update themselves with that information.

Thoughts?
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #122 of 211
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>There is a fallacy here, I think, between speculating whether iPhone will be an iApp or hardware.So here's my idea:

Right after the iPod was released, it was noted that the 1/8" plug was deeper than the standard variety, allowing Apple to send additional information through that wire. I've read that the actual working bits of a cellphone could fit on a fingernail. So, put the working bits in the iPod. Now, sell a headset with a mic' whose jack fits all the way into the iPod's plug. iPod now knows it can make phone calls. So you use the scroll wheel to find the person you want to call, and call them. The hardware and software interface to the iPod is no more complex, and the headgear is not significantly more complicated. This would, I think, handle the majority of what people actually want out of a cell phone, except that it would be much easier to learn and to use. And it would also play MP3s.

Thoughts?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't have an iPod but played with one briefly at the Apple store. So what if you wanted to call someone not in your files? Where's the key pad? It would need a key pad to be successful as a phone I believe. It would need more buttons, talk, end, hold, mute, redial, add to memory, etc. So I think the current deisng is too limited and would have to be re-worked. Also, what you describe is like a headless phone, or an ipod that can take calls. Just doesn't sound that exciting. I think if it is hardware, it would be something else. Something that would make the iPod more of a comminication device then strictly an mp3 player with some address features. Also, I think the OS would need to be expanded. Even so, I think I'd pass and get some of the new Sprint phones with color displays, cameras, video, games, etc. $250 for a sprint phone or $500 for an iPod that I have to fumble with a headset and scroll wheel to place or take a call? I don't think that's the way to go. I think that's the 'too simple' approach. Apple would need to have another 'wow, I never thought of that' in order to be a success.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #123 of 211
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>

I don't have an iPod but played with one briefly at the Apple store.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't have a cell phone or an iPod - although I've also played with one at an Apple Store - so there's a good chance that my idea is horribly wrong. But then, one of the things that has consistently put me off of cell phones is the prospect of poking endlessly at obscure buttons in order to get them to do anything more complicated than call the number I just punched in. As it stands, and notwithstanding their popularity, they're a case study in poor UE. And the UE seems to get worse the more you spend, as the feature list grows but the hardware interface remains unchanged.

[quote]<strong>So what if you wanted to call someone not in your files? Where's the key pad? It would need a key pad to be successful as a phone I believe.</strong><hr></blockquote>

In that case you would be looking at different hardware, since a keypad on the iPod makes no sense. On the other hand, the keypad would only be use for what it was designed for. I was going off assertions by people in Digital Hub that they mostly only called from their contacts list anyway; to the extent that people currently don't, it might be because it's a royal PITA to enter people into the average cell phone's contact list. Phone keypads were never meant to handle that sort of thing, and it shows. Using Address Book, OTOH, is a cinch.

As for fumbling with the headset: You have to do that with the iPod anyway. Presumably, if you have an iPod on you, you're already wearing the headset.

No "add to memory" is necessary, and the iPod's current wheel and buttons can handle most of the other functions you cite. This is strictly a retrieval device, like the iPod. Remember: Simple. If you want more, get one of the fancy phones, and wrestle with the significant increase in the complexity of operating the thing.

As for originality, I don't think anyone else has thought of anything like this. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, I don't know. But it would certainly get people saying "I'd never imagined that!"

[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #124 of 211
[quote]Originally posted by Nebagakid:
<strong>yeah, apple had two patents/things from Pixo, one for iPod, and the other, it seems, for the iPhone.... the iPhone is not a video/audio conferencing app</strong><hr></blockquote>

Where did you get this tidbit from?

Apple's agreement with Pixo was to license their software for two devices, one the iPod, the second one as yet unspecified. It seems likely that it would be the iPhone if the iPhone is indeed coming soon. Then again it could be something else entirely.

And Amorph, I do agree with you in principle, but I don't agree with the iPhone being a hack onto the iPod. Seems kind of inelegant, don't you think? However, if one were to apply the basic principles of the iPod to a mobile phone device, things could get a lot more fun. Instead of fussing with obscure functions on a mobile phone, control it from your Mac if you happen to be on it at the moment. Say you're chatting with a friend on iChat and decide to start up a conversation over the phone.. click a button and your phone rings her up.

By the way (this is tangentially related), why is Apple working with Cingular anyway? What Steve discussed at the last MacWorld had to do with client-to-client solutions only... Mac to phone, phone to Mac. Cingular would have nothing to do with that. I think Apple may be working with Cingular to provide .Mac services over phones. Publish your iCal calendar to .Mac and view it on a phone. This way no having to view a static calendar on an iPod.. you can actually edit your schedule on your phone and your calendar will automatically update on the web.

[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: frawgz ]</p>
post #125 of 211
The iPod will remain a dedicated device for music (and possibly video) and not be a multi-purpose digital player/recevier/computer/communicator. Apple is smart to know that keeping things relatively simple is the way to go. It keeps prices resonable and simplifies things for the consumer. Techies want complicated things. The general public does not. Think appliance.
Things Ain't What They Seem!
Reply
Things Ain't What They Seem!
Reply
post #126 of 211
Remember rotary phones?

Why don't they just make a thing where you spin the scroll wheel around to the number you want, then press ENTER, and then go to the next number

it is probably just as fast <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
post #127 of 211
I don't see why an extension to the iPod would be that strange. It's like the car stereo adapter device.

But it would be sort of inelegant. And break with the etablished "phone paradigm" that people are used to, like the qwerty keyboard that make people type slower than optimal. If people can't find the little buttons with numbers on, they won't think its a phone... Then again, Apple users are of course better educated than the average..
post #128 of 211
If we combine Amorph and Nebaka's ideas, we come up with a very simple device that would give a much improved UE over the existing phones.

Why not throw in speech recognition there? Most current phones have some minimal speech recognition. Given the direction most states are headed to ban cell phone use while driving, speech recognition is a must.
iMac G4 800
Reply
iMac G4 800
Reply
post #129 of 211
[quote]Originally posted by MacsRGood4U:
<strong>The iPod will remain a dedicated device for music (and possibly video) and not be a multi-purpose digital player/recevier/computer/communicator. Apple is smart to know that keeping things relatively simple is the way to go. It keeps prices resonable and simplifies things for the consumer. Techies want complicated things. The general public does not. Think appliance.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I just hope that they make it so I can download pictures from my camera to my iPod, at least for storage, viewing is still possible on the camera before DL to the iPod. Viewing on the iPod would be nice (especially if they put one of those OLED screens in there)
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #130 of 211
You know, if bluetooth was added to the iPod, then if you need a keypad... add a wireless keypad.

It seems to me the advantage of bluetooth is that all the elements of a device can be separated (within reason).

-12
post #131 of 211
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>
iPod now knows it can make phone calls. So you use the scroll wheel to find the person you want to call, and call them. The hardware and software interface to the iPod is no more complex, and the headgear is not significantly more complicated.
Thoughts?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sony "invented" one handed operation long before Apple with the introduction of Jog-Dial.
And mobile phone interfaces to make just a call are not complex at all. However there needs to be an elegant solution for services like WAP provides. This is where Apple may jump in.

[ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: Quick ]</p>
post #132 of 211
[quote]Originally posted by Quick:
<strong>

Sony "invented" one handed operation long before Apple with the introduction of Jog-Dial.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I did not claim that Apple had invented the idea, only that they already had an implementation that has proven to be extremely popular and general-purpose. The iPod needs only the most minimal extensions to its interface to work the way I want it to. It's about 95% there. There just needs to be a way to call a contact that you've brought up with the existing interface. If the contact has a number, a single press of a single button could accomplish that.

[quote]<strong>And mobile phone interfaces to make just a call are not complex at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I said that. My complaint, explicitly, was with the use of the dialpads to e.g. maintain contact lists, and navigate through an interface. Obviously dialpads are just fine for dialing.

[ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #133 of 211
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>
I said that. My complaint, explicitly, was with the use of the dialpads to e.g. maintain contact lists, and navigate through an interface. Obviously dialpads are just fine for dialing.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry, I had no intension offending you. My language may sound harsh at times, because I'm not used to write in english.
What I meant is maybe better described like this: There is no need/advantage for Apple to shine with a simple interface, because it already exists in this market. There has to be more to catch attention.
The reason I don't see the iPod as a mobile phone also lies in it's form factor. Here in Switzerland mobile phones are called "handys". The iPod does not feel handy enough with it's "boxy" shape.
post #134 of 211
How plausible is it for the new iPods with trackpads to have points on the trackpad marked with numbers (as in the loony mockup earlier in this thread) and function as such? Wouldn't this get rid of the elementary data-input problem (i.e. dial a new number) needed with mobile phone technology?

Just musing to myself,

Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Hope Springs Eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Reply
Hope Springs Eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Reply
post #135 of 211
personally, i hope this iPod/iPhone combined device doesn't happen unless the following two conditions are met:

the iPod is great for those long dreary plane trips. with mobile telephony included, it would preclude using it on a plane unless there was a virtual phone on/off functionality for just such an occasion (as well as the bluetooth).

the other caveat would be device size, the combo device would have to retain the iPods ciggy-box size which i'm not sure would be that feasible given how they have the current components squeezed tightly in there already.

but hey, i have a nokia 7650 and that's just too big (all you who are drooling over the SE p800, it's about the same dimensions...) yes girls size does matter
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
thinking different(ly)
Reply
thinking different(ly)
Reply
post #136 of 211
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>I was going off assertions by people in Digital Hub that they mostly only called from their contacts list anyway; to the extent that people currently don't, it might be because it's a royal PITA to enter people into the average cell phone's contact list. Phone keypads were never meant to handle that sort of thing, and it shows.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry, Amorph, I find it is a simple task to store new numbers into my mobile phone. For instance, I can store the number "15555551212" and assign the name "Amorph" (with a capital "A") to it, completing the process and saving it to my phone's memory in a total of 25 keystrokes. Hardly less efficient than doing it on your Mac, and certainly more efficient when you're not at home than 1: writing down a number on a piece of paper; 2: remembering to add the number when you get home; 3: waking your Mac up from sleep; 4: launching Address Book; 5: Making the entry (requires several clicks and 17 key punches); 6: Launching iSync and syncing your phone.

I don't know a single person who'd rather do it the second way. Perhaps you're more technophobic than I thought possible for a forum moderator (or is it "cellophobic"?)

I would never want to use the iPod's interface in any way to make a phone call, be it from memory or not. I could pull from memory and call "Steve Jobs" in my cell phone in seven quick strokes: {down},p/q/r/s,t,{call} (if I had an entry for him). That's a lot faster than I can dial up "Call Me" by Blondie on my iPod under any circumstances.
post #137 of 211
Not to mention that if there's any phone the size of an iPod these days, no matter if it's from Apple or the Starship Enterprise, it'll sell worse than snow cones in Antarctica. This is one market where Apple can't afford to release anything that's larger than the competition.
post #138 of 211
My 5 cents canadian (2 cents american) and since we are all guessing...

iPhone will be software/hardware. Much like iSync, only useful if you have the hardware.

Hardware will be airport enabled portable phone, possibly video (albeit small) enabled. Possibly bluetooth, most likely not. I can't see them utilizing a cell phone tech, unless it behaves like a Blackberry...

Software will enable connections to a normal phone line or tcp/ip packet switching on the internet, through (where else?) iphone.org. @mac account required. Users without the phone can use a microphone on the computer, maybe a webcam as well.

May use quicktime streaming for connections. Not likely unless both parties have compatable connection speeds. Doubtful if it would allow video confrencing... unless new formats for compression in real time are developed.

iPhone account will enable storage of messages, much like @mac. Compressed files are downloaded and played later.

I can't see Apple trying to totally reinvent the wheel with a cell phone. The ipod was a collection of already made items released in a unique package. Perhaps the most unique part of the whole being the use of firewire for download and power.

For them to take something simlar to a portable phone, incorporate a lowres camera (or newer?), the already existing airport/bluetooth and freeing you from long distance phone charges and phone cables... Well, that smacks of genuis to me... Find another use for technology which is already here, instead of inventing new tech from the ground up.

Now, if they could incorporate this in a format like the blackberry, where messages are stored elsewhere and relayed, and if those messages can include video... anywhere witin a digital broadcasting area... well, that would be icing on the cake.

Don't be too hard on criticising me... I just made this up...
Original B&W G3 640M 20G Trackball Coolpix990 CDBurner Epson870 Snapscan1236 (Powerbook12" in six months)
Reply
Original B&W G3 640M 20G Trackball Coolpix990 CDBurner Epson870 Snapscan1236 (Powerbook12" in six months)
Reply
post #139 of 211
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>

Sorry, Amorph, I find it is a simple task to store new numbers into my mobile phone. For instance, I can store the number "15555551212" and assign the name "Amorph" (with a capital "A") to it, completing the process and saving it to my phone's memory in a total of 25 keystrokes.

[...]

I don't know a single person who'd rather do it the second way. Perhaps you're more technophobic than I thought possible for a forum moderator (or is it "cellophobic"?)</strong><hr></blockquote>

It might be because my only experience with this involved a Motorola cell phone? It was ugly, and although it didn't take me that long to figure out (without a manual) it was tedious and maddening, and I could easily see why my mom had punted the task of entering her contacts to me.

I'm not really concerned with what I can handle - I'm the sort of person who is lured by blinking 12:00s into figuring out how to set the clock, and I can usually suss it out quickly even if it's buried in a submenu somewhere. I'm concerned with the people who call me because they know I can do that. Apple products are, first and foremost, for "the rest of us," meaning the nontechnical people who just want things to work in the most straightforward manner possible.

As an aside, the number of keystrokes it takes you to accomplish something isn't as relevant as the ease with which those keystrokes can be discovered, and the clarity with which the interface reminds you of what the proper keystroke is. Most people never bother if the learning curve's too high. We're exceptions. Even if it takes longer to get somewhere (e.g. with the iPod's dial) it's acceptable if the way there is more obvious. The iPod's interface is almost ridiculously simple, and direct insofar as it doesn't require you to approximate letters with numbers.

But then, my main experience is with a cheap Motorola phone, so YMMV.

[ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #140 of 211
You're right on with the "ease of discovery" aspect, and this is one place where very clearly the Mac kicks ass over anything ever released by Microsoft.

Motorolas are in fact notorious for being difficult to figure out.

On the other hand, Nokias are known to be very intuitive, though admittedly some functions can be more easily accessed if you know the proper shortcuts (the same goes for the Mac OS).

All I do is dial a number on my phone, and the selection button changes to "options". Press it once, and the first option is "save". Click that and it prompts for a name automatically. Enter the name and it's automatically saved to your phone's memory. Couldn't possibly be easier to figure out than that.

On the other hand, on Motorolas, you notoriously have to navigate to "add name" (takes a few steps in the menus) and enter the name (without automatic capitalization) before you can even begin to type a number. It's a horrible interface. I'm not surprised that was enough to turn you off from mobile phones. It's like being introduced to computing in the days of a GUI with a machine that boots straight into DOS. I still know many, many people who are still turned off from computers because of their experiences with a bad interface. They never allow themselves to realize and accept that it doesn't have to be that difficult.
post #141 of 211
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>On the other hand, on Motorolas, you notoriously have to navigate to "add name" (takes a few steps in the menus) and enter the name (without automatic capitalization) before you can even begin to type a number. It's a horrible interface. I'm not surprised that was enough to turn you off from mobile phones. It's like being introduced to computing in the days of a GUI with a machine that boots straight into DOS. I still know many, many people who are still turned off from computers because of their experiences with a bad interface. They never allow themselves to realize and accept that it doesn't have to be that difficult.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmm! On my Motorola, all you have to do is enter the number, choose "Store" and then a contact will automatically be entered with that phone number. All that remains is adding a name (which will be automatically capitalized) to that contact.
post #142 of 211
HAs anyone used the Sony Ericsson T68i? I just got one and I was impressed at the ease of use, it is by far the easiest phone to use I've ever had.

I used to buy only Nokia, they were pretty good for intuitiveness, then I moved to Samsung and that was so bad I decided to switch to the T68i despite the Samsung being less than a year old.

I can't say I really like the look of the T68i interface (it's all a bit Crayola) but it was darn easy to enter all my contacts.

The main problem I find with all the 'advanced' stuff like GPRS and whatnot is that it's just all so fiddly in a phone that I can't be bothered to use any of it. I think this is a limitation with the phones size more than anything else. A cell phone is always going to be second rate at using the web IMO, doesn't matter who makes it.
post #143 of 211
I've always used Siemens and i find their interface superb. .. my 2 cents ZA.

G
never underestimate the predictability of stupidity
Reply
never underestimate the predictability of stupidity
Reply
post #144 of 211
[quote]Originally posted by fridgemagnet:
<strong>HAs anyone used the Sony Ericsson T68i? I just got one and I was impressed at the ease of use, it is by far the easiest phone to use I've ever had.

I used to buy only Nokia, they were pretty good for intuitiveness, then I moved to Samsung and that was so bad I decided to switch to the T68i despite the Samsung being less than a year old.

I can't say I really like the look of the T68i interface (it's all a bit Crayola) but it was darn easy to enter all my contacts.

The main problem I find with all the 'advanced' stuff like GPRS and whatnot is that it's just all so fiddly in a phone that I can't be bothered to use any of it. I think this is a limitation with the phones size more than anything else. A cell phone is always going to be second rate at using the web IMO, doesn't matter who makes it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I just got the T300 and I imagine the interface is similar. It is a pretty simple interface.
post #145 of 211
Having to enter a single Name & Number is ususally a not too complex task on most mobiles today. I started with a Nokia and have recently moved to an EricsSony T68i. The Nokia UI is more intuitive than the Ericsson one. Not because I was used to Nokia, but because it's more logical in many way and behaves a lot more as you'd EXPECT it to behave.

The T68i is still a BIG improvement over older Ericsson mobiles.

i had to move ALL my old contacts to my new mobile phone. Since I hav euse the multientries in my Nokia (one name, several numbers and eMail etc.) I couldn't get them out by software. Nokia still refuses to give out the specs. So I typed them by hand into my mac OS X AddressBook application.

Using iSync and bluetooth I had over 150 persons with a total of more than 300 entries plus my calendar info on the new phone within about 4 minutes. No way you could enter that info in less than a few days by typing on that tiny keys of the mobile...

I guess iPhone might be a combination of BT headset allowing you to use it as VoIP phone integrated with iChat and QuickTime Broadcaster.
i still hope to get my speakers an mikrophone of my Mac to use as hands free set for my phone. Would be the perfect addition. Also call notification without having to have AddressBook running would be nice. :-)
fear the monsterjaeger,
especially if you're a monster...
Reply
fear the monsterjaeger,
especially if you're a monster...
Reply
post #146 of 211
Nokia sucks. Apple won't enter the phone market with a flimsy Nokia-like device and sell it on advertising.

It will be simple, with very little moving parts, and most importantly FOCUSED.

Simple keypad with navigation keys, contacts, calendar, text messaging.

Text is HUGE, and no doubt Apple will doubtlessly market Jaguar's SMS capabilities.

It will have blue-tooth and USB. Battery life will be fantastic, it will be light and small but not flimsy or fiddelly.

Barto
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #147 of 211
I do like that one Nokia design that has a cover with a phone keypad that flips up and around to reveal a split QWERTY keyboard on either side of the screen. That is flat-out ingenious.

I have a tremendous resistance to the idea of typing letters with a numeric pad. It's just ugly, and completely un-Apple. That's why my idea did not handle text input, actually. I limited the features to whatever could be accomplished straightforwardly from the interface (in this case, the iPod's). Yes, it tethers the phone to the Mac more closely than most cellphones would be , but with the tradeoff that it would be so much cleaner and simpler to use.

In keeping with that, if Apple released a separate device with a dialpad, I would expect it to function as a dialpad. If you want text input, there has to be some straightforward way of inputting text. Which is why I like that one Nokia design (although the rest of the features on that particular phone are the usual random jumble that makes all cell phones seem not-quite-there to me). It's the most ingenious way to stash a full keyboard in a handheld device that I've seen.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #148 of 211
[quote]Originally posted by Barto:
<strong>Nokia sucks. Apple won't enter the phone market with a flimsy Nokia-like device and sell it on advertising.

It will be simple, with very little moving parts, and most importantly FOCUSED.

Simple keypad with navigation keys, contacts, calendar, text messaging.

Text is HUGE, and no doubt Apple will doubtlessly market Jaguar's SMS capabilities.

It will have blue-tooth and USB. Battery life will be fantastic, it will be light and small but not flimsy or fiddelly.

Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apple would never put USB in over Firewire, that's just plan stupid. They have spend alot on the development of firewire and hope to have it adopted by other developers.
post #149 of 211
"The Stylus is the handset."

Well, that was interesting....


Aries 1B
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
post #150 of 211
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>I don't know a single person who'd rather do it the second way. Perhaps you're more technophobic than I thought possible for a forum moderator (or is it "cellophobic"?)</strong><hr></blockquote>

I carried my T68i around for two weeks along with my Nokia that it was replacing until iSync was released so that I wouldn't have to enter all the numbers and information. Kind of a pain, but to be able to load every name, address, email, a whole range of numbers (Home, Cel, Work, etc) and notes in a couple of short minutes via iSync - that was well worth the inconvenience. I guess I'm a cellophobe. cool!

[quote]Originally posted by fridgemagnet:
HAs anyone used the Sony Ericsson T68i? I just got one and I was impressed at the ease of use, it is by far the easiest phone to use I've ever had.<hr></blockquote>
I've owned three Nokias before I got my T68i.
I had it for about four months and I'm selling it to a friend as soon as I can get the Nokia bluetooth phone.
The T68i is sluggish (I hear a firmware update fixes that, but breaks bluetooth in some phones) and the menu system sucks! I love and am used to how Nokias work. The SonyEricsson just has too many things that bug me - It turns off in your pocket even though you have the keylock on! Sheesh!
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
post #151 of 211
Heavens, that's a long thread !

I'm amazed with all the possible ideas that the formum members come up with - with this sort of forum, Steve might decide to cost-cut his innovation department one day....

Maybe I didn't read all the comments, but I noticed that most arguments are rather technocentric. I'll try a little different approach, trying to derive conclusions from the industry logic, particularly the cell phone industry, which ticks a bit different in comparision to the "normal" IT industry.

I think that people at Apple are aware that their experience with being too pioneering are not too good: neither Newtons nor digital cameras achieved the commercial success that they, IMHO, deserved.

On the other hand side, their first experience with a "commodity entertainment device" like the iPod are very positive - the advantage is that the principle of the device is already know to a mass market, so Apple didn't need to spearhead the user acceptance.

This would be a good argument in favour of a cell phone, given that there are just about a billion people out there using one.

However, looking at the Digital Hub Strategy, it becomes clear that Apple wants to serve as the integration center of technologies, without necessarily providing the hardware themselves. In other words: it's iPhoto instead of an Apple digital camera now.

iPod was the first "contradiction" to this philosphy, Apple suddenly venturing into the hitherto - for them - uncharted waters of musical entertainment hardware.

This can leave us with one conclusion only: Apple is oberserving very carefully the markets surrounding the Digital Hub, trying to figure out where mere software integration serves best their purpose or if there's eventually a buck to be made out of offering streamlined hardware that does banal things better than any other device out there.

In other words: Apple will certainly also observe the smartphone / PDA market and iSync is the obvious first result of this.

The fact that the cellphone technology is already widely accepted might tip the balance in favour of considering also a hardware offer.

However, Apple is also very aware of the importance of branding. And the attempt to "out-Nokia" Nokia is bound to fail - and they know.

But you don't need to produce everything yourself that carries your brand.

Maybe Apple takes branding one step futher. Like most others, they have already outsourced the actual hardware manufacturing to the Flextronics of this world. Maybe they aim to integrate their brand into another branded product ?

It could make sense to have the brand of the phone manufacturer for the underlying hardware and have an Apple-branded software layer.

Nokia would certainly not accept anything like this, but someone struggeling for survival, like SonyEricsson, might be in for a bargain.

The rest of the current cellphone industry logic would support this approach: Sony Ericsson is a founding member of the Symbian consortium. Symbian is the "old" EPOC operationg system from the PSION PDAs, specially adapted to cell phones.

Sony Ericsson, Nokia, Motorola and Siemens have committed to this OS, so mastering the technology with one manufacturer will give you access to potentially 80% of the cell phone market.

However, Symbian is ONLY a OS, not a GUI. What we see now is the advent of standardized GUIs, as defined software layers on top of the Symbian basis. The best point in case: Nokia's "Serie 60" standard, which they have already licenced to Samsung and Siemens - we will see a lot of smartphones based on this software specification in the coming months.

The advantage of this standard: even though it defines the basic GUI element on the smart phone, it still gives you total freedom as to their arrangment into your particular look'n feel.

So I wouldn't wonder if Apple wasn't exploring to use underlying SonyEricsson hardware and to build its own, Apple-branded software either right on top of the Symbian OS or maybe even only design their own, particular Apple GUI within a higher-level definition like the Serie 60 approach (...but SonyEricsson, to my current knowledge, did not licence the Serie 60 standard).

This approach would allow Apple to embed whatever integration technology they deem necessary to make the device fit their Digital Hub Strategy. Standards like SyncML are, of course, already part of the mentioned cell phone standards.

Quite an intriguing thought: with this kind of approach you might either buy directly an Apple-branded phone, perfectly integrating into the rest of the MacOS world OR you might even be able to buy the phone you like most from the Nokias, Siemens etc. of this world and send it to your Apple dealer to have it flashed with the Apple iPhone software suite....

The advantage for Apple is clear: it would not need to bother with cell phone hardware, which is clearly not their focus. And it is not as easy as some forum members seem to believe to master all the different cell phone standards: only a couple of weeks ago did Qualcom introduce its first chipset to support both CDMA and GSM telephony.

Multi-band phones, supporting the different frequency implementations of GSM (900, 1800 and 1900 Mhz) are commonplace by now, but cross-standard hardware is basically non-existant. The Asian manufacturers are e.g. struggeling hard to adapt their phones to GSM - and the results are still far from being satisfactory. In other words: just because Nokia is churning out millions of phones, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's easy to do for everyone else.

Add on top of this that these observations only cover voice telephony, and not yet the whole array of CSD, GPRS, Bluetooth and other data transmission technologies which must be seamlessly integrated on top of the basic voice communication features, and you have a pretty good ideas why Apple will certainly not be so foolish as to bring their own cellphone to the market.
...did you know ? You can use Apples to break Windows :-)
Reply
...did you know ? You can use Apples to break Windows :-)
Reply
post #152 of 211
Mobile/cell phone providedrs get their phones directly from the manufacturers. Apple does not make any of their products. Nokia, Motorola, Sony et al have the advantage of being able to provide phones to their customers at pretty low cost. Many people who sign up for a cell service get the phone for nothing or at a price well below the actual cost of the device. Providers make their money on one and two year contracts. How can Apple make any money on such a similar deal, particularly since each of the above mentioned companies make 100s of phone variations specifically designed for the various providers. It would be a huge mistake and would cost Apple in earnings. They should stay out of a market they have no business being in. A dumb, dumb idea IMHO.
Things Ain't What They Seem!
Reply
Things Ain't What They Seem!
Reply
post #153 of 211
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>

I don't have an iPod but played with one briefly at the Apple store. So what if you wanted to call someone not in your files? Where's the key pad? It would need a key pad to be successful as a phone I believe. </strong><hr></blockquote>

speech recognition.
handwriting recognition.
touch screen.

[ 12-07-2002: Message edited by: Krassy ]</p>
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #154 of 211
[quote]Originally posted by MacsRGood4U:
<strong> Apple does not make any of their products. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Nitpick: Apple assembles the PowerMacs in their own plants.

However, that doesn't contradict your larger point that Apple would contract out the production of a hypothetical cell phone, which is why it's a nitpick.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #155 of 211
I'm too lazy to actually read this mongo huge thread.... I just want to throw in my guess as to what an iPhone would be.

My guess would be that it is voice communication over the internet. Say that iPhone is a cheap device, that you hook up to your mac. You could talk long distance to anyone else with an iPhone without long distance charges. The biggest drawbacks of this idea are that it couldn't really interact with the regular telephone network and that your would need a connection which is better than a 56k modem.

I can't see apple making a cell phone... the cell phone market is saturated and existing ones seem to work pretty well.
<a href="http://www.yiminee.com" target="_blank">http://www.yiminee.com</a>
Reply
<a href="http://www.yiminee.com" target="_blank">http://www.yiminee.com</a>
Reply
post #156 of 211
okay, anyone want to go over to <a href="http://www.railheaddesign.com" target="_blank">RAILhead Design</a>, read Maury's thoughts on where apple's IP over Firewire opens all sorts of interesting possibilities with the Mac as a digital hub. now start working phone capabilities and airport and/or bluetooth.

plus, i want to say the idea earlier in this thread about using the circular trackpad as an old-time rotary dial phone is so crazy it's perfect!
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #157 of 211
Well, though this discussion has been extremely fun, it appears to be a moot point.

Check out <a href="http://www.macosrumors.com/" target="_blank">http://www.macosrumors.com/</a>

Seems iPhone is going to be an iApp integrated with iChat for Voice-over-IP and Video-over-IP.
post #158 of 211
[quote]Seems iPhone is going to be an iApp integrated with iChat for Voice-over-IP and Video-over-IP <hr></blockquote>

Macosrumors.com is not a very accurate sourse. The often claim stuff that was reported in other rumor sites a few days before. If iPhone is software that works with iChat, why have name for part of another program? Would the new name be iChat plus iPhone? If it is part of iChat it should just be called iChat 2.0
PC Free Since 1999

"Don't copy that floppy!"
Reply
PC Free Since 1999

"Don't copy that floppy!"
Reply
post #159 of 211
[quote]Originally posted by jante99:
<strong>

Macosrumors.com is not a very accurate sourse. The often claim stuff that was reported in other rumor sites a few days before. If iPhone is software that works with iChat, why have name for part of another program? Would the new name be iChat plus iPhone? If it is part of iChat it should just be called iChat 2.0</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, they've done fairly well from what I've seen. Anyway, there's a few possibilities: 1) it's simply an internal codename, or 2) it's a seperate app that ties into iChat (ie. can be used independantly, or to initiate video with someone you're chatting with already).
post #160 of 211
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>

Nitpick: Apple assembles the PowerMacs in their own plants.</strong><hr></blockquote>

They used to. My Power Mac was assembled by Apple in Singapore, but the new DDR Power Macs are assembled in China.

That means that unless Apple has opened a new plant in China, the Power Mac is probably now assembled by one of the Chinese or Taiwanese owned plants in Guangdong.

Barto
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › iPhone - Looks like the rumors were true...