iPhone - Looks like the rumors were true... - Page 6

[quote]Originally posted by Burn:
<strong>My two bits

I think it may have already been mentioned here and there..

With iChat being a chat/messaging tool.. just seems to make sense to me that iPhone will introduce voice/maybe video streaming through Voice over IP? Integratded with iChat/AddressBook...

On a PC, MSN Messenger already has some of these functions(?)

No way is Apple producing a Cell Phone. I am buying a new phone soon so.. they better not anyway

[ 12-18-2002: Message edited by: Burn ]</strong><hr></blockquote>


With the recent release of IP over Firewire, it could be a desktop thingy that is connected to your mac through firewire.

Voila! VDO Phone over IP serviced by .Mac through a broadband connection.

I think the best way to implement such a technology is to make a device similar to the creative voice blaster. This discontinued devise was an external usb device which let people use their normal phones as VOIP phones. The device also contained a dsp chip for enhanced quality. I think a device, based onfire wire with simlar properties, plus the following would be great:

LCD screen with caller ID information,speakerphone capabilities,multiperson chat, a built in video cam (usb chat cam quality). The iPhone app would support major protocalls such as VOIP, Netmeeting,mp3/mp4. There are two things needed for this device and app two succeed:
Easy to config. the app will automatically detect the codec used and optimize settings.


Sound quality must be on par with regular phones when using 56k modems. Most people still use dialup, so it is important that the device works with these slower connections.

The quality of streamed mp3 and mp4s is acceptable over 56k, so I think that it is possible that Apple could use this technology to provide high quality, easy voice and video chat. A DSP chip may help as well.

[quote]Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch:
Someone, cant remember who, got quoted for saying something like this: "In the comming months, one of our favorite personal computer companys are going to release a bluetooth enabled gizmo" <hr></blockquote>


David Pogue said (something like) that.

Mandricard
AppleOutsider

[quote]Originally posted by Jamil:
<strong>


With the recent release of IP over Firewire, it could be a desktop thingy that is connected to your mac through firewire.

Voila! VDO Phone over IP serviced by .Mac through a broadband connection. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Im with Jamil. Think about it. A DVCAM that can transfer video over a wireless connection (via wi-fi using paired IP addresses) *OR* over a wired connection (firewire using paired IP addresses). Apple has to include firewire for backwards compatibility and doesn't want to put a cat5 terminal on the camera there are already so many.... USB, Firewire, CF card, etc...

but really, who knows

Here we go again...

Apple girds for sync push

<a href="http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-978408.html" target="_blank">http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-978408.html</a>

--
Ed

I was wondering if the vague conceptions of iPhone discussed above might be paired with <a href="http://www.spymac.com/comments.php?id=P179_0_5_0_C" target="_blank">this SpyMac story?</a> Spymac (iWalk, COUGH) has been eerily on target with their dot mac news, and this one has always intrigued me. Has anyone used or visited no-ip.com?

Mandricard
AppleOutsider

[quote]Originally posted by Ed M.:
<strong>Here we go again...

Apple girds for sync push

<a href="http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-978408.html" target="_blank">http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-978408.html</a>

--
Ed</strong><hr></blockquote>

I read that story and I don't see where there is conflict. Apple has iSync Microsoft had ActiveSync, I don't think that Apple management believes that they can control a market through iSync which the article is eluding to. Neither company has said that they wish to control that market. In fact it may be good for Microsoft to force a standard, or by hinting at it, force the "hub-device" makers to use open standards better. Seems to me that Apple is in a good position to roll with the flow in this case, and in many other cases as the X-model moves forward. Maybe I'm not getting the story, I don't think that there is much to write about here.

[quote]Originally posted by Mandricard:
<strong>I was wondering if the vague conceptions of iPhone discussed above might be paired with <a href="http://www.spymac.com/comments.php?id=P179_0_5_0_C" target="_blank">this SpyMac story?</a> Spymac (iWalk, COUGH) has been eerily on target with their dot mac news, and this one has always intrigued me. Has anyone used or visited no-ip.com?

Mandricard
AppleOutsider</strong><hr></blockquote>

OK, I briefly mentioned this in another thread, but this SpyMac link is dead on.

I spoke with a person high in the development team of Rendezvous specifically about the concept of integrating a .Mac service of dynamic IP tracking with Rendezvous. I was told I was dead on target. By tracking dynamic IP addresses, .Mac becomes VERY powerful in several different ways when combined with Rendezvous services. (Remember, you can request Rendezvous services over IP, it does not have to be only on a LAN)

Let me try to explain it for you. You have a Rendezvous enabled Snow Airport base station working as your DHCP server for your LAN. All devices behind the NAT are identified by name, and the IP address of the Airport is tracked via .Mac. Now, instead of uploading pictures, movies and whatever else you want to share (hint hint) to Apple servers, you simply post references to your .Mac account that says what machine they are stored on behind your Airport. Upon receiving a request at your .Mac homepage, the request is routed to your Airport that then knows which machine inside the NAT to request the media from. Remember, Napster did not store the MP3 files, it stored the references to those files. Think of the same system but for anything you want to share off your machines. Also, by utilizing Rendezvous, you make this much easier to set up.

Now specifically in regards to these rumors of iPhone, this makes even more sense. By tracking dynamic IP addresses you get away from needing a dedicated IP address to reliably contact someone. And by incorporating Rendezvous, you can target specific appliances within the NAT.

The coolest part is that these capabilities can be utilized outside of the .Mac framework. If you wanted to set up your own server, a group of your friends could share files easily. Or you could set up a commercial service. In my conversation I used the term 'tribes' to describe what I was envisioning, and the Apple source agreed it ws a good analogy. If Napster used a centralized database to reference decentralized media files, what I am talking about is a way to easliy create your own central database. Decentralize the centralized aspect of Napster (the part most vunerable to legal attack).

The internet was originally intended as a way to share information across equal peers. In the nineties, with the explosion of the web and dial up access, that model changed to a server client relationship. Dynamic IPs prevented local peers from easliy sharing. Now with rendezvous, we can "get the internet back to what it was intended to be."

[quote]Originally posted by blue2kdave:
<strong>
...a person high in the development team of Rendezvous specifically about the concept of integrating a .Mac service of dynamic IP tracking with Rendezvous. I was told I was dead on target. By tracking dynamic IP addresses, .Mac becomes VERY powerful in several different ways when combined with Rendezvous services. (Remember, you can request Rendezvous services over IP, it does not have to be only on a LAN)

Let me try to explain it for you. You have a Rendezvous enabled Snow Airport base station working as your DHCP server for your LAN. All devices behind the NAT are identified by name, and the IP address of the Airport is tracked via .Mac. Now, instead of uploading pictures, movies and whatever else you want to share (hint hint) to Apple servers, you simply post references to your .Mac account that says what machine they are stored on behind your Airport. Upon receiving a request at your .Mac homepage, the request is routed to your Airport that then knows which machine inside the NAT to request the media from. Remember, Napster did not store the MP3 files, it stored the references to those files. Think of the same system but for anything you want to share off your machines. Also, by utilizing Rendezvous, you make this much easier to set up..."</strong><hr></blockquote>

Interesting concept. The problem with this, and other speculation on the whole .Mac issue is that doing this adds another bill on top of a service that you are paying for anyway. This is worse IF the services that are being offered REQUIRE a broadband connection, becouse your potential customer base (especially since broadband has been traditionaly non-Mac friendly) has been diminished considerably. The only way to increase your customer base further would be to open it up to Windows.

Now IF Apple can put a package (hardware/software) together that is compelling enough they might be able to "license" the service through internet providers to make the fee's "hidden", sort of like how HBO sells its cable programing.

Or Apple could buy Earthlink, or another ISP and graft .Mac onto their protal software package, sort of like AOL does with their software/service. But they will have to market hard and fast to gain enough customers to make an investment like this pay off, think "Price Wars". This could backfire, as big money like MSN and AOL continue "up the bar" and drop the price of their broadband services, and monthly fees spiral down to near dial up prices. I think that this price ware is looming anyway, and it wont be a good market to be in when it happens.

Either way for Apple to REALLY be successfull with any of this they will need Windows support as soon as possable, untill they can come out with computer hardware that can really compete in the price/performance arena.

@homenow: Surely this will come bundled with .Mac and the $100 fee paid anyway? I hardly think they will add on other charges on top of this?

Apple is probably thinking big: if broadband is required for this to work properly, well, people had better hurry up and get broadband In 5 years, most people who would care enough to use these services will have it, IMHO.

low-fi

[quote]Originally posted by low-fi:
<strong>@homenow: Surely this will come bundled with .Mac and the $100 fee paid anyway? I hardly think they will add on other charges on top of this?

Apple is probably thinking big: if broadband is required for this to work properly, well, people had better hurry up and get broadband In 5 years, most people who would care enough to use these services will have it, IMHO.

low-fi</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm sure that it will be bundled with .Mac, but .Mac is an addition $100 a year on top of the cost of broadband. Also, at some point Apple will have to increase the cost of that $100/year service to pay for additional services that it provides. Again that is on top of $50/month broadband service, and probably a cable bill that will begin to approach $200 as new "value added" services are tacked on like video on demand.

Keep in mind that there is a limited amount of monthly $ that the average family has to spend, if you cut too much into that then you limit the potential $ that this family has to spend on large $ items (ie. Mac computers). I dont think that the internet will be able to push aside Cable as a source for home video entertainment. Since the Cable industry still has what is essentially a monopoly in most markets, dont look for Cable costs to come down to allow Broadband in. There fore brodaband, and any monthly costs on top of it such as .Mac, are more likely to be "sacroficed" when money is low, and therefore it is not a "stable" source of money for Apple in the long run...

[ 12-22-2002: Message edited by: @homenow ]</p>