Originally posted by Ireland
[B]Before Apple entered the mp3 player market, they had never done it before. Before Boot Camp, they had never done that before. Before a lot of stuff, they were virgins to things.
I don't think you're seeing why this is a major change. Apple has made boxed products you buy in stores where the market had already proven people are willing to go into stores and buy them before. They have a lot of experience in that area. So the MP3 player, while not an exact product Apple had sold before, was not a major change for them. It wasn't a change in business model. It wasn't ever likely to be a catastrophic failure. There were things they've done in the past that were bigger gambles that people wouldn't have described as major changes in direction, Newton and Pippin being but two.
Boot Camp is a generic utility and Apple has, indeed, made utilities before and will continue to do so. Boot Camp is not the basis of any change in business, it's a product enhancement of the type Apple is doing all the time.
None of the things you're mentioning refer to Apple undergoing a massive change in business model (the MVNO route), or else going into markets where they're beholden to other parties (carriers) or trying to sell something directly where their competitor's machines are heavily subsidized (the "sell unlocked phones" route.)
The registered iPhone.org in '99, so what? Peter Oppenheimers latest quote about cellphones, so what? Then those strings of clues found in iPod software update, so what?
So what indeed? None of the things you're pointing at amount to Apple selling an iPod phone.
iPhone.org predates even the existance of the iPod project by a year or two. Not just the iPod, but the idea ever being approved by management. Nor is it a realistic choice of domain name for Apple marketing a cellphone, it's a .org for one thing.
Peter Oppenheimer's comments, as I pointed out, were not clear one way or another and only point at Apple dealing with the changing market. One way they might deal with that is producing an iPod Cellphone.
The strings in the iPod software update, as I've said before, don't really make any sense. Think about it, for crying out loud: you're saying Apple is going to build a cellphone that uses the iPod's operating system. A cellphone. An MP3 player's operating system.
How does that make sense? It doesn't make sense. It's not even close to making sense. It makes zero sense. It's bizarre. It's ridiculous.
If you actually think Apple is not actually working on a phone, I think your crazy. If Apple actually is not working on a phone, then Apple is crazy.
If Apple is working on a phone, then there's a good chance they are crazy. If they're working with another company like Nokia or Motorola, then yeah, I can see that working.
But a phone of their own, with the intent to try to sell unlocked phones (buy a $500 iPhone to replace the phone you got for free that's not significantly worse and works fine. Uh-huh.), or make themselves slaves of Cingular or Verizon, in an industry in which the carriers are notorious control freaks who'll refuse to subsidize and market a phone they can't "customize" for maximum profitibility first), or start an entire MVNO, a massive and dramatic change in business model they're completely unfamiliar with?
No: that's crazy. Whacko. Apple thinks different, and maybe they'll do it, and perhaps they'll even pull it off; but we can't pretend they'd not be crazy for trying. It's not logical. It's not a logical next step, there's nothing logical about it. If I had stock in Apple, and they announced an iPhone, I'd sell everything I had.
The logical next step is actually licensing. If Apple is scared of hybrid devices winning out, Apple's best shot is taking advantage of their iTMS market lock and reputation, and building a front end and possibly a chipset that Nokia, Motorola, et al, can just build into their existing designs.
From their point of view, they lose a little control on the end-user experience, but they continue to have over-all control over the market, they don't limit themselves to one or two carriers who control them rather than vice-versa.
There's a lot of wishful thinking in this thread. People want
Apple to make their next cellphone. Everything Apple does that involves the word "phone" is interpreted through those glasses. In truth, the signs remain ambiguous, and there are damned good reasons why such a move would be a disaster for Apple.