or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple working on second, iChat-based cell phone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple working on second, iChat-based cell phone

post #1 of 60
Thread Starter 
Apple Computer, which recently released its first mobile handset to manufacturing, is working on a second model that will incorporate messaging capabilities, according to one Wall Street analyst.

"From our understanding, it will leverage off existing iChat software that runs on Macs," American Technology Research analyst Shaw Wu told clients on Monday.Â*"We believe it will focus initially on mobile IM as opposed to e-mail."

Wu said it's unclear when Apple hopes to deliver the second device to market, as it appears to remain in the development phase. He said this newly uncovered handset is likely the company's 'smart phone' and could be branded as "iChat mobile."

"We remain uncertain on the exact timing for iPhone, Apple's first in-house iTunes cell phone with a nano-like candy bar form factor we first mentioned in early September," he said. "We believe its 'go-to-market' strategy continues to be the gating factor (MVNO vs. traditional carrier or both)."

On the other hand, Wu said it's his belief that Apple is fast approaching a resolution to its market strategy and the he remains high in his conviction that the company's first cell phone will be released in 2007.

Meanwhile, the analyst said his sources are also indicating that Apple's new (PRODUCT) RED iPod nanos are selling well.

"These iPods are sold through Apple direct channels, have a unique red color, and are for a charitable cause where Apple donates $10 for each sold to AIDS research," he told clients.

Wu is currently modeling Apple to sell 14 million iPods for the December quarter, but given recent momentum in RED iPods, believes his forecast is likely to turn out conservative.

The analyst maintains a 'Buy' rating on shares of Apple with a price target of $92.
post #2 of 60
All the cell phone carriers are moving towards an INSTANT video chat. It is unfortunate that Apple will not team up with EV-DO revision A carriers such as Verizon and Sprint to make this phone worth while.

T-Mobile and Cingular will not have very much to offer as far as TRUE high speed goes.

We'll see what happens here in the near future.
post #3 of 60
I'm still waiting on Mobile Me.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #4 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by donlphi

It is unfortunate that Apple will not team up with EV-DO revision A carriers such as Verizon and Sprint to make this phone worth while.

I'm hoping Apple becomes it's own carrier. Apple will surely make money on the hardware but the real money is in the subscription service.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #5 of 60
So basically he's telling us that the first one is a 2G phone, and the second is a 3G phone or WLAN phone? But as usual this Shaw guy talks like he's just speculating:
"From our understanding, it will leverage off existing iChat soft..." and "We believe it will focus on mobile IM..." doesn't sound too meaty.
It sounds like he's analyzing his own speculations.
post #6 of 60
Am I the only one that finds it funny that they are working on "#2" when there has been Zero proof there was ever a "#1"?
ACTC Certified, ADC Member, & Owner of a ACN....
Reply
ACTC Certified, ADC Member, & Owner of a ACN....
Reply
post #7 of 60
I wonder what Wu is gonna do when aapl hits 92?

damn- i just poeticized didn't i?
post #8 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by donlphi

All the cell phone carriers are moving towards an INSTANT video chat. It is unfortunate that Apple will not team up with EV-DO revision A carriers such as Verizon and Sprint to make this phone worth while.

T-Mobile and Cingular will not have very much to offer as far as TRUE high speed goes.

We'll see what happens here in the near future.

We've had video chat on mobile phones in the UK for ages and ages.
post #9 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonepilgrim

We've had video chat on mobile phones in the UK for ages and ages.

hasn't Japan had it for years too?

Why does cell service suck so bad in America?
post #10 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by mariofreak85

hasn't Japan had it for years too?

Why does cell service suck so bad in America?

Size.

Think about it...deploying new service technology to all of Britian is like deploying it to all of Texas (where I am proud to say I am from, incidentally). The United States has enormously larger landmass than Britian...but the service area of a given cell tower is no different in the US than Britian...so the greater amount of equipment that needs to be deployed to perform a system-wide upgrade in the US is hugely expensive in comparison.

My two cents.
post #11 of 60
I don't think that's the case. If people are clammoring for these video chat mobile phones, why don't wireless providers offer these phones in a region such as New York, run a test phase of the product to see how well it performs, and then begin a gradual release throughout the country?
My guess is it has to do with profit margins and the initial cost to the wireless providers in maintaining the system that can handle video chat. If they (Verizon, Cingular, Sprint, etc.) are pursuing this technology at all, they're still probably trying to figure out on how they can profit from it without losing a lot of money.

That's my guess, but I could be wrong.
post #12 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by parksgm

Size.

Think about it...deploying new service technology to all of Britian is like deploying it to all of Texas (where I am proud to say I am from, incidentally). The United States has enormously larger landmass than Britian...but the service area of a given cell tower is no different in the US than Britian...so the greater amount of equipment that needs to be deployed to perform a system-wide upgrade in the US is hugely expensive in comparison.

My two cents.

Seems like good logic, but countries like Sweden also have the technology, and they have fewer people per square mile than the USA.

However I'm certain it is a contributor, simply because of the vast number of square miles in the USA means the cost to deploy new technology is vast - better to wait a few years for the technology to mature and get cheaper. Also sensible because no-one uses 3G video services even when they have access to it. They want to talk, or text.

Texas has nearly 3x the land area of Britain, btw.
post #13 of 60
Video telephony is a dud. It has been available over the landline for decades. Why would you use that? European carriers are in tears about the money they spent on UMTS licenses, because customers don't use it. I'm genuinely not interested in a video phone. I want integration with iTunes (without artificial limits to the number of songs), iCal and Address Book. This is what phones are lacking today.

VOIP integration would be nice too. E-Mail - maybe, but most people don't need E-Mail on the road, and if you do, you're a business type who already has a Blackberry. I guess I wouldn't use it. Think about it: It's just like buying music, you better do it on your desktop computer, not on a handheld device.

While an MVNO could have a fantastic potential as Apple had the chance to introduce lots of innovative services, we should not forget what a mess .Mac is. It's unstable/slow, overpriced and years behind the free competition from Google, Yahoo and all of those Web 2.0 websites. For now I would be fine if Apple offered that phone without contract and service and I'd probably buy one right away.

Many people expect subsidised phone, but on the other hand they are fine with paying $199 oder $249 for their nano. So if for example an iPhone with 2GB music storage can be offered for $299, there might already be millions of people who'd buy it without subsidies.
post #14 of 60
I'm not sure that this video chat thing is the way to go to gain success. We've had it for ages (Sweden), and no one uses it, perhaps because of high prices, about five times higher than ordinary taxes, but it seems like a gimmick.
post #15 of 60
Ahh, yes. The second Apple phone. It's a good thing, too, since the first one came and went with hardly a notice.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #16 of 60
Meanwhile, the analyst said his sources are also indicating that Apple's new (PRODUCT) RED iPod nanos are selling well.

"These iPods are sold through Apple direct channels, have a unique red color, and are for a charitable cause where Apple donates $10 for each sold to AIDS research," he told clients.


I'm thinking if you're a "client" who needs an "analyst" to explain what the Red iPod is, you're not really going to be flying with the Buffetts anytime soon.
post #17 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by mariofreak85

hasn't Japan had it for years too?

Why does cell service suck so bad in America?

America has no hold on bad cell service.

True some countries are better than others. Some countries appear to be more advanced. However, before anyone craps over Apple, one should aware of the following re communication products, companies, media (radio, television, wireless, etc.)

Each country has regulatory bodies that govern communication.
Some might be considered in the dark ages.
Som countries are extremely large, heavily populated, modern, etc., conversely true and everything in between.
Some are very restrictive when it comes to allowing foreign developed, created or manufactured devices.
Some need an even act of congress to allow the sale or use of foreign developed or made products.
Some won't even allow a foreign owned comunication product or company to operate in their country.
Some have no standard in place whatsoever and some standards are not even allowed.
Some laws are federal and some are state controlled.
Some areas within a state are locally controlled.
Some require considerable and often restrictive procedures for application to operate of distribute.
Some restrict areas within parts of their country from cell services.

Take all the above and consider that cell towers are being shared. Some have been in place since inception. Most often, a $50 phone works just as well as or as poorly as a $2000 phone being in the same area.

Remember, it took an Act of Congress to get HDTV.

And, that more that half the world doesn't even have access to a telephone.
post #18 of 60
Where did Wu get his info, from his bum bum?
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #19 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider

he remains high

What's he on?
post #20 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbh0001

What's he on?

He's been huffing RDF fumes again.
This username is deprecated. Upgrade to andreslucero.
Reply
This username is deprecated. Upgrade to andreslucero.
Reply
post #21 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by parksgm

Size.

Think about it...deploying new service technology to all of Britian is like deploying it to all of Texas (where I am proud to say I am from, incidentally). The United States has enormously larger landmass than Britian...but the service area of a given cell tower is no different in the US than Britian...so the greater amount of equipment that needs to be deployed to perform a system-wide upgrade in the US is hugely expensive in comparison.

My two cents.

England = 50,085 square miles
United States =3,537,441 square miles

Or think of it this way...
England is 1/5 The size of Texas
but has more than twice the population of Texas

Japan = 145,898 square miles
Japan is almost as big as California
but has 3.5 times the population of California
post #22 of 60
Ah, the Wu Insider strikes again.

Seriously, this guy doesn't know any more than the rest of us. If we used our combined knowledge of providers and strategies and just plain knowing what we want, we could churn out a better report than this guy.

I'll begin:

I predict Apple has made a prototype phone.

If you'd like to add to this, feel free.

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #23 of 60
Our service sucks because of the private market approach we took.


We use nonstandard frequencies for GSM, 3G, and the completely non-standard CDMA technology for our service. So we have to pay more for altered phones and have to blanket the country at least twice (one for each network technology). That is why our system sucks. If we had adopted the European GSM technology, Korean WCDMA or Japanese network technology we would have better phones and service.

Basically the FCC failed to do its job and set standards. Like the costs of not being metric, they are hidden from the consumer who pays for them every day.

I will admit some of those frequencies were reserved for the military, but 3G presenter the perfect opportunity to harmonize and transition them off the needed frequencies and they didn't do it.
post #24 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by reverie

Video telephony is a dud. It has been available over the landline for decades. Why would you use that? ...

Sure, in a HOME, video phone HANDSETS are pretty rediculous. What am I going to show you? Me sitting down?

Imagine, I have family that lives in Illinois (which I do), and I am living in the Seattle (which I do) and I am going to my son's soccer game (imaginary son, no kids yet). How cool would it be to be able to video chat with my mother and show her grandson playing in his first soccer match ever (Football to you UKers).

Let's say, you are anywhere where you want to show anybody something. You can describe it in words on the phone, and a picture is worth 1000 words or something, but seeing something for yourself is priceless.

I have this to say about the UK and Japan having an "unsuccessful" video chat...
People in Japan and the UK have countries about the size of some of our states in the U.S. (slight exaggeration) so it is easier to visit family and friends if they live in other countries. It's a weekend getaway. In the U.S. a flight from Seattle is about 2200 miles. It takes roughly 8 hours to fly (round trip)... the price ranges anywhere between $300 and $1200 round trip depending on the airline and time of year and how advanced you plan your trip.

Obviously video chat doesn't beat seeing somebody in person, but it feels pretty good when you haven't seen somebody in a while and it's the only option at the time. I think it is going to be huge, particularly for Apple owners that already have iCHAT. PC users may not find this very useful since they have such lame video chat options.
post #25 of 60
As for the phone, I would be really surprised if it wasn't a 3G phone from the beginning. There are plenty of decent, not too big, 3G phones out there, and in other markets like Europe and Japan, there are even more. Plus UMTS is at least a bit more standardized between Europe and Japan than using GSM which the Japanese don't use at all.

Perhaps a keyboard model and non-keyboard model I could see, but if it doesn't even match an LG CU500 or SE W850, then there is really no point in Apple even bothering.
post #26 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKN

Our service sucks because of the private market approach we took.…

"Basically the FCC failed to do its job and set standards. Like the costs of not being metric, they are hidden from the consumer who pays for them every day."

Actually, the FCC did do its job and part of the problem they have to take blame for. However, it takes an Act of Congress for the FCC to do many of the other things to significantly improve things.

GSM is a foreign invention and thus subject to certain restrictions which by the way took 9 years before it was accepted for use in the US. Now since 911, we some have other concerns.

One of the things that we do slowly is change. Although the cell phone was invented in the U.S., when the government gets involved, changes are even slower.

"The basic concept of cellular phones began in 1947, when researchers looked at crude mobile (car) phones and realized that by using small cells (range of service area) with frequency reuse they could increase the traffic capacity of mobile phones substantially. However at that time, the technology to do so was nonexistent.

Anything to do with broadcasting and sending a radio or television message out over the airwaves comes under Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation. A cell phone is a type of two-way radio. In 1947, AT&T proposed that the FCC allocate a large number of radio-spectrum frequencies so that widespread mobile telephone service would become feasible and AT&T would have a incentive to research the new technology. We can partially blame the FCC for the gap between the initial concept of cellular service and its availability to the public. The FCC decided to limit the amount of frequencies available in 1947, the limits made only twenty-three phone conversations possible simultaneously in the same service area - not a market incentive for research.

The FCC reconsidered its position in 1968, stating "if the technology to build a better mobile service works, we will increase the frequencies allocation, freeing the airwaves for more mobile phones." AT&T and Bell Labs proposed a cellular system to the FCC of many small, low-powered, broadcast towers, each covering a 'cell' a few miles in radius and collectively covering a larger area. Each tower would use only a few of the total frequencies allocated to the system. As the phones traveled across the area, calls would be passed from tower to tower."

Well, as the first, countries that followed had the luxury to change and improve the technology had an advantage. Obviously, copying, recognizing the inadequacies, correcting and improving the system is significantly less costly than being the first kid on the block. We have to remember also that we have government, business and private citizens who can affect progress. Many other countries don't have such luxuries or disadvantages, depending upon how we want to look at it.
post #27 of 60
Video chatting on a mobile phone on the street, or in a subway/bus makes you look like the biggest idiot alive.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #28 of 60
Kinda like how people using hands-free or a BT headset look(ed) like a total idiot ? Or how people thought SMS was retardedly slow ? Mobile video chatting will gain in popularity, once price point/usability/market pentration reaches a certain point. I dread the day it becomes socially unexpectable to not look someone in the eye over the phone.

Re: North America's crappy cell service. As the pioneers originally with cell technology, North America invested FAR more than anybody else in analogue infrastructure. Feeling sufficiently burnt from this, they're playing real cautious when it comes to 3G / Next / Edge etc.

It sure does suck, but a combination of geography, demographics and previous infrastructure investments mean we'll be behind Western Europe and East Asia for a while.
post #29 of 60
Quote:
I'm not sure that this video chat thing is the way to go to gain success. We've had it for ages (Sweden), and no one uses it, perhaps because of high prices, about five times higher than ordinary taxes, but it seems like a gimmick.

True, but remember how crappy MP3 players were before the iPod came along.
post #30 of 60
Wu's off on one again!
post #31 of 60
I'm not so sure. Video chat has been available with iChat on a Mac for some time and despite that, and the $150 I spent for an iSight camera, I hardly used except for the novelty of it.

Voice and/or text communication allows you to focus on other things while chatting. This is not to say that an Apple iPhone will not incorporate video into it's design. In fact, I think it will be included, after all, it's already in iChat. I just think that as a the most popular way to communicate it isn't the best option.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #32 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shookster

True, but remember how crappy MP3 players were before the iPod came along.

That's a non arguement, people have being listening to music on the go for 30 years.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #33 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider

"From our understanding, it will leverage off existing iChat software that runs on Macs," American Technology Research analyst Shaw Wu told clients on Monday.*"We believe it will focus initially on mobile IM as opposed to e-mail."

What? - I can only video chat with a few other people knowing there are millions out there?

The IP approach (voice or video) isn't going to work unless the operators really want it i.e. low data costs & low latency & if it conflicts with their own services it ain't happening.

McD
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
post #34 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by O4BlackWRX

Am I the only one that finds it funny that they are working on "#2" when there has been Zero proof there was ever a "#1"?

I agree. This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. There is no iPhone as of this writing and here they are speculating on a second one.
post #35 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland

That's a non arguement, people have being listening to music on the go for 30 years.

I think Shookster's point is there's a difference between doing a job & doing a job so well it takes off & makes us change how we do things.

Not sure about mobile video chat, Vodafone have it at the same cost as voice chat here in NZ & I still don't know may people who use it that often (or am I just ugly?)

McD
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
post #36 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by panamajack

I dread the day it becomes socially unexpectable to not look someone in the eye over the phone.

Until the screen & camera are truly integrated you CAN'T look someone in the eye over video chat. Even with iSight's good positioning you always look like you have your eyes lowered - but my girlfriend's used to that. though video-chatting with Mum's a bit disconcerting.

McD
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
post #37 of 60
doesn't anyone remember the hoax 'iChat Mobile' that went around not so long ago?
post #38 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave

Until the screen & camera are truly integrated you CAN'T look someone in the eye over video chat. Even with iSight's good positioning you always look like you have your eyes lowered - but my girlfriend's used to that. though video-chatting with Mum's a bit disconcerting.

McD

Apple does have a patent for the technology that will fix that...
post #39 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave

Until the screen & camera are truly integrated you CAN'T look someone in the eye over video chat. Even with iSight's good positioning you always look like you have your eyes lowered - but my girlfriend's used to that. though video-chatting with Mum's a bit disconcerting.

McD

..true
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #40 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacSuperiority

Apple does have a patent for the technology that will fix that...

..true
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple working on second, iChat-based cell phone