Yep <a href="http://www.t-mobile.com/hotspot/"; target="_blank">T-Mobile</a> is rolling this out too. Hm, it seems that US wireless carriers are concerned about GPRS and 3G as being wireless broadband solutions.
Given what engpjp said, quote: [quote]The network will have three major components: Mac-to-other computers, Mac-to-fixed phones (the call is sent via a locally stationed computer), and Mac-to-SMS. The latter is more relevant in Europe, but only the countries that already have such a (non-Mac) service will be eligible.
These services will be tied in with the .mac package. Needless to say, using relevant software (faxSTF, etc), one can send faxes.
The Mac-to-Mac part will include voicemail, VoIP, and videophoning; however, all these things will probably introduced in several packages.<hr></blockquote>, perhaps iPhone is part of an umbrella scheme: VoIP perhaps via new Airport hubs, BT & iSync, and anywhere/anytime messaging.
The digital hub becomes the digital communications hub.
Here's a quote from an NY times article back in August about the possibility of an iPhone. Note that SJ grudgingly admitted that it would be a good idea.
[quote] Mr. Jobs continues to be coy. He insists that he still dislikes the idea of the conventional personal digital assistant, saying that the devices are too hard to use and offer little real utility. But a telephone with personal digital assistant features is another matter.
"We decided that between now and next year, the P.D.A. is going to be subsumed by the telephone," he said last week in an interview. "We think the P.D.A. is going away."
And even while protesting that the company had no plans to introduce such a device, he grudgingly acknowledged that combining some of Apple's industrial design and user-interface innovations would be a good idea in a device that performed both phone and computing functions
GSM (used everywhere else from Madagascar to Manchester)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right, but there's three different types of GSM: 0.9GHz, 1.8GHz and 1.9GHz - the latter of which is a completely different system to the other two, and is only in use in North America.
Right, but there's three different types of GSM: 0.9GHz, 1.8GHz and 1.9GHz - the latter of which is a completely different system to the other two, and is only in use in North America.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doesn't matter since most newer GSM phones are triband.
Right, but there's three different types of GSM: 0.9GHz, 1.8GHz and 1.9GHz - the latter of which is a completely different system to the other two, and is only in use in North America.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but who cares? There are triband-chips in 60-70% of GSM phones sold nowadays anyway, plus, considering Apple's market, there's no way they'd introduce an iPhone that isn't a worldphone.
As a matter of fact, Nokia has been one of the first manufacturers to incorporate a new wireless chipset that actually supports all three GSM bands and CDMA/CDMA2000/WCDMA, I forget the chipsets' manufacturer's names but Apple could definitely use one of those as well, and that would be worth the extra money to be able to use the iPhone on the two different network technologies here in the U.S., I think. But even if it's just a separate little "card" you can place inside of the iPhone to switch between a CDMA iPhone and a GSM iPhone, I'm down with that. But for the CDMA, Apple would have to be working pretty closely with Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, and the like, because CDMA is a little more 'closed' as far as network technologies go.
Jonathan has it right, methinks. Apple doesn't typically push the boundaries terribly far these days. The iApps are cool, but nowhere near the level of revolution which is being thrown around here.
This is iChat on steroids. It is definitely an iApp. Did you see the trademark description? "Communication by computer; communication between computers". My gut tells me this is the fabled videoconferencing application. I'm sure they've dreamed up some nifty little features to make it more compelling than CU-See Me. But I'll bet that's what it effectively is.
The idea of an Apple-branded cell phone operating system is the other compelling vision I've read here. But we all know Apple is about controling the whole widget. They're not about to start licensing out an OS. Besides, they've got their hands full with OS X. I don't see them pulling any resources away from that.
Don't get your hopes too high folks. Keep your expectations low and you'll be pleasantly surprised. Let the recent powerbook revisions be a lesson to us all in managed expectations.
Hmm, not going to happen. If I put this information into Photoshop, and apply a basic reality filter, we see the likelihood is that iPhone is a crappy collaboration and video conferencing tool available only to .Mac subscribers, that will also only talk to other .Mac subscribers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Belle,
I may have been a little opague here. What I meant by "phone connectivity service" was not that Apple become a cellphone network company. "Phone" here signifies electrical dial-up voice communication. It includes, as already stated, voice communication from Mac to other computers, from Mac to wired phone via the Internet to a local computer/phone crossover point, and Mac to cellphones via SMS. A Mac will be able to receive VoIP calls (from other computers) and SMS. Plus webcam and faxing, as already described.
The crossover points will not be owned or handled by Apple.
<strong>This is iChat on steroids. It is definitely an iApp. Did you see the trademark description? "Communication by computer; communication between computers". My gut tells me this is the fabled videoconferencing application. I'm sure they've dreamed up some nifty little features to make it more compelling than CU-See Me. But I'll bet that's what it effectively is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
BUT also in that same TM is "creation and distribution of media for application in computer networks, cableless networks and worldwide communication networks; "
now that doesn't sound as lame as the iApp that you intonate does it. "cableless networks and worldwide communication networks" describes mobile telephony. a videoconferencing app would have to integrate with cableless networks somehow to warrant the TM.
<strong>Just what the world needs, another freakin cell phone.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
i wouldnt be so quick to lable this yet another cell phone..... im expecting a phone you can hook upto your computer via USB maybe and make calls to any other mac or computer or cell phone or phone in the world....via a ISP instead of dialing long distance. hence..'i' Phone. but i could be proven wrong. Also i thonk this will be a produt developed by Woz's company, but marketed by Apple (as apple being the sole buyer at this point in time)
I just hope Apple dosent decide to become a service provider for cell hones.... that would be disasterous.
i wouldnt be so quick to lable this yet another cell phone..... im expecting a phone you can hook upto your computer via USB maybe and make calls to any other mac or computer or cell phone or phone in the world....via a ISP instead of dialing long distance. hence..'i' Phone. but i could be proven wrong. Also i thonk this will be a produt developed by Woz's company, but marketed by Apple (as apple being the sole buyer at this point in time)
I just hope Apple dosent decide to become a service provider for cell hones.... that would be disasterous.</strong><hr></blockquote>
USB!!?
USB?!?!?!?
Please sir, bluetooth, mind you <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]" />
BUT also in that same TM is "creation and distribution of media for application in computer networks, cableless networks and worldwide communication networks; "
now that doesn't sound as lame as the iApp that you intonate does it. "cableless networks and worldwide communication networks" describes mobile telephony. a videoconferencing app would have to integrate with cableless networks somehow to warrant the TM.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Excellent point. However, "cableless networks and worldwide communication networks" could also be interpreted to mean the internet and 802.11b-type networks. Rendezvous?
Comments
Given what engpjp said, quote: [quote]The network will have three major components: Mac-to-other computers, Mac-to-fixed phones (the call is sent via a locally stationed computer), and Mac-to-SMS. The latter is more relevant in Europe, but only the countries that already have such a (non-Mac) service will be eligible.
These services will be tied in with the .mac package. Needless to say, using relevant software (faxSTF, etc), one can send faxes.
The Mac-to-Mac part will include voicemail, VoIP, and videophoning; however, all these things will probably introduced in several packages.<hr></blockquote>, perhaps iPhone is part of an umbrella scheme: VoIP perhaps via new Airport hubs, BT & iSync, and anywhere/anytime messaging.
The digital hub becomes the digital communications hub.
Screed ...my nipples explode with delight!
[ 12-03-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>
[quote] Mr. Jobs continues to be coy. He insists that he still dislikes the idea of the conventional personal digital assistant, saying that the devices are too hard to use and offer little real utility. But a telephone with personal digital assistant features is another matter.
"We decided that between now and next year, the P.D.A. is going to be subsumed by the telephone," he said last week in an interview. "We think the P.D.A. is going away."
And even while protesting that the company had no plans to introduce such a device, he grudgingly acknowledged that combining some of Apple's industrial design and user-interface innovations would be a good idea in a device that performed both phone and computing functions
<hr></blockquote>
Here's a link to the complete article. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/19/technology/19APPL.html"; target="_blank">NY Times</a>
Seems to me Steve was kinda miffed that the reporter was onto something real.
<strong>
GSM (used everywhere else from Madagascar to Manchester)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right, but there's three different types of GSM: 0.9GHz, 1.8GHz and 1.9GHz - the latter of which is a completely different system to the other two, and is only in use in North America.
<strong>we don't even get an Apple store!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fsck that, we don't even get a localised OS!
<strong>interesting to see how quickly this thread grew</strong><hr></blockquote>
yup
this is exciting
but I, of course, knew it all along...
<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]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>
Right, but there's three different types of GSM: 0.9GHz, 1.8GHz and 1.9GHz - the latter of which is a completely different system to the other two, and is only in use in North America.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doesn't matter since most newer GSM phones are triband.
<strong>
Right, but there's three different types of GSM: 0.9GHz, 1.8GHz and 1.9GHz - the latter of which is a completely different system to the other two, and is only in use in North America.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but who cares? There are triband-chips in 60-70% of GSM phones sold nowadays anyway, plus, considering Apple's market, there's no way they'd introduce an iPhone that isn't a worldphone.
As a matter of fact, Nokia has been one of the first manufacturers to incorporate a new wireless chipset that actually supports all three GSM bands and CDMA/CDMA2000/WCDMA, I forget the chipsets' manufacturer's names but Apple could definitely use one of those as well, and that would be worth the extra money to be able to use the iPhone on the two different network technologies here in the U.S., I think. But even if it's just a separate little "card" you can place inside of the iPhone to switch between a CDMA iPhone and a GSM iPhone, I'm down with that. But for the CDMA, Apple would have to be working pretty closely with Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, and the like, because CDMA is a little more 'closed' as far as network technologies go.
This is iChat on steroids. It is definitely an iApp. Did you see the trademark description? "Communication by computer; communication between computers". My gut tells me this is the fabled videoconferencing application. I'm sure they've dreamed up some nifty little features to make it more compelling than CU-See Me. But I'll bet that's what it effectively is.
The idea of an Apple-branded cell phone operating system is the other compelling vision I've read here. But we all know Apple is about controling the whole widget. They're not about to start licensing out an OS. Besides, they've got their hands full with OS X. I don't see them pulling any resources away from that.
Don't get your hopes too high folks. Keep your expectations low and you'll be pleasantly surprised. Let the recent powerbook revisions be a lesson to us all in managed expectations.
<strong>Also of note, the iPod was registered with this database on :
OCT 2, 2001
Apple introduced the iPod on :
OCT 23, 2001
Hmmmm.... are we set for MWSF or what?</strong><hr></blockquote>
more like a nice x-mas present
<strong>
Hmm, not going to happen. If I put this information into Photoshop, and apply a basic reality filter, we see the likelihood is that iPhone is a crappy collaboration and video conferencing tool available only to .Mac subscribers, that will also only talk to other .Mac subscribers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Belle,
I may have been a little opague here. What I meant by "phone connectivity service" was not that Apple become a cellphone network company. "Phone" here signifies electrical dial-up voice communication. It includes, as already stated, voice communication from Mac to other computers, from Mac to wired phone via the Internet to a local computer/phone crossover point, and Mac to cellphones via SMS. A Mac will be able to receive VoIP calls (from other computers) and SMS. Plus webcam and faxing, as already described.
The crossover points will not be owned or handled by Apple.
engpjp
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: engpjp ]</p>
<strong>This is iChat on steroids. It is definitely an iApp. Did you see the trademark description? "Communication by computer; communication between computers". My gut tells me this is the fabled videoconferencing application. I'm sure they've dreamed up some nifty little features to make it more compelling than CU-See Me. But I'll bet that's what it effectively is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
BUT also in that same TM is "creation and distribution of media for application in computer networks, cableless networks and worldwide communication networks; "
now that doesn't sound as lame as the iApp that you intonate does it. "cableless networks and worldwide communication networks" describes mobile telephony. a videoconferencing app would have to integrate with cableless networks somehow to warrant the TM.
<strong>Just what the world needs, another freakin cell phone.
i wouldnt be so quick to lable this yet another cell phone..... im expecting a phone you can hook upto your computer via USB maybe and make calls to any other mac or computer or cell phone or phone in the world....via a ISP instead of dialing long distance. hence..'i' Phone. but i could be proven wrong. Also i thonk this will be a produt developed by Woz's company, but marketed by Apple (as apple being the sole buyer at this point in time)
I just hope Apple dosent decide to become a service provider for cell hones.... that would be disasterous.
Would be a nice First Mobil phone for me too
-Owl
<strong>
i wouldnt be so quick to lable this yet another cell phone..... im expecting a phone you can hook upto your computer via USB maybe and make calls to any other mac or computer or cell phone or phone in the world....via a ISP instead of dialing long distance. hence..'i' Phone. but i could be proven wrong. Also i thonk this will be a produt developed by Woz's company, but marketed by Apple (as apple being the sole buyer at this point in time)
I just hope Apple dosent decide to become a service provider for cell hones.... that would be disasterous.</strong><hr></blockquote>
USB!!?
USB?!?!?!?
Please sir, bluetooth, mind you <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]" />
Initial high consumption by Apple fanatics,
Too many problems with development and manufacture,
*FAILURE*
An MP3 player is one thing, a phone is a totally different animal.
As long as it doesn't have the Apple logo plastered all over it, I might give it a look over.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>Doesn't matter since most newer GSM phones are triband.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Many newer phones are dual band - few are tri-band (ref: 7 of 21 phone listed at the Orange UK site are tri-band).
<strong>
BUT also in that same TM is "creation and distribution of media for application in computer networks, cableless networks and worldwide communication networks; "
now that doesn't sound as lame as the iApp that you intonate does it. "cableless networks and worldwide communication networks" describes mobile telephony. a videoconferencing app would have to integrate with cableless networks somehow to warrant the TM.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Excellent point. However, "cableless networks and worldwide communication networks" could also be interpreted to mean the internet and 802.11b-type networks. Rendezvous?
The plot thickens...
<strong>
You can get flight arrivals, maps, movie information, and language translation?! Please tell me you're not talking about WAP?
Also, isn't Vodafone a network rather than a cell phone hardware/software manufacturer?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course I'm talking about WAP. Does it matter which technology brings me flight arrivals, maps, movie information, restaurant info, directions, etc?
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
*I* don't care how it gets to me. I don't even really use it. I'm sure my kids will someday.