to all of you who compared this story with the iPod thing: a pod is a housing, something compact (thanx to sherlook/american heritage dic) - and finally it was... a mp3 player!
a iphone is a phone? too simple.
what a bout vid conferencing? the mysterious hidden button in iChat? prob, an iPhone is just a lil' piece of hardware, a firewire webcam for 49.99$ incl a beast of iApp? we'll see on january
Yes, I will. In 2010. But if you're expecting something like that from Apple, or anyone else, anytime soon, you'll be sadly disappointed. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Used to pst here but fogot my password
Anyway, The other day my housemate was doing a "battle of the sexes" competition via SMS. It goes like this: you send an SMS to a number with your name and sex (ie Matt M or Jill F). You are pitted against a random competitor of the opposite sex. You are then sent a question via SMS to which you type in the answer. You are then sent another qestion (5 in all) along with the message "congratulations you got that one right and Jill got it wrong". Once you have answered all the questions you are notified whether you have beaten or were beaten by your opposition and you can check the males vs females scores at a website.
The point to all this? Well, if you can send a text message to a computer with an answer, and if the computer can take that answer and access whether it is right or wrong, then is it not feasable that you could send an SMS to another computer and ask what time a movie was on at a particular cinema? ie Harry Potter 2, Southland. Or when a flight was touching down/taking off (QF101, landing). And it would be great if the phone could tell the SMS where you were so you could type in Harry Potter 2 and the computer would know you were near Southland and send you the details for those screenings (not sure how it works elsewhere but in Australia our mobile phones tell us which suburb/location we are in by getting the information from the tower we are using for access).
I'm not sure if this iPhone is hardware or software but I do know that the type of information you are looking to pass to a mobile phone is available, just that no one is really marketing it. With new phones using MMS now (t68i demoed at MW this year is one of them) you could send an SMS asking where the nearest cinema is from your location and have a map sent to you via MMS. No WAP needed just simple SMs that almost everyone uses every day (well, everyone I know anyway).
The mobile phone uptake in this country is unbelieveable!!! Every man and his dog has a mobile and use SMS all the time (the same housmate I mentioned above spends about AU$120 a month on his mobile and at least AU$50 of that is SMS @ AU$0.23 each). So, Apple (or anyone else with an interest) wouldn't need to do much to get these services running on a standard mobile phone. Just set up a number for people to send messages to asking for info, charge AU$0.10 (plus the carriers charges) per message and have the answers spat back via a computer (no per use charge to send SMS via computer) and you have a winner of a system. Only drawback is setting up a number in every country (or you could make it "free" by setting the number to send to a computer in the first place thus making the only charge the carriers fee).
Sherlock sucks ass if you live outside the States (I still can't find movie times in Melbourne via Sherlock although the flight schedules do work) so I hope if they do do this type of thing that it works worldwide from the get go.
No my god man, Gigawire! Wireless Firewire! <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
And on the other hand.. Im probably going to give my mom a new mobile phone in christmas present.. Maybe ill just give her my Nokia 6210, and by an iPhone for myself instead...
[quote]Originally posted by MacsRGood4U:
<strong>Looks more and more like iPhone is an iApp. SJ hinted at a audio/video conferencing application and this seems to be it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Stupid name.. Should be iCam or iCommunicate or iSpeak or, or, or...
<strong>...from Mac to wired phone via the Internet to a local computer/phone crossover point, and Mac to cellphones via SMS...
The crossover points will not be owned or handled by Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry if I misunderstood. It was this stuff that confused me. Who would be responsible for handling the local exchanges? How would people be charged and networks paid for SMS messages? How do you envisage the "crossover points"?
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>I don't even really use it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Out of interest, why not? And I'm not really arguing the value of the technology, just the belief that Apple has anything like this ready to go anytime soon.
[quote]Originally posted by pooandwee:
<strong>The point to all this? Well, if you can send a text message to a computer with an answer, and if the computer can take that answer and access whether it is right or wrong, then is it not feasable that you could send an SMS to another computer and ask what time a movie was on at a particular cinema? ie Harry Potter 2, Southland. Or when a flight was touching down/taking off (QF101, landing). And it would be great if the phone could tell the SMS where you were so you could type in Harry Potter 2 and the computer would know you were near Southland and send you the details for those screenings (not sure how it works elsewhere but in Australia our mobile phones tell us which suburb/location we are in by getting the information from the tower we are using for access).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nice name.
Oh, I realize all this is possible - I use several SMS services myself already. All I'm questioning is whether or not Apple has got all this stuff pulled together with some awesome GUI that's going to totally maul the various cell phone manufacturers, networks, and service providers that have been working on this for years.
People's expectations are much too high.
To quote somebody (step forward if you were responsible) when all the "Way beyond the rumors" stuff appeared before MWSF 2002:
If it were some sort of iApp for videoconferencing, what is the likelihood that Apple would take advantage of its hardware-software integration to build a cheap camera into one of its computer models?
Since the OS is Apple's, too, it would be interesting to speculate about possible OS-type tinkering that Apple might make to take advantage of a standardized camera. Essentially, you'd have a computer with an eye capable of visually interacting with its user. Voice recognition interfaces and dictation software aren't too useful to most of us, so it's quite likely that little would come of camera-based computer interface, but still fun to consider the possiblities. Some clever programming with adaptive pattern-recognition software (like I've read was done with the Apple mail filter) and there are a lot of possibilities. Examples: A line-of-sight-based mouse? Line-of-sight-based "scroll wheel" that anticipated your need for a "page turn"? Data mining software that reports to advertisers your facial expression upon seeing certain ads? Sign-language-based passwords?
<strong>Looks more and more like iPhone is an iApp. SJ hinted at a audio/video conferencing application and this seems to be it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
for me to be conviced this is an iApp/service and not hardware, i would really love to see similar trademark applications globally for iMovie/iTunes/iPhoto et al.
if these TM's do indeed exist then i guess i can hang my hopes up in the cupboard and forget about a new DLD from apple. on the other hand, if they don't exist, we know the TM for iPod was portent to a stunning hardware release....
I just hacked into Apple.com and found this TOP SECRET spy photo of the soon to be released iPhone device. It looks so AMAZING. So High Tech!!! I really like the aire vents that double as the microphone. I bet it has a G5 in it. I cant wait to get my hands on it!!!!
I was kidding, but I cant seem to understand why a G5 would be needed for the iphone unless the phone was some sort of mp3, video, photo, airport, cell phone......
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
that is what iChat will be, there are already images for it inside the program (it being video/audio conferencing)... they don't do anything...yet
Sorry if I misunderstood. It was this stuff that confused me. Who would be responsible for handling the local exchanges? How would people be charged and networks paid for SMS messages? How do you envisage the "crossover points"?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, thanx for asking! Such services are already working, and for free. For instance, I can send an SMS from my Mac in Turkey to family members' mobile phones in Denmark. The service providers are most often phone companies that consider it a way to expand business: an SMS usually demands an answer - either a return SMS or a phone call. This might change if the use of the service takes off; for Apple, a later business model *could* include paying into an account via (say) PayPal, or using one of the projected "digital money" services (Micro Money?). Regarding the crossover points: as far as I understand, Apple is working on a model whereby the net of crossover points will be handled by phone companies and broadband providers. Again, this service can already be found; Apple will merely organize it and channel the fixed fee for the service via a special .mac extended membership.
<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
that is what iChat will be, there are already images for it inside the program (it being video/audio conferencing)... they don't do anything...yet</strong><hr></blockquote>
The second licence for using Pixo is not for a mobile phone.
The two icons in iChat are there in preparation for iChat's *integration* with iPhone, viz the integration between iChat, Mail, Address Book and others....
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.
Comments
iPhone is not hardware, it's a service.
to all of you who compared this story with the iPod thing: a pod is a housing, something compact (thanx to sherlook/american heritage dic) - and finally it was... a mp3 player!
a iphone is a phone? too simple.
what a bout vid conferencing? the mysterious hidden button in iChat? prob, an iPhone is just a lil' piece of hardware, a firewire webcam for 49.99$ incl a beast of iApp? we'll see on january
1) It's an iApp for video conferencing / VoIP for broadband users
2) It's a cheap widget for making the above cool
3) It's a handset
I'm managing my own expectations.
<strong>
Yes, I will. In 2010. But if you're expecting something like that from Apple, or anyone else, anytime soon, you'll be sadly disappointed.
Used to pst here but fogot my password
Anyway, The other day my housemate was doing a "battle of the sexes" competition via SMS. It goes like this: you send an SMS to a number with your name and sex (ie Matt M or Jill F). You are pitted against a random competitor of the opposite sex. You are then sent a question via SMS to which you type in the answer. You are then sent another qestion (5 in all) along with the message "congratulations you got that one right and Jill got it wrong". Once you have answered all the questions you are notified whether you have beaten or were beaten by your opposition and you can check the males vs females scores at a website.
The point to all this? Well, if you can send a text message to a computer with an answer, and if the computer can take that answer and access whether it is right or wrong, then is it not feasable that you could send an SMS to another computer and ask what time a movie was on at a particular cinema? ie Harry Potter 2, Southland. Or when a flight was touching down/taking off (QF101, landing). And it would be great if the phone could tell the SMS where you were so you could type in Harry Potter 2 and the computer would know you were near Southland and send you the details for those screenings (not sure how it works elsewhere but in Australia our mobile phones tell us which suburb/location we are in by getting the information from the tower we are using for access).
I'm not sure if this iPhone is hardware or software but I do know that the type of information you are looking to pass to a mobile phone is available, just that no one is really marketing it. With new phones using MMS now (t68i demoed at MW this year is one of them) you could send an SMS asking where the nearest cinema is from your location and have a map sent to you via MMS. No WAP needed just simple SMs that almost everyone uses every day (well, everyone I know anyway).
The mobile phone uptake in this country is unbelieveable!!! Every man and his dog has a mobile and use SMS all the time (the same housmate I mentioned above spends about AU$120 a month on his mobile and at least AU$50 of that is SMS @ AU$0.23 each). So, Apple (or anyone else with an interest) wouldn't need to do much to get these services running on a standard mobile phone. Just set up a number for people to send messages to asking for info, charge AU$0.10 (plus the carriers charges) per message and have the answers spat back via a computer (no per use charge to send SMS via computer) and you have a winner of a system. Only drawback is setting up a number in every country (or you could make it "free" by setting the number to send to a computer in the first place thus making the only charge the carriers fee).
Sherlock sucks ass if you live outside the States (I still can't find movie times in Melbourne via Sherlock although the flight schedules do work) so I hope if they do do this type of thing that it works worldwide from the get go.
<strong>Do not spooge pants.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Too late.
<strong>
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]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
No my god man, Gigawire! Wireless Firewire! <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
And on the other hand.. Im probably going to give my mom a new mobile phone in christmas present.. Maybe ill just give her my Nokia 6210, and by an iPhone for myself instead...
[quote]Originally posted by MacsRGood4U:
<strong>Looks more and more like iPhone is an iApp. SJ hinted at a audio/video conferencing application and this seems to be it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Stupid name.. Should be iCam or iCommunicate or iSpeak or, or, or...
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: T'hain Esh Kelch ]</p>
<strong>...from Mac to wired phone via the Internet to a local computer/phone crossover point, and Mac to cellphones via SMS...
The crossover points will not be owned or handled by Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry if I misunderstood. It was this stuff that confused me. Who would be responsible for handling the local exchanges? How would people be charged and networks paid for SMS messages? How do you envisage the "crossover points"?
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>I don't even really use it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Out of interest, why not? And I'm not really arguing the value of the technology, just the belief that Apple has anything like this ready to go anytime soon.
[quote]Originally posted by pooandwee:
<strong>The point to all this? Well, if you can send a text message to a computer with an answer, and if the computer can take that answer and access whether it is right or wrong, then is it not feasable that you could send an SMS to another computer and ask what time a movie was on at a particular cinema? ie Harry Potter 2, Southland. Or when a flight was touching down/taking off (QF101, landing). And it would be great if the phone could tell the SMS where you were so you could type in Harry Potter 2 and the computer would know you were near Southland and send you the details for those screenings (not sure how it works elsewhere but in Australia our mobile phones tell us which suburb/location we are in by getting the information from the tower we are using for access).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nice name.
Oh, I realize all this is possible - I use several SMS services myself already. All I'm questioning is whether or not Apple has got all this stuff pulled together with some awesome GUI that's going to totally maul the various cell phone manufacturers, networks, and service providers that have been working on this for years.
People's expectations are much too high.
To quote somebody (step forward if you were responsible) when all the "Way beyond the rumors" stuff appeared before MWSF 2002:
Set your phasers to disappointment.
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
Mark Text :
IPHONE
UK Case Status : Registered Community Trade Mark Date : 14.04.1998
Class : 09
Applicant : Cisco Systems, Inc.
<a href="http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/cgi-bin/casablanca/cb_cgi?cb_dialogue=dlg_tmer85&detailsrequested=C&t rademark=E796268" target="_blank">UK Patent office</a>
Communications and network solutions. Telephones. And networking software intercommunimacations-type thingies too.
Does this have anything to do with the other patents at all? Even if it does, it doesn't decide whether it's app, handset or widget.
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: Hassan i Sabbah ]</p>
Since the OS is Apple's, too, it would be interesting to speculate about possible OS-type tinkering that Apple might make to take advantage of a standardized camera. Essentially, you'd have a computer with an eye capable of visually interacting with its user. Voice recognition interfaces and dictation software aren't too useful to most of us, so it's quite likely that little would come of camera-based computer interface, but still fun to consider the possiblities. Some clever programming with adaptive pattern-recognition software (like I've read was done with the Apple mail filter) and there are a lot of possibilities. Examples: A line-of-sight-based mouse? Line-of-sight-based "scroll wheel" that anticipated your need for a "page turn"? Data mining software that reports to advertisers your facial expression upon seeing certain ads? Sign-language-based passwords?
<strong>Looks more and more like iPhone is an iApp. SJ hinted at a audio/video conferencing application and this seems to be it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
for me to be conviced this is an iApp/service and not hardware, i would really love to see similar trademark applications globally for iMovie/iTunes/iPhoto et al.
if these TM's do indeed exist then i guess i can hang my hopes up in the cupboard and forget about a new DLD from apple. on the other hand, if they don't exist, we know the TM for iPod was portent to a stunning hardware release....
I just hacked into Apple.com and found this TOP SECRET spy photo of the soon to be released iPhone device. It looks so AMAZING. So High Tech!!! I really like the aire vents that double as the microphone. I bet it has a G5 in it. I cant wait to get my hands on it!!!!
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
I bet it has a G5 in it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
actually, that is a possibility given that the G5 is now an imbedded chip.
Didn't someone post earlier that a pixo OS had been bought for a phone-like device?
that is what iChat will be, there are already images for it inside the program (it being video/audio conferencing)... they don't do anything...yet
<strong>
Sorry if I misunderstood. It was this stuff that confused me. Who would be responsible for handling the local exchanges? How would people be charged and networks paid for SMS messages? How do you envisage the "crossover points"?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, thanx for asking! Such services are already working, and for free. For instance, I can send an SMS from my Mac in Turkey to family members' mobile phones in Denmark. The service providers are most often phone companies that consider it a way to expand business: an SMS usually demands an answer - either a return SMS or a phone call. This might change if the use of the service takes off; for Apple, a later business model *could* include paying into an account via (say) PayPal, or using one of the projected "digital money" services (Micro Money?). Regarding the crossover points: as far as I understand, Apple is working on a model whereby the net of crossover points will be handled by phone companies and broadband providers. Again, this service can already be found; Apple will merely organize it and channel the fixed fee for the service via a special .mac extended membership.
engpjp
<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
that is what iChat will be, there are already images for it inside the program (it being video/audio conferencing)... they don't do anything...yet</strong><hr></blockquote>
The second licence for using Pixo is not for a mobile phone.
The two icons in iChat are there in preparation for iChat's *integration* with iPhone, viz the integration between iChat, Mail, Address Book and others....
engpjp
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?