What would Apple do if a cell phone company released a cell phone with an effective MP3 player integration? It seems to me that the iPod mini's internals could easily be melded with a cell phone. Heck I love the iPod, but freeing up a pocket is always a good thing.
Is this a challenge apple would answer?
It's all in your choice of a cell phone + mp3 player + PDA + digicam + .... you get it... or a cell phone, an iPod, a PDA...
My personal taste is each "gadget does its thingy", and it must do it extremely well = iPod.
Is someone going to offer a "good, working" phone, a "brilliant" mp3 player, supported by a "better than avarage" online store, extremelly well designed???? Don't think so.
These "do all" gadgets are the equivalent of "P4 5.23 Ghz, 2Ghz FSB, 4 GB L2, SSE7, ultra hyper bursted pipeline". Some people bite in...
Is someone going to offer a "good, working" phone, a "brilliant" mp3 player, supported by a "better than avarage" online store, extremelly well designed???? Don't think so.
There is a famous quote that follows your line of thinking.
"Those who say it can't be done are usually interrupted by those who are doing it."
It doesn't have to be brilliant. The end sum of all the parts just has to work. The whole point of working with digital data is ease transferring from one area or system to another with little fidelity loss. Whether we put our heads into the sand and pretend it is not coming is irrelevant to the truth. Convergence is inevitable. What Apple or other need do is simply "glue" the pieces together in a usable way.
It doesn't have to be brilliant. The end sum of all the parts just has to work.
That's what Apple has not been about. We are about to enter an argument about mass vs niche. I concede the trend seems to go towards convergence. Like everything in human history their seems to be a pendulum effect before something settles down and becomes the norm. Now the move goes to the convergence extreme, then we'll settle somewhere in the middle. Meanwhile, there is money to be made on the convergence front, and that is not bad at all, which is your point.
Having said all this, I conclude that I like to think of Apple as an avantgarde as far as trends is concerned. That's why I presume they should not jump on the convergence wagon, but take more of a "what's after convergence" approach. That's why they/we are a 3% minority: bleeding edge ergo expensive ergo not mass.
I'm not too worried about the UI. We musn't forget that humans are highly adaptable. Even the basic cell phone is light years beyond the huge "portables" of the past.
I'm not worried about human adaptability. I'm worried about people adapting to needlessly obscure features by ignoring them. The basic cell phone now behaves exactly like the bricks from the '80s in the only sense that is important: The number pad and the receiver are essentially unchanged. The rest isn't interface in any meaningful way.
So I maintain that the user interface is what makes or breaks this product, absolutely. And if you think it's easy, look at all the crap interfaces currently flooding the market.
We haven't even gotten to my other point (from earlier threads): Who does Apple sell this to? Most carriers discourage or prohibit third party phones, and 99.9% of consumers aren't going to "hack" their phone to get around this. That leaves selling to the service providers, which they have no experience with, and which puts them in direct competition with everybody.
So, while it wouldn't surprise me to see a very well-made Apple cell phone — if anyone can do it, Apple can — I still don't expect to see one. Oh, we'll see plenty of phones that try to look slick, and try to be MP3 players, but as with the cameras, I don't think that means that most people will actually use them as anything other than phones.
Apple could easily sell this with any or all of the service providers but that's irrelevant. As a premium electronic device, I wouldn't see it as a handset you'd buy with a contract for $30. I've bought my last 3 phones 'unlocked' - not hacked - without any network contract because that was the phone I wanted. It works just fine with any network SIM I choose to put in it. Again, it's an iPod first... whatever an iPod is.
The iPod is already a convergence product, hence the name i'Pod' and not iMP3player or iMusicbox or whatever iThing they could have come up with if it were only music that was to be its function. It seems to me it's always been a device that has potential to grow. It's a portable hard drive, address book, calender (albiet not perfect, so go figure - Apple didn't make that part perfect yet) and now voice recorder. It has potential to be a video playback device a la tivo if a simple video-out connection was implemented.
I conclude that I like to think of Apple as an avantgarde as far as trends is concerned. That's why I presume they should not jump on the convergence wagon, but take more of a "what's after convergence" approach. That's why they/we are a 3% minority: bleeding edge ergo expensive ergo not mass.
Hmmm you bring an interesting point. Apples sub %3 marketshare. Did Apple get to this poor marketshare because they didn't stay avantgarde and tried to branch out or because they failed to branch out and stayed avantgarde. I think history shows Apple is closer to the latter while Microsoft is closer to the former. The iPod is a nice start but Apple is not going to keep the competition at bay for much longer. 100 million songs downloaded legally. Apple's got something going on here. Soon we'll see if Apple's new iPod division has capable leadership or not. iTunes would not be the success it is without Apple already having an infrastructure in the BTO store, Akamai deal and Webobjects technology. In the last few years we've seen Apple strengthen OSX in email, calendaring, addressbook, photo browsing and sync features and quicktime . These are all the ingredients Apple needs to create a delicious dish. You have to work for success and be willing to take risks. Apple was "gifted" with the iPod. I'm sure no one in the organization realized it would become this much of a hit. While MS is bustin' but on Longhorn, Xbox and XP service packs Apple needs to be getting entrenched everywhere. Once that happens they move out horizontally wideing the ecosystem. Now you have licensing revenue..then you go vertical with something like a Smartphone. If Apple doesn't do it someone else will and Apple will lose and market that they had a huge lead in.
Quote:
So, while it wouldn't surprise me to see a very well-made Apple cell phone ? if anyone can do it, Apple can ? I still don't expect to see one. Oh, we'll see plenty of phones that try to look slick, and try to be MP3 players, but as with the cameras, I don't think that means that most people will actually use them as anything other than phones.
You're right there. Phone carriers are a pain. I think we may need a little FCC intervention here to spur the market ala what they've done to ensure HDTV takes off.
Apple could definitely do it. The question is is it profitable? I say give it 3 years.
It's a question of the interface. If combining them compromises the ability of the phone to look and act like a phone; if it compromises the ability of the iPod to look and act like an iPod; then you have no sale.
maybe this is overly simplistic but...
Why not have a 2 faced device? Cell phone interface on the front, iPod (like) interface on the back? I am sure there would be drawbacks, but there have got to be solutions.
I wouldn't be surprised if phones with MP3 playing capabilities ended up the same way: "I guess the thing can play music, but I've never bothered to figure out how. I just wanted a phone."
On that note, off we go to Digital Hub. [/B][/QUOTE]
That is what I think. If there was a way to combine a phone without diminishing the iPod qualities, that would be cool, but it might be awhile. Also, the whole camera/phone thing is a joke, imo, for now. The quality just doesn't cut it to be functional. Apple does need to make a phone/iPod, a camera on it as well is pushing it, (unless it is of good enough quality... even if it is, I am not sure it is necessary) like most have said, combining too many things can make it to akward and less attractive to use.
Nokia and other companies are working on it likely. But the mere fact that they are doesn't mean it will be successful. The iPod does set the bar pretty high. Looking at recent cell phone layouts I'm frankly a bit doubtful that Nokia and others are cable of traversing the needs of music playback with that of phone use. There's a happy median somewhere.
Nokia already has phones that do it. They even support AAC as their preferred format
My phone can (with the right sized SD card) even store episodes of TV shows. Just export from Quicktime to the right format, then send across via bluetooth. It's about 32MB for a half-hour episode.
But do I use it? Do I bollocks! I use the phone for making phone calls and taking photos. Camera plus phone is the one integration I think really works well.... because if something happens that I want to photograph, it doesn't matter if I've forgotten my camera. If I was going out on a photography trip I'd take a proper camera.
The reason MP3+phone doesn't work is because there are very few situations where you need to listen to an MP3 without planning ahead. It's not like "Hey, my mate's just set his hair on fire.... quick, photo needed!" There might be situations where it'd be nice to have music, but the majority of those you can predict in advance.
although there are phones that have mp3 incorporated in them (several already in japan) all of the past ones have required the mp3 song to be loaded into the phone via cf card or sd card.
however, the service that is just beginning here in japan is the mobile carrier offering full downloads of songs, directly downloaded to yr phone. this will make direct downloads and much easier than having to transfer music to yr fone.
a two tier market for playback will develop. fones will have limited capacity ( a 1 gig sd card is already being sold tha works in my fone, however), and some sound limitations such as limited anti-skip functions. iPod like digital music dedicated players that have virtually unlimited capacity, and additional sound related improvements that phones wont have for a long time.
It is all ready a pitty to find a good phone (tri band, blue tooth, cool design, battery life) without a ton of useless features (poor quality camera, mp3 player without room to store somes CD, a "photoshop" appli to manage a couple of pixels...)
ahhhh haaaaaaa! It was only a matter of time! Apple creating a mobile version of iTunes is a good start... but I bet hardware is soon to follow. I am telling you... iPod enabled phones are coming
ahhhh haaaaaaa! It was only a matter of time! Apple creating a mobile version of iTunes is a good start... but I bet hardware is soon to follow. I am telling you... iPod enabled phones are coming
sweet.
Although it seems small today's announcement is a big step towards the pervasive licensing of Fairplay/AAC. It's the next logical step. If Apple can get iTunes support embedded into more than just Motorola phones eventually they could really solidify themselves and AAC.
I don't see Apple entering the phone market yet. But say by mid 2006 some of the wireless web stuff will have matured. Perhaps VOIP features will be robust and just generally more cost efficient components will allow Apple to design a nice product. I don't want to carry an iPod "and" a cell phone. Many people "will" have to chose someday.
The mp3 player phone will never be as successful as the iPod, because people would be constantly draining their cell batteries, and then lamenting that fact when they actually wanted to talk to someone on it.
People want to believe, as I do, that we can cram as many things as possible into one device and be completely thrilled with the experience we get from that device. But, realistically, when we actually attempt to make gadget's that do everything, they rarely do any of those things as well as a dedicated device does.
The iPod will never see a significant threat from mp3 player phones, IMO.
The mp3 player phone will never be as successful as the iPod, because people would be constantly draining their cell batteries, and then lamenting that fact when they actually wanted to talk to someone on it.
Hmmm look at cell phones 10 years ago. Note their battery sizes. Now look today. The trend isn't showing signs of abatement. Batteries are getting smaller and lasting longer. I'm not altogether sure that battery life will be that much of an issue.
Quote:
People want to believe, as I do, that we can cram as many things as possible into one device and be completely thrilled with the experience we get from that device. But, realistically, when we actually attempt to make gadget's that do everything, they rarely do any of those things as well as a dedicated device does.
Devices don't have to do tasks as well as dedicated devices. My DVD player plays CDs fine although higher end CD only playback devices are available and superior. Doesn't matter because my DVD plays music "good enough" for my ears.
If the iPod can last 5 years as primarily a music device I'll be stunned. You can already see this huge groundswell of technologies converging on phones. Wireless capabilities, mulitmedia functions etc.
Here are some "Blasts from the Past" HOT 1999 Tech
Computer evolution is speeding up not slowing down. You will see a larger jump in the 5yr span from 2005-2010. I always get a kick out of it when people doubt the possibilities. They generally haven't thought about the whole process. From display tech down to ASIC chips and how each new generation enables new features.
The iPod is nice but within 5 yrs people will decide between fully functioning phones and iPods and I don't expect the iPod to win many battles for those wanting one portable device. Apple isn't stupid. They know they will have to enter this space eventually or one day it'll be 2009 and we'll posting on AI about how quickly the iPod fell out of favor in lieu of smartphones which Apple missed the boat on.
The iPod is nice but within 5 yrs people will decide between fully functioning phones and iPods and I don't expect the iPod to win many battles for those wanting one portable device. Apple isn't stupid. They know they will have to enter this space eventually or one day it'll be 2009 and we'll posting on AI about how quickly the iPod fell out of favor in lieu of smartphones which Apple missed the boat on.
Most people do not need a huge portable music selection at random times during the day. Instead, they use their iPod during planned periods of exercise, driving, walking, etc.
Why lug around an expensive and bulky device when a tiny phone is all you really need for most of the day? The iPod will always be there waiting for you, ready for use.
No matter how cool the integration seems to us gadget geeks, the two devices have nearly zero overlap in terms of actual use. The use scenarios for a music player and a cell phone differ drastically. One is passive while the other is inherently interactive.
I much prefer two seperate, specialized devices, each tailored to their exact use with zero compromises. For instance, my mobile phone has an low-power monochrome screen. With this screen I have great battery life even though the battery is 3mm thick.
It seems that gee-wiz color phones appeared a bit too soon. People unwittingly traded the paramount functionality of their phone for frivilous extras which are nearly useless. After a year of use, I bet 90% of these phone users would admit to wanting to trade their pretty screen (which they never use) for a less impressive screen and significantly longer battery life.
Thankfully, Apple hasn't made the same mistake with their iPod. They've resisted 'integration' as an end goal. Instead they've delivered a simple device that excels playing music. This is why the iPod music-player succeeds while every other music-player/device fails.
Most people do not need a huge portable music selection at random times during the day. Instead, they use their iPod during planned periods of exercise, driving, walking, etc.
There's a vast difference between what people "need" and what they "want". Hell most people don't need cell phones. There's a payphone damn near everywhere you drive unless you live in the boonies.
Quote:
Why lug around an expensive and bulky device when a tiny phone is all you really need for most of the day? The iPod will always be there waiting for you, ready for use.
This is based on the assumption that everyone is simply making calls. I see more more functionality being used in daily life. I see people with PDAs and Blackberry devices. I see laptops everywhere. Having computing power and access on the road is liberating and even more desirous in a small package. Everyones needs are different.
Quote:
No matter how cool the integration seems to us gadget geeks, the two devices have nearly zero overlap in terms of actual use. The use scenarios for a music player and a cell phone differ drastically. One is passive while the other is inherently interactive.
That's impossible. Cell Phones overlap everything. Again, the point is do people really want to carry two devices? Is it hard to fathom the scenario in which you have earbuds in and you are jamming to music and your phone rings? An integrated device would be able to instantly pause your music and switch to cell phone mode enabling the microphone.
Quote:
t seems that gee-wiz color phones appeared a bit too soon. People unwittingly traded the paramount functionality of their phone for frivilous extras which are nearly useless. After a year of use, I bet 90% of these phone users would admit to wanting to trade their pretty screen (which they never use) for a less impressive screen and significantly longer battery life.
Here is where people don't understand what is coming. LCDs by their very design are power hungry. They require backlighting that sucks up battery power and requires space. Enter OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diodes). They don't require backlighting which means that they don't come with the battery draw, bulk or contrast issues of LCD. They are perfect for small phones but just currently expensive.
Quote:
Thankfully, Apple hasn't made the same mistake with their iPod. They've resisted 'integration' as an end goal. Instead they've delivered a simple device that excels playing music. This is why the iPod music-player succeeds while every other music-player/device fails.
I agree. I'd never suggest that the iPod add too many features. The iPhone would need to survive based on its own merits. iTMS support would be just one feature out of many that would inhabit this device.
The iPhone is important to Apples future. People we can forget about the Macintosh ever getting up to %10 marketshare. It's not going happen. Apple will need to diversify into other area. The iPod is great but vastly overhyped as a savior. The iPod Mini's success is scary here. People were willing to trade 11GB of space for something small. What does this mean when Cell phones have 5GB of space in the future? Can Apple bank on the fact that these people would still want a mini?
If people don't like integration then why is the Handspring Treo selling by the bushel? It's because people like the functionality and simply want it wrapped up in a decent UI.
Apple has access to so many complementary technologies.
Bluetooh
.Mac and .Mac Sync
Firewire/USB
Inkwell
Wifi
Addressbook/iCal/Mail/iPhoto
Quicktime
etc
They would have to be some damn fools not to take advantage. I'm not saying replace the iPod. I'm saying bring the iPhone with a little music and a lot of other stuff.
Comments
Originally posted by willcurrie
What would Apple do if a cell phone company released a cell phone with an effective MP3 player integration? It seems to me that the iPod mini's internals could easily be melded with a cell phone. Heck I love the iPod, but freeing up a pocket is always a good thing.
Is this a challenge apple would answer?
It's all in your choice of a cell phone + mp3 player + PDA + digicam + .... you get it... or a cell phone, an iPod, a PDA...
My personal taste is each "gadget does its thingy", and it must do it extremely well = iPod.
Is someone going to offer a "good, working" phone, a "brilliant" mp3 player, supported by a "better than avarage" online store, extremelly well designed???? Don't think so.
These "do all" gadgets are the equivalent of "P4 5.23 Ghz, 2Ghz FSB, 4 GB L2, SSE7, ultra hyper bursted pipeline". Some people bite in...
Is someone going to offer a "good, working" phone, a "brilliant" mp3 player, supported by a "better than avarage" online store, extremelly well designed???? Don't think so.
There is a famous quote that follows your line of thinking.
"Those who say it can't be done are usually interrupted by those who are doing it."
It doesn't have to be brilliant. The end sum of all the parts just has to work. The whole point of working with digital data is ease transferring from one area or system to another with little fidelity loss. Whether we put our heads into the sand and pretend it is not coming is irrelevant to the truth. Convergence is inevitable. What Apple or other need do is simply "glue" the pieces together in a usable way.
Originally posted by hmurchison
It doesn't have to be brilliant. The end sum of all the parts just has to work.
That's what Apple has not been about. We are about to enter an argument about mass vs niche. I concede the trend seems to go towards convergence. Like everything in human history their seems to be a pendulum effect before something settles down and becomes the norm. Now the move goes to the convergence extreme, then we'll settle somewhere in the middle. Meanwhile, there is money to be made on the convergence front, and that is not bad at all, which is your point.
Having said all this, I conclude that I like to think of Apple as an avantgarde as far as trends is concerned. That's why I presume they should not jump on the convergence wagon, but take more of a "what's after convergence" approach. That's why they/we are a 3% minority: bleeding edge ergo expensive ergo not mass.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I'm not too worried about the UI. We musn't forget that humans are highly adaptable. Even the basic cell phone is light years beyond the huge "portables" of the past.
I'm not worried about human adaptability. I'm worried about people adapting to needlessly obscure features by ignoring them. The basic cell phone now behaves exactly like the bricks from the '80s in the only sense that is important: The number pad and the receiver are essentially unchanged. The rest isn't interface in any meaningful way.
So I maintain that the user interface is what makes or breaks this product, absolutely. And if you think it's easy, look at all the crap interfaces currently flooding the market.
We haven't even gotten to my other point (from earlier threads): Who does Apple sell this to? Most carriers discourage or prohibit third party phones, and 99.9% of consumers aren't going to "hack" their phone to get around this. That leaves selling to the service providers, which they have no experience with, and which puts them in direct competition with everybody.
So, while it wouldn't surprise me to see a very well-made Apple cell phone — if anyone can do it, Apple can — I still don't expect to see one. Oh, we'll see plenty of phones that try to look slick, and try to be MP3 players, but as with the cameras, I don't think that means that most people will actually use them as anything other than phones.
The iPod is already a convergence product, hence the name i'Pod' and not iMP3player or iMusicbox or whatever iThing they could have come up with if it were only music that was to be its function. It seems to me it's always been a device that has potential to grow. It's a portable hard drive, address book, calender (albiet not perfect, so go figure - Apple didn't make that part perfect yet) and now voice recorder. It has potential to be a video playback device a la tivo if a simple video-out connection was implemented.
I conclude that I like to think of Apple as an avantgarde as far as trends is concerned. That's why I presume they should not jump on the convergence wagon, but take more of a "what's after convergence" approach. That's why they/we are a 3% minority: bleeding edge ergo expensive ergo not mass.
Hmmm you bring an interesting point. Apples sub %3 marketshare. Did Apple get to this poor marketshare because they didn't stay avantgarde and tried to branch out or because they failed to branch out and stayed avantgarde. I think history shows Apple is closer to the latter while Microsoft is closer to the former. The iPod is a nice start but Apple is not going to keep the competition at bay for much longer. 100 million songs downloaded legally. Apple's got something going on here. Soon we'll see if Apple's new iPod division has capable leadership or not. iTunes would not be the success it is without Apple already having an infrastructure in the BTO store, Akamai deal and Webobjects technology. In the last few years we've seen Apple strengthen OSX in email, calendaring, addressbook, photo browsing and sync features and quicktime . These are all the ingredients Apple needs to create a delicious dish. You have to work for success and be willing to take risks. Apple was "gifted" with the iPod. I'm sure no one in the organization realized it would become this much of a hit. While MS is bustin' but on Longhorn, Xbox and XP service packs Apple needs to be getting entrenched everywhere. Once that happens they move out horizontally wideing the ecosystem. Now you have licensing revenue..then you go vertical with something like a Smartphone. If Apple doesn't do it someone else will and Apple will lose and market that they had a huge lead in.
So, while it wouldn't surprise me to see a very well-made Apple cell phone ? if anyone can do it, Apple can ? I still don't expect to see one. Oh, we'll see plenty of phones that try to look slick, and try to be MP3 players, but as with the cameras, I don't think that means that most people will actually use them as anything other than phones.
You're right there. Phone carriers are a pain. I think we may need a little FCC intervention here to spur the market ala what they've done to ensure HDTV takes off.
Apple could definitely do it. The question is is it profitable? I say give it 3 years.
Originally posted by Amorph
It's a question of the interface. If combining them compromises the ability of the phone to look and act like a phone; if it compromises the ability of the iPod to look and act like an iPod; then you have no sale.
maybe this is overly simplistic but...
Why not have a 2 faced device? Cell phone interface on the front, iPod (like) interface on the back? I am sure there would be drawbacks, but there have got to be solutions.
On that note, off we go to Digital Hub. [/B][/QUOTE]
That is what I think. If there was a way to combine a phone without diminishing the iPod qualities, that would be cool, but it might be awhile. Also, the whole camera/phone thing is a joke, imo, for now. The quality just doesn't cut it to be functional. Apple does need to make a phone/iPod, a camera on it as well is pushing it, (unless it is of good enough quality... even if it is, I am not sure it is necessary) like most have said, combining too many things can make it to akward and less attractive to use.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Nokia and other companies are working on it likely. But the mere fact that they are doesn't mean it will be successful. The iPod does set the bar pretty high. Looking at recent cell phone layouts I'm frankly a bit doubtful that Nokia and others are cable of traversing the needs of music playback with that of phone use. There's a happy median somewhere.
Nokia already has phones that do it. They even support AAC as their preferred format
My phone can (with the right sized SD card) even store episodes of TV shows. Just export from Quicktime to the right format, then send across via bluetooth. It's about 32MB for a half-hour episode.
But do I use it? Do I bollocks! I use the phone for making phone calls and taking photos. Camera plus phone is the one integration I think really works well.... because if something happens that I want to photograph, it doesn't matter if I've forgotten my camera. If I was going out on a photography trip I'd take a proper camera.
The reason MP3+phone doesn't work is because there are very few situations where you need to listen to an MP3 without planning ahead. It's not like "Hey, my mate's just set his hair on fire.... quick, photo needed!" There might be situations where it'd be nice to have music, but the majority of those you can predict in advance.
Amorya
however, the service that is just beginning here in japan is the mobile carrier offering full downloads of songs, directly downloaded to yr phone. this will make direct downloads and much easier than having to transfer music to yr fone.
a two tier market for playback will develop. fones will have limited capacity ( a 1 gig sd card is already being sold tha works in my fone, however), and some sound limitations such as limited anti-skip functions. iPod like digital music dedicated players that have virtually unlimited capacity, and additional sound related improvements that phones wont have for a long time.
Originally posted by TednDi
why not use the ipod wheel as a rotary dial interface?
where you touch the wheel would have a number then twist to dial.
little bit retro but millions have used the interface before... it's just a little...
well...Different!
Cupertino.... call me! we should talk!
another way, is to have the ipod opening.
The weel can go doing like a drawer and, below the weel are the phone keys.
you close the drawer and hop it is similar to the mini ipod.
Or something like the S700
http://www.sonyericsson.com/product/...c=fr&has_php=0
but personaly I don't want the phone+iPod device.
It is all ready a pitty to find a good phone (tri band, blue tooth, cool design, battery life) without a ton of useless features (poor quality camera, mp3 player without room to store somes CD, a "photoshop" appli to manage a couple of pixels...)
Originally posted by wink
try do that with only one hand. no can do.
try dialing a number that way quickly. no can do.
good ideia, but not usable.
(just my two cents.)
You forgot :
try to write a SMS....
sweet.
Originally posted by willcurrie
ahhhh haaaaaaa! It was only a matter of time! Apple creating a mobile version of iTunes is a good start... but I bet hardware is soon to follow. I am telling you... iPod enabled phones are coming
sweet.
Although it seems small today's announcement is a big step towards the pervasive licensing of Fairplay/AAC. It's the next logical step. If Apple can get iTunes support embedded into more than just Motorola phones eventually they could really solidify themselves and AAC.
I don't see Apple entering the phone market yet. But say by mid 2006 some of the wireless web stuff will have matured. Perhaps VOIP features will be robust and just generally more cost efficient components will allow Apple to design a nice product. I don't want to carry an iPod "and" a cell phone. Many people "will" have to chose someday.
People want to believe, as I do, that we can cram as many things as possible into one device and be completely thrilled with the experience we get from that device. But, realistically, when we actually attempt to make gadget's that do everything, they rarely do any of those things as well as a dedicated device does.
The iPod will never see a significant threat from mp3 player phones, IMO.
The mp3 player phone will never be as successful as the iPod, because people would be constantly draining their cell batteries, and then lamenting that fact when they actually wanted to talk to someone on it.
Hmmm look at cell phones 10 years ago. Note their battery sizes. Now look today. The trend isn't showing signs of abatement. Batteries are getting smaller and lasting longer. I'm not altogether sure that battery life will be that much of an issue.
People want to believe, as I do, that we can cram as many things as possible into one device and be completely thrilled with the experience we get from that device. But, realistically, when we actually attempt to make gadget's that do everything, they rarely do any of those things as well as a dedicated device does.
Devices don't have to do tasks as well as dedicated devices. My DVD player plays CDs fine although higher end CD only playback devices are available and superior. Doesn't matter because my DVD plays music "good enough" for my ears.
If the iPod can last 5 years as primarily a music device I'll be stunned. You can already see this huge groundswell of technologies converging on phones. Wireless capabilities, mulitmedia functions etc.
Here are some "Blasts from the Past" HOT 1999 Tech
MWSF 1999
Hmmmm lookee here
Wow a 128bit 16MB Rage 128 card
Look at those G3 Powermacs running at 400Mhz
Computer evolution is speeding up not slowing down. You will see a larger jump in the 5yr span from 2005-2010. I always get a kick out of it when people doubt the possibilities. They generally haven't thought about the whole process. From display tech down to ASIC chips and how each new generation enables new features.
The iPod is nice but within 5 yrs people will decide between fully functioning phones and iPods and I don't expect the iPod to win many battles for those wanting one portable device. Apple isn't stupid. They know they will have to enter this space eventually or one day it'll be 2009 and we'll posting on AI about how quickly the iPod fell out of favor in lieu of smartphones which Apple missed the boat on.
Originally posted by hmurchison
The iPod is nice but within 5 yrs people will decide between fully functioning phones and iPods and I don't expect the iPod to win many battles for those wanting one portable device. Apple isn't stupid. They know they will have to enter this space eventually or one day it'll be 2009 and we'll posting on AI about how quickly the iPod fell out of favor in lieu of smartphones which Apple missed the boat on.
Amen... good post
Why lug around an expensive and bulky device when a tiny phone is all you really need for most of the day? The iPod will always be there waiting for you, ready for use.
No matter how cool the integration seems to us gadget geeks, the two devices have nearly zero overlap in terms of actual use. The use scenarios for a music player and a cell phone differ drastically. One is passive while the other is inherently interactive.
I much prefer two seperate, specialized devices, each tailored to their exact use with zero compromises. For instance, my mobile phone has an low-power monochrome screen. With this screen I have great battery life even though the battery is 3mm thick.
It seems that gee-wiz color phones appeared a bit too soon. People unwittingly traded the paramount functionality of their phone for frivilous extras which are nearly useless. After a year of use, I bet 90% of these phone users would admit to wanting to trade their pretty screen (which they never use) for a less impressive screen and significantly longer battery life.
Thankfully, Apple hasn't made the same mistake with their iPod. They've resisted 'integration' as an end goal. Instead they've delivered a simple device that excels playing music. This is why the iPod music-player succeeds while every other music-player/device fails.
Most people do not need a huge portable music selection at random times during the day. Instead, they use their iPod during planned periods of exercise, driving, walking, etc.
There's a vast difference between what people "need" and what they "want". Hell most people don't need cell phones. There's a payphone damn near everywhere you drive unless you live in the boonies.
Why lug around an expensive and bulky device when a tiny phone is all you really need for most of the day? The iPod will always be there waiting for you, ready for use.
This is based on the assumption that everyone is simply making calls. I see more more functionality being used in daily life. I see people with PDAs and Blackberry devices. I see laptops everywhere. Having computing power and access on the road is liberating and even more desirous in a small package. Everyones needs are different.
No matter how cool the integration seems to us gadget geeks, the two devices have nearly zero overlap in terms of actual use. The use scenarios for a music player and a cell phone differ drastically. One is passive while the other is inherently interactive.
That's impossible. Cell Phones overlap everything. Again, the point is do people really want to carry two devices? Is it hard to fathom the scenario in which you have earbuds in and you are jamming to music and your phone rings? An integrated device would be able to instantly pause your music and switch to cell phone mode enabling the microphone.
t seems that gee-wiz color phones appeared a bit too soon. People unwittingly traded the paramount functionality of their phone for frivilous extras which are nearly useless. After a year of use, I bet 90% of these phone users would admit to wanting to trade their pretty screen (which they never use) for a less impressive screen and significantly longer battery life.
Here is where people don't understand what is coming. LCDs by their very design are power hungry. They require backlighting that sucks up battery power and requires space. Enter OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diodes). They don't require backlighting which means that they don't come with the battery draw, bulk or contrast issues of LCD. They are perfect for small phones but just currently expensive.
Thankfully, Apple hasn't made the same mistake with their iPod. They've resisted 'integration' as an end goal. Instead they've delivered a simple device that excels playing music. This is why the iPod music-player succeeds while every other music-player/device fails.
I agree. I'd never suggest that the iPod add too many features. The iPhone would need to survive based on its own merits. iTMS support would be just one feature out of many that would inhabit this device.
The iPhone is important to Apples future. People we can forget about the Macintosh ever getting up to %10 marketshare. It's not going happen. Apple will need to diversify into other area. The iPod is great but vastly overhyped as a savior. The iPod Mini's success is scary here. People were willing to trade 11GB of space for something small. What does this mean when Cell phones have 5GB of space in the future? Can Apple bank on the fact that these people would still want a mini?
If people don't like integration then why is the Handspring Treo selling by the bushel? It's because people like the functionality and simply want it wrapped up in a decent UI.
Apple has access to so many complementary technologies.
Bluetooh
.Mac and .Mac Sync
Firewire/USB
Inkwell
Wifi
Addressbook/iCal/Mail/iPhoto
Quicktime
etc
They would have to be some damn fools not to take advantage. I'm not saying replace the iPod. I'm saying bring the iPhone with a little music and a lot of other stuff.
it's just that simple.
you're beating a dead horse.