Great idea. But txting with the clickwheel only may present some problems.
Nonetheless, I think you've come up with an excellent way to integrate the Apple iPhone stuff smoothly into the iPod product portfolio.
Yes, as I mentioned, SE with their "teh sexay" phones will be nipping at Apple's heels and steal a few % or maybe more(!) of iPod marketshare. 3 million in six months is a good start for them... pity about their thinner profit margins though! bwah hah ah ah ha
yeah - the limitation would be the texting ability.
mind you, if you made the letters to scroll through grouped together like a current mobile phone keypad, then you would only have to scroll though about 10 choices in order to input text using the predictive text methods . . . which may be acceptable.
having tried a number of PDA things, i'm personally just not a fan of a complete all in one do it all device. I just have no need for it. Mobile phone? Yes. MP3 Player? Yes . . . . everything else ( internet, photo, video etc etc ) Nah . . pointless to me.
I am quite tempted by the current Sony efforts. They look at a good balance of what i would need. Ever since seeing the announce of the Nano, I've always had the thought of the NanoPhone doodah.
The texting shouldn't be too much of a problem. With Apple's new patents app for the touchscreen, the problem is solved. If you looked at the app for it, there was an on-screen keyboard, somewhat like my Palmphone has.
I do think that the Nano is much too small for this device. It would likely have to be closer to the full size models. It needs a bigger screen than the Nano has, It's also hard to fit the transceiver and antenna into this model with everything that's already in there.
yeah - the limitation would be the texting ability.
mind you, if you made the letters to scroll through grouped together like a current mobile phone keypad, then you would only have to scroll though about 10 choices in order to input text using the predictive text methods . . . which may be acceptable.
having tried a number of PDA things, i'm personally just not a fan of a complete all in one do it all device. I just have no need for it. Mobile phone? Yes. MP3 Player? Yes . . . . everything else ( internet, photo, video etc etc ) Nah . . pointless to me.
I am quite tempted by the current Sony efforts. They look at a good balance of what i would need. Ever since seeing the announce of the Nano, I've always had the thought of the NanoPhone doodah.
By George I've got it......
1. the iPod has two sections in the front: (A) the screen, (B) the clickwheel
2. a mobile phone has two sections in the front : (A) the screen (B) the keypad
3. what if you could have both the screen and the clickwheel ?
4. this would deviate from your iPod "add-on" idea but it could be something that would demolish the SE walkman phone the "iPod mobile"
5. the top part of the iPod mobile is the screen
6. the bottom part of the iPod mobile is a touch screen which is easy to change to either a virtual clickwheel or virtual keypad
7. so the touch screen can get all grubby the main screen can stay nice and clean
8. touch screen would have to be engineered slightly different (edit: actually they have to be engineerd quite radically) for normal touch screens to respond appropriately -- it would have to have pretty smart algorithms and technology given people with big fingers, virtual clickwheel, txting, etc, etc -- this could be the main challenge)
9. this could tie in to the recent apple touch screen patents!
hmmm the idea is in my head ... a mockup would be cool but hard to make.
The texting shouldn't be too much of a problem. With Apple's new patents app for the touchscreen, the problem is solved. If you looked at the app for it, there was an on-screen keyboard, somewhat like my Palmphone has.
I do think that the Nano is much too small for this device. It would likely have to be closer to the full size models. It needs a bigger screen than the Nano has, It's also hard to fit the transceiver and antenna into this model with everything that's already in there.
holy crap i didn't read your post before i posted mine, looks like we both thought the same thing!
i would suggest still the touchscreen is separate from the display screen
I am a Verizon customer, and I just hope against hope that if and when Apple creates the "iPhone" that it doesn't come out on Cingular first. I don't want to have to wait for 6 months before it's available to me like the Motorolla RAZR...
I am a Verizon customer, and I just hope against hope that if and when Apple creates the "iPhone" that it doesn't come out on Cingular first. I don't want to have to wait for 6 months before it's available to me like the Motorolla RAZR...
You should use a GSM-enabled service then. All teh sexay? phones come first to GSM customers.
holy crap i didn't read your post before i posted mine, looks like we both thought the same thing!
i would suggest still the touchscreen is separate from the display screen
Another reply to your post! From me!
You might have seen this, but here it is anyway. I'm not going to post the patent itself, because it quickly gets too intense for anyone not interested in wading through, but this ARs article gets the point across. Notice how he also mentions the possible 3.5" screen video iPod.
Don't compare two totally electronic devices to one that is optical, and mechanical as well.
A phone is nothing more than an electronic device with a computer, memory and a transceiver.
Adding capable music and video capabilities to one simply means adding more memory, and an additional program to the menu. Not a big leap.
The problem is not in getting it done, but in how it's done. If Apple, or someone else, can integrate these functions well, then the problem is solved!
Just because it hasn't been done well yet, doesn't mean that it CAN'T be done well.
Just like Apple adding video to the iPod. A bigger screen, one extra entry to the menu, and it was done. The internal changes are of no interest to the user, only the part they interact with.
Apple could add 3rd party games without making it any more complex. Just add one more item to the menu: GAMES.
The same thing with a phone. They add, Music, and Video.
Cameras are an entirely different concept. You can't increase the power of a camera phone to that of a stand alone camera. The decent (at least!) lens would double the size of the phone. That's why they use 1/4" chips in phones. Very small (and cheap) lenses. And there's far more to it than that.
It would be much easier to add a phone to the camera, than a good camera to a phone.
And who would want to hold their camera up to their ear?
Well, my point isn't really "you can't make a good cell phone that plays music".
I'm just responding to all the people who are citing the number of music enabled cell phone sales as evidence that cell manufacturers are taking market share from Apple.
You go to trade in your phone. The new ones have cool new features, and with carrier subsidies are pretty affordable. One cool new feature might be music player functionality, but manufacturers tend to bundle up features, so you might end up with a music player because you wanted blue tooth. And why not? It's cool. You might download some music from the Sony site. You might transfer some music from your computer. It seems to me that the jury is still out on whether or not your new phone becomes your default music player, and you toss your iTunes music collection and the iTunes Music Store.
In other words, I don't think "yes, I'll take that phone with bluetooth and music software and internet capability" equals "I'm tossing my iPod". Maybe in some cases, but I don't think the idea that so many million SE walkman phones compares directly with how many iPods sold is entirely plausible.
When someone buys an iPod, you know for sure that its going to be used for music. When someone buys a cell phone that also plays music it's just a feature and it makes it hard to compare market share.
hi melgross and addabox the one thing we do know of apple is that their level of R&D is really very strong. which sometimes is very frustrating to us fans because we know of things they could easily do, or might even have had actual working prototypes....!
but apple is imho a stellar example of how to manage your R&D and select the right things to bring out. they haven't always been good at it but they are on a good run now. who would have really guessed that NeXT would lead to where we are now??
i guess its just the bloody waiting in between announcements that's the killer and so thank god we have all these geeky websites.
ummmm, my point was, yeah, i guess we really just have to wait and see if/when the iPhone and/or iTablet ever come to light
Well, my point isn't really "you can't make a good cell phone that plays music".
I'm just responding to all the people who are citing the number of music enabled cell phone sales as evidence that cell manufacturers are taking market share from Apple.
You go to trade in your phone. The new ones have cool new features, and with carrier subsidies are pretty affordable. One cool new feature might be music player functionality, but manufacturers tend to bundle up features, so you might end up with a music player because you wanted blue tooth. And why not? It's cool. You might download some music from the Sony site. You might transfer some music from your computer. It seems to me that the jury is still out on whether or not your new phone becomes your default music player, and you toss your iTunes music collection and the iTunes Music Store.
In other words, I don't think "yes, I'll take that phone with bluetooth and music software and internet capability" equals "I'm tossing my iPod". Maybe in some cases, but I don't think the idea that so many million SE walkman phones compares directly with how many iPods sold is entirely plausible.
When someone buys an iPod, you know for sure that its going to be used for music. When someone buys a cell phone that also plays music it's just a feature and it makes it hard to compare market share.
I don't disagree with that, for now.
But, I don't believe that, in the future, that will remain true.
There simply isn't any reason why a phone can't be just as good a music player, as a music player designed just for that purpose.
Look at all of the music players out there (video players as well). Are most of them desirable to you? Are they all equally good? Are some clumsy and overly complex?
The point I'm making is that good design can overcome many faults with present phone/music/video players. After all, many music/video players out now, are WORSE than the best phones that do that as well.
But, I don't believe that, in the future, that will remain true.
There simply isn't any reason why a phone can't be just as good a music player, as a music player designed just for that purpose.
Look at all of the music players out there (video players as well). Are most of them desirable to you? Are they all equally good? Are some clumsy and overly complex?
The point I'm making is that good design can overcome many faults with present phone/music/video players. After all, many music/video players out now, are WORSE than the best phones that do that as well.
I agree with this completely, and I hope that it is Apple that puts it all together.
The SE walkman phone looks like an example of 'overly complex" from what I can see on the video. For instance, the album art browser looks sort of cool, but it doesn't really make any sense for fast navigation of a lot of music (I assume you can toggle to list view somewhere).
Plus, we can't lose sight of the fact that complexity or the lack thereof isn't limited to the player itself. The success of the iPod/iTunes/iTMS triumvirate is a result of the way they seamlessly complement and extend one another. Any talk of cell phones supplanting iPods has to account for the iTunes/iTMS pieces of the puzzle.
music phones hmmmmm have you seen the verizon commercials??? they show a download in about 3 seconds...lets see that might happen in a 3g world of 3mb service, but calculate the download wouldn't it take a few minutes to download a typical mp3 song at 400kbs i would like to see the reviews of the service. but from itunes you can transform the aac to mp3 then connect to phone? or only downloaded songs will play. evdo is in not very many markets for mass appeal. i don't see it being there yet, when 80+ % of the population can get "broadband" cellular then it might make sense. its not there yet. and if all those downloads happen, with the video and other high file transfers i think it will clog the network. it's so much easier to use the same earphones for the cell phone and carry a nano or shuffle. how do people like the service?? i don't know one person that has downloaded a song, most get clips for ringtones, but tell me a whole song with good quality costs tooooo much they just get it from their ipod or computer (remember much of the push of this comes from a younger more tech savy demographics) those are the ones that tried the napster, kazaa hmmmm free is good, 99cents not bad but $3? forget it. howmany downloads has verizon music done...probably don't publish those stats....wonder why. cellular services don't want to empower consumers. maybe apple will make it's own network. just like the ipod without itunes wouldn't fly as high, maybe apple iphone needs a network "itunes" and make its own broadband network.
In Europe, most of the push comes from the phone operators who've spent a fortune on 3G infrastructure yet nobody wants it.
There was a recent survey in the UK which stated that only 8% of users were planning to upgrade to 3G this year. The phone companies need something much more compelling to convince users to upgrade to 3G and music downloads seem to be the latest whipping boy after they've failed with video calls, games and clips of Manchester United scoring goals on a tiny blocky screen.
The SE walkman phone looks like an example of 'overly complex" from what I can see on the video. For instance, the album art browser looks sort of cool, but it doesn't really make any sense for fast navigation of a lot of music (I assume you can toggle to list view somewhere).
Not sure that'll matter if you've only 4GB minus the other stuff on your phone. I'm sure it's not that complex to navigate although they've reduced the functionality of the jog dial. On the old p910 you scroll through a list with the dial, click it in to select or click it back away from you to cancel or go back a menu. It's nice. In the 950 and 990 the dial is just a dial and they've added extra buttons. It's almost as easy as the iPod wheel. It looks a lot easier than the current music player in the 910 or OggPlay.
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Plus, we can't lose sight of the fact that complexity or the lack thereof isn't limited to the player itself. The success of the iPod/iTunes/iTMS triumvirate is a result of the way they seamlessly complement and extend one another. Any talk of cell phones supplanting iPods has to account for the iTunes/iTMS pieces of the puzzle.
There's already software to use iTunes with SE Walkman phones on both the Mac and Windows. iTMS songs don't work on the phone but that's no loss really.
just like the ipod without itunes wouldn't fly as high
[en nog eens snip]
I think you over estimate the role of imts here.
the iPod hype started at the main continent before imts appeared.
I know an lot of people who have iPods, from which only one person downloaded some songs from imts.
The others filled it with albums and tracks from their own cd collection.
So i think 9 out of 10 it's the other way around:
People don't buy music at the imts and then buy an iPod to listen to it.
They have music already on cd (or stolen with some p2p app), bought an iPod and think they could as well buy some tracks at that nice little musicservice from apple.
Or did you actually ment iTunes instead of the iTunes Music Store because in that case i don't understand your remark and can only reply with: Doh
In Europe, most of the push comes from the phone operators who've spent a fortune on 3G infrastructure yet nobody wants it.
There was a recent survey in the UK which stated that only 8% of users were planning to upgrade to 3G this year. The phone companies need something much more compelling to convince users to upgrade to 3G and music downloads seem to be the latest whipping boy after they've failed with video calls, games and clips of Manchester United scoring goals on a tiny blocky screen.
That's right! This has been a big problem for them. People don't want to pay the extra mony for the service. They seem to want to simpler, cheaper phones, AND service.
The same problem has been seen in Japan. Japan is usually the fastest to adapt new technology, but except for texting, which took off like wildfire, 3G has been floundering.
This is because texting is cheaper than making a call, but everything else is more expensive.
the iPod hype started at the main continent before imts appeared.
I know an lot of people who have iPods, from which only one person downloaded some songs from imts.
The others filled it with albums and tracks from their own cd collection.
So i think 9 out of 10 it's the other way around:
People don't buy music at the imts and then buy an iPod to listen to it.
They have music already on cd (or stolen with some p2p app), bought an iPod and think they could as well buy some tracks at that nice little musicservice from apple.
Or did you actually ment iTunes instead of the iTunes Music Store because in that case i don't understand your remark and can only reply with: Doh
Have you looked at how many songs get sold on iTunes? And how the growth keeps surging ahead? And we know for a fact that virtually all of those songs are iPod bound.
I mean, lord, the iTMS in now the number 7 retailer of music in America, after brick and mortar shops like Walmart and Bestbuy. And they get that ranking by selling 12 individual tracks (which is how most iTMS music is purchased) to equal one CD physically purchased.
Sure some people use their iPod mostly for mp3s from other sources, or CD rips. And some may seek out the software to be able to use iTunes as their cell phone playlist source.
But claiming that the iTMS store/iPod symbiosis isn't a huge part of what makes it a juggernaut, and that cell phone music player penetration, as an end to end experience, isn't effected by the availability of something like the iTMS, doesn't seem to take much account of the reality of the market.
The thing about the iPod/iTMS system is that it scales up really well. The iPod interface is designed to deal with huge libraries. The iTMS allows you to browse millions and millions of songs.
When I look at cell phone systems I see interfaces and "music stores" that are getting away with murder in their UIs because the whole operation has this kind of boutique, novelty vibe, heavily geared to impulse teen buying habits. Hey look! My cell says I can download the latest dance track by the hot pop babe of the moment! Awesome! I'll have forgotten about it by next week!
That will certainly drive some download sales in the short term, but to really grow the market you have to have a coherent, end to end experience that allows you to purchase, organize and find lots and lots of songs, and move them on and off your computer, in a reasonably pleasant manner. Cell phones has the delivery mechanism, which is the easy part, and the appeal of multi-use players, which are gradually getting better.
Apple has everything else, and I think arguably that's where the real heavy lifting is.
Comments
Nonetheless, I think you've come up with an excellent way to integrate the Apple iPhone stuff smoothly into the iPod product portfolio.
Yes, as I mentioned, SE with their "teh sexay" phones will be nipping at Apple's heels and steal a few % or maybe more(!) of iPod marketshare. 3 million in six months is a good start for them... pity about their thinner profit margins though! bwah hah ah ah ha
Hands on review of the w950 prototype.
What's interesting though is the Reg noticing who else at 3GSM was playing with the W950 and P990.
mind you, if you made the letters to scroll through grouped together like a current mobile phone keypad, then you would only have to scroll though about 10 choices in order to input text using the predictive text methods . . . which may be acceptable.
having tried a number of PDA things, i'm personally just not a fan of a complete all in one do it all device. I just have no need for it. Mobile phone? Yes. MP3 Player? Yes . . . . everything else ( internet, photo, video etc etc ) Nah . . pointless to me.
I am quite tempted by the current Sony efforts. They look at a good balance of what i would need. Ever since seeing the announce of the Nano, I've always had the thought of the NanoPhone doodah.
I do think that the Nano is much too small for this device. It would likely have to be closer to the full size models. It needs a bigger screen than the Nano has, It's also hard to fit the transceiver and antenna into this model with everything that's already in there.
Originally posted by fisha
yeah - the limitation would be the texting ability.
mind you, if you made the letters to scroll through grouped together like a current mobile phone keypad, then you would only have to scroll though about 10 choices in order to input text using the predictive text methods . . . which may be acceptable.
having tried a number of PDA things, i'm personally just not a fan of a complete all in one do it all device. I just have no need for it. Mobile phone? Yes. MP3 Player? Yes . . . . everything else ( internet, photo, video etc etc ) Nah . . pointless to me.
I am quite tempted by the current Sony efforts. They look at a good balance of what i would need. Ever since seeing the announce of the Nano, I've always had the thought of the NanoPhone doodah.
By George I've got it......
1. the iPod has two sections in the front: (A) the screen, (B) the clickwheel
2. a mobile phone has two sections in the front : (A) the screen (B) the keypad
3. what if you could have both the screen and the clickwheel ?
4. this would deviate from your iPod "add-on" idea but it could be something that would demolish the SE walkman phone
5. the top part of the iPod mobile is the screen
6. the bottom part of the iPod mobile is a touch screen which is easy to change to either a virtual clickwheel or virtual keypad
7. so the touch screen can get all grubby the main screen can stay nice and clean
8. touch screen would have to be engineered slightly different (edit: actually they have to be engineerd quite radically) for normal touch screens to respond appropriately -- it would have to have pretty smart algorithms and technology given people with big fingers, virtual clickwheel, txting, etc, etc -- this could be the main challenge)
9. this could tie in to the recent apple touch screen patents!
hmmm the idea is in my head ... a mockup would be cool but hard to make.
Originally posted by melgross
The texting shouldn't be too much of a problem. With Apple's new patents app for the touchscreen, the problem is solved. If you looked at the app for it, there was an on-screen keyboard, somewhat like my Palmphone has.
I do think that the Nano is much too small for this device. It would likely have to be closer to the full size models. It needs a bigger screen than the Nano has, It's also hard to fit the transceiver and antenna into this model with everything that's already in there.
holy crap i didn't read your post before i posted mine, looks like we both thought the same thing!
i would suggest still the touchscreen is separate from the display screen
Originally posted by sunilraman
holy crap i didn't read your post before i posted mine, looks like we both thought the same thing!
i would suggest still the touchscreen is separate from the display screen
That sounds interesting.
You know, this thread might actually (maybe for the first time) have some better ideas than Apple itself!
Originally posted by opnsource
I am a Verizon customer, and I just hope against hope that if and when Apple creates the "iPhone" that it doesn't come out on Cingular first. I don't want to have to wait for 6 months before it's available to me like the Motorolla RAZR...
You should use a GSM-enabled service then. All teh sexay? phones come first to GSM customers.
Originally posted by sunilraman
holy crap i didn't read your post before i posted mine, looks like we both thought the same thing!
i would suggest still the touchscreen is separate from the display screen
Another reply to your post! From me!
You might have seen this, but here it is anyway. I'm not going to post the patent itself, because it quickly gets too intense for anyone not interested in wading through, but this ARs article gets the point across. Notice how he also mentions the possible 3.5" screen video iPod.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060217-6212.html
Originally posted by melgross
Don't compare two totally electronic devices to one that is optical, and mechanical as well.
A phone is nothing more than an electronic device with a computer, memory and a transceiver.
Adding capable music and video capabilities to one simply means adding more memory, and an additional program to the menu. Not a big leap.
The problem is not in getting it done, but in how it's done. If Apple, or someone else, can integrate these functions well, then the problem is solved!
Just because it hasn't been done well yet, doesn't mean that it CAN'T be done well.
Just like Apple adding video to the iPod. A bigger screen, one extra entry to the menu, and it was done. The internal changes are of no interest to the user, only the part they interact with.
Apple could add 3rd party games without making it any more complex. Just add one more item to the menu: GAMES.
The same thing with a phone. They add, Music, and Video.
Cameras are an entirely different concept. You can't increase the power of a camera phone to that of a stand alone camera. The decent (at least!) lens would double the size of the phone. That's why they use 1/4" chips in phones. Very small (and cheap) lenses. And there's far more to it than that.
It would be much easier to add a phone to the camera, than a good camera to a phone.
And who would want to hold their camera up to their ear?
Well, my point isn't really "you can't make a good cell phone that plays music".
I'm just responding to all the people who are citing the number of music enabled cell phone sales as evidence that cell manufacturers are taking market share from Apple.
You go to trade in your phone. The new ones have cool new features, and with carrier subsidies are pretty affordable. One cool new feature might be music player functionality, but manufacturers tend to bundle up features, so you might end up with a music player because you wanted blue tooth. And why not? It's cool. You might download some music from the Sony site. You might transfer some music from your computer. It seems to me that the jury is still out on whether or not your new phone becomes your default music player, and you toss your iTunes music collection and the iTunes Music Store.
In other words, I don't think "yes, I'll take that phone with bluetooth and music software and internet capability" equals "I'm tossing my iPod". Maybe in some cases, but I don't think the idea that so many million SE walkman phones compares directly with how many iPods sold is entirely plausible.
When someone buys an iPod, you know for sure that its going to be used for music. When someone buys a cell phone that also plays music it's just a feature and it makes it hard to compare market share.
but apple is imho a stellar example of how to manage your R&D and select the right things to bring out. they haven't always been good at it but they are on a good run now. who would have really guessed that NeXT would lead to where we are now??
ummmm, my point was, yeah, i guess we really just have to wait and see if/when the iPhone and/or iTablet ever come to light
Originally posted by addabox
Well, my point isn't really "you can't make a good cell phone that plays music".
I'm just responding to all the people who are citing the number of music enabled cell phone sales as evidence that cell manufacturers are taking market share from Apple.
You go to trade in your phone. The new ones have cool new features, and with carrier subsidies are pretty affordable. One cool new feature might be music player functionality, but manufacturers tend to bundle up features, so you might end up with a music player because you wanted blue tooth. And why not? It's cool. You might download some music from the Sony site. You might transfer some music from your computer. It seems to me that the jury is still out on whether or not your new phone becomes your default music player, and you toss your iTunes music collection and the iTunes Music Store.
In other words, I don't think "yes, I'll take that phone with bluetooth and music software and internet capability" equals "I'm tossing my iPod". Maybe in some cases, but I don't think the idea that so many million SE walkman phones compares directly with how many iPods sold is entirely plausible.
When someone buys an iPod, you know for sure that its going to be used for music. When someone buys a cell phone that also plays music it's just a feature and it makes it hard to compare market share.
I don't disagree with that, for now.
But, I don't believe that, in the future, that will remain true.
There simply isn't any reason why a phone can't be just as good a music player, as a music player designed just for that purpose.
Look at all of the music players out there (video players as well). Are most of them desirable to you? Are they all equally good? Are some clumsy and overly complex?
The point I'm making is that good design can overcome many faults with present phone/music/video players. After all, many music/video players out now, are WORSE than the best phones that do that as well.
Originally posted by melgross
I don't disagree with that, for now.
But, I don't believe that, in the future, that will remain true.
There simply isn't any reason why a phone can't be just as good a music player, as a music player designed just for that purpose.
Look at all of the music players out there (video players as well). Are most of them desirable to you? Are they all equally good? Are some clumsy and overly complex?
The point I'm making is that good design can overcome many faults with present phone/music/video players. After all, many music/video players out now, are WORSE than the best phones that do that as well.
I agree with this completely, and I hope that it is Apple that puts it all together.
The SE walkman phone looks like an example of 'overly complex" from what I can see on the video. For instance, the album art browser looks sort of cool, but it doesn't really make any sense for fast navigation of a lot of music (I assume you can toggle to list view somewhere).
Plus, we can't lose sight of the fact that complexity or the lack thereof isn't limited to the player itself. The success of the iPod/iTunes/iTMS triumvirate is a result of the way they seamlessly complement and extend one another. Any talk of cell phones supplanting iPods has to account for the iTunes/iTMS pieces of the puzzle.
There was a recent survey in the UK which stated that only 8% of users were planning to upgrade to 3G this year. The phone companies need something much more compelling to convince users to upgrade to 3G and music downloads seem to be the latest whipping boy after they've failed with video calls, games and clips of Manchester United scoring goals on a tiny blocky screen.
Originally posted by addabox
The SE walkman phone looks like an example of 'overly complex" from what I can see on the video. For instance, the album art browser looks sort of cool, but it doesn't really make any sense for fast navigation of a lot of music (I assume you can toggle to list view somewhere).
Not sure that'll matter if you've only 4GB minus the other stuff on your phone. I'm sure it's not that complex to navigate although they've reduced the functionality of the jog dial. On the old p910 you scroll through a list with the dial, click it in to select or click it back away from you to cancel or go back a menu. It's nice. In the 950 and 990 the dial is just a dial and they've added extra buttons. It's almost as easy as the iPod wheel. It looks a lot easier than the current music player in the 910 or OggPlay.
Originally posted by addabox
Plus, we can't lose sight of the fact that complexity or the lack thereof isn't limited to the player itself. The success of the iPod/iTunes/iTMS triumvirate is a result of the way they seamlessly complement and extend one another. Any talk of cell phones supplanting iPods has to account for the iTunes/iTMS pieces of the puzzle.
There's already software to use iTunes with SE Walkman phones on both the Mac and Windows. iTMS songs don't work on the phone but that's no loss really.
Originally posted by NOFEER
[snip]
just like the ipod without itunes wouldn't fly as high
[en nog eens snip]
I think you over estimate the role of imts here.
the iPod hype started at the main continent before imts appeared.
I know an lot of people who have iPods, from which only one person downloaded some songs from imts.
The others filled it with albums and tracks from their own cd collection.
So i think 9 out of 10 it's the other way around:
People don't buy music at the imts and then buy an iPod to listen to it.
They have music already on cd (or stolen with some p2p app), bought an iPod and think they could as well buy some tracks at that nice little musicservice from apple.
Or did you actually ment iTunes instead of the iTunes Music Store because in that case i don't understand your remark and can only reply with: Doh
Originally posted by aegisdesign
In Europe, most of the push comes from the phone operators who've spent a fortune on 3G infrastructure yet nobody wants it.
There was a recent survey in the UK which stated that only 8% of users were planning to upgrade to 3G this year. The phone companies need something much more compelling to convince users to upgrade to 3G and music downloads seem to be the latest whipping boy after they've failed with video calls, games and clips of Manchester United scoring goals on a tiny blocky screen.
That's right! This has been a big problem for them. People don't want to pay the extra mony for the service. They seem to want to simpler, cheaper phones, AND service.
The same problem has been seen in Japan. Japan is usually the fastest to adapt new technology, but except for texting, which took off like wildfire, 3G has been floundering.
This is because texting is cheaper than making a call, but everything else is more expensive.
Originally posted by gar
I think you over estimate the role of imts here.
the iPod hype started at the main continent before imts appeared.
I know an lot of people who have iPods, from which only one person downloaded some songs from imts.
The others filled it with albums and tracks from their own cd collection.
So i think 9 out of 10 it's the other way around:
People don't buy music at the imts and then buy an iPod to listen to it.
They have music already on cd (or stolen with some p2p app), bought an iPod and think they could as well buy some tracks at that nice little musicservice from apple.
Or did you actually ment iTunes instead of the iTunes Music Store because in that case i don't understand your remark and can only reply with: Doh
Have you looked at how many songs get sold on iTunes? And how the growth keeps surging ahead? And we know for a fact that virtually all of those songs are iPod bound.
I mean, lord, the iTMS in now the number 7 retailer of music in America, after brick and mortar shops like Walmart and Bestbuy. And they get that ranking by selling 12 individual tracks (which is how most iTMS music is purchased) to equal one CD physically purchased.
Sure some people use their iPod mostly for mp3s from other sources, or CD rips. And some may seek out the software to be able to use iTunes as their cell phone playlist source.
But claiming that the iTMS store/iPod symbiosis isn't a huge part of what makes it a juggernaut, and that cell phone music player penetration, as an end to end experience, isn't effected by the availability of something like the iTMS, doesn't seem to take much account of the reality of the market.
The thing about the iPod/iTMS system is that it scales up really well. The iPod interface is designed to deal with huge libraries. The iTMS allows you to browse millions and millions of songs.
When I look at cell phone systems I see interfaces and "music stores" that are getting away with murder in their UIs because the whole operation has this kind of boutique, novelty vibe, heavily geared to impulse teen buying habits. Hey look! My cell says I can download the latest dance track by the hot pop babe of the moment! Awesome! I'll have forgotten about it by next week!
That will certainly drive some download sales in the short term, but to really grow the market you have to have a coherent, end to end experience that allows you to purchase, organize and find lots and lots of songs, and move them on and off your computer, in a reasonably pleasant manner. Cell phones has the delivery mechanism, which is the easy part, and the appeal of multi-use players, which are gradually getting better.
Apple has everything else, and I think arguably that's where the real heavy lifting is.