I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that iPod docks, the iPod Hi-Fi, and all other dock-like accessories have been designed for the iPod to sit vertically. For a wide-screen iPod, the screen display would have to be sideways when docked.
I'm sorry, but I still think the "true video iPod" is going to be different than just a current model with a full-face screen turned sideways.
Why? It's a normal behaving iPod in the traditional, hold with one hand click wheel fashion. But when you select to play a video, the clickwhell magically fades away and the whole screen transforms to a widescreen video, where you then turn it on its side. and hold with two hands.
IMO, I think that its critical to maintain the one handed operability of the iPod, if you take that away, it becomes to cumbersome to use.
Why would anyone want to watch a movie on a 3" or 4" screen?
I've had my 5G 30gb iPod for about 3 months now and have only watched two one hour length TV shows. Certainly not the most enjoyable way to watch video, but it's handy from time to time.
But I'm guessing a true video iPod would have at least a six, hopefully seven inch screen.
But I'm guessing a true video iPod would have at least a six, hopefully seven inch screen.
Now that would be at least watchable.
But would it be pocketable? I doubt it.
This isn't a small tablet or whatnot, it's a iPod. The maximum size most would want would be 4-5 like the PSP. Any bigger and it becomes one of the products too big to go in the pocket and too small to have a practical use as a non-pocket device.
You mentioned it, so are you smelling your own cloud?
Even in the other thread, you don't explain why you are so against the idea or why it has you so emotionally disturbed.
We all know that he is technologically backwards. He isn't even typing on a keyboard. He chisels the letters in by hand, and sends them by carrier pigeon to Insider headquarters. Haven't you noticed how slow he is to respond so often?
Heh. I don´t think there is ONE other thread where I dismiss the idea of a iPhone. More like 20+. I have explained it many times but it comes down to this: 1) Very mature marked (unlike the MP3 player marked when the iPod came). 2) Very hard marked to get into. You have to make deals with a lot of carriers, in europe perhaps 3-4 per country. 3) The iPod is not threatened by mobile phones no matter how advanced they get. Only the no-name flash players are. 4) you would have to compromise with the design/interface/etc of the iPod to turn it into a phone (has to be narrower than the video iPod, thicker/wider than the Nano, has to have keys for input, either ruining the simplicity or making it twice the thickness for hidden keys, changing the simplicity of the gui).
Me responding slow? I hope you are kidding there I more or less is sitting in front of my computer all the time to get my papers finished. And several times per hour AI becomes more tempting than writing about social theory, criminology, communication in the court room, sociology of cyperspace, rational choice theories of social mobility and the essence of being danish, my current projects.
Heh. I don´t think there is ONE other thread where I dismiss the idea of a iPhone. More like 20+. I have explained it many times but it comes down to this: 1) Very mature marked (unlike the MP3 player marked when the iPod came). 2) Very hard marked to get into. You have to make deals with a lot of carriers, in europe perhaps 3-4 per country. 3) The iPod is not threatened by mobile phones no matter how advanced they get. Only the no-name flash players are. 4) you would have to compromise with the design/interface/etc of the iPod to turn it into a phone (has to be narrower than the video iPod, thicker/wider than the Nano, has to have keys for input, either ruining the simplicity or making it twice the thickness for hidden keys, changing the simplicity of the gui).
Me responding slow? I hope you are kidding there I more or less is sitting in front of my computer all the time to get my papers finished. And several times per hour AI becomes more tempting than writing about social theory, criminology, communication in the court room, sociology of cyperspace, rational choice theories of social mobility and the essence of being danish, my current projects.
My old Samsung Palmphone has few buttons on the bottom. Just the ones the Palm has. It does have a couple on the side. The keys are virtual keys on the screen. works very well. Or I can say the name to call. Graffiti lets me write very quickly. Much better than those crummy keyboards with the tiny keys that have domes that the fingers just slide off. I don't know why they don't depress the center of the keys so that your fingers don't slip off. Even full sized keys on a "real" keyboard, such as I'm using now, have depressed centers. Besides, the iPod has a scrollwheel with five buttons. That should be more than enough.
Anyway, you have to stop doing all that work and get back here more often.
You know what they say:
All work and no play makes *insert name here* a dull boy.
Oh my, replying twice for the same thread in the same day [well 24hr span] is a big thing for me on these forums, but...
Let's think about the phone tech here:
First point (As touched on by melgross)
The next iPod is expect to be a touch screen. That means that a phone interface would, in that case, merely be generated on the screen, not be a series of buttons and what not.
Second point
Carriers. They can become a non-issue by my next (pure speculation) point, stunningly called...
Third point
The iPod with WiFi is expected to tout the iTMS on your iPod. What obvious implication is there? The internet. The internet? Yes. Why is that important (though I'm sure many of you see where I am going)? You don't have to deal with any carriers if your mobile device uses VOIP. Now, I'm not tech expert, but to me this sounds like a fairy reasonable step.
I don't see why this isn't discussed much, and if it has been oops, I do read a lot and post not too much, but I couldn't help it.
[B]Oh my, replying twice for the same thread in the same day [well 24hr span] is a big thing for me on these forums, but...
Let's think about the phone tech here:
First point (As touched on by melgross)
The next iPod is expect to be a touch screen. That means that a phone interface would, in that case, merely be generated on the screen, not be a series of buttons and what not.
The iPod with WiFi is expected to tout the iTMS on your iPod. What obvious implication is there? The internet. The internet? Yes. Why is that important (though I'm sure many of you see where I am going)? You don't have to deal with any carriers if your mobile device uses VOIP. Now, I'm not tech expert, but to me this sounds like a fairy reasonable step.
I don't see why this isn't discussed much, and if it has been oops, I do read a lot and post not too much, but I couldn't help it.
What you have then is not a mobile phone. You have something like a cordless phone that uses VoIP instead of a POTS line. That okay, but it does NOT substitute a mobile phone at all. You would still need a mobile phone when you are outside the reach of stable WiFi range. It makes much more sense to put VoIP into a regular mobile phone along GSM (which is being done today) and keep the iPod clean.
Besides what you are talking about is much closer to a PDA than an iPod. Thats okay, I want an Apple PDA too. But thats something very different from an iPod and I doubt Apple is going to develop a PDA OS for a very questional marked.
So you're suggesting the iPod stays stagnant and doesn't "complicate" it's interface with say a standard phone layout. You know, your idea of simplicity ends at the circle that tilts in 4 directions and shiny bubble in the middle. The average person is quite capable of thinking beyond that.
Of course the idea is simplicity first, but I really don't see a phone interface, something we all see daily, as complicating it.
Now for WiFi, it is a very new and growing thing. In a year or two (when WiFi iPods are supposed to arrive) I doubt there will be many dry spots. Hell, what do you carry? A satellite phone? I can hardly get a signal in a city with a standard cellphone, let alone in rural areas.
Besides, there's always the old saying that if you don't want to use it, don't. That doesn't justify complaining about the idea for what still appears to be no real reason beyond a bit of trouble on Apple's part (negotiating etc). Slap 6GB-8GB of Flash memory into a cellphone with the Apple brand and it will clear the clutter in the cellphone market. Why? Because iPods + Apple = Current Cool. There's no need to miss an opportunity.
I personally want to know how a cell phone capable (or otherwise voice capable) iPod is going to hurt you. You seem to dislike the idea with a passion.
To finish this up, I didn't suggest making the iPod like a PDA. I think the iPod is great at what it does, actually it's closer to perfect. Now Apple will perfect video in the next rendition of the iPod. So what do you want to happen? Is there some great idea you have for the iPod to voyage into, or are you just content trolling the ideas of others?
So you're suggesting the iPod stays stagnant and doesn't "complicate" it's interface with say a standard phone layout. You know, your idea of simplicity ends at the circle that tilts in 4 directions and shiny bubble in the middle. The average person is quite capable of thinking beyond that.
Simplicity of user interface is one of the very strong selling points of the iPod. Turning it into a phone it would lose some of its uniqueness and be more like the others
Quote:
Originally posted by Myst
Of course the idea is simplicity first, but I really don't see a phone interface, something we all see daily, as complicating it.
And operating your computer is more complex than operating your remote. Just because there is a difference in complexity between different machine we use doesn´t mean that we don´t appriciate a simple user interface. And it IS one of the strong selling points of the iPod
Quote:
Originally posted by Myst
Now for WiFi, it is a very new and growing thing. In a year or two (when WiFi iPods are supposed to arrive) I doubt there will be many dry spots. Hell, what do you carry? A satellite phone? I can hardly get a signal in a city with a standard cellphone, let alone in rural areas.
So mobile phone coverage is scarce and you believe legal, free WiFi will have better coverage? Who is going to finance that for you? What about handover between different hot spots? Thats will take a lot of coorporation from those delivering the signals and Starbucks have no interest in catering those who just happens to need their signal for ten seconds while they walk by their coffee shops. What about when you are driving? You would need to change network every ten seconds. What about in the subways? Highways?
And beside as it is now there is nowhere where I live I can´t get a signal. You would be hard pressed to be able to find areas in western europe that isn´t totally covered by GSM coverage today.
Quote:
Originally posted by Myst
Besides, there's always the old saying that if you don't want to use it, don't. That doesn't justify complaining about the idea for what still appears to be no real reason beyond a bit of trouble on Apple's part (negotiating etc).
"Bit of trouble"? You clearly have no idea what kind of work it would take to make a genuin Apple mobile phone. What is the iPod? A hard disk, a screen, a leased OS and a fantastic design. Very simple to do. Its quite different when you have to take a very inpenetrable business and infrastructure constrains into cosideration.
Quote:
Originally posted by Myst
Slap 6GB-8GB of Flash memory into a cellphone with the Apple brand and it will clear the clutter in the cellphone market. Why? Because iPods + Apple = Current Cool. There's no need to miss an opportunity.
What do you want to talk about? An wireless VoIP phone, an Apple developed mobile phone or an Apple branded phone made by Nokia, SE or (god forbid) Motorola? Please decide.
Of course an Apple branded phone made by one of the huge players would make things much easier because they have the experience and the network to the dealers and telcoms. But that wouldn´t really add much would it? How well is the two iTunes phones doing now?
Quote:
Originally posted by Myst
I personally want to know how a cell phone capable (or otherwise voice capable) iPod is going to hurt you. You seem to dislike the idea with a passion.
It won´t hurt me because Apple won´t do it. Simple as that. They have enough sense to stear clear of an marked they can´t dominate and where they would lose money in. It would take R&D money away from projects where they could use to make a difference or taking the iPod into areas we never though it would without compromising form factor or the soul of the iPod.
Besides I have worked in the mobile business both looking inside (on how the structure and enviroment of the business is) and outside (on the customers and their preferences) and Apple going into taht business just deosn´t make any sense. It haven´t been making sense in all those five years people have wanted an iPhone.
Quote:
Originally posted by Myst
To finish this up, I didn't suggest making the iPod like a PDA. I think the iPod is great at what it does, actually it's closer to perfect. Now Apple will perfect video in the next rendition of the iPod. So what do you want to happen? Is there some great idea you have for the iPod to voyage into, or are you just content trolling the ideas of others?
Touch screen, onscreen keypad and VoIP suggest PDA like OS, just like melgross writes.
And please keep from personal attacks just because I disagree with your ideas and wishes.
Touch screen, onscreen keypad and VoIP suggest PDA like OS, just like melgross writes.
Well, not VOIP. I'm not fond of that. I do think cell.
While we don't know what Apple is actually working on, it seems to be a popular idea with the analysts. Most of them seem to think that Apple will do this. Even Motorola said that they expect Apple do do this.
Good idea, bad idea, it just might happen.
My thoughts are that this doesn't have to replace the iPod. It would be an additional line of products.
I really don't see the problem with complexity. PDA phones are getting more popular all the time, now that the price has moderated.
I don't find the PDA phone to be so complex. Look at all of the Treo's out there, and they aren't that good a piece of hardware.
Windows phones are crappy. That's from independent reports, not from some anti MS bias on my part. I almost thought I would have to buy one a month or so ago. But they are getting more popular all the time.
I don't see why Apple couldn't enter this market with a clearly better product. Not an "iTunes" phone, but an OS X Lite phone.
A PDA-like phone would make more sense than incorporating phone functionality into the iPod. But it would have to be just one function of the PDA, not its strongest selling point
Melgross: Do you know Palm is migrating to Windows OS? I think its sad but its a consequense of a non-profitable marked.
Even if the OS of a possible Apple PDA would be build upon X it would most likely only be the low level foundation they shared. The GUI would have to be very different and stuff like pen input would have to be heavily integrated into the OS, like in the newton and VERY unlike the WIndows used for the Origami project.
I believe there is a shake up in the iPod line up due to the fact Apple have just released a new iPod advert that features the iPod Nano at the end. Seems like they made a decision not to use the iPod, maybe this points fingers at the fact the line will not be remaining in its current state for much longer.
I to dream of a full screen touch capable iPod video.
A PDA-like phone would make more sense than incorporating phone functionality into the iPod. But it would have to be just one function of the PDA, not its strongest selling point
Melgross: Do you know Palm is migrating to Windows OS? I think its sad but its a consequense of a non-profitable marked.
Even if the OS of a possible Apple PDA would be build upon X it would most likely only be the low level foundation they shared. The GUI would have to be very different and stuff like pen input would have to be heavily integrated into the OS, like in the newton and VERY unlike the WIndows used for the Origami project.
I don't think you understand one of the basic reasons the iPod is bound to evolve. Well, not really bound, but not hindered to what it is. The fact is in the name alone:
Dell Digital JukeBox = A Music Player (Hell if they want to twist the digital part they may be able to cover Photos and Videos)
iPod = A device that doesn't limit it self to music by it's name
The iPod has Music, Photos, and Video already, I believe that Apple has expressed an interest in the mobile "home" idea [not the trailers, the mobility of a home desktop through the internet (.mac) and other methods. I don't see the iPod staying what it is.
It's funny that you bring up the disarray of the PDA market because that reminds me of the niche market for MP3 players that was going to hell. It would be very Apple-like to conquer two markets with the same product and maintain simplicity. Hell, if they did make the iPod more complicated, I'm sure they would also keep the basics of the music player (application?) they way it is.
Now, I don't see that step as an unreasonable guess as I believe AI and TS have spoke of the news iPod having a touch screen. Why would Apple possibly abandon the chance to make the iPod more? I think the end user (the average one) would look at this iPod with at touch screen and say:
"Hmm, well the effects are cool, but it's advantage over my 4G/5G iPod end with useless eye-candy."
Apple created the hardware ecosystem for the iPod, so now they need to take the next step and allow the software ecosystem to form. That may even open up the iPod to other music services if they develop their apps, and is that really such a bad thing? Only if you fear change and don't see the points made here as valid.
Just in advance, I find the picking apart of a post using quotes to be quite annoying as it implies that you aren't willing to put the effort forward to write a real rebuttal and simple want to target a few last sentences here and there, so please do try not to do that.
Why? It's a normal behaving iPod in the traditional, hold with one hand click wheel fashion. But when you select to play a video, the clickwhell magically fades away and the whole screen transforms to a widescreen video, where you then turn it on its side. and hold with two hands.
IMO, I think that its critical to maintain the one handed operability of the iPod, if you take that away, it becomes to cumbersome to use.
Agree - pocketability and one-hand use are critical. You mentioned "hold with two hands". When I turn a full-size iPod on its side, I can still hold and use it with one hand. It's like holding a digital camera.
I hope Apple will make it possible to have that touchscreen clickwheel appear on the left side for left-handers.
Just in advance, I find the picking apart of a post using quotes to be quite annoying as it implies that you aren't willing to put the effort forward to write a real rebuttal and simple want to target a few last sentences here and there, so please do try not to do that.
Gotta disagree with you there. As an observer in this informative debate, I find it easier to jump into an argument when one's points are individually refuted. For instance, in this post, I was able to clearly illustrate my grievance with your ideas. If I had just indicated this response was directed to you, it would have taken more effort to differentiate between your multiple statements, that, for all intents and purposes, I may agree with.
Comments
Originally posted by AppleInsider
Apple to cautiously asses real-world demand
I'm glad the people at Apple have cautious asses, but what does that have to do with iPods?
Missing an "s" at the end, there.
Originally posted by krispie
Why would anyone want to watch a movie on a 3" or 4" screen?
Someone on a bus, train, or airplane.
the laptop doesn't have to be lugged out and the battery life is longer.
I just watched most of the pilot of Battlestar Galactica on my 5th gen ipod on a NY to San Fran. flight.
The form factor was wonderful. I thought however, that if they used the entire ipod size for a screen, that would be better.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that iPod docks, the iPod Hi-Fi, and all other dock-like accessories have been designed for the iPod to sit vertically. For a wide-screen iPod, the screen display would have to be sideways when docked.
I'm sorry, but I still think the "true video iPod" is going to be different than just a current model with a full-face screen turned sideways.
Why? It's a normal behaving iPod in the traditional, hold with one hand click wheel fashion. But when you select to play a video, the clickwhell magically fades away and the whole screen transforms to a widescreen video, where you then turn it on its side. and hold with two hands.
IMO, I think that its critical to maintain the one handed operability of the iPod, if you take that away, it becomes to cumbersome to use.
Originally posted by krispie
Why would anyone want to watch a movie on a 3" or 4" screen?
I've had my 5G 30gb iPod for about 3 months now and have only watched two one hour length TV shows. Certainly not the most enjoyable way to watch video, but it's handy from time to time.
But I'm guessing a true video iPod would have at least a six, hopefully seven inch screen.
Now that would be at least watchable.
Originally posted by satchmo
But I'm guessing a true video iPod would have at least a six, hopefully seven inch screen.
Now that would be at least watchable.
But would it be pocketable? I doubt it.
This isn't a small tablet or whatnot, it's a iPod. The maximum size most would want would be 4-5 like the PSP. Any bigger and it becomes one of the products too big to go in the pocket and too small to have a practical use as a non-pocket device.
Originally posted by JeffDM
You mentioned it, so are you smelling your own cloud?
Even in the other thread, you don't explain why you are so against the idea or why it has you so emotionally disturbed.
We all know that he is technologically backwards. He isn't even typing on a keyboard. He chisels the letters in by hand, and sends them by carrier pigeon to Insider headquarters. Haven't you noticed how slow he is to respond so often?
Me responding slow? I hope you are kidding there
Originally posted by Anders
Heh. I don´t think there is ONE other thread where I dismiss the idea of a iPhone. More like 20+. I have explained it many times but it comes down to this: 1) Very mature marked (unlike the MP3 player marked when the iPod came). 2) Very hard marked to get into. You have to make deals with a lot of carriers, in europe perhaps 3-4 per country. 3) The iPod is not threatened by mobile phones no matter how advanced they get. Only the no-name flash players are. 4) you would have to compromise with the design/interface/etc of the iPod to turn it into a phone (has to be narrower than the video iPod, thicker/wider than the Nano, has to have keys for input, either ruining the simplicity or making it twice the thickness for hidden keys, changing the simplicity of the gui).
Me responding slow? I hope you are kidding there
My old Samsung Palmphone has few buttons on the bottom. Just the ones the Palm has. It does have a couple on the side. The keys are virtual keys on the screen. works very well. Or I can say the name to call. Graffiti lets me write very quickly. Much better than those crummy keyboards with the tiny keys that have domes that the fingers just slide off. I don't know why they don't depress the center of the keys so that your fingers don't slip off. Even full sized keys on a "real" keyboard, such as I'm using now, have depressed centers. Besides, the iPod has a scrollwheel with five buttons. That should be more than enough.
Anyway, you have to stop doing all that work and get back here more often.
You know what they say:
All work and no play makes *insert name here* a dull boy.
Let's think about the phone tech here:
First point (As touched on by melgross)
The next iPod is expect to be a touch screen. That means that a phone interface would, in that case, merely be generated on the screen, not be a series of buttons and what not.
Second point
Carriers. They can become a non-issue by my next (pure speculation) point, stunningly called...
Third point
The iPod with WiFi is expected to tout the iTMS on your iPod. What obvious implication is there? The internet. The internet? Yes. Why is that important (though I'm sure many of you see where I am going)? You don't have to deal with any carriers if your mobile device uses VOIP. Now, I'm not tech expert, but to me this sounds like a fairy reasonable step.
I don't see why this isn't discussed much, and if it has been oops, I do read a lot and post not too much, but I couldn't help it.
Originally posted by Myst
[B]Oh my, replying twice for the same thread in the same day [well 24hr span] is a big thing for me on these forums, but...
Let's think about the phone tech here:
First point (As touched on by melgross)
The next iPod is expect to be a touch screen. That means that a phone interface would, in that case, merely be generated on the screen, not be a series of buttons and what not.
Bye bye awardwinning simple interface. Hello Palm lookalike
Originally posted by Myst
Third point
The iPod with WiFi is expected to tout the iTMS on your iPod. What obvious implication is there? The internet. The internet? Yes. Why is that important (though I'm sure many of you see where I am going)? You don't have to deal with any carriers if your mobile device uses VOIP. Now, I'm not tech expert, but to me this sounds like a fairy reasonable step.
I don't see why this isn't discussed much, and if it has been oops, I do read a lot and post not too much, but I couldn't help it.
What you have then is not a mobile phone. You have something like a cordless phone that uses VoIP instead of a POTS line. That okay, but it does NOT substitute a mobile phone at all. You would still need a mobile phone when you are outside the reach of stable WiFi range. It makes much more sense to put VoIP into a regular mobile phone along GSM (which is being done today) and keep the iPod clean.
Besides what you are talking about is much closer to a PDA than an iPod. Thats okay, I want an Apple PDA too. But thats something very different from an iPod and I doubt Apple is going to develop a PDA OS for a very questional marked.
Of course the idea is simplicity first, but I really don't see a phone interface, something we all see daily, as complicating it.
Now for WiFi, it is a very new and growing thing. In a year or two (when WiFi iPods are supposed to arrive) I doubt there will be many dry spots. Hell, what do you carry? A satellite phone? I can hardly get a signal in a city with a standard cellphone, let alone in rural areas.
Besides, there's always the old saying that if you don't want to use it, don't. That doesn't justify complaining about the idea for what still appears to be no real reason beyond a bit of trouble on Apple's part (negotiating etc). Slap 6GB-8GB of Flash memory into a cellphone with the Apple brand and it will clear the clutter in the cellphone market. Why? Because iPods + Apple = Current Cool. There's no need to miss an opportunity.
I personally want to know how a cell phone capable (or otherwise voice capable) iPod is going to hurt you. You seem to dislike the idea with a passion.
To finish this up, I didn't suggest making the iPod like a PDA. I think the iPod is great at what it does, actually it's closer to perfect. Now Apple will perfect video in the next rendition of the iPod. So what do you want to happen? Is there some great idea you have for the iPod to voyage into, or are you just content trolling the ideas of others?
Originally posted by Myst
So you're suggesting the iPod stays stagnant and doesn't "complicate" it's interface with say a standard phone layout. You know, your idea of simplicity ends at the circle that tilts in 4 directions and shiny bubble in the middle. The average person is quite capable of thinking beyond that.
Simplicity of user interface is one of the very strong selling points of the iPod. Turning it into a phone it would lose some of its uniqueness and be more like the others
Originally posted by Myst
Of course the idea is simplicity first, but I really don't see a phone interface, something we all see daily, as complicating it.
And operating your computer is more complex than operating your remote. Just because there is a difference in complexity between different machine we use doesn´t mean that we don´t appriciate a simple user interface. And it IS one of the strong selling points of the iPod
Originally posted by Myst
Now for WiFi, it is a very new and growing thing. In a year or two (when WiFi iPods are supposed to arrive) I doubt there will be many dry spots. Hell, what do you carry? A satellite phone? I can hardly get a signal in a city with a standard cellphone, let alone in rural areas.
So mobile phone coverage is scarce and you believe legal, free WiFi will have better coverage? Who is going to finance that for you? What about handover between different hot spots? Thats will take a lot of coorporation from those delivering the signals and Starbucks have no interest in catering those who just happens to need their signal for ten seconds while they walk by their coffee shops. What about when you are driving? You would need to change network every ten seconds. What about in the subways? Highways?
And beside as it is now there is nowhere where I live I can´t get a signal. You would be hard pressed to be able to find areas in western europe that isn´t totally covered by GSM coverage today.
Originally posted by Myst
Besides, there's always the old saying that if you don't want to use it, don't. That doesn't justify complaining about the idea for what still appears to be no real reason beyond a bit of trouble on Apple's part (negotiating etc).
"Bit of trouble"? You clearly have no idea what kind of work it would take to make a genuin Apple mobile phone. What is the iPod? A hard disk, a screen, a leased OS and a fantastic design. Very simple to do. Its quite different when you have to take a very inpenetrable business and infrastructure constrains into cosideration.
Originally posted by Myst
Slap 6GB-8GB of Flash memory into a cellphone with the Apple brand and it will clear the clutter in the cellphone market. Why? Because iPods + Apple = Current Cool. There's no need to miss an opportunity.
What do you want to talk about? An wireless VoIP phone, an Apple developed mobile phone or an Apple branded phone made by Nokia, SE or (god forbid) Motorola? Please decide.
Of course an Apple branded phone made by one of the huge players would make things much easier because they have the experience and the network to the dealers and telcoms. But that wouldn´t really add much would it? How well is the two iTunes phones doing now?
Originally posted by Myst
I personally want to know how a cell phone capable (or otherwise voice capable) iPod is going to hurt you. You seem to dislike the idea with a passion.
It won´t hurt me because Apple won´t do it. Simple as that. They have enough sense to stear clear of an marked they can´t dominate and where they would lose money in. It would take R&D money away from projects where they could use to make a difference or taking the iPod into areas we never though it would without compromising form factor or the soul of the iPod.
Besides I have worked in the mobile business both looking inside (on how the structure and enviroment of the business is) and outside (on the customers and their preferences) and Apple going into taht business just deosn´t make any sense. It haven´t been making sense in all those five years people have wanted an iPhone.
Originally posted by Myst
To finish this up, I didn't suggest making the iPod like a PDA. I think the iPod is great at what it does, actually it's closer to perfect. Now Apple will perfect video in the next rendition of the iPod. So what do you want to happen? Is there some great idea you have for the iPod to voyage into, or are you just content trolling the ideas of others?
Touch screen, onscreen keypad and VoIP suggest PDA like OS, just like melgross writes.
And please keep from personal attacks just because I disagree with your ideas and wishes.
Originally posted by Anders
Touch screen, onscreen keypad and VoIP suggest PDA like OS, just like melgross writes.
Well, not VOIP. I'm not fond of that. I do think cell.
While we don't know what Apple is actually working on, it seems to be a popular idea with the analysts. Most of them seem to think that Apple will do this. Even Motorola said that they expect Apple do do this.
Good idea, bad idea, it just might happen.
My thoughts are that this doesn't have to replace the iPod. It would be an additional line of products.
I really don't see the problem with complexity. PDA phones are getting more popular all the time, now that the price has moderated.
I don't find the PDA phone to be so complex. Look at all of the Treo's out there, and they aren't that good a piece of hardware.
Windows phones are crappy. That's from independent reports, not from some anti MS bias on my part. I almost thought I would have to buy one a month or so ago. But they are getting more popular all the time.
I don't see why Apple couldn't enter this market with a clearly better product. Not an "iTunes" phone, but an OS X Lite phone.
Melgross: Do you know Palm is migrating to Windows OS? I think its sad but its a consequense of a non-profitable marked.
Even if the OS of a possible Apple PDA would be build upon X it would most likely only be the low level foundation they shared. The GUI would have to be very different and stuff like pen input would have to be heavily integrated into the OS, like in the newton and VERY unlike the WIndows used for the Origami project.
I to dream of a full screen touch capable iPod video.
Originally posted by Anders
A PDA-like phone would make more sense than incorporating phone functionality into the iPod. But it would have to be just one function of the PDA, not its strongest selling point
Melgross: Do you know Palm is migrating to Windows OS? I think its sad but its a consequense of a non-profitable marked.
Even if the OS of a possible Apple PDA would be build upon X it would most likely only be the low level foundation they shared. The GUI would have to be very different and stuff like pen input would have to be heavily integrated into the OS, like in the newton and VERY unlike the WIndows used for the Origami project.
I don't think you understand one of the basic reasons the iPod is bound to evolve. Well, not really bound, but not hindered to what it is. The fact is in the name alone:
Dell Digital JukeBox = A Music Player (Hell if they want to twist the digital part they may be able to cover Photos and Videos)
iPod = A device that doesn't limit it self to music by it's name
The iPod has Music, Photos, and Video already, I believe that Apple has expressed an interest in the mobile "home" idea [not the trailers, the mobility of a home desktop through the internet (.mac) and other methods. I don't see the iPod staying what it is.
It's funny that you bring up the disarray of the PDA market because that reminds me of the niche market for MP3 players that was going to hell. It would be very Apple-like to conquer two markets with the same product and maintain simplicity. Hell, if they did make the iPod more complicated, I'm sure they would also keep the basics of the music player (application?) they way it is.
Now, I don't see that step as an unreasonable guess as I believe AI and TS have spoke of the news iPod having a touch screen. Why would Apple possibly abandon the chance to make the iPod more? I think the end user (the average one) would look at this iPod with at touch screen and say:
"Hmm, well the effects are cool, but it's advantage over my 4G/5G iPod end with useless eye-candy."
Apple created the hardware ecosystem for the iPod, so now they need to take the next step and allow the software ecosystem to form. That may even open up the iPod to other music services if they develop their apps, and is that really such a bad thing? Only if you fear change and don't see the points made here as valid.
Just in advance, I find the picking apart of a post using quotes to be quite annoying as it implies that you aren't willing to put the effort forward to write a real rebuttal and simple want to target a few last sentences here and there, so please do try not to do that.
Simply put, if apple makes a phone that works well and looks nice, with iTunes included, which it would have!
Then, that's 5 iPhones SOLD!
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
Why? It's a normal behaving iPod in the traditional, hold with one hand click wheel fashion. But when you select to play a video, the clickwhell magically fades away and the whole screen transforms to a widescreen video, where you then turn it on its side. and hold with two hands.
IMO, I think that its critical to maintain the one handed operability of the iPod, if you take that away, it becomes to cumbersome to use.
Agree - pocketability and one-hand use are critical. You mentioned "hold with two hands". When I turn a full-size iPod on its side, I can still hold and use it with one hand. It's like holding a digital camera.
I hope Apple will make it possible to have that touchscreen clickwheel appear on the left side for left-handers.
Originally posted by Myst
Just in advance, I find the picking apart of a post using quotes to be quite annoying as it implies that you aren't willing to put the effort forward to write a real rebuttal and simple want to target a few last sentences here and there, so please do try not to do that.
Gotta disagree with you there. As an observer in this informative debate, I find it easier to jump into an argument when one's points are individually refuted. For instance, in this post, I was able to clearly illustrate my grievance with your ideas. If I had just indicated this response was directed to you, it would have taken more effort to differentiate between your multiple statements, that, for all intents and purposes, I may agree with.