Everyone in the world -- including the professional analysts -- seem to be looking at this from a traditionalist perspective, and missing the bigger picture. It's driving me up a wall that no one else is seeing what I am seeing, so here goes:
The iPhone device is not about hardware OR software; not in the long term. It is about positioning Apple to become the dominant player in communications.
Steve is looking ahead to a future where wireless networks will blanket all major metropolitan areas.
The iPhone may or may not launch with a traditional cellular capability. But it will be designed for the long-term integration of a wireless VoIP-type capability as a primary "mode". It will be designed to primarily be a wireless data communications device that can function over any wireless network, and to create a completely integrated mobile data lifestyle.
Why have a cell phone, home phone, etc when you can just have an iPhone which can switch seamlessly between cellular service -- which costs you $ -- and VoIP service in your home, about in your car in a wireless coverage zone, etc? VoIP based cellular service will be cheaper and tied directly to your wireless network subscription ... and most attractively for Apple, they can become the DOMINANT services provider, just like they have for music and other digital media.
In fact, look for Apple to introduce iPhone, and then leverage its existing strength in digital media to make iPhone the dominant hardware platform. Then look for them to launch a new VoIP-type service (possibly integrated with .Mac, but this is so huge they might set up a new thing entirely) centered around Apple hardware products, online media services, and iPhone. Finally, Steve will bring full integration of all data needs into the equation, using iPhone as a leverage device to further boost Mac system sales and market share.
Upon initial introduction of any 802.11 wireless VoIP/data capability, Apple will initially target users to use iPhone in their homes, over their existing wireless 802.11 networks. In the long term, as 802.11 begins to blanket everywhere, iPhone and the Apple VoIP-type service will begin to replace the existing cellular services providers in cities.
This is why Steve is so excited about iPhone that he is chatting about it amongst friends.
His plan is not to become a cellular services provider. His plan is to fundamentally transform and then take over the entire telecommunications business. He understands that iPhone will be 10 times as big of a breakthrough revolutionary product than iPod, and much more central to people's lives.
At least, I've thought about creating such a device / service for about two years now (if I only had the $). And if I were Steve ... that's what I would do.
This is actually a very interesting post. I agree 80%. The iPhone however will be a very sexy but tentative entry into this space/ vision you have mentioned.
For security reasons you won't see an portable device that is the power of multiple devices in one.
Apple's iPhone will be a phone.
Apple's iPod will remain an iPod.
If Apple releases another device it will be a best of breed for a specific type of audience.
It won't be an all-in-one.
Is building security the reason they left the iSight off the MacBook Pro? Oh, wait, that's there. I guess they really don't give a damn.
Seemingly any institution that's paranoid about a camera on a phone is also paranoid about a camera on a notebook.
I really don't think Apple would achieve any credibility if they leave out features that are expected for the market place. What's next, are you going to suggest that they are going to leave SMS out?
Wake up. It's Apple's patent app that he, and we are discussing. Maybe you should say that it's Apple that's drinking the Kool Aid.
yes, you're right, Apple is drinking way too much Kool Aid too. one-device-does-all is not very apple-ish. i dont think the iphone or ipod phone will do all those tricks. too treo-ish for apple.
Is building security the reason they left the iSight off the MacBook Pro? Oh, wait, that's there. I guess they really don't give a damn.
Seemingly any institution that's paranoid about a camera on a phone is also paranoid about a camera on a notebook.
I really don't think Apple would achieve any credibility if they leave out features that are expected for the market place. What's next, are you going to suggest that they are going to leave SMS out?
Jeff, were you serious about the iSight on the MBP? Or were you being facetious?
Jeff, were you serious about the iSight on the MBP? Or were you being facetious?
I think I'm being serious. Many of the people that claim that they can't take a camera phone into their building for security reasons also say that they can't take a notebook computer with a camera either, unless the camera is disabled such that the user can't turn it on.
Am I right, Jeff is also saying that in general the wider audience expects any mid- to low-mid cost phone this day to have a camera in it.
I said that somewhere, I don't think any phone that Apple might make can afford to go without a camera. I think the camera feature is important enough to enough people that the market has spoken such that most phones have them.
Comments
Or, to the theme of "The iPod is Dead. Long live the iPod..!"
Everyone in the world -- including the professional analysts -- seem to be looking at this from a traditionalist perspective, and missing the bigger picture. It's driving me up a wall that no one else is seeing what I am seeing, so here goes:
The iPhone device is not about hardware OR software; not in the long term. It is about positioning Apple to become the dominant player in communications.
Steve is looking ahead to a future where wireless networks will blanket all major metropolitan areas.
The iPhone may or may not launch with a traditional cellular capability. But it will be designed for the long-term integration of a wireless VoIP-type capability as a primary "mode". It will be designed to primarily be a wireless data communications device that can function over any wireless network, and to create a completely integrated mobile data lifestyle.
Why have a cell phone, home phone, etc when you can just have an iPhone which can switch seamlessly between cellular service -- which costs you $ -- and VoIP service in your home, about in your car in a wireless coverage zone, etc? VoIP based cellular service will be cheaper and tied directly to your wireless network subscription ... and most attractively for Apple, they can become the DOMINANT services provider, just like they have for music and other digital media.
In fact, look for Apple to introduce iPhone, and then leverage its existing strength in digital media to make iPhone the dominant hardware platform. Then look for them to launch a new VoIP-type service (possibly integrated with .Mac, but this is so huge they might set up a new thing entirely) centered around Apple hardware products, online media services, and iPhone. Finally, Steve will bring full integration of all data needs into the equation, using iPhone as a leverage device to further boost Mac system sales and market share.
Upon initial introduction of any 802.11 wireless VoIP/data capability, Apple will initially target users to use iPhone in their homes, over their existing wireless 802.11 networks. In the long term, as 802.11 begins to blanket everywhere, iPhone and the Apple VoIP-type service will begin to replace the existing cellular services providers in cities.
This is why Steve is so excited about iPhone that he is chatting about it amongst friends.
His plan is not to become a cellular services provider. His plan is to fundamentally transform and then take over the entire telecommunications business. He understands that iPhone will be 10 times as big of a breakthrough revolutionary product than iPod, and much more central to people's lives.
At least, I've thought about creating such a device / service for about two years now (if I only had the $). And if I were Steve ... that's what I would do.
This is actually a very interesting post. I agree 80%. The iPhone however will be a very sexy but tentative entry into this space/ vision you have mentioned.
For security reasons you won't see an portable device that is the power of multiple devices in one.
Apple's iPhone will be a phone.
Apple's iPod will remain an iPod.
If Apple releases another device it will be a best of breed for a specific type of audience.
It won't be an all-in-one.
Is building security the reason they left the iSight off the MacBook Pro? Oh, wait, that's there. I guess they really don't give a damn.
Seemingly any institution that's paranoid about a camera on a phone is also paranoid about a camera on a notebook.
I really don't think Apple would achieve any credibility if they leave out features that are expected for the market place. What's next, are you going to suggest that they are going to leave SMS out?
Wake up. It's Apple's patent app that he, and we are discussing. Maybe you should say that it's Apple that's drinking the Kool Aid.
yes, you're right, Apple is drinking way too much Kool Aid too. one-device-does-all is not very apple-ish. i dont think the iphone or ipod phone will do all those tricks. too treo-ish for apple.
Is building security the reason they left the iSight off the MacBook Pro? Oh, wait, that's there. I guess they really don't give a damn.
Seemingly any institution that's paranoid about a camera on a phone is also paranoid about a camera on a notebook.
I really don't think Apple would achieve any credibility if they leave out features that are expected for the market place. What's next, are you going to suggest that they are going to leave SMS out?
Jeff, were you serious about the iSight on the MBP? Or were you being facetious?
Jeff, were you serious about the iSight on the MBP? Or were you being facetious?
I think I'm being serious. Many of the people that claim that they can't take a camera phone into their building for security reasons also say that they can't take a notebook computer with a camera either, unless the camera is disabled such that the user can't turn it on.
Am I right, Jeff is also saying that in general the wider audience expects any mid- to low-mid cost phone this day to have a camera in it.
Ceetainly mid to high end.
Am I right, Jeff is also saying that in general the wider audience expects any mid- to low-mid cost phone this day to have a camera in it.
I said that somewhere, I don't think any phone that Apple might make can afford to go without a camera. I think the camera feature is important enough to enough people that the market has spoken such that most phones have them.