Apple Computer's much anticipated iPod cell phone will include a 2.0-megapixel digital camera when it arrives late first quarter or early second quarter of next year, according to a new report out of Taiwan.
The China Times said Thursday the device, which will merge traditional cellular capabilities with Apple's legendary iPod digital music player technology, has been finalized and released to manufacturing.
According to the report, Foxconn will begin delivering the phones to Apple out of its Fushikang manufacturing facility at run rate of 500,000 to 600,000 per month beginning in February.
The Cupertino, Calif.-based iPod maker is said to have enlisted the help of several component suppliers to provide various aspects of the phone, including Foxconn subsidiary AlusTech, which will fabricate the digital camera module; Largan, which will supply the actual camera lens; and Micron, which will provide the CMOS image sensor.
Intel, Sharp, Tripod Technology, Broadcom and Sunrex are also said to be part of the mix, supplying the memory, LCM display, circuit board, baseband chip and keypad, respectively.
Apple will reportedly tap long-time iPod casing manufacturer Catcher Technology to mold and manufacturer the phone's exterior housing. In recent years, Catcher has supplied casings for Apple's aluminum iPod mini and, most recently, its second-generation clip-on iPod shuffle player.
Contrary to some earlier analyst claims, the report published Thursday indicates that the Apple-branded cell phone will initially be available in only a single model. Pricing information was not disclosed.
The camera's sole purpose is not for taking photos, per say...
I was a consultant who has worked for Apple in the UK and also with T-Mobile and I can say without a doubt the camera is not for taking snaps.
Lets just say ichat....and im not simply talking mobile to mobile here!
I have already contirbuted some news to the site a few months ago but because of the litegious nature of my work and also the fact that we would love to work with Apple again i have to be extremely careful.
Wow, this is the best "Hello I am Apple spy I be careful now.... Shhh secrets I tells you now....."
Im trying to not reveal too much here but....The camera's sole purpose is not for taking photos, per say.......Lets just say ichat....and im not simply talking mobile to mobile here!....
Apple is making a gamble here if this happens. AFAIK 3-G phones marketing video-to-video mobile calls have *not* been very successful. Downloadable movie clips and TV have not been very successful.
If the iPhone can be used only with Mac iChat or other iPhones only, this video-to-video mobile calls are not going to be that great. If it is video-to-video with only 1 other carrier's phone, then that's not that great either.
Sorry, but I feel Apple is going to gamble with some very niche product design like you mention, and that would dissapoint me.
Snapping piccies with your phone and syncing with iPhoto is great - if the quality is solid, you avoid having to carry another digicam with you, and I say that is very very useful. My Sony Ericsson v600i 1280x1024 picture quality is pretty average, almost crappy, but enough to record the event. If there *is* a decent 2MP camera on the iPhone, that could be alright for iPhoto and emailing. MMS is still not big on the 3G/ 2.5G networks.
And ditto with the comments about Asia - that's where the fracking HUGE mobile phone market is, because that is where kids(teens) do NOT usually have computers at home, and leapfrogging landlines and modems can happen.
A simpler model that is just iPod + Phone with downloadable music tracks would kick ass, if one could just get the phone and NOT have to even touch a computer. This would be *massive* in a developing-country market. Profit margins though would be the main issue.
A better model with Camera 2MP that has decent optics and a great versatile CCD, etc. would be good for the developed countries.
Wow, so much to discuss and comment. We'll see what Apple comes up with. I've made a few posts in a row, gotta take a break.
True, the range would be small, but the phone could switch between cell and ad-hoc mode on the fly. Meters today could be KMs tomorrow.
Such a dramatic range extension is not likely in a long time, if ever. For one, the phones are still going to be small with not much of an antenna, and the range of phones have dropped with the paranoia over brain-scrambling, meaning that they have a lower allowed power transmission limit than they did five years ago.
Apple is making a gamble here if this happens. AFAIK 3-G phones marketing video-to-video mobile calls have *not* been very successful. Downloadable movie clips and TV have not been very successful.
If the iPhone can be used only with Mac iChat or other iPhones only, this video-to-video mobile calls are not going to be that great. If it is video-to-video with only 1 other carrier's phone, then that's not that great either.
Sorry, but I feel Apple is going to gamble with some very niche product design like you mention, and that would dissapoint me.
Snapping piccies with your phone and syncing with iPhoto is great - if the quality is solid, you avoid having to carry another digicam with you, and I say that is very very useful. My Sony Ericsson v600i 1280x1024 picture quality is pretty average, almost crappy, but enough to record the event. If there *is* a decent 2MP camera on the iPhone, that could be alright for iPhoto and emailing. MMS is still not big on the 3G/ 2.5G networks.
And ditto with the comments about Asia - that's where the fracking HUGE mobile phone market is, because that is where kids(teens) do NOT usually have computers at home, and leapfrogging landlines and modems can happen.
A simpler model that is just iPod + Phone with downloadable music tracks would kick ass, if one could just get the phone and NOT have to even touch a computer. This would be *massive* in a developing-country market. Profit margins though would be the main issue.
A better model with Camera 2MP that has decent optics and a great versatile CCD, etc. would be good for the developed countries.
Wow, so much to discuss and comment. We'll see what Apple comes up with. I've made a few posts in a row, gotta take a break.
There is too much carrier lock in the us apple better make this phone unlocked. Some carrier even lock phone down to force you to use there network to get the pictures off of you phone, install games and apps at VERY HIGH data costs.
There is too much carrier lock in the us apple better make this phone unlocked. Some carrier even lock phone down to force you to use there network to get the pictures off of you phone, install games and apps at VERY HIGH data costs.
Interesting. Vodafone in Australia has a very good unlock policy, as well as you can recharge to start with say $30, and that lasts a year, you don't have to keep recharging every month.
I was able to unlock my SonyE v600i which cost $200 AUD when signing up to a no-contract Vodafone number, which is a decent price for a good phone that is unlockable. ($200 was the phone cost there was no unlock fee).
I never understand the "next generation" downloading of all the data stuff at such high cost and all locked in to one carrier. Lock in I agree sucks a55... Sure you can do all this great 3G stuff but each download and DATA COSTS *are* very very high. Blows out your mobile phone bill to more than your broadband bill.
Seems like there are three major strategies that have been predicted for an Apple iPhone:
1. Just make a phone that does iTunes. This strategy is not about innovation, but defensive. It is about doing what most people want now and what they probably want in one year - an iPod and Phone in one package. Apple has the software, clickwheel to make this happen and build a temporary wall against Verizon and other carriers for a while. Upside: this is easy and relatively cheap. Plus It provides and easy upgrade path for current iPod owners. Downside: that was why they partnered with Moto/Cingular and it didn't do much. Also it is short term, though if done well and it is cheap it can still be popular.
2. Create a totally new device for media and communication. In this scenario Apple decides to make something with an entirely new GUI and perhaps try to bring videotelephony to the masses. With all of that technology (camera, memory, fast processor) - it is relatively easy to add downloadable video content. This is obviously no candybar but rather uses some form of a full screen interface as we've seen in recent patent diagrams. Upside: this creates a new market segment with Apple creating new de facto standards and Mac OS gets the best integration. Downside: this is very expensive and becomes a big gamble on Apple's part, unlike the iPod which used innovation in the integration of s/w and h/w, but wasn't leaps ahead of anyone else in any one particular aspect. This seems to be very unlikely.
3. Somewhere in between #1 and #2 which would be the iPhone +. This is more along the lines of what the iPod did. Here we would have a regular phone, but with some innovative UI design that "revolutionizes" telephony and music AND is supported by some integrative service that simplifies how messages and music are shared and delivered. This is less of a hardware innovation, but more of a content integration innovation. Upside: this uses already existing h/w so costs are low, but uses Apple s/w innovations to make it worthwhile for consumers to sign up. It provides and easy upgrade path for current iPod owners, but also creates a an evolved platform for future growth to perhaps #2. Downside: this may not be compelling enough to be worth the extra costs involved. Kinda like the Zune - one or two innovations that really aren't that useful in the real world.
I'd say Apple is going to be more than just defensive about this - that is their history, anyway, but it seems like most people really just want a good phone that also acts like an iPod. That would be a fine candybar with millions of possible consumers. However I would not likely buy it unless it had the more capability of a smart phone or Treo.
A camera on a cell phone is great for me. I don't carry around my nice camera everywhere I go, only if I'm on vacation or something. So what do I do when there is something I want to snap a picture of, even if just to remind me of it from time to time? Why, my cell phone of course. It works fine for what most people want it to do. If I want to take a nice picture, well then I'll get my nice camera, but a crappy picture means a crappy camera, on a cell phone or standalone, i don't care, i just want a picture.
That is the attitude that many people make, especially younger people. If it works, and works fast, then it is good enough for them.
....If I want to take a nice picture, well then I'll get my nice camera, but a crappy picture means a crappy camera, on a cell phone or standalone, i don't care, i just want a picture........That is the attitude that many people make, especially younger people. If it works, and works fast, then it is good enough for them.
Yes. Convinience and ease of communication and a new "digital" generation make the camera phone workable in society.
It's like when web pages first started going graphical, and "web designers" started trying to do good graphic communication with it. Graphic designers were all like "OMFG that's so LOW RES and OMFG JPEG COMPRESSION wtf is all that blocky stuff....".
And MPEG-2 compression of cable/ digital satellite and XVIDs of TV Shows -- pixelation and blockiness of LCD-TVs.
Michael Mann shooting "Collateral" and "Miami Vice" in digital, not a single reel of analog film....
A great deal of the rest of the world is so far ahead on this stuff that it sucks.....
Let's remember a few facts about why cell phone service in Western Europe and Japan is superior.
Part of it is that they are so highly urbanized that it makes economic sense to have ubiquitous concentrated high capacity cell towers. America by contrast has vast amounts of open space.
Another part of it is the heavier regulation of industry there. Rather than the US mobile market's overlapping and incompatible technologies, Japanese and European carriers were required to standardize.
But that kind of government entanglement comes at a price. Remember the lesson of Minitel - in the 80s this French government created nationwide computer network allowed people to buy tickets, get news and weather, communicate, and more, in a way that didn't exist on the Internet until the 90s. However, Minitel retarded Internet adoption in France for years, hampering innovation in the long run.
Furthermore, a third major driver of cell phone adoption in Europe was that everyone was stuck with shoddy state-owned monopolies for their landline service at at time when the US telecom market was opening up and innovating tremendously in the 80s and 90s. When your bored unionized socialist phone repairman doesn't show up for the third day in a row and there's no alternative brand to turn to, there's a lot of pent-up frustration that results in people switching overwhelmingly to mobile carriers.
Let's remember a few facts about why cell phone service in Western Europe and Japan is superior.
Part of it is that they are so highly urbanized that it makes economic sense to have ubiquitous concentrated high capacity cell towers. America by contrast has vast amounts of open space.s.
Well... yes, but the fastest growing mobile markets are Africa and India, and this is because they're throwing up super high capacity masts that reach rural areas where the phone companies never reached.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeoO
Furthermore, a third major driver of cell phone adoption in Europe was that everyone was stuck with shoddy state-owned monopolies for their landline service at at time when the US telecom market was opening up and innovating tremendously in the 80s and 90s. When your bored unionized socialist phone repairman doesn't show up for the third day in a row and there's no alternative brand to turn to, there's a lot of pent-up frustration that results in people switching overwhelmingly to mobile carriers.
Mmm... this is a kinda political characterisation of unionised labour, no? Look at Scandinavia, where the nationalised industries are super efficicient and mobile phone use is up there with Italy.
But you're right, the insistence on 'competition' between mobile providers in the US came at the inconvenience of the consumers.
Well... yes, but the fastest growing mobile markets are Africa and India, and this is because they're throwing up super high capacity masts that reach rural areas where the phone companies never reached.
That's an excellent point in reply to the issue of spacing. It looks as if there at least it is more economically efficient to set up a mobile phone infrastructure than a landline one. However, that's the expense of setting up an infrastructure from scratch; if you already have a robust landline network, that's a different set of economic incentives, particularly if landline competition is allowed.
Also, I'm sure land-line service in Africa and India was also awful where it did exist, because of factors similar to those I described in Europe, resulting in similar consumer eagerness for alternatives. In fact I suspect it was far worse than in Europe creating in even stronger consumer demand for something else, thus helping pay for cell tower construction.
I'm aware as well that in Africa, the locals destroy land-line wiring to steal and sell the copper wire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Mmm... this is a kinda political characterisation of unionised labour, no? Look at Scandinavia, where the nationalised industries are super efficicient and mobile phone use is up there with Italy.
Scandinavia has long been held up as a model of socialism that works. I think, rather that it is an example of a very high level of human and cultural capital -- very intelligent and talented people and a culture stressing education, honesty, social trust, and hard work (the Protestant ethic) -- being able to better carry the the dead-weight drag of socialism and heavy unionization than most of the rest of us. Looking at numbers such as per-worker productivity, it's clear, however, that even Scandinavia is behind freer economies like the US, Hong Kong, etc. One wonders what achievements they could reach without such impediments.
Similarly, East Germany may have been more functional than the rest of the Eastern bloc due to advantages similar to Scandinavia, but it was and is still far behind the West.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah
But you're right, the insistence on 'competition' between mobile providers in the US came at the inconvenience of the consumers.
I think that short-term pain will result in long-term gain. And recall the benefits of competition for American consumers of land-line telephony - collapsing prices, skyrocketing technological improvements and features.
And, the only reason that I brought up the question about "cellular" versus "mobile" is, I once had a pretty smart telecom engineer chew me out about how Americans still use backward terminology from the "days of analog hexagonal cells."
Not to take away from your point, but, as a telecommunications engineer myself, I'd say that any self-proclaimed engineer who would chew you out with respect to such a topic is more smart ass than pretty smart. In every one of those few instances where someone professing to work in my field effused at me over such a topic, I found that they either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying.
Comments
Apple Computer's much anticipated iPod cell phone will include a 2.0-megapixel digital camera when it arrives late first quarter or early second quarter of next year, according to a new report out of Taiwan.
The China Times said Thursday the device, which will merge traditional cellular capabilities with Apple's legendary iPod digital music player technology, has been finalized and released to manufacturing.
According to the report, Foxconn will begin delivering the phones to Apple out of its Fushikang manufacturing facility at run rate of 500,000 to 600,000 per month beginning in February.
The Cupertino, Calif.-based iPod maker is said to have enlisted the help of several component suppliers to provide various aspects of the phone, including Foxconn subsidiary AlusTech, which will fabricate the digital camera module; Largan, which will supply the actual camera lens; and Micron, which will provide the CMOS image sensor.
Intel, Sharp, Tripod Technology, Broadcom and Sunrex are also said to be part of the mix, supplying the memory, LCM display, circuit board, baseband chip and keypad, respectively.
Apple will reportedly tap long-time iPod casing manufacturer Catcher Technology to mold and manufacturer the phone's exterior housing. In recent years, Catcher has supplied casings for Apple's aluminum iPod mini and, most recently, its second-generation clip-on iPod shuffle player.
Contrary to some earlier analyst claims, the report published Thursday indicates that the Apple-branded cell phone will initially be available in only a single model. Pricing information was not disclosed.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Wil this thing finally get a customer-replacable battery????
Wil this thing finally get a customer-replacable battery????
Heh. Not bloody likely mate. Not bloody likely...
Im trying to not reveal too much here but..
The camera's sole purpose is not for taking photos, per say...
I was a consultant who has worked for Apple in the UK and also with T-Mobile and I can say without a doubt the camera is not for taking snaps.
Lets just say ichat....and im not simply talking mobile to mobile here!
I have already contirbuted some news to the site a few months ago but because of the litegious nature of my work and also the fact that we would love to work with Apple again i have to be extremely careful.
Wow, this is the best "Hello I am Apple spy I be careful now.... Shhh secrets I tells you now....."
Im trying to not reveal too much here but....The camera's sole purpose is not for taking photos, per say.......Lets just say ichat....and im not simply talking mobile to mobile here!....
Apple is making a gamble here if this happens. AFAIK 3-G phones marketing video-to-video mobile calls have *not* been very successful. Downloadable movie clips and TV have not been very successful.
If the iPhone can be used only with Mac iChat or other iPhones only, this video-to-video mobile calls are not going to be that great. If it is video-to-video with only 1 other carrier's phone, then that's not that great either.
Sorry, but I feel Apple is going to gamble with some very niche product design like you mention, and that would dissapoint me.
Snapping piccies with your phone and syncing with iPhoto is great - if the quality is solid, you avoid having to carry another digicam with you, and I say that is very very useful. My Sony Ericsson v600i 1280x1024 picture quality is pretty average, almost crappy, but enough to record the event. If there *is* a decent 2MP camera on the iPhone, that could be alright for iPhoto and emailing. MMS is still not big on the 3G/ 2.5G networks.
And ditto with the comments about Asia - that's where the fracking HUGE mobile phone market is, because that is where kids(teens) do NOT usually have computers at home, and leapfrogging landlines and modems can happen.
A simpler model that is just iPod + Phone with downloadable music tracks would kick ass, if one could just get the phone and NOT have to even touch a computer. This would be *massive* in a developing-country market. Profit margins though would be the main issue.
A better model with Camera 2MP that has decent optics and a great versatile CCD, etc. would be good for the developed countries.
Wow, so much to discuss and comment. We'll see what Apple comes up with. I've made a few posts in a row, gotta take a break.
True, the range would be small, but the phone could switch between cell and ad-hoc mode on the fly. Meters today could be KMs tomorrow.
Such a dramatic range extension is not likely in a long time, if ever. For one, the phones are still going to be small with not much of an antenna, and the range of phones have dropped with the paranoia over brain-scrambling, meaning that they have a lower allowed power transmission limit than they did five years ago.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Apple is making a gamble here if this happens. AFAIK 3-G phones marketing video-to-video mobile calls have *not* been very successful. Downloadable movie clips and TV have not been very successful.
If the iPhone can be used only with Mac iChat or other iPhones only, this video-to-video mobile calls are not going to be that great. If it is video-to-video with only 1 other carrier's phone, then that's not that great either.
Sorry, but I feel Apple is going to gamble with some very niche product design like you mention, and that would dissapoint me.
Snapping piccies with your phone and syncing with iPhoto is great - if the quality is solid, you avoid having to carry another digicam with you, and I say that is very very useful. My Sony Ericsson v600i 1280x1024 picture quality is pretty average, almost crappy, but enough to record the event. If there *is* a decent 2MP camera on the iPhone, that could be alright for iPhoto and emailing. MMS is still not big on the 3G/ 2.5G networks.
And ditto with the comments about Asia - that's where the fracking HUGE mobile phone market is, because that is where kids(teens) do NOT usually have computers at home, and leapfrogging landlines and modems can happen.
A simpler model that is just iPod + Phone with downloadable music tracks would kick ass, if one could just get the phone and NOT have to even touch a computer. This would be *massive* in a developing-country market. Profit margins though would be the main issue.
A better model with Camera 2MP that has decent optics and a great versatile CCD, etc. would be good for the developed countries.
Wow, so much to discuss and comment. We'll see what Apple comes up with. I've made a few posts in a row, gotta take a break.
There is too much carrier lock in the us apple better make this phone unlocked. Some carrier even lock phone down to force you to use there network to get the pictures off of you phone, install games and apps at VERY HIGH data costs.
There is too much carrier lock in the us apple better make this phone unlocked. Some carrier even lock phone down to force you to use there network to get the pictures off of you phone, install games and apps at VERY HIGH data costs.
Interesting. Vodafone in Australia has a very good unlock policy, as well as you can recharge to start with say $30, and that lasts a year, you don't have to keep recharging every month.
I was able to unlock my SonyE v600i which cost $200 AUD when signing up to a no-contract Vodafone number, which is a decent price for a good phone that is unlockable. ($200 was the phone cost there was no unlock fee).
I never understand the "next generation" downloading of all the data stuff at such high cost and all locked in to one carrier. Lock in I agree sucks a55... Sure you can do all this great 3G stuff but each download and DATA COSTS *are* very very high. Blows out your mobile phone bill to more than your broadband bill.
1. Just make a phone that does iTunes. This strategy is not about innovation, but defensive. It is about doing what most people want now and what they probably want in one year - an iPod and Phone in one package. Apple has the software, clickwheel to make this happen and build a temporary wall against Verizon and other carriers for a while. Upside: this is easy and relatively cheap. Plus It provides and easy upgrade path for current iPod owners. Downside: that was why they partnered with Moto/Cingular and it didn't do much. Also it is short term, though if done well and it is cheap it can still be popular.
2. Create a totally new device for media and communication. In this scenario Apple decides to make something with an entirely new GUI and perhaps try to bring videotelephony to the masses. With all of that technology (camera, memory, fast processor) - it is relatively easy to add downloadable video content. This is obviously no candybar but rather uses some form of a full screen interface as we've seen in recent patent diagrams. Upside: this creates a new market segment with Apple creating new de facto standards and Mac OS gets the best integration. Downside: this is very expensive and becomes a big gamble on Apple's part, unlike the iPod which used innovation in the integration of s/w and h/w, but wasn't leaps ahead of anyone else in any one particular aspect. This seems to be very unlikely.
3. Somewhere in between #1 and #2 which would be the iPhone +. This is more along the lines of what the iPod did. Here we would have a regular phone, but with some innovative UI design that "revolutionizes" telephony and music AND is supported by some integrative service that simplifies how messages and music are shared and delivered. This is less of a hardware innovation, but more of a content integration innovation. Upside: this uses already existing h/w so costs are low, but uses Apple s/w innovations to make it worthwhile for consumers to sign up. It provides and easy upgrade path for current iPod owners, but also creates a an evolved platform for future growth to perhaps #2. Downside: this may not be compelling enough to be worth the extra costs involved. Kinda like the Zune - one or two innovations that really aren't that useful in the real world.
I'd say Apple is going to be more than just defensive about this - that is their history, anyway, but it seems like most people really just want a good phone that also acts like an iPod. That would be a fine candybar with millions of possible consumers. However I would not likely buy it unless it had the more capability of a smart phone or Treo.
A camera on a cell phone is great for me. I don't carry around my nice camera everywhere I go, only if I'm on vacation or something. So what do I do when there is something I want to snap a picture of, even if just to remind me of it from time to time? Why, my cell phone of course. It works fine for what most people want it to do. If I want to take a nice picture, well then I'll get my nice camera, but a crappy picture means a crappy camera, on a cell phone or standalone, i don't care, i just want a picture.
That is the attitude that many people make, especially younger people. If it works, and works fast, then it is good enough for them.
....If I want to take a nice picture, well then I'll get my nice camera, but a crappy picture means a crappy camera, on a cell phone or standalone, i don't care, i just want a picture........That is the attitude that many people make, especially younger people. If it works, and works fast, then it is good enough for them.
Yes. Convinience and ease of communication and a new "digital" generation make the camera phone workable in society.
It's like when web pages first started going graphical, and "web designers" started trying to do good graphic communication with it. Graphic designers were all like "OMFG that's so LOW RES and OMFG JPEG COMPRESSION wtf is all that blocky stuff....".
And MPEG-2 compression of cable/ digital satellite and XVIDs of TV Shows -- pixelation and blockiness of LCD-TVs.
Michael Mann shooting "Collateral" and "Miami Vice" in digital, not a single reel of analog film....
It's a brave new world, again, every day
A great deal of the rest of the world is so far ahead on this stuff that it sucks.....
Let's remember a few facts about why cell phone service in Western Europe and Japan is superior.
Part of it is that they are so highly urbanized that it makes economic sense to have ubiquitous concentrated high capacity cell towers. America by contrast has vast amounts of open space.
Another part of it is the heavier regulation of industry there. Rather than the US mobile market's overlapping and incompatible technologies, Japanese and European carriers were required to standardize.
But that kind of government entanglement comes at a price. Remember the lesson of Minitel - in the 80s this French government created nationwide computer network allowed people to buy tickets, get news and weather, communicate, and more, in a way that didn't exist on the Internet until the 90s. However, Minitel retarded Internet adoption in France for years, hampering innovation in the long run.
Furthermore, a third major driver of cell phone adoption in Europe was that everyone was stuck with shoddy state-owned monopolies for their landline service at at time when the US telecom market was opening up and innovating tremendously in the 80s and 90s. When your bored unionized socialist phone repairman doesn't show up for the third day in a row and there's no alternative brand to turn to, there's a lot of pent-up frustration that results in people switching overwhelmingly to mobile carriers.
......When your bored unionized socialist phone repairman doesn't show up for the third day in a row.......
Let's remember a few facts about why cell phone service in Western Europe and Japan is superior.
Part of it is that they are so highly urbanized that it makes economic sense to have ubiquitous concentrated high capacity cell towers. America by contrast has vast amounts of open space.s.
Well... yes, but the fastest growing mobile markets are Africa and India, and this is because they're throwing up super high capacity masts that reach rural areas where the phone companies never reached.
Furthermore, a third major driver of cell phone adoption in Europe was that everyone was stuck with shoddy state-owned monopolies for their landline service at at time when the US telecom market was opening up and innovating tremendously in the 80s and 90s. When your bored unionized socialist phone repairman doesn't show up for the third day in a row and there's no alternative brand to turn to, there's a lot of pent-up frustration that results in people switching overwhelmingly to mobile carriers.
Mmm... this is a kinda political characterisation of unionised labour, no? Look at Scandinavia, where the nationalised industries are super efficicient and mobile phone use is up there with Italy.
But you're right, the insistence on 'competition' between mobile providers in the US came at the inconvenience of the consumers.
Shall we start calling them Pie-Phones?
This one is better
Hey LeoO...
Well... yes, but the fastest growing mobile markets are Africa and India, and this is because they're throwing up super high capacity masts that reach rural areas where the phone companies never reached.
That's an excellent point in reply to the issue of spacing. It looks as if there at least it is more economically efficient to set up a mobile phone infrastructure than a landline one. However, that's the expense of setting up an infrastructure from scratch; if you already have a robust landline network, that's a different set of economic incentives, particularly if landline competition is allowed.
Also, I'm sure land-line service in Africa and India was also awful where it did exist, because of factors similar to those I described in Europe, resulting in similar consumer eagerness for alternatives. In fact I suspect it was far worse than in Europe creating in even stronger consumer demand for something else, thus helping pay for cell tower construction.
I'm aware as well that in Africa, the locals destroy land-line wiring to steal and sell the copper wire.
Mmm... this is a kinda political characterisation of unionised labour, no? Look at Scandinavia, where the nationalised industries are super efficicient and mobile phone use is up there with Italy.
Scandinavia has long been held up as a model of socialism that works. I think, rather that it is an example of a very high level of human and cultural capital -- very intelligent and talented people and a culture stressing education, honesty, social trust, and hard work (the Protestant ethic) -- being able to better carry the the dead-weight drag of socialism and heavy unionization than most of the rest of us. Looking at numbers such as per-worker productivity, it's clear, however, that even Scandinavia is behind freer economies like the US, Hong Kong, etc. One wonders what achievements they could reach without such impediments.
Similarly, East Germany may have been more functional than the rest of the Eastern bloc due to advantages similar to Scandinavia, but it was and is still far behind the West.
But you're right, the insistence on 'competition' between mobile providers in the US came at the inconvenience of the consumers.
I think that short-term pain will result in long-term gain. And recall the benefits of competition for American consumers of land-line telephony - collapsing prices, skyrocketing technological improvements and features.
And, the only reason that I brought up the question about "cellular" versus "mobile" is, I once had a pretty smart telecom engineer chew me out about how Americans still use backward terminology from the "days of analog hexagonal cells."
Not to take away from your point, but, as a telecommunications engineer myself, I'd say that any self-proclaimed engineer who would chew you out with respect to such a topic is more smart ass than pretty smart. In every one of those few instances where someone professing to work in my field effused at me over such a topic, I found that they either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying.
There are boatloads of cell phones that offer these features. I hope Apple has something innovative to offer.
Of course Apple has a few Aces up their sleeve, rest assured they will:
1. Make it simple (like they did with the iPod)
2. Make it work well with software apps (think sync with adress books, iTunes, iPhoto, iChat)
3. Make it beautiful (both the phone itself and the UI - triggering those "gotta have it"-feelings)
4. Make it smart (i.e. automatic bluetooth-backups of the contact list on the phone etc.)
5. Make it ready for direct iTunes Shopping
...
(hmm, that makes five aces - normally that would count as cheating badly...)
I bought the 1gen iPod, still using it daily.
I'll probably buy the 1gen iPhone too (if it will be available in Scandinavia).