People familiar with ensuing talks say the "real push" behind the device was its extensive integration with Mac OS X and the Macintosh platform. Apple is said to have demonstrated several features that called upon a still unreleased version of the company's .Mac internet services that would allow users to control certain Mac functions remotely. These included beaming contacts, tasks and calendar appointments to Address Book and iCal from remote locations. However, the Mac maker remained mum on whether it planned to release Windows compatible versions of those desktop applications.
Locally, the conceptual device called for syncing and management through the company's ubiquitous iTunes digital jukebox software -- similar to the first Motorola ROKR phones. According to a source, video-based ringback tones could be designated through Address Book and synced through iTunes. Similarly, a "call ahead" feature would allow users of the phone to pre-record a video clip that could then be transmitted to mobile phone at the receiving end, where it would play before the a call was answered.
Full integration with iChat -- Apple's proprietary messaging and video conferencing software -- was also said to be a work-in-progress. A source familiar with the development efforts said Apple had tapped third parties to lend a hand with certain protocols that would allow for iChat video conferencing between the handset and desktop Macs. The source, however, never saw a fully functional demonstration of this capability.
He said the smart phone will trail by a quarter or two the release of the company's hybrid cellphone/MP3 player handset (iPhone), which, he added, is already in the manufacturing stages.
As for the poor PC users, Apple can give them Lite versions of the basic apps they would need - giving them a taste of what they would get if they moved to a Mac. Worked for iTunes.
iTunes was a standalone program. I'm sure the iPhone will easily integrate with iTunes, iPhoto, Address Book, Mail, iChat and Safari, but what programs on Windows should Apple waste their time with to allow integration? How many PC users are gfoing to want to give up Outlook for Mail Lite? Will Apple make a simple syncing program that will probably only export your contacts to Outlook or will they not even bother with at all, at least at the beginning, like they did with the iPod. I think it's the latter.
I can't wait for a smartphone with Apple ease of use. They are going to sell as many as they make.
This is what Apple will miss when Steve decides to hang up his turtleneck... somebody with the balls and authority to say "not good enough; back to R&D".
Isn't text chatting more advantageous over a voice call for the carriers. It utilizes a lot less bandwidth (i.e: data).
Maybe but someone can just can get a plan with very few minutes + pay for a data plan and use that to talk to people. Carrier's like to lock down the data / internet plans.
Does that mean those who buy phones that use Windows Mobile are die hard windows fans. None of the current smart phone offerings tie seamlessly into OS X the same way Win Mobile ties seamlessly into XP.
Mac users choose to use the Mac because of OS X and Apple's software design. Currently there is no match for that design in a mobile device.
Read this months Macworld. They have a big article about that.
There is no reason Apple has to be an MVNO. They have more than enough capital to become their own service.
Sice it's the subscription service that usually makes the most money. And since will surely sell their Apple-branded phones at full price they could significantly offer highly competitive price on their subscription services, without the need for a contract as the phone would only work with the Apple carrier anyway.
With .Mac allowing for photocasting and other nifty things I forsee a dramatic increase in .Mac capabilities and an increase in .Mac sales once the iPhone is available.
If Apple doesn't offer a way to stream my digital content from my iTunes library then I hope:
a) Slingbox makes an iPhone version of their software.
b) A version Parallels, VMWare or Crossover works on the iPhone and allows me to load the Slingbox media player.
edit: fixed wording
Why would Apple want to spend billions to put towers up, and to go through that regulatory minefield? And where would they buy the spectrum from? An NVMO is the best bet.
There is no reason Apple has to be an MVNO. They have more than enough capital to become their own service.
one word: TOWERS!
Apple has no towers and unless they decide to wait a couple years until they blanket the U.S. with their own towers, they have to negotiate the use of the existing towers.
I think Apple will start by selling unlocked cell phones($249 & $349) and let consumers use them with their existing carriers.
In another year at MW08 they will announce their own MVNO service and start offering phones with contracts ($50 & $150).
Thank GOD someone like Steve Jobs exists who actually CARES ABOUT QUALITY and will send something back to the drawing board if it isn't ABSOLUTELY PERFECT. There are so few human beings who would do this, let alone CEO's of public corporations. THANK GOD & HALLELUJAH FOR STEVE JOBS FOR DOING THINGS RIGHT!!!
Isn't it a bad decision to announce a potentially inferior product and just some months later go on and try to push a much improved variety? Shouldn't they just wait it out and do the right thing instead of confusing customers that are by now *really* eager to get a phone from Apple?
Isn't it a bad decision to announce a potentially inferior product and just some months later go on and try to push a much improved variety? Shouldn't they just wait it out and do the right thing instead of confusing customers that are by now *really* eager to get a phone from Apple?
It isn't an inferior product. It's a different product.
If Apple had introduced the Mac Book, and then, several months later introduced the Mac Book Pro, would you have said that they introduced an inferior product first?
Two different products, two different customer bases.
its positive news that Apple will be releasing this new product... however, if the phone comes with a 4GB ipod (music capability) then who will buy a 4GB nano? why would you have a nano and a seperate phone (either a nokia or apple)? You wouldn't.
What this signals is the end of the Nano as we know it.. but thats actually a good thing as Apple will actually sell more 'phones' than nanos, for a higher market value. Clever business.
its positive news that Apple will be releasing this new product... however, if the phone comes with a 4GB ipod (music capability) then who will buy a 4GB nano? why would you have a nano and a seperate phone (either a nokia or apple)? You wouldn't.
What this signals is the end of the Nano as we know it.. but thats actually a good thing as Apple will actually sell more 'phones' than nanos, for a higher market value. Clever business.
Nanu Nano... as a wise man once said.
If this costs $50 more than the Nano, why should Apple care? Particularly if they can get other fees they might not get otherwise.
If they can sell more phones in any category than they can sell Nano's, they will be ahead of the game.
If they can also stave off other music phone manufactures, so much the better.
Comments
People familiar with ensuing talks say the "real push" behind the device was its extensive integration with Mac OS X and the Macintosh platform. Apple is said to have demonstrated several features that called upon a still unreleased version of the company's .Mac internet services that would allow users to control certain Mac functions remotely. These included beaming contacts, tasks and calendar appointments to Address Book and iCal from remote locations. However, the Mac maker remained mum on whether it planned to release Windows compatible versions of those desktop applications.
Locally, the conceptual device called for syncing and management through the company's ubiquitous iTunes digital jukebox software -- similar to the first Motorola ROKR phones. According to a source, video-based ringback tones could be designated through Address Book and synced through iTunes. Similarly, a "call ahead" feature would allow users of the phone to pre-record a video clip that could then be transmitted to mobile phone at the receiving end, where it would play before the a call was answered.
Full integration with iChat -- Apple's proprietary messaging and video conferencing software -- was also said to be a work-in-progress. A source familiar with the development efforts said Apple had tapped third parties to lend a hand with certain protocols that would allow for iChat video conferencing between the handset and desktop Macs. The source, however, never saw a fully functional demonstration of this capability.
He said the smart phone will trail by a quarter or two the release of the company's hybrid cellphone/MP3 player handset (iPhone), which, he added, is already in the manufacturing stages.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
These ideas all sound cool thing intell the data bill / carriers costs come in.
Also I don't think that carriers would like people using iChat to talk to people with out using there minutes.
Also how much would an iTunes download cost? $0.99 + carrier charge + data charge = a lot
As for the poor PC users, Apple can give them Lite versions of the basic apps they would need - giving them a taste of what they would get if they moved to a Mac. Worked for iTunes.
iTunes was a standalone program. I'm sure the iPhone will easily integrate with iTunes, iPhoto, Address Book, Mail, iChat and Safari, but what programs on Windows should Apple waste their time with to allow integration? How many PC users are gfoing to want to give up Outlook for Mail Lite? Will Apple make a simple syncing program that will probably only export your contacts to Outlook or will they not even bother with at all, at least at the beginning, like they did with the iPod. I think it's the latter.
This is what Apple will miss when Steve decides to hang up his turtleneck... somebody with the balls and authority to say "not good enough; back to R&D".
These ideas all sound cool thing intell the data bill / carriers costs come in.
That's what would be good about Apple dealing with one carrier (at least at first).
Its much more possible for Apple to negotiate a deal where the Apple phone user would not be charged for using all of its bells and whistles.
Also I don't think that carriers would like people using iChat to talk to people with out using there minutes.
Isn't text chatting more advantageous over a voice call for the carriers. It utilizes a lot less bandwidth (i.e: data).
As for the poor PC users
Yeah what will Apple do about that?
The iPod/phone should still be able to work with iTunes for Windows just fine.
But Apple may say you need a Mac to fully use the smartphone version.
Isn't text chatting more advantageous over a voice call for the carriers. It utilizes a lot less bandwidth (i.e: data).
Maybe but someone can just can get a plan with very few minutes + pay for a data plan and use that to talk to people. Carrier's like to lock down the data / internet plans.
Does that mean those who buy phones that use Windows Mobile are die hard windows fans. None of the current smart phone offerings tie seamlessly into OS X the same way Win Mobile ties seamlessly into XP.
Mac users choose to use the Mac because of OS X and Apple's software design. Currently there is no match for that design in a mobile device.
Read this months Macworld. They have a big article about that.
There is no reason Apple has to be an MVNO. They have more than enough capital to become their own service.
Sice it's the subscription service that usually makes the most money. And since will surely sell their Apple-branded phones at full price they could significantly offer highly competitive price on their subscription services, without the need for a contract as the phone would only work with the Apple carrier anyway.
With .Mac allowing for photocasting and other nifty things I forsee a dramatic increase in .Mac capabilities and an increase in .Mac sales once the iPhone is available.
If Apple doesn't offer a way to stream my digital content from my iTunes library then I hope:
a) Slingbox makes an iPhone version of their software.
b) A version Parallels, VMWare or Crossover works on the iPhone and allows me to load the Slingbox media player.
edit: fixed wording
Why would Apple want to spend billions to put towers up, and to go through that regulatory minefield? And where would they buy the spectrum from? An NVMO is the best bet.
There is no reason Apple has to be an MVNO. They have more than enough capital to become their own service.
one word: TOWERS!
Apple has no towers and unless they decide to wait a couple years until they blanket the U.S. with their own towers, they have to negotiate the use of the existing towers.
I think Apple will start by selling unlocked cell phones($249 & $349) and let consumers use them with their existing carriers.
In another year at MW08 they will announce their own MVNO service and start offering phones with contracts ($50 & $150).
it isn't as small as the nano, but with a 12" touch sensitive widescreen and slide out keyboard?
no 10 megapixel camera w/ 10x optical zoom? no gps? i bet it won't even have a 1TB drive.
useless.
[the real emails like this are little more than a month away...]
my only decision now is do i buy the candybar version asap, or wait it out for the smartphone...
i'm already disappointed. it won't run photoshop with a draft N link to my 1080p tv?
it isn't as small as the nano, but with a 12" touch sensitive widescreen and slide out keyboard?
no 10 megapixel camera w/ 10x optical zoom? no gps? i bet it won't even have a 1TB drive.
useless.
[the real emails like this are little more than a month away...]
my only decision now is do i buy the candybar version asap, or wait it out for the smartphone...
Buy the initial version. Sell it when the 2nd phone is released. Easy!
Isn't it a bad decision to announce a potentially inferior product and just some months later go on and try to push a much improved variety? Shouldn't they just wait it out and do the right thing instead of confusing customers that are by now *really* eager to get a phone from Apple?
It isn't an inferior product. It's a different product.
If Apple had introduced the Mac Book, and then, several months later introduced the Mac Book Pro, would you have said that they introduced an inferior product first?
Two different products, two different customer bases.
Buy the initial version. Sell it when the 2nd phone is released. Easy!
ahh yes, perfect... now... who wants to buy a SLVR? stupid old-fashioned January'06 technology.
What this signals is the end of the Nano as we know it.. but thats actually a good thing as Apple will actually sell more 'phones' than nanos, for a higher market value. Clever business.
Nanu Nano... as a wise man once said.
its positive news that Apple will be releasing this new product... however, if the phone comes with a 4GB ipod (music capability) then who will buy a 4GB nano? why would you have a nano and a seperate phone (either a nokia or apple)? You wouldn't.
What this signals is the end of the Nano as we know it.. but thats actually a good thing as Apple will actually sell more 'phones' than nanos, for a higher market value. Clever business.
Nanu Nano... as a wise man once said.
If this costs $50 more than the Nano, why should Apple care? Particularly if they can get other fees they might not get otherwise.
If they can sell more phones in any category than they can sell Nano's, they will be ahead of the game.
If they can also stave off other music phone manufactures, so much the better.