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.
I think you're wrong. People who want a 4GB player w/o phone will buy a nano for $50-$100 cheaper than the 4GB PhonePod. There is still very much a market for nanos. The PhonePod will compliment the iPod lineup, not replace it.
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".
Let's stay in the present shall we, even if this is future hardware.
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.
Err you're thinking like a Mac Geek.... I suspect the 4Gb Nano will be cheaper so if for those who only want an "mp3" player then the Nano will be the better deal. If you want a phone then you'll pay the extra.
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.
No way. They have already established their strategy having created interconnects to Adobe Photo Album and Photoshop Elements for picture handling between Windows and iPods, and the reason they ported iTunes over to the PC was in order to sell content. There's not much potential for retail in still photos, so I doubt Jobs will put the effort into iPhoto Lite/Win.
I suspect that they'll do compatibility for Outlook/Outlook Express and Vista's new Mail, Calendar and Photo Gallery programs.
Let's stay in the present shall we, even if this is future hardware.
I agree with him. They will sell these like hotcakes. At least 20% of iPod owners would buy one. The analysts are being conservative with a 7 million projection in the first year.
There are three types of customers for this product.
The first one is the person who owns an original 5 or 10 Gig iPod and is ready for a upgrade. A smaller model for exercising with the extra feature of a phone.
The second consumer is one does not need a new iPod but is in the market for a new phone.
The third consumer is one who does not own an iPod at all but would like a better blackberry with more features.
AAPL will hit $150 by July if this product is released.
I agree with him. They will sell these like hotcakes. At least 20% of iPod owners would buy one. The analysts are being conservative with a 7 million projection in the first year.
AAPL will hit $150 by July if this product is released.
They're being conservative cause they have no real clue about phones or UI's, they don't see the real advantage of one device over two, and they don't see what all of us see, like a train coming towards us.
My estimate if the iPhone comes out in Jan, and the iPhone Smart comes about before may, is 25million units in year one.
the reason they ported iTunes over to the PC was in order to sell content.
The reason they ported iTunes to the PC was to sell iPods.
Quote:
I suspect that they'll do compatibility for Outlook/Outlook Express and Vista's new Mail, Calendar and Photo Gallery programs.
That's possible. But it would set a new president. Microsoft and Apple do very little to directly support each others apps.
For example Apple ported iTunes to Windows to sell more iPods. That relationship does little to help Windows. One could argue of course that Office helps the Mac stay viable. I think this was more true when the platform was in trouble around 1998 to 2001. But as Apple becomes stronger the importance of Office will wane. So the result of MS producing Office for the Mac will more benefit MS because Office is extremely profitable and continues its dominance.
So in turn Apple developing a device that support Outlook, Vista Mail, Vista Calendar, Vista Photo and their proprietary formats would be very unusual and a curtsey that MS does not extend to Apple.
I think the things most people are looking for are...
reception
GUI - like the iPod UI
solid handset form factor -like a nano but bigger
Syncing with iTunes, Address Book, iCal
Chat
Email
Absolutely!
Now to the matter of what Apple might be building...
A phone that can access the internet directly wherever a Wi-Fi connection is available and goes via the cell network the rest of the time is the phone of the future. I believe this is what Steve Jobs and Co. are working on.
I've yet to place or receive a single cell phone call outside my home metropolitan area. If I could buy a phone that would tap into the city-wide Wi-Fi that will be built here in the next few years, I would dump my cell phone and never worry about paying for a call again.
The phone companies must be crapping their collective pants realizing that in the near future nobody will pay for wallpaper or ring tones and only people who travel to places without Wi-Fi will pay for text, voice or video calls.
Now to the matter of what Apple might be building...
A phone that can access the internet directly wherever a Wi-Fi connection is available and goes via the cell network the rest of the time is the phone of the future. I believe this is what Steve Jobs and Co. are working on.
I've yet to place or receive a single cell phone call outside my home metropolitan area. If I could buy a phone that would tap into the city-wide Wi-Fi that will be built here in the next few years, I would dump my cell phone and never worry about paying for a call again.
The phone companies must be crapping their collective pants realizing that in the near future nobody will pay for wallpaper or ring tones and only people who travel to places without Wi-Fi will pay for text, voice or video calls.
The phone companies will try to lock down the Wi-Fi part
The Apple iPod smartphone won't appear before Leopard. The phone will become a significant driver to get people to upgrade from Tiger to Leopard. My guess is it will arrive a month or three after Leopard debuts - in other words, alongside 10.5.1 or 10.5.2, so that the early adopters have already gone ahead and bought up their copies, and this becomes an incentive for the slow movers.
As for the PC side, instead of going the app-lite approach, I wonder if the iTunes software will start to sport additional capabilities related to photos and contacts. I can just hear the PC users complaining about more iTunes bloat.
after all the recap my guess is we see the quad core MacPro [hdDvd/BluRay?], then the iTV, announcement of draft N, 720p [and possibly 1080p] downloads from iTMS, and one more thing... steve's iPod rings. hello?
i just bought a 17"MBP [sweet] because the next upgrade i would care at all about would be bluray, and i can't see that happening in january. why isn't the apple remote designed to be stored in the expresscard slot?
I don't think Apple would do a "Lite" port, an iTunes Bloat, or even port their Apps over.
Apple prides itself on using Open Standards and as such, I assume they will support more then just one app on the PCs for software. Say for Example the option of using Outlook instead of Windows Mail/Outlook Express or using Sunbird instead of iCal (on the Mac)
It would really suck if Apple was tying it into Software so deeply as to not allow others to use it. It worked with the iPod but it would still suck with an iPhone.
It would really suck if Apple was tying it into Software so deeply as to not allow others to use it. It worked with the iPod but it would still suck with an iPhone.
There are plenty of examples of hardware being tied directly to software and locking out other software. Windows Mobile locks you into Windows software.
But I do see your point it would be logical if an Apple phone worked with Thunderbird, Sunbird, Google Calendar, Picasa, and so on. This would allow the phone to work in Windows while supporting open standards.
There are plenty of examples of hardware being tied directly to software and locking out other software. Windows Mobile locks you into Windows software.
But I do see your point it would be logical if an Apple phone worked with Thunderbird, Sunbird, Google Calendar, Picasa, and so on. This would allow the phone to work in Windows while supporting open standards.
And, how would this work? To do that, it would either have to be a Windows phone, not likely, or would have to have something such as Crossover built-in.
I would hope that Apple would make this compatable with OS X software instead, though it could be compatable with Exchange and Office, as Palm is, on the file, and connection, level.
I see a tight integration with .mac thru IP-telephony, a sort of your own call-center. With bluetooth you will be able to seamlessly connect to your mac once you're in reach. You can dial or whatever on your mac or on your iPhone, whatever is practical. Record calls, choose to backup you're recorded incoming phone-calls to your mac etc. The potentials of this type of integration must drive a guy like Jobs sleepless of all possibilities.
I see a tight integration with .mac thru IP-telephony, a sort of your own call-center. With bluetooth you will be able to seamlessly connect to your mac once you're in reach. You can dial or whatever on your mac or on your iPhone, whatever is practical. Record calls, choose to backup you're recorded incoming phone-calls to your mac etc. The potentials of this type of integration must drive a guy like Jobs sleepless of all possibilities.
But, that would do the opposite. lock it into Apple users!
Apple has to have some program like iTunes that works on both platforms, for syncing and such.
Perhaps .mac can be changed in some way to encompass Windows users as well.
Do you think we'll see iTunes 8 for iPhone integration or a completely new application (but that has full access to iLife media/OS X apps)
I imagine the interface to be very much like the current iPod screen is in iTunes 7. And I suppose by including it within iTunes the installed base will already be there.
Presumably we'll also see some advantages as Mac owners; I suppose Apple will have to sell this to Windoze users but I can't believe it'll be the slick product under Vista/Xp that it can be with OS X integration.
But, that would do the opposite. lock it into Apple users!
Apple has to have some program like iTunes that works on both platforms, for syncing and such.
Perhaps .mac can be changed in some way to encompass Windows users as well.
With a new name, of course.
.mac just gives a LOT of xtra value to going all mac and it will give Apple immense possibilities. Of course it will not be needed if you prefer staying w Windoze
Comments
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.
I think you're wrong. People who want a 4GB player w/o phone will buy a nano for $50-$100 cheaper than the 4GB PhonePod. There is still very much a market for nanos. The PhonePod will compliment the iPod lineup, not replace it.
-Clive
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".
Let's stay in the present shall we, even if this is future hardware.
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.
Err you're thinking like a Mac Geek.... I suspect the 4Gb Nano will be cheaper so if for those who only want an "mp3" player then the Nano will be the better deal. If you want a phone then you'll pay the extra.
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.
No way. They have already established their strategy having created interconnects to Adobe Photo Album and Photoshop Elements for picture handling between Windows and iPods, and the reason they ported iTunes over to the PC was in order to sell content. There's not much potential for retail in still photos, so I doubt Jobs will put the effort into iPhoto Lite/Win.
I suspect that they'll do compatibility for Outlook/Outlook Express and Vista's new Mail, Calendar and Photo Gallery programs.
what do people mean by slide out keyboard. can anyone give any examples from current phones?
two different models is correct. not inferior and superior. they will probably announce both at mwsf, but only immediately ship the nano type.
Let's stay in the present shall we, even if this is future hardware.
I agree with him. They will sell these like hotcakes. At least 20% of iPod owners would buy one. The analysts are being conservative with a 7 million projection in the first year.
There are three types of customers for this product.
The first one is the person who owns an original 5 or 10 Gig iPod and is ready for a upgrade. A smaller model for exercising with the extra feature of a phone.
The second consumer is one does not need a new iPod but is in the market for a new phone.
The third consumer is one who does not own an iPod at all but would like a better blackberry with more features.
AAPL will hit $150 by July if this product is released.
I agree with him. They will sell these like hotcakes. At least 20% of iPod owners would buy one. The analysts are being conservative with a 7 million projection in the first year.
AAPL will hit $150 by July if this product is released.
They're being conservative cause they have no real clue about phones or UI's, they don't see the real advantage of one device over two, and they don't see what all of us see, like a train coming towards us.
My estimate if the iPhone comes out in Jan, and the iPhone Smart comes about before may, is 25million units in year one.
the reason they ported iTunes over to the PC was in order to sell content.
The reason they ported iTunes to the PC was to sell iPods.
I suspect that they'll do compatibility for Outlook/Outlook Express and Vista's new Mail, Calendar and Photo Gallery programs.
That's possible. But it would set a new president. Microsoft and Apple do very little to directly support each others apps.
For example Apple ported iTunes to Windows to sell more iPods. That relationship does little to help Windows. One could argue of course that Office helps the Mac stay viable. I think this was more true when the platform was in trouble around 1998 to 2001. But as Apple becomes stronger the importance of Office will wane. So the result of MS producing Office for the Mac will more benefit MS because Office is extremely profitable and continues its dominance.
So in turn Apple developing a device that support Outlook, Vista Mail, Vista Calendar, Vista Photo and their proprietary formats would be very unusual and a curtsey that MS does not extend to Apple.
I think the things most people are looking for are...
reception
GUI - like the iPod UI
solid handset form factor -like a nano but bigger
Syncing with iTunes, Address Book, iCal
Chat
Email
Absolutely!
Now to the matter of what Apple might be building...
A phone that can access the internet directly wherever a Wi-Fi connection is available and goes via the cell network the rest of the time is the phone of the future. I believe this is what Steve Jobs and Co. are working on.
I've yet to place or receive a single cell phone call outside my home metropolitan area. If I could buy a phone that would tap into the city-wide Wi-Fi that will be built here in the next few years, I would dump my cell phone and never worry about paying for a call again.
The phone companies must be crapping their collective pants realizing that in the near future nobody will pay for wallpaper or ring tones and only people who travel to places without Wi-Fi will pay for text, voice or video calls.
Absolutely!
Now to the matter of what Apple might be building...
A phone that can access the internet directly wherever a Wi-Fi connection is available and goes via the cell network the rest of the time is the phone of the future. I believe this is what Steve Jobs and Co. are working on.
I've yet to place or receive a single cell phone call outside my home metropolitan area. If I could buy a phone that would tap into the city-wide Wi-Fi that will be built here in the next few years, I would dump my cell phone and never worry about paying for a call again.
The phone companies must be crapping their collective pants realizing that in the near future nobody will pay for wallpaper or ring tones and only people who travel to places without Wi-Fi will pay for text, voice or video calls.
The phone companies will try to lock down the Wi-Fi part
As for the PC side, instead of going the app-lite approach, I wonder if the iTunes software will start to sport additional capabilities related to photos and contacts. I can just hear the PC users complaining about more iTunes bloat.
i just bought a 17"MBP [sweet] because the next upgrade i would care at all about would be bluray, and i can't see that happening in january. why isn't the apple remote designed to be stored in the expresscard slot?
Apple prides itself on using Open Standards and as such, I assume they will support more then just one app on the PCs for software. Say for Example the option of using Outlook instead of Windows Mail/Outlook Express or using Sunbird instead of iCal (on the Mac)
It would really suck if Apple was tying it into Software so deeply as to not allow others to use it. It worked with the iPod but it would still suck with an iPhone.
It would really suck if Apple was tying it into Software so deeply as to not allow others to use it. It worked with the iPod but it would still suck with an iPhone.
There are plenty of examples of hardware being tied directly to software and locking out other software. Windows Mobile locks you into Windows software.
But I do see your point it would be logical if an Apple phone worked with Thunderbird, Sunbird, Google Calendar, Picasa, and so on. This would allow the phone to work in Windows while supporting open standards.
Telephony is a feature, no device.
and, talking of worldwide markets:
SMS is a HUGE thing here...-
There are plenty of examples of hardware being tied directly to software and locking out other software. Windows Mobile locks you into Windows software.
But I do see your point it would be logical if an Apple phone worked with Thunderbird, Sunbird, Google Calendar, Picasa, and so on. This would allow the phone to work in Windows while supporting open standards.
And, how would this work? To do that, it would either have to be a Windows phone, not likely, or would have to have something such as Crossover built-in.
I would hope that Apple would make this compatable with OS X software instead, though it could be compatable with Exchange and Office, as Palm is, on the file, and connection, level.
I see a tight integration with .mac thru IP-telephony, a sort of your own call-center. With bluetooth you will be able to seamlessly connect to your mac once you're in reach. You can dial or whatever on your mac or on your iPhone, whatever is practical. Record calls, choose to backup you're recorded incoming phone-calls to your mac etc. The potentials of this type of integration must drive a guy like Jobs sleepless of all possibilities.
But, that would do the opposite. lock it into Apple users!
Apple has to have some program like iTunes that works on both platforms, for syncing and such.
Perhaps .mac can be changed in some way to encompass Windows users as well.
With a new name, of course.
I imagine the interface to be very much like the current iPod screen is in iTunes 7. And I suppose by including it within iTunes the installed base will already be there.
Presumably we'll also see some advantages as Mac owners; I suppose Apple will have to sell this to Windoze users but I can't believe it'll be the slick product under Vista/Xp that it can be with OS X integration.
But, that would do the opposite. lock it into Apple users!
Apple has to have some program like iTunes that works on both platforms, for syncing and such.
Perhaps .mac can be changed in some way to encompass Windows users as well.
With a new name, of course.
.mac just gives a LOT of xtra value to going all mac and it will give Apple immense possibilities. Of course it will not be needed if you prefer staying w Windoze