i've read the article and i fully agree. the focus of cell phone manufacturers is completely off. They try to compete with video, photo, color screens, fancy design, ... but at the same time mobile phone providers try to make money out of non-content like ringtones, wallpapers, MMS (picture messages), data transmitting.
The most important transferring of data is between my home pc and my phone. (This doesn't need to be in real time, although i like PUSH e-mails (in my opinion the future of SMS)) It's too expensive and always be more complicated to transfer data via air than via a cable or dock (heck you have to load your battery some time!).
Bluetooth and WiFi are valuable alternatives but still slow down any application you will be running with data not on the phone already.
My question is this: if apple truely comes with something completely different, will they join the rat race in megapixel cameras and low res video? And will they finally add bluetooth to sync with my computer and other proximity data transfers (e.g. money transactions, ID check on the public transport, ...)
It's about time Apple got over the iFad anyway. It was fresh when the original iMac came out eight years ago, but now it's dated, iPod notwithstanding. iPhone was a little too limiting anyway. Apple's gadget should be so much more than just a phone. And it didn't show much imagination. It belongs to something as generic as this thing.
Good Post. You are correct, the iPhone would be too limiting. It should take on the role as iLife did, something in the realm that highlights the phone is the only device you will need for your lifestyle. Hmm...
Well, I'm sure Cisco will put people in a tizzy, but I think Apple has bigger plans. First off, www.iphone.com is owned by the "Internet Phone Company" with no reference to Cisco Systems. It is still a VOIP service though ... should be interesting to see what happens there. Secondly, the iPod is light years ahead at what is does best (play music) and very good at its secondary feature (video). Now if we dump a phone onto that with an OS X Lite or whatever, it seems to me that its ceasing to be primarily an iPod and becoming more of a phone / handheld computer. My money is on either the MacPhone or the PocketMac. If its good enough, then people buy it, get exposed to ascaledd own OS X .... hmmm ... maybe they make the jump to Apple. Asong as Apple has a great product to roll out, I don't think they have to worry about Cisco.
What about the iCall and the iCallPro or even the iCall-U \
it can't be iCall iCall Pro, iCall-U or anything like that because they have a calendaring software called iCal. This just goes to show how inconvenient this "i" naming scheme is. Something completely different would be fine. Something like... um, ZUNE! no wait a sec... that's not right.
It will only be available through Apple retail locations as it requires a 30-minute activation phase where the phone is attuned to the purchaser. Many people will view this "activation" as another form of DRM.
...
In his obligatory "One more thing" moment, Steve Jobs will remove his head and reveal himself to be the last survivor of the Roswell aliens.
"one more thing... i'm an alien." *cheers all over, everybody's being RDF'd so no one cares*
The eventual name will have greater ties to Apple's new product marketing segmentation that started with the Mac prefix for all computer products. If there are more non computer products, such as the Hi-Fi, or mystery phone device, they may adopt a different naming convention, but I would never rule out Apple Phone or Apple PhonePro either.
Good Post. You are correct, the iPhone would be too limiting. It should take on the role as iLife did, something in the realm that highlights the phone is the only device you will need for your lifestyle. Hmm...
As long as we don't get annoying commercials with girls being eaten by giant fish for calling it a phone I'll be happy
Is it just me or does it seem odd that Apple registered a .org (iphone.org) which is used mainly for non-profit organizations, and not really used for products?
Is it just me or does it seem odd that Apple registered a .org (iphone.org) which is used mainly for non-profit organizations, and not really used for products?
I think that was the intent, but it's not enforced in any way.
I heard a rumor back in January about a new gadget from Apple with a touchscreen display that would cover the face of the thing. It was supposed to be the video iPod so I thought the screen would have to have a 16x9 aspect ratio. When I started doing mockups, the dimensions didn't match up with anything Apple had like the nano or the iPod. When I went back to my source with this, he said yes, it would be a different size between the nano and the iPod. I couldn't understand how that'd be good for a video iPod.
At the time, it was believed Apple would release it in March but when I checked back with my source in March, he said there were problems with the display and that the thing went back to the drawing board. From what I can tell, that's exactly what happened and the project was reworked from the ground up.
Recalling these old rumors and looking at the latest rumors about the phone effort, I think this video iPod and the phone are one and the same. The thing gnawing at me 10 months ago was the idea that a full screen 3.5" iPod would have to be smaller than a regular iPod and I couldn't reconcile that with an internal HD large enough to store lots of movies. Ah, but if you think of an iPod that's flash based and sized between the nano and the iPod, the display makes sense but not so much for movies unless the 8GB model has enough capacity to make movie viewing worthwhile.
A 3.5" full screen iPod phone makes a lot of sense since the display can let the device be anything you want it to be with virtual clickwheel and virtual buttons. I can't wait to see what Apple comes out with.
Oh how write you were... much applause to this guy for figuring the whole thing out!!
Comments
Whatever Apple comes up with for a name, it'll have iPod as its first name.
iPod
iPod nano
iPod shuffle
iPod mobil, cell, phone, talk, phone home, whatever.
I really like this guy's article: Welcome to cellular 2.0
i've read the article and i fully agree. the focus of cell phone manufacturers is completely off. They try to compete with video, photo, color screens, fancy design, ... but at the same time mobile phone providers try to make money out of non-content like ringtones, wallpapers, MMS (picture messages), data transmitting.
The most important transferring of data is between my home pc and my phone. (This doesn't need to be in real time, although i like PUSH e-mails (in my opinion the future of SMS)) It's too expensive and always be more complicated to transfer data via air than via a cable or dock (heck you have to load your battery some time!).
Bluetooth and WiFi are valuable alternatives but still slow down any application you will be running with data not on the phone already.
My question is this: if apple truely comes with something completely different, will they join the rat race in megapixel cameras and low res video? And will they finally add bluetooth to sync with my computer and other proximity data transfers (e.g. money transactions, ID check on the public transport, ...)
It's about time Apple got over the iFad anyway. It was fresh when the original iMac came out eight years ago, but now it's dated, iPod notwithstanding. iPhone was a little too limiting anyway. Apple's gadget should be so much more than just a phone. And it didn't show much imagination. It belongs to something as generic as this thing.
Good Post. You are correct, the iPhone would be too limiting. It should take on the role as iLife did, something in the realm that highlights the phone is the only device you will need for your lifestyle. Hmm...
i just wanted to share my "oh duh" moment with you
What about the iCall and the iCallPro or even the iCall-U
it can't be iCall iCall Pro, iCall-U or anything like that because they have a calendaring software called iCal. This just goes to show how inconvenient this "i" naming scheme is. Something completely different would be fine. Something like... um, ZUNE! no wait a sec... that's not right.
It will only be available through Apple retail locations as it requires a 30-minute activation phase where the phone is attuned to the purchaser. Many people will view this "activation" as another form of DRM.
...
In his obligatory "One more thing" moment, Steve Jobs will remove his head and reveal himself to be the last survivor of the Roswell aliens.
"one more thing... i'm an alien." *cheers all over, everybody's being RDF'd so no one cares*
Good Post. You are correct, the iPhone would be too limiting. It should take on the role as iLife did, something in the realm that highlights the phone is the only device you will need for your lifestyle. Hmm...
As long as we don't get annoying commercials with girls being eaten by giant fish for calling it a phone I'll be happy
Is it just me or does it seem odd that Apple registered a .org (iphone.org) which is used mainly for non-profit organizations, and not really used for products?
I think that was the intent, but it's not enforced in any way.
I heard a rumor back in January about a new gadget from Apple with a touchscreen display that would cover the face of the thing. It was supposed to be the video iPod so I thought the screen would have to have a 16x9 aspect ratio. When I started doing mockups, the dimensions didn't match up with anything Apple had like the nano or the iPod. When I went back to my source with this, he said yes, it would be a different size between the nano and the iPod. I couldn't understand how that'd be good for a video iPod.
That rumor turned into this TS article on Feb. 9: True Video iPod to Sport 3.5" Display
At the time, it was believed Apple would release it in March but when I checked back with my source in March, he said there were problems with the display and that the thing went back to the drawing board. From what I can tell, that's exactly what happened and the project was reworked from the ground up.
Recalling these old rumors and looking at the latest rumors about the phone effort, I think this video iPod and the phone are one and the same. The thing gnawing at me 10 months ago was the idea that a full screen 3.5" iPod would have to be smaller than a regular iPod and I couldn't reconcile that with an internal HD large enough to store lots of movies. Ah, but if you think of an iPod that's flash based and sized between the nano and the iPod, the display makes sense but not so much for movies unless the 8GB model has enough capacity to make movie viewing worthwhile.
A 3.5" full screen iPod phone makes a lot of sense since the display can let the device be anything you want it to be with virtual clickwheel and virtual buttons. I can't wait to see what Apple comes out with.
Oh how write you were... much applause to this guy for figuring the whole thing out!!