Bleh. Give me the Pad without the phone company... just like the iPod touch. $%&@!!!
Agree, but I would also expect multitouch AND stylus support so that it can act as a full-fledged tablet PC (PC = personal computer) that can run OSX and Vista (since Vista has real handwriting recognition and OSX does not).
If this is just going to be a more robust iPod touch that is tied to a phone company then I guess I will buy the thinkpad X61 I have been looking at the last two months.
I agree with everything Roc Ingersol has posted in this thread. Those arguing against him sound like the guys who said "who would by a $500 5 gig music player? No one's going to pay that kind of money when they can just listen to CDs or by a $100 player."
I have a laptop and a desktop, but I'd love a iPod touch that was maybe twice the size. Developers who have learned the iPhone SDK would be cranking out tons of new and innovative apps taking advantage of the larger screen.
Apple could still make a profit on these because tech specs wouldn't be the selling point. Unlike a netbook where every attribute in compared (unfavorably) to a laptop, a iPhone tablet would be more like the Wii: incredibly popular even though it doesn't have the hardware specs of its competitors.
And yes, I can imagine Apple selling these without G3. Homes, offices, and college campuses are WiFi friendly. That's enough for a lot of people.
I suppose people are interested in this cos it just happens to be the way it is done. My friends often say, "I wish the iPhone was on my network", that being some provider other than AT&T, O2 or whatever. Why do people actually care about their network provider? They all pretty much offer you the same service at the same price, they don't really care about your loyalty. In fact they all try and screw as much money out of you as possible at every opportunity, txts, roaming, voice mail, data, freephone calls, everything and anything? It's like getting excited about buying a new toilet and then having to decide which pipes the shit is going to go down and how much shit you are going to create. I've been on all the major operators (in the UK) and easily the worst thing about owning mobile phone are the bills (unless you own a Sony Ericsson phone).
There is only area where the iPhone shows zero innovation and that is the way it works with current network providers. Here are few things Apple should work towards.
Apple does not need Network providers to help sell the iPhone. The product sells itself as such any mention of service provider is pointless.
Apple should work as a virtual provider, bulk purchasing airtime from one or more networks in each region. Apple should then operate an end-to-end billing system, like iTunes, so the consumer has no direct connection to network operator (when you buy music you don't get a bill from the record company).
Innovate with an integrated service, things like cross matching of call charges and address book contacts becomes. Provide services like global roaming voice/data service for customers without penalizing customers with massive costs.
Now I'm reckoning that the EU/French would have trouble with this approach as they like to shaft things in every possible way.
I suppose people are interested in this cos it just happens to be the way it is done. My friends often say, "I wish the iPhone was on my network", that being some provider other than AT&T, O2 or whatever. Why do people actually care about their network provider? They all pretty much offer you the same service at the same price, they don't really care about your loyalty.
Some carriers offer plans that fit certain people's needs, but they are mostly the same in that regard, but you tend to get a little more stuff or slightly lower rates from the small carriers trying to compete. The main issue, at least here in the US, is that certain carriers don't cover certain areas well or at all. And then there are issues with sufficient 2G coverage, but not 3G, which is important to those paying $30/month for data. The other major issue in the US is the carrier network standard. CDMA is better quality for voice over GSM. It will also some features that GSM doesn't have so you can be on 3G when you want to use data but wait for a call in 2G, which makes your standby and call time longer by comparison to GSM/UMTS phones, which is either or. And then there are those that have had a bad experience or whatever that make them stay away from a carrier.
Quote:
There is only area where the iPhone shows zero innovation and that is the way it works with current network providers. Here are few things Apple should work towards.
Apple does not need Network providers to help sell the iPhone. The product sells itself as such any mention of service provider is pointless.
You say this shows no innovation, yet this is excessive innovation. Apple did what no other vendor had done. They were able to convince carriers to give them control. When you dial 611 in the US (the standard number to dial to call your carrier's support line) you get an option to go to the iPhone tech support line. This is funded and ran by Apple. You don't have some $10/hr employee figuring out which one of dozens of phones you have and then trying to walk you through a script.
Apple also started profit sharing. Instead of the carrier paying a lump sum up front for each device sold under contract which means the handset vendor is paid already for your purchase, Apple wanted only to get paid a small amount for each month you were under contract. This means less out of pocket money for the carrier and for the customer it means that Apple has a direct desire to keep you using that phone for as long as possible. Profit sharing didn't work out as it gave Apple too much control, but AT&T seemed to like it. The original iPhone will be getting the v3.0 software (for free) going into its 3rd year. That is not common. This failed attempt at profit sharing also allowed you to buy the item outright and then activate at home at your convenience via iTunes. This saved a lot of time for the carriers and gave the consumer some control of when they activate it and made the consumer's price seem lower than it really was since the activation in iTunes had you sign a 2 year agreement so Apple could get paid each month from AT&T for your device. This was a win for the consumer, I wish it had worked.
Apple also wanted control of their App Store and has finally gotten music to be sold over the carrier's network without additional fees being added. These are the same 256kbps AAC audio that you get from iTS in iTunes. In the US, it wasn't uncommon for a carrier to rent you a song as a ringtone for a several dollars a month. I never understood why anyone would pay those fees.
The mandatory data fee was also innovation. I know some are near plenty of WiFi hotspots, don't have 3G or even data in their area, or just don't use the internet much but wanted an Apple phone with and iPod in it, so I understand that the fee is inconvenient. But in the US when it launched the average unlimited data plan was $40-$50/month. The iPhone was $20/month. Since then they all drop the rates and AT&T raised it to $30. I know the device uses a lot of data compared to less internet-friendly phones, but I thought since AT&T was getting a guaranteed, non-optional fee and they were getting so many switchers and fewer people dropping the device, in comparison to others, that they would keep it at $20. I was wrong on that front.
They were also to get the GPS with Google Maps, the YouTube app, Visual Voicemail, and other features that either didn't exist or would have been a per month fee if Apple hadn't secured deals with carriers directly. Apple is now saying that MMS, which is coming in v3.0 software, is a 3G technology, therefore will only work with 3G iPhones while on 3G. While this is how it was intended to be used, we know that it works on GRPS and EDGE networks. I'm not sure what Apple's goal is here since that comment is easily quashed, but they may be looking to implement a different type of MMS that would require 3G. Like being able to send much larger files than the typical MMS allows, obviously.
There are other little things that Apple did that no one else had tried but I think that is plenty.
Quote:
Apple should work as a virtual provider, bulk purchasing airtime from one or more networks in each region. Apple should then operate an end-to-end billing system, like iTunes, so the consumer has no direct connection to network operator (when you buy music you don't get a bill from the record company).
I had originally had this thought, but now I think it is not wise. Apple had no experience with cellphones so while they have the capital doing both things and trying to get MVNO status with major data needs is quite daunting. It would be nice to have a simplified system, but going with a carrier was smart. They have had plenty of troubles with just the cellular HW in the handset. I can't imagine if they managed the other side of things too. Apple does like to be a full provider so perhaps they are taking notes from AT&T and will do their own at some point, but I doubt it.
Do you think the carriers are sitting on their lazy azzes using the economy as an excuse? They had better not be. They had better be investing on their infrastructure or they are liable to find themselves as an also ran.
Sprint sure as hell isn't.
Remember Apple's transition from the iphone edge to the 3G iphone? It was just the edge phone with a 3G radio.
The same thing is going to happen again. The 4G iphone will just be the one announced in June but with a 4G radio. It will have the same specs besides that.
Remember Apple's transition from the iphone edge to the 3G iphone? It was just the edge phone with a 3G radio.
The same thing is going to happen again. The 4G iphone will just be the one announced in June but with a 4G radio. It will have the same specs besides that.
I don't understand the second sentence. How does adding the radios for 3G (HSDPA) last year mean that they will add radios for 4G (LTE) this year? While the 'G' does refer to generation, they are not incremented annually. Long before LTE finds its way into tiny cellphones it will be available in USB, EC/34 and built-in card for notebooks.
Can you show me one prototype or proof-of-concept LTE chip that will fit into a modern cellphone?
I don't understand the second sentence. How does adding the radios for 3G (HSDPA) last year mean that they will add radios for 4G (LTE) this year? While the 'G' does refer to generation, they are not incremented annually. Long before LTE finds its way into tiny cellphones it will be available in USB, EC/34 and built-in card for notebooks.
Can you show me one prototype or proof-of-concept LTE chip that will fit into a modern cellphone?
Don't try to understand it. Your head will explode.....And by no means look directly at his posts....
Does Finland, one of the most advanced cellular countries, have phones with LTE-capable radios?
Survey says: Nope, Nope, and Nope again. Nokia and some of the operators are in talks but nothing concrete. Some specs are about but nothing to make a completely baseless prediction of a one year rollout to stake a claim to. What I will do tomorrow (it is late here in Finland) is contact some of my R&D friends in Nokia, Sonera, and Elisa to see what is shaking and if they are doing any in house testing of 4G/LTE stuff. I do not even think the chips are out yet are they?
Survey says: Nope, Nope, and Nope again. Nokia and some of the operators are in talks but nothing concrete. Some specs are about but nothing to make a completely baseless prediction of a one year rollout to stake a claim to.
Intereting! A small dense country that has over a 1:1 ratio of active cellphones per capita and the home of cellphone giant Nokia doesn't have LTE. So let me get this straight, the spec itself hasn't been finalized, the tower HW doesn't yet exist, there are no devices on the market or nearing market stage that have room for the large inefficient LTE radios for consumer devices, and 3G (WCDMA) in the form of Evolved HSPA still can't process the maximum 42Mbps down /22Mbps up in handheld devices? Seems to me that LTE is a far ways off for everybody, not just the well dispersed and lagging US cellular market.
Intereting! A small dense country that has over a 1:1 ratio of active cellphones per capita and the home of cellphone giant Nokia doesn't have LTE. So let me get this straight, the spec itself hasn't been finalized, the tower HW doesn't yet exist, there are no devices on the market or nearing market stage that have room for the large inefficient LTE radios for consumer devices, and 3G (WCDMA) in the form of Evolved HSPA still can't process the maximum 42Mbps down /22Mbps up in handheld devices? Seems to me that LTE is a far ways off for everybody, not just the well dispersed and lagging US cellular market.
Sounds about right, but they could be cooking up something in the secret labs.
I don't understand the second sentence. How does adding the radios for 3G (HSDPA) last year mean that they will add radios for 4G (LTE) this year? While the 'G' does refer to generation, they are not incremented annually. Long before LTE finds its way into tiny cellphones it will be available in USB, EC/34 and built-in card for notebooks.
Can you show me one prototype or proof-of-concept LTE chip that will fit into a modern cellphone?
I'm not talking about 2009 for a LTE iphone. When Apple finally does release an iphone that can handle 4G networking technology (in this case LTE) it will probably mostly have the specs of the iphone that will be announced this coming June. I was making a comparison with what will probably happen when Apple goes from 3G iphones to 4G iphones to what did happen when iphones went from Edge to 3G.
*sigh* If you remember, the 3G iphone basically had the same specs (except for memory) as the Edge iphone but included the 3G radio.
You probably didn't understand the "second sentance" because I wasn't trying to write an essay. I was just trying to continue with your thoughts from your original post.
And no, I do not have access to prototype LTE chip information that are being ready for mass production.
Do some research on Sprint. You'll probably find out about some of that specific hardware. Just research Verizon's plans.
I think all of this talk about a budget phone would solve a lot of problems for both Apple and AT&T....Apple wants to expand their market and by doing a budget phone...AT&T would get to keep the original/normal iPhone for a little while longer. Innovation is never a bad thing and you can't blame Apple for wanting to capitalize some more off the success of the iPhone. Here's a video I found about Verizon's current future with their smartphones:
I think all of this talk about a budget phone would solve a lot of problems for both Apple and AT&T....Apple wants to expand their market and by doing a budget phone...AT&T would get to keep the original/normal iPhone for a little while longer. Innovation is never a bad thing and you can't blame Apple for wanting to capitalize some more off the success of the iPhone. Here's a video I found about Verizon's current future with their smartphones:
You all do understand that whatever NEW device Apple unveils that would work on Verizon (whenever the deal happens) will also be available on AT&T.....right?
Comments
Bleh. Give me the Pad without the phone company... just like the iPod touch. $%&@!!!
Agree, but I would also expect multitouch AND stylus support so that it can act as a full-fledged tablet PC (PC = personal computer) that can run OSX and Vista (since Vista has real handwriting recognition and OSX does not).
If this is just going to be a more robust iPod touch that is tied to a phone company then I guess I will buy the thinkpad X61 I have been looking at the last two months.
Damn.
I have a laptop and a desktop, but I'd love a iPod touch that was maybe twice the size. Developers who have learned the iPhone SDK would be cranking out tons of new and innovative apps taking advantage of the larger screen.
Apple could still make a profit on these because tech specs wouldn't be the selling point. Unlike a netbook where every attribute in compared (unfavorably) to a laptop, a iPhone tablet would be more like the Wii: incredibly popular even though it doesn't have the hardware specs of its competitors.
And yes, I can imagine Apple selling these without G3. Homes, offices, and college campuses are WiFi friendly. That's enough for a lot of people.
There is only area where the iPhone shows zero innovation and that is the way it works with current network providers. Here are few things Apple should work towards.
- Apple does not need Network providers to help sell the iPhone. The product sells itself as such any mention of service provider is pointless.
- Apple should work as a virtual provider, bulk purchasing airtime from one or more networks in each region. Apple should then operate an end-to-end billing system, like iTunes, so the consumer has no direct connection to network operator (when you buy music you don't get a bill from the record company).
- Innovate with an integrated service, things like cross matching of call charges and address book contacts becomes. Provide services like global roaming voice/data service for customers without penalizing customers with massive costs.
Now I'm reckoning that the EU/French would have trouble with this approach as they like to shaft things in every possible way.I suppose people are interested in this cos it just happens to be the way it is done. My friends often say, "I wish the iPhone was on my network", that being some provider other than AT&T, O2 or whatever. Why do people actually care about their network provider? They all pretty much offer you the same service at the same price, they don't really care about your loyalty.
Some carriers offer plans that fit certain people's needs, but they are mostly the same in that regard, but you tend to get a little more stuff or slightly lower rates from the small carriers trying to compete. The main issue, at least here in the US, is that certain carriers don't cover certain areas well or at all. And then there are issues with sufficient 2G coverage, but not 3G, which is important to those paying $30/month for data. The other major issue in the US is the carrier network standard. CDMA is better quality for voice over GSM. It will also some features that GSM doesn't have so you can be on 3G when you want to use data but wait for a call in 2G, which makes your standby and call time longer by comparison to GSM/UMTS phones, which is either or. And then there are those that have had a bad experience or whatever that make them stay away from a carrier.
There is only area where the iPhone shows zero innovation and that is the way it works with current network providers. Here are few things Apple should work towards.
Apple does not need Network providers to help sell the iPhone. The product sells itself as such any mention of service provider is pointless.
You say this shows no innovation, yet this is excessive innovation. Apple did what no other vendor had done. They were able to convince carriers to give them control. When you dial 611 in the US (the standard number to dial to call your carrier's support line) you get an option to go to the iPhone tech support line. This is funded and ran by Apple. You don't have some $10/hr employee figuring out which one of dozens of phones you have and then trying to walk you through a script.
Apple also started profit sharing. Instead of the carrier paying a lump sum up front for each device sold under contract which means the handset vendor is paid already for your purchase, Apple wanted only to get paid a small amount for each month you were under contract. This means less out of pocket money for the carrier and for the customer it means that Apple has a direct desire to keep you using that phone for as long as possible. Profit sharing didn't work out as it gave Apple too much control, but AT&T seemed to like it. The original iPhone will be getting the v3.0 software (for free) going into its 3rd year. That is not common. This failed attempt at profit sharing also allowed you to buy the item outright and then activate at home at your convenience via iTunes. This saved a lot of time for the carriers and gave the consumer some control of when they activate it and made the consumer's price seem lower than it really was since the activation in iTunes had you sign a 2 year agreement so Apple could get paid each month from AT&T for your device. This was a win for the consumer, I wish it had worked.
Apple also wanted control of their App Store and has finally gotten music to be sold over the carrier's network without additional fees being added. These are the same 256kbps AAC audio that you get from iTS in iTunes. In the US, it wasn't uncommon for a carrier to rent you a song as a ringtone for a several dollars a month. I never understood why anyone would pay those fees.
The mandatory data fee was also innovation. I know some are near plenty of WiFi hotspots, don't have 3G or even data in their area, or just don't use the internet much but wanted an Apple phone with and iPod in it, so I understand that the fee is inconvenient. But in the US when it launched the average unlimited data plan was $40-$50/month. The iPhone was $20/month. Since then they all drop the rates and AT&T raised it to $30. I know the device uses a lot of data compared to less internet-friendly phones, but I thought since AT&T was getting a guaranteed, non-optional fee and they were getting so many switchers and fewer people dropping the device, in comparison to others, that they would keep it at $20. I was wrong on that front.
They were also to get the GPS with Google Maps, the YouTube app, Visual Voicemail, and other features that either didn't exist or would have been a per month fee if Apple hadn't secured deals with carriers directly. Apple is now saying that MMS, which is coming in v3.0 software, is a 3G technology, therefore will only work with 3G iPhones while on 3G. While this is how it was intended to be used, we know that it works on GRPS and EDGE networks. I'm not sure what Apple's goal is here since that comment is easily quashed, but they may be looking to implement a different type of MMS that would require 3G. Like being able to send much larger files than the typical MMS allows, obviously.
There are other little things that Apple did that no one else had tried but I think that is plenty.
Apple should work as a virtual provider, bulk purchasing airtime from one or more networks in each region. Apple should then operate an end-to-end billing system, like iTunes, so the consumer has no direct connection to network operator (when you buy music you don't get a bill from the record company).
I had originally had this thought, but now I think it is not wise. Apple had no experience with cellphones so while they have the capital doing both things and trying to get MVNO status with major data needs is quite daunting. It would be nice to have a simplified system, but going with a carrier was smart. They have had plenty of troubles with just the cellular HW in the handset. I can't imagine if they managed the other side of things too. Apple does like to be a full provider so perhaps they are taking notes from AT&T and will do their own at some point, but I doubt it.
Impossible? No.
Mid but more like late next year I still stand by that.
Oh, and ask Sprint how long its going to take them. They are going to be....no they are first.
Check out their release schedule:
http://newsreleases.sprint.com/phoen...oom&ID=1269807
Do you think the carriers are sitting on their lazy azzes using the economy as an excuse? They had better not be. They had better be investing on their infrastructure or they are liable to find themselves as an also ran.
Sprint sure as hell isn't.
Remember Apple's transition from the iphone edge to the 3G iphone? It was just the edge phone with a 3G radio.
The same thing is going to happen again. The 4G iphone will just be the one announced in June but with a 4G radio. It will have the same specs besides that.
I just saw a donkey fly.....
Remember Apple's transition from the iphone edge to the 3G iphone? It was just the edge phone with a 3G radio.
The same thing is going to happen again. The 4G iphone will just be the one announced in June but with a 4G radio. It will have the same specs besides that.
I don't understand the second sentence. How does adding the radios for 3G (HSDPA) last year mean that they will add radios for 4G (LTE) this year? While the 'G' does refer to generation, they are not incremented annually. Long before LTE finds its way into tiny cellphones it will be available in USB, EC/34 and built-in card for notebooks.
Can you show me one prototype or proof-of-concept LTE chip that will fit into a modern cellphone?
I don't understand the second sentence. How does adding the radios for 3G (HSDPA) last year mean that they will add radios for 4G (LTE) this year? While the 'G' does refer to generation, they are not incremented annually. Long before LTE finds its way into tiny cellphones it will be available in USB, EC/34 and built-in card for notebooks.
Can you show me one prototype or proof-of-concept LTE chip that will fit into a modern cellphone?
Don't try to understand it. Your head will explode.....And by no means look directly at his posts....
Don't try to understand it. Your head will explode.....And by no means look directly at his posts....
Does Finland, one of the most advanced cellular countries, have phones with LTE-capable radios?
Does Finland, one of the most advanced cellular countries, have phones with LTE-capable radios?
Survey says: Nope, Nope, and Nope again. Nokia and some of the operators are in talks but nothing concrete. Some specs are about but nothing to make a completely baseless prediction of a one year rollout to stake a claim to. What I will do tomorrow (it is late here in Finland) is contact some of my R&D friends in Nokia, Sonera, and Elisa to see what is shaking and if they are doing any in house testing of 4G/LTE stuff. I do not even think the chips are out yet are they?
Survey says: Nope, Nope, and Nope again. Nokia and some of the operators are in talks but nothing concrete. Some specs are about but nothing to make a completely baseless prediction of a one year rollout to stake a claim to.
Intereting! A small dense country that has over a 1:1 ratio of active cellphones per capita and the home of cellphone giant Nokia doesn't have LTE. So let me get this straight, the spec itself hasn't been finalized, the tower HW doesn't yet exist, there are no devices on the market or nearing market stage that have room for the large inefficient LTE radios for consumer devices, and 3G (WCDMA) in the form of Evolved HSPA still can't process the maximum 42Mbps down /22Mbps up in handheld devices? Seems to me that LTE is a far ways off for everybody, not just the well dispersed and lagging US cellular market.
Intereting! A small dense country that has over a 1:1 ratio of active cellphones per capita and the home of cellphone giant Nokia doesn't have LTE. So let me get this straight, the spec itself hasn't been finalized, the tower HW doesn't yet exist, there are no devices on the market or nearing market stage that have room for the large inefficient LTE radios for consumer devices, and 3G (WCDMA) in the form of Evolved HSPA still can't process the maximum 42Mbps down /22Mbps up in handheld devices? Seems to me that LTE is a far ways off for everybody, not just the well dispersed and lagging US cellular market.
Sounds about right, but they could be cooking up something in the secret labs.
I don't understand the second sentence. How does adding the radios for 3G (HSDPA) last year mean that they will add radios for 4G (LTE) this year? While the 'G' does refer to generation, they are not incremented annually. Long before LTE finds its way into tiny cellphones it will be available in USB, EC/34 and built-in card for notebooks.
Can you show me one prototype or proof-of-concept LTE chip that will fit into a modern cellphone?
I'm not talking about 2009 for a LTE iphone. When Apple finally does release an iphone that can handle 4G networking technology (in this case LTE) it will probably mostly have the specs of the iphone that will be announced this coming June. I was making a comparison with what will probably happen when Apple goes from 3G iphones to 4G iphones to what did happen when iphones went from Edge to 3G.
*sigh* If you remember, the 3G iphone basically had the same specs (except for memory) as the Edge iphone but included the 3G radio.
You probably didn't understand the "second sentance" because I wasn't trying to write an essay. I was just trying to continue with your thoughts from your original post.
And no, I do not have access to prototype LTE chip information that are being ready for mass production.
Do some research on Sprint. You'll probably find out about some of that specific hardware. Just research Verizon's plans.
Or do you want me to find out for you......again.
EDIT: Nevermind. http://gigaom.com/2009/04/26/apple-t...-hear-lte-now/
http://www.newsy.com/videos/verizon_battles_iphone/
I think all of this talk about a budget phone would solve a lot of problems for both Apple and AT&T....Apple wants to expand their market and by doing a budget phone...AT&T would get to keep the original/normal iPhone for a little while longer. Innovation is never a bad thing and you can't blame Apple for wanting to capitalize some more off the success of the iPhone. Here's a video I found about Verizon's current future with their smartphones:
http://www.newsy.com/videos/verizon_battles_iphone/
You all do understand that whatever NEW device Apple unveils that would work on Verizon (whenever the deal happens) will also be available on AT&T.....right?