david m, i've seen ads promoting phones with the functionality you describe, like "call home" and the phone starts dialing. however, i have never actually used one first-hand. is it usable?<hr></blockquote>
[quote] I like the posts that talk about voice control. Don't like the keypad interface? Then don't provide a keypad interface. Voice control should mean being able to say "Save Bob's number under Business Contacts." And the phone does that and is smart enough to tie "Bob" "Business name" and "ph#" all in one record. <hr></blockquote>
Mercedes cars with built in cell phones have had these functions for years. As far back as 1995 or 96 I believe. You say home and the phone dials your home number. The phone required som programing though, the iPhone should make this task extremly simple.
Also it is very annoying to have to listen to people talk into headsets as they walk around. From a distance it looks like the person is insane. People talking on cell phones is bad enough. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Forgive me if this has been mentioned already. I don't recall seeing this in the course of this discussion, but mental lapses are always possible.
A good friend was telling me yesterday that there is speculation in the Danger forums about an Apple-branded hiptop (T-Mobile calls it SideKick, IIRC). My knee-jerk reaction was to poo-poo the idea, but the more we talked about it, the more it made lots and lots of sense to me.
Danger provides an end-to-end mobile applications platform which includes a back-end service, a framework that uses standard development tools, and hiptop? hardware designs. The integrated solution provided by Danger enables wireless service operators to enter the market quickly with compelling products and services.
The hiptop? communicator is a live device that seamlessly connects to wireless networks, providing consumers the freedom to browse the Internet, exchange instant messages, and send and receive email with attachments. Additional hiptop? communicator features include a full-featured phone, personal information management (PIM), entertainment applications, and a camera accessory. <hr></blockquote>
So, the hiptop is basically an OS, an online service, and a set of hardware designs. Danger provides the OS, some services, and basic hardware designs, Apple supplies their always amazing industrial design and some major marketing muscle. Sounds strikingly similar to Apple licensing the Pixo software for the iPod's interface, IMO (note the clever insert of a precedent).
Look at what this thing can do: instant messaging (mobile iChat), email (mobile Mail), web browsing (mobile iBrowse), pictures (mobile iPhoto). And that's just what it can do RIGHT NOW, in its current T-Mobile incarnation.
Just think how many ways this could tie into Apple's other technologies. Give it Bluetooth and/or AirPort ability and Rendezvous support, and it can wirelessly iSync with Address Book, iCal, your iPod, your Palm, and your .Mac account. Make that ability available over a 3G cellular network (killer app alert!), and you've got the ability to iSync from anywhere in the world. Add some Sherlock channels (movie times, flights, stocks, eBay, yellow pages), and you've got an incredibly flexible and useful tool. Add in Apple's newly released TCP/IP over FireWire functionality, and some additional interesting possibilities present themselves.
Or, maybe instead of a completely different device, this could be the next generation iPod. Let that one sink in for a minute. Imagine an iPod with all the functionality just mentioned. Conceivably, Apple could even add a color screen and the ability to play QuickTime videos, and you've got a mobile video player as well, but I'm getting far ahead of myself here (I'm trying to say in realistic speculation mode, but it's too easy to go pie-in-the-sky).
All that, AND it's a phone. I'd buy one of these.
Problems? Of course:
Cost - Lord only knows how much one of these would cost, considering that Apple charges $500 for an iPod alone. T-Mobile is selling theirs for $200-250, I think. This is about right. If Apple releases one for $800, no matter how good it is, I don't think it will fly. Not to mention the fact that you'd have to pay for BOTH a .Mac account AND a monthly wireless provider. It could get pricy QUICKLY.
Wireless Provider - Apple still has to work with one or more wireless providers (T-Mobile, Cingular, SprintPCS, etc.) to provide phone and data services for this device. Not to mention the problem of providing different devices for different networks (discussed in much detail earlier in this thread).
Product Overlap - MP3 ability would be a natural for this device, especially if Apple decided to put a hard drive into it. But if this product is distinctly different than an iPod, what's to keep it from cutting into iPod sales, unless this new device were priced significantly higher. Which leads us back to cost (see above again).
Product Focus - Its current foray into calendars and contacts notwithstanding, the iPod is a tightly focused device, and benefits from that focus. It is well suited to what it does, and it matches up nicely with a single iApp (and don't forget that each iApp is tightly focused as well). This new device would be a Swiss Army Knife, and that kind of goes against Apple's current philosophy. But, philosophies change.
Windows Support/Marketshare - If .Mac is a reason to have a Mac (yeah, I know, not much of a reason, but a reason nonetheless), and tight integration with .Mac and the iApps makes the Mac platform and this new device appealing, what about our Windoze cousins? Windoze users screamed for the iPod because it was a great piece of hardware. Apple delivered for them. I'm not really sure how Apple could deliver a Windows-compatible version of this, at least with enough differentiation to make it appealing. Which means that, much like the iPod at the outset, they've built an expensive, appealing device that can only be bought by ~3-5% of the computer buying public. Of course, it's up for debate as to whether or not this is a bad thing.
Well, that's it. Take it for what it's worth, which may not be much, and I'm sure others here can imagine uses I haven't dreamed up. Remember, this is all utter speculation, so I reserve the right to be incredibly wrong.
actually i know some people who work for Danger, inc. and there isn't anything of note on the table between their company and apple at this time.
as for iPhone, making phones just doesn't look like a profitable move for apple. the iPod made sense because it was a market they could easily jump into with a great product (usability, form factor, et al.)
i also don't think apple is going to be getting into the VoIP territory. It is just too complicated. I consider myself almost a power user and i would have no use for something of this sort. Apple seems to be all about simplifying the home computer so that any old joe can do everything old sci-fi movies showed them they would be able to. that is what the digital hub is all about. you can connect your cameras, your stereo, your cell phone.
now you'll be able to connect your home phone too.
so first, most households still have landlines in them. it is neccessary to have a working landline in your home to use dsl broadband. but it also has made it much easier to implent dsl as the number 1 source of broadband access over cable.
currently with a bluetooth adaptor and my t68i a call comes in on my cell and the contact pops out of the address book on my iBook and tells me that i am getting a call on my cell phone and who it is. i can then use a voice command or touch a button on my wireless bluetooth headset and answer the call.
what i see apple doing with the iPhone app is applying the functionality i have with my cell to my landline. of course adding more to it like auto-answer, voice mail, away messages, video conferencing i would imagine would eventually be a part as well. all of the technology is already there (answering machines, cell phones, caller id) Apple just needs to roll it into one neat package (like they do so well). i'd love to be sitting at my computer have a call popup and answer it in just a few strokes of the mouse.
this would put the mac only a few steps away from truely being the center of the digital hub.
It would be cool, but it's unfortunately not happening -- not like this.
A "Disney" phone is not sexy. I don't want one.
SonyEricsson are not splitting up (unless the T300 is a disaster oops what have I said)
Apple have no developer relations with gamecos -- the reason why xbox is shit compared to the PS2 despite better specs. So it's not going to be a game platform.
Err Ericsson's game strategy is java based, not "Apple based" and Apple doesn't figure in their strategy. Believe me on this specific point because I know it for a fact.
EVERYONE has a mobile game strategy so quoting a bunch of people and saying, "And they work with apple too!" means nothing.
This does NOT mean we won't see Apple-branded handsets however. I remain open minded, but I know jack shit about it.
Okay, so what if iPhone does indeed have to do with Quicktime for wireless phones? Surely Apple wouldn't be doing something for one wireless sector only so that means that the news about the DoCoMo version just leaked and there's a version for GSM/GPRS phones.
How would this work then? Would it be only phones newer than T68i? And what does this have to do with the Mac?!
Hm... Streaming video from Mac to wireless phone via iPhone? ...Hm
<strong>Okay, so what if iPhone does indeed have to do with Quicktime for wireless phones? Surely Apple wouldn't be doing something for one wireless sector only so that means that the news about the DoCoMo version just leaked and there's a version for GSM/GPRS phones.
How would this work then? Would it be only phones newer than T68i? And what does this have to do with the Mac?!
Hm... Streaming video from Mac to wireless phone via iPhone? ...Hm
Right, this is what the original JV announcement was about (and I still remain unconvinced it was more then a marketing JV):
There's a big market for a media layer for mobiles. See it embedded in phones, in messaging servers, in content creation tools and so on.
It's going to be Windows Media that wins, but anyway, if Apple don't have a slice of it with their technology it's worse for the platform's future as a content creation platform and further erodes the Apple mindshare.
(They came to this very late btw -- I personally know engineers who approached Apple wrt to getting QT codecs on phones who could get absolutely no sense of Apple whatsoever. Anyway.)
As I was saying.
It IS a 3G technology, for embedded media clients and delivery infrastructure: 3GPP and it's very good news, at least for Asia. It's NOT restricted to DoCoMo only because it's a standard (in the best New Apple tradition) and an open one at that, so it's not "for one sector." But not all operators are going to use standards, and you can believe there's a lot of arm-twisting going on for people to use inferior codecs in devices. Notably, the WONDERFUL lack of DRM. This is a great technology for peer-to-peer or peer-to-multipeer or you-to-everyone content ... it's great if YOU made the content and hence have the rights so DRM is a non-issue.
It probably has bugger all to do with SonyEricsson.
It probably has bugger all to do with iPhone.
It has everything to do with QuickTime's marketshare and the future of Apple as a content creation platform.
But not all operators are going to use standards, and you can believe there's a lot of arm-twisting going on for people to use inferior codecs in devices. Notably, the WONDERFUL lack of DRM. This is a great technology for peer-to-peer or peer-to-multipeer or you-to-everyone content ... it's great if YOU made the content and hence have the rights so DRM is a non-issue.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately, that's exactly why Big Media has dodged Quicktime so often. I believe the CNet article states plainly that Quicktime is being avoided for its lack of DRM.
But with wireless phones, DRM should less of an issue. For a while (a loooong while), DVD quality streams won't be coming to phones, let alone being able to capture them to the phone.
But with wireless phones, DRM should less of an issue. For a while (a loooong while), DVD quality streams won't be coming to phones, let alone being able to capture them to the phone.
Screed</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately, DRM is every bit as important to Big Copyright in mobile. The lawsuits surrounding ownership of ringtones showed this, and some are looking for future-proofed DRM.
Buuuut there's good reason to believe that user-generated gubbins might be the money maker for the networks ... DoCoMo are pretty smart ... my hope is that these implemnations are going to be successful enough for people to adopt standards ...
<strong>Unfortunately, DRM is every bit as important to Big Copyright in mobile. The lawsuits surrounding ownership of ringtones showed this, and some are looking for future-proofed DRM.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ringtones... gawd! That's right. How thoroughly depressing...
How does that imply anything? People who serve on Boards of Directors often serve on multiple boards.
Woz is a co-founder of Danger and sits on the board of directors, but that in no way implies that they will be striking any sort of deal with Apple to co-brand one of their hiptops. At best you might see an Apple compatible version in the near future, but I think a Danger Hiptop with a color screen is probably more important to them right now then creating a version of their hardware and software that is compatible with 5% of the computing population.
Actually the way the Sidekick (the T-mobile branded Danger hiptop) works is it doesn't sync with a computer at all, you store all of your relevant information on it and that information is accessible via the web, so in a sense it is already cross-platform compatible.
I don't know if this is old news or not but try putting <a href="http://www.iphone.org"; target="_blank">www.iphone.org</a> your browsers address bar and see what happens.
Comments
david m, i've seen ads promoting phones with the functionality you describe, like "call home" and the phone starts dialing. however, i have never actually used one first-hand. is it usable?<hr></blockquote>
It works really well for me.
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
[ 12-08-2002: Message edited by: Mandricard ]</p>
Mercedes cars with built in cell phones have had these functions for years. As far back as 1995 or 96 I believe. You say home and the phone dials your home number. The phone required som programing though, the iPhone should make this task extremly simple.
Also it is very annoying to have to listen to people talk into headsets as they walk around. From a distance it looks like the person is insane. People talking on cell phones is bad enough. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
A good friend was telling me yesterday that there is speculation in the Danger forums about an Apple-branded hiptop (T-Mobile calls it SideKick, IIRC). My knee-jerk reaction was to poo-poo the idea, but the more we talked about it, the more it made lots and lots of sense to me.
Look at the evidence:
From the Danger website (<a href="http://www.danger.com/products.php"; target="_blank">Products Page</a>)...
[quote]
Danger provides an end-to-end mobile applications platform which includes a back-end service, a framework that uses standard development tools, and hiptop? hardware designs. The integrated solution provided by Danger enables wireless service operators to enter the market quickly with compelling products and services.
The hiptop? communicator is a live device that seamlessly connects to wireless networks, providing consumers the freedom to browse the Internet, exchange instant messages, and send and receive email with attachments. Additional hiptop? communicator features include a full-featured phone, personal information management (PIM), entertainment applications, and a camera accessory. <hr></blockquote>
So, the hiptop is basically an OS, an online service, and a set of hardware designs. Danger provides the OS, some services, and basic hardware designs, Apple supplies their always amazing industrial design and some major marketing muscle. Sounds strikingly similar to Apple licensing the Pixo software for the iPod's interface, IMO (note the clever insert of a precedent).
Look at what this thing can do: instant messaging (mobile iChat), email (mobile Mail), web browsing (mobile iBrowse), pictures (mobile iPhoto). And that's just what it can do RIGHT NOW, in its current T-Mobile incarnation.
Just think how many ways this could tie into Apple's other technologies. Give it Bluetooth and/or AirPort ability and Rendezvous support, and it can wirelessly iSync with Address Book, iCal, your iPod, your Palm, and your .Mac account. Make that ability available over a 3G cellular network (killer app alert!), and you've got the ability to iSync from anywhere in the world. Add some Sherlock channels (movie times, flights, stocks, eBay, yellow pages), and you've got an incredibly flexible and useful tool. Add in Apple's newly released TCP/IP over FireWire functionality, and some additional interesting possibilities present themselves.
Or, maybe instead of a completely different device, this could be the next generation iPod. Let that one sink in for a minute. Imagine an iPod with all the functionality just mentioned. Conceivably, Apple could even add a color screen and the ability to play QuickTime videos, and you've got a mobile video player as well, but I'm getting far ahead of myself here (I'm trying to say in realistic speculation mode, but it's too easy to go pie-in-the-sky).
All that, AND it's a phone. I'd buy one of these.
Problems? Of course:
Cost - Lord only knows how much one of these would cost, considering that Apple charges $500 for an iPod alone. T-Mobile is selling theirs for $200-250, I think. This is about right. If Apple releases one for $800, no matter how good it is, I don't think it will fly. Not to mention the fact that you'd have to pay for BOTH a .Mac account AND a monthly wireless provider. It could get pricy QUICKLY.
Wireless Provider - Apple still has to work with one or more wireless providers (T-Mobile, Cingular, SprintPCS, etc.) to provide phone and data services for this device. Not to mention the problem of providing different devices for different networks (discussed in much detail earlier in this thread).
Product Overlap - MP3 ability would be a natural for this device, especially if Apple decided to put a hard drive into it. But if this product is distinctly different than an iPod, what's to keep it from cutting into iPod sales, unless this new device were priced significantly higher. Which leads us back to cost (see above again).
Product Focus - Its current foray into calendars and contacts notwithstanding, the iPod is a tightly focused device, and benefits from that focus. It is well suited to what it does, and it matches up nicely with a single iApp (and don't forget that each iApp is tightly focused as well). This new device would be a Swiss Army Knife, and that kind of goes against Apple's current philosophy. But, philosophies change.
Windows Support/Marketshare - If .Mac is a reason to have a Mac (yeah, I know, not much of a reason, but a reason nonetheless), and tight integration with .Mac and the iApps makes the Mac platform and this new device appealing, what about our Windoze cousins? Windoze users screamed for the iPod because it was a great piece of hardware. Apple delivered for them. I'm not really sure how Apple could deliver a Windows-compatible version of this, at least with enough differentiation to make it appealing. Which means that, much like the iPod at the outset, they've built an expensive, appealing device that can only be bought by ~3-5% of the computer buying public. Of course, it's up for debate as to whether or not this is a bad thing.
Well, that's it. Take it for what it's worth, which may not be much, and I'm sure others here can imagine uses I haven't dreamed up. Remember, this is all utter speculation, so I reserve the right to be incredibly wrong.
as for iPhone, making phones just doesn't look like a profitable move for apple. the iPod made sense because it was a market they could easily jump into with a great product (usability, form factor, et al.)
i also don't think apple is going to be getting into the VoIP territory. It is just too complicated. I consider myself almost a power user and i would have no use for something of this sort. Apple seems to be all about simplifying the home computer so that any old joe can do everything old sci-fi movies showed them they would be able to. that is what the digital hub is all about. you can connect your cameras, your stereo, your cell phone.
now you'll be able to connect your home phone too.
so first, most households still have landlines in them. it is neccessary to have a working landline in your home to use dsl broadband. but it also has made it much easier to implent dsl as the number 1 source of broadband access over cable.
currently with a bluetooth adaptor and my t68i a call comes in on my cell and the contact pops out of the address book on my iBook and tells me that i am getting a call on my cell phone and who it is. i can then use a voice command or touch a button on my wireless bluetooth headset and answer the call.
what i see apple doing with the iPhone app is applying the functionality i have with my cell to my landline. of course adding more to it like auto-answer, voice mail, away messages, video conferencing i would imagine would eventually be a part as well. all of the technology is already there (answering machines, cell phones, caller id) Apple just needs to roll it into one neat package (like they do so well). i'd love to be sitting at my computer have a call popup and answer it in just a few strokes of the mouse.
this would put the mac only a few steps away from truely being the center of the digital hub.
[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: headboy ]</p>
Makes for very interesting reading.
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
<strong><a href="http://rss.com.com/2100-1023-976829.html?type=pt&part=rss&tag=feed&subj=news"; target="_blank">CNET ARTICLE </a> Quoted in "marklar" thread.
Makes for very interesting reading.
Mandricard
AppleOutsider</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sounds like something is going on.
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/planetpm/macgamecube/third.html"; target="_blank">link found on a maccentral thread</a>
Interesting stuff. :cool:
<strong>Some more mobile phone facts, theories and rumors, involving Apple, Motorola, Ericsson and Nintendo:
<a href="http://http://"; target="_blank">link found on a maccentral thread</a>
Interesting stuff. :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>
It would be cool, but it's unfortunately not happening -- not like this.
A "Disney" phone is not sexy. I don't want one.
SonyEricsson are not splitting up (unless the T300 is a disaster oops what have I said)
Apple have no developer relations with gamecos -- the reason why xbox is shit compared to the PS2 despite better specs. So it's not going to be a game platform.
Err Ericsson's game strategy is java based, not "Apple based" and Apple doesn't figure in their strategy. Believe me on this specific point because I know it for a fact.
EVERYONE has a mobile game strategy so quoting a bunch of people and saying, "And they work with apple too!" means nothing.
This does NOT mean we won't see Apple-branded handsets however. I remain open minded, but I know jack shit about it.
[ 12-11-2002: Message edited by: Harald ]</p>
<a href="http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_news.cfm?NewsID=5680"; target="_blank">3G-phones boost for QuickTime</a>
I love this stuff!
How would this work then? Would it be only phones newer than T68i? And what does this have to do with the Mac?!
Hm... Streaming video from Mac to wireless phone via iPhone? ...Hm
Screed ...Questions, questions...
<strong>Okay, so what if iPhone does indeed have to do with Quicktime for wireless phones? Surely Apple wouldn't be doing something for one wireless sector only so that means that the news about the DoCoMo version just leaked and there's a version for GSM/GPRS phones.
How would this work then? Would it be only phones newer than T68i? And what does this have to do with the Mac?!
Hm... Streaming video from Mac to wireless phone via iPhone? ...Hm
Screed ...Questions, questions...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right, this is what the original JV announcement was about (and I still remain unconvinced it was more then a marketing JV):
There's a big market for a media layer for mobiles. See it embedded in phones, in messaging servers, in content creation tools and so on.
It's going to be Windows Media that wins, but anyway, if Apple don't have a slice of it with their technology it's worse for the platform's future as a content creation platform and further erodes the Apple mindshare.
(They came to this very late btw -- I personally know engineers who approached Apple wrt to getting QT codecs on phones who could get absolutely no sense of Apple whatsoever. Anyway.)
As I was saying.
It IS a 3G technology, for embedded media clients and delivery infrastructure: 3GPP and it's very good news, at least for Asia. It's NOT restricted to DoCoMo only because it's a standard (in the best New Apple tradition) and an open one at that, so it's not "for one sector." But not all operators are going to use standards, and you can believe there's a lot of arm-twisting going on for people to use inferior codecs in devices. Notably, the WONDERFUL lack of DRM. This is a great technology for peer-to-peer or peer-to-multipeer or you-to-everyone content ... it's great if YOU made the content and hence have the rights so DRM is a non-issue.
It probably has bugger all to do with SonyEricsson.
It probably has bugger all to do with iPhone.
It has everything to do with QuickTime's marketshare and the future of Apple as a content creation platform.
It's good news.
<strong>...there isn't anything of note on the table between their company and apple at this time.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahem? That last name looks familiar...
<a href="http://www.danger.com/about_board.php"; target="_blank">danger.com/about_board.php</a>
<strong>[snip]
But not all operators are going to use standards, and you can believe there's a lot of arm-twisting going on for people to use inferior codecs in devices. Notably, the WONDERFUL lack of DRM. This is a great technology for peer-to-peer or peer-to-multipeer or you-to-everyone content ... it's great if YOU made the content and hence have the rights so DRM is a non-issue.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately, that's exactly why Big Media has dodged Quicktime so often. I believe the CNet article states plainly that Quicktime is being avoided for its lack of DRM.
But with wireless phones, DRM should less of an issue. For a while (a loooong while), DVD quality streams won't be coming to phones, let alone being able to capture them to the phone.
Screed
<strong>
But with wireless phones, DRM should less of an issue. For a while (a loooong while), DVD quality streams won't be coming to phones, let alone being able to capture them to the phone.
Screed</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately, DRM is every bit as important to Big Copyright in mobile. The lawsuits surrounding ownership of ringtones showed this, and some are looking for future-proofed DRM.
Buuuut there's good reason to believe that user-generated gubbins might be the money maker for the networks ... DoCoMo are pretty smart ... my hope is that these implemnations are going to be successful enough for people to adopt standards ...
My prediction, Apple will introduce a new digital device in January, called the iPhone. It is hardware people.
<a href="http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/wcs/leaf?CID=onair/asabt/news/221627"; target="_blank">More QuickTime, Video, Hardware, Phone news today ....</a>
<strong>Unfortunately, DRM is every bit as important to Big Copyright in mobile. The lawsuits surrounding ownership of ringtones showed this, and some are looking for future-proofed DRM.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ringtones... gawd! That's right. How thoroughly depressing...
Screed
<strong>
Ahem? That last name looks familiar...
<a href="http://www.danger.com/about_board.php"; target="_blank">danger.com/about_board.php</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
How does that imply anything? People who serve on Boards of Directors often serve on multiple boards.
Woz is a co-founder of Danger and sits on the board of directors, but that in no way implies that they will be striking any sort of deal with Apple to co-brand one of their hiptops. At best you might see an Apple compatible version in the near future, but I think a Danger Hiptop with a color screen is probably more important to them right now then creating a version of their hardware and software that is compatible with 5% of the computing population.
Actually the way the Sidekick (the T-mobile branded Danger hiptop) works is it doesn't sync with a computer at all, you store all of your relevant information on it and that information is accessible via the web, so in a sense it is already cross-platform compatible.
<strong>
Ahem? That last name looks familiar...
<a href="http://www.danger.com/about_board.php"; target="_blank">danger.com/about_board.php</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
Especially as its been announced that Woz is going to be on stage at the upcoming keynote...
Things could get interesting <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Enjoy!