Apple working on second, iChat-based cell phone

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Apple Computer, which recently released its first mobile handset to manufacturing, is working on a second model that will incorporate messaging capabilities, according to one Wall Street analyst.



"From our understanding, it will leverage off existing iChat software that runs on Macs," American Technology Research analyst Shaw Wu told clients on Monday.Â*"We believe it will focus initially on mobile IM as opposed to e-mail."



Wu said it's unclear when Apple hopes to deliver the second device to market, as it appears to remain in the development phase. He said this newly uncovered handset is likely the company's 'smart phone' and could be branded as "iChat mobile."



"We remain uncertain on the exact timing for iPhone, Apple's first in-house iTunes cell phone with a nano-like candy bar form factor we first mentioned in early September," he said. "We believe its 'go-to-market' strategy continues to be the gating factor (MVNO vs. traditional carrier or both)."



On the other hand, Wu said it's his belief that Apple is fast approaching a resolution to its market strategy and the he remains high in his conviction that the company's first cell phone will be released in 2007.



Meanwhile, the analyst said his sources are also indicating that Apple's new (PRODUCT) RED iPod nanos are selling well.



"These iPods are sold through Apple direct channels, have a unique red color, and are for a charitable cause where Apple donates $10 for each sold to AIDS research," he told clients.



Wu is currently modeling Apple to sell 14 million iPods for the December quarter, but given recent momentum in RED iPods, believes his forecast is likely to turn out conservative.



The analyst maintains a 'Buy' rating on shares of Apple with a price target of $92.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 59
    All the cell phone carriers are moving towards an INSTANT video chat. It is unfortunate that Apple will not team up with EV-DO revision A carriers such as Verizon and Sprint to make this phone worth while.



    T-Mobile and Cingular will not have very much to offer as far as TRUE high speed goes.



    We'll see what happens here in the near future.
  • Reply 2 of 59
    rickagrickag Posts: 1,626member
    I'm still waiting on Mobile Me.
  • Reply 3 of 59
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by donlphi


    It is unfortunate that Apple will not team up with EV-DO revision A carriers such as Verizon and Sprint to make this phone worth while.



    I'm hoping Apple becomes it's own carrier. Apple will surely make money on the hardware but the real money is in the subscription service.
  • Reply 4 of 59
    palegolaspalegolas Posts: 1,324member
    So basically he's telling us that the first one is a 2G phone, and the second is a 3G phone or WLAN phone? But as usual this Shaw guy talks like he's just speculating:

    "From our understanding, it will leverage off existing iChat soft..." and "We believe it will focus on mobile IM..." doesn't sound too meaty.

    It sounds like he's analyzing his own speculations.
  • Reply 5 of 59
    Am I the only one that finds it funny that they are working on "#2" when there has been Zero proof there was ever a "#1"?
  • Reply 6 of 59
    macrrmacrr Posts: 488member
    I wonder what Wu is gonna do when aapl hits 92?



    damn- i just poeticized didn't i?
  • Reply 7 of 59
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by donlphi


    All the cell phone carriers are moving towards an INSTANT video chat. It is unfortunate that Apple will not team up with EV-DO revision A carriers such as Verizon and Sprint to make this phone worth while.



    T-Mobile and Cingular will not have very much to offer as far as TRUE high speed goes.



    We'll see what happens here in the near future.



    We've had video chat on mobile phones in the UK for ages and ages.
  • Reply 8 of 59
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lonepilgrim


    We've had video chat on mobile phones in the UK for ages and ages.



    hasn't Japan had it for years too?



    Why does cell service suck so bad in America?
  • Reply 9 of 59
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mariofreak85


    hasn't Japan had it for years too?



    Why does cell service suck so bad in America?



    Size.



    Think about it...deploying new service technology to all of Britian is like deploying it to all of Texas (where I am proud to say I am from, incidentally). The United States has enormously larger landmass than Britian...but the service area of a given cell tower is no different in the US than Britian...so the greater amount of equipment that needs to be deployed to perform a system-wide upgrade in the US is hugely expensive in comparison.



    My two cents.
  • Reply 10 of 59
    I don't think that's the case. If people are clammoring for these video chat mobile phones, why don't wireless providers offer these phones in a region such as New York, run a test phase of the product to see how well it performs, and then begin a gradual release throughout the country?

    My guess is it has to do with profit margins and the initial cost to the wireless providers in maintaining the system that can handle video chat. If they (Verizon, Cingular, Sprint, etc.) are pursuing this technology at all, they're still probably trying to figure out on how they can profit from it without losing a lot of money.



    That's my guess, but I could be wrong.
  • Reply 11 of 59
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by parksgm


    Size.



    Think about it...deploying new service technology to all of Britian is like deploying it to all of Texas (where I am proud to say I am from, incidentally). The United States has enormously larger landmass than Britian...but the service area of a given cell tower is no different in the US than Britian...so the greater amount of equipment that needs to be deployed to perform a system-wide upgrade in the US is hugely expensive in comparison.



    My two cents.



    Seems like good logic, but countries like Sweden also have the technology, and they have fewer people per square mile than the USA.



    However I'm certain it is a contributor, simply because of the vast number of square miles in the USA means the cost to deploy new technology is vast - better to wait a few years for the technology to mature and get cheaper. Also sensible because no-one uses 3G video services even when they have access to it. They want to talk, or text.



    Texas has nearly 3x the land area of Britain, btw.
  • Reply 12 of 59
    Video telephony is a dud. It has been available over the landline for decades. Why would you use that? European carriers are in tears about the money they spent on UMTS licenses, because customers don't use it. I'm genuinely not interested in a video phone. I want integration with iTunes (without artificial limits to the number of songs), iCal and Address Book. This is what phones are lacking today.



    VOIP integration would be nice too. E-Mail - maybe, but most people don't need E-Mail on the road, and if you do, you're a business type who already has a Blackberry. I guess I wouldn't use it. Think about it: It's just like buying music, you better do it on your desktop computer, not on a handheld device.



    While an MVNO could have a fantastic potential as Apple had the chance to introduce lots of innovative services, we should not forget what a mess .Mac is. It's unstable/slow, overpriced and years behind the free competition from Google, Yahoo and all of those Web 2.0 websites. For now I would be fine if Apple offered that phone without contract and service and I'd probably buy one right away.



    Many people expect subsidised phone, but on the other hand they are fine with paying $199 oder $249 for their nano. So if for example an iPhone with 2GB music storage can be offered for $299, there might already be millions of people who'd buy it without subsidies.
  • Reply 13 of 59
    I'm not sure that this video chat thing is the way to go to gain success. We've had it for ages (Sweden), and no one uses it, perhaps because of high prices, about five times higher than ordinary taxes, but it seems like a gimmick.
  • Reply 14 of 59
    Ahh, yes. The second Apple phone. It's a good thing, too, since the first one came and went with hardly a notice.
  • Reply 15 of 59
    Meanwhile, the analyst said his sources are also indicating that Apple's new (PRODUCT) RED iPod nanos are selling well.



    "These iPods are sold through Apple direct channels, have a unique red color, and are for a charitable cause where Apple donates $10 for each sold to AIDS research," he told clients.





    I'm thinking if you're a "client" who needs an "analyst" to explain what the Red iPod is, you're not really going to be flying with the Buffetts anytime soon.
  • Reply 16 of 59
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mariofreak85


    hasn't Japan had it for years too?



    Why does cell service suck so bad in America?



    America has no hold on bad cell service.



    True some countries are better than others. Some countries appear to be more advanced. However, before anyone craps over Apple, one should aware of the following re communication products, companies, media (radio, television, wireless, etc.)



    Each country has regulatory bodies that govern communication.

    Some might be considered in the dark ages.

    Som countries are extremely large, heavily populated, modern, etc., conversely true and everything in between.

    Some are very restrictive when it comes to allowing foreign developed, created or manufactured devices.

    Some need an even act of congress to allow the sale or use of foreign developed or made products.

    Some won't even allow a foreign owned comunication product or company to operate in their country.

    Some have no standard in place whatsoever and some standards are not even allowed.

    Some laws are federal and some are state controlled.

    Some areas within a state are locally controlled.

    Some require considerable and often restrictive procedures for application to operate of distribute.

    Some restrict areas within parts of their country from cell services.



    Take all the above and consider that cell towers are being shared. Some have been in place since inception. Most often, a $50 phone works just as well as or as poorly as a $2000 phone being in the same area.



    Remember, it took an Act of Congress to get HDTV.



    And, that more that half the world doesn't even have access to a telephone.
  • Reply 17 of 59
    irelandireland Posts: 17,749member
    Where did Wu get his info, from his bum bum?
  • Reply 18 of 59
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider


    he remains high



    What's he on?
  • Reply 19 of 59
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jbh0001


    What's he on?



    He's been huffing RDF fumes again.
  • Reply 20 of 59
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by parksgm


    Size.



    Think about it...deploying new service technology to all of Britian is like deploying it to all of Texas (where I am proud to say I am from, incidentally). The United States has enormously larger landmass than Britian...but the service area of a given cell tower is no different in the US than Britian...so the greater amount of equipment that needs to be deployed to perform a system-wide upgrade in the US is hugely expensive in comparison.



    My two cents.



    England = 50,085 square miles

    United States =3,537,441 square miles



    Or think of it this way...

    England is 1/5 The size of Texas

    but has more than twice the population of Texas



    Japan = 145,898 square miles

    Japan is almost as big as California

    but has 3.5 times the population of California
Sign In or Register to comment.