iPhone/6G iPod: Way cool, but way too expensive [Archive]

Verto

January 9, 2007, 15:04

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
8GB? That's rather disappointing for a supposed killer-convergence device. Particularly at that price.

The interface and the fact it's running OS X (even a presumably much-stripped-down version of OS X is vastly superior to any other smartphone OS out there) is cool, though.

8GB is a fair size, considering it is using flash memory (I'm assuming?). Samsung I think was able to make a 32GB drive, not sure if it is still being tested or not. But for a lot of people, 8GB is more than enough for their music - I get by fine with a 4GB Nano; the only time I wish I had more space is when I want to listen to an audiobook I've got, and have to swap out my music for it. Even then, though, it is not that big of a deal - quite easy with iTunes.

MacRumors is full of fanboys, obviously, but there is nothing fanboy about the live coverage of MacWorld. A lot of sites are doing it.

Re: Apple TV:

HD space is too small, although offset by the fact that you can stream stuff from your computers. I haven't spent a lot of time keeping track of it - only skimmed through the MacRumors feed - but it seems like it will stream all your media from up to 5 computers, and sync with 1...not sure what that all entails. Hopefully it will support most formats so I could (theoretically) watch torrented TV shows, etc. From what it seems to do, this thing should half its price cut in half, at least. Slightly disappointing. Will have to check out this and the iPhone in more detail in a couple hours.

Verto

January 9, 2007, 15:30

Bleh, seems to be almost exclusively for streaming iTunes stuff - not necessarily purchased from iTunes, but in the appropriate formats.

Asher

January 9, 2007, 16:26

For the iPhone's price, you'd at least expect 3G capabilities on it...but nooooo...

ocellis

January 9, 2007, 16:39

What is it about Apple that makes people pay such prices? Surely some ancient tome of forbidden knowledge! Where's the inquisition?

Verto

January 9, 2007, 16:44

Originally posted by Asher
For the iPhone's price, you'd at least expect 3G capabilities on it...but nooooo...

You refer to...?

Asher

January 9, 2007, 16:50

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3g

Verto

January 9, 2007, 17:08

I know what 3G stands for. What specific capabilities?

JimmyCracksCorn

January 9, 2007, 17:45

I don't think the iPhone is that expensive, relatively speaking.

A Palm Treo costs something like $650CAD, and its a piece of crap compared to the iPhone.

Q Classic

January 9, 2007, 18:41

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
I don't think the iPhone is that expensive, relatively speaking.

A Palm Treo costs something like $650CAD, and its a piece of crap compared to the iPhone.

Different markets, genius. The Treo's not meant as an audio/media player, it's meant for business users who want to access their email and do minimal browsing and so on.

Admittedly, they may want to consider lowering their price to compete with the the iPhone, which is somewhat of a let down, to be honest.

Q Classic

January 9, 2007, 18:42

Originally posted by Verto
Also, Apple Computer is now just Apple, Inc.

Not too significant, but worth noting.

Which further confirms an apparent trend for them, moving away from computing and more towards a digital lifestyle consumer electronics firm.

Q Classic

January 9, 2007, 18:44

Re: 3g.

At least in Korea/Japan, they're using it for both streaming video, music downloads, simultaneous voice data/non-voice data transmission (downloading a song while chatting with someone).

Zopperoni

January 9, 2007, 18:46

Originally posted by Asher
$499 with 2 year contract on Cingular for 4GB version
$599 with 2 year contract on Cingular for 8GB version
Let me guess... a two-year deal with only a one-year warranty on the device?

Verto

January 9, 2007, 18:48

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Different markets, fanboi. The Treo's not meant as an audio/media player, it's meant for business users who want to access their email and do minimal browsing and so on.

:lol: So it is ok for the Treo to cost so much, despite doing so little, because it is a different market? The iPhone moves focus from JUST being a music/media player, to also being a phone, smartphone, whatever you want to call it.

Verto

January 9, 2007, 18:54

Originally posted by Verto
I know what 3G stands for. What specific capabilities?

Sorry, I was thinking you were refering to 3G in the same sense as you were a few posts up, with 6G.

Imran Siddiqui

January 9, 2007, 19:03

:eek: :eek:

Jesus Christ that's expensive... and that doesn't even count the phone contract (and internet costs).

Q Classic

January 9, 2007, 19:33

Originally posted by Verto

:lol: So it is ok for the Treo to cost so much, despite doing so little, because it is a different market? The iPhone moves focus from JUST being a music/media player, to also being a phone, smartphone, whatever you want to call it.

If you'll note, I did mention that the Treo should consider lowering their prices.

But yes, different markets. The iPhone wants to be more consumer-based, while the Treo's thrust is based very much in the business-world.

monolith94

January 9, 2007, 19:40

If I was a member of the liesure class, if I had that level of disposable income, sure I'd get one. But for now I'd rather save my hard-earned money.

Asher

January 9, 2007, 19:49

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
I don't think the iPhone is that expensive, relatively speaking.

A Palm Treo costs something like $650CAD, and its a piece of crap compared to the iPhone.
Do you have to sign a 2 year contract with a Palm Treo?

Most Palms I know of are about a third of that price, without a penalty.

The iPhone is a piece of crap compared to an Xbox 360, FWIW. ;)

What? They're not the same markets?

Treos are for business use as an data store/communications device (and as such command a premium anyway), iPhone is for teenager use to gossip. :b:

Impaler[WrG]

January 9, 2007, 22:27

You had me at scrolling :b:

Gatekeeper

January 10, 2007, 04:54

Originally posted by Asher
The iTV **** though, that's a certified dud.

$299...40GB HD, 720p max. Basically a slower Xbox 360 with a LOT less features.

Hmm. While the iPhone definitely looks interesting — albeit pricey for the timebeing — I'm less sure about AppleTV. Hmm. Isn't 720p the equivalent to 1080i, though, with only 1080p being better than the other two high-def standards?

Gatekeeper

Kuciwalker

January 10, 2007, 05:01

Touchscreens on phones :q: :q: :q:

Isn't 720p the equivalent to 1080i, though, with only 1080p being better than the other two high-def standards?

It comes down to personal preference, really.

Tingkai

January 10, 2007, 05:51

At US$499, the iPhone is not that expensive for Hong Kong given what it contains, but then again, people in Hong Kong on average have more money to spend then people in N. America or Europe.

If the touchscreens work effectively then it is a great idea, particularly if the phone can be rotated 90 degrees so that there is more room for the keyboard.

Nubclear

January 10, 2007, 05:59

I buy cheap phones because they are abused.
I will never ever buy a $600 phone.

Tingkai

January 10, 2007, 06:08

Stop cellphone abuse. :doitnow!:

Tingkai

January 10, 2007, 06:16

Originally posted by Asher
The iTV **** though, that's a certified dud.

$299...40GB HD, 720p max. Basically a slower Xbox 360 with a LOT less features.

Can the Xbox store and play digital music? Does it have an Internet browser or e-mail?

I like the idea of a wireless device, but $299 seems like a lot.

Asher

January 10, 2007, 06:53

Originally posted by Tingkai
Can the Xbox store and play digital music?
Yes, and stream it. And videos. And has a music, video, and TV store integrated.

At the end of the year it also becomes a DVR and dual-tuner IPTV client with resolutions of 1080p...

Does it have an Internet browser or e-mail?

No, by design. It's a really clunky thing to do on a TV.

JimmyCracksCorn

January 10, 2007, 07:41

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Different markets, genius. The Treo's not meant as an audio/media player, it's meant for business users who want to access their email and do minimal browsing and so on.

Admittedly, they may want to consider lowering their price to compete with the the iPhone, which is somewhat of a let down, to be honest.

No it isn't. The iPhone is a smartphone/PDA/Multimedia device. This is exactly what phones like the blackberry and Palm claim to be. Remember, Windows based smartphones all have windows media player built in... and I would assume Palm and blackberry based phones have something similar.

The iPhone is most definitely aimed at entering the smartphone market, as was mentioned at the keynote, and I believe they will succeed. Many people use their smartphones for business purposes, but then also use the multimedia features for listening to music, watching videos, etc, while on the road. The problem is that the multimedia capabilities of even the best smartphones out there today are laughable, whereas the iPhone is clearly designed for it.

In fact, my boss, a Treo user, now wants to replace it with an iPhone. I imagine other people in similar situations are thinking similar things.

But think about it... assuming both are available, why would anyone buy something like a Treo or a Blackberry when they could get an iPhone for the same price, or less. There is nothing that these phones do that the iPhone can't.... and in fact it looks like the iPhone will do most things better.

Asher

January 10, 2007, 07:52

I think if you asked most business people, they'd take a Blackberry over an iPhone anyday. Do not discount the allure of a tactile keyboard over a touchscreen one.

I'll be <b>very</b> curious how durable these screens are to scratches and smudges. That's the main problem with these kind of devices, and if the iPod 5G is any consideration, a major flaw...

Asher

January 10, 2007, 08:20

Other iPhone problems which ensure it is DOA as a Treo/Blackberry replacement: No non-Apple software can be installed, and No support for MS Office (Outlook) or MS Exchange.

First impressions say the iPhone screen feels "rubbery", which is odd.

Oerdin

January 10, 2007, 09:17

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Which further confirms an apparent trend for them, moving away from computing and more towards a digital lifestyle consumer electronics firm.

Let's face it. As a computer maker they are a failure.

-Jrabbit

January 10, 2007, 09:35

Personally, I just want my phone to be a phone. I don't even want a camera on it.

Interesting how the stock market reacted...

Despite that uncertainty _ and despite the fact that Apple's phone won't be available until June _ Wall Street has initially blessed it. Apple shares jumped $7.10 to close at $92.57 on the Nasdaq Stock Market, creating about $6 billion in new shareholder wealth. The stock has traded in a 52-week range of $50.16 to $93.16.

Nearly 120 million Apple shares changed hands Tuesday, more than 4 times the average daily volume.

Meanwhile, shares of other smart-phone makers slid: Treo-maker Palm dropped 5.7 percent, BlackBerry's Research In Motion Ltd. lost 7.9 percent and Motorola Inc. shed 1.8 percent.

-Rachel Konrad, AP Technology writer

LordShiva

January 10, 2007, 10:46

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Personally, I just want my phone to be a phone. I don't even want a camera on it.

:b:

Jacks of all trades, masters of none :q:

Tingkai

January 10, 2007, 13:22

Originally posted by Asher

Yes, and stream it. And videos. And has a music, video, and TV store integrated.

At the end of the year it also becomes a DVR and dual-tuner IPTV client with resolutions of 1080p...

No, by design. It's a really clunky thing to do on a TV.

Sounds interesting, and having a game console could be good, although all I want is to be able to link my computer to my TV without running a cable through my place. So the itv wireless connection is appealing, but I'd prefer to just have the connection rather than paying for another HD. Cheap and simple would be best.

Asher

January 10, 2007, 13:25

Originally posted by Tingkai
Sounds interesting, although all I want is to be able to link my computer to my TV without running a cable through my place. So the itv wireless connection is appealing
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/x/xbox360wirelessnetadapter/

Or get a $30 wireless bridge to plug in the ethernet port, same thing.

Verto

January 10, 2007, 14:12

Originally posted by Oerdin

Let's face it. As a computer maker they are a failure.

:nod: If you say so.

Nostromo

January 10, 2007, 14:14

Like Lord Shiva pointed out: Jacks of all trades, masters of none. If you're serious about sound quality, the 360 isn't the best solution. You wouldn't want to use it on a high end sound system. But its OK for most people, I guess.

But if you're only interested in music go with a Squeezebox instead, or a Transporter if you're really, really serious. Both products are from Slimdevices. Logitech bought them recently, BTW. So you'll hear more about them soon.

The Squeezebox can also be used as a wireless bridge, BTW.

Zero

January 10, 2007, 15:07

Originally posted by LordShiva

:b:

Jacks of all trades, masters of none :q:

= PC :b::b:

Kuciwalker

January 10, 2007, 16:03

Originally posted by Asher
Other iPhone problems which ensure it is DOA as a Treo/Blackberry replacement: No non-Apple software can be installed, and No support for MS Office (Outlook) or MS Exchange.

QFT.

First impressions say the iPhone screen feels "rubbery", which is odd.

Probably means the screen will be durable, though.

Asher

January 10, 2007, 17:11

Cingular has also announced it will not be providing discounts for corporate orders, either. Blackberry is king, still.

Q Classic

January 10, 2007, 17:39

Originally posted by Asher
Cingular has also announced it will not be providing discounts for corporate orders, either. Blackberry is king, still.
I think they sense money from the public.

MRT144

January 10, 2007, 18:17

I just want my PPC 6700 to play mp3s. oh wait, it does!

Koyaanisqatsi

January 10, 2007, 18:25

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Looks like somebody's deal fell through...
Cisco Systems to sue Apple over iPhone
Company had trademarked name before computer maker’s announcement
BREAKING NEWS
The Associated Press
Updated: 6:11 p.m. ET Jan 10, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO - Cisco Systems Inc. said Wednesday it is suing Apple Inc. in federal court over Apple’s use of Cisco’s registered iPhone trademark for its new handheld device.

Cisco has owned the trademark on the name “iPhone” since 2000, when it acquired InfoGear Technology Corp., which originally registered the name.

And three weeks ago, Cisco’s Linksys division put the trademark to use, releasing an Internet-enabled phone called “iPhone” that uses the increasingly popular Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP.

On Tuesday, Apple unveiled the iPhone, its “game-changing” touch-screen-controlled cell phone device that plays music, surfs the Web and delivers voicemail and e-mail.

“Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco’s iPhone name,” said Mark Chandler, Cisco senior vice president and general counsel, in a statement. “There is no doubt that Apple’s new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission.”

Cisco is seeking injunctive relief to prevent Apple from copying Cisco’s iPhone trademark.

“Today’s iPhone is not tomorrow’s iPhone. The potential for convergence of the home phone, cell phone, work phone and PC is limitless, which is why it is so important for us to protect our brand,” Chandler added.

Cisco Systems said Wednesday it sued Apple Inc. for infringing its “iPhone” trademark, after Apple unveiled a multimedia phone of the same name.

Cisco said it was seeking an injunctive relief to prevent Apple from copying its iPhone trademark. Linksys, a division of Cisco, has launched several wireless products with the iPhone name.

On Tuesday, a Cisco spokeswoman had said the two companies had been in discussions, and that it believed that Apple would agree to a final document and public statement concerning the trademark.
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16566514/

Asher

January 10, 2007, 20:19

Sweet jesus, that is awesome.

Kuciwalker

January 10, 2007, 20:20

:lol:

-Jrabbit

January 10, 2007, 20:54

This is old news (the trademark discussions, not the lawsuit).

Hard to believe Apple would make the announcement without an agreement in place. My guess is, said agreement is semi-imminent (keeping attention on the iPhone name during the 5 month prelease period). My cynical, conspriacy-loving side wants to believe that the lawsuit is actually an orchestrated ploy. The only thing missing is how Cisco Systems benefits beyond just being publicly in the right.

Kuciwalker

January 10, 2007, 20:59

Cisco can ask for tons of money now because otherwise Apple would have to change the name, since Cisco's legal foundation is rock-solid.

-Jrabbit

January 10, 2007, 22:51

True dat.

It will be interesting to see whether Apple (a) buys the name they want or (b) uses their 5 months of pre-intro time to find another name.

Asher

January 10, 2007, 22:52

Is it that bad to call it the MacPhone?

-Jrabbit

January 10, 2007, 22:55

Plenty of options. iCell has a nice double meaning.

Asher

January 10, 2007, 22:56

Not sure if that's going to be a problem, with "Cell" being trademarked as a tech product recently. ;)

(The IBM processor in the PS3)

-Jrabbit

January 10, 2007, 23:00

If I was in marketing at Apple, all I'd care about is that people keep talking about it. If they can manage that, the name will be a minimal issue.

The key, of course, is delivering a product that delivers on its promises.

Asher

January 11, 2007, 09:18

Apple may have another lawsuit coming, this time from LG.

LG's KE850 looks amazingly similar...

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/01/iphone-vs-ke850-wm.jpg

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/01/iphone-vs-ke850-2-wm.jpg

Jon Miller

January 11, 2007, 09:20

Eh, I don't see that one at all.

JM

Asher

January 11, 2007, 09:36

You honestly don't?

Apple has sued countless Taiwanese companies for things less similar.

-Jrabbit

January 11, 2007, 09:47

Yeah, those bloggers are really on top of things. Gee, two touchpad phone dialers look alike. ZOMFG they each have the same ten numbers on them! I thought of that years ago!!! Call my IP lawyers!!!!

Sheerest speculation.

In ACTUAL news, this NY Times article provides some further details on the Cisco lawsuit. It appears this may actually be a battle both sides intend to fight.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/technology/11apple.html

Highlights:
“The action we’ve taken is about protecting our brand,” said Mark Chandler, Cisco’s general counsel.

Cisco would have been willing to share the trademark, he said, if Apple had agreed to its terms, which involved a commitment to interoperability on Apple’s part and an agreement to differentiate the two products in the market.
What, Apple decided against interoperability? I thought they were the "let's be friends" company...

On Wednesday evening, Apple fired back by noting that several companies besides Cisco were currently using the iPhone brand name. A quick Web search reveals that Comwave, Nuvio and Teledex are all using the brand in different ways.

“We believe that Cisco’s U.S. trademark is tenuous at best,” said Katie Cotton, Apple’s vice president for worldwide communications. “We are the first company to use the iPhone name for a cellphone and we’re confident we will prevail.”

This one is especially intriguing...
The lawsuit describes a “surreptitious” Apple attempt to obtain the rights to the iPhone name. In September 2006, a corporation calling itself Ocean Telecom Services filed an application for the trademark based on an earlier filing in Trinidad and Tobago. That same month, Apple separately filed an application to use the trademark in Australia.

In the lawsuit, Cisco states that it believes that Ocean Telecom Services is a front corporation for Apple. Ms. Cotton declined to comment on whether Apple is related to the company.

So, we may have a catfight on our hands. If Cisco has failed to take ongoing action to protect its iPhone name against other competitors, Apple may have a case. Or at least that's wht they'll attempt -- to show that Cisco has allowed other iPhones onto the market, and thus can't stop this one.

Asher

January 11, 2007, 09:50

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Yeah, those bloggers are really on top of things. Gee, two touchpad phone dialers look alike. ZOMFG they each have the same ten numbers on them! I thought of that years ago!!! Call my IP lawyers!!!!
You clearly were not paying attention when any white rectangular MP3 player was an iPod clone. ;)

Both are black, glossy rectangular full-touchscreen devices with rounded corners. If we're going to resort to the "but there's only so many ways you can design a touchscreen phone" argument, then why didn't Apple (and its loyal followers) have a problem with so many MP3 players with a circular scrolling device?

-Jrabbit

January 11, 2007, 10:19

Au contraire, mon ami, I do watch these things. All I'm saying is that a press release from LG seems lacking, so this blog post is mere speculation.

Thue

January 11, 2007, 11:06

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Cisco can ask for tons of money now because otherwise Apple would have to change the name, since Cisco's legal foundation is rock-solid.

As I understand it, keeping your trademark depends on defending it. Ask an average person on the street, and they will say that iPhone is Apple's phone; is that a sign that Cisco have failed to defend their trademark?

Asher

January 11, 2007, 11:08

Originally posted by Thue
As I understand it, keeping your trademark depends on defending it. Ask an average person on the street, and they will say that iPhone is Apple's phone; is that a sign that Cisco have failed to defend their trademark?
huhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Cisco filed a lawsuit the day Apple announced an iPhone product. How is that not defending it.

-Jrabbit

January 11, 2007, 11:14

Trademark law is pretty clear -- you can't defend your trademark selectively. You have to actively notify any and all violators of your ownership and request cessation of unauthorized use. Apple's contention is that several other companies are using the iPhone name without apparent consequences. If that's verifiably true, then Apple has a case.

DanS

January 11, 2007, 12:55

This looks like a great phone, but there are too many limitations that make it not worthwhile at this time:

(1) Price (too high);
(2) Size (too large, doesn't fold); and
(3) Network (GSM-only, meaning Cingular-only in the US)

snoopy369

January 11, 2007, 13:05

Perhaps Cisco filed the trademark lawsuit hoping it would lead to publicity for its iPhone named devices :nod:

DanS

January 11, 2007, 13:07

Cisco probably just did a paper launch of its iPhone in order to get paid off by Apple.

Asher

January 11, 2007, 13:17

Originally posted by DanS
This looks like a great phone, but there are too many limitations that make it not worthwhile at this time:

(1) Price (too high);
(2) Size (too large, doesn't fold); and
(3) Network (GSM-only, meaning Cingular-only in the US)
Re: 3, in Canada, it means Rogers-only...and in Japan, it means they're screwed.

LordShiva

January 11, 2007, 13:38

Asher

January 11, 2007, 13:53

T-Mobile has by far the smallest network.

-Jrabbit

January 11, 2007, 14:00

FYI, Apple has been working on a separate track for the Japanese version of the product formerly known as iPhone. Japan and the rest of Asia are supposed to get it in 2008.

But it's a brutal market over there -- smart phones are the norm, and a lot cheaper, with 3G speed and 4GB cameras. But there are a lot of Apple-holics over there too. Ultimately, it will be about the interface. Ease of use is key.

Kuciwalker

January 11, 2007, 14:13

Originally posted by Asher
Apple may have another lawsuit coming, this time from LG.

LG's KE850 looks amazingly similar...

Excuse me? You can't patent or copyright rounded rectangles.

Asher

January 11, 2007, 14:14

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Excuse me? You can't patent or copyright rounded rectangles.
Tell that to Apple, who has successfully been suing people for doing this thing for years.

Asher

January 11, 2007, 14:16

eg, Apple successfully sued LuxPro for this MP3 player design:

http://image.blog.livedoor.jp/pc_success1/imgs/b/0/b0f89ef4.JPG

Kuciwalker

January 11, 2007, 14:22

And how is an interface with no tactile feedback at all good?

Oerdin

January 11, 2007, 14:31

Originally posted by Asher
T-Mobile has by far the smallest network.

True, but those states which do have coverage have really good coverage. Then of course there is the fact that the two American GSM networks, T-Mobile and Cingular, have access agreements between each other which mean costumers from either company can use both networks at no additional cost. Coverage is pretty good though I find that in dense urban areas (downtown LA, Manhattan, San Diego when they have a big event downtown and everyone is trying to use their phones at once) then their network gets over loaded and it is hard to get through.

The one really good reason to take Cingular over T-mobile is that it includes use of some old analog lines so even if you're out of GSM coverage your phone isn't useless where as T-Mobile's phones are only GSM. If you want the best network coverage then Verizon is the carrier for you but it costs the most while T-Mobile is pretty damn cheap on a per minute basis.

Impaler[WrG]

January 11, 2007, 14:39

How many people watched the full keynote video, The UI is this things killer app and easily justifies the price. I dont think Apple could make more money from it if it were an Engraving plate with Ben Franklins face on it.

Asher

January 11, 2007, 14:47

The interface doesn't have tactile feedback, which is more annoying than you may think.

I say this as a 3-year owner of an iPaq.

Thue

January 11, 2007, 17:16

A demonstration of the iPhone. The touch-screen interface seems good, at least better than my current cell phone.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YgW7or1TuFk"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YgW7or1TuFk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Drake Tungsten

January 11, 2007, 17:33

Wow, that thing is way cooler now that I've seen it in action...

DanS

January 11, 2007, 17:45

Yeh, that has the same device input scheme as the following demonstration by Jeff Han of NYU (except the demonstration is on a much larger touch screen)...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=884017118027634444

No doubt, this input scheme is pretty cool, although I'm not sure how I'll like it in real life.

Verto

January 11, 2007, 17:50

Once they release that as the new iPod (minus all the phone bits, etc, and with a sizeable HD) methinks Zune will be even more insignificant.

Oerdin

January 11, 2007, 17:57

Naw, they'll just release a similiar one as will a half dozen other makers. In the end we're going to see the current phone makers, the current MP3 player makers, and maybe even a few digital camera or GPS makers getting in on this act. The result is going to be some nice convergence devices with plenty of market competition to help moderate prices.

Imran Siddiqui

January 11, 2007, 18:13

That photo touch screen thing is pretty damned cool.... and I like the v-mail function (to click on any v-mail you want to hear).

Pretty cool phone/iPod, but still too much.

Kuciwalker

January 11, 2007, 18:31

Originally posted by Verto
Once they release that as the new iPod (minus all the phone bits, etc, and with a sizeable HD) methinks Zune will be even more insignificant.

You can't reach into your pocket and turn up the volume or skip the next song :q:

Asher

January 11, 2007, 19:35

Originally posted by Verto
Once they release that as the new iPod (minus all the phone bits, etc, and with a sizeable HD) methinks Zune will be even more insignificant.
Yes, I'm sure Zune will stay forever as it is now while the iPods advance. Good thinking, ace. :b:

Verto

January 11, 2007, 19:42

Originally posted by Asher

Yes, I'm sure Zune will stay forever as it is now while the iPods advance. Good thinking, ace. :b:

Never said it would, but it won't happen overnight - and even if it did, the only attention the media gives to the Zune is when they comment on its abysmal sales. Thus, no one would even know about it.

Asher

January 11, 2007, 19:51

Originally posted by Verto
Never said it would, but it won't happen overnight - and even if it did, the only attention the media gives to the Zune is when they comment on its abysmal sales. Thus, no one would even know about it.
Why won't it happen overnight?

The Zune that was released was a quickly hacked Toshiba design. It's been known for quite some time before it even came out that the first true Zune device is still in development by MS.

It's the one that will be more like the iPhone than you think. They've already announced it'll support XNA games, .NET (programmability/expandability), and have hinted at cell phone access as well.

For some reason, people seem to think Apple is the one doing all of the innovating. The <b>term</b> "SmartPhone" was invented by MS years ago. All of the things on the iPhone are already done on SmartPhones -- the catching point have historically been the smaller screens, which (as the LG device shows) is changing.

I think you really underestimate the potential of Zune. The iPhone doesn't work with MS Office, and that's a huge deal if you're looking for communication domination in a world dominated by MS Office. And since Apple is being a ***** about iTunes, don't ever expect the iPhone to work with MS Office.

laurentius

January 11, 2007, 20:58

iPhone may have some interesting features but it also has many flaws.

1. The touch screen.

Imagine how dirty it will be after couple of days use. And the dirt will get into the corners as well as under the screen. yuck.

No response on contact. You have no idea which button you are pressing without looking at the screen all the time.

2. No power charger(?)

AFAIK the iPhone will recharge via USB. This is a huge mistake. For obvious reasons.

3. The widgets.

The dashboard widgets sound good for a second. But after you realise that none of the weather services support European cities it kinda kills your interest.

4. The lack of 3G.

Yeah, good luck surfing the web smoothly or listening to internet radios/watch tv with 2.5G.

5. No GPS

6. No replacable battery(?)

iPod style!

7. Poor Camera

The camera is already below par. This phone will be totally outdated when it arrives in Europe and Japan Q4/07. No-one will buy it.

8. The looks

Yes the looks, the design. Its not that revolutionizing.

I've seen better designs. Just look at these beauties.

http://nds3.nokia.com/pressphotos/public/global/corporate/rd/research_concept_01_low.jpg

http://nds3.nokia.com/pressphotos/public/global/corporate/rd/research_concept_02_low.jpg
http://nds3.nokia.com/pressphotos/public/global/corporate/rd/research_concept_03_low.jpg

Now thats what the future phone looks like. All lcd, even the buttons(real buttons)

In this quartile Nokia has N95 phone with 5 Mpix Carl Zeiss camera, WLAN, 3G, 3D Grafx chip etc. etc. hitting the stores. Probably with the same price tag than the iPhone or less.

Drake Tungsten

January 11, 2007, 21:05

That first Nokia phone looks like a case for birth control pills (or some other feminine product)...

laurentius

January 11, 2007, 21:07

Actually its the same phone, its just changing its appearance.

(my bad)

Pekka

January 11, 2007, 21:09

It looks GOOD and I 'm glad there's new competition and innovation in the business, however, and I'll agree with some points laurentius made:

Touch Screen. Bad idea. Simply bad idea, it'll get so dirty that all you do is clean it up at all times.

Lack of 3G. At least in here, where public WLANs etc are everywhere, why have a smartphone without one?

Battery issues?!?!? wtf?

Why would they put a camera in it, as it will be the worst camera in the market by the time it really gets out? I understand they want to test it, so they can develop further and get experience with this thing, because others have been in the business for a long time already, so they need to do some experimenting but still.. leave that POS out.

I do not consider these things little details, except maybe the camera issue.. I consider them major issues.

However, Apple is welcome to the market, I hope they do good, because the future is now with the market, that is, the dominating companies are really going to put on some pressure for newcomers, the only thing going for Apple right now is their image and iPod with it, meaning that people have some brand loyalty maybe.

We'll see though, I wouldn't buy it.

Drake Tungsten

January 11, 2007, 21:10

So it can change from looking like a tampon-case to looking like an Xbox? Interesting...

Pekka

January 11, 2007, 21:13

That new Nokia actually looks like the first decent design they've ever come up with. I think it's irresponsible for the company to not get on with the program and put some effort on the design. Buyers like design. They like the phones to look nice, not like flattened dildoes they have done in the past.

So, as it was OBVIOUS to everyone, they still managed to not do it. They talked about it. They sure claimed to have design, innovation and like real art.... and it was the same flattened dildo all over again, every time. It was NO design at all.

So. I must say that maybe they are now taking it seriously. Maybe they were too arrogant with their market share, but now when they are seeing some difficulties in NA, they actually maybe now understand they need to show the image in the actual product, not in the name or past, to compete with Motorola and Samsung in the States.

laurentius

January 11, 2007, 21:14

Isnt that wonderful and something you have always wanted?

Pekka

January 11, 2007, 21:20

That Nokia? Well, not really. I'd rather wait a bit more with these new kind of phones first, and get the first 'mid priced' that is still decent, the one that is reliable, works, and lacks one feature that separates it from the deluxe model, priced twice as high.

LordShiva

January 11, 2007, 21:55

Nokia pwns

Kuciwalker

January 11, 2007, 22:11

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
So it can change from looking like a tampon-case to looking like an Xbox? Interesting...

A winning formula.

Tingkai

January 11, 2007, 22:19

Originally posted by DanS
Yeh, that has the same device input scheme as the following demonstration by Jeff Han of NYU (except the demonstration is on a much larger touch screen)...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=884017118027634444

No doubt, this input scheme is pretty cool, although I'm not sure how I'll like it in real life.

That is truly amazing.

Watching the video eliminated any doubts about the touch screen. It is the future.

Spaced Cowboy

January 11, 2007, 23:02

IIRC wasn't the razor about $500 when it first came out?

I got mine for about $50.

This will sell well. I'm up for a new phone in Sept. and this is tops on my list.

I'm tired of carrying around an ipod mini (now 2 years old) and a razor. One device, same capability.

This is what I've wanted for some time now.

Impaler[WrG]

January 11, 2007, 23:28

Agreed that large scale demonstration shows how cool it gets with two hands (the iPhone is obviosly limited to one handed use). Steve claims that Apple has pattented the heck out of it but this presentation makes it sound like the basic multi-touch tecnology is old but only resently perfected. If Apples patents allow them effective monopoly of this tecnology then they will absolutly making a killing selling "iPad" devices for a whole range of uses. Imagine your flat screen monitor and mouse replaced with one of these things.

And again I ask have the nay-sayers seen the Keynote presentation? (Its better then that quicky video) Drake has seen the light and is now a beliver, join US :evilgrin:

Asher

January 11, 2007, 23:38

Fingerprints and scratches...

All of the perfectly orchestrated, brief keynotes in the world don't change that.

Not to mention the lack of 3rd party software, the lack of a removable/extra battery, the lack of MS Office support, the lack of 3G, the lack of a CDMA version, etc...

Drake Tungsten

January 11, 2007, 23:44

Drake has seen the light and is now a beliver, join US

It's cool, but that doesn't mean I'm going to get one. Apple... :q:

Imran Siddiqui

January 11, 2007, 23:54

Apple :q:

-Jrabbit

January 12, 2007, 01:08

I'm not interested in a device of this type, but I'm hopeful that it advances the art of interface design further. For that reason, I will demo a unit once they come out and judge for myself. I do agree that declining to sync with Office is kind of silly. It pushes the iPhone (or whatever it's to be called) into niche-toy status -- not a viable business tool. Still, there will be a market...

Which is projected to be about 10 MM units or so the first year, some of which will cannibalize iPod sales (in a positive, profitable way). BTW, Apple has contracted to have 12 MM units built.)

Arguing over the hype (which this thread has devolved into) is really kind of poiintless. But whatever, carry on.

DRoseDARs

January 13, 2007, 02:42

Well this article makes Apple's iPhone (Cisco owns the trademark and filed a lawsuit on the 10th, tee hee) a lot less attractive to me. I'll leave it to you, the reader, to spot the BS from Jobs...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/technology/11cnd-apple.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Phone Shows Apple’s Impact on Consumer Products

By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: January 11, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 11 — Apple’s new iPhone appears to be the clearest statement yet of what Steve Jobs’s impact has been on consumer electronics.

It is not that he invents new technologies. He refines existing ones.

Mr. Jobs himself acknowledged that when asked during an interview on Tuesday whether he thought the iPhone represented a trend toward the convergence of computing and communications.

“I don’t want people to think of this as a computer,” he said. “I think of it as reinventing the phone.”

If the iPhone succeeds commercially, it will be new proof of Mr. Jobs’s power and influence over the world’s consumer marketplace.

Indeed, at times he seems to be able to defy gravity.

But while his design ideas have frequently been runaway successes, there have also been striking failures.

His Next computer, developed in the 1980s during his exile from Apple and originally intended for a college audience, was never able to break out of its small niche. (Despite being a commercial failure, the Next was used by Tim Berners-Lee to develop the original concept of the World Wide Web.) In a similar fashion, the Macintosh Cube, introduced in 2000, failed in the market despite being seen as an artistic breakthrough in computer industrial design.

Indeed, when the Macintosh Computer — which, like the iPhone, was designed by a small group shrouded in secrecy — was introduced in January 1984, it was received with the same kind of wild hyperbole that greeted the iPhone this week. But a year later, the shortcomings of the first-generation Macintosh cost Mr. Jobs his job at the company he had founded with his high school friend Stephen Wozniak nine years earlier.

In light of the iPhone’s closed, appliance-style design, it is worth recounting the Mac’s early history because of the potential parallel pitfalls that Mr. Jobs and his company may face.

Despite its high price of $2,495, the Macintosh initially sold briskly. But Mr. Jobs’s early predictions of huge sales (on Tuesday, in a similar fashion, he set a goal for the iPhone 1 percent of the world’s cellular phone market, or 10 million phones a year, by the end of 2008) failed to materialize.

The Mac’s stumble was in part because of pricing and in part because Mr. Jobs had intentionally restricted its expandability. Despite his assertion that a slow data connection would be sufficient, the gamble failed when Apple’s business stalled and Mr. Jobs was forced out of the company by the chief executive he had brought in, John Sculley.

In a similar fashion, Mr. Jobs is gambling that people will pay a premium ($499 or $599) for the iPhone and appears to have sought to limit its expandability.

The device is not currently compatible with the faster 3G wireless data networks that are driving sharp gains in cellular revenues in the United States, although several Apple insiders said the phone could be upgraded to 3G with software if Apple later decides to do so.

Moreover, Mr. Jobs also appears to be restricting the potential for third-party software developers to write applications for the new handset — from ringtones to word processors.

To be sure, this strategy has not limited the success of the iPod, which has become the defining hand-held consumer appliance and fashion statement in the last half-decade. The world of digital cellular phones, however, is rapidly becoming a simple extension of the world of personal computing. The leading handset makers — Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, Palm, Research in Motion, Samsung and Sony Ericsson — are all pushing in the direction of making their devices increasingly look like PCs you can put in your pocket.

Mr. Jobs is moving in that direction, too, but it appears that he wants to control his device much more closely than his competitors.

“We define everything that is on the phone,” he said. “You don’t want your phone to be like a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesn’t work anymore. These are more like iPods than they are like computers.”

The iPhone, he insisted, would not look like the rest of the wireless industry.

“These are devices that need to work, and you can’t do that if you load any software on them,” he said. “That doesn’t mean there’s not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn’t mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment.”

Software developers at Macworld Expo, the trade show where Mr. Jobs made the iPhone announcement, said they were taking a wait-and-see attitude about the phone. Several noted that much of the phone’s usability will depend on what added functions Apple decides to place in the version of the Safari Web browser that is part of the system.

If there is a Adobe Flash player available for the iPhone, and if it supports the Internet standards that are being widely used by the developers of a proliferating array of Web services, Apple’s decision to restrict software development may not matter.

Indeed, Mr. Jobs appears already to have made believers out of many industry analysts and independent researchers.

“He’s competing as he always has, as an integrated-consumer-device maker who lets other people deal with the rest of the stuff,” said Michael J. Kleeman, a former telecommunications industry executive who is now a researcher at the University of California, San Diego. “He gets to leverage other people’s capital investments.”

There are still a number of intriguing unanswered questions about the design of the system, and analysts said the real design of the device will not be fully comprehended until the iPhone is in users’ hands in June.

Is it a phone, a PC, or something entirely new? For instance, despite the fact that the phone has high-speed digital Wi-Fi capability built in, Mr. Jobs was coy about how that capability would be used.

During an interview on Tuesday, he said that Apple had not decided whether to enable a voice-over-Internet service like Skype — a potentially divisive issue for Cingular, the exclusive carrier for the iPhone, because it could come at the expense of cellular voice revenue.

Also, it is not clear how far Mr. Jobs will go in letting the device begin to replace the PC and Macintosh for users who have no need to sit in front of a desk or carry a portable computer.

It is possible that Apple’s chief executive has found a way to step into the chasm between the two worlds and profitably fill it.

“Apple is in a unique position to build a winning personal device that really fulfills the missing promise here,” said Michael Hawley, a software designer who is a former member of the M.I.T. faculty and a friend of Mr. Jobs.

Thue

January 13, 2007, 06:01

"Cisco lost rights to iPhone trademark last year, experts say"

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236

DRoseDARs

January 13, 2007, 06:05

We'll just let the courts decide, shall we? ;)

MarkG

January 13, 2007, 09:25

iphone interface in action

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/s9DguXTUk0Y"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s9DguXTUk0Y" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

MarkG

January 13, 2007, 09:47

Originally posted by laurentius
iPhone may have some interesting features but it also has many flaws.

1. The touch screen.

Imagine how dirty it will be after couple of days use. not really. ever had a pda?

btw...
Now thats what the future phone looks like. All lcd, even the buttons(real buttons) nokia lcd's dont get dirty?

Asher

January 13, 2007, 13:41

Originally posted by MarkG
not really. ever had a pda?
Yes, for three years.

With the Stylus it doesn't get dirty, with fingers it certainly does. Human skin has oils on it.

MarkG

January 13, 2007, 13:48

laurentius's attorney i presume... :cute:

Pekka

January 13, 2007, 13:58

Right, but with stylus it becomes a two-hander. Also, it can get dirty in your pocket as well.

Of course these are all trade offs, some think it's better, some think it's not. I personally like to keep PHONES one-handers.

This all said, I still think it's cool they're expanding their business, it will sell if for nothing else than for the brand and image, so they'll get started and learn and come up with better solutions in the future for sure.

Asher

January 13, 2007, 14:07

Originally posted by MarkG
laurentius's attorney i presume... :cute:
Oh yeah, you know we always agree.

Asher

January 13, 2007, 16:22

Koyaanisqatsi

January 13, 2007, 20:44

Eh, the /. discussion on this gave some pretty decent evidence for it being some form of OS X (job postings for the iPhone team, etc.) But other than curiosity I don't really care what it's running if they're not opening it up to non-Apple-approved third parties.

LordShiva

January 14, 2007, 17:36

Lord Avalon

January 14, 2007, 17:49

:lol:

Shower + camera :naughty:

Asher

January 15, 2007, 13:55

It gets murkier.

A company called Comwave owns the iPhone trademark in Canada and has sold products since 2004, including the "iPhone Mobile".

And Citrix has previously released a product with the term "Visual Voicemail" which, I'm sure you can guess what it does...

Oerdin

January 15, 2007, 14:00

Originally posted by DanS

(3) Network (GSM-only, meaning Cingular-only in the US)

It's been pointed out that T-Mobile also supports GSM.

asleepathewheel

January 15, 2007, 15:32

I'm confused as to why this phone is such a big deal. What makes this better than existing smartphones?

Imran Siddiqui

January 15, 2007, 15:33

Originally posted by LordShiva
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hriAMxCinhg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hriAMxCinhg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

:lol:

That was brilliant and exactly opposite to Apple's philosophy with the iPod (ie, do one thing really well instead of many things average or below average).

Asher

January 15, 2007, 15:34

That was brilliant and exactly opposite to Apple's philosophy with the iPod (ie, do one thing really well instead of many things average or below average).

Yeah, like the games, contact, and calendar features of the iPod. :b:

MarkG

January 15, 2007, 16:59

more details
-The iPhone "might" support Flash as well as Javascript, but won't support the standard version of Java, which Apple CEO Steve Jobs as called a "big beavyweight ball and chain" that few people used anymore.

-Apple is currently undecided as to whether to allow users to set iPod-playable songs as ring tons.

-The iPhone will support games purchased from the iTunes Store that currently work with the video iPod.

-The iPhone doesn't currently support Bluetooth or Wi-Fi connections.

-The iPhone currently lacks speed-dial features.

-The iPhone should, in theory, support Google spreadsheets as well as Microsoft Word documents.

-The iPhone will allow users to zoom in on text and images.

-The final version of the iPhone will feature a login system similar to the one currently installed on iPods.

-The iPhone will feature a polycarbonate screen similar to the one found on the iPod but with a substantially improved coating.

-The iPhone's multi-touch screen is only operable via contact with bare skin.

-The iPhone ships with stereo ear buds that include a microphone and a switch on the cord, but will work with any iPod-compatible earphones.

-Pogue commented that while the screen is "very bright", the "virtual keys" make the keyboard slower to access than the built-in keys on a device like a BlackBerry, although the keys are more responsive than those found on such a unit.
http://www.powerpage.org/2007/01/david_pogue_updates_iphone_faq.html

MarkG

January 15, 2007, 17:02

and some good questions
1. How much will it cost to own an iPhone? We already know that for US consumers the cheapest iPhone will be far more expensive than the most costly Cingular phone to date. But what will the monthly service cost? What will the data plans cost? Will the Yahoo email push option be extra?

2. What will be the "unlocked" iPhone price? Prices quoted by Jobs -- US$599 for the 8GB model and US$499 for the 4GB phone -- are the discounted prices that require a two-year Cingular contract. Will it even be possible to buy an iPhone without a wireless contract and without a specific wireless carrier?

3. How much will it cost to replace a lost or damaged iPhone? Let's say you shell out US$600 for an iPhone, and then two weeks later you drop and destroy it. How much will it cost to replace? US$600? US$1200? More? When you buy a phone with a contract, you nearly always get a huge discount because you're signing up for the service. $150 phones are free. $200 are $50. The BlackBerry Pearl, for example, is US$200 with the contract -- but if you replace it, the new one is US$400, because you don't get a discount. How much will replacement insurance cost? Wireless carriers offer third-party insurance to cover this high replacement cost, usually a few dollars per month added to your cell-phone bill. Will the insurance for the iPhone cost $5 or $15 per month? We don't know. If it's $15 per month, for example, that adds $540 to the price of the phone over three years. Not trivial.

4. How fast is the iPhone? Touch-screen devices are often ruined by a delay when you press the on-screen, virtual buttons. Apple may solve this problem with its first-release product, but if it doesn't, a persistent lag will degrade the user experience. Jobs said that the "iPhone runs OS X" and "desktop-class" applications. But will the OS and applications provide desktop-class performance? If so, Apple will have solved another problem nobody has ever been able to solve.

5. What did Jobs mean when he said the "iPhone runs OS X"? Is it the "core" of OS X with a new mobile interface? Or is the "core" new, with OS X-like interface code on top? Jobs already hinted that special iPhone applications -- not standard desktop applications -- will run on the phone. What is the iPhone's operating system, really?

6. How well will the iPhone sync with Windows applications? Jobs said the iPhone will sync with your desktop-based data -- contacts, calendars, photos, notes, bookmarks, and email accounts -- but gave no specifics beyond the fact that iTunes will serve as the synchronisation application. Will it sync seamlessly with Microsoft Outlook? Lotus Notes? Other personal information manager (PIM) and email applications? Which ones? How well will all this work?

7. Will businesses be able to use the iPhone? Jobs dissed Treo handhelds, BlackBerry units, and other devices for their lack of usability. But those companies spend enormous resources on building back-end infrastructure. Those systems enable businesses to roll out programs that meet company objectives around regulatory compliance, data security, cost reduction, and more. The success of those products is based in part on their enterprise and business solutions. How ready is iPhone for business?

8. Will the iPhone support Word, Excel, and PowerPoint documents? Jobs said you can synchronise the iPhone with email -- and he even pointed to IMAP support, including Microsoft Exchange -- but what about attachments? Without support for standard office documents, the iPhone is a nonstarter for most business users.

9. Will you be able to use your iPhone as a modem for your laptop? If not, this could be a showstopper for many travelling businesspeople.

10. Will the iPhone scratch or peel? Previous Apple products, including some iPods and notebooks, had serious problems with scratching and peeling. People use and abuse their cell phones even more than they do other devices. Will Apple make the iPhone rugged enough to avoid embarrassing blog write-ups about scratching, peeling, or other materials defects? Will the iPhone be too slippery to use without dropping?

11. Will the iPhone be called the iPhone? Jobs said yes, but that was news to Cisco, the company that owns the trademark. Cisco said Wednesday that it is suing Apple over the name. It's possible that the two companies will arrive at an agreement, but to date the name is still up in the air.

12. Will people hate the on-screen iPhone keyboard experience? I got rid of my Palm Treo mainly because the keys were hard to type with--too small for my fingers. The iPhone keys are about the same size as the Treo's, but software, with no tactile feedback. The keyboard looked great in the demo. But what will it be like to use it every day?

13. Can you use the iPhone to make VoIP calls? Using your iPhone over a Wi-Fi connection to make, say, Skype calls would be an obviously beneficial feature. Will Apple allow it? Will Cingular?

14. Will people accept iPhone's slow internet connection? While other phones are embracing 3G, the iPhone's EDGE support gives users a disappointing 2.5G experience. Jobs showed the Web page of the New York Times--how long will that page take to load? For people already using 3G on their phones, going back to a slower device may be too much to ask.

15. Will third-party software vendors be able to create applications for the iPhone? If not, why not? If so, what are they?

16. Will iPhone's single-carrier model wreck the product for most users? Some US cities don't have any Cingular coverage. In other cities, such as New York, Cingular coverage is inferior to that of competitors. By limiting the iPhone to Cingular only, will Apple turn away the majority of its potential iPhone customers?

17. Will there be any way to wirelessly share files with the iPhone? Like the Microsoft Zune, the iPhone supports wi-fi. But unlike the Zune, iPhone wi-fi is for connecting to the Internet through wireless hotspots or networks only. You won't be able to connect peer-to-peer. Will Apple be able to turn on this capability later? Will the company at least enable file sharing over the Internet?

18. Will the iPhone kill sales of iPods? Apple has a good thing going with its profitable iPod business. But will people stop buying iPods as they wait for an iPhone? Will investors conclude that Jobs's keynote was a big mistake if iPod profits go down the drain for two quarters?

19. Will Apple be able to fill iPhone orders accurately? No doubt the iPhone is very expensive to manufacture, and, unlike the iPod, is a very complex device, electronically. In the first year of the device's release, Apple could very easily overbuild, making far more than it can sell in a given period of time, or underbuild, failing to keep up with demand and creating long waits and frustrated customers.

20. Will the iPhone really "change the world"? The iPod "changed the world" because everyone bought one. But will the iPhone's price, Cingular-only support, lack of business usability, and other factors really make the iPhone just a niche luxury toy for the rich?
http://pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/pcw.nsf/print/15896A7BD7D3AC69CC25726400729BB0

MarkG

January 15, 2007, 17:06

and apparantely apple was fast to send legal notices to people doing iphone themes for windows mobile :D

http://forum.brighthand.com/showthread.php?t=235591&highlight=iphone
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=1097832

Pekka

January 15, 2007, 17:26

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I'm confused as to why this phone is such a big deal. What makes this better than existing smartphones?

It's not, it's behind competitors. But, people like the brand. Plus, Apple has vision, and they have motivation and they are hungry, so I guess what people really like are the future possibilities when Apple gets the hang of this. One of the biggest factors for Apple is their design. If you ask me, sure it's nice, but again, I wouldn't spend this much on that particular phone, because it lacks features I think should be in it, in that price range.

And no, I don't have an iPod either, I have another mp3-player, which I quite like. I don't have anything agaisnt Apple, but if I can get a 'cool toy' with more features and appx the same quality from another manufacturer for the same price? I'll get that one.

Asher

January 15, 2007, 19:21

-The iPhone currently lacks speed-dial features.

So much for your "stick to one thing and do it well" theory, Imran. ;)

Pekka

January 15, 2007, 19:49

About Apple, didn't Steve Jobs get back into it? What is his role in decision making as far as Apple's strategies goes these days?

I mean, he is crazy enough to either ride the new Apple era to a very nice place, or maybe completely nuke it. If I was an owner of the company, I would like someone not that edgy to decide those things for us, with some safety and reason, but then again, he is interesting and you never know, the brand is pretty good IMO these days once again. And like I said earlier, the design is really nice with Apple in all their stuff, it's quite amazing how far that really goes today and how important it has become.

And let's face it, most buyers don't know about the features anyway, or even what they mean. It looks cool, everyone says it's cool, gotta have it. I say it's priced way too high considering the features in it. If they'd take it lower, say .. $350, it would sell like hell, and the point is, IMO, that you get this first product out there, just make it safe, it has to function well, we don't want any bad news about malfunctions and bad overall performance, and THEN come up with the line of products, with more expensive ones as well as cheaper ones. I just think it might pay off to sell this first baby cheap, as cheap as possible, just to get some consumer base, who would become loyal after the first product. You need to get the word out, it doesn't matter if some Apple fanatics buy this, you need ordinary consumers buying this baby and then saying how good it is to everyone else. Make it like iPod, you have to have it, period. Even though there are better players, cheaper players, you have to have an iPod. It's not even called a music player, mp3player or what ever, it is iPod, even if you buy something from Creative or not, it's iPod.

So you want that happening to your product, so I'd say, sell it as cheap as possible, maybe even take a little hit because of it.

Then again, I'm stupid, poor and I definitely do not work for Apple :)

Imran Siddiqui

January 16, 2007, 00:16

Originally posted by Asher
-The iPhone currently lacks speed-dial features.

So much for your "stick to one thing and do it well" theory, Imran. ;)

Errr... :confused:

I thought I already made it clear that the iPhone goes against that design philosophy of the iPod.

MRT144

January 16, 2007, 01:00

:lol: this is just an apple smartphone. what a rip off

One_more_turn

January 16, 2007, 01:53

A Korean company suing an American cultural icon in US courts? Gimme a break!

The chance of LG winning against Apple in the US is close to zero. In Korea, on the hand, .... But how many Koreans buy iPods anyway?

Never underestimate the home bias. That's why Rambus will win against Hynix and Samsung, but not against Micron. That's also why that NTP won against Research in Motion.

One_more_turn

January 16, 2007, 02:01

The success of iPhone depends on how well and reliably the touchscreen interface works.

We won't know it until at least fall of this year.

MarkG

January 16, 2007, 04:38

Originally posted by Asher
-The iPhone currently lacks speed-dial features.

So much for your "stick to one thing and do it well" theory, Imran. ;)

the speed-dial thing is unclear
Phone calling: Sound is clearer than average. The number pad is tucked away, so they depend on you having most numbers in speed dial. That's ok.
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/macworld2007/gizmodo-iphone-handson-i-called-my-mommy-227582.php

laurentius

January 16, 2007, 07:53

Originally posted by MarkG
not really. ever had a pda?

Yeah, since 2002.

PDAs have stulys', iPhone has your finger(s) doing the pointing. I dont think I have ever commandeered my iPaq 3870 with anything other than a stylus.

btw...
nokia lcd's dont get dirty?

No. Not if you dont have to put your fingers on it.

DRoseDARs

January 16, 2007, 08:19

Considering Apple's past history with easily-scratched screens, is this a good idea for them to be tackling again? Did they learn their lesson or was losing the previous class action lawsuit against them not enough?

Datajack Franit

January 16, 2007, 09:31

Only stupid Americans sue them, so it's a win-win on other markets

laurentius

January 16, 2007, 12:20

FYI These are some of the concepts Nokia is working on.

1. A phone similar in design with the iPhone. Notice the stylus instead of greasy fingers.

http://www.slashphone.com/news/uploads/2108/nokia_concept_1.jpg

2. Another concepts.

http://www.slashphone.com/news/uploads/2108/nokia_concept_3.jpg

Link (http://mobil.idnes.cz/mob_aktuality.asp?r=mob_aktuality&c=A050613_105048_mob_aktuality_dno) (in czech)

3. Nokia N-Gage 2

http://www.mobileburn.com/media/nokia/concept/concept_gaming_open.jpg

4. Another look with the gaming slid closed.

http://www.mobileburn.com/media/nokia/concept/concept_gaming_closed.jpg

5. Finally the keyboard slid.

http://www.mobileburn.com/media/nokia/concept/concept_phone_open.jpg

6. New Graphic engine screen capture.

http://www.mobileburn.com/media/nokia/concept/game_screen.jpg

Link (http://www.mobileburn.com/news.jsp?Page=1&Id=1356)

Kuciwalker

January 16, 2007, 12:26

Stylus phone :q:

laurentius

January 16, 2007, 12:32

Btw both of those concepts are from almost 2 years ago so they might have gone through a complete makeover. However if they were developing these almost 2 years ago, I can only imagine how cool the next Nokia phones will look like.

The N-Gage 2 is expected to be announced in 2007.

Asher

January 16, 2007, 12:33

I hate Nokia almost as much as I hate Apple.

laurentius

January 16, 2007, 12:40

Thats wonderful.

Asher

January 16, 2007, 12:48

Their phones are hideously unfunctional.

LordShiva

January 16, 2007, 13:20

Nokia pwns.

yin26

January 16, 2007, 13:25

I'm a business user who has had a Treo for the past 4 years or so. As I look at the iPhone, I have a few thoughts:

1] Price is fine.
2] Looks fantastic (form factor and screen).

However,

3] Without one hand operation, I won't be buying. Perhaps they could have the accelerator function also to scroll, click, etc.? Now that would be cool.
4] Like Asher says, a "real" keyboard is a must. Also, I really dislike touching my screen for any reason.

SO: For this business user, the iPhone "just doesn't get me."

laurentius

January 16, 2007, 13:28

Originally posted by Asher
Their phones are hideously unfunctional.

Au contraire, they are mostly highly functional and classy.

The N...the E...the V... and the 6000-9000 series

Asher

January 16, 2007, 13:32

Originally posted by laurentius
Au contraire, they are mostly highly functional and classy.
Yup, I see that.

http://www.mobilemag.com/content/images/1943_large.jpg

http://australianit.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,358612,00.jpg

http://www.mobilegazette.com/images/nokia/nokia-2004/nokia-7260.jpg

http://www.eurogamer.net/assets/articles/a52012/a_med_nokia.jpg

Functional and classy. Yup.

laurentius

January 16, 2007, 13:57

Originally posted by laurentius

The N...the E...the V... and the 6000-9000 series

Oerdin

January 16, 2007, 14:04

Nokia N-series phones are great. I wish Cingular or T-Mobile would start carrying them but since there is so little GSM competition in the US I don't see that happening any time soon. Both Cingular and T-Mobile seem to only want to sell old phones which they can give away for free.

The Nokia N80 rocks. http://reviews.cnet.com/Nokia_N80/4505-6452_7-31582495.html?tag=prod

Kuciwalker

January 16, 2007, 14:07

Wow, those phones are disgusting.

Oerdin

January 16, 2007, 14:09

I love the slider design like the N80. The camera lens stays protectively hidden away unil you slide it up and to take a picture or make a call. Sliders are definately the way to go if there is a camera on the phone other wise the lens risks getting scratched any time you put the phone down or put it in your pocket.

DRoseDARs

January 16, 2007, 18:46

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
Only stupid Americans sue them, so it's a win-win on other markets

:rolleyes:

Well, if "stupid Americans" were intelligent enough to file suit against Apple for deliberately selling a defective product, how does that make Italians look for not having sued?

...

Oh gee, well look at this: Nano lawsuit goes international (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4417344.stm)

Datajack Franit

January 16, 2007, 19:54

People complaining because their iPod's screens are scratched (while SITTING on them and not getting a 5€ plastic cover to protect them) should be sterilized

DRoseDARs

January 16, 2007, 20:23

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
People complaining because their iPod's screens are scratched (while SITTING on them and not getting a 5€ plastic cover to protect them) should be sterilized

That you're this dense about the issue is astounding. Anyway, Apple was forced to settle as well as change the way it produced it product. Whether they've learned from the experience or not remains to be seen...

Asher

January 16, 2007, 21:18

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
People complaining because their iPod's screens are scratched (while SITTING on them and not getting a 5€ plastic cover to protect them) should be sterilized
As an owner of an iPod, I can tell you this is not how they're scratched.

Taking them in and out of a case will scratch them.
Taking them in and out of a bag will scratch them.
Taking them in and out of a pocket will scratch them.

Datajack Franit

January 16, 2007, 21:26

http://www.gtwltd.com/products/PDA%20Product/3/image003.jpg

Anything being, er, rubbed around gets scratched at some point :cute:

This is my phone, I paid 400€ for it

http://web.mobiguru.ru/web/photo/nokia_6600_1.jpg

After 1 year it is scratched, of course, but I don't blame the company that designed it. I blame myself for dropping it once in a while, and for placing it in my pockets with keys, coins and other stuff like that. If you don't want any kind of screen to get scratched, put something around it. Why is it so difficult? Do you throw coins at your laptop screen?

But no, this is obviously too hard. The old lady buying hot coffee from McDonalds burns herself? Let's sue them! ******* smokes for 20 years and gets lung cancer? Oh dear, dear, I don't know but it's definitely not my fault! Are you fat? It's McDonalds again!

Asher

January 16, 2007, 21:29

Datajack Franit: I don't think you get it. We know all screens scratch, it's just that the iPod screens scratch about ten times easier.

My cell phone's external display has zero scratches on it and I take it in and out of my pocket way more than the iPod. Ditto for my iPaq (which has a touchscreen). I have dozens of scratches on my iPod.

The complaints about the screen on the iPod are more than justified -- the resilience of the material is awful.

Datajack Franit

January 16, 2007, 21:40

Asher, since you decided to keep using the iPod, it is your duty as a owner to take care of it, even if this means making it look uglier or less practical. I bought a silicon envelope for the whole thing, and a simple plastic cover to protect the screen itself. When the screen gets scratched I just throw it away and replace with a new one.

It is plausible that you are upset for the bad quality of the materials used to make iPods in the first place, but most of the things that we use come from places like China: production cost 4$, retail price 120$. Do I complain when glue comes off my brand new sneakers after an heavy rain? Probably. But starting a lawsuit? For what, moral stress?

Asher

January 16, 2007, 21:44

I bought 2 plastic covers that each lasted about 4 months before coming off. I refuse to buy a big silicone case because they double the size of it, and the reason I got it was for its size.

No, the reason the screen scratches is because of poor design on Apple's behalf. With such a design, people have to buy replacements sooner -- ditto with their really bad quality battery. This is why they're getting sued, they know there are problems with it that severely hamper the long-term life of the product and they choose not to address it so they can sell more. I've owned many MP3 players, and the iPod is the only one with scratches as a problem.

Just give up, Datajack. People don't buy music players to lock them in a vault so they remain flawless. People also shouldn't throw it around and cry when it breaks. There is a reasonable space inbetween that Apple refuses to take part in, and that is why they got in this mess and that is why they're pissing people off about it.

You lose.

Datajack Franit

January 16, 2007, 21:56

Still, you have to admit that there's a large part of those complaints that have no basis, like people complaining for scratches after sitting on them, complaining about the battery length and still using them into the middle of a snowstorm, and who knows what else. Like cutting off your own finger and stuffing it in a Subway sandwich. Or do you question the existence of stupidity?

Asher

January 16, 2007, 21:57

I'm sure some people do, but that's not the basis of the lawsuit so I'm not sure why you're on this.

Datajack Franit

January 16, 2007, 22:14

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect

Asher

January 16, 2007, 22:35

I see how that can apply to your position. :b:

Imran Siddiqui

January 16, 2007, 22:45

Why in the world should you be required to purchase a big plastic sleeve for an iPod so that it won't scratch? Sounds like a major design defect to me.

Pekka

January 16, 2007, 22:57

http://www.about-nokia.com/blog/media/pictures/20050921-n91.jpg

I got this one, no scratches, and it doesn't scratch. Then again, this metal monster shouldn't, and it is easy to keep clean like the first day you got it.

laurentius, the 'future phones' are always 2 year ahead appx. So what you get in two years, what they manufacture then has been designed now already.

-Jrabbit

February 22, 2007, 09:38

Well, one thing Apple does seem to have is a good legal team. They've reached agreement with Cisco and can now move forward with the iPhone moniker.

NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/technology/22apple.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)

Settlement Lets Apple Use ‘iPhone’

By BRAD STONE
Published: February 22, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 21 — Apple and Cisco Systems have decided that a name is not worth fighting over.

On Wednesday, the companies settled their dispute over the iPhone trademark. Six weeks ago, Cisco filed a lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco over Apple’s planned use of the name for its much anticipated multimedia device, which combines the features of a mobile phone, an iPod and a BlackBerry.

Cisco claimed that it had owned the trademark since 2000 and was using it for a line of Internet-connected phones.

Wednesday night, in a short, ambiguously worded statement, the companies said they would dismiss all legal action against each other regarding the trademark and that Apple could use the name for its device, which it plans to start selling in June.

In addition, the companies said they would explore ways to make their identically named iPhone products work together “in the areas of security and consumer and enterprise communication.”

Representatives for Apple and Cisco said other terms of the deal would remain confidential. It is not known if Apple made a cash payment to Cisco, but intellectual property lawyers say some sort of payment is typical in these cases. It is also unclear whether Cisco had sold Apple the name iPhone outright and had then secured permission to use it itself.

But the deal appears to give a partial victory to both sides. Apple can begin selling its phone with the name that its strong-willed chief executive, Steven P. Jobs, seemed to prefer.

Cisco can also continue to use the name, and with the promise of interoperability, it might have some of the hype and magic surrounding Apple’s products rub off on its own less prominent offerings.

Hostilities broke out between the two companies last month, when Mr. Jobs announced the music phone at the annual Macworld convention in San Francisco.

Cisco, the networking company based in San Jose, Calif., was using the name to sell phones that can plug into a PC or connect with a wireless hot spot and make free calls over the Internet.

The two companies negotiated intensely over the trademark in early January. Executives had planned to make announcements concurrently at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas and at Macworld, proclaiming the links between their iPhone products.

After talks broke down and Mr. Jobs announced his iPhone anyway, Cisco filed a lawsuit, saying that Apple’s use of the iPhone name constituted a “willful and malicious” violation of Cisco’s intellectual property. In response, Apple called the lawsuit “silly” and noted publicly that several companies besides Cisco were using the iPhone name.

Cisco’s lawsuit described covert Apple attempts to obtain the rights to the iPhone name. In September 2006, a corporation calling itself Ocean Telecom Services filed an application for the trademark based on earlier filings in Trinidad and Tobago. In its complaint, Cisco asserted that Apple was behind the efforts.

But while they flung legal accusations at each other, both companies faced significant pressure to settle. Apple’s iPhone will be released in June and will be available to customers of the AT&T wireless network, which was formerly known as Cingular Wireless. If Apple had failed to settle with Cisco and subsequently lost the battle in court, it could have been liable for financial penalties for each unit that it sold.

But Cisco also faced a strong incentive to reach a deal.

“Cisco had to provide access to the trademark to Apple if it wanted to achieve the highest value for the name. There was no potential second buyer who would have equaled Apple’s desire for the iPhone mark,” said Alan Fisch, an intellectual-property lawyer at Kaye Scholer in Washington.

He added that Cisco also faced the reality that consumers associated the name more with Apple.

“The iPhone name has been informally synonymous with an anticipated Apple phone for years prior to the product’s formal announcement,” he said.

DRoseDARs

February 22, 2007, 12:00

Letting Apple off the hook :q:

DRoseDARs

February 24, 2007, 00:07

lol Consumers say, "$500 for the iPhone? F**k that! :q: " LOL

http://news.yahoo.com/s/infoworld/20070223/tc_infoworld/86300

Study: Consumers not willing to pay $500 for iPhone

Nancy Gohring Fri Feb 23, 11:47 AM ET

San Francisco (IDGNS) - Consumers aren't willing to pay what Apple may ask for the iPhone, but if the price drops they'll switch their mobile service to AT&T in order to get it, according to results of a survey released Thursday.

Online market research firm Compete Inc. surveyed 379 people in the U.S., most of whom had heard of the iPhone and have shopped for an iPod, to find out how interested they are in the device to produce the uncommissioned report. The iPhone is a combined music player and cell phone that Apple plans to start selling in the U.S. in June.

Among the 26 percent of respondents who said they're likely to buy an iPhone, only 1 percent said they'd pay $500 for it. When Apple introduced the iPhone in January, it said it would cost $500 on the low end.

Forty-two percent of those who said they're likely to buy the phone said they'd pay $200 to $299.

The iPhone will be available only to subscribers of Cingular Wireless, now part of AT&T. In a blow to the operator's competitors, 60 percent of those in the survey who said they were likely to buy the phone said they'd switch their mobile operator in order to get it.

While the iPhone has been discussed as a competitor to other handsets like Research In Motion's BlackBerry, the two serve very different markets, said Andy Neff, an analyst at Bear Stearns who participated in a conference call to discuss the results of the study. "Even though there's talk about this as an alternative to RIM, it's not a corporate product," he said. Instead, the iPhone is an indication of a broad shift toward smartphones and the emergence of niches within the category, he said.

The analysts were split on what price they think the device will ultimately retail for. Operators recently haven't been discounting phones in the similar price range as the iPhone, said Phil Cusick, an analyst at Bear Stearns.

However, Apple has been known to announce a product with one price and ultimately sell it for less. Apple TV, for example, was expected to cost $399 but sells for $299, he said.

The phone may start out around $500 because <strike>early adopters</strike> morons will pay that, said Neff. But pricing will likely drop by $100 to $200 to target the mass market, he said.