Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Portables (Apple) Businesses Hardware Apple

Apple To Unveil iPod Cellphone Next Week? 325

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the i'll-believe-it-when-it-calls-me dept.
Mictian writes "Apple Computer is planning to hold a major press conference next week (September 7th) in San Francisco and the rumours say that it will be the unveiling of a new iPod cellphone (NYT). The phone would incorporate the popular iTunes software, be built by Motorola and marketed by Cingular Wireless. The companies have declined to confirm or deny the report, which would fit Apple's past pattern of being secretive to maximise the splash on announcement day."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple To Unveil iPod Cellphone Next Week?

Comments Filter:
  • Yet more rumours (Score:4, Informative)

    by frankthechicken (607647) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:01AM (#13435016) Journal
    Nice, but apparently it'll only hold 100 songs [engadget.com]. And if that is true, it is not nearly enough capacity to make me switch from carrying both an MP3 player and a mobile.
    • Not even... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Poromenos1 (830658)
      ...if it had 40 GB capacity would I buy this. Then I would be stuck forever with this cellphone (which, for all I know, could be crappy) and I wouldn't buy a new one even if this got old because I would already have a half-decent cellphone I'd have to carry around with me because it's also my mp3 player.
      • Re:Not even... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by interiot (50685)
        "I won't buy that because it has features that I like too much."

        Yeah, that makes perfect sense. No, it really does.

    • by Iriel (810009) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:22AM (#13435157) Homepage
      True, I have a 60GB iPod and there's no way I'd switch to 100 songs from several thousand, however...

      If Apple's getting anything out of this, they're hoping more people may buy this instead of a Shuffle. ::looks down at cracked screen::
      "cuz like, I need a new phone anyway"
    • ...this very well could be an "anti-rumor"; Apple's been bit hard in the past by the rumor mill raising expectations for their products to such a level that when the actual product comes out, there's palpable customer disappointment.

      It would be pretty clever if the folks at Apple are now seeding the rumor sites with unwhelming data points, so that when the actual product comes out, there's more excitement over the feature set as a result.

      Or maybe that's crazy talk; I agree, 100 songs would be teh suck.

      ~jef
    • I'd be just fine with it. I've got a 20 GB iPod, but if I'm just walking around campus and want to listen to a few tunes between classes or something, an iTunes phone would be perfect. I'd use my iPod for playing music at work and in my car on long trips.
  • by lawpoop (604919) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:02AM (#13435018) Homepage Journal
    Apple is releasing an iPod cell phone, while Nokia is releasing a tablet computer [nokia.com] with no cell phone capabilities.
    • I've heard rumours about old Nokia-branded computers, but I've never seen one myself. I have, however, seen numerous Nokia computer screens (and TV-s) around. So, Nokia producing things other than cellphones is not really a miracle.
  • Fantastic! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by adamwright (536224) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:04AM (#13435033) Homepage
    Now I can watch movie clips, read news AND listen to music using my mobile phone. However, every second voice conversation will still run to the lines of "Hello? Hello? Can you hear me? Is this better? Yes? OK...wait, I've lost you. Can you hear me? CAN YOU? I'll call you back. I'LL CALL YOU BACK".

    Fix your damned voice communications before you introduce more junk into handsets. I have a perfectly good MP3 player, but I still lack a useful phone!

    • by penguinoid (724646) <spambait001@yahoo.com> on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:10AM (#13435083) Homepage Journal
      Hey! You forgot the camara. God I love that feature!</sarcasm>
      • Re:Fantastic! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ciroknight (601098)
        Hey! You forgot the camara. God I love that feature!</sarcasm>

        I dunno if that's a camera or a camaro, but hey, I'll take my photo-taking, fast-moving, phone-calling machine any day. Now if only my phone had an electric razor..
      • by neoform (551705) <djneoform@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @09:36AM (#13435751) Homepage
        man, what's with all these people and they're broken xml.. i believe you need to open a tag prior to closing it.. otherwise the parser will just ignore your sarcasm.. i know my brain's parser did.

        *shakes head*
        • Man, what's with all these people and their broken grammar? I believe you need to use "their," not "they're," in your sentence. Otherwise ./'ers with nothing better to do will just make fun of your post. I know I did.

          :-P

          • Dotslashers?

            What is this "dotslash" that you speak of?

            (Slashdot's Razor: Never make fun of someone else's error, or you will make an error in your post too.)
    • Re:Fantastic! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MaestroSartori (146297) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:18AM (#13435131) Homepage
      Was gonna mod this, but I decided to reply...

      Motorola actually do make decent phones for talking to people on. My V3 RAZR has excellent clarity and (for me) a decent battery life. It comes with loads of other crap on it that I don't use, yes, including a camera, but it's easily the best mobile I've had (which list includes Nokias, Ericsson both pre and post Sony, and Siemens).

      Most of the time when I get a dodgy-sounding connection, it's the other person's phone or just poor signal. But that isn't the fault of the handset developers, because most people I know have older phones, and live in areas with poor signals.

      I've briefly tried current offerings from Nokia and Sony, and they also seem fairly clear when used in areas of good reception. Where they could definitely be improved, IMO, is that they're often too quiet, and that outside noise leaks in too much. Not sure how they might tackle that, but then I'm just a games programmer. Your mileage may vary, of course, but it does seem like handsets are improving in those core areas as well as the useless attachments...
      • Motorola does have some decent phones and most of the trouble I've had is with Nokia, but I had to point out one thing:

        No offense (seriously, no offense meant at all) but it's a bad example to say that the phone that gives good performance cost as much as some PDA's and iPods ($300 at first) and also had problems early on getting carriers to insure because they were too fragile (Cingular in PA, USA wouldn't give insurance on them because they broke too easily after they were first released). :p
        • Perhaps it cost that much at first, but right now you can get the V3 for free [orange.co.uk]. No, I don't work for Orange, that was just the first link on a google for "V3 RAZR".
      • Re:Fantastic! (Score:2, Informative)

        by avsed (168886)
        V3 - great phone, absolutely DIRE interface. Really, Microsoft would have done a better job on their UI (and they would have done, their phones are at least more usable). Crap predictive text (uses a last used algorithm, not most commonly used, so "IF" and "HE" get swapped round at random. Totally dire address book (won't display number when you're entering a text, so you don't know if a name refers to a landline, mobile, or work line), can only search address book based on first character (nice one motorol
      • It depends on your experience. I had a Mot i60 (with the iDEN radio feature) that spent more time in repair than I actually had it. I suspected it was a bad SIM the whole time, but nobody wanted to listen. I gave up and lived with it resetting itself randomly, and crashing when I tried to answer a call.

        The current phones could be just fine, but between the PPC mess and the i60 I don't see any reason to get a Motorola product again.
    • by j3tt (859525)
      You should go with Verizon. I remember they went around the country repeatedly checking with the other end - "Can you hear me now?"
    • There are simply not enough mod points for this post!
  • iphone.org (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hytmal (626798) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:04AM (#13435037)
    maybe FINALLY apple will be taking advantage of the fact that they have ownership of iphone.org ( http://samspade.org/t/whois?a=iphone.org&server=au to&_charset_=UTF-8&btnGo=Whois [samspade.org] )

      -- hytmal
    • Re:iphone.org (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Pieroxy (222434)
      You don't need whois to tell you that. type www.iphone.org in your browser, you'll see the Apple website coming up !
  • Branding (Score:4, Insightful)

    by StacyWebb (780561) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:07AM (#13435060) Homepage
    It's not really a matter of new technology, but rather a matter of branding. The Apple iTunes name sells. This behavior is being done by many corporations. Virgin started it along with 7-eleven. Next to appear on the scene is Disney Mobile (not making this up). Names sell, so individuals who are dedicated to Apple and it's products will most likley purchase this type of phone/service.
  • by Gadgetfreak (97865) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:09AM (#13435073)
    but I'm sure it won't fare nearly as well as the iPod itself. People get tired of their cell phones after a while. Especially when something new and flashy comes out.

    Gadgets really shouldn't require contracts.
    • Gadgets really shouldn't require contracts.

      Part of the problem is that the price of the gadget, the phone, is subsidized by the service contract. So the price looks good but only because you have to buy the service. If you don't want the contract or the benefit of that subsidy, you have to buy an unlocked phone, which can be a lot more expensive. The problem there is I don't know if the unlocked device will work with the no-contract services.

      But then, phone services don't require that you use the same ph
    • "but I'm sure it won't fare nearly as well as the iPod itself"

      I don't think it's supposed to. Besides, how could it, or anything else for that matter, actually "fare better" than the iPod has? No, I don't think 85% of the cell phone market would be the goal. The cell phone market today is vastly different than the portable music player market was when the iPod was introduced.
    • Then go shop on Ebay. You can get a pretty good provider-unlocked GSM phone for under $100 if you want to get a phone for contract-prices without getting a contract. I picked up an unlocked Motorola T725 worldphone for something like $60US. Not much on nifty features, but it's tri-band and gets great reception everywhere. I saw some old blackberries with Buy It Now prices of under $100.
  • The 2G iPod Shuffle (Score:5, Interesting)

    by amichalo (132545) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:09AM (#13435075)
    Looks like this ROKR phone is kinda the 2nd Generation iPod Shuffle.
    - It is a small unit with minila but reasonable capacity via Flash
    - Smaller than a pack of gum, more like a piece of gum stuck to your cell phone
    - Now Suffle detractors get their screen and basically a free ride on the battery life of a much larger capacity battery too
    - Still priced at a minimal premium

    I have also read that the software people have seen is a music player only, not iTMS integration for buying tracks, so this will sync with
    - iTunes
    - Address Book
    - Calendar events?
    - To Dos?
  • sounds good (Score:3, Funny)

    by flynt (248848) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:10AM (#13435079)
    Wireless.
    More space than a nomad.
    Sweet.
  • Secretive (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jurt1235 (834677)
    Quote: The companies have declined to confirm or deny the report, which would fit Apple's past pattern of being secretive to maximise the splash on announcement day.

    Should read:

    The companies have declined to confirm or deny the report, which would fit Apple's past pattern of being secretive to maximise the splash on announcement day, and sue everybody who brings out the real news for being correct and taking away the spotlight of apple.
  • 100 songs? No way! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jtangen (861406) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:13AM (#13435098)
    The advertisement for the event reads: "1,000 songs in your pocket changed everything... Here we go again". Do you really think that Apple would release a phone that holds 100 songs? My bet is a video iPod and iTunes 5 that will provide music video and movie content through the iTunes Music Store.
    • Nah, the phone will incorporate something called "iradio" which will let you link the phone's playlist to your home PC's music collection.

      Anything you have at home, you can stream to the phone. And if you don't have it, you can use iTunes to buy it and then stream to the phone.

      Is it just me or does this sound a bit like glorified "music on hold" and a great way to make sure I have no battery left for making actual calls. There must be a service fee involved.

      I'd rather save my battery for calling the boss
  • au revoir Verizon (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CoughDropAddict (40792) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:14AM (#13435100) Homepage
    I'm so glad I ignored all of Verizon's "special offers," tempting me to renew my contract that will expire in a month.

    If Apple/Motorola do release an iPod phone, and it's good, I'll ditch Verizon in a heartbeat. And I'll send them a letter telling them how much I resent their effort to control what kind of tecnology they'll allow on their network. They want to gouge me for songs the way they gouge you for ringtones. Screw that!
    • Perhaps I'm just too apathetic, but do you really think writing a letter is going to do you any good? These big companies don't care about our correspondence. Chances are, it'll be read (if you're lucky) by a customer service rep in a cubicle, then tossed aside before anybody of any value sees it.

      And for the record, I think we'll see the ipod/phone from Apple soon enough, but I really don't think that's what we're going to see on Sept. 7th. My vote goes to the video iPod and iTunes 5.
  • by lbmouse (473316) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:14AM (#13435105) Homepage
    Just need to add a PDA, WiFi, 80GB removable HD, 6MP camera w/video, DVR, GPS, and a tissue dispenser... then, "hook it to my veins!"
  • by jbrelie (322599) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:15AM (#13435114)
    iTones.
  • by Wonderkid (541329) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:20AM (#13435143) Homepage
    1. There is all this speculation over a) A video iPod, yet sales of portable video devices have not taken off, unlike MP3 players before the iPod was first launched. b) An iTunes equipped phone. 2. Here are some things to think about: a) The cell phone / mobile phone networks are in a mess and not global, while WiFi is a global standard. b) The future lies in VoIP. c) The iPod OS contains an address book and a huge hard drive. Therefore, 3. An iPod with built in WiFi would be a global carrier free product and liberate people from the need to use a Mac or PC to purchase/download/sync their tunes and other data, they would simply login to the nearest WiFi network. Syncing with any Mac or PC would be wireless too which would be sweet. 4. Consider that a music playing PHONE is not original, the excellent Sony Ericsson K750i and K800 phones already do this well - and include well reviewed 2MP cameras too. (See http://www.fonebox.com/matrix [fonebox.com] ) 5. I vote for a wireless iPod as being what Apple SHOULD do, perhaps with a 2MP digicam on the back too.
    • by EchoMirage (29419) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @11:49AM (#13437211)
      Wonderkid wrote:
      a) A video iPod, yet sales of portable video devices have not taken off, unlike MP3 players before the iPod was first launched.

      There were [meaningful] MP3 player sales before the iPod? Really? Where? Who had them?

      The cell phone / mobile phone networks are in a mess and not global, while WiFi is a global standard.

      Say it with me: regulations, regulations, regulations. Cell phone networks are a mess and non-global because most countries strictly control which radio frequencies are available to telecom carriers for mobile communications, and many countries license incompatible frequencies. Take something as simple as GSM, for instance. In the United States, GSM is licensed in the 850MHz and 1900MHz bands, while in most of Europe, it's licensed in the 900MHz and 1800MHz bands. Mobile carriers have no control over this: it's the government regulators' decisions. Geographic problems affect network technology also. The U.S. has GSM and CDMA as its major digital technologies; parts of Asia are strongly CDMA, while Europe, Africa, and the Middle East are GSM.

      It also isn't true to say that "WiFi is a global standard." Even with WiFi, some areas of the world (think Japan) regulate some of the bands that WiFi occupies differently than other countries. What is true of WiFi is that there isn't a [strong] competing wireless network technology alongside it, e.g. there isn't the CDMA/GSM division in WiFi. That is, until WiMax takes off.

      The future lies in VoIP.

      Maybe, but that's a more distant future than the next 3-5 years. Decent VoIP transmission requires significant bandwidth; this rules out the cellular network de facto for the next few years. VoIP over WiFi requires something that WiFi lacks: meaningful QoS. Know why you don't see business switching to wireless VoIP by the truckload? QoS. Even without the QoS problem, there are plenty of other still-present deficiencies in WiFi that make it currently unsuitable for VoIP. Security is one of them; we just this year finally got a good, workable, robust wireless security paradigm in the form of 802.11i. So far, I've seen zero wireless VoIP handsets that support WPA2. Most companies won't trust their voice communications to WEP, and rightly so. Conservative estimates give 3 years before 802.11i and its affiliated technologies really bunker down and start to take root.

      Syncing with any Mac or PC would be wireless too which would be sweet.

      Everybody keeps complaining to Apple about not having any wireless options in the iPod. Well, there's a good reason they don't: speed. It takes 10-15 minutes to fill my 4G iPod mini over FireWire; that's with FireWire's 400Mbps non-peak-throughput speeds. Bluetooth 1.x crawls along at about 1Mbps in really good conditions. The best WiFi we have is the 125Mbps "Super G", although actual throughput is only 30-45Mbps at best. Now, let's say that instead of a 4G iPod mini, I have a 60G iPod with color display. How long is it going to take me to fill up my 60G iPod over my 125Mbps WiFi connection? Long enough for me to decide it's not worth it.

      Consider that a music playing PHONE is not original

      It's not done really well by anybody yet, in the same way that MP3 wasn't done well by anybody before the iPod (and with the exception of the iPod, still isn't). Sure, many people can "figure out" the current MP3 phones after significant hassle, in the same way many people could "figure out" the early Rios and Nomads, but like the MP3 player market, sales have shown that when it comes to portable entertainment, the public does not want to be hassled. If you disagree, Apple has a US$4B yearly iPod business for you to argue with.

      perhaps with a 2MP digicam on the back too.

      Apple [fortunately] only does technology that it knows it can do really well. Cameras consist of a lot more than a plastic lens and an OEMed CCD. Apple is very unlikely to get [back] into cameras; there's more in cameras than they know about, and anyway, just about everybody already has a decent (e.g. >2MP) digital camera, plus three or four others in their cell phones, PDAs, shoes, etc. The iPod really doesn't need a camera.
  • by trosenbl (191401)
    "The companies have declined to confirm or deny the report, which would fit Apple's past pattern of being secretive to maximise the splash on announcement day."


    They won't say anything -> it must be true?

    I hope you're not a stock broker.
  • This has anything to do with them looking into buying 40% of Samsung's inventory in Flash memory http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/25/ 1820250&tid=198&tid=3 [slashdot.org] ?
    • So now Motorola is doing the design and manufacturing, but Apple is doing the procurement? This rumor is going places!

      "Never attribute to reality, what otherwise can be explained by Apple fandom."
      -Oscar Wilde's Razr
  • Revolutionary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mwvdlee (775178) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:25AM (#13435179) Homepage
    I heard the new Apple product would be "revolutionary" and completely new, changing live as we know it and such... a mobile phone/iPod comination will NOT be that.
  • by Zemplar (764598) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:26AM (#13435185) Journal
    Imagine some idiot having ~500 minutes worth of ringtones!
  • Will iSync work with it?

    Seriously I figure in 10-20 more years the desktops and laptops will be replaced with cellphones. Like Desktops and Laptops replaces the old mainframes.
    • Like Desktops and Laptops replaces the old mainframes.

      Don't tell IBM they've been replaced. How else could they explain the >$5 billion in annual revenue attributable to mainframes (while they sold off their PC business).

      It's now over 40 years for the S/360 architecture, and going strong. Think iPods will be around in 40 years? Think Apple will?

  • Seems to me this is a red herring, designed to distract people from a much larger announcement, like say a video iPod or somesuch. iTunes on a phone? Whoopdee-fracking-doo.
  • by zaguar (881743)
    Obligatory Link

    http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/ [misterbg.org]

  • I credit slashdotters for predicting this way back when the iPOD was still the new kid on the block. I remember one slashdotter who specifically said this was expected. This [news] proves him right.
  • by gcondon (45047) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:38AM (#13435272)
    Apple will also be announcing a flying car, the cure for cancer and Duke Nukem Forever.

    Unfortunately, there is no evidence of this but that fits with "Apple's past pattern of being secretive to maximise the splash on announcement day."
    • I for one would buy an Apple branded flying car. But it'd better be available in any color I want as long as its white with silver highlights.

      Oh and it'd better have DRM that just works to prevent you from using anyone's map or parking space that didn't come from the Apple Flying Car Store (unless you happen to crack it with jVolantor first.)

      And what about that cure for cancer? It'll only be a niche product since 90% + of the people don't have cancer anyway!

      And DNF........keep on dreaming. The Second Coming
  • Consider... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Captain Perspicuous (899892) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:46AM (#13435336)
    Consider...
    • the invitation said "1000 songs, here we go again", so it will probably have 4GB of memory
    • Adding a 4GB harddisk will make the phone look fat (Nokia N91: 160 grams [infosyncworld.com])
    • Apple is rumored to buy up large quantities of RAM [slashdot.org]
    ...I think it's clear what we will see: a mobile phone with 4GB of integrated memory... drool! :-)
  • by rocjoe71 (545053) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:55AM (#13435397) Homepage
    Will their new cellphone only have one button, just like their mice? Just kidding...
  • by GauteL (29207)
    "The companies have declined to confirm or deny the report, which would fit Apple's past pattern of being secretive to maximise the splash on announcement day."

    It also fits with there being nothing in the rumour. I'm not saying it is is definitely false, but people should remember that there have always been massive amounts of rumours concerning new Apple products, and most of these end up being false.

    The only way of remaining secretive is to refuse to comment on any rumours, whether they are true or not.
  • by el_womble (779715) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @09:04AM (#13435481) Homepage
    The iPod works because it is a music player. It is not a music recorder. It is not a fancy music organiser. It is a music player. If you want to do anything 'clever' you plug it into a Mac and control it through a GUI that elegantly handles the complexity outside of the beautifully simple player. The iPod is also a portable harddisk. If you want to use it as such, you just plug it into a Mac, and it works as a slow, but effective harddisk.

    The Apple phone should be ALOT like this.

    It should be a phone. It shouldn't be a web browswer, PSP, or run my house. It should also be a data point. I should be able to do nothing more than pair my mac with my iPhone and it should just work from that point on as a data point (in the absense of anything faster / cheaper).

    I'm in two minds weather you should be able to input any real data at all. I have never really used the PIM functions of my phone other than to read them. If I want to change/add/delete an entry I usually fire up the closest Mac, do it on that, then resync. The only thing I can really see me doing is adding a new phone number, and dialing and, at a push, SMS (but thats soooo 90s technology).

    In that respect I could see the iPhone being almost a clone of the iPod Mini, just with a menu system aimed more at PIM data, and a jog wheel that doubles as an old style phone dialler - (no touch buttons would really make it stand out).

    Apple have played and won in the music player market, because they understand that people that own MP3 players own computers too. Now that line isn't as clean in the phone market, but its not that far off - and for those of use that do own both, a phone that is designed around this paradigm is what is really missing from the market (not a phone that can access my iTMS account).

    Of course this phone won't be anything like that, so it will fail. It will be another Motorola monstrosity that does everything in its power in make Cingular more money at the expense of usability, battery life and my patience. As such it will be another fish in the sea, albeit a fish with Apple branding.

  • we shall see... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sootman (158191) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @09:23AM (#13435640) Homepage Journal
    As I said on Macslash [macslash.com],

    From TFA: Apple Computer is preparing a major announcement next week, dropping hints of something as critical to the company's future as the release of the original iPod in 2001.

    Which is hysterical. Apple hyped the hell out of that announcement, and afterwards, everyone was just saying "An MP3 player? That's it? There's tons already" at best and "No wireless, smaller than a Nomad. Lame" [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] at worst. No one realized that one key feature--a great UI--would set it apart and allow Apple to dominate the industry. Who would have thought at the time that it would re-define Apple as much as the iMac did 3 years earlier?

    So, this new announcement is only half of the story. The other half is the effect it will have on (((whatever))) over the next few years.
  • Pictures and specs (Score:4, Informative)

    by visionsofmcskill (556169) <vision@nOspaM.getmp.com> on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @09:29AM (#13435687) Homepage Journal
    Engadget has pics and specs (128mb) from last month, this is a pre-production model they somehow got a hold of, im guessing the real deal will be nicer looking, and probably have a good deal more ram.

    Maybe apple insisted on a click wheel with numbers in it (like touch button rotary... :) )

    http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000887049175/ [engadget.com] mod up and share, cheers

  • As a longtime Apple watcher, and more significantly a longtime Apple press watcher, I think that this is a red herring. Apple seems to be pretty good at having someone leak believable disinformation to the press to get the media herd pointed in the wrong direction. That way, the herd is surprised when the new Apple product is not the long-rumored cellphone or PDA, and they bleat even more loudly when it is something else. Thus the herd will talk about it even more and be more likely to praise Apple and the
  • Slashdot user Mictian did not deny the rumours that he is really a energy being fromt he planet ZuTon 4, which means that he obviously is.
  • Call me when hackers have got it to boot into Linux [uclinux.org], with the PalmOS GUI [bargainpda.com]. Then it'll run the SW I want, over the 3G network, with an interface useable on a tiny device. When Verizon and Sprint try to charge me for downloading songs that they have nothing to do with, I'll just stream over a secure tunnel I make to my home computer over my cablemodem. If Apple can't deliver, I'll wait for Palm to hook me up [vnunet.com].
  • start your engines...
  • by Jethro (14165)
    Great, cause motorola phones aren't slow enough now when all they're trying to do is DIAL.

  • First off the announcement hinted at the revolutionary nature of the new product by envoking the invites to remember when Apple first put *1000* songs in their pocket. An iTunes based phone is not revolutionary like that, especially when it is limited to between 100-250 songs. Furthermore, the iTunes based phone has been delayed at least three times now. Would Apple book the event and take a chance that Motorola or Cingular delayed it yet again right before the event? Nope.

    Likewise, the Samsung agreemen

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig. -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"

Working...