Apple's Strategy Behind iTunes Mobile Phone 215
vishnu writes "CoolTechZone.com is running a story that analyzes Apple's strategy with ROKR. According to the author, the phone disappoints, but is this Apple's way of testing a potential market. Quote: "There was nothing wrong with the creative cells of the designers at Apple; ROKR is simply Jobs taking a calculated risk. He doesn't want a cell phone that doubles as an MP3 player to become too popular as that would cut straight into Apple's bread and butter product, the iPod. On the other hand, Jobs knows for a fact that in the future cell phones will play a huge role in portable digital music; therefore, he is hedging his bets. He wants to give people a taste of what is to come but at the same time, he wants to project phones as an extension but not a replacement of a portable music player. He's consequently hoping to discomfort Apple's competition with a cell phone that has nothing but iTunes going for it."
Mirror (Score:3, Informative)
Written by Varun Dubey
Manufacturer: Apple
Tuesday, 13 September 2005
At a recently guarded press event, Apple launched its latest gadget and a product that has perhaps been long overdue: the Motorola ROKR cell phone. So why is Apple launching a Motto? It's simply because the phone has a mobile version of iTunes and can therefore play music. According to Steve Jobs, "it's more like a phone and a Shuffle rolled into one..."
In terms of sheer expectations, I would have to say that the ROKR fell way beyond mine, and if events keep churning the way they are, ROKR will fall short of achieving even basic industry standards. The phone can store just about 100 odd tracks while the N series phones from Nokia will store roughly a thousand. Similarly, the Sony Walkman W800i also stores just as many songs, plus you can upgrade the memory to 2GB quite easily with a memory stick. There really is no other great feature about this phone apart from the dedicated iTunes button and the fact that it automatically pauses the track when a call comes in, which isn't particularly path breaking if you ask me.
What is the Rokr about? Why would Apple waste its time, resources and brand value on something as particularly staid as this phone which, to top it all, is locked with Cingular as the carrier. I mean seriously, the product is simply not as exuberant as Apple products are supposed to be. So what happened? Why did Apple come out with a below standard product that fails in all expectations?
The answer to that question is strategy. There was nothing wrong with the creative cells of the designers at Apple; ROKR is simply Jobs taking a calculated risk. He doesn't want a cell phone that doubles as an MP3 player to become too popular as that would cut straight into Apple's bread and butter product, the iPod. On the other hand, Jobs knows for a fact that in the future cell phones will play a huge role in portable digital music; therefore, he is hedging his bets. He wants to give people a taste of what is to come but at the same time, he wants to project phones as an extension but not a replacement of a portable music player. He's consequently hoping to discomfort Apple's competition with a cell phone that has nothing but iTunes going for it.
Why would Jobs go to such great lengths at fumbling his rivals' plans to come out with an enthusiastic product of their own? That's because anything that affects the iPod sales hits Apple where it hurts the most (the cumulative sale of all iPods is estimated to be $4.8 billion).
Of course, the music industry and the music playing cell phone will take off no matter what Jobs tries, but the possibilities for Apple are quite a few. If ROKR really takes off with the iTunes mobile edition, Apple can have some serious bargaining rights in terms of digital rights and content provision for other users, which shouldn't be too difficult especially since iTunes online store has quite a few songs including the entire song by song albums of Madonna, the only online collection of such kind in the world. ROKR's success will also help Apple push FairPlay (digital rights management software) to other phone manufacturers, which would be interesting to watch as well.
The possibility that I like better, however, is that Apple could come out with its own "iPhone" (what else could they possible name it?) and beat Motorola and Nokia at their own game. Their partnership with Motorola for the ROKR could be for the simple reason that they want to understand what they are getting into before actually getting into it full time. As a personal request, if iPhone does happen, I wish they somehow include the click wheel on it so I can easily scroll through the address book.
If you get right down to it, Apple need not even manufacture the phone itself, there are always third party manufacturers like BenQ that will take care of the manufacturing while Apple can go on with thinking up cleverer ideas to leave us catching our breaths every time a produ
Re:MOT outsmarts Apple? (Score:2)
One possibility which hasn't seemed to have occurred to most folks is that this is actually a Motorola idea, not an Apple one.
It looks to me like a typical MOTO cell phone, except with iTunes bolted to the software.
Here's how I figure it went:
Motorola exects said, "we want a phone that plays music, but we have no clue where to start. Apple is making a ton of money in the digital music world... let's see if they will go in
apple in cell market (Score:5, Interesting)
If they just licensed software that could greatly cut into their profit margins and their control over the style which is one of the things that makes them so popular.
Re:apple in cell market (Score:3, Insightful)
If they just licensed software that could greatly cut into their profit margins and their control over the style which is one of the things that makes them so popular.
I'll say it again, the future is in some sort of hybrid between a PDA, GSM/GPRS telephone and an iPod like media player. These gizmos will probably come in several sizes like the Blackberry phones do to cater to the minnmalists as well as those wh
Re:apple in cell market (Score:2)
Have a look at "Until the End of the World" by Wim Wenders, which forecast all of this. Although he assumed that people would want videophones, which I doubt.
Re:apple in cell market (Score:2, Interesting)
Gizmodo mentioned taping a Nano to your RAZR and having phone still smaller than the ROKR. That gave me this idea. Imagine a nice color screen and click wheel on the outside of the flip and then 4GB of memory on the inside of the keypad. Thicker, but I would buy in a heartbeat.
Moto needs to work on their OS though.
Re:apple in cell market (Score:2)
Convergence devices (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I specifically do NOT want a device that does more than one thing. In my history of owning devices that do multiple things, it is always the case that they do each poorly. It is less than the sum of the parts.
Also, sometimes I want to invest more money into one device (say, MP3 player), but don't care as much about another device (I actually don't use my mobile phone much at all, so I don't care). I want separate devices so I can upgrade independently and invest where I want more out of one device.
So maybe the market is moving away from someone like me, and perhaps everyone actually wants one device that does everything, but I don't. To me it's no surprise that the reaction to the ROKR has been poor, because it's a poor phone coupled with a poor MP3 player (100 song limit?). How is that supposed to result in a great device?
Re:Convergence devices (Score:2)
Re:Convergence devices (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I can replace my car radio and upgrade it independently from my car. It's a great example of how it's a device that does one thing, and it can be upgraded at my leisure.
Re:Convergence devices (Score:2, Funny)
MULTI-FUNCTION ALERT! MULTI-FUNCTION ALERT!
ABANDON CAR RADIO!!!
portability is a different restriction (Score:2)
Darth, I think the gp post could be referring to how a car is a multi-function device. Like it drives, and can play music, and to some extent you can sleep in it (hopefully not while driving and playing music). You can even get specialized cars like vans and trucks that still play music, drive, but can carry stuff or enable you to sleep more comfortably.
But it's not really a good analogy to your original criticism of multi-function devices. I think the epitome of your criticism is the All-in-one printer/s
Re:Convergence devices (Score:5, Insightful)
Also along the line of convergence most new subcompact digital camera's do a decent job of capturing 30 fps video (MJPEG / MPEG etc). Yes they dont compare with a video camera but the convenience alone is worth it. Give it another generation or two and I dont see most people (casual video makers) caring enough to buy two separate devices, this will eventually happen with cell phones as well.
Re:Convergence devices (Score:2)
Re:Convergence devices (Score:5, Funny)
Agreed. I have a typewriter for creating documents (OpenOffice), a console for playing video games (computer games), a telephone for talking to people (Skype), a video player (porn). This fandangled thing called a "computer" just does too many things, all of them poorly. Give me seperate devices any day.
Re:Convergence devices (Score:3, Insightful)
It is kind of like Mozilla Suite vs. Mozilla Firefox. Some people like the entire suite because they want to use the addre
Re:Convergence devices (Score:2)
2. Video iPod's are useless. We've had small, portable TV's for decades now, and nobody uses them. Why would small, portable VCR's with a screen be any better?
3. Sure, a convergence device isn't as useful as a dedicated device.
But a dedicated device that I don't carry with me due to weight/size issues is even less useful. The pictures I don't take are the worst ones of all. Give me a phone/iPod/PDA with a decent camera (2+
Re:Convergence devices (Score:2)
Convergence and specialization both have their uses and must be balanced against each other. Most likely this is a non-issue, anyway: chances are that there
Re:Convergence devices (Score:2)
I am glad that my Palm has a music player, but I only used it as a last resort.
It's nice that the Palm I have has SD card slots, but I couldn't just put it in my pocket as the touch surface had several points that act as control buttons. I could put it to "hold", but that's a control that is hidden in th
Re:Convergence devices (Score:2)
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I specifically do NOT want a device that does more than one thing.
Yes, you are. Most people do not want to carry a cell phone, an mp3 player, and a digital camera around with them all day.
Not everyone wears cargo pants 24/7. Try getting your GF to carry that all around in her 15" by 5" handbag.
Re:Convergence devices (Score:2, Interesting)
Pardon, sir. What is a GF?
Re:Convergence devices (Score:2)
Then all you have to do is not carry those things. Who says we need to carry all this stuff with us all the time anyways? Before the camera-cell phone thing, did people really carry around a digital camera all the time?
Re:Convergence devices (Score:2)
Of course it is always the main complain that of quality of the devices but I am sure if you asked the question:
"Would you prefer to wear 4 devices of quality A+ or 1 device that does what the other 4 with quality A+?"
Everyone would prefer the second option! the caveat is that there is currently no such device, or they co
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Convergence devices (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like the Unix philosophy. Each program does one thing and does it well. And it communicates well with other programs.
The UNIX philosophy for mobile devices (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the problem is that hardware designers are approaching the problem from the wrong angle. Instead of thinking in terms of "PDA", "phone", "music player", etc. they should think more abstractly, in terms of "I/O", "communications", "storage" etc.
I've got a PDA, cellphone, and iPod. Each of them has a screen and CPU. Why is that? It's completely wasteful! I don't want a PDA with its own processor and memory and whatnot; I just want a screen that I can write on, like an electronic notepad. I don't want a phone; I just want a tranceiver. I don't want an iPod; I just want a storage device.
Wouldn't it be much better for the (pda-like) screen device to be an interface for the "phone" and "iPod"? Wouldn't it be nice for the cellular tranceiver to be only the size of a USB key and get awesome battery life, because it wouldn't need that bulky and power-hungery screen and keyboard? Wouldn't it be nice to have that 20GB of space available to the general-purpose computer instead of just for music?
Re:The UNIX philosophy for mobile devices (Score:4, Interesting)
- a display
- an input device (at least voice, probably written too assuming voice recognition doesn't do away with it)
- some processing power
- some storage
- networking (gsm, wifi, etc)
The only (technical) reasons to bundle more than one of these in the same package is to reduce overall form factor or to provide a wired pathway for bandwidth/security reasons.
We've got bluetooth headsets, we're able to plug usb stick/flash storage into things. What would it take to have a wirelessly-accessible hard drive in your backpack/jacket pocket?
And of course, the real payoff here is that you have your portable versions of all of these things, but you should be able to walk up to and use and "public" devices (e.g. large screen, full size keyboard) and have them automagically work with your programs, your data, your network, etc.
Kind of like the PC architecture have standard components and busses (ISA/PCI/etc). Manafacturers can manafacture to the interconnection spec, reducing the O(n^2) interoperability problem to O(n).
So...what would it take? A "bodybus" specification? PCI-over-wifi?
Re:The UNIX philosophy for mobile devices (Score:3, Interesting)
I would abstract that a little more and say that you need some combination of audio, visual, and haptic (touch-based) I/O. For example, maybe you don't need a display, but only a speaker, or maybe even something that would vibrate/poke you/heat up/whatever. Or maybe you want visual input (i.e. a camera) for augmen
Re:The UNIX philosophy for mobile devices (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, one day I might need to take notes, so I take the 4x6" tablet interface. The next day I don't, so I leave that at home and use my wristwatch-like display instead. The day after that I have a meeting at a R&D lab which won
Re:The UNIX philosophy for mobile devices (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, perhaps "might" was a poor choice of words. How about this: I could take the 4x6" display on days when I would use it, and leave it at home on days when I would not. In my case, that would mean taking it to school, but not t
Re:The UNIX philosophy for mobile devices (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not "all with the same pocket-sized device;" it's quite the opposite! It's all with separate pocket-sized modules that a
Re:Convergence devices (Score:2)
$ ls
2479
That's fine for software, but hardware? I'm going to need bigger pockets...
Re:Convergence devices (Score:2, Insightful)
You seem to be assuming that convergence of differing devices will always result in a poor quality, flawed product, full of compromises.
Whilst I agree that this is the case for early generation converged devices, I do not accept that this situation will persist, especially with the level of R&D that Sony Ericcson, Nokia and Motorola are putting into this area.
Just look at where Nokia have come in the two short
Re:Convergence devices (Score:5, Insightful)
Duh. Seriously, duh. The reason the extra stuff in the cell phone is interesting is that not everybody has all their fancy doodads at every given moment. A cell phone typically goes with people EVERYWHERE, but it's difficult to imagine anybody walking around with a cell phone, Game Boy, iPod, digital camera, PDA, and GPS.
You're sitting here saying "It does everything poorly" and I'm sitting here thinking "It does it less poorly than nothing at all." I've got some pictures of my nephew acting silly when we went out to dinner. I have a nice digital camera, but I wouldn't have gotten those photos if my phone didn't have a camera. Why? Because I'm not lugging that thing around everywhere I go. Okay, they're 640 by 480 and a little blurry, they're still amusing photos.
Of-freaking-course they're not going to be as good as a much more expensive dedicated device. It's like saying "I don't want a Game Boy because it's nowhere near a PS2."
Re:Convergence devices (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong market (Score:3, Insightful)
Cell phone companies are using MP3 phones as the next feature to get people to upgrade. In Asia people love gadget phones. North America is really a back water, and even in the stone age, when it comes to mobile phones -
Re:Convergence devices (Score:2, Interesting)
One of the greatest things I've found when looking at mobile phones is bluetooth. I was actually at Cingular the other day looking at the iPod phone and, while it doesn't let me do much of anything with anything, it seemed like a decent idea. So, now the original post got me thinking about what could be done with seperate devices to help transition into the mobile market - maybe in addition to the iPod phone.
Why don't they have a bluetooth enabled iPod? This way it could pair with your mobile phone and do
Re:Convergence devices (Score:2)
"
Yes, because it makes a lot of sense to carry a phone, an mp3 player, a portable video game device, and a PDA around, rather than having one general purpose device that does all four.
Call Option (Score:5, Interesting)
If the phone is a success, Apple has a few options. First, they can build their own phone and build it with their award winning industry design sense. Second, they could work with Cingular or another wireless service provider to become a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO), similar to what Virgin Mobile (in the U.S.) and Boost Mobile do, and where Disney and ESPN are starting. Combining their ITMS with an MVNO presence would help them differentiate.
Motorola gets something out of it, too. The RAZR was an obvious choice to do this with, but I suspect the costs of that phone are pretty high, and Motorola does not want to make them higher. However, by putting this function on the uglier ROKR, the RAZR stands out better. The ROKR gets them in the store, but they walk out with a RAZR.
With the ROKR, what Motorola and Apple have done is changed the argument for convergence. Before the ROKR, a consumer might buy an MP3-enabled phone or a regular phone. The former had the potential to hurt iPod and ITMS sales, but the latter does not. If the consumer chose the music phone, Apple's role would be limited because the phone wouldn't be able to play ITMS purchases, and Motorola would be forced to compete with Nokia, Sony Ericsson, etc. So Apple and Motorola benefit from pushing the consumer towards a regular phone and away from convergence.
However, with the ROKR, the consumer will choose between the ROKR and the other music phones, if that's what they care about. And they may swing towards the ROKR because of Apple's >80% market share for online music (chances are they have bought a song from ITMS). But if they're concerned more with esthetics, standing in the store, they may look six inches over and eschew the ROKR in favor of the RAZR, and then go buy the iPod nano, which in terms of size are together smaller than most other phones.
So the ROKR actually weakens the position of other phone makers (who are pitching music phones) and pushes customers towards the RAZR and iPod nano.
Re:Call Option (Score:5, Interesting)
> makers (who are pitching music phones) and pushes customers
> towards the RAZR and iPod nano.
I just thought of another way the ROKR hurts the other mobile phone makers building music phones. Now they'll have to find a way to further differentiate from the ROKR since the iTunes integration provides a big advantage. They'll have three options:
1. Make their phones better looking-- which increases their costs, and right now the RAZR wins this battle
2. Reduce their price-- and either hurt their margins, or find a way to cut production costs
3. Increase their capacity above the 100 song limitation, which will increase the costs and thus the price) -- but this still doesn't mitigate the fact that the phone won't play songs from ITMS
So Motorola gets another advantage; they have forced the other phone makers to market around the ROKR yard stick.
Re:Call Option (Score:2)
Look at your points:
1. It looks good.
2. I could not find a local price for the E398 (the Rokr is basically an E398 with a plus button and updated firmware) and it is not sold here, but I guess the 6230 must be cheaper.
3. The 100 song limit is not present on the Nokia (or on any other mp3-playing phone except for the Rokr)
And now the other extras of my Nokia:
-
Two devices, one for music, one for phone service (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a lot of people who say they only want a phone that only does phone stuff. But those phones are losing ground to cell phones that are as powerful as the first Apollo onboard computers. You simply won't be able to buy a cell phone that doesn't come with some level of multimedia support. The top of the line phones will feature full-blown MP3 players (duly locked down with DRM) whether or not Apple wants to jump into the fray. The bottom of the line phones will not be as feature rich, but they will have cameras and good screens, not to mention moderately performing audio.
So you can carry one device that plays your music well, acts as a cellular phone, and can be your email address away from the computer. Or you can have two devices clipped to your belt.
Minimalism in form with maximalism in functionality is the new black. Sleek and cool. Not clunky and lame.
Re:Two devices, one for music, one for phone servi (Score:4, Interesting)
> when one will do, his calculated risk is not calculating enough.
This is conventional wisdom today (particularly in the tech industry), but I don't think it's necessarily true.
The problem is that a converged device assumes that the technology advances slow down enough that you can release the converged product on a cycle that corresponds to the lowest common denominator of the two technologies. Imagine an example where the - means development and + means product release. And we have two products A and B.Even if it requires no R&D to integrate the two, you can see that the converged device AB has a few options:The product releases slow down until the two technologies can be released together. Or you can do more rapid product releases, but the technology will in the converged technology will lag that of the stand-alone device for certain product releases.
If the two technologies are pretty mature, then that may not be a problem, but with rapid advances, the converged device just doesn't make sense.
We've seen similar things today. Many people have been eschewing general purpose PDAs in favor of more specialized devices, such as Blackberrys or iPods, because of the technological advances and the fact that a special purpose device will have a better user interface than a multiple purpose device.
As for carrying two devices on one's belt, when you get into the iPod nano and the RAZR phone, the devices are so small that many people won't care anyway.
Re:Two devices, one for music, one for phone servi (Score:3, Insightful)
I appreciate your argument, but I just don't see that as the way things are going. Phones are becoming the central device in personal accessories. They contain the key technology that has driven almost all new tech in the last 5 years: communication. Now, you are able to talk to your friends anywhere you go, send them an email from wherever you are, or take a picture and let them see what you are seeing (albeit in VGA a
How logical! (Score:4, Insightful)
While i do agree with Apple's statement that a too good iTunes Phone would cut into their iPod profits, why even bother at all? The cell market is very hard to get into, and the way Apple is going it could churn out small incremental updates for a long time. It's best to bet on a videoPod than on yet more convergence of devices.
Ah well, i better find my roll of doublesided tape, i got work to do.
Re:How logical! (Score:4, Interesting)
I love it. Apple involves themselves with a total clunker and people are trying to spin this as genius.
People, even Apple screws up on occasion. They better come out with a good phone within 6 months, or this is an unmitigated failure.
I work in the Mobile Industry (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a Motorola product. (Score:3, Insightful)
You can be pretty sure that sitting on a designers desk somewhere at Apple is a pretty little white iPhone which will be on the market within a year or so. They are just being cautious and testing the market.
Re:It's a Motorola product. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right in that Apple is "testing the waters" but I think it's for a different reason. Basically, Apple is testing out including iTunes in non-Apple devices and seeing how much money they might make.
Consider Apple's history--when have they ever jumped into a "mature" market? I can't think of one. Apple sold Laser printers [wikipedia.org] early, Apple sold PDAs [wikipedia.org] early, Apple sold digital cameras [wikipedia.org] early, and Apple sold MP3 players [apple.com] early.
So why would Apple jump into the phone market? First, there's lot
Doesn't seem like much of a strategy (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never been a huge fan of Apple but I have to admit that the iPod has been a great success for them. Sad to see them repeating the history of their computers: establish a great product and cult following and then piss off your customers by limiting their growth options. They took enough body shots from Microsoft over the last 15 years that I would have hoped they learned their lesson.
Re:Doesn't seem like much of a strategy (Score:2)
It's going to have to be more than that... see: Danger HipTop
I can see it now... (Score:5, Funny)
They beat ya to it. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They beat ya to it. (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree (Score:2)
Yeah, right (Score:4, Insightful)
Even the brightest minds make mistakes. It's about time to suck it up, instead of touting it as a "clever tactical move".
Re:Yeah, right (Score:4, Informative)
Did anyone see the part of the Special Event where Steve "demos" the phone? They're so embarassed about it that they don't have a camera to show the phone interface. When he gets interrupted by a phone call, he can't even press the right button to resume the music. It's a bad move. Steve probably would hate this phone if it hadn't got iTunes on it in the first place.
Motorola's interfaces are among the worst in the industry. Their computer connection software is a riddle and a half. The phone is clumsy. The 100-song limit, USB 1.1 connection and lack of Bluetooth syncing are all braindead, and three companies all trying to limit the functionality to not hurt other aspects of their business compromised what little was already good with this phone to suckiness. There's no fucking way in hell that this is going to sell well unless you're a complete must-be-Apple/Motorola/Cingular consumer fascist. This is the worst move Apple has made since the mid-90s era.
Someone (I can't remember who) once said (long before this) that this is the scenario: Steve Jobs has a cell phone which he uses daily, and which he hates, and which he one day is going to do something about. After watching that part of the event, I think for the first time in my life that the iPhone might actually happen someday, because if Apple's trying to push iTunes onto even an average phone, this just won't do.
Betcha Steve hates it (Score:2)
It's no surprise that Apple's event last week was all about the iPod nano, with the ROKR relegated to an obligatory sidebar.
Jobs made a mistake?? (Score:2)
Oh wait, he didn't. He just gave Motorola the terms of services and a name to use. How is that a mistake? It looks like Win-Win to Apple; demo a new product without taking the blow, AND sell more songs through iTunes.
Bread And Butter (Score:2)
I just don't get this, I mean this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me. If cellphones with MP3 support take off, and Apples got the first shot at it... what's the problem? Instead of selling iPod's, they'll sell phonePod's... but at least they'll sell the same number of devices- maybe more.
Re:Bread And Butter (Score:2)
Re:Bread And Butter (Score:2)
And "they'll sell the same number of devices" doesn't apply either because this phone is really a Motorola product running an Apple software app, which is different from an Apple hardware and software combo like the iPod. Mot gets the money, if any, from phone sales. Apple loses money if someone buys this phone instead of an iPod.
For this phone, Apple is basically a third-party software vendor
Apple Doesn't Play Well With Others (Score:2)
The problem is though that Apple doesn't get "first shot at it", Motorola does. All Apple gets is the slice of the software licensing pie, which as Bill Gates has shown us is only good enough to make you $54 Bi
What is so great about this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What is so great about this? (Score:2)
water testing for consumers' benefit, or Apple's? (Score:2)
If you want to give someone a "taste" or preview, that's a demo or a trial, and ought to be priced accordingly. Limiting the device arbitrarily to 100 songs isn't a feature, and not using a common memory card standard is a very Sony-style way of locking people into proprietary, overpriced hardware.
Re:water testing for consumers' benefit, or Apple' (Score:4, Interesting)
A) A device that has all the drawbacks of cellphone provider monopolies
B) It also gives the user the battery life of an "always on" phone
C) The need to connect to a PC for its music player functionality.
D) The need to use the vendor's network for all its cellphone functionality.
E) iTunes software, without its most intuitive interface element.
F) a crippling 100-song limit so the thing does not compete with iPods stuff.
This, folks, isn't some diabolical marketing strategy; it's a real turd cooked up through design-by-committee. Forget the convergence arguments for a second -- they don't apply. This is as convergent as one loud family and one filthy family living in a duplex: the filthy ones don't get any sleep, and the loud ones get sick from the roaches.
I love how people stretch for marketing. The ROKR's massive marketing will drive people to better products like the RAZR and the iPod nano? Yeah? Or how about a Nokia and a Creative Zen? People are going to buy the ROKR, warts and all, for access to Apple's exclusive catalog? Or maybe, now that Apple's in bed with Motorola for at least a few months, some other online music provider will take the ROKR's failure as an opportunity to team up with a successful cellphone maker, and use the leverage to increase their own catalog and market?
Give me a break. I'm with y'all when you need to look for an intelligent explanation for decisions, but every corporation makes some dumb decisions; and, no offense, but Apple's made some really dumb ones in the past. Some folks there are like the kid whom researchers put in a white room filled with horseshit. He jumps in, and starts digging with hands, feet, teeth, everything, and digs furiously. After about an hour, the scientists ask him why he's digging.
"There's gotta be a horse in here somewhere!"
Keep looking.
Re:water testing for consumers' benefit, or Apple' (Score:2)
C) The need to connect to a PC for its music player functionality.
E) iTunes software, without its most intuitive interface element.
C) Yeah, obviously being dependent on downloading all songs directly from the provider for the low cost of $5 in bad quality would be better.
E) Are you sure you don't confuse iTunes and iPod?
Enterprizing People... (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, it's a gag, but still relative proof that Apple is placing the 100 song limitation on Motorola for competition reasons.
I still don't get it! (Score:3, Interesting)
I use a Treo as a phone and have 2GB of space on my SD card (less a few MB of applications) for MP3's or OGG's, WMA's etc... and of course being a Treo I can do a hell of a lot more than just phone and music. There are also many phones that have memory card and MP3 support, so what's new? The fact that you can use iTunes? YAY - big whoop!
Surely I must be missing something here but the number of already existing phones that can play MP3's with up to 2GB storage that function better than the ROKR is outstanding! Perhaps if they'd included their 'iWheel' navigation (or whatever they call it) and gone for ease of use then perhaps my opinion might be different.
Haydn.
Nokia 6230 (Score:2)
My Nokia 6230 [nokia.com] is a more user-friendly device than the ROKR I looked at last night. Heck, I can even listen to FM radio on my nokia and carry many more than 100 songs. The bluetooth is slow, but I can easily pop out the memory card and quickly transfer the files with my card reader. The battery life and display are outstanding and my phone was much cheaper than the current pricing on the ROKR.
Re:Nokia 6230 (Score:2)
I liked this story better the first time.. (Score:2)
Anyways, the whole idea is pretty damn obvious.. This phone is NOT Apple hardware, and about the Madonna ad for it I caught last night, it didn't mention "Apple" at all, iirc, just itunes. On purpose? I bet.
Giving people too much credit... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yada-yada-yada.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Itunes on another OS (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Itunes on another OS (Score:2, Interesting)
Surprisingly Limited "Strategy" from Jobs (Score:2)
The iPod line is a great example of this and I am looking forward to buying a nano when my current MP3 player dies. All the iPods have great physical looks, innovative interfaces and extra features, that while are "nice to have" push the edge of the envelope. I'm disappointed they don't have FM tuners (which they can reco
I fail to see what the hub-bub is about.. (Score:2)
As soon as somebody, and I'll probably say it will be Creative (with the CEO already gunning for Apple) shows that the iPod is really just a pretty looking piece of shit to the mass market, the empire Apple is building around iPod and iTunes will collapse. You will find Apple ma
Old news... (Score:2, Interesting)
I had to hack the phone to get OBEX working across Bluetooth and file transfers between the phone memory and the TransT Flash card (currently only 128MB, damn those things are small) because Verizon decided those functions weren't needed. I also built had to build a headphone adapter to go up from the 1/32" connector on the phone up to a standard 1/8" jack. It looks u
Mental Exasperation... (Score:2)
Jobs *only* supports, produces and markets that which sells more Apple hardware, period. Rokr *only* sells Music. Jobs benefit is found by association in not fostering a monopoly on the Music Industry.
Jobs will phone in a future Apple iPhone, but you can bet it won't be dependent upon technology not owned by Apple.
My best guess is that Apple is waiting for WI-FI (Score:2, Insightful)
Faulty Logic (Score:2, Insightful)
I fail to see how the ROKR will help Apple understand "what they are getting". Apple would never ship anything remotely similar to the ROKR. I can imagine Steve Jobs being disgusted with the ROKR and every other cell phone on the market right now (with the exception, perhaps, of the SideKick).
By all accounts, t
Integration as modularity? (Score:2, Insightful)
So why not the same with portable devices? Let me put it this way: Integration should *not* be about building a single box that has everything, physically. It should be about plug-and-pla
My take on the ROKR (Score:2)
Now perhaps it's jut my perception, but wouldn't most people consider the music player to be an extension of the phone. (The phone being the primary device)
What we have here is the fusion of two unrelated but compatible products, each of which has had it's own unique space in the marketplace. If Apple really wanted this to be a success it would need to get into making cellphones. I expect ROKR to flop persona
Why not license iTunes device compatibility? (Score:2)
Why not? It certainly seems that they could 'grow th
another good article (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.applematters.com/index.php/section/comm ents/538/ [applematters.com]
Apple & Moto are ripping you off...OLD PHONE (Score:2)
And if he's right (Score:2)
Another Occam variant: don't attribute to subtlety (Score:3, Insightful)
The ROKR is stupid, that's all. I once worked in a Fortune 500 company which did stupid stuff. Lots of it. All the time.
From the outside, journalists and fans were simply unwilling to accept the simple explanation and kept concocting explanations of how these moves could be the result of some brilliant strategy.
And, of course, inside the company, stuff would happen and people would say, Wow! That was boneheaded... what are we going to say?
And wordsmiths and spin doctors would get busy with plausible-sounding explanations that "studies show that our business customers want" some dumb thing that nobody in their right mind would ever want and nobody ever bought.
The ROKR is just stupid, that's all. Like IBM's 4" floppy or Microsoft Bob or New Coke. Someone had a bad idea and internal politicians, for whatever reasons, deadline pressure or ego or what, mutually convinced themselves that it was a good idea.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Well, bye for now. I'm off to Velcro my iPod Mini to the back of my cell phone.
Look what happened to the PDA (Score:2, Insightful)
That just doesn't seem like a good plan. 5 years ago, people were juggling 2 seperate devices (a pda and cell phone), but the market share of non-cellphone type PDAs are dwindleing rather quickly.
With battery life, LCD screen density, and processor power increasing, technology currently allows for all 3 devices to happily occupy the same small space for a lower overall price.
Slow on the uptake... (Score:2)
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:3, Insightful)
No This s more about Apple's push on the Phone carriers to allow more than themselves to sell services for phones.
Look at the sudden resistance Apple is getting from Sony and Warner in Japan and Australia. The RIAA members got caught off guard when Itunes Music store actually started to make a profit. Napster, and the others were nothing but a joke. Itunes rolled in and cleaned everybody's clock. over $600 mill
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:2)
This is an opportinuty for motorola to try and jump on the bandwagon of apple success. Motorola has not been all that successful in recent years when it comes to innovation and putting out exactly what the customer wants.
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:5, Funny)
This phone is from Ed Zander's ass, not Steve's, because it's Motorola shit. Apple shit is identifiable by the white and pastel colors, and it has smooth, curved edges to make it easier on the body. Motorola shit has techy-looking colors and rough, almost serrated edges, because it's sold by phone companies, and they want you to feel it when they screw you in the pooper.
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:2, Interesting)
There was some bad blood a while back, was there not?
It's the most likely explanation I can come up with, at least. Apple tends to be better in what they put out, and Moto has impressed me in a number of their phone products in the somewhat recent past.
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:4, Funny)
Apple just licensed their shit and gave some tips on wiping.
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no money lost. The hardware is not apple's but the software is. Where is the downside on that?
The fact that it's ugly, small, and brain dead is motorola's fault. It's not an Apple product. I suspect that Apple has a much different draft of what that device is supposed to look like, and we will see it in a bit. They don't have a lot of exerience engineering mobile communications hardware. I'm pretty sure that a phone done correctly will be worth it's while. Make no mistake - the iPod phone will be a product of Apple's, which is why Motorola was left out to dry.
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:2)
From what I can tell, Apple contributed the iTunes interface and AAC decoding software to the Motorola phone. Moto provided the hardware platform. I'm sure that rewriting iTunes and the decoding libraries took some time.
Businesses do not like to disrupt their revenue streams.
Th