Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Portables (Apple) Communications Hardware

Inside Apple's iPhone 164

DECS writes "Despite CNET's wild claims, Roughly Drafted is reporting that Apple's market position and recent performance show the company has the ability, capacity, and interest in shaking up the mobile phone industry. Something that service providers, manufacturers, and consumers desperately need."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Inside Apple's iPhone

Comments Filter:
  • Yay (Score:5, Funny)

    by malkir ( 1031750 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2006 @03:52AM (#17364476)
    You'll finally be able to transform your daughter into one of those silhouettes!
  • by lhaeh ( 463179 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2006 @04:11AM (#17364538)
    There are lots of easy to use phones with every feature you could want, great UI, etc.

    The problem is cell providers who make most phones ones that force you to pay ridiculous fees for things that you should be able to get for free (like ringtones, backgrounds, etc). This is the reason why apply had problems with the iPhone the first time around, because the cell companies wanted to charge people for being able to transfer songs to their phones.

    For me VOIP on a PDA is the way to go. Works great with with my wireless broadband, or wi-fi hot-spots if they are around. Not the most reliable setup for incoming calls, but having a $10/month pager solves that problem.

    • by tsa ( 15680 )
      They do not force you to do everything. You have a choice not to pay for their stuff, and go elsewhere.
      • by Rix ( 54095 )
        Right, that'll end well when you continue using the same bit of spectrum.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      They should design an iPod with a phone built in, not a phone that plays music. Could you imagine full bluetooth integration? Sync, pick up calls and listen to music all over integrated bluetooth.
      • by Golias ( 176380 )
        I've been saying the same thing ever since these rumors started popping up. I don't give a crap about most of the "features" of modern mobile phones, but I refuse to give up the 80 GB capacity, gapless playback, video support, and playlists of my iPod.

        Graft a simple phone to a fully-featured iPod (or PDA which handles music just as well as an iPod) and you've captured my dollars.

        Graft a simple MP3 player on a phone, and I wont bother. I'm way better off toting around my iPod and RAZR together.
    • by dangitman ( 862676 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2006 @04:31AM (#17364634)
      I haven't seen any phones with a "great UI." Come to think of it, I haven't even seen any with "every feature I could want." Which ones are you talking about?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by dwater ( 72834 )
        Well, I just got to play with a preproduction Nokia N95 for a few weeks, and I have to say that I like it - a lot. I haven't much cared for their previous offerings, but the N95 is very nice.
        • Nokia makes a variety of terrific phones that make it to market in buggy versions, make it to market for only weeks before being pulled, make it to market everywhere outside North American or never make it to market at all.

          A 3G N series phone would be great, but I do not know when one will ever become available.
      • by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2006 @04:52AM (#17364728) Homepage Journal
        I haven't seen any phones with a "great UI." Come to think of it, I haven't even seen any with "every feature I could want." Which ones are you talking about?

        I had that in 1994 when I bought my Motorola Flip Phone. Fantastic UI, 10 or so digit LED display. 1-0 numbered buttons, a Send and an End key. It let me make and receive telephone calls where ever I was.

        Perfectly simple UI, dial and send. All the features I wanted, placed calls. I already have a PDA, my PDA plays MP3s. I already have a digital camera. I don't want or need GPS in my phone; if I wanted a GPS receiver, I'd buy one.

        I want a phone that works well as a phone, and nothing else. I want a phone that I won't lose if while it's on my desk I happen to place a piece of paper over it. I want a phone that won't detonate on impact if I happen to drop it onto the cement sidewalk. I want a phone that won't get scratched up by me putting it into and taking it out of my pocket.

        It seems to me that we've spent the last 13 years solving "problems" that didn't exist.

        LK
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by dangitman ( 862676 )

          Perfectly simple UI, dial and send. All the features I wanted, placed calls. I already have a PDA, my PDA plays MP3s. I already have a digital camera. I don't want or need GPS in my phone; if I wanted a GPS receiver, I'd buy one.

          But when you get a phone that "has every feature (one) could ever want" then the UI becomes very important. I don't want a PDA, I want a phone with better calendar and contact features, for example.

          I want a phone that works well as a phone, and nothing else.

          Well, I'm pretty happy with that. But the GGP post was talking about a phone with every feature imaginable, and a great UI. I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. I get around this problem mostly by using my computer as the interface for entering data, via bluetooth. But I'd still like to see a b

          • I find the sony ericson easy to look up numbers, you can show both name & number, and scroll through instantly. Kxxx series.
          • I think a flip-phone using a touchscreen would be ideal. (The flip part protecting the touch screen when it isn't in use)

            Have the screen not respond to touches unless a button on the side is held down or put into an "active" position, and then the UI can be whatever works best for the feature you're using at the time. Even let the user drag and drop elements of the interface as they like, or make up their own widgets to add.
            • I have to take an opposite view: I want a phone I can touch-dial without looking at it, and without trying to sort out which touch mode it's in. This is one of the few things my Samsung A680 phone does right.

              Many people use their phones while driving, because we all know how hard it is to hold that conversation until later. If given touch-screens, you can bet drivers will happily take their eyes off the road to dial, with predicable traffic results.

              The Darwin awards will be happy.
        • by Abreu ( 173023 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2006 @11:03AM (#17366586)
          I could suggest the Motorola C116...

          No camera, no games, no color screen... But it has great reception, nice UI, a battery that lasts a week, and is small enough to fit my pocket (but not small enough to get lost easily)
      • by lhaeh ( 463179 )
        When I wrote that I was thinking of my beloved Kyocera QCP-6/7135 Palm OS based smartphone.

        That phone is old news now, but Palm OS is a great UI, and it had every feature that I could reasonably want. Every feature I could want would include playing doom3 on it and and be able to emulate a full PC, but I can't expect that from a phone.

        It could however act as a dumb terminal, interface with my multimeter, control winamp, have a map of my city with gps, give me a good book to read while waiting in line, act a
      • You're right. The last phone I had with a decent UI was my old Nokia that didn't do anything but make phone calls. Roughly Drafted is right in that sense. When cell phones had few functions, it was easy to make a decent UI. Now, there are so many functions, the UI feels tacked on last after the rest of the phone was designed. I don't know if Apple can change this, but I welcome somebody else trying. The first Apple phone (if Apple is working on one) will most likely follow all their other design philo
    • It must be a US only problem then...

      Around here at Brazil I'm able to upload and download photos/ringtones to my mobile using the provided data-cable, no fees attached. Also there are tons of phones with IR or Bluetooth conectivity, you can use both to transfer data to these phones. Not to mention the new phones that have expandable memory using SDCards and MemorySticks...

      So, the only people that pays for things like picture downloading and ringtones here are the ones that don't know better, that is, most of them :-) But no carrier is forcing them to pay for anything, they're paying because they just don't know that there are ways to get the same things for free.
      • Same in the UK. Only the ignorant pay for ringtones... and there are enough ignorant people to keep an entire industry going, unfortunately.
      • and not all the providers, and not all of the same.

        For instance, Cingular took the hardware that performs the WiFi functions out of their HTC based 2125 phone while T-Mobile leaves it active in their version of the same HTC based phone. Verizon has a long history of disabling DUN in its phones, both bluetooth and datacable.

        sometimes it is the phones though, for many phones you need special software to be able to transfer pictures and ringtones, so you still have to pay to get them there either way.
      • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )
        The problem is cell phone makers who are in league with the cell providers. They make their phones lockable (why do that??) and even when unlocked they make features difficult to use. Mine is unlocked, and I can put wallpaper and ringtones on it myself, but it's not exactly a user friendly process. You have to put them in a particular obscure directory or they won't work. There's nothing in the manual about how to do it. Why not? What other consumer device leaves it to the user to figure out how to us
      • Certain carriers in the US like Verizon are notorious for locking down their phones. Other providers, like Cingular, don't tend to do it. I just bought a new LG phone from Cingular and it's not locked down at all. I can transfer mp3's, pictures and videos to and from my phone using either the data cable or via Bluetooth. Granted, the phone didn't come with instructions that talked about how to do it but it was pretty easy to figure out how to transfer files between the phone and my Mac.
    • by Yold ( 473518 )
      "For me VOIP on a PDA is the way to go. Works great with with my wireless broadband, or wi-fi hot-spots if they are around. Not the most reliable setup for incoming calls, but having a $10/month pager solves that problem."

      BUAAG (But You Are A Geek!). Most consumers do not want to dink with their phone to answer/make a call. The cell phone market is about fashionability (I make up words). Look at apple's success with the iPod, to paraphrase some magazine article I read a while ago, even if you are decked o
    • by klubar ( 591384 )
      At least with Verizon, the wireless network providers decide on the UI. With Verizon, it doesn't matter which phone or manufactor you choose, they all get the exact same Verizon UI. From the carrier's point of view, this is a huge benefit as it simplifies support. The support team doesn't need to be trained in each specific phone's UI and features.

      It might be good from a user's perspective as it makes switching from one phone to another pretty easy. Some phones have slightly different UI to support spe
    • I just got an LG Chocolate, and I don't have to pay to transfer songs to it. It has a MiniSD slot, and even though the user guide says "Do not transfer music with your MiniSD card" it goes on to tell you how to transfer music with it.

      It does cost $2.99 for ringtones, but you can connect the phone to any computer with bluetooth and transfer ringtones that way, too.
    • by kisielk ( 467327 )
      You're right on the money with this comment. I worked on a cellphone product in the past and the sheer number of carrier-specific hooks and modifications provided in the firmware to allow or disable various features was overwhelming. Literally hundreds of flags to allow carriers to lock things down to their liking.
  • Form, not Function (Score:2, Insightful)

    by calciphus ( 968890 )
    Apple sells form, not function. They sell image.

    Why doesn't the iPod publish audio specs? Because it under performs compared to every other player in the market. How does a minor upgrade in processors constitute a 37% increase in speed?

    Expect the iMobile (not iPhone, remember) to be expensive, poorly integrated with service providers (or an MVNO) and a mediocre phone / mediocre mp3 player.

    But it'll have HYPE, and so it'll sell. That iPod you just bought your kids for Christmas will be old hat, and the new i
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      You didn't get that iPod you wanted for Christmas huh?
    • by Narcogen ( 666692 ) <narcogen.rampancy@net> on Tuesday December 26, 2006 @04:46AM (#17364702) Homepage
      Apple doesn't sell form over function. They differentiate on form, since for this class of device, nearly all the market entrants deliver the minimum required functionality.

      Notice that the iPod sells as well as it does without published audio specifications. It is not an audiophile device. In fact, I think at the moment there is no such thing as an MP3 player that would meet the requirements of a discriminating audiophile, and for the vast majority of available content, this is irrelevant.

      Just about any MP3 player with a decent pair of aftermarket headphones is going to deliver a "good enough" experience for most listeners. The differentiating factor is how the device looks and feels, how easy it is to use the player's interface, how easy it is to load content on the device, and how intrusive the required copy-protection restrictions are.

      The combination of the iPod line of players and the iTunes software is "good enough" for a large number of people.

      As far as phones go-- poorly integrated with carriers? Yes, please. I prefer unlocked GSM phones so I can choose my own provider whenever and wherever I am. As far as the bad, misleading and restrictive things that tech companies can do to you, Apple doesn't hold a candle to just about any cellular operator in the world.

      Mediocre player? Depends on how you mean mediocre. The device, if it exists, will likely be as mediocre a player as the iPod itself is. You can take that however you like.

      However, if, from the perspective of interface design, the first iteration Apple phone is anywhere near as good, compared to other phones, as the iPod is to other MP3 players, then I see no reason why the device couldn't be at least as good as the best Symbian based phones, and a good deal better than just about anything Motorola has produced in the past ten years-- including all-hype, no-function phones like the RAZR and, the ill-fated ROKR.
      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by calciphus ( 968890 )
        The truth of it is that style, over quality, is the driving market force for most of Apple's consumers. I'm not saying it's a bad thing (except for admittedly picky people like myself) but it IS a sign that the iMobile won't be a terribly high-powered device. It'll be all form.

        If it's a GSM phone, it'll suffer the same poor audio quality, low data speeds, and structural penetration issues that all 900mHz phones suffer from. If it's a CDMA phone it'll HAVE to be sold through Verizon or Sprint directly, since
        • by Rytr23 ( 704409 )

          If it's a GSM phone, it'll suffer the same poor audio quality, low data speeds, and structural penetration issues that all 900mHz phones suffer from. If it's a CDMA phone it'll HAVE to be sold through Verizon or Sprint directly, since those carriers' networks are locked on their end, no the phone's. If it's sold "unbranded" you'll lose half the market right away, especially the high-end users, the vast majority of which are on Verizon or Sprint, for the data options...

          Actually.. there are about 10 times a

        • by vought ( 160908 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2006 @09:10AM (#17365820)
          I've wandered a bit into corporate culture and away from the impending iMobile. I apologize. But for the iMobile to reach the maximum number of consumers, it won't be a powerful product. It will flash Apple's minimalist design and carry a premium price point, because you're not just buying a cellphone, you're buying "cool".

          That entire paragraph was written with the kind of blissful ignorance that discounts the idea that form can be powerful. The parent seems to think that if something is cool, it _can't_ be powerful - that the two concepts are mutually exclusive.

          What prevents cool from being powerful? Nothing.

          Check out Mac OS X Server. It is quite plainly "cool" and it is demonstrably as powerful or more so than competing products.

          XServe RAID - extremely competitive on price, powerful, and very "cool" - the fit and finish of this product far surpass anything else in the space. The management software is very flexible and powerful.

          The click wheel and hierarchical interface of the iPod are two more examples. How much could you do with four poles and a clicker? You can provide users with a way to navigate music and build a playlist without even looking at the device - if you're Apple.

          The built-in handle and kid-proof shell of the teardrop iMacs is another example.

          Form can quite easily be demonstrated as power. I think you're too wrapped up in the idea that something has to have myriad dialog boxes, option sub-menus and configurators to be "powerful".
          • by klubar ( 591384 )
            OS X server and apple raid?

            Do they even have a one percent share? Aren't these just check off products so Apple can say they offer a server and a raid device. I suppose that apple fanatic sites might buy them, but they are a pretty limited product line... nothing bigger or smaller... and you're stuck with their relatively limited product innovation--whar have done they lately?
            • by ktappe ( 747125 )

              OS X server and apple raid? Do they even have a one percent share?

              How does percentage market share have anything whatsoever to do with power? By your reasoning, cheap Chevys or Skodas would be the most powerful cars on the road instead of the Koenigsegg or Pagani Zonda. You weren't just grasping at straws with that statement, you missed the straws altogether.

              Aren't these just check off products so Apple can say they offer a server and a raid device. I suppose that apple fanatic sites might buy them,

      • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2006 @01:56PM (#17368374)
        n fact, I think at the moment there is no such thing as an MP3 player that would meet the requirements of a discriminating audiophile,

        True. Gold is very heavy, and carrying it around is a pain. Plus it's easy to get the electrons flowing the wrong way down your cables when you're unplugging them and replugging them all the time. Not to mention oxygen gets in every time you unplug.
    • by bucky0 ( 229117 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2006 @04:49AM (#17364716)
      Why doesn't the iPod publish audio specs? Because it under performs compared to every other player in the market.

      Not trying to be difficult, but what does that mean? I mean, granted, I don't listen to music on great headphones or anything, but every CD player or mp3 player I've tried has sounded fine to me. And why would they need to release the specs? Can't people just test it themselves?
    • Why doesn't the iPod publish audio specs?

      I think because most people don't understand "audio specs." Fact is that, for most, it doesn't matter as long as it sounds roughly equivalent to a CD on, say, a typical car stereo. I can tell the difference between the sound an iPod Shuffle and the sound a Nano makes, but I attribute it to a lack of an equalizer. Both sound at least CD quality to me. For the convenience (size and integration with my Mac), I can deal with the sound a Shuffle makes. If you can't

    • Why doesn't the iPod publish audio specs? Because it under performs compared to every other player in the market.

      Oh no! Does that mean that I am not hearing the full 64kbps audio wonder of my podcasts? Or, the audiophile delight that is the mp3 format?
  • Except.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by kjart ( 941720 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2006 @04:20AM (#17364592)

    It wont be called iPhone because Cisco/Linksys has already released one [linksys.com] and owns the trademark for iPhone. The Canadian trademark is controlled by Comwave, I believe (someone linked to them defending the trademark against Apple in another article but I can't find it now).

    MacPhone perhaps? That seems to be more in line with some of their recent naming conventions as well.

    • by Pastis ( 145655 )
      iFon ?
    • I still cant say I see Apple getting into making phones. It is not quite their style. Apple tends to go into emerging markets (Personal Computers in the late 70's, PDA in the mid 90's, MP3 Players in the early 2000s) The only time Apple plays catchup is when their existing products are getting out of date. If Apple was going to get into cell phones they should have done it by 1999. When having your own Cell Phone was cheap enough for common people to use it. The market is saturated with phones with mor
      • by Rix ( 54095 )
        The convergence of PDA, mp3 player, snapshot camera and cell phone is an emerging market. There's much to say for having one digital device, instead of juggling half a dozen of them, and that's ignoring the synergistic benefits. Easy stupid ring tones, obviously, but what else? Recording phone conversations? Built in answering service? Smart call prioritization? Wireless VoIP?

        Can Apple do it? Probably not. While Apple is often around at technological emergence, if someone else doesn't show them the way, it
  • Affordable? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If the phone is affordable, and for me, that means > $200, and can store at least a gig of music, then I'm down with it. I haven't bought an iPod yet- why cut into my reading time on the subway? But if it works well AS A PHONE, it gets my vote. The phone market is flooded with cheap, useful phones and expensive phones with tons of features I don't really use. If Apple can give it a useful interface, integrate it well with the computer (I use an apple, but it would be stupid to ignore the PC market),
    • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2006 @04:40AM (#17364670)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If the phone is affordable, and for me, that means > $200 [...] Unfortunately, I think the price probably won't break $300
      Why unfortunately? It's in your price range because last time I looked 300 is greater than 200.
  • Shaking up? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Lord Kano ( 13027 )
    Are they going to building a new competing cell network? Are they going to lower the cost of airtime? Cheap flat rates for unlimited plans?

    If not, all they're doing is releasing a new phone. Hella cool or not, it's still just going to be a new phone.

    LK
    • by kevinbr ( 689680 )
      Perhaps you never heard of the concept of MVNO - Mobile Virtual network Operator?

      In any case Apple is not about cheap. Easyjet founder Stelio tried cheap airtime as an MVNO and failed - just shit down.

      Apple know people ( some people ) pay for good quality and good service.

      But yes maybe it is just a new phone. We will wait and see.
  • RAZR v3i (iTunes) (Score:3, Informative)

    by reversible physicist ( 799350 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2006 @04:42AM (#17364682)
    The RAZR is the most popular cell phone in the US, and the newest version (available in the US through Cingular) interfaces directly with iTunes. This is a much nicer phone than the ROKR and comes with a 512MB microsd card (see review [cnet.com.au]). Although it has the restriction of only holding 100 songs, this is about what will fit on the included memory card. I have one and I find it a compelling alternative to carrying around a separate nano. I'm not sure why people are so dismissive of this.
    • I have a RAZR, and I can tell you it has one of the worse UI experiences built-in. Any operation takes atleast 5-6 clicks. Operating your Address book is not intuitive - and saving a picture you just clicked sucks you dry(if you click a picture, you got to tell the damn thing to save it & name it, it wont save it otherwise). Though Nokias are much better off. This is precisely I'm looking forward to an Apple phone. Two Letters - UI.
      • I must agree, the RAZR looks cool but is such a pain to use! So many things are wrong with the UI design, it is depressing! can't they get it right? Even my old Motorol Star-Tac in 1997 was better!! I have a Sony-Ericsson phone specifically because of Romeo [irowan.com] which lets me use it as a scriptable bluetooth remote control for my Mac, but I hate the form factor of the phone.
        --jeffk++
    • Because RAZR is a piece of shit otherwise.
    • I got a Razr recently - although I really wanted the Q - (got steered away from it due to a better deal on the Razr).

      I bought a 1 gig micro SD card - loaded it up, and found a really annoying trait. During part of my morning commute, I hop on the PATH train into Manhattan. When playing music, the Razr picks up every bit of RF - (think conductor's announcements, doors opening/closing, train sparking as it moves across switches in the tracks), and STOPS PLAYING!

      At first I though it might be the MP3's I had
    • Every Motorola phone that I've used has a horrible menu and a buggy UI. Yes buggy, I've lost count how many times my Motorola V300 simply froze on me, requiring me to take the battery out (which is a pain in the fingers to get the cover off). Every RAZR I've used gets extremely hot against the ear after a 10 minute phone call. And don't even get me started on how much fun figuring out simple things like looking up a saved contact on the StarTacs was.

      I've long waited for a mobile phone with a great interf
  • by Rix ( 54095 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2006 @04:54AM (#17364738)
    Is that all the service providers want to wall you off in their own little managed garden.

    For obvious reasons, Apple isn't likely to solve this problem.
    • Things are slowly improving with the network providers.
      to give an example t-mobile (in the uk) has a tarrif called flext.
      They have a service called web and walk which gives fairly substantial net access for £7.50 a month which still wasn't being taken up (why would you with broadband at home).

      However what is interesting is daypass a scheme which charges you a small fee per kbyte upto a maximum of £1 a day. I've had data enabled phones for the last 2 years but primarily used wifi to my own connec
      • by mlk ( 18543 )
        T-mobile are still limiting what your alllowed to do with the data connection no p2p file sharing voip or instant mesaging, but vnc to my network should sort some of that out ;)

        Oh, drat. On the onld web 'n' walk plan (100MB a month) using a none-3G phone skype is not blocked. (but then it is not useful either).

        But I guess you could get a proxy for it, then go jump though your home BB connection.
        • by Shemmie ( 909181 )
          Believe you can have less restricted use on their Web n Walk Pro package, but it costs a lot more. I'm on the £7:50 package with my MDA Pro - and it's a God send. Like a web connected laptop that fits in the pocket.
          • Web'n'walk fair use policy
            Subject to coverage. Compatible handset required. Provides unlimited browsing on mobile handsets in the UK. Not applicable to connection via CSD. To ensure a high quality of service for all our customers a fair use policy applies. T-Mobile defines fair use as total UK data (both sent and received) of up to 1GB per month. T-Mobile may contact customers who exceed 1GB of data and ask them to reduce their usage. If data usage is not reduced, notice may be given, after which network protection controls may be applied. Not to be used for other activities (including but not limited to): modem access for computers, internet based video/audio streaming services, peer to peer file sharing, internet based video downloads, internet phone calls and instant messaging. If such use is detected, notice may be given after which network protection controls may be applied. The application of network protection controls will result in a reduced speed of transmission.

            It looks like they will give you a warning if they notice you are doing something they think they should make a profit on.

            ahem this looks interesting
            https://www.openwengo.com/index.php/mp_download_mo bil_pda [openwengo.com]
            http://wiki.wengo.com/index.php/WengoPhone_for_PDA _quick_user_guide [wengo.com]
            The proxy address is : 213.91.9.210

            The domain name server is : voip.wengo.fr
            using that directly is liable to get you cut off but would it be difficult to connect via your own network

            http://www.bol.ucla.edu/services/vpn/pda/docs/ppc2 003 [ucla.edu]

  • shaking up the mobile phone industry. Something that service providers, manufacturers, and consumers desperately need.

    Really? It doesn't look like it though. Most people happily live with vendor lock-ins and keep paying ridicuolus fees for what should have been free or affordable (2$ for ringtone while keeping users form uploading their own files? Come on, how much does it cost to show caller ID?, and don't even get me started on data packet rate). Service providers are happy with the status quo because they are in the driver's seats. Perhaps phone manufacturers want some change, but definetely not the services provider

  • TFA is garbage. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    From the CNET article linked to by TFA:

    However, things will calm down, and the Apple phone will take its place on the shelves with the random video cameras, cell phones, wireless routers and other would-be hits.

    Somehow, this is misinterpreted and twisted into the following passage in TFA:

    Kanellos starts out by inventing a series of ideas to critique: an imagined gushing review of the iPhone, then a hypothetical Apple colostomy bag, then invented memories of historical products, supposedly from Apple,

    • by DECS ( 891519 )
      Oops! You edited out the bits of the CNET article that were relevant to set up a strawman of your own. I didn't misinterpret anything Kanellos wrote; I didn't "interpret" anything, I just pointed out how aburd it all was.

      The article and website isn't a revenue creator, its shared ideas that I've found that I thought were interesting. Yahoo ads bring in less than a couple dollars in a day of high traffic, and only help to cover part of the hosting expense. Amazon and iTS ads don't earn anything unless peopl
  • The article(s) don't have any substantial new information. They're just wishful thinking on behalf of the author.

    The cellphone industry is an offshoot of the telco industry, and you'll have to look long and hard to find something more difficult to change. That industry predates the personal computer industry. It benefits from network effects and local near-monopolies, from massive lock-in and from being the gatekeeper to something that people want to do: make phone calls.

    Note that I'm not saying that the in
  • by Yvanhoe ( 564877 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2006 @06:03AM (#17365010) Journal
    Because they make cool, functionnal, well designed devices and don't care about things like software patents and DRMs.
    Be careful, be very careful...
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 ) *
      Apple has numerous patents and uses DRM on their iTunes Also there are countless time where Apple has to pay Patent holders for other companies to keep their products. (For example Creative had a patent that was used in the iPods after proving to apple they have the patent Apple agreed to pay royalties to Creative for their patent.)
  • Is it me or the chick who wrote the article looks real hot ? Refer http://www.forbes.com/fdc/bios/new/rachelrosmarin. html [forbes.com]
    • by mtec ( 572168 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2006 @11:32AM (#17366894)
      She's a Heek (hot geek). A creature of fable, second only to the unicorn in it's rarity. Capable of singing a siren song that tends to compel creatures from basements and dark places. If you see one, an easy test would be to gather your courage, scramble your Rubiks and hand it to her. If she completes it in under a minute, propose to her. If she accepts, you may also be a Heek. Congratulations!
      If she refuses, she's just a nice looking lesbian.
  • iPhone is a (Tm) owned by Cisco. I sincerely doubt Apple will butt heads in court with Cisco (although any smaller and maybe).

    Just because morons are hooked on calling everything Apple does i-this and i-that doesn't make it right or even possible.
  • At least, that's what recent speculation on a lot of rumor sites says.

  • Tell me if I am crazy,

    Rumor of Google and Apple "secret deal"
    + Rumor of iPhone with Camera features (video recording)
    + Google buys YouTube
    + Apple Relations with Disney
    + Rumor MacOS X for phone
    =
    Killer App Multi Media Phone.

    So Downloading full length movie is not prime time on phones yet.
    its just too darn slow. but if Apple makes a deal with Google,
    they can build an embedded YouTube plateform to upload and download video.

    So think about this:

    MacOS X Powered.
    Photo Booth with your camera
    YouTube In
  • Appeal to the Ump... (Score:2, Informative)

    by kikensei ( 518689 )
    I haven't read the CNET article, but I have little doubt it's a flame fanning puff piece. However the "Apple iPhone Rumors Off the Hook" rebuttal hits a foul ball as early as its "Strike 1" paragraph. As someone who has owned an Airport, as well as various 3rd party routers, it does not stand "miles ahead" of its competition. Not only is it doubly, or often triply expensive when compared to solid competitors, it lacks a dead-simple web interface to administrate the device, replaced instead by an applicat
    • by mtec ( 572168 )
      Umm. On Airport, Windows uses the same application that OS X does (it's on the installation disk). You have to have WZC service on the Windows box - included in SP2.
      • I stand corrected! Is this a new development? Either way, it sucks to require any app, as opposed to allowing an Apple or PC to administrate it via a browser.
        • by mtec ( 572168 )
          I stand corrected! Is this a new development?

          No, been this way for a long time but maybe not the beginning. The PC software wasn't always at parity with the Mac version, but it is now.

          Either way, it sucks to require any app, as opposed to allowing an Apple or PC to administrate it via a browser.

          Well - true and not. I've configured many Airport and non-Airport wireless networks. Apple's software makes things go a little faster and easier than most web based tools. I don't know how hard it would be t
        • by argent ( 18001 )
          Not to mention that still locks out Windows 2000, UNIX, and automated management software.

          Even a web interface isn't ideal, if it's the *only* interface outside proprietary software. A command line or SNMP management (or preferably both) is pretty essential for an automated network management environment.
    • it lacks a dead-simple web interface to administrate the device, replaced instead by an application.

      Yeh, that's a typical Apple situation.

      Alternatively, as in the firmware on the Macbooks, they don't give you control at all...

      On the other hand you have their total standards-based OS and open API. They're definitely a mixed lot.

      Apple has been integrating the revamped "iSight" into many of its new portables, and iMacs, but the fact that it has been yanked as a standalone product makes it difficult to defend a
  • by Patent-Monkey ( 1036772 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2006 @11:13AM (#17366684) Homepage
    In reading published US patent application 20060268528 filed back in 2004 - Handheld Computing Device - Apple

    In the description, section 0111
    "In one embodiment, the device is or includes functionality for supporting cellular or mobile phone usage. In this embodiment, the device includes processors, transmitters, receivers, and antennas for supporting RF, and more particularly GSM, DCS and/or PCS wireless communications in the range of about 850 to about 1900 MHz."

    In the claims, they detail the invention as a handheld computing device that is a cell phone made of a non-plastic material to have better wireless signal reception (claims 1, 6, 7).
  • by sheldon ( 2322 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2006 @11:16AM (#17366710)
    That's my biggest problem with most of the cell phones out today. They can play music, games, look pretty.

    But very few of them do the basics well... i.e. make phone calls. My old Nokia would lose signal. My new Samsung, the vibrate isn't powerful enough, and the ring isn't loud enough.

    Oh yeah, but sure, it has a camera phone and will do all these other cool worthless things.

    I doubt Apple is entering this market to make a cell phone. They probably just want to make an iPod that can occasionally make phone calls.
    • by argent ( 18001 )
      They probably just want to make an iPod that can occasionally make phone calls.

      That would put them in fine company with half the "smartphones" out there.
  • Will the ZunePhone be the next iPhone killer!?!?!111
  • For Heavens sake, please build an Apple Stile Tablet + mac style on board scetch and notes software. That would rock. Who needs a iPhone? Built a 10" iNewton or whatever with a small solid state HDD and sell it for 650$ or so. People would chop their right arm of to get one.
  • People had been saying that Apple is just about to release a new PDA to replace the Newton ever since the Newton got pulled, pointing to all kinds of never-capitalized-on patents. This looks like more of the same, except now Palm's gone to huffing on the Microsoft "PDA as laptop replacement" crack pipe full time and it's become obvious to even the most casual observer how that's such a bad idea. So for the past few years it's been "The l33t new Apple Cellphone" instead of "The l33t new Apple PDA".

    Until Stev
  • 1. 3G (Rumors are that the Apple phone will be only 2G, but they're only rumors. A 2G iCell would be a disappointment.)
    2. Bluetooth
    3. Addressbook
    4. Calendar
    5. iSync
    6. POP & IMAP email client
    7. Web browser

    I have been unable to find a satisfactory phone for the American market. A Treo might come close, but its lack of good multitasking is hard to take after having a multitasking phone. Excellent S60 phones exist... (overseas|as prototypes).

    I probably am a member of a niche market. The market has no good

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Working...