Slashdot Mirror
Mobile Phone - Convergence Point For iPod, Others?
Nagen writes "DrunkenBlog has an intriguing essay arguing that the mobile phone is the primary convergence point for digital devices and will soon cause iPod sales to evaporate. Perhaps more interesting is the idea that the iPod is an expendable pawn in a larger battle of who will control the gateway of all legal content to the user."
Will it run Linux?
(not even completey off-topic! yay!)
The emperor is naked.
There's so many articles constantly appearing about how this will kill the ipod, this will be better than the ipod, this will put the ipod out of business... so many people targeting the little white bundle of joy, and so many people falling way, way, short. Kind of sad. Oh, yea - and first.
Solution: Buy the next model.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I will never, ever, ever let the phone company come between me and my music collection. They'll decide they want to bill me for every minute I spend listening to stuff I've got stored on my hardware.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Everyone's a pawn in this game to the rechargeable battery industry. The glut of portable devices will flood their coffers with money to take over the world!
I always believed convergence would kick in around cellphones with MP3 players built in but having played with a mini iPod all week I've discovered that I can drain the juice out of that puppy faster than just about any other device I have. I play it on the bus, walking to the office, in the office, at lunch and on the way home again.. the cellphone battery wouldn't cope with that kind of demand so I'd end up carrying the power cord with me all the time.
I am a leaf on the wind
When will companies realize that the whole cell phone convergence thing isn't all that its craqcked out to be. Every attempting at converging a cell phone with another device has been embarrassing. Even camera phones. Face it - the cameras suck and the're next to no use for having a $hitty camera in your phone. Get a digital camera. They're probably smaller and much better. And I dont WANT my phone to be an MP3 player. I want my phone to be a phone. Arrgh!
For quite a while I have been looking for a portable mp3 player, preferably with flash memory. Anyway, there was this deal that I would get a 3G phone almost for free (in exchange for signing up for a 12 month subscription) and that phone had a mp3 player builtin aswell. So what would then be the point of getting another mp3 player? I prefer carrying around as little gadgets as possible... Sure, the memory is only 128 MB, but it's alright with me, I can always sync it with my computer to get new music.
I am intrigued by the fact that the last three stories contained the words "intriguing" and "intrigued".
Did they release a new intriguing style guideline today?
In most of Europe and Asia, most mobile phone owners carry it with them 90%+ of the time, and the market penetration is very high (especially amongst younger people). Therefore it makes sense that it will be the primary convergence point. Also, in Europe (dunno about Asia) the receiver never pays, so people leave the phones on all the time. I understand the situation is a little different in the US (incompatible networks, non-contingent cover) and market penetration and usage is a bit lower. Heck, judging by the stories here it seems the iPod is more popular in the US than the mobile phone!
Do not give me "Buffering ... " messages on my phone ... people will be killed
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
Depends. One of these can handle 2 gigs via a SD card right now.
I'd like to see a version that will take a microdrive or a 1.8-inch drive. XDA-3 will not, but I wouldn't rule it out at some point.
Jobs' move of integrating Motorola phones with iTunes was a brilliant move IMO - he sees where it's headed and wants to become a player. And through this deal will probably do so months and months before anyone else rolls out something truly consumer-friendly.
/ mc /20040727/tc_mc/applemotorolatobringitunestocellph ones
As soon as phones start getting 1GB drives in 'em, I'll be carrying my iPod with me a lot less often. (And I'll get a lot angrier when I drop my phone, too!)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=
There will be many gates to the consumer in the converged future. Mobile "phones" will be more like "remote controls" than TVs, the GUI for navigating all the ubiquitous networked devices surrounding us. Home theaters, public ticket kiosks, parking meters and lots, tolls, stores, friends' homes, car alarms, forwardable office desks, all kinds of embedded devices will have their own displays and unique controls. The key to them all will be a mobile "phone", but all of those devices will be gateways to the consumer. And multiple, cryptolocked, synced/replicated phones will be available to each user, if they want them. Much like much of modern civilization requires a car and a bank card for access, but many venues and competing suppliers.
--
make install -not war
Most people I know use a phone to just make phone calls. Sure they like their cool ring tones and all but, music and phone calls are still seperate activities for the average VP-on-the-move. Most Schmoes wouldn't use an IPOD anyway. Believe it or not most people still ask me, "Whats that?" whenever they see mine:
Them: Whats that?!
me: and Ipod
them: oh, one of those music thingies?
me: yea
I just don't see this type of person wanting to talk to Autie Jolie while listening to Disturbed at the same time. I think someone had it right when they explained that most people with cool phones got them at a discount or for free with their phone plan. I definately don't see IPod sales drying up anytime soon. I NEED my cell phone to be a cell phone. I don't want to stop my playlist so I can pick up a call!
"There is only a one in six billion chance that you actually exist"
Like everything else, mobile phone started as a mobile phone, then one manufacturer made one smaller, so others followed and made their even smaller. Then another manufacturer added a camera, sure enough others had to stay competitive and added higher pixel camera, then the calendar, notes, voice recorder, maybe a PDA, bluetooh, WiFi etc.
All these are caused by the pressure to stay competitive, and more often than not, the pressure is from consumers (indirectly). If you are deciding on two phones, one with a camera and another without, all at the same price same other specs, you have to choose the one with a camera simply because it has more features.
I for one am totally against attaching non-related feature to a device, so until now I am still using my 4-year-old phone.
As consumers we really need to boycoutt these products to make them go away.
Ohh.. If one manufacturer removes one feature from a mobile phone and still manages to maintain sales, guess what? The reverse cycle might just begin and every manufacture will start stripping features to cut cost and stay competitive.
Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
OK, I haven't RTFA, but anybody who thinks that the iPod will forever be a high profit margin device for Apple is insane. Sooner or later the iPod will either have to evolve into more than an MP3 player that does a few neat tricks, or Apple will have to find another revenue source.
What other revenue source? Well, how about the iTMS? The numbers I've heard suggest that Apple could make a profit (after paying the labels, credit card fees, bandwidth, etc) of 10c/track. They sold around 100million tracks in a little over a year, which might translate into $10M profit. Not a whole lot, Apple certainly makes more money off iPods now. But if you look to the future, the iPod functionality is likely to get integrated into cell phones. iPod profit margins will go down. However, by the time that becomes a reality (5 years, maybe), I would expect Apple to be selling between $1billion and $10billion in iTMS sales annually, with an annual profit of $100million to $1billion. Given that Apple has made a profit of ~$30million in the past year, that is an attractive source of revenue. Low margin, sure, but steady....and such low margins make it difficult for any competitor to gain a foothold. I think Apple was very savvy in negotiating such low margins.
--
The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.
Well, everyone's predicted the death of Apple, so this is a natural progression
Firstly, my iPod is one of the staples of my existence right now. I taking it running, biking, in the car, on trips. I love it.
Second, I fucking HATE cell phones. I hate people that sit and talk on their phones at the gym while peddling away at 1 mph on the excersice bike like some pee in the cedar chips hamster thinking they are actually "getting a workout" all the while fucking up everyone elses concentration with their senseless chatter.
I had a cell phone for years, my bosses used to love abusing it, calling to find out where this or that was rather than just getting off their fat asses and looking for it themselves. I didn't use the stupid thing for half the things I thought I would. It's an impersonal and fake way of having relations with people. Just get together and have fun, don't sit and gossip like a giggly little girl on it.
My iPod makes me wanna get out and DO something, like ride through the county park down the street or go to the gym and bust my ass on a 4 mile run.
I'm obviously biased but I hate the cell phone lifestyle. It's fake, lazy and pointless. I see people crashing cars on their phones, ruining movies not paying attention while walking into me at the grocery store. I see people in lines chatting away on the phone and all the people around them giving them glares like they're irritating everyone around them. Like so many fads before, these little gadgets have turned the zombified idiots of our culture into the lemmings we all knew they could be.
The last thing I want is "convergence". I like being able to buy an iPod and JUST have it be an iPod. If I wanted a cell phone I would JUST want a cell phone. If I wanted a camera I would JUST buy a camera. Cell phones right now are nothing but bloated feature nightmares, most of which people do not use or care about. I don't need an mp3 player that comes with a 50$ a month cellphone bill plus text messaging at 15 cents a message.
...sure you can put all the features and electronics in one device, but certain things don't scale well.
...which translates to memory size, CPU speed, in general faster == more power. ...I have a camera on my phone (it had a lot of other things I wanted), and it SUCKS. In daylight you can get some half-assed thumbnails, but really...
1) Battery
2) Optics/Camera
Basicly, the electronics can scale down to nothing at all, it is simply that the rest can't. Though I suppose the future may be more "intelligent" power management. It is a dummy phone with low low consumption when you need it (not powering up the huge MP3 collection or decoder chip) and an entertainment center (for a short while) when you need it. It's all about what you can pack into a cell phone sized object. Maybe a "dock" extension to your phone to make it iPod-like?
Jack of all trades, master of none is not good. But I hope they can make a flexible "master of all, one at the time" pack.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I predict that the iPod will die, but will rise again after three days have passed.
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
I view WalMart as a good example of what "convergence" brought me - I have a place to go to purchase just about anything, as long as I don't want whatever I purchase to be above-average quality. So, you're going to take a music source, a phone and who knows what else and converge them into one device - which has to be small. Thus, worse sonics than the current mp3 players, worse battery than current phones, etc. And I want this to happen??
:-).
When I want music, I want it of reasonable sound quality. When I want a phone, I want a phone. I don't want to use the phrase "reboot my phone", and I'd really, really like one which works in the US, Europe and East Asia (i.e. multi-chip/multi-band). If the purpose of a phone it to be in touch with people, it should work worldwide.
I've not found a use for a pda, since I've got pen/paper and a laptop. I just don't need the information all that fast. Yeah, I'm not up to date and all that, but it's my money
There is a real opportunity for the phone to become the number one portable music device, but it won't be done with downloads it will be with streaming. Imagine being able to not only listen to all of the music in your "collection" anywhere you are, but new music as well. There's going to be a lot of opportunity for people providing personalized listening experiences on the cell, and I really do think it will be a better way to listen to music than the current "unplugged" model of the ipod.
In fact, since I've started thinking about music like this, I've pretty much taken all of the fun out of listening on my ipod. It seems boring to be stuck with the same music I have at home and not have access to new music suggestions. On my site we've had a lot of success with helping people find new music. Once you start going down that track it's hard to stick to just your home grown library.
Okay: full disclosure here. I like apple a lot. I'm not the only one, but others don't seem to realise that there is a market for people who want elegant devices which do what they should. The ipod plays music. It has other functions, sure, but it plays music better than anything else. You can find what you want to listen to and have it playing in 30 seconds. If you try to add other functions, it will confuse the UI and screw up the playing music thing. People want phones to ring people on. They don't want a portable computer in a phone because phones don't do input very well. Same with everything else that phones are "going to converge" with. If it stops it being a useful, convenient phone, it will suffer. Apple seem to understand how users interact with technology better than most other companies. Mac users will mostly give up their machines after you pry them from their cold. dead hands. Ditto newton users and ipod owners. People want to use machines that are right for the job: thus cameras to take pictures, phones to ring people, and computers for computing.
1) they all suck (as phones)
2) wi-fi uber alles.
3) the phone companies are not going to have a product pretty soon: I'll ask google to connect me to "my friend fred in muscogie" Then it will ask, would you like to send him email, leave a voice message, IM him, or talk to him right now?
4) THE device is the computer: everything else is a peripheral, including screen, keyboard, microphone, speakers, printer, projector, camera, video camera. What you carry around is a hard drive. Well, actually, a 30 gig memory card. You'll probably want to start with that small one.
I am surprised that everybody and his mother read the words convergence and phone without reading to the end of the article. The guy is making less of a point that Apple wants to sell iTunes on phones than he is about Apple selling music and video over computers, phones and other nifty little gadgets such as Airport express. He is making the case for Apple controlling the DRM content through convergence of devices such as phones, Airport express and computers.
It's a fine but important difference.
This new-fangled device will allow you to listen to new music as well as music that already exists in your library- it has advanced features as automatic shuffling, some stations even allow you to request a song...Most Radios are 100% wireless! and are great on battery consumption.
FAN-TAS-TIC!
I don't buy this argument. As an industrial designer I've had to study "convergence" over and over again. People have been trying to combine ridiculous devices for years. When the industrial age came around people attempted to converge household and appliances with each other, various tools with other tools, etc etc. This worked as a catchy marketing tool at first; however consumers began to realize that individual specialized devices and tools tend to be a lot more functional.
This convergence trend is starting to rear its ugly head again. Shitty phones, combined with shitty cameras, combined with shitty messaging devices. Bleh. No doubt, modern cell phones are little computers that can adapt with software. Yet, with convergence you force tools to restrict themselves to form-factor, interactive, and I/O constraints that they normally wouldn't have.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Convergence is a definite. A lot of comments I've read so far seems to miss the point of convergence. The phone is not going to put digital camera makers out of buisness, simply because of physical limitations (the optics must be larger) a phone camera will never be as good as a dedicated camera, but soon resolution will get even better than it is, and it will certainly replace the cheap point and shoot cameras (not everyone is margaret burke white nor do they need 8 megapixels). Furthermore as solid state memory advances and cheapens (we already have 1gb cf cards commerically available) there will be even more of a reason for sticking in mp3 and video playback capabilities. But until someone figures out how to cram a 15gig drive into a cell phone, the ipod will still hold its crown. As a side note. I'll never give up my standalone digital camera, or my standalone video camera, nor my ipod. But lets say you see something interesting one day and you want to take a picture or video of it, you'll probably have your cell phone; or you're waiting on a long line, you're bored so you listen to some music or play some games, once again you'll probably have your cell phone. It just makes sense. Just because many of the current implementations of convergence are crap (my sony ericson T616 for example) does not mean everything in the future will as well. Remember the PC is leading example of a convergence device (music, video, printing press, sex toy, you name it, it prob does it).
Nuclear war would really set back cable. - Ted Turner
Jesus dude, get a grip before you turn into a complete luddite. You have a valid point, namely, that cell phones have a lot of features that are half-assed. However, no one FORCES those on you. In fact, practically every major carrier out there has their no-frills phone that is more often than not free with a contract. It makes calls. It stores numbers. It can't sync with your PIM software via bluetooth and it can barely eek out a text message. Good for you.
But blaming cell phone usage into turning people into lazy slobs reeks of shortsightedness. Do you think when cars started becoming mainstream that people exploded into lazy blobs? Do you think people complained about the noise and the pollution? I'm sure it seemed like it at the time, especially when people took the car to go down to the store two blocks away.
And guess what? I've seen more abuses of iPod folks than cell phone folks lately, especially in urban Chicago where I live. People are constantly standing in front of el train exits and entrances, not letting people through because they are oblivious to the crush behind them. They do not answer when you call your friend from 50 feet away. I've seen so many instances of oblivious attitudes almost leading to car accidents while pedestrians with white headphones leasurely stroll into a DON'T WALK intersection. Does this prove that iPod users are lazy idiots? Of course not. It just means that people are dumb in general, and it's amplified when many people jump on a bandwagon (ie cell phones, and iPod usage).
And finally, while some of us don't want crappy gadgets to replace single-use, superior ones, you are NOT that majority. Plenty of people deal with crappy, inferior products when they are handy. In fact, your iPod is another example. How many people use Apple Lossless on their ipods? How many of the masses even KNOW what that is? Nope, mp3 at 128 with bad compression artificats is plenty good for them. I like convergence, except when it compromises too much... however we are clearly not the group with the most buying power.
Basically, what you are complaining about is human nature, that is magnified by certain gadgets. If it affects you to such a degree that you are overwhelmed emotionally and mentally regarding bad cell phone etiquette, I suggest you use some of that angry energy to affect some change, not bitch mindlessly to an audience that either agrees with you or doesn't care. In other words, get over yourself dude; since your iPod make you want to do something, well... do it.
I read the reference article when it first hit /. I am now returning to see the /. comments. Based on what I've scanned (>1 scores), it does not look like most people read the article. Understandable maybe because its long and yes, suspicious since it sounds like yet another iPod killer theory.
But I suggest those that have not read it take a look. The writer builds a good case. Everyone who has a cell phone will carry it before anything else (true for me, my G3 iPod is great but its not exactly invisible to carry, the mini maybe). processing power and storage is improving radically. Who would have thought 600-1000 songs could fit in a device the size of a zippo lighter on steroids a few years ago? Yes, convergent theories aside, this one does make sense.
The author also seems to position why Apple freaked at Real's encroachment. Its more about who controls DRM distribution in the long run - music as well as movies/video content. Despite the (rumored) loss leader of Apples iTunes service, there is big bucks in who controls the distribution in the long run. Apple (actually Jobs) is really plugged into the movie industry and the argument that the distribution of all (DRM) digital content may be the next big thing to homes and portables has some logic. iTune/iPod have been primarily a US success (remember, we are 4% of the world population) so getting control of the distribution of digital media worldwide is huge. Jobs gets it. Not sure the tunnel vision music or movie industry sees it (yet).
Don't get me wrong, I love my iPods (yes...). But I have a history of lots of cool things that morph over the long run. I am not worried, I'd love a tiny device that is the gotta have device for communication and storage/playback (I assume audio playback not video). All it needs is a processor, storage, a few keys and a ear phone jack -- wait -- this is not anything radical, it could be the same platform as a next gen phone.
I humbly suggest you take a peek at the article, worth the read.
which is lovely but misses the point... that I USE the iPod all the time while the phone is on standby... it's not that the battery is any better/worse just that I use one more than the other.
I am a leaf on the wind
...the mobile phone is the primary convergence point for digital devices and will soon cause iPod sales to evaporate
Right... Apple... Embattled... Porting OS X to Intel... G4 Overrated... Steve dying of cancer... iPod sales evaporating... Blah blah blah. Been there, heard dumb things like this before. Seriously, this article is retarded and a waste of Slashspace. I think the low comment numbers speak for that to a certain degree.
He talks about Real's recent breaking of the iPod (which I would be quite surprised if Apple didn't try to DMCA their ass for or at least issue a firmware upgrade to "fix" the problem) and how it's basically just the tip of the iceburg. I really enjoyed the part:
"We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod," Apple said in a release [about Real hacking the iPod].
Now, besides the fact that Apples' response was decidedly uncool for a company whose products must stay cool at all costs...
Duh. Apple doesn't like people fucking with their shit. I can say I would have issued about the same response. Well, maybe a little more harsh, but along the same lines. It's like how they don't allow Mac clones to be made anymore. It can possibly take away market share (from the iTunes Store, in this case) from them and removes their total power over their creation, something Apple loves to control. I've used and loved Macs for somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 years, and I can say without a doubt they do not like to lose money or power over their creations. And since when has Real been "cool", as is implied by saying Apple is uncool for not allowing Real to have their way with the iPod? '96? Anyone?
Another choice quote from the article:
People can only buy what they can afford. Lots of people want an iPod; they simply can't plunk down a $300 for a digital music player.
Like hell. I thought the Minis wouldn't sell worth a shit (mostly due to being too expensive for not enough capacity) and I was dead wrong. I couldn't have been more wrong. They cannot keep those things in stock, and they cost $249 for 1/5 the capacity of the $300 normal iPod. Plus, apple doesn't exactly cater to the bargain basement crowd. Their cheapest computer is still several hundred dollars more expensive than almost all other major brands cheapest comp. You get what you pay for, and people know this.
And one last gem:
It's a sad truth, but yes, the iPod is going to go away. Everyone knows it; they just don't know when.
Really? Thanks for the news break, Peter Jennings. And in other news, The Persian Empire lasted, in one form or another, from 648 BC to 1935 AD. Everything goes away eventually.
Request: ECM unit, 1000 km fullerene cable, 1 tactical nuclear weapon. Reason: Birthday party for foreign dignitary.
I think it may have to do with the beleagured Apple effect. 'No one' expects Apple to succeed in the longterm, and punditial wisdom says the company's successes must necessairly be Newtonized into the generalized entropic equilibrium of Microsoftness.
The enormous success of SMS in Europe (I don't know about Asia) probably has many causes. There are practical aspects - in many situations, you cannot answer the phone (e.g. when you're at meetings), but you can read and answer the message in a break - with SMS, people don't have to communicate synchronically. It's also very good for sending things like addresses or phone numbers - dictating them on the phone is not very convenient, and SMS messages can be archived much more easily than phone calls (if at all).
But I think it was clearly teenagers who started using SMS heavily, and older people only realized its usefulness later. Teenagers often use messages for flirting, and it may be easier to express oneself that way than by telephoning, especially when someone's shy. Many uses of SMS are a very different kind of communicating than telephoning, e.g. few people in Europe would call someone and recite a poem on the phone, but it's quite common to send poems by SMS. When it's used for personal matters, it's also better because people around you don't hear it (e.g. in a bus or train) when you write it by SMS. Or when you're with a group of people you know, they will inevitably listen to you when you telephone someone - if you don't want them to know what you're communicating to an absent person, better use SMS (they could look at the screen, but it's hard to read).
Then, it's somehow a more "gentle" way of communicating - if you telephone someone, this person *has* to answer the phone, or it is considered unfriendly, but with SMS, you can (depending on the content) just write a message, maybe an answer comes back at once, maybe in an hour or maybe none at all, it's more non-committal. I also read that it's quite common that younger people who have a relationship "control" each other via SMS (asking where the other one is, what s/he is doing etc.). Of course, that could be done by phoning all the time, but that would be much too intrusive, with SMS the level of intrusiveness is just right for the purpose.
Then, of course, there are many places where telephoning if impractical because it's too loud (e.g. concerts, discotheques) or because you are expected to be silent (e.g. in the classroom), so SMS comes in handy.
The use of SMS is now very widespread in Switzerland, but it seems that there is still the tendency that younger people use it much more often and more extensively than older people.
And this isn't just from some bitter mobile-hating dude. My mobile phone has a built-in MP3 player (and an Ogg Vorbis player I installed) and has been proven to support a 512MB MMC card. Sure, it's only one fourtieth of the storage of my iPod, but it's still 8.5 hours of music, better than any of the (3) MP3 players I bought before my iPod. Yet it's not my mobile that I hook up to an FM transmitter when I'm driving to work.
And quite frankly, I'm not intending to upgrade either my mobile or my iPod for the foreseeable future.
I hate cell phones and have absolutely no use for one. If I'm not at home, it's because I don't want you to call me. I just bought an iPod (20 GB) because I hate loading my packback with CDs and spare batteries, I like just having a little device on my belt with all my music on it. I also bought an AlphaSmart Dana for writing. I chose this over a laptop for several reasons: price, battery life, and lack of distractions. With a laptop I just know I'd spend more time playing video games than doing any actual writing. So I have to carry two little devices with me, and I like it. I don't want a phone or a digital camera.
My way back has been erased.
He paints a grandiose scheme of how apple is somehow attempting to control all these different elements to sit in the middle of all content being the gatekeeper and toll-taker.
The trouble is, the planets would have to align in a very precise way for this to happen.
Here's where I think he runs into trouble:
1) People who live and die by their cellphone think everybody does too. Perhaps this is generational, but most people don't take *any* devices when they go someplace. The idea that more than a minority of people think they need to be always connected is shortsighted.
2) People will not forget they can own their music. The idea of a pay-per-listen model probably gives the RIAA members chills up and down their spine, but people haven't gone for this in sizeable numbers since the 45 RPM vinyl single was produced. People can own a sizeable stack of music in almost perfect digital form on CD today without any hints of DRM or usage restrictions. I don't think people will move towards this model without getting something in return. For example, I might go to a pay-per-listen model provided the "listen" cost so little that I didnt' even have to think about it... say 5 cents or less per listen. But clearly, this is less money than the record company gets today, so where is the incentive for them?
3) People who are really into iTMS think the whole world is now downloading music. They're not. I think its great apple figured out a way to get people to download music and pay for it. But the amount they sell probably doesn't come close to what Wal-Mart does on their own.
4) Finally, the biggest flaw with this op piece is that it assumes companies can act intelligently enough over a long-enough period of time to fundamentally change the market. But Apple has never demonstrated this kind of consistency over a period of decades; heck, they've not been around long enough. Fundemantally, I doubt any one company has this power, if only because other companies will not let Apple achieve a position of dominance. Arrayed against Apple are all the tech companies, the record companies, and probably a handful of agencies that control the artists.
Now to be sure, this guy paints an interesting series of events, and who knows... maybe Apple believes it can be the new mega-entertainment power. Well, all I can say is that for all of Apple's visions and execution, they still can't get a significant portion of PC sales, so I don't believe the company really has the ability to execute in the content business. It isn't even core to Apple, how can they have any credibility in the entertainment arena?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Mobile phone use is about the same in America as it is in Europe.
s earch/pdfs/2003TMT.pdf ...
I don't know if there are statistics about actual mobile phone use (many people in Europa carry their mobile phone around, but don't telephone very often), but there is a big difference in market penetration. 2002 data about mobile phone penetration from http://www.morganstanley.com/institutional/techre
Sweden 89%, Finland 86%, Italy, Portugal and Hong Kong 85%, Spain, Ireland and Czech Republic 84%, Austria and UK 82%, Netherlands 79%, Switzerland 78%, Denmark and Norway 77%, Singapore 73%, Germany 72%, Hungary 68%, South Korea 67%, France 65%, Japan 62%,
US 50%
arguing that the mobile phone is the primary convergence point for digital devices and will soon cause iPod sales to evaporate
Because that just worked so well for the n-gage.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
You wanna know what I think? Maybe not. Anyway, here's what I think...
I think a bunch of marketting types have been watching Star Trek twenty-four hours a day for several years now in an effort to get to know their most covetted target audience, the alpha geeks. They've come to the conclusion that we technical types fantasize about an all-knowing, all-powerful tricorder type of device which confers success, smartness, and admiration upon its owner.
And I think they're mostly right. Most of us want success, smartness, and admiration, and we'll happily pay for a device that'll bring it instantly. The perfect all-in-one gadget is the holy grail that geeks sought long before the invention of the transistor. It's the reason for the constant evolution of the Swiss Army knife, and the Leatherman. It's the reason that people keep building cars that fly, sort of. The gadget that beats all other gadgets is the nerd version of a no-hassle weight loss system, hair growing tonic, love potion #9, etc.
But ultimately, they're wrong. When we get over our dreams of world domination and ultimate hipness, most of us realize that what's really important is having the right tool for the job, not some feature-laden gadget that flies, sort of.
After all, true fans realize that even on Star Trek, the tricorder, camera, phaser, etc. are all different devices.
see my point? asynchronous communication has its benefits.