Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Strategy Behind iTunes Mobile Phone
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."
Apple's Strategy Behind ROKR
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
Could this be a lead in to apple in the cell phone market? Or at least a partnership in that area?
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.
Evolution or ID?
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?
--- witty signature
Sometimes this type of strategy is called a "call option". This means that by working with Motorola to build an "iTunes phone," Apple can test the market for MP3-enabled phones. It's probably cheaper to work with Motorola in this way than it is to do the primary market research. The ROKR, even if it does not sell well, helps Apple and Motorola be better positioned in the face of the latest telecom trend (or fad) of converged devices, specifically music-enabled phones.
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.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
It is a dumb idea to bet against the convergence of personal digital accessories. If Steve Jobs really thinks people are going to buy two devices when one will do, his calculated risk is not calculating enough.
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.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
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.
Will wank off Linus Torvalds for fame.
The Rokr is a 2 year old phone, that has been software updated with AAC abilities. That's it.
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 million in sales in 2 years.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
How is this a strategy to loose money? Isn't the phone a motorola product and not an apple product. Sure there is a license fee of the software but can it really be that much.
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.
Evolution or ID?
product that nobody really wants apart from the usual Mac-zealot contingent who'd buy a turd if it droped from Steve Jobs' ass.
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.
What's your damage, Heather?
and i CAN only say that the author needs his head examined.. The phone was in fact politically hampered by both Mobile Operators who did not want to give up their own ring tone revenue and etc.. remember folks ring tones sell at $25 per tune not $.99 per tune.. Apple's Mistake was relying on Moto to swing the Moblie Operators their way.. A better tact for Apple would be to give acut of the $.99 to Mobile Operators and highlight the importance of selling a large amount of handsets for their Mobile service.. Even Russ B has stated as much in his blog and his yahoo blog..
Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
Apple's strategy here is to sell a program and a service to Motorola. It's not Apple's hardware, guys. The ROKR is not an Apple product.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Hasn't the market shown time and again that a hobbled version of a product will quickly be beaten out by an unhobbled one? In the short term this might keep iPod sales up, but in the long run somebody else will offer a full function cell with mp3 capability (and yes, I avoided the typical, "In the long run.... We're all dead" statement).
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.
Apple making the iPhone and instead of having numbers, they'd design it all cool so you'd use the mouse wheel as a rotary dial and you'll get hi-def surround "grrrringg" sound chirping out of the phone's spaker as you do it.
Zoom Player Lead Dev.
The ROKR phones, or the Nokia phone mentioned later in the article still do not hold a lot of songs. For that reason, they're not competing directly with the iPod line but instead the iPod Shuffle and the iPod nano. If you look at the price of the phone vs. the price of the shuffle, I would guess that Apple is making roughly the same margins. That way, they should be indifferent to whether people buy the phone or the shuffle. For that reason alone, I don't understand why they wouldn't make the phone the best product they could, preserving their brand image, and still entering a new market of iTunes on a mobile phone. It would be different if the phones sold for the same price but featured 20GB of storage or so, then directly competing with the iPod photo line. If that were the case, I'd think the article's author would have a valid point. Anybody agree with me or am I way out in left field again?
Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
Even the brightest minds make mistakes. It's about time to suck it up, instead of touting it as a "clever tactical move".
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
No,
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.
"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"
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.
Blender And Linux Fan
I have a Nokia S60 Symbian phone with a 1Gb memory card and a mp3 player installed. It plays all the music i want without any DRM and/or artifical limitations and is a very good phone to boot. Can someone explain to me why this new ROKR phone is supposedly the next-great-thing-for-mankind when it does not offer anything new or better?
Market positioning to preserve revenue for other products, and annoying the competition. Seems like the actual utility to consumers was just an afterthought, this time out. Seriously.
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.
All this amounts to is yet more trying to rationalize why the ROKR is so bad.
It's just bad. It's not a conspiracy. Something touched by Apple just plain sucks, and you'll all just have to learn to deal with it.
It seems that phones that can do what is wanted already exist - the Sony Ericsson W800 is a better iTunes phone than the iTunes phone. Just observing that model's sales would have saved Apple a lot of money.
I would like to play with the ROKR tho, if just to see if Apple has been able to rip out the horrible Motorola OS and replace it with something that feels like its from this century.
Over at Gearlive.com they have a photo of someone duct-taping a RAZR and iPod Nano together overcoming the ROKR's 100 song limitation and still ending up with a smaller overall package than the ROKR.
Yes, it's a gag, but still relative proof that Apple is placing the 100 song limitation on Motorola for competition reasons.
http://kansieo.com
Perhaps someone could enlighten me but I'm still unsure why the ROKR is meant to be new and inovative.
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.
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
When it was in about 50 comments on the discussion about the phone's release...
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.
Y'know, the phone is probably just Apple's way of getting in a sucker punch on Motorola. "Sure, we know style, trust us... you want the phone to be like..."
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.
Been there, read that http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/11/ 190255&tid=181&tid=3
gtkaml.org
Reading too far into what is simply a bad product design. It's like people can't come to term with the fact that Apple was involved with a product that suffers from usability issues.
------ Tim O'Brien
Everyone and his dog knows there will be an iPod phone next year. Steve is even cleverer than you give him credit for.
The nano's already going there - it has a lock feature; to unlock it you spin the click wheel and the screen shows a little combination lock. Absolute fluff, so totally Apple...I seriously wouldn't be surprised if the iPhone did just what you say.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
> 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.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
The reason why I wound't buy the RORK...ROKK...ROKR... whatever thingy is, it's a phone with some iPod in it while what I want is an iPod with a phone in it.
It's always amazing to me how well branding works - being cool works - especially when it comes to Apple's devotees/apologists. Jobs and others have always taken an ass-backwards approach in running Apple. Instead of "being all you can be" - instead of providing hardware and software that meets its customer's needs [for example fast computers (G5 slower than AMD and Intels) and full functional software (Quicktime 7 - missing various profiles and levels of H.264) - Apple continous to stragedize the development of hardware and software by attempting to monopolize whatever it's into. Now that might be smart business (in the short term) - and we know Microsoft is trying to do the same - but in the long term it will kill Apple. Why not really compete - insead of prestending to compete!?
Face it, Apple fanbois: Jobs just made a mistake on this one. It was a bad design, not a gadget cleverly designed as a bad one
Err, perhaps you missed the point of the article. If the phone phlops (sorry, had to do it), then no skin off of Apple's back. They didn't sink a bunch of r&d $'s into it and they minimize the sullying of the Apple name (note that there is NO mention of iPod in connection with the phone). If it takes off, they get whatever royalties from the phone, and they can then be poised to produce their own iPhone. Not to mention that they would be in an excellent position to get other cell phone manufacturers to then pony up to using either iTMS, or maybe even just coming up with an iPod-on-a-chip that can be utilized in other manufs. phones.
So a "mistake", probably not. Not a "coverup" though. Jobs doesn't care that it was a "bad" design (to a point).
Yeah. Let's cut the crap about intentionality, "what Steve wanted", and look at what he got:
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.
Because of ROKR, Apple now has Itunes running on java, which would be the third OS for their application. I think that is a pretty good risk to take.
When I think of a new product from Apple, I tend to think of it as a balls to the walls attempt to take over hearts and minds of people to direct them toward the entire Apple product set.
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 record from) as well as voice tuners (the ability to take verbal notes on the go is a nice feature), what is left is enough to interest me in the product.
This is why the ROKR is such a surprise/disappointment. I would have thought that Jobs would see integrating Apple products into a phone as being a gateway into bringing more people into the Apple fold. I would love to see a mobile phone that integrated iPod and Mac Tiger functionality (along with map based GPS) with wireless communications for a totally integrated solution.
This would give Apple into an entry point into the hand held marketplace (abandoned with Newton) and allow them to compete on another level with Microsoft as well as take on Palm and RIM.
But, most importantly integrating the iPod and Mac functionality into a package like a phone would give people that would never consider a Mac an opportunity to work with it, hopefully like it and convert their desktop machines.
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
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.
Personally, I find anybody who clips anything to their belt as "clunky and lame". I just put my phone in my pocket.
I don't respond to AC's.
iTunes as a music store may be the biggest, but it's certainly not the best. It has branding and people associate with that -- they will buy because they first bought the iPod, and now they are stuck with their choice of music store.
:)
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 making cuts to their pricing structure in iTunes ($.79 at Yahoo for a download, or $4.99 a month for unlimited.. iTunes can't compete at that price) and by that time, it will be too little, too late.
It's amazing to me the amount of marketing dollars spent behind a product that is by my measures, rather mediocre. It has a nice sleek look, it's got a decent interface (that scroll wheel was genious) but otherwise, the sound quality is subpar compared to an iRiver, the battery life is quite a bit lower, there's no radio, no voice recording, you can't view text documents on it, and it's expensive. I would much rather see Apple spend the money they do on marketing the iPod to invest in OS X because frankly, I want an alternative OS that is comparable to Windows at every level -- including software support.
OS X is as well, a MUCH better product than any of its competition, unlike the iPod. So my question is, why the fuck are they investing so heavily and marketing so heavily, a mediocre product when they have a GREAT product in OS X that only needs some love and affection (and allowing me to whitebox would help a lot too!), and the same marketing money and we have a push to really compete with Windows in the mainstream.
Until Apple makes some realizations in this respect and starts improving on what they are ALREADY ahead at (the OS), and making consumers aware of it, and making it cheap, they will find themselves going the same route as Betamax. Better technology, but ultimately much more expensive, less compatible, and will be used by only a small percentage until the *next* best thing comes out. In the case of Betamax, VHS wasn't better but everybody went with that for convienience, and now EVERYBODY went to DVDs because it's "the next best thing". Will Windows Vista be the next best thing? I doubt it, but it may seem that way -- and sadly for Apple, perception is reality.
My perception right now, is that Apple is not the OS X company, but the iPod company. I'd much rather they be the former but then again, I'm not Steve Jobs and I don't have a say in the matter. Besides, the amount of medication I'd have to take to BE Steve Jobs is something I'd probably avoid
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
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 ugly, but it works.
I even use iTunes to fill my phone. I use a smart playlist that limits the selection to about 115MB (to account for file size varaiances). I get rid of the songs I want, add the ones I like, and iTunes keeps the file size right. Then, I can select all the songs, and do a direct drag-and-drop onto the OBEX exchange window, and things copy over. Unfortunetly, there are some driver issues, as it will cough on certain file names and sometimes just stop transfering for no reason.
Simply, this gives me a MP3 player when I wouldn't have one. Of course, I didn't buy a cell phone just so it could be a MP3 player, but it gives me one on the cheap side.
The phone is exactly like an existing Motorola model, except they changed a single center button into two - the original function, and the 'music' button.
Apple just licensed their shit and gave some tips on wiping.
cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
pure conjecture can only describe a logic that Jobs is manipulating Moto to pilot an Apple phone spec, later.
...that's just the way Jobs works.
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.
Once WI-FI or some other wireless networking technology, I bet Apple will release an iPod that does VOIP. But Apple can't do that now. The only way to get into the mobile phone market right now is to partner with providers who aren't willing to launch the sorts of services that would make an Apple phone an Apple phone. Consequently, Apple is now trying to merely put its name out in the mobile arena. It is essentially creating iTunes for providers to integrate into their non-Apple phones. This avoids stepping on the providers toes. But this is also a temporary step. Ubiquitous wireless will eliminate the need of Apple to partner with the mobile providers.
Apparently we have fallen on the bad side of moderation here. Sorry to drag you down.
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 and through a cheap lens). These are things people didn't even realize they wanted to do until the technology became available. If operators lower the cost of packets, such services will become even more popular.
People already want to take their music with them. They have since Sony brought out the Walkman years ago. The features necessary to playback music are pretty light, comparatively. It's a matter of increasing the audio out abilities of the phone (I'm simplifying, of course), and you've got yourself a media-playing phone. These already exist in some markets, and I don't see the momentum stopping.
The primary thing holding back this particular convergence is lack of storage, but as we saw earlier Flash memory is becoming more abundant than ever. Removable memory is also getting very large, so carrying around your media isn't going to be a hassle.
I also see phones becoming cheaper (price per feature) and the cost of a cellphone/media player is going to be a better value than two separate devices. It's going to come, and I don't think that staggered technology improvements are going to hold back the convergence products.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
Yet I've missed calls because I've been listening to my iPod and not heard the phone (vibrate doesn't help when you're being pushed about on a train).
Normally I'd agree about convergence being a bad thing, but I only have a couple of pockets and most of the time they're full.
The article states "...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..."
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, the ROKR is a mediocre product at best, with a typical cellphone user interace. It will most likely fail in the market.
Here's another theory: Steve Jobs holds grudges. There has been a tension between Motorola and Jobs ever since he killed the clones. Motorola was left with millions of dollars of unsold inventory and probably as much R&D costs. Shortly after Jobs killed the clones, Motorola got rid of all Macs from their corporate campus in Austin and began switching their PPC strategy from Desktop/Server towards imbedded. So now Jobs is sucker punching Motorola by convincing them to spend millions (again) on a product that's bound to fail. I wouldn't be surprised to see Jobs yank the iTunes rights away from Motorola in a few months.
-J
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-play interoperability and open standards.
So how about this: Instead of a big, bulky cellphone + PDA + MP3 player + camera + .... + ... I'd like to have:
- An iPod that can serve as a Bluetooth headset. It has a screen and a rudimentary keyboard (sufficient for most things, such as calling someone from my addressbook or answering a call), and audio I/O.
- A Bluetooth headset. Much smaller than an iPod, but provides the basic functionality I need to receive and make calls.
- A PDA with Bluetooth. It doesn't have a modem or access to a wireless network, but has everything else.
- A slim digital camera, which can take photos and videos well. However, if I want to send an MMS (the main "excuse" for VGA cameras in cellphones), it would be nice if I could just send it via Bluetooth to my cellphone.
Wait! I actually have all these things already. So why can't my cellphone be a screen-less, keyboard-less, matchbox-sized device (basically, battery + Bluetooth tranceiver + GSM tranceiver) that I can drop in my backpocket when I want connectivity with the outside world?Actually, the thing that is missing is interoperability! I can already have this modularity, but getting one device to see the other is a pain. Doing things like getting one device (say the iPod) to see the addressbook in another device (say, the small tranceiver box) is next to impossible.
An article in the Economist recently pointed out that integration for non-portable home entertainment devices is currently a failure because getting things to talk to each other is too complicated: typical consumers do not buy "service offerings" (e.g., system for distributed video, with terminals and servers) but rather buy individual devices on impulse, which they can just plug in and forget. That is why DVD players, for example, caught on: you buy the thing, plug it in and it works.
What we need is the same for digital devices, whether portable or not. The right way to integration is not to build a single box that is a TV + DVD player + computer + DVR + telephone + game console + web terminal + ... + ... (doesn't that sound ridiculous?). What is needed are open protocols that will make the interoperability that is possible with a TV, VCR and DVD also possible on a grander scale. Both for portable and non-portable devices. Just my 2c...
"he [Jobs] wants to project phones as an extension but not a replacement of a portable music player"
..but for now, I think it's just one small step closer to determining what does and doesn't work.
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 personally, from the simple standpoint that it doesn't FEEL like Apple and at the same time doesn't seem all that great as a cellphone either (as far as design is concerned)
Now if you somehow fused the ipod with something more along the lines of Motorola's PEBL phone, and somehow managed to keep Apples touch scroll well for navigation and perhaps dialing, then MAYBE you would have the product that the people are expecting..
...but if it was an iPod that made phone calls, that would have me running to the store.
Implementation is poor. The ROKR is still born, I think. Without the traditional iPod controls and only storage for 100 songs, this is just some slapped together licencing agreement between Apple and Motorola without a lot of thought or effort put into it. I can't understand why it took so long to release the phone, my only guess is that it took Apple a while to develop iTunes Music Store for cell service and to wrangle the necessary deals with cell phone providers to implement the service. I doubt any effort truely went into the ROKR phone and this phone probably materialized a few weeks after the initial announcement and has been sitting on a shelf for months.
Anyways, the idea behind mobile devices and music is good, beeing able to buy and download music directly on a portable device is the next step in the right direction, although I would prefer an iPod with WiFi capability to connect to the iTMS over some poorly implemented cell phone anyday.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Gee the phone is a flop so it's a Motorola product. Had the phone been worth a sh1t, and people buying it, everyone would be praising Apple. You can remove the fanboy from the apple store, but you can't remove the apple from the fanboy.
This was insightful? Being that I work for a company that does this kind of design work, and helps customers integrate new ideas into phones, I have to speculatively disagree with this whole, "it's motorola's fault." You guys need to quit protecting Apple so much. The original post is probably the most accurate. Businesses do not like to disrupt their revenue streams.
I think it all depends what people want. For me, I'd rather have a separate phone and iPod. Why? That's just what I like, but other people would want them rolled into one. Besides, I think the ROKR is getting a lil bit too much criticism. It IS the first iTunes phone out there, so of course there are going to be better products that come out after it. It's all about testing the marketplace and the product to find out what consumers like/dislike.
I've got an idea for a device which would benefit from acting like an iPod with respect to iTunes. That is, it should be able to sync with a user's iTunes music library. I haven't gone anywhere with the idea or contacted Apple about it. But given the lack of compatible devices on the market (only the ROKR as far as I know) and from searching the apple website I have to believe that Apple is not licensing their code, nor documenting widely the interface.
Why not? It certainly seems that they could 'grow their ecosystem' by licensing other devices. Certainly they wouldn't want to errode their iPod marketshare, but I believe they have the wide-spread iTunes installation because of the success of the iPod, not vice-versa. Also, like the ROKR, devices in other spaces than the hand-held portable market could certainly benefit from iTunes integration but not infringe on Apples market.
Any ideas on why Apple hasn't made iTunes integration easy?
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
My lips are curled in a smile at the devious tortures our Lord Jobs has devised to torment Gates, Ballmer and the various associated lackies that lick their stinking boots.
iTunes mobile? Bah! That's a hearty FU to Motarola for all those years of non-performance. Rest assured, the day will come when Apple will reveal the One True Mobile and that day is neigh!! Cower cowards and Windows-huggers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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/scanner/fax/copier devices that sell so well these days. Those things 100% prove your case. I don't think the problem is with physical limitations, but more so with marketing controlling the design budget. There just isn't an incentive for a company to put a super-kick-ass postscript laser printer with 64mb of RAM in one of these things because they're trying to sell it to non-discriminating customers who will casually use each feature and don't want to spend money for a fax modem that they'll only use once in a while.
What will probably happen, though, is that in cell phones, these features (camera, mp3 player, text messg) will become part of the expected standard set among consumers. Like how people shopping for cars expect there to be air conditioning and a CD player. Those used to be options.
Right now, sure, there's limited RAM in the motorola iTunes phone. But in the next rev. it's entirely possible they could enable streaming audio over the phone's internet connection. Then the phone becomes an internet radio, which could compete with the satellite radio providers who are forever going to be challenged to power a portable receiver in a walkman-style form factor. Plus, internet radio is free outside of the bandwidth fees of the user's provider...
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
its a Motorola phone moron!
so how is this "a hearty FU to Motorola" ?
the history of the world
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?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have to agree with you when you ask what the big deal is about this phone (marketing most likely).
My Nokia 6230 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.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
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?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Protecting Apple? No, not at all. Between the dislikes and likes I think I might come out as neutral. My question to you though is: does the ROKR Motorola phone *look* like an Apple hardware product? Does that sound like a Apple name?
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.
They sure don't. 2/3's of apple's revenue is now from the sale of the iPod. Why on EARTH would Apple help motorola design a kick ass phone, only to have the hardware sales $$$'s go to Motorola (or share for that matter)? They wouldn't, something like that would be disruptive to their iPod revenue stream.
I'd say the ROKR is a proof of concept. I think though, that Apple has hard a very hard time selling the iPod phone concept to the providers simply becuase the providers want to control the content on the phone. Basically, they want a cut. Verizon for example, controls the content on their phones by making the wireless connection to the cell phone network the only path in or out of their phones. If you download something to your Verizon phone, Verizon collects. Apple, I suspect is not getting as much as they want out of the providers, hence the exclusive deployment with cingular (who are very open with their hardware).
My point is simply - we have yet to see the real iPod phone.
http://www.applematters.com/index.php/section/comm ents/538/
Of course it was made by the Motorolans! The FU came from the lack of design input by the Dark (and pudgy) Lord Ives and total toe-dipping-into-marketness from Lord Jobs. The FU is in lack of support - lip service support (yuck) - and general "meh"ness. Which, of course, applies to your non-comment. BEGONE FOUL SLASHDOTTER!!
This supossedly new phone is auctually 2 years old. It was called the E398. Apple wrote a java iTunes program and slapped it on this phone and they renamed it ROKR. You can buy an E398 from myworldphone.com for $179 and load the iTunes firmware to it to have a ROKR phone. I can't believe people are so dumb....
Then Apple should build their own cell phones and market them.
Steve Jobs introduces a crappy phone but it's intentionally bad, so it's good?
/.
Only on
...what can be explained by stupidity.
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.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Judging by the number of times people on /. said something wouldn't work or would not find a market and the opposite happening, shows that trying to analyse the market based on your own personal preferences just does not work. Remember what was said about the iPod shuffle and the iPod mini?
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 - we don't have the selection and we don't even necessarily have the latest phones. I am not sure whether that is due to the customers or because of the fragmented networks (most countries are 100% GSM).
At the same time Motorola still hasn't quite got it when it comes to design. The still act like an electronics company, with little to no design sense. It is probably for reasons such as these why Ericsson teamed up with Sony.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Apple creates the devices, has iTunes. Google creates the infrastructure with all their dark fiber and WiMax - not to mention their flirting with VOIP. Cell phone companies don't really want/need iTunes and iPhones since they connect directly with your Mac or PC. They don't make $$ on the downloads. Look at what Verizon has done with it's Bluetooth enabled phones and the requirement to use Verizon's "Get It Now" to upload/download wallpaper, ringtones, pictures, etc.
r
I can't believe people are so dumb....
I can.
The question is, of course, how much money can you take away from them before they notice?
Then again, I believe strongly in the discrimination against and exploitation of the stupid and/or lazy.
This is where Apple has failed consistantly over the years. The refusal to keep to closed architectures and refusal to license products to others has kept them in a niche market. They've finally got a runaway hit with the iPod, and they're scared to death to infringe on it.
Ok, maybe Jobs is testing the market. Maybe he figures Apple can design a better phone (an expensive undertaking) if this device takes off. However, I think MOT is playing a very smart game here. The battle of convergence has 1 likely winner - what I mean by that is one of the technologies will take the lead. Will it be the cell phone guys, the PDA guys, the handheld gaming guys, the camera guys or the portable music player guys? There are 3 compelling applications: phone, music, pictures. Gaming and PDA are more limited in their appeal. Now, ask yourself who is the ideal target market for these converged devices ... the answer is, parents of teenagers. "Dad, buy me an iPod. Mom, I need a digital camera. I gotta have a cell phone!" The parents see these converged devices, with the iTunes/Apple stamp of approval, and they see a way to meet all those "demands" in a single purchase. The kids are happy - they got everything they wanted, and it's Apple so it's cool. The parents are happy because they managed to save a few bucks. MOT is happy because they sell lots of these phones, which, at the high end presumably have nicer margins. Apple, it seems, does not gain anything in the deal other than some market research. Most iTunes purchases are by the over 30 crowd - not teens. Will MOT's lead be too large to overcome? Will iPod sales drop off the table? Risky move on Job's part if you ask me.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
the utterly stupid name. "rocker."
I'd want to keep my distance from that moniker as well (I didn't even like it when I paid college bills by hanging sheetrock.)
Introducing the all-new 2005 American Motors ROKR.
GoooOOO RRRRooooKKKRRRRRRR!!!!!!!
he wants to project phones as an extension but not a replacement of a portable music player
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.
Havoc Video
For me, at least, the idea of convergence is not very appealing because each component does not have much to do with the others and the compromises made in combining them forces the device to be mediocre at each of the things it's supposed to do.
Convergence is great only if it makes sense and each components support one another without diminishing its own usability. Just because an oven has a timer it does not mean it's a good idea to combine an oven and an MP3 alarm clock connected to an online music store. Just putting various products together in one package is not a "digital convergence" envisioned by Jobs. Sometimes "digital convergence" is better done by two separate products designed to work well with each other. This is the insight missing from many product managers and as a result, we see stagnations in consumer products and we get mountainous amount of crappy products. making users' life miserable and filling up the landfill.
I left Japan about 3 months ago. mp3 cell-phones were already around for, what, a year already at that point? Geez, Jobs, great innovation.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
you love linux don't you.
I pick up my ROKR today, knowing full well it's based on the E398. Apple's endorsement means seamless OS X syncing, bluetooth modem support, Sailing Clicker support, etc.
100 songs is secondary for me.
Old does not always mean obsolete. I'm hoping it means mature.
Spending extra money for something that just works is not always dumb, especially if one bills by the hour.
This Apple fanboi is completely convinced that Steve Jobs thinks the ROKR is a POS, and is only going along with it to get his foot in the door of music phones. Steve Jobs' ego would not allow something as ugly and hampered as the ROKR to come out with Apple's brand on it -- hell, even the ads for the phone mention Motorola and Cingular more than Apple or iTunes. This is deliberate.
It's no surprise that Apple's event last week was all about the iPod nano, with the ROKR relegated to an obligatory sidebar. The only reason for calling the ROKR an "Apple phone" is because of the cache Apple has with iTunes.
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
Cubscout, please. Slashdot commentary does not a product failure make.
Corporations generally do not act like individuals. They don't get revenge. They are all about trying to make a profit -- now, or in the future.
This is actually a clever concept. Consider a device that combines an iPod with iChat and an iSight camera.
A comment I made above is that Apple does not enter "mature" markets. But an iChat phone, linked with a Skype-like Apple-branded service, might be intriguing.
Hmm...
Apple will upstage all the cellphone companies when the time is right. Heck, in 1-2 years all you need is a WiMax, good coverage, and a softphone (Gimzo) and it's over for the cellphone companies. (Considering eBay/Skype deal will force regulation in the VOIP market), hence VOIP will be on the same legal footing as the cell industry.
Wait.. Jobs built the phone? Jobs wrote the software? Certainly Jobs did SOMETHING on this phone to call it his mistake.
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.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Why would I play with apple and take a cut of the measley $.99, which is not a very profitable price in the first place?
...).
I wouldn't. I'd lock Apple out of my network and develop my own competing download service and license the same music from the same labels at substantially the same terms. Those contracts from the label are actually pretty standardized now (even for all you can eat streaming deals).
It isn't that Apple doesn't work with the carriers because they're stupid. They don't work with the carriers because the carriers realize that Apple needs them more than they need Apple, and there isn't enough margin or ounces of flesh for the carriers to extract in exchange for Apple's cool brand or interface or whatever they bring to the party (and it isn't license to sell music, a superior billing infrastructure, network access,
it's predictable that apple would team up with a handset vendor to go after their common enemy -- the carriers.
Steve saw the phone and made a call to Intel on it.
The potato it is uninformed.
They both look very much like the Motorola ROKR. They can play MP3's and have the same 512MB storage capacity. However they also have 2 megapixel cameras built in.
w 800-en.shtml
http://www.mobile-review.com/review/sonyericsson-
I have one of these via a relative in Germany. You can get any phone free with a 2 year plan. But the cool thing is that the minimum charge per month is only $5 dollars.
Part of the issue with this device if battery power. A cell phone that plays music for a few hours is going to be hard pressed to keep up with a plain cell phone or an iPod because it is trying to check for phone signals and play music (of course) -- so that may limit the number of songs due to size/power issues.
But if Apple is holding back from making the best music device that happens to be a phone that it can -- it has made a classic marketing mistake. You should always compete with yourself. IBM ceded the desktop market ages ago, because they wanted to sell businesses the expensive Million dollar main frame -- not the mid range machine and not the desktop. They wanted to sell what they wanted to sell. This left an opportunity for others to satisfy customers.
So, it a phone with more music can be made, then one of the manufacturers who is getting stomped by the iPod (any and all of them) has nothing to lose in trying to give customers the best they can.
However-- knowing a bit about the legal maneuvering, I'm thinking that there is more to the issues involved here. Motorola was about the only cell phone company willing to let Apple in. Executives at all the cell phone companies have stars in their eyes about selling $3 songs to customers and locking them in. They are going to have to go through a long, slow, painful and expensive education. Perhaps the 100 song limit is more because this is a proof of concept and cell phone companies don't want anything "too successful".
Personally, I'm guessing its due to all the electronics and battery limitations--otherwise, all things staying the same, a 4 gig + ipod with 8 hours play time and 3 days standby talking time and maybe 200 minutes talking time (which would stand as a decent phone and iPod -- though not stellar) would give you an unacceptable brick in your pocket. The size factor of something that would make this feasible would not be accepted by the market. This is for people who want to have geek chic -- then a year or two from now when the power and miniaturization get improved you will see a better Music Phone.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Sun coined the slogan that the Network IS the computer, but Apple was the first to seriously begin to deliver that idea to the home. It just so happens that sometimes it takes a while for technology to get to the point where it makes sense for Apple to enter into the market. I think that Apple is one of the few companies that's really preparing itself for universal network access.
And in the meantime, every phone that sells that is compatible with iTunes is essentially a commercial for Apple. But Apple needs to tread carefully here. They need to not step on the toes of the big mobile providers until wireless networking is ubiquitous. If they piss off the Cingulars and the Verizons, who will be some of the major players in providing wireless networking, Apple will be dead in the water.
so thats why the name isnt catchy they dont care about it mkay that makes alot more sense
then it'll truly be apples and oranges.
HD Trailers
Apple made money by licensing the iTunes technology to Motorola, as well as agreeing to promote and launch it. The limitations of the device that Motorola chose to put the technology in, as well as the limitiations imposed by the carrier made the device not really that useful. End of story.
Besides its name, what makes the phone an 'iTunes' phone, not an 'iPod' phone?
You plug it into computer. You transfer songs to it. You can't 'make' songs on it...
Corporations have all the rights, responsibilities and behaviors of individuals. Duh.
I think everyone is thinking apple had far far more to do with the phone than they did.= 2725
The phone is just a modified Motorola C975
http://www.three.com.au/index.cfm?pid=2204&pageid
the guts for the phone have been in use for quite some time dating back to the A830.
All motorola did was enlarge the memory from 64mb to 512mb and add AAC DRM support
I think its far more likly that Motorola just offered apple a royalty payment to use the Ipod name. and then went bidding with the major carriers to see which one would pay the most for the phone.
Apple doesn't need to "test the waters" with an iPhone. In fact an iPhone would probably be another company's hardware platform / RF section combined with Apple software and a click wheel. Something like this may appear one day, but the ROKR will have had little to do with it.
As to how Apple is trying to shape the future of personal electronics technology by including a functionally limited iTunes inside a third-party cell phone, I'd like to offer a much simpler answer that people are somehow missing:
Currently there are a few phones with built-in MP3 players. Simply put, it is therefore necessary that Apple enter this market by introducing a cell phone capable of playing iTMS purchases.
This is absolutely essential for the iTMS to remain most attractive to record companies.
Music-playing phones aren't quite perfect yet, so the initial ROKR iTunes offering doesn't need to be anything great - the point is that Apple is now in that market, and no other music store can say "unlike iTunes, our music can be downloaded to cell phones, which is the future of personal music players".
iTunes on the ROKR is for no other purpose than to establish a position in the wireless phone market, and the 100-song limitation is to ensure nobody buys a ROKR if they want an iPod. In fact this could work to their advantage: "Hey, having all this music is really great, but I just wish I could carry more songs around with me. I guess now I need an iPod!"