Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Smart Phone Depends on OS X Tie-Ins
anaesthetica writes "According to AppleInsider, Apple is not only working on a cellphone + mp3 player iPhone, but is working on a second model designed to be a smart phone, highly integrated with Mac OS and .Mac. The smart phone has gone through several iterations, as the notoriously demanding Mr. Jobs ordered the elite team working on the phone to redesign and re-engineer their prototypes. Capabilities are reported to include Front Row interface, syncing contacts and iCal with .Mac, "call ahead", iChat video conferencing integration, WiFi, and a slide-out keyboard. Too good to be true?"
.... appears to be taking a page out of the M$ playbook and tying the device tightly to the OS to drive OS X sales. One would hope that he is also smart enough to have the phone be usable to users of Windows & *INX without hopping though hoops to do it.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
A phone I can plug a usb cable into and drop pictures/sounds/contract directly from my computer.
A nice easy interface to do this with.
Stop dollaring us to death when we want a picture or a ring tone that we create.
If it can have music as well, bonus.
IT would be neat if it used the same connection as the iPod
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Stop using verizon. My phone uses bluetooth (no cable involved) and windows treats it like a file system (IBM/Lenovo laptop) that I can browse and move stuff to/from the phone whenever I want. Mac OS X uses the bluetooth file transfer utility, and I think you have to do that if you're using a non-IBM/lenovo laptop as well (or an IBM/Lenovo laptop without their bluetooth stack). I use Cingular. Most GSM phones are the same. Verizon is the only one to cripple their bluetooth so badly, that I know of.
It's not like the rumor is exactly new. There is the claim by a company that they received manufacturing orders from Apple, as well as other claims from the rumor-mill (e.g. Kevin Rose's claim that his friend at Apple has a 4GB and a 8GB phone).
.mac. It's not like I can actually afford the iPDA .. forcing me to pay a monthly subscription for owning a piece of hardware is too much.
I remember when buying my Macbook Pro there were all sorts of rumors not to buy one. That there would something to be shortly released that would supersede it (of course, at the time, the only thing that could be cooler was a iTablet). People claim that Apple enjoys these rumors, though I have to imagine to some extent it hurts their sales. Some speculate it is a good way for them to figure out what the public wants. Others that it is simply subterfuge to hide their real activity from their competitors.
I give this rumor *some* credence simply because it seems like the hardware is already there. It's not that large of a stretch of an imagination to think of a Nano being put together with a cell phone -- much like how many cell phone companies are putting ipod like devices with their cell phones. Which means the big question is whether Apple actually *wants* this. My suspicion is that easier access to the iTunes store is probably a large incentive to them.
Personally the iPhone isn't that appealing to me. If the only extra functionality I get from it is that it takes less space, I think I'll pass. However, as far as the iPDA -- that is something I'd want. The iPod already has a large HD (80GBs anyone?), a processor capable of playing music, games, doing calendaring, etc. Is it that big a of a stretch that it should be able to maybe do email? Maybe surf the web? Heck, if Opera can make a web browser for cell phones and DS, it's hard to see why not.
The big catch seems to be the input device. It's not clear how Apple feels about a stylus. However, things like the Blackberry seem to do well with just a keyboard and a scroll wheel. Sound familiar?
Also, please, really, PLEASE, if this does come true, don't make us subscribe to
Apple should indeed listen to you. You might have the answer as to why the iPod has been such a flop.
In serching for the exact workding, the first google hit is the /. discussion here. It's funny to scroll throught he comments from the initial ipod release.
They have proven, with the iPod, that if they can fix the abyssmal ui seen on typical device, they don't need to be massively innovative in hardware - simply "good" is enough. I've got to say that when it comes to cell phones, someone who can make them "just work" has a really good shot at the market. If they can make it "just work" with outlooks calendar, contacts, and email, as well as be a good phone and media player, they're in for a wild ride.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
This is interesting, considering the Leopard release of iCalendar Server for OS X Server v. 10.5. Granted it talks about .mac integration now, but as long as it can sync with other iCalendar software (iCal Server, Google Calendar, Yahoo Calendar, etc.), the product becomes that much more impressive. That alone will be good news for current Mac users that want to have direct calendar updates without the hassle of syncing their calendar.
The other thing I liked was the mention of iChat Video Conferencing from the handset to a PC. That's something I have wanted with the Pocket PC for ages, and even various video phones. They have a camera, why couldn't they do video conferencing? With 3G wireless networks and phones that can take advantage of it, the technology is finally in place. That would make the iPhone worth it for me alone.
I had been trying to get cell-phone free for the past two years, and it looks like Apple is going to make that harder for me with this release.
I want an acceptable mobile browser (much like the proxied browser that the T-mobile Sidekick has). I don't want to have to scroll around the screen to see the entire thing and I don't want it formatted to look like ass. I certainly do not want WAP. I want to see the web page, as it was intended, on my device -- just smaller.
I want an adequate QWERTY keyboard. The Treo is not acceptable. The first few iterations of the T-mobile Sidekick SK -> SK2 were good. The new individual keys of the SK3 are not as good but remain superior to the Treo.
I want it to have wifi, GPRS and EDGE (or whatever advanced radio networking they have on other providers), as well as the ability to tether for free. I don't see why I should be paying higher rates because I have it hooked to a computer.
I want it to work with all OSs. I don't want to be tied to one or the other.
It should be available as a USB mass storage device and not require anything other than a USB cable.
The applications should be easy to use, understand, and modify to work regardless of provider.
It will remain a dream.
You do realize that third party developers can create applications for SmartPhones and PocketPC Phones that would allow a user to sync with a Mac, right? So the question is more.. why aren't third party developers doing this? I highly doubt you can blame Microsoft for that.
Oh, and just to note...
http://www.pocketmac.net/
You're welcome.
you can sync your ipod with outlook.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
It got that monopoly by virtue of the fact that they control the DRM formats that can be played by their music play, which has an overwhelming share of the market.
What monopoly? This isn't like Windows, where you need to run Windows to run Windows applications. Every song I've bought from the iTunes music store is stored in DRM-free audio CDs (as Apple recommends!) and can be played on any music player in the world.
I'm not locked into iTunes, or the iPod. I don't even *like* the iPod. I gave my iPod to my daughter and I'm using iTunes because it just works better than the other music players I've used, and because Fairplay is "honor system" DRM... Apple doesn't try and stop me from feeding the output of iTunes into a recording program, or Garage Band, or anything else. I buy from the iTunes Music store because it just works. I also buy from eMusic.
I've had an MP3 playing phone, and after using it a while I decided that I've never had a sillier device. Take the two devices that I own that are hungriest for power, and run them off the same battery? I have enough trouble as it is with my phone being dead when I need it!
You really want an MP3 playing phone? Make me an offer on mine. But you don't get to return it when you discover what a bad idea it is.
Well if you look at what they did with iPods, they didn't release them for Windows initially. Instead they waited until the iPod had already become a success with Mac users, and then released both the iPod and iTunes for Windows.
I suspect if they had released a Windows iTunes+iPod at the very beginning, it might not have done as well as it did, released a year or so later, with a lot of traction. I expect they probably would have gotten a lot of flak for not having it work with WMP or whatever the dominant Windows music player software was in 2001. By holding off until later, they could not only sell the device, but sell a solution that was part of an entire application/product/service "stack": iTunes, the iPod, and the iTMS.
Apple's fan base within the Mac market provides them with a perfect test audience for their products, before they go on to release them to the rest of the world. I wouldn't be surprised if they released their phone as Mac-only initially, and then if it's a hit, made a PC version of the Mac's software so that PC users could get in on it. But that way they allow PC demand to build first, and then respond to it, rather than trying to create demand first.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Apple will follow their usual model:
One axis with consumer (think MacBook, iMac, iPod nano)
One axis with prosumer (think MacBook Pro, MacPro, iPod video)
In all squares good, better, best
(Think MacBook White 2x1.83, White 2x2, Black 2x2)
(Think iPod Shuffle, iPod Nano, iPod Video)
Same for the phones,
iPhone small and inexpensive
iPhone nano/macbook
iPhone pro
My guess is that the mid version iPhone (nano/MacBook) will be first to be released and at a premium price (like $400 with no contract). After 4 months the iPhone (pro) will be released at a slightly higher premium price (like $500 with no contract) and the mid version iPhone (nano/MacBook) will be reduced to $250 and "one more thing" the youth low end model iPhone (small and inexpensive) will be released like the Nokia 3-series for $149 with no contract.
- - -
http://edu.org
you fundamentally misunderstand "monopoly". don't feel bad, it's a common mistake (especially 'round these parts).
.Mac-only) features unless their abusing a monopoly position by doing so (or is Apple somehow "wrong" for not making Safari, iChat, GarageBand, or Spotlight available for Windows?). Given no monopoly, there can be no such abuse.
it's useless to say that apple has a monopoly on iTunes Music Store sales, the same way it's stupid to say that Ford has a monopoly on Taurus sales. Ford doesn't have a monopoly on cars, which is the industry in which they compete; similarly, apple doesn't have a monopoly on digital music sales, which is the field in which iTMS competes. true, Apple has market dominance in a way that Ford does not, but market dominance does not equal a monopoly, by a long shot.
apple has no ability to lock anyone into anything related to phones. for starters, they've already licensed the ability to play iTMS tracks on someone else's phone. and, of course, there's still the fact that iTMS does not represent any form of monopoly. there's nothing wrong with them offering Mac-only (or
i'd agree that it's bad that it's illegal to try to work around the Fairplay DRM breakage, but that's entirely irrelevant to the rest of your post.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
And clearly, Apple has not put nearly as much thought into this problem as "Anonymous Coward".
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199