Inside Apple's iPhone

Yay by malkir · 2006-12-25 19:52 · Score: 5, Funny

You'll finally be able to transform your daughter into one of those silhouettes!

Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by lhaeh · 2006-12-25 20:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

There are lots of easy to use phones with every feature you could want, great UI, etc.

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

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

Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by tsa · 2006-12-25 20:23 · Score: 0

They do not force you to do everything. You have a choice not to pay for their stuff, and go elsewhere.

--
-- Cheers!
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by SpamBukkake · 2006-12-25 20:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

They should design an iPod with a phone built in, not a phone that plays music. Could you imagine full bluetooth integration? Sync, pick up calls and listen to music all over integrated bluetooth.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by dangitman · 2006-12-25 20:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

I haven't seen any phones with a "great UI." Come to think of it, I haven't even seen any with "every feature I could want." Which ones are you talking about?

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by dwater · 2006-12-25 20:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, I just got to play with a preproduction Nokia N95 for a few weeks, and I have to say that I like it - a lot. I haven't much cared for their previous offerings, but the N95 is very nice.

--
Max.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by Lord+Kano · 2006-12-25 20:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

I haven't seen any phones with a "great UI." Come to think of it, I haven't even seen any with "every feature I could want." Which ones are you talking about?

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

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

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

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

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by Rix · 2006-12-25 21:01 · Score: 0

Right, that'll end well when you continue using the same bit of spectrum.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by dangitman · 2006-12-25 21:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Perfectly simple UI, dial and send. All the features I wanted, placed calls. I already have a PDA, my PDA plays MP3s. I already have a digital camera. I don't want or need GPS in my phone; if I wanted a GPS receiver, I'd buy one.
But when you get a phone that "has every feature (one) could ever want" then the UI becomes very important. I don't want a PDA, I want a phone with better calendar and contact features, for example.
I want a phone that works well as a phone, and nothing else.
Well, I'm pretty happy with that. But the GGP post was talking about a phone with every feature imaginable, and a great UI. I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. I get around this problem mostly by using my computer as the interface for entering data, via bluetooth. But I'd still like to see a better UI for navigating the data on the phone, for when I am away from my bluetooth-enabled computers. A laser-projection qwerty keyboard would be great for sending text messages, I hate entering alphanumeric via the numeric keypad. Heck, even the ability to plug in a USB keyboard would be a great improvement on most phones.
Even if you just want a telephone with no extra features, sometimes it's nice to look up numbers from your address book if you haven't memorized the phone numbers. Most phones seem to make this simple feature an unnecessarily clunky task.

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by cheekyboy · 2006-12-25 21:18 · Score: 1

I find the sony ericson easy to look up numbers, you can show both name & number, and scroll through instantly. Kxxx series.

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by lhaeh · 2006-12-25 21:32 · Score: 1

When I wrote that I was thinking of my beloved Kyocera QCP-6/7135 Palm OS based smartphone.

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

It could however act as a dumb terminal, interface with my multimeter, control winamp, have a map of my city with gps, give me a good book to read while waiting in line, act as a remote control for any TV, and the speakerphone actually worked.

Also, the UI extended into how the various buttons worked on the phone. Like if I was with a client and my phone started buzzing (had it set to vibrate then ring) I could subtly press the big easy to reach button on the top of the phone (that was also the IR port) and the call would get directed to my mailbox, and vibrate again (in a different way) if they left a message. I could do this without having to think and keep talking to my client without them knowing and having my pitch interrupted.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by vhogemann · 2006-12-25 21:45 · Score: 4, Informative

It must be a US only problem then...

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

So, the only people that pays for things like picture downloading and ringtones here are the ones that don't know better, that is, most of them :-) But no carrier is forcing them to pay for anything, they're paying because they just don't know that there are ways to get the same things for free.

--
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by Yold · 2006-12-25 22:52 · Score: 1

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

BUAAG (But You Are A Geek!). Most consumers do not want to dink with their phone to answer/make a call. The cell phone market is about fashionability (I make up words). Look at apple's success with the iPod, to paraphrase some magazine article I read a while ago, even if you are decked out in armani while listening to a iPod nano, the nano is the "hottest" fashion statement you could make. Enter the iPhone.

Apple is on an upswing of profitability. Their shareholders are looking for the next killer app. As we have seen before on slashdot, iPod sales are sagging. Mobile phone sales are trending towards MP3 capabilities (due to the inexpensiveness of integrating the technology). iTunes on the Moto ROCKR created some tech-buzz, but the technical limitations of the phone didn't make it a top seller (no expandible memory, limited provider availability etc). To sum up my argument, apple would be stupid not to exploit the ignorance of consumers in the cell phone market.

Enter the iPhone. If apple can squeeze enough battery juice into it to give it decent talk-time/MP3 playback they have a winner. Consumers are fickle for gimmicky technology. Especially iTunes since they are familiar with it. The amount of web-buzz created by YEARS of iPhone rumors will definitely create some geek-cred for the device. So, to sum up my opinion, and iPhone may have not been in the works when the geeks were calling for it, but if it isn't now, Apple is very foolish for not exploiting some easy profits. The technology is there, and cheap. The software is saturated within consumers of all levels of technical knowledge. The geeks are calling for it, and may be enough to generate some sales with positive recommendations and reviews. A wise corporation would exploit this.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by thesandtiger · 2006-12-26 01:31 · Score: 1

I think a flip-phone using a touchscreen would be ideal. (The flip part protecting the touch screen when it isn't in use)

Have the screen not respond to touches unless a button on the side is held down or put into an "active" position, and then the UI can be whatever works best for the feature you're using at the time. Even let the user drag and drop elements of the interface as they like, or make up their own widgets to add.

--
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by Golias · 2006-12-26 02:56 · Score: 1

I've been saying the same thing ever since these rumors started popping up. I don't give a crap about most of the "features" of modern mobile phones, but I refuse to give up the 80 GB capacity, gapless playback, video support, and playlists of my iPod.

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

Graft a simple MP3 player on a phone, and I wont bother. I'm way better off toting around my iPod and RAZR together.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by Abreu · 2006-12-26 03:03 · Score: 3, Informative

I could suggest the Motorola C116...

No camera, no games, no color screen... But it has great reception, nice UI, a battery that lasts a week, and is small enough to fit my pocket (but not small enough to get lost easily)

--
No sig for the moment.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by klubar · 2006-12-26 03:08 · Score: 1

At least with Verizon, the wireless network providers decide on the UI. With Verizon, it doesn't matter which phone or manufactor you choose, they all get the exact same Verizon UI. From the carrier's point of view, this is a huge benefit as it simplifies support. The support team doesn't need to be trained in each specific phone's UI and features.

It might be good from a user's perspective as it makes switching from one phone to another pretty easy. Some phones have slightly different UI to support special features like cameras or music, but those menus are always in the same place.

Adding an Apple branded phone to the mix is going to push up support costs as these phones will require additional support team training (or a dedicated support team). As the carriers want to minimize support costs, they are going to have a few bucks extra for the "apple" phone.

There's also the reliability issue.... apple products (especially the first and second generation) tend not to be very reliable. Perhaps not an issue for the early adopters... but it will probably come back to bite the carriers.

On a different topic...does anyone know if Apple enforces a MSRP (manufactor suggested retail price) on its goods? You never see ipods discounted more the $10. Are discounters punished by low allocations for starting a price war? Does anyone know the wholesale cost of ipods?
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by WhatAmIDoingHere · 2006-12-26 03:53 · Score: 1

I just got an LG Chocolate, and I don't have to pay to transfer songs to it. It has a MiniSD slot, and even though the user guide says "Do not transfer music with your MiniSD card" it goes on to tell you how to transfer music with it.

It does cost $2.99 for ringtones, but you can connect the phone to any computer with bluetooth and transfer ringtones that way, too.

--
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-26 03:59 · Score: 1, Insightful

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

For me that would be like wishing back for PCs without Internet. The difference between a non-connected PC and a phone without mail, internet, calendar, IM, camera/MMS etc. is, for me, more or less the same.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by Tony+Hoyle · 2006-12-26 04:02 · Score: 1

Same in the UK. Only the ignorant pay for ringtones... and there are enough ignorant people to keep an entire industry going, unfortunately.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-26 04:10 · Score: 0

I have a blackberry 7100 -- it does everything I want. It was very intelligently designed
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by rukidding · 2006-12-26 04:21 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, in the US the cellular phone providers force phone manufactures to remove features from the phone that will allow users to upload/download data from the phone unless it goes though the wireless network. It's a virtual tollbooth for all data. You can buy a phone directly from the manufacture, but the phones are much cheaper when you buy them from the cellular provider.
Most likely this will change soon as these cellular companies are facing more and more pressures from consumers and manufactures to change their ways.

--
...
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by UnknowingFool · 2006-12-26 04:45 · Score: 1

You're right. The last phone I had with a decent UI was my old Nokia that didn't do anything but make phone calls. Roughly Drafted is right in that sense. When cell phones had few functions, it was easy to make a decent UI. Now, there are so many functions, the UI feels tacked on last after the rest of the phone was designed. I don't know if Apple can change this, but I welcome somebody else trying. The first Apple phone (if Apple is working on one) will most likely follow all their other design philosophies. It will be simple and easy to use with fewer features than most people expect. Apple will later add other features.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by ceoyoyo · 2006-12-26 05:43 · Score: 1

The problem is cell phone makers who are in league with the cell providers. They make their phones lockable (why do that??) and even when unlocked they make features difficult to use. Mine is unlocked, and I can put wallpaper and ringtones on it myself, but it's not exactly a user friendly process. You have to put them in a particular obscure directory or they won't work. There's nothing in the manual about how to do it. Why not? What other consumer device leaves it to the user to figure out how to use one of it's major functions?

Ironically, the only thing that's automatic and user friendly is connecting the thing to iTunes. Plug it in, iTunes uploads songs to it. Just like my iPod.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by Lord+Kano · 2006-12-26 06:51 · Score: 1

The difference between a non-connected PC and a phone without mail, internet, calendar, IM, camera/MMS etc. is, for me, more or less the same.

The difference is that if I want a PC without internet connectivity, I can build or buy one. It's becoming increasingly difficult to get a phone without a bunch of crap that I'll never use.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by sharpestmarble · 2006-12-26 07:22 · Score: 1

I don't want or need GPS in my phone; if I wanted a GPS receiver, I'd buy one.

I don't know about where you are; it might be different there. But here in Omaha, about a year ago, we had someone call 911 because they were in trouble. They were so high on meth that they couldn't tell the 911 operator where they were correctly. They died due to exposure in the snow. If the 911 operator had been able to push a button and have the phone relay to the operator the phone's location, we would've been able to prevent 2 deaths.

As long as the phone can do GPS(as above), it's a simple matter to add a GUI to the phone and present the data to the user instead of 911.

--
AC's modded -6. I don't see you, I don't mod you, anything you say is lost. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by Khabok · 2006-12-26 07:27 · Score: 1

What about those of us who want it dirt-cheap and don't have an IR port? Sometimes it's cheaper to buy a ringtone or two than to buy an external IR.

Then again, I'm a weird piece of the market. I use contract free, so I think I spent $1.50 on my phone this month. Could be less.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-26 08:40 · Score: 0

...we would've been able to prevent 2 deaths.

Agreed (regardless of their toxicity levels), but let's look at the big picture -- we could have prevented those 2 deaths well before that snowstorm: Decriminalization of ALL drugs and awareness education.

Just a thought...
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by RubberDogBone · 2006-12-26 12:39 · Score: 1

I have to take an opposite view: I want a phone I can touch-dial without looking at it, and without trying to sort out which touch mode it's in. This is one of the few things my Samsung A680 phone does right.

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

The Darwin awards will be happy.

--
Sig for hire.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by kisielk · 2006-12-26 14:04 · Score: 1

You're right on the money with this comment. I worked on a cellphone product in the past and the sheer number of carrier-specific hooks and modifications provided in the firmware to allow or disable various features was overwhelming. Literally hundreds of flags to allow carriers to lock things down to their liking.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by Lord+Kano · 2006-12-26 17:57 · Score: 1

I don't use meth, and I don't want my telephone to be capable of reporting my exact location to anyone.

This person died, not because his phone didn't have GPS but because he chose to use meth.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by yet+another+coward · 2006-12-26 20:09 · Score: 1

Nokia makes a variety of terrific phones that make it to market in buggy versions, make it to market for only weeks before being pulled, make it to market everywhere outside North American or never make it to market at all.

A 3G N series phone would be great, but I do not know when one will ever become available.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-26 21:38 · Score: 0

They do not force you to do everything. You have a choice not to pay for their stuff, and go elsewhere.

Problem: you have nowhere else to go, because they all suck...dumbass.

Form, not Function by calciphus · 2006-12-25 20:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Apple sells form, not function. They sell image.

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

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

But it'll have HYPE, and so it'll sell. That iPod you just bought your kids for Christmas will be old hat, and the new iMobile make phone calls, text message badly, shoot crappy pictures, and make the cheerleader want to go out with you.

Or at least that's what the ads will say. Maybe I'm just too jaded to bite into the Apple hype. Too many worms.

Re:Form, not Function by joetheappleguy · 2006-12-25 20:24 · Score: 3, Funny

You didn't get that iPod you wanted for Christmas huh?
Re:Form, not Function by Narcogen · 2006-12-25 20:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

Apple doesn't sell form over function. They differentiate on form, since for this class of device, nearly all the market entrants deliver the minimum required functionality.

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

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

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

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

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

However, if, from the perspective of interface design, the first iteration Apple phone is anywhere near as good, compared to other phones, as the iPod is to other MP3 players, then I see no reason why the device couldn't be at least as good as the best Symbian based phones, and a good deal better than just about anything Motorola has produced in the past ten years-- including all-hype, no-function phones like the RAZR and, the ill-fated ROKR.
Re:Form, not Function by bucky0 · 2006-12-25 20:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

--

-Bucky
Re:Form, not Function by calciphus · 2006-12-25 21:01 · Score: 0, Troll

Most audio devices publish their S/N ratio, THD (at a given percentage), and a few other statistics. Most of these can't be measured without a somewhat destructive opening of the box. THD, for example, is measured directly on the board.

Also, most manufacturers (at least respectable ones) publish these numbers to show their devices don't sound like ass. Compare the iPod to the Gigabeat. Same song, same compression, same headphones. The iPod will sound worse, period.

Will it sound bad enough for you to care? That's up to you.
Re:Form, not Function by somethinghollow · 2006-12-25 21:09 · Score: 1

Why doesn't the iPod publish audio specs?

I think because most people don't understand "audio specs." Fact is that, for most, it doesn't matter as long as it sounds roughly equivalent to a CD on, say, a typical car stereo. I can tell the difference between the sound an iPod Shuffle and the sound a Nano makes, but I attribute it to a lack of an equalizer. Both sound at least CD quality to me. For the convenience (size and integration with my Mac), I can deal with the sound a Shuffle makes. If you can't deal with it, then you won't buy it. Most people don't notice, so they don't care. While marketing plays a part, if people thought it didn't sound good enough, they wouldn't buy it.

Anyway, to say that it won't integrate well with a service provider may be a good thing. If it doesn't access Cingular's MyspaceMobile, who cares? If it won't download Cingular's 1.99 music ringtones, so what? I'd rather pay a buck and get an entire song on iTunes, copy it to my iMobile and use it as a ringtone. As long as it can get on the Internet, send and receive texts, and make calls, it does every (arguably) important thing it needs to.

Apple sells form, but they also sell integration with Apple hardware. That is the boon of buying Apple more than anything else (if you buy Apple).
Re:Form, not Function by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-25 21:12 · Score: 0

That's odd, since every mp3-player comparison I've read from consumer electronics and hifi -magazines have found that the ipod has the best audio quality.
Re:Form, not Function by calciphus · 2006-12-25 21:14 · Score: 1, Troll

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

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

The RAZR is the perfect example of Style over Substance in the cellphone market. By all accounts, it's a terrible phone. It's wider than it should be, it has lousy battery life, it's fragile, has a terrible OS, delivers little to no advanced features, and cost (at launch) more than most PDA phones. But it was chique, and so it sold in droves. Remember when it was so absurdly cool to own an iPod? Now your grandmother's cat's litterbox has a dock, and came with a free nano.

Apple DOES sell form. When was the last time you heard anyone in an Apple store say "I want that one because it can do 1.4billion more calculations per second than the one over there in black" No, the prevailing sentiment is: It's cute. That's what sells Apple, and pretty much all that sells Apple to the VAST MAJORITY of their users. It isn't the software library, it isn't the 10 day return policy, it isn't "tested and reliable" hardware. That is the deciding factor for less than 1% of their customers (though admittedly those who should loudest and post most frequently on /.)

I've wandered a bit into corporate culture and away from the impending iMobile. I apologize. But for the iMobile to reach the maximum number of consumers, it won't be a powerful product. It will flash Apple's minimalist design and carry a premium price point, because you're not just buying a cellphone, you're buying "cool".

Ultimately they're in the same boat as Google is now: Trying to "mandate cool" rather than putting out good products and letting people decide that they're cool. And that's a ship that sinks fast.
Re:Form, not Function by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-25 21:22 · Score: 0

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

Are you a troll, or can you backup your claims?
Re:Form, not Function by SeaFox · 2006-12-25 22:08 · Score: 1

It should be remembered that not every iteration of the iPod sounds the same. The iPods internal components have been changed several times. There is a company (name escapes me) that sets up iPods for the audiophile. One of the first things they do is bypass the headphone amp for the headphone port and the listener is expected to hook up their own preferred personal amp. At the time I read about them they only accepted iPods from a given generation for their special modifications (I believe it was the fourth generation) because of superior sound processing chips it had compares to 5th generation.

Also, speaking of the iPods having lousy audio output, wasn't the first gen Shuffle championed by the audio community for having "straight line output" over the spectrum? Yeah, iPods are all crappy players...
Re:Form, not Function by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-25 23:44 · Score: 0

or can you backup your claims?
the doesn't iPod publish audio specs :P
Re:Form, not Function by Rytr23 · 2006-12-26 00:01 · Score: 1

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

Actually.. there are about 10 times as many GSM users worldwide than on CDMA.. And forgive me but VZW/Sprint also use 850/1900 bands just like Cingular/Tmobile et al so I guess the "structual penetration issues" aren't simply a GSM problem... as for Data options.. Cingular is rolling out 7.2Mbps service on thier "3G" network starting in January 07 (its a software upgrade so it won't require a long buildout like UMTS). So I find it hard to believe that "high-end" users are going to be beholden to VZW or Sprint (who has the industry's highest churn rate) for data options..

--
So many injustices..so little time..
Re:Form, not Function by stewbacca · 2006-12-26 00:35 · Score: 1

No kidding! I wanted to say that maybe iPods have great specs, but since I don't have any proof, I chose to keep my mouth shut. I am interested in where the various iPods fall in the sound quality spectrum, though, if anyone has a link.
Re:Form, not Function by vought · 2006-12-26 01:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've wandered a bit into corporate culture and away from the impending iMobile. I apologize. But for the iMobile to reach the maximum number of consumers, it won't be a powerful product. It will flash Apple's minimalist design and carry a premium price point, because you're not just buying a cellphone, you're buying "cool".

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

What prevents cool from being powerful? Nothing.

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

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

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

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

Form can quite easily be demonstrated as power. I think you're too wrapped up in the idea that something has to have myriad dialog boxes, option sub-menus and configurators to be "powerful".
Re:Form, not Function by Tazz_ben · 2006-12-26 02:16 · Score: 1

I've always hatted the way people use the terms "Form" and "Function" as if they were separated by some sort ravine. Form is a part of function. Without "form" no one can use the product and won't matter how many "functions" it has. The ease of use of the iPod and the simplicity of it's design are perhaps frivolous to you, but it is what makes the product great. From my own personal experience I can tell you my company recently released a CRM and we spent a hell of lot more time on "form" then "function."

--
Developer of Heap CRM and Torch Project Management (WBP SYSTEMS)
Re:Form, not Function by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-26 02:59 · Score: 0

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

Hahaha, audiophiles are idiots.
Re:Form, not Function by klubar · 2006-12-26 03:22 · Score: 1

OS X server and apple raid?

Do they even have a one percent share? Aren't these just check off products so Apple can say they offer a server and a raid device. I suppose that apple fanatic sites might buy them, but they are a pretty limited product line... nothing bigger or smaller... and you're stuck with their relatively limited product innovation--whar have done they lately?
Re:Form, not Function by badonkey · 2006-12-26 03:56 · Score: 1

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

Great example. Except that the iMac line now uses the laptop version of the Core 2 Duo (with such features as a 667MHz FSB instead of the usual 1066MHz) because they can't disipate enough heat in the pretty shell. Despite this, it's still a "Faster, Bigger, Brighter Mac."

It's form over function, with qualitative descriptors. Apple does this a lot with their products (Side note: I wandered into the Apple store just the other day and I was told I'd love the MacBook because it has "super fast" wireless).

That doesn't mean they're inherently bad products - some people like that. I don't.
Re:Form, not Function by schiefaw · 2006-12-26 04:02 · Score: 1

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

Oh no! Does that mean that I am not hearing the full 64kbps audio wonder of my podcasts? Or, the audiophile delight that is the mp3 format?

--
Angleyne: You can't bend that girder - it's unbendable! Bender: Well I don't know anything about lifting, so that ju
Re:Form, not Function by CreateWindowEx · 2006-12-26 04:03 · Score: 1

That's interesting that there are iPod "customizers". According to this test, the shuffle (1G) is better able to reproduce square waves due to using push-pull transistors instead of capacitors--this is supposed to translate to better bass reproduction, IIRC.

However, since most MP3 player users use lossy compression, the default headphones (if they haven't stepped on them yet) or else a FM transmitter for their car, aren't trained to hear subtle nuances, and listen to music that's been electronically squashed and modified to sound "good" on substandard equipment, the phrase "good enough" probably applies to any half-decent MP3 player for the vast majority of users. They definitely sound far better than the 3rd generation dubbed casette tapes I often listened to in high school, of course rewinding tapes by hand with a pencil in class to save on walkman batteries...

I use a 1G shuffle, but only when I go to the gym, so I'm having to compete with whatever's playing on the radio and the thwap-thwap of the headphone cord tugging on my ear, so it's hardly an audiophile listening experience regardless of the quality of the output stage... I suppose for people who listen to lossless classical music on their iPods in anechoic chambers probably have different needs than I do.
Re:Form, not Function by ceoyoyo · 2006-12-26 05:56 · Score: 3, Funny

n fact, I think at the moment there is no such thing as an MP3 player that would meet the requirements of a discriminating audiophile,

True. Gold is very heavy, and carrying it around is a pain. Plus it's easy to get the electrons flowing the wrong way down your cables when you're unplugging them and replugging them all the time. Not to mention oxygen gets in every time you unplug.
Re:Form, not Function by ceoyoyo · 2006-12-26 06:02 · Score: 1

The average user isn't going to notice the difference in FSB (thus no hit on function) but he's going to definitely notice that the iMac fits nicely on his desk and leaves lots of room. That's form that improves function.

Not everyone is solely interested in running benchmarks.
Re:Form, not Function by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-26 06:52 · Score: 0

Hi:

Only an idiot would use a portable MP3 player for high end sound. Frankly, I don't care what specs are published or not published for wee MP3 players because I know the cut-rate transisitors will have comparatively unresponsive gates and, to boot, I'm listening on a down-sampled version of my 400kb AIFF and on ear buds instead of electrostatic speakers. Of course they all sound no more than adequate.

Boasting about the best sound on a portable MP3 player is a bit like claiming to be the most luxiourious ecomomy car.
Re:Form, not Function by badonkey · 2006-12-26 08:10 · Score: 1

Not everyone is solely interested in running benchmarks.

Not everyone minds having an (upgradable) box under their desk, either. A FSB hit affects me, because I do many memory intensive operations. Furthermore, most claim Macs are great for media editing, which would absolutely take a hit from this decision. Don't trivialize it by claiming differences only arise from useless benchmarking tests.

What constitutes form and function is very relative. For anyone with a reasonable amount of room under/on their desk, however, this is a functional hit for the sake of a cute form.

Again, this isn't necessarily bad - form over function has its place. Maybe that place is your desk. Nothing wrong with it.
Re:Form, not Function by dfghjk · 2006-12-26 10:29 · Score: 0

"Apple doesn't sell form over function."

Yes it does. Apple sells style, and where style compromises function, Apple compromises function. Nowhere is that more clear than with the iPod where there are not quite enough buttons to do the job. There is no on/off control and the battery life sacrifices that result are dumped on the end user.

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

Hmmm, where do you start with that? The much-heralded iPod UI isn't really significantly better or different than other players. It's differentiation is style and form factor, not UI, and it's main market advantage is accesories. Regarding Symbian-based phones, Symbian doesn't provide the UI, only the OS, so Symbian phones don't have consistent UIs and Nokia and SE have, IMO, poor UIs that don't compete with the best. I do agree with the Moto comparison, but then that's not a hard standard to beat.
Re:Form, not Function by ceoyoyo · 2006-12-26 10:45 · Score: 1

I was replying to your comment that Apple puts form over function. Don't trivialize it by saying that. Form, in many cases, is an integral part of function. Just because that (perhaps) doesn't apply to you doesn't make it untrue for everybody else as well. Using a well designed product is noticeable different than using a badly designed one.

To specifically address your front side bus complaint... what other "form" decision might have an effect on an apparent heat problem? iMacs are designed for the home, and as such are pretty quiet. Perhaps Apple decided to slow down the FSB a bit so that they didn't have to put in noisier fans? And for people who really do need that last bit of power, Apple has a product line designed for them... the Mac Pro. Remember, the iMac is designed for people's homes and the front office. The fact that some people use it for heavier lifting indicates that it's also fairly capable in that area as well, though possibly not ideal.
Re:Form, not Function by Splunge · 2006-12-26 17:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is no on/off control and the battery life sacrifices that result are dumped on the end user. Huh? Just hold down the play button and it shuts off.

--
"Brown University? We have one of those in Providence!" -- Outside Providence
Re:Form, not Function by great+om · 2006-12-26 17:51 · Score: 1

I imagine apple made them primarily so that they could use them. Itunes Store must need a massive amount of hardware, not to mention .mac. Presumedly, apple could run on another box, but apple likes to eat its own dogfood.

--
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
Re:Form, not Function by ktappe · 2006-12-27 04:01 · Score: 1

OS X server and apple raid? Do they even have a one percent share?
How does percentage market share have anything whatsoever to do with power? By your reasoning, cheap Chevys or Skodas would be the most powerful cars on the road instead of the Koenigsegg or Pagani Zonda. You weren't just grasping at straws with that statement, you missed the straws altogether.
Aren't these just check off products so Apple can say they offer a server and a raid device. I suppose that apple fanatic sites might buy them, but they are a pretty limited product line.
Oh, so Virginia Tech only chose XServes to build their supercomputer with because they were Mac Fanbois, not because they wanted the fastest, best rackmount servers they could find?

--
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
Re:Form, not Function by summernot · 2006-12-27 08:26 · Score: 1

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

Flawed logic. Just because form is present doesn't mean that function can't be. As another poster said, they're not mutually exclusive.

In fact, if you take Apple's latest line of computer hardware as an example, all products have a nice form factor. In addition to that, all products have very competitive specs. They hold up nicely, too. Consumer Reports has ranked Apple top in their four-year reliability study six years in a row. Features such as the MagSafe power connector are brilliant.

Looking at the software, there's OS X, which is conisdered equivalent and usually superior to Windows by most. Then there are the iApps. IMO, this is where Apple's true brilliance lies. These apps are spectacular, and in the 6 years that they have been around, no one has come close to releasing anything that can hold a candle to them. Ease of use, integration, capability, intuitive UI, etc.

Sure, the form is nice. Packaging is good. They're pretty to look at. They're also powerful, secure, easy to use and of superior quality to anything else out there.

Let's talk specifically about the iPod. Form is a major component of the device, as is price point, as is ease of use, etc. The vast majority of people loading music on their iPods are loading ripped MP3s in "ok" quality. The vast majority are not audiophiles. Compromising form factor, price, battery life, etc for higher quality sound just doesn't make sense in this case. It makes more sense to produce a device that is $20 cheaper than one that produces 10% better quality audio.

Yes, Apple has a reputation for producing hardware and software that is nice to look at. But that isn't why the iPod is successful. The iPod's success lies in the fact that my 64 year-old mother can use and enjoy it just as much as I can. The reason for this is its integration with iTunes. You can distill it to that. Without iTunes, the iPod wouldn't have succeeded. Bring these two together, and you get a whole greater than the sum.

How could Apple apply this model to a device like a new mobile phone? Some ideas:
o Integration with Address Book
Existing cell phones suck at this, and it frustrates people.
o Integration with iCal
Another thing existing cell phones haven't done well
o Intuitive Bluetooth Support
Apple is better at Bluetooth than many.
o iChat support
iChat is a really cool AIM client. Would be nice to see a mobile version, particularly one that could handle audio/video conferencing.
o Seamless syncing
Apple has proven that good syncing is possible with the iPod. I know of no other portable device that syncs as easily.
o UI
Apple is famous for good UI design.
o Form Factor
This is always where we can expect a pleasant surprise.
o Quality
In a cell phone, in my mind, this would include reception, durability, reliability, solid OS, etc.

If there is any hope of us seeing these features well implemented in a mobile phone, the only company that could possibly deliver it would be Apple.

And yes, people will want it because it looks nice -- but that doesn't mean it lacks function.
Re:Form, not Function by dfghjk · 2007-01-04 07:23 · Score: 1

No it doesn't, it just pretends to. It remains on in order to monitor additional button presses and that explains its terrible "off" standby times. The iPod NEVER turns off.

sorry if this sounds like a rant... by alvarl · 2006-12-25 20:17 · Score: 0, Troll

..but TFA sports a case of roughly-drafted-itis in my opinion. While making a good point that Apple could do better and be more flexible in its approach than any of the old mobile dinosaurs, it could have been said in a much more compact way - without nice stock charts and raves about 'Apple doing better than any other tech company'

Re:sorry if this sounds like a rant... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-25 21:37 · Score: 0

Parent post is not a troll. TFA indeed offers no new information and consists of baseless speculation and attacks on CNET with a little bit of pro-Apple drool on the side. I don't think this article even deserved to make the front page of Slashdot.

Except.... by kjart · 2006-12-25 20:20 · Score: 4, Informative

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

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

Re:Except.... by Pastis · 2006-12-25 22:41 · Score: 1

iFon ?

--
Sneak teach kids Algebra using a game
Re:Except.... by jellomizer · 2006-12-26 00:51 · Score: 1

I still cant say I see Apple getting into making phones. It is not quite their style. Apple tends to go into emerging markets (Personal Computers in the late 70's, PDA in the mid 90's, MP3 Players in the early 2000s) The only time Apple plays catchup is when their existing products are getting out of date. If Apple was going to get into cell phones they should have done it by 1999. When having your own Cell Phone was cheap enough for common people to use it. The market is saturated with phones with more features then most people can comfortably used. Apples Phone will be going into an already saturated market. And for people who believe that apple will come out with something that is so new and great that it put the world in Aw, I wouldn't bet on it. Even the iPod didn't get to many people by surprised and many where originally unimpressed.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Except.... by Rix · 2006-12-26 01:46 · Score: 1

The convergence of PDA, mp3 player, snapshot camera and cell phone is an emerging market. There's much to say for having one digital device, instead of juggling half a dozen of them, and that's ignoring the synergistic benefits. Easy stupid ring tones, obviously, but what else? Recording phone conversations? Built in answering service? Smart call prioritization? Wireless VoIP?

Can Apple do it? Probably not. While Apple is often around at technological emergence, if someone else doesn't show them the way, it flops. Apple's successful products are almost exclusively prettied up versions of someone else's idea. They don't blaze trails, they pave them, and put up a toll booth.
Re:Except.... by klubar · 2006-12-26 03:27 · Score: 1

Would sell well in the illiterate set. We don't need no stinkn' education.

Affordable? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-25 20:23 · Score: 1, Interesting

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

Unfortunately, I think the price probably won't break $300, and will possibly be more than that. For all that I like their stuff, new, it ain't cheap. As for integration with iTunes DRM, who cares? As long as it lets me move songs from my library to the phone, I could care less.

Re:Affordable? by jcr · 2006-12-25 20:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

But if it works well AS A PHONE, it gets my vote.

Well, the iPod sells like crazy, because it works very well as a music player. This lesson is not lost on Apple: notice how they've been very careful not to add a feature just because they can, and when they add something like games, they don't clutter the UI. It's the same number of clicks to get to a song on an iPod today as it was on the first ones they shipped.

If Apple brings out a phone, one thing you can count on is that they will have really studied what's good and bad about the existing products. It will be very, very easy to look up a number in your address book and dial it, to record your voice mail messages, to capture and save a number from an incoming call, to set your ring tones, etc.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:Affordable? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-25 20:42 · Score: 2, Funny

If the phone is affordable, and for me, that means > $200 [...] Unfortunately, I think the price probably won't break $300
Why unfortunately? It's in your price range because last time I looked 300 is greater than 200.

Re:I wonder what they'll use DRM-wise. by dangitman · 2006-12-25 20:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

I can't help but think of how Apple's iTunes cripples the MP3 industry by restricting use with proprietary formats.

MP3 is itself a proprietary format. And iTunes (and iPod) fully supports MP3. So how can iTunes be crippling the "MP3 industry" when it supports MP3?

--
... and then they built the supercollider.

Shaking up? by Lord+Kano · 2006-12-25 20:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Are they going to building a new competing cell network? Are they going to lower the cost of airtime? Cheap flat rates for unlimited plans?

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

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano

Re:Shaking up? by kevinbr · 2006-12-25 21:38 · Score: 1

Perhaps you never heard of the concept of MVNO - Mobile Virtual network Operator?

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

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

But yes maybe it is just a new phone. We will wait and see.

RAZR v3i (iTunes) by reversible+physicist · 2006-12-25 20:42 · Score: 3, Informative

The RAZR is the most popular cell phone in the US, and the newest version (available in the US through Cingular) interfaces directly with iTunes. This is a much nicer phone than the ROKR and comes with a 512MB microsd card (see review). Although it has the restriction of only holding 100 songs, this is about what will fit on the included memory card. I have one and I find it a compelling alternative to carrying around a separate nano. I'm not sure why people are so dismissive of this.

Re:RAZR v3i (iTunes) by shashark · 2006-12-25 22:30 · Score: 1

I have a RAZR, and I can tell you it has one of the worse UI experiences built-in. Any operation takes atleast 5-6 clicks. Operating your Address book is not intuitive - and saving a picture you just clicked sucks you dry(if you click a picture, you got to tell the damn thing to save it & name it, it wont save it otherwise). Though Nokias are much better off. This is precisely I'm looking forward to an Apple phone. Two Letters - UI.
Re:RAZR v3i (iTunes) by DDLKermit007 · 2006-12-25 23:28 · Score: 1

Because RAZR is a piece of shit otherwise.
Re:RAZR v3i (iTunes) by statusbar · 2006-12-26 00:09 · Score: 1

I must agree, the RAZR looks cool but is such a pain to use! So many things are wrong with the UI design, it is depressing! can't they get it right? Even my old Motorol Star-Tac in 1997 was better!! I have a Sony-Ericsson phone specifically because of Romeo which lets me use it as a scriptable bluetooth remote control for my Mac, but I hate the form factor of the phone.
--jeffk++

--
ipv6 is my vpn
Re:RAZR v3i (iTunes) by PoconoPCDoctor · 2006-12-26 00:16 · Score: 1

I got a Razr recently - although I really wanted the Q - (got steered away from it due to a better deal on the Razr).

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

At first I though it might be the MP3's I had copied - since I read that the highest bit rate supported by the Razr was 192, and I had copied a number of 256 bit MP3's. Deleted them all, re-ripped using a G5 Mac at work to 192, but still had the same problem.

A lesser annoyance is the "shuffle" feature on the Razr. It seems to get stuck on an artist, playing numerous songs of one artist in a row - this is not what I call shuffle. All in all, a disappointing music player.

So it's off to froogling any after Christmas sales on an 80 gig iPod...

B-)

--
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
Re:RAZR v3i (iTunes) by EXrider · 2006-12-26 03:06 · Score: 1

Hey, you know what's even worse than Motorola's UI? Verizon's UI that they hack onto every damn phone! This V3c is hands down the worst phone I've ever owned. I constantly have to reboot it, as it locks up, or gets buggy as hell without it's daily reboots. Bluetooth on it is crackly and fuzzy when it does actually work, other times it decides to just randomly turn the damn bluetooth radio off on the phone for fun, and disconnects my call.

It's so bad that people are actually hacking their Verizon Razr's to run the UI that's on your phone, as it's a vast improvement over Verizon's shit!

--
grep -iw skynet /etc/services
Re:RAZR v3i (iTunes) by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-26 03:41 · Score: 0

You may already know about it but you should try Salling Clicker http://www.salling.com/
It is a commercial product but it works with many more phones and is well worth the price. It is the coolest app I have seen in years.
Re:RAZR v3i (iTunes) by theurge14 · 2006-12-26 17:45 · Score: 1

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

I've long waited for a mobile phone with a great interface that had the user in mind and not the carrier.

The real problem with cell phones... by Rix · 2006-12-25 20:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is that all the service providers want to wall you off in their own little managed garden.

For obvious reasons, Apple isn't likely to solve this problem.

Re:The real problem with cell phones... by blackest_k · 2006-12-25 23:22 · Score: 1

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

However what is interesting is daypass a scheme which charges you a small fee per kbyte upto a maximum of £1 a day. I've had data enabled phones for the last 2 years but primarily used wifi to my own connection at the moment i see no reason to pay £7.50 a month for what would probably be occassional data usage. However under the daypass scheme it'll be handy on train journeys hanging out at coffee shops trips to other citys even shopping I'll gladly pay a £1 if it'll save me spending £20 more than I need to for a particular item.

I am getting an mda exec later this week a pda phone with a 640 by 480 screen and a proper qwerty keyboard. I can see me actually using the data capabilitys of this phone but before this move on t-mobiles part I know I wouldnt it is possible I may even sign up to the £7.50 a month scheme if I find I am taking advantage of data more than 7 days in a month.

T-mobile are still limiting what your alllowed to do with the data connection no p2p file sharing voip or instant mesaging, but vnc to my network should sort some of that out ;)

--
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Re:The real problem with cell phones... by mlk · 2006-12-25 23:52 · Score: 1

T-mobile are still limiting what your alllowed to do with the data connection no p2p file sharing voip or instant mesaging, but vnc to my network should sort some of that out ;)

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

But I guess you could get a proxy for it, then go jump though your home BB connection.

--
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
Re:The real problem with cell phones... by Shemmie · 2006-12-26 01:07 · Score: 1

Believe you can have less restricted use on their Web n Walk Pro package, but it costs a lot more. I'm on the £7:50 package with my MDA Pro - and it's a God send. Like a web connected laptop that fits in the pocket.
Re:The real problem with cell phones... by blackest_k · 2006-12-26 02:33 · Score: 1

Web'n'walk fair use policy
Subject to coverage. Compatible handset required. Provides unlimited browsing on mobile handsets in the UK. Not applicable to connection via CSD. To ensure a high quality of service for all our customers a fair use policy applies. T-Mobile defines fair use as total UK data (both sent and received) of up to 1GB per month. T-Mobile may contact customers who exceed 1GB of data and ask them to reduce their usage. If data usage is not reduced, notice may be given, after which network protection controls may be applied. Not to be used for other activities (including but not limited to): modem access for computers, internet based video/audio streaming services, peer to peer file sharing, internet based video downloads, internet phone calls and instant messaging. If such use is detected, notice may be given after which network protection controls may be applied. The application of network protection controls will result in a reduced speed of transmission. It looks like they will give you a warning if they notice you are doing something they think they should make a profit on.

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

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

http://www.bol.ucla.edu/services/vpn/pda/docs/ppc2 003.html should give a few clues on connecting a vpn client on a pda to vpn server on your network openswan seems to what you need running on your own network

anyone got anything like this up and running?

--
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Re:The real problem with cell phones... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-26 02:48 · Score: 0

http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/3 484186
http://www.sans.org/rr/whitepapers/vpns/1459.php

couple of interesting references for setting up vpn access to your network
Re:The real problem with cell phones... by EXrider · 2006-12-26 03:11 · Score: 1

*COUGH* VERIZON *COUGH*

--
grep -iw skynet /etc/services

Re:I wonder what they'll use DRM-wise. by Basehart · 2006-12-25 21:07 · Score: 0

"I can see it now... only being able to make calls to other iPhones."

Nope, wrong again. Sounds to me like you Zune and you're in deep denial or something.

Re:I wonder what they'll use DRM-wise. by Basehart · 2006-12-25 21:10 · Score: 0

...better make that "Sounds to me like you bought a Zune (that Quote button is throwing me off my stride for some reason ;-)

Want some change? Who does? by ruyon · 2006-12-25 21:20 · Score: 1

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

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

TFA is garbage. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-25 21:27 · Score: 1, Insightful

From the CNET article linked to by TFA:

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

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

Kanellos starts out by inventing a series of ideas to critique: an imagined gushing review of the iPhone, then a hypothetical Apple colostomy bag, then invented memories of historical products, supposedly from Apple, including a "random video camera" and previous cell phones. ... Facts are optional at CNET, where writers can make up ideas and invent quotes to support their agenda.

If anyone is inventing quotes and attacking strawmen, it's the Apple fanboy who runs roughlydrafted.com. It's pretty clear to me that Kanellos is suggesting that an Apple phone would be up against stiff competition, and that he expects it to be quickly forgotten like countless other gadgets. Nowhere does he attribute these "random video cameras" and other failures to Apple.

Oh well. At least he gets some ad revenue out of the Slashdotting. Maybe he's not such a dolt after all.

Re:TFA is garbage. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-26 06:30 · Score: 0

That is the usual kind of stuff coming from that site. He invents controversy by blatantly misrepresenting the facts and then builds an article off of it. Since he claims that someone is doing some grand injustice to the all mighty Apple he stirs up the fanboys and they rant and rave until about it until the next article comes out. In the mean time they all sit in a circle patting each other on the back consoling each other about how misunderstood the subject of there adulation is and how one day the heathens will see the light just like they have.
Re:TFA is garbage. by DECS · 2006-12-26 09:47 · Score: 1

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

The article and website isn't a revenue creator, its shared ideas that I've found that I thought were interesting. Yahoo ads bring in less than a couple dollars in a day of high traffic, and only help to cover part of the hosting expense. Amazon and iTS ads don't earn anything unless people buy things.

But enough about me. What's your motivation for posting things you know are a lie in an effort to discredit obvious facts? Shill, troll, astroturf, or just bitter?
Re:TFA is garbage. by poopdeville · 2006-12-26 12:32 · Score: 1

You are a tedious little turd.

--
After all, I am strangely colored.
Re:TFA is garbage. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-27 10:23 · Score: 0

I like how nobody modded you flamebait. The mods must agree.

That article doesn't say anything new by gerikson · 2006-12-25 21:30 · Score: 1

The article(s) don't have any substantial new information. They're just wishful thinking on behalf of the author.

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

Note that I'm not saying that the industry shouldn't change, or that it won't. I'm just skeptical that Apple will do the changing, in a way that's profitable to them.

--
Ask not what GNU can do for you, but what you can do for GNU.

Please Stop! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-25 21:38 · Score: 0

Please stop linking to these silly Roughly drafted articles.

Sure, the layout may be easy to read but that doesn't mean the articles contain any insights.
The author gives macfanbois a really bad name......

Re:Please Stop! by benjaminperdomo · 2006-12-26 02:41 · Score: 1

I agree with this. I have never read anything non biased in that site.

Apple is dangerous by Yvanhoe · 2006-12-25 22:03 · Score: 2, Funny

Because they make cool, functionnal, well designed devices and don't care about things like software patents and DRMs.
Be careful, be very careful...

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.

Re:Apple is dangerous by jellomizer · 2006-12-26 00:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Apple has numerous patents and uses DRM on their iTunes Also there are countless time where Apple has to pay Patent holders for other companies to keep their products. (For example Creative had a patent that was used in the iPods after proving to apple they have the patent Apple agreed to pay royalties to Creative for their patent.)

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

RTFA - for the chick by shashark · 2006-12-25 22:32 · Score: 1

Is it me or the chick who wrote the article looks real hot ? Refer http://www.forbes.com/fdc/bios/new/rachelrosmarin. html

Re:RTFA - for the chick by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-25 22:50 · Score: 0

No, it's you, spending too much time on slashdot to see that hot doesnt mean 'nerdy looking' nor 'silicon looking'
Re:RTFA - for the chick by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-26 00:03 · Score: 0

I can't tell unless you put the your photo next to hers.
Re:RTFA - for the chick by stewbacca · 2006-12-26 00:23 · Score: 1

Best reply ever! Can I borrow it? "Hot" really is a relative term.
Re:RTFA - for the chick by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-26 00:53 · Score: 0

Best reply ever!

LOL... if it was, it was completely by accident. It sounded as if they were saying - "who looks real hot, me or the chick who wrote the article" - due to the poor grammar. Hence needing to see the other person's photo to make the comparison ...
Re:RTFA - for the chick by 9mind · 2006-12-26 02:54 · Score: 1

It's DEFINITELY you!
Re:RTFA - for the chick by mtec · 2006-12-26 03:32 · Score: 3, Funny

She's a Heek (hot geek). A creature of fable, second only to the unicorn in it's rarity. Capable of singing a siren song that tends to compel creatures from basements and dark places. If you see one, an easy test would be to gather your courage, scramble your Rubiks and hand it to her. If she completes it in under a minute, propose to her. If she accepts, you may also be a Heek. Congratulations!
If she refuses, she's just a nice looking lesbian.

--
Cake or Death? Cake Please!

I meant less than $200 by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-25 22:52 · Score: 0

When kids today say bad, they mean good.

Story's submitter (DECS) is TFA's fanboi author. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-25 22:55 · Score: 0

This story's summary doesn't make it clear that the submitter, DECS, is the article's author, Daniel Eran. A quick look at his comment history and articles on his Mac-biased site show an annoying tendency to attack Apple criticisms by building strawmen.

Re:mirror by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-25 23:09 · Score: 0

No worries... but in not reading it you missed the part about Apple's colostomy bag and the gushing reviews it has received.

It's not called iPhone god damnit by avasol · 2006-12-25 23:49 · Score: 1

iPhone is a (Tm) owned by Cisco. I sincerely doubt Apple will butt heads in court with Cisco (although any smaller and maybe).

Just because morons are hooked on calling everything Apple does i-this and i-that doesn't make it right or even possible.

Re:It's not called iPhone god damnit by TMigoto · 2006-12-26 00:26 · Score: 0

iCell?

It's not iPhone, it's iChat Mobile! by artifex2004 · 2006-12-26 00:12 · Score: 1

At least, that's what recent speculation on a lot of rumor sites says.

I See the Big picture now :) by Klanglor · 2006-12-26 01:30 · Score: 1

Tell me if I am crazy,

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

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

So think about this:

MacOS X Powered.
Photo Booth with your camera
YouTube Integration (with google)
WiFi (or WiMax with google)
Amazing Design for about the same price of the Sony Ericson's or Motorola or Nokia's (maybe a little premium)
and lots of features.

Even, if there is no deal with Google, a mp3 phone with photo booth like enhencement and a cool look would sell plenty. I added the YouTube thing because it would be a USP (Unique Selling Proposition) that carriers could not afford to refuse. Because the demand would simply be too high if they don't cary the phone.
As an extra incentive, the bandwidth charge for data transfer would be a insubstantial source of revenue that they cannot overlook, if there is a youtube integration.

so this is my .02 cents of what would be nice if it comes true. If I work for a carrier, google or apple and get a bonus based on performance. I would start pushing the idea if its not on the table yet. lol. too bad none of these co would higher me in the marketing strategy-like department. haha. i am soo good or crazy.

Re:I See the Big picture now :) by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-26 08:50 · Score: 0

Downloading video to a phone is not as exciting as streaming video to the phone. Phones can do this already. It is really just a matter of paying for the bandwidth. After the bandwidth barrier is gone, then everyone will want to watch videos on their phone ( think wifi etc.. ).

Appeal to the Ump... by kikensei · 2006-12-26 01:51 · Score: 1, Informative

I haven't read the CNET article, but I have little doubt it's a flame fanning puff piece. However the "Apple iPhone Rumors Off the Hook" rebuttal hits a foul ball as early as its "Strike 1" paragraph. As someone who has owned an Airport, as well as various 3rd party routers, it does not stand "miles ahead" of its competition. Not only is it doubly, or often triply expensive when compared to solid competitors, it lacks a dead-simple web interface to administrate the device, replaced instead by an application. This is great, if you're using an Apple client, but if you have a mixed network, it a huge pain in the neck to require an Apple app to make a change to the device, as opposed to pointing your web browser towards it. The fact that it has a USB print server built in is a plus. I'll grant, although these are a dime a dozen. As for iSight, it seems the author doesn't realize that the product has been discontinued in the US. Sure, Apple has been integrating the revamped "iSight" into many of its new portables, and iMacs, but the fact that it has been yanked as a standalone product makes it difficult to defend as such a "hit". It sure is a great webcam, no doubt, but if you can't buy it, it's not a "homerun", but rather Apple took the ball and ran home.

Re:Appeal to the Ump... by mtec · 2006-12-26 02:06 · Score: 1

Umm. On Airport, Windows uses the same application that OS X does (it's on the installation disk). You have to have WZC service on the Windows box - included in SP2.

--
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
Re:Appeal to the Ump... by kikensei · 2006-12-26 02:14 · Score: 1

I stand corrected! Is this a new development? Either way, it sucks to require any app, as opposed to allowing an Apple or PC to administrate it via a browser.
Re:Appeal to the Ump... by mtec · 2006-12-26 03:18 · Score: 1

I stand corrected! Is this a new development?

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

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

Well - true and not. I've configured many Airport and non-Airport wireless networks. Apple's software makes things go a little faster and easier than most web based tools. I don't know how hard it would be to implement in a browser - maybe with AJAX - etc. they'll do it. Especially with the new stuff coming out in January.

--
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
Re:Appeal to the Ump... by argent · 2006-12-26 03:27 · Score: 1

Not to mention that still locks out Windows 2000, UNIX, and automated management software.

Even a web interface isn't ideal, if it's the *only* interface outside proprietary software. A command line or SNMP management (or preferably both) is pretty essential for an automated network management environment.

Re:I wonder what they'll use DRM-wise. by pixr99 · 2006-12-26 02:11 · Score: 1

I read your comment and thought the word "Zune" had picked up a new connotation. Allow me to illustrate: "I Zune for a better MP3 player." "I've been Zuning for an iPod." I really think it could catch on!

desperately needed by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-26 02:22 · Score: 0

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

Yes, in the grand sceme of things, next to a cure for cancer, bird flu, global warming, world peace and all that good shit, a phone that syncs with iTunes is something we desperately need.

Re:I wonder what they'll use DRM-wise. by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2006-12-26 03:05 · Score: 1

Perhaps he meant to say "cripples their customers" instead of "cripples the MP3 industry"...

--
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.

Apple has had this on the board for a couple years by Patent-Monkey · 2006-12-26 03:13 · Score: 3, Informative

In reading published US patent application 20060268528 filed back in 2004 - Handheld Computing Device - Apple

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

In the claims, they detail the invention as a handheld computing device that is a cell phone made of a non-plastic material to have better wireless signal reception (claims 1, 6, 7).

Will it be able to make phonecalls? by sheldon · 2006-12-26 03:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's my biggest problem with most of the cell phones out today. They can play music, games, look pretty.

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

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

I doubt Apple is entering this market to make a cell phone. They probably just want to make an iPod that can occasionally make phone calls.

Re:Will it be able to make phonecalls? by argent · 2006-12-26 03:29 · Score: 1

They probably just want to make an iPod that can occasionally make phone calls.

That would put them in fine company with half the "smartphones" out there.

Apple's reputation is definitely overhyped by argent · 2006-12-26 03:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

it lacks a dead-simple web interface to administrate the device, replaced instead by an application.

Yeh, that's a typical Apple situation.

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

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

Apple has been integrating the revamped "iSight" into many of its new portables, and iMacs, but the fact that it has been yanked as a standalone product makes it difficult to defend as such a "hit".

Not to mention that the built-in iSight is completely worthless for anything but videoconferencing. I have a third party firewire webcam I use with my Macbook pro, and a bit of electrical tape over the iSight because I can't be arsed making sure nothing turns it on when I don't want it on.

Apple's hardware is mediocre in functionality and power, it's only a hit for style. I could go on with the annoying clickwheel on the iPod, and the passive-aggressive 'it's not really a onw button mouse' crap with the mighty mouse and the double-tap trackpads... but I better stop here.

If it's not 3G... by HerculesMO · 2006-12-26 03:42 · Score: 1

It's not worth buying for me. Already all Verizon customers are going to be out because Apple won't make the phone work with older technology. Sucks for you Verizon fans.

However since I have Cingular, the phone will probably be available to me... if it's 3G capable then I'll give it a look (and it's why I'm waiting now), since I want a PDA type of phone to organize myself... if the Apple phone can't be a PDA and work on the 3G network (which is in big swing around my area) then it's kind of moot... I'll get the Cingular 8525 which is a Windows Mobile device.

Time will tell... let's see if it's worth the hype.

--
The price is always right if someone else is paying.

But wait! by bigdavesmith · 2006-12-26 03:57 · Score: 2, Funny

Will the ZunePhone be the next iPhone killer!?!?!111

Re:But wait! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-26 11:18 · Score: 0

The ZunePhone... The "Zone"!

I doubt it.. by traveller604 · 2006-12-26 04:25 · Score: 0

These companies, like especially Nokia are very good at what they do. Nokia has released perfect phones, one after another. Feature packed, beautiful working guis, innovative design. Nokia is also the one that has developed most of these new technologies. I very, very much doubt a small company like Apple can do much apart from attaching that Apple sticker to the back of the phone..

Re:I doubt it.. by Jerry+Rivers · 2006-12-26 06:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

"...a small company like Apple...."

Hmmm. Not sure what you call "small" but Apple's sales last year were $14B with profits of over a billion. They may very well hit $20B in sales this year. Nokia had sales of E10B, with profits of just over E1B.

--
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
Re:I doubt it.. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-26 07:08 · Score: 0

This means Apple is doomed.
Re:I doubt it.. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-26 13:13 · Score: 0

Those results for Nokia are from 1 quarter only.
Re:I doubt it.. by Jerry+Rivers · 2006-12-27 06:33 · Score: 1

Right you are. Duly noted.

--
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY

Re:I wonder what they'll use DRM-wise. by UnknowingFool · 2006-12-26 04:36 · Score: 1

Sounds cool, but it sounds like another fad. Just like the RAZR was a fad and just like the iPod was a fad, this will pass with time, and technically speaking, it will be a terrible product, but Apple's viral marketing schemes will somehow sell people on this idea.

Um, Motorola has sold millions of RAZRs so if it is a fad, so is every cell phone out there. But you might be right. Just like cordless telephones, analog TV, VCRs and every other piece of technology that gets replaced by better technology. Good thing that old reliable fire is still around.

Apple has very good marketing but most people still focus on that instead of the real reason that they have been successful. 90% of consumers don't really care about the technological details; they want something that works for them. I had a Diamond Rio 32MB player. It was cool but getting it to load new songs just wasn't worth it sometimes.

I can't help but think of how Apple's iTunes cripples the MP3 industry by restricting use with proprietary formats. Maybe we'll see the same traits with the iPhone. I can see it now... only being able to make calls to other iPhones. Brilliant!

Um, iPods play MP3s (which is proprietary by the way) just like every other player. iPods also play unencumbered AAC. iTunes store sells DRMed AACs called FairPlay. FairPlay exists only because of the music/content companies. Without it, Apple could never sell music online. If you don't like DRM music, don't buy online and burn your music in MP3 or AAC. As for iPhones only being able to call only other iPhones, that's something that Microsoft would do/has done *cough*Zune*cough*. iPods work with Macs and PCs.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

Re: US thing, maybe, but still the providers by chrwei · 2006-12-26 04:41 · Score: 2, Informative

and not all the providers, and not all of the same.

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

sometimes it is the phones though, for many phones you need special software to be able to transfer pictures and ringtones, so you still have to pay to get them there either way.

--
- Disclaimer: Information in this post deemed reliable but not guaranteed.

Re:I wonder what they'll use DRM-wise. by LKM · 2006-12-26 04:49 · Score: 1

I can't help but think of how Apple's iTunes cripples the MP3 industry by restricting use with proprietary formats.

I think I speak for most of us when I say "Huh? The who is doing the what now?"

Re:I wonder what they'll use DRM-wise. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-26 05:55 · Score: 0

Especially since "Zune" in Hebrew means f**k.

SNMP means "management", not HTTP by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-26 05:55 · Score: 0

There's been a Java app
http://gicl.cs.drexel.edu/people/sevy/airport/ since 2000 for administering the Apple Airport since the Airports are administered by the ancient network device management standard of SNMP instead of some non-standard kludge over HTTP.

iPhone Apple by msanford · 2006-12-26 07:57 · Score: 1

The iPhone certainly did get released, but by Linksys as a Skype/Yahoo Voice Messenger/VoIP/landline phone -- not as the vaunted Apple gadget. Infogear/Linksys/Cisco has held rights to the name "iPhone" since 2000.

cisco own the I-phone name BUT.... by Pax681 · 2006-12-26 09:02 · Score: 1

Apple have i-talk and here it is http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-316873375 9916419298 from this site originally http://christopherdesantis.blogspot.com/ it's a coming buy and it's a combo i-pod/phone/pda with much gorgeousness! Pax681

Re:I wonder what they'll use DRM-wise. by DrRevotron · 2006-12-26 09:30 · Score: 1

What I meant is that it cripples the MP3 industry by blocking out all other MP3 players from playing iTunes-purchased songs. Sure, there are other music services (eMusic, but that's mostly indie, and Rhapsody, but the monthly charge wards off rare purchasers, and Napster, but everybody still thinks that's illegal). To everyone who replied with "OMFG wtf r teh MP3 induzry" or likewise, RTFC. And by the way... that's what we call a joke. Loosen up. (I know it's alot to ask.)

I don't want no Apple Phone, I want a tablet! by Qbertino · 2006-12-26 09:50 · Score: 1

For Heavens sake, please build an Apple Stile Tablet + mac style on board scetch and notes software. That would rock. Who needs a iPhone? Built a 10" iNewton or whatever with a small solid state HDD and sell it for 650$ or so. People would chop their right arm of to get one.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca

Meta-strawman? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-26 12:00 · Score: 0

When you accuse somebody of erecting strawmen, but don't provide any specifics of your baseless generalizations... ... well it's ironic.

Apple PDA, anyone? by argent · 2006-12-26 12:29 · Score: 1

People had been saying that Apple is just about to release a new PDA to replace the Newton ever since the Newton got pulled, pointing to all kinds of never-capitalized-on patents. This looks like more of the same, except now Palm's gone to huffing on the Microsoft "PDA as laptop replacement" crack pipe full time and it's become obvious to even the most casual observer how that's such a bad idea. So for the past few years it's been "The l33t new Apple Cellphone" instead of "The l33t new Apple PDA".

Until Steve says they've got a product, I'm going to keep the Pundit Apple Prediction Scorecard (currently batting less than .100) in mind, and take any such predictions with a grain of salt and a bottle of antacid.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2006-12-26 12:48 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Apple sucks by killermax15 · 2006-12-26 14:15 · Score: 0, Troll

apple just sell expensive stuff for idiots who want to look good in front of their yuppie friends. it has been proven by this survey here.

Sony Ericson W810i by Sargeant+Slaughter · 2006-12-26 15:22 · Score: 1

I just got the 810i and I love it. Dowloaded a bunch of games for it on bittorrent, takes great photos for a phone, it takes a pro duo card (up to 8GB now!) and plays mp3s. I have read reviews on the net complaining about audio quality, but I honestly cant tell the difference between my phone and my ipod nano sound-wise. Oh yeah, my 810i came with the most confortable ear buds I've ever used. But the best part is it only cost $100 with a 2 year contract from cingular.
Screw apple and their proprietory format music players. I don't like itunes or ipods. I am stoked on this phone and recommend it to anyone who wants an all in one device. It is my ipod killa.

--
I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. -Confucius

My wishlist by yet+another+coward · 2006-12-26 20:04 · Score: 1

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

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

I probably am a member of a niche market. The market has no good products currently. Apple could get all of it with a decent offering.

Not an US only problem by Wooky_linuxer · 2006-12-27 05:14 · Score: 1

VIVO, Brazil's largest provider still will disable most Bluetooth functions. Recently, *some* of its smartphones are coming with some fuctions enabled. Not all. Just some, but hey, it is a start right? A few of the GSM providers like Claro (3rd) sometimes also disable functions (i.e., Claro's Nokia E62 cannot work as a modem). We are probably in better shape than US because VIVO, as a CDMA provider, has been losing market here pretty quick, and already 70% of the market belong to GSM providers; and I understand the market in the US is concentrated in CDMA providers, which usually are less open than GSM.

Of course, I have a Nokia 6600 from Claro and I have not (and would not) ever paid for backgrounds or ringtones, but perhaps that's just me. Some people seem pretty comfortable with paying for these, as well as uploading their pics. Go figure.

--
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?

Re:Not an US only problem by vhogemann · 2006-12-27 05:35 · Score: 1

I didn't know about VIVO,

I have been a Claro customer for 3 years now, used to own a Siemens MC60 and didn't use it as a GPRS modem only because the darned thing refused to keep the connection alive under Linux. Now I own a Sony-Ericsson z530i, and I can even browse it's filesystem using irda/OBEX on KDE.

--
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex

It's the Provider by Luscious868 · 2006-12-27 07:34 · Score: 1

Certain carriers in the US like Verizon are notorious for locking down their phones. Other providers, like Cingular, don't tend to do it. I just bought a new LG phone from Cingular and it's not locked down at all. I can transfer mp3's, pictures and videos to and from my phone using either the data cable or via Bluetooth. Granted, the phone didn't come with instructions that talked about how to do it but it was pretty easy to figure out how to transfer files between the phone and my Mac.

164 comments