Slashdot Mirror
Will The iPhone Kill The iPod?
Edward Sinovian writes "According to Cnet.co.uk, the days of MP3 players, digital cameras and satellite navigation systems are numbered with cell phones about to take center stage. "PDAs have already been crushed by smart phones and the same thing looks to be happening with standalone MP3 players, particularly the smaller flash ones — a theory supported by Apple's recent entry into the world of music phones. If you then take into consideration the convergence of camera, GPS, TV and laptop-like functionality into mobile phones, it raises the question of how long it's going to take before all you need is a mobile phone." With that in mind, do you think that the iPhone will kill the iPod?"
Especially since the iPhone *is* essentially the new iPod.
iPhone kills the DRM music player.
Not as long as smart phones are as expensive as they are now. I can't justify spending 500 bucks on a phone, even thou it can be the only device I carry.
Plus, a button less phone seems counter-intuitive to me.
-- 4 8 15 16 23 42
What can apple possibly do to compete?
for sale
I'm a self-modifying sig virus
I doubt it at $500 each. It will be a while before they come down in price far enough to replace mp3 players.
Hmm, let me think, I want an MP3 player Option 1: Buy the iPhone for 600 dollars or whatever it costs Option 2: Buy an ipod for a lot cheaper You're right, I would go with Option 1 - so long iPods!
I doubt they can make a cell phone as small as the iPod Shuffle 2nd generation.
It costs significantly more money, has significantly less storage space, and inherits the messiness and unpleasantness of cellphone contracts. This doesn't appeal to people who just want to play their mp3s.
I have four ipods (80g) I want most of my music library nearby. I think my blackberry is the perfect phone. Unless those two can converge into something will all the same capabilities at the same size, I only see a converged product as a loss. Besides I want an ipod with me all the time, I don't like being attached to the blackberry all the time.
My big bugaboo with portable devices is keeping them recharged; it's annoying to have to plug in one device every night, much less multiple ones. Having a single unit that does everything I want it to would be a lot more convenient. This would be true even if "plugging it in" involved laying it on a mat.
No, of course not. Did the MacBook Pro kill the MacBook? Did the PowerMac kill off the iMac? WIll a $500 iPhone kill the $99 iPod shuffle? No, but it may eat into the sales of the lower-end model.
Sheesh, this is a no-brainer.
... There isn't a cat in hells chance of the iPhone touching the iPods market.
Why?
Price for one. For $499 (with contract), you can get yourself a 4GB iPhone. For $349 you can get an 80GB iPod. That is a least expensive vs most expensive comparison.
The iPod (well, portable digital music player) market is huge; the numbers speak for themselves. People will happily pay a few hundred dollars for a portable player that'll last a few years. But $499 for a phone, plus contract? That is out of most peoples leagues for something that is completely unproven, if you ask me.
Not if Apple understands basic market economics. To maximize product profits, you want to have several levels of functionality/pricing options to capture as much of the market as possible. Functionality in this case can and should include ability to make phone calls, use SMS, browse online, etc. For example, Apple could have a premium portable unit with phone capabilities, and a value-based version with those features turned off in software (with the option to upgrade later, of course).
Sure, the iPhone may eventually replace the iPod, but not in the short run; its initial price (even with the contract subsidy) is going to be in the neighborhood of the higher end video iPod, but its capacity as a media player will be more like the lower end iPods.
As long as you get a decent basic phone and a high-end iPod for about the same as a phone that also acts as a low-end iPod, the iPhone won't replace the iPod.
It may kill the high-end Video iPod sales, but until final specs are out, it's premature to say even that. Will it cannibalize some sales? Sure. But would you rather cannibalize your sales, or have someone else steal them?
I know which way I'd want that cash to flow....
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
And for one very good reason: The iPhone is supposed to be around $600. You can buy iPod Nanos for less than a third of that. iPods were a success, but not an unbelievable hit, until they managed to get the costs down to something your average person can afford as a Christmas or Birthday gift. Not to mention something someone could buy without having to work it in their budget for the next 3 months. The iPhone is just plain too expensive to kill the iPod yet. Maybe if iPhone v.3 or v.4 brings the price down to the point where it's not much more than a regular phone I'll entertain thoughts about it being an iPod killer, but right now I have to say no way.
I read the internet for the articles.
Current 'rich' mobile devices won't replace mobile phones until fuel cell or battery revolution occurs.
Because I don't need a phone that can't live through the day on a single charge. No matter how rich it is.
As long as the phone is strongly coupled to a service provider I don't see this happening. Otherwise the cell phone provider will want you to perform every transaction through their service - song downloads, games, apps, whatever. I think it's going to keep the overall cost of ownership too high for a lot of people, at least in the near term.
All you really need is a cell phone. I have Verizon, with the navigational aide and the music capability, it has a crude calendar appointment tool, and a decent camera which can shoot 1Megapixel shots and shoot video. I think the time is now. My only complaint is that the GPS software requires a subscription, except for those times when there is a free demo period. Also, the music player on my phone only plays .wma files, unless you go into the "secret" menus, but that is a pain in the ass. I know a lot of people that use their phone as an all-in-one toy. I can't wait to upgrade to a newer, slimmer version with a bit more functionality on the appointment side of things.
Eventually a single device combining cell phone, camera, pda, mp3 player, GPS, ... will replace stand-alone devices. The transition has already started with devices such as the iPhone. Due to high prices, which is common with new types of devices, global adaptation will not happen instantly. People who have one or more seperate devices will not trade them in right away for a single device. If the seperate devices still work properly people will keep using them. But gradually as prices drop people will start buying the single device.
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63
oh about 2 years ago, just about everywhere (apart from the US it seems) we have had MP3 and MP4 video playable phones from Nokia,Samsung,Sony,HTC,MS Mobile, the list just goes on one is for sure there is no shortage of mp3 phones and most are free with the right service plan, and now we have 8/4GB SD cards available at a good price i can fill my wallet with loads of them making the ipod nothing more than an expensive paperweight
but hey dont let the Apple Fanboy Reality Distortion Field cloud your thinking
is whether not Apple will introduce iPods(hd or not hd based, possibly depends on the size/cost of flash) that have a subset of the iPhone features and a similar screen. If they do would that end up cannibalizing the iPhone market?
This is just my personal preference, and anything in it that applies to anyone else or the market as a whole is probably a coincidence, but I LIKE having my iPod and phone seperate. That way I can enter into situations in which my phone could be stolen(in tourist areas when travelling, at parties, anywhere were copious amounts of alcohol are consumed really) without having to worry about my phone getting stolen(it's worth maybe $20 at most) and since I have a phone i can call help/call people to meet up with etc. Not to mention a cheap phone tends to have longer battery life than most smart phones and can be abused without much repricussion. I won't get an iPhone, but an iPod with similar capabilities would rock!
Monstar L
No large sunglasses that make us feel like we are Samus or maybe a Predator will be the way to go. Imagine also a wrist-watch for interfacing with your mp3/navigation/PIMing, etc.
Let's discuss Apple and their product line, behind the thin veil of a "tech discussion".
I know I'm going to throw away all my iPods when the iPhone comes out. I've already thrown away my Tivo, VCR, DVD Player, Xbox, PS2, cable box, and 40" LCD screen, because Apple has their own TV now!
Now that Apple has a phone that can play an mp3 - AN IMPRESSIVE TECHNOLOGICAL ACCOMPLISHMENT! I mean, my god - a phone playing mp3s? What will they think of next!
You are all asshats. If vcast/treo/etc (every fucking phone plays mp3s) didn't kill the market for a standalone player, why would iPhone? There's an enormous market of people who like music, and dont want a new cell phone. Most people just take the phone thats free with the service.
Who the fuck would rent an iPod?
Apple would love it, though, as you can force phones into obsolescense, while the iPod can do its thing until the shitty build quality rears its head.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Will the iPhone kill the iPod in America?
Not as long as I am only able to get it via Cingular. When it is ubiquitous with all the major carriers...possibly, but that depends on how much storage can be stuffed in at a reasonable price. The flash crowd will by happy with 6 or 8gb, but many folk want the larger music libraries at hand.
Dave
As Jobs said at the launch, it is an wide screen iPod, a mobile phone and an internet communicator.
Since the iphone will be exclusive to Cingular for atleast 5 years and I do not see Verizon and T-Mobile going out of business anytime soon, I would suspect that many people will still be using and buying an ipod.
A lot of people have a corporate cell phone. If the company does not replace that phone with at $600 iphone, those people will most likely get an ipod or similar device.
I don't think that the ipod will be replaced that easily, atleast not for a while.
Yet another stupid iPod kille article. ipod kill this, ipod killer that. SHUT THE FUCK UP. the ipod is everywhere. it will stay everywhere for a long time. how many ipod killer articles will slashdot keep on putting out?
At least the iPhone commercials are SLIGHTLY less annoying than the iPod commercials.
Living With a Nerd
People who care to read these comments (unlike Slashdot journalists) know that we had the bloated-beyond-usability-devices discussion already in the past and we came to the conclusion that people want a phone only to make calls and an MP3 player only to play music.
iPhone might be good in both: Being a phone and a MP3 player. But it's clearly more expensive than an iPod.
Combined mp3-phones will not take over until battery life is substantially better. Having a dead battery in your iPod sucks, but having a dead battery in your phone is unaccetable.
... welcome our iPhone overlords!
----- There are two kinds of people in this world, my friend; those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
Apple has actually done a pretty excellent job at positioning different choices for people:
1) Pure music player with a very large storage space for people hwho have to have everything with them (iPod 80GB video)
2) Phone with music playing and PDA abilities with a medium amount of storage (iPhone)
3) Devices that are small enough you can use them anywhere discreetly or while in action (iPod mini and nano).
There are really valid reasons to own all of them. For some people there are valid reasons to own more than one, because they each meet a different need. I could see keeping the 80GB model in a car, while still having the iPhone for roaming use, with a nano for the gym or jogging.
In general though phones are where the market for many music playing devices is headed, Apple realized that too and is getting ahead of the game with the iPhone. In time we'll probably see other versions to replace at least the mini.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Turn off your TV. It does *wonders* for commercials, in that you don't have to see any more of them! Case in point: I have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't respond to AC's.
I really don't like Apple's method of tying everything into iTunes. Other mp3 players I've seen have a very simple way of organizing things. When you connect it to your computer, it's a *drive*. You then copy mp3s across (generally, folders and all) and then navigate these on the device. Quick, easy, and no clunky, proprietary software needed.
If I have to choose between a solution that all but requires iTunes (or any other such interface), and one that uses open standards like mp3 and USB drive connectivity, I'll go for the generic mp3 option. Even if it costs more, isn't integrated with a phone, and/or is only available in retro 1970s Harvest Gold color.
It's not because I'm a pirate or anything -- the kind of music I like is readily available for a very reasonable price (eMusic, Magnatune etc). Having to go through iTunes and put up with its interface and invasive practices is a PITA. If I buy an mp3 player, I want to load my songs into it, disconnect it, and not have to bother with buying into anybody's "better" way of doing things.
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
For me it depends on when they have one out with a decent amount of space. Right now, I consider my 30Gb player much too small.
...
As for phones, I use a Treo, and appreciate the third party development efforts. Opening up the iPhone for 3rd part dev would go a long way in my books
forgot that the original iPod came down in price too - what was it originally? $4-500?
In several iterations, if the iPhone is sucessful enough, I see a diversification of the product line just like the iPod, with the price coming down.
This device convergence stuff keeps coming up over and over again. I just don't get it.
Am I the only one who doesn't care for the single device that does everything worse than dedicated devices? At this point I'm not even convinced that I would be happy with a convergence device that does everything well. What I've seen of convergence so far is that my cellphone has a calender, my iPod has a calender, my laptop has a calender, my watch has a calender and my wall has a calender. The only ones I use are my laptop calender app and my wall calender (cause it has hot babes). The only thing that feature does on my other devices is clutter up the UI.
There are situations when I want to carry my phone, there are situations when I don't want to carry my phone. Likewise, I don't carry my iPod with me all the time. I find it inconvenient having small devices like that integrated into one - things break, get lost or stolen, things need recharging. I have a cheap and old mobile (Nokia 5210) that has been out in deserts, up mountains, buried in snow, dropped and scratched and is just fine - should it ever break, I can replace it with somehing equally cheap and robust. I don't want to have to worry about carrying a much larger, more fragile and more expensive Phone/MP3/GPS/PDA/etc combo around with me all the time.
I really like my iPod. I really like my 12"Powerbook. I have ZERO interest in an iPhone, or any other MP3 player/mobile combo because I find the idea inconvenient and awkward. Fortunately, I'm not alone in that thought.
Eventually it will happen. But not until you can either stream your library wirelessly from home or the cellphones have enough capacity to hold a music enthusiast's entire library.
Not before.
that's on launch. the ipod was pretty expensive when it first came out too.
almost all phones do mp3 playback already. went shopping for a new phone for my girl just yesterday, and the entry level pay as you go one that cost £10 (yes, £10!) did it. probably badly, but it did it.
when they're shifting tons of these things, the costs will come down significantly. it doesn't cost much for the phone electronics, as the above example shows. i suspect it will be absorbed into the price and size of the ipod at some point - one quarter or year, rather than get a price and physical size cut in the ipod, you'll get a phone added in. it will be the only device they make, and that'll be it.
personally i'll be happy for the convenience.
people will bitch that "i don't need a phone" or "i don't need an mp3 player", but most people need a phone, and most people need an mp3 player. i'd really like a single device that can do both *well*. if you're one of those, who's probably complaining right now about extra ipod functionality that you wouldn't use, you don't have to buy it.
1) Will it run or at least synch with Linux ? That is a serious question for once. My iPod runs quite nicely with all of my machines. I wouldn't even consider replacing it with something I couldn't use just as easily.
2) Will the iPhone support ogg vorbis and ogg theora, or will Apple continue paying lip service to the open source community, whose software their entire business depends on ?
In Japan, people are already doing this. Here, we have iPods, cell phones, computers, PSPs, all kinds of toys. In Japan, I remember hearing years ago -- basically, your typical teenage girl there just needs a cell phone, and she'll pretty much just use it for text messaging -- but if she needs music, photos, whatever, it's all in there. In fact, she'll use it for just about anything except a phone (since talking on a cell phone is considered rude).
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
For the price of an iPhone there is no way it will replace the iPod for most people, plus the fact that you will probably need a phone plan as well. I for one see the real next generation of iPods being the full touch screen. Not to mention from my experience, I know how crappy my cell phone battery is, I know how crappy my iPod battery is, and I can only imagine the problems I'd encounter if I combined the two.
I don't want to have to a) wait the 12-24 months Cinguliar forces me to wait between cheap phone upgrades or b) pay full retail for a new phone if I just want a newer player
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
how long it's going to take before all you need is a mobile phone? I hope not before my mom finally figures out how to check her "missed calls" on her current phone.
I personally don't need my phone to do any more than take/make calls and maybe show me the current time. I still take photos w/ a dedicated camera, since photos from a cellphone camera still look pretty crap to me. (Although w/o them, we wouldn't have all those videos of kids kicking each other in the balls for fun on YouTube. What's up with that..?)
Where was I? Oh, yeah, I'll never paying $499 for a phone, unless that's adjusted for inflation in the future.
the iKitchen Sink to be included in the iPhone
did you think our latest i(tm) line of products wasn't comprehensive enough? utilizing the latest advances in flash memory and art school student interface design, the iKitchen Sink function on our iPhones will enable you to enjoy a refreshing glass of water (iBrita Filter sold separately) or wash the dishes, all from the minimalist interface of the iPhone
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Now you got that 80's song stuck in my head: "Radio Killed the Video Show". Damn you, slashdot!
Table-ized A.I.
cigarette lighter and leatherman...then you'll truly have all you need in the palm of your hand
-50 DKP for lame post!
Correction I dislexitized it; it's "Video Killed the Radio Show". (It's the tune stuck in my head, not so much the lyrics.)
Table-ized A.I.
Especially if the phones doesn't even have a USB port, or if it does, requires it to be purchased seperately. A phone/mp3 player/camera that will probably be used for only one of those functions primarily(depending on the user) that costs hundreds of dollars and has to be bluetoothed(which most people don't have who upgrade computers instead of just buying new ones) unless you pay monthly to have data downloading, or a 1GB mp3 player around $40 that can be USB'd to almost any computer. It's all about convenience.
Sometimes I just want to get away and leave the phone behind while still being able to listen to music. Also, what about size and weight? I can get a tiny MP3 player vs a phone-sized object. On top of that, for us tin foil hat types - I don't want to have to carry around another trackable device.
Which is to say: unless and until all phone networks are interoperable, the iPhone is not going to penetrate very far. Even if I wanted one, and even if it were cheap, I wouldn't switch cellular providers just for an iPhone.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
I have an ipod Mini and Treo 650. Both are starting to show their age and I want to upgrade them this year if possible. I am going to take a serious look at the iPhone when it comes out (I already have cingular). It would be very convenient for me to replace my ipod and treo with a single device.
While the people at cnet may be sold on the iPhone, the vast majority of people buying phones are not sold on anything more expensive than free. The iPhone is going to be sitting toward the top of the premium phone market, I would say the jury is still very much on whether it will succeed period never mind whether it will be able to kill other devices.
Using the PDA market as an example here is just dishonest because the segment of the population that was using PDAs was already pre-disposed to a more advanced and integrated device, this is simply not what the majority of phone users really want to do.
Yes - next question please...
0100111001100101011100100110010000100001
It may not be perfect, but my iPod doesn't have a monthly service charge. And it's a helluva lot cheaper.
No, phones come and go, but a simple music device that can hold all your songs is immortal. For example, I wouldn't want my mp3 player and music collection to become dated when the address book software on the phone is no longer updated.
A computer can fit in a phone, and a phone's basically a computer. An iPod is a phone with more storage and a headphone jack, with the nifty interface from Apple. One of these phonePods with a keyboard is a tablet, and if you make it bigger, it's a laptop. The only problem that remains is the keyboard. Can we have mind-control computers please? I know there would be viruses, but those aren't so different than mass media FUD so why worry.
technical writing / development
wrong network, and there's too much demand on the battery. too much stuff in there.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
iPhone per month $80 or more.
So no, the iPhone will NOT kill the iPod. For the people that own an iPhone, maybe they will use it as their music/video player; but for most people. the iPod is still the best choice.
The iPod Nano also has huge advantages over the iPhone - much smaller, much more reliable, much longer battery life, and much more rugged. I've dropped my Nano into the spokes of my bike wheel while riding along at 20 MPH - the Nano is fine, only one tiny scratch. Try that with your iPhone.
this is exactly what happened with the iPod Photo. The iPod was always about convincing people to adopt new technology earlier and at more of a price premium than they otherwise would by dressing it up in snazzy designs and interfaces. Now the vanilla iPod has become commodity it's fallen out of line with Apples core competancy - selling this sort of high-tech stuff
Price & use differences, & device use conflicts will keep a thriving market for all the different models.
The orginal article is just another piece designed to get the author a writing credit and meager income check, as the publisher doesn't have enough substantial pieces to put up for readers, coupled with the fact other authors have already speculated the same earlier than this article.
First off, the iPhone does not even come close to being able to replace any non shuffle, mini, or nano iPod. Anyone with over 8gigs of music already on their devise is not going to be able to live under that ceiling easily. I have well over 40gigs of music on my iPod and I certainly do not see that number going down ever either.
Second, the iPhone cannot be what my iPod is. I use my iPod at the gym, when I jog, as my car stereo, and I am never without it. The same goes for my phone, it is, more or less, never to far away from me. Now it would be nice to have both together just for the fact of keeping track of one thing is easier than two, but the cons are just as bad.
My battery life is shot now. Using one device for two functions I use often would suck the battery life from the devise very quickly. If something breaks on either the phone or the music part, I lose the other function while it is fixed. If you dont have an Apple Store in your hood, you are screwed. If you rely on your smart phone to be productive, which you should if you are spending that much, then you are screwed if you need to fix something. Not enough room, not even close to being an acceptable alternative. Functionality - Can that iPhone do everything my current phone/iPod does? Nope.
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
Even my 7-year-old Casio 3000EX runs circles around a built-in camera phone in features. How is a phone going to replace that? And my MP3 player (a Mobiblu 1GB cube) take up almost no space, while a camera is huge in comparison and contains a lot of functionality I have absolutely no need for.
Convergence? I don't think so...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Yes, the stand-alone music player's days are numbered...in the thousands. We all know that convergence is happening every year, and that the low-end market for most personal electronics is turning into one market for do-it-all gadgets, there's no serious disagreement there. It is just the headline that's sensationalist.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Maybe. I bet we'll be able to answer this question when it all actually happens.
Until then this is all just so much Superman vs Batman.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Audiophiles will always want massive storage -- 8Gb won't do. Photogs will always want a real camera with a camera's form-factor and controls, not a watered-down point-and-shoot in the shape of a phone. The price-conscious won't drop $500. People who hate Cingular won't switch providers. People who want "just a phone" won't want their battery drained by superfluous services. PDA users seem to want third party apps, which Apple won't allow. Some people don't want to be tethered to iTunes. (And on and on...)
The iPhone looks slick. The pre-loaded software looks pretty, and intuitive. The touch-screen display is where "smart" phones should have been all along. But this thing just won't be for everyone, for all the reasons above, and surely dozens more. Apple will not be putting any special purpose device makers out of business with this.
This is the first iteration and obviously, it's a little weaker than us gadget freaks would prefer, but right now i've got a treo and a nano. Most normal people don't have some crazy library that's more than 8 gigs, so the capacity isn't an issue. And they're certainly not developing or loading custom software, so they really want something that's solid out of the box. The iPhone has a sleek, intuitive interface with plenty of space for my music. Why wouldn't I replace 2 products with one?
Treo: $650
8Gb iPod Nano: $250
iPhone: $600
Sounds perfect to me.
According to an earlier Slashdot story, Apple is forbidding Cingular from subsidizing the iPhone with service contracts because they are concerned about the iPhone cutting into iPod sales. Seems to me that Apple is already considering this and is attempting to limit it as much as possible. We'll just have to wait and see how this plays out.
I realized this weekend that my Palm Zire 72 has only been used as a MP3 player for the past six months, since my employer gave me a Blackberry. The BB does web, email, phone, and the all-important games for those really long meetings.
I saw a billboard for a store on the way to work this morning which read, "iPods and Cell Phones," and thought how the two will soon probably be combined at that location. Since the technology has changed, and phones are now an extension - the way ghetto blasters and walkman players once were - we'll probably be seeing a lot more teenagers and college students picking up iPhones as their one device.
Just a hunch.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
Then when I steal your contacts I also get the frosting of your music too.
(PS - Please, no Metallica)
The main problem with the all-in-one device is the risk associated with having "all your eggs in one basket" if you will.
I don't know about the rest of you, but the thought of having a $600 device with me all the time makes me cringe.
While I have a $400 digital camera, $200 phone and $250 iPod, I don't take them all with me wherever I go. There is some satisfaction with being able to protect some of the devices by not bringing them along. Also, I leave my cell phone at home sometimes when I don't want to be bothered.
"If vcast/treo/etc (every fucking phone plays mp3s) didn't kill the market for a standalone player, why would iPhone?"
Because the VCast and Treo aren't made by Apple. The iPhone is. You see, Apple "gets" simplicity. Its something a geek couldn't understand if it pulled down a geek's pants and blew em.
This is why the iPod dominated the already present MP3 player market, and why the iPhone will do the same to the Smartphone market.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
How long would it take to realize that Apple is going for the Tri-corder killer?
I know I'm not sold on convergence, anyway, and I don't see the reasoning (from the consumer side) for keeping my music and photographs on my phone. I trade out my phone every couple of years. Cameras don't improve that significantly from year-to-year. Hell, neither do MP3 players.
Gimme a phone with black-and-white display, a simple addressbook, Bluetooth, speaker phone and good sound quality. A couple time-related apps would be nice, but I really don't need much else. I don't need color everything with Intarweb access, a googol-pixel camera and MP3-player that connects directly to my brain. I do need battery life, a screen I can read in the dark and in the sun, the ability to make and receive calls, and probably a readable clock, since I've given up on wearing a watch. (I can maybe justify polyphonic ringtones, if only to escape the usually-awful ones that come with most phones.)
Canthros
I think the iPhone is misdesigned. I hate touch screens as input devices, and I suspect most people do after they try them. Almost everybody I know who bought a touch screen universal remote replaced it with one that has real buttons. Most people don't really think about it, but you need tactile feedback.
My story. Just earlier this year, I bought a Motorola E15 Phone. $150 with 2 year contract. It's a cellphone, mediocre MP3 player, camera, web browser, etc. It does a lot, but nothing very well. Its biggest boon is it has expandable memo, as it has an open slot for a microSD card. I bought it, figuring I could expand it to a 1 gig card and forgo the 'need' of having an iPod. The very day I bought the phone, I brought it home, and my roommate spilled some water on the counter-top where my phone was sitting, charging. A few drops of water in the back, and the phone was instantly fried. I tried to return it on warranty, but the shop was obstinate that it was water-damaged and 'not their problem'. They tried to sell me a new phone for $300 because I was still stuck in a 2 year contract. Before that experience, I was very much on board with the 'one gadget, many uses' mindset. After this experience, $150-200 is absolutely the limit to how much money I will consider spending on a portable, electronic device that can very easily become a paperweight. A larger device like a desktop computer or a stereo is generally fixable with a few replacement parts (unless maybe you throw it in a swimming pool). With portable electronics, it's always more expensive to fix them then it is to buy a new one.
Which of our iPods will be killed by our future iPhones? What do you know? The horror! Speak, or we will find ways ...
How long would it take to realize that Apple is going for the Tri-corder killer?
That was kind of funny, but really that's what we have - a totally touch-screen based UI just as Star Trek has always predicted we'd have. Can you not see every trekkie on the planet scooping one up as soon as soon as a federation (or Kilngon or Romulan) background appears?
That and a set of sound replacements.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When I was a kid in the early 60s my dad got a console stereo. It was pretty amazing: radio, record changer, amplifier and speakers all in one device, encased in a solid-wood cabinet, and with true hi-fidelity (better than your iPods, kids). The separate components of the hi-fi systems of the years before had been merged into one convenient device! What a technological advance!
And then, what? By the early 70s most of the console stereos were in the junk yards. Every audiophile wanted - gasp - a system built of separate components.
History may repeat: The all-in-one device will be perfected, and enjoy a brief domination of the market based in part on its cool factor. Then everyone will revert to the natural preference for individual flexibility and control, which favors separate but combinable devices. There's no reason your music player, for instance, won't be able to connect to whatever local network access is available at the moment - including your cell phone in the other pocket - without any necessity to combine them it the same case.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Will Sony finally merge the PSP with its excellent "Walkman" line of cameraphones, even more integrated with the PlayStation 3 than is the current PSP?
--
make install -not war
The PDA and smartphones were targeted to the same segments. The people who need PDA are same people who need smartphone and smartphones provides virtually all the functionality of PDA. The price of smartphones with subsidies from phone company was competitive with that of standalone PDA. Hence they killed PDA.
With iPod and iPhone, the target market is not same. People who want iPod does not necessarily want a cell phone. Yes, there is some overlap, but not enough (at least not yet), to kill the iPod. At high end, iPods provide more storage and at low end, iPods are cheaper.
However, if the price of iPhone reduces too much, it is likely, people would start buying iPhone as a replacement of iPod. In fact, I already do something similar. When my contract with Cingular expired and I got a new phone, I converted my old phone into an MP3 player (with 2GB miniSD, AM/FM radio, voice recorder and tiny photo/video camera, it is a great gadget to keep in the car all the time).
Personally, I would love an iPhone minus the phone portion of it (and having to subscribe to a service). THAT might kill the iPod.
#!/
It'll cannibalize some of the high-end and mid-market iPods. If you're a music freak and you need your entire library with you when you travel, you'll want a large capacity iPod. But if you're a jogger, cyclist or active person in general you'll want the Nano. No way in the world I'd do any athletic activity with an iPhone attached to my arm or waist.
I totally respect your way of doing things, but most regular non-geek folks see your way of doing things as well, bad.
If you have a ton of songs its simpler (for them) to load up iTunes, plug in their iPod and use the iTunes interface to manage transfers. Another bonus of using iTunes is you get easy playlist management, party shuffle, quick auto made playlists like Top Rated, Most Played...etc.
How do you do all of this when your MP3 player is only treated as a mass storage device? Doesn't it get tedious with hundreds or thousands of songs?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
I dont know about all of you, but I burn through some serious wattage on both my phone and my iPOD. This in itself makes me fearful of consolidating them both.
My ability to communicate could be diminshed by my need to play my iPOD in the background of my life from 6am until 5pm each day. I hate tethering myself to the charger unless absolutely necessary because the longer you are docked, the more diminished the battery life becomes.
Anyone else feel this way? Or are we suddenly predicting a 20-30% improvement in battery capabilities?
You may want to stop the catbox, while you're at it. ^_^
(It's Video Killed the Radio Star , by the Buggles)
Are you kidding? Have you seen the quality of a camera phone digital photo? It's utter rubbish in comparison to even a basic digital camera. Where's the zoom? The lens is tiny, most don't even have flashes. No way will it ever replace the digital camera. To replace it the mobile phone will have to grow in size and that goes against what you want from a mobile phone. Flash based MP3 Players for sure though, that is when the interfaces (something the iPhone will probably do) get much better. It's a chore using a mobile phone to listen to music.
Let's call them what they really are: pocket computers that include communications functions. If they're still phones then so is my PC with a speaker and mic.
They need to switch carriers, or unlock it so that anyone can get it. $600 doesn't seem too high, if you can get it at a better price with a contract.
Needs more than 8gb.
Needs 2 batteries. 1 for the phone and one for the music. Phone batteries are horrible, listening to music will shorten your talk time quickly.
Needs to be opened up to third party developers.
It's "Video Killed the Radio Star" by The Buggles.
No phone has a chance of replacing my iPod completely unless it has a UI that's as easy to use as the iPod and has enough storage so I can take my entire collection with me. The iPhone looks like a cool product and since I already use Cingular and will be in the market for a new phone soon I'll pick one up but it won't be replacing my iPod until it can hold as much content as my present iPod can.
connectivity is good enough and cheap enough such that you don't need to store the music in the phone - you will simply stream it on demand from your "server in the sky" (ie your home server, through the net, like Orb). Note, this applies even more to video content, which will always swamp whatever storage you have in your portable player/phone..
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
It will.
when all restaurants are taco bell,
and all cellphone providers are cingular.
They're using their grammar skills there.
I've had a smart phone for a while, and have 4 MP3 players gathering dust in a draw (2 of them were freebies). It's so cheap for a 2G miniSD card for the phone, I can stick enough music on one to last a week or so. I only need one device, and one headset. I can encode movies and TV programms and get about 8 x 2 hour films on a 2 G miniSD (the quality is OK for drama, sucks a bit for beg explosions etc), and I get about 6 hours watching video of a sengle change (great for in-flight movies).
I friend of mine offered me a new 4G iPod nano, still in it's box for $50, and I could not think of a reason why I would want one. I'll probably upgrade to a newer phone in a couple of years, but I will never need a dedicated MP3 player.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
If you only need 1 device, be a phone, or an iPod, definately wont worth the change, you may get something better for that task at a cheaper price. As you start to add needed devices, and start making a batbelt, the commodity overcomes most of the negative aspects of the integrated option, be the iPhone or a similar capabilities device made by other company (i.e P900 and up from Ericsson as something less polished). Maybe the question could be answered by another question... we need to have with us all the iPhone capabilities, no matter at what price?
In the short run: No.
In the long run: Yeah.
I give it five years max before it's all in the phone and the initial purchase is affordable. It's the rates for phones that will remain unnecessarily high.
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
Will the iPhone kill the iPod?
iDontKnow!
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
The reason I bought an iPod Nano was that the interface is excellent. It's easy to control and makes sense. The clickwheel is also awesome, and you can operate it without looking at it. The iPhone is clearly lacking in the tactile area, and that's why I won't buy one. Not to mention that the Nano is really, really small.
Will the iPhone kill the iPod? Who actually believes that it would? It will not with 100% certainty. We don't need to explain why since it's common sense. What kind of stupid question is that anyway?
... can you pack into a "phone" before it stops being a phone.
The iPhone or any of the other mp3 playing phones arent mp3 players... so how long before they become something else. The smartphone didnt kill the pda, the pda is interbreeding with the phone population at large, producing deformed mutant offspring.
(not that some smart phones arent ok... there just not pda's or phones)
iPhone, "An iPod, a phone, an internet mobile communicator. An iPod, a phone, an internet mobile communicator.... these are NOT three separate devices!"
You'd need some crazy suicide theory to explain how it is an iPod Killer.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
The thin client revolution. I mean, we can debate back and forth how the iPhone will affect iPod sales in 2007 or 2008, but in the long term, these devices are all destined to become one device that by itself does nothing, but through the network does everything. Just as Apple's replacing buttons with screen space with iPhone right now, a future device will start replacing internals with higher-bandwidth networking until terms like "phone" or "player" refer only to that which passes through the little touchscreen/speaker/mic/packet radio device in your hand.
On the other hand, though, maybe I'm just getting too caught up in my own sci-fi writing.
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
I'd rather be able to access it from a mobile device along with other documents.
Back in the old days, you lifted your phone, banged the hook a few times to wake up the operator downtown, and asked her to connect you to your party.
Now in the 21st century, you can just ask the FBI tapping your phone to connect you.
Now THAT'S PROGRESS!
The biggest factor in folding all of these devices into a single device, is battery life. With an ipod you have a seperate battery that isnt always on, where as your phone is going to be running all the time. Lets say you've been listening to tunes all day on your phone, how long will the battery last on that important call you have to take on the run? The more functions you put into a single device, the more usage that device gets, which places more demands on the single powersource inside of it. With seperate units, you have seperate batteries which of course means longer run time.
The iphone also does not have an 80gig hard drive and it wont for some time.
I suspect the vast majority of people using PDAs also use cell phones and typically pay a fair amount for them (business users, primarily), so combining the two is a natural fit (except for form-factor issues). I don't think the same can be said for MP3 players, digital cameras, etc. My phone is reasonably small, but it's still 3 times the size of my MP3 player. That makes a big difference when I'm working out. And cell phones (at least reasonably priced ones) are a long long way from being even decent compared to a dedicated camera.
Just because those features are there doesn't necessarily make them good enough to replace a dedicated device. Having GPS in a phone might be a cool feature to some people, but to others it's just a useless extra-cost item. MS Word has every feature imaginable, but how many of them do you use? Wouldn't you like a version that had just what you use at half the cost (in dollars, memory, cpu cycles, UI complexity,
I have a phone for talking,
a music player for listening.
Creative, iPods, and Archos have wonderful product lines.
Cell phones batteries suck.
Really suck.
I listen to the music all morning, then I get a call.
The call gets dropped because the battery is all run down!
I would like a higher capacity iPod:
160 GB iPod - Like the 160 GB Archos.
80 GB is kinda small by modern, up to date standards...
I have this and it works fine. A BT dongle on the iPod that talks to my headset. The headset also talks to my BT phone. When the phone rings the iPod pauses, I answer the phone. When I hang up the iPod resumes. To me at least it's a better alternative than relying on the PHONE COMPANY for a multi gigabyte MP3 player.
I supposed if I were motivated I'd use the PDA functions on my iPod. In theory those PDA functions are also supported on my phone but as we all know the software to connect that with your PC either doesn't actually exist, does't actually work, or costs a fortune. So again, why be beholden to the phone company.
I think the thing that most people are ignoring is that phone companies really don't and don't want to support phone hardware and will do everything they can to compel you to use a phone company service, like picture mail is lieu of shuttling pictures between your phone and you PC. I'd much rather have as many of the day to day functions I use on any non-phone device so at least I had some control over them. If we hand over that to the phone company, we are of course screwed 8 ways to Sunday.
The iPhone may be great and all but 8GB of storage is way too low for this device to replace iPods and $600+ is way too high of a cost to replace the iPod. To be quite honest 80GB is too small. I (and there are plenty of us out there) like to have "everything" with me and my music collection alone tops out at over 80GB. How am I going to put the entire first 2 seasons of Battle Star Galactica and Lost onto this thing, as well? Actually what would let the iPhone replace the iPod, would be to give iTunes Slingbox like capabilites. Then you can just stream your entire media library to your phone. Are you listening Apple? I'm giving you that one for free. :)
Between the cost, and being shackled to ATT Wireless cellular service, I don't think the music player market is in any danger today. Ask again in a few years if/when both of these things aren't true and you might see a very different picture.
for 2 years with a forced data plan
Not my post but the article, well hopefully not my post. How on earth could a $600 device replace one that can be purchased for less than $200? They cater to different markets and definitely different tax brackets. The Iphone may replace an mp3 player or 2 but I am sure the market is safe.
WTF?
Let's see... is a $500 phone going to replace a sub-$200 device? Um... no.
Now the better question is whether the cell phone is going to kill the iPod, and whether the iPhone can grab enough of a market share to keep Apple afloat. Since Apple chooses to be monopolistic by tying iTunes to the iPod, the question also includes whether consumers will find vendor lock-in of any long-term value.
I'm guessing Apple's salad days are coming to an end, although their monopolistic practices never will.
and life....
You make some good points, but I think your assertion that cameras can't be shoe-horned into a phone may be a bit off. For example, Canon has some amazingly compact little consumer market cameras that surely could be grafted onto a cellphone. If you glue an ELPH onto, say, a RAZR, you'll get something about as bulky as a standard old style Nokia.
Regarding cell phone contracts, I think the biggest problem will be the cellular provider's reluctance to let you put free music on your phone when they have this huge incentive to make it a profitable extra monthly charge. Quite likely, they'll try to market their own music download service to complement the iPhone and its competitors--$1/megabyte to connect to iTune Store over a cellular data link, or $30/month for unlimited connectivity--that sort of thing. I can just see these bean counters specifying that the iPhones come without an SD card slot or an easy way to load music by USB. But, hopefully Apple will have the clout to preserve the iPod interface.
Actually, the iPhone may be just a bit more consumer friendly than cellular providers would prefer. That may be why they're not falling all over each other to take it up, and that alone may cause the price to stay high--without a high margin, they'll have little incentive to offer it, and without a lot of competition, there will be little reason for Apple to ramp up production and lower the price.
I would love to replace my Palm, Nokia, iPod, and camera with one uber device and I'm willing to pay for it. But I don't know exactly how many non-geeks out there feel the same way. Hopefully it'll be the hot gift for Christmas '07.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
...but not in the near future. I think we can be guarenteed that 10 years down the road, we'll probably be carrying single-unit devices that pretty much do all our portable computer-oriented needs. But until the iPhone can begin to match the iPod in cost and sport a reasonable amount of flash drive space, the iPod will still dominate.
This is just the first generation of iPhones. Apple usually starts at the top of the market, and works its way down. A year out, we'll have the equivelent of an iPhone Nano—reduced features, smaller, and cheaper—and that's when the line will really first begin to take off. Meanwhile, the Pro line will expand in functionality, space, and the UI will get better.
But we're not looking at an overnight revolution, here. But yeah, the iPhone may eventually replace the iPod, but not for years.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
you can't win with flight attendants - if they aren't with "the phone is off"; "it's inflight mode" etc.
if "Faith" could be proved with facts - would it still be faith? So why does "Faith" try to present beliefs as fact? -
My fiance got one and she wound up buying a nano. After buying the $30 headphones for her phone and some weird thin SD card (not a mini, not a micro, just thinner than a normal one) for it, the UI sucked and the proprietary headphone connector broke after like a month. Plus i'm sure its no picnic with other ones to rip songs from CDs, they'd much rather you buy them for $3 from vcast or whatever.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
This morning I was up before Dawn and out photographing Barn Owls in Flight. To do this beautiful animal justice, I got out the following kit.
- Nikon D2x 12MP Digital Camera
- Nikon 200-400mm F4 lens
- Manfrotto Tripod & Wimbley Head.
Now if some marketing droid thinks a handheld deivice like an iphone can replace the above equipment and still take 8 frames/second then I sure would like some of what he is smoking as it must be some powerful weed.
Maybe for point and shoot diddy digital cameras he might have a point but ask any pro snapper then they will just laugh at you.
Mind you, it would be nice not to have to lug 20kg of camera+lens several miles cross country.
I'd be tremendously disappointed if the iPod stays forever the same. The video iPod hasn't been remodeled in a long time, and everybody who has one wants a bigger screen and longer battery life. The iPhone may be at the top, but how's about a video iPod sans phone, with a large screen and hard drive? Huh? Would it "kill" the iPod? I don't think so. This is the same company which took its highest seller, the iPod mini, and retired it for the nano. The video iPod will also be replaced. But for a serious iPod person, even 8 GB on memory just doesn't cut it. I understand that flash ram is getting bigger and bigger. A nice 32 GB Flash iPod with big screen would be more watchable, and Flash doesn't have the same battery problems as a hard drive.
Are you listening, Steve?
All mobiles with a hefty price tag are trying to be the mythical 'convergence device'.
Sadly, we still can't reasonably put all the functions into the phone and get anything
like decent battery life.
Also, before anyone starts getting excited...there are other drawbacks to convergence:
A camera that only just deserves to be described as such, and will never
be more than a snap-cam with the tiny lens forced upon it by the format.
And I don't care how many megapixels it has!
A TV that also manages to just make the grade to be called so, but seriously, who
watches anything on a mobile phone screen?
Is it good for mail? Depends how much of your life you can waste trying to key
a longer message on a T9 or micro-qwerty keyboard.
I can see in the slightly longer term that mobile phones will replace MP3 players and
sure, PDAs were such a bad idea, that it was obvious that your phone, synced to your
computer's PIM was going to edge the PDA out of the market. And sure, the mobile makes
a great MP3 player.
In then end though, form and function are still important factors: if you are going to
take a photograph, do it with a camera that won't disappoint you.
Same with the TV - size matters.
Apple's iPhone is a zero-buzz product. Hell they didn't even think to put 3G in it so
that they could sell the damn thing in Europe.
Come on! That one has been making the rounds since the announcement! I modded it up last time I saw it on slashdot. Make up a new joke.
..., it can be a matter of life and death.
Can be, perhaps, but life went on just fine before the mobile phone, as it does for millions of people today without mobile phones (billions worldwide). My phone battery already dies all the time, so I don't really see the big deal.
Brought to you by the numbers π, e, and 0x1B.
After my nano died, I switched to using my Sony W810i as an MP3 player. The interface isn't there, the transfer speed was at USB 1 speeds, and the long dangle cord made cord management a nightmare unless you used the included, crappy headphones with a super-short cord. All-in-all a very mediocre experience.
So I bought a shuffle to tide me over until they bump the nanos a bit more.
Maybe the new Samsung Upstage is better, but I imagine not. I would consider an iPhone, but not without 3G speeds, so I will probably wait until the next generation at least. I have no doubt that cell phones will render the MP3 market obsolete in 3-4 years, but they are certainly not there.
The technology is still way too far out there for us to get a truly converged device. I have a phone with a camera and an MP3 player, but I can't stand to use either.
If I want to take pictures, my digital camera does it worlds better, and is more convenient on every level to actually USE. It has way more features, way better quality, and gives much greater flexibility in taking the kinds of pictures I want to take.
The MP3 player I have(and no, not an expensive, restrictive, feature-lacking ipod) has a lot of cool functions that phones either don't have, or have in limited capacities. voice-recording, playlist functionality, equalization, standard headphone jack...
Until a company starts making converged devices competitive in features and quality with their counterparts, I would rather have individual devices.
Converged devices have their place, but I think for most users they serve as a convenient replacement when you are in a pinch rather than being a disruptive technology that takes away market from another device. like a previous poster said, you wouldn't use the scissors on a swiss-army knife if you had a full-size pair available.
Then I took a good look at my listening habits, and realized I never actually _need_ that kind of capacity.
You don't need an MP3 player, period.
The only question is whether the benefits outweigh the costs. In your case, a 4GB nano and ~1,000 songs is plenty and the benefits your listening patterns gain from adding the extra ~6,500 songs of a 30GB or ~19,000 songs of an 80GB player are much smaller than the cost/bulk benefits you get from a smaller player.
I, on the other hand, gain a lot of my self definition from my love and knowledge of music. For me, the 80GB player is as small as I want my fat fingers to deal with in the first place so size isn't an issue. Cost would certainly be nice to drop. Getting to have discussions about what Punk-Country sounds like in the form of the Meat Puppets, have cheesy Roxette/Erasure 80's flashbacks with my wife on a Monday morning drive AND be able to listen to the core 1,000 songs in my main playlists is worth a fortune to me - way in excess of the $200 extra price.
Now add in the ~20 movies that can run picture in picture on my monitor while I code, the ability to figure out what certain lyrics are because I ran an app to grab them from the net, the ability to keep samples of my photography handy... For me it's a no brainer.
The capacity is a HUGE issue for the retarded (meant in the true sense of the word) iPhone. For my 320x240 iPod, I tend to rip movies at around the 400MB point (granted I go slightly over 320 wide so I can either zoom in on the center at 1:1 or zoom out and letterbox on a square screen). 4GB for the great new "widescreen movie capable" iPhone lets me put maybe 7-8 movies on there so long as I put no music on and minimal extra apps. That's barely enough for an intercontinental flight and back and now my iPhone's useless for music. Sure there's an 8GB version... giving maybe that small set of movies and a very limited music library.
For users like yourself, the iPhone will be the latest and greatest new gadget, able to do all kinds of quirky things that you can't do on other phones and save space in your pocket for your willingly limited music library - albeit for a very high price. For a user like myself, the biggest feature is the great new touch sensitive screen. Finally getting a movie big enough to be worth watching is huge and the same goes for easy navigation of bigger playlists - both of which are massively hampered by too little capacity to store much.
So, it's all about personal definitions. At its simplest, no one needs a cool movie and MP3 playing phone. At the other extreme, people who're excited by those features and have the libraries to really use them are massively hampered by the tiny storage in the first generation. In the middle, there are people like yourself - though the cheaper price argument falls flat on its face there.
Fortunately for Apple, they only ever aimed for 1% market saturation and, whilst tying it to signup with a provider could have dropped the price and a bigger drive could have upped the appeal to maybe 20-30% market saturation, Apple are evidently more than happy with 1% on their own terms rather than 20-30% on other people's terms with smaller margins. Going for that 1%, they can dictate whatever they like and accept that most of us won't take it but enough will.
It's only going to be an exclusive contract with Cingular for a while.
There are a few reasons they coupled with Cingular
1) They had to innovate some of the ways in which the cell phone communicates with the network, to allow for features like the call splitting/merging & random access voice mail
2) They knew that it would be so revolutionary that people would drop their current provider and switch, and they wanted to make money from that fact. Part of the deal with Cingular is that Apple gets part of the monthly fees from the iPhone users.
As other phone companies gear up to support the features of the iPhone and once their exclusivity contract runs out, Apple will happily accept money from the people who wouldn't/couldn't switch to Cingular but still want the phone.
No.
"To be is to do." --Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Aristotle
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
Hmmm... Why is it that every single article that has a question for a headline is always tagged for: "No, Yes, Maybe"?
Seems kinda counter-productive...
Let me know when I can get a 60GB iPhone for the same price as a 60GB iPod, and use it with my existing Verizon Wireless voice-only subscription, and then I might be interested.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
> Why would I risk missing/losing an important phone call to listen to music?
This is a very good point, and it can be generalised. Another case that I have come across is whether you want to integrate a GPS receiver into your digital camera so that you have geo-tagged pictures. The issue is that you want to have separate batteries for the two components, so that you don't find that you can't take a picture at all because the always-on GPS has run the battery down. (You can't turn the GPS on only when you take a picture because it takes a while to find the satelites.)
Let's say that because of miniturisation, these things will eventually all be integrated. Is there some intelligent way that the battery resources can be allocated to the different functions so that you get the best of both worlds? I can imagine defining a "reserve" capacity that you can't use for music but can use for calls. But this needs to be really simple to use.
An opportunity for someone smart to make some money, I think.
Itsa good thing I didn't try to remember the group, else I'd call them the "Bugles" or "Trumpets".
Table-ized A.I.
If the iPhone is not a big hit, will it kill Apple's momentum?
Apart from the Monks of Cool, who's going to fork out that kind of money for a locked down device?
I think the lack of third party development is going to keep a lot of people off of the iPhone. I was ready to jump on the iPhone (and switch carriers) until I learned this.
With the Treo (and most Smartphones, I'm sure), the majority of software used is third party. Thanks to some crafty Treo developers, I already have 8GB of storage in my phone, and will upgrade as higher capacity SDHC becomes available. I don't think I could use up 8GB with only iTunes-supplied data, but my current card is filled with TomTom maps, music, ROMs, Wikipedia, IMDB, and so on that would never be made available from Palm directly. I'm sure Apple will be great for music downloads and Pac Man, but I find it unlikely anybody will be able to sync their NES library anytime soon.
Hopefully Apple will realize that the pay-per-ringtone/program thing they have in mind (a la typical "dumb" phone) won't bring in the majority of the early adopters that would otherwise help carry a new phone at their asking price.
Cell phones already play music. Who wants to lug two bulky gadgets around when one will hack it? Cell phones will replace laptops and desktops too. The phone's biggest drawback is its dinky screen and keyboard size, but public generic (read browser) docking stations at work, home, cyber cafes, cars and 'planes will give us big screen access to the apps on our phones when we need it. See my blog http://trevors-trinkets.blogspot.com/2007/03/mobil izing-mobiles.html
Considering what you see in all the phone stores in Japan, music players go well with phones.
1. move from ordinary ring tones (melody only) to full mp3 style ringtones (full song)
2. latest DoCoMo phones include "Portable Napster" with "2 million songs"
3. High speed HDSPA (sic?) phones with >1 mbps download speed focus on how songs can be downloaded in 11 seconds instead of 1.5 minutes.
4. New designs emphasize music player controls, for example the newest DoCoMo phone I saw on sale today has 3 nice triangular lights that light up depending on "tape" direction and gradate from blue to violet for display of the current volume level.
So if iTunes is on the iPhone that would be good.
The thing is, normal rates would cause the cost of a song to double at least I'd expect. The ISP has to be involved in the sale for it to be economical for the user.. you don't pay packet rates at home do you.
Also as with the new high speed mentioned above, you do pay normal rates outside of the provider's network (though it seems anyway that they may have changed to an upper limit of about 50 bucks/month).
Considering the state of networks in the U.S. I'd say Apple must be doing some making some serious waves (as suggested in recent rumor) in the cell phone network industry. Of course the other option is to dock (maybe magnetically?) with your computer and sync to that. But that will then make you lose the impulse buys on the train, not good. Probably easiest to think of iPhone as including an ipod inside it but enabling purchases anywhere, this will probably be a win for Apple that will just make the iPod brand more powerful. Better for iPod. But most people will not have an iPhone so no it won't kill the iPod.
I would think carrying one converged device plus an extra battery would be less cumbersome than two separate things. Just a thought.
You know what?
because consumer tastes increasingly send us conflicting messages on this subject. People seem to like integrated functions on their cell phones, at least a few of them. Yet they obviously like single-function products. People who own multifunction cell phones also own and use digital cameras and mp3 players. Do they want to REPLACE their other devices, or do they want added functionality in their phones? Those are different questions. I'm guessing the second. Multi-function cell phones are another way for consumers to interact with their music, not the only way they want to interact with their music. They want to take images and video with their phones, but they don't want the phone to be their only device for doing so. In the end, only air, food, and water are necessary for existence. Everything else is a matter of desire. That's the cage of modern life. "But it's such a pretty cage!"
nice article, loosers.
I just found out that my phone does what I need. It is small enough, music is easy to manage, memory is extendable by inserting a larger MMC card - all that I need.
http://id3as.livejournal.com/
Convergence devices combine loads of features into one, compromising quality and usability. Dedicated devices do less but they do it well. Every user has his/her preference, but I for one always select dedicated devices. Which is why phones will not kill anything other than... other phones.