Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chinese 'Apple Peel' Turns iPods Into iPhones

Posted by timothy on from the cheap-data-is-the-key dept.

angry tapir writes "The Apple Peel 520, a Chinese-developed product that drew the media's attention for being able to turn an iPod Touch into an iPhone-like device, is coming to America. The add-on device, which just went on sale in China, has been billed as a more affordable option for users wanting to get their hands on an iPhone, but lacking the budget."

178 comments

  1. It is a phone by srussia · · Score: 1

    It juts uses the iPod as its UI.

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
    1. Re:It is a phone by RDW · · Score: 5, Informative

      'It juts uses the iPod as its UI.'

      Or to put it another way, it replaces the cheap phone components that Apple left out of the Touch so that it could cash in on the low end of the market without threatening the status of its expensive flagship product. Although the true cost is often buried in a contract, in the UK you can buy an unlocked 64Gb iPhone 4 for £599. The equivalent iPod Touch is £329. Obviously the iPhone 4 is more expensive to produce, but not £270 more. The cost of this device (not to mention the cost of a complete PAYG Android phone, about £100 over here) shows that Apple could produce a much cheaper device if they chose to. But rather than owning the whole smartphone market (as they already own the mp3 player market all the way down to the Shuffle), they've decided to focus entirely on the high end. Whether this will turn out to be a wise decision in the long term remains to be seen, but it's obviously highly profitable right now! In the meantime it leaves us with the oddity of the iPod Touch, a device designed by bean counters, which has no real competition in the market because only Apple can get away with selling a 'smartphone without a phone'.

    2. Re:It is a phone by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

      I don't know about in the UK, but here in Australia the iPhone is quite a bit more expensive than the iTouch, but so are Android phones. Most people get these kind of phones on contracts - $0 upfront and $59 p/m (anything from $350 to $500 of cap) over 24 months seems like the standard plan for a majority of the providers. I'd say people are drawn here by the small monthly payments. Why pay $380 for a lesser product when you pay nothing for it on a cap plan (the plans are almost identical to the BYO plans)?

    3. Re:It is a phone by khchung · · Score: 5, Insightful

      only Apple can get away with selling a 'smartphone without a phone'.

      I recall something that was called "PDA" which seems to qualify quite well as a "smartphone without a phone", and quite a few companies like Palm, HP has been quite successfully selling those before smartphone became popular.

      I know it is trendy with moderators to bash Apple here, but at least try to bash for things they are actually guilty of, ok?

      --
      Oliver.
    4. Re:It is a phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the UK you can buy products that don't exist? Like a 64 GB iPhone 4?..

    5. Re:It is a phone by RDW · · Score: 1

      'In the UK you can buy products that don't exist? Like a 64 GB iPhone 4?..'

      Oops! The correct comparison is of course between the £599 32Gb iPhone 4 and the £249 32Gb iPod Touch. Of course this just makes the iPhone look even more expensive relative to the Touch.

    6. Re:It is a phone by andyh-rayleigh · · Score: 1

      in the UK you can buy an unlocked 64Gb iPhone 4 for £599. The equivalent iPod Touch is £329.

      There are more differences between the iPod touch and the iPhone than just the phone components:
      GPS, compass, battery capacity. In the previous generation the touch was also missing the cameras and microphone.

      OK, that's still less than £270 worth but the difference is closed somewhat.

    7. Re:It is a phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only the uneducated think the new iPod is simply an iPhone4 without the "phone". It's hugely worse in a number of ways - much worse screen, half the ram, no gps, etc. etc.

    8. Re:It is a phone by RDW · · Score: 1

      'I recall something that was called "PDA" which seems to qualify quite well as a "smartphone without a phone", and quite a few companies like Palm, HP has been quite successfully selling those before smartphone became popular.'

      I think the key phrase here is 'before smartphones became popular'. Now that the additional phone components are so cheap, PDAs have essentially vanished and the Touch pretty much has its niche to itself. I can't imagine any similar device without Apple's brand image and iTunes/App store compatibility doing well, at least in countries like the UK where several PAYG Android phones are available for substantially less than the cheapest Touch.

    9. Re:It is a phone by RDW · · Score: 1

      It's actually a £350 difference for the 32Gb models (my mistake, see above), and I'd say that GPS and compass at least are now 'cheap phone components' even if the Apple Peel doesn't come with them - an £80 PAYG Android phone on sale in the UK has both.

    10. Re:It is a phone by RDW · · Score: 1

      The cheapest PAYG Android phone in the UK is about £80, less than half the price of the cheapest Touch. Step up to a better model and add an 8Gb card to equalise the storage and it's about £115, £74 less than the basic Touch. Another payment of £20 will buy you 6 months worth of 3G net access on T-mobile (though with adequate rather than great coverage where I live). Cheap PAYG phones are common in much of the rest of Europe, though less so in some other countries including Apple's core US market.

    11. Re:It is a phone by FalcDot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that my Touch needs to be recharged maybe once a week, depending on exactly how much I use it for gaming on the subway. My ordinary cell phone also lasts about a week on a charge. Yet if I were to combine both, I'd end up needing to recharge it every day. And I'd better have my charger around 'cause it might not last through the entire day.

    12. Re:It is a phone by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      The cheapest PAYG Android phone in the UK is about £80, less than half the price of the cheapest Touch.

      Which phone is that? Most I have seen have been twice that, and I don't think I've seen one below £100. At £80 I might get one

    13. Re:It is a phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      only Apple can get away with selling a 'smartphone without a phone'.

      I recall something that was called "PDA" which seems to qualify quite well as a "smartphone without a phone", and quite a few companies like Palm, HP has been quite successfully selling those before smartphone became popular.

      I know it is trendy with moderators to bash Apple here, but at least try to bash for things they are actually guilty of, ok?

      Don't know about you but I haven't seen a PDA in years. They are not a viable product for anyone but Apple which is why the PDA makers have all either perished or added phone functionality to their product line.

    14. Re:It is a phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The new Touch has the same "Retina Display" as the iPhone 4.

    15. Re:It is a phone by RDW · · Score: 1

      T-mobile Pulse Mini from Argos. But you only get a resistive screen (the regular Pulse for £20 more has a very decent capacitative screen).

    16. Re:It is a phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regarding Apple's customers - "if you've got a cow, you have got to milk it"

    17. Re:It is a phone by od05 · · Score: 1

      My Samsung Moment lasts a day, at best.

    18. Re:It is a phone by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you 'recall' then, Apple was also first on that bandwagon. Newton anybody?

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    19. Re:It is a phone by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Or to put it another way, it's vaporware. If the device needs to connect through the dock, then the manufacturer will need to get approval from Apple, and will need to license Apple's proprietary dock technology. Let's hope they dot their eyes and cross their teas... and stick with the developer agreement... so if Apple rejects their design for no good reason, they can at least file some sort of lawsuit, ala google apps, and don't just start selling it without Apple's approval, and get sued back into vaporware.

      --
      The Admin and the Engineer
    20. Re:It is a phone by RDW · · Score: 1

      It's certainly true that the current generation of smartphones is very battery hungry. But a lot of this comes down to additional capabailities that even the combination of a wifi media player and a conventional phone won't give you. The things that really seem to drain my battery are 3G net access and GPS; if I just leave the phone switched on to receive calls and only use non-networked apps like an epub reader I can go a couple of days between charges (with normal usage, I charge once a day). And, of course, I only have to worry about a single charger (or just a cable where I have access to USB, like at work). But with your usage pattern a smartphone may have fewer advantages - 3G and GPS tend not to work well on the subway!

    21. Re:It is a phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, what do you think you're doing? This is an Apple bashing story! If you aren't bashing Apple or being trolled, get out!
      Nobody cares about your Samsung!

      Geez, some people!

    22. Re:It is a phone by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      The cheapest Android phone is also a turd. Heck I have an EVO and I think that's a turd for the most part.

    23. Re:It is a phone by lineswine · · Score: 1

      If you 'recall' then, Apple was also first on that bandwagon. Newton anybody?

      Yes, and what a roaring success THAT was! Does anyone have one that isn't in a museum?

    24. Re:It is a phone by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 1

      my android phone lasts 3 days if i don't run games or listen to music. also, i can recharge it on any USB port in the world, a compatible cable (micro USB) is dirt cheap.

      and i only have to carry one device.

      there was a time that i'd rather have an ipod for music a phone for calls, since most "feature phones" of the time had crappy music players with shitty sound.

      today, most phone have comparable sound quality to ipods, have pretty decent screens that i can read well even in the sun, plus very decent mobile browsers. so my pockets are a little less crowded, if the price to pay for it is recharge more often, so be it.

      --
      What ? Me, worry ?
    25. Re:It is a phone by sharkman67 · · Score: 1

      I do! Actually two of them. Still work great!

    26. Re:It is a phone by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't really say it's a smartphone without the phone; it's more of a music and video playing iPod that has a web browser and WiFi capabilities, with some PDA functionality. Now that the iPad is out however, the Touch may not be as appealing but I'm sure there's still a market for it.

    27. Re:It is a phone by Zen-Mind · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, I recall an article on Anandtech that states the various differences between the latest iPod Touch and iPhone. They didn't just drop the phone part, they also have a different casing which could indicates different internal structure, lower quality display, speaker, camera and no GPS. Are these worth the £270, probably not, but it means it might not be as bad as it looks.

    28. Re:It is a phone by joeyblades · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... components that Apple left out of the Touch so that it could cash in on the low end of the market...

      This is so disengenuous as to be silly. Not everyone wants an iPhone. A lot of those people who don't want an iPhone might be in the market for a high end mp3 player. There are two different markets, ergo two different products. Yes, these products have a lot of synergy, but that's just good business.

      ... only Apple can get away with selling a 'smartphone without a phone'.

      If Apple didn't already have the iPod before they had the iPhone, your rant might actually sound clever. However, in light of actual history it just sounds like a lame rant.

    29. Re:It is a phone by gauauu · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine any similar device without Apple's brand image and iTunes/App store compatibility doing well, at least in countries like the UK where several PAYG Android phones are available for substantially less than the cheapest Touch.

      I wish the US were like that. I bought the Touch to use as a pda, but shopped around looking for something similar running android instead (which I'd rather have). Sadly, the only competing device I found that ran android cost about $400, when the Touch cost me $150. I know there are other people like me that would RATHER have an android device without the Apple brand (where's Tepples when you need him....he complains about that all the time), but sadly nobody is offering it.

    30. Re:It is a phone by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      If you 'recall' then, Apple was also first on that bandwagon. Newton anybody?

      The Newton wasn't really the first device of that type; at least Psion and Atari had devices of the type on the market years before.

    31. Re:It is a phone by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      Same resolution, but not nearly the same quality. They look completely different.

    32. Re:It is a phone by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, that post also highlights the fact that within the iPod touch line, Apple are charging £80 for an extra 32GB of flash. Obviously from their point of view it's a matter of maximising profit with a lot more to it than simply adding up component costs, but it's a good apples to apples (no pun intended) comparison of their markups.

    33. Re:It is a phone by RDW · · Score: 1

      'There are two different markets, ergo two different products.'

      More like overlapping (and rapidly converging) markets currently artificially divided by pricing of the hardware and/or phone contracts. How many people would really prefer to do without the ability to make calls or use the net outside wifi range on a phone-sized device, for reasons other than cost? If a basic unlocked, modestly priced iPhone were available in the US, just how popular would the Touch be? Why do you suppose there are so many Android phones competing with the iPhone (with a brace of tablets in development to compete with the iPad), and lots of small mp3 players competing with the Nano/Shuffle, but very few phone-sized wifi-enabled app-running media players competing directly with the Touch? Could it be because a device of this type really only makes sense if you have Apple's user base and brand image, and want to sell devices, apps and tunes to the masses without endangering your very comfortable margins on an 'aspirationally priced' market-leading smartphone?

      'If Apple didn't already have the iPod before they had the iPhone, your rant might actually sound clever.'

      Certainly there was a device called an 'iPod' before the iPhone was launched, but the Touch has very little in common with any earlier iPod apart from the branding and iTunes compatibility. The Touch does, however, closely resemble the iPhone, for obvious reasons. If you'd like a bit of history, here's Apple fan site iLounge on the original Touch back in 2007 (most of this is true of the current version):

      'Feels less like a flagship iPod than an intentionally stripped down iPhone, with diminished cosmetics, interface and features...Unfortunately, by the past standards of a company that has proudly released products disruptive enough to threaten cannibalization or premature discontinuation of their recent predecessors, the iPod touch is not a truly great new device. In fact, iPod touch feels as if it was designed quite specifically not to threaten Apple's recent cell phone initiative, putting the future of the 110-million-selling iPod family at the mercy of the 1-million-selling iPhone...iPod touch is a stripped-down iPhone, with a similar (but not identical) display and icon-heavy touchscreen interface, one wireless antenna, and some of iPhone's applications.'

      http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/reviews/entry/apple-ipod-touch-8gb-16gb/

    34. Re:It is a phone by RDW · · Score: 1

      ...and within the iPhone 4 line, going from 16Gb to 32Gb will set you back £100 (I suspect the flagship iPhone has a higher markup than any of their other pocket devices). I guess it's all about charging what the market will bear.

    35. Re:It is a phone by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      I'm suddenly seeing a market for a microSD add-on for the iPhone!

    36. Re:It is a phone by joeyblades · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. First there was the mp3 player. Then the mp3 player got a few apps. Then there was a phone and a new version of the mp3 player that shared a lot of design elements and features because Apple isn't stupid.

      You're making it sound like Apple took their iPhone and dumbed it down. I'm saying that's not what happened.

      I know a lot of people that have iPods, but have no interest in an iPhone. People that want both an iPhone and an iPod appreciate the overlap. People that want an iPod and some other phone (or no phone) could care less about the overlap... Apple understands this and that's why there are two products. Two products that share a lot of synergy. You call that a lack of innovation - I call it brilliant! And let me remind you, I don't even like iPhone, but I can appreciate the brilliance of the strategy.

    37. Re:It is a phone by RDW · · Score: 1

      'You're making it sound like Apple took their iPhone and dumbed it down.'

      Yes, I think that's exactly what happened. Take the SIM card out of an activated iPhone and which other Apple device does it most closely resemble? Answers on a postcard, etc.

      'You call that a lack of innovation - I call it brilliant! And let me remind you, I don't even like iPhone, but I can appreciate the brilliance of the strategy.'

      Apple (like many other companies) has been using this brilliant, fully synergized marketing strategy of 'product differentiation' for several decades now:

      http://lowendmac.com/roadapples/lc.shtml

    38. Re:It is a phone by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      But rather than owning the whole smartphone market (as they already own the mp3 player market all the way down to the Shuffle), they've decided to focus entirely on the high end.

      Apple own the MP3 market? That's interesting news ; did it happen in the couple of weeks while I've been on holiday? Does that mean that if I considered replacing the 4-year-old MP3 player that I haven't quite worn the ink off from, then I've no option but to buy an Apple, or that I must at least consider an Apple MP3 player? Will it have a UI that requires more than 6 microswitches, a couple of LEDs and a small amount of ink?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    39. Re:It is a phone by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2, Interesting

      my android phone lasts 3 days if i don't run games or listen to music. also, i can recharge it on any USB port in the world, a compatible cable (micro USB) is dirt cheap.

      and i only have to carry one device.

      Uh, the iPhone/iPod touch charges on USB. A micro USB cable is still not a standard USB cable so there is no real difference. Just carry the the dock connector to USB cable with you and you can charge on any plane with a USB port in the seat back or on any USB port you find on a computer. I find it hard to believe that you cannot carry a USB to dock cable with you. It takes up about the same space as any other USB cable other than the dock connector end being a bit bigger.

      The iPhone has the advantage of being compatible all around the world including in Japan. Many android phones do not work in Japan because they generally do not support as many frequencies.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  2. I hear lawyers licking their chops... by Third+Position · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Somehow, I have the feeling Apple is not going to be happy about this...

    --
    American Third Position
    Finally, a real choice!
    1. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by Magada · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Boy are you going to be in for a surprise when you find out that US laws emphatically do NOT apply in China :)) .

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    2. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by DougBTX · · Score: 1

      Presumably they do apply in America, though?

    3. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      Boy are you going to be in for a surprise when you find out that there are no US laws that make this illegal.

    4. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by myowntrueself · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I get the feeling that China values innovation far more than the USA does.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    5. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boy are you going to be in for a surprise when you find out that there are no US laws that make this illegal.

      Meh ... they'll just throw some random DMCA, copyright/license violation accusations around, attacking the way that thing interfaces with the iPod. Supported by a horde of lawyers Apple would win; at least keep it off the US market.

    6. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by Der+Huhn+Teufel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      China values imitation much more than the USA does.

    7. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by jimicus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's almost certainly what they'll do, and I'll tell you how they'll do it.

      They'll point out that iPhone, iPod and Apple are all trademarks of Apple Computer. If the distributors wish to continue selling their product, they'll have to sell it with a description along the lines of:

      "The new Peel device turns a well-known MP3 player into a telephone! But we can't tell you which MP3 player it is!".

      Wasn't a well-known parallel importer from Hong Kong closed down with a similar suit?

    8. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by Magada · · Score: 1

      So what? These things can and will be sold across borders, regardless of whether there is a company on US soil that is legally able to put them on store shelves. A lawsuit would bring much-needed publicity, the closing of a front company with maybe two employees total and not much else.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    9. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by jimicus · · Score: 1

      You'd better tell Lik Sang that. They thought they could do exactly that.

    10. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by Chrisq · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Presumably they do apply in America, though?

      Unless you're a Muslim

    11. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by newviewmedia.com · · Score: 1

      China lacks the restrictive legal framework far more than the USA does. Showcase of what's wrong with the free market and innovation in the US.

      --
      www.newviewmedia.com
    12. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by stephencrane · · Score: 1

      This device doesn't scream innovation to me. It's not like it hasn't been thought of before. It also sounds like it uses off-the-shelf components, with a bit of minor design thrown in. No, the real value-added here is that a Chinese company (especially with some political backing) carries an implied resistance against the litigious patent culture. They're just less afraid of being sued by Apple, and made a play. That's cool and the gang with me, more or less, but it's not really innovation (reverse or otherwise).

    13. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by jonaskoelker · · Score: 2, Funny

      China values imitation much more than the USA does.

    14. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not innovation. Show me something original that China/India/etc. have developed. They are the kings of knock-off, but innovators they are not.

    15. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by Barny · · Score: 1

      china values imitation much more than the USA does.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    16. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USA values limitation much more than China does.

      Imitation is nothing bad. It's one of the main concepts of human behaviour.

    17. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's almost certainly what they'll do, and I'll tell you how they'll do it. They'll point out that iPhone, iPod and Apple are all trademarks of Apple Computer. If the distributors wish to continue selling their product, they'll have to sell it with a description along the lines of: "The new Peel device turns a well-known MP3 player into a telephone! But we can't tell you which MP3 player it is!".

      Well, they can point that out, but it doesn't mean that it'll work, because this isn't the same as the Lik Sang case.

      Obvious disclaimer: IANAL. As far as I can see the trademark aspects of that case hinged on a combination of the fact that Lik Sang were selling trademarked goods in a way that the trademark owner hadn't endorsed (i.e. Japan-only PlayStations outwith that market), and an unhealthy mixture of legal attrition.

      This company wouldn't be selling goods under Apple's trademark, they'd be saying it worked *with* a particular trademarked good, not that their product was using that trademark to describe itself.

    18. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      CHina avlues imtation munch more the US dos.

      (Comment now available at the Dollar General!)

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    19. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by ian_from_brisbane · · Score: 0

      china values imitation much more than the USA does.

      You guys are giving them way too much credit for their imitation attempts... how about:

      China balue immitates mush big than the meric do.
      MADE IN CHINA

    20. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by supercrisp · · Score: 1

      Go to China if you really think that. Chinese companies ship imitations of western products to western nations. Go figure. They have plenty of products designed for domestic consumption that are very different from western products. It's been awhile, but I remember a wide variety of scooters, clothing types, and small consumer goods and appliances that were suited entirely to Chinese markets--products that had not been invented in the west. Oh well. Yes they go to people like Siemans or GM for some of their infrastructure, and their ideology and laws allow or encourage knock-offery, but we should always go in fear of nationalist/xenophobic/chauvinist/racist assumptions about "national" character. Such theories are, aside from ethical problems, seldom granular enough to account for reality.

    21. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      +1 introduced me to the word "outwith"

    22. Re:I hear lawyers licking their chops... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      DMCA and patents may provide Apple a legal method of blocking this, but trademarks will not.

      You can already buy a "Case compatible with iPod Video" or any number of aftermarket accessories which prominently feature their compatibility with the iPod. As long as these products are marketed and labeled in such a way that it's quite obvious they're not Apple devices, they should be safe from a serious trademark dispute. If not, generic ink manufacturers would already be shutdown for listing "Compatible with... Canon MP750/780" on their labels.

      That said, I doubt they could market this as an "Apple Peel" in the states... so if that's what you were referring to, I agree.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  3. I can do better then that! by Kenja · · Score: 1, Funny

    By duct-taping my Android phone to my iPod I can add the ability to run Droid apps to my Apple iOS product!

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:I can do better then that! by WarJolt · · Score: 1, Funny

      I call it an iDroid....

    2. Re:I can do better then that! by wgoodman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just so you know, My iPhone dual boots into Android as well. Current release only gives internet/voice/mms functionality (if your SIM is unlocked), but next release should have the Android app store.

      http://www.iphodroid.com/

    3. Re:I can do better then that! by CityZen · · Score: 1

      Dual boots? What a pain. Even two VM's would be unwieldy. Let me know when there's an OS that gives full API support to either set of apps (like Linux with Wine, but better).

  4. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Consider:

    "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
    - Isaac Newton

    I am not condoning massive copyright infringement, but consider that the Chinese electronics industry is much, much more vibrant in terms of consumer options than any Western market. Perhaps this is not entirely a bad thing.

  5. Sounds like a winner to me. by Timtimes · · Score: 1

    What's not to love about this? Enjoy.

    --
    This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway This is the road to hell
  6. Why an iPhone by Thanshin · · Score: 1

    It would have been much better to turn the iPod into an Android phone.

    Unless they now release a way to install Android in the resulting pseudo-iPhone.

    They can call it iBerration.

    iTypical?

    iBnormality?

    Damn! you're a tough public. Tip the waitress anyway and don't worry, I won't be here all week.

    1. Re:Why an iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would call it the aPod

    2. Re:Why an iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I guess you would call it the iPhoDroid, since that's what the people who make it happen call it.

      But maybe that's just me. Call it what you want...

  7. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by Thanshin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Funny, I always said that is a case of them doing whatever the hell they please because they have no appreciation for the hard work of others.

    Because, as we all know, Apple developed their products from scratch. They started with the fire, then the hardened wooden spear, etc. Up to the iPhone.

  8. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by WarJolt · · Score: 0

    This may actually sell more iTouches. It does not infringe on Apple's intellectual property at all. It's simply a peripheral that adds functionality to a device. That fact doesn't change just because Apple sells a higher priced iPhone. For those who like iPhones, they will probably not be encouraged to buy an iTouch and a peripheral. Somehow I don't thing the experience will be the same.
    How is that not appreciating the work of others?

  9. Innovation by khchung · · Score: 1

    Is this kind of innovation even possible in the lawsuit happy culture and the carrier-locked-phones environment of the US?

    Maybe 7-8 years ago, there were already tack-on devices that turns Palm PDA (anybody remember those, actually it's a Sony Clie) into a phone, one that can use the address book of the PDA, and uses the PDA screen as UI. Why did nobody in the US made this for the iPod touch in all these years?

    --
    Oliver.
    1. Re:Innovation by Yetihehe · · Score: 1

      Because Apple would sue them for "deterioration of user experience".

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    2. Re:Innovation by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Easy, the minute you bring this onto the market you have bazillion of laywers on your back who sue you into poverty. 90% probably coming from Apple 10% coming from patent troll companies who seek an easy cash in.
      Face it innovation is crippled, a modern apple would not even stand a chance in the US if you look at apples phone breaking/ garage innovation / xerox copying history.
      One of the main reasons why the western industry goes down the gutters currently, we are strangeling our still possible small garage innovation in a sea of lawsuits.

  10. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wait, are you saying that tethering your iPod Touch (or any other TCP/IP client) to some sort of mobile network gateway is, "a case of [those pesky Chinese] doing whatever the hell they please because they have no appreciation for the hard work of [Apple]"?

    The biggest differentiator between an iPhone and an iPod Touch is the 3G radio. Guess who didn't develop GSM tech, but doesn't adhere to the licensing terms offered by the developer? I guess it's a case of [Apple] doing whatever the hell they please because they have no appreciation for the hard work of [Nokia].

  11. Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    TFA,

    Earlier this month, solar technology company GoSolarUSA signed an agreement with the Chinese developer of the Apple Peel, Yoison Technology, to develop the device, file it for a U.S. patent and distribute it in America. The first demonstration models of the Apple Peel will arrive in America this week, GoSolarUSA said in a statement on Monday.

    Who is GoSolarUSA?
    http://www.gosolarusa.com/company.html

    Apparently they don't do anything yet. Okay, let's check out CEO Tyson Rohde. Says he /was/ CEO of Biotricity before this gig.
    http://www.biotricitypower.com/company.php?main_cnt=our_team

    Huh, what a shock. Biotricity is /another/ company that doesn't seem to do anything. Including list the current CEO who replaced Tyson.

    Okay, how about Brewer Captital Group? Ah, well their link redirects to a 404.
    http://www.brewercapital.com/

    Goldbridge Energy Partners then? I get "network problem" -- no site available.
    http://goldbridgeenergypartners.com/

    And none of those "companies" or Tyson Rhode have managed a mention in Wikipedia of course.

    I thought it was a little unlikely to see a solar energy company going into dubious electronics, but this is looking like a less unlikely match with every link. Maybe this'll even get some steam and be good for a couple of weeks of /. stories. I kinda miss Darl.

    1. Re:Yikes by inviolet · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Who is GoSolarUSA?

      http://www.gosolarusa.com/company.html [gosolarusa.com]

      Apparently they don't do anything yet. Okay, let's check out CEO Tyson Rohde. Says he /was/ CEO of Biotricity before this gig.
      http://www.biotricitypower.com/company.php?main_cnt=our_team [biotricitypower.com]

      Dear Friends,

      My name is Tyson Rohdes.

      In September 1988 my car was reposessed and the bill collectors were hounding me like you wouldn't believe. I was laid off and my unemployment checks had run out. The only escape I had from the pressure of failure was my computer and my modem. I longed to turn my advocation into my vocation. This January 1989 my family and I went on a ten day cruise to the tropics. I bought a Lincoln Town Car for CASH in Feburary 1989. [...]

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    2. Re:Yikes by KnownIssues · · Score: 1

      I'd say these articles at least demonstrate a history that indicates this product is in true development and why the company might have shifted direction so dramatically.

      Apple Peel 520 Ready for Retailers

      Massive iPod Touch Sales Figures Prompted Apple Peel Deal (It was actually Chinese firm Yosion that developed the device)

      Huge iPad Sales Figures Prompted New Deal with PREE Corp. (It's not just the Touch market they're looking to capitalize on)

      GoSolarUSA Appoints New President and CEO (All the iPod/iPad stuff weeks after Rohde is on board. This might explain the dramatic shift in the company's direction)

      And while Wikipedia is certainly an indicator that a company is known, its absence doens't necessarily mean a company isn't valid (or even successful).

      You seem to be implying a lot of things without actually saying them. GoSolarUSA hasn't made a product yet? Well they're only two years old. No big surprise there. This is their first product--sounds like a good one too.

      Biotricity hasn't done anything? "Biotricity has developed a new combustion technology for the burning of woody biomass to generate electricity to address America's growing demand for green power." Sounds like they've done something to me.

      Brewer Capital Group doesn't have a website? Well they're a financial advisor for the Houston area. Perhaps they aren't focused on their company's web site. They're still a company.

      Goldbridge Energy Partners? Probably an even smaller company (also local to the Houston area), even less likely to appear on the Internet.

      Or is this, "I'm not saying. I'm just saying."

    3. Re:Yikes by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd say these articles at least demonstrate a history that indicates this product is in true development and why the company might have shifted direction so dramatically.

      I'd argue the exact opposite. Every single one of those "supporting articles" was a press release issued by GoSolarUSA. You do understand what a press release is, right?

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    4. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first thing they could think of it was to patent in the USA! Way to go. That is what it came to, a country routinely derided comes with an innovation and a country proud of its "innovation" thinks of patenting the former's idea. (Well, not the entire countries, but it shows the ideology/philosophy).

      PS: CAPTCHA was cultural

  12. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by gmhowell · · Score: 0, Troll

    What is an iTouch?

    You've also taken my comment out of context, which included the quote from the article.

    And you're replying to a troll, but that's a shame on me.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  13. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

    The difference is that Apple has paid licensing fees. Random Chinese copycat production company? Not so much.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  14. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

    Were it not for Apple, whose products would the Chinese 'tweak'?

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  15. It's not what this ipod touch user wants by Alpha+Whisky · · Score: 1

    I have an ipod touch and this is definitely not what I want. I didn't buy an iphone because all it is is a thicker, heavier ipod touch with worse battery life and a mediocre phone and camera built in. I have a nice, small, light mobile phone with an acceptable camera and it doesn't make me look like a tit holding a metal brick up to my ear to make a call.

    No, what this ipod touch user wants is iOS support (or at a pinch an app) to allow me to do what the ipod touch hardware is perfectly capable of, I want to be able to bond my ipod touch through bluetooth to my cheap but very capable phone for mobile internet access on the ipod. That would be the best of both worlds, a phone which works great and a mobile entertainment device which works great. As a bonus you could also still use the ipod while talking on the phone, can the iphone do that?

    --
    it's = it is

    its = belonging to it

    1. Re:It's not what this ipod touch user wants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jailbreak and then iBluever (http://ibluever.blogspot.com/) does what you need.

    2. Re:It's not what this ipod touch user wants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iBluever does this.

    3. Re:It's not what this ipod touch user wants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jailbreak and then iBluever (http://ibluever.blogspot.com/) does what you need.

      If what you need is to tether your iPod Touch to an iPhone then yes, it does.

      The last time I asked about this, the suggested other phones that I might be able to tether to were things like Droids and WinMo phones. If those are the only choices then I may as well just buy the iPhone and be done.

      I want a simple, inexpensive phone, e.g. like a RAZR, that I can tether to. Got any suggestions?

    4. Re:It's not what this ipod touch user wants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy a used cheap HTC WinMo smartphone (Excalibur/Dash might be good) and go from there.

    5. Re:It's not what this ipod touch user wants by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Are there any "cheap" smartphones that do 3G?

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    6. Re:It's not what this ipod touch user wants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use iBluever to tether to a Samsung B3410 via bluetooth. There is a demo version that you can get to see if it tethers to your existing phone.

  16. To use a Fark meme by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    LOL WUT?

    Are you serious? Have you looked at the Chinese market? China does very little innovation. Their economy is nearly entirely based around either producing things to the specifications of other companies (some of their best known places like Foxconn do this) or to copying devices that other made. China is big on knockoffs. You innovate, they'll copy.

    Even when they try and innovate, it is often rather shallow. For example China has been trying to enter the CPU market with the Loongson processors. So, some amazingly new innovative system right? No not at all. It is just a MIPS chip, and not a very good one. Initially they just copied the architecture and tried to work around patents, now they simply license it. So a bit of innovation I suppose, it is a new chip, but not much.

    The Chinese economy is many thing but innovative it is most certainly not. That is just not how they've based it. That may change but currently they are all about building things that others designed. Often times it is a work for hire, other times it is straight up copying/fraud.

    1. Re:To use a Fark meme by myowntrueself · · Score: 0, Troll

      I just said "more than the USA" not that it was "very" innovative.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re:To use a Fark meme by jimicus · · Score: 1

      People said the same thing about Japan 30 or 40 years ago. Now look where they are.

    3. Re:To use a Fark meme by Magada · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People were talking about Japan in the same disparaging terms during the early seventies. Ten years later those same people were all "japanese work ethic" this and "kaizen" that and "we must be saved from cheap, excellent, innovative Jap cars" the other.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    4. Re:To use a Fark meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Riiiiiight. You do know that their biggest video website, tudou.com launched before the first line of youtube code was even written, right? Just to name a small example of irrelevant innovation.

      You're forgetting that innovation is almost always evolutionary. The Chinese obviously are behind in almost all industries, so they their innovations seem backward to us, but that doesn't mean they're not innovating at a very rapid pace relative to their level of development. As soon as they catch up to our level, you'll find that they have "suddenly" started to innovate. We've seen this with Japanese and Korean before, are seeing it with Taiwanese now, and will see it with Chinese next.

    5. Re:To use a Fark meme by dwater · · Score: 1

      Here's an innovation.

      I wonder if this link will work :

      http://j.map.baidu.com/r-jM

      that's the world trade centres in Beijing.

      If that doesn't work go to http://maps.baidu.com/ search for beijing '', and the click the '3D' button ().

      Amazing.

      --
      Max.
    6. Re:To use a Fark meme by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      China cannot use advanced semiconductor manufacturing processes because of a trade embargo on the export of such machine tools to China. Namely lithography machines of the latest generation. This means their processors will always have worse performance no matter how smart they are.

      Their government is probably just interested in having "good enough" electronics for a wide range of products. Even if they cannot replace imported components, they can still have their own home grown electronics used on strategic assets which do not require a lot of computing performance.

    7. Re:To use a Fark meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait. It's an innovation that China replicated Minoru Yamasaki's (a Japanese American) design of the World Trade Centers from Manhattan, NYC, NY, US? I'm confused...or maybe you're confused about the word innovation?

    8. Re:To use a Fark meme by swb · · Score: 1

      Yeah, look where they are. Stuck in a deflationary spiral, with high unemployment and a ticking demographic timebomb.

      What's so funny about that is I can clearly remember when Japan was a "threat" and there was all kinds of hoopla about them buying US industries and real estate.

    9. Re:To use a Fark meme by tater86 · · Score: 1

      No, it's an innovation that China implemented sim city in real life.

    10. Re:To use a Fark meme by bored_engineer · · Score: 1

      I know architects from the west coast, who spend a good deal of time in Beijing these days.

    11. Re:To use a Fark meme by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

      People said the same thing about United States 200 or 300 years ago. Now look where they are.

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    12. Re:To use a Fark meme by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, much of the modern Japanese approach to design and manufacturing is based on quantitative quality management practices created by Americans like Ed Deming. U.S. companies were not interested because they were experiencing strong success based on the way they had always done things. Japan was recreating many of its industries from scratch, and knew good ideas when they say them. Decades later they bore fruit as the Japanese were able to produce higher quality products, faster, and cheaper than U.S. manufacturers.

      --
      Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    13. Re:To use a Fark meme by dwater · · Score: 1

      That's nice, but I'm struggling to see how that is relevant to anything...

      --
      Max.
  17. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    An iTouch is an Apple iPod Touch, like a PC is "a compatible descendant of an IBM AT". Sometimes regular Joe citizen-consumers evolve the freedom to develop their own terminology rather than adhering to the Kennel Club Official Brand Standard. Sit, Ubu, sit!

  18. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Bull.

    Apple is being sued left and right by companies that have actually innovated in the cellular field. Apple just copied everything and paid no-one.
    Apple has blatantly refused to join any patent pools, instead they happily infringe other companies' IP rights.

  19. Death grip?? by bool2 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    If you can hold it in your left hand without a complete loss of signal... you'll have a better phone than a real iPhone!

  20. This will work great by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This will work great... right up until apple releases a firmware upgrade that intentionally breaks it.

    --
    -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    1. Re:This will work great by exomondo · · Score: 1

      This will work great... right up until apple releases a firmware upgrade that intentionally breaks it.

      Of course, you can't interface with Apple's device unless Apple gets some money for it. Now that iphones are a dime a dozen and ipods and ipads are selling well ios will hopefully become the dominant mobile OS so we can have anti-trust suits that remove these ridiculous business practices from apple.

  21. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by Thanshin · · Score: 1

    The difference is that Apple has paid licensing fees.

    I would need a citation for that. Who did Apple pay for the fire? plastics? electricity?

    Never forget that you're talking about a non-natural law concept that shouldn't be treated as moral law.

    If a different country doesn't share your mercantile laws, tough luck. You change that by military or economic threats, but you have no moral claim on those rulings.

    I would have a different opinion were we talking about human rights, for example, in which you have both morale and law on your side.

  22. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it wasn't for China, where would Apple produce its "products"?

  23. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by dwater · · Score: 0, Redundant

    > Bull.

    > Apple is being sued left and right by companies that have actually innovated in the cellular field. Apple just
    > copied everything and paid no-one.
    > Apple has blatantly refused to join any patent pools, instead they happily infringe other companies' IP rights.

    Yeah, this is my impression too.

    --
    Max.
  24. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by pmontra · · Score: 1

    in which you have both morale and law on your side.

    I understand your point and I generally agree with you. However your final line made me think about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You might be overly optimistic because many of points of that declaration are not taken fully into account by the laws or the common practices of even the major countries of the world.

  25. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by Thanshin · · Score: 1

    You're right. I thought about that but I lack a term for what I understand as "basic human rights".

  26. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember that AT&T has an exclusive lock on the iPhone. The iPod Touch, therefore, wasn't just a lower-end product (relative to the iPhone) or a higher-end product (relative to other flash-based iPods). It was a way to get a product with part of the functionality of an iPhone, that was NOT subject to the AT&T agreement.

    Add a phone feature back in ... and, you guessed it, the AT&T agreement would almost certainly apply. That's why you're not going to see Apple selling this or endorsing this (aside from questions of quality, and of Apple wanting to have the hardware profits). If the big attraction is being free from AT&T, it's not an attraction that Apple can easily offer (yet), or one they need these guys to help them offer (later).

  27. Right because the USA makes nothing by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well except for CPUs. Every desktop CPU is designed in the US (both AMD and Intel are there) and a large number are made in US fabs. But that's it. Oh well and graphics cards, nVidia designs their cards in the US (AMD in Canada). And ICs like A/D converters (Texas Instruments designs in the US). And airplanes, one of the two remaining major airline designers/manufacturers is Boeing, who is in the US. And search engines, both Google and Bing are developed in the US...

    Getting the point? The US actually innovates a hell of a lot. You find a great many new, high tech, things are developed in the US, even if they aren't built there.

    This is NOT an example of Chinese innovation, it is an example of the opposite. Apple did the innovating, to the extent there was some. The developed the platform, the OS, the UI, all of that stuff. This just adds a cellphone radio to the iPod Touch. That isn't innovative, that is what an iPhone is. Not saying it may not be nice for people but innovative it is not. They just bought off the shelf GSM parts and wrote an app (probably using Apple's development tools) to modify another off the shelf device to act just like yet another off the shelf device. Neat? Perhaps (though if iPhones are too expensive just get something else, seriously there are plenty of other good, maybe even better, smartphones out there). Innovative? Not hardly.

    Seriously, this hate on the US's industry shows nothing but your own ignorance of the actual markets. Do some research, if you actually care, and you'll discover that the US designs (and actually builds too) a whole lot of high tech, state of the art, shit. You'll discover China does not. Usually when they make somethign high tech, it was designed elsewhere and many of the parts are made elsewhere too.

    Like say you buy a Denon receiver. Very high tech gadget with lots of nifty features. Unless you buy the high end ones, it is made in China (the high end ones are made in Japan). However all of them are designed in Japan, China only does the assembly per Denon's specs. Also the DSPs, the heart of their capabilities, are designed by Analog Devices (USA) and fabbed at either their US or Irish fab. Their converters are designed and made by AKM Semiconductor in Japan. Their room correction software is designed by Audyssey Labs in the USA. It's video processing system was designed by IDT (USA) and made by TSMC (Taiwan).

    So while the label may say "Made in China," all that means is they assembled the parts. All the "innovation" went on in other countries.

    Go research it, if you care, but please stop spouting off if you aren't willing to.

    1. Re:Right because the USA makes nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Every desktop CPU is designed in the US

      http://www.arm.com/about/company-profile/index.php

    2. Re:Right because the USA makes nothing by pr0nbot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is an example of the kind of innovation that happens in the developing world, where ingenious, relatively low-tech, cheap solutions are found to problems that don't really exist in the developed world.

      The Economist had an article on this in the last year or so (and a stupid name for it that was irritating but would at least have helped me google it up for you).

    3. Re:Right because the USA makes nothing by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Well, the Chinese are more innovative at keeping a static population through procreation, and at having only male children, also, at selling organ-killing baby formula on the cheap, and they are pretty innovative at suicidally intense societal pressures, and at pushing their students to achieve in the medieval and abstract and ultimately meaningless arena of 'grades' (WWAD). You gotta give them that. I like Chinese.

      --
      The Admin and the Engineer
    4. Re:Right because the USA makes nothing by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So while the label may say "Made in China," all that means is they assembled the parts. All the "innovation" went on in other countries.

      Indeed, when the Chinese started trading knockoff machine tools with the rest of the world they copied designs so faithfully that they copied every last flaw. It's great for parts interchange, though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Right because the USA makes nothing by lineswine · · Score: 1

      Well except for CPUs. Every desktop CPU is designed in the US (both AMD and Intel are there) and a large number are made in US fabs.

      Patriotism will never defeat reality. The Pentium M processor was the first design to emerge from Intel's Israel design centre. AMDs main chip foundry - Fab30 is in Dresden (Germany, NOT Ohio) Try again, sparky.

    6. Re:Right because the USA makes nothing by Sechr+Nibw · · Score: 1

      Every desktop CPU is designed in the US

      The Pentium M processor was the first design to emerge from Intel's Israel design centre

      I realize you said 'first design', but do you realize he said 'desktop CPU'? I don't recall ever seeing a desktop with a Pentium M - if there is such a thing, why? When you have a desktop (not a laptop, netbook, thinclient, embedded system, etc) why would you use a mobile processor? If you're going to dispute a claim, provide better (read: relevant) examples. This also goes for the person citing ARM processors - not much of a desktop CPU market there, either!

      (On a semi-related note for ARM: still not in China, but UK.)

    7. Re:Right because the USA makes nothing by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      Relevant example you didn't catch: the Dothan (Pentium M/Centrino) architecture is the foundation of the Core line. The processor designed in Israel was not significantly changed until Nehalem.

    8. Re:Right because the USA makes nothing by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      And is that "Israel, CN" perchance?

      The comparison was of innovation between USA and China. I don't think it implied that the USA invented everything.

            -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    9. Re:Right because the USA makes nothing by dwinks616 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      What desktop systems run ARM, again? Last I checked, not a single Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer, Apple, Toshiba, or any other manufacturer I can think of off hand has even ONE desktop system running on ARM. The giant computer store down the road has lots of Intel and AMD processors, and not a single ARM processor, not one. Heck, there isn't even a viable desktop operating system that runs on ARM. Windows doesn't and neither does Mac. Linux is NOT a viable desktop OS, no matter what the fan boys claim. I've tried it, installed Gentoo and Debian. Built a linux-from-scratch. Tried Ubuntu and Fedora. I just don't have the time to spend weeks trying to get things to work the way they do pretty much out of the box on Windows. Bottom line: ARM is good for running my microwave and DVR and phone, but it's positively NOT a desktop CPU.

    10. Re:Right because the USA makes nothing by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      Read the GP. My post was pointing out the significance of the Pentium M because the GP was asking about it. The larger issue is beyond my pale.

    11. Re:Right because the USA makes nothing by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I meant to reply to that comment.

            -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    12. Re:Right because the USA makes nothing by wowbagger · · Score: 1

      "And airplanes, one of the two remaining major airline designers/manufacturers is Boeing, who is in the US."

      And the other, Airbus, also has engineering offices in the US (pretty much splang in the middle of the US).

      --
      www.eFax.com are spammers
    13. Re:Right because the USA makes nothing by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Well except for CPUs. Every desktop CPU is designed in the US (both AMD and Intel are there).

      Their corporate headquarters are there, but if you've actually researched it a bit you'd see they have hardware engineers all over the world, not just in the US, particularly Intel has them in the UK, India and Israel among others.

    14. Re:Right because the USA makes nothing by PipsqueakOnAP133 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the Pentium M is primarily a P6-core(Pentium Pro -designed in Santa Clara.... the city I'm sitting in at the moment) with some pieces pulled from Netburst (The Pentium 4). It's a CPU that has not any actual significant redesign (despite what marketing would have you believe) since 1995, despite it being a good chip. Yes, it took effort to finalize the Pentium M design, but just because a entirely different design center was working on it doesn't mean they actually designed the entire thing. Afterall, Intel's got a long history of taking existing pieces and recycling it.

      And while AMD's foundry (aka, a factory) is in Dresden, the chips being manufactured in there are designed in Santa Clara too.

      While we're at it, I believe the fading PowerPC G4 and G5 were both designed in Texas (different groups, different companies, same area of the US)

      Parent's argument seems reasonable.

    15. Re:Right because the USA makes nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doesnt china have their own cpu or something?

  28. ...and? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I never said China wouldn't change. My statement is on what the situation is, not what it will be. The original poster seems to have this idea, as do many online, that the US doesn't do anything. Nothing comes out of the US anymore except movies...

    Well that is completely false and it takes not much research to discover the fact that the US does tons of R&D, tons of innovation (and for that matter is still the world leader in manufactured goods, though China will overtake them by 2020 or sooner). It also doesn't take much research to reveal that China does not do hardly any innovation. Their economy is currently all about either building things to spec, or copying things.

    I am not judging that as a bad thing, just stating a fact.

    This is also particularity silly in this case, where it is something that is very non-innovative. They took a device designed by Apple, added to it off the shelf GSM components, and made it work like another device designed by Apple. That's fine, but innovation? Hardly. Innovation would be creating a new smartphone platform from scratch. This is just attempting to cash in on the fact that Apple sells an iPhone without the radio for significantly less than the cost of adding a radio. Business savvy, but not innovative.

    1. Re:...and? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The Chinese do not need to design a new cellphone platform. Android is there for anyone to use.

    2. Re:...and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Android...you mean that platform originally designed by Android Inc of Palo Alto, CA, purchased by Google, also founded in CA, US? Interesting. Tell me more about this Chinese innovation.

  29. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Motorola? Nokia? Pretty much every electronics brand is selling stuff in China that will never see they day of light outside of Asia.

    Don't like Google? Get your Android phone with Bing or Baidu. Prefer a different maps provider? Got that too. Need dual-simcard slots? No problem. And that's on brand phones. All legal, not ripping anyone off. Even if you ignore the huge number of shady products, choice is definitely bigger in China. I dare say that it's in fact these shady products that force the brand manufacturers to actually delivery stuff people want, rather than stuff they prefer to sell.

  30. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

    Tell that to Nokia who is currently in an infight with Apple because Apple violated their patents blatantly without paying them. Tell that to HTC which is older than Apple in the mobile phone arena which apple currently is suing for stuff they have copied themselves.

  31. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

    Zune :-)

  32. I just want to tether to a 'simple' phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sometimes I just want to carry my phone.

    Other times I'm willing to carry my iPod Touch -- and my phone.

    Sometimes I carry my MB Air -- and my phone.

    (And sometimes I don't carry any of them.)

    If I could have an inexpensive phone that would do wireless and/or bluetooth tethering. Oh, and I'm on T-Mobile.

    1. Re:I just want to tether to a 'simple' phone by Barny · · Score: 1

      Nokia 5800 Xpressmusic.

      Grab a copy of Telexy Networks software for it, and you can now sync your phone via 802.11 or even via a VPN with your data plan.

      Cheap as all crap too :)

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    2. Re:I just want to tether to a 'simple' phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sync the phone via 802.11? I have my iPod Touch for music. I'm not interested in putting music on the phone.

      Search on t-mobile.com suggests that this phone only operates on 900/1200, and t-mobile runs their 3G on 1700, so no 3G.

    3. Re:I just want to tether to a 'simple' phone by Barny · · Score: 1

      Well, its working on my 3G network here, /shrug

      And I agree, don't put the music on your phone, leave that on your file server at home and just stream it via the VPN ;)

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
  33. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

    The biggest differentiator between an iPhone and an iPod Touch is the 3G radio.

    Yeah, the phone UI and more so the interface between the phone app and the other apps is completely unimportant. Who would want to be able to tap on a phone number on a web page and be able to simply call it? That's what copy&paste is there for.

    BTW, the Apple Peel doesn't not have 3G.

    --
    Fandroids hate facts.
  34. Why don't you stop buying turds, then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't you stop buying turds, then? Or is this so you can complain about Android phones whilst kidding on you're no fanboi?

    1. Re:Why don't you stop buying turds, then? by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      I'd rather not use ATT. I also wanted to try out an Android phone, but it's a turd that I'm stuck with for two years now.

  35. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    Who would want to be able to tap on a phone number on a web page and be able to simply call it?

    Mass market PDAs/palmtops/whatever have had "call 'phone number in a document using a particular input combination" for at least two decades, starting off by simply emitting DTMF tones.

    If you thought
    (1) Apple was the first to think of this, a specific case for the WWW of "different protocols open different handlers";
    (2) this concept is somehow more involved than the design of GSM;
    then you might want to spend more time reading up on computing history and the history of human invention in general. Or become a lawyer for a patent troll.

  36. A reverse device? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone make a reverse device where you can slap a cheap feature phone into a device and it turns it into a big screen smartphone? Then you could have an "open" smartphone and just close range tether it with a short micro USB cable or using the bluetooth? Not tethering to a notebook or anything, but to a still pocketable device?

  37. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    I can't figure out why you and the GP'insightful comments were modded "Troll" and "Flamebait". Neither one is inflamatory in the least, and both are perfectly true and informative. Maybe someone from the RIAA or MPAA has mod points today, who knows? I hope someone corrects the moderation.

    As Sir Isaac Newton said (borrowing a phrase from someone a thousand years earlier), "If I see farther than other men, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." All science, technology, and art are based on what has come before. There is no such thing as "100% original".

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
  38. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

    Tell that to Nokia who is currently in an infight with Apple because Apple violated their patents blatantly without paying them

    ... far more than they ask from other companies.

    --
    Fandroids hate facts.
  39. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

    Who would want to be able to tap on a phone number on a web page and be able to simply call it?

    Mass market PDAs/palmtops/whatever have had "call 'phone number in a document using a particular input combination" for at least two decades

    Yeah, right. Years you mean.

    --
    Fandroids hate facts.
  40. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

    Btw. do you remember digital research which was sued by Apple for implementing a deskop ui with moving windows (which Apple itself stole from Xerox)

  41. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by Sechr+Nibw · · Score: 1

    -1 Shudder? +1 Shudder? I'm not sure which...

  42. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    Let's see, my Psion Series 3a did DTMF dialing of selected numbers in... 1993.

    And being engineered to last (wonder how many iPhones will be running with full force in 17 years?), I was just able to test it.

  43. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by Altus · · Score: 1

    Licensed actually, but don't let the facts get in the way of your indignation.

    --

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  44. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

    Zune doesn't even support Chinese character.

    --
    There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
  45. MiFI card + Skype + Microphone Headset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bought a Verizon MIFI card and data plan. I used the iPhone's WIFI connection to the MIFI card which is a device that connects local devices via WIFI and uses a 3G/CDMA connection for the Internet, I installed Skype and bought some Skype minutes. I plugged a microphone headset into the jack and was able to make Skype calls.

  46. How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did this ignorant-ass comment get modded PLUS FIVE INSIGHTFUL?!

  47. Cost by Vskye · · Score: 1

    A new iPhone starts at $99, and a iPod touch starts at $229.

    So why would you want to add iPhone capabilities to a iPod touch in the first place?

    --
    Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
    1. Re:Cost by IonOtter · · Score: 1

      Maybe because people want to outright purchase an iDevice, rather than chain themselves to a particular network? $99 to shackle yourself to AT&T, or $800 to have it free and clear.

      I know if this works for T-Mobile, I'll be purchasing a 64GB iPod Touch in a heartbeat...

      --
      [End Of Line]
    2. Re:Cost by tjhart85 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I just bought a phone at retail ($500) to avoid being shackled for two years at a higher price point to Tmobile. Why wouldn't people want to be able to use a PAYG SIM card with their Ipod Touch in an emergency, as a phone backup or simply as their normal phone? The phone cost might start at $99, but you're paying significantly more than that when your two years are up.

  48. Denon by Myria · · Score: 1

    Like say you buy a Denon receiver. Very high tech gadget with lots of nifty features.

    Is that the same Denon as the one that makes high-tech gadgets like $500 ethernet cables?

    --
    "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
  49. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

    Let's see, my Psion Series 3a did DTMF dialing of selected numbers in... 1993.

    And being engineered to last (wonder how many iPhones will be running with full force in 17 years?), I was just able to test it.

    Too bad we were talking about smart-phones and web sites and tapping on the screen, not PDA you held to a phone after you downloaded some text from a BBS using an acoustic coupler you plunged on to the very same phone. At least the rest of the world was. Oh, BTW you could also do all of that on a Newton half a decade before your Psion came out, so pffft.

    Complain to the makers of those phones that such simple knowledge was lost.

    --
    Fandroids hate facts.
  50. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

    Yep, just keep moving those goal posts...

    Honestly, taking account your nickname, I'm wondering if you're just purposely trolling. No one could really be this big of an idiot, can they?

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
  51. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1
    Nope. I do remember that Apple sued DR because GEM looked like a clone baby of the Mac and Lisa GUIs. And I remember Apple winning.

    Oh, and the GUI Apple "stole" from XEROX (see the post by Altus) had moveable windows - but not overlapping ones. It also had geometric shapes as icons. As well as no such thing as a double-click. While all those where found in Apples GUIs - and all those following it.

    --
    Fandroids hate facts.
  52. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by PipsqueakOnAP133 · · Score: 1

    The biggest differentiator between an iPhone and an iPod Touch is the 3G radio. Guess who didn't develop GSM tech, but doesn't adhere to the licensing terms offered by the developer? I guess it's a case of [Apple] doing whatever the hell they please because they have no appreciation for the hard work of [Nokia].

    If we're talking about 3G..... Nokia? WTF? Nokia?!?

    It's Qualcomm, not Nokia. When it comes to 3G, know who to appreciate, dammit. :)

  53. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by exomondo · · Score: 1

    The biggest differentiator between an iPhone and an iPod Touch is the 3G radio. Guess who didn't develop GSM tech, but doesn't adhere to the licensing terms offered by the developer? I guess it's a case of [Apple] doing whatever the hell they please because they have no appreciation for the hard work of [Nokia].

    If we're talking about 3G..... Nokia? WTF? Nokia?!?

    It's Qualcomm, not Nokia. When it comes to 3G, know who to appreciate, dammit. :)

    Maybe you need a history lesson.

  54. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by PipsqueakOnAP133 · · Score: 1

    Nice timeline.

    So let's see...
    In Sept 1998, Nokia makes the first call on a WCDMA trial network.

    According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-CDMA, WCDMA was developed by NTT DoCoMo using CDMA (the channel access method, not the mobile phone standard abbreviation).

    According to http://books.google.com/books?id=p631MJdn4XAC&lpg=PA25&ots=X2rRYLiVWN&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false, usage of CDMA (the access method) for mobile communications was widely believed be impossible except by Qualcomm.

    According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-CDMA, "Qualcomm was the first company to succeed in developing a practical and cost-effective CDMA implementation for consumer cell phones."(wikipedia)

    So Nokia made the first WCDMA handset using NTT DoCoMo's research, which built on top of Qualcomm's research/patent portfolio. And Nokia and NTT DoCoMo also tried challenging the patents and lost http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2000/rulemaker001124.htm

    Did I miss anything?

  55. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by exomondo · · Score: 1

    Did I miss anything?

    That CDMA and W-CDMA are not the same thing. No-one's disputing Qualcomm's patents are necessary for 3G GSM, however that doesn't mean Qualcomm created 3G GSM.

  56. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by PipsqueakOnAP133 · · Score: 1

    That CDMA and W-CDMA are not the same thing.

    That, I know. I do find it annoying that the industry uses the acronym "CDMA" for both the channel access method, and for shorthand for cdma2000/IS-95.

    No-one's disputing Qualcomm's patents are necessary for 3G GSM, however that doesn't mean Qualcomm created 3G GSM.

    And I don't dispute that either. But between Qualcomm, Nokia, and NTT DoCoMo, I'd say Nokia contributed the least of the three to making 3G GSM. (Unless there's some major thing I missed.)

  57. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by exomondo · · Score: 1

    Yes, i actually wasn't saying it was all Nokia, just that it wasn't all Qualcomm. As for how much was contributed by each party involved i doubt there is a cost/time/complexity breakdown of the components.

  58. iPad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want one for my iPad.

  59. Line2 by le+duf · · Score: 1

    Anyone use Line2? Using it you can make and receive calls and SMSs over WiFi on the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad (http://www.line2.com/ipod_ipad.aspx) Supposedly they're working on an Android version, too.

  60. Re:Oh, that's what they do? by gmhowell · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I can't figure out why you and the GP'insightful comments were modded "Troll" and "Flamebait".

    Not going on with the /. groupthink of the day.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  61. nfl jerseys by aotian · · Score: 1

    So beautiful sharing!Thank you very much.. Best wishes! Your article is very good!nhl jerseys

    --
    http://www.mbt-shoes.com