Submitted by Hon Hai Precision Industry Co Ltd has secured contracts from Apple Computer for 12 million mobile handsets that also function as music players, the Commercial Times quoted industry sources as saying. Apple will launch the mobile handsets in the first half of next year, the newspaper said, without providing financial details of the contract.
I guess we can expect a music phone that plays music well. I wonder if they will get the phone part right.
Yeah I want a phone that won’t ring when I’m listening to the Dead.
I want a phone that doesn’t try to lock me in with a proprietry java implementation, crippled bluetooth functionality, crippled PIM support (unless you buy their expensive data cable, with windows only cruddy software), and crippled media playaback – lacking even forward/rewind.
Mobile phone software is many many years behind because vendors are absolutely afraid of interoperability between handsets. Java has done absolutely nothing to create a reliable software market as vendors purposefully make their Java implementations incompatible with other vendor’s handsets.
If Apple enters this market, they may either join the pack, or provide software so easy, it may force the other abusive vendors (*cough*Sony*cough*) to catch up with standards and interoperability.
If anyone can do it Apple can but I think it would be hard to come up with a good design that doesn’t compromise the iPod or the phone. The perfect device would also include complete PDA functionality too. That way I could through away my Palm Treo 650 (the worst compromise of a product ever and that coming from a huge Palm OS fan).
Im now trying to think of the intergration apple could pull off between mobile and their computers
simple examples would be osx server sending messages to your phone when a fault is detected (im aware similar things exist) and general blackberry esq functionality
It’s been my experience that so-called “convergence devices” — devices which bring together a lot of different synergistic functionality (phone, PDA, music, etc) — tend to be apprentices of everything and masters of nothing; in other words, they do a lot of things in a mediocre way. The reason for this is that, in order to cram everything into the same device, a lot of compromises have to be made and, ultimately, many people would rather have separate devices with full functionality rather than sacrifice functionality for the convenience of carrying a single device.
That said, Apple has a very good track record in industrial design, so we can hope that they get it right. But Apple has another thing going against it: Its new products are competing against its established products. So, unless Apple expects all of us to migrate from standalone iPods to phone-based iPods (which is a tall order), people will be asking the obvious question, “why do I need my phone to playback music files when my current iPod does it so well?”
In my opinion, this has the makings of niche product written all over it. I’m sure that Apple product designers probably stay awake at night dreaming of scenarios where people predominantly buy and/or stream music & video directly from their phones — and where Apple turns the phone into a one-stop computing platform — but I have yet to see a device that does it all well.
Time will tell, though, and I wish them well.
Well, cell phones have a short lifespan in the US, so it is possible that people would consider an Apple/iPod phone because they will buying a new phone anyways. What do you do about a carrier? At least Apple could sell these unlocked phones in Europe because all the countries are GSM. However, the US is divided among a few protocols. Not only that, I bet than any deal would be exclusive, just like that “chocolate” phone/mp3 player from Verizon/LG. Who would Apple choose?
Interesting points. I agree that cell phones have a short lifespan in the US, but that’s primarily because people tend to see phones as “free” (despite the fact that the cost is factored into the service plan). Apple needs to partner with an established carrier. Clearly, Apple and the carrier are going to have to charge a premium for the combo phone/iPod — and it probably won’t be cheap. So, seriously, do you think that consumers are going to want to invest dollars in a phone which they will almost assuredly replace within a couple years — or are they going to buy a cheap phone and a separate iPod? Hmmmmmmm. I’d probably opt for the latter, because I would have the iPod for more than a couple years (assuming that it still works, of course).
Who would Apple choose?
This could be a significant first step for Apple. How will they proceed? Are they gonna try to compete with phones that are free with a contract? Are they gonna let Cingular put all of their junk on an Apple branded phone? Probably no on both counts.
More likely Apple will puchase access in bulk and become a carrier. If they can break even on the service, and eventually add broadband wireless to the mix, Apple will be positioned to sell a lot of hardware.
Apple is probably not much interested in the cellular phone markets. This is going to be an ‘iLife’ product, very likely with emphasis integrating VOIP into the “digital lifestyle”. That would be the more Apple like thing to do.
My guess is that the type of device Apple will introduce will be something that competes with the Treo, or Blackberry, or Nokia Communicator and similar offerings from other companies, with a stripped down OSX, pleasant interface and great interoperability with .Mac/iLife/iWord/iEtc, and syncs with Windows too. In other words, more of a PDA that is also a phone, rather than a traditional phone handset that plays mp3s and takes pictures (why compete with Moto/Nokia/Samsung/LG on those–Apple doesn’t have anything outstanding to offer on that score). Then it doesn’t really compete with the iPod. It seems to me that a PDA (that is also a phone) is one thing that is lacking in Apple’s media-convergence lineup. They can then offer as standalone as well as team up with a wireless carrier (T-Mobile?) or two who subsidizes the cost with contract.
Why is that Apple logo on this article black????
I second that,
I much more like the previous icon !
It’s black as Steve Jobs soul.
With the increasing capacity of storage smartphones, it seems like it would be a great fit for Apple to release a version of iTunes for the main smartphone OSes, something that acted like a soft-iPod. I’d have probably picked up an iPod by now, except for the Treo 650 + 1GB SD card that word bought for me last year and that’s been more than enough for my portable MP3 needs. But compared to iTunes/the iPod, the UI of the version of RealPlayer included with the Treos is pretty ass-tacular.
Of course the main barrier to that is that they would be creating competition for the iPod, and we all know how Apple loves to insulate their products from having their sales cannibalized by other Apple products. Still, even if they charged for it, I’d still be willing to pay in the $50USD range for an app like that.
Although, the inability of the recording add-ons to record at anything higher than 8-bit audio has also kept me from buying one. The hardware can do 24-bit recording if iPod linux is installed in place of the Apple firmware, the limitation always struck me as bizarre – I know tons of people who would pick one up for recording interviews, otherwise. Maybe they’re afraid of being held liable for people using iPods to bootleg concerts…
This post brought to you by caffeine and lack of sleep.
Hey, anyone ever make a whois query on iphone.com?
Guess who it’s been registered to for years?
So you know the name already.
“Hey, anyone ever make a whois query on iphone.com?
Guess who it’s been registered to for years?”
Yeah, and it sure isn’t to Apple:
Registrant:
The Internet Phone Company, LLC
3856 Willowview Court
Santa Rosa, California 95403
United States
You ment iphone.org.
However, there’s no evidence it has belonged to Apple ever since it was created.
Oops, you’re right, it’s not .com
But there was some iphone.whatever that actually WAS registered to Apple, at least a year ago, when I checked.
Can make whois queries from work to verify, though.
Here is whois for iPhone.org:
Domain ID:
D15354654-LROR
Domain Name:
IPHONE.ORG
Created On:
16-Dec-1999 04:59:34 UTC
Last Updated On:
14-Nov-2006 12:34:39 UTC
Expiration Date:
16-Dec-2008 04:59:33 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:
eMark Monitor Inc (R37-LROR)
Status:
CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:
CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:
CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:
mKn-14211604
Registrant Name:
Apple Computer , Inc.
Registrant Organization:
Apple Computer, Inc.
Registrant Street1:
1 Infinite Loop
Registrant Street2:
M/S 60-DR
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:
Cupertino
Registrant State/Province:
CA
Registrant Postal Code:
95014
Registrant Country:
US
Registrant Phone:
+1.4089961010
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
+1.4089741560
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:
[email protected]
Admin ID:
mKn-14211601
Admin Name:
Kenneth Eddings (KE557)
Admin Organization:
Apple Computer, Inc.
Admin Street1:
1 Infinite Loop M/S 60-DR
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:
Cupertino
Admin State/Province:
CA
Admin Postal Code:
95014
Admin Country:
US
Admin Phone:
+1.4089744286
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:
[email protected]
Tech ID:
mKn-14211601
Tech Name:
Kenneth Eddings (KE557)
Tech Organization:
Apple Computer, Inc.
Tech Street1:
1 Infinite Loop M/S 60-DR
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:
Cupertino
Tech State/Province:
CA
Tech Postal Code:
95014
Tech Country:
US
Tech Phone:
+1.4089744286
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:
[email protected]
Name Server:
NSERVER2.APPLE.COM
Name Server:
NSERVER.APPLE.COM