The Web has been rife with bogus rumors of an Apple cell phone since 2004, and each ridiculous ‘leak’ or faked ‘photo’ sets off a torrent of fruitless discussion, speculation and hysteria. What does that say about current cell phones? That they’re claustrophobic and oppressively complex. That the world craves a phone that conveys, like Apple’s iPod, a feeling of beauty, elegance and instantaneous mastery. This week, a cell phone matching that description has finally arrived – but it’s not from Apple. Its design comes from Bang & Olufsen, maker of expensive, hyperstylish stereos and cordless phones, and its guts come from Samsung.
I don’t find cell phones all that complex, yet I’m constantly helping the older generations (i.e. my mother, my boss, etc) to do seemingly simple things like changing a contact’s number.
I’m technical and they aren’t, so bring on easier phones I say.
I don’t find cell phones all that complex, yet I’m constantly helping the older generations (i.e. my mother, my boss, etc) to do seemingly simple things like changing a contact’s number.
You and I may not find using all a cell phone’s features difficult, but I would not deny that the user interface of most phones is poorly designed and hampered by unbelievable complexity. The interfaces on Nokia and Moto phones (to name two) are not merely arcane, but seemingly intended to make users less efficient: from poorly placed (and extraneous) keys to having the most commonly used features buried several menus deep to poor choices in font and contrast.
Cell phones are “claustrophobic and oppressively complex”
True! No more, no less.
Man,I now know the answer to the question my friends use to ask: “How come, you’re computer uebergeek and you still have no cell phone?”
My answer was usually someting along how complicated menus and config tools are in modern cell-phones and such.
BTW I had one ( for Virgin-Mobile pay-as-you-go service) but I had to use my sledgehammer to get rid
of that annoying peace of crap.
At least it’s in the Apple tradition – Technology should be easy to use – but only for the rich.
Ill Bite the troll.
Apple gear is not overpriced. It is cost competitive for the quality. The problem is that there is so much CHEAP CRAP out there, that makes apples looks expensive. If you compare Apple to other systems With all the same features you will see that for the most part the prices are about the same. The thing is when people go Ohh I found an X system that has the same this and that for Apple and it is only Apple Price – $250 they normally forget to match all the features. They only match the features that are most important to them. Granted Apple doesn’t give as many options especially in the lower end then some of the other computers. If Apple released Cheap Systems they will have the same problems as the Cheap Competitors systems. You get what you pay for. Apple doesn’t put a premium price on their stuff they put the price where they can profit but no more than anyone else. Apple tries to make systems which the “non-rich” people can use (like the MacMinis) But still they are equlivalt quality of the other $500 small form factor PC, where it isn’t the cheapest but it the Mid-Range price range. Which is good for a Mid-Range system.
Define “cheap crap”. I have a system that is still going strong after three (nearly four) years with only two hardware failures so far – the onboard network card and the power supply. After 3 years most people would be looking for a hardware upgrade – but the point is, the stuff still WORKS. Yes, I have low hardware requirements, and no, I don’t use it for the kind of things I would use a MacBook Pro for, but then an Xserve would be even more expensive than an MBP.
Define “cheap crap”. I have a system that is still going strong after three (nearly four) years with only two hardware failures so far – the onboard network card and the power supply
Yes, ONLY two hardware failures in (nearly) four years!
Let me make the distinction between “cheap crap” and “not crap”. I had an Inspiron 8200 for just about four years. In that period, I had two hardware failures – the screen had to be replaced and the DVD drive started getting flaky. That’s cheap crap. Power supplies that last only a couple of years (because power supplies are inevitably under-specced in cheap machines) are the epitome of “cheap crap”.
“Not crap” is a computer that works for years without any problems. Apple makes lots of machines that aren’t cheap crap (in a year, my PowerMac has crashed a grand total of zero times), but they’re not the only ones. Dell used to make very solid machines back in the day. I’ve got an old Dimension D300, that has worked flawlessly from 1998 to when I finally replaced it this summer. That’s over 8 years of pretty much always-on operation, half of that in a dusty closet.
If you dig up a late 1990’s Dell sometime, you’ll see exactly how they are different from their more crappy successors. The cases were simple, solid, and made of high-quality plastic. They had a rigidity modern Dells usually lack. The power supplies were, for a time when the top power-hog processor was the 40W Pentium II, overspecc’ed at 200+ watts. They weren’t cheap — the D300 cost $3000 when the equivalent Gateway would’ve run hundreds of dollars cheaper.
That is not to say that cheap machines are necessarily crap. If you’re conservative with your specs, you can probably make a pretty cheap machine that is still high quality. However, there are way too many machines out there that meet low price points by using crap motherboards and crap power supplies. Machines that stick a GeForce 7800 in an ECS motherboard in a case with a freebie power supply. Those are, by and large, “cheap crap”.
Edited 2006-10-29 00:17
Yes, but you still need to be able to afford them. I can’t afford to wait 4 years to scrape enough money together to buy “premium” hardware if I need to run Photoshop (or whatever – and no, I don’t *actually* run Photoshop) today.
Getting a good-quality item will rarely move a purchase from affordable to unaffordable. If you’re building a machine for $1000, just spending $150 more can do wonders. Instead of buying a $75 motherboard, spend another $75 and by an Asus or better yet Intel. Instead of using the $10 power supply that comes bundled with the case, spend $50-$60 to get a really good unit (no, you don’t need those silly $100 500W+ units to get a good power supply). Spend $20 and put in some case and CPU fans that won’t die on you after a year, and will be quiet too.
Just those few changes can mean the difference between a machine you have to baby, and a machine that you never have to think about again. For something you’ll use for several years, the $150 difference is going to be miniscule. That’s why I said that there is a difference between “cheap crap” and machines that are cheap. Way too many people will skimp on those parts, and spend the extra buying a faster graphics card so they can get a few more FPS in FarCry. I’ve bought enough ECS motherboards to know that my sanity is worth a little extra cash.
Of course, that’s also why all my new machines have been Apple’s recently. If you concede that 15% isn’t going to mean the difference between affordability and unaffordability, then Apple’s prices seem very reasonable. At least, they do now. My PowerMac was certainly an indulgence when I bought it, but the Intel machines have a premium of about 10%*, and obsessing over that is ridiculous.
*) Averaged. The iMac and Macbook are right in that range, the MBPs are above it, and the Mac Pros actually undercut the competition by a large margin.
They only match the features that are most important to them.
Yes, its quite a sensible approach, and this is why people feel Macs are more expensive. It is not because you can buy the same hardware spec cheaper elsewhere. It is because you cannot buy the hardware spec you want from Apple for the same price you can buy it elsewhere. You end up paying more for stuff you don’t need or want.
El Reg recently did a good review of the Evesham AOpen Mini and compared it to the Mac Mini. Its more expensive than the Mac Mini. But both are truly terrible values, the Mac slightly less terrible, unless you really need to be able to carry them around in your jacket pocket…
And even if we might argue any cell phone needs some kind of embedded OS, the article doesn’t mention it.
So, it’s merely an advertisement.
Which is cool, but then present it as such.
This looks more like a non-apple user copy of an apple style. It is like White Man Gospel music. Many of the concepts but just not quite there. Apple products are really not so showboat antsy, they are more of the simple concept. While this phone takes a stab at it. It is not quite right.
It is not quite right.
The Cnet article is slightly misleading, by focusing so much on the iPod at the beginning. B&O are a completely different company than Apple is– Apple is a commodity business, B&O a premium company, about a million times more exclusive and elegant (design-wise) than Apple will ever be.
At B&O, it’s form over function, without a doubt. At Apple, it’s function over form. Crucial difference. And it shows as well– B&O equipment is elegant, it makes Apple gear feel clunky and common.
I agree. And as far as the price goes, generally speaking, the people who can afford and buy B&O products are not overly concerned with the cost. B&O targets an elite market and is not interested in becoming commonplace (which then causes it to lose its cachet).
That looks like some radion controlled clocks at circuit city.
Ti malakia einai ayti?
Where are they?
Where are they?
The link is quite obivous there in the article.
Edited 2006-10-29 00:01
i personally could not afford this phone,
but if you take catwalk high fashion as an example, the stuff going down the catwalk is beyond most people BUT the designs/influences filter down to the high st. becoming affordable
it could well be that other companies like LG and Sagem will now release phones which have the screen at the bottom instead of the top for example
umm.. no thanks.. I’ll stick with my LG.
Too bad their website is flash. But, I guess if you can afford their cellphone, you can also afford the high-speed connection necessary to wait while their website sends you the data for each and every bit of info on the site.
Yup. I don’t do flash; I have it specifically blocked. Too many advertisements that abuse the capabilities of an otherwise fine technology.
i didn’t have any problems loading that page ^_^
10Mbit/10Mbit $20/month
This phone does not look like an Apple design, it is just a fancy looking form… and expenseive… usually Apple focus on style and usability… I know it is not perfect, but it just works for me.
The reviewer makes a big point about how you could never dial without looking because the numbers are around the wheel. I can play the guitar and type on a keyboard without looking, can dialing this phone really be more difficult than either of those?
That phone looks rather ugly. The number keys will make it more complicated than necessary to dial. It is anything but fashionable.
No, this doesn’t look like an Apple product in form or function. It sacrifices simplicity for style: how much more finger motion will take to make a call than on the standard phone pad we all know well enough to operate blind?
A couple more things. The B&O phone is being marketed as shaped to easily slip in and out of a pocket. But it’s all sharp corners and reverse curves. That’s exactly wrong. And while I like the idea of a double-pivot screen, the way this phone goes together, you’d better be sliding it into a clean and empty pocket. The gaps are large enough to allow plenty of lint and foreign objects.
So — how very stylish. How very different-looking. Its distinctiveness will make the phone easy to identify as a pricey status symbol, but won’t make it a better or more useful device.
I hope Apple does better than this.
It’s a bizarre comparison, how can Apple be seen as the epitome of “style” and “function” for mobile phones?
Mobile Phones are complex devices, they don’t just play music. It is a lot easier to design a stylish and simple interface for a single function, like the iPod.
I know the iPod serves more than one function, but they are just by-products of the added cpu grunt, storage, colour screen (movies & photos) and the functional click-wheel (calendar & games).
If we move away from the iPod and focus on the mobile phone; could Apple really produce something that is on par or better than this phones “style” and “function”?
If Apple does enter the mobile phone market I hope everyone compares it’s own offering with the iPod and complain about how the device doesn’t do the myriad (exaggeration) of functions as easily and with the same simplicity the iPod plays music.
the world craves a phone that conveys, like Apple’s iPod, a feeling of beauty, elegance and instantaneous mastery.
In many ways, I think the Treos (at least the PalmOS-based models) are the iPods of the cell phone world. The look-n-feel of the UI is even sort of Mac-like, it has a nice “System 7” feel to it.
“But holy cow: $1,275? Could it possibly be worth that kind of money?”
B&O isn’t about being worth it – its about being exclusive. They set the price that high so you know that if you have it, you’re special. And you’re almost guarenteed that no one in your social circle will have one.
“They set the price that high so you know that if you have it, you’re special.”
This reminds me of a cartoon strip I read a long time ago:
Person 1: My sweater costs more than what you pay in rent every month for your apartment!
Person 2: That’s because you’re an idiot.
I believe it’s been available for over a year already. I definitely remember browsing around its website a long time ago. It’s anything but “new”.
What’s next? A review of Vertu Azure that costs even more?
Edited 2006-10-29 10:34
Oh, and by the way its internal design comes from Samsung, so it’s really nothing particularly special as you might expect.
Pretty I think – I agree that other phones are rather bad at user oriented design .
This is not Apple design .
Completly agree to the Apple – B&O design goals comment .
The two companies have different markets & this design fits very well into the B&O product range AFAIK .
If I had the money – would I pay that price ?
No – but then I wouldnt want to pay for than roughly a 100 Euros for any mobile phone because for the price of a 600+ phone I could get a proper computer like a laptop instead .
A phone is good for phoning people – beyond that there will always be big comprimises in what it offers .
Your not gonna do professional photography with a lens the size of pea.
Just IMO
A couple of years ago, Nokia started creating ridiculous difficult-to-use designs like this. They’re gone now, aren’t they? That suggests where this one is going.
As usual Bang & Olufsen have brought us something interesting and expensive but once again, it’s a lot less useful than it should be. I suspect it will be sitting on the coffee table and promptly forgotten.
“What does that say about current cell phones? That they’re claustrophobic and oppressively complex.”
If your cellphone is oppressively complex you bought the wrong one. Really.
And even if they are, this B&O cellphone is not going to help. Rotary dial? Yeah, having the keys you actually have to use very far apart is a great for making something easier to use. Has the writer ever used any B&O gear? While admittedly they make very stylish stuff it’s not exactly a secret that style is the ONLY thing they have. Featurewise their stuff is very dull and usually not even that easy to use.
Pretty, but I would much preffer QTEK 9000 than this thing.