Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / March 2007
Apple's New Calling: The iPhone
|
|
Thread rating:  |
EGV - 10 Jan 2007 05:15 GMT http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1575737,00.html Tuesday, Jan. 09, 2007 Apple's New Calling: The iPhone By Lev Grossman
If you've ever wondered how it works, this is how it works: I don't call Steve, Steve calls me. Or more accurately, someone in Steve Jobs's office calls someone in my officesomeone at a much higher pay grade to say that he has something cool. I then fly to the metastasized strip mall called Cupertino, Calif., where Apple lives, sign some legal confidentiality stuff and am escorted to a conference room that contains Jobs, some associates, and some lumps concealed under some black towels. I stare at what was under the towels. Everybody else stares at me.
This is how Apple, and nobody else, introduces new products to the press. It can be awkward, because Jobs is high-strung and he expects you to be impressed. I was, fortunately, and with good reason. Apple's new iPhone could do to the cell phone market what the iPod did to the portable music player market: crush it pitilessly beneath the weight of its own superiority. This is unfortunate for anybody else who makes cell phones, but it's good news for those of us who use them.
It's also good news for Jobs. Apple has had some explaining to do lately about backdated stock options it issued to Jobs and some other senior Apple executives. An internal investigation has cleared Jobs, but a federal investigation and a shareholder lawsuit are still going forward.
Sure, backdating options is common in Silicon Valley, but the essence of Apple's identity is that it's an uncorporate corporation: a glossy white iPod-colored company, the kind that doesn't get mixed up in this kind of thing. When Jobs calls the iPhone "the most important product Apple has ever announced, with the possible exception of the Apple II and the Macintosh," he means, technologically. But now is not a terrible time to be hitting a home run.
The iPhone developed the way a lot of cool things do: with a false start. A few years ago Jobs noticed how many development dollars were being spentparticularly in the greater Seattle metropolitan areaon what are called tablet PCs: flat, portable computers that work with a touchscreen instead of a mouse and keyboard. Jobs, being Jobs, figured he could do better, so he had Apple engineers noodle around with a tablet PC. When they showed him the touchscreen they came up with, he got excited. So excited he forgot all about tablet computers.
Jobs had just led Apple on a triumphant rampage through a new market sector, portable music players, and he was looking around for more technology to conquer. Cell phones are perfect because even Grandma has one: consumers bought nearly a billion of them last year. Break off just 1% of that and you can buy yourself a lot of black turtlenecks. Cell phones do all kinds of stuffcalling, text messaging, Web browsing, contact management, music playback, photos and videobut they do it very badly, by forcing you to press lots of tiny buttons, navigate diverse heterogeneous interfaces and squint at a tiny screen. "Everybody hates their phone," Jobs says, "and that's not a good thing. And there's an opportunity there." To Jobs's perfectionist eyes, phones are broken. Jobs likes things that are broken. It means he can make something that isn't and sell it to you for a premium price.
That was why, two and a half years ago, Jobs sicced his wrecking crew of designers and engineers on the cell phone as we know and hate it. They began by melting the face off a video iPod. No clickwheel, no keypad. They sheared off the entire front and replaced it with a huge, bright, vivid screenthat touchscreen Jobs got so excited about a few paragraphs ago. When you need to dial, it shows you a keypad; when you need other buttons, the screen serves them up. When you want to watch a video, the buttons disappear. Suddenly, the interface isn't fixed and rigid, it's fluid and molten. Software replaces hardware.
Into that iPod they stuffed a working version of Apple's operating system, OS X, so the phone could handle real, non-toy applications like Web browsers and e-mail clients. They put in a cell antenna, plus two more antennas for WiFi and Bluetooth; plus a bunch of sensors, so the phone knows how bright its screen should be, and whether it should display vertically or horizontally, and when it should turn off the touchscreen so you don't accidentally operate it with your ear.
Then Jonathan Ive, Apple's head of design, the man who shaped the iMac and the iPod, squashed the case to less than half an inch thick, and widened it to what looks like a bar of expensive chocolate wrapped in aluminum and stainless steel. The iPhone is a typical piece of Ive design: an austere, abstract, platonic-looking form that somehow also manages to feel warm and organic and ergonomic. Unlike my phone. He picks it up and points out four little nubbins on the back. "Your phone's got feet on," he says, not unkindly. "Why would anybody put feet on a phone?" Ive has the answer, of course: "It raises the speaker on the back off the table. But the right solution is to put the speaker in the right place in the first place. That's why our speaker isn't on the bottom, so you can have it on the table, and you don't need feet." Sure enough, no feet toe the iPhone's smooth lines.
All right, so it's pretty. Now pick it up and make a call. A big friendly icon appears on that huge screen. Say a second call comes in while you're talking. Another icon appears. Tap that second icon and you switch to the second call. Tap the big "merge calls" icon and you've got a three-way conference call. Pleasantly simple.
Another example: voicemail. Until now you've had to grope through your v-mail by ear, blindly, like an eyeless cave-creature. On the iPhone you see all your messages laid out visually, onscreen, labeled by caller. If you want to hear one, you touch it. Done. Now try a text message: Instead of jumbling them all together in your in-box, iPhone arranges your texts by recipient, as threaded conversations made of little jewel-like bubbles. And instead of "typing" on a four-by-four number keypad, you get a full, usable QWERTY keyboard. You will never again have to hit the 7 key four times to type a letter S.
Now forget about phone calls. Look at the video, which is impressively crisp and plays on a screen larger than the video iPod's. This is the first time the hype about "rich media" on a phone has actually looked plausible. Look at the e-mail client, which handles attachments, in-line images, HTML e-mails as adroitly as a desktop client. Look at the Web browser, a modified version of Safari that displays actual Web pages, not a teensy crunched-down version of the Web. There's a Google map application that's almost worth the price of admission on its own. Weaknesses? Absolutely. You can't download songs directly onto it from the iTunes store, you have to export them from a computer. And even though it's got WiFi and Bluetooth on it, you can't sync iPhone with a computer wirelessly. And there should be games on it. And you're required to use it as a phoneyou can't use it without signing up for cellular service. Boo.
The iPhone breaks two basic axioms of consumer technology. One, when you take an application and put it on a phone, that application must be reduced to a crippled and annoying version of itself. Two, when you take two devicessuch as an iPod and a phoneand squish them into one, both devices must necessarily become lamer versions of themselves. The iPhone is a phone, an iPod, and a mini-Internet computer all at once, and contrary to Newtonwho knew a thing or two about applesthey all occupy the same space at the same time, but without taking a hit in performance. In a way iPhone is the wrong name for it. It's a handheld computing platform that just happens to contain a phone.
Why is Apple able to do things most other companies can't? Partly by charging for it: The iPhone will cost $499 for a 4GB model, $599 for 8GB, which makes it expensive, but not a luxury item. And partly because the company has highly diverse talent who are good at hardware, software, industrial design and Internet services. Most companies just do one or two things well.
Unlike most competitors, Apple also places an inordinate emphasis on interface design. It sweats the cosmetic details that don't seem very important until you really sweat them. "I actually have a photographer's loupe that I use to look to make sure every pixel is right," says Scott Forstall, Apple's vice-president of Platform Experience (whatever that is). "We will argue over literally a single pixel." As a result, when you swipe your finger across the screen to unlock the iPhone, you're not just accessing a system of nested menus, you're entering a tiny universe, where data exist as bouncy, gemlike, animated objects that behave according to consistent rules of virtual physics. Because there's no intermediary input devicelike a mouse or a keyboardthere's a powerful illusion that you're physically handling data with your fingers. You can pinch an image with two fingers and make it smaller.
To witness the iPhone launch from behind the curtain (or under the towel) is to see the controlling hand of Steve Jobs, for whom this is an almost mystically significant year. He's 52 years old. It's been 30 years since he founded Apple (with Stephen Wozniak), and 10 since he returned there after having been fired. In that decade Apple's stock has gone up more than 1,000%. Neither age nor success (nor cancer surgery in 2004) have significantly mellowed him, though some of the silver in his beard is creeping into his hair. All technologists believe their products are better than other people's, or at least they say they do, but Jobs believes it a little more than most. In the hours we spent talking about the iPhone, Jobs trash-talked the Treo, the BlackJack, the Sony PSP and the Sony Mylo ("just garbage compared to this"), Windows Vista ("It's just a copy of an old version of Mac OSX") and of course Microsoft's would-be iPod killer, Zune.
Jobs's zealousness about product development and enforcing his personal visionremains as relentless as ever. He keeps Apple's management structure unusually flat for a 20,000-person company, so he can see what's happening at ground level. There is just one committee in the whole of Apple, to establish prices. I can't think of a comparable company that does nozeromarket research with its customers before releasing a product. Ironically, Jobs's personal style could not be more at odds with the brand he has created. If the motto for Apple's consumers is "think different," the motto for Apple employees is "think like Steve."
The same goes for Apple's partners. The last time Apple experimented with a phone, the largely unsuccessful ROKR, Jobs let Motorola make it, an unsatisfying experiment. "What we learned was that we wouldn't be satisfied with glomming iTunes onto a regular phone," Jobs says. "We realized through that experience that for us to be happy, for us to be proud, we were going to have to do it all."
Apple's arrogance can inspire resentment, which is one reason for some of the glee over Jobs's stock options woes: taking pleasure in seeing a special person knocked down a peg is a great American pastime. (Jobs declines to talk about the options issue.) But there's no point in pretending that Jobs isn't special. A college dropout, whose biological parents gave him up for adoption, Jobs has presided over four major game-changing product launches: the Apple II, the Macintosh, the iPod, and the iPhone; five if you count the release of Pixar's Toy Story, which I'm inclined to. He's like Willy Wonka and Harry Potter rolled up into one.
That doesn't mean Apple can operate beyond the boundaries of the Securities and Exchange Commission, but the iPhone wouldn't have happened without Apple's "we're special" attitude. One reason there's limited innovation in cell phones generally is that the cell carriers have stiff guidelines that the manufacturers have to follow. They demand that all their handsets work the same way. "A lot of times, to be honest, there's some hubris, where they think they know better," Jobs says. "They dictate what's on the phone. That just wouldn't work for us, because we want to innovate. Unless we could do that, it wasn't worth doing." Jobs demanded special treatment from his phone service partner, Cingular, and he got it. He even forced Cingular to re-engineer its infrastructure to handle the iPhone's unique voicemail scheme. "They broke all their typical process rules to make it happen," says Tony Fadell, who heads Apple's iPod division. "They were infected by this product, and they were like, we've gotta do this!"
Now that the precedent has been set, it'll be interesting to see if other cell phone makers start demanding Apple-style treatment from wireless carriers. It'll also be worth watching to see how successful they'll be in knocking off the iPhone's all-screen form factor, which will be very difficult without Apple's touchscreen technology. Apple has filed for around 200 patents associated with the iPhone, building an imposing legal wall. Considering the size of the market, the stakes are high. The phone market is, of course, divided into armed camps by carrier, and so far the iPhone is exclusive with Cingular. Apple has sold 100 million iPods worldwide, but Cingular has only 58 million customers. Apple expects to launch the iPhone abroad in the fourth quarter of this year.
It's not quite right to call the iPhone revolutionary. It won't create a new market, or change the entertainment industry, the way the iPod did. When you get right down to it, the device doesn't even have that many new featuresit's not like Jobs invented voicemail, or text messaging, or conference calling, or mobile Web browsing. He just noticed that they were broken, and he fixed them.
But that's important. When our tools don't work, we tend to blame ourselves, for being too stupid or not reading the manual or having too-fat fingers. "I think there's almost a belligerencepeople are frustrated with their manufactured environment," says Ive. "We tend to assume the problem is with us, and not with the products we're trying to use." In other words, when our tools are broken, we feel broken. And when somebody fixes one, we feel a tiny bit more whole.
Quiet Desperation - 10 Jan 2007 05:43 GMT > I was, fortunately, and with good reason. I luv me some Mac and iPod, but I had no interest in the iPhone. I didn't think Apple could do anything with the cell phone I would carre about.
Until today.
Frak me, but it's almost a Mac Mini in my pocket. I read somewhere it's motion sensitive like the Wii controller, and to zoom in on the web browser you just squeeze the side. I have not seen such a sweet gadget since... I dunno when.
And my current Sprint contract *just* ended.
The only bummer is the camera. My place of employment does not allow camera phones. I really wish cameras were optional in all phones.
Jolly Roger - 10 Jan 2007 05:54 GMT > The only bummer is the camera. My place of employment does not allow > camera phones. I really wish cameras were optional in all phones. So don't tell them it has a phone in it - geez! : )
 Signature JR
Mij Adyaw - 10 Jan 2007 06:12 GMT Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on America's Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose GSM rather than the technically superior CDMA.
>> The only bummer is the camera. My place of employment does not allow >> camera phones. I really wish cameras were optional in all phones. > > So don't tell them it has a phone in it - geez! : ) Bucky - 10 Jan 2007 09:30 GMT > It is interesting that they chose GSM rather than the > technically superior CDMA. not really. GSM is the most popular mobile technology worldwide. Many decisions are not based on what is technically superior.
Tim McNamara - 10 Jan 2007 13:17 GMT > Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on > America's Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose > GSM rather than the technically superior CDMA. Possibly. Or perhaps the Most Reliable Network made a mistake in not partnering with Apple.
But Cingular? The lowest-rated cell phone provider in America? That's gonna stop me from getting one unless Cingular improves dramatically.
karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net - 10 Jan 2007 13:40 GMT >> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on >> America's Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >But Cingular? The lowest-rated cell phone provider in America? That's >gonna stop me from getting one unless Cingular improves dramatically. First of all, its low rating is in Customer Service, not Network capability, secondly Sprint always comes in worse, whther its J.D. Power, the Yankee Group, or Consumer Reports.
Pick a year 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003;
the results are the same. Sprint is worst.
SMS - 10 Jan 2007 14:41 GMT >>> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on >>> America's Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > First of all, its low rating is in Customer Service, not Network > capability, Not true. Well, yes, Sprint is usually worse, but Cingular's coverage is consistently worse than Verizon's, in every region of the country.
Apple wanted a device that they could sell the most units worldwide, so they went with GSM, which meant getting stuck with Cingular. Also, Verizon is pushing it's own music service so didn't want to give up that revenue stream to Apple.
The phone part of the device is almost an afterthought, especially given the lack of 3G capability in the first model. They should sell a version of it with no phone service, but with an ExpressCard slot so users can insert a 3G card from whatever carrier they want.
The reaction to the iPhone by people they interviewed was almost always the same. Very cool, too expensive, and they wouldn't buy one for $500 or $600. If the price comes down to $300-400, then Apple will have a winner.
karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net - 10 Jan 2007 15:07 GMT >>>> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on >>>> America's Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Not true. Well, yes, Sprint is usually worse, but Cingular's coverage is >consistently worse than Verizon's, in every region of the country. Only if you include the Analog coverage.
>Apple wanted a device that they could sell the most units worldwide, so >they went with GSM, which meant getting stuck with Cingular. Also, >Verizon is pushing it's own music service so didn't want to give up that >revenue stream to Apple. No Apple went with Cingular, cause Cingular gave Apple the freedom to design the phone with no strings, and Cingular agreed to provide random access voice mail.
>The phone part of the device is almost an afterthought, especially given >the lack of 3G capability in the first model. They should sell a version >of it with no phone service, but with an ExpressCard slot so users can >insert a 3G card from whatever carrier they want. The phone may well have 3G by the time it comes out in June.
>The reaction to the iPhone by people they interviewed was almost always >the same. Very cool, too expensive, and they wouldn't buy one for $500 >or $600. If the price comes down to $300-400, then Apple will have a winner. So you're a Verizon shill ?
You apparently haven't been reading a fair cross section of reviews.
http://www.i4u.com/article7607.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/technology/10apple.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&o ref=slogin
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/2007/01/10/handson_iphone_and_li fe_without_a_keyboard.html
A better ipod. A better "Blackberry" type phone A better internet device with True html =browser.', and WiFi A better UI. A phone without buttons that will make calls when you sit down and case presses those buttons.
And in the 5 months between now and when the phone comes out, it will likely have more features than you see now. It is after all running Apple's OS X.
P.Schuman - 10 Jan 2007 15:24 GMT > >>>> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on > >>>> America's Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > http://www.i4u.com/article7607.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/technology/10apple.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&o ref=slogin
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/2007/01/10/handson_iphone_and_li fe_without_a_keyboard.html
> A better ipod. > A better "Blackberry" type phone [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it will likely have more features than you see now. It is after all > running Apple's OS X. SMS - 10 Jan 2007 16:19 GMT >> Not true. Well, yes, Sprint is usually worse, but Cingular's coverage is >> consistently worse than Verizon's, in every region of the country. > > Only if you include the Analog coverage. Unlikely. Most Verizon handsets no longer include AMPS, yet Verizon still beat Cingular in every metro area in the country, in many by huge margins.
But yes, the analog coverage is a plus. I was roaming onto Cingular's analog network two weeks ago, in an area with no digital coverage by any carrier. Ironic to be using Cingular's network, with a Verizon phone, in an area where 95%+ of Cingular's customers could not use Cingular's network, and had no coverage.
karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net - 11 Jan 2007 14:51 GMT >>> Not true. Well, yes, Sprint is usually worse, but Cingular's coverage is >>> consistently worse than Verizon's, in every region of the country. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >still beat Cingular in every metro area in the country, in many by huge >margins. And your URL for this fantasy claim......
Todd Allcock - 10 Jan 2007 21:30 GMT > You apparently haven't been reading a fair cross section of reviews... Good reviews won't make a $500 phone more attractive to those not willing to spend half a grand on a phone. It will certainly be a success, but not a RAZR-like success, at least not at first.
> A better ipod. > A better "Blackberry" type phone > A better internet device with True html =browser.', and WiFi > A better UI. > A phone without buttons that will make calls when you sit down and > case presses those buttons. All true, perhaps, but Toyota sells more Camrys than Rolls Royce sells anything.
> And in the 5 months between now and when the phone comes out, > it will likely have more features than you see now. It is after all > running Apple's OS X. So how long will it take for MS to counter with their "Fune" running a mobile version of Vista? ;-)
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Kurt - 11 Jan 2007 02:46 GMT > > You apparently haven't been reading a fair cross section of reviews... > > Good reviews won't make a $500 phone more attractive to those not willing > to spend half a grand on a phone. It will certainly be a success, but > not a RAZR-like success, at least not at first. But the Razr is a crap phone. Tons of user complaints.
 Signature To reply by email, remove the word "space"
Randall Ainsworth - 11 Jan 2007 03:43 GMT > But the Razr is a crap phone. Tons of user complaints. I like mine fine. It lets me place and receive calls. What more do you want?
Kurt - 11 Jan 2007 16:38 GMT > > But the Razr is a crap phone. Tons of user complaints. > > I like mine fine. It lets me place and receive calls. What more do you > want? According to many, it has often has problems even doing that.
 Signature To reply by email, remove the word "space"
Randy Howard - 11 Jan 2007 14:20 GMT >>> You apparently haven't been reading a fair cross section of reviews... >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > But the Razr is a crap phone. Tons of user complaints. Well, I have one, and half of the supposed features I never even bother to use. like voice-activated dialing. 2 minutes with the moto manual, and you don't feel like fooling with it. It makes and receives calls, and has decent battery life. I'll be moving to an iPhone when they're available, can't wait.
 Signature Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
ZnU - 11 Jan 2007 03:54 GMT > > You apparently haven't been reading a fair cross section of reviews... > > Good reviews won't make a $500 phone more attractive to those not willing > to spend half a grand on a phone. It will certainly be a success, but > not a RAZR-like success, at least not at first. Well, a 4 GB nano + a subsidized non-Apple smart phone would probably be $400-500 anyway[1]. Plus, it's clear Apple is building a platform for the future here. Remember, the first iPod was $400, and everyone said that was too expensive. And it was, for the mass market, for a device which most people didn't even realize they wanted at the time. But it was enough to get things rolling, and prices dropped, and devices got more compelling, and the iPod eventually became a mass market hit.
[1] Yes, the non-Apple phone would probably technically play music as well, but most smart phones don't provide anything like the Apple user experience. Most of the people I know who have smart phones have iPods as well.
[snip]
 Signature "That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting?" - George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
John Heaney - 11 Jan 2007 15:23 GMT > > You apparently haven't been reading a fair cross section of reviews... > > Good reviews won't make a $500 phone more attractive to those not willing > to spend half a grand on a phone. It will certainly be a success, but > not a RAZR-like success, at least not at first. The iPhone is more than a phone, though, and plenty of people will see that and be willing to pony up half a grand for all the things is does. Apple may have to drop the iPhone name because they are being sued by Cisco, who hold the trademark. It may be good for Apple to come up with a name that is more inclusive of its functionality. It's clearly not _just_ a phone.
 Signature John S. Heaney I don't train in Aikido to protect myself from the world, but to protect the world from me.
Reginald Dwight - 11 Jan 2007 16:41 GMT > Apple may have to drop the iPhone name because they are being sued by > Cisco, who hold the trademark. That's almost ironed out.
> It may be good for Apple to come up with > a name that is more inclusive of its functionality. It's clearly not > _just_ a phone. Yeah, but if the new iPods that ultimately come out have similar features and a similar look it will help differentiate them.
Davoud - 11 Jan 2007 18:42 GMT Todd Allcock wrote, inter alia:
> ...All true, perhaps, but Toyota sells more Camrys than Rolls Royce sells > anything. All other things remaining equal, Camrys would likely outsell Rolls Royces if the two were comparably priced. By the measures most people apply to cars -- reliability, ease and low cost of repairs, and other tangibles -- the Camry is the better car.
Davoud
 Signature usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
Doc O'Leary - 11 Jan 2007 23:06 GMT > Good reviews won't make a $500 phone more attractive to those not willing > to spend half a grand on a phone. It will certainly be a success, but > not a RAZR-like success, at least not at first. If you'll recall the iPod roll out, it too was considered expensive and restricted (Mac-only) initially. And if you watched the keynote, Jobs seemed quite content with another bootstrap approach. The target set was only 1% of cellular sales in *2008*. So whatever little they hope to have by the end of this year, it's clear that they're not going for a flash in the pan.
 Signature My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
Wes Groleau - 13 Jan 2007 04:00 GMT > So how long will it take for MS to counter with their "Fune" running a > mobile version of Vista? ;-) About six postponements after Vista finally gets out of beta. Maybe some MS marketer will make a Freudian slip on the keyboard and they'll end up trying to play the FULE.
 Signature Wes Groleau
Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, and cut with an axe.
Edwin - 18 Jan 2007 19:22 GMT > > You apparently haven't been reading a fair cross section of reviews... > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > So how long will it take for MS to counter with their "Fune" running a > mobile version of Vista? ;-) Smartphones running Windows have already been on the market for years before the iPhone was announced.
Todd Allcock - 19 Jan 2007 00:24 GMT > > So how long will it take for MS to counter with their "Fune" running a > > mobile version of Vista? ;-) > > Smartphones running Windows have already been on the market for years > before the iPhone was announced. It was a joke, Edwin! (As you may know from my other posts, I'm a long time PPC user and currently use an HTC Wizard WinMo phone.)
Seriously, though, a solid success from Apple might spur MS to create their own branded model. Remember there were plenty of 3rd-party "Plays for Sure" WMA/WMV/MP3 players before MS decided to release the Zune. Perhaps if MS sees a marketplace need for a "better" WinMo phone they might take up the reigns themselves one of these days. (At the very least, MS couldn't use the "your manufacturer is reponsible for providing firmware upgrades" excuse when a new version of WinMobile is released anymore!) ;-)
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Kurt - 19 Jan 2007 01:24 GMT > > > You apparently haven't been reading a fair cross section of reviews... > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Smartphones running Windows have already been on the market for years > before the iPhone was announced. More reason to run, not walk to an iPhone.
 Signature To reply by email, remove the word "space"
Reginald Dwight - 19 Jan 2007 18:41 GMT > Smartphones running Windows have already been on the market for years > before the iPhone was announced. Smartphones!? I think Steve hit this one right on the head.
Micky - 19 Jan 2007 12:20 GMT > So how long will it take for MS to counter with their "Fune" running a > mobile version of Vista? ;-) Probably about 5 years, and it will have a label stuck on it that says, "See back of phone for health warning. Do not remove this tag!" (if you've ever bought a Microsoft keyboard, you'll know what I mean). :-)
Lefty Bigfoot - 19 Jan 2007 13:39 GMT # # #
Microsoft¹s Zune2 Delivers Connected Music and Entertainment Experience Along With Telephone Service
REDMOND, Wash. Jan. 19, 2007 -- Telphone support for the Zune platform (expected delivery, 2012) will require the purchase of the all new Zune2, with 4X the memory on-board, a quad-core processor and a specially designed ergonomic backpack to carry the 12-volt motorcycle battery and power brick.
Also, a wonderfully enriching upgrade scenario will be available, to replace the out of date music purchased previously with new versions of the same content, albeit at a DRM-friendly and digitally deenhanced audio quality level.
Music purchased for the Zune 1 platform will not be playable on the Zune2, just as previous MS media format music customers experienced with the Zune 1, as DRM changes make all older music format obsolete. Microsoft helped to co-author the new EDDMCA (Extra-Draconian Digitel Millenium Copyright Act) with Senator Orin Hatch of Utah.
Zune 2 make it easy to browse the web, through exclusive access to the new MSN-managed MSandFriendsProxy, which precludes all access to URLs not obsequiously complimentary of Microsoft and its partners. Users in China will have access to slightly more content than in other regions, due to their laws governing accesss to content.
All 236 Zune 1 customers are expected to upgrade to the Zune2 through a special buyback program, where Microsoft will refund you $5 off the price of the $759 Zune2 if they can still find their original sales receipt at launch in 2012.
Also, due to yet another special bulk purchase of surplus injection-molding dye, a new color will be available for the Zune2, Desert Camo Tan.
Existing Zune 1 customers will also need to purchase new Zune Car Pack, Home A/V Pack and Travel Pack bundles, as all previous interfaces have been deprecated, due to lack of sufficient signal distortion to meet the deoptimized audio and video guidelines for the innovative Zune 2.
The Future is Bright
In addition to the features available at launch of the Zune 2, built-in wireless technology and powerful software provide a strong foundation to continue to build new shared experiences around music and video, provided all CSRT (Content Signal Reduction Technology) features are adhered to properly. As Zune evolves, the device can be easily updated by purchasing a new model, and completely repurchasing your existing audio and video library once again. The Zune software on your PC will let you know when these updates are available for web order. Similarly, a new Zune2 Spyware And Virus Monitoring package will be available to provide the same level of security and exposure to external malicious attacks existing customers of Microsoft products are so well-accustomed to today.
About Zune2
Zune2 is Microsoft¹s reinvention of the historic Zune 1 (the first ever music player to become obsolete prior to it's first customer ship date) music and entertainment platform that provides an end-to-end solution for Connected Entertainment.
The Zune2 experience includes a 3TB digital media player, the Zune2 Marketplace music service*, and a foundation for an online community that will enable music fans to discover new music without the distractions of too many fans confusing things on large forums, as found in the more popular music player platforms. You can feel secure in knowing your voice will never be drowned out by the dozens of other users.
Inspired by the vast and varied community of music fans for other players, Zune2 focuses on helping emerging artists shape the digital canvas, provided they abide by the EDDMCA (co-authored by Microsoft) and the CSRT. Zune2 is part of Microsoft¹s Entertainment and Devices division and supports the company¹s software-based services vision to help drive innovation in the digital entertainment space.
More information can be found online at http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/zune2.
* Zune 1 Marketplace Music Service content not applicable to the Zune2.
About Microsoft
Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq ³MSFT²) is the worldwide leader in software, services and solutions that help people and businesses realize their full potential as a purchaser of substandard products.
Note to editors: If you are interested in viewing additional information on Microsoft, please visit the Microsoft(R) Web page at http://www.microsoft.com/presspass on Microsoft¹s corporate information pages. Web links, telephone numbers and titles were correct at time of publication, but may since have changed. For additional assistance, journalists and analysts may contact Microsoft¹s Rapid Response Team or other appropriate contacts listed at http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/contactpr.mspx.
# # #
Colin Fox - 19 Jan 2007 14:57 GMT This is really more a tragedy than a comedy, but nonetheless, very funny.
Colin
> # # # > [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > > # # # SMS - 11 Jan 2007 22:27 GMT > And in the 5 months between now and when the phone comes out, > it will likely have more features than you see now. It is after all > running Apple's OS X. It's not running OS X. It's an embedded look alike, just like the Pocket PC doesn't run Windows, it runs a version of Windows embedded, a totally different animal. You can't run OS-X on the processor in the iPhone.
-No syncing over WiFi or Bluetooth, only syncing via the dock. No big deal for a phone, but it confirms that it's not really a PDA.
-No application programming interface, so no third-party applications. Not a big deal, but it confirms that they never intended the iPhone to be a PDA.
Alan Baker - 12 Jan 2007 00:52 GMT > > And in the 5 months between now and when the phone comes out, > > it will likely have more features than you see now. It is after all [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > PC doesn't run Windows, it runs a version of Windows embedded, a totally > different animal. You can't run OS-X on the processor in the iPhone. You know this, do you? Privy to internal Apple communications, are you?
LOL
> -No syncing over WiFi or Bluetooth, only syncing via the dock. No big > deal for a phone, but it confirms that it's not really a PDA. > > -No application programming interface, so no third-party applications. > Not a big deal, but it confirms that they never intended the iPhone to > be a PDA. And you know what they'll announce in June when it's actually released too! Play golf with Steve Jobs, do you?
 Signature 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
SMS - 12 Jan 2007 01:01 GMT > You know this, do you? Privy to internal Apple communications, are you? > > LOL It's already been widely reported, no secret that it isn't OS-X. At least it's not the OS-X that's running on the x86. I guess they can call it whatever they want, but it's not the same OS as on Apple's desktops and notebooks. They can call it iPhone OS-X (not in the U.S. though).
"http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/macworld2007/gizmodo-iphone-hands-on-part-deux-why-is nt-it-white-and-other-questions-227575.php"
Microsoft can say that the Pocket PC runs Windows if they really want to, but everyone knows that it's not the same Windows that is on PCs.
Alan Baker - 12 Jan 2007 01:23 GMT > > You know this, do you? Privy to internal Apple communications, are you? > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Microsoft can say that the Pocket PC runs Windows if they really want > to, but everyone knows that it's not the same Windows that is on PCs. Sorry, but saying it's not "OS X proper" is not the same as "its an embedded look-alike". Your statement implies that it is in no part OS X and just happens to be designed to *look* like it is OS X, but we already know from the key note and from Apple job listings that much of OS X is in there: Mach, the IOKit, Core Animation, Cocoa (IIRC)...
Bluetooth/WiFi SW Engineer - iPhone
Additional success factors: MacOS X / IOKit driver development experience € Mach IPC and/or Mach Server design experience
<URL:http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=1&method=mExternal.showJob&RID=4 063&CurrentPage=1>
 Signature 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
John - 12 Jan 2007 03:23 GMT >>> And in the 5 months between now and when the phone comes out, >>> it will likely have more features than you see now. It is after all [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You know this, do you? Privy to internal Apple communications, are > you? His statement is obvious to anybody with extensive knowledge of programming and OS X. Of course its no surprise that you would challenge him with your habitual need to start a "round and round" troll.
> And you know what they'll announce in June when it's actually released > too! Play golf with Steve Jobs, do you? Alan Baker - 12 Jan 2007 05:48 GMT > >>> And in the 5 months between now and when the phone comes out, > >>> it will likely have more features than you see now. It is after all [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and OS X. Of course its no surprise that you would challenge him with your > habitual need to start a "round and round" troll. So you want to hitch your wagon to his claim do you?
I'll remember.
LOL
> > And you know what they'll announce in June when it's actually released > > too! Play golf with Steve Jobs, do you?
 Signature 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
BreadWithSpam@fractious.net - 12 Jan 2007 14:22 GMT > >> It's not running OS X. It's an embedded look alike, just like the > >> Pocket PC doesn't run Windows, it runs a version of Windows [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and OS X. Of course its no surprise that you would challenge him with your > habitual need to start a "round and round" troll. From the article in today's NYT:
From Steve: "We define everything that is on the phone. You don't want your phone to be like a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go make a call and it doesn't work anymore. These are more like iPods than they are like computers. "These are devices that need to work, and you can't do that if you load any software on them. That doesn't mean there's not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn't mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment"
I've been saying for years that these things need to be as bulletproof as a toaster. When's the last time you had to do a hard reset or reboot on your toaster? My phone should be that solid. The Treo was so unstable that it was unusable.
While it's not 100% clear that that all means that it's not plain old OS X on it, is sure seems like it sounds that way.
But at this moment, the folks who really know aren't talking and the rest of us are just speculating.
 Signature Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
Kurt - 12 Jan 2007 21:02 GMT > I've been saying for years that these things need to be as > bulletproof as a toaster. When's the last time you had to do > a hard reset or reboot on your toaster? My phone should be > that solid. The Treo was so unstable that it was unusable. My Treo 650 has been very stable. And I've had it for a couple years.
 Signature To reply by email, remove the word "space"
SMS - 12 Jan 2007 16:28 GMT >>>> And in the 5 months between now and when the phone comes out, >>>> it will likely have more features than you see now. It is after all [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and OS X. Of course its no surprise that you would challenge him with your > habitual need to start a "round and round" troll. Thanks. I guess some people just like to argue for the sake of argument.
There is nothing wrong with an embedded OS-X, but I think that people with no experience in this area like Alan somehow believe that they'll be able to run Mac OS-X application on the iPhone. What Apple did with the iPhone OS-X is the same as what Microsoft did with Win CE, Windows Embedded, etc., they created an OS that has a similar look and feel, where data formats can be exchanged between the two OSes.
Alan Baker - 12 Jan 2007 16:46 GMT > >>>> And in the 5 months between now and when the phone comes out, > >>>> it will likely have more features than you see now. It is after all [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Embedded, etc., they created an OS that has a similar look and feel, > where data formats can be exchanged between the two OSes. Let's face it: you don't know what Apple did.
I never said I expect to run Mac OS X applications on iPhone and I don't expect it.
But that doesn't mean Apple has created a new OS that just looks like Mac OS X either.
 Signature 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
SMS - 12 Jan 2007 16:53 GMT > But that doesn't mean Apple has created a new OS that just looks like > Mac OS X either. That's exactly what it means. They've created an OS for an embedded processor, that looks like the OS on their desktops and notebooks.
You say it as if there is something wrong with what they did. They can have an OS X embedded and still call it OS X for marketing purposes.
Alan Baker - 12 Jan 2007 16:56 GMT > > But that doesn't mean Apple has created a new OS that just looks like > > Mac OS X either. > > That's exactly what it means. They've created an OS for an embedded > processor, that looks like the OS on their desktops and notebooks. Nope. It may mean that the version of Mac OS X their using is slimmed down considerably and thus won't support every call a typical desktop app might make.
> You say it as if there is something wrong with what they did. They can > have an OS X embedded and still call it OS X for marketing purposes. I'm saying there is something wrong with just declaring that they've done it when in truth you have no clue.
 Signature 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net - 12 Jan 2007 21:43 GMT >> But that doesn't mean Apple has created a new OS that just looks like >> Mac OS X either. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >You say it as if there is something wrong with what they did. They can >have an OS X embedded and still call it OS X for marketing purposes. Nope, OS X is OS X, which they used to make it easier to use their Safari Browser, their graphics, their animation, etc, etc
larwe - 13 Jan 2007 01:01 GMT karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> >You say it as if there is something wrong with what they did. They can > >have an OS X embedded and still call it OS X for marketing purposes. > > Nope, OS X is OS X, which they used to make it easier to use their > Safari Browser, their graphics, their animation, etc, etc Nonsense. Of course I don't know what is inside the device any more than you do. But analyze this rationally. Consider the secondary storage requirements of MacOS X and the MacOS versions of the various applications that are known to be in the phone. Assume they have a low-power x86 core in the phone. (Seems very unlikely, by the way; my money would be on an ARM variant. MIPS/mW on x86 has never been, and will likely never be, in the same ballpark as RISC cores specifically designed for low power operation). But anyway - regardless of this, the code density will therefore be practically identical to the code density of similar functionality on a desktop x86.
Do you seriously think Apple has created a phone with say 12GB internal storage, of which only 8GB is available to the user? I suspect the entire OS + apps are in the region of 128MB to 256MB flash footprint.
The difference between the "OS X" in this phone and the "OS X" on your Macintosh is certainly at minimum the difference between "Windows" meaning "Windows CE" and "Windows" meaning "Windows XP". The APIs are similar enough that carefully hand-selected code examples will recompile and run without further changes. The OSes are NOT binary compatible and any nontrivial application will require severe porting effort to move over to the cutdown OS (not even taking into consideration UI design issues necessary to ensure a standardized "phone-y" look and feel).
ZnU - 13 Jan 2007 06:10 GMT > karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > storage, of which only 8GB is available to the user? I suspect the > entire OS + apps are in the region of 128MB to 256MB flash footprint. You seem to be defining "OS X" as "exactly what gets installed off of a Tiger DVD". This clearly doesn't make a lot of sense.
I'd say the iPhone runs OS X if it runs a variant OS X's kernel plus a BSD personality, and implements significant parts of Core Foundation and higher level OS X technologies like Cocoa, Quartz, and Core Animation.
To use Linux terminology, this would be a different "distribution" of OS X, but it would still be OS X.
And from what I've seen so far -- basically what Jobs has said, plus the iPhone job posting that has been linked here -- what I describe above seems like what is most likely true.
[snip]
 Signature "That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting?" - George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
larwe - 14 Jan 2007 01:52 GMT > > > Nope, OS X is OS X, which they used to make it easier to use their > > > Safari Browser, their graphics, their animation, etc, etc [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You seem to be defining "OS X" as "exactly what gets installed off of a > Tiger DVD". This clearly doesn't make a lot of sense. Not exactly. But if it is the same kernel - and not stripped down the way WinCE is - then it must be a similar footprint if they are using an x86 processor in the phone - which, again, I doubt. Same goes for the apps like Safari.
Having written this last sentence, I'm now struck with a certainty that it's not an Intel processor because whatever it is, it is certainly a SoC with an integral lo-res LCD controller. Intel has explicitly stated that they're getting out of the embedded market. All the XScale parts they used to sell for PDA applications are off their website (though possibly some of them are still available, it would be CRAZY for Apple to design in a part that's already in last-time buy). It is just possible that Intel did something very custom for Apple, but it seems so unlikely.
> I'd say the iPhone runs OS X if it runs a variant OS X's kernel plus a > BSD personality, and implements significant parts of Core Foundation and > higher level OS X technologies like Cocoa, Quartz, and Core Animation. And if it's neither a PowerPC nor an x86 core, and has a vastly scaled-down set of APIs, and is neither binary compatible with any OSX application nor capable of running any nontrivial OSX application with simply a bare recompile?
Microsoft puts the same spin on WinCE - they claim that anybody who can write for the Win32 API is automatically a WinCE programmer. Reality is considerably divergent from this.
> To use Linux terminology, this would be a different "distribution" of OS > X, but it would still be OS X. To use Linux terminology, this would be something that isn't Linux but happens to have a POSIX API plus a bunch of Linux-like APIs.
ZnU - 14 Jan 2007 05:46 GMT > > > > Nope, OS X is OS X, which they used to make it easier to use their > > > > Safari Browser, their graphics, their animation, etc, etc [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > possible that Intel did something very custom for Apple, but it seems > so unlikely. It's not an Intel processor; Intel has said this. And that Apple job listing that was posted here the other day seems to confirm it's ARM.
I agree it could have a significant memory footprint, but read my posts in the "iPhone uses ARM processor" thread. Sticking e.g. 128 MB of memory in a high-end mobile device is quite possible these days.
In fact, just read my posts in that thread, particularly the most recent ones; they address these issues.
[snip]
 Signature "That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting?" - George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
larwe - 14 Jan 2007 01:57 GMT > I'd say the iPhone runs OS X if it runs a variant OS X's kernel plus a > BSD personality, and implements significant parts of Core Foundation and > higher level OS X technologies like Cocoa, Quartz, and Core Animation. By the way, the link that was posted here <http://www.tuaw.com/2007/01/10/apple-vps-confirm-no-3rd-party-iphone-apps/> does say that it's a "pseudo-OSX".
Steven Fisher - 13 Jan 2007 06:29 GMT > Nonsense. Of course I don't know what is inside the device any more > than you do. But analyze this rationally. Consider the secondary > storage requirements of MacOS X and the MacOS versions of the various > applications that are known to be in the phone. Assume they have a Mac OS X is Apple's trademark. I believe it's up to them to define it.
larwe - 14 Jan 2007 02:00 GMT > > than you do. But analyze this rationally. Consider the secondary > > storage requirements of MacOS X and the MacOS versions of the various > > applications that are known to be in the phone. Assume they have a > > Mac OS X is Apple's trademark. I believe it's up to them to define it. Sure, the same way Microsoft defines WinCE as "just another Windows". It's a semantic issue. But what I'm hearing people say here is that it's running actual OSX, implying either binary or sourcecode-level compatibility, neither of which are present.
However it sounds like the issue is very moot, since the platform will be completely locked down.
Kurt - 14 Jan 2007 02:47 GMT > > > than you do. But analyze this rationally. Consider the secondary > > > storage requirements of MacOS X and the MacOS versions of the various [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > However it sounds like the issue is very moot, since the platform will > be completely locked down. And OSX is stable and awesome. I run a business on Macs and never have needed Windows or a PC - 15 years now. Thank goodness Apple is coming into the phone market.
 Signature To reply by email, remove the word "space"
Steven Fisher - 14 Jan 2007 06:26 GMT > However it sounds like the issue is very moot, since the platform will > be completely locked down. This is incorrect. Jobs said that Apple would not include all of the software with the iPod, and of the available software, Apple would not write all of it. Granted, the barrier is going to be higher and we haven't seen yet how high, but "completely locked down" is obvious hyperbole.
Steven Fisher - 14 Jan 2007 06:29 GMT > > However it sounds like the issue is very moot, since the platform will > > be completely locked down. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > haven't seen yet how high, but "completely locked down" is obvious > hyperbole. Ack. I meant iPhone, not iPod.
ZnU - 14 Jan 2007 06:54 GMT > > > than you do. But analyze this rationally. Consider the secondary > > > storage requirements of MacOS X and the MacOS versions of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It's a semantic issue. But what I'm hearing people say here is that > it's running actual OSX, You're also hearing this from people who work for Apple: http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipod-itunes/news/index.cfm?newsid=16927
> implying either binary or sourcecode-level compatibility, neither of > which are present. Clearly binary compatibility is irrelevant; compiling an operating system for a new architecture doesn't make it a different operating system.
And given what Apple has said, I would expect a fairly high level of source code compatibility. Clearly there will be some APIs that only exist on either the iPhone or desktop version of OS X, but does swapping a few APIs around really make something a totally different OS?
> However it sounds like the issue is very moot, since the platform > will be completely locked down. Jobs quoted in the NYT:
"These are devices that need to work, and you can't do that if you load any software on them. That doesn't mean there's not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn't mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment."
From what Jobs is describing, I would guess Apple will sell apps written for the iPhone through the iTunes Store, much as they currently do with iPod games. What kind of qualifications you'll have to meet to get Apple to sell your app is anyone's guess.
 Signature "That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting?" - George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
Kirk Sluder - 14 Jan 2007 22:33 GMT > Sure, the same way Microsoft defines WinCE as "just another Windows". > It's a semantic issue. But what I'm hearing people say here is that > it's running actual OSX, implying either binary or sourcecode-level > compatibility, neither of which are present. Well, given how much of OS X is running on an adapted BSD infrastructure, it is likely that you will have some levels of sourcecode-level compatibility. Although you might have to pick and choose your flags devices carefully.
The problem is that "operating system" has become one of those fuzzy and meaningless words these days. Is it just the kernel and minimal libraries needed to do system-level IO? Do we include the graphics toolkits? Or is it the whole kit and kaboodle distributed on a CD or shipped computer system?
Ian Gregory - 14 Jan 2007 02:48 GMT > karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nonsense. Of course I don't know what is inside the device any more > than you do. Sorry, I haven't really been following this thread, so my choice to jump in at this particular point is somewhat arbitrary and I am not specifically responding to "larwe". Also, someone might have already noted this, but according to John Gruber:
1) The phone probably uses an ARM processor (based partly on the fact that Apple is advertising for iPhone engineers with ARM experience).
2) The embedded OS on the iPhone is called "OS X" as opposed to "Mac OS X" - they are similar but not the same thing.
http://daringfireball.net/2007/01/iphone_arm
Ian
By the way, I am a little curious about the "iPhone" but certainly have no desire to be an early adopter. I am more interested in the apparently soon to be available FIC Neo1973 smartphone running the OpenMoko platform:
http://www.openmoko.com/press/index.html
 Signature Ian Gregory http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
SMS - 14 Jan 2007 16:41 GMT > 1) The phone probably uses an ARM processor (based partly on the fact > that Apple is advertising for iPhone engineers with ARM experience). Actually it uses multiple processors, in fact it uses multiple ARM processors.
> 2) The embedded OS on the iPhone is called "OS X" as opposed to > "Mac OS X" - they are similar but not the same thing. They have the same basic UI, same as the the Windows used on the Pocket PCs. Apple can call it whatever they want, but it's basically "embedded OS X." Nothing wrong with this, other than it makes some people think that they can run OS X applications on the iPhone.
> By the way, I am a little curious about the "iPhone" but certainly > have no desire to be an early adopter. I am more interested in the > apparently soon to be available FIC Neo1973 smartphone running the > OpenMoko platform: > > http://www.openmoko.com/press/index.html GPRS? That's even worse then the EDGE on the iPhone.
Ian Gregory - 14 Jan 2007 19:28 GMT >> By the way, I am a little curious about the "iPhone" but certainly >> have no desire to be an early adopter. I am more interested in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > GPRS? That's even worse then the EDGE on the iPhone. I don't know much about these technologies, but the press release also states:
GSM850/900/1800/1900 compatibility for network support in Europe, Asia Pacific, Japan, Africa and the US
Is that any good?
Ian
 Signature Ian Gregory http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
Dennis Ferguson - 15 Jan 2007 02:39 GMT >>> http://www.openmoko.com/press/index.html >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Is that any good? That's just so-so (and I think "Japan" may be a lie with that).
Good would be UMTS and HSDPA in addition to that. Plus 2100 MHz.
Dennis Ferguson
Eric Lindsay - 15 Jan 2007 03:45 GMT > I don't know much about these technologies, but the press release > also states: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Is that any good? GSM is good, in terms of potential buyers of the phone. It is an earlier technology, but most of the mobile phones in the world still use it. Outside the USA, probably 80% of all mobile phones are GSM. Even Cingular use GSM, despite all the negative comments about them, and they have more customers than anyone else in the USA (approaching 60 million). In particular, Cingular are much larger than the next biggest GSM phone mob in the USA.
My guess is the GSM Apple iPhone will be the first Apple product to sell in larger numbers outside the USA than in the USA, despite the even later launch outside the USA.
There are indications that chipsets to support GSM are smaller and use less power than some of the alternatives. This may also be a factor in Apple launching with GSM. It might have been an easier design.
Some of the negatives for GSM include poor range. It is a city phone, not a country phone. If you live in a country area, GSM is usually not your first choice. However in most countries GSM is available, it covers (say) 90% of the population, whereas CDMA may cover (say) 97%. If you happen to live in a poorly served area, you will be screaming for something instead of GSM, and pointing out how poor the coverage is.
EDGE is a fast data connection (relative to the old GSM data connection) but slow relative to other methods. Most people don't do a lot of data transfer. If you do, you will be screaming EDGE is not good enough.
If the Apple iPhone sells well, Apple will almost certainly bring out other models using different technologies, to push sales into areas they will otherwise miss.
On the basis of what little was in the keynote, and on the Apple site, I don't believe Apple see this model as being a Smartphone. This is despite people saying it is like a little computer, has OS X, etc. Lots of people want a Smartphone with PDA facilities, such as the Windows Mobile, Palm Treo and Symbian phones. These enthusiasts are also noisy, and likely to be very visible on web sites. However only around 20 million people a year buy these Smartphones. Apple are not going to take half the Smartphone market, despite a price up there in Smartphone country.
I think Apple believe there is a premium market niche at good margins for a standard feature phone with a very nice interface. So far I can't see a lot (except maybe the WiFi and maybe a better browser) that I can't get in a standard candybar phone without a contract for under $100. They sure won't get the people who want the latest and greatest technology. But I think they will get their niche.
 Signature http://www.ericlindsay.com
Tim Smith - 15 Jan 2007 07:35 GMT In article <NOwebmasterSPAM-39CC14.13453515012007@freenews.iinet.net.au>,
> GSM is good, in terms of potential buyers of the phone. It is an earlier ...
> Some of the negatives for GSM include poor range. It is a city phone, I read somewhere how the different phone systems reflect the different approaches to regulations in the US and Europe. In Europe, the governments agreed on a standard (GSM) fairly early, before cell phones were widespread, and everyone had to use it. In the US, it was left up to carriers to decide what technology to use, and so we ended up with several, incompatible, systems. However, some of them are superior to GSM.
One thing very nice about GSM is that the phone and the service are separate. You have a little card that has your carrier information. That plugs into the phone. So, in Europe, your phone itself has no tie with the carrier. You want a new phone? Buy one, and move your card from your old phone, and it works.
It's disappointing that the iPhone apparently won't work that way.
 Signature --Tim Smith
SinghaLvr - 15 Jan 2007 15:36 GMT > One thing very nice about GSM is that the phone and the service are > separate. You have a little card that has your carrier information. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's disappointing that the iPhone apparently won't work that way. Actually NONE of the GSM phones work that way in North America. They can (and are) still locked to the carrier. Even the UK does this for the subsidized models.
BreadWithSpam@fractious.net - 15 Jan 2007 17:33 GMT > Actually NONE of the GSM phones work that way in North America. They can > (and are) still locked to the carrier. Even the UK does this for the > subsidized models. And they can usually be unlocked easily enough. Moreover, it's not like it's difficult to buy unlocked phones here. One just has to pay the full price of the phone rather than the subsidized price. Admittedly, usually the unlocked phones one buys in the US were originally packaged for foreign markets (ie. have too many electrical plugs in the box) but that doesn't stop them from working with Cingular and T-Mobile GSM chips. Pop them in and talk away.
 Signature Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
Ric - 15 Jan 2007 23:43 GMT >> One thing very nice about GSM is that the phone and the service are >> separate. You have a little card that has your carrier information. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (and are) still locked to the carrier. Even the UK does this for the > subsidized models. Yes, but it is a relatively simple operation to unlock a phone and use any SIM card you want in it. Can the same be said of the iPhone?
Steve de Mena - 15 Jan 2007 22:16 GMT > In article > <NOwebmasterSPAM-39CC14.13453515012007@freenews.iinet.net.au>, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > with the carrier. You want a new phone? Buy one, and move your card > from your old phone, and it works. Don't they subsidize (and lock) GSM phones in Europe also? I seem to recall seeing two prices (with and without service) when shopping over there.
> It's disappointing that the iPhone apparently won't work that way. Steve
Mitch - 15 Jan 2007 22:41 GMT > One thing very nice about GSM is that the phone and the service are > separate. You have a little card that has your carrier information. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's disappointing that the iPhone apparently won't work that way. We don't know that. What we know is that the first one offered is not compatible with other services yet -- maybe because they are judging only based on all features.
That doesn't mean it won't work that way when it is compatible. Maybe Apple will have to give up using some features on other networks to do so. Maybe they'll have a different code in the SIM card.
ZnU - 16 Jan 2007 09:39 GMT > In article > <NOwebmasterSPAM-39CC14.13453515012007@freenews.iinet.net.au>, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > It's disappointing that the iPhone apparently won't work that way. The truth is, if Apple wants to do anything really interesting with the phone in the long run, they need:
1) Concessions from cellular providers on things like data plan rates. 2) Cooperation in developing new features that require network support.
Promising exclusivity was probably the only reasonable way to get these things in the US. Maybe things will work out differently in other markets.
 Signature "That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting?" - George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
Tim McNamara - 16 Jan 2007 14:41 GMT > The truth is, if Apple wants to do anything really interesting with the > phone in the long run, they need: > > 1) Concessions from cellular providers on things like data plan rates. No, they don't. Cellular plan costs are between the service provider and the customer. Apple is not the service provider, just the phone provider. The analogous situation is Apple having no place in negotiating concessions on ISP service costs.
> 2) Cooperation in developing new features that require network support. This Apple would need to do. Otherwise the iPhone would be all dressed up with nowhere to go.
ZnU - 16 Jan 2007 20:54 GMT > > The truth is, if Apple wants to do anything really interesting with the > > phone in the long run, they need: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > provider. The analogous situation is Apple having no place in > negotiating concessions on ISP service costs. Cell phone providers often offer specific data plans for specific devices, e.g. Blackberry plans. I have no idea if these plans are a result of negotiations between the device maker and the cellular provider, but there's no reason in principle why a device maker with sufficient leverage could not negotiate rates on such plans.
My impression is that the partnership between Cingular and Apple runs deeper than is usual in such situations. The two companies may have more significant long-term plans that a lot of people suspect. It's not to hard to imagine Jobs selling the Cingular execs on a vision of the future of mobile voice and data which the two companies could implement together on both the network and the handset site.
> > 2) Cooperation in developing new features that require network support. > > This Apple would need to do. Otherwise the iPhone would be all dressed > up with nowhere to go.
 Signature "That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting?" - George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
SMS - 16 Jan 2007 16:40 GMT > The truth is, if Apple wants to do anything really interesting with the > phone in the long run, they need: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > things in the US. Maybe things will work out differently in other > markets. Very true. Look at how Apple has used their clout to prevent the content providers from raising pric
|
|