Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsGSMBluetooth
Providers
AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizon
Manufacturers
EricssonNokiaMotorola
Country Specific
Australian GroupUK Group
Related Topics
PocketPCPalmMore Topics ...

Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / March 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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 office—someone 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 spent—particularly in the greater Seattle metropolitan area—on
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 stuff—calling, text
messaging, Web browsing, contact management, music playback, photos
and video—but 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 screen—that 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 phone—you 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 devices—such as an iPod and a phone—and 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 Newton—who knew a thing or two about apples—they 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 device—like a mouse or
a keyboard—there'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 vision—remains 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 no—zero—market 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 features—it'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 belligerence—people 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