“There is a digital land rush going on, driven by rapid advances in technology that make it possible to put more and more tools of higher and higher quality into phones. The recognition that talk is only part of the cellphone’s future — that it is becoming a personal window into an evolving blend of communications, computing and media — has the existing players in the cellphone market scrambling, and new entrants looking for a way in,” Steve Lohr writes for The New York Times News Service.
“Handset makers like Nokia, Motorola and Samsung are introducing the next generation: multimedia phones. The latest entrants, announced last week by Nokia, include a model that can hold up to 3,000 songs, and another phone that doubles as a high-quality camera and video recorder that can shoot and store an hour of video. Media companies — from Time Warner and Viacom to Google and Yahoo — are looking to the cellphone as a new market for their entertainment, news and search products, and software makers, led by Microsoft, have also entered the fray,” Lohr writes.
“The ascendant computer-media hybrid, Apple, plans to test the market in a few months with a music cellphone, designed in partnership with Motorola, hoping to extend its music business beyond the iPod,” Lohr writes. “Apple’s first step into the market, according to industry executives familiar with the company’s plans, will be a modest one — a phone designed to hold a day’s playlist of music, about 25 songs, which can be loaded from a personal computer or purchased from a wireless music store. The phone is being carefully positioned as an enhancement to the iPod instead of a potential alternative.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: At some point, as phones hit 6-10GB capacities, Apple will need to have an answer. Either an iPod that can place / receive phone calls or a mobile phone that has 10+GB and a headphone jack will suffice. And it can be good at being both a phone and music player; just look at the miniscule size of an iPod shuffle and some of the tiny phones on the market today. We’ll get this device eventually from someone (hopefully from Apple). And it’ll probably take pretty decent snapshots, too. Apple, get ready, here come the beginnings of your real competition. The good news is that the initial price for the Nokia is too high, 4GB is a bit too small (and doesn’t really hold 3,000 songs at a quality bitrate), Apple has the patent pending iPod Click Wheel, and Apple has a dominant market position.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Bona fide Apple iPod killer? Nokia’s 4GB mobile ‘jukebox’ phone due by Christmas – April 28, 2005
Can mobile phones and telecoms kill Apple’s golden iPod+iTunes combo? – April 26, 2005
Motorola CEO Zander: Apple iTunes phone due ‘in the next few months’ – April 20, 2005
RUMOR: Apple’s iTunes Mobile 1.0 to be ready by June – April 20, 2005
Verizon, Sprint, other wireless companies balk at carrying Apple’s and Motorola’s ‘iPod phone’ – April 19, 2005
Motorola to unveil iRadio – PC to Mobile to Car Stereo service – April 18, 2005
Will Motorola’s Apple iTunes phone make it to market? – March 28, 2005
BusinessWeek: What’s going on with the Motorola Apple iTunes mobile phone? – March 24, 2005
So who’s really delaying the Motorola iTunes phone anyway? – March 21, 2005
Motorola exec: Apple iTunes phone debut delayed by Steve Jobs; phones will launch in 2005 – March 16, 2005
Motorola’s Apple iTunes phone in trouble? – March 14, 2005
Motorola says iTunes phone unveiling delay not caused by dispute with carriers – March 10, 2005
Motorola says it’s working on more iTunes phones, some models ‘can store eight hours of music’ – March 10, 2005
Motorola indefinitely postpones Apple iTunes phone unveiling – March 10, 2005
Motorola’s ‘ROKR’ Apple iTunes mobile phone to be unveiled this Thursday – March 06, 2005
Motorola’s yet-to-be-unveiled ‘ROKR’ phone will be first Apple iTunes phone – February 16, 2005
Motorola E1060 not, repeat not, the iTunes phone – February 16, 2005
Motorola executive previews iTunes Phone at CES, syncs to iTunes like an Apple iPod – January 06, 2005
Apple’ prodigious hardware and software design skills may help Motorola create iPod phone – December 28, 2004
Apple, Motorola iTunes on cell phones a harmonious deal that benefits both companies – August 05, 2004
Motorola posts Steve Jobs’ Apple iTunes announcement video – July 28, 2004
Apple, Motorola iTunes deal not exclusive, debuts Apple’s licensing of FairPlay DRM – July 27, 2004
Motorola and Apple to bring iTunes Music Player to Motorola’s next-gen mobile phones – July 26, 2004
I don’t listen to music on my cell phone, though being a PocketPC, it can play music. I like the devices separate. The iPod is for entertainment and distraction. The cell phone is for work.
These articles are getting redundant.
Can’t we find something else to speculate on?
Not only that, but what about battery life? I don’t think many people will be happy to drain their battery playing music – especially when they have a call to make.
Must agree with Thelonius. I don’t play games or anything like that on my phone because I need to save the battery for when I’m actually making a call. I may not be the ideal demographic that they are aiming for – not in the 16-25 age group. That seems to be who they aim the latest cell phones towards. I keep a cell phone for calling, and I keep an iPod for music.
In a perfect world, I would have one PDA that was my organizer, phone and music player. However, it would need a helluva battery to be able to meet all of those needs without needing a charge every 2 hours. The other thing is that it would need to be a seamless box so that all of the components worked together easily and easily synched with my Mac. Finally, the functionality would need to be good. I don’t want to use a crappy interface to browse my music – that’s why I have an iPod.
Independently from how we use cell phones/ipods now that is going to change as technology evolves and eventually some company will present something as great in that market as the ipod is in the mp3 player market.
This could be a threat for apple because it offers record companies, etc… a different avenue to present their product and to regain control of pricing.
Nevertheless i have faith that apple understands this and will be the one to introduce the superior alternative, hopefully evolving the great design of the ipod into a cell phone.
MW- ‘pressure’ as in if steve doesn’t get on this he’ll definitely feel the competitive pressure!
Time will come when Apple will seriously make iTunes AAC available as well as licensed iPod alternatives – but not until they have wrapped up an awful lot more iPod sales. At which point iTunes will take 90%+ market share and make greater profits than than iPods.
The whole point is that Apple does NOT have a dominant market position. Nokia phones outnumber iPods by more than 10 to 1, let alone cell phones in general. Apple can easily loose this battle.
The good thing, ofcourse, is that Nokia supports AAC.
I do not want to waste valuable battery power on music when I need it for the phone. I want my battery to last as long as possible, and I am NOT willing to sacrifice one minute on music…
I worry that Apple doesn’t “get” that it will generally NOT be consumers who select these phones but the cell phone service providers–Verizon, Cingular, etc. Apple has always been weak in selling to businesses, stronger in selling to individual consumers. But the cell service providers control 90-95% of cell phone purchases, by deciding which phones to “subsidize.” So for Apple to win here, they MUST have a way for these companies to make money off of digital downloads, even if they ALSO permit users to simply sync their phone with their iTunes collection on their computer. There’s no sign yet that Apple understands this.
Very worried…
No fault on the phone manufacturers but,
Give me a goddamned phone that ACTUALLY works as a phone, not a friggin phone with all the bells and whistles. That means, good signal strength that’s consistent all the time and at all places. NOT something that works great in some, mediocre in others, and crappy in most. I want network capacity that doesn’t crap out during peak hours. I’m sick and tired of dropped calls in the middle of my phone calls. Focus on the quality of calls and calling capacity rather than stupid annoying ringtones and data services that don’t work.
MDN keyword: latter, as in “Between a phone with MP3 and and iPod, I’d choose the latter.”
I suspect that if a phone could be an easy and fun MP3 player then it
would be Apple that designs it. I find my phone very difficult to use
even though I am very much accustomed to it. That’s not to say I
struggle. Do YOU think it is easy to pick up someone else’s phone and
program you own phone number in it? Should it be? yes.
Now how about adding MORE functions? Forget it. I think the Shuffle is
brilliant in its simplicity. It just works and works very well. My G3
iPod is so big and clunky in comparison and is still a little more
complicated than it should be. The “Now Playing” menu item is a
godsend though. I can scan my songs and do everything with my thumb while I run despite the size and complexity. Could I do that with my phone? No way!
Single-use appliances are the best way to design something. Design the physical and software interfaces for the task. When you start adding incompatible tasks, the interfaces become awkward. You cannot talk on the phone while looking for and selecting music and visa versa.
Some users might have a pocket, purse or backpack full of these
devices. They might think they want one or two small multi-function
devices. That’s probably where Blackberries come in. As long as the
management software, ie: computer, has a good interface and
interoperability, these devices can be very helpful. The problem I see
though is that people are using the tiny little keyboards for common
daily tasks for which it is poorly suited. Pen interfaces are awkward
too though.
I think the iPod works so well because the computer is the input and
management system. The iPod is just the player. Perhaps we need new
input systems. Perhaps the only really useful portable input device is
a neural link. Make mine physical please, because I wouldn’t want to
be broadcasting my brain-wave patterns. Perhaps I’ll boot up in the
morning with wireless quantum bluetooth wet-wired from my brain to my rod-logic PowerMac. I’ll have a display injected directly into my
optical and auditory nerves.
These little appliances are a stepping stone. I think it is important
that we keep them logical and simple. The market seems to respond
positively to this idea whether there’s much thought in it or not. It
just works. There’s no fuss.
My quantum link is still another stepping stone. The next shocking
step will likely be some sort of human brain evolution, or revolution.
The best interface is one that’s built in to our genes, like our own
hands and eyes. We certainly aren’t there yet and might not be for a
hundred year, but barring any human race eliminating tragedies, we
will become proficient enough with gene manipulation to “forcefully”
evolve.
I foresee open-source gene clinics operating on the black market. Nano grey goo and all that aside, the gap between the meat-space and
nano/gene space is shrinking as rapidly as the polar ice caps. Because
of this, nations, especially the US, will have to come to terms with
religion, politics, law, and the stark reality that we have an
overwhelming desire to evolve and succeed.
Or so I digress.
Some people are hoping Apple to design a mobile phone with what ever cool features. Not gonna happen. Designing mobile phones is very difficult to start from scratch and it requires huge investments and specially knowledge about the technologies behind it as well as tight co-operation with the operators. They’ll rather co-operate with other existing mobile phone makers i.e. Motorola.
—The whole point is that Apple does NOT have a dominant market position. Nokia phones outnumber iPods by more than 10 to 1, let alone cell phones in general. Apple can easily loose this battle.—
Is this number only including phones that can play music or does it include ALL their phones?
The reason why the cell phone companies will not supersede the iPod is simple, they’re neither as cunning as Microsoft or as inventive as Apple. They are more interested in making small change from making me email pictures to myself instead of enabling the Bluetooth transfer. Because of this, I’m sure they will be more interested in you buying THEIR music that will only play on that ONE phone and won’t transfer to or play on your computer.
While I do believe that all the parts are there for them to really take a bite out of Apple, because of the way they operate, they will prevent THEMSELVES from doing it!!
Palm has released a handheld device that has a mini drive, just like the iPod mini. This can be used to store and play mp3 type files.
Nutbluddee Lik-Lee:
Exactly right. You forgot to mention only that the service providers will try to charge huge $$$ for the music.
In two years they will be sitting in the board room trying to figure out why no one is using their services, and Apple is King of Downloads.
Mike (who has a contract with a company because it has the best coverage, but has no, zero, none, nada Bluetooth phones in their basket, becasue they want you to email pictures to yourself – and surf the web on the slowest yet most expensive connection ever devised.)
Is there anything here for me to POOP on? Please let me know.
Cell phones must be on a good network, be light weight and their batteries must last a long time.
MP3 cost per tune must be less than CD cost per tune.
Music players must be easy to navigate and hold a decent number of tunes at a decent bit rate.
Any player must be able to access the tunes you have ripped from your CD’s and the tunes you have already downloaded. You can’t be forced to re-buy your tunes for your new device.
No cell phone maker can meet these criteria alone. No Mobile provider can reach these criteria alone. Even Microsoft or Apple can’t do it by themselves.
The Apple/Motorola combo with a major carrier might pull it off but everyone will have a problem with capacity, weight, ease of use and battery life.
Remember, over 10 million potential customers already own an iPod and a cell phone. Why would they buy a new device that can’t possibly replace both and do both jobs as well as the two they already own?
When I was a student I hadn’t a phone
When I was looking for a job as professor I had a phone
When I was a young professor I had two phones
Now that I’m a big professor, I’m eventually free: I have not a phone, and hope never again would have one
aren’t cell phones eventually going to be replaced by satellite phones anyway? Why pay for technology that will most likely be obselete in about 10 years?
then again, who keeps a cell phone for that long anyway…
The star trek tricorder is slowly coming into existence – but wait a minute – weren’t the tricorder and the Star Trek communicators separate devices? Hmmmmmm.
Nokia shipped just under 500 million cell phones last year, about a third of the cell phone market.
Apple sold 30 million iPods.
Now, I know most of these phones are low end. Just the way most users want them to be. I’m sure most of us woudn’t replace our iPods with a MP3|AAC-capable cell phone. But what about these 2 billion Chinese and Indians? They’re not gonna buy both – so they’ll go for the phone. We would do the same on their budgets.
The iPod is nowhere near as popular there as it is in the US and Europe anyway.
professor – you obviously ain´t a professor of English.
cell phone music players are for losers. Im 17 and nobody I know wants a cell phone mp3. If my dad gives me one, I’ll still use my iPods. Cell phones arent cool for mp3, and thats a fact
ok, tell ya what…i’ll keep my 1gb shuffle and my verizon phone and y’all can have the new dud from motorala hehehehe