“The hype is reaching fever-pitch, and the odds are still stacked that Apple will announce a device combining the functionality of an iPod and a mobile phone in January next year, but whether such a device will actually sell is another question,” Bill Ray writes for The Register.
Ray writes, “There seems little question that an Apple phone product will be launched in 2007, and that it will work with the iTunes service and have a very pretty industrial design and a smooth interface. Strapping an iPod to a mobile phone is not a great technical challenge, which makes it all the more remarkable that Motorola did it so badly with their ROKR handset. Maintaining the features which made the iPod so popular in a mobile phone will be much more of a challenge.”
Ray writes, “The iPod brought with it amazing industrial design, a well designed interface, and a new usage paradigm. Portable music players already existed, but the iPod was better looking and easier to use. It also came with the promise that you didn’t just carry music with you, you carried all your music with you. That factor alone changed the way portable music was perceived, and was central to the adoption of the iPod.”
“The iPod has moved away from that paradigm, with the Nano and Shuffle only able to store the most diminutive music collection, and recent rumours suggest that an Apple phone will have 8GB of flash-based storage; comparable with the Nano. But it was that function which sold the concept to many people, with the style and simplicity of use keeping them hooked,” Ray writes.
Ray writes, “It is important not to underestimate the importance of the iPod industrial design, or its scope. I recently had to sit in a pub as two iPod fans reminisced about feelings when opening their first iPod box, and their overwhelming admiration not for the product, but for the box in which it came. It was sickening, but demonstrated the loyalty iPod fans feel, and the expectations that will need to be met.”
MacDailyNews Take: Ray’s use of the adjective “sickening” speaks volumes about his underlying feelings. Just because people like Bill Ray want an Apple product to fail doesn’t mean it will.
Ray continues, “Apple will launch a mobile phone in January, and it will become available during 2007. It will be a lovely bit of kit, a pleasure to behold, and its limited functionality will be easy to access and use. The Apple phone will be exclusive to one of the major networks in each territory and some customers will switch networks just to get it, but not as many as had been hoped. As customers start to realise that the competition offers better functionality at a lower price, by negotiating a better subsidy, sales will stagnate. After a year a new version will be launched, but it will lack the innovation of the first and quickly vanish. The only question remaining is if, when the iPod phone fails, it will take the iPod with it.”
Full article here.
Ray makes a lot of assumptions to arrive at his seemingly deeply-desired failure scenario. What if the “iPhone” is sold simply as iPod – just like the “video” iPod was marketed? Are people going to stop buying iPods just because Apple decides to include phone capability? Of course not. That’s just one possibility. Obviously, it’s far too soon to proclaim Apple’s “iPhone” a success or failure (we’d wait for the actual product/service release, at least), but we’ve iCal’ed Ray’s comments for future reference, that much is sure.
Related articles:
Analyst: Apple iPhone economics aren’t that compelling – December 08, 2006
CNET editor Kanellos: ‘Apple iPhone will largely fail’ – December 07, 2006
Why does my breath smells like ass?
Ray remembers me a meeting with one of my clients (a tow and crane company), where a salesman of that company (yes, a salesman of them) defended to buy PCs and I, as their consultant, defended Macs (they already had 95% of their computers being Macs).
He made a comparison table with lots of stupid arguments, one of them was “Networking”. In the Mac column he stated a “con” because “We don’t know if, in the future, Macs will have the same kind of conectivity as PCs does, even in our LAN or the internet”.
He just want one of his friends to sell generic PCs; he will receive a compensation.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”gulp” style=”border:0;” />
MW = ‘little’ as in shame.
Here’s to the morons who always want others to fail just so they can feel better about being the abject losers they so obviously are!
No doubt this fool said the iPod would fail for the same reasons.
I have found that most people don’t want most of the features that many of the phones offer. They want a phone that can make and receive calls, keep a contact list, and perhaps a camera. And they want an iPod. Put them both together and it’s one less thing to carry. These things will sell like crazy. And, I agree, I think they will sell it not as a phone, but as an iPod that has video and phone capabilities.
I believe that any Apple phone will incorporate a remote to control iTv and other Apple products. That will be one of the compelling reasons to buy.
Blah blah blah… but what caught my eye was the following?
“…but we’ve iCal’ed Ray’s comments for future reference, that much is sure.”
Can you explain this – is this something you use iCal for? Can you extrapolate on that – you might be on to something here that I’ve been looking for and never thought of – using iCal for notes and reference.
Please extrapolate.
Regards,
The winning solution, I believe, is to simply add phone capbilities to all new ipods, and give the customer his/her choice of provider.
“That statement is absolutely unassailable.”
Well in the field of operating systems, it’s clear Apple screwed up way more than Microsoft ever did.
Microsoft doesn’t make hardware, but Apple screwed the pooch with the Lisa, Apple III, the Newton, the Quicktake, set top boxes, the choice of 68k processors, the choice of Power PC processors, bad fans, faulty power supplies, exploding batteries, locking Shuffles, scratching nanos, whining and overheating and randomly shutting down Macbooks.
Damn, when you look at it, how many products has Apple not screwed up in it’s history, or had commercial success with?
Hey, let’s remember that the Register is barely a week or two past their last howler. “Apple iTunes sales PLUMMET”…..we all have to remember and remind each other and everyone where this excrement is coming from
I love this blog, but why not include the “background” of these pathetic scum up front at the top of the posting…..
HMFAP:
>Well in the field of operating systems, it’s clear Apple screwed up way more than Microsoft ever did.<
Excuse me. Microsoft has NEVER had a better OS than they do now. They’ve ALL been at least as bad as XP SP3 (Vista). There are STILL over 100,000 active viruses attacking MS users’ computers in the wild. Most of the “failed” Apple systems you cite were simply superceded by better products. You can still buy a Newton today on the used market, but it will cost you significant money. I could make a long list of obsolete MS offerings, bu what’s the point? They all sucked.
And since you brought up that point.
How many companies have tried to do what Apple has done in building a computer and os? How many have succeeded?
How many companies do you buy from that have made complete to partial failure in products?
Your point is mute…. why you ask. Simple to error is human.
But how many companies hold the same design excellence in interface and product in the computer industry……. compare Apple to art or automotive, see how people would relate to it.
Better products, better design, better standards!!!! But not without risk!!!!
Randian said : “And for some reason the majority of UK publications are really down on anything Apple.”
Maybe because Jonathan Ive is British ?
Dear HowManyFailedApple Projects:
Get up off your knees, you silly ho.
What Apple has never done, as a company, is cost this nation billions of $$ in lost productivity- ever. That’s a crown only Microsoft can claim.
Frankly, Microsoft should be prosecuted by the Dept of Homeland Security for the national menace they are … too bad all of you Stockholm-syndromed, M$ sheep accept their utter lack of interest in your computing security (other than their ability to profit from it by actually charging you to fix holes in their OS- the mind boggles ), as well as utter lack of innovation in general, to be the status quo.
We understand your refusal to acknowledge the existence of alternatives- that would also mean acknowledging – to yourselves – what deluded fools (and sheep) you’ve been.
Randian, are you the brother of Endian?
“taking a little liberty there with the quotes, aren’t you? anything else?”
Nothing else, except that I was utilising “artistic licence”
> Damn, when you look at it, how many products has Apple not screwed up in it’s history, or had commercial success with?
You have to take risks to create and define new markets. Microsoft just lets someone else create and define the new markets, then tries to copy the success five years later and take over “eventually.” If it did a good job of copying, that would be one thing. But Microsoft tries hard and gets it wrong most of the time.
This “Bill Ray” guy obviously has no vision. He’s trying his best to make Apple fit an existing mold of the mobile phone business, and thinks all Apple can add to the mix is a shiny device with a loyal user base. But it’s obvious Apple will try once again to create and define a new market.
* Just like it was not the “Video iPod,” this new product will not be an “iPhone.” It will be a iPod, that happens to have wireless connectivity. Unlike Microsoft’s laughable use of “local” wireless, Apple’s implementation will use a mobile phone network to make it something truly useful and “must have.”
* In addition to the obviously features, using the wireless capability and a direct connection to the iTunes Store, Apple can sell an iPod that can be used without the need for owning (a fairly recent) Mac or Windows PC. We geeks reading MDN may not believe it, but there are millions of potential customers who love music but hate using computers, maybe more than the existing iPod user base.
* Apple needs to maintain control over the user experience (not hand it over to a phone company), so it will probably “go it alone” with the service. Obviously, it will need to partner with a wireless carrier for the mobile network (behind the scene), but the service will be offered by Apple directly to its customers through its online and physical stores.
* And “there’s one more thing,…” You’ll be able to use this new iPod device as a mobile phone.
British… OK, OK, I like redheads – always a good reason to visit Scotland (and whiskey is too, of course).
Brits are afraid of anything new and they still think they’re as powerful as they we’re. Or at least that’s how it seems sometimes.
Like rubber bags filled with hot water to keep you warm at night. WTF. What’s wrong with the good heating and heat isolation (triple the glass, save the gas). In Finland you would die in winter if you didn’t have a proper house.
Well, all countries have their weird things.
Americans that drive in a snow with summer tyres? One of the funniest things I don’t get about USA. My father told me that he just watched as the Man of the house burned rubber to melt the ice under the wheels, just to drive the Dodge in to the garage. Guess that’s one way to do it.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
I ran 3km on ice today, OK there was sand on the ice, so i guess it doesn’t count. On Dec 24th, there wasn’t and the ice was wet. I was sure that I would brake some bones.
Your point is moot, not ‘MUTE’
Yeah, no Mac fan websites (probably secretly run by Apple) were predicting the untimely demise of the Zune from the second it was announced.
Oh wait…
John C. Randolph “I haven’t found any general trend toward Apple-bashing among British publications”
It would appear that you don’t read many UK publications.
For a start, there are numerous examples of the BBC taking a decidedly negative stance against Apple, in one case changing a neutral story several hours later to add some hostile opinions. They frequently include negative comments in Apple stories, even though those negative elements are not relevant to the story itself.
Channel Five’s ‘Gadget Show’ will do almost anything to put an Apple product in a bad light. Some of their tests included showing how a Mac tower wasn’t repairable after being dropped from a window onto concrete and that an iPod didn’t work when submerged in water. But it’s not as though it’s a programme that anybody takes seriously, so it’s of little consequence.
For print, you could try the Guardian with their resident buffoon Jack Schofield, who goes out of his way to knock Apple products and promote Microsoft’s. When Apple users correct him, he hysterically calls them names and frequently ends up making himself look even more foolish.
Then there’s The Times and The Sun. Both owned by Murdoch. They were both OK about Macs and iPods until Apple started looking like becoming a big player in the media business. These days, both papers appear to be keen to knock any possibility that Apple might be a rival to Murdoch’s considerable TV interests.
The Mail and the Express tend to follow the pack and will repeat a bad news story about Apple but like most, never get round to printing any sort of retraction when the story turns out to be based on a false assumption.
Reuters are frequently negative about Apple and as far as I can tell were the earliest source I could find of the untrue story about Apple launching a $100 iPod at the time on the iPod nano launch ( Reuters claimed it was a fact, not speculation and it was widely reported elsewhere ) – the iPod nano was then initially perceived as being very expensive because people had been lied to about an iPod for less than half that price. Reuters always publish negative Apple stories, but manage to find it somewhat easy to overlook the positive ones.
The Independent and Telegraph are generally neutral, tending to print stories based pretty well on facts, although they are not above re-printing a false story that’s been published elsewhere.
I’m trying to think of an UK mainstream publication that comes across as being an unswerving Mac supporter, but I can’t think of one.
AlanAudio, that is weird. Really. Are all those Papers owned by the same huge corporation. That would explain. otherwise…
Repoting on Apple in Finland has turned into neutral (almost), although it’s still very pro-Microsoft. Whatever thay do is great and innovative, the articles always give you kind of feeling that the criticism Microsoft faces, it shouldn’t be taken seriously. Those magazines shower in MS money and if MS decides to turn off the hot water…
MW: total. Microsoft = total world domination
“Most of the “failed” Apple systems you cite were simply superceded by better products.”
Yet many on the list did fail dismally commercially. A bunch of the rest failed dismally technically. And many on that list were not upgrades for others, but technically incompatible efforts.
For example, the almost unbroken chain of attempts to write an new OS:
Star Trek
Raptor
NuKernel
TalOS
Copeland
Gershwin
Apple’s OS group were six time losers before they finally gave up and went with Mach/BSD.
If by superseded by “better” products, you mean they were all superseded by products that actually made it out of the lab in and into the real world, I’d agree, They were superseded when Apple finally decided to give up on the OS writing business and use a good, time proven open source alternative where other people had got the fundamentals right while Apple had been muddling around trying.
The chance that Apple or Next could write an OS from scratch are about zero. it’s a skill the company has demonstrated that it just doesn’t have.
“Excuse me. Microsoft has NEVER had a better OS than they do now.”
But this isn’t an argument of how good Vista is, or even whether Apple finally hit pay dirt with a long established open source OS, it’s a discussion of how much Apple screwed up in it’s operating system writing ventures over the years, to the point where it finally gave up.
“How many companies have tried to do what Apple has done in building a computer and os? How many have succeeded?”
As noted above, not Apple. Apple gave up on writing operating systems some time ago.
But in answer to your question, dozens of companies have built computers and the operating systems that run on them over the decades, most have been commercially successful for some time then been acquired, gone out of business or faded away. The universe is a lot bigger than Mac OS X vs Windows.
“We understand your refusal to acknowledge the existence of alternatives”
I’m sure in your mind “Alternatives” mean Windows vs Mac OS X. In the real world over time it’s been a lot more diverse than that.
This prediction is from the fool who works for the electronic rag that brings you articles like:”Hate Xmas? Stick your kid’s Barbie in the blender” or “ebsites fog up as office passions rise” or “Ancient pyramids discovered in Bosnia”. Just a sampling. I heard his next article is “Space Invaders implant chips in Mac user’s brains”. Don’t go to the bank on Bill Ray. BTW, isn’t he really Billy Ray Cyrus, the one hit country western singer, turned technoexpert?
This Ray guy is a moron!
I cannot believe that MDN (and others) are yet to take apart the most obvious flaw in his tripe!
Sorry, but he writes that the success of the iPod was based on the paradigm that it allowed people to take all their music with them.
He then goes on to say that the Shuffle and Nano, and soon to be iPhone indicate that Apple has moved away from this crucial paradigm.
Rubbish!
1) The first gen iPod was 5GB (with 10GB launched in March 2002)
2) Most people do not fill their 80GB iPods with just music (there is video and more)
3) The success of the Nano/Mini shows that most people don’t need more than 8GB (or less).
4) He TOTALLY misses the real reason that the iPod was successful where others failed – iTunes!
There WERE other HDD portable music devices before the iPod, and they could hold just as much music, hence the “take all your music with you” paradigm existed for those players too.
The isssue wasn’t taking your music with you, it was how to do that SIMPLY and EASILY and CONVENIENTLY.
Even now, it is iTunes that allows someone to have 80+ GB of music and/or video on their PC, and yet it EASILY manages that music to get as much on the iPod as is possible (512MB – 80GB depending on model).
And THAT is why iPhone will be successful as a phone/music player – it’s ability to work with iTunes (and some decent design – UNLIKE the Motorola)! The Nokia Nseries and all others cannot work with iTunes, so you cannot manage getting music on your phone as easily or simply etc.
As Steve Jobs noted when the Intel processor switch occured, the Mac is not about the hardware, it is about the software – aka Mac OS X. Same here Mr Ray, the iPod is not about the hardware it is about the software, in this case iTunes (Quicktime)!
Here ends the rant!
My 2 cents,
Luke