Here's my future prediction: Michael Kanellos will be listening to his 'cool' brown Zune in a dermatologist's office real soon-- any new moles at age 45 are most likely skin cancer.
You can bet that I have dis-agreed with M.K. on 99.9% of what he writes. I could care less if he's been around for awhile. I've been around longer. Respecting ones opinion isn't based upon how long they've been around, but what they have accomplished in DIRECT correlation to what they are writing/talking about.
But your comment, at this time is completely inappropriate.
I don't really care one way or the other if someone predetermines that an unannounced product will succeed and fail (and what the criteria are for that success or failure are, who knows), but it does bother me a bit when people blatantly twist the truth. When the iPod came out, there were other high-capacity players on the market. The first iPod was Mac-only. It was considered a failure then, because of its 'limited' user base and since there were already other PC-compatible MP3 players. It was said that it was 'too late' to market and so on. I got one, and it did everything I needed. Most people back then didn't have large digital music libraries like I did; and if they did, they were usually P2P files. There was no store, and the PC music-to-digital-to-device process was horrible, and slow (USB 1 speeds). I could do way more than my PC friends, easier and better. The iPod wasn't the success per se; it was having a device that worked with what music people had and gave them an easy way to get music - iTunes. Now, people have the same issues with more complex data than audio - video (which Apple will be tackling in its way w/its new device, name TBD but not called its codename of iTV), and integrating various data together on the go(possibly a phone, and/or -?-). If a device meets the needs of its user, that to me is a success. The minis and iMacs all sell well, as do the laptops - just because a multi-billion dollar company does not make products that appeal to everyone does not make it a failure. I don't use Viagra, but they seem to be successful.
In case you haven't noticed Apple is selling as many machines as they can make, and the iPod is on track for another outstanding, if not record, quarter. Stop being an Apple hater, and accept things as they are.
How can be sure that a product, which is as of now nothing more than a rumor, will flop. Do you own a crystal ball, hear voices, commune with the dead, etc. Do us all a favor and report on news, not your silly little opinions.
- "I still can't believe this! All this hype for something so ridiculous! Who cares about an MP3 player?"
- "All that hype for an MP3 player? Break-thru digital device? The Reality Distiortion Field is starting to warp Steve's mind if he thinks for one second that this thing is gonna take off."
- "Better bring that price down or you wont sell any of these babies"
Comments from clueless readers at MacCentral after the 2001 iPod introduction.
I bought one in the first five minutes after they were on the Apple store, and am on my third iPod. I had been looking at MP3 players for about six months before the iPod was introduced. But their capacities were way too small and they cost way too much. The iPod did cost a lot, but for what it was, it blew everything else out of the water if you were using Macs.
I have a Blackberry Pearl and love it. But the faults in its software are significant. I can see how Apple could make it look like stone tablets in comparison. And that's why the iPhone will succeed. I got the Blackberry with the idea that after a few generations they are going to be much better, just like the iPods went.
So, as those commentators were back in 2001, this self- described cheapest person in the world writer is just as wrong, because he obviously doesn't get what it is that makes Apple, well, Apple. What's out there is good enough, but good enough isn't good enough for Apple.
It's sad to see the quality of CNet fall to these pathetic lows. This "perspective" is another case in point of the bias that CNet has shamelessly practiced for the last several years. The author is less interested in offering an informative point view supported by facts and more interested in artificially and shamefully inflaming a group of tech users based solely on their preference for Apple products.
The article, laughingly, isn't directed at an actual product but instead at hype and the enthusiasm of owners of Apple products. There is no iPhone as yet to critique, let alone flop. It's one thing for gadget aficionados to speculate and express desire for a product they may find appealing, yet another for what should be an objective news media outlet that consumers should be able to refer to for unbiased reports and reviews to slam a non-existent product simply because the presumed product is made by a company other than Microsoft.
Strangely, when the MS hype machine went into full gear prior to the Zune's release, a product that has been uniformly dismissed by the vast majority of tech reviewers as well as consumers, the criticism that CNet that is usually reserved for Apple's hype machine was nowhere to be found. Perhaps not so strange given CNet's downward spiral since the days of Sophie Formica. The site should just rename itself to MSNet.
The inconsistency and lack of credible standards that reviewers on this site have displayed aside, the issue of whether or not there is space in the cell phone market place for innovation remains open. It seems clear that there is a void in cell phone technology that could be filled. For example, I own a Motorola Q and despite it's "smartphone" moniker it's features are not easily accessible and buried under a cluttered, slow, and problematic OS. To a lesser degree this has been the case with Treo's running Palm.
Like it or not, Apple has a history of filling these voids with successful, easy to use, and appealing products. This is largely the reason why users of Apple products are enthusiastic about the prospect of an Apple iPhone, because Apple has been able to make technologically useful and elegant products. Given this history, an iPhone would likely be welcome in the cellphone market contrary to the bizarre attitudes of reviewers on this site.
"<snip> The author is less interested in offering an informative point view supported by facts and more interested in artificially and shamefully inflaming a group of tech users based solely on their preference for Apple products. "
:) I think he stated that very clearly at the start of his article.
I think the Mac faithful will buy the phone. But my V phone does everything I want so it will take some very MAJOR innovation to get me to even consider it no matter what shape or color it comes in.
I don't agree with your opinion that CNET is biased. Even while I'm reading your posting, an Apple ad is being played in the video box next to it. Nope, not biased at all.
They report IE and MS bugs quite a lot. The reviews they gave for the Zune were not favorable. There have been untold numbers of articles by CNET writers looking at Vista and not advising it to be installed yet. They weren't terribly impressed at this time. They also didn't hide those opinions.
The times I hear people complaining about CNET being biased against Apple products typically come from Apple fanatics. Funny thing is, I see the same comments from MS fanatics too whenever a new IE bug is reported. You can't have it both ways. Instead they are just reporting what they find, give opinions based on that. Is there any bias? Probably, but they have enough people pro and con for all the hardware and OS's to help balance it out.
The writer did post an opinion and it generated debate. That is not a bad thing. Discussions help get things into the open instead of hiding them. I'm not about to blame the writer for expressing their opinion just because I don't agree with them.
The article writer's poor grip and sucking up to Blackberry and Treo, which is a small part of the demographic, is quite disturbing. I think Apple is not the bees knees, especially their computers. But recgonize they see a market when they see it. This article and writer is being contrary for the sake of being contrary. And ignoring the obvious facts that MOST phones (check Cnets own reviews here) are pieces of garbage, who's OS's are poor, designed terribly, and who's features are terribly limited. The market is WIDE OPEN for simplification, ease of use and design. This is a universally obvious fact once you remove your lips from Treo and Blackberry...fringe devices to the global market of MASS USERS like Mom, Dad and the kids. Itunes. Ipod. These things are not for those with Hifi stereo or freebie hacking expectations, YET, they have been bonzo for Apple b/c those demographics I just mentioned are not the treaseure trove. These things I mention are not rocket science, yet this article is merely stupifying yammering about something just to tweak expectation, which is dead wrong, self-serving, and ignoring huge factors.
Your article is weak b/c of these silly and narrowminded notions, for the sake of tweaking the ubercool. Moreover, it is sloppy and ham-handed.
I don't know, I've owned probably fifty computers in my life spread across every OS imaginable. Six of my top ten were Apple products. They're just easier to use and don't get viruses. My MacBook runs Windows without any trouble, now I've got both worlds available in one machine.
It's all personal choice, but who's making better machines? Not cheaper, mind you, but better?
Instead of something worthwhile and insightful, he pulls a Dvorak.
Nice company you keep these days, MK. Your empty-headed column is a nice tribute to the actual hardworking, honest people at C|Net -would James Kim have trolled readers like you just did?
It would take a small miracle for Apple to convince me (assuming "iPhone" - hate the moniker, by the by - even exists) to drop my LG VX8600 to switch to just about anything else. I'll reserve judgment for there to actually be any solid evidence behind its foray into telephony, but it's going to need to be more than just a phone with iTunes on it and independently functioning parts (dual batteries and all that jazz). I do believe that's why I own an iPod, but it wouldn't be the first time Apple's cannibalized its own sales, so we shall see.
See, that's what Apple is all about... only techies would be happy buying a VX8600...
In the Apple world, where everything is well designed, not only hardware, but also the name... "iPod Video", "iPod Nano", "Macbook" "MacPro"...
Sure, there's options, but it's less confusing to the other 99.999999% of humans on earth who are not techies.
When Apple does something, it's usually very good... They might lack proper marketing to reach the mass, but their products are way better than the rest...
PS. I used to work for HP and always had a Mac at home... so do not say I know nothing of the PC world or that I am bias, I tasted both worlds before making my judgement.
The one point that you missed is one of the things that Apple does best, integration and experience. Apple's fone will integrate into all the applications on the Mac (iCal, Address book, Mail, etc...) just as easily as the iPod integrates with iTunes. This will make the "experience" of using the iFone, for a Mac user that is, way better than any other phone or PDA that exists today. Being a Mac user, I am holding out for it. if I were a Windoze or Linux user, It wouldn't be a big deal.
I also really liked the iBag, you hit the nail on the head with that one;-)
I've been hesitant to invest into an "all-inclusive" device, having noted what my friends and associates endure with their Treo, Blackjacks, Blackberry's, etc.
As a MacUser I welcome Apple's entry into this market.
I most likely won't be jumping on with the 1st Gen version of it, but after they work the initial bugs, I'll certainly welcome a device which runs native on my machine.
True, but the iPod had "the same features"--only on crack.
The iPod was "not much different" -- in that it was a small device that played mp3 music files. That defined many other players that preceded it. What separated it was that it took two feature categories of players -- storage and interface -- and went Apple-nuclear in those key design areas.
If Apple has something up its sleeve here that's iPod-like in its revolutionary features, the leaked details aren't showing it. It may be that this is sort of what the Rockr Motorola flop wanted to be but wasn't in Apple's hand. That would be fine, but nothing mind-blowing. I think it would rank as one of the most desirable phones, up there and probably surpassing the Razr's et. al
To reinvent something here -- or with some future iPod-derived device -- I'd personally be looking for Apple to reinvent an already-merged device that I already own -- but despearately want Apple to pull their magic on.
I want the nuclear-featured, Apple PocketMac version of: my PocketPC/Smartphone. (In my case, the Qtek/HTC wizard.)
I can't tell you how often I've wished that phone (plus PDA plus 2GB mp3 player) was not a PocketPC but a PocketMac. (The latter is the name of one piece of software that lets me sync basic data between my Mac and my PocketPC phone.)
So, if this was a quantum leap, it would blow PDAs, phones, and merged player/phones/pda's out of the water by essentially becoming a PocketMac beauty. And while doing "the same thing" PocketPC's do -- it would also bring iPod-like feature explosions.
Yeah, it syncs with your Mac, and like the PocketPC has corresponding applications that make it a porta-version of your desktop. But it does these things in advanced ways no device before it has. It seamlessly syncs Mac music, text, email, personal information -- media, entertainment, productivity... all in a massive storage, seamless OS context.
Of course, this is then a Mac-specific product and that's not their goal with a consumer device like this for the general phone market. So I don't expect that's what we're gonna see. Maybe it will be a bit more PDA-ish (let you edit notes, contacts, etc. on the iPod, which today you can't), but mainly just be among the nicest cell phones owners of phones and mp3 players could want.
I'm sorry but CNET is getting closer and closer to getting booted off my bookmarks. They have no shame, only bashing Apple to get more views. This Michael Kanellos fellow has no clue what he is talking about.
Michael, maybe you should wait and see what Apple came up with before you completely insult the company. After all Apple is one of the greatest software companies, and cell phones are in dire need of great software. If you want to bash a product, bash one that is already out like the Zune... but I guess then no one would read your article because no one cares (everyone already knows the Zune is a piece of junk).
He's pointing out the market for cell phones, not the fact that Apple is inadequate. You obviously don't read carefully but rather skim for commentary that makes you enraged. Apple is not going up against non-stylish small-fry companies, but now it introduced with an industry with REAL competition. Kanellos is pointing out the iPod effect won't happen in this situation, because there are just far too many other top notch selections in the cell phone industry, even if he did take a few subtle shots at the company.
So read the article before foolish rebutting with a ridiculous suggestion that they're seeking views, not to mention branching out in a complete and unrelated tangent of bring in the Zune... which you obviously never have used before. *sigh* Fan boys embarrass themselves too easily.
What is your problem? How does he insult the company? He clearly says that it will probably be a good product, just that people probably won't buy it after it's initial popularity. And I think he's right. I think that if apple does indeed make a phone, that it will wind up being the same as the zune. It'll be a nice device, but it'll be the answer to a question that nobody had. And realisticlly, do you actually think that apple computer's first effort on a cell phone will be perfect? You're totally setting yourself up for disappointment if you do.
The iPod wasn't a direct hit, it was big, expensive and didn't sell that good until it got smaller, bit more afordable, had an online marketplace and Windows compatibility.
The Sony Ericsson Walkman® Phones sell good purely on the outdated 'Walkman' brand, iPod + Phone is a guaranteed success if its a good product. A simple $250 iPod Nano 4GB with GSM capabilities will sell millions for sure.
Smart-phones are now largely dependent in MS software and you are not going to tell me that MS software can't be toped, the market is still wide open and has an audience that is buying a new phone every year or 2. A great opportunity for Apple and they simply have to be in this market, Japan already has 70% of there music downloads via the GSM networks.
Cell phone software is based on both linux and microsoft, but it's not hard to write a simple phone software system compared to a major OS. The phones with windows mobil 5 are becoming popular in the business world as you can connect to your corporate email just like a blackberry. Reguardless of make, most phones today give you the ability to download ringtones or entire songs but the sound quality isn't the same. But is that the point of having the phone? To listen to music? People want the phone to be "connected" to the rest of the world. I see internet access more of a requested feature than mp3 player. Apple would do well if they considered licensing the DRM in ipod to existing phone makers before it's too late. As it is, someone has already written an app that will let you load itunes songs on other mp3 devices than ipod. If apple makes a phone, they'll be going head to head with cell phone manufacturers with years of experience and technology under their belts. That's not so easy as you think.
He acts like a 13-year-old, taunting from behind a fence at the schoolyard.
Wouldn't want to Apple make your biggest advertiser's Smartphone business look bad, would you Mr. Kanellos? Why not just whip up a John Dvorak-sounding FUD article to keep people's expectations low.
In fact, it sure seems there's been a lot of anti-iPod articles here lately. Mike Kanellos - 45 going on 13.
a true success of a phone will work with several music services, the apple phone is just another itunes only ipod like device, the two will eventuall come out as one product for sure
You must have a different cell phone than I do. The interface is clunky, it looks like a second grader designed the phone case, and it takes a Ph.D. to navigate the menus.
Apple will come out with something that no other company could produce, and the iPhone will change how we communicate.
I'll look forward to your retraction in this space.
Mine's a Symbian S60 based gadget. It's got more features than I will ever use, all of them only a few button pushes away. Sure, the first software release has a few bugs, but I bought my phone on launch day, and the software update came out the following week. Easy update. No complaints.
Apple vs. Nokia, as the author rightly indicated, will be a tough fight.
iPhone will sell, not like iPod, but it will sell.
You're right iPod is not an everyday phenomenon for any company. To ask any company to come up with an iPod-type blockbuster every 6 years is asking too much. Sony had only two such products throughout it's whole life --the transistor radio and the Walkman.
So to say that iPhone will flop if it doesn't register iPod-like numbers is setting the bar to high.
iPod will sell enough though if only because it's made by Apple with the characteristic Apple design hallmarks: Looks great and works well.
Apple's long term gambit is pretty impressive. It's best-selling product, the iPod is in the $150 to $350 range. iPhone will probably fall within this range as well. That's perfectly callibrated to target teens and young adults. They all long to buy Macs but they can't afford them. Right now. Guess what computer they'll be buying as they get older and their incomes increase?
I've been wishing, hoping and yes, even ******** for a decent phone for years. Something functional and simple, beautiful would be alright as well. Unless you've been living under a rock the past 30 years, that is EXACTLY what Apple does. They care about the whole package, not just the superficial interests. I know you aren't...sharp enough, to make the correlation but things like the personal computer (an Apple innovation), laptops (another Apple innovation), colored cases (yet another Apple innovation), the iMac, Mac mini, Firewire, Final Cut Pro, iPod/ iTunes and more have a very obvious and marked effect on the rest of the technology world. Why do all of these stupid copy-cat mp3 players have a round "wheel-like" button for the navigation? It doesn't work, they made it round to COPY the iPod, unfortunately for them an actual "Click-wheel" works quite well for this. And iTunes just CAN NOT be beat for ease of use, simplicity and grace. It's called innovation, not many companies have it. (at least in a positive way) The Crackberry is a piece of junk. It's ugly as hell and the only reason it's popular and addictive is because it makes people "FEEL" important. "Oh, look how important I am... I need to reply to this email right this second on my Blackberry!"
I currently have a Sony Ericcson music phone (w810i) and while it is a decent phone, it is FAR from perfect (very, very far). The interface is clumsy and unintuitive, the hardware design, while looking nice, is poorly thought out and the process of transferring music is such a huge PITA that it's not even worth it. And I consider this to be one of the best phones on the market! If anyone could shake up the cellular market it's APPLE. I can't wait for my iPhone!
This genius would probably have ridiculed the caveman who invented the wheel. "It's awfully circular..."
Wow, what an insightful blog. It's nice to know that the trend continues, if you own a computer and have a connection to the internet you automatically become an expert in the field of your choice.
How does a self-proclaimed cheapskate have a say in the tech/ gizmo world anyhow? I guess living the "editor" life with the free equipment trials must be taking its toll.
I don't know anything about the opinions of anyone besides me and my friends, but I welcome the Apple iPhone. Give me an option besides these Blackberries, Treo and the Q. I don't want to have to obtain a degree in computer science to send an email or update my calendar. The Mac simplified my computer life, and the same ingenuity will hopefully eliminate the need to carry a phone and a music device in my pocket. So goodbye "smart" phone night courses and hello MacPhone, or not, but at least we'll have another option.
Just a suggestion Mr. Editor/tech-god, think of something to write before excreting the waste of time that you've just honoured my morning with. In other words, earn your pay cheque.
I don't recall if i've ever read this guy Michael Kanellos before, probably not. Someone else here compared him to Dvorak, another blogger. Dvoark makes a good 6 figure annual income insulting and deriding the efforts of others who make products we all use. Michael Kanellos and Dvorak do this because they don't have the talent or abilities to do the same, they are kind of like clever parasites thriving on the lives and work of others but not willing to take the financial risk of putting their own products (if they actually had some) on the line.
it's about merging 2 devices on my belt into 1, not about a 'better' phone
i agree with the comments that apple won't 'revolutionzie' the cell phone industry, but it will mean that my next iPod upgrade won't be to an iPod but to an iPhone. This will cannibalize some iPod sales, but at the rate of expiring equipment..
I don't know about your cell phone experience, but mine has been awful. The only cell phone manufacturer with a decent interface is NOKIA, but they are designed for 16 year old girls! I currently have a RAZR, which is beautiful. However it's interface is an embarrassment to modern man. My experience with ALL cell phones has been less then fullfilling.
but I play on on the net! HA! No seriously, have you seen the Oystr? It's the white flip phone by virgin mobile. Got it for my dad. Yeah, I know, but it's what he wanted. This phone was designed by someone that's color blind! The default colors and wallpaper were horrible! I had to change everything just to make it useable!
Me? I use a nokia 6030, which actually does feel like it's designed for 16 year old girls, so I've been gunning for a razr on ebay.
Does Tonka make a cellphone? How about Black and Decker or Craftsman?
The pages of Cnet have been hyping the Zune for months, but did you predict how much of a spectacular flop it has turned out to be? If so, then maybe I will listen to your diatribe about a product which doesn't even exist. If not, then I suspect you were probably one of the head Zune cheerleaders, and I would hope we'd see a retraction about how wrong you were.
Manage updates with the Download App
writes. I could care less if he's been around for awhile. I've been
around longer. Respecting ones opinion isn't based upon how long
they've been around, but what they have accomplished in DIRECT
correlation to what they are writing/talking about.
But your comment, at this time is completely inappropriate.
they can make, and the iPod is on track for another outstanding, if
not record, quarter. Stop being an Apple hater, and accept things
as they are.
than a rumor, will flop. Do you own a crystal ball, hear voices,
commune with the dead, etc. Do us all a favor and report on news,
not your silly little opinions.
ridiculous! Who cares about an MP3 player?"
- "All that hype for an MP3 player? Break-thru digital device? The
Reality Distiortion Field is starting to warp Steve's mind if he
thinks for one second that this thing is gonna take off."
- "Better bring that price down or you wont sell any of these
babies"
Comments from clueless readers at MacCentral after the 2001
iPod introduction.
I bought one in the first five minutes after they were on the
Apple store, and am on my third iPod. I had been looking at MP3
players for about six months before the iPod was introduced.
But their capacities were way too small and they cost way too
much. The iPod did cost a lot, but for what it was, it blew
everything else out of the water if you were using Macs.
I have a Blackberry Pearl and love it. But the faults in its software
are significant. I can see how Apple could make it look like stone
tablets in comparison. And that's why the iPhone will succeed. I
got the Blackberry with the idea that after a few generations they
are going to be much better, just like the iPods went.
So, as those commentators were back in 2001, this self-
described cheapest person in the world writer is just as wrong,
because he obviously doesn't get what it is that makes Apple,
well, Apple. What's out there is good enough, but good enough
isn't good enough for Apple.
This "perspective" is another case in point of the bias that CNet
has shamelessly practiced for the last several years. The author
is less interested in offering an informative point view supported
by facts and more interested in artificially and shamefully
inflaming a group of tech users based solely on their preference
for Apple products.
The article, laughingly, isn't directed at an actual product but
instead at hype and the enthusiasm of owners of Apple
products. There is no iPhone as yet to critique, let alone flop.
It's one thing for gadget aficionados to speculate and express
desire for a product they may find appealing, yet another for
what should be an objective news media outlet that consumers
should be able to refer to for unbiased reports and reviews to
slam a non-existent product simply because the presumed
product is made by a company other than Microsoft.
Strangely, when the MS hype machine went into full gear prior to
the Zune's release, a product that has been uniformly dismissed
by the vast majority of tech reviewers as well as consumers, the
criticism that CNet that is usually reserved for Apple's hype
machine was nowhere to be found. Perhaps not so strange
given CNet's downward spiral since the days of Sophie Formica.
The site should just rename itself to MSNet.
The inconsistency and lack of credible standards that reviewers
on this site have displayed aside, the issue of whether or not
there is space in the cell phone market place for innovation
remains open. It seems clear that there is a void in cell phone
technology that could be filled. For example, I own a Motorola Q
and despite it's "smartphone" moniker it's features are not easily
accessible and buried under a cluttered, slow, and problematic
OS. To a lesser degree this has been the case with Treo's
running Palm.
Like it or not, Apple has a history of filling these voids with
successful, easy to use, and appealing products. This is largely
the reason why users of Apple products are enthusiastic about
the prospect of an Apple iPhone, because Apple has been able to
make technologically useful and elegant products. Given this
history, an iPhone would likely be welcome in the cellphone
market contrary to the bizarre attitudes of reviewers on this site.
is less interested in offering an informative point view supported
by facts and more interested in artificially and shamefully
inflaming a group of tech users based solely on their preference
for Apple products. "
:) I think he stated that very clearly at the start of his article.
I think the Mac faithful will buy the phone. But my V phone does everything I want so it will take some very MAJOR innovation to get me to even consider it no matter what shape or color it comes in.
They report IE and MS bugs quite a lot. The reviews they gave for the Zune were not favorable. There have been untold numbers of articles by CNET writers looking at Vista and not advising it to be installed yet. They weren't terribly impressed at this time. They also didn't hide those opinions.
The times I hear people complaining about CNET being biased against Apple products typically come from Apple fanatics. Funny thing is, I see the same comments from MS fanatics too whenever a new IE bug is reported. You can't have it both ways. Instead they are just reporting what they find, give opinions based on that. Is there any bias? Probably, but they have enough people pro and con for all the hardware and OS's to help balance it out.
The writer did post an opinion and it generated debate. That is not a bad thing. Discussions help get things into the open instead of hiding them. I'm not about to blame the writer for expressing their opinion just because I don't agree with them.
Your article is weak b/c of these silly and narrowminded notions, for the sake of tweaking the ubercool. Moreover, it is sloppy and ham-handed.
- B.D. Gallof
across every OS imaginable. Six of my top ten were Apple
products. They're just easier to use and don't get viruses. My
MacBook runs Windows without any trouble, now I've got both
worlds available in one machine.
It's all personal choice, but who's making better machines? Not
cheaper, mind you, but better?
Nice company you keep these days, MK. Your empty-headed
column is a nice tribute to the actual hardworking, honest people
at C|Net -would James Kim have trolled readers like you just did?
You should have bought yourself a convertible and got a mistress like other folks who face a mid-life crisis.
You missed the boat, again. Deal with it.
BTW, happy birthday.
Tony
buying a VX8600...
In the Apple world, where everything is well designed, not only
hardware, but also the name... "iPod Video", "iPod Nano",
"Macbook" "MacPro"...
Sure, there's options, but it's less confusing to the other
99.999999% of humans on earth who are not techies.
When Apple does something, it's usually very good... They might
lack proper marketing to reach the mass, but their products are
way better than the rest...
PS. I used to work for HP and always had a Mac at home... so do
not say I know nothing of the PC world or that I am bias, I tasted
both worlds before making my judgement.
does best, integration and experience. Apple's fone will
integrate into all the applications on the Mac (iCal, Address
book, Mail, etc...) just as easily as the iPod integrates with
iTunes. This will make the "experience" of using the iFone, for a
Mac user that is, way better than any other phone or PDA that
exists today. Being a Mac user, I am holding out for it. if I were a
Windoze or Linux user, It wouldn't be a big deal.
I also really liked the iBag, you hit the nail on the head with that
one;-)
noted what my friends and associates endure with their Treo,
Blackjacks, Blackberry's, etc.
As a MacUser I welcome Apple's entry into this market.
I most likely won't be jumping on with the 1st Gen version of it, but
after they work the initial bugs, I'll certainly welcome a device
which runs native on my machine.
If Apple has something up its sleeve here that's iPod-like in its revolutionary features, the leaked details aren't showing it. It may be that this is sort of what the Rockr Motorola flop wanted to be but wasn't in Apple's hand. That would be fine, but nothing mind-blowing. I think it would rank as one of the most desirable phones, up there and probably surpassing the Razr's et. al
To reinvent something here -- or with some future iPod-derived device -- I'd personally be looking for Apple to reinvent an already-merged device that I already own -- but despearately want Apple to pull their magic on.
I want the nuclear-featured, Apple PocketMac version of: my PocketPC/Smartphone. (In my case, the Qtek/HTC wizard.)
I can't tell you how often I've wished that phone (plus PDA plus 2GB mp3 player) was not a PocketPC but a PocketMac. (The latter is the name of one piece of software that lets me sync basic data between my Mac and my PocketPC phone.)
So, if this was a quantum leap, it would blow PDAs, phones, and merged player/phones/pda's out of the water by essentially becoming a PocketMac beauty. And while doing "the same thing" PocketPC's do -- it would also bring iPod-like feature explosions.
Yeah, it syncs with your Mac, and like the PocketPC has corresponding applications that make it a porta-version of your desktop. But it does these things in advanced ways no device before it has. It seamlessly syncs Mac music, text, email, personal information -- media, entertainment, productivity... all in a massive storage, seamless OS context.
Of course, this is then a Mac-specific product and that's not their goal with a consumer device like this for the general phone market. So I don't expect that's what we're gonna see. Maybe it will be a bit more PDA-ish (let you edit notes, contacts, etc. on the iPod, which today you can't), but mainly just be among the nicest cell phones owners of phones and mp3 players could want.
off my bookmarks. They have no shame, only bashing Apple to
get more views. This Michael Kanellos fellow has no clue what he
is talking about.
Michael, maybe you should wait and see what Apple came up
with before you completely insult the company. After all Apple is
one of the greatest software companies, and cell phones are in
dire need of great software. If you want to bash a product, bash
one that is already out like the Zune... but I guess then no one
would read your article because no one cares (everyone already
knows the Zune is a piece of junk).
He's pointing out the market for cell phones, not the fact that Apple is inadequate. You obviously don't read carefully but rather skim for commentary that makes you enraged. Apple is not going up against non-stylish small-fry companies, but now it introduced with an industry with REAL competition. Kanellos is pointing out the iPod effect won't happen in this situation, because there are just far too many other top notch selections in the cell phone industry, even if he did take a few subtle shots at the company.
So read the article before foolish rebutting with a ridiculous suggestion that they're seeking views, not to mention branching out in a complete and unrelated tangent of bring in the Zune... which you obviously never have used before. *sigh* Fan boys embarrass themselves too easily.
that good until it got smaller, bit more afordable, had an online
marketplace and Windows compatibility.
The Sony Ericsson Walkman® Phones sell good purely on the
outdated 'Walkman' brand, iPod + Phone is a guaranteed success
if its a good product. A simple $250 iPod Nano 4GB with GSM
capabilities will sell millions for sure.
Smart-phones are now largely dependent in MS software and
you are not going to tell me that MS software can't be toped, the
market is still wide open and has an audience that is buying a
new phone every year or 2. A great opportunity for Apple and
they simply have to be in this market, Japan already has 70% of
there music downloads via the GSM networks.
schoolyard.
Wouldn't want to Apple make your biggest advertiser's
Smartphone business look bad, would you Mr. Kanellos? Why not
just whip up a John Dvorak-sounding FUD article to keep
people's expectations low.
In fact, it sure seems there's been a lot of anti-iPod articles here
lately. Mike Kanellos - 45 going on 13.
clunky, it looks like a second grader designed the phone case, and
it takes a Ph.D. to navigate the menus.
Apple will come out with something that no other company could
produce, and the iPhone will change how we communicate.
I'll look forward to your retraction in this space.
I've got a different cell phone to you too.
Mine's a Symbian S60 based gadget. It's got more features than I will ever use, all of them only a few button pushes away. Sure, the first software release has a few bugs, but I bought my phone on launch day, and the software update came out the following week. Easy update. No complaints.
Apple vs. Nokia, as the author rightly indicated, will be a tough fight.
So to say that iPhone will flop if it doesn't register iPod-like numbers is setting the bar to high.
iPod will sell enough though if only because it's made by Apple with the characteristic Apple design hallmarks: Looks great and works well.
Apple's long term gambit is pretty impressive. It's best-selling product, the iPod is in the $150 to $350 range. iPhone will probably fall within this range as well. That's perfectly callibrated to target teens and young adults. They all long to buy Macs but they can't afford them. Right now. Guess what computer they'll be buying as they get older and their incomes increase?
phone for years. Something functional and simple, beautiful
would be alright as well. Unless you've been living under a rock
the past 30 years, that is EXACTLY what Apple does. They care
about the whole package, not just the superficial interests. I
know you aren't...sharp enough, to make the correlation but
things like the personal computer (an Apple innovation), laptops
(another Apple innovation), colored cases (yet another Apple
innovation), the iMac, Mac mini, Firewire, Final Cut Pro, iPod/
iTunes and more have a very obvious and marked effect on the
rest of the technology world. Why do all of these stupid copy-cat
mp3 players have a round "wheel-like" button for the
navigation? It doesn't work, they made it round to COPY the
iPod, unfortunately for them an actual "Click-wheel" works quite
well for this. And iTunes just CAN NOT be beat for ease of use,
simplicity and grace. It's called innovation, not many companies
have it. (at least in a positive way)
The Crackberry is a piece of junk. It's ugly as hell and the only
reason it's popular and addictive is because it makes people
"FEEL" important. "Oh, look how important I am... I need to reply
to this email right this second on my Blackberry!"
I currently have a Sony Ericcson music phone (w810i) and while
it is a decent phone, it is FAR from perfect (very, very far). The
interface is clumsy and unintuitive, the hardware design, while
looking nice, is poorly thought out and the process of
transferring music is such a huge PITA that it's not even worth it.
And I consider this to be one of the best phones on the market!
If anyone could shake up the cellular market it's APPLE. I can't
wait for my iPhone!
invented the wheel. "It's awfully circular..."
Wow, what an insightful blog. It's nice to know that the trend
continues, if you own a computer and have a connection to the
internet you automatically become an expert in the field of your
choice.
How does a self-proclaimed cheapskate have a say in the tech/
gizmo world anyhow? I guess living the "editor" life with the free
equipment trials must be taking its toll.
I don't know anything about the opinions of anyone besides me
and my friends, but I welcome the Apple iPhone. Give me an
option besides these Blackberries, Treo and the Q. I don't want
to have to obtain a degree in computer science to send an email
or update my calendar. The Mac simplified my computer life,
and the same ingenuity will hopefully eliminate the need to carry
a phone and a music device in my pocket. So goodbye "smart"
phone night courses and hello MacPhone, or not, but at least
we'll have another option.
Just a suggestion Mr. Editor/tech-god, think of something to
write before excreting the waste of time that you've just
honoured my morning with. In other words, earn your pay
cheque.
probably not. Someone else here compared him to Dvorak,
another blogger. Dvoark makes a good 6 figure annual income
insulting and deriding the efforts of others who make products
we all use. Michael Kanellos and Dvorak do this because they
don't have the talent or abilities to do the same, they are kind of
like clever parasites thriving on the lives and work of others but
not willing to take the financial risk of putting their own
products (if they actually had some) on the line.
awful. The only cell phone manufacturer with a decent interface is
NOKIA, but they are designed for 16 year old girls! I currently
have a RAZR, which is beautiful. However it's interface is an
embarrassment to modern man. My experience with ALL cell
phones has been less then fullfilling.
Me? I use a nokia 6030, which actually does feel like it's designed for 16 year old girls, so I've been gunning for a razr on ebay.
Does Tonka make a cellphone? How about Black and Decker or Craftsman?