iphone
January 9, 2007 1:51 AM   Subscribe

iphone is this it ?
posted by baker dave (132 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
wow
posted by baker dave at 1:53 AM on January 9, 2007


Well that's kinda exactly what I expected it to look like. Don't ask me what "kinda exactly" means. If you do, I'll sue you to next Tuesday.
posted by brundlefly at 1:58 AM on January 9, 2007


No.
posted by markdj at 2:01 AM on January 9, 2007


is this it ?

I dunno. Link in the story didn't work for me. This article is useless without....! Oh, sorry, wrong site.
posted by zardoz at 2:02 AM on January 9, 2007


Outdated-and-debunked-one-link-rumor-filter
posted by nathan_teske at 2:05 AM on January 9, 2007


With all these rumors about new iPods and the such, I'm wondering if now is really the time to be investing in a 5G video iPod 80GB. I really want one but the rumors surrounding this new up and coming iPod (WiFi, touch screen etc) sound really cool.

Not so keen on the iPod phone concept though, even if it is a fake.
posted by Effigy2000 at 2:17 AM on January 9, 2007


Effigy, all of 2007's big new Apple products will be announced in about 7 hours.

I'm sure that's why baker dave posted this today, but why such a dated rumor?
posted by roll truck roll at 2:24 AM on January 9, 2007


Well, no, it's not. This story's from September last year, and three days later the Reg cleared it up with this story that the picture was actually an 'artists impression' from MacUser in the UK.

While we're at it, may as well link this opinion piece, which gives a pretty good arguement on why and venture by Apple into the mobile phone arena will fail.
posted by MattWPBS at 2:26 AM on January 9, 2007


Yeah, literally dated. It has the date, and time, right there on the page: 14th September 2006 12:28 GMT. Yes, THIS IS IT (for many different but all unpleasant values of 'it').
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 2:28 AM on January 9, 2007


7 hours??? I can't wait that long! [/sarcasm]

But then, given I don't have enough cash to get my iPod for at least another two weeks anyway, I might as well.
posted by Effigy2000 at 2:29 AM on January 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


Why would I need a phone made by Apple?

What the hell is it going to do that my Nokia doesn't do, except cost more and make me look like a little bit of a douche?

I'm serious. A telephone you can carry with you is hardly a technological breakthrough. Nor is packing lots of processing power and memory into a phone so it can do more than call your mother.
posted by Jimbob at 2:59 AM on January 9, 2007 [2 favorites]


What the hell is it going to do that my Nokia doesn't do, except cost more and make me look like a little bit of a douche?

I'm serious. A telephone you can carry with you is hardly a technological breakthrough. Nor is packing lots of processing power and memory into a phone so it can do more than call your mother.


Into the time machine to 2001, where you could've just as easily said this:

What the hell is it going to do that my Creative Nomad Jukebox doesn't do, except cost more and make me look like a little bit of a douche?

I'm serious. A portable audio player that plays MP3s is hardly a technological breakthrough. Nor is packing lots of storage space into a player so it can play more than 20 songs.


When the iPod came out, it wasn't all that innovative, only worked with Macs, and cost an arm and a leg. By all rights, it should've failed. And yet here we are today, with the iPod the undisputed king of the MP3 player universe. All of that despite its many initial shortcomings.

Will Apple strike gold again with an iPhone? Who the hell knows? But I once thought the iPod wasn't going to sell, and I was wrong. And then Apple put out the iPod mini, I still thought it wasn't going to sell, and I was wrong again. At this point, my bookie's refusing to let me bet against Apple. (Roo bad for me—I would've cleaned up betting against that stupid iPod jukebox contraption.)
posted by chrominance at 3:15 AM on January 9, 2007


Why would I need a phone made by Apple?

You certainly won't need one. But you might want one. Why? Because Apple has a history of making products that people want/like to use. Of course, you may not be one of those people. I'm not - my next phone is going to be something in the "phoneswithqwertykeyboards" arena - but I can see why people might want one.
posted by antifuse at 3:18 AM on January 9, 2007


#1: it wont be called iphone - linksys/cisco have the iphone trademark in the US, and just released an iPhone last week.
posted by SirOmega at 3:25 AM on January 9, 2007


well, you can't win 'em all. baker dave, i sincerely hope you don't get discouraged to make future posts, but instead simply regard this as an incentive to make less "rush to the presses" style posts next time, and focus more on interesting content that doesn't require being first to be best.
posted by shmegegge at 3:30 AM on January 9, 2007


Will Apple strike gold again with an iPhone? Who the hell knows?

This was discussed here just the other day, chrominance.

Sure, when Apple released the iPod there were other harddrive-based mp3 players around. But they mostly sucked, and they were a fairly minor, elite item that not many people were aware of. Most people couldn't even understand why you would want to carry 5gig of mp3s around with you. The iPod came and changed that perception, through both quality and marketing.

But mobile phones? Everyone's already got one. Companies like Nokia are good at making them. Making nice, quality, functional ones. People know what they want in one. It's the difference between creating a market that barely existed, and attempting to expand into a market that is already mature and highly competitive. If they haven't got anything to offer beyond a brand, I ask again, what's the point?
posted by Jimbob at 3:34 AM on January 9, 2007


When the iPod came out, it wasn't all that innovative, only worked with Macs, and cost an arm and a leg. By all rights, it should've failed.

It was the first one to use a 1.8 inch hard disk and a FireWire connection, which were both major technological breakthroughs that meant the difference between a useful and a useless product.

The niche for Apple is the huge number of people that have music-capable phones but don't use them. But the barrier of requiring them to switch to an Apple cellphone and possible an Apple carrier is very high. I'm looking forward to seeing how they plan to get around it.
posted by cillit bang at 3:38 AM on January 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


I go back and forth on the viability of Apple entering the phone market.

On the plus side, you've got the relatively low costs of startup via the MVNO route. Also helping, Apple's acquisition costs would be darn close to zero (at least at the outset), and churn rate would also be relatively low given initense brand loyalty (both statements of course assume they've got a seriously competitive product).

On the negative side - well, others upthread have posted links to most of the counter arguments.
posted by Mutant at 3:43 AM on January 9, 2007


it needs a keyboard and a detachable back scratcher
posted by evilelvis at 3:44 AM on January 9, 2007


I'd draw people's attention to the Bill Ray piece I linked. There's a few very good points in there, but to pull out the ones I think'll most likely sink Apple's phone:

* The mobile business is already incredibly innovative. Proper digital cameras, proper internet access, proper games, proper music players, etc. You're not exactly going to find it hard to find a phone that does all of these things, and most contracts (at least in the UK) will allow you to have this for free. Which brings us onto...

* The network buys the phone, not the customer. They get back the cost of the phone from the profits they make on the network services. Apple's not going to be able to sell many expensive unsubsidised 'iPhones' when the consumer can get the competition's model for no cost up front.
posted by MattWPBS at 3:47 AM on January 9, 2007


Couldn't we wait until the thing is actually announced?
posted by octothorpe at 3:48 AM on January 9, 2007


* The mobile business is already incredibly innovative.

No, it's not. The interface for most phones SUCKS hardcore. Having gotten a spiffy new SonyEricsson Z525 for Christmas, I'm amazed at cumbersome the damn is to use. Cellphones are no longer useful devices with lots of neat features. They're marking devices for the cell phone to sell you more crap and oh yeah, here's some useful functions buried underneath all that.

If Apple can strip out a lot of the BS and concentrate on the truly useful features, they might carve out their niche.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:06 AM on January 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


My guess is it won't be an iphone, it'll be a bluetooth enabled ipod so that you can use wireless headphones and wireless synching.
posted by furtive at 4:09 AM on January 9, 2007


Who needs a phone made by Apple?

I do. I leave for work in the morning and on the way out I put in my pockets my phone, my iPod, my camera, my wallet and my keys. If Apple can make one device to serve as phone/camera/iPod then I'll be all over that like a rash.

Or am I missing the point and presuming that any Apple phone will also be an iPod and have a camera on it?
posted by The Ultimate Olympian at 4:09 AM on January 9, 2007


A combined phone/music player/camera? Are you crazy?
posted by cillit bang at 4:13 AM on January 9, 2007


Jimbob, one word - iTunes integration. OK, two words. :-) People buy iPods because the interface and integration between their music libraries and device is superb. That's the bottom line. The new Apple phone should leverage that reputation (if they've got any sense). Mind you, that still doesn't guarantee success, because as you've said there's a lot of competition out there in the handset market.
posted by Duug at 4:13 AM on January 9, 2007


Jesus christ would I be happy to never hear of the iPhone again.

(Sorry, just came from digg)
posted by teem at 4:25 AM on January 9, 2007


It's retarded for apple not to have an iPod phone. Why would someone want to carry around an iPod and a phone? And with more and more phones being able to play mp3s off larger and larger flash memory devices, the need for a separate iPod dwindles. The iPhone won't revolutionize the telephone market, but it will keep the iPod relevant in the future.

I mean really, we have bunch of little computerized devices we can carry around. Cellphone, PDA/web client, mp3 player, and cameras/camcorders. Why are they all separate devices? There's really no good reason, other then the desire to keep phone handsets proprietary so that phone companies can charge $2.50 for a fucking ring tone.

In a few years I think, every device will have the same basic feature set: A camera, a web client, mp3 (and video) playback, and a camera. Some devices will be optimized for diffrent uses (like a large screen for web surfing, or a big lense for a camera) but they'll all have the same features.

The iPhone won't revolutionize anything except the wet dreams of apple fanboys.
posted by delmoi at 4:28 AM on January 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


A combined phone/music player/camera? Are you crazy?

A Sony? I'd rather shoot myself in the head then deal with their bogus ATRAC DRM insanity.

Still there are lots of devices that can make phone calls and play mp3s, and take pictures. Not very good pictures though, so people will probably need to keep using a small camera.
posted by delmoi at 4:32 AM on January 9, 2007


Apple introducing a cell-phone is like Kodak introducing an instant camera. (Polaroid sued Kodak for infringement of its patents. Kodak paid $750m in damages and quickly exited from the business.)

The incumbent cell phone manufacturers hold all of the key patents (6 page pdf). Apple has none. This will not end well for Apple.
posted by three blind mice at 4:32 AM on January 9, 2007


Apple has none. This will not end well for Apple.

Unless Apple licensed the relevant patents, just like they pay a license fee to Fraunhofer for putting an MP3 encoder/decoder into iTunes.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:40 AM on January 9, 2007


For me, the biggest reason Apple will release a phone, if not today then soon, is that every cell phone ad on TV is hyping the music capabilities of the phone. The Fusic, the Blackjack, the Chocolate. Can't remember seeing a cellphone ad recently that wasn't about music. (Talking exclusively phone ads, not cell service provider ads.) Apple has to protect their lead in the music-on-the-go arena and cellphones that play music are the biggest threat to that.
posted by chris24 at 4:57 AM on January 9, 2007


A few (obvious) things Apple can do with a phone:
  • Music and video integration with iTMS - duh.
  • Address sync / integration with OS X
  • Buddy sync / integration with AIM/.Mac (possibly including video)
  • "Enhanced" remote control capability with Front Row via Bluetooth
I'll bet there's more than that, but Apple is known for it's decent integration of hardware and software - music may be the "front and centre" thing right now, but I can't see that being the only place that Apple would innovate in this space. They're all about the compelling experience, not just a basic service.
posted by lowlife at 5:08 AM on January 9, 2007


Unless Apple licensed the relevant patents, just like they pay a license fee to Fraunhofer for putting an MP3 encoder/decoder into iTunes.

That's the point. MP3 Licensing takes $0,75 per unit. There are 25+ companies that claim patents on essential cell-phone technology. The math doesn't work in Apple's favor.
posted by three blind mice at 5:10 AM on January 9, 2007


Christ, what an asshole.
posted by Rhomboid at 5:28 AM on January 9, 2007


I see what happened here. Apple released some product mockups to be used as promotional material, but an overzealous newspaper decided to print them like they were a product already complete and ready for market.

That said, what -is- the (upcoming) difference between this iPhone Apple Phone and all of the mp3-capable phones out there already? You can get a 4gb micro-SD card now.
posted by tehloki at 5:29 AM on January 9, 2007


Still doesn't beat the Wasp T12.
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:36 AM on January 9, 2007


There are 25+ companies that claim patents on essential cell-phone technology. The math doesn't work in Apple's favor.

Do you have a precise breakdown of what Apple would have to pay to each of the 25+ companies? I'd just figure Apple would have to license CDMA from Qualcomm, from what I've read on the rumor sites.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:43 AM on January 9, 2007


Maybe they'll make a phone that doesn't take 2 seconds to get to the next menu. Unlike my Nokia N70.

Lots of distance to go with mobile OSs...
posted by i_cola at 5:59 AM on January 9, 2007


What the hell is it going to do that my Nokia doesn't do, except cost more and make me look like a little bit of a douche?

Well, it's a pretty fair bet the Apple-designed interface, apps and hardware won't suck. Over the years, I have extensively used cell phones from Toshiba (aka Audiovox), Motorola, Siemens and Sony/Ericsson, but most of all, Nokia. I am generally a pretty big fan of Nokia, and believe they have the best software. These days, in fact, I have a Nokia 6682 that runs Symbian, and ... it's OK. There are many things about the phone that are great, and there's no question it's feature-packed, but consider that it contains:

  • 3 different music players, each with a different interface, and different ideas about where the music is stored
  • A camera that takes OK pictures, but, despite the 64MB of RAM in the phone, and the 512MB of Flash memory on a card, about half the time lets me take a picture and THEN complains that it "doesn't have enough memory to store the photo"
  • Miserable lack of integration between the phone book, calendar and other apps
  • Spotty, inconsistent Bluetooth connectivity to the earpiece - half the time, it recognizes that the earpiece has been turned on, and selects the right profile but doesn't actually send any audio to the earpiece
  • A wired headset that works (worked) OK and is nicely built but equipped with a connector that requires both hands, both eyes, good lighting, and undivided attention to attach - and which is also so insanely fragile one slip breaks it and renders it useless
  • etc

    ... and this is the best I've seen to date! I returned the Motorola I had previously because the hardware was fine but the software made it unusable, and danced with joy when the Siemens I had before that finally died (after a year) and was able to replace it with a clear conscience.

    So what can Apple bring to the world of cell phones? A little rationality, coherence and consistency in interface design and integration, so that it at least feels like it was designed by one company, not a gaggle of competing, schizophrenic drunken circus midgets (apologies to any schizophrenic drunken circus midgets who are reading this).

  • posted by kcds at 6:11 AM on January 9, 2007


    On preview, yes to what i_cola said too - my Nokia 6682 is just plain slow to switch apps.
    posted by kcds at 6:12 AM on January 9, 2007


    > I see what happened here. Apple released some product mockups to be used as promotional material...

    ...or else yet another news editor was suckered by an ambitious fan's Photoshop job.
    posted by ardgedee at 6:13 AM on January 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


    I bet Apple releases the Newton III.
    posted by craniac at 6:22 AM on January 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


    But the barrier of requiring them to switch to an Apple cellphone and possible an Apple carrier is very high.

    This is a moment when I don't miss North America. See, in the rest of the world, phones can be used on any carrier. I could have my nokia on T-Mobile, Virgin, whatever. The phones you buy from service providers or with a contract often come "locked", but unlocking them is simple.

    I seriously doubt that Apple will start providing cell phone service. Nokia doesn't, not in the UK. But their phones are everywhere.
    posted by jb at 6:27 AM on January 9, 2007


    Ding! ding! ding! kcds for the win!

    So what can Apple bring to the world of cell phones? A little rationality, coherence and consistency in interface design and integration, so that it at least feels like it was designed by one company, not a gaggle of competing, schizophrenic drunken circus midgets (apologies to any schizophrenic drunken circus midgets who are reading this).

    I'm a big Nokia fan. Every other phone brand I've ever had has quickly been eBayed. But if you give me a phone with a video iPod that will allow me to sync up my iCal/etc without any annoying third-party software...

    (also, I'd give a limb to have some sort of .Mac-ian service that would allow me to update my home computer's calendar remotely from the phone)

    ...as well as iTunes integration, that works with a Bluetooth headset....... well, even if I have to pay to get out of our current contract AND pay a premium for some Apple-branded carrier service, I'm there.
    posted by bitter-girl.com at 7:07 AM on January 9, 2007


    Yeah.. my Treo 650p does all of this and more (incl. remote syncing!), but it doesn't do any of it particularly well -- it's kinda clunky, kinda bulky, and takes a fair bit of geek fu to get the most out of it. If the iPhone can really nail the phone + music + camera device and make it appealing & accessible to the masses, it'll have a winner.

    Bonus points if it can stream music over the air (Treo 650 can...) and update podcasts wirelessly -- besides having a presumably slick interface, this is where this device can really differentiate itself. I mean this is an iPod with a ubiquitous internet connection, after all.
    posted by LordSludge at 7:40 AM on January 9, 2007


    I guess I'm in the minority of people that just want a cell phone that can make calls well.
    posted by drezdn at 7:45 AM on January 9, 2007


    A Sony? I'd rather shoot myself in the head then deal with their bogus ATRAC DRM insanity.

    I have one of those. It plays ordinary MP3s and AACs from a 4GB memory card, loaded from iTunes. I don't think it even can play ATRAC.
    posted by cillit bang at 7:51 AM on January 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


    Wake me when it comes with all of the above, plus GPS. Then it might get interesting.
    posted by flabdablet at 8:23 AM on January 9, 2007


    If Apple can make one device to serve as phone/camera/iPod then I'll be all over that like a rash.

    In principle, this is reasonable, but it seems to me we have visited this issue (convergence) before about 8 or so years ago. From a usability perspective, is it possible that one device can still perform multiple disparate tasks and still be engaging and easy to use? The cell phone/mp3 player requirement has been addressed by a number of vendors already, but it seems to fail on two fronts: 1. playing mp3's reduces battery life for when you need the phone and 2. hard-disk iPod styles storage space adds unnecessary heft to the phone.

    I'll love to see how Apple addresses these concerns and manages their usual streamlined design (the image in the photo on the FPP looks like too much of a brick to be useful). Guess we'll all know shortly.
    posted by psmealey at 8:32 AM on January 9, 2007


    I'll tell you why it's not real: Apple updated their headphone design with the new nanos and shuffles. The headphones in that picture are black, but the old design otherwise.

    25 minutes, mac nerds... Get your credit cards ready.

    /huge mac nerd
    posted by sdrawkcab at 8:35 AM on January 9, 2007


    I have a bluetooth Motorola/Nextel phone that I can't access via bluetooth, takes lousy pictures, drops 40% of the calls I make, and has a byzantine navigation system that causes me to throw my hands up in despair every time I want to actually use its media "capabilities." It tries to do too much on the cheap, and ends up doing nothing well. I will pay money for a phone that works when I want to make phone calls and integrates well with my address book. MP3 capability is a distant third down my list of things I need from a phone, but I s'pose I wouldn't hate it, if it, you know, worked.
    posted by Devils Rancher at 8:57 AM on January 9, 2007


    cheer's, shmegegge got a bit too giddy , did not see the date at the top of the page, sorry if i upset any of the metafilter community . . . (NOT) p.s, let me know when we get the "stylish" microsoft zunephone , thanks for looking dave
    posted by baker dave at 9:00 AM on January 9, 2007


    an iPhone with all those capabilities sounds nice, but I will just wait until they sell robots that do all my thinking and remembering for me.
    posted by Uther Bentrazor at 9:02 AM on January 9, 2007


    Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Apple already try to get into the phone business?
    posted by drezdn at 9:11 AM on January 9, 2007


    "Apple is about to touch off a nuclear war. The Nokias and the Motorolas will have to respond"

    Soon we shall know, I guess. Me? Whatever it is, I'll keep my $20 Nokia TracFone.
    posted by The Deej at 9:31 AM on January 9, 2007


    Woo, iPhone is real!
    posted by matthewr at 9:44 AM on January 9, 2007


    Wow, widescreen iPod, too.
    posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:45 AM on January 9, 2007


    Yeh, what's the "Internet Communicator" aspect?
    posted by Mutant at 9:48 AM on January 9, 2007


    Maybe this is the iChat-in-a-phone functionality that's been rumored.
    posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:49 AM on January 9, 2007


    Wow, that's beautiful.
    posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:50 AM on January 9, 2007


    Nifty it runs OSX, apparently full sync
    posted by Mutant at 9:52 AM on January 9, 2007


    I, for one, will welcome the chance to scratch the fuck out of that touch screen and then bitch about it on the Intermotron.
    posted by sparkletone at 9:52 AM on January 9, 2007


    Links?
    posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 9:53 AM on January 9, 2007


    http://www.macrumorslive.com/
    posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:54 AM on January 9, 2007


    Kraft: link
    posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:54 AM on January 9, 2007


    Of course it's real... there's been so much inadvertent marketing for apple by obsessive fanatics anticipating an iPhone, they would be retarded NOT to release one. The question is: will it suck?
    posted by tehloki at 9:54 AM on January 9, 2007




    Thanks for the links, guys. For a moment I thought the new iPhone was THIS... and boy is that thing ugly.
    posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 9:56 AM on January 9, 2007


    MacRumors' general coverage is a bit better, but Engadget's got better photos.

    For people who like ... pictures. Wink wink, nudge nudge.
    posted by sparkletone at 9:58 AM on January 9, 2007


    I'm having a little geek orgasm. My credit card is standing by.
    posted by Dr. Zira at 9:59 AM on January 9, 2007


    Remember when I said I was keeping my $20 Nokia? OK, um, that was my cat. She logged in as me, and was being a smartass. Maybe I will sell her to afford the iPhone.
    posted by The Deej at 10:02 AM on January 9, 2007 [2 favorites]


    Holy crap... I was gonna get a blackberry, but nevermind.
    posted by blaneyphoto at 10:03 AM on January 9, 2007


    wow. that looks like some shit from the future.
    posted by empath at 10:03 AM on January 9, 2007


    It's like Jesus came back, as an electronic device.
    posted by Prospero at 10:07 AM on January 9, 2007 [3 favorites]


    I suspect Jesus would cost less.
    posted by Dr. Zira at 10:08 AM on January 9, 2007


    "Visual voicemail -- wouldn't it be great if you didn't have to listen to five of them to list to the sixth? Just like email you can go directly to the voicemails that interest you."

    Sold.
    posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 10:10 AM on January 9, 2007


    Ok. Changed my mind. Want one now.
    posted by Jimbob at 10:15 AM on January 9, 2007


    Holy flaming bags of godhead, that's lovely.
    posted by adamgreenfield at 10:16 AM on January 9, 2007


    Ha ha ha haaa!!

    I love how this thread completely skidded to a halt and then zoomed off in another direction when everyone saw the phones.

    Not going to be called an iPhone eh? Bluetooth iPod (not a phone)? Not going to end well for Apple?
    posted by serazin at 10:22 AM on January 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


    "Visual voicemail -- wouldn't it be great if you didn't have to listen to five of them to list to the sixth? Just like email you can go directly to the voicemails that interest you."

    Yeah, this is the kind of thing I expected Apple would do if they were really going for it. They'd sit examine all the limitations and snafus involved in most phones right now and come up with "wouldn't it be nice if..." ideas, and here it is. They seem to be pretty good at this (there's a selection of things I really, really wish they'd do this with on OS X, and it's precisely because they seem to be so good at this in other arenas that these nits are infuriating, but I digress).

    What's *really* going to be gold, though, is if these things are easy to develop applications for (and deploy/download applications to). If that happens, the featureset described today is the *least* part of this, and you'll see a genuine revolution somewhere on the order of the creation of the WWW -- the sound of millions of new, always-on ends added to the network.
    posted by weston at 10:27 AM on January 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


    well said serazin and well done st steve christmas has come early
    posted by baker dave at 10:27 AM on January 9, 2007


    Weston - I would think that the feature will now be available on any Cingular phone thats able to support it. Seems a network addition (yes, perhaps thought of by Apple) than a phone feature that will only be able on iphone.
    posted by jeffmik at 10:30 AM on January 9, 2007


    oh fuck I want
    posted by bonaldi at 10:30 AM on January 9, 2007


    For some real fun, watch the stock price of AAPL on Google Finance. It's continuously updating so every second the stock just keeps getting higher and higher.

    http://finance.google.com/finance?q=aapl&btnG=Search

    It's already up 5 points as of this second.
    posted by junesix at 10:31 AM on January 9, 2007


    The only thing this phone can't do is suck my--holy crap! it can do that too!!!
    posted by jefbla at 10:32 AM on January 9, 2007


    It looks sweet. How much does it cost?
    posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:32 AM on January 9, 2007


    AAPL vs RIMM.
    posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:33 AM on January 9, 2007


    if these things are easy to develop applications for (and deploy/download applications to)

    I just saw the notes about the widgets. That's the spark that should start it. Entry-level phone applet development is now HTML/CSS/Javascript and some design skills. How about that?
    posted by weston at 10:33 AM on January 9, 2007


    And battery life, how's that?
    posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:34 AM on January 9, 2007


    "Entry-level phone applet development is now HTML/CSS/Javascript ..."

    Wow - putting Javascript on a telephone now?
    posted by Mutant at 10:36 AM on January 9, 2007


    Weston - I would think that the feature will now be available on any Cingular phone thats able to support it. Seems a network addition (yes, perhaps thought of by Apple) than a phone feature that will only be able on iphone.

    At any rate, it's not going to remain a point of distinction for long. Any phone maker and network worth their salt will have this copied in six months or less.
    posted by weston at 10:37 AM on January 9, 2007


    Mutant-- it runs OS X, though, so the damage that could be done is limited.
    posted by empath at 10:44 AM on January 9, 2007


    blackberrys have javascript support right now, anyway.
    posted by empath at 10:44 AM on January 9, 2007


    Fuck, I picked a rotten time to go without disposable income.
    posted by furiousthought at 10:47 AM on January 9, 2007


    That is a gorgeous Bluetooth headset, too. Makes all the others (except the B&O) look like the ego-crutches-for-nonentities that they are.
    posted by adamgreenfield at 10:49 AM on January 9, 2007


    The Newton's back... kicking ass and taking names.
    posted by ardgedee at 10:50 AM on January 9, 2007


    Looks like I'll be switching to Cingular in June...
    posted by afx114 at 10:51 AM on January 9, 2007


    $499. ZOMG.
    posted by adamgreenfield at 10:51 AM on January 9, 2007


    $499 for 4GB / $599 for 8GB - ouch. Obviously am going to have to buy it though
    posted by Mave_80 at 10:52 AM on January 9, 2007


    Answer my question:
    From the Endgadget live blogging page (with Great photos!):
    Battery life: "A lot of these phones have low battery life. We've managed to get 5 hours of battery of talk time, video, and browsing. 16 hours of audio playback."


    Price:
    10:46am - "Our most popular iPod is $199 -- what's a smartphone cost? Somewhere around $299 with a two year contract."

    He's combined the two for a $499 for the combo-- "What should we charge for the iPhone? We should charge more for this stuff!... "

    10:47am -
    So how much more than $499 should we price it? We thought long and hard about it... it does so much stuff..." He's stalling for the drama. Enough Steve!

    "What should we price it at? For a 4GB model we're pricing it at $499 -- no premium whatsoever.

    "We're going to have an 8GB model for just $599."


    I'm an Apple Fan Boy, but I'm not paying $500 for a phone.

    $200, maybe $300 yeah. But not $500
    posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:53 AM on January 9, 2007


    You can't think of it as a phone, Brandon. This will replace a lot of laptops.
    posted by adamgreenfield at 10:55 AM on January 9, 2007


    i think calling that a phone is kinda silly.
    posted by empath at 10:55 AM on January 9, 2007


    June?

    *June?*

    Any phone maker and network worth their salt will have this copied in six months or less.

    Including Apple, iGuess.

    Why would they wait until June?

    I'd sure want my hands on one before then. Can one get a developer preview or something?
    posted by weston at 10:57 AM on January 9, 2007


    This is the most awesome piece of landfill ever. I want one now!
    posted by marvin at 10:57 AM on January 9, 2007


    I don't know about replacing laptops, but it's cheaper than gluing a full-fledged Nano to a Treo, and does more besides.

    After the bloom's off, i wonder how well it'll do without a socketed card port. 8gb isn't a lot for today's on-the-go lifestyle. And I wonder how much it costs without a service contract.
    posted by ardgedee at 10:59 AM on January 9, 2007


    No. It's a phone. A completely sexy phone with outstanding features, but I'm not the target market just yet. GIve it a year to come down in price and get bugs worked. No biggie, I wasn't the target market for the first iPods, but I got one eventually.

    Of course, other companies will be copying this stuff as best they can and for a cheaper price. We'll see.
    posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:00 AM on January 9, 2007


    Agreed. Not a phone. A multifuncti-musividi-browsi-datamatic-tappiscreeni-device. Yes I trademarked it.
    posted by The Deej at 11:02 AM on January 9, 2007


    Why would they wait until June?

    10:48am - "When's it going to be available? We're shipping them in June -- we're announcing it today because we have to go get FCC approval... we thought it'd be better to introduce this today rather than let the FCC introduce this.
    Europe in the 4th quarter of this year, Asia in 2008. "We've chosen Cingular."
    posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:06 AM on January 9, 2007


    No. It's a phone. A completely sexy phone ...

    It's a palmtop computing device that just happens to recognize in its design and function that personal voice communications are the primary app for most people, with internet communications a close second for many others (whose number is growing).

    Most cellphones are in fact this way, at least w/ regards to the primary function, it's just that most people, probably including a good chunk of the management and staff at the cell phone makers/providers, haven't realized this yet. Apple has, and other businesses who do (and make the next logical steps) will probably make a lot of money.
    posted by weston at 11:10 AM on January 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


    As of today, "Apple Computer" is no more-- they're just going by "Apple". Yeah, this was a long time coming.

    And my god! what a lovely phone.
    posted by Arthur "Two Sheds" Jackson at 11:15 AM on January 9, 2007


    Ha! man... look at all the people who were wrong at the beginning of this thread.
    posted by Baby_Balrog at 11:17 AM on January 9, 2007


    weston is on the money and then some. Look, let's be straight about this: this is an everyware device, the fabled Ubiquitous Communicator. It's that already, and that's without an RFID reader or NFC functionality. Just wait for the hackers and hobbyists to get at this thing.

    Also, w/r/t VoIP: a Skype client is a triviality; the only reason they're not demoing that today is, duh, the CEO of Cingular's up on stage with Steve. I will very likely buy this from Cingular and I sure hope they enjoy their share of the revenue from that transaction, because it's just as likely that I'll never use a minute of Cingular airtime again.
    posted by adamgreenfield at 11:17 AM on January 9, 2007


    I'll never use a minute of Cingular airtime again.

    Maybe I'm missing something, but won't you still be paying them for your contract for two years (at say, $30 a month?).
    posted by drezdn at 11:19 AM on January 9, 2007


    Weston shoots and scores!

    Goddamn that thing looks sexy. If it's even half as easy and useful as it looks...!!!!! Oh the possiblities.
    posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:24 AM on January 9, 2007


    If Apple wanted to integrate vertically in their market to become a service-oriented provider in the way bitter-girl.com is wishing, I'd go into hock for a Mac and one of these phones so fast that Microsoft and my current carrier would never know what hit them. Hey, y'all at One Infinite Loop -- MeFi much?
    posted by pax digita at 11:28 AM on January 9, 2007


    Apple iPhone site.
    posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:29 AM on January 9, 2007


    Holy crap. I just watched the videos of the damn thing in action. Totally hooked now. The price still needs to come down for the general populace to eat it up (and of course it will in time).

    But yeah, for others $500 to replace your laptop (most of the time) is a steal.
    posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:35 AM on January 9, 2007


    $500 to replace your laptop

    At least I can take my laptop apart and (usually) fix it when something gangs aft agley. I can also write long letters and stories on my laptop. I don't see how it replaces a computer.

    This is a phone. A fancy phone, but it's mostly a phone. I'm sure you'll have to have some kind of carrier contract.
    posted by mrgrimm at 11:48 AM on January 9, 2007


    Hmm, it's also EDGE, and pretty much useless internet-wise when you're not near wifi.
    posted by pantsrobot at 12:18 PM on January 9, 2007


    #1: it wont be called iphone - linksys/cisco have the iphone trademark in the US, and just released an iPhone last week.

    How will they get around this?
    posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 12:29 PM on January 9, 2007


    How will they get around this?

    The Internet tells me they're paying off Cisco, and that negotations were going up until the 11th hour.
    posted by sparkletone at 12:43 PM on January 9, 2007


    Hmm, it's also EDGE, and pretty much useless internet-wise when you're not near wifi.

    I don't know about Cingular's EDGE service, but I've been using T-Mobile's data plan (tethering my Powerbook to a Nokia 6820 via bluetooth) with EDGE for about two months, and it's usable. Probably about double the speed of old 56k dialup. Still a bit of a letdown when you're used to broadband, but it's usable.

    I do think it's discouraging that even Apple has to sign a two-year agreement with a phone network. ;)
    posted by weston at 12:51 PM on January 9, 2007


    Ah yeah, I should have specified. It's certainly better than dialup, but nowhere near the current Treo (that uses HSDPA I think)
    posted by pantsrobot at 12:59 PM on January 9, 2007


    #1: it wont be called iphone - linksys/cisco have the iphone trademark in the US, and just released an iPhone last week.

    How will they get around this?


    Clearly you don't understand the genius of Steve Jobs. He has trademarked all of the possible iPhones WITH SPACES:
    " iPhone"
    "iPhone "
    and
    " iPhone ".

    Y'all have no imaginations.
    posted by spock at 1:09 PM on January 9, 2007


    http://www.apple.com/iphone/phone/

    Funny. It doesn't work with Safari. I kid! I kid!
    posted by spock at 1:11 PM on January 9, 2007


    Heh. The "Download QuickTime..." link at the bottom of that page is a 404 to:
    http://www.apple.com/quicktime/dowload/
    posted by spock at 1:13 PM on January 9, 2007


    Jesus christ would I be happy to never hear of the iPhone again.

    (Sorry, just came from digg)
    posted by teem at 4:25 AM PST on January 9 [+] [!]


    I think I should, uh, clarify my previous statement. What I meant was that I love -- and have always loved -- the iPhone ;) I will be happy to never hear another unsubstantiated iPhone rumour again, though. As for the iPhone itself? Beautiful.
    posted by teem at 4:35 PM on January 9, 2007


    Hot damn that's a pretty phone. The Time Magazine article about how it came about is pretty interesting too. I totally want one, except

    a) Way too damn expensive. Yikes. I can't justify spending $600 on a phone, really.
    b) Only 8gb max? No expandability?
    c) No removable battery? Come ON, Apple, why you gotta make me complain?
    d) Umm, not available outside of the States until at least Q4 2007. Grr.

    Otherwise, absolutely droolworthy. It'll be interesting to see how the other phone manufacturers follow up. I just hope it doesn't lead to another round of ridiculous "iPhone killer" articles in the press.
    posted by antifuse at 2:33 AM on January 10, 2007




    Touch screen? meh

    Good non wanking fanboy article at cnet.

    posted by afu at 9:15 PM on January 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


    Cisco is suing Apple

    Yeah, I thought I had just been hearing about an 'iPhone' before this.

    Pretty ballsy strategy, if that timeline is accurate.
    posted by soyjoy at 10:10 PM on January 10, 2007


    « Older S(ch)ickening   |   Both Sides Now Newer »


    This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments