iPhone coming to Japan's NTT DoCoMo?

According to the Wall Street Journal Asia, Jobs and Co are in Japan working out the details for a domestic iPhone launch. It's no surprise then that Jobs was rumored to have just met with NTT DoCoMo's president, Masao Nakamur, to discuss the deal with the largest carrier in the world's second-largest economy. As usual, Apple seems to be playing the carriers off one another with rumors that The Steve is courting Softbank as well. However, "people familiar with the situation" say that DoCoMo is...

Related News
Comments

Asian Tech Stock Weekly Summary (July 13 - 19)

JapanHardwareKonica Minolta Holdings Inc. would start output at its new factory in Japan that makes high-tech film used in LCD panels by autumn 2010 due to a strong recovery in panel and TV demand. Konica Minolta had planned to begin production at the new plant in autumn 2009, but the company late last year decided to delay the start-up as the global downturn forced panel makers to cut output. Konica Minolta dominates the global market for triacetyl cellulose (TAC) film, which protects the polarisation plates used in LCD panels, with bigger rival Fujifilm Holdings Corp. Konica Minolta, which also competes with Canon and Ricoh in producing copiers and printers, plans to spend 18 billion yen (US$194 million) to build the new factory, which will be capable of making 50 million square metres of TAC film a year.TelecommunicationsNTT DoCoMo (DCM) president Ryuji Yamada said the Japanese operator is on track for launching its new Long Term Evolution (LTE) mobile network in 2010, reports the Financial Times. The adoption of LTE will see DoCoMo's handsets become compatible with other operators' 3G networks for the first time since the 2001 launch of its FOMA service, which used a WCDMA standard that was slightly different to the one rolled out by the majority of the rest of the world. DoCoMo has learned a hard lesson from being the first operator in the world to launch 3G services. DoCoMo plans to launch LTE handsets in 2011 that are also compatible with its current 3G network, so customers can still access services if they're outside an LTE coverage area. DoCoMo will use its high-speed LTE network to offer mobile content services in a bid to drive new revenue in the saturated Japanese market.Softbank Corp. (SFTBF.PK), Japan's third biggest mobile telecommunications provider, raised 30 billion yen (US$320 million) from the first BBB rated bonds sold to institutions in Japan by a non-utility borrower since Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s collapse in September. The Tokyo-based company, priced three-year, 4.72 percent notes to yield 4 percentage points more than the yen swap rate, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Softbank, rated the second-lowest investment grade of BBB by Japan Credit Rating Agency, becomes the first non-utility company with that rating to sell bonds to institutional investors in Japan for 10 months. Softbank will use money raised from the securities to repay debt, it said in a filing with Japan's finance ministry today. The company sold 60 billion yen in 5.1 percent fixed-rate bonds to individual investors in May, Bloomberg data show.Softbank casts its eyes on the Greater China Region and inked a strategic cooperation agreement with Shanghai Media Group (SMG) on June 29, 2009. Softbank Founder Masayoshi Son and SMG President Li Ruigang signed on the agreement. The two parties will jointly to develop new media digital content business. Softbank is reported to cooperate with Far Eastone Telecommunications Co., Ltd. in August to launch mobile phone cartoon services. Far Eastone is in talks with Softbank subsidiaries in an attempt to introduce Japan's well-known cartoon works into Taiwan as soon as possible.Semiconductor Japan's Ushio Inc. announced its subsidiary Ushio America Inc. has acquired a 49 percent stake in U.S. firm Necsel Intellectual Property Inc. Necsel has technology for low-cost mass production of visible-laser light sources, and Ushio plans to leverage this to boost its own competitiveness in the markets for light sources for data projectors and digital cinema display systems. Using the technology, Ushio will be able to broaden its lineup of light sources to include semiconductor lasers across the complete spectrum of visible wavelengths. The company plans to purchase the remaining 51 percent of Necsel over the next five years and turn the unit into a wholly owned subsidiaryMedia, Entertainment and GamingSquare Enix Holdings Co. (SQNXF.PK) has shipped three million units of its "Dragon Quest IX" video game software in Japan since its release. In total, global shipments of the "Dragon Quest" series have surpassed 50 million units since the popular franchise debuted in 1986. Sales of the highly anticipated latest installment are going strong, too, with some 2.5 million units flying off the shelves in its first three days on the market -- beating the roughly 2.4 million of "Dragon Quest VIII," which was released in 2004. For the first time in the series, "Dragon Quest IX" runs on the Nintendo DS hand-held system. And through Wi-Fi wireless technology, up to four nearby gamers can play together.KoreaTelecommunicationsSK Telecom Co. (SKM) is considering bidding for Kazakhstan's Mobile Telecom-Service, as part of its recent efforts to seek business opportunities overseas. Kazakhtelecom, Kazakhstan's incumbent telecommunications operator, said in late June that it plans to sell its 51 percent stake in Mobile Telecom-Service and that it would accept letters of intent from potential bidders by and final bids by Aug. 31. Mobile Telecom-Service, Kazakhstan's smallest GSM operator, was launched in 2007 and provides services under the brand Neo with 920,000 subscribers.Mobile/WirelessEricsson (ERIC) plans to invest US$1.5 billion in South Korea over the next five years. The company would set up a research centre in the Asian nation to develop environmentally friendly and fourth-generation wireless technologies. Ericsson also planned to increase the number of employees at its Korean unit to 1,000 from 80. The Korean government was determined to provide a level playing field for foreign businesses to compete with domestic rivals. The investment was expected to help boost Korea's competitiveness in the market for long-term evolution, or LTE, high-speed wireless technology, backed by Ericsson. AT&T and Verizon Communications are also choosing the standard. Verizon Wireless, the biggest U.S. mobile-telephone company, aims to begin offering a high-speed network in all U.S. regions by 2015 using LTE, which is scheduled to reach 30 markets by next year. LG Electronics, Asia's second-largest mobile-telephone maker, in December said it developed a faster wireless chip used in mobile telephones based on the technology.BiotechnologySamsung Electronics plans to invest about 500 billion won (US$389 million) in the biotech medicine business. Korea's economy minister Lee Youn-ho said that Samsung, the world's top maker of memory chips and flat-screen TVs, would spend the amount over the next five years on the biosimilar business. Biosimilars are versions of biopharmaceuticals whose patents have expired. Samsung declined to confirm the size of the investment but said biosimilars presented a new growth opportunity for the technology giant. Lee signed a letter of intent with several domestic firms, including Samsung Electronics and LG Life Science, on their investment in a government biosimilar industry development initiative, with Korea Development Bank and a state-led fund already committed to providing financial support.ChinaInternetChina's Ministry of Commerce (MOC) has not ruled against the proposed merger between Sina (SINA) and Focus Media (FMCN); documents for the merger have not yet been put on MOC records. Focus Media CEO Jason Jiang is "quite anxious" about the merger, and said recently that the MOC has continuously asked for more documentation. The companies first submitted an application for their merger in late December 2008.As of the end of 2008, China saw a netizen base of 298 million, and an Internet penetration rate of 22.6 percent, outracing the global average level of 21.9 percent.Mobile/WirelessA total of 13.21 million mobile phones were sold in China in May 2009, up 9.6 percent from the previous month. The number of GSM mobile phones sold in May increased by 12.5 percent month-on-month to 11.06 million units, while only 2.15 million CDMA handsets, which included 39,800 3G CDMA 1xEVDO handsets, were sold in May, down 3.4 percent from April. The dip in CDMA mobile phone sales is the result of China Telecom's shift in focus from 2G to 3G. In addition, both China Mobile and China Unicom implemented subsidies within their 3G service plans in 2009 to attract more users. Five foreign brands, Nokia, Samsung, Motorola, Sony Ericsson and LG, accounted for a 65.6 percent share of China's mobile phone market in May. Nokia had the largest market share of 31.9 percent last month. Domestic mobile phone manufacturer ZTE was the sixth-largest brand in May with a 3.8 percent market share.Z-Obee Holdings, which provides design services for mobile-telephone manufacturers on the mainland, has launched its own handset brand to meet the country's growing demand for stylish wireless devices. The Singapore-listed company's new "Vim" brand for the mainland mobile-telephone market will cater to price-conscious consumers keen on using fashionable, easy-to-operate handsets. The firm's production road map includes launching a new model every 45 days, which would enable it to introduce at least eight models in Hong Kong and on the mainland each year. The initial batch of Vim handsets being introduced on the mainland includes a his and hers model designed for couples that has a text message authentication function. This allows text correspondence between the pair to be decoded with a specific password for privacy. Each Vim handset has a voice diary function, allowing users to record appointments on the phone and be automatically reminded by the device at the designated time.TelecommunicationsChina Mobile Ltd. (CHL) will invest 70 billion yuan (US$10.2 billion) in building and upgrading its telecommunications networks, and promoting the use of its 3G services in the country's vast rural areas over the next three years. The ministry will help it promote the adoption of 3G-enabled applications in rural areas.China's three telecoms carriers, China Mobile, China Unicom (CHU) and China Telecom (CHA), injected more than 100 million yuan (US$14.6 million) in online advertising for two consecutive months of May and June. Their online ads expenses amounted to 198 billion yuan in May, when it welcomed the World Telecommunications Day on May 17, and China Unicom started trial operation of WCDMA. China Unicom's online ads input reached 78.79 million yuan on that month. In the same period, the carriers paid large amount of money in TV advertising as well, shouldering into prime time of CCTV, China's leading television station. Their expenses on online advertising fell, but still stayed above 100 million yuan to 115 million.ZTE Corp. (ZTCOF.PK) has captured 34 percent of the latest 8.6 billion yuan (US$1.3 billion) 3G network expansion tender by China Mobile Communications Corp. Huawei Technologies won 22 percent while partner Nokia Siemens Networks claimed 7 percent. Datang Mobile Communications Equipment and domestic partner FibreHome Technologies ranked third with a 21 percent share. The rest went to China Putian, New Postcom and Ericsson, each winning five to six percent. ZTE and Huawei were helped by their offers of a free upgrade in China Mobile's existing TD-SCDMA equipment, which was installed in the previous two phases of network construction. Industry watchers said China Mobile's preference for supporting domestic vendors and homegrown technologies also enabled ZTE, Huawei and Datang to take a bigger share. As a result, foreign vendors' share was shrinking. The latest tender was the third by China Mobile for a network covering 200 cities or 70 percent of the areas on the mainland. The original contract size was about 8.6 billion yuan for the installation of 39,000 base stations.China Unicom aims to go up against market leader China Mobile for high-end users as early as October, thanks to its exclusive sales agreement for the popular Apple (AAPL) iPhone handset. Unicom and Apple are expected to announce a schedule for the iPhone's introduction soon. Meanwhile, industry sources have confirmed that Apple has already submitted the device to a Ministry of Industry and Information Technology laboratory for official approval. Unicom and Apple could not be reached for comment on the deal, but telecommunications sources said Unicom would launch the handset in the fourth quarter when its 3G mobile network will cover 284 cities across the country, up from 55 cities at the end of last month. The full commercial launch of its 3G network plus the exclusive deal with iPhone is expected to put pressure on China Mobile to defend its high-end users.HardwareGreater China is expected to see an almost fourfold increase in demand this year for mini-notebooks, commonly known as netbooks, as computer makers aggressively market the low-cost devices amid the economic downturn. That growth spurt is likely to boost sales for the market's leading notebook personal computer suppliers - including mainland Lenovo Group (LNVGY.PK), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), Dell (DELL), Toshiba (TOSBF.PK), Acer and AsusTek Computer (AKCPF.PK) and operators of high-speed 3G mobile networks. Netbook shipments on the mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwan are forecast to hit 3.9 million units, up nearly 260 percent from 1.1 million units last year. The market research firm said total industry shipments would reach nearly 33 million units, up from its earlier estimate of 27 million units. That would result in a global netbook penetration of about 20 percent and flat year-on-year demand for pricier, full-featured laptops. Many buyers were adjusting their discretionary spending and were buying netbooks as lower-priced alternatives to traditional laptops. Netbooks are smaller than typical laptops, carry few software applications and are mainly used for wireless internet access.Lenovo Group plans to expand its sales network coverage from more than 100 Indian cities to more than 300 within 2009. The company is currently restructuring to divide its global business into mature and emerging markets. Lenovo previously will open 30 retail locations in India to bring its store total to 150 and expand its service centers from 130 to 250.Shenzhen-based Coship Electronics Co., Ltd. has won an order worth US$21 million from EMB, an old customer in South America to supply digital TV set-top boxes. The order from EMB represents about 6.79 percent of Coship's total operating revenue in the entire 2008 and is the first overseas contract that Coship makes public this year. In November 2008, Coship got a set-top box order valued at US$12.21 million from the South American company. Coship had sold set-top boxes worth 120 million yuan (US$17.5 million) to EMB as of June 30, 2009, eight months after it secured the first order from the latter. The Shenzhen company, engaged in the production and sales of digital TV equipment and electronics, saw its digital TV set-top box software and hardware sales revenue account for 93.94 percent, 96.83 percent, and 95.94 percent of its revenue from major business in 2003, 2004, and 2005, respectively.TCL Corp. said that its net profit may plunge 80 percent from a year earlier to 85 million yuan (US$12.4 million) during the first half of this year. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd, one of TCL's subsidiaries, saw sales of handsets and accessories slide 12.32 percent year on year to 1.02 million units last month, while its first-half sales declined 24.69 percent from a year earlier to 5.06 million units. TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Ltd, another subsidiary of TCL Corp, sold 616,898 LCD TVs in June, up 60.3 percent from a year earlier, and 342,353 CRT TVs, down 56.1 percent year on year. TCL sold more than 2.31 million LCD TVs in the first five months of this year, representing a year-on-year increase of 103.7 percent. The sales volume of LCD TVs in the first five months accounts for nearly 60 percent of the company's sales in 2008.Alternative EnergySuntech Power Holdings (STP) plans to invest 30 billion yuan (US$4.4 billion) in the four projects with a combined capacity of 1.8GW that it signed up to in recent weeks. The money represents just the initial investment. China's long term plan for the PV industry is 70 percent of projects will be on-grid and 25 percent building integrated PV.LDK Solar Co. (LDK) has purchased a 70 percent stake in Italian systems integrator Solar Green Technology for an undisclosed sum. The move is expected to enhance LDK Solar's presence in the Italian photovoltaic sector. In addition, the deal will help Solar Green Technology grow further through its partnership with LDK Solar for several projects in Italy and Europe.ReneSola Ltd. (SOL) has successfully commenced trial production on the first batch of polysilicon from Phase 1 of its two-phase, 3,000 metric ton annualized capacity polysilicon manufacturing facility located in China's Sichuan province. ReneSola's two-phase, 3,000 MT annualized capacity polysilicon manufacturing facility utilizes the Siemens process and a closed loop system to produce polysilicon. Phase 2 of the facility, representing approximately 1,500 MT annualized capacity, is scheduled to reach mechanical completion in September 2009.
From 2-Way to 4G: The Complete History of Cell Phones

��Part I: Wireless rootsLike many of the great revolutions, it was born out of necessity.Owing more to Walkie-Talkies than actual phones, the earliest mobile calls can be traced to the early 1900s, when Australia’s Victorian Police devised a method of wireless communication between squad cars and dispatchers. The concept quickly caught on and gradually began to spread to other countries, reaching the United States by the 1930s; the first known U.S. two-way radio system is credited to the Bayonne, N.J., police department.By 1940, Motorola precursor Galvin Manufacturing Company developed a mobile two-way radio system via a hefty wired backpack. The SCR-300 “Walkie-Talkie,” designed by Marion Bond, Henryk Magnuski, Lloyd Morris, Dan Noble, Bill Vogel and Raymond Yoder, weighed about 40 pounds and had a range of approximately 3 miles. Portable in the loosest sense of the word, Motorola quickly followed up the 300 with the SCR-536, a handheld version of its popular Walkie-Talkie built to meet the demands of the U.S. Army during World War II. As the technology proved successful on the battlefield--most notably during the Invasion of Normandy--Motorola sold more than 100,000 of its “Handie-Talkie” model during the war.At around the same time, the Federal Communication Commission formulated a radio service called Citizens Band to allow hobbyists to communicate over short distances of one to five miles. Not unlike the dedicated frequencies already allocated for firefighters and police officers, CB radio, as it came to be called, provided regulated channels for quick bursts of dialogue that just couldn’t wait.But neither Handie-Talkies, which were limited by a closed network, nor CB transmitters, which didn’t allow for targeted calls, were able to replicate the reach-out-and-touch-someone experience of a home phone.All that would change in 1973.Part II: A Dyna-mite breakthroughOn April 3, 1973, Motorola vice president Dr. Martin Cooper walked down Sixth Avenue in New York City using the world’s first handled mobile telephone to call his rival at AT&T Bell Labs, where the project had originated 15 years earlier. Weighing about two and a half pounds and requiring a kung-fu grip, Cooper's casual call touched off a decade-long race to bring the first cellular telephone to the market: “As I walked down the street while talking on the phone, sophisticated New Yorkers gaped at the sight of someone actually moving around while making a phone call,” Martin said on the 30th anniversary of the call. “Remember that in 1973, there weren't cordless telephones, let alone cellular phones. I made numerous calls, including one where I crossed the street while talking to a New York radio reporter — probably one of the more dangerous things I have ever done in my life.”Dangerous? Maybe. Groundbreaking? Most certainly. The prototype phone Cooper used--a Dynamic Adaptive Total Area Coverage (DynaTAC) handheld cellular phone connected to AT&T’s wired phone system via a base station on the roof of a nearby building--provided all the makings of a modern cellular network, albeit with far less portability.With a working demo under his belt, Cooper set out to make a version of the DynaTAC fit for consumer use (and FCC approval). Ten years and $100 million later, he had one.On March 6, 1983, Motorola released its slightly less-bricky DynaTAC 8000X, a beige, 3.5-inch-thick handset with a black face adorned with 21 keys (standard phone pad plus dedicated “Recall,” “Clear,” “Send,” “Store,” “Function,” “End,” “Power,” “Lock” and “Volume” buttons) and a 9-character LED readout. It operated on Bell Labs’ analog Advanced Mobile Phone System, which divided radio frequencies into hexagonal cells to create a seamless “cellular” network. While light enough at just over two pounds to carry in a backpack or briefcase, the DynaTAC’s battery allowed just 30 minutes of talk time and 8 hours of standby. But despite its limitations--and a hefty $3,995 price tag--the revolutionary 8000X was an instant success.Overseas, Finland-based Nokia Corporation was making strides of its own. With the Nordic Mobile Telephone mobile phone network already in place for car phones, Nokia acquired mobile radio manufacturer Salora Oy in the early 1980s and in 1984 spun off Nokia-Mobira Oy, a dedicated telecommunications division; soon after, the company launched its first “portable” product, the Mobira Talkman, which provided several hours of talk time but required the user to carry an 11-pound briefcase in order to make calls.Three years later, however, Nokia vastly improved on its behemoth with the Mobira Cityman 900, the first truly mobile phone built for the NMT network. Nicknamed the Gorba--after Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was photographed using one--the Cityman weighed about as much as a DynaTAC and cost about twice as much, but sold just as well. Following the success of its new venture, Nokia dropped Mobira from the company’s name and folded the whole division back into the main company, and Motorola’s biggest competitor, Nokia Mobile Phones, was born.Despite the popularity and cachet of these early cell phones, however, they still played second fiddle to less-expensive car phones--such as the Mobira Senator NMT-450--that offered better call quality in a neat, convenient package that didn’t rely on an underwhelming battery. Even after Motorola introduced its innovative MicroTAC flip phone--billed as the lightest (12.3 ounces) and smallest (9 inches) phone on the market and described as “a technological and administrative tour de force”--the U.S. cellular market struggled to expand beyond its niche market of wealthy businessmen, doctors and lawyers; by the time the ’90s rolled around, cellular subscriptions had barely topped 3 million in the United States.Part III: Global swarmingWhile Motorola was putting the finishing touches on its DynaTAC in 1982, the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administration’s Electronic Communications Committee was already laying the groundwork for a second-generation European mobile network capable of handling digital voice calls and data transmission. After several starts and stops, the first Groupe Spécial Mobile cellular network (later Global System for Mobile Communications) was launched cooperatively by Radiolinja and Ericsson in 1991.On July 1, 1992, Finnish Prime Minister Harri Holkeri made the world’s first GSM call using a Nokia handset, and on Nov. 10, 1992, the company released the Nokia 1011, a black, slimline GSM handset with 90 minutes of talk time and the ability to send short, textual messages to other users. As the phone caught on, GSM quickly spread throughout Europe and Asia, and by the end of 1995, American Personal Communications had launched the first commercial U.S. GSM service.With a powerful digital system in place, a new batch of phones naturally followed. Once again, Motorola made the biggest splash with a first-of-its-kind handset that improved on the fresh style introduced with the MicroTAC. Released on Jan. 3, 1996, the “wearable” StarTAC introduced the world to the timeless clamshell design, which featured a flip cover that extended over the entire length of the phone. Clocking in at about $1,000, the StarTAC weighed just 3 ounces, fit comfortably in any pocket and allowed for about three hours of talk time. While offering a GSM model for use overseas (and with the few burgeoning U.S. carriers), Motorola stuck with the popular analog AMPS system with the U.S. launch of the new phone.Korean company Samsung--which had already taken a serious bite out of Motorola’s dominance in the far east with its SH-700 series of phones and turned heads with its first CDMA handset in March 1996, the skinny, lightweight SGH-200--didn’t fare quite as well with its GSM offerings. The SGH-200, intended to make serious inroads throughout the rest of Europe, barely registered in the increasingly crowded cellular market until September 1998, when the high-end SGH-600 flip phone was unveiled to rave reviews for its slim design, 5-hour battery and voice-activated dialing.As prices dropped and networks became clearer and more ubiquitous, cell phones slowly shed their luxury stigma as they began to receive greater functionality beyond calls and SMS messages. Next: The Complete History of Cell Phones Continued >> ��Part IV: Style and substanceWhere Motorola’s “wearable” StarTAC brought cell phones from clunky--with all respect to Zack Morris and his DynaTAC--to cool, Nokia followed with its youthful 3210, an inexpensive candy bar-style handset released in 1999 that ditched the external antenna and included a dynamic (but still monochrome) display. A series of interchangeable covers available in a variety of colors and patterns (along with�a�full graphics layout for playing a trio of games: Snake, Rotation and Memory)�kept the phone fresh and popular among teenagers, helping the 3210 enjoy a long period of success.On the other side of the globe, a small Japanese electronics maker named Sharp forever altered the mobile-phone landscape. Although it never made it to the States, the Japan-exclusive J-SH04’s first-of-its-kind color screen--though not the industry’s first; Siemens laid claim to the first four-color screen with its S10 a couple years earlier--and sleek, metallic enclosure that stood just 5 inches tall not only spiced up the sea of dull, black, grayscale handsets, it boldly pushed the cell phone into the 21st century by adding a 1MP camera to its backside.�Color screens, cameras and Bluetooth were here to stay, but few handsets pulled it all together like the Sony Ericsson T610, the flagship release from the newly formed technology giant (the two established a joint venture in late 2001 following a period of decline for the one-time Swedish telecommunications giant). Ericsson had already broken new ground by demonstrating the world’s first Bluetooth phone, the mustard-colored T36 (released as the T39) and full-color T68m, but it took the Sony team’s subtle sense of style to create a winner.A sharp, 65,000K TFT screen was flanked by a glossy, black bezel that gave way to an aluminum number pad that felt sturdy (despite its small stature). Like its rivals, the grape-colored Nokia 725 and Panasonic’s flip-style GU87 (which sported a giant 132x176 screen), the T610 featured a variety of ringtones and games, and a customizable OS controlled by a thumb-friendly directional pad for simple navigation.With its clean lines and slick veneer, the T610 was as fashionable as it was functional, and its popularity signaled a dramatic shift in the market. Small, sleek phones of all shapes and colors began to crowd the landscape, but it wasn’t until 2004--just about when the T610 had worn out its welcome--when the next big thing landed. While it didn’t add much in the way of new technology, Motorola’s last great handset single-handedly saved the company from ruin (for a few years, anyway).A design marvel, the all-aluminum, clamshell, dual-screen RAZR V3 immediately put the original cell phone maker back on the map. Thin, light and unbelievably sexy, Motorola redefined the stale flip phone and paved the way for a slew of so-called fashion phones that tempted users with glitz and gloss--often at the expense of functionality. Even the RAZR, which sold more than 100 million units during its reign, was saddled with a weak UI, suffered from battery and speaker issues, and was known to be susceptible to compound fractures.Another phone that tipped the form-over-function scales came from a little-known Korean conglomerate named Lucky GoldStar, or LG. Meant to mimic the minimal look of the popular iPod, the LG Chocolate--part of its Black Label line of designer phones--was available in five flavors and featured an illuminated, touch-sensitive scroll wheel for navigation that hid a slide-out keypad. The new focus on design helped cell phones keep their pop-culture appeal and ignited a new wave of innovation as consumers demanded thinner, sexier handsets.�Part V: Brains and beautyAs designs got smarter and mobile phones picked up more features, the line between PDAs and cell phones began to blur. Way back in 1994, a rare entry from IBM added the first glimmers of PDA functionality in a handset, but the touch-screen Simon suffered from production issues and struggled to handle all of its tasks--namely calling, faxing and paging--with ease. But Simon’s entrance into the mobile phone marketplace didn’t go unnoticed, as evidenced by this Byte.com review�from December 1994: “Whether or not Simon is your idea of the ultimate (for now) personal communicator depends on how appealing you find the combination of voice calls and e-mail--and maybe on how little you need a laptop. Clearly, Simon won't replace portable PCs, but it's equally clear that it represents a milestone in the evolution of the PDA.”The PDA-cell phone evolution continued in 1996 with the first of Nokia’s line of side-flip Communicators. But despite a “visible appearance” alongside Val Kilmer in “The Saint,” the “unique next-generation product with phone and computing functionality” was far too clunky to be taken seriously (an issue Nokia rectified a year later with the 9-ounce 9110). When closed, the early Communicators resembled an old-style brick phone, but opened to a 4.5-inch wide screen with a tiny keyboard.The Simon and Communicator were undoubtedly clever, but cell phones didn’t truly become “smart” until 2000, when a dedicated OS arrived to properly manage all these tasks. Demoed as early as 1997 as part of Ericsson’s Penelope project--which included the prototype GS88 handset--the Symbian OS was born out of a partnership between Ericsson, PDA maker Psion and mobile phone giants Motorola and Nokia. Packed with desktop-grade features such as pre-emptive multitasking, memory protection and Unicode support, various incarnations of the Symbian OS helped streamline generations of powerful smartphones from Nokia, Siemens, Samsung, Fujitsu, Sony Ericsson, Sharp and Nokia (which purchased the company in 2008).While mobile phones were becoming more like PDAs, PDAs were naturally becoming more like cell phones. Palm competitor Handspring transformed its Visor into a multitasking VisorPhone in 2001, dressing it in purplish blue and adding a GSM antenna and a specialized version of the Palm OS (licensed from its rival).By 2002, smartphones were taking the world by storm. Sony Ericsson launched the stylish, touch-screen P800 and the Symbian-based User Interface Quartz (UIQ) platform, which opened the door for third-party software developers, and Research in Motion updated its BlackBerry line of wireless pagers with the 5810 mobile phone, giving it GSM support, a larger screen (but still monochrome; color didn’t show up until 2005) and a powerful, proprietary OS targeted to mobile business professionals.Affectionately called “CrackBerry” by devotees, RIM’s line of camera-less smartphones quickly achieved cult-like status due to their tight, push e-mail integration with Microsoft Exchange and Lotus Domino, miniature QWERTY keyboard tailored for thumb typing, and members-only BlackBerry Messenger service. Later enhancements included the methodical Suretype keyboards, trackballs and touch screens, but RIM hasn’t strayed too far from the classic, screen-on-top, keyboard-on-bottom design (though a camera was finally built into the Pearl in 2006).Not long after the BlackBerry landed, Handspring gave birth to yet another smartphone when it beefed up the recently released flip-style Treo 90 PDA by adding dual-band GSM capabilities. Smaller and more powerful than the VisorPhone--and fitted with a unique flip-up window that allowed access to the screen and menubottons without needing to do any actual flipping--the Treo 180 was available with either a thumb-style keyboard or a Graffiti interface and stylus. First-rate predictive typing cut down on the frustration and made interacting with the Palm OS a breeze, and the tight integration between apps took the focus off the buttons and onto the monochrome touch screen (color would quickly follow), where most tasks could be completed with just a few taps.The marriage of cell phones and PDAs couldn’t have been happier, and before long, mobile phones of all shapes and sizes were adding desktop-quality applications for handling calendars, contacts and e-mail as customers eagerly awaited the next big thing.Part VI: 3’s a charmAs the second-generation GSM network became taxed and cell phones’ data demands soared with each new smartphone, providers began to roll out faster, more powerful services built to handle users’ Internet needs. CDMA networks gave way to the EV-DO (Evolution-Data Optimized) standard, a feature of the earliest CDMA2000 networks that provided speeds of more than 150 kbit/s (compared with 56-114�kbit/second on 2G); similarly, General Packet Radio Service provided data speeds of up to 115 kbit/s for GSM networks.So-called 2.5G networks provided decent-enough data rates for WAP-based services, but as cell phone browsers matured beyond simple, text-heavy displays, the need arose for a bona fide, third-generation network capable of handling high-speed data rates arose. In late-2001, Japan-based service provider NTT DoCoMo launched the first CDMA-based 3G network, FOMA (Freedom of Mobile Multimedia Access), followed by South Korea’s SK Telecon EV-DO network in early 2002. In the U.S., Seattle-based wireless ISP unveiled a beta test of the United States’ first CDMA2000, 1xEV-DO 3G network in Manhattan, Kan., in May 2002 with theoretical speeds of 2.4 mbit/s and average speeds around 600 kbps.While 3G was in its infancy, still-slow GSM networks evolved even further with a zippier technology. Dubbed Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution, or EDGE for short, Cingular Wireless rolled out the network, which offered theoretical speeds up to up to 236.8 kbit/s (but in reality reached nowhere near that), in early 2003, but was quickly trumped by the first major U.S. 3G launch in October.�Verizon’s $8 billion Express Network initially offered average speeds of 40 to 60 kilobits per second, but eventually was able to sustain actual average speeds above 1 mbit/s. Sprint and AT&T soon followed with their own 3G networks (CDMA EV-DO and Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS), respectively).Naturally, all that speed needed new phone services to take advantage of it. As the ’90s were drawing to a close, 3G innovator NTT DoCoMo launched i-mode, tthe world’s first mobile Internet service, which gave users one-button access to a wide variety of information, including e-mail, Web access and financial services. The stripped-down suite of services bridged the gap between desktop apps and WAP-based cell phone platforms and was wildly popular in Japan, topping off at more than 60 million FOMA users in its heyday.But as popular as i-mode was, it was nothing compared to the next i-product that would come along.�Part VII: Touch of classFor the better part of a decade, a mythical touch-screen device from Apple that combined the better parts of a Mac, cell phone and iPod and ran OS X was discussed, debunked, dissected and ultimately dismissed on rumor sites across the Web. The obligatory mock-ups and blurry photos occasionally popped up before major events, but as the iPod line continued to expand and populate the world, it began to seem less and less likely that a so-called iPhone would ever actually emerge.Then, on Jan. 9, 2007, Steve Jobs ended all speculation by merging three products---a revolutionary mobile phone, a widescreen iPod with touch controls, and a breakthrough Internet communications device--into one slick handset wrapped in glass and aluminum. The iPhone had landed and the industry would never be the same.Unlike anything on the market, iPhone ditched the buttons (save one) in favor of a 3.5-inch touch-screen display with a “soft” keyboard. But the screen, while fairly stunning, was only part of the story. iPhone refused to rely on the “baby Internet,” as Steve called it, and instead featured a mobile version of its own Safari Web browser, with tap- and pinch-to-zoom for an elegant, unprecedented browsing experience; rounding out the package were a powerful e-mail client and a touch-friendly reimagining of Apple’s iPod software.The $599 iPhone relied on AT&T’s EDGE network--3G would arrive a year later--and touched off a frenzy from the moment it landed. Imitators popped up from Samsung, LG and Nokia came and went, but the iPhone stood virtually in a class all its own until October 2008, when Taiwan handset maker High Tech Computer Corporation released the first phone based on Google’s open-source Android mobile platform. While heavier and bulkier than the iPhone G3 it was pitted against--and a bit clunky and cumbersome with a slide-out keyboard--the HTC Dream (also known as the T-Mobile G1) came equipped with an iPhone-quality Web browser, Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Maps and Google Talk.Android wasn’t quite as polished as the iPhone OS, but it was clear that a worthy competitor had arrived. Apple had picked up a head of steam earlier in 2008 with its popular App Store--which was quickly populated by thousands of custom, third-party programs--but developers couldn’t ignore Android’s open--and carrier neutral--platform. As the OS matured, so, too, did the phones that ran it, beginning with Google’s sleek Nexus One and culminating with aptly named Droid Incredible from HTC that featured several non-iPhone enhancements, including an FM tuner and 8 MP camera, and the HTC Sense "design experience," an super-Android architecture "all about how people use the device, making their content personal to how they use the device.”iPhone 4 launched Apple back to the top of the heap with its brilliant retina display and long-overdue multitasking, but Motorola's Droid X is already on the immediate horizon, threatening to wrestle the crown away with its 40GB expandable capacity, larger screen and ability to turn itself into a 3G hotspot for five other devices. The war is on, and both sides are working hard to recruit troops.�Part VIII: Fantastic 4The birth of 3G--with no small amount of help from the iPhone and Android--has pushed the mobile Internet well into the mainstream, with hundreds of millions of subscribers on scores of different networks. As providers--particularly AT&T as its exclusive Phone contract continues to generate fruit--struggle with speeds and traffic, a whole new network is just beginning to take flight. Much like the transition from 2G to 3G, several technologies were developed to provide performance boosts until a proper 4G network is christened. Verizon and AT&T adopted LTE (Long Term Evolution), originated by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) reached peak download rates of 326.4 Mbit/s, and Sprint has already released the first Android phone running on the Mobile WiMAX network (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access), the HTC EVO 4G.As LTE networks from AT&T and Verizon begin to go live over the next 12 months, waiting around the corner is the LTE Advanced standard, expected to be released around the time iPhone 6 hits shelves, with full backward compatibility with LTE phones. A host of new features await the next generation of handsets--including Swype for fast text input, hyper-accurate GPS III modules (most higher-end phones already contain GPS chips, which first landed in 2005 with the Siemens SXG75), on-demand video and live TV, and wave-and-pay purchases--as the distance between desktops and cell phones becomes less and less recognizable.And to think, it all started with something that had slightly more character than a rectangular piece of concrete.�
News: Apple in talks to launch iPhone in Japan

According to a new report, Apple is in talks (Subscription req.) with Japan's NTT DoCoMo and Softbank concerning the launch of the iPhone in the country. The Wall Street Journal reports that people familiar with the situation say Apple CEO Steve Jobs recently met with NTT DoCoMo's president, Masao Nakamura, to discuss a deal to offer the iPhone in Japan. NTT DoCoMo is Japan's largest cellular provider, and it has been suggested that…
Will Google's Android Play DOS to Apple's iPhone?

Daniel Eran Dilger Today's broad array of smartphone operating system contenders are offering lots of potential answers to a problem that only requires one. It appears the market has two options ahead: either pool generic hardware makers behind a single operating system and deliver a smartphone marketplace that resembles the Windows PC market, or watch them fall to a dominant leader and have a smartphone market that resembles Apple's iPod ecosystem. This decision isn't going to be made by a class of intellectual elite, or by government mandate. it's going to be made by the market itself. Here are the factors that will influence the outcome, either marginalizing Apple's iPhone into a niche as the company has twice experienced previously at the hands of DOS in 1981 and Windows in 1991, or positioning it as the dominant leader as Apple has achieved for itself with the iPod since 2001. The third segment in this series looks at Google's Android and the Open Handset Alliance as a possible “DOS-attack” against Apple's iPhone. Subsequent segments will look at Nokia's newly opened Symbian and other mobile contenders challenging the iPhone. Will the iPhone Meet its Match from a Modern Day DOS? Will Windows Mobile Play DOS to Apple’s iPhone? Will Google's Android Play DOS to Apple's iPhone? Will Symbian Play DOS to Apple's iPhone? Google Acquires Android. In 2005, Google purchased a startup named Android, which had been in business for nearly two years. The secretive startup was known only to be working on software for mobile phones. It was being run by a who's who of mobile industry veterans, including Andy Rubin, the founder of Danger. Rubin had earlier worked at WebTV along with Chris White and Andy McFadden, both of whom had also joined Android. Richard Miner of Orange and Nick Sears of Tmobile also brought their mobile provider experience to Android. At the time of the acquisition, Google didn't announce any plans for Android and instead only told BusinessWeek, “We acquired Android because of the talented engineers and great technology. We're thrilled to have them here.” It appeared that Google was only going to be expanding its search services for mobile phone users, along the lines of the Google SMS answer system it had recently released. Google Buys Android for Its Mobile Arsenal - BusinessWeek Windows XP Media Center Edition vs Apple TV: The Fall of WebTV The GPhone Myth. As reports began to leak out about talks between Google and hardware makers throughout 2007, rumors began to fly about “the GPhone,” a competitive offering that was supposed to take on the iPhone. Some phone enthusiasts hoped Google would jump in to rescue the struggling OpenMoko project and turn it into a viable project that could attack Apple's new smartphone. In October 2007, I printed the Great Google GPhone Myth, taking apart the idea that Google would be directly competing against the iPhone, and describing that Google was really working on a free alternative to Windows Mobile as a conduit for getting its search and related services on a broader variety of mobiles. Google's services were already on the iPhone. In November, Google played its hand: it had organized a consortium of companies called the Open Handset Alliance to develop open standards for mobiles. The first product from the group would be Android, a mobile operating system built on the Linux kernel. Google wasn't getting into the phone handset business at all; it was only making sure that its mobile search products would not risk being marginalized by the threat of Windows Mobile on phones in the same way Microsoft had been working to leverage its PC monopoly to push Google search off the Windows desktop. The Great Google gPhone Myth Introducing Android: Leader of Linux. Two weeks later, Google released an early version of the Android software. On top of a Linux kernel, Android uses a specialized version of a Java Virtual Machine that takes Java language code and turns it into what Google calls “Dalvik bytecode” rather than Java bytecode as a standard JVM would. This allows Google to leverage existing and familiar Java language tools without paying Sun for a Java license. Like Mac OS X and its fraternal iPhone OS, Android includes a variety of open source libraries, including SQLite and WebKit. On top of that, Google developed a series of frameworks that handle the tasks Cocoa Touch does on the iPhone. Android also bundles a set of applications. While Apple adapted its existing Mac OS X to work in a mobile environment to create the iPhone OS, Android is more like a customized Java environment running on a specialized mobile Linux variant: elements of maturity in an otherwise experimental new platform. What is Android? -Google Android was by no means the first mobile OS using Linux. Both Palm and its amputated ACCESS software arm have Linux-based mobile platforms. Nokia has Maemo, which it uses in its Internet Tablets, and also recently acquired Trolltech and its Qtopia mobile Linux platform. Motorola has teamed up with MontaVista Software to use its Mobilinux. Intel created the Moblin project for mobile Linux, aimed at Internet devices. Google's OHA also isn't the first consortium to attempt to standardize a mobile Linux platform. The OSDL started the Mobile Linux Initiative to define requirements for hardware; the Consumer Electronics Linux Forum (CELF) then worked to define various phone profiles aimed at the Japanese market; the Linux Phone Standard (LiPS) Forum tried to do the same thing in Europe. In 2007, LiPS was folded into the new LiMo Foundation, along with the OSDL. All of these committees have had some overlap and some complementary features. Several of Google's OHA partners are also LiMo members, including NTT DoCoMo, Wind River, and Motorola. So why didn't Google just join LiMo? “LiMo, very candidly, wasn't moving fast enough,” OHA board member John Bruggeman told CNET. Google hopes to herd the Linux cats into a progressive, structured platform that can battle against Symbian and Windows Mobile to succeed as the new DOS of smartphones. Will Google fracture or unify mobile Linux? The Presumption of the Necessity of DOS. The previous segment examining Windows Mobile pointed out how the PC industry as a whole assumed that Microsoft's desktop Windows monopoly would easily take over dominance in the MP3 player market, pushing Apple into a niche position. This was expected because DOS had pushed Apple's early computers into a reduced role starting in 1981, and Microsoft had repeated this again in 1991 when the DOS world migrated to Windows, effectively pruning Apple's Macintosh into a Bonsai platform. The inability of one company to dominate any product category has been frequently repeated by PC industry pundits as a given, despite the fact that history is full of examples of this happening. Sony dominated personal music players for two decades under the Walkman brand even while equally large competitors tried to push it from this position; Nintendo has similarly owned handheld gaming despite ill-fated efforts to grab a piece of its pie by products running a generic platform such as Microsoft's WinCE (Gizmondo), Linux (GP32), and Symbian (N-Gage). In fact, outside of the Windows/DOS PC, there are actually few examples of a generic platform taking over an industry. Nearly every other consumer-facing product uses proprietary platforms: car makers, stereo equipment, appliances and so on typically all use designs custom to their maker. The paradox of the Windows PC market has been that Microsoft's broadly licensed software supposedly saves hardware makers from investing in software development while ensuring compatibility, when in reality it adds significant costs to PC makers while limiting their ability to differentiate themselves. That explains why PC makers have been perpetually merging together and going out of business while Microosft has rolled in money over the last two decades. Parallel efforts to copy Microsoft in broadly licensing an operating system have regularly failed: IBM's OS/2, Apple's Mac OS, Palm's PDA OS, even Microsoft's own efforts to duplicate Windows dominance in other markets, from copy machines to PDAs to smartphones to SPOT watches to music players. The closest copy may be Symbian, but its customers are partners, not simply consumers of a generic third party's operating system as Windows licensees are. That indicates it is not necessary to duplicate the dominance exercised by Microsoft over the PC industry in the smartphone market. Google's Android and Symbian exist more as technology sharing pacts among manufacturers, but both aspire to take Microsoft's DOS role among smartphones. However, the idea that Apple's iPhone must be dethroned by a modern-day DOS, whether Windows Mobile, Android, or Symbian, is not just debatable, but does not sync with the reality of more recent events. Apple's recent history of the iPod further refutes the idea that a software analog to Microsoft is needed. The iPod Emergence: Apple & Pixo vs IBM & Microsoft. Apple's iPod in 2001 made no effort to clone the DOS business model; it actually did the opposite. When Apple entered the market, there were a number of existing MP3 devices using custom software, hardware designs, and DRM codecs. The iPod used off the shelf components to deliver a custom MP3 player using third party software, but Apple also added its own technologies: easy to use sync with iTunes, a fast Firewire interface that made uploading music far faster than the prevailing USB 1.0, and an attractive industrial design. With the iPod, Apple played the role of IBM in 1981, using Pixo's embedded operating system to enter the market quickly, just as IBM had used DOS. The difference was that Apple didn't direct any market attention toward Pixo and added a lot of value on top of that core embedded OS. A modern day Compaq couldn't simply clone the hardware and license Pixo to run on it in order to compete against the iPod, because the iPod was much more than just generic hardware running Pixo software. As the iPod developed, Pixo's role diminished and was eventually displaced. Just like IBM, Apple jumped into a new market just as demand was beginning to explode. Apple made MP3 players far more attractive to a general audience by delivering greater playback capacity than most entry level devices offered, along with an ease of use that encouraged buyers to jump in at the higher end of the market. That left Apple with not only the lion's share of the market, but also by far the most profitable segments of the market. Two decades prior, IBM badly fumbled its play with the early PC and ended up irrelevant in the PC world by the late 80s, sideswiped by Microsoft's DOS and the cloners who were licensing it in parallel, notably Compaq and later HP and Dell. Steve Jobs had witnessed that happen, and was determined to not let it happen again to Apple. Rather than being manipulated by a software middleware vendor as IBM had, Apple worked to incrementally develop the iPod market itself. After consuming the hard drive-based player market, Apple took on the Flash RAM-based market with a tiny hard drive system used in the iPod Mini, and followed up with Flash-based devices of its own in the Nano and Shuffle. This allowed Apple to progressively serve an increasingly wider market, incrementally growing upon an established foundation. With the iPod, Apple became, in effect, an IBM with its own internal Microsoft. Microsoft's Failure Despite Features. In contrast, Microsoft entered the music player market by promoting music player hardware reference designs around WinCE. However, it was unable to ship a finished design until the iPod had become firmly established around 2005. Later branded as PlaysForSure, the devices were sold by various hardware makers and all purported to support the same DRM and the same music subscription services while also offering a broader array of hardware that presented video before the iPod did, supported wireless before the iPod, and so on. Despite these unique features, all of those PFS designs still failed. Microsoft blamed the failure of PFS upon its music store and hardware partners and decided to take Apple on itself in 2006. It relaunched a Toshiba PFS player as its own device under the Zune brand, adding WiFi music sharing features and a larger display than the current Pods had. It failed dramatically as well. Did Microsoft's attempts to float a new DOS among music players fail because of Apple's success, or due to Microsoft's own problems? The failure of the Zune, which followed the iPod model rather than the DOS model, seems to suggest that Microsoft itself was to blame. Consider too that Microsoft's Windows Mobile phones, which use the same underlying operating system as its failed PlaysForSure music players and the Zune, had similarly flopped even before Apple could release a charismatic phone equivalent to the iPod. Of course, when the iPhone was released, it hit Windows Mobile hardest. The iPhone made Windows Mobile Smartphones look ridiculous and underpowered, and made Windows Mobile Pocket PC phones look clumsy and awkward, despite the fact that they both supported a variety of features the iPhone didn't, including the ability to edit documents, capture video, send MMS, and so on. Simply adding on features did not enable Microsoft to compete against Apple. The only conclusion that can be drawn from all this is that competing against Apple requires more than just having a feature arsenal. Microsoft's failures in themselves do not necessarily mean that Google's Android will fail in its attempts to float its own smartphone platform. Why Microsoft’s Zune is Still Failing Microsoft’s Zune, Vista, and Windows Mobile 7 Strategy vs the iPhone Will Google Succeed where Microsoft Failed? Microsoft's demonstrated inability to successfully enter consumer markets for MP3 players and smartphones has given observers little faith that the company will somehow turn things around in late 2009 when its next generation of devices are expected to be released. However, prior to that the first fruits of Google's efforts to build its own smartphone operating environment will arrive. Will Google's Android take over Microsoft's crown as the “DOS vendor” among smartphones? Supporters of Google's Android project point to some parallels between Android for smartphones and Windows on the PC: Android will allow hardware makers to differentiate in ways that can offer features Apple can't (or doesn't want to); it should allow software developers to offer features Apple does not allow on the iPhone; it embraces open, hobbyist experimentation in ways that Apple currently isn't; and it opens the potential for content providers that Apple is not interested in allowing. Openness is Android's key competitive feature. Will all this openness allow Google to unseat the iPhone to become the primary platform developers want to participate in, and subsequently soak up the market for third party hardware makers that Windows Mobile serves? While Google currently has no market share due to the fact that no Android phones have yet shipped, it does have broad vocal support from a variety of the same kinds of hardware manufacturers that supported DOS and Windows and helped to make those platforms successful in the desktop PC market. HTC and Android. The first Android phone is expected to be the HTC Dream; Taiwan's HTC (High Tech Computer) also manufactures Palm's Treo Pro phone as well as many of the most visible Windows Mobile devices. In addition to models produced under its own name, HTC also sells Windows Mobile devices under the Dopod brand, as well as no-name phones branded by providers, such as AT&T, Orange, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, Vodafone, and others. HTC will also be building the XPERIA X1 Windows Mobile phone for Sony Ericsson. HTC was quick to throw its support behind Android despite its long term alliance with Windows Mobile. Why would it so enthusiastically support an unproven platform from a company that has no experience in consumer hardware platforms? One can only assume that HTC is not happy with the current state of Windows Mobile, and desperately wants another “DOS” to succeed where Microsoft's has so spectacularly failed. As an Original Design Manufacturer for Palm, HTC watched as Palm adopted Windows Mobile in place of the Palm OS and subsequently fell even deeper into crisis. Palm's only successful phone since has been its Palm OS-based Centro. HTC undoubtedly sees Android as its ticket to becoming the next Dell, but without a similar dependance upon Microsoft. Android for mobile phones is essentially playing the role of Linux for PCs, except that it has the backing of a major company behind it. Can Android Take on the iPhone with Openness as its Feature? As great as this sounds, it's important to consider that Linux on the desktop has made no significant progress in eating into Windows dominance after a decade of trying. Being open, free, flexible, and decentralized hasn't been enough of an advantage to get consumers to migrate from Windows to Linux in any fraction of significance. Similarly, in the music business, Linux-based MP3 players have had no impact on the iPod, despite offering more features, flexibility, support for additional codecs, and so on. In the mobile phone area, Linux enjoys a sizable portion of the smartphone market, but this is almost entirely due to phones sold by Motorola in China, where the advantages of Linux' openness are void. Motorola's Linux phones offer nothing to users in terms of openness or flexibility, and are really no different in terms of features than other appliance 'feature phones' based upon closed operating systems. And again, a key problem with assaulting Apple in a feature war is that neither the iPod nor the iPhone became popular by being “highly featured.” They both delivered perhaps 80% of the functionality found in all other devices in the market. Rather than trying to match every feature and cater to every niche as Microsoft had with Windows Mobile, Apple's devices did a few things very well at launch, and incrementally developed into full featured devices that still lack some of the more unique features of their competitors. Further, in terms of openness, the demographic that embraces Linux' characteristic freedoms is not the same as the demographic that buys smartphones in quantity and then pays for data service. This is a critical fact to consider because a big part of the iPhone's success stems from the fact that it is being pushed by mobile providers who want to capture the cream of the market willing to pay a premium for data services. The Frankenphone. Combining the fractured aesthetic of HTC's Windows Mobile phone hardware with Android's software, based upon Linux' perpetually unfinished DIY openness and Google's Java-like development platform, will not result in a product similar to the iPhone. Instead, it will look a lot like phones that have already failed in the market. Apple's advantage comes from slick hardware designs with a close attention to detail, combined with software that purposely does less so that it can do what it does better. Even Apple's own conservative attempts to broaden its software capabilities with iPhone 2.0 have resulted in instability problems that can be blamed upon both Apple's early releases of its phone operating system and software from inexperienced third party developers new to the platform. Would the current frustrations with iPhone 2.0 be somehow mitigated by additional openness that also embraced all kinds of variables from different hardware makers with less quality control than Apple, a loose committee of additional cooks working to serve up operating system features targeted at every possible conceived need, and a wider third party software group with fewer constraints on illegal behaviors? The Failure of Open. While it is politically unpopular to criticize the well meaning efforts of open source contributors, the failure of Linux on the desktop, the failure of the vaporware Indrema game console, and the failure of the OpenMoko project to deliver a workable phone within a year of its deadline all underline the serious problems open development faces in the world of consumer oriented devices. Open has simply failed to deliver on its promises in the world of consumer hardware. OpenMoko was supposed to release its first mobile phone to consumers for $250 several months in advance of the iPhone. When the iPhone shipped, the group then announced new plans to get its phone out by the end of 2007. Instead, this spring the group announced new plans to move to an entirely different development platform, and ship its phone mid year for $400 with limited functionality and incomplete software outside of basic GSM phone features. Linux's notable successes, from Motorola's Linux phones to the Tivo DVR to Linksys Routers, have often come without any associated openness or freedom, and were instead delivered simply to provide their manufacturer with a free kernel to build upon. This indicates that while Linux may find its way into an increasing number of smartphones, it will likely not be accompanied by the glorious freedom of an open development environment Google has said it would offer with Android. Apple iPhone vs the FIC Neo1973 OpenMoko Linux Smartphone Can Google Succeed Where Open Has Previously Failed? Despite “openness” being Android's strongest competitive feature compared to Apple's iPhone, Google recently revealed that its wide-open development model is intentionally gravitating towards a closed association of top tier partners due to practical considerations. In July, Google accidentally sent out a notice that revealed that it had been seeding private SDK updates to only a subset of its contributors, angering those who believed that Android would be as open as Linux on the desktop or the OpenMoko project. Further, Google has restricted initial development to higher level APIs just as Apple did, further indicating that Google itself realizes that being wildly open to impress a minority of hobbyists will not result in the commercial success of its new platform. That serves to neuter Android's primary advantage over the iPhone. Without delivering on the premise of being wide open, Android is really just a less mature set of Java libraries used to create a specialized binary that runs on a Linux foundation. Unlike Apple's iPhone, Android phones won't have a slick user interface developed by professional artists, nor the iPhone's legacy of mature software development frameworks crafted over the last thirty years, nor the iPhone's tightly integrated hardware with award winning industrial design, nor its marketing power tied into the iPod and Apple's retail stores. Android won't be an open iPhone, it will only be a Windows Mobile phone with a better kernel that runs specialized Java software instead of Win32 or .NET code. Don't expect consumers to be impressed by that. The Biggest Missing Feature. There is one remaining factor that strangles to death any last remaining hope that Android might assassinate the iPhone and assume the crown of the “DOS of smartphones.” That is: Android delivers zero price advantage to consumers. In 1981 and 1991, consumers who wanted Apple computers faced the sticker shock of a somewhat arrogant price tag. Apple sold its computers, as it still does, at the higher end of the market, but there was simply far more range in prices available. In 1981, that meant the Apple II was $2600 and the new Apple III was $3500, even before you added a monitor. On the low end, Commodore sold its far less powerful, but “still a computer” Vic-20 for $300, while IBM entered the market with the IBM PC at $3000. Over the next few years, Apple focused on delivering additional sophistication at the same price, releasing the $10,000 Lisa and then the $2,500 Macintosh. IBM continued selling PCs in the same $3,000 to $10,000 range, but other DOS PC vendors began selling machines at prices that ranged as low as $1500. That left Apple with a roughly $1000 price premium over low end PCs. The products weren't really comparable, but consumers only saw the huge price difference. In 1991, Apple was still selling moderate to high-end Macintoshes for $3,800 to $10,000; the crippled Mac LC was $2500, and obsolete-at-birth Mac Classic ranged from $999 to $1500. Windows allowed PC makers to ship a functional $1500 PC and claim a rough approximation to Apple's $2500 entry level system, maintaining that apparent $1000 price premium. Today, pundits are lucky to find a Dell or HP system that is even a couple hundred dollars less than a comparable Mac. However, in the smartphone business, the iPhone 3G is now the same price, if not less, than generic competing phones on the market. Even more significant is the fact that the price of the phone hardware is nearly nothing compared to the cost of the service plan. This fact simply eases any price premium that could cause buyers to flock to a smartphone running a generic operating system over buying the iPhone 3G, regardless of whether it runs Windows Mobile or Android. 1990-1995: Planting Software Seeds Android Partners Have Already Failed. That same pricing principle similarly prevented buyers from considering many of the alternatives to the iPod. While Apple's original iPod models were more expensive than many of the first MP3 players on the market, they were price competitive with models offering similar features. By 2004, it was Apple who was undercutting MP3 competitors on price. Microsoft offered zero price advantage when it began selling the Zune, a major factor in its failure, but Microsoft simply couldn't out-price the iPod; it was already losing money offering the Zune at the same price as the iPod. Apple now has tremendous market power in buying RAM and other components that will prevent any competitors from being able to offer a huge discount over the iPhone's $199 price tag. Even if competitors were to give their phones away, they would only offer a $200 discount to users who would then still need to pay the same mobile fees to use the phone. Android's other partners, including Samsung and LG, have already failed to capture any significant market share in the music player market. Are they going to maintain their position as smartphone makers now that they face similar competition from Apple, its iPod ecosystem, its iTunes Music and Apps Store, Apple's retail store experience, and other factors that are pushing the iPhone? If they can, it is not obvious how partnering with Android will help. Other Problems for Android. Android was announced in early November 2007 and was followed with an early preview SDK within a couple weeks, a month ahead of Apple's initial announcement of the iPhone 2.0 SDK. However, between March and July 2008, Apple delivered nine progressive releases of its SDK, opened its App Store, and sold 60 million apps, raising $30 million to support iPhone software development in just the first month. It has since released three more SDK updates to developers related to iPhone 2.1, which is expected next month. Android just published its first open SDK beta update earlier this week, warning developers that “applications developed with it may not quite be compatible with devices running the final Android 1.0.” Additionally, Android still has no phones available. By the time the HTC Dream is expected to launch, Apple will have an installed base of around ten million iPhone (and iPod touch) users supporting software development through iTunes. The business model for selling Android apps is no better than that for selling jailbreak iPhone apps: there is no iTunes Apps Store to promote them, so users will have to track them down on their own. Android developers also have no real freedom that jailbreak iPhone developers lack. The only difference is that there are ten million iPhones to sell jailbreak apps to, and currently zero Android phones. If selling a jailbreak iPhone app sounds like more trouble than its worth, imagine trying to sell Android apps to a non-existant audience. Now add the official iPhone App Store into the mix, where publicity, promotion and profits are booming. What platform is going to have the most applications? How many users will flock to a smartphone platform with no apps? The wisdom of releasing a desirable phone and achieving a significant installed base before releasing an SDK makes a lot more sense in retrospect. Additionally, while Apple has a decade of experience in shipping regular updates to Mac OS X and its Xcode developer tools, Google has only shipped a random assortment of web-oriented SDKs (a number of which have been abandoned) as a tangent to its core business of selling advertisements. When the Android SDK 1.0 is finished later this year, developers will not only lack an installed base to sell their apps to, but will also have no high profile market for selling their apps in, and subsequently no financial incentive to develop applications that add value to the Android platform, just like Linux on the PC desktop. Around the same time, possibly within the next month, Apple will be shipping its second major OS release: iPhone 2.1. Apple will also be upgrading its entire user base to the new software so that developers will have a cohesive platform to target. This mirrors the efforts Apple has taken to upgrade its Mac OS X users to the same reference release. Mobile developers will be seeing money pouring in via iTunes while crickets chirp in the Android section of various mobile online stores. Apple’s iPhone Vs. Other Mobile Hardware Makers: 5 Revenue Engines Same Same, But Different: DOS Model Problems. Android developers will also have a series of other problems to manage. Like Windows Mobile, Android is intended to support everything, from BlackBerry-style keypad phones with a small touchscreen to the simple Windows Mobile Smartphone form factor lacking a touch screen to iPhone-like full size touch screens. Also like Windows Mobile, Android phone makers will have the option to leave off Bluetooth, WiFi, GPS location services, graphics hardware acceleration, and so on. Each Android phone will also have unique camera hardware, support for different video and audio codecs, and varied support for other differentiating proprietary services demanded by mobile operators. This will force developers to to make complex decisions regarding the lowest common denominator they choose to support. So while the iPhone will have a cohesive feature set, a managed software environment, and a functional market, Android will be a loose federation of hardware makers selling the same random features found on Windows Mobile today, with a chaotic development environment that lacks any central market for users or developers. And it will be run as an experiment by a company with no experience in consumer hardware or platform development. The Missing Tap. One specific example of the “DOS model problem” is that Android currently does not support multitouch. It's not touched on in the API, and Google quietly tap dances around its omission. Why no multitouch? Because multitouch screens are expensive, and most OHA hardware members are more interested in making a profit in a competitive phone market rather than impressing consumers as Apple did with the iPhone. Most existing smartphones, even those trying to directly rival the iPhone, use a stylus driven, pressure sensitive tap screen or a simpler, cheaper touch technology that lacks support for sensing multitouch. The iPhone's screen can actually sense up to five fingers at once, but the primary feature multitouch offers on the iPhone is the two fingered tapping and the pinching effects everyone associates with it. Android could certainly support multitouch if there were a demand for it, but that's the point: Google knows that its hardware partners are cheap and unlikely to put out hardware that actually competes with the iPhone. Instead of using expensive technologies that deliver clever yet largely invisible functionality, OHA members, just like PC makers, are far more likely to add flashy, impractical gadgety fluff that's cheap to tack on, such as slide out keyboards, neon tubes, and scratch and sniff stickers. That's how you impress gullible nerds on the cheap. Google itself is blowing smoke and erecting mirrors to distract from the reality that it being a “DOS vendor” means supporting bargain basement hardware from penny pinching duplicators. Android has been demonstrating some “wow” features such as a Street Maps app that pans around based on an internal compass in the demonstration phone. The problem is that that kind of thing only makes for a fun demo. Nobody needs to twirl around their phone in the air to see a view of the other side of the street, but everyone who has used an iPhone will wonder why they can't pinch to zoom out. Even worse, most Android phones aren't going to have a compass built into them, so Google is demonstrating features most Android users won't be able to use. That Sounds Like Microsoft… Google's design decisions are beginning to look a lot like Windows Vista; rather than actually working to make laptops boot faster, Microsoft came up with the idea of adding a small screen to the back of Vista laptops so users could check their email without having to wake the system up. But this was a stupid idea for a number of reasons, the most obvious being that most users just want a laptop that boots up quickly. Few laptops got the mini screen, but every user who tries Vista on their laptop will wonder why it doesn't boot up as fast as Mac OS X Leopard. In the same way, Google is advertising features for Android that most users won't ever see in their actual phones while ignoring things people will expect based on their exposure to the iPhone. Android is simply selecting the wrong features. Android will offer the advantages of supporting MMS, recording video, and the list of other features Windows Mobile already supplies. Those features didn't stop Apple from firing past Microsoft in the smartphone arena however, just as the Zune's highly touted WiFi and screen didn't phase iPod buyers. Incidentally, just months after the Zune, Apple had not only demonstrated a larger display but a higher definition multitouch screen, and not only WiFi, but functional WiFi that could be used to browse the web or check email. This suggests that Apple, with its faster release schedule, won't stay behind any of the leading features potentially offered by Android for very long. Android partners, however, will find it as difficult to catch up with Apple's unique features, just as Microsoft has been stymied to keep up with Mac OS X, the iPod, and the iPhone. The underlying reason: both Google and Microosft are tasked with maintaing support for a huge variety of hardware options demanded by all their partners. Apple has the unique circumstances to do only what it needs to do itself. Android in Windows Mobile's Shoes. Like Windows Mobile, Android faces a difficult market. In the US, it competes against the popular BlackBerry in corporate markets and the iPhone among consumers. Worldwide, it competes against entrenched market leader Nokia. The difference is that Google, unlike Microsoft, has no in. Windows Mobile was adopted by Windows-bound IT shops despite its weaknesses. Nobody has any preexisting reason to try an Android phone apart from hobbyists and open software enthusiasts, a demographic that has done little to move Linux on the PC desktop. Google also lacks Microsoft's installed base; it's starting from zero. The smartphone industry initially doubted Apple's chances of making much progress with the iPhone, despite the company having the Mac platform, the iPod, retail stores, platform development experience, marketing savvy, industrial design prowess, and so on. Google doesn't have any of those things. Mobile Providers vs Android. Apple also started with an exclusive partnership with AT&T, a three legged race that demanded effort from both. Google is hoping that hardware makers handle the hardware details and that mobile providers will be excited to sell its Android phones. While hardware makers such as HTC clearly appreciate having found a free alternative to Windows Mobile, it's not obvious why providers would be excited about Android, as it promises an openness that most mobile providers strongly oppose. AT&T took a big risk in getting behind the iPhone, as the phone encouraged users to use email rather than fee-based SMS and MMS, it supported WiFi for data access, and it bypassed AT&T's MEdia Net services to plug into iTunes instead. Verizon refused to parter with Apple and grant it those kinds of concessions. Is AT&T going to take a similar risk to partner with a phone that is not exclusive to it, and is Verizon now going to open its arms to support phones that do not exclusively support BREW, VCast and its other proprietary services? While Android may well eat into Microsoft's Windows Mobile business by stealing away its hardware makers, it seems unlikely that Android will ever serve as more than free alternative to Windows Mobile in a market where Windows Mobile is increasingly irrelevant. Android may have the dubious distinction of swallowing Microsoft's mobile business the same way Microsoft ate up the Palm OS, but even if it accomplishes that goal, Google will likely find itself unsustainably hungry immediately afterward. It will also find itself swimming in a shark tank of hungry rivals, including Nokia's Symbian, RIM's BlackBerry, and Apple's iPhone. Symbian is the final generic platform vying for the opportunity to play DOS in the smartphone market. The next article will examine Nokia's chances in its bid to match Microsoft's PC dominance in the mobile market while setting out in a new venture to copy Android's open software model. Did you like this article? Let me know. Comment here, in the Forum, or email me with your ideas. Like reading RoughlyDrafted? Share articles with your friends, link from your blog, and subscribe to my podcast (oh wait, I have to fix that first). It's also cool to submit my articles to Digg, Reddit, or Slashdot where more people will see them. Consider making a small donation supporting this site. Thanks!
TUAW bloggers post their Apple predictions for 2010

Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Odds and ends, AppleIt's the end of another calendar year, which can mean only two things. First, every blog is going to be posting lists of 2009 retrospectives, and second, there are going to be a lot of posts filled with completely off-target predictions for 2010. So that we're not leaving our readership sitting in the dark wondering what the TUAW bloggers are prognosticating for the next year, here are our wild guesses well-researched and intelligent predictions for Apple in 2010. Enjoy 'em, and from all of us at TUAW, have a safe and happy New Year's Eve and Day. Steve Sande Big DUH! The Apple Tablet arrives. There are way too many hints flying around the blogosphere for this to be a non-product for another year. It's gotta happen! The Apple TV disappears from the Apple lineup. I hates it, I does. It just doesn't seem like an Apple product. iPhone moves to multiple US carriers, but not Verizon. Why? Wrong network for a world (read GSM) phone, and I think Apple is probably irritated with Verizon's Droid and their advertising. Apple closes some low-producing Apple Stores. The economy is still bad, and there have to be some locations with stores that aren't pulling their weight. Apple buys Dropbox, BackBlaze, and Evernote, makes MobileMe useful. Dropbox for better and faster folder syncing between devices, BackBlaze for external backups to the cloud, Evernote just because it's cool. Add 'em all together and what do you have? Something that's really worth paying $99 a year for. Apple definitely has the cash to buy these services. The Apple TV reappears in the Apple lineup as a high-quality autostereoscopic 3DTV with TiVo, Slingbox, and Boxee functionality built in. I can dream, can't I? Erica Sadun I'm hoping this will be the year of the tablet. Of course, I've been anticipating the year of the tablet since, oh say, around 1993 or so. Apple's future isn't about the hardware though, and it's not about their OS line: it's about their ability to deliver media. I'm thinking "iTunes gone large". Apple's Lala acquisiition, rumored TV deals, and possible textbook distribution agreements point to a renewed focus on content delivery devices. Admittedly, Apple TV has never really evolved into its promise, perhaps due to areas into which Apple was not able to expand due to licensing deals with companies with Cable/Broadband interests but the iPhone has gone above and beyond in the media realm. So do I see a tablet (or a line of tablet devices) as a natural extension of the Apple content store? Absolutely. Will we see it this year? Possibly. Will it be early this year? Hard to say. Ask me again in a month. Michael Rose The tablet, yes, there will be one, it will be spectacular, and about three months after introduction it will drop in price by $200. People who bought the original version would be annoyed except they're so giddy from having had a piece of the future in their knapsacks for three months. We'll see Apple get serious about cloud services by buying a company that's doing online storage right (Dropbox guys, don't make your numbers unlisted) and creating a capability that will actually rival some of the more effective platforms out there. Apple needs a Microsoft Mesh-like solution to really unlock the portable power of its devices. Then again, the tablet. 2010 will be the year that hackintoshes become more than a distraction and a legal burden. The Psystar battle shows that Apple knows there's risk, and sooner or later the netbooks-on-OS-X market will collide with the business realities of Apple's day to day operations. Then again, the tablet. We'll see a secondary carrier for the iPhone in the US (yay!). It will not be Verizon (darn!), it will be T-Mobile. The Verizon iPhone is a 2011 phenomenon, but by then the prevalence of portable Wi-Fi and VoIP solutions for mobile will start to scratch away at the cellphone market's power. Then again, the tablet. Mac OS X 10.7 will return us to 'new features' land; we'll learn about it at WWDC and see it by 2011. Mel Martin There will be a tablet. Even though Steve Jobs said Apple wasn't working on one, remember he also denied the iPhone was coming for a long time too. There seems to be a crescendo of stories about the tablet (i-Slate, i-Pad, whatever) and that's a pretty good indication something is on the way. Changes to MobileMe. Maybe cheaper, certainly some new features. The system has come a long way, but it can hardly be called reliable, and I think for the money it needs more features and/or a lower price. The notification system could use some improving as well. When things go down it seems to take an awfully long time for Apple support to post something about it. A new AppleTV. I think something is likely, something beyond the current hardware/software. I like my AppleTV, but it is still feature poor and very limited in sources for video. Apple should get something a bit more interesting out, or hang this product out to dry. Blu-ray. Originally Apple was a big proponent of this hi-rez video disc. Now, not so much. I expect Apple will have to start adding Blu-ray to desktops and laptops, maybe even to the AppleTV. Sure there have been some licensing cost issues, but others are getting past it and offering it on windows based hardware. Come on Apple, get with it. Apple will get 'Back to my Mac' working. It was a highly touted feature of MobileMe, but for a large population of Mac users, it simply doesn't work. Hard to get excited about a feature I pay for and can't use. Other applications seem to be able to solve these router and security issues. Back to my Mac should just work. A new iPhone. The easiest prediction of all to make. They seem to come out like clockwork, and force many of us to ditch our older models and re-up with our favorite carrier. Speaking of favorite carriers, I think Apple will finally end AT&T exclusivity. Apple's image has taken a beating over AT&T service and support. The world's best smartphone shouldn't be stuck on the world's worst network. I think Apple will change this. Apple market share will continue to increase. Apple users are generally happy users, and Apple users tend to be evangelical about their experiences. In both the U.S., and around the globe, I expect Apple to increase share of laptops, desktops, iPhones and following on that, OS share. Apple will move more services to the 'cloud'. MobileMe is certainly there, iWork looks like it is heading that direction as well. Microsoft and Google have ambitious cloud-based designs, so it's an easy prediction, and a likely outcome. Most predictions will be wrong. There's something about predicting the future. Things take unexpected turns and don't come out exactly as planned. The film '2001' is really dated, and 'Space 1999', well, it looks pretty silly today. My favorite bad prediction? The GM produced film [YouTube Video link] done for the 1939 World's Fair that predicted the sixties. My, what a miss. Michael Grothaus The iPod classic will be no more. By September 2010 the iPod touch will have a max capacity of 128GB, making the iPod classic look archaic and redundant. The iPod lineup will solely consist of 'iPod touch' and 'iPod' - the former 'iPod nano' that maxes out at 32GB. The iSlate is announced in January, followed by a mid-year product launch. The iSlate will make the iPhone look 2005. It will have multi-touch on front and back of the device. Sometime during the year there will be an interesting anecdote about Steve Jobs showing the iSlate to a famous industrial designer (no, not Johnny Ive) this past December whom Jobs then attempted to call a cab for when the designer was leaving Jobs' "modest" home. The industrial designer will tell how Jobs, the most creative tech genius on the planet, had trouble calling a cab from his home phone. Apple (AAPL) stock will hit $300 a share and the stock will do a 2-for-1 split. The iPhone will be the #1 smartphone in the world by a wide margin by December 2010. Blackberry will be #2, and the Google Phone will be a distant third. Palm isn't even a blip on the radar. 'The iSlate will bomb.' Or so will say numerous tech CEOs who will bemoan its 'limited appeal'. They will all be wrong. And though the iSlate won't kill it until 2011, the Kindle will be handed its hat at the door in 2010. Apple will partner with Visa and Mastercard for turning your iPhone into a swipe credit card using the 4th gen iPhone's RFID chip. iLife 2010 will replace iDVD with 'iLP'. iLP will allow users to easily created iTunes LP albums which they can instantly upload to MobileMe for download onto their friends and families new AppleTVs. The new AppleTV will have the cable companies quaking in their pants. Steve Jobs wants to do for the broadcast industry what he did for the music, movie, mobile, and publishing industries. 32" LED Cinema Display. iPhone: Two more US carriers, one of them Verizon. OLED screen and new industrial design that takes lessons from the iSlate. iPhone OS 4.0. Expect to see a multi-touch surface on the iPhone that is not part of the screen. iTunes Store: another late-year redesign to help facilitate making app search easier. Tabbed browsing. Apps top 200,000. Mike Schramm I think we'll finally see the iTablet this year, but it'll be much closer to an iPhone or a Kindle than a traditional tablet computer, with complete App Store integration and a relatively limited UI. The iPhone will finally be released to multiple carriers, T-Mobile first among them. And Apple will focus on cloud services -- they'll host your music and documents online whenever you want them, accessible from all your Apple devices and/or Apple software. What, those aren't out-on-a-limb enough for you? The Mac Pro will get a major update, possibly even a rebranding. The Apple TV will start running App Store apps. And the iPod touch will finally get a camera. Victor Agreda, Jr. Apparently the tablet is a forgone conclusion, so I'll just say that the tablet is just the beginning... I predict that Apple's tablet move will nearly cement its reign in the digital home of tomorrow. Apple will begin partnering with companies such as LG, KitchenAid and others to bring integration into the kitchen, the spare room, etc. The tablet ecosystem and 3rd-party markets will soon resemble the iPod ecosystems from just a few years ago. Remember the iPod dock with built-in toilet paper dispenser? Prepare yourself for a mirror with enough transparency so you can shave AND read your iTablet at the same time. Apple will also spend 2010 getting into the cloud like never before. iWork, iTunes and iLife will be the first to get online application, further hooks and functionality. But at WWDC Apple will announce 10.7 and some "really amazing" features that leverage the power of the internet with the power of their OS. Online backups? Yes, and probably something new and a little bit innovative to deal with what is now at least a decade for many of us with digital cameras... You didn't think iPhoto's crappy behavior when confronted by huge libraries would go on forever, did you? Speaking of data management, depending on which winds the wireless ones blow, Apple may tie ever more services from app makers to its own cloudy ambitions. Look for some ad-fueled functionality to be provided free to tablet and iPhone users, and for announcements regarding iPhone on other networks... Plus look for some needed upgrades to the iPhone OS itself. Apple isn't dumb enough to ignore the jailbreak community and many of the awesome, time-saving tweaks found there. PogoPlank is one example and Stacks is another. Why can't I see the weather without unlocking my phone? Fixing things like this will put an end to some of the "Droid Does" nonsense.TUAWTUAW bloggers post their Apple predictions for 2010 originally appeared on The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) on Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.Permalink�|�Email this�|�Comments Apple - Steve Jobs - Microsoft - Apple Store - Apple Tablet
China Unicom wants iPhone, too?

Filed under: Cellphones, Portable Audio, Portable Video If Steve Jobs dreams of anything other than cubes or the The Beatles on iTunes, it's this: China's largest carriers in a tussle for rights to sell the iPhone. We're talking about a population of some 1 billion-strong who favor BlackBerrys for their sound quality and good looks. In an apparent response to the reported talks between China Mobile and Apple, Li Zhehgmao, executive director and vice president of rival China Unicom is quoted by Dow Jones as saying, "It seems that iPhone is hot in some markets. We are willing to discuss with Apple." Direct talks with Apple, however, have not begun. Mind you, those same remarks were captured somewhat differently by Reuters. They quote Li Zhehgmao as saying, "Right now, we don't have any plans to introduce Apple's iPhones in China. But of course, we're always willing to discuss a good business opportunity if it presents itself. As for whether we'll talk about iPhones with Apple, you'll have to ask Apple." Still, given that the talks have just begun, it's doubtful that Apple will reach a deal similar to those struck in Europe and the US any time soon. Wouldn't it be interesting though, if Apple released the iPhone in China before Meizu's M8 MiniOne clone ever hit the streets?Read -- Dow Jones quoteRead -- Reuters�Permalink | Email this | CommentsOffice Depot Featured Gadget: Xbox 360 Platinum System Packs the power to bring games to life!
★ The iPad

Back in December, here’s how I concluded my piece on what I expected from Apple’s then-still-unannounced tablet: If you’re thinking The Tablet is just a big iPhone, or just Apple’s take on the e-reader, or just a media player, or just anything, I say you’re thinking too small — the equivalent of thinking that the iPhone was going to be just a click wheel iPod that made phone calls. I think The Tablet is nothing short of Apple’s reconception of personal computing. After the iPad was announced, I got two types of emails from readers. The first group saying they were disappointed, because they had been hoping I was right that The Tablet would be Apple’s reconception of personal computing. The second group wrote to tell me how excited they were because I was right that The Tablet would be Apple’s reconception of personal computing. Count me in with the second group. Apple hasn’t thought of everything with iPad, but what they’ve thought about, they’ve thought about very deeply. I got mine Saturday morning, and I’ve been using it since — or at least as often as I could get it away from my son. Here are my thoughts. The Big Picture The whole thing feels fast fast fast. The only thing that feels slow overall, so far, is web page rendering. Not because it’s slower than the iPhone — it’s not, it’s definitely much faster — but because it’s so much slower than my MacBook Pro. It’s easy to forget on modern PC-class hardware just how computationally expensive HTML rendering is. The funny thing is, the iPad, in raw CPU terms, is a far slower machine than a modern Mac. But the iPad is running a lightweight OS and lightweight apps. It’s like a slower runner with a lighter backpack who can win a race against a faster runner wearing a heavier backpack. Thus, many of the things you do are faster, or at least feel faster (which is what matters), on the iPad than the Mac. Like, for example, launching applications. The built-in apps, and many of the third-party apps I’ve been using the most, are ready to use within a moment of launching them. (Games tend not to load instantly, but that’s true on high-power consoles like Xbox and PS3, too.) There’s something fundamentally strange about how fast the iPad feels considering how underpowered it is versus a modern PC or Mac. How can a computer with so much less CPU speed feel faster? What Apple has done is re-think several fundamental aspects. The iPad was designed from the ground up with a different set of priorities. I think Tim Bray summarizes it well: For a 1Ghz device with limited memory, the iPad is unreasonably fast. I suspect this accounts for a whole bunch of the “Wow!” reaction the iPad obviously provokes. Since there’s no free lunch, I think it’s really important that we understand what they sacrificed to get that performance. My bet would be on some combination of windowing and virtual memory. I tend to work on lots of things at once, but in fact I look at things in rapid succession, my eyes can really only focus on one thing at one time. Given sufficiently fast switching, maybe we all ought to be getting less WIMPy. The iPad (and iPhone OS across all devices) does indeed lack virtual memory. The only memory is honest-to-god RAM. RAM is fast, virtual memory is slow. The tradeoff is that without virtual memory, the iPad can do far less at once, but what it does do is never going to require hitting virtual memory. Without a windowing system, drawing is simpler and faster. Apple has made other significantly different tradeoffs as well. Battery life on the iPad is simply stunning. Reviewers across the board are getting real-life results that beat Apple’s promise of 10 hours of battery life. This is a function both of software (which does less and works hard to keep the CPU from drawing power while the iPad is being used) and hardware — iFixit’s teardown shows that, internally, the iPad looks more like a battery with a computer than a computer with a battery. The iPad, so far, never gets warm. Browse a bunch of web sites. Play some video. Play a game. It still feels as cool to the touch as when it’s turned off. It is also dead quiet — no fan, no humming, nada. This is the future of computing. The iPad was designed with an entirely different set of priorities than Macs or PCs. Someone may well produce a worthy iPad rival in the next year, but it’s not going to be something like HP’s Slate that runs Windows 7, an operating system that epitomizes the traditional set of computer design priorities. The iPad is also eminently affordable. $500 for this thing seems hard to believe. I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend it at double the price. But clearly there were tradeoffs involved to hit this price point. Build quality is not one — the thing feels perfect in hand. But it only has 256 MB of RAM — perhaps the single biggest hardware weakness of the device (see the section on Safari below). It is super high-quality, but clearly designed for the mass market. Anyone who thinks Apple only makes high-priced products has completely lost sense of reality. “Affordable luxury” is the sweet spot for mass market success today, and Apple keeps shooting bulls eyes. In fact, the only thing that makes my heart ache regarding the iPad is when I start imagining a hypothetical Pro model — imagine what Apple could put in an iPad that cost as much as a MacBook Pro. (My dream iPad Pro: double the display’s pixel resolution and include a gigabyte or two of RAM.) Affordability presents itself in other ways, too. Nothing is included in the box other than the power adaptor. The dock and case are separate SKUs, and it doesn’t even come with headphones. It’s like buying a Honda, not an Acura — the base model is not “well-equipped”. $500 is affordable but not cheap, and the iPad does not feel cheap in any regard. The build quality is outstanding. The brushed aluminum back makes my plastic iPhone 3GS feel cheap. The iPad takes more cues from the current iMacs than it does from the iPhone. The seam between the glass and the aluminum is nearly perfect. It’s just one piece of aluminum and a piece of glass — there is no superfluous chrome bezel between the glass and the backing as there is on all iPhones and iPod Touches to date. Even without turning it on it looks and feels a step beyond the iPhones and iPod Touches we’ve seen to date. The Killer App One thing that’s making it hard for some people to grasp the purpose of the iPad is that no one has an answer to what precisely it is for. This was not so for the iPhone. The answer to the question of what the original 2007 iPhone was meant for was right there at the bottom of the iPhone home screen, in the “dock”: phone, email, web, music and video. The other apps were icing on the cake. The four apps in the dock were what Apple designed the iPhone to do. The iPad also has a “dock” on the home screen, and the default apps in that dock are clearly important: Safari, Mail, Photos, iPod (which, on the iPad, is only for audio). But some are treating the iPad as, fundamentally, an e-reader. Others as a gaming device. Others as a movie player. None of those things are represented in the iPad’s default dock apps. The truth is that the App Store is the killer app. The iPad is meant for anything that can be represented on a 10-inch color touchscreen. Back in January when we were playing the “What’s Apple going to name the tablet?” game, my favorite, by far, was “Canvas”. I’m not saying here that Canvas would have been a better name than iPad, but the word conveys perfectly what the iPad is. Adam Engst captured this: The iPad becomes the app you’re using. That’s part of the magic. The hardware is so understated - it’s just a screen, really - and because you manipulate objects and interface elements so smoothly and directly on the screen, the fact that you’re using an iPad falls away. You’re using the app, whatever it may be, and while you’re doing so, the iPad is that app. Switch to another app and the iPad becomes that app. If that’s not magic, I don’t know what is. As did Cultured Code’s Jürgen Schweizer: Steve Jobs said about the iPod that “it is all about the music”. With the iPad, Apple has done the same for personal computing as it has done before with the iPod: it made technology go away. But if the device is gone, and the operating system is gone, what is left? The iPad is an empty canvas that invites us to imagine what is possible. It inspires our imagination and it makes us want to create, because never before were we able to create software that was so close to the user. The iPad hardware and OS are profoundly humble — they put all the focus on whatever app it is that is open. Out of Box Experience One thing that is very iPhone-like about iPad is that when you first take it out of the box, it wants to be plugged into your Mac or PC via USB and sync with iTunes. In some ways, that’s understandable. USB syncing is how you load your iPad with music and videos and transfer over stuff like your email accounts, and, if you’re not using MobileMe, your contacts and calendars. But, on the whole, it feels retrograde. It’s creates an impression that the iPad does not stand on its own. It’s a child that still needs a parent. But it’s not a young child. It’s more like a teenager. It’s close. So close that it feels like it ought to be able to stand on its own. Android devices do not have this problem. You can sync an Android device with a desktop computer via USB, for transferring things like music and videos, but you don’t have to. Out of the box, a Nexus One is ready to go. Google’s big advantage here is that they’re using online services as primary data stores. The Google Way is to use Gmail for email and contacts, and Google Calendar for events. You just tell your Android device your Google ID and password, and your email, contacts, and calendars start syncing over the air. Apple has MobileMe, but because it’s a paid service, they can’t (or at least won’t) assume that all iPad owners are going to use it. But then even those of us who do use MobileMe get stuck with a first-run iPad experience that involves a tethered USB connection to a computer. The Apple Way is to assume that your primary data stores for these things are locally stored on your Mac or PC — Address Book, iCal. At the very least, these things ought to be able to sync between iTunes (on your Mac or PC) and your iPad over your Wi-Fi network. Third-party iPhone OS apps like Things do a great job with this — there’s no reason iTunes and the iPhone OS shouldn’t too. Those Heart-Stopping ‘Scratches’ On the iPhone (and iPod Touch; assume from here out that when I say “iPhone” I’m referring to both), app icons on the home screen sit atop a plain black background. On the iPad, they’re spaced further apart, which is why I think Apple has added wallpaper — making the iPad home screen look a lot more like a Mac or Windows desktop. The default wallpaper shows a sunset skyline of a mountain range in front of a like. There’s a meteor shower in the sky. And the streaking meteors look, at a glance, like a series of severe scratches on the display. It’s a curious choice. The Touchscreen Keyboard It’s a lot like the iPhone’s, but, it’s different. Because it’s bigger, there are no pop-up indicators showing which key you hit as you type. They’re not necessary. The feel, overall, is pretty much like typing on a really big iPhone. If you’re in a position where you can set the iPad down on your lap or a table top, it’s not too hard at all to type with all your fingers when the iPad is in landscape (horizontal) orientation. Now, to me, it’s nowhere near as good as even the worst full- or nearly-full-size hardware keyboard I’ve ever used. You can’t just rest all eight of your fingers on the home row keys, and you can’t feel where the key cap edges are. You have to look at the keyboard a fair amount as you type. On a hardware keyboard, I hardly ever look at the keys. But for a touchscreen, it’s good. In portrait (vertical) orientation, I can type on the iPad using just my two thumbs, as I do on my iPhone. I have relatively large hands, though — I don’t think most people can do it. The keyboard in this layout is way too small for me to type with all of my fingers, though. In portrait orientation most people will type using one finger, I expect. Now, the funny thing is, in general, bigger keyboards are easier to type on than smaller ones. That’s why big laptops are easier to type on than compact ones, and, indeed, that’s why the landscape iPad keyboard on the iPad is easier to type on than the portrait one. But at a certain point, the curve flips around and smaller becomes faster. I type much faster on my iPhone using the smaller portrait orientation keyboard than the wider landscape keyboard. In both modes, I use just my two thumbs. With the smaller iPhone keyboard, my thumbs have to travel less from one key to the next. People who aren’t very proficient at the iPhone keyboard, or who have very large thumbs and therefore have trouble precisely tapping the smaller keys, may well prefer the iPhone’s wider landscape keyboard. But for me it’s not even close. I never type in landscape on my iPhone. And in fact (and this is the aforereferenced “funny part”), I type faster on my iPhone than I do on the iPad. That’s especially true for when the iPad is in portrait mode, which puts the keyboard size in a no-man’s land — too small to eight-finger-type, too big to thumb-type. But it’s also true for when the iPad is in landscape mode. I’m hopeful that this is just a factor of experience and muscle memory — I have nearly three years of experience typing on the iPhone, and only two days experience with the iPad. Last Friday I watched Andy Ihnatko eight-finger-type on his iPad — which he’d been using for over a week — and he was typing pretty goddamn fast. One problem I’ve run into is that Apple has subtly changed the layout of the keyboard from the iPhone’s. On the iPhone, the Delete key is on the lower right, above the Return key. On the iPad, it’s in the upper right corner, and the Return key is next to the L key. The iPad adds a right-side Shift key. �� The iPad layout makes perfect sense — both these keys are now where they reside on traditional hardware keyboards. Their weird positions on the iPhone are a compromise forced by the extreme lack of space on the iPhone display. Apple has also added a new key to the iPad keyboard’s numeric/punctuation mode: Undo. It’s a good idea — I have the feeling most iPhone users don’t know about the system-wide shake-to-undo gesture, and even for users who do, the iPad is harder to shake (and, when docked, downright silly to shake). But this new Undo key moves the period and comma keys over to the right by two positions. The iPhone keyboard layout is so firmly ingrained in my mind that these changes are problems for me — I keep hitting the (new to the iPad) right-side Shift key when I mean to hit Delete, and I keep hitting Undo when I mean to type a period. I’ll get used to it soon, I’m sure, but I find it interesting that my iPad typing muscle memory is based on the iPhone keyboard, not regular keyboards. I think this is because, overall, it really does feel like a big iPhone keyboard. Hardware Keyboard Support I don’t have (and did not order) the iPad keyboard dock, but I have been using an Apple Bluetooth keyboard. In fact, I’m using it to type this entire review. It works great. Pairing (via the iPad Settings app) is easy and quick. And it works great. Several essential text-editing shortcuts from the Mac OS work system-wide on the iPad: Command-Z, -X, -C, and -V work for Undo, Cut, Copy, and Paste. Command-A works for Select All. You can use the arrow keys to move the insertion point. Option-Arrow keys work to move the insertion point one word at a time. Command-Left/Right moves the insertion point the beginning/end of the current line; Command-Up/Down moves the insertion point the start/end of the current text field — which, in the case of something like Pages, is the beginning/end of the entire document. Holding down Shift extends the selection range, and works in conjunction with the Option and Command keys as expected. (Certain of Cocoa’s long-standing Emacs-style text editing shortcuts work too: like Control-K (kill) and Control-H (backspace).) Certain of the function keys on the Bluetooth keyboard are useful on the iPad. The brightness keys control the iPad’s display brightness. The volume (and mute) keys work. The playback buttons — play/pause, next, previous — all work to control the iPod app. By default, once you’ve started using a hardware keyboard, the on-screen keyboard no longer appears, which is great, because the full display is now available for displaying content. But if you want to use the on-screen keyboard while a hardware keyboard is active, you can toggle it using the hardware keyboard’s Eject key. The Esc key dismisses the auto-complete suggestion — it’s like tapping the little “x” next to the suggestion under the current word you’re typing. While a keyboard is connected, you can wake up the iPad by hitting any key — completely bypassing the iPad’s slide-to-unlock screen. Very nice. The iPad is fundamentally a touchscreen device. You absolutely do not need a hardware keyboard for it. But if you’re hoping to do any amount of serious writing with it (and, for obvious vocational reasons, I plan to), you’re going to want one. There are a few places in the iPad UI where I really wish the keyboard was useful but it isn’t. For example, Safari location field suggestions. On the Mac, you can use the up and down arrow keys to move through the list of suggestions. On the iPad, you must use touch to select from the list. Since you’re already typing if you’re entering a URL, this is just begging for arrow key support. (Ditto for suggested results from the Google search field in Safari.) The Esc key does not dismiss popovers, but that’s probably OK. It’s only possible to invoke popovers via touch, so it seems OK that you must dismiss them via touch as well. The Tab key can be used to switch between text fields; Shift-Tab goes in reverse order. (When using the hardware keyboard, I do find myself hitting Command-Tab, without thinking about it, when I want to switch to another app; it does nothing on the iPad.) Display The iPad display is, overall, wonderful. Colors are bright and (unlike the Nexus One’s OLED display) accurate. Photos and videos looks great. Touches seem precisely accurate. The glass feels good. Viewing angles are shockingly good. You can lay the iPad flat on a table while you eat or drink and it looks just fine at a decidedly skew angle — far more so than with the iPhone. This IPS stuff is the real deal; here’s to hoping for an IPS display in this year’s new iPhones. The only complaint I have about the display is that the pixel resolution isn’t all that dense. The iPad’s 1024 � 768 display has a resolution of 132 pixels per inch. The iPhone’s 640 � 320 display has a resolution of 163 pixels per inch. The difference isn’t huge, but it’s definitely noticeable. Type looks crisper on the iPhone than the iPad, and type rendering falls far short of even newspaper-caliber resolution, let alone glossy-magazine caliber. (Those of you who doubt that the pixels-per-inch resolution isn’t high enough, just wait until you see the type rendering on this summer’s new iPhones.) Safari The iPad is so good as a web reader, that, if you’re a web junkie, everything else the iPad does is just gravy. It’s good. I’m so used to Safari on the iPhone, though, where the toolbar is at the bottom, that I’m having a hard time getting adjusted to the toolbar at the top. I’m not saying it’s a bad decision on Apple’s part. In fact, the iPad HIG is quite explicit that iPad toolbars should go at the top, not bottom — which makes me think Apple thought about and tested this and has concluded that the top works better for the iPad form factor. It’s just that I use Safari on my iPhone a lot, and I am really used to the button placement. When you create a new page in Safari on iPad, text focus goes to the Google search field by default, rather than the URL location field. That’s a change from both desktop and iPhone Safari. I’m finding this hard to get used to, but I can see how this might be a better design for typical users. It makes the default search engine all the more essential to the web browsing experience, though. Zooming and flicking are essential to the experience, just like on the iPhone. Flicking is how you scroll, no surprise. The zooming, though, may come as a surprise. It wasn’t too long ago when 1024 � 768 was considered a large display for full-size web browsing. But: what matters on the iPad (and iPhone) is not the pixel count of the display, but the physical size. 9.7 inches diagonally is a bit small for non-zoomed web browser. But the action of zooming — whether through double-tapping or pinching — is so smooth, fast, and natural that it feels better, not worse, than old-school desktop web browsing. There’s one severe problem in Safari for iPad, though: memory crapping out. MobileSafari for iPhone has always allowed you to open up to eight pages at a time. It tries to keep them all truly open, in RAM, so that you can quickly switch between them. But when it runs out of memory it starts flushing some of the pages. It doesn’t forget the URL for those pages, and, in recent versions, it saves a static thumbnail image of the rendered page, but when you switch back to those purged pages, MobileSafari must reload the page — thus, you must wait both for the contents of the page to download and for the page to actually render (which — the rendering — often takes longer than the downloading). It’s very noticeable. Switching between unpurged Safari pages is instantaneous. Switching to a purged page takes as long as opening it from scratch. Wolf Rentzsch, linking to this complaint from Peter-Paul Koch, wrote a brief technical overview of why Apple might have designed MobileSafari this way. (Keep in mind that iPhone OS does not use virtual memory; thus RAM is severely constrained.) This purging problem got a lot better with the iPhone 3GS. The original iPhone and iPhone 3G only had 128 MB of RAM. The 3GS has 256. MobileSafari’s ability to keep more pages in memory is probably my single favorite aspect of the 3GS. The iPad also has 256 MB of RAM. But, in my use, iPad’s Safari isn’t able to keep nearly as many pages open as I can on my 3GS. In fact, sometimes it seems I can only have one, and every page I switch to gets completely reloaded. This is more than just annoying — it can lead to data loss if you have unsubmitted form data sitting in an “open” iPad Safari page. I’ve run into this posting items to DF from the iPad — my posting interface is a web page form. When I want to link to the current page, I invoke a bookmarklet which opens a new page with the title and URL fields of the posting form set to the title and URL of the page from which I invoked the bookmarklet. Often, though, I want to switch back to the page I’m linking to copy another URL or a bit of text to quote. Twice so far, when going back to the posting form, it’s been purged and must reload from scratch — in which case I lose anything I’ve already written. I never run into this problem on my iPhone 3GS when switching between just two open Safari pages. The problem is also severe for AJAX web apps, which tend not to be designed with full page refreshes in mind. I hope this can be improved significantly in an iPad software update, but I worry that it’s endemic — that because the iPad screen is so much larger than the iPhone’s, that MobileSafari must allocate significantly more memory per page for the framebuffers. 256 MB of RAM simply may not be enough for MobileSafari to keep more than two or three pages in memory. If so, Apple really needs to consider some sort of caching or serialization scheme rather than completely flushing away purged pages. Pages I wrote the entire 4,828-word first draft of this piece on my iPad using Pages.1 I didn’t use any of the formatting or layout tools — I used it as a text editor rather than a word processor. It’s quite serviceable. What I like best is that it opens very quickly. Switching between, say, Pages and Safari and back to copy-and-paste a URL feels more like switching than quitting, launching, quitting, relaunching. You don’t need to (and can’t) save manually. Whatever you do in a document simply persists automatically. When you go back to the list of documents, they’re presented as big thumbnails — very much like the list of open web pages in Safari. Pages’s toolbar and ruler are only visible when in portrait mode. In landscape mode, all of the chrome disappears. It’s just a full-screen editing view, a la WriteRoom. I’m writing this piece in this full-screen (landscape) mode, with my iPad propped up on a table in Apple’s iPad case. It’s a nice setup, and I can genuinely imagine leaving my MacBook at home for trips in the future, with the addition of few missing iPad apps (like, say, a good SFTP client). But when I say there’s no chrome in the landscape mode, I mean none. Pages has a decent simple little find and replace feature, but it’s only possible to invoke it in portrait mode. (I must have hit Command-F a dozen times so far, to no avail.) There are already complaints piling up that the iWork apps don’t support the complete feature set of their current Mac counterparts — open a file created in a Mac version of Pages/Numbers/Keynote on your iPad and certain document features may be removed. (The iPad apps prompt you with an alert telling you which aspects of the document have been changed or removed.) Another way of looking at it though, is that the iPad iWork apps are to their Mac counterparts what the iPad as a whole is to the Mac — simpler, more focused, but in some ways faster. Pages launches and is ready for input far quicker on my iPad than on my MacBook Pro. Writing this review, I’ve been switching back and forth between Pages and Safari. It doesn’t feel like quitting Pages, launching Safari, copying a URL, quitting Safari, and re-launching Pages. It feels more like switching — it only takes a moment after tapping the Pages icon on the home screen to be back where I was in my open document. (My only complaint is that you lose the insertion point when leaving and coming back to Pages — the document re-opens to where you left off, but you must tap the screen to place the insertion point. When switching several times, that becomes slightly tedious.) This is obviously not even close to a full review of Pages, but I can say without hesitation that it’s easily worth $10. Syncing There is, however, a severe shortcoming inherent to the iWork suite of iPad apps: document syncing between Mac and iPad. It’s a convoluted mess. In short, the only way to edit a document on your iPad that was created on your Mac, or vice versa, is to go through a convoluted multi-step process of exporting, copying, syncing or downloading, and importing. Ted Landau has copiously documented the entire situation in this article at The Mac Observer. Read it and weep. What it boils down to is that there is no syncing really. Real syncing is something like IMAP for email, or the way MobileMe handles calendars and contacts. When I read a bunch of new email messages using my iPad or iPhone, when I next sit down at my Mac, those messages are marked as read in my inbox. I don’t have to do anything on the Mac for that to happen. That’s just how IMAP works. I can add a new calendar event on my Mac, then walk away from my computer, take my iPhone out of my pocket, and the event is there. I can add a note to that event using my iPhone and a few moments later the note will be synced to the event on my Mac. Certain of my favorite iPad and iPhone apps sync like this too. When I read a bunch of RSS items using NetNewsWire on my iPad, they’re marked as read on my Mac. Sitting at my Mac in my office, I can send a long article to Instapaper. I go downstairs, pick up my iPad, sit on the couch, launch the Instapaper iPad app, and a few seconds later, there’s the article I just added to my Instapaper queue. This is the sort of data flow that makes me feel like I’m living in the future — using multiple hardware devices to view, edit, and modify the same data. I don’t worry about where separate copies of my data exist. Conceptually it’s just there in the apps, and the apps do all the hard work of pushing and pulling changes made on other clients. The data flow with these iWork apps isn’t like that at all, and needs to be for them to be truly useful. It doesn’t matter how good the user interface for viewing and editing spreadsheets is in Numbers for iPad if my spreadsheets aren’t there. Here’s an example. I keep the schedule for Daring Fireball RSS sponsorships in a Numbers document. What I’d like to be able to do on my iPad is launch Numbers and access the current version of that spreadsheet. But the only way I could possibly do that today would be if I went through the following steps every single time I made a change to the document on my Mac: Before opening the current version of the file on my Mac, check to make sure there isn’t a more recent version of it on my iPad. Open the file on my Mac and make changes. Save. Dock my iPad to my Mac via USB. Switch to iTunes and go to the Apps tab for my iPad. Add the newly-saved revision of the document to the file sharing list for the iPad’s Numbers app. Sync. Even after going through all of this, when I do want to open this file on my iPad, I have to remember not to open the last revision of it listed in the iPad Numbers app’s “My Documents” list, but instead remember first to import the latest revision from Numbers’s file sharing list to Numbers’ “My Documents”. And, again, it’s effectively up to me to keep track of which machine, Mac or iPad, has the most recent revision of the file. To say the least, this is a recipe for disaster, and even if you don’t make a mistake and inadvertantly make significant changes to an out-of-date version of the document on one of the two machines, you’re stuck with a preposterously, mind-bogglingly convoluted workflow each and every time you make a change to the document. The bottom line, obviously, is that there is no way that anyone is going to use these iPad apps in the way I describe above. As-is they’re only useful to me in two ways. First, I can imagine using Pages on the iPad to compose original new documents — posts for Daring Fireball — while I’m using my iPad. I’ll either finish them there and then copy-and-paste the result into the web-based posting interface for DF, or, I’ll send the draft to my Mac for further editing (which is what I did for the piece you’re reading right now). I can also imagine creating finished Keynote decks on my Mac and then moving them, once, to my iPad, and taking only my iPad with me to the presentation — i.e. using Keynote, Numbers, and Pages on the iPad as viewers for finished documents. (And, conveniently, they’re viewers that can make edits if you notice a mistake or want to make a last-minute change or addition.) But there’s no possible way to use these apps as clients alongside their Mac counterparts on an ongoing basis. The sort of over-the-air syncing I’m imagining for iWork is, admittedly, a difficult problem to solve. But the bad news for Apple is that their top competitor in this space has a solution: Google Documents. With Google Documents, there’s no making copies, importing/exporting, manually invoked syncing, or USB tethering involved if you want to edit a single instance of a spreadsheet from multiple machines. You just make changes on one machine, and when you next look at that document from another machine the changes are there. The workflow for iWork is downright antediluvian. It’s not just pre-Cloud, it’s pre-network. It’s effectively the “Who’s got the latest revision of this file?” workflow of the days when we moved files from one machine to another via floppy disks. What in the world is iWork.com for if not for solving this problem? At least iWork.com lets you avoid having to physically tether the two machines via USB to get a document from the Mac to the iPad (or vice versa), but it’s no better than file sharing through iTunes conceptually. When you send a file to iWork.com (from either Mac or iPad) you’re pushing a copy, a snapshot of the document from that moment. After making subsequent changes, you’ve got to push those changes to iWork.com all over again. And to get them on the other device, you must manually import — making just another copy. What you ought to be able to do is specify iWork.com as the canonical shared storage location for an iWork document. iWork.com doesn’t serve as any such purpose today. iPhone Apps I predicted it’d be crummy to run non-iPad-optimized iPhone apps on the iPad — like Classic apps running on Mac OS X — and I was right. It’s OK for games — they look jaggy, but jaggy games aren’t that uncommon. But regular (non-game) apps just look and feel weird. When you run them pixel-doubled text doesn’t scale dynamically — everything is pixel doubled. It’s a good way of proving that the iPad is not “just a big iPhone”, though. The only iPhone app I find myself using on my iPad is Simplenote, for copying and pasting bits of text to and from my Mac and iPhone. Needless to say, I’d love an iPad-optimized version of Simplenote. iBooks and Kindle The iBooks app is free, but doesn’t ship with the iPad by default — you have to download it from the App Store. Apple hasn’t explained why this is so, but there are several reasons I can think of. For one thing, e-book rights are managed on a country-by-country basis — it seems likely that the iBooks store won’t be available in every country where the iPad will soon be sold. Making it an App Store app will also allow Apple to update the app on its own schedule — built-in system apps only get updates along with the entire system. So in some ways, the iBooks app is on equal footing with other e-book readers available in the App Store, particularly Amazon’s Kindle app. But iBooks does get some special treatment — the first time I launched the App Store app on my iPad, it prompted me with a dialog box asking if I’d like to down the free iBooks app. It’s impossible to miss. The iBooks app also has display brightness controls that are not availble through public APIs. Winnie the Pooh is included as a free sample, and the choice is genius — it’s a beloved story, a good read, and best of all (from Apple’s perspective) it can’t be read properly on the Kindle because the color illustrations are a big part of the experience. No book on the Kindle will ever look this good. The Kindle has its own advantages — its books are generally cheaper, its selection bigger, and e-ink works better in bright sunlight — but Winnie the Pooh epitomizes the iPad’s advantages. iBooks’s page-turning animation is delightful — it doesn’t just track your finger-swipe precisely, but even renders the type faintly in reverse on the other side of the “sheet”. The practical minded can simply tap the right and left edges of the screen to turn pages. Amazon’s iPad-native Kindle app is good, too. Oddly, to my mind, it is superior to their recent Mac app in every way. It looks better, feels better, renders text better, and has more features. I say this is odd because the iPad was announced just two months ago; Mac OS X was announced over a decade ago. I suspect part of the reason the Mac version is so crippled is that they were more worried about keeping Mac users from un-DRMing Kindle content than they were about making the Mac app an actual good-to-use app. The Kindle doesn’t do animated page-turning, but that’s not a big deal. Reading is great. And the Kindle’s ace-in-the-hole, of course, is the far larger selection of e-books in its store — hundreds of thousands versus Apple’s tens of thousands. I bought When the Game Was Ours, a new book by Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. It is not available in the iBooks store. So Kindle’s advantage is library size (and, secondarily, price per title). iBooks’s advantage is the color display. I’d be shocked if every single piece of advertising Apple produces for iBooks doesn’t focus entirely on screenshots of books with color illustrations, photos, and video. I think it’s going to be easier for Apple to improve the iBooks store library than it will be for Amazon to create a Kindle hardware model with a color display. I think Amazon would do well to add color support to Kindle e-books for use on iPads and iPhones. Kindle has a better chance of long-term success as a software platform than a hardware one. Third-Party Apps in General Given that most iPad-native apps in the store right now were developed using only the simulator by developers without access to actual iPads, you might expect apps to be buggy and UIs to be awkward. I’ve found the bugginess to be true, but the UIs are actually good. I think the physical prototypes developers jury-rigged for themselves paid off, design-wise. There’s no question that UIs are going change rapidly in the coming weeks now that developers have the real deal to measure the feel of their apps against, but for the apps I’ve been using the most, they’re pretty damn good already. As for the bugginess, I’m not saying it’s inexcusable or even surprising — the SDK simulator is not a perfect simulation. Several of the bugs I’ve reported are only present when the apps are running on actual iPad hardware. On the whole, though, the quality of iPad apps on day one is better, by far, than I had expected considering that developers had to build them in the dark, as it were. Prices, so far, are significantly higher than for iPhone apps — but still far cheaper than category equivalent Mac apps. For example, NetNewsWire is $10 (and going to $15 in May); Things is $20; and OmniGraffle is $50. No doubt there are going to be wildly popular 99-cent iPad apps, but it’s also shaping up as serious platform for serious tools. Games are a bit more expensive, too, but, to me, reasonably so. The final word count is just short of 7,300, so admittedly I wound up writing quite a good chunk of it in BBEdit on my Mac.�↩
What's Next from Apple: New iPods Sept 22, iPhone OS 2.1, iTunes 8.0

Daniel Eran Dilger Kevin Rose has been trying his hand at making broad sweeping generalizations about the next generation of iPods, but sorry, no digg. Most of his predictions are not even original, and those that are are so vague that they're really just worthless. Here's what you can really expect. Rose likes to suggest what's next from Apple, but his guesses only approach reality when they're based on leaks that occur days prior to an announcement. His flat out guesswork tends to be yet far further removed from reality, indicating that he has no special inside track on things at Apple, nor much of an imagination tempered by realistic appraisal. A month before the iPhone was unveiled, Rose predicted it would be available from CDMA providers, have a pull out keyboard, and sport two batteries, one for music and one for the phone. Of course, splitting a battery in half is not really a brilliant solution to prevent music playback from running down your phone, but the simple fact that Rose didn't know about the exclusive deal with Cingular (come on, it was Apple's only mobile partner to date) and the unlikelihood of Apple tacking on an HTC-esque keyboard makes his guesswork easy to dismiss. I had imagineered the iPhone as a web browsing iPod (“based on Nokia’s mobile contributions to Safari”) with SMS messaging features, contacts, calendar, and a camera… six months earlier. And CDMA? I recommended Apple “leave Verizon alone and partner with Cingular, TMobile, and MetroPCS using GSM technology.” The difference between my ideas and those from Rose, apart from mine being six months earlier, is that I presented mine as only reasonable ideas with some rationale behind them; Rose insisted he had special knowledge from reliable sources. Generation 6 iPods An iPhone Worth Talking About The Real iPod touch Deets. Now he's predicting new iPods. The iPod touch is supposed to get “fairly large price drops to distance itself from the $199 iPhone.” Sorry, wrong. The iPhone is only $199 in the minds of consumers. It gets a subsidy from AT&T, which is why you can't just buy one for $199 and walk out the door without signing a phone contract. The iPhone's $2,000 service contract offers plenty of distance between it and the iPod touch. The iPod touch is not possibly going to get cheaper than the iPhone for a couple reasons. First, obviously, it costs nearly as much to make. The lack of a subsidy pretty much balances out its lack of mobile radio components. Second, Apple isn't desperately trying to sell the iPod touch. It exists as a product to sell to users who can't or won't buy an iPhone because they're tied to Verizon or don't want a phone. Rose worries that the iPhone is “cannibalizing sales of the iPod,” but there's nothing more Apple would like to do than to feed every iPod user an iPhone. Sure the bonehead analysts will have another field day complaining about how there's only minor growth among iPod sales while they ignore iPhone numbers, but these guys aren't easy to reach with basic facts. Apple has been giving away the $300 iPod touch to students buying a laptop; that looks like an effort to broaden the iPhone platform. Apple wants college kids playing iPhone games and interested in creating their own iPhone software. Left to their own devices, most kids would buy the old hard drive iPod Classic because they think they need to walk around with their entire torrent library of stolen music. (Get off my lawn!) In any case, we all knew the iPod refresh was coming. I'm pretty sure they're coming on September 22. I'm also pretty sure that the 8GB iPod touch is going away, making the 16GB model the new $199 version. That outrageous price drop, facilitated by today's cheaper Flash RAM, would kill the remaining market for the hard drive-based iPod Classic, converting Apple's entire lineup to Flash RAM. Additionally, it would migrate even more iPod buyers into the installed base of iPhone App Store users and hasten the cannibalization food chain that leads toward the iPhone. The 16GB iPod touch will be sold next to the existing 32GB model, which was just released earlier this year. For that reason, I don't see a larger capacity model being introduced now. I don't see tremendous demand for carrying 64GB of music from people who are also ready to pay for 64GB of Flash. Nano 4: Zune 2007? Rose says the Nano will get a redesign that makes it look like last year's Flash RAM Zune; iLounge already predicted this a month ago, although Rose embellished his version with the idea that “the actual plastic on the outside will be curved,” presumably like a TV from the 80s. How nostalgic! I miss having a wildly distorted tube picture, almost as much as a scratchable plastic iPod screen. Oh the good ol' days. Will Apple expend significant resources to make the Nano 4 into a widescreen tall/long player and define a new 4GB hardware model to fit into a niche that is only $50 less than the new 16GB $199 iPod touch? How much room for differentiation is there under $200? Seems more likely that Apple will instead only release a cheaper version of the existing 4GB Nano that's closer to $99, leaving room for a $149 8GB Nano in between. That will pull Shuffle buyers up into splurging on a full video Nano. If you want to watch video sideways, you can get an iPod touch for $199. What kind of widescreen cinematic experience can you get with a long/tall Nano/Zune? When I reviewed the Flash Zune, one of the complaints was that half (but only half) of the controls reconfigure when you hold it sideways. Plus, existing iPod Games wouldn't work in the widescreen orientation; both the display and the controls would be messed up. On top of that, regular video playback would be forced to play back wide, and/or look bad because its stretched. Microsoft has no qualms with playing video in an odd aspect radio, but the iPod is made by Apple, which has some aesthetic boundaries that constrain its behavior. Winter 2007 Buyer’s Guide: Microsoft Zune 8 vs iPod Nano iPhone 2.1 Rose says Apple will also release “iPod touch 2.1 software, iPhone to get update very soon after.” We already all knew the iPhone 2.1 update was coming, and that it's going to be significant, and that it is due for release around the same time as the new iPods. Whether the new iPod touch will ship with it in advance of the iPhone would depend on whether iPhone-only features in the release hold it up, but Rose doesn't suggest any special knowledge or rationale behind this claim. iPhone 2.1 is supposed to usher in new GPS features and the push Notification system, but the real demand for downloading it will be that it fixes a major problem that currently causes third party iPhone apps to crash on launch and randomly when running. Apple needs to get this out quick before it blows the reputation of iPhone software stability in the minds of users. That's reason to believe that iPhone 2.1 might ship even before the new iPods, rather than the other way around. Because software developed using the iPhone 2.1 SDK won't run on iPhone 2.0.x, expect everyone to need to update their software to download a new generation of 2.1-only apps. This will be free for iPhone users, but might incur a nominal fee for iPod touch users due to accounting rules. Myths of Snow Leopard 3: Mac Sidelined for iPhone Ten Big New Features in Mac OS X Snow Leopard iTunes 8.0 Rose says iTunes 8.0 “it's a big update with new features,” but doesn't say what they are. He also says it will be “a real point upgrade” deserving the 8.0 name. However, there is little rhyme or reason to Apple's iTunes version numbering, and no real correlation between the amount features introduced and the version number increment. iTunes 2.0 added iPod support after ten months of iTunes 1.0, but iTunes 3.0 only added minor features the next year. It was replaced by iTunes 4.0 a year later, which added the Music Store and AAC support. Two years later, iTunes 5 introduced some cosmetic changes and was immediately replaced with iTunes 6.0 only a month later, without any major new features. Another year later, iTunes 7.0 arrived with a new look, video game support, and Coverflow. It has since seen loads of new features, from support for Apple TV to the iPhone to new iPods and new movie rentals, all of which were only numbered as minor updates. We've had iTunes 7.x for two years now, so iTunes 8.0 is not really ballsy prediction at this point. Of course, Apple is just as likely to skip ahead and release iTunes X. And if iTunes X isn't ready, we can might even get iTunes 7.8 and 7.9 over the next couple years. Oh my sides. With the likelihood of entirely new iPod touch or Nano models being quite low (after all, the Zune isn't going to get a refresh until late next year, and Apple isn't facing any tough competition at the moment), Apple's iPod announcement might end up more about a new iTunes than the iPod. Rose doesn't make any iTunes 8.0 feature predictions, instead jumping ahead to suggest that Apple is working to make sure Mac OS X 10.5.6 will provide support for Sony's BluRay, the competition to iTunes that nobody cares about. Hmm. Steve Jobs has so little regard for optical discs that he basically shunned iDVD last year when showing off iLife 08, but now he's going to resurrect BluRay and excite customers by including it on the company's laptops, where any resolution advantage it offers over DVD would be nearly invisible? Oh ho ho my sides. iTunes Unlimited? The rumor mill is talking about subscription music in the next iTunes. Steve Jobs has opposed subscription music since iTunes got started. He worked for years to convince the labels to let go of the dream of billing users to essentially listen to the radio. Subscription music has always revolved around outrageous DRM that requires the (historically Microsoft PlaysForSure) player to sync up and check in every month or lose its music. I've written up lots of reasons why subscription music was an awful idea that wouldn't fly. I doubt Apple will actually float it as rumored (“iTunes Unlimited” for $129 sounds awful). However, enough has changed in the last two years to reconsider how subscription music could be delivered. For starters, the iPhone and iPod touch are now wireless, so they can both stream and verify exploding media DRM. Apple's iTunes, modern iPods, Apple TV, and the iPhone also now already handle exploding DRM for movie rentals, which blew over last year without any complaint, although it doesn't look like iTunes' movie rentals have had a massive impact on the world due to their relatively high price point. Offering movie rentals appeared to be a requisite concession leading up to convincing the movie studios to agree to movie sales in iTunes. Apple could sell access to subscription music directly from the iPhone and iPod touch that worked similar to movie rentals, and the labels might even allow users to freely copy rental tracks between computers linked to the same iTunes account. Such an arrangement hasn't found mainstream popularity elsewhere, but nobody else had been able to sell music prior to iTunes either. While the rumors suggest there could be a discount for MobileMe users, it would be a lot smarter to make it part of MobileMe instead. That would limit subscribers to Apple's loyal base, easing in the system rather than exposing a brand new subscription service to ten million handheld users and 150 million iTunes users and all but promising another meltdown. At least by making it part of MobileMe, Apple could add lots of subscribers and upgrade existing subscribers to a $99 “unlimited music” additional fee. Keep in mind that all this is highly speculative. I doubt “unlimited iTunes” will fly, as the idea was not leaked but rather simply invented. How Apple Could Deliver Workable iTunes Rentals The Online Music and Movie Rental Myth Rise of the iTunes Killers Myth As Long As We're Speculating… If Apple does convert its entire iPod line to Flash players, it would make sense to incorporate a new audio codec setting that maximized the amount of songs you could copy into an 8GB player. For years, Apple's major selling point on the iPod what that it offered massive hard drive storage capacity. Now it's migrating to Flash, which is more expensive but considerably more shock resistant and suitable for a handheld computer device like the iPod touch. Working to cram more music into tighter spaces would allow Apple to make the iPod touch and iPhone more competitive against a hard drive player. AAC is already optimized for low-bitrate playback. Apple also needs to add remote functionality for controlling Apple TV to iTunes, just as you can already do via the free iPhone app. And how about direct streaming of content between iTunes, Apple TV, and the iPhone, such as for movie rentals. Currently, to get a rented movie from an iPhone to Apple TV you have to do two syncs involving a middleman iTunes PC. iTunes also needs to expand on the options for syncing media to the iPod and iPhone. In addition to syncing specific playlists, it should be able to automatically sync over a smart “Party Shuffle” mix of music that fills a specific proportion of the device, such as 50% music, 10% podcasts, and then the specific movies, TV, and audio books the user selects. Then shuffle out the listened to tracks and add new music every time it's synced. Allow users to hide songs from iTunes just as you can hide photos from your iPhoto album to simplify the view without deleting anything. Add Time Machine support so you can go back to see earlier play counts and browse your media library as it appeared in the past. Add integrated support for viewing PDFs and other QuickView document types, so you could use iTunes as a metadata-rich document browser with search and playlist features. Or give Preview an iTunes metadata document database interface. More Music Deals. Add other corporate sponsors to the Starbucks deal, so you can discover their playing music and buy tunes over their WiFi link. And isn't it about time Apple and AT&T got together and hammered out that plan to open iPhones to AT&T's hotspots? I'd debit a 99 cent WiFi access fee from my iTunes account if it were necessary. What's the point of setting up $8 per hour WiFi services for the zero people who use them? And on that tangent, how about rolling out my Ubiquitous WiFi idea for allowing other mobile users to borrow your AirPort's WiFi signal? I'd also like to see Apple get AT&T to allow users to place calls over their WiFi link as a concession for not having a functional 3G network in place yet. I also think AT&T should sell or rent AirPort base stations to its millions of broadband users, with all of them open to WiFi sharing so that iPhone users could place a freaking call and access the web at faster than EDGE speeds between now and whenever AT&T actually gets 3G rolled out. Apple also really needs to deliver some sort of central media server, possibly tacked onto Apple TV. Just add a USB hard drive and have it serve up the contents as a Bonjour-discoverable iTunes library to your local network. This would allows users to dump all the media off their laptop. And then allow WiFi sync to optionally copy fresh media to the iPhone from the central media server library. There's plenty that could be tacked onto iTunes, but the biggest new thing in the iPod announcement actually might be something entirely different than last year's iPods for cheaper and a new rev to iTunes. I'll spill that in the next article. Ten Big Predictions for Apple in 2008 Did you like this article? Let me know. Comment here, in the Forum, or email me with your ideas. Like reading RoughlyDrafted? Share articles with your friends, link from your blog, and subscribe to my podcast (oh wait, I have to fix that first). It's also cool to submit my articles to Digg, Reddit, or Slashdot where more people will see them. Consider making a small donation supporting this site. Thanks!
DoCoMo confirms talks with Apple regarding iPhone

Filed under: CellphonesWe already had an inkling that Apple was in talks with both NTT DoCoMo and Softbank to bring the iPhone to Japan, but a spokesperson confirmed today that Steve Jobs has indeed met with DoCoMo president Masao Nakamura, but didn't say when or exactly what they talked about. That's not much to go on, of course, but seeing as any phone on DoCoMo's FOMA network will have to be UMTS / HSDPA -- that's 3G, to all you keeping score at home -- we're keeping a close eye on this one.�Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments
Vodafone to have exclusive rights to 3G iPhone in Q1?

Filed under: Cellphones, Portable Audio, Portable VideoIt's been awhile since we've had a decent 3G iPhone rumor to kick about. Perhaps it was the collective disappointment of the 2.5G release on Europe which deflated all the mongering. Whatever it was, we all know it's coming, it's just a question of when. Well, the gossip coming out of Italy calls for a Q1 release of a UMTS iPhone. Italian site Morse.IT claims to have spoken to high-level sources and "confirms" in no uncertain terms that Vodafone has signed an exclusive deal with Apple. Right, the same company currently suing T-Mobile in Germany for their iPhone exclusivity. The launch the 3G iPhone would occur simultaneously in all countries where the carrier operates but will not be announced until after the holidays (MacWorld?) to avoid impacting sales of the existing iPhone. The timing chides well with other rumors calling for a 3G release before May. Still, a Vodafone iPhone sold in the UK and Germany would seem a violation of those long-term exclusive deals presumably signed with Apple by O2 and T-Mobile, right? Sure, unless of course, those contract were for rights to the "iPhone," not the "iPhone 3G" you silly lawyers. [via Unwired View]�Read | Permalink | Email this | CommentsOffice Depot Featured Gadget: Xbox 360 Platinum System Packs the power to bring games to life!

The Comments Go Here

MacDiner -- All You Can Eat Apple and Macintosh News and Information

iPhone coming to Japan's NTT DoCoMo?

Asian Tech Stock Weekly Summary (July 13 - 19)

From 2-Way to 4G: The Complete History of Cell Phones

News: Apple in talks to launch iPhone in Japan

Will Google's Android Play DOS to Apple's iPhone?

TUAW bloggers post their Apple predictions for 2010

China Unicom wants iPhone, too?

★ The iPad

What's Next from Apple: New iPods Sept 22, iPhone OS 2.1, iTunes 8.0

DoCoMo confirms talks with Apple regarding iPhone

Vodafone to have exclusive rights to 3G iPhone in Q1?

Software Releases

Site design and software engineering by August Trometer

FoggyNoggin Software -- Cool Mac Apps