Earlier today, I sat at work with one more IRC channel open than usual. I was in Macrumors’ channel for live coverage of today’s Macworld keynote speech by Steve Jobs. The Apple TV announcement came and went. I’d already decided to buy one of these, so I was an interested party — but I never got too excited. No real surprises, here. Jobs then introduced a three-in-one device that was being touted as a widescreen iPod, a “revolutionary” mobile phone, and an “Internet communicator.” I perked up, but remained calm. Then, the screen scrolled up a line, and an 11 point Lucida Grande Holy Shit Moment started me in the face:
Runs OS X.
Wait, what? Really? OS X?! I excitedly waited for the part where Steve would talk about the new, stripped-down version of OS X they crafted for the phone, but it never came. Later, Steve admitted, to a drone of “awwww,” that the iPhone won’t be available until June. At that point, it dawned on me: the iPhone runs Leopard.
Oh, I don’t know for sure. But it makes perfect sense. Think about it. The website is ambiguous, just noting “OS X” for the iPhone’s operating system. And the iPhone isn’t available until June, even though it only take a couple of months to get FCC approval. June is about the same timeframe as Leopard’s expected release. So, to all those disappointed that we didn’t get a demo of Leopard today — I think maybe you just didn’t realize that you were getting a demo of Leopard.
Update: Commenter “Beau” notes that Steve Jobs specifically mentioned that Core Animation library — a new technology in Leopard — is available on the iPhone. This seems like further evidence that the iPhone could run Leopard.
So with that little prediction — actually, it’s more than a prediction, as I’m near-certain of it — out of the way, I’ve got some other thoughts on the new device, as well.
For starters, let me say that I think the iPhone is a game-changer. Actually, more than a game-changer. Revolutionary is a better word. This changes everything. This device stands to be as revolutionary as the original Macintosh was. I believe that someday, we’ll look back on January 9th, 2007 as the day computing went handheld. Sure, there have been attempts before — but there were MP3 players before the iPod, as well.
Besides Cingular, Apple, and the users, another big winner here is design. The whole industry. Just as the iPod is better than anything else on the market primarily due to design, the iPhone seems to have put design at the forefront, as well. Dieter Rams once said, “good design is consequent to the last detail.” That’s one of my favorite design-related quotes, and it certainly seems fitting here. Jonathan Ive may well go down as the greatest industrial designer of all time before he’s done.
The losers here are obvious and plentiful: Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon, Motorola, Nokia, Palm, HTC, and RIM are at the top of the list. These guys have about six months to do something to catch up.
And they really do need to catch up. Tonight, while watching TV, I saw the clever commercial for the Samsung Blackjack in an entirely different light. Whereas yesterday that phone came off as sexy and interesting, today it looks like just another smartphone. This morning, before the keynote, The Missing Sync released their Mac-syncing product for Blackberry. I wrote, “If Apple doesn’t release a phone today, this probably sells me on the Blackberry Pearl.” Tonight, that same Blackberry Pearl, which I’d drooled over the first couple times I saw it, looks like a toy.
(To be fair, there is still one device that approaches the iPhone: the Nokia N95. But even it, which was my previous mobile object of lust seems pretty dull by comparison now. And I believe the N95 was set to cost more than the iPhone, as well.)
Not everyone wants a smartphone, or a phone that does everything the iPhone does. But you can bet that Apple will be ready to release a whole line of phones, from just-a-phone all the way to even-has-the-kitchen-sink, if this first entrant into the market is successful. And Apple has proven with the iPod that it’s more than capable of making a device that makes everything else on the market irrelevant. If Apple can make a smartphone that leapfrogs every other smartphone by a mile, then it can certainly make a simple phone that leapfrogs the RAZRs of the world, too. If every mobile phone maker or carrier not named Apple or Cingular isn’t scared shitless, they’re bumbling idiots (which, frankly, wouldn’t be that surprising).
But really, there’s almost nothing they can do. The iPhone will be a huge success for the same reason the iPod has been: an incredibly seamless user experience between store, computer, and handheld device that is so easy both my Mom and my 11-year old daughter can — and do — do it. Apple’s UI designers have an incredible knack for making things that are extremely powerful and extensible, but also frighteningly easy to use. The result is universal appeal — the geeks get their jollies off the underlying technology, and everyone else can just use the damn thing without hassle. The other phone makers simply don’t have the infrastructure to compete with this. They don’t have an iTunes, they don’t have a Mac OS X, and they don’t have Jonathan Ive and his team. There’s almost nothing they can do to catch up in six months — Apple has jumped out so incredibly far ahead that they can really only bend over and take it. If they don’t believe me, they should ask people like Diamond and Creative for their first-hand experience with being molested into irrelevancy by Apple. And the Zune? Puh-lease. The slogan for the iPhone should have been, “Now this is a social.”
The iPhone may well completely change the face of the mobile web. From the we already solved that problem department comes the idea of having a regular desktop browser on the phone, instead of asking developers to create separate versions of their sites for the web or trying to “intelligently” modify desktop-targeted websites for display on a phone.
And the fact that this little guy runs standards OS X widgets is huge, too. This will make the development of mobile apps something people like me can do, which is pretty amazing. We already came up with probably 10 great ideas for widgets related to our World Online sites, and most of them will be dead simple to create.
A lot is being made of the iPhone’s price. People are saying it’s expensive — and it is. But, the value proposition is actually quite good. Almost all smartphones are $299 (Pearl. Moto Q), $399 (Several HTC models), or $499 (Treo). While $500 is a lot to pay for a phone, it’s very much in-line with the market pricing for these devices.
The fact that the iPhone is tied to a two-year Cingular contract has been somewhat contentious. I understand this, as it’s a real bummer if you’ve got to get out of an existing contract to get one (as I do). But, I do think there’s a bright side to it. Consider this: since every iPhone buyer will be stuck with that phone for two years, Apple will be forced to offer any feature enhancements, software updates, etc. as software upgrades. With the iPod, Apple sort of expects you to buy at least one iPod per year in order to get the latest features. That sort of super-fast hardware cycle won’t be possible with the iPhone, simply because consumers won’t be able to buy a new phone for two years.
I’ve rambled on about this device enough. Clearly, I think it’s going to literally change the world, just as the Macintosh did in 1984 and the iPod did in 2001. But it’s not perfect, and I do have a couple of not-100%-positive things to say about the iPhone. I’ll leave you with those, in no particular order:
- The lack of 3G is a real downer. EDGE is a relatively slow network, especially when you’re used to Sprint’s EV-DO like I am. That having been said, the inclusion of WiFi largely makes up for this.
- People seem pretty damn excited over the 160dpi screen. For the record, I’ve been using a Nokia 770 for the better part of a year that has a four inch 220dpi screen (800x480px). 160dpi is a good resolution and certainly better than most phones, but it’s nothing revolutionary. People are making too big a deal of this.
- Not allowing over-the-air iTunes downloads is surprising. Maybe not a big deal, really, but surprising, nonetheless.
- The inability to sync wirelessly seems like an odd (and disappointing) omission.
Like this
Comments
There are currently 71 comments on this entry. If you have something to say, please consider adding your own.
You can also subscribe to an RSS feed of this entry’s comments.
This entry’s tags
AuthenticJobs.com
- PHP Web Developer
- Fox News Channel
- New York, NY
- API Engineer
- Meetup
- New York, NY, US
- Web Software Developer
- charity: water
- New York City, NY, US
- UI Designer
- EGG HAUS, Inc.
- Web Developer
- Skidmore Studio
- Detroit, MI, US
- Interaction and Visual Designer
- Pivotal Labs
- San Francisco, CA, US
- Developer, Foundry (Redmond, WA)
- msnbc.com
- Redmond, WA, US
- Mid-level / Senior Mobile User Experience Designer
- Promptu Systems Corporation
- Menlo Park, CA, US
- Web Designer/Developer
- Hooah, LLC
- Orlando, FL
- Web and User Interface Designer
- Calgary, AB
001 // Ryan Berg // 01.10.2007 // 2:38 AM
Regarding the over the air iTunes thing…
I see this as a temporary situation. I have little doubt that once Apple has a perfected interface for the iTunes store via the iPhone screen, and confidence in delivery over the network, we’ll see a software update. One step at a time here.
Unlike Steve, I’m forced to view this as more phone than iPod. Until the iPhone is capable of holding enough songs and videos to fit my library and then some, this can’t be the ultimate convergence device for me. There are still many situations when I’d have to carry my current 5g iPod to get everything I need.
This doesn’t mean I’m not a fan of the iPhone. In fact, it’s been more than 12 hours since the announcement, and I’m still drooling. I want one. Badly. But I don’t think it’s a good fit for me - yet.
I haven’t seen any mention of this, but I assume we’d be able to use the iPhone as a portable USB drive, as we can with current iPods?
002 // Aaron Wagner // 01.10.2007 // 3:38 AM
I haven’t seen anybody mention anything about the multitouch interface yet, but I think that small piece is actually quite amazing. Seems like just a few months ago the multitouch demo videos were making the ubergeek rounds and now we’re going to have a consumer device with that input method? wow. It must be as cool and intuitive as the demos make it out to be. Why else would Apple choose it?
003 // Brian // 01.10.2007 // 8:08 AM
I’ll chime in a bit here. From a device standpoing the iPhone is revolutionary. It is gorgeous and I really do think Apple will have the UI nailed. As you said there are a few major omissions though. Most notable is probably a robust corporate messaging/calenday synch announcement. What makes the Blackberry so successfull is how tightly it integrates in to corporate messaging systems. I have not heard anything about a comprable system for the iPhone. It will be a deal breaker for many. Second price may be a bigger issue than you think. Many carriers offer the Treo or Pearl for around the $200 mark.
Finally, Apple is making a error with both new products they announced. There is no way to generate contect with them. No camera in the iPhone and no capture card/TV tuner in the Apple TV. Again i think these could be big misses.
004 // Kristofer Baxter // 01.10.2007 // 8:56 AM
The sheer number of small details already present in the design and functionality of the iPhone are awe-inspiring.
A few things of note from the presentation in no particular order…
1) When Steve was listing the features of the iPhone he compared it to a smartphone + iPod nano. The nano is the important part. This phone isn’t designed to replace that 80GB iPod with your entire music library - instead it allows you to carry data like the nano does.
2) What does this do to Apple’s iPod sales for the next 5 months? Do people buy a product like an iPod when they know something so much cooler is definately coming out? I’m a little worried, as an Apple shareholder, that they are sacrificing the next 5 months of iPod profit.
3) I was really ready for the US market to stop calling these things cell phones. This iPhone is a mobile device and deserves a name that matches its feature set.
Anyway, I’m really excited about this device. I’ll buy one the day they are available (and boot Verizon to the curb).
005 // Ben // 01.10.2007 // 8:57 AM
@ Brian
http://www.apple.com/iphone/technology/specs.html
Has a 2.0 megapixel camera, it is on the back top corner, if you watch the keynote address you will see it.
006 // Natalie Jost // 01.10.2007 // 9:05 AM
I’m glad you talked about the issue of its design, Jeff. I’ve been looking at phones for a year now, knowing our Verizon contract ends in April this year and I’ve been impressed but waiting for something better. All of the phones I looked at seemed to be missing something. They all had so many buttons, ways to flip them open, ways for me to get tired of them. I nearly cried yesterday, flipping through the movies for the iPhone. The thing that hooked me was its intuition. This is design - not especially the look of the phone although it’s beautiful - the design is in the way it just knows when you’ve turned it around to landscape and how it dims and shuts off key actions when you put it to your ear. THAT is some great design that no other phone can give me.
It is that intuition the phone has (among its other incredible features) that will make me get this phone over the others, despite it not being able to integrate with my other devices (I’m all PC here).
007 // Maura // 01.10.2007 // 9:14 AM
I think the iPhone is revolutionary, as you said, but I won’t be buying one, at least not this version anyway. For them to really take over the market, they’re going to have to release some other, smaller models. My need for a “smartphone” is pretty low, so the price tag (and think what the monthly costs will be) keeps me away.
Nonetheless, it’s pretty amazing.
008 // Jeff Croft // 01.10.2007 // 9:16 AM
Like someone said, the phone does have a 2MP camera (which certainly isn’t a super high-res model, but that is higher than most smartphones). As for the TV Tuner/Capture card — it would be cool if the Apple TV had one, and you’re right, it may sell more units — but I think the reason Apple would never do this is that it would be in direct competition with their TV show sales on iTunes. Apple doesn’t want you to record shows — they want you to miss shows, so you’ll buy them off iTunes.
Not really disagreeing with you — just playing Devil’s Advocate and outlining what I imagine is the business case for the lack of a tuner/capture card in the Apple TV.
009 // Jonathan E // 01.10.2007 // 9:18 AM
2 years for a contract really isn’t that long. As Dave Shea mentioned in his post, 3 years is the industry standard here in Canada and not once have I ever kept the same phone for all 3 years of a contract (except for my current phone, if I don’t upgrade in the next 11 months). Even though Apple usually does update their products almost yearly, I could actually see myself keeping a device like the iPhone for 2 years, yea even all 3 years of a contract.
My only qualm with the iPhone is the amount of memory on it, even 8 GB really isn’t that much when you think about all the data that the iPhone could potentially store (Music, Movies, Podasts, Contacts, Email, Calendars, etc.). My current contract is up in December, so here’s to hoping that a) The iPhone comes to Canada by then and b) That Apple releases a 16 GB version. If those 2 conditions were met (and maybe just the first one) then they really would “have me at scrolling.”
010 // Jon // 01.10.2007 // 9:49 AM
One thing I have not heard mentioned anywhere is voip. Wouldn’t it be great if it has a skype widget, that will automatically make the calls when you are connected to a wifi network. Cingular probably won’t be too happy about it but it would a great feature.
011 // Beau // 01.10.2007 // 10:19 AM
Another give away that it’s running Leopard is that Steve included Core Animation as a technology of OS X thats on the phone. Core Animation is in Leopard.
012 // Dave // 01.10.2007 // 11:09 AM
Current rumors at Engadget and TUAW (including supposed confirmation by Apple booth attendants) is that this will not support any third-party applications (save perhaps some widgets.)
This is a dead-end, no-questions show stopper of the utmost degree. Without the ability to add the obvious missing games, Exchange support through a third-party app, and so-on, this is a useless device (for me).
Heck, I’ve got an e61 with an NES emulator (games) and Putty (SSH to the home Mac) along with native Exchange sync, and more. It may not be as pretty, but no software dev support means game-over.
013 // Brian Ford // 01.10.2007 // 11:11 AM
Well, the content doesn’t concern me, as I think much of it would simply be swapped out as you sync. (And I imagine contacts, email and calendars aren’t going to add up too fast — and email can simply be deleted if necessary.)
I’m more concerned about the fact that you’ll be adding appl ications over time. (One would assume.) This seems like it could eat up space in a permanent fashion.
014 // Dave // 01.10.2007 // 11:14 AM
Oh, I might also add the lack of a replaceable battery. It brings to mind scary thoughts of iPod batteries past - except here, the phone will be on CONSTANTLY, so battery usage skyrockets. My RAZR battery lasted a whole 9 months. Without being able to replace it, the entire phone would have been rendered useless (although I replaced the phone anyway…)
015 // Robbie // 01.10.2007 // 11:27 AM
Interested in what the iphone will do for ring tones and if there will be a ring tone editor or if apple will have a pay service. Ring tones are a big business in europe and apple could profit in this market with their Music lable contracts via itunes or give the user a free hand in ring tone creation from the users own data and kill the ring tone market. i would go for the latter ..
016 // Richard Earney // 01.10.2007 // 11:31 AM
Presumably if you have a 2 year contract and insurance and the battery doesn’t last 2 years you can get it replaced.
017 // Jeff Croft // 01.10.2007 // 11:33 AM
If that turns out to be true, it will indeed be a really big show stopper for a lot of people. But really, I don’t think anyone knows yet — Apple themselves may not even be decided on how exactly they’re going to accommodate (or not) third-party development. Everything you read about this can only be speculation at this point…
I wouldn’t see this as an issue. First, like Dave said, we may not be adding applications at all. Second, if we are, they’ll probably be widgets, which are rarely any bigger than a megabyte (being just HTML/CSS/Javascript/Flash/etc.)
018 // Brian Ford // 01.10.2007 // 11:33 AM
Steve definitely didn’t mention that it would be possible to use any song purchased from iTunes as a ring tone. Seems like an obvious ability, but perhaps they made some sort of concession to Cingular, or are still working it out somehow.
019 // Jeff Croft // 01.10.2007 // 11:38 AM
Hey Nat — you’re in luck. The thing is definitely supposed to sync with Windows PCs, as well (using iTunes, of course).
020 // Jason Scott // 01.10.2007 // 11:55 AM
I don’t see over the air itunes downloading working too well when this device doesn’t have 3G. Perhaps thats the reason its not part of the announcement.
021 // Rube // 01.10.2007 // 12:05 PM
If you think your 2 year contract with Cingular means Apple will increase their incredibly poor support for “legacy” products, I think you’re going to be disappointed.
A cell phone is judged in the span of about 5 minutes. When you’re stranded on the side of the freeway and need to make a phone call, it either works or it doesn’t. No amount of features or “design” will help. When I think of Apple and Cingular, “reliability” is not the word that springs to mind. And given Apples shameful behavior with their 3rd gen ipods that hade dud batteries, I’m going to have to buy an extended warranty for an already overpriced product (that doesn’t even replace my dying ipod!).
That said, I am SUPER excited about the future of cell phones now. I can’t wait to see the 4th and 5th generation iPhones. This is really close to Star Trek stuff. And off course, I’m overjoyed to see the death of the “mobile web”. RIP WAP.
022 // Jeff Croft // 01.10.2007 // 12:13 PM
Good call, but it does have WiFi, so you’d think they would have included it, even I just for that. Also, Cingular’s other music phones do downloads over-the-air over EDGE’s pathetic speeds, so it does seem to be feasible.
Still, you may be right. :)
023 // michel // 01.10.2007 // 12:18 PM
why people think the battery is not replaceable ? maybe I missed some text
024 // Thomas // 01.10.2007 // 12:24 PM
I am thoroughly and absolutely unimpressed with the iPhone. I don’t see the big deal about a phone running OSX, and yes I am an Apple user.
But, Jeff, you are on to something, or at least scratched the surface. I think that the time Apple has before the final iPhone ships is going to get them enough of an idea of what people want from the device, to build in these features. Ie. sync’ing and so forth.
I believe the problem with the iPhone will be the same as with all Apple products. You pay more to be locked into a software and hardware specific platform. And that really is a shame.
025 // Marc Stress // 01.10.2007 // 12:34 PM
Jeff, I think this is a fantastic observation about the future of Apple, Inc. technology. Finally, a handheld OS X device that might actually allow serious Mac users a tool for taking contacts and other critical bits of information on the road.
I’m very interested to know how this device will work without [gasp!] using the phone portion. For years, like since Newton years, Apple has needed a true handheld. To me, this is bigger than the phone. I’m not sure that I want everything all in one, and I’m not sure that I want to switch my cell provider, when I’m happy with the service I’m getting.
To me, the biggest announcement of yesterday was that of a handheld Apple device. The telephone functionality is secondary. At least today. I think Apple could easily kill the existing PDA market if they released this with out the cellular portion. And think how that would extend battery life ;-)
The available memory issue is interesting to me as well. I’m thinking (hoping, maybe) that the device will have a separate card for the OS, and perhaps for apps as well, leaving the 4GB/8GB for contacts, iPod, etc.
026 // o_mores // 01.10.2007 // 1:13 PM
We are getting too excited about this phone. Where is the revolution here?
Is it the touch screen? Nope… many other devices are equipped with a touch screen. Well, it’s actually multitouch… but a normal use will require simple taps like on a ordinary touchscreen.
Design? It’s cool… but many touchscreen smartphones have a similar look. (a big screen, rounded corners, and some few button s) There are even some more sophisticated smartphones with big VGA rotating screen, full qwerty sliding keyboard, and in the same time very slim.
Camera? Nope… there are 5MP serious phone cameras on the market at this time, with 30 frames per seconds video capability, autofocus, flash, etc.
Google maps? Well… actual top smartphones have an integrated GPS receiver… which is by far more useful than Google maps without GPS.
Is it the OS X operating system? Actually we are talking about OS X foundation… wich will permit to software developers to write their programs for iPhone the same way like for the Macs. The iPhone will not be capable to run regular programs just like a regular Mac. For that you have to buy a computer… :)
I assume that for the sake of simplicity…users will be able to install widgets acquired via iTunes store and that’s all…
How about documents? Word, Excel, PDF will know the iPhone to handle them?
Safari? Well.. it could be one of the best mobile browsers, but there are reliable serious browsers already in the market like IE, Opera, not to mention the embedded Symbian browser which it’s quite spectacular. (especially 2006 versions)
Battery life? Nope… 5 hours talk time/video playback or 16 hours audio playback… it’s average. There are better performers.
Connectivity? Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Edge? Nothing revolutionary… A HDSPA phone (like Nokia N95) has a 3.6 Mbit downlik speed.
Again where is the big revolution here?
027 // vanni // 01.10.2007 // 1:21 PM
well i think that the iPhone runs OSX is H U G E! We are talking a whole OS on ..what? a chip? a? is it intel based? is it something else? No folks this is huge. And Jeff has nailed it on the head; leopard is also going to be an eye opener. The iPhone is going to be morphing into a lot of devices in various confiqurations PS is spelling built in ;-)
028 // Andrew // 01.10.2007 // 1:30 PM
I think Apple will release a “Nano” version of the iPhone for other carriers eventually, and if it’s at the $199 fashion-phone price point (i.e., the RAZR for a while, the Samsung “Blade” when it was first released) and then sales will really take off. I think the iPhone will sell moderately well, but the price is going to have to drop and/or a slightly stripped down version will have to be released.
Nothing really. If the biggest selling point of the iPhone for certain people is the iPod functionality, I’m willing to bet they’ll go with a Nano which is half the price. Someone like me, I’ll keep buying 30GB iPods since I like to take my whole collection with me-and I’m perhaps the only person that doesn’t mind carrying around a phone and an iPod. And I also think that this is not yet a mass-market item, and it won’t be until it’s released and Apple starts advertising, and even then, the price I think will turn a lot of people to an iPod. Similar things were said when Apple announced the Intel switch, and that didn’t hurt Mac sales too much did it?
029 // Javier // 01.10.2007 // 1:36 PM
Apple won’t go after the Outlook/Exchange market; that is the territory of Zune 2.0. I imagine that MS will eventually sell more ZunePhones than Apple will. Fortunately, I don’t use/need Outlook/Exchange. I think the real reason that RIM and the others need to run scared is that Redmond is about to start their copiers again.
Meanwhile, Apple will be making superior devices for “the rest of us”. Pity the suits.
030 // Jeff Croft // 01.10.2007 // 1:39 PM
You blow multitouch off like it’s nothing, when it’s actually maybe the single most revolutionary thing about the phone.
You are mistake style for design. The brilliance of the iPhone is in it’s design — style is another matter entirely. The style is great, but not revolutionary. The design is revolutionary.
Agreed. The iPhone’s camera is mediocre at best.
Yep.
How do you know any of this? You are speculating that it won’t be able to “run regular programs” and that it won’t “permit to software developers to write their programs for iPhone,” but you don’t actually know this at all. No one does.
Thanks for admitting you are just making assumptions.
No idea.
Hello?! What do you think the embedded Symbian browser is? It’s Safari. It’s KHTML. It’s almost exactly the same browser as in the iPhone. You say the S60 one is spectacular but the version in the iPhone not a “reliable serious browser?” That doesn’t make sense, my friend. They’re the same thing.
It’s average, which is plenty good enough.
Aside from the lack of 3G, connectivity is pretty good. But you’re right, it’s not revolutionary.
031 // Jeff Croft // 01.10.2007 // 1:39 PM
Con’t
What you’re not understanding that the revolution here isn’t in this particular device. It’s in the fact that this ushers in the tipping point. This changes everything. The original Macintosh wasn’t the greatest computer ever, but it was revolutionary. There were more powerful and more feature-packed computers, but the Mac was the one that set in motion the chain of events that led to the personal computer revolution. Likewise, there were better and larger-capacity MP3 players on the market when the iPod was released, but it was the iPod that was revolutionary.
Why? Design. Not style — but design.
032 // Derek Martin // 01.10.2007 // 1:51 PM
As far as iTunes Music Store integration, I’m willing to bet that it’s not there yet because Cingular doesn’t want its network to have to transport all that data.
I’m also willing to bet that’s why users can’t install stuff on the iPhone — Cingular doesn’t want them putting the OSX Skype client on there, avoiding their per-minute billing by sticking to the WiFi+Skype. More to the point ABC Disney & Paramount don’t want people watching pirated movies on their iPhones. I’ll be happy if the only extra app it has is SSH :)
Capacity-wise, several NAND manufacturers already have 32 Gig solid-state chips in production. I’m sure they’ll make their way into the iPhone within 6-12 months of the June launch. Also, you are totally right about the iPhone running Leopard. You can tell by the way Safari can show you the entire web page. I’m positive that’s Leopard’s “resolution independence”, which is not present in current versions of OSX.
As far as Ringtones go, I’m willing to bet that Apple will let you use ANY PURCHASED track as a ringtone (but not plain old MP3s off your harddrive). That will kill the Ringtone industry, and it will not screw customers, because songs will still be just 99 cents.
Like all of you, I want one SO bad, but I’m in Canada… Who knows when they’ll get up here, and even when they do, our data plans are all uber-expensive, and achieve craptacular speeds. Bah.
033 // Jeff Croft // 01.10.2007 // 1:59 PM
Makes sense, but why not include it, even if for WiFi access only?
Wait, why do you assume users can’t install stuff on the iPhone? Apple hasn’t said that at all. There’s been nothing official on that topic — it’s all speculation.
Good call. I think something similar to this plan is very likely.
034 // Scott Woolston // 01.10.2007 // 2:27 PM
If this phone truely runs leapord, can you boot your mac off of the OS X install on the iPhone? That would be interesting.
035 // kaiser // 01.10.2007 // 2:38 PM
Note that Apple say everywhere that the phone runs “OS X” not “Mac OS X” - Apple are generally very pedantic with their marketing terms - I’d say that it is definitely running a cut-down OS X, maybe even on a completely different kernel. As for the Intel CPU - once again, it just doesn’t make sense to put an x86 CPU in it, it’s much more likely an ARM or something like that…
036 // o_mores // 01.10.2007 // 2:52 PM
I’m absolutely positive that all the OS X in the iPhone is limited to OS X foundation. And it makes sense…
The iPhone will run OS X the same way a Pocket PC runs Windows. Can you install regular Windows software on your Pocket PC? Of course not… Are you using a “Windows” device? Oh Yes… :)
037 // Kevin Hamm // 01.10.2007 // 3 PM
The version of OS X that it runs may or may not be “cut down” as people have said, but I would like to point out that the definition of “cut down” would have to squared away first. I, after contacting several friends who are there and seeing it in real life, think it’s the full version of OS X, but not the Mac install version of OS X. The difference being that the core OS is the same, but instead of installing the desktop or laptop device drivers and software it installs the mobile device software and drivers. So it’s still the full version of the OS, just not what you get when you install OS X on your mac. And that’s fine, it’s what I was hoping for anyway. I don’t want to have a stripped-down subset of OS X’s kernal, I want what I know works, and then the apps built on top of it, I know they’ll work too.
There is one more thing in the keynote, Jobs says “and it’s got wi-fi and automatically switches over to it” during the maps program showcase. He doesn’t specifically say that VOIP is out, so why presume that it is?
038 // Jeff Croft // 01.10.2007 // 3:12 PM
If it looks like a duck…
Seriously, if this thing has a Mach microkernal, BSD Unix, Core This, Core That, Core The Other Thing, And Core Some More — then it’s OS X. Oh, it might not be exactly the same same set of libraries as are installed on a desktop computer, but they’re OS X libraries and APIs, and if it can run some of them, it probably can potentially run all (or most) of them.
039 // Elan Feingold // 01.10.2007 // 3:35 PM
The 3rd party applications issue is huge. If it doesn’t support some facility for them, it’s a definite show-stopper. Every single cell phone, smart or not, supports at least J2ME craplets. Maybe they’re still figuring out the SDK situation, and maybe Cingular is pressuring them. The absence of any mention of an SDK was hoping not a portent of what’s to come.
I think the WiMax comment was a big hint as to the future. Come 2008 or 2009, with a WiMax network in place, Apple won’t need Cingular or any other cell carrier, and the iPhone can use VoIP and offer high fidelity audio calls and even video conferencing. Can you imagine mobile video iChat on your iPhone? You should, because it’s coming; maybe not on this version of the hardware, but certainly in the next couple of years.
-elan
040 // Jeff Croft // 01.10.2007 // 4:41 PM
Darn good point. I personally think there’s got to be some kind of SDK for this thing. It’d be crazy even there wasn’t. Hell, even if it’s just widgets, there’s gotta be something.
I’m not quite sure where all this “you won’t be able to install additional apps” stuff is coming from — I’ve not read anything official, or even from a respected journalist, that says as much.
All we know is Apple hasn’t told us how to write software for this thing yet. But there is still six months until launch, right?
041 // Mike Doyle // 01.10.2007 // 4:44 PM
I like the look and the functionality of this “phone” but why does Apple limit themselves to Cingular. If LG & Motorola can market & use their devices with multiple carriers, why wouldn’t Apple?
042 // Jeff Croft // 01.10.2007 // 5:02 PM
Mike-
043 // Elan Feingold // 01.10.2007 // 5:08 PM
I think there are a few more points to be made:
Apple may have simply been working too hard on the actual product, and left the SDK until later. It seems unlikely that Jobs wouldn’t have at least mentioned it.
Apple may be still deciding at what level to allow applications. An errant Cocoa-mobile app could (in theory) interfere with the ability of the phone to do regular phone-like things (although one would hope that critical processes would be running at near real-time priorities, etc.)
Apple, being the control freaks that they are, may decide they want to own the mobile app market for a while, or go through some sort of approval process.
This may be a carrier issue. If C code can run, then a VoIP app is completely conceivable, and in a WiFi hotspot one could avoid any mobile charges. This makes Cingular very, very nervous.
However, until Apple makes an official statement one way or the other, this is all complete conjecture.
044 // Kyle // 01.10.2007 // 6:45 PM
Gizmodo has a nice hands-on with the iPhone, including this little tidbit: The OS: It isn’t OS X proper, as you’d expect. And like an iPod, it won’t be an open system that people can develop for. Remember, this is both an iPod and a Phone.
I hopehopehope Apple licenses this OS… they could really take over the world then.
045 // Rich // 01.10.2007 // 8:43 PM
Does anyone else miss the Newton days? Wouldn’t it be great if someone at MacWorld was using it at the Keynote? I’m reminded of that scene from The Simpsons: “Make a note on your Newton.”
Written: “Beat up Martin.” Recognized: “Eat up Martha.”
046 // Dave // 01.10.2007 // 9:37 PM
The 2MP camera was not mentioned because that convergence has already happened. Anybody interested in Apple just assumes that a mobile phone has a camera (and a good one). The mistake is that this camera won’t take pictures remotely as well as any of the higher-end SonyEricssons (Walkman or Cybershot) or the Nokia’s N-Series.
047 // Adi Feiwel // 01.11.2007 // 3:01 AM
Stop analyzing the current hardware profile and imagine the future implementations that this piece of hardware can do - controlling everything around you, things in your house, lighting, your TV, your car, replace your wallet, locating your family… will be interesting how they will take care of security and identification though - typing a password would be a nag, maybe voice stamp or touch combination, anyway this is a point to be concerned about - if you loose it, you’re whole life is out there!
048 // Richard Earney // 01.11.2007 // 5:05 AM
Could it be OS X on a chip?
That would make it faster, and explain why adding apps ‘isn’t possible’?
049 // o_mores // 01.11.2007 // 7:30 AM
LG KE850 - already won the International Forum Design Product Design Award for 2007. Hmmm…
050 // Dave (Spin This!) // 01.11.2007 // 9:23 AM
If you pair Mac OS X down to its bare essentials and librarys, I’d wager you could get to fit onto a 1 gb space (or maybe even 512 MB) which could easily be installed on a flash device.
Another thing I noticed that I think confirms what Jeff mentioned is those blue tabs when you’re in the contact part of the iPhone mail application—those are straight out of Lepoard.
051 // o_mores // 01.11.2007 // 9:55 AM
iPhone is manufactured in Taiwan, by a specialized company in smartphones. Apple supplied the whole concept and the OS (based on OS X foundation) but the final product is made using the existing assembling lines. That’s why the iPhone is equipped with a common ARM CPU (v11 - @ 532-665MHz), and a normal 2MP CMOS camera.
ARM CPU = no pure OS X.
052 // Jeff Croft // 01.11.2007 // 10:09 AM
Why does “ARM CPU = no pure OS X?”
Apple’s proven that Mac OS X is the world’s most portable operating system, and ARM is supposed to a pretty easy architecture to build for. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Apple has OS X running on ARM.
053 // o_mores // 01.11.2007 // 10:38 AM
Because current Apple’s OS X arhitecture is based on a CISC x86 CPU and ARM CPU used in iPhone is a RISC CPU. Tu run OS X just the way it is, would require another complex translation (emulation) software like Roseta. But doing this in a mobile device is a pure suicide.
wikipeda: CISC & RISC
A complex instruction set computer (CISC) is a microprocessor instruction set architecture (ISA) in which each instruction can execute several low-level operations, such as a load from memory, an arithmetic operation, and a memory store, all in a single instruction. The term was coined in contrast to reduced instruction set computer (RISC).
The reduced instruction set computer, or RISC, is a CPU design philosophy that favors a reduced instruction set as well as a simpler set of instructions.
054 // Jeff Croft // 01.11.2007 // 10:44 AM
Dude, you do realize that Apple has two current architectures, right? Intel and PowerPC. Intel is CISC and PowerPC is RISC.
So clearly this is a solved problem.
055 // o_mores // 01.11.2007 // 11:01 AM
PowerPC is actually a RISC architecture. But a RISC architecture it’s a CLASS of CPUs meaning that all the RISC CPUs are using a reduced instruction set as well as a simpler set of instructions. An ARM CPU has its specific set of instructions, and a PowerPC another completely different set of instructions.
056 // Jeff Croft // 01.11.2007 // 11:14 AM
I know PowerPC is a RISC architecture. That’s what I said.
You’re missing the point. If Apple could move from PowerPC to Intel, why couldn’t they move from Intel to ARM?
Honestly, man. You’re start to come off like a troll. You’re posting a thousand comments all over my site trying to convince people of things that don’t matter. It’s sidetracking the conversation, and starting to feel like you’re just trying to show off your knowledge.
Please raise the quality of your comments.
057 // o_mores // 01.11.2007 // 12:41 PM
Well, just try to think like Steve does. You have to create 10 million iPhone units in a year. Every extra dollar per unit = 10 mil dollars expenses. So… you have to do it as cheaper as possible while maintaining quality. You choose ARM architecture which offers great performance while being the most cost effective.
Technically things are very clear. What about software?
Would you risk the stability of the product using a heavily modified desktop version of OS X which natively runs on a completely different set of hardware? (EFI interface/x86 CPU/etc) Would you invest money and time to patch something?
Or… you create a brand new mobile OS, rock solid, fully optimized for the ARM architecture. This way you get the best performance in terms of computational power and energy savings.
What would you do?
058 // Jeff Croft // 01.11.2007 // 12:57 PM
What I would do might have been an interesting discussion last week, but since Steve came right out and said the iPhone runs OS X, arguing over wether the phone runs OS X or some new mobile OS seems pretty pointless.
It runs OS X. He said so. What more do you want?
059 // JRAllison // 01.11.2007 // 1:09 PM
o_mores,
Since when does software development have a “per unit sold” cost? Each $10 million they spend in developing the OS is just $1 increase in cost of the unit (most likely more if sold through Cingular, but regardless). Development costs are static and scale well to the number of units sold.
Also, with the past successes in moving OS X to different architectures, I would propose moving OS X to ARM would be both cheaper and less risk of stability issues. You’d rather they spend all their time on re-writing the OS for ARM? That isn’t a very thought out development strategy. :)
060 // huxley // 01.11.2007 // 3:06 PM
Openstep which was the direct ancestor of OS X ran on Motorola 680x0 and x86 (both CISC), PowerPC, HP’s PA-RISC, Sun’s SPARC and reputedly DEC’s Alpha (all RISC). Apple has inherited a lot of experience in porting their OS to multiple chips.
061 // pdanko // 01.11.2007 // 4:14 PM
Many things about the iPhone appeal to me. I like the style. I’m moderately impressed with the features. I’d like more storage, 3G, and integrated GPS, and separate phone/iPod batteries, but I’m not hung up on these things. Even the price, while high is something that a certain demographic will bite on. However, I was most surprised and disappointed about Apple solely distributing iPhones through Cingular… not just for the initial release, but for a number of years. This immediately eliminates most corporate customers who may have targeted replacements of some of their smartphone inventory (albeit unlikely). But more importantly it alienates all those who dislike feeling locked into a provider. The whole point of GSM hardware is carrier independence. It taken forever for most stubborn US carriers to get onboard with this concept. If I were to drop $.5k on a cellphone/iPod/PDA and it turned out that I hated Cingular’s service then I’m going to be pissed. Not to mention I would be required to drop service with a carrier that I might be perfectly happy with for an unknown. This single flaw really, really turns me off on the iPhone.
062 // Harley // 01.11.2007 // 4:25 PM
Pogue from NYT has a good FAQ about the iPhone here.
Biggest answers:
063 // Jeff Croft // 01.11.2007 // 4:25 PM
pdanko:
I can definitely understand where you’re coming from, but you can’t really say this is an Apple-specifc issue. Every hot new phone comes out on one carrier only before it makes its way to others. The LG Choclate is Verizon only. The Moto Q was Verizon only for a year. The Moto KRAZR has just now made its way to Singular after its exclusives ran up. The Nokia E61 is only avialable on Cingular. The Blackberry Pearl is T-Mobile only. And so on.
So yes, this is annoying and I don’t like it any better than you do — but it’s certainly not an iPhone specific problem. Every hot new phone comes out exclusively for one carrier — Apple’s only real choice was which one. Given that Apple has designs on selling the iPhone internationally, GSM was the obvious choice. And Cingular is the biggest GSM provider in America, both in terms of subscribers and coverage.
I wish it was multi-carrier, too, but that’s an unrealistic expectation for launch — and if it must be only one, Cingular is the most logical choice.
And I think you have to blame this on the carriers, not on Apple (although it’d be nice if Apple would use its leverage in the market to start to change this). It seems like a lot of people want to call Apple out for not selling this phone unlocked — but are these same people getting upset that ever other manufacturer does these same exclusives?
064 // Peter J. Pedersen // 01.11.2007 // 7:57 PM
Wosniak said, in a videoed, published interview/iPhone presentation, that the OS is not THE OS X, but a version OF OS X. The ARM CPU demands a kernel that AT LEAST is a heavily modified version of Mach/BSD. Most of the GUI is totally new, and many of the libraries/APIs are either not relevant (I/O-Kit, for instance) or left out for other reasons… (or at least not included in Jobs’ list of titbits included)
It begs the question: how long can you amputate things from Pete before he ceases being Pete…
However, recent articles/rumor reports from (of all places) Macosrumors.com and Looprumors.com suggest that it started out as the original iPod OS but was heavily modified over time with code from Mac OS X to enable the kind of capabilities and UI that Jobs and the rest wanted. The reports furthermore suggest that the modifications are planned to continue until the product ends up being like Mac OS X from a coding perspective (Cocoa and Webkit mainly), like refined vine branches on wild vine roots.
Given this, it is unbelievable that Apple seem intent on stunting this new platform from the outset by keeping it closed. Imagine the ecosystem (god, I hate that expression) that would arise, catapult-like, if third-party programming were to be supported! And imagine what that would to to future variations of the platform…
Peter J. Pedersen
065 // Jeff Croft // 01.11.2007 // 8:11 PM
Peter-
That’s interesting about Woz — I’ve love to see that video. Here’s the deal, for me personally. Mach and BSD aren’t what make OS X into OS X. Mach and BSD are 99% the same as almost every other platform in the world (Solaris, LInux, AIX, HP-UX, etc, etc. — Unix is, for the most part, Unix). What makes OS X unique is everything that happens on top of that. The Core Whatever libraries. The user interface. That included apps. And so on.
So, for my money, it’s OS X if it has this stuff. I couldn’t much care what processor it run on, what kernel it uses, or if it’s BSD or some other POSIX variant. I can get all of those things — or things that are 99% equivalent — anywhere. What I do care about is Aqua. Mail.app. Safari. WebKit. iTunes. iPhoto. And so on.
These are what makes OS X, OS X. Period.
I would be unbelievable if Apple were intent on stunting this new platform by keeping it closed, but since they’ve never said anything publicly about their plans for that, it’s way, way, way premature for you (or anyone else) to be assuming that is their plan.
066 // Bryan Murley // 01.11.2007 // 8:27 PM
And I think you have to blame this on the carriers, not on Apple (although it’d be nice if Apple would use its leverage in the market to start to change this). It seems like a lot of people want to call Apple out for not selling this phone unlocked — but are these same people getting upset that ever other manufacturer does these same exclusives?
Yes. I’m calling every single one of them out for this. Does the landline phone system operate this way? Hell no. A phone is a phone is a phone. The key issue here is if you don’t like Cingular, you are SOL. Period. You have a $600 iPod shuffle.
Given the enormous importance of cell phones in the current economy, I’d really suggest we start treating it more like a utility and less like an add on. I mean, how long did it take before we were able to keep our numbers? They had to be forced to give us that much.
And there’s no mention of how huge the contract on this phone is going to be. I’m sure Cingular is licking their chops. Can you hear them now? Minutes are going to be outrageous, and Internet access is going to be outrageous. 2 years is a big commitment, no matter what people think.
I really like the iPhone. But I’m not getting one if it means I have to switch. I guess I’ll stick with my phone phone.
067 // Elan Feingold // 01.12.2007 // 1:10 AM
That’s great news, because it means that it has enough oomph to run VoIP.
If only, if only, 3rd party apps were allowed to run. That news (which I’ve now heard from multiple sources) really ruined my day.
068 // Jeff Croft // 01.12.2007 // 1:16 AM
Steve Jobs said today that there would be third-party software for the iPhone.
069 // Pat // 01.12.2007 // 11:44 PM
Ok, one thing that I think no-one has thought of that is possible is what their new partnership with both Google and Yahoo allows.. One such thing that would be possible is the integration of Flickr + iPhone to create a platform that would allow for a wireless network of photos.. Now, if only the iPhone came with GPS for geotagging then it would be really cool..
070 // Harley // 01.15.2007 // 3:24 PM
I suppose technically Jobs said they will allow 3rd-party programs, but what really seems to be saying is “If a company wants to buy a dev kit and then go through the Cingular/Apple approval process we may let their software onto the iPhone”.
Which to me is just stupid.
071 // Tom // 02.01.2007 // 3:30 PM
The iPhone will probably be pretty neat. What will be revolutionary will be the FIC Neo, running OpenMoko.
http://www.openmoko.com/