iLounge

1

Maybe this is the direction Apple is heading ...

http://www.tuaw.com/2005/09/27/is-this-itunes-for-windows-mobile/

Posted by Derrick on September 27, 2005 at 8:24 PM (PDT)

2

i could not agree more.

i once had this clock/radio/casette player/vcr/thingo that broke the first time i used it. i returned it, bought a clock and a seperate casette player and both are still working. an ipod jack-of-all-trades would truly be a master of none.

Posted by Mondayne on September 27, 2005 at 8:27 PM (PDT)

3

i meant i couldnt agree more with the VP from apple not with derrick. no offense there dude…

Posted by Mondayne on September 27, 2005 at 8:28 PM (PDT)

4

No offense taken ... FWIW ... I totally agree with the VP as well ... the only way I could see it working is if Apple designed the phone and batteries could last days ... not hours.

Posted by Derrick on September 27, 2005 at 8:45 PM (PDT)

5

Look this VP is talking more madness than I talk.  Apple believes in convergence—that’s why we have the ROKR today.

Convergence is the wave of the future…Apple believes in it 100% so don’t let this VP fool you.  Apple hasn’t nailed it yet and that’s why he’s acting coy.

Apple also says the demand for video is low.  As it is currently available the demand is low, but as soon as someone nails the design and usability (I believe it will be Apple) the demand will be out of this world.

Simply put, the VP is saying there is no demand for something that doesn’t exist—this is typically true.  At one point in history there was no demand for airplanes—we were satisfied with trains.

Convergence is the future.

Posted by Talking Madness in Los Angeles on September 27, 2005 at 11:30 PM (PDT)

6

What you’re (Talking Madness) suggesting Apple is doing is beginning sound like 1984! Big Brother couldn’t produce the monthly chocolate rations and had to cut the numbers, but told the populace the numbers were up, giving the appearance that it was intentional.

I agree with you, but also don’t know if I agree with the general idea of one-product-to-do-everything.

I think iPods work well and if they had an awesome camera and worked as an awesome phone that’d be great, but if someone only needed a standard camera or an average phone they wouldn’t want to pay for an awesome one. I bought a hugely awesome camera, but I don’t expect everyone else to need or want one, so the problem with complete convergence forces people to make sacrifices in either price they’re willing to pay, or quality.

Apple may be about convergence of design and function, but I don’t think complete convergence is the way to go on the iPod.

Getting your computer to function as a TV or whatever is one thing, a phone/music player/PDA/camera/video player is quite another.

PS. Do you think Apple reads this site? Do they take our comments with any amount of seriousness if they do. We’re not just a bunch of idiot kids. And I hope they know this.

Posted by Mondayne on September 27, 2005 at 11:57 PM (PDT)

7

Jon couldn’t have said it better! Convergence is a good thing to a degree, but there is a point when one goes too far. I’m happy with an iPod staying solely as a Digital Audio Player.

Posted by Azza on September 28, 2005 at 12:37 AM (PDT)

8

Rubenstein explains to those with small brains. :o)

Posted by Magic Rabbits in Aberdeen, Scotland on September 28, 2005 at 1:40 AM (PDT)

9

Mondayne-

I have a Treo and it’s a good blend of phone/PDA, but I wish they would drop the camera and just make the thing that much smaller.  If it had 4GB of memory and a decent music player interface, I would relegate my iPod mini primarily to gym use only.

I think the blending of phone/PDA/DAP will be a good mix.  One that’s small enough to carry everywhere, and good enough at those functions that you won’t need anything else, but I wouldn’t go on a vacation with my camera phone as my only camera, nor is a 5-inch screen gonna replace my home theater system.

I do think Apple monitors this site.  They would be fools not to.

Posted by Talking Madness in Los Angeles on September 28, 2005 at 2:03 AM (PDT)

10

we have coltranes and airplanes but we don’t have any plane-trains. maybe it’s time we built some.

vroom!

Posted by japan on September 28, 2005 at 3:56 AM (PDT)

11

I am afraid this guy has not understood a thing. Sounds like the selfassured Bill Gates at a point in time and that arroganse may bring him down.
The Sony-Ericsson W800i is practically sold out in Europe, going as hot cakes in Singapore and Hong Kong - while the ROKR sits there, at half price.
The convergence is not only a necessity, it is the future. Who would want two gizmos in the pocket when you can have one…? And I don’t need 60 GB for the daily commute…1, 2 or 4 GB will do just fine.

Posted by Getor on September 28, 2005 at 7:35 AM (PDT)

12

THANK YOU JOE!!! I wouldn’t have something that could do two things…a CELL PHONE and an iPod that holds 100 songs…I’d just have a cell phone, and my 60GB iPod. I would have a PDA, but why have one when a laptop will do that and even more?

Posted by That Tall Dude on September 28, 2005 at 5:29 PM (PDT)

13

Erm.. actually, there are brand names with machines that incorporate toaster and coffee maker.

A particular one even comes with a small hot plate on top to make sunny side up eggs.

Posted by Dereth on September 28, 2005 at 7:47 PM (PDT)

14

I’m one in the specialized gadget camp. I’m happy with the iPod as a dedicated digital music player, a good telephone device, perhaps with email capabilities, a good digital camera, etc. I don’t think of my phone as such a fun item as my iPod… The phone needs to be more utilitarian, hardy, whereas the iPod is a thing that I’m passionate about! Don’t care for the two mixing. As for the ROKR, I don’t believe that it was released because Apple particularly believes in convergence, it’s just a way to draw in the consumer that does want that… Maybe even as an introduction to iTunes and the iPod phenomenon, resulting in a greater iPod pool of fans!

Posted by Gerardo Lorenzana on September 29, 2005 at 12:51 AM (PDT)