Apple, Motorola Plan An iTunes-Friendly Phone

PabloJones writes "Apple and Motorola have come together to create a new mp3-enabled cell phone, according to this Reuters article. It says that the device will be capable of storing about 12 songs, and will be fully integrated with iTunes. Perhaps this is a beginning of a new relationship between the two companies, after the PowerPC problems between the two in recent years."

12 songs? does it play pong also?

[nanojath]

12 songs? like an... album? what do they got in their, a hamster? it can't possibly be that hard to find somewhere to stuff a couple more MP3s in a cell phone. why so stingy?

Re:Uh, woo?

[bedouin]

Apple has nothing to lose from this, but a great deal to gain. There's people out there who don't know, or think they want an mp3 player -- this will get them hooked not only on the idea, but on Apple's intuitive interface. When it comes time to upgrade to something that can hold more than 12 songs, chances are they'll consider something iTunes compatible (i.e. an iPod).

And even if it means no iPod sales, it still gives Apple stronger brand recognition.

12 Songs?

[serial_crusher]

Call me (no pun intended) when it has a 40GB hard drive.

if they allow too many

[Anonymous Coward]

songs on the phones, what's the point in buying an iPod?

Quite sensible really, if they want to continue with the iPod, which I'm sure they do.

Re:Why doesn't Apple just make this the iPhone

[PabloJones]

I believe that in the past, Jobs has stated that Apple wouldn't make a phone, as it was not in their best interest. Maybe they're testing the waters, to eventually come out with the rumored iPhone, but I sort of doubt this.

It's possible Apple is using this to promote the purchase of iPods. 12 songs isn't a hell of a lot, but these phones will most likely introduce even more people to iTMS, and when they are fed up with only having a handful songs on their phone, they'll spring for a new iPod.

Re:Looks like Apple learned a lesson...

[HanzoSpam]

Understandable enough. Apple earns revenue from licensing on this every time Motorola sells a cell phone. What do they earn when Real sells a song?

Re:Wow.

[PabloJones]

Yeah, it's truly a shame those satellite phones never took off... just think, you could have Musak beamed down to it when you needed to put someone on hold, and then people could listen to an instrumental version of "Walkin' on Sunshine" while you used the can.

Hmmmm, well maybe that's not such a shame after all.

Battery life???

[droopus]

Um, my phone barely makes it through the day on its extended life battery. How the heck is it going to last all day if I use it as my music source as well?

I might be alone, but I really prefer a Sidekick (or Blackberry, I spose...) for my net, email and PDA functions and my cell for phone calls and little else. Other than the occasional game of Jeopardy, I rarely use my cell for much besides a mobile phone.

Re:Uh, woo?

[GoofyBoy]

>Apple has nothing to lose from this, but a great deal to gain.

Not sure what they have to gain from this.

Half an iPod with an interface which I'm not sure how its going to work with a cell phone, doesn't sound like a strong product.

And they have alot to lose. Its called watering down a brand-name.

>There's people out there who don't know, or think they want an mp3 player

So why would they buy it with a cell phone? Why not go for this nicer/cheaper/better cell phone?

Apple should do the next step 100% with their iPod. No half PDA or half cellphone combos. Full working PDA/"Son of Newton" and a full blown iPod with a cellphone.

Who can out cynic the cynics?!

[berniecase]

Welcome to Slashdot, Cynical haven.

Remember, Slashdotters panned the iPod [mac.com] when it was introduced. They're doing exactly the same thing here. I really get a kick out of reading some of these braindead posts.

Battery life!
OGG!
What? Only 12 songs?!
It's not a Newton!
Apple is dying!
I won't buy it until it has X feature
AAC sucks, X format r0x0rs yo!


Okay okay, so some people are posting positive comments, but they seem to get lost in the pointless hand waving from the haters. Thanks everybody - In a years time, this phone will be a success and you'll STILL be bitching about not having OGG support on X device.

Who cares?

[macosxaddict]

What exactly are people supposed to use this for? 12 songs is 48 minutes. You're not going to connect it to your car and listen to it on the way to work. You're not going to hold the phone up to your ear for minutes at a time just so you can listen to some nice music (that is the same every time). It's way overkill for fancy ring tones. The speaker sucks, compared to the iPod earphones; it's designed for phone quality, not CD quality. Ever been confused whether you were listening to hold music on the phone or your car stereo? Me neither.

Re:Everyone is complaining about 12 songs already

[overunderunderdone]

we'll just forget about the Cube

The cube was a definite miss. Sadly it could have been a big hit, it was a great idea, a great machine. They just got the price point wrong (WAY wrong). It was a headless iMac and should have been priced that way, if it had been it would have been a huge hit.

Re:Uh, woo?

[RedWizzard]

Not sure what they have to gain from this.

Obviously sales via iTunes. Possibly increased iPod sales.

Half an iPod with an interface which I'm not sure how its going to work with a cell phone, doesn't sound like a strong product.

Yes it does. I don't have an iPod, I don't know that I want one and I'm not paying that sort of money to find out. But I'll probably upgrade my phone in the next year or so and an mp3 capable phone is something I'd be interested in (certainly more than the camera phones that sell so well). One album's worth of songs is a good start. If I find I want more I'll buy an iPod, then I'll have two devices that use iTunes, and I can have music without carting both phone and iPod around if I don't want to.

And they have alot to lose. Its called watering down a brand-name.

It won't be an Apple branded product, it'll just carry a version of iTunes. Nothing to lose, unless Apple are paying Motorola. You're not in marketing are you?

So why would they buy it with a cell phone? Why not go for this nicer/cheaper/better cell phone?

Because this is a phone+mp3 player, not just a phone. It's one less device to carry round. Cost is certainly an issue, but I'd be shocked if this phone cost more than a similar phone plus an iPod.

Apple should do the next step 100% with their iPod. No half PDA or half cellphone combos. Full working PDA/"Son of Newton" and a full blown iPod with a cellphone.

Not happening yet. Phones and PDAs have radically different screen size and input requirements. They've been tried and don't converge that well. Your combination device is going to be expensive and large and that'll put people off. It's also a much larger gamble for Apple.

Re:Uh, woo?

[bedouin]

If you were used to and familiar with another companies products, Apple's products would seem very strange and alien to you. They would not even be recognizable as a pattern at all, and certainly not an expected one.

Dunno about that really. I wasn't a Mac user until 2002, but had OS X running to my likening within a few hours of taking the machine out of the box. I remember asking a friend a few questions, but 95% of it would be self-explanatory to anyone who's used a computer in the past 15 years.

On the other hand, I can remember encountering huge hiccups just migrating from one Linux distribution to another, or even upgrading Windows. There is definitely such a thing as unintuitive design; I've encountered it numerous times.

You will not have the knowledge of button placement encoded into your DNA

No, but there are certain UI designs that are more sensible to known human tendencies than others; Apple's done a great deal of research on it, and I think it shows when my dad (whose new to mp3s and computers) can figure out how to use iTunes within a couple minutes without me standing over his shoulders.

Please, there is no such "intuitive"

Sure there is. It's doing things like putting the power switch to say -- a monitor on its front, not the back. It's taking into consideration what most people expect, as opposed to what's technically the easiest thing to implement (which, in some cases -- may be a power switch on the back). Just an example. There are plenty more.

Re:Uh, woo?

[SmittyTheBold]

...because you were thinking like a UNIX user, instead of going with what makes basic sense. Apple presented the OS as an easy-to-use, powerful system with UNIX underneath it all. You chose to view it as a UNIX system with a candy coating, and all the rough edges that most other environments had.

Now, I'm not going to say that a specific method should be "intuitive" to you, but I will say that an item like the Terminal belongs where they put it in the UI, because that's where your average unindoctrinated user could logically reason it to be.

Re:Uh, woo?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. They make a profit measured in pennies, to be sure, but they make a profit. It's been profitable for a few months now.

Re:Overkill?

[SteveM]

... When new to OS X, you don't know that there's a find command ...

Clue #1, it is called the Finder! :-)

A quick trip to the Help menu, and typing in "search" led very quickly to info about the find command.

And it is pretty obvious where to find help, via the Help menu in the Finder.

And while in help I entered the search terms "command line", "shell", "bash", "tcsh", "term", "bsd", "unix" all of which led me to info about the program "Terminal". Many of which had an option to open Terminal.

So now I know how to search and that a program called Terminal looks light it will do what I need. So I use the find command to find terminal. And there it is.

Pretty straight forward IMHO.

SteveM