If we’ve to carry only one electronic gadget, what is the one thing it must do?

Make calls?

Access internet?

Apple thinks is making calls but also added the ability to access internet in iPhone. Since EDGE coverage is wider than Wi-Fi, is logical to launch iPhone rather than Wi-Fi iPod.  This approach is also logical even if Apple thinks accessing Internet is more important than making calls.

Would Apple be more successful if it has launched a Wi-Fi iPod in Jun 29, follow by an iPhone 6-12 months later?

Views please.

Apple can capitalize on the Wi-Fi infrastructure being developed by communities and enterprises nationwide through the release of a Wi-Fi enabled iPod. The no cost/low cost Wi-Fi model is much more attractive to me than the cell service model.

Apple can exert far more influence over the user experience involving Wi-Fi than it can under its cell service affiliation with AT&T.

I see a real need for Wi-Fi equipped iPods to fill a market that isn’t as easily addressed when 3rd party cell contracts are involved. Especially since the company’s domestic cell service partner IMHO is a virtual no-show in promoting the iPhone’s success.

I’m not real happy with AT&T at the moment.

hmm, I think I take Jobs at his word this time.  When he introduced the iPhone as a business he simply compared the size of different markets: gaming consoles, mp3 players, computers, and cell phones, with cellphones two or three times as big as any of the others.

Isn’t proven market size enough of a reason to start with a cell phone?  Forget about proven market size, would you even expect a wifi iPod to sell as much as a regular iPod?

EDIT:  to answer Mace’s specific question, I would say the MARKET has answered that for now voice is by far more ubiquitous than Internet access when it comes to a mobile device.  SMS is gaining but I would say SMS is closer to voice (one to one, personal) than Internet access (many to many, public).  So, while the iPhone may usher in the age of the mobile internet, I don’t think the mobile internet would have driven nearly the volume that voice will.

[quote author=“alcatholic”]hmm, I think I take Jobs at his word this time.  When he introduced the iPhone as a business he simply compared the size of different markets: gaming consoles, mp3 players, computers, and cell phones, with cellphones two or three times as big as any of the others.

Isn’t proven market size enough of a reason to start with a cell phone?  Forget about proven market size, would you even expect a wifi iPod to sell as much as a regular iPod?

I’m certainly not suggesting Apple shouldn’t have started with a cell phone. It’s the best cell phone on the market IMHO.

Apple pretty much crafted the iPod’s market while even leaving room for competitors. Apple did not craft the cell phone market so while great potential exists for sales in that market, one can’t really compare the two based on size alone.

The iPhone requires a 3rd party contract. A Wi-Fi equipped iPod can be used to access the Web for free or almost for free compared to the cost of a cell contract in the States.

[quote author=“DawnTreader”]The iPhone requires a 3rd party contract. A Wi-Fi equipped iPod can be used to access the Web for free or almost for free compared to the cost of a cell contract in the States.

I just think that those contracts show how valuable voice is.  Isn’t the mobile internet a much weaker justification than voice for an investment in a mobile device like an iPhone?  Even mobile media is a more compelling justification than mobile Internet.  Frankly the Internet is probably still considered nice to have, not need to have.  I know my wife thinks so, even if i don’t.

Now if I really believe what I’m saying I would argue that the 6g iPod doesn’t need wifi. Widescreen, OS X, multitouch would be all that majority of the market would need.  And don’t forget that the iPhone has two motherboards, one to run the os and apps and touchscreen, and one to run the communication radios, IIRC.  If so,  Apple would just have to drop one of the motherboards and they have the 6g iPod.

I would expect that the wifi iPod would actually launch as a strategic evolution of the iPhone.  But we haven’t even begun to explore the iPhone roadmap beyond the iPhone nano, have we?

Re: iPhone vs Wi-Fi iPod

[quote author=“Mace”]If we’ve to carry only one electronic gadget, what is the one thing it must do?

Make calls?

Access internet?

Apple thinks is making calls but also added the ability to access internet in iPhone. Since EDGE coverage is wider than Wi-Fi, is logical to launch iPhone rather than Wi-Fi iPod.  This approach is also logical even if Apple thinks accessing Internet is more important than making calls.

Would Apple be more successful if it has launched a Wi-Fi iPod in Jun 29, follow by an iPhone 6-12 months later?

Views please.

Probably not. Cell Phones are much more prevalent than iPods. And as others have said, voice demands a higher premium than internet access on the go. Further, the free & low cost internet is sketchy at best with limited range. Airports, Starbucks, hotels and local communities all have different plan providers which often demand some form of payment.  If there was a nationwide everywhere Wi-Fi, then possibly.

The cellphone features cost so little for Apple to add to a WiFi iPod, that it doesn’t make sense to sell this “iPhone with no phone”. And the more closely iPod becomes telephony capable (and a WiFi OSX iPod would certainly be technically capable of VOIP), the more the carriers will resist Apple’s progress in the cellphone market.

So I really don’t see a WiFi iPod in the near future. It’s better for Apple to advertise iPhone heavily, and keep iPod as a cached playback device covering only its current abilities. When iPhone is well established worldwide, maybe iPod can safely encroach on its territory. Or maybe it will be called an iPhone too.

With the rumors of Google building a phone plus the rumored Google build out of large data centers around the country capable of broadband over power lines and the fact that the FCC will be auctioning off part of the spectrum and that Google wants a big part of it, only provides limited information about Apple board of directors and their insider knowledge.

But, I doubt that Mr Jobs is unaware of the facts and I believe that teh Steve is going to pull an end run around the cellular industry with a wifi iPod-Phone without internet capabilities of the iPhone so as not to cannibalize those sales. Google may also introduce a basic gPhone without music or internet abilities.

After all, it’s less then 2 year to go with ATT and by that time the infrastructure will be in place.

. . . . . just a monday morning thought or too. . . . .

“If you have to carry only one device, what should it be?”

My answer is voice.

Unless you’re going into the wilderness, then the answer is camera.

For most urbanites, convenient access to voice fills safety, social, family and business needs. Media is a distraction or used to fill the time. So the second device should be an iPod. Unless you go out unprepared with data (printouts), and then internet becomes quite compelling. Therefore your second device depends on daily habits and activities.

But, when a device exists to cover the functions of that second (or 3rd/4th etc) device along with your phone, why not get that instead? Contract and price issues, you say? Perfect, just get the non-phone iPhone. Woops, it doesn’t exist…  Yet.

Carrying two devices is reasonable for most people. The larger market for mobile voice means many potential customers already have a phone, and need something to fill that #2 slot. Some will pay a premium to have it all in one device, others are still looking for that magic #2/3/4 all rolled into one.

iPhone is a big deal. Apple bigger than Nokia in cellphones? Why not. Like Kodak film fifty years ago, the existence of other manufacturers and film types may be essentially irrelevant to most customers. Like film, iPhone is the medium, not the message the customer is really buying. After “Keep it with Kodak”, “Keep it with iPhone?” is not a bad fit!

Hard disk wiPod? maybe. wiPod for markets iPhone can’t reach yet? maybe. wiPod to manage Apple’s component inflows when the public aren’t quite adopting iPhone fast enough? maybe. wiPod nano? maybe (but what about battery life).

I feel sure that when there’s a choice, Apple will always build another iPhone in preference to another wiPod. Thus in preference to building wiPods, they would market iPhone more strongly. In the future world, iPhone is the single device everyone must carry. It doesn’t seem that way yet, because it’s only been out a couple of months, in just one country.

If WiMax (or some other technology) takes off in a big way so that wireless internet is as ubiquitous as cellular service, then I see a place for a wifi only iPod using VOIP. Until that time, iPhone is it.

Sounds right to me.

Just to add my thoughts, in the US, who is launching WiMax other than Sprint?  My hunch would be that the wimax iPod would still be an iPhone, the Sprint iPhone.

Let’s say Google launches a wireless internet service. Pretty compelling.  Would people sign up?  Would people rely upon VoIP and Google’s coverage, or would we still keep a separate cell phone?  I think the answer to that is the answer to whether or, as you said, when Apple launches a wiPod.

For now a wiPod is an unproven niche, and I don’t think Apple is going after niches when it is so focused on the biggest CE market there is, cell phones.  Of course the iPod entered an unproven and very small niche, but that was a different Apple, no?  Or SHOULD Apple still exhibit the kind of out-of-the-box thinking that produced the iPod when the MP3 player market was so under everyone’s radar and only a dream in Tony Fadell’s mind? 

Re: iPhone vs Wi-Fi iPod

[quote author=“Mace”]
Would Apple be more successful if it has launched a Wi-Fi iPod in Jun 29, follow by an iPhone 6-12 months later?

Missing the point.  Apple has a stake in the recurring revenue of the iPhone contracts.  It is a new revenue stream for them.  They are not interested in undercutting this with anything that makes free calls as long as they can have both pieces of the pie (hardware and contracts).  Only when competition or incremental (not cannibalistic) sales opportunities are available will the wifiPod be made available.

I have no need for an iPhone (my $8.95/month emergency prepaid works just fine).  However, I could use a wifi bookreader and remote display for my desktops—rollout display!

Re: iPhone vs Wi-Fi iPod

[quote author=“see3d”]I have no need for an iPhone (my $8.95/month emergency prepaid works just fine).  However, I could use a wifi bookreader and remote display for my desktops—rollout display!

Actually, you have no need for that as well if you truly only need an emergency phone. All cell phones, in the U.S., are required to be able to make 911 calls regardless of activation/service.

This is why many choose to donate their old cell phones to organizations like the battered wives shelters, etc. so that they all have a way to call for help as needed.

HAB

Re: iPhone vs Wi-Fi iPod

[quote author=“HotAirBaffoon”]Actually, you have no need for that as well if you truly only need an emergency phone. All cell phones, in the U.S., are required to be able to make 911 calls regardless of activation/service.
HAB

Good suggestion, but I was referring to minor emergencies—like calling when late for dinner, AAA for a dead battery, and something forgot on the shopping list.  I use less than 100 minutes a year, but I have a lot more “banked” for a real emergency.

I’m still carrying an iPod

I think that a wi-fi only iPhone or a wi-fi iPod is not an optimal solution at this time.  Where I live and work, a very well populated area near a major urban center, there is very little free wi-fi - which I think is true for most of the country.  Most networks are closed or pay per use/subscribe; whereas, with EDGE, I get almost 100% coverage.  I think this is the case in most places outside of certain highly developed cities (i.e., NYC, Chicago, SFO, LA). 

It’s great to hop onto the Wi-Fi network at my local B&N, Starbucks or Borders, but I’ve either got to subscribe to the Hot Spot services (AT&T at B&N or T-Mobile at Borders or Starbucks) or pay per use.  Few businesses have open access points, and they are often weak signals.

EDGE, on the other hand, works really really well for me.  Not blazing fast, but not hideously slow either.  Yesterday, as a passenger in a car going 65 mph down a major highway, I was able to load pages from the NYT and get Google search results in about 15 seconds. 

But anyway - back to the topic at hand.  I am still carrying my 5.5 gen 80GB iPod.  I have a lot of music, and I like to take it all with me.  The iPod part of my iPhone holds the least interest for me.  I do like not having to carry a separate PDA with me, and I find the integration with both my Mac and the office PC makes my life a lot more organized.