Has the iPhone Killed the Video iPod?
The iPhone guranteees there’ll be no video iPod for a long time. If you don’t need to buy an iPhone to get a video iPod, why else would you buy one? Certainly not just because it’s a phone. That’s one hell of an expensive phone! And it’s not quite smart enough as a smartphone.
Well, I’m back from the beach. I had a nice relaxing holiday, but one thing kept niggling away in the back of my head while I fried the front of it lying on the beach under a scorching Australian sun: who the heck is the iPhone for?
Before answering that question though, we first need to establish what it is and is not.
1) It’s a phone.
2) It’s a video iPod.
3) It’s not a PDA.
Okay, now that wasn’t too hard, but therein lies the issue. Because, it doesn’t matter how you look at it, it’s one expensive phone. Thus it’s not just a phone, it couldn’t be. See, Apple had this dilemma. Steve wanted a mobile phone for the 21st Century, one that even James T. Kirk might consider swapping for his communicator; however, such a device would be prohibitively expensive as a phone.
If all the iPhone did was be a phone, would anyone buy it? Considering the technology inside of it would be still pretty much the same, it would still cost the same. So, not a chance.
One other little thing the iPhone is: it is a handheld computer. This is significant. That little bugger really is a computer—albeit, one wearing a shorty-pants version of OS X.
So, to fulfill Steve’s dream, Apple had to build a device with the power of a handheld computer just to make this iPhone thingy with its whiz-bang, multi-touch interface. And, to make it viable, it would need some other features tacked on. Coincidentally, many folks think they want a video iPod, while others are clamoring for an Apple PDA. So the engineers at Apple, being the creative bods they are, found a way to kill two and a half birds with one stone. The half-bird is the PDA. (If this were MS, the stone would have missed the birds and hit the customer. Of course, the customer would have been thrilled when told this was an undocumented feature.)
But anyway. We’re starting to distill some things about the phone, so let’s hop in and see who it might be for.
Mobile phone warriors
These folks’ lives revolve around their mobile phones. Many of them wish they could get their bluetooth headsets implanted in their ears. They buy expensive phones and might even accept the price of the iPhone, especially given it’s PIM features, albeit somewhat neutered.
And these folks are master keypad jockeys. You see them belting out SMSes, scrolling their address books, leaping through their voice mails, and all with their non-preferred hand while eating a three course meal.
How many people out there in reader land hold their mobile in one hand, and press its button with a finger from the other hand? None? Less than none? I thought so.
The iPhone—from the videos and information so far—looks like it will often need to be used that way. That is, one hand to hold it, and one to point and touch with. Maybe it’s a safety feature to stop people from texting while they drive.
Mobile phone warriors only have one finger that counts: their thumb. Multi-touch? Can you really see them using a phone that requires two hands?
Smartphone users
The iPhone does fall into the category of smartphone; however, is it smart enough? After all, it is not a full PDA and has no way for third-party applications to be added. Smartphone users I’ve spoken to so far are not interested unless it is a full PDA.
For so many years we’d waited for Apple to get back into the PDA market, and now we thought we were getting more than we could have hoped for—a handheld Mac. What a PDA that would be! Steve said it ran OS X. It had to be a Mac.
Until we started getting the feedback.
The first murmur of concern was that it wouldn’t run third-party apps. Yep, said Steve (according to the NY Times a few weeks back), we don’t want it ending up like a PC and crashing or hanging up just when you need to make a call.
What? OS X behave like a PC? Crash? Hang up?
And so the iPhone’s PDA capabilities have been neutered.
The iPhone may be a smartphone, but it ain’t the brightest light in the street. Without having full PDA capabilities, can it really compete in the smartphone market? I’m not convinced.
Video iPod fantasizers
Bing, bing, bing! Flashing lights! Scores!
This is the market Apple is really after with the iPhone. Apple could have released a video iPod only with all the look, feel, OS and GUI of the iPhone. And it would have been bought in record numbers despite a high price tag. When you consider that the original iPod cost $399, $499 is not too bad for a video iPod.
Except, Apple was drooling over the mobile phone market. 1 billion units a year! Who wouldn’t want a piece of that? And so Steve or someone else got smart and suggested including a phone in it as well. Yep, the iPhone is actually a video iPod with bonus phone.
Apple could have released a more traditional and affordable handset but really, that would have gotten lost among the millions of other such phones.
So how to get into the higher-end phone market and guarantee success? Make it the video iPod. There is a ready made market for the video iPod; folks have been clamoring for one for years. I don’t know just how big that market is, but for many of the first buyers, it will be the reason that clinches the deal (besides Apple-aholics who buy anything with the logo on it).
The iPhone is indeed targeted at the folks who want a video iPod or a 6th Gen iPod. And the cost is not a problem, even if it was just a video iPod. These guys are willing to pay.
Even if the iPhone doesn’t sell as many units as expected, it will always have a solid base market because of its video iPod capabilities, which Apple will then be able to leverage off as proof of success, leading to it becoming a “must have” device.
No video iPod
But what does this mean for the future of a full video iPod?
There’s been a lot of talk about the need for a bajillion terabyte video iPod to store a reasonable amount of videos (okay, I exaggerate, maybe 100GB). However, I’ve downloaded a couple of short videos from iTMS and they average less than 5MB per minute. Even a long movie of 130 minutes would therefore only be 650MB. So, even on the 4GB model, that’s 13 hours of video.
Apple won’t release a video-only version of the iPod anytime soon as it would cannibalize both the iPhone’s market and the existing video-enabled iPod market.
So, don’t hold your breath. The iPhone is for the folks who want a full video iPod.
In the ‘80s, The Buggles sang “Video killed the radio star.” In the 21st century, they might sing “iPhone killed the video iPod.”
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
how is this not a PDA? it will sync my calendar, address book, email, my bookmarks. music, photos, videos. it also allows be FULL EMAIL AND WEB BROWSER! and for pc users… it even says it syncs address book. FYI: this device is for mac users who want a PDA phone that is tightly integrated with their mac. so get a clue, and get a Mac!!!
apple will definitely release a widescreen video ipod! anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know apple!
I don’t recall Steve Jobs saying it was “expensive”.
Ah, you are correct. For some reason, I read that as “exclusive.”
spongebill, my iPod already syncs most of the things you mention. That doesn’t make it a PDA.
The iPhone is a neutered PDA, allowing only those applications you mention. I’ve been using PDA’s for 7 years and the ability to add applications, esp for reading and editing Word documents, is what makes a PDA a *full* PDA.
Robo et al, as far as the smartphone thing goes, it’s based on my discussions with existing smartphone users and again, the lack of an open platform because Steve is worried it will crash (!! OS X crash?!!)
Chris, to be honest, you really don’t have a case. You’re mounting a baseless attept justify something that is semantically indefensible. The thing is, you can’t just say a PDA is a PDA ‘because I say so’.
Ok, you say it’s a “neutered” PDA and that what makes a “full” PDA is one that “allows” constomers to add applications as they see fit. The iPhone may not allow open 3rd party software development, but to say it’s neutered is sensationalist. (It’s better to say it may not be useful to you - although you don’t fully know yet. The existence Google Maps indicates anything is possible.
In fact, there is a roughlydrafted article that talks specifically about this. And you know what, it sums up my experience with Palm 3rd party software. Abysmal. Most of the third party stuff is like putting sticking plaster on a broken leg. And you get charged for the pleasure of putting crapware on your device.
Give me an out-of-the-box device that’s useful. Opening and editing Word documents is a moot feature. Simply because as of yet you can’t do half the things (layout, etc.) you can do on the desktop. All you really need is a simple text-editor. Most people don’t have to edit and send Word documents on the fly either. Editing on the fly may provide for some increased productivity, but most often returning to the desktop to finish the more complex tasks is necessary.
As per your limping “smart phone” description, saying “existing smartphone users” see the lack of an open platform as a reason to disqualify iPhone as a “smartphone”. Que?
Anyway, as I say, I think applying that word to a device, especially for the purposes of your analysis, is dubious, at best.
- MSOG
P.s. Sorry to be a stickler, but the lack of well reasoned debate online is becoming quite scary. I haven’t read your other stuff, but I get the feeling that people just get up in the morning and if they decide the earth is flat they’ll say that. And even when they are challenged (or proved wrong) they persist. Maybe it’s just a game, or that anything that generates ad views is good. God damn the ads.
Maybe it’s just a game, or that anything that generates ad views is good. -nb
It’s called “A serious yet irreverent look at all things Apple”. Everyones welcome to pitch in their opinions. They just have to be ready to staunchly defend them.
And I’m sure a bit of sensationalism on our daring authors do help the ad counters just a bit to last another day…
Thanks, nerdbrain. And welcome.
This piece is opinion. Opinions by their nature are never objective. Sometimes they prove right, other times wrong. And as an opinion goes, it’s basis is fairly thin information.
In truth, we shouldn’t be saying anything about what the iPhone is and isn’t, because we haven’t touched it and the final version won’t be out for a few months.
So, like Robo said, this piece does flirt with FUD but only coz I’ve taken a negative POV. If I had’ve said how great it is, all y’all woulda still said I’m full if it.
(Hmmm? I wonder what you call FUD when it’s positive. i.e. saying the iPhone is the greatest device ever that will change the course of mankind. 10 points to whoever can come up with the best acronym - oh, and BS doesn’t count. Get creative.)
But where’s the fun in only repeating what we’ve been told? There’d be nothing to say about the iPhone for the next six months.
I’ve been really pleased with the response to this piece. It’s generated some good discussion, and - except for that Chris Howard guy - all of it quite intelligent. And that’s the objective (not games or ad views): discussion. (Actually, if we wanted to pump ad revenue, we’d devote ourselves to writing tutorials, hints and tips.)
BTW You didn’t know the Earth is flat??!! Why do you think balls don’t roll when you drop them on the ground?
Chris, as for your “smartphone” definition from your friends, they are all wrong. That very definition was coined to refer to then integration of the PDA (yes, Palm and PocketPCs) to a generic cellular phone. So, those hybrid PDAs + cellphones = smartphones.
The definition of the “smartphones” never mentioned the need for third-party software or that the OS needs to be “open”. I even hear of the screen must use a stylus or that it must have a keyboard, blah-di-blah-blah. None of those define the “smartphone”. Those are features developed along the way to user conveniences not as a de-facto requirement for a “smartphone”.
Yeah, Robo, I actually don’t like the term smartphone, and I think that’s why Steve used it. The smartphone term itself is just too flexible.
Any manufacture can come out and call their phone a smartphone if they have even one or two extra features.
But Steve said it, so I had to contend with it. And as I say, people I know who are using so called smartphones, don’t aren’t interested in it. (Although, like anything, we’ll see how that changes when they’re released).
One other interesting comment I got from one of them was he didn’t want a video iPod in his phone, so why pay for something he wouldn’t use.
I figure, because it’s running OS X (although not Mac OS X), it wouldn’t really have cost much to make it a video iPod as it’s just another application.
In fact, there is a roughlydrafted article that talks specifically about this. And you know what, it sums up my experience with Palm 3rd party software. Abysmal.
With Apple apologists, it’s never about reason. It’s always about shoehorning defenses of whatever decisions Apple happens to make into the “greatest decision ever.” And roughlydrafted makes daringfireball look like Bill Gate’s secret lover.
When it was initially announced that the iPhone would be running OS X and “desktop class” (meaning NOT desktop) apps, the enthusiasts praised it to high heaven BECAUSE of the possibility of loading third-party apps. What other reason would it matter that it was running OS X?
Now it turns out that the iPhone will be just like any other cell phone or PDA, running the apps they tell you that you can run. And now suddenly THAT is the best decision because the experience on other brands is “abysmal.” Because surely one doesn’t expect Apple to be any better than anyone else, I suppose.
Actually, in the CNBC interview aired later the same day as the keynote, Steve made a comment to the effect that it will be a “closely monitored development environment” and “there’s no reason we have to write them all”, referring to apps on the iPhone. Sounded distinctly as if he was leaving open the possibility of third party app development under Apple/ATT/Cingular scrutiny, but not allowing just any old app to be installed just by the user.
After all, we wouldn’t want somebody to write an app that will open up some of those features Cingular/ATT doesn’t want open, now do we?
So much for the old ‘no third party apps’ FUD. Instead it’s “no third party apps we don’t approve of”. So it’s more like a typical closely controlled Apple experience, only a bit more anal due to the carrier’s insistence.
So much for the old ‘no third party apps’ FUD.
Yes, Rahrens, you got it. Third-party apps support for the iPhone will be an image of the game consoles third-party development.
Apple will let third-party developers be their usual creative geniuses but Apple will scrutinize, test for holes, and otherwise have Apple bless the applications prior to release as an iTunes download.
Just so you won’t be able to build and compile your own buggy program doesn’t mean that the iPhone OSX doesn’t deserve all the praises here and throughout the tech and media circles. Even Windows zealots and fanboys are being wowed by the thing in places like Digg.
As for RoughlyDrafted Magazine’s Dan Eran, that guy can analyze and author better than anyone else. That guy should start his own company and use his mettle.
“When you consider that the original iPod cost $399, $499 is not too bad for a video iPod.”
That’s $499, AFTER being subsidized by Cingular. No phone means no two year-contract which leads to a much higher price.
Instead it’s “no third party apps we don’t approve of”.
When we talk about third-party apps, we’re talking about installing anything we want, just like we do on our OS X Macs. To say that you can only run apps approved by Apple and Cingular is to say that the iPhone is just like any other cell phone. Again, what’s the point of touting OS X if you can’t install the apps you want?
You’re acting like this restriction isn’t severe and is just a mild inconvenience. The reality distortion field is wrapped around you like the Death Star tractor beam.
we’re talking about installing anything we want
Like the way you install “anything” from MS for your XBox 360 that is “approved” by MS? And “anything” from Sony for your PS3 that is “approved” by Sony? So, what’s the big difference with the iPhone?
I see no problem with Apple managing 3rd party releases with “Made for iPhone” or “Made for OSX” certifications. If this improves quality, then I’m all for it.
Your arguments in this debate is mute.