January 2007 Archives

• Advanced graphics processing
• Contextual information (traffic conditions, travel advice, etc.)
• New form factors with detailed, 3D displays

Here’s a seemingly simple question: what is Apple’s iPhone? Well, that’s obvious. It’s a phone. It’s a cellphone. It’s a music/media player. It’s a handheld communications device. It’s a cool gadget. It’s a smartphone.

 

Hmm… maybe that’s not such an easy question to answer after all. iPhone is many things to many people, even though it won’t actually be available in stores until June.

 

In a report out today, industry research firm ABI challenges one of the possible labels for Apple’s iPhone. Namely, that it is a “smartphone.” The device may be many things, ABI says, but a smartphone it ain’t.

 

How do you figure that? Well, the research firm defines a ‘smartphone’ as “a cellular handset using an open, commercial operating system that supports third party applications.”

 

Because iPhone runs Apple’s proprietary OS X operating system, ABI analysts Stuart Carlaw and Philip Solis say, that means it cannot be rightfully labeled a ‘smartphone.’

 

“It turns out that this device will be closed to third party applications,” Solis said in a statement. “Therefore we must conclude at this point that, based on our current definition, the iPhone is not a smartphone: it is a very high-end feature phone.”

 

Solis and Carlaw stress the lack of openness to third-party applications, saying that feature phones, unlike smartphones, are closed and controlled by the operator and/or manufacturer. iPhone therefore falls into the ‘feature phone’ category.

 

Hmm…. I’m not sure I entirely agree. Perhaps its true that, for now, iPhone is closed to third-party apps. But I don’t believe for a moment that such will remain true forever. Apple is a clever company, too clever to lock consumers in by refusing to open the phone up to the third-party ecosystem Solis and Carlaw describe in the ABI report.

 

After all, as these analysts point out, “Applications designed for smartphones can be written to access core functionality from the OS itself, and are therefore usually more powerful and efficient.”

 

I will admit, though, that Apple probably will maintain stronger control over third-party apps than some other cellphone manufacturers do. Apple tends to insist that you do things their way—because it is the ‘right’ way.

 

I learned this recently when I got an iPod for the first time, and attempted to use my formerly convoluted system for importing books on CD into MP3 format—with iTunes. When I got frustrated because my old system didn’t work in iTunes, my husband (who works almost exclusively on Macs) said, “No, just do it the iTunes way and it will work.” Sure enough, he was right.

 

So, perhaps Apple won’t let third-party developers create just any applications—they may be strong-armed into creating apps that work the Apple way. But is that such a bad thing? From what I can tell, the Apple way is typically very intuitive and simple. 

 

So what's in a name? Only time will tell whether Apple's phone is a 'smartphone'--or even it if will be called iPhone.

• Text and voice tagging
• Background upload of photos and videos
• Multi-lingual support (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese)
• Integrated MMS

• Text and voice tagging
• Background upload of photos and videos
• Multi-lingual support (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese)
• Integrated MMS

Pop quiz: which of the following is the most energy efficient method of delivering mobile broadband?

1. WCDMA (cellular)
2. WiMAX
3. WiFi

Here with your answer is ABI Research analyst Stuart Carlaw (quoted from a recent news release): “From a pure coverage perspective WiMAX is twice as energy-cost-effective and metro Wi-Fi is 50 times more energy-cost-effective than WCDMA. When data traffic is factored into the equation, WiMAX can accommodate 11 times today’s average data consumption and still be more energy-cost-efficient compared to WCDMA or HSDPA.”

Considering the fact that energy costs are the third most significant operating expense for cellular carriers (at least, according to ABI), this little quiz is rather an important one.

Indeed, ABI noted in a recent report that the introduction of mobile broadband “means that the energy required per subscriber arising from increasing data uptake will push per-subscriber energy OPEX for cellular solutions past acceptable barriers - unless carriers move from a traditional cellular-only approach to one that integrates WiMAX and Metro Wi-Fi.”

Chalk one up for WiMAX and WiFi. Rah, rah, rah!

I suppose it says something about my level of geekiness (in every positive sense of the word) that last night I went home and spent the evening watching the video of Steve Jobs’ Macworld keynote speech. At roughly two hours, the speech represented a time investment equal to that of a feature-length movie. And it was worth every second.

I came away from watching the keynote with a firm conviction that Jobs and Apple not only are masters of product design, but also of theater. Presentations using images or slides projected on a giant screen can be boring or mediocre—yet the Macworld keynote was anything but that.

Perhaps my favorite moment in the presentation was the brief pause after Jobs outlined Apple TV and before he launched into the iPhone. A hush fell over the hall as a giant Apple logo, with light streaming from behind it, was displayed on screen. Jobs let several seconds of silence pass. You could feel the anticipation in the room; something big was coming.

The whole presentation up to this point had served to heighten the anticipation. Apple TV was cool and exciting, but it was just the trailer, the appetizer. Everyone expected the TV announcement, and anyone who had seen Jobs speak before probably knew that he wouldn’t spill the big beans right at the start.

I absolutely loved how Jobs and Apple chose to present iPhone—first implying that the company was launching three revolutionary products, and then by combining the logos for each (widescreen iPod with touch controls, revolutionary mobile phone, breakthrough Internet communication device) into a box and spinning that box around to show each side in turn until the audience got it and reacted with a combination of laughter, cheering and clapping.

That was a great moment. I wasn’t at Macworld, but I was transported there, back to that moment, simply by watching a somewhat grainy, streaming video of Jobs’ speech. Great theater, indeed.

Jobs’ skill at working the crowd was brought home by a study in contrasts when the CEOs of Google, Yahoo! and Cingular took the stage one by one to outline their iPhone-related partnerships with Apple. While each of these men adequately conveyed their information, none could hold a candle to the excitement Jobs garnered. You could almost feel the audience patiently waiting for Jobs to return to the spotlight.

If you haven’t watched Jobs’ speech yet, I urge you to do so. Even if you are lukewarm in your enthusiasm for iPhone, its still a very entertaining presentation. After you watch, let me know what you think.

In a former life, I worked as a librarian. So, an article about the use of radio frequency ID (RFID) chips at Chicago State University’s library, in the January, 2007 issue of Wired Magazine, caught my eye. At this particular library, students have been banned from the stacks, because robots now are installed to quickly retrieve any item that is desired.

Here’s how it works: every item in the library (books, CDs, DVDs) is tagged with an RFID chip. This allows “tall, forklift-style machines that run on tracks” (the robots) to put away and retrieve materials in a three-story-high storage facility.

“The computer knows where everything is and can hustle the correct bin to the circulation desk for checkout,” Wired explained in its report.

I am both fascinated and repulsed by such a system. From the standpoint of librarians, I can see the appeal. No more lost items caused by well-meaning but unhelpful library users who insist on putting books back on the shelf—in the wrong place.

From the standpoint of the library user, however, the invasion of the RFID robots seems a sad turn of events indeed. No more browsing through the shelves of books, looking through each one before making your selection? The loss of browsing, to me, would make a visit to the library very hollow indeed.

Maybe that’s the point, though—no-one has time anymore to visit the library and spend time choosing just the right book. I admit that I rarely indulge in the activity myself anymore. Most of the time, it’s more convenient simply to place whatever items I want on reserve, and stop by the library on my way home from work to pick them up. If my library were equipped with a system like the one in Chicago, I could simply stop by the circulation desk without even pre-ordering books and have five items delivered to me in the span of 2 ½ minutes.

Perhaps I’m dating myself (youngish though I am) with a nostalgia for a simpler time when libraries were a hands-on affair and the endless battle between order and disorder that took place within those walls made any such facility an organic and fascinating place to hang out.

Then again, you have to admit there is a certain ring to “RFID library robots.” Might make a good name for a rock band…

What do you think—are automated retrieval systems a good thing for libraries? Or are we losing something in the process of wanting to do everything faster, better, and more efficiently?

Warning: time is running out to issue predictions regarding what cool, new products and services Apple will announce at the Macworld Expo next week. If you’ve got Apple fever, here’s a little something to keep your temperature high over the weekend.

In a posting Thursday, AppleInsider blogger posted information from the latest Macworld Rumor Roundup from research and investment firm PiperJaffray.

The roundup gives numerical rankings/probabilities for a variety of products that Apple potentially could be unveiling. I won’t be a spoiler—you’ll need to read McLean’s post to get the whole scoop. But here’s a quick ‘n dirty summary of the alleged probabilities.

Event	Certainty Rank
iPhone entering production phase (12 million units) in the next 2-6 months	9 out of 10
iTV (MSRP $299) released at Macworld	10 out of 10
iPhone with candy-bar form factor introduced in next 6-12 months	9 out of 10
Introduction during next 6-12 months of widescreen iPod with touch-sensitivity and wireless features	7 out of 10
Launch during next 6-12 months of second smartphone iPhone with integrated keyboard	7 out of 10
Introduction of iSight camera and 4GB or 8GB storage on iPhone during next 6-12 months	7 out of 10
During next 6-12 months, multiple carriers will provide service for iPhone (versus Cingular only)	6 out of 10
Launch of ultra-portable, 12-inch MacBook Pro during next 12-18 months	4 out of 10
Use of radio-transparent material for iPhone casing during next 12-18 months	3 out of 10
iChat Mobile and instant messaging made available on iPhone during next 12-18 months	2 out of 10
Release of OSX 10.5 (Leopard) at Macworld	3 out of 10

All of this is very well and good, but I can’t help but note that the vast majority of these predictions hinge on the idea that Apple will introduce an “iPhone” product this year. I suspect that Apple will launch such a product eventually, but 2007 may or may not be the golden year.

If nothing else, the iPhone hysteria should be dampened somewhat by the fact that the iPhone name is already taken. Or hadn’t you heard? Last month Cisco’s Linksys group introduced a line of seven VoIP/wireless products under the iPhone brand name. So even if Apple does bring a cell phone to market this year, it’ll almost certainly have to be called something other than iPhone—unless Linksys decides to sell the name to Apple.

As I noted in a previous blog post, trademark protection for the name “iPhone” has been filed for no fewer than four times with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office since 1994. The oldest apparently applicable document is Cisco’s, filed March 20, 1996, for “computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks.”

Apple allegedly filed a trademark application for iPhone in a far-Eastern trademark office in the not-too-distant past, and the company did apply for an iPhone trademark in Canada in 2004, but that filing is disputed by Comwave Telecom.

Is an iPhone by any other name as sweet? When Apple does launch a cell phone, what will it be called?

See you on the other side once Macworld Expo gets underway and we finally, finally find out what Apple has up its sleeve.

Warning: technical language ahead.

Okay, now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s proceed.

Ever hear of MEMS (short for Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems)? Neither had I until reading a recent report from ABI Research claiming that, starting in 2008, this technology will be all the rage in mobile handsets.

Okay, so what the heck is MEMS? Wikipedia defines it as a very small technology (most devices range in size from a millionth to a thousandth of a meter), useful in a variety of applications including inkjet printers, airbags, tire pressure sensors, disposable blood pressure sensors, and smartdust.

Apparently, MEMS also is potentially useful in mobile phones. Makes sense, since more and more functions are being packed into the handsets we carry around. It will take some very small bits and pieces to make all those applications work in a form factor that can be slipped easily into a pocket or a purse.

ABI’s report cites the size, flexibility, and performance of MEMS technology as key reasons why it will soon be part of all handsets.

Okay, so here’s a question: if MEMS is to great, why isn’t it already part of all mobile handsets?

Here’s ABI analyst Alan Varghese: “The traditional challenges for MEMS related to the difficulty of reliably manufacturing components at high volumes, effective packaging techniques, long-term device reliability, technology cost, and supply chain robustness, all of which had a damping effect on the industry. However the MEMS industry has been addressing these concerns, and innovative solutions are being offered in high volume markets such as mobile phones and consumer devices.”

ABI said in its report that MEMS has five major application areas in mobile phones:

• RF filters
• Adaptive tuning circuits
• Resonators and oscillators
• Audio microphones
• Accelerometers
• Motion sensors

Okay, did you catch all that? (If you didn’t, this detailed look at how cell phones work, from HowStuffWorks.com, may be helpful. The site also has entries for oscillators, microphones, and motion sensing lights/alarms).

One challenge does remain for the use of MEMS technology: cost of manufacturing compared to incumbent solutions. As with all technologies, though, economies of scale soon will render that barrier obsolete.

Some of the companies ABI says already are innovating in the MEMS space, and are worth watching, include:

• WiSpry – developer of MEMS-based RF capacitors, tunable filters, duplexers, and RF switches
• XCOM Wireless – focused on making the front end of mobile phones as agile and tunable as a software radio
• Avago Technologies – this company’s MEMS-based FBAR filters are useful for filtering higher frequency bands used in cellular applications
• Discera and SiTime – producers of resonator/oscillator sections for handsets
• Knowles Acoustics – currently rules the MEMS roost, but soon will be knocked from its perch by other companies such as Akustica, Sonion, and Matsushita

I’ve made a mental note to file MEMS away in my mind as an emerging technology to keep an eye on. How about you?

As is usually the case with technology, once the underlying specifications become standardized, adoption becomes widespread by both consumers and manufacturers/providers. That’s because standardization reassure people they knew what they’re getting, and that it will work the same way in a variety of applications.

 

Research company Parks Associates noted this fact in its recent report about the market for wireless, multimedia networking. The firm predicted that “industry adoption of next-generation specifications will provide a substantial boost to the market for wireless multimedia networking, prompting growth in excess of 50 million wireless network devices by 2010.”

 

Two of the specification poised to help spur the growth are next-gen WiFi and Ultra-wideband (UWB), Parks Associates said.

 

The firm further predicted that annual sales and shipments of wireless multimedia-capable devices (think person computers, fixed and mobile consumer electronics) will grow from 2.5 million units in 2006 to almost 52 million units by the end of 2010. Standardization in the market will play a key role in that growth.

 

Parks Associates analyst Kurt Scherf said in the report that several factors are driving manufacturers and service providers to embrace wireless connectivity:

• Service providers want more ownership in developing home networking solutions
• Operators need to reduce CAPEX associated with deploying home networking solutions
• New content services are on the rise
• Consumers are in favor of eliminating cables

“These are all positive signs that the 802.11n and WiMedia solutions – among the many home networking options – will continue to drive growth in new home networking applications,” Scherf said in a statement.

As an end-user, I like where things are headed. The geek in my may find the technology inside consumer electronics cool, but when it comes right down to it, in my busy life, I just want my wireless devices to work.

In a recent Sage/CMB Market Pulse newsletter, Chadwick Martin Bailey (a marketing and analytics company) reported that fixed-mobile convergence (FMC) technology is not yet mainstream in corporate America—and offered some reasons why that is.

Among those reasons:

• Demand for FMC won’t really pick up until enterprises integrate mobile devices into their corporate telephony systems; most have not yet done this.
• It may be true that business use of mobile phones is prolific, but most of those devices are not connected in any way to the corporate PBX.
• FMC won’t become mainstream in corporate America until it becomes clear that adopting the technology offers clear return on investment (ROI).
• Full-blown FMC (as opposed to cellular-only) requires comprehensive WiFI coverage and IP-PBX deployments, which aren’t available everywhere and may present prohibitive costs.

These points make it clear that much work lies ahead before the promise of FMC is realized. We’ll probably get there eventually, but not for a while.

What do you think—is FMC years away? Decades? Why?