Why the Rokr Phone Is An Important Failure 470
An anonymous reader writes "The Guardian has some interesting commentary on the new iPod cellphone." From the article: "The music-player module works like an iPod - though it lacks the clickwheel that makes its big brothers function so slickly. But overall, the impression is distinctly underwhelming. The word on the streets is that far from being the revolutionary device that will bring about media 'convergence', the Rokr is, well, just the sum of its parts. And that, it seems to me, is the most interesting thing about it."
Hmmm (Score:1, Insightful)
Failures aren't important for one reason. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mighty Panel (Score:4, Insightful)
Well duh... (Score:3, Insightful)
I always cringe when they state the number of songs. While it's always easier that way for consumers to understand, I am thinking: "hmmm...100 songs at 96kbps AAC?"
No thank you!
JB
Re:Mighty Panel (Score:2, Insightful)
The Ultimate Media Device... (Score:3, Insightful)
let's take the simplicity and style of an ipod (Score:4, Insightful)
that, to me, is what's wrong with the Rokr.
Of course it's a failure. (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think that a product will get recognized unless it does everything the user wants. It's gotta be a PDA-plus-phone-plus-MP3 player. Make it as cool-looking as the iPod, and then *everyone* will want it. Maybe throw in movies just for effect.
OK, let's think about this (Score:4, Insightful)
2) It plays music and is a phone.
3) Millions of fashionable heat-seekers buy it.
4) Apple gets to sell songs and ring-tones, which is, inexplicably, something like a 347 billion dollar a year business worldwide (go figure).
5) Apple makes a lot of money.
Re:Mighty Panel (Score:2, Insightful)
You have that reversed. Apple doesn't design phones, Motorola does. Motorola isn't going to let Apple control their phone designs.
once again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't use the songs as ring tones? Just to appease the cell phone companies? Do cellphone companies really think they can continue to make money on a gimmick forever? Where's the creativity?
How could apple fix this? The same way they do with all there products. Control the entire thing. I don't think partnering really works for Apple. They should have developed the phone themselves from scratch, maybe with a minor partner, not someone like Motorola. Furthermore, what if they could offer their own cellphone service and make something like downloadable songs over the wireless network feasible? I guess the problem with that is that Apple does not own such a network. I think Apple should give the iPhone another chance, and do it right.
Cell phone with mp3 player: is that a big deal? (Score:2, Insightful)
This seems again like a lot of empty hype: just like when Apple came out with their ipod, some three years after the advent of mp3 players, and everybody congratulated them on their "innovation". Except the innovation couldn't even play ogg format files.
Samsung sch-i730 (Score:3, Insightful)
Back in Econ 101.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The same holds true for the iPod phone. Whatever the reason for its lack of certain features, it is clearly not to protect other companies, or even other divisions within Apple. If these features could be included at a competitive price, Apple would make more money by including them than it would lose elsewhere. Despite the looney theories, any MBA and Apple executive would know this.
Re:Failures aren't important for one reason. (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple and its own tail. (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact you need to be interested in this article. It makes a really keen obversation about Apple; that Apple is too scared to damage itself in order to imporve itself. This implies that Apple viewes itself and its current business posture as weak, and thus must do everytihing in its power to keep the status quo. Look at its move towards Intel chips for its next generation hardware; they realize that Intel is the status quo and they are putting themselves in that stream. It takes effort and cunning to successfully be different, and Apple is now showing a reluctance to do just that.
There will be another company that will build the next iPhone, but they will do it better because of the failure of the iPhone; they will learn from mistakes. The point to be gleamed from this is that in fact it will NOT be Apple.
Storage not the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the nano, it's got such tiny flash chips which are huge storage-wise.
Storage size isn't the problem. There's no shortage of phones with a lot more than the 100 song capability of this one - including the Rockr. Note that Apple actually limits the capability to 100 songs, no matter how much memory you have.
Which to me basically says that Apple does not want a phone with music capability to succeed, and this device is deliberately underwhelming, and an attempt to deflect that trend for a while. It goes under the assumption that people will want to choose an Apple device, and faced with a bad phone, they will choose an Ipod instead.
I think that is a mistake. I use mhy phone as text reader and radio already, and I'd really hate going back to carry a separate device for that. I don't know what mp3 player will be my next one, but I do know it will be labeled as a telephone.
Had you read the article, you'd see it's more like (Score:5, Insightful)
2) It plays music and is a phone.
3) Nobody buys it, because...
4) Apple sells the songs via your PC, not directly to the phone, and Motorola still sells you the ringtones separately.
5) Nobody makes any money.
It's like AOL/Time Warner all over again...
Obviously this is a toe in the water (Score:5, Insightful)
I see the ROKR as proof that Apple has become much more adept at business strategy than it was back in the 1990s. People have been screaming for a hybrid phone/iPod for some time now, and Apple has given them what they want. They haven't placed a huge bet on it, and they're letting Motorola do the heavy lifting (which is a long time coming). I say smart move Apple.
Re:designed to fail (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes me wonder why they didn't slap a nano on the back of a razr. I mean, 2 Gig nano($150) + Razr ($200) = $350. I understand that it's a little more involed, but shit...slap a calender with email and you got a nice little product. Even if you have to download via the interweb and FireWire them over.
Apple Testing (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple partnered with Motorola not because they think Motorola can design a better phone or a better interface, but actually to insulate themselves from a horrible failure, should that happen.
Apple will probably make its own cellphones eventually, but right now the conservative decision (and the correct decision) would be to go with someone who is already in the phone business, see how the product does, see what its flaws are, then improve with its own Shiny Apple iPodPhone.
Crap Article (Score:2, Insightful)
ROKR will not be a 'hit', but there are enough people out there who will be tempted by the device. It'll make its money back, and hopefully Motorola will let Apple design the next phone.
Re:Apple and its own tail. (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite honestly, I think Apple realized they hit the end of the road w/ their current CPU partner. When they deadended (or predicted the end) with Motorola they switched to IBM. If anything, Apple is showing just how different they really are. Apple knows they are limited - they moved somewhere else. How many other companies/product lines would be willing to make that kind of risk? And Apple's done it three times (that I know of)..
Re:Failures aren't important for one reason. (Score:2, Insightful)
Except when you've been playing music for 10 hours straight at work and you suddenly realize the battery that you just charged that morning is dead and you can no longer make that call to your wife, or your kids, or your boss, or whatever.
This is the achilles heel of the phone and it will always be that way. This is why phones will never usurp the dedicated music player market and I don't care what anybody else says about it. Nobody wants to go back to the days when we had to charge our phones twice a day - nobody. Nobody wants to charge their music players twice a day either.
When you add in the UI hassles that are impossible to overcome (one of the big reasons why the iPod is so popular is because of the wheel) and the added cost of building all these extra functions in, you've got your stereotypical jack of all trades, master of none.
I can't even think of an electronic device - any electronic device, ever - that has taken the existing functions of two devices, merged them into one, and performed those functions so well that the new device actually killed off the original existing devices. I mean cell phones tell time too but people still wear wrist watches and put alarm clocks on their nightstands. Just because a device can do a thing doesn't mean it can do it well or that people want it to do that thing.
Convergence is, and always has been, overrated. The trend is, and always has been, towards more categories of electronic devices, not fewer. The world is about divergence, not convergence.
Re:The Ultimate Media Device... (Score:3, Insightful)
The ROKR is so lackluster because it barely gave a nod to the iPod's design imperatives. It's not a cross between an iPod and a cell phone; it's a cell phone that can also play MP3s with the word iTunes slapped on as an afterthought.
For the same reason, it's obvious why you don't often see people who use their computers as TVs (or why WebTV failed) even though the technology to do this easily has been around for quite a while now. As soon as you make the observation that a TV is something you put on a TV stand acros the room from your sofa and that a computer is something that you put on a desk and and that you sit very close to it, it becomes clear that you are going to have to make some serious compromises if you're going to mix the two.
Re:Mighty Panel (Score:3, Insightful)
The article misses the point of the ROKR completely, and this comment is proof.
THe ROKR isn't supposed to be an iPod in any way shape, or form. The ROKR is a phone with iTunes software, minus the purchase functionality.
Does the iPod run iTunes? Then why should the ROKR be treated as an "iPod phone"?
Re:The worst of both worlds (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course the phone is crap compared to an iPod. It's just like all the other all-in-one devices that geeks want and the average consumer dislikes. Some things just work better with dedicated units. Music players is one of them.
Expansion of iTunes Brand (Score:2, Insightful)
John,
I think you are missing a few of the points of the phone. First off this is
not a phone built by Apple. This is a phone built by Motorola with some
software by Apple thrown in. This is not an iPod. This device is not as
cool as an iPod and a such was named otherwise. This was not to dilute the
iPod brand. However this is an expansion of the iTunes brand.
Previously you were only able to play FairPlay songs on either iTunes or an
iPod. This is the next major expansion of the iTunes brand. The first
major expansion was expanding iTunes to Windows. The second major expansion
was to build the online store. There were several evolutionary expansions
with more international stores but these were of lesser importance. The
ROKR is the expansion of iTunes and FairPlay to other devices. This is a
big deal for Apple to licensing out it's technology at all, even if it is a
partner. This is also a big deal for Motorola to be working with Apple
again after their previous licensing debacle.
At some point probably next year a new much bigger expansion of the iTunes
phone will probably happen, possibly to other device manufacturers that may
blow your mind.
On your other points. Do you really think that Cell phone users want to
download music at today's data rates for cellular networks. Unless you feel
like dropping $99/month for unlimited download access and whatever else the
cell phone companies would like per song to buy music. So let's look at the
breakdown of the money from the purchase of a song on iTunes. I think I
read that the labels get $0.71 per song leaving Apple with about $0.28 per
song. So now Cingular wants their share for using their network to get the
music. Over the internet you are already paying your share for your access
to the internet. You will end up paying to download music as well as paying
for your music. Whether it is your $20-40/month for broadband (you get the
other benefits of the internet as well) or the $1/song for Cingular to
download the track. Now let's add another $1 so each song and cost twice as
much. Let's see, do you work for Napster. Are you trying to help the
labels distribute the wealth to a number of online retailers that are not
being supported by the consumer. Think about how long it will take to
download that song at approximately the 90kbps that is at the upper edge of
the Cingular data networks' speed. On to your USB point, let's come back to
reality USB2 while more limited than firewire is certainly faster than any
Cellular network EDGE or otherwise.
Look at this device as it is meant to be. A first generation iTunes phone.
Their will be more. Their will be a lot of focus group research. And they
will figure things out. Look at this move as it is meant to be. Other
manufactures devices able to play FairPlay songs. Long for iTunes
convergence on other devices. Maybe not this year, but if it pulls in a 33%
margin Apple will sell it.
I personally am glad that Apple had the cajones to stand up to Cingular and
the other cellular networks and recognize that in the same way people don't
want to rent music, people also don't want to pay a retailer, wholesaler,
distributor, and producer of the music as well. Let's cut out all of the
middle-men.
Overall I agreed with much of your article, but I can't help but think you
missed the big picture.
My take on the ROKR "iPhone" (Score:3, Insightful)
As for me, I can get pretty much the same functionality with a 512 MB MMC card, OggPlay for SymbianOS, and a couple of scripts to transfer a playlist to my phone and rename them from *.m4a to *.mp4 so OggPlay can find them. Oh, and a stereo headset that sounds just as good as an iPod's. For the extra time it takes I get back a very nice UI.
Re:Mighty Panel (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is it a failure? (Score:2, Insightful)
And it isn't even because Motorola or Apple are incompetent. Looking at the iPod nano and the Motorola RAZR phones, you can tell what the good design teams were doing at the time. It could have been so much more, but hopefully this is just a test of things to come.
Re:Mighty Panel (Score:5, Insightful)
The Motorola phone doesn't run anything that looks or works like iTunes. It's an "iTunes phone" because you can sync your music to it from iTunes.
The phone should be considered an "iPod phone" for all intents and purposes, but Apple didn't want to dilute the "iPod" brand for something so clunky.
I welcome Apple to the phone market (Score:1, Insightful)
I think Nokia's are close to the best. The thing I love about them is also what I hate. They have wonderful one hand thumb navigation. Even with 50 or 60 contacts, I can easily and quickly scroll through the list one handed. Usually while driving. It's easy to use but I think it almost encourages using it while doing other things, usually driving.
Ericsons are just shit.
Samsungs are okay, a little clumsy and the buttons are too sensitive.
Motorolas are okay but pricy, I'd rank them a close second to Nokia.
LG has the motorola like clam case and seems to make a robust product, I think they are medium.
Danger phones are cool but big and clunky and they have no battery life, not like my trusty nokia. Phone use is okay the other features work but it's freaking slow, while I like the concept of a mobile web brower it's painfully slow at times.
The mixed breed palmpc and palmpilot phones are pretty lame, cool geek chic but lame. I really wanted palm to integrate with a phone too. Palmpilots are big and phones are small though.
Like I said, I think Nokia pretty much owns the interface here but they are fucking dangerous and it's still pretty weak; you'd never use the things for anything other than a phone, I know of nobody that's put time and effort in to the calendars and crap they have on there becuase the only thing they do well is scroll through a list of contacts and dial them up with one hand.. I do like the sidekick but since I really use it as a phone, I'd rather have a smaller one with a longer battery. Maybe, apple will start to fix it, if they make a phone 1/4 as good as the iPod is. I'll drop everything else and buy it in a second. It's a wish.
Apple! Please don't put iPod in to a phone! Put phone in to iPod, please!
Re:Obviously this is a toe in the water (Score:3, Insightful)
My thoughts:
- What happens if you want to listen to your music and talk on the phone at once, as is the case when driving on the highway?
- Will the phones lose a significant amount of stand-by power in driving all these new features? That in itself will count against it.
Frankly, I'd be far more into seeing Bluetooth used more often, as potential links between car stereos and phones/media players. I think that might be far more workable than conjoining so many devices into an 'all in one'
Re:More Reasons (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, but the same could be said of your computer. That fact isn't going to get you to go get one of those stand-alone word-processing machines, is it?
Re:The worst of both worlds (Score:2, Insightful)
- a PDA
- a phone
- an MP3+radio player
- a camera
- a pda charger
- a phone charger
- a camera charger
- a bunch of batteries
- a PDA synch cable
- a camera synch cable
- phone earbuds
- MP3 player earbuds
Anything that lessens the clutter sounds good to me, and phone + MP3 player seems the easiest thing to do, since a phone already has EVERYTHING that is needed to play MP3s.
The bad thing is that I purchased the ROKR ancestor (e398), and it sucks:
- unreliable power connector,
- unreliable earphones connector,
- uncustomizable and very noisy interface,
- weak sound,
- no 512 megs card available yet,
- never could synch it with my PCs,
- boots slower than winXP (and more moisily))
- slowest UI I ever saw on a phone (misses keystrokes)
I am guessing Apple is out to prove that THEY need to design a phone from the ground up, and handle the 'relationship' side of things directly, not through carriers.
Repeat after me: (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not designed, marketed, or sold as such.
It is a Motorola phone, that has iTunes.
It's not even designed by Apple for christ-sake. Steve Jobs called it "pretty cool". No RDF to be seen in action.
The chief purpose of this phone is to be there before anyone else, license the iTunes software and patent rights (common, does no-one except me remember the iPod patent with an antenna on the side?), and establish Apple as jointly the first to market.
The real news was the iPod Nano. Now quit bitching. And remember, if it's successful, there will be more to come (but not for awhile).
Re:Apple should be scared. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple had originally intended to move to an internally developed next-generation OS in the mid-late nineties. You may have heard of it - its codename was Copland. It was one of the greatest software development disasters in recent memory. It repeatedly missed milestones, and Apple eventually decided the project was too ambitious and gave it the axe. At that point, Apple went shopping for a new OS. They looked at any number of candidates, but the two strongest suitors ended up being BeOS and NeXTStep.
Keep in mind, NeXTStep had been around since the mid-to-late 80's, so it was a fairly mature system by that point. It's certainly possible the UNIX underpinnings had some effect on Apple's final decision, but it seems far more likely the relative maturity of NeXT relative to Be and Steve Jobs had a greater effect than the underlying system.
Remember that Apple had stayed afloat at this point solely due to its loyal fanbase. I rather doubt UNIX fanboyism (even rarer then as this all hapened before Linux really started to gain wind in the mainstream) played much into Apple's decision.
The point of all this? Betting on NeXT was a life-or-death decision for Apple. Far from going with any flow, it was a radical shift in architechture that had to result in either success or the failure of the company. Apple's failed attempt at a modern OS with Copland had cost the company literally millions. They quite simply couldn't afford to ahve that happen a second time. Neither could they sit and do nothing as MacOS was already technically hobbled by the mid-90's.
Dismissing the evolution of NeXT into Rhapsody and eventually OS X as being a path of least resistance indicates a lack of familiarity with the actual gravity of the move at the time. It was a huge risk that paid off in the long run. The iPod may be another story - less risky, but still took a to that point niche market with mediocre at best sales and turning it into a phenomenally successful mainstream one indicates they did *SOMETHING* other than go with the flow. What that was is left as an excercise to the reader.
None of this is meant to defend to ROKR. Everything I've seen seems to indicate that Apple doesn't really care about it on any real level. But choosing the original iPod and OS X as examples of Apple being unwilling to take risks seems a bit ludicrous to me.
Out of interest... (Score:3, Insightful)
From reading that article, can anyone explain why this phone is significantly different to other phones that you can upload mp3s to and listen to them on the phone? A friend of mine had one of those at least two years ago, iirc.
Is it simply that it plays protected iTMS AAC files? The 'iTunes' on your phone doesn't seem that radical - I'm guessing (from pictures I've seen) that it's simply the hierarchical genre/artist/album UI of iTunes and not much else. (I'm not sure how necessary that is for 100 songs, of course, but presumably that will change over time).
Am I missing something? Is it just the DRM'd AAC support?
Re:Is it a failure? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I can think of three main things that make ipods desirable:
1) The user interface
The click wheel is reputedly excellent, and the shuffle's simplistic design makes it easy to operate without looking at.
2) The styling, which looks cool to others
Consider the picture of it [apple.com]. It looks nothing like an ipod and every bit like a generic mobile phone. It's not even white, so it probably doesn't come with ipod headphones.
With no ipod styling and no ipod headphones, you no longer have the 'ipod image'.
3) iTunes Music Store
Is pretty easy to use.
Well, this phone still has iTMS support, but it doesn't have the first two features. Perhaps there isn't anything "really bad" about it, but there's nothing really good about it either, if you ask me. To me it looks like a generic mobile phone with a generic MP3 player in it. And don't we already have them? It's hardly an idea that's hard to come up with...
Just my $0.02,
Michael
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Why I returned the ROKR (Score:2, Insightful)