Naked emperors

So another Jobsian keynote speech has come and gone and the world is abuzz trying to determine if the emperor has any clothes.

I'm undecided. Rather than unleashing a raft of products and pretty much the whole world expected, Jobs instead focused on just two: the previously announced iTV - now renamed Apple TV in what I take as a sign of things to come - and the much speculated over iPhone, actually called iPhone despite the trademark being held elsewhere strangely enough.

Somewhat to my surprise, the iPhone does indeed feature a hitherto unforeseen twist to make the masses immediately fall in lust with it. It's a Mac. Well, that is to say it runs OS X - which is tantamount to the same thing these days - with a rather beautiful interface glued on top. It's fair to say that there's nothing quite like it on the market today. Jobs was quick to rave over the interface which is dependant on a touch screen - I'll hold off full judgement on that until I've had a chance to play with one in person, which may be some time off, given that the device is scheduled for a Q4 launch in Europe.

The first question that needs to be asked is: What is it? Aside from the Apple tv Jobs initially announced 3 products at the keynote. A widescreen iPod, a mobile phone, and an internet communicator. Tellingly, the audience was audibly less enthused by the prospect of a portable internet device. However, that wag Steve was merely joshing with the crowd. What he was in fact describing was a single device, combining all of the above functionality. For my part, I'm still trying to work out whether the iPhone is more or less than the sum of it's parts.

I've seen it called a convergence device. Which is true. It packs a great deal of functionality into a small space. All well and good, but to me it smacks of the kitchen sink mentality which has infected Sony of late. The PSP and PS3 are great examples of products which have attempted to do too much, launched at too high a price point, and proceeded to please nobody in particular. I worry that Apple is going down the same route. The iPod's success was a combination of exemplary design which performed a straightforward function and did so with remarkable grace. Whereas other companies sought to compete by adding swathes of features, Apple continued to stress simplicity over all else. The iPhone represents a remarkable turnaround. I'm not sure whether it's offering praise or damnation to describe the iPhone as "ambitious".

And I must 'fess up. If I were to pick a single prediction I'd made to come true, it would have been that we would not see a touchscreen iPod. For all the virtues that a touchscreen interface may have, it's the one feature of the iPhone that convinces me least. I genuinely believed that Apple would retain some variation of the iPod's clickwheel design. It's an interface that works and works well. Touchscreens, on the other hand... hmm. I've always had very mixed experiences with touchscreens. It's quite possible that this is because touchscreens I've used in the past have been lacking and that Apple have got it right. I'm prepared to believe that in part. The whizzy demonstrations and the prospect of innovative multi-touch input have convinced me that this is something new, but my primary concerns remain. The lack of tactile feedback is probably the biggest single issue. If the onscreen keyboard, with predictive features and automatic corrections facility, allows faster input than a keypad then Apple may indeed be onto something. If not, well, then it raises the prospect of a device with a superior feature set to both an iPod and a mobile phone but which is less usable that either individual device. One classic example - when being used as an iPod, how easy is it to control when stowed away in a pocket? I can easily get at the controls of my nano without having to take it out and look at the screen. I can't see how the same will be true of the iPhone.

What of the hardware itself? I'm not immediately blown away by the industrial design, which seems rather plain and lacking in flair, but I'm sure I'd feel differently with the device in my hand. Apple have yet to say a great deal about the specs of the device. I'm most curious about the processor. I suppose it's possible that it's running one of Intel's low power core chips, but I can't help but believe Apple would have made mention of this if it had been the case. Even the Apple TV is known to run on an Intel processor. Could the iPhone possible be running an ARM variant? We know OS X can be recompiled for alternate processor architectures after all, and in the low power arena, ARM have long ruled supreme. Given the unique interface of the device, I don't see any reason why binary compatibility should be necessary.

What did strike me is that some of the other hardware specs are somewhat on the meagre side. The base model features 4Gb and at the higher end there's 8Gb. Generous enough for a slim line portable music player at present, but with a Q4 launch date, this will quickly be superseded by other portable music players. And that's not taking into account that the storage space will presumably be used for both media and applications. 3G is notable by it's absence and a 2 mega pixel camera isn't exactly state of the art these days. Battery life is something of an unknown quantity too. Apple quote 5 hours usage, or 16 hours for purely audio playback. Apple have a reasonable record on quoting battery life, unlike most mobile phone manufacturers, but I'm slightly confused as to why the all important measure of standby-time for the phone function is absent. I'm sure it's a detail that will be filled in in time, but it's an important figure to miss off.

I suppose the last thing that needs mentioning is price. $499 for the 4Gb model and $599 for the 8Gb. At the top end of what I would have predicted. Of course, that doesn't take into account that a 2 year subscription to Cingular is also part of the package. Definitely a less attractive option than a sim free model at the same price. The US and European phone markets differ significantly, and I'm certain we'll see these prices heavily subsidised by carriers for the European launch.

Will it succeed? As I said, I remain skeptical. It may well be an attractive device, but at the moment it's not enough to make me want one. I may well be the exception, however. From the initial reactions I've read, there are great many people out there salivating to get their hands on one, and the accompanying media frenzy means I have little doubt that Apple will fufil their target of shipping 10 million iPhones within a year achieving their modest 1% of the mobile phone market. To judge from the 8% bump in Apple's stock price, others almost certainly agree...