iPhone signal emanating from January's Macworld 2007

Think Secret has weighed in on the iPhone rumor saga once again, with a suggestion that Apple's cell phone will be released during the San Fransisco Macworld Expo in January next year. The tipster has apparently gained Think Secret's trust in the past by correctly predicting that the iPhone wouldn't launch earlier this year in March. The reasoning behind why the iPhone didn't launch last March (manufacturing issues), and why it will launch in January (they've fixed the manufacturing issues) is predictably dry, totally unverifiable, and therefore irrelevant, giving TS even more reason to spice it up a little. This time around they're telling us that the iPhone will have some k800-esque specifications (3 megapixel camera, 2.2-inch display) along with a totally obvious feature (iTunes support without the 100 song limit), but they also mention that there may be as many as three different models in the range, thereby cleverly maintaining the possibility that it might not have any of these specs after all. In fact, none of this could be true: there could be more manufactured manufacturing delays that cause the iPhone not to launch in January, or Apple could have a revelation and decide not to include one of the vague features. Like every other Apple rumor, we won't know until the day arrives: January 8th, save the date.

[Brad Pliner @ Sep 15th 2006 4:03PM]

So this article has nothing to do with iPhone, but everything to do with Think Secret's lack of credibility? Yet the subject line begs for attention suggesting that the iPhone will be out at MacWorld, therefore begging for the same unwarranted attention that Think Secret is being targetted for in this very article. Hypocritical.

[todd @ Sep 15th 2006 3:50PM]

Love the picture!!!!

[ben @ Sep 15th 2006 3:56PM]

It's easy to predict something's NOT coming.. I mean, I can predict that the iCar won't be here by next summer... TRUST ME!

Picture is awesome, btw.

[Jaxim @ Sep 15th 2006 3:57PM]

Apple likes to be minimalistic. That's why iPods don't have FM tuners and only recently did Apple concede that people may want to watch videos on their iPods. So I doubt they'll include a camera with the 1st generation iPhones. It'll take about 5-5.5 generations before the iPhone finally gets a camera.

No, I imagine the iPhone will be more like a nano that is also a phone.

[psxp @ Sep 15th 2006 4:00PM]

fark! I want to kick these so called "analysts" and "insiders" in their arses!

They never get anything correct. sh!t.. !

[Smeagol @ Sep 15th 2006 4:03PM]

So, basically, Think Secret dont no sh!t ... you could have save us the 20 seconds it took to read that by using that as the headline.

[ALM @ Sep 15th 2006 4:06PM]

Seems like phones just cannot function without cameras anymore. Same bullshit like with IE in Windows. So tightly integrated there's no way to separate them. Shame on you Apple.

[PEZ @ Sep 15th 2006 8:23PM]

apple dosnt need an cellphone with their name on it. What they need is something in the range of a Nokia 770/Sony Mylo thing. A tablet with WiFi, BT and 3G connection. Thats is.

Leverage the VOIP thing (you know, free) and make it good and portable. iSee, iTalk whatever - let it go.

[Matt @ Sep 15th 2006 4:25PM]

Considering that Think Secret never gets anything right, I think it's safe to say there will not be an iPhone in January.

[Pete_L_P @ Sep 15th 2006 4:28PM]

Think Secret has a very good track record, and it is to their credit that they claimed no iPhone was coming at a time when some rumor sites were saying yes.

These rumors are definitely interesting and mean a lot more than nothing, and a lot less than certainty. We all pretty much knew about the 2G aluminum nanos precisely because of rumors like these. The more corroboration we get the more more interesting it gets.

As an apple stock holder I can't place too much credibility on these rumors, but I certainly can enjoy hearing them.

Pete

[dotjerky @ Sep 15th 2006 4:34PM]

I'd rather they left iTunes out altogether. I want the iPhone to be to mobile communication what the iPod is to mobile entertainment. I want mobile iChat AV.

[Conrad Quilty-Harper @ Sep 15th 2006 4:35PM]

Regarding the picture -- that's an antenna from a Motorola m3788 brick phone. Knew it'd come in handy someday!

P.S. the Apple was tasty.

[Evan @ Sep 15th 2006 4:38PM]

I'd love to see Apple make a cell phone using their design philosophy. Current cell phones have atrocious user interfaces. My phone has two distinct styles of menus and text-input inside its different features, the software is clearly disjointed bits and pieces thrown together. The procedures for calling someone and text messaging someone in the contact list are totally different. I can't set a photo as my wallpaper from the camera menu. It's an absolute mess. And I haven't found a phone that's significantly better.

So, if Apple does a phone, I'd buy it if Apple does all the software. Don't let the carrier load their crappy software onto the phone.

[Pete_L_P @ Sep 15th 2006 4:47PM]

I'm betting heavily that it DOES have a camera, and a good one at that, with video recording as well.

A camera would have have good synergy with the photo/video management in iLife (a nice competitive advantage in the mac user space) and synergy with photo / video capabilities on the iPod. All of the photos and videos will move nicely to the iPod where large quantities of this stuff can be easily stored.

Jobs IS a minimalist but he knows the difference between features that buyers really care about and features that don't matter. If my kids and all of their friends are are any indication, young cell phone buyers absolutely care cell phone cameras and use that feature all of the time.

IMO Jobs is MUCH to savvy to ignore the camera on an iPhone

Pete

[glacia00 @ Sep 15th 2006 5:16PM]

I have mixed feelings about it. While I wouldn't mind if someone did something different with the phone interface and features I dread the loud pretend conversations people will be having so they can show off their phone.

Unlike an FM tuner in a DAP a camera in a phone is always in the way of the basic function. And the K800 does a particularly bad job with it.

[Pissed @ Sep 16th 2006 11:34AM]

WHY... WHY... why must you torture me. This reminds me of my first girlfriend, the thought of getting it was sexy as hell, but the reality was another thing. Can you get blue ears from this kind of thing???

[Jeff @ Sep 15th 2006 5:10PM]

Hey, everybody, here's a thought:

There is no iPhone.

Seriously. Apple has never even let on anything about this. The rumors are based on nothing substantive (from what I recall, they started based on the iTunes' phone support - which we found out later was from the Motorola deal) and have just been self-perpetuating. Every single conference in the past 2 years, we've heard they're going to be announcing this thing and they still never have.

My sense is it doesn't exist. And there are plenty of reasons to argue why it wouldn't. (For starters, it's a product in an industry completely unrelated to what Apple does. They may as well make dishwashers.)

I normally do think that generally where there's smoke, there's fire, but in this case it also matters where the smoke is coming from. I mean smoke can be coming from a raging forest fire, or it can be coming from a tub of burnt Jiffy Pop. In this case, I'm betting it's the latter.

[Jason @ Sep 15th 2006 5:22PM]

I wish Steve Jobs and every other apple fanboy would ram the stupid iPhone up their iAss. I am so sick of hearing about this phone. When it ships it ships, done. What more can you guys sepculate about when you know nothing?

I am getting tired of iEngadget with the same articles every day hyping some other iCrap whether true or not. If you guys would give it a rest we would not have so many people photoshoping iCrap in hopes of getting their iName on the iEngadget iWebsite.

The only place this "i" fits is in iDon'tCare. Can we get back to real tech?

Jason

[glacia00 @ Sep 15th 2006 6:41PM]

Jason. There are many blogs that are much more biased than Engadget but I do share the sentiment. Engadget does set up many of the arguments that go on in the forums. When talking about non-Apple products the writers often slip in terms Ipod-like or Macish for no other reason I can discern than to fuel the usual pi**ing contests that happen.

Wouldn't it be so much better to get details and specs about a product without the bias or random completely unrelated speculation about what another company might someday do?

[Jason @ Sep 15th 2006 10:31PM]

glacia00: I seem to remember a time when this very site gave good information without the feeling that Steve Jobs had his hand up the Engadget puppets rear. I am glad to hear there are others out there who want details and specs rather than the constant Apple propaganda.

All: I apologize for not using any words which begin with the letter "i" in this post other than those which should begin with "i". Surely this violates some new Engadget posting requirement.

[Bandito @ Sep 16th 2006 12:28AM]

iPhone... Duke Nukem Forever... it's all the same right now. Been talked about forever, but no one has seen anything materialize. Too much overhype, imho.

[Dan @ Sep 16th 2006 12:54AM]

Jeff,

An apple exec of some sort did mention something about the "iPhone". I forget when it was or who it was, but I remember it. Cell phones are very much in the same industry. A lot of people that don't have iPods don't have them because their phone plays music. With increasing amounts of MP3 Phones, that means less iPod sales. The only real threat to the iPod is MP3 Phones because of their convienience. (No, I don't consider the Zune a threat. Only extreme Apple haters would buy one, and then a second one. Anone else would clearly see the iPod's superiority. Not to say that Microsoft couldn't make a better one, but Apple is SOOOO far ahead, it's pretty darn hard without risking too much on Microsoft's side.)


Also, that would be one sweet dishwasher.

[Jason @ Sep 16th 2006 11:17AM]

Dan: Why would someone have to be an Apple hater to buy a Zune? I can't understand the way Apple lovers think. You either buy the iPod or you are a hater. I am neither an Apple lover nor hater. I have an iPod and a Sony MP3 player. Without being an Apple hater, I prefer my Sony. It basically does the same thing but does it for longer on the Sony. Technically, I have another iPod in that I have the Motorola SLVR with the iPod software but honestly I think a phone/MP3 player is not for me. I don't mind two devices and I switch phones all the time so I don't want my MP3 connected to my phone.

I think Apple lovers have been in the minority for so long that they fear anything that may take the iPod majority away from them. Competition is good and any new product which may better suit my needs is a good thing. I don't care if it comes from Apple, Sony, Microsoft, Toshiba, Creative, Samsung or any other company. Bottom line, I want a product which suits me and at a reasonable price.

(Note, I use MP3 as a loose general term referring to digital music.)

[Nick @ Sep 16th 2006 11:50AM]

@ PEZ

i dont remember or have the link anymore but about a year or more ago they did put in for a patent that was concerning what one would imagine to be called "iTablet". Its just odd that since hen i havent heard anything else about it.

[Nick @ Sep 16th 2006 11:51AM]

Im sure they will equip the iPhone with a digital camera, Blue-Tooth, iChat [hopefully allow the camera to do AV], Mail mobile app, iPod Music functionality and interface, iCal functionality + syncing, iPhoto syncing, and sync with Address Book for contacts. Anything less than what i listed above is a folly on Apple's part not to mention a waste of their time and our time.