Commentary

Thomas Claburn
 

Apple's iPod Phone

Back in November 2004, Apple filed a patent for an "audio user interface for computing devices" such as "an MP3 player, a mobile phone, or a personal digital assistant." The patent application was just published today by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The patent filing adds weight to speculation offered by a number of bloggers and journalists that Apple is working on a mobile phone, and it suggests that the iPod will eventually become a phone--an eminently sensible endgame for the device, assuming ease of use can be maintained.

Back in November 2004, Apple filed a patent for an "audio user interface for computing devices" such as "an MP3 player, a mobile phone, or a personal digital assistant." The patent application was just published today by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

The patent filing adds weight to speculation offered by a number of bloggers and journalists that Apple is working on a mobile phone, and it suggests that the iPod will eventually become a phone--an eminently sensible endgame for the device, assuming ease of use can be maintained.In the abstract and noncommittal language of patent filings, Apple summarizes the invention as "an audio user interface that generates audio prompts that help a user navigate through the features of a computing device. The audio prompts provide audio indicators that allow a user to focus his or her visual attention upon other tasks such as driving an automobile, exercising, or crossing a street."


More Insights

White Papers

More >>

Reports

More >>

Webcasts

More >>

The patent filing describes the device alternately as a media player, such as a portable audio device, or as a hand-held device with a scaled-down computing architecture for the sake of portability.

It's describing a voice interface for the iPod.

But there's more to it. A closer reading of the patent suggests that the invention is intended to leverage the link between Apple's iTunes software and the iPod. The patent details how the computing resources of a host computer--the Mac or PC running iTunes--can be used to do text-to-speech conversion to create audio files that then get transferred to the portable device when synced.

These audio files are intended to provide spoken feedback for vocal commands issued by the user. So a user might say, "Play next song," and the iPod might respond, "Now playing London Calling."

However, a voice interface doesn't make a lot of sense for a music player that lives inside pockets or on belts. True, the iPod Nano may get worn around the neck, where it would be better off accepting voice input. But I'm skeptical there's really that much demand for voice-driven menu navigation on the iPod. And I'm willing to bet that people wouldn't want to order their iPods around in public because they'd feel foolish doing so. There's no social precedent for chatting with an iPod.

A voice interface makes sense for a device designed for verbal input--for a phone. In fact, the use case cited in the patent filing addresses real usage patterns of cell phones in vehicles. A hands-free cell phone fits into a known product niche.

A number of bloggers, pundits, and media types have predicted Apple is planning to roll out a phone. From the look of this patent filing, I'd say the chances look better than ever.

Apple has to move into phones. That's where the growth is. The desktop PC market isn't exactly exploding anymore, and iPod sales can't continue to expand forever. Some day soon, Apple is likely to want a product that can tempt its massive user base to upgrade. And what better for that than an iPhone, complete with voice interface, not to mention a monthly fee.


Related Reading




Currently we allow the following HTML tags in comments:

Single tags

These tags can be used alone and don't need an ending tag.

<br> Defines a single line break

<hr> Defines a horizontal line

Matching tags

These require an ending tag - e.g. <i>italic text</i>

<a> Defines an anchor

<b> Defines bold text

<big> Defines big text

<blockquote> Defines a long quotation

<caption> Defines a table caption

<cite> Defines a citation

<code> Defines computer code text

<em> Defines emphasized text

<fieldset> Defines a border around elements in a form

<h1> This is heading 1

<h2> This is heading 2

<h3> This is heading 3

<h4> This is heading 4

<h5> This is heading 5

<h6> This is heading 6

<i> Defines italic text

<p> Defines a paragraph

<pre> Defines preformatted text

<q> Defines a short quotation

<samp> Defines sample computer code text

<small> Defines small text

<span> Defines a section in a document

<s> Defines strikethrough text

<strike> Defines strikethrough text

<strong> Defines strong text

<sub> Defines subscripted text

<sup> Defines superscripted text

<u> Defines underlined text

InformationWeek encourages readers to engage in spirited, healthy debate, including taking us to task. However, InformationWeek moderates all comments posted to our site, and reserves the right to modify or remove any content that it determines to be derogatory, offensive, inflammatory, vulgar, irrelevant/off-topic, racist or obvious marketing/SPAM. InformationWeek further reserves the right to disable the profile of any commenter participating in said activities.

Disqus Tips To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy.
T-Shirt Giveaway T-Shirt Giveaway: Each week we're selecting one great comment from our readers. The author of the comment will receive an InformaitonWeek Community t-shirt. So get posting!
Subscribe to RSS

Resource Links