don't bet on it. not only would it have to be cdma based, but the networks in japan are even more locked down and exclusive than verizon. it's forgivable, however, because unlike american networks and phones, they actually manage to put out proper product and service over there. motorola, for example, may be the best available here now, but they retreated long ago in japan; c*** phones are not tolerated out there.

...Americans still seem to be in about 1998, compared to other countries when it comes to mobiles? My phone already does live video calls. Lots of phones do. Nobody actually uses it because once the gimmick's worn off, it doesn't actually add very much. btw, this isn't an anti-American post, it just interests me how such a technologically advanced country has been so slow when it comes to mobile phones.

apple has proven the key to being the most profitable cell phone provider, is to not offer any products for sale.

Go apple go, another telephone we cannot buy! Yippee. I have to admit, I've never had an apple phone break, go dead, wear out, scratch easily...service never goes dead.

This is pure genius!

It's the iTunes feature that Apple is betting on if it's ever going to sell in Japan. iPod becomes a trend globally and Apple is taking a chance.

In Asia, people works 60hrs plus per week and eventaully they will catch up. In Europe, product quality is priority whether it's making profit or not. In U.S., people works 40hrs per week and party over weekend. To adopt new technology, U.S. is huge country to update its hardware all over the states and it's a time and costly procedure. Over sea, the countries are small and new technological updates can be done in a short amount of time. But somehow, U.S. government has the deepest pocket to push the most technological advancement in the defense department.

Am I the only one viewing this industry chatter in a different light? I truly see Apple doing something unique with the concept everyone is calling 'iPhone'. Here's my take on what I see developing:

What if the device was not tied to a service plan as we know it today? What if the device operated over a wireless data network solely as a data device, meaning it wasn't tied to a monthly service plan but rather a monthly data plan. Think about it, don't think of iChat as a text message application think of it as 3 forms of communication available at the push of a button. Allowing the end user the ability to select the manner in which they fell most comfortable and bandwidth capable to use. Today, iChat allows me to do just about everything my cell phone does, plus more. If I'm in a meeting and can't speak with someone via voice conversation, I either text message them from my phone or use iChat for a text conversation. If I'm sitting in my office, I can either pick-up the phone and call or have an audio chat session via iChat. And of course, video chatting via cell phone here in the states really isn't an option. Apple could allow me to assign beeps and rings for different contacts in my contacts list, in addition to picture and images. I guess iChat can be looked at like a VoIP client on steroids, not just a text messaging client. If I'm in a area of the country where I can get a high speed data connection, the device knows this and gives me the option for a video chat if someone on my contacts list is also available and in a high speed data area. But just like iChat, I have the option for the highest form of bandwidth communication given the parties available. If I choose to communicate at a lower bandwidth means, I certainly have the option. I hope you get where I'm going with this. Ever since all the cellular providers have been making this 'switch' to digital service years gone back, I still can't figure out why I need to pay for voice communication 'by the min' when at the end of the day, it's all just data! I can pay $60.00 a month for my 'unlimited' high speed data connection and talk as long/much as I like. What's the technical difference between an audio chat session for two hours and a phone conversation for the same two hours? Nothing, they are both data if the network is digital!

I can go on for hours.... Just trying to look at this from a different perspective, something which Apple seems to do all the time.

"How come Americans still seem to be in about 1998, compared to other countries when it comes to mobiles? My phone already does live video calls. Lots of phones do. Nobody actually uses it because once the gimmick's worn off, it doesn't actually add very much..."

Perhaps American mobile companies saw that this is a feature that nobody uses? The European mobile companies practically bankrupted themselves for G3 licenses and need to push features that will pay back that investment. Well done by the European governments, but a foolish expenditure.

To take a different example, I would argue the iPod is the antithesis of that approach. Rather than throw in the kitchen sink, do a few things very well. Less is more.

"btw, this isn't an anti-American post, it just interests me how such a technologically advanced country has been so slow when it comes to mobile phones."

Agreed (and no offense taken). These things move in waves. Nokia became the company to beat and Motorola was waaay behind the curve. Motorola took a chance with RAZR and ate their lunch in the U.S. I'm interested to see Apple's offering, but there is fierce competition in phones.

BB

In U.S., profit is everything. No profit, no go. Perfect examples are VCD, MD, and video cel phones. U.S. people in East and West coast lives in fast pace life style. Too much gimmick gets in their ways and nothing gets done.

Any time you find yourself wondering about American trends or activities, look for the dollar trail. As coffeetime posted, "no profit, no go." And I see the American cell companies as protecting the status quo – there have been all sorts of predictions in regard to expanding services and falling prices that haven't come true because the companies seem to be cooperating in keeping things largely the way they are.