Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Alienware Planning Android iPhone Killer? 152

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the competition-means-better dept.
meteorit found a story about rumors of an Alienware phone based on Google's Android phone OS. As Dell has a history of bombing with handhelds, it would be interesting to try the Alienware brand instead. And I'm not exactly sure where they get off claiming that their drawings are the first pictures of the thing. Cheesy renderings designed explicitly for your website are not quite pictures of a product... they are artists impressions.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Alienware Planning Android iPhone Killer?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16, 2008 @10:23AM (#22445096)
    ...this thing looks more like a creepy, Gigeresque sex toy than a phone? Sil [wikipedia.org] would be pleased.
  • iPhone killer? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by timeOday (582209) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @10:26AM (#22445106)
    I don't think the iPhone has attained the status that any new smartphone must be considered a competitor first and foremost to it. Especially when, as in this case, it's a completely different styling concept. I do see iPhones here and there, but by far most people still use other cellphones, so I do not think the iPhone merits a reference in the title of every story about cellphones.
    • Re:iPhone killer? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jacksonj04 (800021) <nick@nickjackson.me> on Saturday February 16, 2008 @10:52AM (#22445288) Homepage
      I was just wondering that myself. Other points, from the article:

      It would have the striking design to make an impression in a mobile market dominated by fashion phones...
      Eh? It looks like something you get free in a cereal packet. Wasting half the form factor on a pointless grille != good design.

      ...it would instantly be the coolest phone on the market thanks to the popularity of the Alienware brand...
      No, it would be bought by a few die-hard Alienware fanatics who don't mind trading features for silly design. It looks like it's got relief details on that fascia, they snag in your pocket. This is not a cool design, no matter how many blinky lights it has.

      ...it would have the marketing muscle of Dell behind it to push it beyond its established niche and into the mainstream...
      It would have to play on the Alienware brand which at the moment, at least in tech circles, has connotations of overpricing. For Joe Public, I doubt they would see the point in this phone because it would have the 'Gaming' association of Alienware.

      ...and it would be the mobile gamer's dream, just as video gaming on mobile phones is starting to enter the picture.
      I don't know how they work this out. Video gaming on mobile phones isn't starting to enter the picture at all, because most people only want their phones to play idle games of Snake on at most. Hardcore mobile gamers would want something easy to play on, the design of this doesn't look to offer much hope of that. More intense gamers wouldn't care for the tiny screen and poor quality graphics, and to make it even stand a chance at reasonable gaming it would sacrifice loads of battery. Perhaps that's why it has the grille, it's to fit a huge battery pack behind.
      • by STrinity (723872) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @01:53PM (#22446364) Homepage
        And then there's this bit:

        The increasingly dull associations with the Dell brand? Maybe they should change their name to Dull.


        If you're the sort of retard who thinks a custom built case that looks like a silly alien is |3\/\/1, sure. But if you're the sort of person who buys computers based on reliability and capabilities, Dell is a great brand. I'd rather have a plain-jane cell phone that's reliable, than some overpriced flanged monstrosity that looks like it was designed by a pimply-faced 13 year old boy who spends more time playing D&D than fantasizing about girls.
      • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Sunday February 17, 2008 @10:56AM (#22453256) Homepage Journal

        It would have to play on the Alienware brand which at the moment, at least in tech circles, has connotations of overpricing. For Joe Public, I doubt they would see the point in this phone because it would have the 'Gaming' association of Alienware.

        It's actually worse than that. Non-nerds look to us to tell them what to buy, especially with expensive things, because they feel lost and see us as being confident and assertive (when speaking about technology, at least.) And nerds think Alienware is poop. Every Alienware system is at least half again more expensive than it should be, and their laptops are COMPLETE CRAP (at least recently.) Alienware is now considered an also-ran and Dell isn't exactly a bastion of credibility.

    • by aplusjimages (939458) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:09AM (#22445388) Journal
      I think they mean it's literally an iPhone killer. You see this isn't just an ordinary phone. It's what a ninja would be if it were a phone. These ninja-phones, if you will, act as your everyday phone, but when in close proximity to an iPhone the ninja-phone transforms into a ninja star or katana and literally kills the iPhone and it's owner. So you see it is the iPhone killer.
    • by Professor_UNIX (867045) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @12:52PM (#22446032)
      You don't have an iPhone do you? Poor SOB. Someday you will... just keep saving your pennies and you will know the glory of the iPhone.
    • Re:iPhone killer? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by johnpaul191 (240105) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @02:28PM (#22446586) Homepage
      The iPhone is important because it made the smartphone concept mainstream. Tech nerds aside, before the iPhone it was common to see business people with Blackberries. There was some sort of stigma from that masses that they could never escape the office because they were always in touch. The iPhone somehow succeeded where Palm failed to..... make a smart phone seem really freakin useful and fun. Let's face it, Palm took the basic handheld they have been selling for 10+ years and added a phone to it. Windows Mobil phones are just Microsoft's version of that, and again often an extension of the office. The iPhone may have the best mobile browser out there, and that matters. I can't tell you how many times we will be out to dinner and randomly want to look something up online. It's always the iPhone that has the best browsing results.

      I know a lot of people that freelance, and want/need email and some sort of web access in their pocket. The Treo still seems to dominate that world, but maybe it will change? These are people picking out their own phones and paying for their own plans, not issued by work.
      *Most* iPhone owners i know are new to a smartphone. The second biggest group are people that upgraded from a Treo.

      I write this as a Treo owner, and a Mac user.... but if the iPhone was CDMA, i would probably own one. The iPhone's Safari is the app i want more than anything. Having a Verizon/BREW Treo it does not seem like i have 3rd party options for browsers that are anywhere near Safari (operamini doesn't run on my phone).
      • by mdwh2 (535323) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @07:49PM (#22448840) Journal
        Interesting - here in the UK I've yet to see a single iphone. I've seen lots of other types of smartphones. Perhaps it's different in different countries, but I suspect people just use what smartphone is best for them, and the iphone is yet another one. As with everything else, Apple fans love to claim that Apple did something first, but then qualify it with "well, they were the ones who made it popular", whether or not that was true.

        I know a lot of people that freelance, and want/need email and some sort of web access in their pocket.

        Any dirt cheap bog standard phone does email and web access. I think you're missing a point here - what distinguishes smartphones is usually the ability to run standalone applications, and running a complete operating system, and not that they have Internet access. The iphone isn't popularising anything here, rather it's become standard for all phones - including phones hundreds of pounds cheaper. I'm also not convinced people are using iphones for the ability to run general standalone applications.

        If anything, I suspect people are more interested in using it as a combined phone and ipod, as this is still a relatively new market (most phones do mp3, but the storage sizes have only recently been of any significant size). But then again, as prices of memory cards fall, this market will be quickly swamped with every other bog standard phone that can do Internet and play mp3s.
    • Re:iPhone killer? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Skruggs (838610) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @02:36PM (#22446634)
      I couldn't disagree more... I see iPhones EVERYWHERE and given the amount of talking people do about them, I think it's fair to say it's the ONLY thing people currently compare against. Palm? Dead. RIM? Alive but really a totally different market. Symbian? Boring. Windows Mobile? DOA. The proof to me was last week on an airplane to California. In a row of 5 seats, 4 of the row occupants had iPhones out during the flight (including me)
    • by r_jensen11 (598210) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @05:21PM (#22447866)

      I don't think the iPhone has attained the status that any new smartphone must be considered a competitor first and foremost to it. Especially when, as in this case, it's a completely different styling concept. I do see iPhones here and there, but by far most people still use other cellphones, so I do not think the iPhone merits a reference in the title of every story about cellphones.
      Very good point, but let me compound why the iPhone is not going to overtake the cell phone market:

      The vast majority of consumers do not want to have to use a music library/player on their computers in order to use a cell phone. They're two drastically different devices with very little overlap.

      iPhones do not have the "Business image." That belongs primarily to RIM's Blackberry.

      At least in American markets, consumers are afraid to spend money up-front for a cell phone. Rather (and unknown to them,) they essentially pay a two-year loan on their phones.
    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Sunday February 17, 2008 @12:30AM (#22450310)

      I don't think the iPhone has attained the status that any new smartphone must be considered a competitor first and foremost to it.

      Do you own a TV? I don't own an iPhone, but I have seen advertisements for months now from every major carrier which feature their iPhone imitator. When every major manufacturer is selling a look-like, then yeah, all new smart phones are going to be compared to it by the media and by normal people.

  • by v1 (525388) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @10:26AM (#22445112) Homepage Journal
    look out here come the ipod killers!

    (pause)

    ok... look out here come the iphone killers!

  • by Noxzoul (1140823) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @10:29AM (#22445132) Homepage
    Looks to me like this guy is talking out his ass about the entire Alienware thing.
    • Re:Proof? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by p0tat03 (985078) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @10:48AM (#22445266)

      Not to mention Alie nware can't make a cell phone if it meant their life. They can barely make laptops (the build quality isn't very good), and their case designs are generics from Asian suppliers, modified slightly to give it that distinct Alienware style at the top. I don't believe they have the engineering expertise to build a mobile system from the ground up - not when their status is merely a (substandard quality, overpriced) systems integrator.

      Hell, the iPhone's only *real* advantage is its incredibly slick and easy UI. That Alienphone concept has a UI that looks convoluted enough that even a techie like myself will get lost.

      • Re:Proof? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by usrusr (654450) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @12:57PM (#22446066) Homepage Journal
        Alienware couldn't, but Dell could. And besides, they could do exactly the same thing with phones they do with cheap computer cases, china has plenty of noname gadgets makers that can supply "phone blanks". It still does not matter at all, because Alienware as a brand does not really exist outside of the basements of a few rich parents. In comparison to Alienware, Apple is mainstream. And in the market of mobile phones, even Apple is still midget, despite of the biggest hype ever made around a piece of electronics and even a few serious technical merits.
        • Re:Proof? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by p0tat03 (985078) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @01:11PM (#22446140)

          I think mobile consumers have proven themselves savvy enough not to buy substandard "phone blank" devices. Why is Motorola in the rut they are in now? Well, years of making substandard devices (hardware quality was fine, software was not) that had no ergonomics physically nor mentally. They thought they could ride on their brand (which at one time was THE most powerful in the market) with mediocre phones. Consumers knew better.

          For anyone to break into, or even survive in, the mobile market, they need to bring to the table something amazing, either by offering unprecedented feature sets, or simply making the gadget slick and stylish. A "blank phone" would accomplish neither of those things.

          In the end, any serious competitor in this market is going to have to spend a LOT of money building their phones, no corner may be cut.

  • by Coraon (1080675) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @10:35AM (#22445166)
    1. liquid nitrogen very cool 2. fire very not cool 3. alienware cool 4. dell not cool 5. slashdot always cool
  • Eat up Martha (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 0xdeadbeef (28836) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @10:43AM (#22445228) Homepage Journal
    As Dell has a history of bombing with handhelds

    So does Apple, fool.
    • by Kamokazi (1080091) on Sunday February 17, 2008 @01:11AM (#22450526)
      I would generally consider that a very false statment anyway. The Dell Axims were very well received during their time and were some of the best PDAs for the money too. They left on a bad note with X50/51 Windows Mobile 5 support, but the x5, x3, x30, and x50 were all considered very good PDAs when launched and years later.
  • by webmaster404 (1148909) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @10:46AM (#22445246)
    I really don't think that now the iPhone is the phone to beat. Most people I know have a RAZR or similar, while they would like an iPhone as most people would, the $600 price tag plus dealing with AT&T makes them not buy one.
    • by Tony Hoyle (11698) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:17AM (#22445438) Homepage
      It could become so though.

      The ipod wasn't the mp3 player to beat for years... at the beginning it was OSX only, then it got windows compatibility but was still a hideously expensive geek toy. That's about where the iphone is now. Look what happened - It got colour, it got video, the design was refined, it got more capacity, then followed the ipod mini(? forgot its title), nano, etc. all came out, the price plummeted then everyone got one.

      Following the same track - get 3G, more capacity, decent camera, maybe an iphone nano on PAYT for half the price, etc. and it'll take off. Apple know how to make a phone UI (compared to Symbian, which is a bit of a trainwreck, it's not got a lot of competition on that front). Might take a few years... but it's not beyond possbility.
      • I fully agree. The cell industry has had it's ass so far up there for so long, it took Steve Jobs to show them how screwed up they are. The only threat IMO to Apple dominating smart cell phones the way they dominated music players is Google's Android, which currently is far far behind, and Steve Jobs keeping his head in his own ass to boot. Steve can make an advanced and desirable product, but he can't compete against open platforms any better than he competes against Windows/IBM PCs. If Google offers a native devkit (which they currently do not), and Jobs continues to be hostile to native app developers, eventually the iPhone line will be nothing but pretty, high-end low-feature stuff, just like his Macs. It'll be Mac vs Wintel all over again.

        The reason Jobs kicks butt in music players is that it's low-end stuff, where we can't build open platforms to compete against him.
        • by mdwh2 (535323) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @07:59PM (#22448912) Journal
          The cell industry has had it's ass so far up there for so long, it took Steve Jobs to show them how screwed up they are.

          In what way? The post your replied to listed a whole load of things that need to be fixed for it, so how exactly are they leading the way?

          This is a genuine question - given all the bog-standard things that the iphone lacks (3G, MMS, video recording, even drafts and copy and past according to Wikipedia though I can't believe it?), that any normal dirt cheap phone has, I'm curious what special features it does have that no other phone has?
          • I'll try to answer... The iPhone has nothing going for it technology wise... it's old news, except for the great touch-screen. However, the stupid cell industry has had a buzz-word mentality for decades now. "3G, MMS, vidoe recoding"... the existing players just add a bunch of features and check the boxes. Without a great OS, and great programming, they all suck big time. How about adding 8 gig of music to a phone? The stupid cell industry added less than 1 gig. How about a giant display so you can do real pictures and video, rather than some postage stamp? How about adding a simple zoom feature to that big display, and real wi-fi so you get an actual functional browser? I had several phones with limited browsers that only were able to view the stupid cell phone company's sites. And the interface? The typical phone has a stupid wheel that is actually just 4 direction buttons. The devices with real keyboards have some value, but the rest are just worthless. What really pissed me off is that my last two stupid cell carriers wouldn't even let me download pictures I took with my camera... they held them hostage, and wanted me to pay to get them off my phone. Fuckers.

            When I had an iPhone, I used the music player, camera, ssh shell, wi-fi, photo-album (great for sales), e-mail, contacts, man... they gave me very few programs, but I hammered them all. Very unlike the crap I've gotten for years from the rest.

            I also hammered the 3rd party hacker-apps. I particularly loved ssh-ing into servers at work to check on things. I'd also do some slashdotting, and check on the latest news from sites I like (rather than the ones my cell company prefers). Frankly, the rest of the field sucks big-time compared to the current generation of iPhone. Again, the big threat I see to Apple is Google Android, and even then only if Android opens up a bit more, and only if Steve remains mostly closed.
            • by mdwh2 (535323) on Sunday February 17, 2008 @12:04AM (#22450214) Journal
              Are those features any different to other smartphones? I've seen big screens on other phones too. A quick Google search suggests there are other phones with Wi-Fi. Other smartphones have proper browsers, and can run all those applications. Plus I'm not sure what you mean by "buzzword" - to you, 3G is a buzzword whilst Wi-Fi is important, but to someone else, 3G and MMS are important whilst Wi-Fi (along with SSH, photo-album, e-mail etc) is a buzzword!

              Even for cheap non-smartphones: Storage for mp3s has been increasing gradually, and other phones have reached 8GB too. Any old phone can download Opera Mini, so you at least have that as a decent functioning browser. And something is severely wrong if you can't download your photos - any normal phone lets you do this. I'm not sure that the iphone wins on the carrier part anyway, given that it's tied into a contract - with any other phone, you can have a choice, and just don't choose stupid carriers that suck like yours did.

              It sounds like you have a really bad experience with a poor phone and/or network. The rest of the market is a lot better than what you describe - and I was hoping there'd be something going for the iphone more than simply "There are worse phones". But so far, that's all I've had people tell me.
      • by Scudsucker (17617) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @12:39PM (#22445936) Homepage Journal
        The ipod wasn't the mp3 player to beat for years...

        Uh, no - the iPod was the player to beat the day it was announced. It was the first player to use 5 gigabyte 1.8" hard drives while everything else used tiny amounts of flash memory or used big and heavy desktop hard drives. It also used a 400 Mpbs Firewire interface while everything else used 11 Mbps Usb 1.1 or even parallel. Combine that with a good interface and good integration and you had a product that was far ahead of the competition.

        Now everything uses USB 2.0 and the same storage media, so there is little difference in the physical size/capacity anymore, but that wasn't the case to begin with.
        • by Tony Hoyle (11698) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Saturday February 16, 2008 @03:11PM (#22446900) Homepage
          It also cost about $1000, worked only with Macbooks which were far more niche than they are today (hell, back then the average person on the street hadn't even heard of apple).. itunes was little more than a list of music - no store or anything like that. Truly, they sucked compared to the $100 mp3 players of the time.. and capacity didn't make up for it. I only ever saw one of them in the wild.. and it was 2 years after that before I heard the ipod name again.

          Only a true fanboy would believe that the other mp3 (and minidisc, which was huge back then) manufacturers even gave a shit about the ipod back then, let alone thought it was the thing to beat.
          • by MightyYar (622222) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @04:09PM (#22447320)
            I *think* that you are joking, but it's hard to tell. The iPod cost $400, not $1000 - and even back then, Apple was one of the most recognized brands in the world. iPods completely dominated the market as soon as they were released for Windows. The only thing even close was the jukebox, and it used a full-sized laptop hard drive. The $100 players of the day could only hold a few songs, so most people carried around CD players.

            Toshiba (the Zune's forefather) would have been some good competition if they hadn't hobbled their unit so badly with encryption, which made it transfer songs at USB 1.1 speeds even though it supported USB 2.0.
          • by Graymalkin (13732) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @04:13PM (#22447362)
            The iPod was only $399 when it was released in October of 2001. While they initially only worked with Macs support for Windows was added in July of 2002 through MusicMatch Jukebox. The flash based players of the time were only slightly cheaper than the iPod's initial $399 price and held an order of magnitude fewer songs. It's a bit of revisionist history to suggest that the iPod didn't gain a lot of attention right out of the box. The iPod sold more than a quarter million units in its first year and nabbed about 7.1% of the PMP market [businessweek.com] after only six months. That's 0% to 7% in six months. To suggest the iPod wasn't a big deal is kind of silly. I know you're trolling but try to sound believable.
    • by mdwh2 (535323) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @08:02PM (#22448928) Journal
      I fully agree. I find it sad that what the number of Iphone Slashvertisments we get here anyway, even on the rare blue moon occasion we get a story about another phone, we still have to have a mention for the iphone. What about all the other phones on the market?

      I feel it's the marketing equivalent of "famous for being famous" - it gets lots of publicity because it's well known, but it's well known because of all the publicity... (I wonder if Paris Hilton owns one?)
  • Yet another Killer (Score:5, Informative)

    by tigheig (546423) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @10:46AM (#22445248)
    If you read TFA you find that it's not even a rumor, it's entirely speculation based on the purchase of Alienware by Dell. It states that the argument for the Alienware phone is "overwhelming" based on the fact that the author thinks that Alienware is cool and is well known outside of us build-it-yourself PC geeks. TFA is accompanied by something labeled "First Pictures of Alienware Android Cell Phone" that is actually a GIF mockup drawn by a staff artist based on what they'd like it to look like. So now the Slashdot "killer" label is being applied to products that not only don't exist yet, but for which there's no objective evidence that anyone is even thinking about. Can we retire the "killer" now? It's become parody.
  • Butt Ugly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Telvin_3d (855514) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @10:47AM (#22445258)
    That may be the ugliest piece of hardware I have ever laid my eyes on.

    As for an iPhone killer? Why is everything these days an iPhone killer? This abomination does not compete with the iPhone in any way. Completely different design (if you can call it that) aesthetic. It's not based on a touch screen. Any mention of an iPhone killer exists only to drive people to the site so they can have a look. If the title was 'Dell subsidy designs cellphone, beats it with ugly stick' they would not get as much traffic.
    • by Spunkemeyer (805072) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @10:58AM (#22445318)
      I have a hard time believing that anyone would be looking at that thing, and the iPhone, and seriously trying to choose between the two of them. That looks like the complete opposite of what the iPhone tries to achieve. They might as well go all-out and put a "Type RS" racer sticker on it. At this point, why be subtle about it?
      • by malevolentjelly (1057140) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:09AM (#22445390) Journal
        ...in the market of "13 year old boy's imaginations".

        I was thinking maybe they should add something that looks like a jet intake, a sub-woofer, some neon underglow, flame stickers on the side, and maybe some spinnaz.

        I am pre-emptively naming it the Dell Alienware AREA 51 EXXTREME XENOMORPH. Its default ring tone would be "Crawling in my skin" by Linkin Park. I hope it has Myspace Mobile.
    • by Gordonjcp (186804) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:02AM (#22445344) Homepage
      As for an iPhone killer? Why is everything these days an iPhone killer? This abomination does not compete with the iPhone in any way.

      I think what they mean is:
      1) place iPhone on desk
      2) hammer iPhone to death with Alienware phone
      3) ...?
      4) sweep up the mess

      I can't see where "Profit!!!" fits in here.
    • by Jaktar (975138) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:55AM (#22445674)

      Why is everything these days an iPhone killer?

      Because you can't get people to click on your page if you say "here's a cool phone idea". People are sheep. If you tell them that product X is better than product Y, many will take time to look at it. Then, in the end, they'll just end up buying what they're told to buy.

  • bombing? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by llZENll (545605) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @10:48AM (#22445260)
    "Dell has a history of bombing with handhelds"

    The Dell Axim series was one of the most popular Pocket PCs in history, I would bet they sold several times more Axims than Apple has sold iPhones.

    The highest powered Axims released in the later years of the series was more powerful and feature rich than the iPhone. The x50 had VGA, touchscreen, wifi, BT, SD/CF, IR, 620mhz CPU, over 6000 software apps, and came out in 2004.

    If Dell was serious about releasing an iPhone 'killer' all they would have to do is resurrect their x50 and add phone support and it would be better than the iPhone except for the interface. After releasing 6 PDA models they have the knowledge and experience to easily do this. Its probably only a matter of business contracts with the mobile carriers that is holding them back.
    • Re:bombing? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by natrius (642724) <niran AT niran DOT org> on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:01AM (#22445338) Homepage

      If Dell was serious about releasing an iPhone 'killer' all they would have to do is resurrect their x50 and add phone support and it would be better than the iPhone except for the interface.

      The interface is the device.

      • Re:bombing? (Score:5, Informative)

        by p0tat03 (985078) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:59AM (#22445704)
        Mod parent up. This is something that people in the tech field gloss over FAR too often. When it comes down to cell phones, laptops, and all of these consumer electronics, the feature sets of each device is all about the same (bluetooth, WiFi, yadi yada, it's all there)... The only thing that the user interacts with that is DIFFERENT is the UI. The UI *is* the device. It is why Apple has succeeded, and why Motorola is desperate to rid itself of its mobile division.
      • by llZENll (545605) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @02:44PM (#22446704)
        "The interface is the device."

        In the end it is, but it is far easier than the hardware. I agree the inteface/OS is probably the most important thing in any phone next to the connection stability, but any piece of software can be easily copied by even the smallest team. Copying the entire iPhone OS experience would be trivial when done on top of Windows Mobile, a single person has already copied much of the functionality. Creating a solid piece of hardware and in mass quantities is much harder IMO.
    • by astaldaran (1040462) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:01AM (#22445340)
      llZENll (545605) had some great points but in addition to this I just want to point out that this article seems very very cheesy..at best. First of all throughout the article they give opinion, obviously not the best journalistic approach. Now this site probably isn't a serious news site and most of its articles are some what op-ed in nature but still. Secondly (either this comment is correct or the article is just badly written enough that I think it is) the article doesn't cite real knowledge that A) dell is getting into the phone market B) that they will brand it under alienware C) and the crazy phone design (though I admit it does look like alienware) rendered in 3d only adds to the unbelievability of this article. This article is full of conjecture and opinion and i'm not sure how seriously we can take it...though it is possible that everything it says is correct it is just hard to tell due to the manner that it was written.
    • by INeededALogin (771371) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:46AM (#22445612) Journal
      After releasing 6 PDA models they have the knowledge and experience to easily do this.

      You are assuming that the knowledge and experience hasn't been lost. If companies get out of a market or bomb in a market, the team is usually not kept together. Most likely, the teams that created the handsets in the past are either not with the company any longer or are in different groups. Every company I have worked at that got rid of a product from its portfolio was totally unprepared to do anything with the market a few months later. I am not saying that Dell can't do, just saying that it would not find it easy to just simply start another attempt and learn from all its past mistakes.
  • by mecenday (1080691) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @10:48AM (#22445268)
    Ummm... to be an "iPhone Killer" don't you need to have. like a similar featureset and formfactor. This looks like a run of the mill cellphone with some decent gaming which makes it an NGage killer at best. It seems to be for a different market altogether. It doesn't have any sort of qwerty input or touchscreen.

    Why bother to mention the iPhone at all in this story? "Alienware Planning Android Cellphone" seems like enough.
  • by bogaboga (793279) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @10:53AM (#22445296)
    Indeed, Android is a platform. Just googled it up and came up with this link: http://code.google.com/android/ [google.com]. It says in part...

    "The Open Handset Alliance, a group of more than 30 technology and mobile companies, is developing Android: the first complete, open, and free mobile platform."

    But the title suggests that there is an Android phone which will be killed! Android is a platform just like Linux, and Alienware's device will be based on the Android platform. so to me, this development will perpetuate Android instead of killing it.

    It's like saying..."Bogaboga Systems is gonna come up with a Linux killer which will be based on Linux!" This does not make much sense to me.

  • iPhone killer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ptomblin (1378) <ptomblin@xcski.com> on Saturday February 16, 2008 @10:58AM (#22445324) Homepage Journal
    I'm hoping for an "iPhone done right", and this aint it. By "iPhone done right", what I'm looking for is something that will replace my Treo and my iPod. I definitely like the real keyboard on the Treo - the touch keyboard on my wife's iPod Touch sucks. I also like the fact that the Treo has cut and paste, so I can trim down the quoted part of email. And it's compatible with my Palm apps. But the iPhone is multi-tasking, has a much better web browser, and would mean I don't have to carry around a separate iPod. If something could combine the virtues of both, I'd be right there in line.
    • by mdwh2 (535323) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @08:25PM (#22449060) Journal
      Interestingly you should mention this, I just read it on Wikipedia too:

      I also like the fact that the Treo has cut and paste, so I can trim down the quoted part of email.

      My cheap ordinary phone does this, something which I'd consider to be a standard part of UI functionality - does it really not do this, or am I misunderstanding, I wonder. Then again, my cheap ordinary phone does basic features like 3G, video recording and MMS...

      An "iphone done right" as you describe it would be good. But beware of the battery life - there is an advantage to having separate devices.
  • by sheehaje (240093) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:01AM (#22445342)
    Just looking at the "Pictures", I don't see where the innovation is. It is a regular phone dressed in a skin. The iPhone on the other hand did introduce the world to some new ideas. The way the touch screen works on the iPhone, and automatic roatation on the screen are just a couple of the innovations. Not to mention a brand new operating system for a phone. What is Alienware introducing to the world other than a skin? I see a joystick, but these have been available for a while for most PDA type phones.

    I really think they need to re-think their strategy here. Unless they are going after the 12-year old crowd with this, I don't see many people carrying this thing around.
  • by lazyeye (24949) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:03AM (#22445350) Journal
    If for nothing more, the iPhone takes the cake for simplicity in design. This concept of the Alienware phone is garish, if anything. I don't think this would be good for Google if Android were running on this monstrosity. Hopefully, if they do decide to come out with an Android-based phone, Alienware will keep the design simple without losing their signature look.
    • by jrothwell97 (968062) <jonathan.notroswell@com> on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:11AM (#22445404) Homepage Journal

      This is exactly the problem with companies trying to make their machines 'cool'. They seem to think that by making it look like something from Star Trek it's automatically going to be cool. The reason iPods, iMacs and iPhones are so pretty is because of their simplicity. Plate of glass, wide screen, aluminium backplate. That's all. No delta badges. No flares.

      The proliferation of black plastic computer casing (the new beige, in a way) needs to stop, too. That's awful.

    • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @12:13PM (#22445782) Journal
      It's exactly the reason that so many 'iPod killers' have failed. You start with the iPod and say to an engineer 'make a better one of these,' so the engineer goes away, lists all of the features that iPod doesn't have, and starts adding them. Along the way, marketing gets involved, and adds a few more features (which probably don't integrate well with the existing ones).

      After a year or so, they come up with something that is bigger than the iPod, but has a load more features. They ramp up the hype machine and tell everyone about all of the great features it has. Consumers then go into a shop and look for a device with a nice form factor which has the one feature they actually want - the ability to play music - and buy an iPod. Yet another company fails to kill the iPod.

      If you want to kill the iPhone, start with the form factor. Design goal number one should be to make something that fits better in the hand than the iPhone. Then take a look at all of the features in all of the smartphones out there, and rank them by utility. Start at the top of the list (presumably 'making voice calls') and keep adding them until just before your user interface starts to get cluttered. Then stop.

  • by Aaron Isotton (958761) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:04AM (#22445358)
    Oh my god! It even has a touch sensitive keypad! Now that's unheard of!
  • fugly (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ZipprHead (106133) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:05AM (#22445360) Homepage
    How is something this ugly going to be an Iphone killer?
  • by Cannelloni (969195) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:14AM (#22445416)
    Why? Because Dell and Alienware don't know the difference between their own rears ends and good industrial and GUI design. They would have to use someone else's crappy operating system and UI, and it would be just another stupid Windows handheld device. No go.
  • by EddyPearson (901263) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:14AM (#22445418) Homepage
    There is no way you could convince me to buy one of those gothic nightmareish designs.

    Christ, its like a 7 year old designed it...
  • by whisper_jeff (680366) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:22AM (#22445470)
    Mention "iPhone" in an article - even one that looks like it was written by a drunken monkey - and you can get on Slashdot. I love Apple. I want an iPhone (waiting for the Canadian market to pull their heads out of their butts...). But, seriously, this article isn't about the iPhone so why does it get mentioned in the subject? (I know the answer to that - it's a rhetorical question) Not to mention, this article looks like it was written by someone in 8th grade. Or is english this guy's second language?

    No, I'm not new around here. Yes, I'm being an elitist tit this morning. But, seriously....
  • by kurtis25 (909650) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:26AM (#22445486)
    I wouldn't carry that thing around. I like the idea of the slide open changing the screen contents. But the Iphone has a nice big screen, any killer will have to find a way to have a big screen or someway of compensating.
  • by wardk (3037) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:32AM (#22445516) Journal
    an iPhone killer?

    they should aim lower, like maybe a fischer-price phone killer?

  • by lethe1001 (606836) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:35AM (#22445550)
    iPhones run OSX, not Android. "Alienware Planning Android iPhone-Killer", maybe?
  • Bleah (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:50AM (#22445634)
    So nearly half of its structure is junky looking "futuristic" plastic just for looks?

    If they got rid of hat and just put the keyboard there, they wouldn't need a failure prone moving slider part.

  • by colinstu (1151311) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @12:00PM (#22445708)
    can someone give me a fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck ugly?
  • by spintriae (958955) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @12:14PM (#22445786)
    All it needs is a Flowmaster.
  • by rockhome (97505) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @01:39PM (#22446272) Journal
    Alienware is "the trendiest tech company in the world" according to the article.

    Would someone care to explain how this is so? I would say that Apple takes that title.
    Though, if not Apple, certainly not a company that very few people have heard of. What
    percentage of the PC buying market really knows who Alienware is. I work for a tech
    company and would bet less than half of the people there would be familiar with the name.

  • by Kalewa (561267) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @02:02PM (#22446434)
    I think it's important to keep in mind that Alienware doesn't have the capability to actually create new products. Their computers are just standard components in a gaudy case, and even the much-touted curved display was created by a company in California (for NEC), and relabeled with an Alienware badge.

    If they were to release an Android phone they would need to wait for someone else to do so first, then slap their (according to this article, hideous) chunk of custom plastic on the front.

  • by nguy (1207026) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @06:50PM (#22448452)
    I wouldn't buy that phone even if they put iPhone software on it and made it all open source. That's one ugly phone.

    There will be iPhone killers based on Android: high resolution touch screen phones with a sleek, clean design. I doubt they'll be coming from Dell or Alienware.

You are false data.

Working...