or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by hypermark

There is really nothing Cook said that screams TV **set**. My take all along is that this is a set-top box, and it's all predicated on deals with the cable guys and the content guys. That's where the subsidy lies, that's where the margin lies, and there is existing iOS goodness in that realm via Apple TV, something that I blogged about here:   Apple's iTV and the implications of what Steve said http://radar.oreilly.com/2012/02/apple-itv-television.html   Check...
If one takes what Cue said at face value, it suggests little or noting about Apple ever building a TV set. The reference was to "television user interface," which sounds more like set-top box, which already has a jack in every TV.   Apple, after all, does not live and breathe to disrupt. It's not like the iPod was an end-run around the music industry. Or, the iPhone was an end-run around carriers.   Hence, logically anything Apple builds in the living room will...
It boggles the mind to hear all of this talk of QNX, as if there is something magical in an OS, and an embedded one at that. Customers don't buy attributes, they buy outcomes, and NOTHING in RIM marketing has spoken to a unique, compelling outcome that is RIM's vision to take its customers to. In that regard, all of the Flash talk by them is a bearish indicator that they are beyond clueless.
I certainly don't wish ill will on RIM, as I was a long time Blackberry owner, and happy for it...until their devices got slow and buggy. Then, instead of innovating and recognizing seriously good competition in iPhone and iPad, they combined ignorance with arrogance (the 'amateur hour's over' marketing campaign in response to the huge success of iPad was a total "emperor's wearing no clothes" moment), which finally pushed me to iPhone when it became available on...
What I love about this in concept is that for the longest time, companies like Cisco and Microsoft would tout how they use their own technologies (i.e., eat their own dog food) to achieve all sorts of unfair advantages in the areas of innovation, agility, forecasting, and bottom line profits. Now, putting aside the fact that both Microsoft and Cisco were found to be a bit of an emperor wearing no clothes when this narrative proved more truthy than truth, Apple is in a...
Thanks for giving it a read. :-) In part, what Apple would be doing here is akin to what Android has done in smartphone. Target a vendor with a hardware centric view of the universe, who is only too happy to outsource the software layer to a third party. I think the difference is that if Apple does it, they are going to want a consistent user experience. As others have noted, Apple has a religious aversion to OEM'ing its technology. They sell whole, living, breathing...
My thesis on this rumor is that it's the beginning of an Apple Inside strategy, whereby Apple licenses the skin, bones and brain of Apple TV to TV set makers as part of their ubiquity play in the living room. Why? The alternative for Apple is building their own TV, which has lots of downside; namely, a commodity product in an entrenched ecosystem (cable/sat, set-top box, broadcast, HBO, movies, CE) on a device that lacks the product obsolescence lifecycle that Apple...
None of these hardware OEM folks seem to get that without compelling software apps, it's just another web browsing device. That's fine, but it's still the proverbial case of bringing a knife to a gun fight.
If interested in some of the application scenarios, I wrote a post last year envisioning just such a direction for the iPhone: 3D Glasses: Virtual Reality, Meet the iPhone http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/06/iph...l-reality.html Excerpt: Framing the point a bit further, 3D Glasses are a kind of "meta" platform built to embrace and extend the iPhone Platform vis-Ã*-vis application specific libraries, open APIs, custom tools and of course, the glasses themselves, to...
You can tell that the piece is created by people that either don't use iPhone/iPod Touch or came at it from a "universal format" perspective. Why do I say that? Well, one of the core differentiators is the physics of an iPhone/iPod Touch (and soon, iPad); namely touch, pinch-zoom and tilt, yet the piece doesn't deal with any of these game-changing aspects, the use cases/workflows of which I blogged about here: Rebooting the Book: One iPad at a...
New Posts  All Forums: