iPhone Optus rumor; Apple TV allows movie sales; Mac web share

[AppleInsider]

Apple may use Australia as a testbed and sell the iPhone as a non-exclusive in the country, says one report. Meanwhile, Apple has enabled direct movie purchases from the Apple TV, Mac and iPhone web share has dropped in April as the iPhone becomes Flickr's top cameraphone. Also, Apple is moving some of its support efforts from California to Texas, and new iMacs have been tested against earlier models.

iPhone rumored for Australia as Optus non-exclusive

In an unusual report, CNET Australia on Thursday claimed knowledge that the iPhone will arrive in Australia under very different terms than for past carriers.

Similar to recent rumors circulated regarding Europe and Latin America, the technology site points to an alleged industry insider who says the phone will be available first through a local carrier, Optus -- but that the provider won't have sole rights to the device, as AT&T and initial European carriers enjoy today.

An announcement will reportedly surface in mid-May but may not mention the specific device; Optus is expecting to launch with future iPhone models rather than the existing generation, according to the anonymous source. Rogers Wireless in Canada has already followed a similar pattern, announcing a Canadian iPhone deal but leaving virtually all details until later.

Unlike Canada, however, the Australian launch has been rumored to include an unlocked model that could be used with any carrier available to the island nation.

Apple flicks switch on Apple TV movie sales

At the same time as Apple has announced day-and-date movie sales through iTunes, the company has also quietly pushed out an update to the Apple TV version of the store that allows direct movie purchases.

Beforehand, users of the set-top box had their direct access limited to rentals, with viewing of purchased titles limited to those synchronized from a host Mac or PC.

The change doesn't require a firmware upgrade and has also altered the front-end of the store to list top sellers as well as the existing rental options.





iPhone, Mac share dip in April

While Safari marketshare tripled in April, the same can't be said for the iPhone and the Mac in the same month, results from Net Applications show.

The web firm observes that Mac share among its client sites fell significantly between March and April, dropping from 7.48 percent to 7.01 percent in the four-week span. That share has largely been taken by Microsoft, which climbed from 91.57 percent to 91.99 percent at the same time.

iPhone share also declined in the period from 0.15 percent to 0.14 percent, though it remains the single largest mobile client tracked at Net Applications and the only one to register a visible influence.

The monitoring company doesn't offer an explanation for the drop.

iPhone dominates Flickr's camera phone share

Among Flickr's many camera phone contributors, the iPhone is the clear frontrunner, as pointed out by Computerworld.

The Apple phone in recent months has surged past the previously leading Nokia N95 to take the top position at the photo storage site -- a feat which comes despite the N95's superior equipment, which includes a five-megapixel sensor (versus the iPhone's two), autofocusing, and a flash.

Other phones in the top five run well short of these two competitors, with Nokia's N73 as well as Sony Ericsson's K800i and W810i rounding out the devices most likely to have taken photos appearing on Flickr pages.



Apple moves Elk Grove support jobs to Texas

Apple on Thursday expanded its presence in Texas by revealing that it will transfer 174 jobs from its Elk Grove, California call center to its Austin location.

Those affected by the transfer are being asked to either move to follow their positions or else to seek alternative jobs at the West coast office.

The company hasn't offered an explanation and has asked employees to remain silent on the matter, though it takes care to state that Elk Grove operations have grown dramatically since 2005, jumping by 50 percent to 1,100 staffers.

In July of last year, Apple was discovered to be expanding operations at its Austin facilities to reduce overcrowding problems at its Cupertino, California buildings.

New iMacs show slight performance gains

Synthetic benchmarks show the 3.06GHz iMac advancing only slightly over its predecessor, according to tests run by Primate Labs.

The Canadian developer of the GeekBench testing suite notes that its test sees the Intel Penryn-based system outpacing its 2.8GHz ancestor by slightly more than 7 percent. The findings lead the company to suggest that those concerned with value for money are better off avoiding the top-end system unless video and storage are top priorities.



"If you’re looking for the best value in terms of raw processing power, the best iMac to get is the base model," Primate says. "Even after upgrading the RAM in the base model it’s still more cost-effective than the mid-range 20-inch iMac."

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[stokessd]

The 20" is cheap, but it also has a crap LCD panel. The 24" is the way to fly.

Sheldon

[elroth]

"Apple on Thursday expanded its presence in Texas by revealing that it will transfer 174 jobs from its Elk Grove, California call center to its Austin location."

Great - more call center workers that speak a language ordinary Americans can't understand.

[Matthew Yohe]

Originally Posted by elroth

"Apple on Thursday expanded its presence in Texas by revealing that it will transfer 174 jobs from its Elk Grove, California call center to its Austin location."

Great - more call center workers that speak a language ordinary Americans can't understand.

I'm sorry, have you actually spoken to an Austin rep?

[bobertoq]

I don't get how the base model is the fastest? Is it the resolution?

[elroth]

"The Canadian developer of the GeekBench testing suite notes that its test sees the Intel Penryn-based system outpacing its 2.8GHz ancestor by slightly more than 7 percent."

It's not comparing the 3.06 GHz Mac to its ancestor, but to the newly released 2.8 GHz model. So for a just over a 9% increase in processor speed, it's showing a 7% performance increase, at least in these tests.

[rbonner]

Originally Posted by elroth

"Apple on Thursday expanded its presence in Texas by revealing that it will transfer 174 jobs from its Elk Grove, California call center to its Austin location."

Great - more call center workers that speak a language ordinary Americans can't understand.

Glad to not be in the ordinary bunch, the Austin support reps are always great to work with!

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by bobertoq

I don't get how the base model is the fastest? Is it the resolution?

Fastest processing for your dollar. That doesn't consider the additional screen size, the panel type, or the HDD capacity. Though, if we take just the cost of the chip itself we still come out with the 2.4GHz chip being the best bang for your buck.

Originally Posted by Matthew Yohe

I'm sorry, have you actually spoken to an Austin rep?

I believe it was a joke.

[djames42]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

At the same time as Apple has announced day-and-date movie sales through iTunes, the company has also quietly pushed out an update to the Apple TV version of the store that allows direct movie purchases.

Assuming this still doesn't support HD movie purchases...

[federmoose]

Originally Posted by Matthew Yohe

I'm sorry, have you actually spoken to an Austin rep?

Austin is fine. when call people are placed in dallas, that's when you get issues.

[Obi-Wan Kubrick]

I dont know why any one would waste their money an a $15.00 digital download when you could buy the DVD for the same price which could be converted to digital.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by djames42

Assuming this still doesn't support HD movie purchases...

And it shouldn't. The only device that could possibly play a HD movie right now is the iPod Touch or iPhone, and even then I'm sure the HW could handle the Mbps. There would also take up a huge amount of the capacity, except for the iPod Classic.

The only option would be to allow iTunes owners to scale down their HD movie purchases to fit on their iDevice. That means making it compatible with the iPod Nano so about 640x480 or 720x480 at 1.5Mbps would be the maximum allowed. The problem with this is would take a very long time to re-encode and is not the type of option that would satisfy the average Apple customer who doesn't know a think about resolution and bit rates.

Until all iDevices that are capable of putting out video that can play back HD H.264 video without freezing or eating through the battery in too short a time we are not going to see HD movies for sale from iTunes Store.

[jmadlena]

Originally Posted by solipsism

And it shouldn't. The only device that could possibly play a HD movie right now is the iPod Touch or iPhone, and even then I'm sure the HW could handle the Mbps. There would also take up a huge amount of the capacity, except for the iPod Classic.

The only option would be to allow iTunes owners to scale down their HD movie purchases to fit on their iDevice. That means making it compatible with the iPod Nano so about 640x480 or 720x480 at 1.5Mbps would be the maximum allowed. The problem with this is would take a very long time to re-encode and is not the type of option that would satisfy the average Apple customer who doesn't know a think about resolution and bit rates.

Until all iDevices that are capable of putting out video that can play back HD H.264 video without freezing or eating through the battery in too short a time we are not going to see HD movies for sale from iTunes Store.

What about the TV? That plays HD movies, and that is what this article is addressing: that we can now buy movies. If Apple allows us to rent HD movies, why not buy?

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by jmadlena

What about the TV? That plays HD movies, and that is what this article is addressing: that we can now buy movies. If Apple allows us to rent HD movies, why not buy?

IMO, it's for reasons I specified above. Any rented video stays on the AppleTV, but purchased video and audio is synced back to your Mac or PC's iTunes account.

[aplnub]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Apple may use Australia as a testbed and sell the iPhone as a non-exclusive in the country, says one report. ][ View this article at AppleInsider.com ][/url][/c]

If Apple is that dumb, I am for hire. Who couldn't call unexclusiveness as a winner??

[Cicero]

Bummer....

Even though you can buy the movies on DVD release day, it looks like we still have to wait 30 days for new release rentals?

[ouragan]

The web firm observes that Mac share among its client sites fell significantly between March and April, dropping from 7.48 percent to 7.01 percent in the four-week span. That share has largely been taken by Microsoft, which climbed from 91.57 percent to 91.99 percent at the same time.

iPhone share also declined in the period from 0.15 percent to 0.14 percent, though it remains the single largest mobile client tracked at Net Applications and the only one to register a visible influence.

The monitoring company doesn't offer an explanation for the drop.

Macs are too expensive! iPhones are too expensive! Steve Jobs $1 billion bonus is too expensive. Apple Vice-Presidents $1 billion bonus is too expensive!

Do you get it??? Apple is too expensive!!! And most consumers are not so demented as to buy from Apple just to get Steve Jobs all excited!!!

[ouragan]

The web firm observes that Mac share among its client sites fell significantly between March and April, dropping from 7.48 percent to 7.01 percent in the four-week span. That share has largely been taken by Microsoft, which climbed from 91.57 percent to 91.99 percent at the same time.

iMacs are $100 more expensive in Canada than the same computers sold in the USA. And Amazon doesn't sell computers in Canada and wouldn't be authorized by Apple to undercut the prices set by the AppleStore.

Are you really in the dark as to why Macs don't sell???

[bobertoq]

I kind of agree with you guys there... Maybe if Apple released something like the Open Computer and Open Computer Pro, starting at $400 and $1000 and it didn't cost an extra 100 dollars when 5 feet north of the US border, Mac sales would rocket. That is of course if they were good computers, that weren't deafeningly loud.

Macs are expensive. Why does it cost $400 dollars to go to 1 GB of RAM to 4 GB of RAM? I can buy 4 GB of RAM for less then $100

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by bobertoq

I kind of agree with you guys there... Maybe if Apple released something like the Open Computer and Open Computer Pro, starting at $400 and $1000 and it didn't cost an extra 100 dollars when 5 feet north of the US border, Mac sales would rocket. That is of course if they were good computers, that weren't deafeningly loud.

Macs are expensive. Why does it cost $400 dollars to go to 1 GB of RAM to 4 GB of RAM? I can buy 4 GB of RAM for less then $100

I doubt very much that a $100 price-cut is all it would take for sales of Macs to 'skyrocket.' If so, Apple would have done it. Indeed, I especially doubt it will be you, since Apple makes 'deafeningly loud' computers that are not 'good.' $100 will change your mind? Give me a break.

Go troll somewhere else?

[federmoose]

Originally Posted by ouragan

Macs are too expensive! iPhones are too expensive! Steve Jobs $1 billion bonus is too expensive. Apple Vice-Presidents $1 billion bonus is too expensive!

Do you get it??? Apple is too expensive!!! And most consumers are not so demented as to buy from Apple just to get Steve Jobs all excited!!!

please tell me you're joking....
the bonuses are typical of any business. and as for the too expensive, you're paying a premium for a premium product. Half the PC users I talk to (and much more than half of the ones who buy the cheap machines you so want) complain that their PC's are cr@p. The hardware on those cheap machines are, well, cheap. Mac's aren't made of cheap. Furthermore, if your Apple computer dies, take it into a store and within 2 days its back (or send it in via phone support and its back within a week, including shipping time). Try to get that kind of service with a PC manufacturer (can I hear 3 weeks?).

Apple machines are sturdy, built to last, and one heck of a product. Yah, they are a kick to the wallet. Yah, they might charge a tad more than they ought. But this is good for business. My advice: buy apple stock, wait for it to go up, then sell apple stock, and buy a computer.

[federmoose]

Originally Posted by bobertoq

Macs are expensive. Why does it cost $400 dollars to go to 1 GB of RAM to 4 GB of RAM? I can buy 4 GB of RAM for less then $100

Then buy the 4gb elsewhere. Apple RAM upgrades are for suckers anyways. Buy TechWorks, its what Apple uses for OEM anyways. Please don't complain for the sake of complaining.

[kenaustus]

Australia isn't an island - it's a continent. Around the size of the US actually. Calling the Land Down Under an island is, to the Aussies, like saying that the Mac is a Windows based computer. I know - I'm married to one.

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

I doubt very much that a $100 price-cut is all it would take for sales of Macs to 'skyrocket.' If so, Apple would have done it. Indeed, I especially doubt it will be you, since Apple makes 'deafeningly loud' computers that are not 'good.' $100 will change your mind? Give me a break.

Go troll somewhere else?

Is it trolling to have an opinion?

Honestly, if he was saying, "Nyah, nyah, Macs sucks, PCs rule" or some other vomit, I'd be the first to have the admin delete the post, or I'd be dropping the flame bombs. But he isn't doing that.


.

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by bobertoq

I kind of agree with you guys there... Maybe if Apple released something like the Open Computer and Open Computer Pro, starting at $400 and $1000 and it didn't cost an extra 100 dollars when 5 feet north of the US border, Mac sales would rocket. That is of course if they were good computers, that weren't deafeningly loud.

$400 isn't going to happen. Apple has no interest in going into the eMachines, micro-margins segment of the market. A $1000 Apple mini-tower sure would be nice, however .

But... isn't Psystar (makers of the Open Computer and OC Pro) perhaps going out of business? Seems to be a lot of worries along those lines:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/p...gerated-still/

Macs are expensive. Why does it cost $400 dollars to go to 1 GB of RAM to 4 GB of RAM? I can buy 4 GB of RAM for less then $100

Mac RAM upgrade pricing has always been bad through Apple, I've never used them, always went to Ramseeker.com or Crucial's site and saved a bunch of money.

.

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by aplnub

If Apple is that dumb, I am for hire. Who couldn't call unexclusiveness as a winner??

I agree with you. Officially, Apple and AT&T never disclosed the exclusivity duration. In 2007, reports said it was 5 years and lately some said 2 years. I don't think Apple would ever glue itself to something for more than a year.

This is what I think. Apple and AT&T agreed on a year contract where the iPhone is exclusive to AT&T. After the 1st year, the iPhone will be allowed to work on another network (unlocked) but AT&T stores are the only carrier to sell the iPhone with discount. For the 25 million 3G iPhone Apple want to sell I really doubt that AT&T networks can handle half of that traffic. When I bought my iPhone in August 07 my Edge connection was much faster. Now it is getting slower and slower, which I think it is mainly because the cell tower in My area covers the whole university and I have seen more people use iPhones than last year.

[PG4G]

Originally Posted by kenaustus

Australia isn't an island - it's a continent. Around the size of the US actually. Calling the Land Down Under an island is, to the Aussies, like saying that the Mac is a Windows based computer. I know - I'm married to one.

Yeah, I am an Aussie, and we aren't an island. We are US sized, and we just have more room!

Actually, i know 4 or 5 Americans, too, as a matter of fact.

And it is a massive insult, too :P

I've had about enough of the wait for the iPhone in Australia. I just want it. I don't care about the carrier, as long as they stick to a reasonable plan. 'Cause I live in a city with great reception (actually, its been rated independently the most "livable" city in the world - its a lie, there is no iPhone so it is nowhere near livable :P)

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by PG4G

Yeah, I am an Aussie, and we aren't an island. We are US sized, and we just have more room!

So... you're not surrounded by water on all sides? By definition you are an island.

But don't take my word for it:

• Australian Government: Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade

[melgross]

Originally Posted by solipsism

And it shouldn't. The only device that could possibly play a HD movie right now is the iPod Touch or iPhone, and even then I'm sure the HW could handle the Mbps. There would also take up a huge amount of the capacity, except for the iPod Classic.

The only option would be to allow iTunes owners to scale down their HD movie purchases to fit on their iDevice. That means making it compatible with the iPod Nano so about 640x480 or 720x480 at 1.5Mbps would be the maximum allowed. The problem with this is would take a very long time to re-encode and is not the type of option that would satisfy the average Apple customer who doesn't know a think about resolution and bit rates.

Until all iDevices that are capable of putting out video that can play back HD H.264 video without freezing or eating through the battery in too short a time we are not going to see HD movies for sale from iTunes Store.

So you're saying that other than the ATv and the iPhone/itouch, Apple has no machines that can play back their HD video?

That includes the Mini, the iMacs, the MBP's, the Mac Pro, and with external monitors, the MacBooks and Air.

How disappointing!

[melgross]

Originally Posted by kenaustus

Australia isn't an island - it's a continent. Around the size of the US actually. Calling the Land Down Under an island is, to the Aussies, like saying that the Mac is a Windows based computer. I know - I'm married to one.

You're married to a Windows based computer?

How odd!

I know things are strange down there, but really.

At least marry a Mac. I know a few cute ones.

[monstrosity]

I dont think we should read too much into the dropping web share, it's either just a blip, or inaccurate results.
Many people are holding back the last month or so to purchase iPhone2(me included).

I suppose the same could be said for apples other computer offerings, it's all due for a refresh.

[monstrosity]

i wonder what websites they test for web share? I bet that has something to do with it. If they dont test facebook, that could skew results one way or the other.
I expect it has more to do with social trends than anything else.

Many people I know do not seem to 'surf' the net as they used to, and live in facebook land instead, or use computers as TV's streaming youtube/iPlayer.
And as mac's are generally better equipped for web2 social sites, maybe this is the reason.

I'm just guessing here. But i find it very hard to believe msft is gaining ground on the mac.

[ikir]

Originally Posted by stokessd

The 20" is cheap, but it also has a crap LCD panel. The 24" is the way to fly.

Sheldon

mid 20 and top 24 have better video card if you are into 3d graphic or 3d gaming.

[stokessd]

Originally Posted by ikir

mid 20 and top 24 have better video card if you are into 3d graphic or 3d gaming.

It's not the video card, it's the LCD panel itself. The quality of the 20" LCD panel was reduced. There's a ton of references to this, but here's one that bubbled up in google:

http://www.tuaw.com/2007/09/12/20-im...olor-problems/


Sheldon

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by solipsism

And it shouldn't. The only device that could possibly play a HD movie right now is the iPod Touch or iPhone, and even then I'm sure the HW could handle the Mbps. There would also take up a huge amount of the capacity, except for the iPod Classic.

The only option would be to allow iTunes owners to scale down their HD movie purchases to fit on their iDevice. That means making it compatible with the iPod Nano so about 640x480 or 720x480 at 1.5Mbps would be the maximum allowed. The problem with this is would take a very long time to re-encode and is not the type of option that would satisfy the average Apple customer who doesn't know a think about resolution and bit rates.

Until all iDevices that are capable of putting out video that can play back HD H.264 video without freezing or eating through the battery in too short a time we are not going to see HD movies for sale from iTunes Store.

The ATV can play them fine as can a Mac. So the answer to the problem, you correctly highlight, would be to somehow add a mechanism that detects the non HD playing devices in iTunes and stops export to them with a warning message they cannot be exported at that resolution to that device.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by solipsism

So... you're not surrounded by water on all sides? By definition you are an island.

But don't take my word for it:

• Australian Government: Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade

Good answer.

Definition of an island: 'a land area with water all around it'.

So then, as you can sail all the way around given enough time, the Americas are also an island and so is Euro-Asia and ... wait a minute the Earth is covered in them!

[GregAlexander]

Originally Posted by melgross

You're married to a Windows based computer?
How odd!

:-)

People aren't satisfied with simple electronic toys anymore.

Seriously though - Australia is an Island.
World's biggest island. World's smallest continent.
I remember learning all about it in infants school (elementary school?)

[eldernorm]

Originally Posted by Matthew Yohe

I'm sorry, have you actually spoken to an Austin rep?

Actually, I used Apple support several times and when I asked where they were located, they told me that they were in Austin. It seems that the time of day that you call can make a big difference in where they route you.

Just a thought.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by melgross

So you're saying that other than the ATv and the iPhone/itouch, Apple has no machines that can play back their HD video?

That includes the Mini, the iMacs, the MBP's, the Mac Pro, and with external monitors, the MacBooks and Air.

How disappointing!

Oh no, most Macs in the install base and all new Macs can easily play HD media. The problem lies with consumers thinking they can easily and quickly move these files to their iDevices like other audio and video so they pay for the more expensive HD media and then realize when it's too late that they can't move these over. Then they blame Apple. If I were at Apple i'd rather not give the option at all.

Of course, the whole idea of purchasing HD media from iTS could be with the studios wanting more control.

I think sometimes we forget that the average computer user is not that savvy, and I want to quash that idea because no man is an island, like Australia.

[Magic_Al]

Allowing direct purchase makes the Apple TV more useful as a stand-alone device, but purchases could run into storage limitations. Xbox Live allows unlimited re-downloading of purchased content to mitigate that but that has not been iTunes' policy.