Originally Posted by MacApfel
I can see that cable TV will experience the same fate as landline phone. Everyone still has it, but many people use their mobile now. I think there is a market for in iDevice based TV. This will then go the way of the mobile phones, and in 5 years people find this much more attractive and versatile than cable TV. Let's just hope the price difference is not the same as between landline and mobile phones!
I wouldn't quite say that. Cable TV offers real-time "linear" channels, and I don't see people generally dumping those anytime soon. Rumors talk about Apple TV being a device that can stream on-demand movie rentals, and play games. So could this be the beginning of the end for Blu-Ray, cable TV's Movies on Demand, and perhaps even the Wii. If the latter applies, based on early Wii demand, Apple had better open up a new factory, or make their Foxconn factory employees work 28-hour days, eight days a week.
(By the way: That new Foxconn factory that could supposedly make 200k iPhones a day -- could they make Apple TVs when iPhone demand sags a tad? What about iPads?)
Originally Posted by Porchland
Comcast/NBCU has a huge stake because they're a big player in both cable networks and local cable/broadband subscriptions, and I just don't see them contributing all of their current content to an internet-delivered, subscription-based service unless it replaces the revenue from reduced ad rates and fewer cable subscribers.
And would they want to give in to Steve Jobs like he'd like, or would CoNBC just put the stuff on Hulu Plus or something like that? The latter is possible, because that's the NBC 2.0 Jeff Zucker Way. Yeah, like that's worked, before.
Originally Posted by thompr
Which device you going to look at while playing a dynamic iOS game, the iPhone or the TV? Same question goes for the people that say the magic trackpad could be used as the controller.
This doesn't make much sense to me.
And really, I don't, either. As others pointed out, I'm pretty sure that Steve probably would have something brand new ready to go, something that could fit in the box, and not cost much to make (remember -- $99 for everything).
Originally Posted by wizard69
Further a 2.1 product implys a revision to a current oroduct. I hope you realize that it is very important for Apple to get past its rev one device as fast as possible. For iPad to realize its potential and compete with coming competition it needs more robust hardware.
In this case, why? FaceTime? People seem satisfied with the current iPad; it's still on backorder, and it's not the holidays, yet, when demand for gadgets increase.
Originally Posted by wizard69
As to an entirely new device, that i hope is coming. As it would be in effect a smalker iPad i don't see it impacting the iPad at all. After all the Touch exist and nobody claims it impacts iPad sale. People buy to fit their needs.
Apple is smart to release brand-new products in the early year, it gives the market an acceptance period; 11 months of hype before the holidays.
Except when they grossly underestimate demand. IPad and iPhone demand is such that the time of the year for the debut makes little difference. The sad reality is that the Christmas shopping season will be upon us in a couple of months and the indications are that Apple will not be able to cover demand. That is very bad.
And many of the people who buy iPad 2's would be repeat iPad 1 buyers, further hurting supply. Unless it's a 6-7" iPad, and/or they've got a supply trick up their sleeves, I can't see why Apple would rationally replace, or even supplement, a super-popular device so close to the holiday rush. And if it were a 7" iPad, why wouldn't the device be known as "iProd 1,2"?
Originally Posted by ranum
One thing Apple seems to like is implementing the newest wi-fi protocols even before the standard has been ratified. I'm pretty sure they implemented 802.11-G and 802.11-N before either were ratified.
I've kept an eye on Wi-Fi Direct since it first made a splash several months back. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new AppleTV (iTV) implement Wi-Fi Direct technology, which allows for direct device to device wireless communication, bypassing the need for an intermediate Wi-Fi router. The awesome thing, from what I understand, is the Wi-Fi Direct capabilities can be enabled by new firmware on existing hardware and only one device needs to be Wi-Fi Direct-enabled for other devices to connect to it. A new AppleTV seems to be a relatively low-risk device on which to implement and test Wi-Fi Direct capabilities in the real world before Apple tried to implement it on desktops or other iDevices. Imagine being able to use the iPod Touch or iPhone as a remote control or game controller, etc., all wirelessly connected directly without needing the wi-fi router. I think it would be pretty cool.
1. Couldn't the same thing be done with Bluetooth?
2. 802.11g and n had been around for at least a year before Apple used it. You'd think they'd fast-track it with a few months' lead time, instead of using mature Bluetooth technology? Unlikely.