Sony adopts, then drops, Cocoa-like GNUStep plans to rival Apple iOS - Page 2

If Nokia goes with Win7, I will be encouraged to keep my Apple stock. :-)

Outside of the Columbia Pictures vault, what technology or product does Sony have that sets it apart from other competing companies?

Then just shut it down completely. That makes more sense.

The products are worthless to Apple. I was trying to save what might have had some worth.

One thing (as I just said in a previous post) is this division: http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/home.do

sony world wide media content is great for apple
and sony could use some hot cocoa
so why not a limited partnership

9

I don't think they have the market share they once had back in the Betacam days. I switched to Canon several years ago. If you watch professional sports you might get a glimpse of the cameras and you'll see most are not Sony anymore. I don't know what boards they are using in the truck but I see Sony losing ground in this division as well.

Isn't Symbian actually Nokia's own OS already? And didn't they just finish pushing all the open source goons out of the club in preparation for some serious in house development?

It seems more likely to me, that rather than dropping Symbian, Nokia is preparing to run with it as their main OS and modernise it for smart-phones.

That's kind of sad. I loved all the pro Sony gear during my TV production days. I only sold my BetacamSP deck a couple of years ago ... or so i seems

Bullshit. The Apple TV, at just $99, is a fantastic value for anyone who has an extensive iTunes-based media collection. It also is the best living room player for Youtube and the best living room player for streaming NetFlix. What it IS NOT... is a DVR or a kitchen sink media player. If that's what you need and you don't need the Apple TV for what it is, then the Apple TV is not for you. But to say it's a poor value device in general is just plain stupid.

Look, I hate Sony as much as the next schlub, especially after they broke the original PS3's optical drive motor with a firmware release and then decided with another firmware release to kill my Linux partition. Yes, Sony hates their customers. Yes, they stick to overpricing proprietary formats that no one else will license, and yet why all this hate? You would think they were partnering with Google or something

I agree 100%. BTW Anyone know how to rename an ATV so my old one and new one don't show up with same name in multiple speaker dialog?

Cant you just click the name in iTunes and rename it?

Neither of mine show up anymore in the Device section, I assumed this was due to using Home Sharing but that was a guess, I was surprised when they were not there. They both stream perfectly.

VERY interesting also...

My only gripe (and this may be me missing something of course) is that home sharing isn't allowed by all members of a family MobileMe at same time. As it is only one account can be used to home share at any one time and with multiple ATVs it would be nice to allow all.

Ah. In the AppleTV go to Settings » General » Name.

Just like Motorola, who has always been bad in software development. MOT (and Sony) missed out on not buying Palm -- HP made a smart move, now both MOT and Sony are without their own smartphone OS that is up to task with iOS...

They might be a better purchase - lots of IP

???

Sony's a horribly run company that squandered their position as a great CE company by becoming undisciplined and unfocused. It's not hate to see them as a bad acquisition candidate, or to belittle them for their hubris.

Anyone who's been buying electronics for any length of time looks at Sony and just shakes their head. The customer hating and proprietary formats are just icing on the cake, although again, for anyone who's dealt with them for more than a few years, it puts a little edge into one's perception.

Just noticed this little jewel:



Included in a bundle with lots of goodies -- only $58,000 per...

http://www.electronista.com/articles...ot.the.hobbit/

Red has been making some impressive advancements on the art at unprecedented price points.

But they have to swim upstream against several factors-- the motion picture industry is extremely conservative when it comes to technology, camera vendors have relationships with production people and rental houses going back many years, and there are lots of bits that have to work together (the ecosystem) that favor the incumbents. Red is also seen as a bit of a cowboy outfit, and people on set just want predictability, reliability and on call service with instant turn around.

So that for instance the Arri Alexa, while in some ways not as technologically advanced as the newest Epic cameras from Red, will probably enjoy better uptake through the industry, because of name recognition and a seamless transition.

OTOH, if Red can ever stop making tweaks and improvements and start shipping product, the Epic does bode to be a pretty major game changer, and I believe there are more A list directors than in the past that are ready, willing and able to use the latest tech to achieve their vision. So we'll see.

Personally, I'm more interested in the lower cost Scarlet line, which was originally intended to be price competitive with some of the Prosumer HD camcorders out there, while delivering vastly better quality-- like getting a high end DSLR for point and shoot money. However, that project too has been subject to endless revisions and price creep. If Red can sell a fixed lens, 2/3" sensor 3K camera for around $8,000, ready to shoot (so including battery, display, etc.) then that's a pretty big deal. Not as big as the original "3K for 3K" idea, but big nevertheless.

When I saw the pic I was going to mention Peter Jackson’s use of it, but I see you beat me to it. I really want a RED ONE camera. I keep debating on if it’s worth wasting my money on. So far, reason is winning.


edit: I’ll likely buy a RED SCARLET should they ever start selling that slated price point.

I'm still happy with my Panny HDC-SD1 12x Optical zoom from 2-3 years ago. Great Video and pics.

Big problem is that an 8GB SDHC uncompresses to about 57 GB of Video @ 1440 × 1080. On my current iMac it takes about 2 hrs to decompress.

I have about 15 TBytes of HDD storage dedicated to Home movie clips, FCS Projects, iMovie Projects, etc. No Backup on any of this, except copies of the original 8GB HDSC cards.

I want, no need, a Home Server/Cloud Backup solution.

well, i see now from these good comments that Sony has just too much "baggage" for Apple to buy it.

but the holy grail in the pivotal battle for the consumer living room is a single unit that does everything important so you don't have to connect several boxes together and juggle inputs and settings - which most consumers still can't figure out. plus we all hate all those damn messy cables and wires.

Apple builds excellent monitors now up to 27" and so could certainly make a TV with good speakers and AppleTV built in. i bet we will see this by Fall 2011.

with iTunes/NetFlix streaming, DVD players are no longer necessary. but that still is missing the CATV and DVR components that are essential for many. which TiVo does best independent of the cablecos, and with patent control.

but without an iTunes store for revenue, TiVo has to charge a hefty subscription fee in addition to its purchase price, which leaves it no competitive price advantage vs. a cableco CATV DVR. and TiVo has no bigger ecosystem or big marketing machine to help sales either. so it is struggling despite having a nifty product - even its new iPad app is very nice.

which is why i think Apple should buy TiVo, which certainly could be bought cheap now. and build all this into an Apple big screen TV. That would be a breakthrough product. with no subscription fee, consumers will pay a premium price for it.

someone commented the TiVo patents would not matter to Apple. are you kidding? with all the patent lawsuits these days? of course Apple would love to have those proven patents. because while TiVo does not have the muscle to take on the cablecos and everyone else in court or in the market, Apple does.

Sony's first smart decision in recent memory. Kill the project now before it leads to complete and lasting embarrassment.

Oh Sweet. Thank you.

Exactly. I'm trying to figure out what Apple gains by buying Sony. Maybe some patents, some engineering talent... but really, in the grand scheme, big deal. The negatives with Sony (i.e., their quality control, which for the last decade has sucked) far outweigh the positives.

"proprietary formats"? you mean kinda like Apple uses?
they are both control freak companies but sony is run by the mindless while apple has its wizards.

No. Not remotely. What proprietary formats do you associate with Apple?


Out of all the things that have been mentioned, I have no idea why you think "control freak" is an interesting or relevant point of comparison.

If anything, Sony could have used a great deal more of Apple's capacity to not do things. In fact, you could make the case that Apple is Sony with the ability to say "no."

From what I hear about the company's internal dynamics, you're 100% correct.

I am sorry but where is the real meat in this story or... news?

It basically just retold the story of Apple Software history.

Sony Computer Entertainment?

The article deals with more than just Apple. What I got from it was historical comparisons and contrasts between Sony and Apple as their software development evolved, highlighting the successes, failures, and different paths taken. It's had a major role in the success of Apple and how Sony has languished in recent years.

Sony has been blamed, I think, for more than its fair share of management and strategy mistakes, when much of their decline can be traced to fate and how evolving technologies, product innovations and customer tastes turn yesterday's stars into today's artifacts. Two decades ago, the model for the electronics leaders was to own both the technology and the manufacturing capability. The Japanese model of owning manufacturing internationally turned into a millstone for Sony with the rise of contract manufacturing capability in Third World and developing nations. So much costly plant and equipment in place led to Sony's reluctance to abandon or write down these operations and the products they made. Sony was a cutting edge maker of $5000+ flat screen TVs in 2004 - before the flood of cheaper sets from China and Southeast Asia knocked the pins out from what Sony expected would be massive profits.

We still need and buy TVs, entertainment systems, gaming devices, computers and the like, but the nature of the hardware business has fundamentally changed to one of razor-thin margins. Apple is one of the few hardware exceptions, developing products with unique functions that consumers perceive as offering greater value, therefore commanding higher prices and greater margins. Apple is not encumbered with plant and equipment that the next big game-changer could turn into white elephants.

So Sony is stuck, along with all the other veteran brands like Panasonic, Toshiba, Mitsubishi, etc. I would hate to see Sony diminish or disappear. Sony continues to be my hardware brand of choice for flat screens and audio systems (speakers excepted), just as Apple is our household's main source for gear that handles and distributes entertainment content home and away. Sony's product line is shrinking, however. We recently bought a 40-inch Sony HDTV to replace a 2004 flat screen that cost five times as much, but we were unable to find a 19-inch Sony for the kitchen. They've trimmed their TV line to 22 inches and larger, so we ended up buying a 19-inch Samsung that fit our space requirements.

Insofar as consumer electronics is concerned, there's no possible way that Apple could ever "turn Sony's business around" to generate margins remotely approaching what Apple makes from its existing products. I would hate to see Sony acquired by Apple. All the effort required to nurse such a sick puppy would only divert Apple management's attention from doing what Apple does best.

This is very interesting. I really want to know why it was put on hold... maybe they are in legal discussions with Apple. It would be cool if this starts back up, but I have no idea where this is going. Most likely it has to do with the fact that languages that use static typing are difficult to program for complex gestures and implicit animation (Core Animation). Most other dynamic programming languages are scripting languages and not well suited for a mobile device. I wonder if they have a particular product in mind for this though.

This reminds me of when Sony announced that they were trying to get permission to run OS X as a secondary operating system on the PS3.

Now that is a SNAP judgment.

Ok, forget about Sony. Apple should buy Microsoft and then announce that they are discontinuing Windows.

I know I'm dreaming. The anti-trust people would never allow it, but it would be so sweet.

RED vs. WEBBIE



Who in their right mind would buy a RED? Especially when you can buy 580 Webbies for the price of a single RED!

It really doesn't matter what Tim and Steve did in the past, they don't have the chops to reorganize a foreign enity like Sony. There are all sorts of issues like cultural barriers, a foriegn legal system and the pull of talent away from Apple just when they are going through dramatic upheavals at Apple. Nothing has demonstrated that Apples current team has what it takes to reform Sony.

They turned the company around quickly but that to me wasn't a big achievement, but rather sound management. What has made the difference is having a vision to take Apple in new directions. Be it the iPod, iTunes or iPhone they created new business where there was none.

Well Apple could use a division or two but as a whole Sony is a dieing company. The management effort required to turn it into a viable organization again is outside of Apples reach. A comPlete take over would spread the staff too thin.

I wouldn't be surprised if Steve would agree with me. It is more or less the reason for the sale of Pixar to Disney. Anything they buy has to quickly adapt to the Apple way. Part of that implies adding to Apple with minimal fuss.

With this I can agree.


This makes absolutely no sense to me. There are many companies out there with sound management and yet they didnt grow phenomenally through recessions and get pulled from the brink of death to be the largest technology company in the world.

Take RiM, for example, great management which has allows them to hold their own, but they are still being taken down by the rest of the industry. Management alone doesnt pay the bills for very long.


So its more than just management, its also vision and engineering. BTW, Every single one of the product types you mention existed by other vendors in some way before Apple got in the mix and how quickly we forget that the iPhone was doomed because it was entering an entrenched market.



i dont know where you think Apple could be divided into smaller companies and still be able to offer the integration that makes Apples products what they are. I suppose Mac and iDevices, but why? What monopoly would that shatter? How would that benefit the customer?

As for Sony, there are parts that are faltering, but they are far from dying.


I dont get what Pixar being sold to Disney has to do with Apple buying companies. Are you saying Jobs sold Pixar to Disney because he couldnt integrate into Apple with minimal fuss?

No matter what you think of Sony and Apple's synergy potentials, but the people who say Sony is a bad buy because it's down, they don't understand anything about investing or M&A businesses.

You buy companies that are down, and that you can thus get for comparatively little money.
Apple now is a SHITTY buy, because you'd overpay. Apple when it was about to go belly up was a great buy.

You buy companies or better BRANDs, based on what hard assets they have, what brand recognition they have, and how little you have to pay for it. You buy them based on your strategy for the future, and what they could do for that strategy, not based on what they do now.

Apple has a brand. The problem is, you can't stretch a brand too wide, or people don't get the brand anymore. Why do you think Audi, VW, Porsche, Skoda, Seat produce cars based on the same chassis? Because they target different markets. VW failed in the US with the Phaeton while Audi does just fine with the A8, because in the US VW isn't perceived as an up-market brand. In Europe, VW has moved upmarket, so the VAG company has Seat and Skoda to fill the lower market brackets.

Now back to Apple: Apple constantly fights with content providers. Between the sway Apple has with Disney (which IMO they should just buy) and Sony's Columbia, they would have enough pull to get the rest to fall in line.
Apple also has a good image for quality, but not so much for professional tools.
Apple could have bought SUN for the pro-IT markets, Sony for the AV market, and sit in the middle as glue and parent.
Sony could serve as a launch-pad for licensing MacOS and iOS to third parties that doesn't threaten Apple's survival, by smoothing the transition (hardware profits are still going back to the same source), while broadening the reach.

Sony may have enough hard assets (manufacturing, real-estate, patents, etc.) that make the company interesting regardless of operating profits, if the price is right.

In short, there are many angles under which an acquisition can work. It's not a matter of if Sony is a good or bad deal, it's a matter where Apple wants to go, what markets it wants to pursue in the future or which it wants to abandon, which markets will hurt if Apple stretches its brand over ever more product categories, etc. It's not a matter of Sony, but a matter of the future you envision for Apple as a company or as a holding company, that decides if a purchase is meaningful or not.

Sony is in a way exactly in the state you want a take-over target to be: hurt, so the price is depressed, but not beyond repair, i.e. there is a potential for massive profit if you turn things around. A company that's doing well is a bad take-over target, because it's too expensive, and a company that's failing will crush you like a falling bank-safe you trying to catch.