Apple plans mystery "product transition" before September's end - Page 18

Eek.

That is all. Continue

Holy crap.. wait wait. SEPTEMBER????? BY SEPTEMBER'S END???? Guys/Gals... that is the key. Look at the date today. That's a 60 day 'transition'. What product(s) would even be able to do this?

Okay... I just solved the riddle. And it's anti-climactic. In fact.. I'm amazed nobody here has said it yet in simple terms. Of course if I'm wrong I'd look stupid so I'll just savor the secret knowledge and leave you to solve it yourself... unless I'm wrong in which case I only look stupid NOW instead of THEN.

_NUM

Dawg: In previous posts I speculated as follows:


Was I getting warm? If not, is it something similar: i.e., a dedicated chip that is invulnerable to hacking?

Yikes, how'd that get there? Maybe I was thinking "what Apple needs is." Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what happened. Thanks.

However, isn't your second apostrophe rule wrong?

An example from wikipedia:

My sisters' friends' investments (the investments belonging to several friends of several of my sisters)

This issue I have is that there's limited space available in signatures.

What the second rule means is that a straight-up plural doesn't have an apostrophe.

i.e., the plural of "car" is "cars" not "car's"; the plural of "MacBook Pro" is "MacBook Pros" (or perhaps "MacBooks Pro" ) not "MacBook Pro's"

Right. Hmm, but sometimes I'll see people use them in...years, i.e. with the 1990s, they'll put 1990's, or usually, '90's. I leave off the apostrophe-s.

Indeed. You are correct, you shouldn't use an apostrophe in that case. It should be 1990s or '90s (the first apostrophe to indicate the missing "19").

1990's means "belonging to the year 1990", so if for example there was some music fad in 1990 you wanted to refer to, you might want to say "1990's music fad".

Good, because otherwise I would have been in the wrong for years.

I think we may be thinking the same thing. Software. iLife, iWork and/or MobileMe upgrade/pricedrop. Is there anything in the quotes that say that this must be hardware related?

Roger-as for the idea of rental software, I can give you a definitive answer: NO. Motorola makes no such chip, and the idea of creating one would be ludicrous. The thing would be hacked(just like everything else). Plus, Steve Jobs HATES renting (iTMS - software, just like music is something people commonly use).

As for dedicated encryption chips, any vector processor can do that (ie: Cell and CUDA ). Detection of malware on the hardware side is also extremely difficult due to the evolving nature of malware.

Also, a chip invulnerable to hacking: that MIGHT, and I stress, MIGHT be possible in our lifetimes(im talking about something on the VLSI scale), but you can always guarantee that other parts of the system will not be so invulnerable. Creating a 100% hack proof system is not something that will ever be done in our lifetimes, if ever.

As far as Motorola goes, I still fail to see anything they could possibly offer. Perhaps some more research could dig it up. Is someone up to googling the past 2-3 years of Motorola press announcements to look for signs of a product that might help Apple? I do know that Apple makes some of their clients hush up about some of their technologies. You might have to look through cached websites.

Blutnerd: If software like iWork or a service like Mobile were provided free to new buyers, that would be something the cloners couldn't match. It would lower the price umbrella on them. In those two respects it would match what that Apple exec said. Plus, of course, it would be something that would be easier to keep secret than a hardware upgrade, and easier to implement quickly.

OTOH, if that's all it is, why not do it immediately? For that reason, I think something else is involved--possibly bundled third-party software that isn't quite ready yet.

Uh, both of those examples - iWork and MobileMe - are provided free to new buyers through 30 day trial periods. The competition, mainly Microsoft's Office and Exchange, can't match either of Apple's more consumer oriented alternatives on ease of use, let alone price.

Apple's a hardware company, most of their software is sold for shareware prices: $80 for iWork (a measly $40 if you get a student discount), $100/year for MobileMe is rather reasonable, and shoot, Mac OS X can be had for $130 ($70 w/ student discount).

It could also be related to iTunes pricing. For example (and I am aware that this scenario is not terribly likely) a move to all DRM-free music in the iTunes store, for which Apple had to agree to take a smaller piece of the sale price, could be categorized as a product transition. It would affect the profits, as they would make less money on each sale, but presumably, this would be temporary as it would be back up once volume increases. Less profit per song sold but more songs sold over time should equal same profit. I am of course assuming here that the cost of actually selling a song is negligable at this point.

This would help shut out rivals seeing how iTunes, dominant though it may be, is not immune to the DRM-free music store at Amazon for example. It would also fit in with the "price umbrella" that was mentioned.

You could of course replace "music" with "TV shows" or "Movies" in the above example and build a similar argument. I'm not about to argue that this is what it has to be, but I think it shows that focusing solely on hardware could lead to some dissapointment.

You could be on to something here. Not with the music side of it though; we already know that the music side of iTunes has very low margins as it is (at least, so Apple has always explicitly claimed in conference calls and the like, and I believe it's a criminal offense for them to lie like that to investors.)

On the movie side though, I'm not sure they've ever been so explicit. The margins are probably higher, but I'm not sure that their volumes are large enough to affect Apple's overall margins to the extent Apple has predicted.

One last thing is as someone mentioned earlier, if this "transition" is software based rather than hardware based, why the wait? Surely Apple could do it straight away.

Could it not be that Apple might switch to a subscription based service for iTunes as opposed to a single price per item service? That would probably lower their profit margins quite significantly, and given iTunes current status, pretty much sweep the rest of the competition under the rug.

I wouldn't say switch. They could offer a subscription service similar to eMusic and I've heard it rumored that Apple might do such a thing by asking for one large lump sum with the purchase of an iPod that would give buyers unlimited access to the iTunes Store.

That's interesting and it probably wouldn't hurt Apple's margins very much. I suspect that most iPod owners buy 3-4 songs from the store and then go back to ripping CDs or downloading the old fashioned way. ITunes probably has a pretty small base of regular, repeat customers.

Yeah I, for one, would gladly pay an extra $100 or so whenever I buy a new iPod or iPhone to get free access to iTunes' large and easy to navigate catalog than having to save up for every single song or album. I probably have more iTunes-bought music than the average person because I've been given a lot of those iTunes gift cards for whatever reason. Most iPod owners only have 5-10 iTunes songs. A subscription service would be a nice option, though I'd still want the ability to buy things a la carte if they patterned it more off eMusic's subscriptions that only give you a set amount of downloads per month or per year.

Ok, a few points to make here:

1) This thread is getting waaay of topic. If you read the OP, it clearly states that it will have "technologies and features that others can't match." Subscription based music sales already exist. Oppenheimer also alluded to Apple not wanting to "leave a margin so high that it creates an "umbrella" for competitors to rest under in terms of price." Music, movies, other items of low price don't really fit this description. People are still gonna buy music if they make it 20-30c more (think iTunes +). We're most likely talking $100s of dollars here people. I would thus say that whatever Apple debuts will be a hardware device. Of what nature, I can't say, but it will definitely not be a commodity such as music or movies.

2) Steve Jobs has gone on the record saying he hates subscription based music. If you don't believe me, Google "Steve Jobs subscription music" or something similar.

3) Subscription based music systems don't work. Look at what happened to Microsoft and Yahoo.

4) What ever happend to Junkyard Dawg? All quiet on the western front I suppose.

They already believe current products have technologies and features that others can't match. So who's to really say the updates are of any real technological significance. As usual, I doubt the answer will live up to the hype the fanboys feed it.

Nobody was suggesting a DRM rental service like all the failed PlaysForSure WMA stores - Napster 2.0, Rhapsody, and recently, Yahoo - which Jobs was referring to. Have you heard of eMusic? Do you understand how they do subscriptions? You pay like $10/month for 30 downloads, as in DRM-free MP3 files. If you kill your subscription, the MP3s you downloaded obviously don't disappear off your computer. eMusic even keeps a record of what you've downloaded online and allows you to re-download things as many times as you want. eMusic's the only really successful subscription-based music service and only offers around 2 million tracks from indie artists, not to mention it's browser-based store is nowhere near as user friendly as iTunes.

Apple could easily offer their own subscription service, as has been rumored, which would be like a $100-$200 premium you pay when buying a new iPod or iPhone that would give you unlimited access to the iTunes Store. They'd still have a la carte music buying, I wasn't even considering all the other media. Or they could simply offer a monthly or annual fee like eMusic, but obviously you'd have over 4 million more songs to choose from.

I discussed this before quite a while ago in a different thread. The issue here is the use of the word "subscription" without qualification. eMusic has a purchase subscription model, where those other services you mentioned are more accurately described as rental subscription services. It irks me that those services are nearly always described as "subscription" without the "rental" qualification; it means that many people think "subscription" always means rental when it comes to music services. Then, when you want to refer to a purchase subscription service like eMusic's, you have to explain how music purchase subscription works despite the fact you would have thought people should understand it given that magazine subscriptions don't seem to confuse people. When your magazine subscription ends, you don't have to give the magazines back, likewise with eMusic when your subscription ends you don't have to give the music back / you don't lose access to the music.

All that having been said, I don't envision Apple introducing either type of subscription model for music. It would be nice if they introduced a rental subscription model on the movie side of things though.

Going back to the Ipod debate. I do believe that apple will introduce a 64gb ipod touch, get rid of the 8gb and have 16gb, 32gb and 64gb.

I don't see any reason to why they couldn't put the touch interface onto a 80gb or 160gb classic, but i suppose that would be getting rid of the classic altogether.

This is most probably not the key product transaction, but instead the Mac Tablet that has been rumoured for so many years.

Making OS X a much more mainstream product and making it a usable product on a PC, in my opinion, could be a big mistake for apple. People, and i mean not the apple fan-boys or tech geeks like ourselves, much prefer something that they recognise and have been brought up with. I believe Windows is in a too good of a position for Apple to even compete.

I vote new 64gb Touch and Mac Tablet.

One of the commenters on the Macworld site suggested that Macs will incorporate a TV tuner to allow every Mac to become a DVR. The same cable that supplies the Internet could supply the TV. (Curiously, none of the subsequent commenters on that Macworld thread took note of what he'd said.)

This would fit Dawg's description of being something that will seem obvious after it's announced. And it would fit Motorola (I'm assuming they make TV tuners).

Well, even if this isn't what Apple is going to do, it's something they should consider doing--along with several other speculations made here.

Apple's trying to compete and/or kill cable TV with iTunes TV shows, not give it a helping hand. There are already third party devices and software that allow this. For the minority of people who want such a thing, they can likely figure out how to use those things. Don't expect Apple to back a dying business.

Yeah, it's irritating, though I guess the most current subscription model people are familiar with is Netflix and very few music stores offer what eMusic does.

EDIT
eMusic today hit 4 million tracks.


I sure would appreciate it, but even though Jobs probably has no beef with eMusic's model, he might recognize it's a strange concept for some. As long as it was optional though, it would be a nice addition. What's annoying about eMusic and caused me to kill my free trial is what happens when you reach your download limit for the month: no more music. Want more music, you've gotta increase your plan to $20/month or something. While avid music fans might not mind, people with less time on their hands can easily go a month without downloading more than a few songs.

What I thought Apple could do is make it a strictly prepaid affair, meaning you pay $10 for 30 downloads and you're done. No monthly fee to worry about, or time limit. But isn't that impossible? The reason eMusic can offer what it does is because it's a subscription, right? That's why it seems like Apple would do it on a yearly basis at a higher price, say $100-$200 for one year of complete, unlimited access to the music store. Regardless of which model they went for, if your subscription time ran out or you used up all your pre-paid downloads, you'd still have access to iTunes in normal a la carte mode. It'd be one of the only stores to offer both models.

I was a member during an extended period of time off from university, so I never had a problem using my allocation. However, I'm sure when I was a member, if you went over your allowance you could buy an "extension pack" for that month only. i.e., if your subscription was $15 and you hit your limit in a given month, you could buy a further 20 tracks for $10 or something like that. Then the next month, you'd be charged your normal $15. Don't they have extension packs any more?


As you mentioned earlier, a lot of people won't have time to use up all of their monthly download allowance and that's what eMusic relies upon to make money. I'm sure the prices and allowances have been carefully fine-tuned to get this just right.

That'd be nice, but I actually see Netflix coming to Apple TV before Apple would create their own iTunes subscription movie service. As you're probably aware, Netflix has a digital movie streaming service in addition to their DVD rentals, the latter costing them dearly. While they released a set-top-box for streaming their catalog of 10,000 movies (largely made up of older and obscure titles, with few new releases), their Instant Watch service seems a better fit for more advanced devices like the Apple TV, Vudu, Microsoft's Xbox 360 (it was recently announced the Netflix service was coming to the Xbox 360 through a software update), and even Blu-ray players (LG's BD-300, a BD player, will include the service).

In its current state, Instant Watch isn't as great as it sounds. While 10,000 movies and tv shows are available, they aren't browse-able through either that $100 Roku box, that Blu-ray player, nor the 360. You have to search through Netflix in a web browser on a computer and set up a small Instant Queue, which then syncs with the set-top-box. The movies are not downloaded to internal hard storage, so they have to buffer right off the internet, which makes rewinding and fast forwarding time consuming and more importantly, drops the visual quality based on your connection speed, making the already less-than-DVD-quality video worse. Also, when the service debuts on the 360, not only will you be paying the $10/month to Netflix, but it's locked into Xbox Live Gold memberships, which cost $50/year.

Apple is in a position to make such a service better with the Apple TV. First, they could work with Netflix to make all titles browse-able from the couch, rather than requiring set up on a computer (which Apple has tried to eliminate with the Apple TV's 2.0 software update at Macworld). They could potentially get Netflix to make the videos downloadable to the hard drive, rather than streaming straight off the internet. It would be yet another content channel on the Apple TV like the YouTube viewer, flickr and MobileMe photo album portals. You'd simply pay Netflix the $10 per month (with no annual charge like the Xbox). The best thing they could do for the Apple TV, though, would be DVD viewing. While they are certainly pushing digital distribution, they could enable those sleek $100 external SuperDrives (the ones that are optional for MacBook Air buyers) to connect and play DVDs through the Apple TV's user friendly UI by simply porting Mac OS X's existing DVD Player application. This would offer people a more gradual transition and allow Netflix subscribers to watch digital movies free in addition to DVDs sent through the mail.

Yeah, that's right. Or at least, I believe they still have those.

Even so, what if I just want a few songs here, an album there. That's why an a la carte "base" to fall back on would be ideal, at least with iTunes.

Why doesn't anyone discuss the notion that a Mac Tablet would need its own SDK and/or rebranding of iPhone OS to OS X Touch or something else?

Leopard-but-with-your-fingers sounds terrible to use.

Could the 'transition' refer to LED backlit displays?

I doubt Apple sell anywhere near the volume of screens necessary to affect their margins as they're predicting.

Well considering their most popular line of computers has the screen built right into it, I'm sure it would have a fairly significant effect!

Oops, good point. Sorry. I was thinking he was referring to the recent rumours about the cinema displays and not thinking about the iMacs and MacBooks, doh!

So yes, it could be LED backlights.

The MBA & 15" MBP already have LED backlighting. While bringing it to the other notebooks Apple makes would be nice, I don't think its a product transition.

So, are you saying you don't think MacBooks will be getting LED backlit displays, or are you saying you don't consider doing such a thing qualifies as a "product transition?"

I mean, Apple wouldn't simply switch out the MacBook's old cathode displays for new LED backlit displays and call it a day. But moving to LED is part of Apple's environmental promise and considering their entire laptop line either features LED backlit displays standard (MacBook Air and 15" MacBook Pro) or as an option (17" MacBook Pro), it makes logical sense they'd give the MacBook one as well to essentially finish the transition on the laptop side of things. With the MacBook and MacBook Air using basically the exact same 13" screen, it's only a matter of time.

I should have been more precise. I have no doubt that the next line of MB/MBPs will have LED backlights. On the other hand, I don't believe such a transition qualifies as a product transition.

Mac Minis with "Atom Inside": Half the size, half the price!

My guess:

No new Macbooks in time for those going to college to get a new model and a free iPod.

September 15 free iPod promotion ends, new Macbooks introduced immediately after, no free iPod's.

New Macbooks, iPods, better, cheaper, but no one is unhappy because they got a free iPod.

Impossible to introduce new better, cheaper models any other way.

You say this on an Apple forum. Believe me, there will be bitching.