Apple can generate hype and sales any time of the year with a new product. Why would a January release surprise you? An ~$800 tablet makes a rather pricey Christmas gift anyway. It will be out when it is ready.
This is true...but January misses Xmas shopping season, and the primary reason for pulling out of Macworld was to control their own release schedule and not have to wait until after Xmas to release their biggest products.
This maneuver will boost their Q4 reports into the stratosphere like they've never been. You are also correct it will be out when ready, but if Jobs is personally cracking whips, chances are good that "ready" is right around the corner...
Oh good grief, I own a freaking Newton. Have since it was new. I was simply wondering how that name crept into this story. Thank you.
I was just havin some fun...
Being honest, I did misread you're initial quote... I had though you were saying you never heard of the Newton... which would have made my post more pertinent.
Oh well, you win some you loose some.
But having just googled it "Newton Web Tablet" has been going around on many sites some actually claiming that it's Apples internal name for a product that is being developed.. Something that we all know is flat out wrong on so many levels... Imagine Steve giving a product of his own creation a code name even remotely resembling the name Newton.... He'd sooner erect a 30' tall gold statue of Sculley with 20 carrot diamonds for his eyes and teeth.
Yea Steve might have been sick for awhile but he was never diagnosed clinically insane.
they have cut Steve giving the keynotes as part of a campaign to stop the media and pubic from thinking "Apple = Steve Jobs" because that mindset almost killed the company last year
It is a guess of mine that newly head-hunted VP of Applications David LeBolt might give this keynote. He was picked away from Avid recently and is even more charismatic a public speaker than Jobs.
For anyone who honestly thinks that launching multiple products of a new computing class and launching because of a certain time of year is more important than getting the product right you have to read that article.
I read your article, and it was fantastic. However...this rumor has been simmering for YEARS. It may well be ready. They may have been passing on burn cycles for the past three years waiting for today...no?
To the AI writers: when you mention iTunes 9, I get that you want to reiterate the rumors of social network integration. But with the launch of Snow Leopard, there are other questions that should be investigated. Is iTunes 9 64-bit? Does it hook into Quicktime X to play back movies with QTX's hardware acceleration? Is iTunes 9 representative of a backend rewrite? Is a rewrite at all on the iTunes development roadmap? Will there be any performance improvements with regards to startup and quit time, quicker loading of the library, faster scrolling in Grid view, etc?
I would rank these potential developments much higher on the importance ladder than Facebook integration (which is silly), or Last.fm integration (which is useful, but marginal.)
Darn, I was hoping that it would be on the 8th so I could still get the back to school deal with the new iPod touch
Does anyone know if I order it late on the 8th and it has not shipped by the time they announce new ones, will I get one of the new ones instead? I have heard that this sometimes works with computers but will it work with iPods as well.
iTunes 9 is not Cocoa-based, so it can't be 64-bit. N'est-ce pas?
Thus why I mention the hope of a full rewrite, ala Finder.
iTunes 9 has to have been in the works for quite a long time. I'm sure the iTunes team was aware well in advance of the direction Snow Leopard was headed. The question is, when does iTunes' development roadmap dictate a catch up?
I'm far more interested in the answer to that question than anything having to do with Facebook, Last.fm, etc.
Let me just randomly throw this into the ring... the talk on the Apple Event in September so far seems to centre on a refreshed line-up of iPods and possibly, possibly a tablet of some sort... any chance that we'll see anything new or tweaked for the macbook pros...?!?
Let me just randomly throw this into the ring... the talk on the Apple Event in September so far seems to centre on a refreshed line-up of iPods and possibly, possibly a tablet of some sort... any chance that we'll see anything new or tweaked for the macbook pros...?!?
MJ did own some beatle's tunes - perhaps most?...then eventually had to sell them to Sony during one of his bankruptcy settlements.
In the mid-80's, MJ bought the publishing rights to a varied catalog of music from a music publishing company named ATV for just under US$50 million; only 8% of the total number of songs in that catalog were Beatles songs. This is actually an unusual situation -- publishing rights are almost always held by the record companies themselves and, because they are such a cash cow, they rarely part with them. (Why would anyone sell a money tree?)
Note that publishing rights are separate from songwriter rights, which in this case have always been owned by the Beatles or their heirs (managed by Apple Records). MJ never took a dime from the Beatles themselves, he took it from what amounted to their record company.*
In the mid-90's, Sony paid MJ almost a hundred million bucks (twice what MJ had paid for ATV) to merge MJ's ATV catalog with a catalog owned by Sony. So he gave away half the future ATV royalties and doubled his money in ten years, but by transferring his ATV catalog to a company he held only 50% interest in (with Sony owning the other half) MJ protected the assets that would generate future royalty payments from annoyances like bankruptcy proceedings. Pretty slick, huh?
Now, back to Apple-land. As far as the conspiracy theories go, MJ's heart attack is a dead end (no pun intended). The only thing publishing rights really gives you is the right to cash royalty checks, and possibly is determine who can publish sheet music and lyrics. OBTW, the rights to put someone else's song on a video or on a movie soundtrack (or a video game) is covered by what are called synchronization licenses and those were historically almost never granted by Apple Records (because George Harrison felt it cheapened the music).
The rights to release a remastered set of albums on vinyl, CD or even digitally on MP3s/AACs is covered by the mechanical rights which are mostly held and managed by Apple Records (which is the Beatles and their heirs). And, until a couple of years ago, Apple Records was still run by a guy named Neil Aspinall, who was George's childhood friend. Aspinall was also the force behind the whole "Apple Corps v. Apple Computer" lawsuit, and he passed away recently.
So from a conspiracy theory perspective relative to the Beatles and iTunes, its more significant that Aspinall passed away, as he was the main impediment to having Beatles songs affiliated with anything to do with Apple Computer (and, by extension, iTunes). MJ is just a minor footnote, the royalty checks for the Beatles songs publishing rights now will be cashed by MJ's mom in trust for his kids.
Isn't the music business fun?
* Actually, that is something of a gross oversimplification, but the details aren't important to this discussion.
Comments
Apple can generate hype and sales any time of the year with a new product. Why would a January release surprise you? An ~$800 tablet makes a rather pricey Christmas gift anyway. It will be out when it is ready.
This is true...but January misses Xmas shopping season, and the primary reason for pulling out of Macworld was to control their own release schedule and not have to wait until after Xmas to release their biggest products.
This maneuver will boost their Q4 reports into the stratosphere like they've never been. You are also correct it will be out when ready, but if Jobs is personally cracking whips, chances are good that "ready" is right around the corner...
Oh good grief, I own a freaking Newton. Have since it was new. I was simply wondering how that name crept into this story. Thank you.
I was just havin some fun...
Being honest, I did misread you're initial quote... I had though you were saying you never heard of the Newton... which would have made my post more pertinent.
Oh well, you win some you loose some.
But having just googled it "Newton Web Tablet" has been going around on many sites some actually claiming that it's Apples internal name for a product that is being developed.. Something that we all know is flat out wrong on so many levels... Imagine Steve giving a product of his own creation a code name even remotely resembling the name Newton.... He'd sooner erect a 30' tall gold statue of Sculley with 20 carrot diamonds for his eyes and teeth.
Yea Steve might have been sick for awhile but he was never diagnosed clinically insane.
Dave
9.9.9 is the last day in all of our lifetimes that can be represented with three digits.
Not if you use Roman numerals... IX-IX-MMIX.
they have cut Steve giving the keynotes as part of a campaign to stop the media and pubic from thinking "Apple = Steve Jobs" because that mindset almost killed the company last year
It is a guess of mine that newly head-hunted VP of Applications David LeBolt might give this keynote. He was picked away from Avid recently and is even more charismatic a public speaker than Jobs.
Not if you use Roman numerals... IX-IX-MMIX.
and, alternately, X-X-X next October 10th
For anyone who hasn?t read it here is a fascinating article as to how and why the modern Apple works the way it does under Jobs.
? http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/3533.html
For anyone who honestly thinks that launching multiple products of a new computing class and launching because of a certain time of year is more important than getting the product right you have to read that article.
I read your article, and it was fantastic. However...this rumor has been simmering for YEARS. It may well be ready. They may have been passing on burn cycles for the past three years waiting for today...no?
I would rank these potential developments much higher on the importance ladder than Facebook integration (which is silly), or Last.fm integration (which is useful, but marginal.)
Is iTunes 9 64-bit?
iTunes 9 is not Cocoa-based, so it can't be 64-bit. N'est-ce pas?
Does anyone know if I order it late on the 8th and it has not shipped by the time they announce new ones, will I get one of the new ones instead? I have heard that this sometimes works with computers but will it work with iPods as well.
and, alternately, X-X-X next October 10th
I'm sure you meant November 10, 2010...
iTunes 9 is not Cocoa-based, so it can't be 64-bit. N'est-ce pas?
How do you know that it won?t be full Cocoa?
iTunes 9 is not Cocoa-based, so it can't be 64-bit. N'est-ce pas?
Thus why I mention the hope of a full rewrite, ala Finder.
iTunes 9 has to have been in the works for quite a long time. I'm sure the iTunes team was aware well in advance of the direction Snow Leopard was headed. The question is, when does iTunes' development roadmap dictate a catch up?
I'm far more interested in the answer to that question than anything having to do with Facebook, Last.fm, etc.
If the new iPods don't come with built-in laser beams so I can vanquish my enemies, I'm not getting one.
Happy waiting for the year 2050 then..
Let me just randomly throw this into the ring... the talk on the Apple Event in September so far seems to centre on a refreshed line-up of iPods and possibly, possibly a tablet of some sort... any chance that we'll see anything new or tweaked for the macbook pros...?!?
No. We'll see that in January.
No. We'll see that in January.
But will we have a 13"matte before then to make the Pro line whole?
But will we have a 13"matte before then to make the Pro line whole?
We'll see what Apple will announce in January.
start the conspiracy theories
MJ did own some beatle's tunes - perhaps most?...then eventually had to sell them to Sony during one of his bankruptcy settlements.
MJ did own some beatle's tunes - perhaps most?...then eventually had to sell them to Sony during one of his bankruptcy settlements.
In the mid-80's, MJ bought the publishing rights to a varied catalog of music from a music publishing company named ATV for just under US$50 million; only 8% of the total number of songs in that catalog were Beatles songs. This is actually an unusual situation -- publishing rights are almost always held by the record companies themselves and, because they are such a cash cow, they rarely part with them. (Why would anyone sell a money tree?)
Note that publishing rights are separate from songwriter rights, which in this case have always been owned by the Beatles or their heirs (managed by Apple Records). MJ never took a dime from the Beatles themselves, he took it from what amounted to their record company.*
In the mid-90's, Sony paid MJ almost a hundred million bucks (twice what MJ had paid for ATV) to merge MJ's ATV catalog with a catalog owned by Sony. So he gave away half the future ATV royalties and doubled his money in ten years, but by transferring his ATV catalog to a company he held only 50% interest in (with Sony owning the other half) MJ protected the assets that would generate future royalty payments from annoyances like bankruptcy proceedings. Pretty slick, huh?
Now, back to Apple-land. As far as the conspiracy theories go, MJ's heart attack is a dead end (no pun intended). The only thing publishing rights really gives you is the right to cash royalty checks, and possibly is determine who can publish sheet music and lyrics. OBTW, the rights to put someone else's song on a video or on a movie soundtrack (or a video game) is covered by what are called synchronization licenses and those were historically almost never granted by Apple Records (because George Harrison felt it cheapened the music).
The rights to release a remastered set of albums on vinyl, CD or even digitally on MP3s/AACs is covered by the mechanical rights which are mostly held and managed by Apple Records (which is the Beatles and their heirs). And, until a couple of years ago, Apple Records was still run by a guy named Neil Aspinall, who was George's childhood friend. Aspinall was also the force behind the whole "Apple Corps v. Apple Computer" lawsuit, and he passed away recently.
So from a conspiracy theory perspective relative to the Beatles and iTunes, its more significant that Aspinall passed away, as he was the main impediment to having Beatles songs affiliated with anything to do with Apple Computer (and, by extension, iTunes). MJ is just a minor footnote, the royalty checks for the Beatles songs publishing rights now will be cashed by MJ's mom in trust for his kids.
Isn't the music business fun?
* Actually, that is something of a gross oversimplification, but the details aren't important to this discussion.
MJ did own some beatle's tunes - perhaps most?...then eventually had to sell them to Sony during one of his bankruptcy settlements.
Let's get back on topic.. no MJ stuff here please..