to reply to my own post. it's not tracking ads, but rather flurry had analytics that developers can ad to their own apps that reports back to flurry as the apps are launched. This is for developers to track the usage of their own apps, but certainly could tell Flurry about new devices running those same apps.
But, again, this tracking would be limited to the existing apps this analyltics is installed on, thus their tracking wouldn't tell you anything about new apps, like a potential iWorks touch.
I didn't read anything about new unpublished app in the article. What Flurry is saying here is that their tracking logs are showing the tablet running iPhone OS 3.2 and using already existing App Store apps. They also provided a category breakdown of the apps used by the tablet as shown in their logs.
so how does a 3rd party firm track what applications are being downloaded to these devices and what API are they using to ask what kind of device it is?
If apps are being downloaded, aren't they coming from the Apple iTunes store to the Apple campus?
I tend to agree. It does make sense though that "the number of apps in use," which is what Flurry said it was measuring, would skew more toward games and entertainment since games are said to be a big focus of the presentation on Wednesday.
The current version is 3.1.2 right? So 3.2 is an unreleased version? It's unreleased and it could be ANYTHING. Maybe, because Apple knows it's being tracked, maybe that's just a place holder and then on Wed, the version will be renamed 4.0 Not sure why there's so much freaking out here, wasn't it said ages ago that the tablet would be running on a version of the iPhone OS and not OSX ? This in no way limits would the new version could be capable of....Personally, top on my essential's list is a fullsized on screen keyboard. Would be so cool to do all email and web surfing on such a portable device.
Correct. And again, I really believe this company just made it up. Everyone is doing it attitude, for a little publicity.
He also says his terms & conditions prevent them from providing any actual evidence, just their word should good enough.
Good grief.
Their terms of service & condition prevent them from releasing the name of the apps that uses their services. It is up to the developer to disclose if their app uses tracking and analytical tools.
If that's true AND IT COST $999 this will result in Elic fail.
One giant iPod touch with iPhoto and iPhone OS does not sound innovative at all.
Plus the company doing this leaks the info? No way. This is just part of Apples epic marketing technique for FREE PRESS then followed by a real working ipad, facial, iWork and innovative. Classic Apple publicity stunt. If true though man, this won't be good. It will start making me wondering about the vaporware courier.
Apple has all along been making incremental upgrades. The iPod morphed into the Touch/iPhone. Every new version ups the ante and the next thing you know Apple is leading a particular category. Sometimes items that are separate products wind up being pieces of a system that in concert produce a class-leading device. For instance, iTunes and the App Store are an important element in the Touch/iPhone's success.
Maybe on Wednesday Apple unveils a giant iPod Touch, hopefully priced accordingly, but it's only a first step towards something bigger, just as the iPod led to the Touch which led to the iPhone. This incremental approach makes sense if the intention is to have a successful business model. It's not so much about bringing out something that impresses with its innovation because an innovative product will fail if it lacks the infrastructure to be useful to the consumer. Content for the Touch/iPhone platform is plentiful. It's a good starting point for a tablet. You build from there so that consumers will have something useful for their tablets to do while Apple builds up a collection of apps and content designed specifically for the tablet. In the meantime, all that Touch content will be that much more enjoyable accessed via a device with a larger screen. If you had a choice between a $300 3-inch Touch or a $500 7-inch Touch, wouldn't that extra $200 seem like a reasonable amount to spend?
From there, over the next few years, I'm sure Apple could evolve the tablet in the direction many are hoping for. This is how Apple has operated in recent years and I'd have to say, it's working. The company is flourishing beyond anyone's wildest expectations.
Maybe on Wednesday Apple unveils a giant iPod Touch, hopefully priced accordingly, but it's only a first step towards something bigger, just as the iPod led to the Touch which led to the iPhone.
Your order is wrong. The iPhone 2G actually preceded the original iPod touch by several months.
In fact, this has always been the case. The new iPhones debut in the summer (June/July) whereas the new iPod touches debut in the fall (September/October).
My guess is that it will be great in multiple ways, but will have infuriating defects, omissions and lockdowns. Just like the iPhone.
But it will sell for a stupid-high price, and there will be lines overnight filled with giddy fanbois for the press to photograph on launch day.
Later, Apple will fix some glaring omissions and lower the price. Just like the iPhone.
Then, over time, they will add basic functionality and the price will still be higher than competitor's tablets, and folks will still buy them, this time crowing about how much it was worth it to spend more money for a basic feature that was intentionally omitted from earlier generations. Just like the iPhone.
While this is 100% logical, I hope you're wrong. I hope Apple realizes that with an App Store already in place, there is no reason for slow adoption, or to price gouge.
I also think there are more than a few people who are still angry about the bait and switch Apple pulled with the iPhone. If you remember that resulted in $100 credit to all iPhone customers.
I have a strong feeling that Apple will want to sell this device, rather than dangle it front of people like most Macs, which are typically unaffordable.
Their terms of service & condition prevent them from releasing the name of the apps that uses their services. It is up to the developer to disclose if their app uses tracking and analytical tools.
According to another site, this guy from the firm claims that he can see information that confirms it is the Tablet running 3.2
According to another site, this guy from the firm claims that he can see information that confirms it is the Tablet running 3.2
He cannot provide this information however.
--
As they say, pics or it didn't happen.
Pics of what exactly? the logs? if they really want to lie about it then they can create fake logs too. It wouldn't surprise me that the tablet might be running an OS that identifies itself as iPhone OS 3.2 and it is logical that Apple might be testing existing app with the tablet. There were reports months ago that the tablet will include a simulator that runs iPhone apps. What this guy said is consistent with what we've been reading for the last few months.
Your order is wrong. The iPhone 2G actually preceded the original iPod touch by several months.
In fact, this has always been the case. The new iPhones debut in the summer (June/July) whereas the new iPod touches debut in the fall (September/October).
Thanks for the correction. I couldn't recall the exact order but It is valid to argue that Apple has evolved its products incrementally starting off with a music player and advancing in stages from there when the market was ready.
While this is 100% logical, I hope you're wrong. I hope Apple realizes that with an App Store already in place, there is no reason for slow adoption, or to price gouge.
I also think there are more than a few people who are still angry about the bait and switch Apple pulled with the iPhone. If you remember that resulted in $100 credit to all iPhone customers.
I have a strong feeling that Apple will want to sell this device, rather than dangle it front of people like most Macs, which are typically unaffordable.
Most Macs are not typically unaffordable. They are different enough that a direct comparison with offerings from the PC side is rather tricky. For instance, the Mac Mini might, at first glance, appear expensive but if you factor in the software that it comes with, not so much. Apple doesn't gouge consumers re the OS to the extent Microsoft has. There is only one OS for laptops and desktops and the most recent upgrade was very reasonably priced. As well, the iLfe suite, included with the Mini, is a very good package, certainly better than what is included with your typical PC. The Mini is a good value, taken as a whole.
The iPhone isn't overpriced, neither is the iMac or the various iPods. Apple makes more money by offering products at a lower price point but it balances that off with the goal of being perceived as a higher-grade alternative. Apple doesn't do cheap but it does do affordable. There is a difference.
Hope it's fake. iPhone os probably means the same iTunes lock in we currently have with with iPhones. I want to get my apps from anywhere or be able to write them myself. Also I think it's kinda essential that there's one common file system that all aps can access like a normal pc. If I got one of these I would want it for work so I would want to be able to access common drives for files easily, not set each app up to have access
Are people still hanging onto the belief that this will be a fully-functional device running OS X? Something that could replace a MacBook? I just don't see it.
Maybe its capable of running 3.2, but I see almost no reason for 50 devices to be running the current iPhone OS if the key features of the Tablet are 4.0 connected.
Suppose the tablet is capable of running both 3.2 and 4.0, and they want to expand the pool of testers purely to test the hardware of the first production units. They could give them tablets running 3.2 without worrying about opening up the full capabilities of the device and O/S to more people that don't need to know about it yet.
Are people still hanging onto the belief that this will be a fully-functional device running OS X? Something that could replace a MacBook? I just don't see it.
OS X, yes. Mac OS X, no. iPhone OS X, no. Tablet OS X, yes. Closer to iPhone OS than to Mac OS, but distinct from the ground up that it is, in it?s own right, a separate OS flavour of the OS X family.
How innovative indeed, a $1000 oversized iPod touch that has a couple of new apps to read magazines books and newspapers! WOW how exciting!
What a joke, I really fail to see the how this "tablet" will sell well because I don't see a market for a 10 inch ipod touch that costs 1000 bucks. If that indeed is what it is...then this will be a flop akin to the Cube. I really really hope it isn't, all this hype for that would be extremely anti-climactic.
Most Macs are not typically unaffordable. They are different enough that a direct comparison with offerings from the PC side is rather tricky. For instance, the Mac Mini might, at first glance, appear expensive but if you factor in the software that it comes with, not so much. Apple doesn't gouge consumers re the OS to the extent Microsoft has. There is only one OS for laptops and desktops and the most recent upgrade was very reasonably priced. As well, the iLfe suite, included with the Mini, is a very good package, certainly better than what is included with your typical PC. The Mini is a good value, taken as a whole.
The iPhone isn't overpriced, neither is the iMac or the various iPods. Apple makes more money by offering products at a lower price point but it balances that off with the goal of being perceived as a higher-grade alternative. Apple doesn't do cheap but it does do affordable. There is a difference.
I have to disagree strongly that Macs are affordable computers.
The MacMini, if the user has quality peripherals, is affordable.
The MacBook only recently hit the $999 price point. It is just barely affordable.
The iMac has just recently come down close to reality and is almost affordable.
Every configuration beyond that is unjustifiable for most of the population. If you need proof the amount of advertising Apple does vs. units sold will tell you all you ever need to know. If people could afford Macs, they'd buy them. Slowly, the adoption rate is increasing, but we're still talking small chunks of market share.
The iPhone itself is $99 which makes it a major player. At $80/mon it carries a higher than average monthly bill for U.S. mobiles, but that trend is changing rapidly. The iPhone is properly price. Perhaps perfectly.
Macs, not so much. I'm still sitting at $1500 iMac, but I know how to get my money's worth from it. The average computer user would and could not.
The average computer user in 2010 isn't even a computer user. They are Web/App users. They want the goodies without any of the sweat. Personally it disgusts me, but its reality.
Thanks for the correction. I couldn't recall the exact order but It is valid to argue that Apple has evolved its products incrementally starting off with a music player and advancing in stages from there when the market was ready.
Also note that despite the Touch update coming a few months after the iPhone update it has also included some minor updates that aren?t found in the iPhone until the following year. For instance, the volume controls for the Apple headphones worked with the IPod Touch of 2008, but didn?t work with the iPhone until the 3GS, released in 2009.
Comments
to reply to my own post. it's not tracking ads, but rather flurry had analytics that developers can ad to their own apps that reports back to flurry as the apps are launched. This is for developers to track the usage of their own apps, but certainly could tell Flurry about new devices running those same apps.
But, again, this tracking would be limited to the existing apps this analyltics is installed on, thus their tracking wouldn't tell you anything about new apps, like a potential iWorks touch.
I didn't read anything about new unpublished app in the article. What Flurry is saying here is that their tracking logs are showing the tablet running iPhone OS 3.2 and using already existing App Store apps. They also provided a category breakdown of the apps used by the tablet as shown in their logs.
so how does a 3rd party firm track what applications are being downloaded to these devices and what API are they using to ask what kind of device it is?
If apps are being downloaded, aren't they coming from the Apple iTunes store to the Apple campus?
I tend to agree. It does make sense though that "the number of apps in use," which is what Flurry said it was measuring, would skew more toward games and entertainment since games are said to be a big focus of the presentation on Wednesday.
Correct. And again, I really believe this company just made it up. Everyone is doing it attitude, for a little publicity.
He also says his terms & conditions prevent them from providing any actual evidence, just their word should good enough.
Good grief.
Their terms of service & condition prevent them from releasing the name of the apps that uses their services. It is up to the developer to disclose if their app uses tracking and analytical tools.
If that's true AND IT COST $999 this will result in Elic fail.
One giant iPod touch with iPhoto and iPhone OS does not sound innovative at all.
Plus the company doing this leaks the info? No way. This is just part of Apples epic marketing technique for FREE PRESS then followed by a real working ipad, facial, iWork and innovative. Classic Apple publicity stunt. If true though man, this won't be good. It will start making me wondering about the vaporware courier.
Apple has all along been making incremental upgrades. The iPod morphed into the Touch/iPhone. Every new version ups the ante and the next thing you know Apple is leading a particular category. Sometimes items that are separate products wind up being pieces of a system that in concert produce a class-leading device. For instance, iTunes and the App Store are an important element in the Touch/iPhone's success.
Maybe on Wednesday Apple unveils a giant iPod Touch, hopefully priced accordingly, but it's only a first step towards something bigger, just as the iPod led to the Touch which led to the iPhone. This incremental approach makes sense if the intention is to have a successful business model. It's not so much about bringing out something that impresses with its innovation because an innovative product will fail if it lacks the infrastructure to be useful to the consumer. Content for the Touch/iPhone platform is plentiful. It's a good starting point for a tablet. You build from there so that consumers will have something useful for their tablets to do while Apple builds up a collection of apps and content designed specifically for the tablet. In the meantime, all that Touch content will be that much more enjoyable accessed via a device with a larger screen. If you had a choice between a $300 3-inch Touch or a $500 7-inch Touch, wouldn't that extra $200 seem like a reasonable amount to spend?
From there, over the next few years, I'm sure Apple could evolve the tablet in the direction many are hoping for. This is how Apple has operated in recent years and I'd have to say, it's working. The company is flourishing beyond anyone's wildest expectations.
Maybe on Wednesday Apple unveils a giant iPod Touch, hopefully priced accordingly, but it's only a first step towards something bigger, just as the iPod led to the Touch which led to the iPhone.
Your order is wrong. The iPhone 2G actually preceded the original iPod touch by several months.
In fact, this has always been the case. The new iPhones debut in the summer (June/July) whereas the new iPod touches debut in the fall (September/October).
My guess is that it will be great in multiple ways, but will have infuriating defects, omissions and lockdowns. Just like the iPhone.
But it will sell for a stupid-high price, and there will be lines overnight filled with giddy fanbois for the press to photograph on launch day.
Later, Apple will fix some glaring omissions and lower the price. Just like the iPhone.
Then, over time, they will add basic functionality and the price will still be higher than competitor's tablets, and folks will still buy them, this time crowing about how much it was worth it to spend more money for a basic feature that was intentionally omitted from earlier generations. Just like the iPhone.
While this is 100% logical, I hope you're wrong. I hope Apple realizes that with an App Store already in place, there is no reason for slow adoption, or to price gouge.
I also think there are more than a few people who are still angry about the bait and switch Apple pulled with the iPhone. If you remember that resulted in $100 credit to all iPhone customers.
I have a strong feeling that Apple will want to sell this device, rather than dangle it front of people like most Macs, which are typically unaffordable.
Their terms of service & condition prevent them from releasing the name of the apps that uses their services. It is up to the developer to disclose if their app uses tracking and analytical tools.
According to another site, this guy from the firm claims that he can see information that confirms it is the Tablet running 3.2
He cannot provide this information however.
--
As they say, pics or it didn't happen.
According to another site, this guy from the firm claims that he can see information that confirms it is the Tablet running 3.2
He cannot provide this information however.
--
As they say, pics or it didn't happen.
We'll know soon enough.
According to another site, this guy from the firm claims that he can see information that confirms it is the Tablet running 3.2
He cannot provide this information however.
--
As they say, pics or it didn't happen.
Pics of what exactly? the logs? if they really want to lie about it then they can create fake logs too. It wouldn't surprise me that the tablet might be running an OS that identifies itself as iPhone OS 3.2 and it is logical that Apple might be testing existing app with the tablet. There were reports months ago that the tablet will include a simulator that runs iPhone apps. What this guy said is consistent with what we've been reading for the last few months.
Your order is wrong. The iPhone 2G actually preceded the original iPod touch by several months.
In fact, this has always been the case. The new iPhones debut in the summer (June/July) whereas the new iPod touches debut in the fall (September/October).
Thanks for the correction. I couldn't recall the exact order but It is valid to argue that Apple has evolved its products incrementally starting off with a music player and advancing in stages from there when the market was ready.
While this is 100% logical, I hope you're wrong. I hope Apple realizes that with an App Store already in place, there is no reason for slow adoption, or to price gouge.
I also think there are more than a few people who are still angry about the bait and switch Apple pulled with the iPhone. If you remember that resulted in $100 credit to all iPhone customers.
I have a strong feeling that Apple will want to sell this device, rather than dangle it front of people like most Macs, which are typically unaffordable.
Most Macs are not typically unaffordable. They are different enough that a direct comparison with offerings from the PC side is rather tricky. For instance, the Mac Mini might, at first glance, appear expensive but if you factor in the software that it comes with, not so much. Apple doesn't gouge consumers re the OS to the extent Microsoft has. There is only one OS for laptops and desktops and the most recent upgrade was very reasonably priced. As well, the iLfe suite, included with the Mini, is a very good package, certainly better than what is included with your typical PC. The Mini is a good value, taken as a whole.
The iPhone isn't overpriced, neither is the iMac or the various iPods. Apple makes more money by offering products at a lower price point but it balances that off with the goal of being perceived as a higher-grade alternative. Apple doesn't do cheap but it does do affordable. There is a difference.
Maybe its capable of running 3.2, but I see almost no reason for 50 devices to be running the current iPhone OS if the key features of the Tablet are 4.0 connected.
Suppose the tablet is capable of running both 3.2 and 4.0, and they want to expand the pool of testers purely to test the hardware of the first production units. They could give them tablets running 3.2 without worrying about opening up the full capabilities of the device and O/S to more people that don't need to know about it yet.
Are people still hanging onto the belief that this will be a fully-functional device running OS X? Something that could replace a MacBook? I just don't see it.
OS X, yes. Mac OS X, no. iPhone OS X, no. Tablet OS X, yes. Closer to iPhone OS than to Mac OS, but distinct from the ground up that it is, in it?s own right, a separate OS flavour of the OS X family.
What a joke, I really fail to see the how this "tablet" will sell well because I don't see a market for a 10 inch ipod touch that costs 1000 bucks. If that indeed is what it is...then this will be a flop akin to the Cube. I really really hope it isn't, all this hype for that would be extremely anti-climactic.
Most Macs are not typically unaffordable. They are different enough that a direct comparison with offerings from the PC side is rather tricky. For instance, the Mac Mini might, at first glance, appear expensive but if you factor in the software that it comes with, not so much. Apple doesn't gouge consumers re the OS to the extent Microsoft has. There is only one OS for laptops and desktops and the most recent upgrade was very reasonably priced. As well, the iLfe suite, included with the Mini, is a very good package, certainly better than what is included with your typical PC. The Mini is a good value, taken as a whole.
The iPhone isn't overpriced, neither is the iMac or the various iPods. Apple makes more money by offering products at a lower price point but it balances that off with the goal of being perceived as a higher-grade alternative. Apple doesn't do cheap but it does do affordable. There is a difference.
I have to disagree strongly that Macs are affordable computers.
The MacMini, if the user has quality peripherals, is affordable.
The MacBook only recently hit the $999 price point. It is just barely affordable.
The iMac has just recently come down close to reality and is almost affordable.
Every configuration beyond that is unjustifiable for most of the population. If you need proof the amount of advertising Apple does vs. units sold will tell you all you ever need to know. If people could afford Macs, they'd buy them. Slowly, the adoption rate is increasing, but we're still talking small chunks of market share.
The iPhone itself is $99 which makes it a major player. At $80/mon it carries a higher than average monthly bill for U.S. mobiles, but that trend is changing rapidly. The iPhone is properly price. Perhaps perfectly.
Macs, not so much. I'm still sitting at $1500 iMac, but I know how to get my money's worth from it. The average computer user would and could not.
The average computer user in 2010 isn't even a computer user. They are Web/App users. They want the goodies without any of the sweat. Personally it disgusts me, but its reality.
Thanks for the correction. I couldn't recall the exact order but It is valid to argue that Apple has evolved its products incrementally starting off with a music player and advancing in stages from there when the market was ready.
Also note that despite the Touch update coming a few months after the iPhone update it has also included some minor updates that aren?t found in the iPhone until the following year. For instance, the volume controls for the Apple headphones worked with the IPod Touch of 2008, but didn?t work with the iPhone until the 3GS, released in 2009.