See, that's the thing. Apple doesn't, because they're just starting to do it. They've done it twice; once with a product, once with a name.
The iPad Mini was hardly a me too product. If it had been, we'd see it at 7 inches, plastic and selling for $150 tops.
And the name, prove they were ever going to call it anything but iPhone 5.
As for your WE. no WE will not. YOU will be. which is fine, you can have that opinion and act on it. But please show some respect for our right to have our own opinions and speak only for yourself, not presume to tell us what we think
Apple has no history of releasing "me too" products. If they release a TV (or, what I think is most likely, a digibox) then it will be because they feel they have all the parts ready to make it work.
actually, I think all of apple's history is 'you guys got it all wrong... here is how to do [personal computing|graphical computing|networked personal computing|personal music players|mobile computing on a phone|tablet computing].
The key here is navigating and selecting your 'personal content' to be delivered to you via a large screen in your home. They have the hardware (appleTV, iPad), for internet delivery of content... the question is do they want to be 'inline' for cable delivery (coax into the AppleTV). My guess is they don't (way too complicated, and would make the AppleTV too big. What they do want is a cloud repository for every cable and broadcast channel for content and live feeds (re: sports). This aligns with their CDN, and also is the compromise for all other competitors (any network could swing a non-exclusive deal and let others get to their content as well). Effectively they want cloud DVR.
I've noodled embedding this into a TV, and it doesn't make sense (too many cable co variables). That is why I think this story is true, but really as a 'last chance' for the cable companies... I do think Apple is courting content creators to bypass cable and discussing with cable cos is purely a 'you had your chance' moment.
What don't you like about it? I haven't received mine yet but I played with one at the Apple Store and I really like it. It will be a great fit for my lifestyle.
actually, I think all of apple's history is 'you guys got it all wrong... here is how to do [personal computing|graphical computing|networked personal computing|personal music players|mobile computing on a phone|tablet computing].
The key here is navigating and selecting your 'personal content' to be delivered to you via a large screen in your home. They have the hardware (appleTV, iPad), for internet delivery of content... the question is do they want to be 'inline' for cable delivery (coax into the AppleTV). My guess is they don't (way too complicated, and would make the AppleTV too big. What they do want is a cloud repository for every cable and broadcast channel for content and live feeds (re: sports). This aligns with their CDN, and also is the compromise for all other competitors (any network could swing a non-exclusive deal and let others get to their content as well). Effectively they want cloud DVR.
I've noodled embedding this into a TV, and it doesn't make sense (too many cable co variables). That is why I think this story is true, but really as a 'last chance' for the cable companies... I do think Apple is courting content creators to bypass cable and discussing with cable cos is purely a 'you had your chance' moment.
I think you are thinking along the right lines. IMHO Apple is looking at a service rather than a hardware product, that will work with all Apple devices using something that is cloud based akin to iTunesMatch.
What don't you like about it? I haven't received mine yet but I played with one at the Apple Store and I really like it. It will be a great fit for my lifestyle.
I'm tempted, I am developing a really sore wrist holding my iPad while getting to a high score of over 10,000,000 playing Fishdom!
I'm not saying the iPad mini is supposed to. I'm saying it's following its competitors into its market without redefining it. Were there any competitors when the iPod shuffle was released?
I think they wanted to do a smaller form factor iPad. Eddy Cue saw it as a different market, and I agree with him after playing with one for 2 weeks.
The problem is they did not explain iPad mini's concept well enough. If taken as a whole package, the iPad mini is pretty unique amongst the crowd. A simple screen comparison with other 7" HD tablets is not a good way to convince the specs-driven pundits.
They should have elaborated on the mini's design points and benefits without talking about the competition, especially not just with screen comparison. I would highlight its lightweight, sharper than iPad 2 screen, bandwidth saving benefits, and introduce iPad mini together with AT&T's $100 discount for LTE contracts.
I would also cover iBook 3 in more details. They introduced equation editing feature in iBook 3 but they did not show any (work-in-progress) books using the new features. They didn't show how iPad mini helping kids or engineers in tight spots in videos. They also didn't show any depth and breadth in their collective book and media library, including competitor's offerings (Sony eBook and Kindle are all on iOS).
Should also take the opportunity to remind people about the ecosystem. e.g., iTunes Match, Blu-ray's free digital copy (to iTunes).
I'm not saying the iPad mini is supposed to. I'm saying it's following its competitors into its market without redefining it. Were there any competitors when the iPod shuffle was released?
I think you are setting too high standards. The idea that every Apple product has to redefine an existing market ignores the fact that Apple has brought out many many products which were iterations and variants of an existing product. To paint the mini as a 'me too' product is simply contextualizing it in the worst possible light to continue your eternal rant about it being an inferior product. While Apple is most famous for redefining markets with ground breaking products, Apple also operates in a wider (commercial) realm. To insist that there is only one true and worthwhile iPad (or any product) is to be a 'design reactionary'. Stop being such a fundamentalist
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I've considered purchasing the Apple TV for netflix and a few other things. I'd never buy an actual television from Apple.
The Apple TV is a great product and it is cheap. It sits perfectly in an Apple home ecosystem. I can't fault it. That doesn't mean to say I don't look forward to further development and new iterations. But it beats me how people can insist that they will never buy a product that is not even on the market yet. What if it turns out to be the coolest thing since [insert your coolest thing]?
actually, I think all of apple's history is 'you guys got it all wrong... here is how to do [personal computing|graphical computing|networked personal computing|personal music players|mobile computing on a phone|tablet computing].
The key here is navigating and selecting your 'personal content' to be delivered to you via a large screen in your home. They have the hardware (appleTV, iPad), for internet delivery of content... the question is do they want to be 'inline' for cable delivery (coax into the AppleTV). My guess is they don't (way too complicated, and would make the AppleTV too big. What they do want is a cloud repository for every cable and broadcast channel for content and live feeds (re: sports). This aligns with their CDN, and also is the compromise for all other competitors (any network could swing a non-exclusive deal and let others get to their content as well). Effectively they want cloud DVR.
I've noodled embedding this into a TV, and it doesn't make sense (too many cable co variables). That is why I think this story is true, but really as a 'last chance' for the cable companies... I do think Apple is courting content creators to bypass cable and discussing with cable cos is purely a 'you had your chance' moment.
The cable companies are making tons of money yet, what leverage does Apple have to get things going their way. It was much easier with the music industry because everyone and their grandmother was stealing music, not so much the same with TV.
I do think Apple is courting content creators to bypass cable and discussing with cable cos is purely a 'you had your chance' moment.
The problem with cloud on demand content is that you have to deliver it to the home and cable companies own that connection, in the US anyway. Apple doesn't have a choice except to work with the cable companies. I strongly suspect that cable companies are already interfering with the bandwidth when they see the packets are iTunes or NetFlix. They stall the throughput just enough to make it unenjoyable to use. Difficult to prove but nevertheless very likely based on my experience.
On the other hand it is essential that Apple negotiate with the media owners. Netflix for example has nothing but crap content offered through Apple TV. The content owners, for some reason, allow them to have great selection of DVDs but only "B" content for online.
Judging by the price drops in large TVs and an upper limit to increasingly larger displays, I think the business is ripe for adding features through software instead of purely hardware considerations. A TV box makes more sense for people who already have TVs, but an integrated device will work better and is Apple's modus operandi.
It's 2 phased... but it all drops into content delivery... Yes, I've said in the past that tying apple TV to be your cable 'navigation guide' is a smart thing, but you still need to integrate into the (myriad of) cable encryption/signalling system(s). In the US there are several dozen, I can only imagine the net-net of counting Asia Europe, Australia, Africa/MiddleEast. It'a about content delivery. And Live (sports) streams with HD quality.
Personally, I think the Apple discussions with Cable companies is going something like this:
"You should convert to an IP based delivery system, drop all NTSC and send everything digital," you'll free up a ton of spectrum on your coax, and then convert that to 100mbps Internet, and sell that for $50/month, and convert all your onDemand catalogs into iTunes, available next day. Sell that for $0.99 for 30 minute shows, $1.99 for hour shows, and $2.99 for anything else. We'll deliver it all for 30%, and you can shut down 20% of your operations that aren't turning a profit, and we will sell to people who aren't your customers who are pirating anyway! Deal?"
The iPad mini and the newest iPhone. It's quite evident.
They're certainly not doing it everywhere; not with their computers yet, at least (I even consider the new iMac to be massive evidence against what I'm saying). But in parts of the company that make the greatest profit? Two down, one to go.
I will give you the phone to a certain extent. However, Apple did retain the width. The iPad Mini, however, has been in the works since Jobs was still alive. It is the same strategy Apple took with the iPod where Apple increased its market presence by introducing lower priced versions. Different versions of the iPad have been in the works for a while. That isn't a me too approach. It is a let us follow our game plan that has worked in the past.
As for Apple's name, Jobs did work in an Apple orchard and there is nothing wrong with paying tribute to a band you love by naming your company after it's record label. There are tons of companies that share the same name.
Frankly, I never believe any of these stories the minute they suggest that Apple is "talking to the cable companies" (the implication being that cable TV will show up on Apple TV or that Apple TV will integrate with your cable box).
It makes no sense to me that Apple TV will have anything to do with traditional cable TV companies or integrate with it in any way. They need the content, but they need it on a new distribution system that will replace cable TV, not augment it. IMO all these stories are fantasy that originates with the cable TV companies and older people who simply can't envision a world without regular old cable TV.
Apple has been in negotiations with the US stakeholders in this industry for at least ten years or more with little result. Even if they came to an agreement tomorrow, it would just be for a few companies that own the rights to American broadcasting only. Even if all the US cable companies then followed suit, it would take years and it would still only be a solution for the USA and nowhere else.
How many decades would it take for this to spread around the world and what could/would happen in the interim? Can you imagine the problems and the level of detail and so forth required to engineer a way for all the various cable TV companies around the world with their differing strategies and equipment, to integrate with Apple TV? It's ridiculous to even think about it. Apple will deal with the content owners, not the cable companies, (and even that is a logistical nightmare).
IMO integration with cable boxes is a non-starter as a strategy and a ridiculous idea to anyone, except those that live in the US and have no idea that the rest of the world exists.
(I realise that accounts for about 90% of the population down there, but still).
If Apple does a TV, which I'm still skeptical, as the market is highly competitive but yet not that big, they'll do something that hasn't been done before. How many of you have complicated setups with boxes, receivers, inputs, multi-device remotes, etc. that maybe you have figured out, but the rest of your family still struggles with?
If Apple does a TV, they will try to solve that problem, in addition to finding the content.
The problem with cloud on demand content is that you have to deliver it to the home and cable companies own that connection in the US anyway. Apple doesn't have a choice except to work with the cable companies. I strongly suspect that cable companies are already interfering with the bandwidth when they see the packets are iTunes or NetFlix. They stall the throughput just enough to make it unenjoyable to use. Difficult to prove but nevertheless very likely based on my experience.
On the other hand it is essential that Apple negotiate with the media owners. Netflix for example has nothing but crap content offered through Apple TV. The content owners, for some reason, allow them to have great selection of DVDs but only "B" content for online.
I agree on both counts (although I don't use a cable company for internet). The key on the latter is convincing the media owners that they shouldn't create their own CDNs (Hulu). They constantly stalling on these decisions primarily to cut better deals with the cable cos. and the Cable cos then lock them into multi-year exlusivity for 'non-DVD' impressions, and then the cable customer who watches 'The Office' has to pay .10/month so Weeds isn't distributed quickly to NetFlix Instant Queues. Sucks, but it's the game.
But Apple creating a STB is stupid from their HW esthetic, and their model is Internet delivery of all content.
The iPad mini and the newest iPhone. It's quite evident.
They're certainly not doing it everywhere; not with their computers yet, at least (I even consider the new iMac to be massive evidence against what I'm saying). But in parts of the company that make the greatest profit? Two down, one to go.
This seems like a pretty thin argument to me (even though I had the same thought over the iPhone 5 name when it was announced). I would argue that the day they come out with an "X-Mac" you'd be proven right, but I doubt you will be.
The million dollar question is would Apple have made the iPad mini if no 7" tablets existed? I'd consider the iPod a "me too" product. As far as TVs goes Apple is quickly falling behind, I believe it's BOXEE that allows users to view live TV along with the digital streaming content.
What? What a load of nonsense. The iPod is a "me too" product?
Then you sing the praises of Boxee, which is a classic "me-too" product itself. WTF?
Comments
The iPad Mini was hardly a me too product. If it had been, we'd see it at 7 inches, plastic and selling for $150 tops.
And the name, prove they were ever going to call it anything but iPhone 5.
As for your WE. no WE will not. YOU will be. which is fine, you can have that opinion and act on it. But please show some respect for our right to have our own opinions and speak only for yourself, not presume to tell us what we think
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Apple has no history of releasing "me too" products. If they release a TV (or, what I think is most likely, a digibox) then it will be because they feel they have all the parts ready to make it work.
actually, I think all of apple's history is 'you guys got it all wrong... here is how to do [personal computing|graphical computing|networked personal computing|personal music players|mobile computing on a phone|tablet computing].
The key here is navigating and selecting your 'personal content' to be delivered to you via a large screen in your home. They have the hardware (appleTV, iPad), for internet delivery of content... the question is do they want to be 'inline' for cable delivery (coax into the AppleTV). My guess is they don't (way too complicated, and would make the AppleTV too big. What they do want is a cloud repository for every cable and broadcast channel for content and live feeds (re: sports). This aligns with their CDN, and also is the compromise for all other competitors (any network could swing a non-exclusive deal and let others get to their content as well). Effectively they want cloud DVR.
I've noodled embedding this into a TV, and it doesn't make sense (too many cable co variables). That is why I think this story is true, but really as a 'last chance' for the cable companies... I do think Apple is courting content creators to bypass cable and discussing with cable cos is purely a 'you had your chance' moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I personally don't care for the iPad mini ...
What don't you like about it? I haven't received mine yet but I played with one at the Apple Store and I really like it. It will be a great fit for my lifestyle.
I think you are thinking along the right lines. IMHO Apple is looking at a service rather than a hardware product, that will work with all Apple devices using something that is cloud based akin to iTunesMatch.
Originally Posted by charlituna
And the name, prove they were ever going to call it anything but iPhone 5.
That's not the point I'm making…
I guess that explains why I'm the only one bothered by it; I'm the only one that understands it.
I'm tempted, I am developing a really sore wrist holding my iPad while getting to a high score of over 10,000,000 playing Fishdom!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That's not the point I'm making…
I guess that explains why I'm the only one bothered by it; I'm the only one that understands it.
...jesus
I think they wanted to do a smaller form factor iPad. Eddy Cue saw it as a different market, and I agree with him after playing with one for 2 weeks.
The problem is they did not explain iPad mini's concept well enough. If taken as a whole package, the iPad mini is pretty unique amongst the crowd. A simple screen comparison with other 7" HD tablets is not a good way to convince the specs-driven pundits.
They should have elaborated on the mini's design points and benefits without talking about the competition, especially not just with screen comparison. I would highlight its lightweight, sharper than iPad 2 screen, bandwidth saving benefits, and introduce iPad mini together with AT&T's $100 discount for LTE contracts.
I would also cover iBook 3 in more details. They introduced equation editing feature in iBook 3 but they did not show any (work-in-progress) books using the new features. They didn't show how iPad mini helping kids or engineers in tight spots in videos. They also didn't show any depth and breadth in their collective book and media library, including competitor's offerings (Sony eBook and Kindle are all on iOS).
Should also take the opportunity to remind people about the ecosystem. e.g., iTunes Match, Blu-ray's free digital copy (to iTunes).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I'm not saying the iPad mini is supposed to. I'm saying it's following its competitors into its market without redefining it. Were there any competitors when the iPod shuffle was released?
I think you are setting too high standards. The idea that every Apple product has to redefine an existing market ignores the fact that Apple has brought out many many products which were iterations and variants of an existing product. To paint the mini as a 'me too' product is simply contextualizing it in the worst possible light to continue your eternal rant about it being an inferior product. While Apple is most famous for redefining markets with ground breaking products, Apple also operates in a wider (commercial) realm. To insist that there is only one true and worthwhile iPad (or any product) is to be a 'design reactionary'. Stop being such a fundamentalist
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I've considered purchasing the Apple TV for netflix and a few other things. I'd never buy an actual television from Apple.
The Apple TV is a great product and it is cheap. It sits perfectly in an Apple home ecosystem. I can't fault it. That doesn't mean to say I don't look forward to further development and new iterations. But it beats me how people can insist that they will never buy a product that is not even on the market yet. What if it turns out to be the coolest thing since [insert your coolest thing]?
The cable companies are making tons of money yet, what leverage does Apple have to get things going their way. It was much easier with the music industry because everyone and their grandmother was stealing music, not so much the same with TV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
I do think Apple is courting content creators to bypass cable and discussing with cable cos is purely a 'you had your chance' moment.
The problem with cloud on demand content is that you have to deliver it to the home and cable companies own that connection, in the US anyway. Apple doesn't have a choice except to work with the cable companies. I strongly suspect that cable companies are already interfering with the bandwidth when they see the packets are iTunes or NetFlix. They stall the throughput just enough to make it unenjoyable to use. Difficult to prove but nevertheless very likely based on my experience.
On the other hand it is essential that Apple negotiate with the media owners. Netflix for example has nothing but crap content offered through Apple TV. The content owners, for some reason, allow them to have great selection of DVDs but only "B" content for online.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775
Judging by the price drops in large TVs and an upper limit to increasingly larger displays, I think the business is ripe for adding features through software instead of purely hardware considerations. A TV box makes more sense for people who already have TVs, but an integrated device will work better and is Apple's modus operandi.
It's 2 phased... but it all drops into content delivery... Yes, I've said in the past that tying apple TV to be your cable 'navigation guide' is a smart thing, but you still need to integrate into the (myriad of) cable encryption/signalling system(s). In the US there are several dozen, I can only imagine the net-net of counting Asia Europe, Australia, Africa/MiddleEast. It'a about content delivery. And Live (sports) streams with HD quality.
Personally, I think the Apple discussions with Cable companies is going something like this:
"You should convert to an IP based delivery system, drop all NTSC and send everything digital," you'll free up a ton of spectrum on your coax, and then convert that to 100mbps Internet, and sell that for $50/month, and convert all your onDemand catalogs into iTunes, available next day. Sell that for $0.99 for 30 minute shows, $1.99 for hour shows, and $2.99 for anything else. We'll deliver it all for 30%, and you can shut down 20% of your operations that aren't turning a profit, and we will sell to people who aren't your customers who are pirating anyway! Deal?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
The iPad mini and the newest iPhone. It's quite evident.
They're certainly not doing it everywhere; not with their computers yet, at least (I even consider the new iMac to be massive evidence against what I'm saying). But in parts of the company that make the greatest profit? Two down, one to go.
I will give you the phone to a certain extent. However, Apple did retain the width. The iPad Mini, however, has been in the works since Jobs was still alive. It is the same strategy Apple took with the iPod where Apple increased its market presence by introducing lower priced versions. Different versions of the iPad have been in the works for a while. That isn't a me too approach. It is a let us follow our game plan that has worked in the past.
As for Apple's name, Jobs did work in an Apple orchard and there is nothing wrong with paying tribute to a band you love by naming your company after it's record label. There are tons of companies that share the same name.
Frankly, I never believe any of these stories the minute they suggest that Apple is "talking to the cable companies" (the implication being that cable TV will show up on Apple TV or that Apple TV will integrate with your cable box).
It makes no sense to me that Apple TV will have anything to do with traditional cable TV companies or integrate with it in any way. They need the content, but they need it on a new distribution system that will replace cable TV, not augment it. IMO all these stories are fantasy that originates with the cable TV companies and older people who simply can't envision a world without regular old cable TV.
Apple has been in negotiations with the US stakeholders in this industry for at least ten years or more with little result. Even if they came to an agreement tomorrow, it would just be for a few companies that own the rights to American broadcasting only. Even if all the US cable companies then followed suit, it would take years and it would still only be a solution for the USA and nowhere else.
How many decades would it take for this to spread around the world and what could/would happen in the interim? Can you imagine the problems and the level of detail and so forth required to engineer a way for all the various cable TV companies around the world with their differing strategies and equipment, to integrate with Apple TV? It's ridiculous to even think about it. Apple will deal with the content owners, not the cable companies, (and even that is a logistical nightmare).
IMO integration with cable boxes is a non-starter as a strategy and a ridiculous idea to anyone, except those that live in the US and have no idea that the rest of the world exists.
(I realise that accounts for about 90% of the population down there, but still).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I guess that explains why I'm the only one bothered by it; I'm the only one that understands it.
Aw, shucks. And I thought I had it figured out...
If Apple does a TV, they will try to solve that problem, in addition to finding the content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
The problem with cloud on demand content is that you have to deliver it to the home and cable companies own that connection in the US anyway. Apple doesn't have a choice except to work with the cable companies. I strongly suspect that cable companies are already interfering with the bandwidth when they see the packets are iTunes or NetFlix. They stall the throughput just enough to make it unenjoyable to use. Difficult to prove but nevertheless very likely based on my experience.
On the other hand it is essential that Apple negotiate with the media owners. Netflix for example has nothing but crap content offered through Apple TV. The content owners, for some reason, allow them to have great selection of DVDs but only "B" content for online.
I agree on both counts (although I don't use a cable company for internet). The key on the latter is convincing the media owners that they shouldn't create their own CDNs (Hulu). They constantly stalling on these decisions primarily to cut better deals with the cable cos. and the Cable cos then lock them into multi-year exlusivity for 'non-DVD' impressions, and then the cable customer who watches 'The Office' has to pay .10/month so Weeds isn't distributed quickly to NetFlix Instant Queues. Sucks, but it's the game.
But Apple creating a STB is stupid from their HW esthetic, and their model is Internet delivery of all content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
The iPad mini and the newest iPhone. It's quite evident.
They're certainly not doing it everywhere; not with their computers yet, at least (I even consider the new iMac to be massive evidence against what I'm saying). But in parts of the company that make the greatest profit? Two down, one to go.
This seems like a pretty thin argument to me (even though I had the same thought over the iPhone 5 name when it was announced). I would argue that the day they come out with an "X-Mac" you'd be proven right, but I doubt you will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The million dollar question is would Apple have made the iPad mini if no 7" tablets existed? I'd consider the iPod a "me too" product. As far as TVs goes Apple is quickly falling behind, I believe it's BOXEE that allows users to view live TV along with the digital streaming content.
What? What a load of nonsense. The iPod is a "me too" product?
Then you sing the praises of Boxee, which is a classic "me-too" product itself. WTF?