Maybe, maybe not. But there might not have been a variety of 7" tablets if the other companies were able to procure 10" panels because Apple was buying most of the supply. For the mini, I think Apple made a lot of reasonable choices, being nearly 8" in 4:3 gives a lot more usable screen area. Add in a metal shell vs. plastic, I think Apple's version is generally better. The only complaint I have about the design is speaker placement.
On the iPod topic, when it was introduced, the prevailing digital audio file player was either a 64MB flash unit or the size of a portable CD player at the time, using a 2.5" drive, a 12Mbps USB 1.0 connection, single state input and AA batteries. The iPod was in between those two segments, something that was pants or even shirt-pocketable, it used thinner and more compact 1.8" hard drives, offered a much faster Firewire connection, click wheel with proportional control and ran on rechargeable Lithium batteries. It's me-too only in the fact that it played digital files, so many other design choices were different and improved on the portable CD player sized brick to the point that the bulkier competitors went away pretty quickly and they all switched to a more iPod-like form factor.
I don't buy that argument, one of the first companies to build a 7" tablet was Samsung, surely they would be able to provide themselves with 10" screens. Again I don't think "me too" products are a bad thing especially when the newer product is that much better than its predecessor.
Again I don't think "me too" products are a bad thing especially when the newer product is that much better than its predecessor.
Then we're working from different ideas of "me too". I take a "me too" as offering something that doesn't really add anything to the market other than another SKU.
Then we're working from different ideas of "me too". I take a "me too" as offering something that doesn't really add anything to the market other than another SKU.
When was the last time a product was introduced as "It's exactly like our competitors product"? Most "me too" products are an improvement on a competing product even if just a slight one. Amazon "me too'd" the Samsung Tab 7 and has beaten them on sales then there's all the crappy 7" tablets that only offer a lower price point.
When was the last time a product was introduced as "It's exactly like our competitors product"? Most "me too" products are an improvement on a competing product even if just a slight one. Amazon "me too'd" the Samsung Tab 7 and has beaten them on sales then there's all the crappy 7" tablets that only offer a lower price point.
I don't see the Kindle Fire HD being a technological improvement over the other 7" Android-based tablets. It's success is mostly geared around its price point. The only caveat would be the Amazon integration.
The Nexus 7 is nothing that any other Android-based vendor could create.
The MS Surface is not an example of a "me too" product because it's trying to do something unique on many levels. From changes in Windows 8, to the HW, to the accessories it's trying to capture a segment of the tech market in a different way.
I think the Surface is going to fail and the Kindle Fire is a success but those do not define if a product is "me too" or not.
I don't see the Kindle Fire HD being a technological improvement over the other 7" Android-based tablets. It's success is mostly geared around its price point. The only caveat would be the Amazon integration.
The Nexus 7 is nothing that any other Android-based vendor could create.
The MS Surface is not an example of a "me too" product because it's trying to do something unique on many levels. From changes in Windows 8, to the HW, to the accessories it's trying to capture a segment of the tech market in a different way.
I think the Surface is going to fail and the Kindle Fire is a success but those do not define if a product is "me too" or not.
The difference doesn't have to be technological. The lure for the Nexus 7 is of course the pure Android experience and it's a device that will always get the latest version of Android first, a vendor can build a device as good as the Nexus 7 but will always be behind in the OS. While MS isn't a "me too" in hardware, they changed their previous ideas of the type of software to put on a tablet, so it's not as obvious but nonetheless a "me too" product. I mean seriously if the iPad didnt exist would the MS Surface exist and would MS 8 look anything like it does? MS had a big lead on Apple in the smartphone department or at least the OS side of it and they left Windows CE stagnant for many years. They rested on their laurels and got left behind in the dust. While the latest Windows phones look intriguing I fear they'll get few defectors from Android and fewer yet from Apple.
The difference doesn't have to be technological. The lure for the Nexus 7 is of course the pure Android experience and it's a device that will always get the latest version of Android first, a vendor can build a device as good as the Nexus 7 but will always be behind in the OS. While MS isn't a "me too" in hardware, they changed their previous ideas of the type of software to put on a tablet, so it's not as obvious but nonetheless a "me too" product. I mean seriously if the iPad didnt exist would the MS Surface exist and would MS 8 look anything like it does? MS had a big lead on Apple in the smartphone department or at least the OS side of it and they left Windows CE stagnant for many years. They rested on their laurels and got left behind in the dust. While the latest Windows phones look intriguing I fear they'll get few defectors from Android and fewer yet from Apple.
You're conflating cause and effect in the market with "me too" products. The former builds off previous market successes with new and unique market innovations whilst the latter is a way to quickly dump something onto the market to gain a foothold and/or turn a quick profit. The MS Surface, for all its faults is not a "me too" unless you want to call it "Windows ME 2.0"... then I'd agree.
Apple has plenty of room to move they could set it on top of a tv add FaceTime Camera and mice. Upgrade it to a full iOS, upgrade processors and stuff( or keep same os). Add $50 or less.
Add a screen everything else, thunderbolt and USB ports. Add higher resolution than other TV's. Better speakers. Add apps and nearly haft to have IOS. At a price at $1000 to $2000 to the price. Or keep it the same as it is with minor upgrades
I see apple to option for the top box or the full tv. The top box is most needed features but Apple could do both( or all 3) with current one half price with the upgrades.
I don't see the Kindle Fire HD being a technological improvement over the other 7" Android-based tablets. It's success is mostly geared around its price point. The only caveat would be the Amazon integration.
My friend who bought a coupe Kindle Fires for her kids told me today that the devices are starting act up and not working right. I'm not sure what that means but apparently they are not as high quality as expected. She and her husband have a lot of Apple products, even more than we have but they just bought the Kindles as disposable tablets for their very young children. Looks like they will be disposed sooner than expected. She really wants an iPad mini although she already has an iPad 3 primarily because it will fit in her purse.
My friend who bought a coupe Kindle Fires for her kids told me today that the devices are starting act up and not working right. I'm not sure what that means but apparently they are not as high quality as expected. She and her husband have a lot of Apple products, even more than we have but they just bought the Kindles as disposable tablets for their very young children. Looks like they will be disposed sooner than expected. She really wants an iPad mini although she already has an iPad 3 primarily because it will fit in her purse.
I've recently heard the same thing from a Kindle owner. They have their pros and cons with that curated environment. If the iPad is to the internet as the Kindle Fire is to AOL. It has its purpose and i think there is a market for that type of user for the time being (several years) but I wonder if how they making the OS is sustainable when most (if not all) of their services are available on competing devices.
You forgot about the 4 races:
White, Black, Mexican, and Chinese
The problem with MLB.tv or any major sport is the blocking of local teams. I would've cancelled cable- but FSSW has the rangers contract and MLB blocks them out as I live in Dallas. So unless you live away from the team you like- its pretty much useless.
Ideally, at least for me, they team up with ATT or Verizon fios and make the UI for the cable box. Att can charge a fee- like they do with their current boxes, and apple can take a cut of their movie rentals through iTunes. Win-win-win.
I think a lot of people are over thinking Apple's moves. If they advance successfully, more power to them. If not, there are other products and companies to choose from. I don't think the 'new' Apple is like the 'old' 'new' Apple - when Steve first left. That Apple didn't care about Steve's way of thinking. Now, after going through bankruptcy, the 'new' 'new' Apple appreciates Steve's contributions. And Steve himself groomed Apple for this moment. He may have given 20 years of guidance and then some. If some people on this board were told 'Steve said to make the iPad mini'. Then they'd say it's the best product ever. If they were told 'Steve wasn't involved in the iPad mini', they'd say it's the beginning of Apple's decline. The fact of the matter is, you don't know what Steve said, so assume it's all good.
I think a lot of people are over thinking Apple's moves. If they advance successfully, more power to them. If not, there are other products and companies to choose from.
No, that's called under-thinking. What's the point of even following Apple if you don't care at all what happens?
If some people on this board were told 'Steve said to make the iPad mini'. Then they'd say it's the best product ever. If they were told 'Steve wasn't involved in the iPad mini', they'd say it's the beginning of Apple's decline. The fact of the matter is, you don't know what Steve said, so assume it's all good.
We know exactly what Steve said. He said it publicly.
Apple has plenty of room to move they could set it on top of a tv add FaceTime Camera and mice. Upgrade it to a full iOS, upgrade processors and stuff( or keep same os). Add $50 or less.
Add a screen everything else, thunderbolt and USB ports. Add higher resolution than other TV's. Better speakers. Add apps and nearly haft to have IOS. At a price at $1000 to $2000 to the price.
Or keep it the same as it is with minor upgrades
I see apple to option for the top box or the full tv. The top box is most needed features but Apple could do both( or all 3) with current one half price with the upgrades.
Huh? Your post makes little sense. As far as resolution goes it doesn't matter how good it is because content is transmitted no higher than 1080i.
You forgot about the 4 races:
White, Black, Mexican, and Chinese
The problem with MLB.tv or any major sport is the blocking of local teams. I would've cancelled cable- but FSSW has the rangers contract and MLB blocks them out as I live in Dallas. So unless you live away from the team you like- its pretty much useless.
Ideally, at least for me, they team up with ATT or Verizon fios and make the UI for the cable box. Att can charge a fee- like they do with their current boxes, and apple can take a cut of their movie rentals through iTunes. Win-win-win.
Get a digital tuner if your TV doesn't have one and catch the OTA broadcast of the Rangers games.
Huh? Your post makes little sense. As far as resolution goes it doesn't matter how good it is because content is transmitted no higher than 1080i.
Hardware is the least of what Apple will bring to the game. Considering the price range where Apple would likely compete, they will have a hard time out-designing some of the svelte designs Samsung and others been pumping out. And let's face it, all they would really ad is a FaceTime camera, something they could easily add to an ATV box for use with any TV.
So software and content is what Apple will bring to the TV to revolutionize it, the same thing they have brought to every piece of hardware they introduce. And the software is easy, but we won't see what Apple has in mind until they have the content in place, because they don't want to tip their hand to the competition. And the content will not come easily. Granted the TV business is headed down the same path as the record company found itself in when Jobs was able to leverage the iTunes deal, but it's not there yet. The complicated and lucrative sports deals will be the most difficult to close.
But apple can't sit around while other companies saturate the market for this technology. What has become abundantly clear is that Apple has become primarily a media company, not a computer company. And if Apple is too late to the game with a TV product, they will lose the "prize" they have been working so hard to attain with iTunes, but if they strike too early they risk giving their competition who have a significant head start in this area an edge they need to dominate.
Browser based delivery is ok but there needs to be accounts where you can store your purchases. If for example I start a movie on one device I don't want to pay for it again in order to resume watching on another device or if I want to channel surf, a browser is not well suited to that kind of behavior.
Perhaps they can have digital licenses that get installed on the client. The content wouldn't necessarily need to be DRM encrypted that way.
Then you can buy licenses for content streams from a single source. Without the license, the stream won't start. These licenses can then be synced between devices and they'd also be stored in a central online account. You wouldn't have to login as long as you had a license installed and installing can send the device ID with it.
Given that subscriptions are more affordable, you'd subscribe to license bundles - not necessarily a bundle of licenses but a license for multiple streams. This can be paid directly to the content provider.
Then you just install it on the devices, point the browser to the stream (HTTP Live Stream?) and it uploads your license for validation. If it checks out, the stream starts. The stream itself can come from any host.
It would be flexible enough for pay-per-view and subscriptions. People couldn't hack the licenses are they are uploaded to the provider for verification against the payment and device ID. If a license is found to be used on too many devices, it can be invalidated and if the licenses link to different bill payers, they can be too.
Granted the TV business is headed down the same path as the record company found itself in when Jobs was able to leverage the iTunes deal, but it's not there yet.
I disagree, there's no Napster to facilitate the theft of TV shows. Apple is falling behind more and more with each passing day, why would I pay $. 99 for a show that's free in On Demand or on Hulu? Amazon adds more and more free shows and movies for their Prime members. I am curious to see what Apple can do but excuse me for not believing it's going to be better than what I already have.
We know exactly what Steve said. He said it publicly.
Really? The forum has to relive out this tired argument? Ok- you don't like the iPhone name- yet every post for a month you tried to shoehorn it into a thread. Ok- you don't like the iPad mini- no need to shoehorn it into every thread for the next month too... This is about Apple TV
Can't you moderate yourself as we'll as you moderate others?
It's fox sports southwest. Only ~20 games are OTA unfortunately.
Really? The forum has to relive out this tired argument? Ok- you don't like the iPhone name- yet every post for a month you tried to shoehorn it into a thread. Ok- you don't like the iPad mini- no need to shoehorn it into every thread for the next month too... This is about Apple TV
Can't you moderate yourself as we'll as you moderate others?
Well that's ~20 less games you have to worry about. Although I wholeheartedly agree with Tallest Skil but I don't share his passion. It takes a lot less work to just agree with him than to argue.
Comments
I don't buy that argument, one of the first companies to build a 7" tablet was Samsung, surely they would be able to provide themselves with 10" screens. Again I don't think "me too" products are a bad thing especially when the newer product is that much better than its predecessor.
Then we're working from different ideas of "me too". I take a "me too" as offering something that doesn't really add anything to the market other than another SKU.
When was the last time a product was introduced as "It's exactly like our competitors product"? Most "me too" products are an improvement on a competing product even if just a slight one. Amazon "me too'd" the Samsung Tab 7 and has beaten them on sales then there's all the crappy 7" tablets that only offer a lower price point.
I don't see the Kindle Fire HD being a technological improvement over the other 7" Android-based tablets. It's success is mostly geared around its price point. The only caveat would be the Amazon integration.
The Nexus 7 is nothing that any other Android-based vendor could create.
The MS Surface is not an example of a "me too" product because it's trying to do something unique on many levels. From changes in Windows 8, to the HW, to the accessories it's trying to capture a segment of the tech market in a different way.
I think the Surface is going to fail and the Kindle Fire is a success but those do not define if a product is "me too" or not.
The difference doesn't have to be technological. The lure for the Nexus 7 is of course the pure Android experience and it's a device that will always get the latest version of Android first, a vendor can build a device as good as the Nexus 7 but will always be behind in the OS. While MS isn't a "me too" in hardware, they changed their previous ideas of the type of software to put on a tablet, so it's not as obvious but nonetheless a "me too" product. I mean seriously if the iPad didnt exist would the MS Surface exist and would MS 8 look anything like it does? MS had a big lead on Apple in the smartphone department or at least the OS side of it and they left Windows CE stagnant for many years. They rested on their laurels and got left behind in the dust. While the latest Windows phones look intriguing I fear they'll get few defectors from Android and fewer yet from Apple.
You're conflating cause and effect in the market with "me too" products. The former builds off previous market successes with new and unique market innovations whilst the latter is a way to quickly dump something onto the market to gain a foothold and/or turn a quick profit. The MS Surface, for all its faults is not a "me too" unless you want to call it "Windows ME 2.0"... then I'd agree.
Add a screen everything else, thunderbolt and USB ports. Add higher resolution than other TV's. Better speakers. Add apps and nearly haft to have IOS. At a price at $1000 to $2000 to the price.
Or keep it the same as it is with minor upgrades
I see apple to option for the top box or the full tv. The top box is most needed features but Apple could do both( or all 3) with current one half price with the upgrades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I don't see the Kindle Fire HD being a technological improvement over the other 7" Android-based tablets. It's success is mostly geared around its price point. The only caveat would be the Amazon integration.
My friend who bought a coupe Kindle Fires for her kids told me today that the devices are starting act up and not working right. I'm not sure what that means but apparently they are not as high quality as expected. She and her husband have a lot of Apple products, even more than we have but they just bought the Kindles as disposable tablets for their very young children. Looks like they will be disposed sooner than expected. She really wants an iPad mini although she already has an iPad 3 primarily because it will fit in her purse.
I've recently heard the same thing from a Kindle owner. They have their pros and cons with that curated environment. If the iPad is to the internet as the Kindle Fire is to AOL. It has its purpose and i think there is a market for that type of user for the time being (several years) but I wonder if how they making the OS is sustainable when most (if not all) of their services are available on competing devices.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
What do you think the thumbs up button is for?
Its sole purpose seems to be abuse by DaHarder.
Originally Posted by Ireland
Desperate.
The idea of wanting a television set from Apple certainly seems to be, yes.
… Am I old for still calling it a "television set"? How long has it been since "set" was appended?
You forgot about the 4 races:
White, Black, Mexican, and Chinese
The problem with MLB.tv or any major sport is the blocking of local teams. I would've cancelled cable- but FSSW has the rangers contract and MLB blocks them out as I live in Dallas. So unless you live away from the team you like- its pretty much useless.
Ideally, at least for me, they team up with ATT or Verizon fios and make the UI for the cable box. Att can charge a fee- like they do with their current boxes, and apple can take a cut of their movie rentals through iTunes. Win-win-win.
Originally Posted by daveinpublic
I think a lot of people are over thinking Apple's moves. If they advance successfully, more power to them. If not, there are other products and companies to choose from.
No, that's called under-thinking. What's the point of even following Apple if you don't care at all what happens?
If some people on this board were told 'Steve said to make the iPad mini'. Then they'd say it's the best product ever. If they were told 'Steve wasn't involved in the iPad mini', they'd say it's the beginning of Apple's decline. The fact of the matter is, you don't know what Steve said, so assume it's all good.
We know exactly what Steve said. He said it publicly.
Huh? Your post makes little sense. As far as resolution goes it doesn't matter how good it is because content is transmitted no higher than 1080i.
Get a digital tuner if your TV doesn't have one and catch the OTA broadcast of the Rangers games.
So software and content is what Apple will bring to the TV to revolutionize it, the same thing they have brought to every piece of hardware they introduce. And the software is easy, but we won't see what Apple has in mind until they have the content in place, because they don't want to tip their hand to the competition. And the content will not come easily. Granted the TV business is headed down the same path as the record company found itself in when Jobs was able to leverage the iTunes deal, but it's not there yet. The complicated and lucrative sports deals will be the most difficult to close.
But apple can't sit around while other companies saturate the market for this technology. What has become abundantly clear is that Apple has become primarily a media company, not a computer company. And if Apple is too late to the game with a TV product, they will lose the "prize" they have been working so hard to attain with iTunes, but if they strike too early they risk giving their competition who have a significant head start in this area an edge they need to dominate.
Perhaps they can have digital licenses that get installed on the client. The content wouldn't necessarily need to be DRM encrypted that way.
Then you can buy licenses for content streams from a single source. Without the license, the stream won't start. These licenses can then be synced between devices and they'd also be stored in a central online account. You wouldn't have to login as long as you had a license installed and installing can send the device ID with it.
Given that subscriptions are more affordable, you'd subscribe to license bundles - not necessarily a bundle of licenses but a license for multiple streams. This can be paid directly to the content provider.
Then you just install it on the devices, point the browser to the stream (HTTP Live Stream?) and it uploads your license for validation. If it checks out, the stream starts. The stream itself can come from any host.
It would be flexible enough for pay-per-view and subscriptions. People couldn't hack the licenses are they are uploaded to the provider for verification against the payment and device ID. If a license is found to be used on too many devices, it can be invalidated and if the licenses link to different bill payers, they can be too.
I disagree, there's no Napster to facilitate the theft of TV shows. Apple is falling behind more and more with each passing day, why would I pay $. 99 for a show that's free in On Demand or on Hulu? Amazon adds more and more free shows and movies for their Prime members. I am curious to see what Apple can do but excuse me for not believing it's going to be better than what I already have.
It's fox sports southwest. Only ~20 games are OTA unfortunately.
Really? The forum has to relive out this tired argument? Ok- you don't like the iPhone name- yet every post for a month you tried to shoehorn it into a thread. Ok- you don't like the iPad mini- no need to shoehorn it into every thread for the next month too... This is about Apple TV
Can't you moderate yourself as we'll as you moderate others?
Well that's ~20 less games you have to worry about. Although I wholeheartedly agree with Tallest Skil but I don't share his passion. It takes a lot less work to just agree with him than to argue.