So some case of premature ejaculation of a wanna-be-Apple, or some real innovation? anyway, they beat Apple to the "first post" race.
It's difficult to evaluate until we can see how well it does in the real world but they've been doing a lot of R&D in this area and decided to put it on mobile silicon. The first phone to use it will be the Mate 10. There will be a presentation on 16 Oct. The proof will be in the pudding. They made it very clear that this is just the first step of many and out of the gate it will manage a lot of the phone's internals and the photographic aspects. It will do more of course and they have opened the platform up to improve developer participation. They have an AI API and support Tensorflow etc. Their plans are big.
I have a sneaking feeling that Apple could surprise us with their own NPU this month. The only doubt I have is that with so many leaks and rumours, the NPU popped up then vanished.
I don't have a boat or a snowmobile and I can assure you the vast majority of people don't either.
Yeah, we Canadians often forget that. Both are so ubiquitous in our lives that it never occurs to us that people outside the wilderness only use them for recreation. Since we travel primarily via waterways, partly by necessity and partly to honour the memory of the brave explorers who traversed the massive expanse of this country in bark canoes, we use our boats in the summer and snowmobiles in the winter. Spring and fall are a bitch, because you can't use either on the thin ice of fall or during the spring breakup. That's when we start walking 20 miles barefoot in the snow to school, uphill both ways.
Wanna learn how to saddle a moose or get a bear off your Husky with a frozen garden hose?
But seriously, I don't have a boat or snowmobile either, but I did once ride an inntertube being pulled behind a truck. I don't recommend it. FishLicenseBoy's approach is better. Except during avalanche season, but that's only a problem in the winter. It's perfectly safe to operate a snowmobile through the summer months. Just not on the river.
Ha! Yes.
I know someone that was in Vancouver for a few years who moved to Montreal last year. God, it's cold in winter. I saw a phone video of him walking to work through the snow with insanely cold temperatures. For us on the 'mild' Mediterranean coast where it never goes below zero and the last three winters have felt like spring, it made my toes curl.
They are claiming the world's first mobile AI processing unit.
The official presentation isn't until tomorrow but if what is being claimed actually works on the device, they may have upped the ante a little. This makes me think Apple might also have something along those lines for their big reveal on the 12th.
Nobody cares. Even "if" they have a machine learning processor on board, how will it get used? The biggest problem with Android is device makers adding their own custom hardware that isn't actually supported by Android. So none of your Apps will properly take advantage of those features.
The rest of the 970 is generic off-the-shelf A73, A53 and Mali parts. Nothing new here, just another SoC based on ARM cores. At least Samsung and Qualcomm are now trying their hand at making their own custom cores, although they are still WAY behind Apple in this regard. The A11 should hit 4,000 single core, which makes it literally double that of the 835 or 8895. Quite amazing how far ahead Apple is.
If nobody cared, this site wouldn't have half as much Google and Samsung content.
Let me know when AI does an article on Kirin processors.
They've been discussed several times in AI articles. Use your favorite browser and search "AppleInsider Kirin", tho it doesn't help the point you thought you were making.
I said "let me know when AI does an article on Kirin processors", not "AI has never mentioned them before".
So then you had no point at all. The OP alluded to the very valid fact that if there was no interest in other companies products or OS's AI wouldn't keep bringing them up in article content, and folks like you, me, Tmay, Soli and hundreds of others wouldn't have any reason to comment in them when they do. And proving your own interest you frequently comment on even Android, or Google or Microsoft specific articles posted here.
Yes you're interested just as many of us are, and TBH we should be IMO.
Well, some people don’t think “interest” means anything other than “like”. Obviously, that’s not true.
“I’ll tell you, you just have not had chili by the campfire until you’ve eaten it with one of Jony [Ive’s] custom crafted aluminium spoons. … It’s the diamond-cut chamfered edges that really make the experience.” – Craig Federighi, while demoing the new Finder, WWDC 2014
I think that’s it’s great that they can kid each other like that.
I remember when I saw this during the live stream I wasn't so sure that deep inside Sir John didn't clench his teeth at least a little bit. But yes, I appreciate this lightness a lot. In particular when co pared to other companies.
I think it's great if no malice is intended but I always say that you should laugh at yourself before laughing at others. I feel Jony and Craig probably both do that.
He may well have clenched his teeth but probably in a 'you little git' way.
I poke a lot of fun at Ive but I could have a beer with him and poke him on the 'thin, glue, non-repairable' route he has taken.
Jony's route is fraught with increased reliability, desirability, sales and profit, so of course, you and yours want to avoid that at all costs. I'm guessing that engineering is only happy to not only help, but to pack even more in.
Edit:
Gee, I feel really bad; habit forced me to respond to you. I feel such a failure.
Hmmm!
Are you implying that if Apple had taken a different route they wouldn't have achieved the same or better? How could you know? Of course you can't. That makes your post somewhat strange unless the only reason for it was to knock 'me and mine'. A little bit pointless.
You can reply all you want or not at all but talking about me or people who think like me just for the sake of it, isn't really interesting.
They are claiming the world's first mobile AI processing unit.
The official presentation isn't until tomorrow but if what is being claimed actually works on the device, they may have upped the ante a little. This makes me think Apple might also have something along those lines for their big reveal on the 12th.
Nobody cares. Even "if" they have a machine learning processor on board, how will it get used? The biggest problem with Android is device makers adding their own custom hardware that isn't actually supported by Android. So none of your Apps will properly take advantage of those features.
The rest of the 970 is generic off-the-shelf A73, A53 and Mali parts. Nothing new here, just another SoC based on ARM cores. At least Samsung and Qualcomm are now trying their hand at making their own custom cores, although they are still WAY behind Apple in this regard. The A11 should hit 4,000 single core, which makes it literally double that of the 835 or 8895. Quite amazing how far ahead Apple is.
If nobody cared, this site wouldn't have half as much Google and Samsung content.
Let me know when AI does an article on Kirin processors.
They've been discussed several times in AI articles. Use your favorite browser and search "AppleInsider Kirin", tho it doesn't help the point you thought you were making.
I said "let me know when AI does an article on Kirin processors", not "AI has never mentioned them before".
So then you had no point at all. The OP alluded to the very valid fact that if there was no interest in other companies products or OS's AI wouldn't keep bringing them up in article content, and folks like you, me, Tmay, Soli and hundreds of others wouldn't have any reason to comment in them when they do. And proving your own interest you frequently comment on even Android, or Google or Microsoft specific articles posted here.
Yes you're interested just as many of us are, and TBH we should be IMO.
Well, some people don’t think “interest” means anything other than “like”. Obviously, that’s not true.
“I’ll tell you, you just have not had chili by the campfire until you’ve eaten it with one of Jony [Ive’s] custom crafted aluminium spoons. … It’s the diamond-cut chamfered edges that really make the experience.” – Craig Federighi, while demoing the new Finder, WWDC 2014
I think that’s it’s great that they can kid each other like that.
I remember when I saw this during the live stream I wasn't so sure that deep inside Sir John didn't clench his teeth at least a little bit. But yes, I appreciate this lightness a lot. In particular when co pared to other companies.
I think it's great if no malice is intended but I always say that you should laugh at yourself before laughing at others. I feel Jony and Craig probably both do that.
He may well have clenched his teeth but probably in a 'you little git' way.
I poke a lot of fun at Ive but I could have a beer with him and poke him on the 'thin, glue, non-repairable' route he has taken.
Jony's route is fraught with increased reliability, desirability, sales and profit, so of course, you and yours want to avoid that at all costs. I'm guessing that engineering is only happy to not only help, but to pack even more in.
Edit:
Gee, I feel really bad; habit forced me to respond to you. I feel such a failure.
Hmmm!
Are you implying that if Apple had taken a different route they wouldn't have achieved the same or better? How could you know? Of course you can't. That makes your post somewhat strange unless the only reason for it was to knock 'me and mine'. A little bit pointless.
You can reply all you want or not at all but talking about me or people who think like me just for the sake of it, isn't really interesting.
My education, background and experience are in engineering and manufacturing, so, yeah, I have an idea of what I speak, and you, well you already stated in some posts yesterday what your skillset was, and I'm confident that it had little to do with either of those fields.
And yet here you are arguing about something that you know little or nothing about. Same as it ever was.
Edit;
Avon B7 on my ignore list; should have committed to that earlier.
They are claiming the world's first mobile AI processing unit.
The official presentation isn't until tomorrow but if what is being claimed actually works on the device, they may have upped the ante a little. This makes me think Apple might also have something along those lines for their big reveal on the 12th.
Nobody cares. Even "if" they have a machine learning processor on board, how will it get used? The biggest problem with Android is device makers adding their own custom hardware that isn't actually supported by Android. So none of your Apps will properly take advantage of those features.
The rest of the 970 is generic off-the-shelf A73, A53 and Mali parts. Nothing new here, just another SoC based on ARM cores. At least Samsung and Qualcomm are now trying their hand at making their own custom cores, although they are still WAY behind Apple in this regard. The A11 should hit 4,000 single core, which makes it literally double that of the 835 or 8895. Quite amazing how far ahead Apple is.
If nobody cared, this site wouldn't have half as much Google and Samsung content.
Let me know when AI does an article on Kirin processors.
They've been discussed several times in AI articles. Use your favorite browser and search "AppleInsider Kirin", tho it doesn't help the point you thought you were making.
I said "let me know when AI does an article on Kirin processors", not "AI has never mentioned them before".
So then you had no point at all. The OP alluded to the very valid fact that if there was no interest in other companies products or OS's AI wouldn't keep bringing them up in article content, and folks like you, me, Tmay, Soli and hundreds of others wouldn't have any reason to comment in them when they do. And proving your own interest you frequently comment on even Android, or Google or Microsoft specific articles posted here.
Yes you're interested just as many of us are, and TBH we should be IMO.
Well, some people don’t think “interest” means anything other than “like”. Obviously, that’s not true.
“I’ll tell you, you just have not had chili by the campfire until you’ve eaten it with one of Jony [Ive’s] custom crafted aluminium spoons. … It’s the diamond-cut chamfered edges that really make the experience.” – Craig Federighi, while demoing the new Finder, WWDC 2014
I think that’s it’s great that they can kid each other like that.
I remember when I saw this during the live stream I wasn't so sure that deep inside Sir John didn't clench his teeth at least a little bit. But yes, I appreciate this lightness a lot. In particular when co pared to other companies.
I think it's great if no malice is intended but I always say that you should laugh at yourself before laughing at others. I feel Jony and Craig probably both do that.
He may well have clenched his teeth but probably in a 'you little git' way.
I poke a lot of fun at Ive but I could have a beer with him and poke him on the 'thin, glue, non-repairable' route he has taken.
Jony's route is fraught with increased reliability, desirability, sales and profit, so of course, you and yours want to avoid that at all costs. I'm guessing that engineering is only happy to not only help, but to pack even more in.
Edit:
Gee, I feel really bad; habit forced me to respond to you. I feel such a failure.
Hmmm!
Are you implying that if Apple had taken a different route they wouldn't have achieved the same or better? How could you know? Of course you can't. That makes your post somewhat strange unless the only reason for it was to knock 'me and mine'. A little bit pointless.
You can reply all you want or not at all but talking about me or people who think like me just for the sake of it, isn't really interesting.
My education, background and experience are in engineering and manufacturing, so, yeah, I have an idea of what I speak, and you, well you already stated in some posts yesterday what your skillset was, and I'm confident that it had little to do with either of those fields.
And yet here you are arguing about something that you know little or nothing about. Same as it ever was.
Your background it seems has nothing to do with sales, business or 'success' in general. Your background is no guarantee of anything in those fields. Guarantees do not exist when it comes to business. To sales. To 'success'.
Tell me, using your background, why taking a different route wouldn't have led to greater success, because you didn't touch on that and that was what my post was about.
Believe it or not, you do not know the entire scope of my work.
And, as crazy as it might seem to you, you do not need a background in something to have an opinion on it. Ever thought that if I lunch with the head of security at a data center running critical infrastructure support every week, I don't pick up enough information to speak on the subject in an internet forum context? Or data visualisation in supercomputing? I get to meet some extraordinary people in interesting jobs and believe me, if I speak on something that isn't simply a personal opinion, I can normally back it up. When it comes to opinions, I normally provide enough links to support them even if you don't share the opinion yourself.
I entirely respect your decision to give your opinion on me (as uninteresting as it is) even though I refrain from doing likewise on you and other members. Are we here to knock people just because you don't share their opinions? I really don't care about what you think about me. I am more than capable of supporting my opinions and dishing out facts. Even on engineering and manufacturing because not I, nor anyone else here, needs to have that background in order to do so. For what I discuss here, it isn't necessary. It helps if you have it but that's it. It doesn't mean other opinions aren't valid.
I did some work recently on bi-valve molusc depuration in the food chain. From sea to table. I have no 'background' in marine biology but I could engage you in some serious conversation on the topic and my opinion would not differ very much at all from that of those biologists and businessmen who work in those fields. The difference is I cannot possibly retain all that information forever. Simply because my work takes me into so many different fields.
In this very thread I asked Melgross for his opinion on Huawei Supercharge and tried to provide some information on it. If I didn't know his background I probably wouldn't have asked, but as he chimed in, why not? That doesn't automatically invalidate my opinion though.
They are claiming the world's first mobile AI processing unit.
The official presentation isn't until tomorrow but if what is being claimed actually works on the device, they may have upped the ante a little. This makes me think Apple might also have something along those lines for their big reveal on the 12th.
Nobody cares. Even "if" they have a machine learning processor on board, how will it get used? The biggest problem with Android is device makers adding their own custom hardware that isn't actually supported by Android. So none of your Apps will properly take advantage of those features.
The rest of the 970 is generic off-the-shelf A73, A53 and Mali parts. Nothing new here, just another SoC based on ARM cores. At least Samsung and Qualcomm are now trying their hand at making their own custom cores, although they are still WAY behind Apple in this regard. The A11 should hit 4,000 single core, which makes it literally double that of the 835 or 8895. Quite amazing how far ahead Apple is.
If nobody cared, this site wouldn't have half as much Google and Samsung content.
Let me know when AI does an article on Kirin processors.
They've been discussed several times in AI articles. Use your favorite browser and search "AppleInsider Kirin", tho it doesn't help the point you thought you were making.
I said "let me know when AI does an article on Kirin processors", not "AI has never mentioned them before".
So then you had no point at all. The OP alluded to the very valid fact that if there was no interest in other companies products or OS's AI wouldn't keep bringing them up in article content, and folks like you, me, Tmay, Soli and hundreds of others wouldn't have any reason to comment in them when they do. And proving your own interest you frequently comment on even Android, or Google or Microsoft specific articles posted here.
Yes you're interested just as many of us are, and TBH we should be IMO.
Well, some people don’t think “interest” means anything other than “like”. Obviously, that’s not true.
“I’ll tell you, you just have not had chili by the campfire until you’ve eaten it with one of Jony [Ive’s] custom crafted aluminium spoons. … It’s the diamond-cut chamfered edges that really make the experience.” – Craig Federighi, while demoing the new Finder, WWDC 2014
I think that’s it’s great that they can kid each other like that.
I remember when I saw this during the live stream I wasn't so sure that deep inside Sir John didn't clench his teeth at least a little bit. But yes, I appreciate this lightness a lot. In particular when co pared to other companies.
I think it's great if no malice is intended but I always say that you should laugh at yourself before laughing at others. I feel Jony and Craig probably both do that.
He may well have clenched his teeth but probably in a 'you little git' way.
I poke a lot of fun at Ive but I could have a beer with him and poke him on the 'thin, glue, non-repairable' route he has taken.
Jony's route is fraught with increased reliability, desirability, sales and profit, so of course, you and yours want to avoid that at all costs. I'm guessing that engineering is only happy to not only help, but to pack even more in.
Edit:
Gee, I feel really bad; habit forced me to respond to you. I feel such a failure.
Hmmm!
Are you implying that if Apple had taken a different route they wouldn't have achieved the same or better? How could you know? Of course you can't. That makes your post somewhat strange unless the only reason for it was to knock 'me and mine'. A little bit pointless.
You can reply all you want or not at all but talking about me or people who think like me just for the sake of it, isn't really interesting.
Avon B7 on my ignore list; should have committed to that earlier.
They are claiming the world's first mobile AI processing unit.
The official presentation isn't until tomorrow but if what is being claimed actually works on the device, they may have upped the ante a little. This makes me think Apple might also have something along those lines for their big reveal on the 12th.
Nobody cares. Even "if" they have a machine learning processor on board, how will it get used? The biggest problem with Android is device makers adding their own custom hardware that isn't actually supported by Android. So none of your Apps will properly take advantage of those features.
The rest of the 970 is generic off-the-shelf A73, A53 and Mali parts. Nothing new here, just another SoC based on ARM cores. At least Samsung and Qualcomm are now trying their hand at making their own custom cores, although they are still WAY behind Apple in this regard. The A11 should hit 4,000 single core, which makes it literally double that of the 835 or 8895. Quite amazing how far ahead Apple is.
If nobody cared, this site wouldn't have half as much Google and Samsung content.
Let me know when AI does an article on Kirin processors.
They've been discussed several times in AI articles. Use your favorite browser and search "AppleInsider Kirin", tho it doesn't help the point you thought you were making.
I said "let me know when AI does an article on Kirin processors", not "AI has never mentioned them before".
So then you had no point at all. The OP alluded to the very valid fact that if there was no interest in other companies products or OS's AI wouldn't keep bringing them up in article content, and folks like you, me, Tmay, Soli and hundreds of others wouldn't have any reason to comment in them when they do. And proving your own interest you frequently comment on even Android, or Google or Microsoft specific articles posted here.
Yes you're interested just as many of us are, and TBH we should be IMO.
Well, some people don’t think “interest” means anything other than “like”. Obviously, that’s not true.
“I’ll tell you, you just have not had chili by the campfire until you’ve eaten it with one of Jony [Ive’s] custom crafted aluminium spoons. … It’s the diamond-cut chamfered edges that really make the experience.” – Craig Federighi, while demoing the new Finder, WWDC 2014
I think that’s it’s great that they can kid each other like that.
I remember when I saw this during the live stream I wasn't so sure that deep inside Sir John didn't clench his teeth at least a little bit. But yes, I appreciate this lightness a lot. In particular when co pared to other companies.
I think it's great if no malice is intended but I always say that you should laugh at yourself before laughing at others. I feel Jony and Craig probably both do that.
He may well have clenched his teeth but probably in a 'you little git' way.
I poke a lot of fun at Ive but I could have a beer with him and poke him on the 'thin, glue, non-repairable' route he has taken.
Jony's route is fraught with increased reliability, desirability, sales and profit, so of course, you and yours want to avoid that at all costs. I'm guessing that engineering is only happy to not only help, but to pack even more in.
Edit:
Gee, I feel really bad; habit forced me to respond to you. I feel such a failure.
Hmmm!
Are you implying that if Apple had taken a different route they wouldn't have achieved the same or better? How could you know? Of course you can't. That makes your post somewhat strange unless the only reason for it was to knock 'me and mine'. A little bit pointless.
You can reply all you want or not at all but talking about me or people who think like me just for the sake of it, isn't really interesting.
Avon B7 on my ignore list; should have committed to that earlier.
I think that Apple is missing the boat by not making a cheap, basic Tv device as Amazon and Google are doing. We know that Apple has slipped to four or five in tv hardware sales, and a new, expensive, 4K model isn’t going to change that much. Because of a lack of a popular, cheap, way of getting movies and Tv shows, their renting and sales of Tv shows and movies has also slipped. They used to be number one there, but they’re closer to number three now.
i get that Apple wants to change the way we watch Tv, but those efforts are failing there. I’m willing to bet that what they’re doing now is a result of failing to secure agreements at the pricing they want for what they wanted to do. Meanwhile, even small players are gaining access to the content Apple is having problems with, because they are willing to play ball more. We see Sonos doing very well with that, and others too. Maybe if Apple came out with a $60-$75 Tv device, that might change. If Apple were back on top in rentals and purchase, they would have more leverage, but as they slip, whatever leverage they may have had, slips too.
amazon gives a certain number of movies. Tv shows and music away for free each month with Prime. I think they lose money with Prime for most of those users. I just use Prime for shipping. But others take advantage of everything else. Amazon is willing to lose money on these services, but Apple isn’t, maybe they should.
Why? To increase attendance at the Church of Marketshare? Not Apple's bag. Contrary to your concern I believe Apple services income is growing.
I think you sound overly combative with his comment. Mel didn't just make a single line comment nor did he claim that Apple should do something. He started off with "I think" and then backed up his statement.
I think there's definitely an argument to be made that Apple can increase their unit, revenue, and profit share of home-based media appliances, App Store usage and user lock in, iTS rental and sales, and the halo effect for being the least expensive Apple product that effectively runs iOS.
If you think it would cause negative revenue or be so minor that it's not worth the effort then I'd like to read that rebuttal but your last statement reads like you're going after Mel and not his statement.
It's not overly combative, it's getting to the crux -- "why". Why does Apple need to outpace its competitors in units sold? That's the market share argument, all over again.
You're just inventing subtext that doesn't exist. I don't know Mel or even if he is a Mel. But anytime somebody says "Apple needs to..." and follows it with increasing market share it gets the same response.
You can argue the "why" is to increase services. But I believe Apple's hardware drives far more profit than its services so that doesn't make sense (cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?). Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
As previously noted, he clearly started off his comment with "I think…" He also used terms like "I'm willing to bet," "maybe if Apple," and "maybe they should." Why do you have a problem with that verbiage? I think you're the one inventing the subtext here.
I think I don’t have a problem with the verbiage, I’m willing to bet I just think the idea is stupid — cut hardware profits to increase market share. Yeah. Have fun with that. Pass me the netbook, would you?
Didn’t know you enjoyed white knighting so much. Have fun with that, too.
1) I don't know what white knighting is but I have to assume it's a pejorative statement despite not sounding like one.
2) If you have have a specific rebuttal to his comment that it could behoove Apple to make additional media streaming appliances instead of just attacking him, I'd like to read about it because you are one of the forum members that can create a sound argument—but so is Mel and many others (while still being an unfortunately low percentage).
3) I don't recall any specific unit sale estimates for media streaming appliances, but I do seem to recall that Apple has dropped in the ranks over the years. Apple doesn't seem to think this is a big deal, so I really don't care, but the notion that "the idea is stupid" to "cut hardware profits to increase market share" isn't a good retort because Apple has a long history of starting with a premium product and then coming out with cheaper and simpler items to capture more of a market. While the per unit profit is lower Apple increased their revenue and profits by offering the iPod Minis, iPod Nanos, and iPod Shuffles.
We also know that Apple lowered the price of the Apple TV massively from its original first 2 generations and was able to capture more of the market as a result. I don't see why a discussion about how Apple could offer a less expensive and simpler Apple TV solution to help create user lock-in, increase iTS sales, and introduce people to the Apple UI and UX is so profoundly abhorrent to you that it's not even worth a discussion.
The argument that it will never be worthwhile because Apple has done it yet is the same BS argument that I encountered when I suggest that a home-based speaker system controlled by Siri could be a great addition, or that an "iWatch" would likely have a dark UI and use an OLED-based display since it would help reduce power and allow the display to blend in more perfectly with the border, or that if Apple dropped their $129 fee for macOS nee Mac OS X by offering upgrades for free as part of the Mac sale (like they do with iOS) that they could offer something that MS and WinOEMs couldn't.
I have dozens of other "what ifs" that have eventually come to pass that I stated simply as topic of discussion and every single time I was shot down by someone saying something very similar to the way you're resounding to Mel on this particular subject. From others I expect that, but I find it strange coming from you.
Really? Huh. Comes from the fantasy trope of a knight in shining armor coming to the rescue of something, usually a woman. A specifically white knight is referenced in pre-Internet history often. Off the top of my head, there’s that one song in The Music Man… or is it the other play by the same people…
Anyway, it’s a form of shilling through the debasement of the shill-er to uplift the thing that is being shilled.
(cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?)
I generally agree with most of what you post here, so please accept this disagreement as being in a constructive and amicable tone:
I don't think what @melgross is suggesting would cut hardware profits. More likely it would grow them.
My mom probably isn't going to buy an AppleTV and install apps on it. She MIGHT buy a simple, inexpensive streaming receiver that would allow her to send stuff from her Mac and/or iPad to the TV.
I think a streaming stick would hit a whole different market than the AppleTV. Different levels of sophistication and capability for different kinds of users. I can't say that a streaming stick would sell in great enough numbers to justify making it, but I don't think it would erode sales of AppleTV in any appreciable way, thus isn't likely to adversely affect profits.
Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
But we don't know how well movies and TV shows are doing because Apple doesn't break down that large "services" line item into specific categories. It could well be that all the growth is in added iCloud storage purchased by people filling their devices with photos while video sales and rentals are actually going in the dumper (or never rose above it in the first place).
The few rumours we've seen/heard on the subject, for whatever they're worth, don't paint a rosy picture of Apple's video efforts. Further, I would bet that casual observation of your community doesn't reveal many users of Apple's video services. I work in a fairly high-tech environment (a TV station) so I'm surrounded by tech-savvy people (most of whom own iPhones and Macs), and I can think of only two or three who ever use iTunes for video acquisition at all, much less routinely.
I understand the argument for profitability over marketshare, but, as I described earlier in the thread, retail distribution of commodity products like music and movies requires marketshare in order to begin making user experience a differentiator. Or maybe more accurately it requires "mindshare." Right now when you ask someone where they're going to buy or rent a movie, iTunes is not near the top of most people's list.
To the first — Apple doesn’t make netbooks either, despite these same sorts arguing Apple should have made cheap netbooks, because hey, that’s what everybody else is doing. Ok. But so what? Nobody else is making insane profit, either. Why should a successful company cut its per-device hardware profit down just to join the crowd of low-earners? Again, this doesn’t make sense. That’s called a race to the bottom.
To the the question of services profit, it’s rising. That’s all I need to know. Apple, who does know the details, will do what’s best for it. If as you suggest may be possible it’s icloud storage and not video content that is driving services, then again — why would Apple cut its hardware margins to race to the bottom of poor content services revenue? Doesn’t make sense.
Grasping at marketshare and entering unprofitable markets because something, something, or someone being in it, or someone entering it, is a fixture on AI. It's almost always shorthand for people that fail to understand how markets actually work, and how to husband resources. More to the point, I don't think that these people arguing for Apple deeper entry in media and media players understand just how commoditized the market is, a condition that is going to create a whole lot of failures, or more likely, later consolidation. I think Apple should be around to pick up some of the pieces, on the cheap, but otherwise, hold its course.
Yes, profit margins in the whole entertainment industry is probably no more than the profit in Apple's service industry. Only Disney which has had a very hot streak is anywhere in the vicinity (not really close but closeR) of the revenues of any of the tech companies.
Entertainment has more exposure and thus it seems to be a much bigger industry than it really is.
There is more money in the distribution aspect (like the telecoms) than the content side itself. But, distribution is massively entrenched and with net neutrality being flushed down the toilet they'll become even more.
The content side has countless players and profitability is iffy. The number of studios that have gone bankrupt over the last 50 years is countless and the industry seems to be in a constant state of consolidation.
This is an industry that often see upstart rising (like Netflix) because its so massively fragmented. Notice that Netflix started mainly as a content distributor and now is one of the major worldwide content producer. Why? Because dealing with licensing content is a bitch.
People here are saying that others a licensing video content... Well, that's not what I see. I see a lot of teeth being pulled and and increasingly fragmented market.
I think that Apple is missing the boat by not making a cheap, basic Tv device as Amazon and Google are doing. We know that Apple has slipped to four or five in tv hardware sales, and a new, expensive, 4K model isn’t going to change that much. Because of a lack of a popular, cheap, way of getting movies and Tv shows, their renting and sales of Tv shows and movies has also slipped. They used to be number one there, but they’re closer to number three now.
i get that Apple wants to change the way we watch Tv, but those efforts are failing there. I’m willing to bet that what they’re doing now is a result of failing to secure agreements at the pricing they want for what they wanted to do. Meanwhile, even small players are gaining access to the content Apple is having problems with, because they are willing to play ball more. We see Sonos doing very well with that, and others too. Maybe if Apple came out with a $60-$75 Tv device, that might change. If Apple were back on top in rentals and purchase, they would have more leverage, but as they slip, whatever leverage they may have had, slips too.
amazon gives a certain number of movies. Tv shows and music away for free each month with Prime. I think they lose money with Prime for most of those users. I just use Prime for shipping. But others take advantage of everything else. Amazon is willing to lose money on these services, but Apple isn’t, maybe they should.
Why? To increase attendance at the Church of Marketshare? Not Apple's bag. Contrary to your concern I believe Apple services income is growing.
I think you sound overly combative with his comment. Mel didn't just make a single line comment nor did he claim that Apple should do something. He started off with "I think" and then backed up his statement.
I think there's definitely an argument to be made that Apple can increase their unit, revenue, and profit share of home-based media appliances, App Store usage and user lock in, iTS rental and sales, and the halo effect for being the least expensive Apple product that effectively runs iOS.
If you think it would cause negative revenue or be so minor that it's not worth the effort then I'd like to read that rebuttal but your last statement reads like you're going after Mel and not his statement.
It's not overly combative, it's getting to the crux -- "why". Why does Apple need to outpace its competitors in units sold? That's the market share argument, all over again.
You're just inventing subtext that doesn't exist. I don't know Mel or even if he is a Mel. But anytime somebody says "Apple needs to..." and follows it with increasing market share it gets the same response.
You can argue the "why" is to increase services. But I believe Apple's hardware drives far more profit than its services so that doesn't make sense (cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?). Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
As previously noted, he clearly started off his comment with "I think…" He also used terms like "I'm willing to bet," "maybe if Apple," and "maybe they should." Why do you have a problem with that verbiage? I think you're the one inventing the subtext here.
I think I don’t have a problem with the verbiage, I’m willing to bet I just think the idea is stupid — cut hardware profits to increase market share. Yeah. Have fun with that. Pass me the netbook, would you?
Didn’t know you enjoyed white knighting so much. Have fun with that, too.
1) I don't know what white knighting is but I have to assume it's a pejorative statement despite not sounding like one.
2) If you have have a specific rebuttal to his comment that it could behoove Apple to make additional media streaming appliances instead of just attacking him, I'd like to read about it because you are one of the forum members that can create a sound argument—but so is Mel and many others (while still being an unfortunately low percentage).
3) I don't recall any specific unit sale estimates for media streaming appliances, but I do seem to recall that Apple has dropped in the ranks over the years. Apple doesn't seem to think this is a big deal, so I really don't care, but the notion that "the idea is stupid" to "cut hardware profits to increase market share" isn't a good retort because Apple has a long history of starting with a premium product and then coming out with cheaper and simpler items to capture more of a market. While the per unit profit is lower Apple increased their revenue and profits by offering the iPod Minis, iPod Nanos, and iPod Shuffles.
We also know that Apple lowered the price of the Apple TV massively from its original first 2 generations and was able to capture more of the market as a result. I don't see why a discussion about how Apple could offer a less expensive and simpler Apple TV solution to help create user lock-in, increase iTS sales, and introduce people to the Apple UI and UX is so profoundly abhorrent to you that it's not even worth a discussion.
The argument that it will never be worthwhile because Apple has done it yet is the same BS argument that I encountered when I suggest that a home-based speaker system controlled by Siri could be a great addition, or that an "iWatch" would likely have a dark UI and use an OLED-based display since it would help reduce power and allow the display to blend in more perfectly with the border, or that if Apple dropped their $129 fee for macOS nee Mac OS X by offering upgrades for free as part of the Mac sale (like they do with iOS) that they could offer something that MS and WinOEMs couldn't.
I have dozens of other "what ifs" that have eventually come to pass that I stated simply as topic of discussion and every single time I was shot down by someone saying something very similar to the way you're resounding to Mel on this particular subject. From others I expect that, but I find it strange coming from you.
Your ability to anticipate and argue for things that Apple eventually does appears uncanny. I'm guessing though, that you are leaving out all of those instances when Apple didn't do those things you argued for, so let's leave that out of your argument.
The problem that I see with delivering a low priced AppleTV, as an example, without simultaneously delivering a desirable subscription service, with or without original content, is that you'll sell a lot of AppleTV's at low prices, but you won't create any stickiness to keep them. Now that subscription services are not only common, but ubiquitous, you are in a situation where Apple could never hope to deliver all of the usable content. That is of course, unless each of those services are aware of Apple's desireable demographics, and are willing to create an app for AppleTV.
AppleTV and tvOS thus become one of the few services, Amazon and Google being two others, and add the Cable Companies, that are able to offer many, many, subscription streaming services to users while at the same time simplifying payment and management. Now I don't know that this will happen, I only surmise it based on what I've seen so far, but I can tell you that those other device manufacturers and services will have no qualms in racing Apple to the bottom on device price. I would just say, I don't think that Apple is going to do that based on its history.
I don't think that you or Mel actually disagree with me in principle, so I'll leave it at that, and I look forward to a full featured AppleTV 4K HDR announcement on the 12th.
I think that Apple is missing the boat by not making a cheap, basic Tv device as Amazon and Google are doing. We know that Apple has slipped to four or five in tv hardware sales, and a new, expensive, 4K model isn’t going to change that much. Because of a lack of a popular, cheap, way of getting movies and Tv shows, their renting and sales of Tv shows and movies has also slipped. They used to be number one there, but they’re closer to number three now.
i get that Apple wants to change the way we watch Tv, but those efforts are failing there. I’m willing to bet that what they’re doing now is a result of failing to secure agreements at the pricing they want for what they wanted to do. Meanwhile, even small players are gaining access to the content Apple is having problems with, because they are willing to play ball more. We see Sonos doing very well with that, and others too. Maybe if Apple came out with a $60-$75 Tv device, that might change. If Apple were back on top in rentals and purchase, they would have more leverage, but as they slip, whatever leverage they may have had, slips too.
amazon gives a certain number of movies. Tv shows and music away for free each month with Prime. I think they lose money with Prime for most of those users. I just use Prime for shipping. But others take advantage of everything else. Amazon is willing to lose money on these services, but Apple isn’t, maybe they should.
Why? To increase attendance at the Church of Marketshare? Not Apple's bag. Contrary to your concern I believe Apple services income is growing.
I think you sound overly combative with his comment. Mel didn't just make a single line comment nor did he claim that Apple should do something. He started off with "I think" and then backed up his statement.
I think there's definitely an argument to be made that Apple can increase their unit, revenue, and profit share of home-based media appliances, App Store usage and user lock in, iTS rental and sales, and the halo effect for being the least expensive Apple product that effectively runs iOS.
If you think it would cause negative revenue or be so minor that it's not worth the effort then I'd like to read that rebuttal but your last statement reads like you're going after Mel and not his statement.
It's not overly combative, it's getting to the crux -- "why". Why does Apple need to outpace its competitors in units sold? That's the market share argument, all over again.
You're just inventing subtext that doesn't exist. I don't know Mel or even if he is a Mel. But anytime somebody says "Apple needs to..." and follows it with increasing market share it gets the same response.
You can argue the "why" is to increase services. But I believe Apple's hardware drives far more profit than its services so that doesn't make sense (cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?). Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
As previously noted, he clearly started off his comment with "I think…" He also used terms like "I'm willing to bet," "maybe if Apple," and "maybe they should." Why do you have a problem with that verbiage? I think you're the one inventing the subtext here.
I think I don’t have a problem with the verbiage, I’m willing to bet I just think the idea is stupid — cut hardware profits to increase market share. Yeah. Have fun with that. Pass me the netbook, would you?
Didn’t know you enjoyed white knighting so much. Have fun with that, too.
1) I don't know what white knighting is but I have to assume it's a pejorative statement despite not sounding like one.
2) If you have have a specific rebuttal to his comment that it could behoove Apple to make additional media streaming appliances instead of just attacking him, I'd like to read about it because you are one of the forum members that can create a sound argument—but so is Mel and many others (while still being an unfortunately low percentage).
3) I don't recall any specific unit sale estimates for media streaming appliances, but I do seem to recall that Apple has dropped in the ranks over the years. Apple doesn't seem to think this is a big deal, so I really don't care, but the notion that "the idea is stupid" to "cut hardware profits to increase market share" isn't a good retort because Apple has a long history of starting with a premium product and then coming out with cheaper and simpler items to capture more of a market. While the per unit profit is lower Apple increased their revenue and profits by offering the iPod Minis, iPod Nanos, and iPod Shuffles.
We also know that Apple lowered the price of the Apple TV massively from its original first 2 generations and was able to capture more of the market as a result. I don't see why a discussion about how Apple could offer a less expensive and simpler Apple TV solution to help create user lock-in, increase iTS sales, and introduce people to the Apple UI and UX is so profoundly abhorrent to you that it's not even worth a discussion.
The argument that it will never be worthwhile because Apple has done it yet is the same BS argument that I encountered when I suggest that a home-based speaker system controlled by Siri could be a great addition, or that an "iWatch" would likely have a dark UI and use an OLED-based display since it would help reduce power and allow the display to blend in more perfectly with the border, or that if Apple dropped their $129 fee for macOS nee Mac OS X by offering upgrades for free as part of the Mac sale (like they do with iOS) that they could offer something that MS and WinOEMs couldn't.
I have dozens of other "what ifs" that have eventually come to pass that I stated simply as topic of discussion and every single time I was shot down by someone saying something very similar to the way you're resounding to Mel on this particular subject. From others I expect that, but I find it strange coming from you.
The problem with the current Apple TV is not pricing, or whatever, it is basically that it seems like peripheral to the ecosystem and not central to it (as it should be in the home).
Because of its low integratiion with the rest of Apple's device it has to fight off other devices all alone based on price alone. That's not a good place to be for this device.
We will see if they have remedied this in this version.
(cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?)
I generally agree with most of what you post here, so please accept this disagreement as being in a constructive and amicable tone:
I don't think what @melgross is suggesting would cut hardware profits. More likely it would grow them.
My mom probably isn't going to buy an AppleTV and install apps on it. She MIGHT buy a simple, inexpensive streaming receiver that would allow her to send stuff from her Mac and/or iPad to the TV.
I think a streaming stick would hit a whole different market than the AppleTV. Different levels of sophistication and capability for different kinds of users. I can't say that a streaming stick would sell in great enough numbers to justify making it, but I don't think it would erode sales of AppleTV in any appreciable way, thus isn't likely to adversely affect profits.
Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
But we don't know how well movies and TV shows are doing because Apple doesn't break down that large "services" line item into specific categories. It could well be that all the growth is in added iCloud storage purchased by people filling their devices with photos while video sales and rentals are actually going in the dumper (or never rose above it in the first place).
The few rumours we've seen/heard on the subject, for whatever they're worth, don't paint a rosy picture of Apple's video efforts. Further, I would bet that casual observation of your community doesn't reveal many users of Apple's video services. I work in a fairly high-tech environment (a TV station) so I'm surrounded by tech-savvy people (most of whom own iPhones and Macs), and I can think of only two or three who ever use iTunes for video acquisition at all, much less routinely.
I understand the argument for profitability over marketshare, but, as I described earlier in the thread, retail distribution of commodity products like music and movies requires marketshare in order to begin making user experience a differentiator. Or maybe more accurately it requires "mindshare." Right now when you ask someone where they're going to buy or rent a movie, iTunes is not near the top of most people's list.
To the first — Apple doesn’t make netbooks either, despite these same sorts arguing Apple should have made cheap netbooks, because hey, that’s what everybody else is doing. Ok. But so what? Nobody else is making insane profit, either. Why should a successful company cut its per-device hardware profit down just to join the crowd of low-earners? Again, this doesn’t make sense. That’s called a race to the bottom.
To the the question of services profit, it’s rising. That’s all I need to know. Apple, who does know the details, will do what’s best for it. If as you suggest may be possible it’s icloud storage and not video content that is driving services, then again — why would Apple cut its hardware margins to race to the bottom of poor content services revenue? Doesn’t make sense.
Grasping at marketshare and entering unprofitable markets because something, something, or someone being in it, or someone entering it, is a fixture on AI. It's almost always shorthand for people that fail to understand how markets actually work, and how to husband resources. More to the point, I don't think that these people arguing for Apple deeper entry in media and media players understand just how commoditized the market is, a condition that is going to create a whole lot of failures, or more likely, later consolidation. I think Apple should be around to pick up some of the pieces, on the cheap, but otherwise, hold its course.
Yes, profit margins in the whole entertainment industry is probably no more than the profit in Apple's service industry. Only Disney which has had a very hot streak is anywhere the revenues of any of the tech companies.
Entertainment has more exposure and thus it seems to be a much bigger industry than it really is.
There are countless players and profitability is iffy. The number of studios that have gone bankrupt over the last 50 years is countless and the industry seems to be in a constant state of consolidation.
This is an industry that often see upstart rising (like Netflix) because its so massively fragmented. Notice that Netflix started mainly as a content distributor and now is one of the major worldwide content producer. Why? Because dealing with licensing content is a bitch.
People here are saying that others a licensing video content... Well, that's not what I see. I see a lot of teeth being pulled and and increasingly fragmented market.
Good points.
I wanted to add that Netflix will invest something like $7B in original content in the coming year, but its last quarterly profit was something on the order of $187m, and they've pretty much picked up all of the low hanging subscribers.
To the first — Apple doesn’t make netbooks either, despite these same sorts arguing Apple should have made cheap netbooks, because hey, that’s what everybody else is doing. Ok. But so what? Nobody else is making insane profit, either. Why should a successful company cut its per-device hardware profit down just to join the crowd of low-earners? Again, this doesn’t make sense. That’s called a race to the bottom.
As usual, I've not done a good job of explaining what I mean. I'll try again, just in case someone else reads this and comes away with the wrong impression of what i meant.
The point of a streaming stick wouldn't be to sell low-cost hardware. It would be to sell movies and TV shows. It wouldn't have to be "cheap" per se, it could stand to cost more than competitive devices if the user experience were better. But the main point would be to support and strengthen the sticky ecosystem by drawing in less demanding users who are not likely to buy an AppleTV but might buy a simple, easy to use, easy to understand, less expensive alternative. With that interface in hand, they would then be more likely to buy and rent content from the iTunes Store. Apple would gain leverage with content suppliers, leading to better, faster, and less expensive content for users. That positive experience would, like other parts of the Apple ecosystem, help recruit and retain buyers of other Apple hardware. It's a win-win.
A streaming stick would not hurt sales of AppleTV because the people who would buy these are not the kind of people who would buy an AppleTV anyway.
As I said in my previous comment, I'm not saying that a valid business case exists for such a device, I'm just saying that if Apple were to make one it wouldn't have the negative affect on profits you expect.
To the the question of services profit, it’s rising. That’s all I need to know.
Aw come on, you're better than that. That's like saying "I believe in God because God exists." It's a meaningless argument. Go on, admit it -- you agree that Apple getting creamed in video sales is a bad thing!
Apple, who does know the details, will do what’s best for it.
Sometimes these things are beyond Apple's control, sometimes Apple makes mistakes, and sometimes it takes a push from consumers to shift thinking in the echo chamber of the corporate boardroom into more productive areas.
Besides, I don't give a shit if the current model is fine for Apple. It sucks for ME. I wanna see a model that benefits both them AND me.
Your ability to anticipate and argue for things that Apple eventually does appears uncanny. I'm guessing though, that you are leaving out all of those instances when Apple didn't do those things you argued for, so let's leave that out of your argument.
There's nothing uncanny about it. I look for a market opening and then try to see it from Apple's vantage point as best I can before stating an argument that I think could be beneficial to Apple down the road. I rarely make clams about Apple will do—I'm not Sog—and if I do state specifics it's usually backed up by historical evidence, like when Sog stated as an absolute that the 512GB iPhone 8 will only have a $100 difference over the 256GB model and I noted that the iPad Pro currently has a $200 difference for that massive jump in capacity. While I think that it's most likely Apple will keep that same range if they do offer a 512GB model and gave business reasons why higher-tiers typically cost a premium for customers, I have never stated that they will offer a 512GB model, that it will be $200 more than the 256GB model, that they will even sell a 256GB model, that there will definitely be an iPhone 8 branding this year. Hell, I won't say that there will definitely be an iPhone announced on 12 Sept, only that it seems all but certain based on leaks on historical data. If we were betting I'd go all in on a new iPhone this month, but that's like playing roulette where I'm betting on red and all black squares are do-overs; I can still lose on green by the odds are high enough that I'd go all in that scenario, too.
tl;dr: I very rarely say what Apple will do and deserve no credit for making a hypothetical argument that turns out be correct.
tmay said: I always love personal anecdotal evidence; it tends to reek of perception bias, just as your anecdote does.
To be fair (to me) I did make it clear that the personal observation was intended to illustrate the point, not stand as evidence. I stated it as "Think about it this way..." not "Here's proof."
Second, any bias I bring to the discussion is irrelevant to the point I was making. It was argued that a device that makes it easier (i.e. simpler and less expensive than an AppleTV) for people to access iTunes Store content would have a negative impact on profits. My point was that I don't think that's true, and I pointed out why. I'm not sure how I "win" or "lose" by being either right or wrong, so personal bias isn't really a factor in this particular discussion.
Third, while anecdotal evidence is useless for quantifying anything, it's a perfectly normal way of observing generalized trends. For example, one only needs to ride the Skytrain to know that iPhones are really, really, popular in metro Vancouver. Obviously unscientific, but you'd have to be a serious pedant to insist on formal tabulations to draw a well-reasoned conclusion. The same is true of the iTunes movie store. The fact that those of us who are tuned-in to that market constantly hear about storing photos in iCloud, whether an iPad can replace a computer, and even the occasional comment about the Surface Studio, but never hear anyone talking about buying movies on iTunes, is pretty telling. Such impressions are obviously not good enough for building a business plan, but it doesn't take an auditor to recognize that iTunes isn't a commonly considered source for video content. But again, even if I were completely wrong on that point, it's irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not offering a streaming stick would reduce profits.
I think that Apple is missing the boat by not making a cheap, basic Tv device as Amazon and Google are doing. We know that Apple has slipped to four or five in tv hardware sales, and a new, expensive, 4K model isn’t going to change that much. Because of a lack of a popular, cheap, way of getting movies and Tv shows, their renting and sales of Tv shows and movies has also slipped. They used to be number one there, but they’re closer to number three now.
i get that Apple wants to change the way we watch Tv, but those efforts are failing there. I’m willing to bet that what they’re doing now is a result of failing to secure agreements at the pricing they want for what they wanted to do. Meanwhile, even small players are gaining access to the content Apple is having problems with, because they are willing to play ball more. We see Sonos doing very well with that, and others too. Maybe if Apple came out with a $60-$75 Tv device, that might change. If Apple were back on top in rentals and purchase, they would have more leverage, but as they slip, whatever leverage they may have had, slips too.
amazon gives a certain number of movies. Tv shows and music away for free each month with Prime. I think they lose money with Prime for most of those users. I just use Prime for shipping. But others take advantage of everything else. Amazon is willing to lose money on these services, but Apple isn’t, maybe they should.
Why? To increase attendance at the Church of Marketshare? Not Apple's bag. Contrary to your concern I believe Apple services income is growing.
I think you sound overly combative with his comment. Mel didn't just make a single line comment nor did he claim that Apple should do something. He started off with "I think" and then backed up his statement.
I think there's definitely an argument to be made that Apple can increase their unit, revenue, and profit share of home-based media appliances, App Store usage and user lock in, iTS rental and sales, and the halo effect for being the least expensive Apple product that effectively runs iOS.
If you think it would cause negative revenue or be so minor that it's not worth the effort then I'd like to read that rebuttal but your last statement reads like you're going after Mel and not his statement.
It's not overly combative, it's getting to the crux -- "why". Why does Apple need to outpace its competitors in units sold? That's the market share argument, all over again.
You're just inventing subtext that doesn't exist. I don't know Mel or even if he is a Mel. But anytime somebody says "Apple needs to..." and follows it with increasing market share it gets the same response.
You can argue the "why" is to increase services. But I believe Apple's hardware drives far more profit than its services so that doesn't make sense (cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?). Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
As previously noted, he clearly started off his comment with "I think…" He also used terms like "I'm willing to bet," "maybe if Apple," and "maybe they should." Why do you have a problem with that verbiage? I think you're the one inventing the subtext here.
I think I don’t have a problem with the verbiage, I’m willing to bet I just think the idea is stupid — cut hardware profits to increase market share. Yeah. Have fun with that. Pass me the netbook, would you?
Didn’t know you enjoyed white knighting so much. Have fun with that, too.
1) I don't know what white knighting is but I have to assume it's a pejorative statement despite not sounding like one.
2) If you have have a specific rebuttal to his comment that it could behoove Apple to make additional media streaming appliances instead of just attacking him, I'd like to read about it because you are one of the forum members that can create a sound argument—but so is Mel and many others (while still being an unfortunately low percentage).
3) I don't recall any specific unit sale estimates for media streaming appliances, but I do seem to recall that Apple has dropped in the ranks over the years. Apple doesn't seem to think this is a big deal, so I really don't care, but the notion that "the idea is stupid" to "cut hardware profits to increase market share" isn't a good retort because Apple has a long history of starting with a premium product and then coming out with cheaper and simpler items to capture more of a market. While the per unit profit is lower Apple increased their revenue and profits by offering the iPod Minis, iPod Nanos, and iPod Shuffles.
We also know that Apple lowered the price of the Apple TV massively from its original first 2 generations and was able to capture more of the market as a result. I don't see why a discussion about how Apple could offer a less expensive and simpler Apple TV solution to help create user lock-in, increase iTS sales, and introduce people to the Apple UI and UX is so profoundly abhorrent to you that it's not even worth a discussion.
The argument that it will never be worthwhile because Apple has done it yet is the same BS argument that I encountered when I suggest that a home-based speaker system controlled by Siri could be a great addition, or that an "iWatch" would likely have a dark UI and use an OLED-based display since it would help reduce power and allow the display to blend in more perfectly with the border, or that if Apple dropped their $129 fee for macOS nee Mac OS X by offering upgrades for free as part of the Mac sale (like they do with iOS) that they could offer something that MS and WinOEMs couldn't.
I have dozens of other "what ifs" that have eventually come to pass that I stated simply as topic of discussion and every single time I was shot down by someone saying something very similar to the way you're resounding to Mel on this particular subject. From others I expect that, but I find it strange coming from you.
The problem with the current Apple TV is not pricing, or whatever, it is basically that it seems like peripheral to the ecosystem and not central to it (as it should be in the home).
Because of its low integratiion with the rest of Apple's device it has to fight off other devices all alone based on price alone. That's not a good place to be for this device.
We will see if they have remedied this in this version.
Yes, I think you are spot on.
For lack of a better term, AppleTV should be able to monitor our "battle space" and anticipate how we are using our devices, and propose a curated variety of local, iCloud, and streaming media that is appropriate for time, user, location and device mix, and create the connections that we need to make that happen.
tmay said: I always love personal anecdotal evidence; it tends to reek of perception bias, just as your anecdote does.
To be fair (to me) I did make it clear that the personal observation was intended to illustrate the point, not stand as evidence. I stated it as "Think about it this way..." not "Here's proof."
Second, any bias I bring to the discussion is irrelevant to the point I was making. It was argued that a device that makes it easier (i.e. simpler and less expensive than an AppleTV) for people to access iTunes Store content would have a negative impact on profits. My point was that I don't think that's true, and I pointed out why. I'm not sure how I "win" or "lose" by being either right or wrong, so personal bias isn't really a factor in this particular discussion.
Third, while anecdotal evidence is useless for quantifying anything, it's a perfectly normal way of observing generalized trends. For example, one only needs to ride the Skytrain to know that iPhones are really, really, popular in metro Vancouver. Obviously unscientific, but you'd have to be a serious pedant to insist on formal tabulations to draw a well-reasoned conclusion. The same is true of the iTunes movie store. The fact that those of us who are tuned-in to that market constantly hear about storing photos in iCloud, whether an iPad can replace a computer, and even the occasional comment about the Surface Studio, but never hear anyone talking about buying movies on iTunes, is pretty telling. Such impressions are obviously not good enough for building a business plan, but it doesn't take an auditor to recognize that iTunes isn't a commonly considered source for video content. But again, even if I were completely wrong on that point, it's irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not offering a streaming stick would reduce profits.
I enjoy anecdotes. They aren't universal truths, but are they real events that can have a profound impact on purchasing decisions. I will often read Amazon user reviews to get a feel for a product before buying. One could argue that they those buyers could be lying or that their review has a profound bias, but a little cognition goes a long way.
tmay said: I always love personal anecdotal evidence; it tends to reek of perception bias, just as your anecdote does.
To be fair (to me) I did make it clear that the personal observation was intended to illustrate the point, not stand as evidence. I stated it as "Think about it this way..." not "Here's proof."
Second, any bias I bring to the discussion is irrelevant to the point I was making. It was argued that a device that makes it easier (i.e. simpler and less expensive than an AppleTV) for people to access iTunes Store content would have a negative impact on profits. My point was that I don't think that's true, and I pointed out why. I'm not sure how I "win" or "lose" by being either right or wrong, so personal bias isn't really a factor in this particular discussion.
Third, while anecdotal evidence is useless for quantifying anything, it's a perfectly normal way of observing generalized trends. For example, one only needs to ride the Skytrain to know that iPhones are really, really, popular in metro Vancouver. Obviously unscientific, but you'd have to be a serious pedant to insist on formal tabulations to draw a well-reasoned conclusion. The same is true of the iTunes movie store. The fact that those of us who are tuned-in to that market constantly hear about storing photos in iCloud, whether an iPad can replace a computer, and even the occasional comment about the Surface Studio, but never hear anyone talking about buying movies on iTunes, is pretty telling. Such impressions are obviously not good enough for building a business plan, but it doesn't take an auditor to recognize that iTunes isn't a commonly considered source for video content. But again, even if I were completely wrong on that point, it's irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not offering a streaming stick would reduce profits.
So this is now 2017, and I've seen some data, not confirmed by other sources, that Apple's share of download's has dropped to 20-35%, still exceeding other services such as Amazon. That loss of share is a serious concern, but again, you rely on your own anecdotal evidence for data, and you come up wrong on the facts. Then you mix in streaming services, that Apple hosts, but doesn't itself provide. It maybe that Apple selling a low cost AppleTV is a good idea, but you have botched any argument for that.
What am I to think of a person such as yourself that is so confident in his assertions, and yet so wrong on the facts? Then you state, that even if the facts don't support you, it irrelevant to the discussion.
tmay said: I always love personal anecdotal evidence; it tends to reek of perception bias, just as your anecdote does.
To be fair (to me) I did make it clear that the personal observation was intended to illustrate the point, not stand as evidence. I stated it as "Think about it this way..." not "Here's proof."
Second, any bias I bring to the discussion is irrelevant to the point I was making. It was argued that a device that makes it easier (i.e. simpler and less expensive than an AppleTV) for people to access iTunes Store content would have a negative impact on profits. My point was that I don't think that's true, and I pointed out why. I'm not sure how I "win" or "lose" by being either right or wrong, so personal bias isn't really a factor in this particular discussion.
Third, while anecdotal evidence is useless for quantifying anything, it's a perfectly normal way of observing generalized trends. For example, one only needs to ride the Skytrain to know that iPhones are really, really, popular in metro Vancouver. Obviously unscientific, but you'd have to be a serious pedant to insist on formal tabulations to draw a well-reasoned conclusion. The same is true of the iTunes movie store. The fact that those of us who are tuned-in to that market constantly hear about storing photos in iCloud, whether an iPad can replace a computer, and even the occasional comment about the Surface Studio, but never hear anyone talking about buying movies on iTunes, is pretty telling. Such impressions are obviously not good enough for building a business plan, but it doesn't take an auditor to recognize that iTunes isn't a commonly considered source for video content. But again, even if I were completely wrong on that point, it's irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not offering a streaming stick would reduce profits.
I enjoy anecdotes. They aren't universal truths, but are they real events that can have a profound impact on purchasing decisions. I will often read Amazon user reviews to get a feel for a product before buying. One could argue that they those buyers could be lying or that their review has a profound bias, but a little cognition goes a long way.
A had an argument with you about Tesla awhile back, and now you just told me why you weren't interested in any facts.
Comments
I have a sneaking feeling that Apple could surprise us with their own NPU this month. The only doubt I have is that with so many leaks and rumours, the NPU popped up then vanished.
I know someone that was in Vancouver for a few years who moved to Montreal last year. God, it's cold in winter. I saw a phone video of him walking to work through the snow with insanely cold temperatures. For us on the 'mild' Mediterranean coast where it never goes below zero and the last three winters have felt like spring, it made my toes curl.
Are you implying that if Apple had taken a different route they wouldn't have achieved the same or better? How could you know? Of course you can't. That makes your post somewhat strange unless the only reason for it was to knock 'me and mine'. A little bit pointless.
You can reply all you want or not at all but talking about me or people who think like me just for the sake of it, isn't really interesting.
And yet here you are arguing about something that you know little or nothing about. Same as it ever was.
Edit;
Avon B7 on my ignore list; should have committed to that earlier.
Tell me, using your background, why taking a different route wouldn't have led to greater success, because you didn't touch on that and that was what my post was about.
Believe it or not, you do not know the entire scope of my work.
And, as crazy as it might seem to you, you do not need a background in something to have an opinion on it. Ever thought that if I lunch with the head of security at a data center running critical infrastructure support every week, I don't pick up enough information to speak on the subject in an internet forum context? Or data visualisation in supercomputing? I get to meet some extraordinary people in interesting jobs and believe me, if I speak on something that isn't simply a personal opinion, I can normally back it up. When it comes to opinions, I normally provide enough links to support them even if you don't share the opinion yourself.
I entirely respect your decision to give your opinion on me (as uninteresting as it is) even though I refrain from doing likewise on you and other members. Are we here to knock people just because you don't share their opinions? I really don't care about what you think about me. I am more than capable of supporting my opinions and dishing out facts. Even on engineering and manufacturing because not I, nor anyone else here, needs to have that background in order to do so. For what I discuss here, it isn't necessary. It helps if you have it but that's it. It doesn't mean other opinions aren't valid.
I did some work recently on bi-valve molusc depuration in the food chain. From sea to table. I have no 'background' in marine biology but I could engage you in some serious conversation on the topic and my opinion would not differ very much at all from that of those biologists and businessmen who work in those fields. The difference is I cannot possibly retain all that information forever. Simply because my work takes me into so many different fields.
In this very thread I asked Melgross for his opinion on Huawei Supercharge and tried to provide some information on it. If I didn't know his background I probably wouldn't have asked, but as he chimed in, why not? That doesn't automatically invalidate my opinion though.
Ditto. Should have also done sooner.
2) If you have have a specific rebuttal to his comment that it could behoove Apple to make additional media streaming appliances instead of just attacking him, I'd like to read about it because you are one of the forum members that can create a sound argument—but so is Mel and many others (while still being an unfortunately low percentage).
3) I don't recall any specific unit sale estimates for media streaming appliances, but I do seem to recall that Apple has dropped in the ranks over the years. Apple doesn't seem to think this is a big deal, so I really don't care, but the notion that "the idea is stupid" to "cut hardware profits to increase market share" isn't a good retort because Apple has a long history of starting with a premium product and then coming out with cheaper and simpler items to capture more of a market. While the per unit profit is lower Apple increased their revenue and profits by offering the iPod Minis, iPod Nanos, and iPod Shuffles.
We also know that Apple lowered the price of the Apple TV massively from its original first 2 generations and was able to capture more of the market as a result. I don't see why a discussion about how Apple could offer a less expensive and simpler Apple TV solution to help create user lock-in, increase iTS sales, and introduce people to the Apple UI and UX is so profoundly abhorrent to you that it's not even worth a discussion.
The argument that it will never be worthwhile because Apple has done it yet is the same BS argument that I encountered when I suggest that a home-based speaker system controlled by Siri could be a great addition, or that an "iWatch" would likely have a dark UI and use an OLED-based display since it would help reduce power and allow the display to blend in more perfectly with the border, or that if Apple dropped their $129 fee for macOS nee Mac OS X by offering upgrades for free as part of the Mac sale (like they do with iOS) that they could offer something that MS and WinOEMs couldn't.
I have dozens of other "what ifs" that have eventually come to pass that I stated simply as topic of discussion and every single time I was shot down by someone saying something very similar to the way you're resounding to Mel on this particular subject. From others I expect that, but I find it strange coming from you.
Anyway, it’s a form of shilling through the debasement of the shill-er to uplift the thing that is being shilled.
Entertainment has more exposure and thus it seems to be a much bigger industry than it really is.
There is more money in the distribution aspect (like the telecoms) than the content side itself. But, distribution is massively entrenched and with net neutrality being flushed down the toilet they'll become even more.
The content side has countless players and profitability is iffy. The number of studios that have gone bankrupt over the last 50 years is countless and the industry seems to be in a constant state of consolidation.
This is an industry that often see upstart rising (like Netflix) because its so massively fragmented.
Notice that Netflix started mainly as a content distributor and now is one of the major worldwide content producer. Why? Because dealing with licensing content is a bitch.
People here are saying that others a licensing video content... Well, that's not what I see. I see a lot of teeth being pulled and and increasingly fragmented market.
I'm guessing though, that you are leaving out all of those instances when Apple didn't do those things you argued for, so let's leave that out of your argument.
The problem that I see with delivering a low priced AppleTV, as an example, without simultaneously delivering a desirable subscription service, with or without original content, is that you'll sell a lot of AppleTV's at low prices, but you won't create any stickiness to keep them. Now that subscription services are not only common, but ubiquitous, you are in a situation where Apple could never hope to deliver all of the usable content. That is of course, unless each of those services are aware of Apple's desireable
demographics, and are willing to create an app for AppleTV.
AppleTV and tvOS thus become one of the few services, Amazon and Google being two others, and add the Cable Companies, that are able to offer many, many, subscription streaming services to users while at the same time simplifying payment and management. Now I don't know that this will happen, I only surmise it based on what I've seen so far, but I can tell you that those other device manufacturers and services will have no qualms in racing Apple to the bottom on device price. I would just say, I don't think that Apple is going to do that based on its history.
I don't think that you or Mel actually disagree with me in principle, so I'll leave it at that, and I look forward to a full featured AppleTV 4K HDR announcement on the 12th.
Because of its low integratiion with the rest of Apple's device it has to fight off other devices all alone based on price alone. That's not a good place to be for this device.
We will see if they have remedied this in this version.
I wanted to add that Netflix will invest something like $7B in original content in the coming year, but its last quarterly profit was something on the order of $187m, and they've pretty much picked up all of the low hanging subscribers.
The point of a streaming stick wouldn't be to sell low-cost hardware. It would be to sell movies and TV shows. It wouldn't have to be "cheap" per se, it could stand to cost more than competitive devices if the user experience were better. But the main point would be to support and strengthen the sticky ecosystem by drawing in less demanding users who are not likely to buy an AppleTV but might buy a simple, easy to use, easy to understand, less expensive alternative. With that interface in hand, they would then be more likely to buy and rent content from the iTunes Store. Apple would gain leverage with content suppliers, leading to better, faster, and less expensive content for users. That positive experience would, like other parts of the Apple ecosystem, help recruit and retain buyers of other Apple hardware. It's a win-win.
A streaming stick would not hurt sales of AppleTV because the people who would buy these are not the kind of people who would buy an AppleTV anyway.
As I said in my previous comment, I'm not saying that a valid business case exists for such a device, I'm just saying that if Apple were to make one it wouldn't have the negative affect on profits you expect.
Aw come on, you're better than that. That's like saying "I believe in God because God exists." It's a meaningless argument. Go on, admit it -- you agree that Apple getting creamed in video sales is a bad thing!
Sometimes these things are beyond Apple's control, sometimes Apple makes mistakes, and sometimes it takes a push from consumers to shift thinking in the echo chamber of the corporate boardroom into more productive areas.
Besides, I don't give a shit if the current model is fine for Apple. It sucks for ME. I wanna see a model that benefits both them AND me.
See above. That's not what's being suggested.
tl;dr: I very rarely say what Apple will do and deserve no credit for making a hypothetical argument that turns out be correct.
To be fair (to me) I did make it clear that the personal observation was intended to illustrate the point, not stand as evidence. I stated it as "Think about it this way..." not "Here's proof."
Second, any bias I bring to the discussion is irrelevant to the point I was making. It was argued that a device that makes it easier (i.e. simpler and less expensive than an AppleTV) for people to access iTunes Store content would have a negative impact on profits. My point was that I don't think that's true, and I pointed out why. I'm not sure how I "win" or "lose" by being either right or wrong, so personal bias isn't really a factor in this particular discussion.
Third, while anecdotal evidence is useless for quantifying anything, it's a perfectly normal way of observing generalized trends. For example, one only needs to ride the Skytrain to know that iPhones are really, really, popular in metro Vancouver. Obviously unscientific, but you'd have to be a serious pedant to insist on formal tabulations to draw a well-reasoned conclusion. The same is true of the iTunes movie store. The fact that those of us who are tuned-in to that market constantly hear about storing photos in iCloud, whether an iPad can replace a computer, and even the occasional comment about the Surface Studio, but never hear anyone talking about buying movies on iTunes, is pretty telling. Such impressions are obviously not good enough for building a business plan, but it doesn't take an auditor to recognize that iTunes isn't a commonly considered source for video content. But again, even if I were completely wrong on that point, it's irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not offering a streaming stick would reduce profits.
For lack of a better term, AppleTV should be able to monitor our "battle space" and anticipate how we are using our devices, and propose a curated variety of local, iCloud, and streaming media that is appropriate for time, user, location and device mix, and create the connections that we need to make that happen.
So this is now 2017, and I've seen some data, not confirmed by other sources, that Apple's share of download's has dropped to 20-35%, still exceeding other services such as Amazon. That loss of share is a serious concern, but again, you rely on your own anecdotal evidence for data, and you come up wrong on the facts. Then you mix in streaming services, that Apple hosts, but doesn't itself provide. It maybe that Apple selling a low cost AppleTV is a good idea, but you have botched any argument for that.
What am I to think of a person such as yourself that is so confident in his assertions, and yet so wrong on the facts? Then you state, that even if the facts don't support you, it irrelevant to the discussion.
I mean, WTF?
You just love a good anecdote!