How come you didn't consider the possibility that he's just a satisfied customer? OR, are you a Microsoft/Verizon/whatever shill?
Hmmm...
hey! i am an equal opportunity debunker! i have several apple computer plus iphone, and also vista ultimate, ultimate CR*P, that is. i think vista is even worse than old windows ME.
Oh, right, that's a good logic. It's like saying that because Ahmadinejad has stated that he is pursuing nuclear weaponry instead of lying makes it OK. I'm not complaining about Apple lying, I'm complaining on what I perceive as being several attempts at creating a monopoly, with the iPod/iPhone. We've all blamed Microsoft for doing it in the past, why should Apple receive any other treatment?
What monopoly? iPhone is < 1% of the cell phone market (much less). You're saying there's no choice?. Even the iPod is not a monopoly. It uses open standards like MP3 and AAC. The iPod/iTunes DRM might start to be a monopoly if weren't for the fact that almost all music is sold outside of downloads through CD's which are also open? Does really sound like a MSFT shill.
i'm all for 3rd party apps, as long as they're "approved" by apple.
[stability and copyright]. i can understand apple not wanting to brag about a NES emulator [very cool, but not at all legal to buy, sell, use, or install] hell, once a 3rd party app is approved, sell it on itunes and take 99 cents of the profit, give the other 4 bucks to the developer. i'd tap that.
if you want widgets for flight/package tracking, dictionary, translator, etc, how about just bookmarking such websites. click safari, click bookmarks, choose one. i'm sorry it's three taps away, but i would rather not have a scrolling homepage with 50 apps on it.
my main gripe about no third party apps is that sometimes i want to use my expenseview or even sudoku on a plane. can't do that with a webapp can i?
They've sold over a quarter-million units. Not bad too shabby for a "hobby." It has the same 24-month accounting method as the iPhone and it isn't going to go away anytime soon. Apple needs this device more than you realize.
For the price, it's a great product when compared to similiar devices and it's Apple's lowest profit margin device. The point of the AppleTV is/was to get the studios interested in getting their content on iTunes with a feeling of security and control. That hasn't gone very well.
The AppleTV is only a "hobby" until HD movies and/or rentals become available on iTunes, then it becomes Apple's 4th leg. (speculation)
Worst Case Scenario:
If the all TV studios pulled out of iTunes then Apple merely reengineers AppleTV to be a DVR but doesn't charge monthly fees like TiVo. They could also use the USB 2.0 to daisy chain additional, stackable Apple branded HDDs to the AppleTV unit.
If the MPAA pulls out of iTunes then AppleTV could easily add a DVD-ROM, HD-DVD, or Blu-ray drive along with it's other DVR features.
I don't see Apple losing a dime on AppleTV. (speculation)
Your worst case sounds pretty good to me. If they really want to teach the TV networks
a lesson, they should include software to automatically edit out the commercials
(as long as we are speculating)
The idea of not charging a subscription fee seems questionable though. AAPL seems
to be really getting into the concept of recurring revenue generation.
Your worst case sounds pretty good to me. If they really want to teach the TV networks
a lesson, they should include software to automatically edit out the commercials
(as long as we are speculating)
That's one of those things Apple can't do.
You have to think about what businesses Apple is in, and with whom.
Apple is partner to most of these content companies. Apple can't edit out the commercials on a product they haven't contracted to sell. even if they just supply the software to do it they will be in trouble.
These companies allow free downloads, as long as the commercials are there. That's how they get their revenue from free programming, just the way they do it in broadcasting it.
If Apple helps people remove those commercials, they will be seen as helping to deprive those companies of their revenue, because the advertisers will lower what they pay, or refuse to advertise at all.
Then these companies will stop doing business with Apple, and possibly even sue them, as there's probably something in their contracts that says that Apple can't do such a thing.
Small third party software companies, and individuals, have no such problem, as they are not in business with these companies.
...and then those poor actors won't be able to make a million bucks each for a 30 minute sit-com.
...and those poor networks won't be able to make 320 million in advertising for a season of a show where the grand prize is a million bucks and a dozen joe's are competing for it for months with no pay.
I want one that works, as it's supposed to ship this month, I'd like to see a photo of the item in someone's hand running the UI. Only photos I can find are of the thing with a text terminal or a Gnome-ish desktop.
And it will still likely only be supported by to cell carriers,
Actually that's the problem with most of the things that Apple releases: it's like the products are made for Jobs, not the general public. That's a mistake that might cost them dearly in the future, as it did already in the past.
The general public? Or a few technophiles & hackers who get a kick out of making the products 'their own'. I'd argue Jobs is actually very much in touch with the general public's requirements but the general public mistakenly ask the technophiles what they should get which is about as sensible as asking a teenage petrol-head which family car you should buy
iPod shows this is changing, people aren't fooled by techno-babble anymore. Apple need to target consumers directly an probably discredit technophiles & technophilic products as the useless distraction they really are. Good luck with that!
And that's just the outside, wait 'til you see all that beautifully designed LINUX software on the inside. The Linux community is reknown for it's design-first-technology-second approach to software devt.
When Steve said the iPhone can run web apps - he didn't mean other phones had to run the server!!
McD
Sorry: Shouldn't have a pop at LINUX guys at least they're real developers (& I know a few with Macs) - there are just somethings better not held in your hand
Complaining about iPhone's lack of support for native apps is really getting tiring. From the very first moment that Apple unveiled the iPhone, they described it as 3 things:
1) a phone
2) an iPod
3) an Internet Communicator
Nowhere have they said that it's a PDA or general-purpose computing platform. Sure, it would be nice if native apps were supported out of the gate, but most people really don't have a clue just how complex that device is. Apple will support native apps when they are in a position to do so.
Would you have preferred they waited until native app support was available? We wouldn't have the iPhone today.
Coolfactor,
Steve Jobs said the iPhone was smarter than a smartphone. He compared it to 4 smartphones that function as pdas. Have you seen his keynote?
Neither. Nice try though. To me, it's just common sense. All the bitching about Apple not supporting 3rd-party apps on the iPhone has been spun as if Apple is against the idea. They're not. They're just rolling out their product according to their product roll-out plans. That doesn't include 3rd-party apps at this stage.
And how do you know they are going to roll out 3rd party apps?????????
Why would Jobs compare the iPhone to 4 pda/smartphones that allow 3rd party apps and say its smarter.
The iPhone is cool, and has a few incredible features, but jobs compared it to 4 devices that primarily are utility devices, wireless swiss army knives. THAT WAS MISLEADING.
Customers of smartphones have come to expect:
tethering
3rd party apps
to do lists
video recording(on some)
removable memory
sim unlocking
chat client
user accessible file system
3G
no games
Apple needs to get it together, or just target regular phone users that don't mind giving up tethering, 3G, sim unlocking, no games etc......
Steve Jobs said the iPhone was smarter than a smartphone. He compared it to 4 smartphones that function as pdas. Have you seen his keynote?
-Henry
& it is! By not crowding the user with irrelevant, badly designed (due to low-level obsession) & unproductive apps the average punter gets more done more quickly on an iPhone. Functional obesity and the promise of a phone that could do everything isn't 'smart'.
I read one argument against iPhone's closed system as not allowing the developer to improve frame-rates on a given application. Hello! Stop geeking around & use Quicktime! Maybe by dissuading low-level developers from the platform we stand a chance of properly designed apps that are useful to real people. That said I haven't seen many well-designed web apps period, then again I am comparing them with Mac Apps, if I were a heavier Windows user I'd probably think they were better.
Comments
How come you didn't consider the possibility that he's just a satisfied customer? OR, are you a Microsoft/Verizon/whatever shill?
Hmmm...
hey! i am an equal opportunity debunker!
Oh, right, that's a good logic. It's like saying that because Ahmadinejad has stated that he is pursuing nuclear weaponry instead of lying makes it OK. I'm not complaining about Apple lying, I'm complaining on what I perceive as being several attempts at creating a monopoly, with the iPod/iPhone. We've all blamed Microsoft for doing it in the past, why should Apple receive any other treatment?
[stability and copyright]. i can understand apple not wanting to brag about a NES emulator [very cool, but not at all legal to buy, sell, use, or install] hell, once a 3rd party app is approved, sell it on itunes and take 99 cents of the profit, give the other 4 bucks to the developer. i'd tap that.
if you want widgets for flight/package tracking, dictionary, translator, etc, how about just bookmarking such websites. click safari, click bookmarks, choose one. i'm sorry it's three taps away, but i would rather not have a scrolling homepage with 50 apps on it.
my main gripe about no third party apps is that sometimes i want to use my expenseview or even sudoku on a plane. can't do that with a webapp can i?
They've sold over a quarter-million units. Not bad too shabby for a "hobby." It has the same 24-month accounting method as the iPhone and it isn't going to go away anytime soon. Apple needs this device more than you realize.
For the price, it's a great product when compared to similiar devices and it's Apple's lowest profit margin device. The point of the AppleTV is/was to get the studios interested in getting their content on iTunes with a feeling of security and control. That hasn't gone very well.
The AppleTV is only a "hobby" until HD movies and/or rentals become available on iTunes, then it becomes Apple's 4th leg. (speculation)
Worst Case Scenario:
If the all TV studios pulled out of iTunes then Apple merely reengineers AppleTV to be a DVR but doesn't charge monthly fees like TiVo. They could also use the USB 2.0 to daisy chain additional, stackable Apple branded HDDs to the AppleTV unit.
If the MPAA pulls out of iTunes then AppleTV could easily add a DVD-ROM, HD-DVD, or Blu-ray drive along with it's other DVR features.
I don't see Apple losing a dime on AppleTV. (speculation)
Your worst case sounds pretty good to me. If they really want to teach the TV networks
a lesson, they should include software to automatically edit out the commercials
(as long as we are speculating)
The idea of not charging a subscription fee seems questionable though. AAPL seems
to be really getting into the concept of recurring revenue generation.
Your worst case sounds pretty good to me. If they really want to teach the TV networks
a lesson, they should include software to automatically edit out the commercials
(as long as we are speculating)
That's one of those things Apple can't do.
You have to think about what businesses Apple is in, and with whom.
Apple is partner to most of these content companies. Apple can't edit out the commercials on a product they haven't contracted to sell. even if they just supply the software to do it they will be in trouble.
These companies allow free downloads, as long as the commercials are there. That's how they get their revenue from free programming, just the way they do it in broadcasting it.
If Apple helps people remove those commercials, they will be seen as helping to deprive those companies of their revenue, because the advertisers will lower what they pay, or refuse to advertise at all.
Then these companies will stop doing business with Apple, and possibly even sue them, as there's probably something in their contracts that says that Apple can't do such a thing.
Small third party software companies, and individuals, have no such problem, as they are not in business with these companies.
...and those poor networks won't be able to make 320 million in advertising for a season of a show where the grand prize is a million bucks and a dozen joe's are competing for it for months with no pay.
that would be a tragedy.
https://direct.openmoko.com/
You can buy something for $300.00 USD
Here's what it can and can't do at this time:
http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Developer_preview
Still, it's what people want...
Right?
Noooo, so far it's what linux geeks want.
I want one that works, as it's supposed to ship this month, I'd like to see a photo of the item in someone's hand running the UI. Only photos I can find are of the thing with a text terminal or a Gnome-ish desktop.
And it will still likely only be supported by to cell carriers,
Actually that's the problem with most of the things that Apple releases: it's like the products are made for Jobs, not the general public. That's a mistake that might cost them dearly in the future, as it did already in the past.
The general public? Or a few technophiles & hackers who get a kick out of making the products 'their own'. I'd argue Jobs is actually very much in touch with the general public's requirements but the general public mistakenly ask the technophiles what they should get which is about as sensible as asking a teenage petrol-head which family car you should buy
iPod shows this is changing, people aren't fooled by techno-babble anymore. Apple need to target consumers directly an probably discredit technophiles & technophilic products as the useless distraction they really are. Good luck with that!
McD
Here's the phone people are wanting:
Have at it.
Ugghh!
And that's just the outside, wait 'til you see all that beautifully designed LINUX software on the inside. The Linux community is reknown for it's design-first-technology-second approach to software devt.
McD
Sorry: Shouldn't have a pop at LINUX guys at least they're real developers (& I know a few with Macs) - there are just somethings better not held in your hand
Complaining about iPhone's lack of support for native apps is really getting tiring. From the very first moment that Apple unveiled the iPhone, they described it as 3 things:
1) a phone
2) an iPod
3) an Internet Communicator
Nowhere have they said that it's a PDA or general-purpose computing platform. Sure, it would be nice if native apps were supported out of the gate, but most people really don't have a clue just how complex that device is. Apple will support native apps when they are in a position to do so.
Would you have preferred they waited until native app support was available? We wouldn't have the iPhone today.
Coolfactor,
Steve Jobs said the iPhone was smarter than a smartphone. He compared it to 4 smartphones that function as pdas. Have you seen his keynote?
-Henry
Neither. Nice try though. To me, it's just common sense. All the bitching about Apple not supporting 3rd-party apps on the iPhone has been spun as if Apple is against the idea. They're not. They're just rolling out their product according to their product roll-out plans. That doesn't include 3rd-party apps at this stage.
And how do you know they are going to roll out 3rd party apps?????????
Why would Jobs compare the iPhone to 4 pda/smartphones that allow 3rd party apps and say its smarter.
The iPhone is cool, and has a few incredible features, but jobs compared it to 4 devices that primarily are utility devices, wireless swiss army knives. THAT WAS MISLEADING.
Customers of smartphones have come to expect:
tethering
3rd party apps
to do lists
video recording(on some)
removable memory
sim unlocking
chat client
user accessible file system
3G
no games
Apple needs to get it together, or just target regular phone users that don't mind giving up tethering, 3G, sim unlocking, no games etc......
Coolfactor,
Steve Jobs said the iPhone was smarter than a smartphone. He compared it to 4 smartphones that function as pdas. Have you seen his keynote?
-Henry
He also said in interviews, that it's not a computer, it's not a smartphone.
Coolfactor,
Steve Jobs said the iPhone was smarter than a smartphone. He compared it to 4 smartphones that function as pdas. Have you seen his keynote?
-Henry
& it is! By not crowding the user with irrelevant, badly designed (due to low-level obsession) & unproductive apps the average punter gets more done more quickly on an iPhone. Functional obesity and the promise of a phone that could do everything isn't 'smart'.
I read one argument against iPhone's closed system as not allowing the developer to improve frame-rates on a given application. Hello! Stop geeking around & use Quicktime! Maybe by dissuading low-level developers from the platform we stand a chance of properly designed apps that are useful to real people. That said I haven't seen many well-designed web apps period, then again I am comparing them with Mac Apps, if I were a heavier Windows user I'd probably think they were better.
McD