Apple will support the Enterprise but they won't "Go Enterprise"
I think they're comfortable bridging their technology with the EPrise where it they stand to profits and enjoy high ROI.
The iPone "will" cannibalize the iPod and it's supposed to. The future is about your "digital life" in your pocket" Why carry two devices when consolidation is the key?
Apple TV will continue to grow in power and influence as faster broadband speeds become available and the next wave of compression technology hits promising at least a %50 reduction in datarate for a given level of picture quality.
The $999 iMac will be replaced by a portable device sans keys that fits between the iPhone and the Macbook. Touch on steroids but more than a tablet.
For the most part, I think Apple is better off staying out of the TV market, it's way too competitive and even some of the high end companies are refactoring how they operate to adjust to the market.
I think Apple is better off staying out of the cell phone market, it's way too competitive and even some of the high end... That said, I agree: unless Apple can re-imagine what a TV should be able to do (and Apple TV integration is not that), they should stay out of the TV market.
Overall, some pretty solid analysis and insights. Nothing ground-breaking (except perhaps for his confidence in multiple versions of the iPhone in 2009, and one that could be priced as low as $200).
Nice work, Mr. Munster!
That's a no brainer. The only way he's off, in my opinion, is if there is any doubt Apple will sell 10million in 2008. That's when we'll see a nano iPhone in 2008 (at the iPod refresh in September).
I think Apple is better off staying out of the cell phone market, it's way too competitive and even some of the high end... That said, I agree: unless Apple can re-imagine what a TV should be able to do (and Apple TV integration is not that), they should stay out of the TV market.
I realized that when I wrote it, but to me, there's something different about the two circumstances that I can't put my finger on, so I didn't want to make a mess of it. On the surface, it does look hypocritical of me to say that about TV and not the iPhone, I think there's a good reason for it that I can't articulate.
At least maybe with the phone, back a couple years ago, seemed to me to be the next logical step of the iPod because it's one less device to carry. I figured Apple was going to lose out if they don't offer a phone and the phones out there might do it "good enough" that it's not worth the hassle of carrying two separate devices. It also helps that Apple came up with a slick device too.
So, yes, I do agree with your reinterpretation. Maybe if "smart TVs" started getting traction, I don't know. It's tough to describe, but an Apple "dumb TV" doesn't seem worthwhile.
I realized that when I wrote it, but to me, there's something different about the two circumstances that I can't put my finger on, so I didn't want to make a mess of it. On the surface, it does look hypocritical of me to say that about TV and not the iPhone, I think there's a good reason for it that I can't articulate.
One distinction is that, prior to the iPhone, many people complained about the UI/operation of their cell phones while far fewer people complain about the these issues with their TVs (except for remote controls). Other than improving the remote, it is much harder to see what Apple could bring to the table in TV design over other manufacturers.
One distinction is that, prior to the iPhone, many people complained about the UI/operation of their cell phones while far fewer people complain about the these issues with their TVs (except for remote controls). Other than improving the remote, it is much harder to see what Apple could bring to the table in TV design over other manufacturers.
Network capability
Samung and Toshiba (probably others) have begun to add Ethernet ports to some TV lines. However neither has quite the same stake in media that Apple has. While the thought of Apple making a TV is far fetched I "do" remember people on these very boards saying Apple would be crazy to go up against Motorola and Nokia in the phone space.
People will pay more money for great integration. What about a HDTV with Ethernet and Wireless capability with Bluetooth/IR multitouch remote. Imagine Apple shipping HDTV with Apple TV built right in. What other manufacturer stands to gain residual profit from selling a TV? Each TV sold is not a loss leader but yet another node for playing back digital content supplied by Apple.
Imagine a TV with built in iPod/iPhone docks. Imagine editing audio or video on your Mac/PC and instantly watching the results streamed to your HDTV?
Nay. TVs are still the same idiot boxes they've always been with just more fanciful connectors and svelte lines. They still haven't entered the "smart" phase...but they need to.
the iphone is aimed at consumers. but there has clearly also been great demand from business users, who want something less 'suity' than their blackberry. given that apple can address this -potentially huge - demand without altering the experience for consumers, why would it not? the intel transition was the same - the motivation was to produce the best consumer macs, but it allows them to sells to businesses (and, perhaps more significantly, windows-dependent home users). if your can produce a consumer offering without the negatives for business users, why would you not?
(and, with an eye to the future - if 50%+ of all users are used to the os x experience, the 'people know windows' story from it depts becomes weaker. don't be surprised if, a few years down the line, apple starts offering a business-targeted mac mini-ish box. apple experience (and training/security savings), windows prices. tie it in with better iphone integration, and why not?)
2. $1k mac
from time to time, apple offers a cheap mac, for a year or so. and the cheapskates grow market share by word of mouth. apple users are *far* happier with their computer than windows users (and we're here - how many people are on a WindowsInsider site right now?). we evangelise. because os x is just nice, especially when you're forced, as almost everyone is, to compare it daily with windows. so - the $1k iMac, the $399 mini. if you choose to go back, the clones (ok, that doesn't really work. but it sort of does. but hey, while we're on in, the psystar - apple gains, especially when it's slightly crappy and breaks with software update).
3. 'eating its children'
yes, of course it is. of course some iphone sales would otherwise have been ipod sales. but (almost) everyone (who might get one) has an ipod. apple has to provide a reason to upgrade (preferably with the fear that another hdd will give out on you). given that for the central years of exponential ipod growth, the most popular models were 15-30Gb, i expect the iphone will see huge growth at 32Gb (and, for europe, 3g). essentially, people (me included) are waiting for it to be Good Enough.
"How is Apple leveraging their success with iTunes and the Mac/iPod/iPhone ecosystem to engage with consumers in to form a tighter social network?"
Right now this is a weakness of Apple IMO. If they are relatively weak at deploying social interaction apps for consumers then it stands that they are probably equally ineffective at developing business appls with the requisite interaction/collaboration features.
I look at how cruddy Myspace is and I think "Apple could obliterate Myspace within 36 months". I look at iChat AV and I think about how much more of a tool it could be. I look at .mac and see it floundering from a community standpoint. For all of Apple's savvy and excellent business acumen in some areas they seem naive like a child when it comes to glueing disparate Apple elements into some cohesive social network.
Really! You make it sound so obvious. When and where did you see that info? (I am not referring to the Fortune article on ATT lowering iPhone price that everyone was hyperventilating on, or to what seemed like a confused report from Korea about a smaller form factor 3G iPhone posted yesterday on AI).
I think this is a very relevant and perceptive question.
We're very used to TV programmes being broadcast over terrestrial or satellite systems, but what we're now witnessing is the internet becoming a proper broadcast medium. Forget traditional TV channels, any person anywhere with a video camera now has the technology at their disposal to become an independent TV broadcaster. This is radical.
It means a person in Tibet or Iraq upload a video to You-Tube or some other website that totally undermines any state-controlled coverage/ news blackouts. So this isn't just a TV revolution, but a communication revolution.
The knock-on effect is that TVs and computers are converging. Apple TV is the first product to really recognize this trend. Step 1 is to facilitate the viewing of downloaded TV programmes and other internet content to your TV screen. Step 2 is to sell the TV itself. Perhaps this is what Apple's new line of cinema screen displays will be?
While Apple is bound to launch some amazing new hardware, what will most drive the growth of internet TV content will be software. The challenge is to stream interesting on-demand programming, e.g. news feeds updated every hour; popular weekly TV shows, e.g, House, and other high quality content via hi-definition images resolution. Content plus image quality will shape the competitive landscape.
While much of this new content is already available, it doesn't yet hold a candle to hi-definition programmes offered by the established broadcast companies. However, the ability to download hi-definition content via Apple TV not only provides seamlessly easy access to it but also the image quality of it is great. Thus, what Apple does in terms of designing revenue and software models for its TV-based products will be as important, if not more so than the hardware.
I think this is a very relevant and perceptive question.
We're very used to TV programmes being broadcast over terrestrial or satellite systems, but what we're now witnessing is the internet becoming a proper broadcast medium. Forget traditional TV channels, any person anywhere with a video camera now has the technology at their disposal to become an independent TV broadcaster. This is radical.
It means a person in Tibet or Iraq upload a video to You-Tube or some other website that totally undermines any state-controlled coverage/ news blackouts. So this isn't just a TV revolution, but a communication revolution.
Not so in China, home of the word's most effective firewall and content blocking. Even so, with a little education their system can be circumvented.
For the most part, I think Apple is better off staying out of the TV market, it's way too competitive and even some of the high end companies are refactoring how they operate to adjust to the market. I think Apple is better off producing devices that comply with the appropriate standards, and leave the TV to other companies.
I disagree, and I wouldn't mind one yeah. I hate to bring it up, but people said the phone market was too competitive. No company has a monopoly on good displays. Besides, if they wanted they could simply work with Sony to make the best OLED TV ever, with the only part from Sony being the display (although they are doing R&D on large display technologies) like the way they get the displays in their existing computers from external companies.
An Apple Tele running their TV version of OS X, with RSS, and widgets and WiFi and a big hard drive all in a mouthwateringly, sleek case makes me tremble with excitement for a TV like I never have before. They could charge a premium and million+ people would pay it for the best TV on the planet. And they could then come out with their their iTunes TV show subscription model to get all your shows, podcasts, live news and sports coming through the internet, for the most pleasantly, seamless iPTV experience out there.
An Apple Tele running their TV version of OS X, with RSS, and widgets and WiFi and a big hard drive all in a mouthwateringly, sleek case makes me tremble with excitement for a TV like I never have before. They could charge a premium and million+ people would pay it for the best TV on the planet. And they could then come out with their their iTunes TV show subscription model to get all your shows, podcasts, live news and sports coming through the internet, for the most pleasantly, seamless iPTV experience out there.
"That...Detective Ireland. Is the right question"
TV is still the same braindead device. I know that Steve has been quoted as saying something to the effect of "you turn on your computer to engage your mind ..you turn on your TV to turn off your mind"
There's a happy median somewhere there. With IPTV we may no not be encumbered with the typical limitations of Broadcast TV. Perhaps there's a richer experience available and it just takes a visionary to see and act upon it.
Really! You make it sound so obvious. When and where did you see that info? (I am not referring to the Fortune article on ATT lowering iPhone price that everyone was hyperventilating on, or to what seemed like a confused report from Korea about a smaller form factor 3G iPhone posted yesterday on AI).
Cite, please?
I thought it was Tiwain instead of Korea, but there are rumors of a nano iPhone every other month. The "source" for my observation was my own common sense. I think that Apple could release three form factor iPhones in June if it wanted to (not sure of the price points needed to keep its margins): iPhone (slightly thinner and lighter due to tapered edges like the MBA), a nano iPhone, and a GPS iPhone (slightly thicker than the iPhone and probably with 32 and maybe even 64 Gbytes to justify a higher price than the iPhone). But I'm going with just a 3G iPhone introduction in June so as not to "confuse" the market. Maybe the GPS iPhone for Christmas. The nano iPhone will depress iPhone ASPs, so I think it's a marketing/investor call, and that's why I said that if the 10million goal is in doubt we'll see the nano in 2008 rather than wait until 2009. Hope this helps.
Comments
I think they're comfortable bridging their technology with the EPrise where it they stand to profits and enjoy high ROI.
The iPone "will" cannibalize the iPod and it's supposed to. The future is about your "digital life" in your pocket" Why carry two devices when consolidation is the key?
Apple TV will continue to grow in power and influence as faster broadband speeds become available and the next wave of compression technology hits promising at least a %50 reduction in datarate for a given level of picture quality.
The $999 iMac will be replaced by a portable device sans keys that fits between the iPhone and the Macbook. Touch on steroids but more than a tablet.
The SDK was being worked on before the iphones release.
Anyone who takes a look at the SDK and documentation (and is familiar with software development) knows this all too well.
For the most part, I think Apple is better off staying out of the TV market, it's way too competitive and even some of the high end companies are refactoring how they operate to adjust to the market.
I think Apple is better off staying out of the cell phone market, it's way too competitive and even some of the high end... That said, I agree: unless Apple can re-imagine what a TV should be able to do (and Apple TV integration is not that), they should stay out of the TV market.
Overall, some pretty solid analysis and insights. Nothing ground-breaking (except perhaps for his confidence in multiple versions of the iPhone in 2009, and one that could be priced as low as $200).
Nice work, Mr. Munster!
That's a no brainer. The only way he's off, in my opinion, is if there is any doubt Apple will sell 10million in 2008. That's when we'll see a nano iPhone in 2008 (at the iPod refresh in September).
I think Apple is better off staying out of the cell phone market, it's way too competitive and even some of the high end... That said, I agree: unless Apple can re-imagine what a TV should be able to do (and Apple TV integration is not that), they should stay out of the TV market.
I realized that when I wrote it, but to me, there's something different about the two circumstances that I can't put my finger on, so I didn't want to make a mess of it. On the surface, it does look hypocritical of me to say that about TV and not the iPhone, I think there's a good reason for it that I can't articulate.
At least maybe with the phone, back a couple years ago, seemed to me to be the next logical step of the iPod because it's one less device to carry. I figured Apple was going to lose out if they don't offer a phone and the phones out there might do it "good enough" that it's not worth the hassle of carrying two separate devices. It also helps that Apple came up with a slick device too.
So, yes, I do agree with your reinterpretation. Maybe if "smart TVs" started getting traction, I don't know. It's tough to describe, but an Apple "dumb TV" doesn't seem worthwhile.
Testing, testing ... 1-2-3, testing, testing ... 1-2-3.
Same here... test.
I realized that when I wrote it, but to me, there's something different about the two circumstances that I can't put my finger on, so I didn't want to make a mess of it. On the surface, it does look hypocritical of me to say that about TV and not the iPhone, I think there's a good reason for it that I can't articulate.
One distinction is that, prior to the iPhone, many people complained about the UI/operation of their cell phones while far fewer people complain about the these issues with their TVs (except for remote controls). Other than improving the remote, it is much harder to see what Apple could bring to the table in TV design over other manufacturers.
One distinction is that, prior to the iPhone, many people complained about the UI/operation of their cell phones while far fewer people complain about the these issues with their TVs (except for remote controls). Other than improving the remote, it is much harder to see what Apple could bring to the table in TV design over other manufacturers.
Network capability
Samung and Toshiba (probably others) have begun to add Ethernet ports to some TV lines. However neither has quite the same stake in media that Apple has. While the thought of Apple making a TV is far fetched I "do" remember people on these very boards saying Apple would be crazy to go up against Motorola and Nokia in the phone space.
People will pay more money for great integration. What about a HDTV with Ethernet and Wireless capability with Bluetooth/IR multitouch remote. Imagine Apple shipping HDTV with Apple TV built right in. What other manufacturer stands to gain residual profit from selling a TV? Each TV sold is not a loss leader but yet another node for playing back digital content supplied by Apple.
Imagine a TV with built in iPod/iPhone docks. Imagine editing audio or video on your Mac/PC and instantly watching the results streamed to your HDTV?
Nay. TVs are still the same idiot boxes they've always been with just more fanciful connectors and svelte lines. They still haven't entered the "smart" phase...but they need to.
the iphone is aimed at consumers. but there has clearly also been great demand from business users, who want something less 'suity' than their blackberry. given that apple can address this -potentially huge - demand without altering the experience for consumers, why would it not? the intel transition was the same - the motivation was to produce the best consumer macs, but it allows them to sells to businesses (and, perhaps more significantly, windows-dependent home users). if your can produce a consumer offering without the negatives for business users, why would you not?
(and, with an eye to the future - if 50%+ of all users are used to the os x experience, the 'people know windows' story from it depts becomes weaker. don't be surprised if, a few years down the line, apple starts offering a business-targeted mac mini-ish box. apple experience (and training/security savings), windows prices. tie it in with better iphone integration, and why not?)
2. $1k mac
from time to time, apple offers a cheap mac, for a year or so. and the cheapskates grow market share by word of mouth. apple users are *far* happier with their computer than windows users (and we're here - how many people are on a WindowsInsider site right now?). we evangelise. because os x is just nice, especially when you're forced, as almost everyone is, to compare it daily with windows. so - the $1k iMac, the $399 mini. if you choose to go back, the clones (ok, that doesn't really work. but it sort of does. but hey, while we're on in, the psystar - apple gains, especially when it's slightly crappy and breaks with software update).
3. 'eating its children'
yes, of course it is. of course some iphone sales would otherwise have been ipod sales. but (almost) everyone (who might get one) has an ipod. apple has to provide a reason to upgrade (preferably with the fear that another hdd will give out on you). given that for the central years of exponential ipod growth, the most popular models were 15-30Gb, i expect the iphone will see huge growth at 32Gb (and, for europe, 3g). essentially, people (me included) are waiting for it to be Good Enough.
right, that'll do. fire away...
"How is Apple leveraging their success with iTunes and the Mac/iPod/iPhone ecosystem to engage with consumers in to form a tighter social network?"
Right now this is a weakness of Apple IMO. If they are relatively weak at deploying social interaction apps for consumers then it stands that they are probably equally ineffective at developing business appls with the requisite interaction/collaboration features.
I look at how cruddy Myspace is and I think "Apple could obliterate Myspace within 36 months". I look at iChat AV and I think about how much more of a tool it could be. I look at .mac and see it floundering from a community standpoint. For all of Apple's savvy and excellent business acumen in some areas they seem naive like a child when it comes to glueing disparate Apple elements into some cohesive social network.
That's a no brainer.
Really! You make it sound so obvious. When and where did you see that info? (I am not referring to the Fortune article on ATT lowering iPhone price that everyone was hyperventilating on, or to what seemed like a confused report from Korea about a smaller form factor 3G iPhone posted yesterday on AI).
Cite, please?
Here's another unanswered question:
Will Apple make TV's before 2010?
YES
I think this is a very relevant and perceptive question.
We're very used to TV programmes being broadcast over terrestrial or satellite systems, but what we're now witnessing is the internet becoming a proper broadcast medium. Forget traditional TV channels, any person anywhere with a video camera now has the technology at their disposal to become an independent TV broadcaster. This is radical.
It means a person in Tibet or Iraq upload a video to You-Tube or some other website that totally undermines any state-controlled coverage/ news blackouts. So this isn't just a TV revolution, but a communication revolution.
The knock-on effect is that TVs and computers are converging. Apple TV is the first product to really recognize this trend. Step 1 is to facilitate the viewing of downloaded TV programmes and other internet content to your TV screen. Step 2 is to sell the TV itself. Perhaps this is what Apple's new line of cinema screen displays will be?
While Apple is bound to launch some amazing new hardware, what will most drive the growth of internet TV content will be software. The challenge is to stream interesting on-demand programming, e.g. news feeds updated every hour; popular weekly TV shows, e.g, House, and other high quality content via hi-definition images resolution. Content plus image quality will shape the competitive landscape.
While much of this new content is already available, it doesn't yet hold a candle to hi-definition programmes offered by the established broadcast companies. However, the ability to download hi-definition content via Apple TV not only provides seamlessly easy access to it but also the image quality of it is great. Thus, what Apple does in terms of designing revenue and software models for its TV-based products will be as important, if not more so than the hardware.
Exciting stuff.
I think this is a very relevant and perceptive question.
We're very used to TV programmes being broadcast over terrestrial or satellite systems, but what we're now witnessing is the internet becoming a proper broadcast medium. Forget traditional TV channels, any person anywhere with a video camera now has the technology at their disposal to become an independent TV broadcaster. This is radical.
It means a person in Tibet or Iraq upload a video to You-Tube or some other website that totally undermines any state-controlled coverage/ news blackouts. So this isn't just a TV revolution, but a communication revolution.
Not so in China, home of the word's most effective firewall and content blocking. Even so, with a little education their system can be circumvented.
Why? I'm not sure it really makes sense.
Do you say that in part because you want one?
For the most part, I think Apple is better off staying out of the TV market, it's way too competitive and even some of the high end companies are refactoring how they operate to adjust to the market. I think Apple is better off producing devices that comply with the appropriate standards, and leave the TV to other companies.
I disagree, and I wouldn't mind one yeah. I hate to bring it up, but people said the phone market was too competitive. No company has a monopoly on good displays. Besides, if they wanted they could simply work with Sony to make the best OLED TV ever, with the only part from Sony being the display (although they are doing R&D on large display technologies) like the way they get the displays in their existing computers from external companies.
An Apple Tele running their TV version of OS X, with RSS, and widgets and WiFi and a big hard drive all in a mouthwateringly, sleek case makes me tremble with excitement for a TV like I never have before. They could charge a premium and million+ people would pay it for the best TV on the planet. And they could then come out with their their iTunes TV show subscription model to get all your shows, podcasts, live news and sports coming through the internet, for the most pleasantly, seamless iPTV experience out there.
Not so in China, home of the word's most effective firewall and content blocking. Even so, with a little education their system can be circumvented.
True, and funny. Careful not to say funny and true.
...
An Apple Tele running their TV version of OS X, with RSS, and widgets and WiFi and a big hard drive all in a mouthwateringly, sleek case makes me tremble with excitement for a TV like I never have before. They could charge a premium and million+ people would pay it for the best TV on the planet. And they could then come out with their their iTunes TV show subscription model to get all your shows, podcasts, live news and sports coming through the internet, for the most pleasantly, seamless iPTV experience out there.
"That...Detective Ireland. Is the right question"
TV is still the same braindead device. I know that Steve has been quoted as saying something to the effect of "you turn on your computer to engage your mind ..you turn on your TV to turn off your mind"
There's a happy median somewhere there. With IPTV we may no not be encumbered with the typical limitations of Broadcast TV. Perhaps there's a richer experience available and it just takes a visionary to see and act upon it.
Really! You make it sound so obvious. When and where did you see that info? (I am not referring to the Fortune article on ATT lowering iPhone price that everyone was hyperventilating on, or to what seemed like a confused report from Korea about a smaller form factor 3G iPhone posted yesterday on AI).
Cite, please?
I thought it was Tiwain instead of Korea, but there are rumors of a nano iPhone every other month. The "source" for my observation was my own common sense. I think that Apple could release three form factor iPhones in June if it wanted to (not sure of the price points needed to keep its margins): iPhone (slightly thinner and lighter due to tapered edges like the MBA), a nano iPhone, and a GPS iPhone (slightly thicker than the iPhone and probably with 32 and maybe even 64 Gbytes to justify a higher price than the iPhone). But I'm going with just a 3G iPhone introduction in June so as not to "confuse" the market. Maybe the GPS iPhone for Christmas. The nano iPhone will depress iPhone ASPs, so I think it's a marketing/investor call, and that's why I said that if the 10million goal is in doubt we'll see the nano in 2008 rather than wait until 2009. Hope this helps.