Holy crap.. wait wait. SEPTEMBER????? BY SEPTEMBER'S END???? Guys/Gals... that is the key. Look at the date today. That's a 60 day 'transition'. What product(s) would even be able to do this?
Okay... I just solved the riddle. And it's anti-climactic. In fact.. I'm amazed nobody here has said it yet in simple terms. Of course if I'm wrong I'd look stupid so I'll just savor the secret knowledge and leave you to solve it yourself... unless I'm wrong in which case I only look stupid NOW instead of THEN.
[Maybe it's] a chip that would give a Mac built-in, hardware-based "software metering," so that a user would be able to run software on a rental basis.
..........................
Alternatively, maybe it's a built-in chip that performs speedy encryption, or that monitors the computer for malware. (Again, if it isn't, it should be--eventually.)
Was I getting warm? If not, is it something similar: i.e., a dedicated chip that is invulnerable to hacking?
This issue I have is that there's limited space available in signatures.
What the second rule means is that a straight-up plural doesn't have an apostrophe.
i.e., the plural of "car" is "cars" not "car's"; the plural of "MacBook Pro" is "MacBook Pros" (or perhaps "MacBooks Pro" ) not "MacBook Pro's"
Right. Hmm, but sometimes I'll see people use them in...years, i.e. with the 1990s, they'll put 1990's, or usually, '90's. I leave off the apostrophe-s.
but sometimes I'll see people use them in...years, i.e. with the 1990s, they'll put 1990's, or usually, '90's. I leave off the apostrophe-s.
Indeed. You are correct, you shouldn't use an apostrophe in that case. It should be 1990s or '90s (the first apostrophe to indicate the missing "19").
1990's means "belonging to the year 1990", so if for example there was some music fad in 1990 you wanted to refer to, you might want to say "1990's music fad".
Indeed. You are correct, you shouldn't use an apostrophe in that case. It should be 1990s or '90s (the first apostrophe to indicate the missing "19").
1990's means "belonging to the year 1990", so if for example there was some music fad in 1990 you wanted to refer to, you might want to say "1990's music fad".
Good, because otherwise I would have been in the wrong for years.
Holy crap.. wait wait. SEPTEMBER????? BY SEPTEMBER'S END???? Guys/Gals... that is the key. Look at the date today. That's a 60 day 'transition'. What product(s) would even be able to do this?
Okay... I just solved the riddle. And it's anti-climactic. In fact.. I'm amazed nobody here has said it yet in simple terms. Of course if I'm wrong I'd look stupid so I'll just savor the secret knowledge and leave you to solve it yourself... unless I'm wrong in which case I only look stupid NOW instead of THEN.
_NUM
I think we may be thinking the same thing. Software. iLife, iWork and/or MobileMe upgrade/pricedrop. Is there anything in the quotes that say that this must be hardware related?
Was I getting warm? If not, is it something similar: i.e., a dedicated chip that is invulnerable to hacking?
Roger-as for the idea of rental software, I can give you a definitive answer: NO. Motorola makes no such chip, and the idea of creating one would be ludicrous. The thing would be hacked(just like everything else). Plus, Steve Jobs HATES renting (iTMS - software, just like music is something people commonly use).
As for dedicated encryption chips, any vector processor can do that (ie: Cell and CUDA ). Detection of malware on the hardware side is also extremely difficult due to the evolving nature of malware.
Also, a chip invulnerable to hacking: that MIGHT, and I stress, MIGHT be possible in our lifetimes(im talking about something on the VLSI scale), but you can always guarantee that other parts of the system will not be so invulnerable. Creating a 100% hack proof system is not something that will ever be done in our lifetimes, if ever.
As far as Motorola goes, I still fail to see anything they could possibly offer. Perhaps some more research could dig it up. Is someone up to googling the past 2-3 years of Motorola press announcements to look for signs of a product that might help Apple? I do know that Apple makes some of their clients hush up about some of their technologies. You might have to look through cached websites.
Blutnerd: If software like iWork or a service like Mobile were provided free to new buyers, that would be something the cloners couldn't match. It would lower the price umbrella on them. In those two respects it would match what that Apple exec said. Plus, of course, it would be something that would be easier to keep secret than a hardware upgrade, and easier to implement quickly.
OTOH, if that's all it is, why not do it immediately? For that reason, I think something else is involved--possibly bundled third-party software that isn't quite ready yet.
Blutnerd: If software like iWork or a service like Mobile were provided free to new buyers, that would be something the cloners couldn't match. It would lower the price umbrella on them. In those two respects it would match what that Apple exec said. Plus, of course, it would be something that would be easier to keep secret than a hardware upgrade, and easier to implement quickly.
Uh, both of those examples - iWork and MobileMe - are provided free to new buyers through 30 day trial periods. The competition, mainly Microsoft's Office and Exchange, can't match either of Apple's more consumer oriented alternatives on ease of use, let alone price.
Apple's a hardware company, most of their software is sold for shareware prices: $80 for iWork (a measly $40 if you get a student discount), $100/year for MobileMe is rather reasonable, and shoot, Mac OS X can be had for $130 ($70 w/ student discount).
It could also be related to iTunes pricing. For example (and I am aware that this scenario is not terribly likely) a move to all DRM-free music in the iTunes store, for which Apple had to agree to take a smaller piece of the sale price, could be categorized as a product transition. It would affect the profits, as they would make less money on each sale, but presumably, this would be temporary as it would be back up once volume increases. Less profit per song sold but more songs sold over time should equal same profit. I am of course assuming here that the cost of actually selling a song is negligable at this point.
This would help shut out rivals seeing how iTunes, dominant though it may be, is not immune to the DRM-free music store at Amazon for example. It would also fit in with the "price umbrella" that was mentioned.
You could of course replace "music" with "TV shows" or "Movies" in the above example and build a similar argument. I'm not about to argue that this is what it has to be, but I think it shows that focusing solely on hardware could lead to some dissapointment.
You could of course replace "music" with "TV shows" or "Movies" in the above example and build a similar argument. I'm not about to argue that this is what it has to be, but I think it shows that focusing solely on hardware could lead to some dissapointment.
You could be on to something here. Not with the music side of it though; we already know that the music side of iTunes has very low margins as it is (at least, so Apple has always explicitly claimed in conference calls and the like, and I believe it's a criminal offense for them to lie like that to investors.)
On the movie side though, I'm not sure they've ever been so explicit. The margins are probably higher, but I'm not sure that their volumes are large enough to affect Apple's overall margins to the extent Apple has predicted.
One last thing is as someone mentioned earlier, if this "transition" is software based rather than hardware based, why the wait? Surely Apple could do it straight away.
Could it not be that Apple might switch to a subscription based service for iTunes as opposed to a single price per item service? That would probably lower their profit margins quite significantly, and given iTunes current status, pretty much sweep the rest of the competition under the rug.
Could it not be that Apple might switch to a subscription based service for iTunes as opposed to a single price per item service? That would probably lower their profit margins quite significantly, and given iTunes current status, pretty much sweep the rest of the competition under the rug.
I wouldn't say switch. They could offer a subscription service similar to eMusic and I've heard it rumored that Apple might do such a thing by asking for one large lump sum with the purchase of an iPod that would give buyers unlimited access to the iTunes Store.
Could it not be that Apple might switch to a subscription based service for iTunes as opposed to a single price per item service? That would probably lower their profit margins quite significantly, and given iTunes current status, pretty much sweep the rest of the competition under the rug.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
I wouldn't say switch. They could offer a subscription service similar to eMusic and I've heard it rumored that Apple might do such a thing by asking for one large lump sum with the purchase of an iPod that would give buyers unlimited access to the iTunes Store.
That's interesting and it probably wouldn't hurt Apple's margins very much. I suspect that most iPod owners buy 3-4 songs from the store and then go back to ripping CDs or downloading the old fashioned way. ITunes probably has a pretty small base of regular, repeat customers.
That's interesting and it probably wouldn't hurt Apple's margins very much. I suspect that most iPod owners buy 3-4 songs from the store and then go back to ripping CDs or downloading the old fashioned way. ITunes probably has a pretty small base of regular, repeat customers.
Yeah I, for one, would gladly pay an extra $100 or so whenever I buy a new iPod or iPhone to get free access to iTunes' large and easy to navigate catalog than having to save up for every single song or album. I probably have more iTunes-bought music than the average person because I've been given a lot of those iTunes gift cards for whatever reason. Most iPod owners only have 5-10 iTunes songs. A subscription service would be a nice option, though I'd still want the ability to buy things a la carte if they patterned it more off eMusic's subscriptions that only give you a set amount of downloads per month or per year.
1) This thread is getting waaay of topic. If you read the OP, it clearly states that it will have "technologies and features that others can't match." Subscription based music sales already exist. Oppenheimer also alluded to Apple not wanting to "leave a margin so high that it creates an "umbrella" for competitors to rest under in terms of price." Music, movies, other items of low price don't really fit this description. People are still gonna buy music if they make it 20-30c more (think iTunes +). We're most likely talking $100s of dollars here people. I would thus say that whatever Apple debuts will be a hardware device. Of what nature, I can't say, but it will definitely not be a commodity such as music or movies.
2) Steve Jobs has gone on the record saying he hates subscription based music. If you don't believe me, Google "Steve Jobs subscription music" or something similar.
3) Subscription based music systems don't work. Look at what happened to Microsoft and Yahoo.
4) What ever happend to Junkyard Dawg? All quiet on the western front I suppose.
They already believe current products have technologies and features that others can't match. So who's to really say the updates are of any real technological significance. As usual, I doubt the answer will live up to the hype the fanboys feed it.
2) Steve Jobs has gone on the record saying he hates subscription based music. If you don't believe me, Google "Steve Jobs subscription music" or something similar.
3) Subscription based music systems don't work. Look at what happened to Microsoft and Yahoo.
Nobody was suggesting a DRM rental service like all the failed PlaysForSure WMA stores - Napster 2.0, Rhapsody, and recently, Yahoo - which Jobs was referring to. Have you heard of eMusic? Do you understand how they do subscriptions? You pay like $10/month for 30 downloads, as in DRM-free MP3 files. If you kill your subscription, the MP3s you downloaded obviously don't disappear off your computer. eMusic even keeps a record of what you've downloaded online and allows you to re-download things as many times as you want. eMusic's the only really successful subscription-based music service and only offers around 2 million tracks from indie artists, not to mention it's browser-based store is nowhere near as user friendly as iTunes.
Apple could easily offer their own subscription service, as has been rumored, which would be like a $100-$200 premium you pay when buying a new iPod or iPhone that would give you unlimited access to the iTunes Store. They'd still have a la carte music buying, I wasn't even considering all the other media. Or they could simply offer a monthly or annual fee like eMusic, but obviously you'd have over 4 million more songs to choose from.
Comments
Okay... I just solved the riddle. And it's anti-climactic. In fact.. I'm amazed nobody here has said it yet in simple terms. Of course if I'm wrong I'd look stupid so I'll just savor the secret knowledge and leave you to solve it yourself... unless I'm wrong in which case I only look stupid NOW instead of THEN.
_NUM
[Maybe it's] a chip that would give a Mac built-in, hardware-based "software metering," so that a user would be able to run software on a rental basis.
..........................
Alternatively, maybe it's a built-in chip that performs speedy encryption, or that monitors the computer for malware. (Again, if it isn't, it should be--eventually.)
Was I getting warm? If not, is it something similar: i.e., a dedicated chip that is invulnerable to hacking?
Eek.
That is all. Continue…
Yikes, how'd that get there?
However, isn't your second apostrophe rule wrong?
An example from wikipedia:
My sisters' friends' investments (the investments belonging to several friends of several of my sisters)
However, isn't your second apostrophe rule wrong?
An example from wikipedia:
My sisters' friends' investments (the investments belonging to several friends of several of my sisters)
This issue I have is that there's limited space available in signatures.
What the second rule means is that a straight-up plural doesn't have an apostrophe.
i.e., the plural of "car" is "cars" not "car's"; the plural of "MacBook Pro" is "MacBook Pros" (or perhaps "MacBooks Pro"
This issue I have is that there's limited space available in signatures.
What the second rule means is that a straight-up plural doesn't have an apostrophe.
i.e., the plural of "car" is "cars" not "car's"; the plural of "MacBook Pro" is "MacBook Pros" (or perhaps "MacBooks Pro"
Right. Hmm, but sometimes I'll see people use them in...years, i.e. with the 1990s, they'll put 1990's, or usually, '90's. I leave off the apostrophe-s.
but sometimes I'll see people use them in...years, i.e. with the 1990s, they'll put 1990's, or usually, '90's. I leave off the apostrophe-s.
Indeed. You are correct, you shouldn't use an apostrophe in that case. It should be 1990s or '90s (the first apostrophe to indicate the missing "19").
1990's means "belonging to the year 1990", so if for example there was some music fad in 1990 you wanted to refer to, you might want to say "1990's music fad".
Indeed. You are correct, you shouldn't use an apostrophe in that case. It should be 1990s or '90s (the first apostrophe to indicate the missing "19").
1990's means "belonging to the year 1990", so if for example there was some music fad in 1990 you wanted to refer to, you might want to say "1990's music fad".
Good, because otherwise I would have been in the wrong for years.
Holy crap.. wait wait. SEPTEMBER????? BY SEPTEMBER'S END???? Guys/Gals... that is the key. Look at the date today. That's a 60 day 'transition'. What product(s) would even be able to do this?
Okay... I just solved the riddle. And it's anti-climactic. In fact.. I'm amazed nobody here has said it yet in simple terms. Of course if I'm wrong I'd look stupid so I'll just savor the secret knowledge and leave you to solve it yourself... unless I'm wrong in which case I only look stupid NOW instead of THEN.
_NUM
I think we may be thinking the same thing. Software. iLife, iWork and/or MobileMe upgrade/pricedrop. Is there anything in the quotes that say that this must be hardware related?
Dawg: In previous posts I speculated as follows:
Was I getting warm? If not, is it something similar: i.e., a dedicated chip that is invulnerable to hacking?
Roger-as for the idea of rental software, I can give you a definitive answer: NO. Motorola makes no such chip, and the idea of creating one would be ludicrous. The thing would be hacked(just like everything else). Plus, Steve Jobs HATES renting (iTMS - software, just like music is something people commonly use).
As for dedicated encryption chips, any vector processor can do that (ie: Cell and CUDA ). Detection of malware on the hardware side is also extremely difficult due to the evolving nature of malware.
Also, a chip invulnerable to hacking: that MIGHT, and I stress, MIGHT be possible in our lifetimes(im talking about something on the VLSI scale), but you can always guarantee that other parts of the system will not be so invulnerable. Creating a 100% hack proof system is not something that will ever be done in our lifetimes, if ever.
As far as Motorola goes, I still fail to see anything they could possibly offer. Perhaps some more research could dig it up. Is someone up to googling the past 2-3 years of Motorola press announcements to look for signs of a product that might help Apple? I do know that Apple makes some of their clients hush up about some of their technologies. You might have to look through cached websites.
OTOH, if that's all it is, why not do it immediately? For that reason, I think something else is involved--possibly bundled third-party software that isn't quite ready yet.
Blutnerd: If software like iWork or a service like Mobile were provided free to new buyers, that would be something the cloners couldn't match. It would lower the price umbrella on them. In those two respects it would match what that Apple exec said. Plus, of course, it would be something that would be easier to keep secret than a hardware upgrade, and easier to implement quickly.
Uh, both of those examples - iWork and MobileMe - are provided free to new buyers through 30 day trial periods. The competition, mainly Microsoft's Office and Exchange, can't match either of Apple's more consumer oriented alternatives on ease of use, let alone price.
Apple's a hardware company, most of their software is sold for shareware prices: $80 for iWork (a measly $40 if you get a student discount), $100/year for MobileMe is rather reasonable, and shoot, Mac OS X can be had for $130 ($70 w/ student discount).
This would help shut out rivals seeing how iTunes, dominant though it may be, is not immune to the DRM-free music store at Amazon for example. It would also fit in with the "price umbrella" that was mentioned.
You could of course replace "music" with "TV shows" or "Movies" in the above example and build a similar argument. I'm not about to argue that this is what it has to be, but I think it shows that focusing solely on hardware could lead to some dissapointment.
You could of course replace "music" with "TV shows" or "Movies" in the above example and build a similar argument. I'm not about to argue that this is what it has to be, but I think it shows that focusing solely on hardware could lead to some dissapointment.
You could be on to something here. Not with the music side of it though; we already know that the music side of iTunes has very low margins as it is (at least, so Apple has always explicitly claimed in conference calls and the like, and I believe it's a criminal offense for them to lie like that to investors.)
On the movie side though, I'm not sure they've ever been so explicit. The margins are probably higher, but I'm not sure that their volumes are large enough to affect Apple's overall margins to the extent Apple has predicted.
One last thing is as someone mentioned earlier, if this "transition" is software based rather than hardware based, why the wait? Surely Apple could do it straight away.
Could it not be that Apple might switch to a subscription based service for iTunes as opposed to a single price per item service? That would probably lower their profit margins quite significantly, and given iTunes current status, pretty much sweep the rest of the competition under the rug.
I wouldn't say switch. They could offer a subscription service similar to eMusic and I've heard it rumored that Apple might do such a thing by asking for one large lump sum with the purchase of an iPod that would give buyers unlimited access to the iTunes Store.
Could it not be that Apple might switch to a subscription based service for iTunes as opposed to a single price per item service? That would probably lower their profit margins quite significantly, and given iTunes current status, pretty much sweep the rest of the competition under the rug.
I wouldn't say switch. They could offer a subscription service similar to eMusic and I've heard it rumored that Apple might do such a thing by asking for one large lump sum with the purchase of an iPod that would give buyers unlimited access to the iTunes Store.
That's interesting and it probably wouldn't hurt Apple's margins very much. I suspect that most iPod owners buy 3-4 songs from the store and then go back to ripping CDs or downloading the old fashioned way. ITunes probably has a pretty small base of regular, repeat customers.
That's interesting and it probably wouldn't hurt Apple's margins very much. I suspect that most iPod owners buy 3-4 songs from the store and then go back to ripping CDs or downloading the old fashioned way. ITunes probably has a pretty small base of regular, repeat customers.
Yeah I, for one, would gladly pay an extra $100 or so whenever I buy a new iPod or iPhone to get free access to iTunes' large and easy to navigate catalog than having to save up for every single song or album. I probably have more iTunes-bought music than the average person because I've been given a lot of those iTunes gift cards for whatever reason. Most iPod owners only have 5-10 iTunes songs. A subscription service would be a nice option, though I'd still want the ability to buy things a la carte if they patterned it more off eMusic's subscriptions that only give you a set amount of downloads per month or per year.
1) This thread is getting waaay of topic. If you read the OP, it clearly states that it will have "technologies and features that others can't match." Subscription based music sales already exist. Oppenheimer also alluded to Apple not wanting to "leave a margin so high that it creates an "umbrella" for competitors to rest under in terms of price." Music, movies, other items of low price don't really fit this description. People are still gonna buy music if they make it 20-30c more (think iTunes +). We're most likely talking $100s of dollars here people. I would thus say that whatever Apple debuts will be a hardware device. Of what nature, I can't say, but it will definitely not be a commodity such as music or movies.
2) Steve Jobs has gone on the record saying he hates subscription based music. If you don't believe me, Google "Steve Jobs subscription music" or something similar.
3) Subscription based music systems don't work. Look at what happened to Microsoft and Yahoo.
4) What ever happend to Junkyard Dawg? All quiet on the western front I suppose.
Ok, a few points to make here:
2) Steve Jobs has gone on the record saying he hates subscription based music. If you don't believe me, Google "Steve Jobs subscription music" or something similar.
3) Subscription based music systems don't work. Look at what happened to Microsoft and Yahoo.
Nobody was suggesting a DRM rental service like all the failed PlaysForSure WMA stores - Napster 2.0, Rhapsody, and recently, Yahoo - which Jobs was referring to. Have you heard of eMusic? Do you understand how they do subscriptions? You pay like $10/month for 30 downloads, as in DRM-free MP3 files. If you kill your subscription, the MP3s you downloaded obviously don't disappear off your computer. eMusic even keeps a record of what you've downloaded online and allows you to re-download things as many times as you want. eMusic's the only really successful subscription-based music service and only offers around 2 million tracks from indie artists, not to mention it's browser-based store is nowhere near as user friendly as iTunes.
Apple could easily offer their own subscription service, as has been rumored, which would be like a $100-$200 premium you pay when buying a new iPod or iPhone that would give you unlimited access to the iTunes Store. They'd still have a la carte music buying, I wasn't even considering all the other media. Or they could simply offer a monthly or annual fee like eMusic, but obviously you'd have over 4 million more songs to choose from.