The only problem I have with that article is the QuickTime is the basis of iTunes and it does not need to be released or tied to a specific version of OSX. Mainly due to the fact that QuickTime is cross-platform. Is Apple going to have Snow Leopard specific features that Windows and older versions of OSX can't take advantage of? I believe not.
If the intro of the new iPods rolls in a new major release of iTunes 8.0 then you can wager with success that a new major revision of QuickTime will be coming out along with it. Either we'll see iTunes 8.0 and QuickTime X rolled-out this September or we will see them with intro'd with the Snow Leopard release. I doubt the latter.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHERE ARE THE NEW MACBOOKS? This crappy dell is barely working now!
I wouldn't get too anxious and by a MB right now. If you can wait one to three* months, I would. Of course.
* I'm not convinced that Intel has worked out the X4500 issues and therefore won't have priduction ready for Apple's needs right away. Remember, while Apple is a minor player worldwide and well behind Dell and HP in the US, they are the major player in terms of notebooks and are probably the Intel's largest customer in terms of using high end mobile chips, since HP and Dell sell most of their units using older tech.
The only problem I have with that article is the QuickTime is the basis of iTunes and it does not need to be released or tied to a specific version of OSX. Mainly due to the fact that QuickTime is cross-platform. Is Apple going to have Snow Leopard specific features that Windows and older versions of OSX can't take advantage of? I believe not.
If the intro of the new iPods rolls in a new major release of iTunes 8.0 then you can wager with success that a new major revision of QuickTime will be coming out along with it. Either we'll see iTunes 8.0 and QuickTime X rolled-out this September or we will see them with intro'd with the Snow Leopard release. I doubt the latter.
I agree. Roughly Drafted's latest article has outlined the release dates for iTunes which clearly shows no real rhyme or reason to the version numbering.
I think the best marketing move may be to release a rewritten iTunes and Quicktime for the next iLife and iWork update. I assume that will happen in January. However, if it's finished now I also see no reason not to release it along with the new iPods.
PS: I hope—but doubt— that Apple is ready to incorporate P.A. Semi tech in these new notebooks. I also hope that they use a H.264 encoder chip. High Profile encoding still takes so very long. Montevina has decoding built in, but no encoding enhancement.
Could he have been lucky enough, to have tried the iPhone II 3G - iPhone Deluxe - iPhone business edition?
No, but he may have been unwittingly been fed misinformation by someone, OR he may have thought he'd be clever trying to generate web traffic by spinning his own ridiculous story. In any case, he's not a credible source of information.
As a continuing follow-up.... Rose is on Twitlive.tv (with Leo Laporte) as of 3:20 PM Pacific time), and they're talking about his supposed leaked photo... still don't believe it.
The product transition that Apple referred to earlier is completely different from the tweaking or repricing of iPods that is referred to here.
This is not significant stuff - at least not significant enough to warrant being disclosed along with earnings, a full quarter ahead.
However, there is something else that is totally unexpected by the market. There are rumors of a JV between Google and Apple, relating to the Cable TV segment. Google has set up massive server farms and has tied up with Akamai for network management for the launch of Google TV. This is part of Google's strategy to extend its advertising business to TV - which is the biggest bastion left for Google to conquer.
You can get your entire dose of TV from Google - which will be easily viewable as Streaming Video from your Apple TV. The revenue model will be based off monthly fees from viewers, ad revenue from ads inserted into the movie stream. Once you subscribe to the monthly feed, you can get the shows from iTunes as well for a lot cheaper - just 99 cents per show, or $9.95 for unlimited iTunes recorded shows each month (on top of whatever you pay Google monthly).
This will completely remove all need for DVR functionality, etc at your home - you dont have to set your DVR to record - everything is recorded for you by Apple.
Signing up for a 2Y deal at packages over $19.95 per month will get you the Apple TV FREE... This is why Apple has to warn of drop in margins.
For long, the Apple TV has been considered the "fourth" leg for Apple -- but it has always been a very wobbly leg. With this product transition, Apple TV becomes a legitimate fourth leg for Apple.
There are enough clues to show that something like this is cooking up -- Google is still on Apple's board - despite the very obvious conflict of interest between the iPhone and Android. Quite obviously, there is something a lot bigger than the iPhone at stake here. Considering how big the iPhone is, the only thing that could be more important is the TV business.
It is a logical extension of everything Apple has done with AppleTV, and the iTunes store.
And this is ultimately, the best way for Google to expand the advertising led model into the TV sphere.
Why should Google tie up with Apple -- the mass market is unlikely to get their TV content from their PCs. Google has to come up with a device that is compelling - that is easy to use, and gets online streaming content on your TV. Google also has to build something like the iTunes ecosystem to support recorded shows. All this is a lot easier to do with Apple -- because Apple has already done the hard work in this space. Apple also already has the relationships with media originators - which will help Google get started in the TV space.
Why does Apple need Google -- Apple is not geared to do this on its own - the sheer volume of network bandwidth, and network management that is required is way beyond Apple's capability. This is something Google already has in place. Apple cannot subsidize the TV channels with dynamically inserted ads - something Google already has the capability for.
Is there any "need" that is felt in the marketplace - quite definitely. The way Cable TV works today, is pathetic to say the least. You need a DVR in each home -- and you need to decide in advance which programs your DVR will record. You can only record 2 programs simulaneously (that too only if you have dual tuners). You have to pay $10 a month for the privilege of being able to record (Time Warner - not sure of the others).
Instead a system where *all* content from all channels is always recorded for you, and you can download and watch at your convenience, would be perfect. Current iTunes model where you pay $2 for a show is not scalable -- becomes too expensive too quickly. But if you combined it with a monthly subscription - then you dont have to pay $2 per show - for the same $10/month that you have to pay to get DVR capability, Apple can record ALL your shows for you to see anytime. This is viable, because lot many more people will sign up for this service.
I think this is a precursor for an eventual merger between Google and Apple - and when that happens, there will be some heartburn in Redmond.
The product transition that Apple referred to earlier is completely different from the tweaking or repricing of iPods that is referred to here.
This is not significant stuff - at least not significant enough to warrant being disclosed along with earnings, a full quarter ahead.
<snip>
Instead a system where *all* content from all channels is always recorded for you, and you can download and watch at your convenience, would be perfect. Current iTunes model where you pay $2 for a show is not scalable -- becomes too expensive too quickly. But if you combined it with a monthly subscription - then you dont have to pay $2 per show - for the same $10/month that you have to pay to get DVR capability, Apple can record ALL your shows for you to see anytime. This is viable, because lot many more people will sign up for this service.
Wow, big thoughts. Good reading. I don't agree, but I like your thinking process. Actually, on rereading, I agree with more than I thought... but still ... :-)
Overall - I think Apple is looking into this kind of thing. I think Apple would gain greatly by making the AppleTV a gateway into Google's streaming TV offerings as they expand, but I'm not sure how Apple would merge its download (rent or buy) model with Google's. It's a BIG jump, one that I think is possible - but would Apple be willing to jump hand-in-hand with Google? I guess a combined Google/Apple online TV partnership including streaming & downloads, advertising support & subscriptions etc - that would be enough to scare the crap out of EVERYONE.
Still.. is it a product transition? And does it change margin from 35% last quarter, to 31% this quarter and 30% next quarter? (Or, presuming Apple's timing is stuffed up, does it change gross margin from 35% this quarter to 30% in a few quarters?
Perhaps it would if they sold huge numbers of AppleTVs? Would selling a huge number of AppleTVs be classed as a product transition? What about if their internals were re-invented (iPhone chips, PA Semi, and iPhone OS?)?
Great thought... and I agree product transition doesn't refer to tweaking iPods, just not sure this is a product transition either.
Instead a system where *all* content from all channels is always recorded for you, and you can download and watch at your convenience, would be perfect.
Just a side note - that's an interesting way of Apple providing a "DVR". If Apple recorded every FTA program (for a given region) including ads, and recompressed it into mpeg4, it could actually allow every AppleTV to pretend it was a PVR, while still following the download model.
It's a bit of an odd way to do it... but it rearranges my preconceptions of what Apple could offer. Saves money on the AppleTV but adds a burden on internet providers. It also adds more than simple PVR capabilities - since it virtually records every channel simultaneously, and it doesn't care about "over run" of TV shows since it's always recorded every overrun. Link that to purchases (or rental) of older episodes etc and it starts getting very interesting.
ps. Wasn't cablevision recently given permission to offer virtual DVRs for its customers, by recording the shows at headquarters and then sending them on-demand to the set top box?
EDIT:
In fact, the above model is easier for Apple to offer any cable channel. A nationwide deal with any channel could provide a virtual DVR for that channel. Movies, Docos, special interest, anything. Similarly a small payTV provider could provide the AppleTV as their set top box and then sell their regular subscription packages via virtual internet DVR. Biggest problem is that the internet providers would have their networks hammered for no financial gain.
I believe the only reason the iPhone is $199 is because the contract with AT&T also pays Apple. So really, you do pay for the phone with the contract. A $199 iPod Touch, would be ridiculous, considering the manufacturing price isn't too far from that. Unless Apple only lets you put music on the device bought from iTunes (which would provide profit), but that won't happen. I am not blocking out the possibility of a $199 price tag happening, but I do think it's unlikely.
What are the chances of a thicker iPod Touch without the huge flash memory but the drive of the iPod Classic instead? The Touch has separate memory for the OS so why would this not be feasible?
They have changed the design every year and the feelings about are mixed.
Actually, the only difference between the 1G and 2G iPod nanos is the all-metallic case design and longer battery life, along with some other changes such as gapless music playback. Most people agree that the 2G nano was VASTLY better than the 1G nano.
I still like the 3G nano, mostly because its shape makes it easier to stick into your pocket or hang it off a belt clip with the appropriate case.
Comments
I think the AI article below is the only info about major QT changes.
That's the source of my rumormongering. Thanks.
The only problem I have with that article is the QuickTime is the basis of iTunes and it does not need to be released or tied to a specific version of OSX. Mainly due to the fact that QuickTime is cross-platform. Is Apple going to have Snow Leopard specific features that Windows and older versions of OSX can't take advantage of? I believe not.
If the intro of the new iPods rolls in a new major release of iTunes 8.0 then you can wager with success that a new major revision of QuickTime will be coming out along with it. Either we'll see iTunes 8.0 and QuickTime X rolled-out this September or we will see them with intro'd with the Snow Leopard release. I doubt the latter.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHERE ARE THE NEW MACBOOKS? This crappy dell is barely working now!
I wouldn't get too anxious and by a MB right now. If you can wait one to three* months, I would. Of course.
* I'm not convinced that Intel has worked out the X4500 issues and therefore won't have priduction ready for Apple's needs right away. Remember, while Apple is a minor player worldwide and well behind Dell and HP in the US, they are the major player in terms of notebooks and are probably the Intel's largest customer in terms of using high end mobile chips, since HP and Dell sell most of their units using older tech.
That's the source of my rumormongering. Thanks.
The only problem I have with that article is the QuickTime is the basis of iTunes and it does not need to be released or tied to a specific version of OSX. Mainly due to the fact that QuickTime is cross-platform. Is Apple going to have Snow Leopard specific features that Windows and older versions of OSX can't take advantage of? I believe not.
If the intro of the new iPods rolls in a new major release of iTunes 8.0 then you can wager with success that a new major revision of QuickTime will be coming out along with it. Either we'll see iTunes 8.0 and QuickTime X rolled-out this September or we will see them with intro'd with the Snow Leopard release. I doubt the latter.
I agree. Roughly Drafted's latest article has outlined the release dates for iTunes which clearly shows no real rhyme or reason to the version numbering.
I think the best marketing move may be to release a rewritten iTunes and Quicktime for the next iLife and iWork update. I assume that will happen in January. However, if it's finished now I also see no reason not to release it along with the new iPods.
PS: I hope—but doubt— that Apple is ready to incorporate P.A. Semi tech in these new notebooks. I also hope that they use a H.264 encoder chip. High Profile encoding still takes so very long. Montevina has decoding built in, but no encoding enhancement.
Could he have been lucky enough, to have tried the iPhone II 3G - iPhone Deluxe - iPhone business edition?
No, but he may have been unwittingly been fed misinformation by someone, OR he may have thought he'd be clever trying to generate web traffic by spinning his own ridiculous story. In any case, he's not a credible source of information.
As a continuing follow-up.... Rose is on Twitlive.tv (with Leo Laporte) as of 3:20 PM Pacific time), and they're talking about his supposed leaked photo... still don't believe it.
<a href="http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/08/24/whats-next-from-apple-new-ipods-sept-22-iphone-os-21-itunes-80/">What?s Next from Apple: New iPods Sept 22, iPhone OS 2.1, iTunes 8.0</a>
This is not significant stuff - at least not significant enough to warrant being disclosed along with earnings, a full quarter ahead.
However, there is something else that is totally unexpected by the market. There are rumors of a JV between Google and Apple, relating to the Cable TV segment. Google has set up massive server farms and has tied up with Akamai for network management for the launch of Google TV. This is part of Google's strategy to extend its advertising business to TV - which is the biggest bastion left for Google to conquer.
You can get your entire dose of TV from Google - which will be easily viewable as Streaming Video from your Apple TV. The revenue model will be based off monthly fees from viewers, ad revenue from ads inserted into the movie stream. Once you subscribe to the monthly feed, you can get the shows from iTunes as well for a lot cheaper - just 99 cents per show, or $9.95 for unlimited iTunes recorded shows each month (on top of whatever you pay Google monthly).
This will completely remove all need for DVR functionality, etc at your home - you dont have to set your DVR to record - everything is recorded for you by Apple.
Signing up for a 2Y deal at packages over $19.95 per month will get you the Apple TV FREE... This is why Apple has to warn of drop in margins.
For long, the Apple TV has been considered the "fourth" leg for Apple -- but it has always been a very wobbly leg. With this product transition, Apple TV becomes a legitimate fourth leg for Apple.
There are enough clues to show that something like this is cooking up -- Google is still on Apple's board - despite the very obvious conflict of interest between the iPhone and Android. Quite obviously, there is something a lot bigger than the iPhone at stake here. Considering how big the iPhone is, the only thing that could be more important is the TV business.
It is a logical extension of everything Apple has done with AppleTV, and the iTunes store.
And this is ultimately, the best way for Google to expand the advertising led model into the TV sphere.
Why should Google tie up with Apple -- the mass market is unlikely to get their TV content from their PCs. Google has to come up with a device that is compelling - that is easy to use, and gets online streaming content on your TV. Google also has to build something like the iTunes ecosystem to support recorded shows. All this is a lot easier to do with Apple -- because Apple has already done the hard work in this space. Apple also already has the relationships with media originators - which will help Google get started in the TV space.
Why does Apple need Google -- Apple is not geared to do this on its own - the sheer volume of network bandwidth, and network management that is required is way beyond Apple's capability. This is something Google already has in place. Apple cannot subsidize the TV channels with dynamically inserted ads - something Google already has the capability for.
Is there any "need" that is felt in the marketplace - quite definitely. The way Cable TV works today, is pathetic to say the least. You need a DVR in each home -- and you need to decide in advance which programs your DVR will record. You can only record 2 programs simulaneously (that too only if you have dual tuners). You have to pay $10 a month for the privilege of being able to record (Time Warner - not sure of the others).
Instead a system where *all* content from all channels is always recorded for you, and you can download and watch at your convenience, would be perfect. Current iTunes model where you pay $2 for a show is not scalable -- becomes too expensive too quickly. But if you combined it with a monthly subscription - then you dont have to pay $2 per show - for the same $10/month that you have to pay to get DVR capability, Apple can record ALL your shows for you to see anytime. This is viable, because lot many more people will sign up for this service.
I think this is a precursor for an eventual merger between Google and Apple - and when that happens, there will be some heartburn in Redmond.
The product transition that Apple referred to earlier is completely different from the tweaking or repricing of iPods that is referred to here.
This is not significant stuff - at least not significant enough to warrant being disclosed along with earnings, a full quarter ahead.
<snip>
Instead a system where *all* content from all channels is always recorded for you, and you can download and watch at your convenience, would be perfect. Current iTunes model where you pay $2 for a show is not scalable -- becomes too expensive too quickly. But if you combined it with a monthly subscription - then you dont have to pay $2 per show - for the same $10/month that you have to pay to get DVR capability, Apple can record ALL your shows for you to see anytime. This is viable, because lot many more people will sign up for this service.
Wow, big thoughts. Good reading. I don't agree, but I like your thinking process. Actually, on rereading, I agree with more than I thought... but still ... :-)
Overall - I think Apple is looking into this kind of thing. I think Apple would gain greatly by making the AppleTV a gateway into Google's streaming TV offerings as they expand, but I'm not sure how Apple would merge its download (rent or buy) model with Google's. It's a BIG jump, one that I think is possible - but would Apple be willing to jump hand-in-hand with Google? I guess a combined Google/Apple online TV partnership including streaming & downloads, advertising support & subscriptions etc - that would be enough to scare the crap out of EVERYONE.
Still.. is it a product transition? And does it change margin from 35% last quarter, to 31% this quarter and 30% next quarter? (Or, presuming Apple's timing is stuffed up, does it change gross margin from 35% this quarter to 30% in a few quarters?
Perhaps it would if they sold huge numbers of AppleTVs? Would selling a huge number of AppleTVs be classed as a product transition? What about if their internals were re-invented (iPhone chips, PA Semi, and iPhone OS?)?
Great thought... and I agree product transition doesn't refer to tweaking iPods, just not sure this is a product transition either.
Instead a system where *all* content from all channels is always recorded for you, and you can download and watch at your convenience, would be perfect.
Just a side note - that's an interesting way of Apple providing a "DVR". If Apple recorded every FTA program (for a given region) including ads, and recompressed it into mpeg4, it could actually allow every AppleTV to pretend it was a PVR, while still following the download model.
It's a bit of an odd way to do it... but it rearranges my preconceptions of what Apple could offer. Saves money on the AppleTV but adds a burden on internet providers. It also adds more than simple PVR capabilities - since it virtually records every channel simultaneously, and it doesn't care about "over run" of TV shows since it's always recorded every overrun. Link that to purchases (or rental) of older episodes etc and it starts getting very interesting.
ps. Wasn't cablevision recently given permission to offer virtual DVRs for its customers, by recording the shows at headquarters and then sending them on-demand to the set top box?
EDIT:
In fact, the above model is easier for Apple to offer any cable channel. A nationwide deal with any channel could provide a virtual DVR for that channel. Movies, Docos, special interest, anything. Similarly a small payTV provider could provide the AppleTV as their set top box and then sell their regular subscription packages via virtual internet DVR. Biggest problem is that the internet providers would have their networks hammered for no financial gain.
PS: Why can't I find the degree symbol using the Alt key on my keyboard?
it's alt+K
think degrees Kelvin
i think that the "fatboy" nano is absolutely hideous and personally i think that the nano in the photo would be there best pod yet.
RIP- the Triscuit Nano- we hardly knew ye.
it's alt+K
think degrees Kelvin
Not on my computer. I'm using the US keyboard setup.
Alt-K giving me the Apple symbol: ,
Alt-k gives me: ˚ . I don't know what that is.
I'm looking for this: ° .
iPod Touch (flash based): 16GB & 32GB
iPod Touch (drive based): 80GB & 160GB
They have changed the design every year and the feelings about are mixed.
Actually, the only difference between the 1G and 2G iPod nanos is the all-metallic case design and longer battery life, along with some other changes such as gapless music playback. Most people agree that the 2G nano was VASTLY better than the 1G nano.
I still like the 3G nano, mostly because its shape makes it easier to stick into your pocket or hang it off a belt clip with the appropriate case.
Not on my computer. I'm using the US keyboard setup.
Alt-K giving me the Apple symbol: ,
Alt-k gives me: ˚ . I don't know what that is.
I'm looking for this: ° .
option shift 8
option k gives a similar but smaller character
option shift 8
Thanks. I thought it odd that I couldn't find this fairly popular character.
I'm looking for this: °
alt + 0
alt + 0
How the hell did I miss Alt-Shfit-8 and Alt-0? I ran my fingers across the keyboard trying every possible combination... or so I thought.