Rose was wrong before, twice. I ain't believing anything until Apple releases them.
As for iTunes, it needs books and a standard "Apple" book reader for the devices. (not separate book apps via the App store, but a whole separate thing). Book Reader.app & Book Store.app
And built in lyrics support. As for the look of iTunes, meh.. that would be a bonus I guess.
Nano:
No home screen = no home button.
Play and pause of music has a physical button still.
And to go next track double-tap the play/pause button.
As for scrolling lists, it's obvious.
And... physical volume buttons.
But, that would be too intelligent and idea, wouldn't it.
The rumor of a GPS-enabled touch has me the most excited. Apple just needs to add turn by turn to attract the portable navigation market.
In regards to physical stuff, I expect the touch to stay the same thickness. I hope it's less wide as I do not like the current proportions.
The current gray trim is no good. It makes the unit look cheap in comparison to the iPhone. Kind of like when the base model of a car has a mundane interior making you feel like you should've just spent the extra cash on the better model.
My suggestion would be to add a plastic trim, white or black, using the same type of plastic that is present in the iPhone 3G along with an aluminum back (or simply have the plastic carry over to the back)
Here's an image:
On a slightly different note, I'd like a way to control the music with the headphones, like with the iPhone. Perhaps add a button where the wire splits in two? It should be made standard on all iPods.
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.
Apple TV is a personal media center, to rent/buy media from iTunes, and to play personal media files from your computer. It will be transformed into a Cable TV set-top box, that will also do the things it does now. That definitely feels like a "transition" to me.
Also - for Apple TV to be accepted as the consumer device for Google TV, it has to be priced pretty close to cost or even at a loss, or even give away. Apple can't sell this at a 35% markup either to Google, or directly to the end consumer. They wont make any money at all on the Apple TV - but they will make $9.95 a month on the iTunes per month download fees - which most people would happily sign up for. If Apple sold millions of Apple TVs at a loss, their margins could come down a lot.
Also - this has secondary benefits for Apple - in terms of further entrenching themselves in the customer's mind. Apple TV as a cable set-top box, could easily target a much bigger mindshare than iPhone can, within the US. Then Apple has to figure out how to sell other apps, games, etc. for the Apple TV. You can bet your last dollar that the AppStore will get expanded to cover AppleTV as well. It would be plain stupid if Apple did not do this! Eventually, apps will get segmented into "touch" friendly apps, and "remote" friendly apps.
Also - regarding ISPs not getting any benefit - most people in US get their internet TV from their cable provider - presumably if you canceled your cable TV contract, you would still continue with the same provider for Internet. In that scenario, because you would no longer be eligible for bundled pricing, the cost of internet access would go up - by about $10-$15. I guess the cable companies have to accept this, and get on with life. And if you take out the TV channels from the cable, there will be lot more bandwidth available to offer much faster internet access to homes. The bandwidth will only be used for channels people actually watch - instead of transmitting all channels all the time, which possibly no one ever watches. Cable companies will figure out ways to charge people more for the extra speed. This is all about convenience - not about making things cheaper - net net, the cost to the consumer could actually be marginally higher. But eventually, once ad-insertion into live streams is perfected, the costs will be subsidized by ads.
lso - regarding ISPs not getting any benefit - most people in US get their internet TV from their cable provider - presumably if you canceled your cable TV contract, you would still continue with the same provider for Internet. In that scenario, because you would no longer be eligible for bundled pricing, the cost of internet access would go up - by about $10-$15. I guess the cable companies have to accept this, and get on with life. And if you take out the TV channels from the cable, there will be lot more bandwidth available to offer much faster internet access to homes. The bandwidth will only be used for channels people actually watch - instead of transmitting all channels all the time, which possibly no one ever watches. Cable companies will figure out ways to charge people more for the extra speed. This is all about convenience - not about making things cheaper - net net, the cost to the consumer could actually be marginally higher. But eventually, once ad-insertion into live streams is perfected, the costs will be subsidized by ads.
If I recall correctly, analog channels use 6MHz each and digital channels can send 4 to 6 stations in that same 6MHz band as compressed MPEG-2. I am not sure if any are using MPEG-4 (Part-10)/H.264 yet, but I think they are moving that way. The compression may be good enough to get a mid-profile 1080p channel in a 6MHz band, but again I'm not sure (I'll research it, but it may take some time). I'm getting off track...
Cable companies pay a lot of licensing fees for access to channels. If they were to drop off viewership I think they would still be charged the same for the access. This means that people dropping TV access for just internet soon isn't covered by just an internet connection, especially with that bandwidth usage increasing per user who is now getting their TV from this new source through their network. As we've seen with Comcast already, they are suggesting a hard cap with a pay per GB for additional usage. I think this will get more popular in areas where Verizon FIOS is not competing.
(I'm tired so that was probably all over the place)
Apple TV is a personal media center, to rent/buy media from iTunes, and to play personal media files from your computer. It will be transformed into a Cable TV set-top box, that will also do the things it does now. That definitely feels like a "transition" to me.
Perhaps.
Transition implies something more major, to me.
I mean - the 680x0 to PPC transition took years, as did the transition to OSX, and the Intel transition. And they involved whole product ranges.
By your definition, you could call the iPhone 3G a transition, couldn't you?
(Not disagreeing about the quality of your idea - just whether it falls under "transition")
I'll be dumbfounded if this turns out to be real. It's not like the fatboy nano pics because those were taken down very quickly by Apple. So, if this were real, why is Apple letting the pics stay up?
Comments
http://cgi.ebay.com.hk/ws/eBayISAPI....Name=WDVW&rd=1
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.
Here. This should help you.
Try this combo: ctrl + alt + cmd + 8
Here. This should help you.
Try this combo: ctrl + alt + cmd + 8
Thanks. I've just installed it.
Thanks. I've just installed it.
Welcome.
Rose was wrong before, twice. I ain't believing anything until Apple releases them.
As for iTunes, it needs books and a standard "Apple" book reader for the devices. (not separate book apps via the App store, but a whole separate thing). Book Reader.app & Book Store.app
And built in lyrics support. As for the look of iTunes, meh.. that would be a bonus I guess.
Nano:
No home screen = no home button.
Play and pause of music has a physical button still.
And to go next track double-tap the play/pause button.
As for scrolling lists, it's obvious.
And... physical volume buttons.
But, that would be too intelligent and idea, wouldn't it.
i would buy one of those for sure!!
In regards to physical stuff, I expect the touch to stay the same thickness. I hope it's less wide as I do not like the current proportions.
The current gray trim is no good. It makes the unit look cheap in comparison to the iPhone. Kind of like when the base model of a car has a mundane interior making you feel like you should've just spent the extra cash on the better model.
My suggestion would be to add a plastic trim, white or black, using the same type of plastic that is present in the iPhone 3G along with an aluminum back (or simply have the plastic carry over to the back)
Here's an image:
On a slightly different note, I'd like a way to control the music with the headphones, like with the iPhone. Perhaps add a button where the wire splits in two? It should be made standard on all iPods.
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.
Apple TV is a personal media center, to rent/buy media from iTunes, and to play personal media files from your computer. It will be transformed into a Cable TV set-top box, that will also do the things it does now. That definitely feels like a "transition" to me.
Also - for Apple TV to be accepted as the consumer device for Google TV, it has to be priced pretty close to cost or even at a loss, or even give away. Apple can't sell this at a 35% markup either to Google, or directly to the end consumer. They wont make any money at all on the Apple TV - but they will make $9.95 a month on the iTunes per month download fees - which most people would happily sign up for. If Apple sold millions of Apple TVs at a loss, their margins could come down a lot.
Also - this has secondary benefits for Apple - in terms of further entrenching themselves in the customer's mind. Apple TV as a cable set-top box, could easily target a much bigger mindshare than iPhone can, within the US. Then Apple has to figure out how to sell other apps, games, etc. for the Apple TV. You can bet your last dollar that the AppStore will get expanded to cover AppleTV as well. It would be plain stupid if Apple did not do this! Eventually, apps will get segmented into "touch" friendly apps, and "remote" friendly apps.
Also - regarding ISPs not getting any benefit - most people in US get their internet TV from their cable provider - presumably if you canceled your cable TV contract, you would still continue with the same provider for Internet. In that scenario, because you would no longer be eligible for bundled pricing, the cost of internet access would go up - by about $10-$15. I guess the cable companies have to accept this, and get on with life. And if you take out the TV channels from the cable, there will be lot more bandwidth available to offer much faster internet access to homes. The bandwidth will only be used for channels people actually watch - instead of transmitting all channels all the time, which possibly no one ever watches. Cable companies will figure out ways to charge people more for the extra speed. This is all about convenience - not about making things cheaper - net net, the cost to the consumer could actually be marginally higher. But eventually, once ad-insertion into live streams is perfected, the costs will be subsidized by ads.
lso - regarding ISPs not getting any benefit - most people in US get their internet TV from their cable provider - presumably if you canceled your cable TV contract, you would still continue with the same provider for Internet. In that scenario, because you would no longer be eligible for bundled pricing, the cost of internet access would go up - by about $10-$15. I guess the cable companies have to accept this, and get on with life. And if you take out the TV channels from the cable, there will be lot more bandwidth available to offer much faster internet access to homes. The bandwidth will only be used for channels people actually watch - instead of transmitting all channels all the time, which possibly no one ever watches. Cable companies will figure out ways to charge people more for the extra speed. This is all about convenience - not about making things cheaper - net net, the cost to the consumer could actually be marginally higher. But eventually, once ad-insertion into live streams is perfected, the costs will be subsidized by ads.
If I recall correctly, analog channels use 6MHz each and digital channels can send 4 to 6 stations in that same 6MHz band as compressed MPEG-2. I am not sure if any are using MPEG-4 (Part-10)/H.264 yet, but I think they are moving that way. The compression may be good enough to get a mid-profile 1080p channel in a 6MHz band, but again I'm not sure (I'll research it, but it may take some time). I'm getting off track...
Cable companies pay a lot of licensing fees for access to channels. If they were to drop off viewership I think they would still be charged the same for the access. This means that people dropping TV access for just internet soon isn't covered by just an internet connection, especially with that bandwidth usage increasing per user who is now getting their TV from this new source through their network. As we've seen with Comcast already, they are suggesting a hard cap with a pay per GB for additional usage. I think this will get more popular in areas where Verizon FIOS is not competing.
(I'm tired so that was probably all over the place)
Apple TV is a personal media center, to rent/buy media from iTunes, and to play personal media files from your computer. It will be transformed into a Cable TV set-top box, that will also do the things it does now. That definitely feels like a "transition" to me.
Perhaps.
Transition implies something more major, to me.
I mean - the 680x0 to PPC transition took years, as did the transition to OSX, and the Intel transition. And they involved whole product ranges.
By your definition, you could call the iPhone 3G a transition, couldn't you?
(Not disagreeing about the quality of your idea - just whether it falls under "transition")