IIRC, Apple is the number one consumer of NAND memory, gobbling up something like 25% of production. Add to that that Apple also has a reputation for negotiating well and decreasing their costs over time.
This isn't unfinished memory. It's a completed product, much more than bare board level memory chips.
Not sure where I heard this, but II love the sound of it.
This person said "Take the iphone, turn is sidways, make it a bunch bigger, and add a keyboard " "and you have one of the new exciting products Apple will be announcing at MacExpo this year"
He's sure (I'm not sure why) - that the touch screen MacBook Pro will be anounced in January. I said, it might happen, but it's still a year or so away. He smiled and said "We'll see"
This isn't unfinished memory. It's a completed product, much more than bare board level memory chips.
If I recall correctly, the first version of the iPod mini used a microdrive for storage. At the time, microdrives were still quite expensive. Yet Apple was able to sell the mini at such a low price that people were buying the mini only to tear it apart to get the microdrive out. So, Apple obviously negotiated a price for the microdrive that allowed them to build the rest of the iPod around it and still sell the complete product for less that the retail price of the microdrive itself.
If I recall correctly, the first version of the iPod mini used a microdrive for storage. At the time, microdrives were still quite expensive. Yet Apple was able to sell the mini at such a low price that people were buying the mini only to tear it apart to get the microdrive out. So, Apple obviously negotiated a price for the microdrive that allowed them to build the rest of the iPod around it and still sell the complete product for less that the retail price of the microdrive itself.
That's true. Actually, all iPod minis used microdrives or other brand 1" CF-type hard drive. iPod nano is when they switched to chips, and that's how the size was reduced so much.
But most of those microdrives were supposed to certain modes diisabled so that people couldn't cannibalize and put them in something else.
You don't REALLY think they troll the rumors sites, do you?
Read this published by Munster today:
Quote:
he said his latest round of checks now leads him to believe the device will sport a display of approximately 11- to 13-inches.
"That said, we continue to expect the 'ultra-portable' MacBook to be Apple's thinnest and lightest ever. While it may not be as small as we originally expected, we believe this could be the most consumer-friendly way to expand its current lineup of MacBook portables," Munster told clients. "It will likely be [b]priced between the $1,099 consumer level MacBook and the $1,999 MacBook Pro.[b]"
One contributor to the smaller form factor could be the use of NAND-based solid state storage, the analyst added. He noted that in November, Samsung introduced a 64GB drive which he believes Apple would consider large enough to include in a new portable.
"Finally, there are reports that the new portable may include a unique touchpad, possibly using the same multitouch technology used in the iPhone and iPod touch," he wrote.
If I recall correctly, the first version of the iPod mini used a microdrive for storage. At the time, microdrives were still quite expensive. Yet Apple was able to sell the mini at such a low price that people were buying the mini only to tear it apart to get the microdrive out. So, Apple obviously negotiated a price for the microdrive that allowed them to build the rest of the iPod around it and still sell the complete product for less that the retail price of the microdrive itself.
Yeah, but Microdrives weren't, and still aren't, doing so well in the sales department. Apple likely sold more Microdrives in one quarter than was sold all the years prior to that quarter, together.
So? That proves nothing. This idea has been in circulation for over a month. It's just as likely the rumors sites picked this up from the analysts reports. You know, they read also. They get their rumors from reports, not from thin air.
So? That proves nothing. This idea has been in circulation for over a month. It's just as likely the rumors sites picked this up from the analysts reports. You know, they read also. They get their rumors from reports, not from thin air.
So where did Munster get the "unique trackpad" rumor? 9to5mac was the first and only one to report that. It's obvious to everyone else that Munster got it from 9to5mac or from the rumor summary.
So where did Munster get the "unique trackpad" rumor? 9to5mac was the first and only one to report that. It's obvious to everyone else that Munster got it from 9to5mac or from the rumor summary.
no, it's not. Obvious to someone who want to believe it, maybe. Do you now where they got it from? No, you don't. They could very well have read it somewhere first themselves.
In fact, most all of the rumors I've ever read started from some report at a more news-like site, that read it from a business report. It then filters down to here, and other rumors sites, except for a couple of trashy ones like MOSR, which must have a staff of twenty just coming up with stupid things to write.
no, it's not. Obvious to someone who want to believe it, maybe. Do you now where they got it from? No, you don't. They could very well have read it somewhere first themselves.
9to5mac has proven they have their own sources (photos of the fat nano).
So, just say it outright if its true: You really don't believe that Gene Munster whose job it is to follow Apple products and releases does not read any of the rumor sites, who have accurately predicted many new releases?
9to5mac has proven they have their own sources (photos of the fat nano).
So, just say it outright if its true: You really don't believe that Gene Munster whose job it is to follow Apple products and releases does not read any of the rumor sites, who have accurately predicted many new releases?
Gee, how many times should I say it? No, I don't think he even cares they exist.
And if a rumors site has sources, you don't think he has better ones?
Munster, referencing the MacRumors buyers guide, added that it has been nearly 300 days since Apple has had anything to say about its top-selling desktop system, well beyond the average 168 days between previous upgrade cycles.
iTunes rentals plus an aTV update would have HUGE potential to give that whole section of apple's business a boost. I hope we see it sooner rather than later.
Why would I buy an Apple TV in order to rent movies that I can already get via cable? Is there some advantage that isn't obvious?
The video issues are different than audio. A 3 minute song costs very little to make yet yields just as much entertainment as a 1.5 hour movie. Then there's the buy versus rent problem. Do people want to view videos more than once? Certainly some shows would fall into that category.
The reason the iPod has become so popular is that mp3 songs were easy to steal. At 99cents it's no longer clear if stealing is worth it. I guess that's why iTunes is popular. Now with video the price becomes an issue and it's not quite as easy to steal a 1-2 gig file. If it were, and if the Apple TV could play it, then there would be more out there. A lot of getting stuff for free drives sales. That's why recorders have been popular and the whole MediaPC/DiVX player thing.
Hardware sales have been driven in large part by the ability to get stuff for free. As that dries up hardware sales will drop and that is why I don't see the Apple TV (or similar devices) as being the way to go. I always felt the Mini was the right approach to the HDTV screen popularity increase.
It's all hard to say. I don't think anyone knows. The one thing that seems sure is that people do not want to spend as much on digital entertainment as the media companies dream of.
Comments
IIRC, Apple is the number one consumer of NAND memory, gobbling up something like 25% of production. Add to that that Apple also has a reputation for negotiating well and decreasing their costs over time.
This isn't unfinished memory. It's a completed product, much more than bare board level memory chips.
Not sure where I heard this, but II love the sound of it.
This person said "Take the iphone, turn is sidways, make it a bunch bigger, and add a keyboard " "and you have one of the new exciting products Apple will be announcing at MacExpo this year"
He's sure (I'm not sure why) - that the touch screen MacBook Pro will be anounced in January. I said, it might happen, but it's still a year or so away. He smiled and said "We'll see"
Skip
Talk to Clive about citations.
This isn't unfinished memory. It's a completed product, much more than bare board level memory chips.
If I recall correctly, the first version of the iPod mini used a microdrive for storage. At the time, microdrives were still quite expensive. Yet Apple was able to sell the mini at such a low price that people were buying the mini only to tear it apart to get the microdrive out. So, Apple obviously negotiated a price for the microdrive that allowed them to build the rest of the iPod around it and still sell the complete product for less that the retail price of the microdrive itself.
If I recall correctly, the first version of the iPod mini used a microdrive for storage. At the time, microdrives were still quite expensive. Yet Apple was able to sell the mini at such a low price that people were buying the mini only to tear it apart to get the microdrive out. So, Apple obviously negotiated a price for the microdrive that allowed them to build the rest of the iPod around it and still sell the complete product for less that the retail price of the microdrive itself.
That's true. Actually, all iPod minis used microdrives or other brand 1" CF-type hard drive. iPod nano is when they switched to chips, and that's how the size was reduced so much.
But most of those microdrives were supposed to certain modes diisabled so that people couldn't cannibalize and put them in something else.
You don't REALLY think they troll the rumors sites, do you?
Read this published by Munster today:
he said his latest round of checks now leads him to believe the device will sport a display of approximately 11- to 13-inches.
"That said, we continue to expect the 'ultra-portable' MacBook to be Apple's thinnest and lightest ever. While it may not be as small as we originally expected, we believe this could be the most consumer-friendly way to expand its current lineup of MacBook portables," Munster told clients. "It will likely be [b]priced between the $1,099 consumer level MacBook and the $1,999 MacBook Pro.[b]"
One contributor to the smaller form factor could be the use of NAND-based solid state storage, the analyst added. He noted that in November, Samsung introduced a 64GB drive which he believes Apple would consider large enough to include in a new portable.
"Finally, there are reports that the new portable may include a unique touchpad, possibly using the same multitouch technology used in the iPhone and iPod touch," he wrote.
Read this summary of rumors published on MacRumors last week
MacScoop: 12", Ultra-Thin, Optical Drive, Dual Core, $1700-$1800
Appleinsider: 13", aluminum, 50% lighter, Slim, NAND Flash, LED backlit, No Optical Drive
CNBC: 12", 50% Thinner, NAND Flash only (no HDD). $1500
9to5mac: "something strange about the touchpad"
It's obvious they do troll the rumor sites.
If I recall correctly, the first version of the iPod mini used a microdrive for storage. At the time, microdrives were still quite expensive. Yet Apple was able to sell the mini at such a low price that people were buying the mini only to tear it apart to get the microdrive out. So, Apple obviously negotiated a price for the microdrive that allowed them to build the rest of the iPod around it and still sell the complete product for less that the retail price of the microdrive itself.
Yeah, but Microdrives weren't, and still aren't, doing so well in the sales department. Apple likely sold more Microdrives in one quarter than was sold all the years prior to that quarter, together.
This is different.
Read this published today:
Read this summary of rumors published last week
It's obvious they do troll the rumor sites.
So? That proves nothing. This idea has been in circulation for over a month. It's just as likely the rumors sites picked this up from the analysts reports. You know, they read also. They get their rumors from reports, not from thin air.
So? That proves nothing. This idea has been in circulation for over a month. It's just as likely the rumors sites picked this up from the analysts reports. You know, they read also. They get their rumors from reports, not from thin air.
So where did Munster get the "unique trackpad" rumor? 9to5mac was the first and only one to report that. It's obvious to everyone else that Munster got it from 9to5mac or from the rumor summary.
So where did Munster get the "unique trackpad" rumor? 9to5mac was the first and only one to report that. It's obvious to everyone else that Munster got it from 9to5mac or from the rumor summary.
no, it's not. Obvious to someone who want to believe it, maybe. Do you now where they got it from? No, you don't. They could very well have read it somewhere first themselves.
In fact, most all of the rumors I've ever read started from some report at a more news-like site, that read it from a business report. It then filters down to here, and other rumors sites, except for a couple of trashy ones like MOSR, which must have a staff of twenty just coming up with stupid things to write.
no, it's not. Obvious to someone who want to believe it, maybe. Do you now where they got it from? No, you don't. They could very well have read it somewhere first themselves.
9to5mac has proven they have their own sources (photos of the fat nano).
So, just say it outright if its true: You really don't believe that Gene Munster whose job it is to follow Apple products and releases does not read any of the rumor sites, who have accurately predicted many new releases?
9to5mac has proven they have their own sources (photos of the fat nano).
So, just say it outright if its true: You really don't believe that Gene Munster whose job it is to follow Apple products and releases does not read any of the rumor sites, who have accurately predicted many new releases?
Gee, how many times should I say it? No, I don't think he even cares they exist.
And if a rumors site has sources, you don't think he has better ones?
No, don't bother to answer.
Gee, how many times should I say it? No, I don't think he even cares they exist.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...er_rumors.html
Munster, referencing the MacRumors buyers guide, added that it has been nearly 300 days since Apple has had anything to say about its top-selling desktop system, well beyond the average 168 days between previous upgrade cycles.
iTunes rentals plus an aTV update would have HUGE potential to give that whole section of apple's business a boost. I hope we see it sooner rather than later.
Why would I buy an Apple TV in order to rent movies that I can already get via cable? Is there some advantage that isn't obvious?
The video issues are different than audio. A 3 minute song costs very little to make yet yields just as much entertainment as a 1.5 hour movie. Then there's the buy versus rent problem. Do people want to view videos more than once? Certainly some shows would fall into that category.
The reason the iPod has become so popular is that mp3 songs were easy to steal. At 99cents it's no longer clear if stealing is worth it. I guess that's why iTunes is popular. Now with video the price becomes an issue and it's not quite as easy to steal a 1-2 gig file. If it were, and if the Apple TV could play it, then there would be more out there. A lot of getting stuff for free drives sales. That's why recorders have been popular and the whole MediaPC/DiVX player thing.
Hardware sales have been driven in large part by the ability to get stuff for free. As that dries up hardware sales will drop and that is why I don't see the Apple TV (or similar devices) as being the way to go. I always felt the Mini was the right approach to the HDTV screen popularity increase.
It's all hard to say. I don't think anyone knows. The one thing that seems sure is that people do not want to spend as much on digital entertainment as the media companies dream of.
philip
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...er_rumors.html
Ok, so he read their buyers guide. Big deal.
I knew you were trying to maneuver me into it.