I'm thinking Al Gore must like what he sees with the new 3G phone while he is sitting in the boardroom and passing around which could be the next biggest product for Apple.Last week he purchased 10,000 shares at 129, by January 8, 2009 apple stock will probably hit 200 so that would give him $710,000 profit in less than 10 months. Excellent investment considering we are in a recession
I'm thinking Al Gore must like what he sees with the new 3G phone while he is sitting in the boardroom and passing around which could be the next biggest product for Apple.Last week he purchased 10,000 shares at 129, by January 8, 2009 apple stock will probably hit 200 so that would give him $710,000 profit in less than 10 months. Excellent investment considering we are in a recession
he received options to purchase shares at a specific price, not quite the same as actually making the purchase. I'd think that people receiving these options would wait until the potential profit is realized before actually exercising them. Why take the risk of a further downturn? The only loose end would be if there were an expiration on the options. Once the desired profit is in-hand, take a trip to the bank to borrow the money, exercise the options, cash out, and repay the loan.
His rumor/speculation sounds awfully specific. I doubt now that 3G is going to happen in June. I wonder if it could be next MWSF's big splash in Jan 09?
I agree.I've been saying that for months. Apple will probably give the iPhone 2.0 update six months before upgrading the hardware. Releasing the 3G iPhone in Jun will kill the 2.0 update momentum.
In my updated review of the iPhone said it needs an OLED display, I still believe that. We need true blacks to make this UI sign, any battery savings would be a bonus.
Can anyone offer the relative brightness of the OLED technology compared to backlit LCDs? One of the nicest features of the iPhone is its bright/sharp screen. Can a non-backlit OLED screen match that?
OLED displays aren't bad enough to match LCD's. Cause LCD's suck [well kinda]. OLED would wipe the floor with LCD.
His rumor/speculation sounds awfully specific. I doubt now that 3G is going to happen in June. I wonder if it could be next MWSF's big splash in Jan 09?
I think we'll see 3G by the end of June. I certainly hope so!
Even with the price of OLEDs falling, surely they are still too expensive and unproven to go into the next iPhone revision.
Apple do not historically jump on the bandwagon so early, rather wait until the waters are calmer and then implement it better than the competition (I am writing this now and thinking of several exceptions to this statement e.g. multitouch screen).
OLEDS have been used for years in small devices. There are hundreds of millions of them in auto dashboards as front panels for in-car audio systems. Phones use them for the small outside displays, and a couple use them for the actual display, though I don't remember which.
The problem with OLEDS is that it's peoven difficult to make them for devices that are on for four to six hours a day for years on end in larger sizes.
The phone won't have its display on for that length of time each day, and people don't keep hones for up to ten years anyway.
If Apple chose to use an OLED display, and moved it to all the new devices, they would sell ten million a year, in the beginning, and more later. That would solve the mass production/pricing problem.
If the extra components in the present displays, that is, the power supply for the backlight, and the backlight itself, along with the more complex mounting system for these parts, as well as the more complex assembly required, costs enough to mostly compensate for the extra cost of the OLED, then it would also make sense to replace it. The extra parts also contribute to a greater chance of something breaking down, which adds to the required portion of the selling price allocated to warranty costs.
Can anyone offer the relative brightness of the OLED technology compared to backlit LCDs? One of the nicest features of the iPhone is its bright/sharp screen. Can a non-backlit OLED screen match that?
OLEDS can be made very bright.
Remember that LCD's are at a big disadvantage here.
An LCD uses twisted crystals that change their orientation in response to an electrical signal. That signal can be very small, so that's fine.
But, LCD's don't produce light, so they need a backlight. That's one big problem. Most of that backlight is wasted because the LCD works as a shutter, preventing the always on LCD from beamig through. so that light must be fairly bright.
The other problem is that with color LCDs, the light must also work its way out through RGB 100% saturated filters. In order for white to look while, that backlight must be very bright indeed!
Since OLEDS generate their own light, and produce color naturally, through their own generation (RGB LEDs), the light produced is delivered at a 100% efficiency to our eyes, going through no filters or other components. Black is truly black, as the OLED simply turns off completely when required.
Because of this, OLEDS need to put out much less light than the LCD backlight in order to produce a very bright, contrasty, saturated image.
The power usage is also much less, much less than the LED backlights now used on some of Apple's, and other laptops, and monitors.
I would agree if putting an OLED display in an iPhone was Apple's first venture into OLED displays, however they have already put them in notebooks, so this wouldn't be an unproven thing.
No, they haven't. those backlights are LEDs. They are not organic in nature, and there isn't a full screen of them back there.
OLEDS wouldn't be suitable for a backlight, as they aren't that bright. Their purpose would be as a display.
Apple has said repeatedly that it's goal is to sell 10 million phone "in calendar 2008". They have never said "by the end of 2008". The biggest misquote of the year.
I haven't heard any analysts predicting over 2 million phones for this quarter, certainly not "forecasting sales of just over 2 million iPhones".
You imply that Apple has placed orders for 10 million phones on top of the 10 million it plans to sell "by years end". Uh, no, Apple has not placed an order for something they plan to ship 9 months from now.
Let's understand something here. *IN* the calender year means the same thing as by the *END* of the year, calender, or otherwise.
Apple may say *in* because they hope it will be before the *end* of the year. But they aren't saying *middle* or other part of the year either, because they don't know if that will be correct.
*IN* means anytime during, including the last day.
There's no way Apple is going to give Android-based 3G handsets a six-month head start when they are already ahead of the game right now =P
I don't get this. How about Symbian, Windows Mobile, Palm and Blackberry handsets? They all have 3G capable handsets and have done for years, but suddenly the availability of Android is the thing that will push Apple to use 3G?
I don't get this. How about Symbian, Windows Mobile, Palm and Blackberry handsets? They all have 3G capable handsets and have done for years, but suddenly the availability of Android is the thing that will push Apple to use 3G?
I wouldn't say that the Android would be the only thing that pushes Apple. But the others are a known quantity, and Apple can see where they stand relative to them, so Android is an unknown. Apple will be wary of it, even if their public statements dismiss it right now.
Apple has said repeatedly that it's goal is to sell 10 million phone "in calendar 2008". They have never said "by the end of 2008". The biggest misquote of the year.
I haven't heard any analysts predicting over 2 million phones for this quarter, certainly not "forecasting sales of just over 2 million iPhones".
You imply that Apple has placed orders for 10 million phones on top of the 10 million it plans to sell "by years end". Uh, no, Apple has not placed an order for something they plan to ship 9 months from now.
Are we going to go through this again? Anything before 12:01 AM on January 1, 2009 is considered 2008. End of story.
And consider this: If Apple were to drop the price to $150, you could bet they'd sell out their stock pretty fast.
OLEDS have been used for years in small devices. There are hundreds of millions of them in auto dashboards as front panels for in-car audio systems. Phones use them for the small outside displays, and a couple use them for the actual display, though I don't remember which.
The problem with OLEDS is that it's peoven difficult to make them for devices that are on for four to six hours a day for years on end in larger sizes.
The phone won't have its display on for that length of time each day, and people don't keep hones for up to ten years anyway.
If Apple chose to use an OLED display, and moved it to all the new devices, they would sell ten million a year, in the beginning, and more later. That would solve the mass production/pricing problem.
If the extra components in the present displays, that is, the power supply for the backlight, and the backlight itself, along with the more complex mounting system for these parts, as well as the more complex assembly required, costs enough to mostly compensate for the extra cost of the OLED, then it would also make sense to replace it. The extra parts also contribute to a greater chance of something breaking down, which adds to the required portion of the selling price allocated to warranty costs.
Thank you for the good background. But are you saying OLED is something you think we might see mid to late 2008? Or do you think the problem with unproven lifespan of larger constantly reconfiguring OLED screens and the current high cost will mean it is something to look forward to a couple of years down the line?
And also thanks for clearing up the LED/OLED confusion. In addition Wikipedia has a good page on this. It says 14,000 hours lifespan compared to 60,000 hours for traditional LED/LCD technology and it mentions a newer experimental version claiming 198,000 hours. Would be great to see Apple champion this superior tech and drive the 'economies of scale' process.
I agree.I've been saying that for months. Apple will probably give the iPhone 2.0 update six months before upgrading the hardware. Releasing the 3G iPhone in Jun will kill the 2.0 update momentum.
Kill the momentum? Surely the opposite. Half the globe are drooling at the prospect of a 3G iPhone and the cutting edge 2.0 software without the hardware to match will be a little bit hollow.
I can see a big announcement at a scheduled or special event. iPhone 2.0 software and enterprise features demo'ed and then a massive 'one more thing' with the iPhone 3G (not Pro) causing global spontaneous applause and world peace.
Apple do not historically jump on the bandwagon so early, rather wait until the waters are calmer and then implement it better than the competition (I am writing this now and thinking of several exceptions to this statement e.g. multitouch screen).
Apple has adopted technological trends early, such as WiFi, USB, FireWire, Bluetooth. It depends on the technology and how it benefits Apple. Apple does not necessarily adopt an early trend if they believe its not mature or have a need for it.
OLED would allow Apple to use a very bright display with denser pixels and less power consumption. From what I've read a typical 320x240 LCD display uses around 400-500 mW, while an OLED display can use as little as 50mW. Power savings that would be very valuable on the iPhone.
His rumor/speculation sounds awfully specific. I doubt now that 3G is going to happen in June. I wonder if it could be next MWSF's big splash in Jan 09?
To sell 10 million phones by the end of 2008 Apple will have to offer an updated phone.
Comments
I'm thinking Al Gore must like what he sees with the new 3G phone while he is sitting in the boardroom and passing around which could be the next biggest product for Apple.Last week he purchased 10,000 shares at 129, by January 8, 2009 apple stock will probably hit 200 so that would give him $710,000 profit in less than 10 months. Excellent investment considering we are in a recession
Ummm... According to this article:
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/we...omments/16766/
he received options to purchase shares at a specific price, not quite the same as actually making the purchase. I'd think that people receiving these options would wait until the potential profit is realized before actually exercising them. Why take the risk of a further downturn? The only loose end would be if there were an expiration on the options. Once the desired profit is in-hand, take a trip to the bank to borrow the money, exercise the options, cash out, and repay the loan.
His rumor/speculation sounds awfully specific. I doubt now that 3G is going to happen in June. I wonder if it could be next MWSF's big splash in Jan 09?
I agree.I've been saying that for months. Apple will probably give the iPhone 2.0 update six months before upgrading the hardware. Releasing the 3G iPhone in Jun will kill the 2.0 update momentum.
Can anyone offer the relative brightness of the OLED technology compared to backlit LCDs? One of the nicest features of the iPhone is its bright/sharp screen. Can a non-backlit OLED screen match that?
OLED displays aren't bad enough to match LCD's. Cause LCD's suck [well kinda]. OLED would wipe the floor with LCD.
I was going to buy an iphone this week, 16 gigs... should I wait for this one??
Can you wait till July?
His rumor/speculation sounds awfully specific. I doubt now that 3G is going to happen in June. I wonder if it could be next MWSF's big splash in Jan 09?
I think we'll see 3G by the end of June. I certainly hope so!
Even with the price of OLEDs falling, surely they are still too expensive and unproven to go into the next iPhone revision.
Apple do not historically jump on the bandwagon so early, rather wait until the waters are calmer and then implement it better than the competition (I am writing this now and thinking of several exceptions to this statement e.g. multitouch screen).
OLEDS have been used for years in small devices. There are hundreds of millions of them in auto dashboards as front panels for in-car audio systems. Phones use them for the small outside displays, and a couple use them for the actual display, though I don't remember which.
The problem with OLEDS is that it's peoven difficult to make them for devices that are on for four to six hours a day for years on end in larger sizes.
The phone won't have its display on for that length of time each day, and people don't keep hones for up to ten years anyway.
If Apple chose to use an OLED display, and moved it to all the new devices, they would sell ten million a year, in the beginning, and more later. That would solve the mass production/pricing problem.
If the extra components in the present displays, that is, the power supply for the backlight, and the backlight itself, along with the more complex mounting system for these parts, as well as the more complex assembly required, costs enough to mostly compensate for the extra cost of the OLED, then it would also make sense to replace it. The extra parts also contribute to a greater chance of something breaking down, which adds to the required portion of the selling price allocated to warranty costs.
Can anyone offer the relative brightness of the OLED technology compared to backlit LCDs? One of the nicest features of the iPhone is its bright/sharp screen. Can a non-backlit OLED screen match that?
OLEDS can be made very bright.
Remember that LCD's are at a big disadvantage here.
An LCD uses twisted crystals that change their orientation in response to an electrical signal. That signal can be very small, so that's fine.
But, LCD's don't produce light, so they need a backlight. That's one big problem. Most of that backlight is wasted because the LCD works as a shutter, preventing the always on LCD from beamig through. so that light must be fairly bright.
The other problem is that with color LCDs, the light must also work its way out through RGB 100% saturated filters. In order for white to look while, that backlight must be very bright indeed!
Since OLEDS generate their own light, and produce color naturally, through their own generation (RGB LEDs), the light produced is delivered at a 100% efficiency to our eyes, going through no filters or other components. Black is truly black, as the OLED simply turns off completely when required.
Because of this, OLEDS need to put out much less light than the LCD backlight in order to produce a very bright, contrasty, saturated image.
The power usage is also much less, much less than the LED backlights now used on some of Apple's, and other laptops, and monitors.
It really works!
I would agree if putting an OLED display in an iPhone was Apple's first venture into OLED displays, however they have already put them in notebooks, so this wouldn't be an unproven thing.
No, they haven't. those backlights are LEDs. They are not organic in nature, and there isn't a full screen of them back there.
OLEDS wouldn't be suitable for a backlight, as they aren't that bright. Their purpose would be as a display.
Apple has said repeatedly that it's goal is to sell 10 million phone "in calendar 2008". They have never said "by the end of 2008". The biggest misquote of the year.
I haven't heard any analysts predicting over 2 million phones for this quarter, certainly not "forecasting sales of just over 2 million iPhones".
You imply that Apple has placed orders for 10 million phones on top of the 10 million it plans to sell "by years end". Uh, no, Apple has not placed an order for something they plan to ship 9 months from now.
Let's understand something here. *IN* the calender year means the same thing as by the *END* of the year, calender, or otherwise.
Apple may say *in* because they hope it will be before the *end* of the year. But they aren't saying *middle* or other part of the year either, because they don't know if that will be correct.
*IN* means anytime during, including the last day.
There's no way Apple is going to give Android-based 3G handsets a six-month head start when they are already ahead of the game right now =P
I don't get this. How about Symbian, Windows Mobile, Palm and Blackberry handsets? They all have 3G capable handsets and have done for years, but suddenly the availability of Android is the thing that will push Apple to use 3G?
I don't get this. How about Symbian, Windows Mobile, Palm and Blackberry handsets? They all have 3G capable handsets and have done for years, but suddenly the availability of Android is the thing that will push Apple to use 3G?
I wouldn't say that the Android would be the only thing that pushes Apple. But the others are a known quantity, and Apple can see where they stand relative to them, so Android is an unknown. Apple will be wary of it, even if their public statements dismiss it right now.
Apple has said repeatedly that it's goal is to sell 10 million phone "in calendar 2008". They have never said "by the end of 2008". The biggest misquote of the year.
I haven't heard any analysts predicting over 2 million phones for this quarter, certainly not "forecasting sales of just over 2 million iPhones".
You imply that Apple has placed orders for 10 million phones on top of the 10 million it plans to sell "by years end". Uh, no, Apple has not placed an order for something they plan to ship 9 months from now.
Are we going to go through this again? Anything before 12:01 AM on January 1, 2009 is considered 2008. End of story.
And consider this: If Apple were to drop the price to $150, you could bet they'd sell out their stock pretty fast.
I still say no 3G until FY09. Their focus will strictly be on the software and 3rd party issues.
I don't agree. A non-3G iPhone won't officially be released in Asia.
OLEDS have been used for years in small devices. There are hundreds of millions of them in auto dashboards as front panels for in-car audio systems. Phones use them for the small outside displays, and a couple use them for the actual display, though I don't remember which.
The problem with OLEDS is that it's peoven difficult to make them for devices that are on for four to six hours a day for years on end in larger sizes.
The phone won't have its display on for that length of time each day, and people don't keep hones for up to ten years anyway.
If Apple chose to use an OLED display, and moved it to all the new devices, they would sell ten million a year, in the beginning, and more later. That would solve the mass production/pricing problem.
If the extra components in the present displays, that is, the power supply for the backlight, and the backlight itself, along with the more complex mounting system for these parts, as well as the more complex assembly required, costs enough to mostly compensate for the extra cost of the OLED, then it would also make sense to replace it. The extra parts also contribute to a greater chance of something breaking down, which adds to the required portion of the selling price allocated to warranty costs.
Thank you for the good background. But are you saying OLED is something you think we might see mid to late 2008? Or do you think the problem with unproven lifespan of larger constantly reconfiguring OLED screens and the current high cost will mean it is something to look forward to a couple of years down the line?
And also thanks for clearing up the LED/OLED confusion. In addition Wikipedia has a good page on this. It says 14,000 hours lifespan compared to 60,000 hours for traditional LED/LCD technology and it mentions a newer experimental version claiming 198,000 hours. Would be great to see Apple champion this superior tech and drive the 'economies of scale' process.
I agree.I've been saying that for months. Apple will probably give the iPhone 2.0 update six months before upgrading the hardware. Releasing the 3G iPhone in Jun will kill the 2.0 update momentum.
Kill the momentum? Surely the opposite. Half the globe are drooling at the prospect of a 3G iPhone and the cutting edge 2.0 software without the hardware to match will be a little bit hollow.
I can see a big announcement at a scheduled or special event. iPhone 2.0 software and enterprise features demo'ed and then a massive 'one more thing' with the iPhone 3G (not Pro) causing global spontaneous applause and world peace.
Apple do not historically jump on the bandwagon so early, rather wait until the waters are calmer and then implement it better than the competition (I am writing this now and thinking of several exceptions to this statement e.g. multitouch screen).
Apple has adopted technological trends early, such as WiFi, USB, FireWire, Bluetooth. It depends on the technology and how it benefits Apple. Apple does not necessarily adopt an early trend if they believe its not mature or have a need for it.
OLED would allow Apple to use a very bright display with denser pixels and less power consumption. From what I've read a typical 320x240 LCD display uses around 400-500 mW, while an OLED display can use as little as 50mW. Power savings that would be very valuable on the iPhone.
His rumor/speculation sounds awfully specific. I doubt now that 3G is going to happen in June. I wonder if it could be next MWSF's big splash in Jan 09?
To sell 10 million phones by the end of 2008 Apple will have to offer an updated phone.