Separately, Siegler suggests Ford will be releasing street-based cars.
I know what he's getting at but the iTunes Store has been 'cloud-based' since its inception. It doesn't have to be accessible via a web browser or stream music or movies to qualify (though I agree, the latter would be nice).
I would argue that it does (have to stream) to qualify as cloud based. To me, cloud based means no local storage. Just because you access something over TCP/IP doesn't qualify.
I would love to see Apple offer a setup for iTunes where you can sync downloads across multiple devices that would take care of at least the following two situations: (1) automatically syncing a song downloaded on Mac 1 to Mac 2, and (2) automatically downloading a song to Mac 1 AND Mac 2 if I buy it on the iPhone.
I'm sure there's a geek way to do this now, but I'm looking for something more like a automated set-it-and-forget-it setup.
you can share the library from one mac to another.. which solves problem one and saves the disk space on the other macs (I can't afford to use 50 of the 80GB drive in my laptop for music)
problem 2 means iTunes would have to "listen" for updates from the phone, and automatically authenticate. bad. idea. period.
killer functions for me would be to be able to
1) sync the playlists (not the content) create one on the remote machine and the local machine, and the new playlists end up on both machines. it can't be too difficult, the library file is just XML.
2) robust playlist creation on the phone/touch (on the go just doesn't cut it). let me name it myself, and create as many as I want.
3) let me define the shuffle/repeat settings on a per playlist basis.. those are global settings, now, no?
Yea, anal-ists are already pumping up Apple's stock to $200. But in my opinion, anything Apple announces if it doesn't seem to the public as saving them money in some fashion, it's going to very slow sales. People are looking hard at their bottom line lately and worried about their jobs. We are still experiencing deflation, meaning more job losses and more foreclosures and bank failures.
Have you walked into an Apple retail store lately?
While the rest of the mall looks like a ghost town at times, the Apple store is bustling with activity!
I'll take a hard drive based iPod Touch if it means a lower price and thus more sales for Apple.
Integrated VOIP, so the mechanical components are all there already.
Apple (and other high end retailers) usually forces new, unproven, expensive and sometimes unwanted technologies down the public's throat, thus I don't see a hard drive based iPod touch coming.
Apple would do well to introduce higher capacity iPod Touches, and if they can't get the price down to something reasonable with memory, then use the more fragile hard drives.
Then let people decide how well they take care of them, if they do well, they won't have to repurchase. If they don't Apple sells twice as many.
Not going to happen.
Apple is moving in the other direction.
I expect the iPod Classic to be "redesigned" with flash memory.
This way Apple can standardize on all iPods having the same memory type.
It will also push customers toward the iPod Touch(what Apple wants you to buy).
The name "Classic" refers primarily to the scroll wheel input method not the storage technology.
I think the Apple sign said something about a Rolling Stones song, so perhaps Apple is going to promote them along with their new iPod devices.
Most likely what they did with U2, sell a iPod with all the Rolling Stones music on it.
The Beatles got the jump in the press, that's all, knowing Apple and RS is coming today.
Apple Records feels it's in competition with Apple Computer or they feel Steve Jobs stole their marketing techniques or something. Thus the years of lawsuits and no Beatles on iTMS.
I see my wallet being opened admist the lust of another must have iPod device, the bonus of getting all Rolling Stone music included.
But I already have all the Rolling Stone music...
Absolutely not! The tag line on the invite card is not a secret message.
Apple is the largest seller of music in the USA...They are a computer company that sells a metric buttload of music! Hence...It's only rock and roll, but we like it.
NO BEATLES. NO ROLLING STONES. NO U2.
The Beatles need Apple. Apple doesn't need The Beatles.
Yea, anal-ists are already pumping up Apple's stock to $200. But in my opinion, anything Apple announces if it doesn't seem to the public as saving them money in some fashion, it's going to very slow sales. People are looking hard at their bottom line lately and worried about their jobs. We are still experiencing deflation, meaning more job losses and more foreclosures and bank failures.
A large capacity iPod Touch to replace the hard drive based iPod Classic and watch the flood of orders come in.
Integrated VOIP functionality would be nice.
64 GB capacity would just be enough to hold all my music and a the few downloaded iTMS movies for trips.
$349? Screw that. This is NOT the real estate/loose credit bubble economy anymore. People are buying based upon value in this rough economy.
VOIP enabled iPod Touches would be worth $349.
An iPod touch that acts like a VOIP phone, IOW if it has the exact same functionality as the iPhone but initiates dialing over WiFi, would be worth it. Current offerings across the board in the home VOIP phone category are just junk.
Apple has approved some streaming apps so ATT doesn't have the last word in everything.
However even if they didn't, it would still be useful as a wifi-only service. look at slingmedia for instance.
As for Apple keeping all the content in the cloud, I don't think they would do that, more like you would be apple to stream to your phone similar to the way itunes streaming works with appleTV.
I would be surprised if they released a new apple tv, I think it is possible though they could release an appleTV upgrade that replaced the current streaming with the new http streaming. That would actually improve throughput and maybe decrease overall bandwidth.
I am hoping our streaming application will make it through the approval process, we plan to release it in another month or two, and are not sure if we will just release it as wi-fi only or make an attempt for 3g and see if it gets rejected and than we have to resubmit.
In any case it allows streaming from external media servers , yes I'm hearing the yawns... but differnece between our application and similar ones in the itunes store is this one will really work. And have some very intuitive search and bookmarking tools.
I hope that Apple makes it possible for developers to offer support and/or respond to people who take the time to review an application in the App Store.
I expect the iPod Classic to be "redesigned" with flash memory.
This way Apple can standardize on all iPods having the same memory type.
It will also push customers toward the iPod Touch(what Apple wants you to buy).
The name "Classic" refers primarily to the scroll wheel input method not the storage technology.
What purpose would putting flash in a Classic serve other than to jack up the price? You standardize on parts to get economies of scale and efficiency in manufacturing. You'd get neither by putting flash in a Classic. Apple already has the flash market cornered with their existing products. And if it's the same form factor as the Classic, there's no efficiencies to be gained, either. All you are doing is putting in a much more expensive part with no benefit.
And if the suggestion is that it would drive people to the Touch because the resulting flash-based Classic would cost more, then why not just increase the price of the Classic but keep the hard drive and pocket the difference as pure profit?
The Classic will get some minor/cosmetic refresh this go around. And next year when the 64 GB Touch becomes the mid-level Touch, and therefore a price more in line with the Classic, and the 128 GB touch comes out, then the Classic will be discontinued.
Comments
Separately, Siegler suggests Ford will be releasing street-based cars.
I know what he's getting at but the iTunes Store has been 'cloud-based' since its inception. It doesn't have to be accessible via a web browser or stream music or movies to qualify (though I agree, the latter would be nice).
I would argue that it does (have to stream) to qualify as cloud based. To me, cloud based means no local storage. Just because you access something over TCP/IP doesn't qualify.
BEATLES
Will open a whole new world to all the under 16 crowd
9
No it won't, it will be passed by those people.
And don't forget a totally new Appe TV yeahhhhhh
It's an iPod event, deal with it.
It's an iPod event, deal with it.
The ATV is an iPod for the living room with the exception of easy iPod searching features.
BEATLES
Will open a whole new world to all the under 16 crowd
9
The hip hop nation? I don't think so.
This is equivalent to reissuing Frank Sinatra, Billie Holiday, Glenn Miller or Guy Lombardo to the original rock generation.
They could have cared less.
group up over wifi?
not entirely sure how it would work, but might be nifty.
I would love to see Apple offer a setup for iTunes where you can sync downloads across multiple devices that would take care of at least the following two situations: (1) automatically syncing a song downloaded on Mac 1 to Mac 2, and (2) automatically downloading a song to Mac 1 AND Mac 2 if I buy it on the iPhone.
I'm sure there's a geek way to do this now, but I'm looking for something more like a automated set-it-and-forget-it setup.
you can share the library from one mac to another.. which solves problem one and saves the disk space on the other macs (I can't afford to use 50 of the 80GB drive in my laptop for music)
problem 2 means iTunes would have to "listen" for updates from the phone, and automatically authenticate. bad. idea. period.
killer functions for me would be to be able to
1) sync the playlists (not the content) create one on the remote machine and the local machine, and the new playlists end up on both machines. it can't be too difficult, the library file is just XML.
2) robust playlist creation on the phone/touch (on the go just doesn't cut it). let me name it myself, and create as many as I want.
3) let me define the shuffle/repeat settings on a per playlist basis.. those are global settings, now, no?
The ATV is an iPod for the living room with the exception of easy iPod searching features.
It's an iPod event. If we see an Apple TV I'll be highly surprised.
Yea, anal-ists are already pumping up Apple's stock to $200. But in my opinion, anything Apple announces if it doesn't seem to the public as saving them money in some fashion, it's going to very slow sales. People are looking hard at their bottom line lately and worried about their jobs. We are still experiencing deflation, meaning more job losses and more foreclosures and bank failures.
Have you walked into an Apple retail store lately?
While the rest of the mall looks like a ghost town at times, the Apple store is bustling with activity!
It's an iPod event. If we see an Apple TV I'll be highly surprised.
While Steve refers to it as a separate leg in reality the AppleTV = an iPod for your TV.
I'll take a hard drive based iPod Touch if it means a lower price and thus more sales for Apple.
Integrated VOIP, so the mechanical components are all there already.
Apple (and other high end retailers) usually forces new, unproven, expensive and sometimes unwanted technologies down the public's throat, thus I don't see a hard drive based iPod touch coming.
Apple would do well to introduce higher capacity iPod Touches, and if they can't get the price down to something reasonable with memory, then use the more fragile hard drives.
Then let people decide how well they take care of them, if they do well, they won't have to repurchase. If they don't Apple sells twice as many.
Not going to happen.
Apple is moving in the other direction.
I expect the iPod Classic to be "redesigned" with flash memory.
This way Apple can standardize on all iPods having the same memory type.
It will also push customers toward the iPod Touch(what Apple wants you to buy).
The name "Classic" refers primarily to the scroll wheel input method not the storage technology.
I think the Apple sign said something about a Rolling Stones song, so perhaps Apple is going to promote them along with their new iPod devices.
Most likely what they did with U2, sell a iPod with all the Rolling Stones music on it.
The Beatles got the jump in the press, that's all, knowing Apple and RS is coming today.
Apple Records feels it's in competition with Apple Computer or they feel Steve Jobs stole their marketing techniques or something. Thus the years of lawsuits and no Beatles on iTMS.
I see my wallet being opened admist the lust of another must have iPod device, the bonus of getting all Rolling Stone music included.
But I already have all the Rolling Stone music...
Absolutely not! The tag line on the invite card is not a secret message.
Apple is the largest seller of music in the USA...They are a computer company that sells a metric buttload of music! Hence...It's only rock and roll, but we like it.
NO BEATLES. NO ROLLING STONES. NO U2.
The Beatles need Apple. Apple doesn't need The Beatles.
Yea, anal-ists are already pumping up Apple's stock to $200. But in my opinion, anything Apple announces if it doesn't seem to the public as saving them money in some fashion, it's going to very slow sales. People are looking hard at their bottom line lately and worried about their jobs. We are still experiencing deflation, meaning more job losses and more foreclosures and bank failures.
A large capacity iPod Touch to replace the hard drive based iPod Classic and watch the flood of orders come in.
Integrated VOIP functionality would be nice.
64 GB capacity would just be enough to hold all my music and a the few downloaded iTMS movies for trips.
$349? Screw that. This is NOT the real estate/loose credit bubble economy anymore. People are buying based upon value in this rough economy.
VOIP enabled iPod Touches would be worth $349.
An iPod touch that acts like a VOIP phone, IOW if it has the exact same functionality as the iPhone but initiates dialing over WiFi, would be worth it. Current offerings across the board in the home VOIP phone category are just junk.
The hip hop nation? I don't think so.
This is equivalent to reissuing Frank Sinatra, Billie Holiday, Glenn Miller or Guy Lombardo to the original rock generation.
They could have cared less.
Well my girlfriend's grade 4 music class asked her to play the Beatles the other day.
I was also 16 (about 6 years ago) when I discovered the Beatles.
You don't sell 600+ Million albums to one generation.
However even if they didn't, it would still be useful as a wifi-only service. look at slingmedia for instance.
As for Apple keeping all the content in the cloud, I don't think they would do that, more like you would be apple to stream to your phone similar to the way itunes streaming works with appleTV.
I would be surprised if they released a new apple tv, I think it is possible though they could release an appleTV upgrade that replaced the current streaming with the new http streaming. That would actually improve throughput and maybe decrease overall bandwidth.
I am hoping our streaming application will make it through the approval process, we plan to release it in another month or two, and are not sure if we will just release it as wi-fi only or make an attempt for 3g and see if it gets rejected and than we have to resubmit.
In any case it allows streaming from external media servers , yes I'm hearing the yawns... but differnece between our application and similar ones in the itunes store is this one will really work. And have some very intuitive search and bookmarking tools.
here's a link..
http://sol3.typepad.com/tagalong_dev...ediashare.html
You don't sell 600+ Million albums to one generation.
Actually, you do sell that many to one generation when they live through 3 types of media changes and remastering.
Not going to happen.
Apple is moving in the other direction.
I expect the iPod Classic to be "redesigned" with flash memory.
This way Apple can standardize on all iPods having the same memory type.
It will also push customers toward the iPod Touch(what Apple wants you to buy).
The name "Classic" refers primarily to the scroll wheel input method not the storage technology.
What purpose would putting flash in a Classic serve other than to jack up the price? You standardize on parts to get economies of scale and efficiency in manufacturing. You'd get neither by putting flash in a Classic. Apple already has the flash market cornered with their existing products. And if it's the same form factor as the Classic, there's no efficiencies to be gained, either. All you are doing is putting in a much more expensive part with no benefit.
And if the suggestion is that it would drive people to the Touch because the resulting flash-based Classic would cost more, then why not just increase the price of the Classic but keep the hard drive and pocket the difference as pure profit?
The Classic will get some minor/cosmetic refresh this go around. And next year when the 64 GB Touch becomes the mid-level Touch, and therefore a price more in line with the Classic, and the 128 GB touch comes out, then the Classic will be discontinued.