1.) This will probably have a camera. As a companion product to the video conferencing iPhone.
2.) App store has netflix. This device would run iPhone OS...
2a.) Netflix now supports iPad video adapter.
3.) It will have 802.11n and bluetooth using same chipset as iPad.
4.) Will probably support connectivity to iPhone/iPod Touch for remote wifi or bluetooth.
5.) I doubt it will stream 1080p. That seems over the top.
6.) Will not have blue-ray. Apple will never have Blue-ray. Blue-ray is a dead medium, long term. Streaming will replace it completely in the future.
Agree with all, plus one more - as a iPhone OS device, it would be able to store and run iPhone Apps, especially multi-player games. Although there might be a new cheaper $49 controller/remote, existing iPhones, iPod touch, and iPads could also serve as controllers.
Dream come true. Except I don't want it to be an iPhone without a screen and it would be nice to have at least 16GB of internal storage. Other then that it's the Apple TV I've been waiting for.
The point of that thread is there are a handful of software-based limitations of the iPad that severely limit its potential market; how well its currently selling within its limited market is rather irrelevant, as eventually sales will level off unless Apple addresses said software limitations. Multitasking is on the way, and like you said printing will probably come too.
That is, I am sorry to say, a clueless comment on at least three fronts.
(i) You have absolutely no clue about the 'potential' market. What is your benchmark (and why)? What is your forecast of the 'potential'? 5M? 50M? 500M? What's your model? (ii) How well an electronics product is selling at introduction is not correlated with (you went even further, calling it "irrelevant" to) how it does subsequently? Can you name a couple of examples of significance? (I am sure we could easily name a dozen where the two are indeed highly correlated). (iii) It is silly and vacuous to make statement based on the implicit premise that Apple will do nothing to address software 'limitations' (your word). There is nothing that Apple has created where its companion software has stood frozen at what it was when intro'ed.
Agree with all, plus one more - as a iPhone OS device, it would be able to store and run iPhone Apps, especially multi-player games. Although there might be a new cheaper $49 controller/remote, existing iPhones, iPod touch, and iPads could also serve as controllers.
As you can see I immediately changed my feeling on the whole ebay issue and edited my post... I too am an admitted Apple horde... I have a few cubes (I think), a PPC laptop or 2... one or two old PPC powermac towers and a box-o-crap filled with ADB cables, Farallon phone-net connectors and assorted paraphernalia... I even have... GET THIS... A nubus QUICKTIME accelerator card (well the box for it anyway) that I just spotted in the attic. I saw it and said CRAP I gotta start throwing this stuff out!
Nubus QuickTime Accelerator ... ha!
I have a Nubus JPEG Compression card Take that!
Plus the original set of Microsoft Office disks ... and I mean for Mac! 1985 ... Word, Multiplan, File and one I can't remember lol, will have to climb in the attic.
Same in Canada. But that's not for services like BES where they are installing fibre. That's my point. You can Bell ExpressVu which is satellite or Rogers cable and not subscribe to Bell DSL or Rogers cable internet. However, when it comes to services like fibre they seem to be going to an all or nothing package. You want the speeds that come with fibre? Then you get the IPTV service too.
Is Comcast fibre or is it just conventional satellite/cable?
Comcast is still coax to the house in most areas i believe, including mine - but fiber to the node. where i am at is all DOCSIS 3, so they are selling 50/10 service. i have 20/5 for the $55 price.
I don't think you're even reading what I wrote so I'm going to stop after this but for one last time:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
... The current Apple TV is great but hardly a resounding sales success for Apple ... if it remains an iTunes portal, it won't sell well, even if it's $100. And really, is it that hard to comprehend this point? ...
You're the one missing *my* point.
- It *is* already a "sales success" for Apple (they wouldn't keep carrying it if it wasn't).
- It already "sells well."
Your argument (or the other guy that you are defending for some reason), is more that it won't take over the world and become the dominant player in the game or some such. That's a different thing entirely. It's not fair to phrase that argument as "it will be a hard sell." Judging by the sales and performance and customer satisfaction of the current model, it's easy to see how reducing the price by 60% and adding a bunch of features will instead make it rather an easy sale.
Market penetration and overall product dominance is another thing altogether.
Comcast is still coax to the house in most areas i believe, including mine - but fiber to the node. where i am at is all DOCSIS 3, so they are selling 50/10 service. i have 20/5 for the $55 price.
Fair enough. You better hope though that cable cos. don't go this route of making bundles mandatory. I could see them doing that. Since they can upsell their fibre services as premium offerings.
Fair enough. You better hope though that cable cos. don't go this route of making bundles mandatory. I could see them doing that. Since they can upsell their fibre services as premium offerings.
definitely. heck, the extra $8 a month or whatever comcast charges for HD services still gets me agitated - all those companies love to nickel and dime the consumer...
So, here's my question of the day... If Eric Schmidt had used his inside knowledge of Apple's plans as a former Apple board member to pass onto Google for a competitive advantage, couldn't he face an IP theft lawsuit?
I don't think you're even reading what I wrote so I'm going to stop after this but for one last time: You're the one missing *my* point.
- It *is* already a "sales success" for Apple (they wouldn't keep carrying it if it wasn't).
- It already "sells well."
Your argument (or the other guy that you are defending for some reason), is more that it won't take over the world and become the dominant player in the game or some such. That's a different thing entirely.
Fair enough. Definitions of success can vary. Though I would dispute the fact that simply carrying a product means sales success. I am sure Apple keeps Apple TV on its shelves because it makes them money. But I am skeptical it's as valuable a product to them as most of the other stuff they carry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
It's not fair to phrase that argument as "it will be a hard sell." Judging by the sales and performance and customer satisfaction of the current model, it's easy to see how reducing the price by 60% and adding a bunch of features will instead make it rather an easy sale.
This is where I find you're reaching. Keep in mind that we're now talking about the entire TV watching audience (if we're talking streaming content) as opposed to those who want an accessory to get their iTunes stuff on a bigger screen. Whatever new features they add will be scarcely make a dent in the mass market appeal of Apple TV if it doesn't help you, ya know, watch TV (the way non-Apple fans define that activity).
Anyway, I am sure we'll have lots to debate once we actually see what Apple offers...I am just hoping it's got subscriptions. That's what I think will be the real gamechanger.
That is, I am sorry to say, a clueless comment on at least three fronts.
(i) You have absolutely no clue about the 'potential' market. What is your benchmark (and why)? What is your forecast of the 'potential'? 5M? 50M? 500M? What's your model? (ii) How well an electronics product is selling at introduction is not correlated with (you went even further, calling it "irrelevant" to) how it does subsequently? Can you name a couple of examples of significance? (I am sure we could easily name a dozen where the two are indeed highly correlated). (iii) It is silly and vacuous to make statement based on the implicit premise that Apple will do nothing to address software 'limitations' (your word). There is nothing that Apple has created where its companion software has stood frozen at what it was when intro'ed.
\ So before I can point out that the iPad has a limited market reach and the reasons why, first I have to forcast sales figures and define what quantity would be a successful figure? I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was on the Piper Jaffray forum.
And why do you assume I believe the iPad's software wont advance, just because I point out what advancements would be necessary to broaden it's market?
I don't put any credit into this, Apple has been very stubbornly against the 100% cloud approach because the internet just isn't there & won't be fore some time. Many people can't afford the ridiculous prices of cable internet & with wireless broadband capped at 5GB per month the concept of an all cloud based TV would be a flop. It also doesn't fit at all with the current model of iPhone OS and would require a severe re-tooling of it.
I think it's far more likely that Apple would release iPhone OS for ATV (with upgrade pricing for current ATVs) to allow ATV users to take advantage of apps & the web.
This is a bogus story, I don't buy any of it.
I have to agree with this, at least considering how the story is presented. To be honest, I was scrolling through because I thought Solipsism would be the one to call foul, but it seems he's (she's?) bought in as well.
It just doesn't seem quite right. There are a lot of people who wouldn't be able to take advantage of this because of the limits of their internet providers, and for Apple to aim only at those who have the right services would limit their market too far.
I could see them adding streaming video to AppleTV and possibly including apps, but I think they have to keep the syncing and local storage as well. If they did that, and kept the HD size at least at the previous 40GB minimum, I'll be looking at one when I upgrade to an HDTV. Otherwise, I think the streaming will be too slow or not actually high quality, or we'll constantly be running out of monthly bandwidth and paying excessive fees.
So, here's my question of the day... If Eric Schmidt had used his inside knowledge of Apple's plans as a former Apple board member to pass onto Google for a competitive advantage, couldn't he face an IP theft lawsuit?
Well, he could possibly face some sort of lawsuit, although, even though I discussed IP theft in relation to Google's Books program, just taking the ideas, and not the implementation details back to teams at Google probably wouldn't count as IP theft, since at the boardroom level they probably aren't discussed in a patentable level of detail. Whether Apple would think it worth and (the exact grounds) I'm not sure.
But, I think it's naive to think that he wasn't taking Apple ideas and plans back to Google and setting teams to work on parallel projects. Even if it wasn't illegal or actionable, it's certainly unethical behavior.
Comments
Just some thoughts.
1.) This will probably have a camera. As a companion product to the video conferencing iPhone.
2.) App store has netflix. This device would run iPhone OS...
2a.) Netflix now supports iPad video adapter.
3.) It will have 802.11n and bluetooth using same chipset as iPad.
4.) Will probably support connectivity to iPhone/iPod Touch for remote wifi or bluetooth.
5.) I doubt it will stream 1080p. That seems over the top.
6.) Will not have blue-ray. Apple will never have Blue-ray. Blue-ray is a dead medium, long term. Streaming will replace it completely in the future.
Agree with all, plus one more - as a iPhone OS device, it would be able to store and run iPhone Apps, especially multi-player games. Although there might be a new cheaper $49 controller/remote, existing iPhones, iPod touch, and iPads could also serve as controllers.
The point of that thread is there are a handful of software-based limitations of the iPad that severely limit its potential market; how well its currently selling within its limited market is rather irrelevant, as eventually sales will level off unless Apple addresses said software limitations. Multitasking is on the way, and like you said printing will probably come too.
That is, I am sorry to say, a clueless comment on at least three fronts.
(i) You have absolutely no clue about the 'potential' market. What is your benchmark (and why)? What is your forecast of the 'potential'? 5M? 50M? 500M? What's your model? (ii) How well an electronics product is selling at introduction is not correlated with (you went even further, calling it "irrelevant" to) how it does subsequently? Can you name a couple of examples of significance? (I am sure we could easily name a dozen where the two are indeed highly correlated). (iii) It is silly and vacuous to make statement based on the implicit premise that Apple will do nothing to address software 'limitations' (your word). There is nothing that Apple has created where its companion software has stood frozen at what it was when intro'ed.
Agree with all, plus one more - as a iPhone OS device, it would be able to store and run iPhone Apps, especially multi-player games. Although there might be a new cheaper $49 controller/remote, existing iPhones, iPod touch, and iPads could also serve as controllers.
Genius, pure genius.
If I turn of my AppleTV, how will I heat my house?!?
Get a Nexus One and run Flash videos on it.
If I turn of my AppleTV, how will I heat my house?!?
Tekstud, are you back!?
As you can see I immediately changed my feeling on the whole ebay issue and edited my post... I too am an admitted Apple horde... I have a few cubes (I think), a PPC laptop or 2... one or two old PPC powermac towers and a box-o-crap filled with ADB cables, Farallon phone-net connectors and assorted paraphernalia... I even have... GET THIS... A nubus QUICKTIME accelerator card (well the box for it anyway) that I just spotted in the attic. I saw it and said CRAP I gotta start throwing this stuff out!
Nubus QuickTime Accelerator ... ha!
I have a Nubus JPEG Compression card Take that!
Plus the original set of Microsoft Office disks ... and I mean for Mac! 1985 ... Word, Multiplan, File and one I can't remember lol, will have to climb in the attic.
Tekstud, are you back!?
Hate to even slightly agree if it is him ... but I can fry eggs on mine :
Same in Canada. But that's not for services like BES where they are installing fibre. That's my point. You can Bell ExpressVu which is satellite or Rogers cable and not subscribe to Bell DSL or Rogers cable internet. However, when it comes to services like fibre they seem to be going to an all or nothing package. You want the speeds that come with fibre? Then you get the IPTV service too.
Is Comcast fibre or is it just conventional satellite/cable?
Comcast is still coax to the house in most areas i believe, including mine - but fiber to the node. where i am at is all DOCSIS 3, so they are selling 50/10 service. i have 20/5 for the $55 price.
... The current Apple TV is great but hardly a resounding sales success for Apple ... if it remains an iTunes portal, it won't sell well, even if it's $100. And really, is it that hard to comprehend this point? ...
You're the one missing *my* point.
- It *is* already a "sales success" for Apple (they wouldn't keep carrying it if it wasn't).
- It already "sells well."
Your argument (or the other guy that you are defending for some reason), is more that it won't take over the world and become the dominant player in the game or some such. That's a different thing entirely. It's not fair to phrase that argument as "it will be a hard sell." Judging by the sales and performance and customer satisfaction of the current model, it's easy to see how reducing the price by 60% and adding a bunch of features will instead make it rather an easy sale.
Market penetration and overall product dominance is another thing altogether.
Comcast is still coax to the house in most areas i believe, including mine - but fiber to the node. where i am at is all DOCSIS 3, so they are selling 50/10 service. i have 20/5 for the $55 price.
Fair enough. You better hope though that cable cos. don't go this route of making bundles mandatory. I could see them doing that. Since they can upsell their fibre services as premium offerings.
Hate to even slightly agree if it is him ... but I can fry eggs on mine :
Yes, I agree that's true on mine too...
Fair enough. You better hope though that cable cos. don't go this route of making bundles mandatory. I could see them doing that. Since they can upsell their fibre services as premium offerings.
definitely. heck, the extra $8 a month or whatever comcast charges for HD services still gets me agitated - all those companies love to nickel and dime the consumer...
I don't think you're even reading what I wrote so I'm going to stop after this but for one last time: You're the one missing *my* point.
- It *is* already a "sales success" for Apple (they wouldn't keep carrying it if it wasn't).
- It already "sells well."
Your argument (or the other guy that you are defending for some reason), is more that it won't take over the world and become the dominant player in the game or some such. That's a different thing entirely.
Fair enough. Definitions of success can vary. Though I would dispute the fact that simply carrying a product means sales success. I am sure Apple keeps Apple TV on its shelves because it makes them money. But I am skeptical it's as valuable a product to them as most of the other stuff they carry.
It's not fair to phrase that argument as "it will be a hard sell." Judging by the sales and performance and customer satisfaction of the current model, it's easy to see how reducing the price by 60% and adding a bunch of features will instead make it rather an easy sale.
This is where I find you're reaching. Keep in mind that we're now talking about the entire TV watching audience (if we're talking streaming content) as opposed to those who want an accessory to get their iTunes stuff on a bigger screen. Whatever new features they add will be scarcely make a dent in the mass market appeal of Apple TV if it doesn't help you, ya know, watch TV (the way non-Apple fans define that activity).
Anyway, I am sure we'll have lots to debate once we actually see what Apple offers...I am just hoping it's got subscriptions. That's what I think will be the real gamechanger.
Ouch.
+1
That is, I am sorry to say, a clueless comment on at least three fronts.
(i) You have absolutely no clue about the 'potential' market. What is your benchmark (and why)? What is your forecast of the 'potential'? 5M? 50M? 500M? What's your model? (ii) How well an electronics product is selling at introduction is not correlated with (you went even further, calling it "irrelevant" to) how it does subsequently? Can you name a couple of examples of significance? (I am sure we could easily name a dozen where the two are indeed highly correlated). (iii) It is silly and vacuous to make statement based on the implicit premise that Apple will do nothing to address software 'limitations' (your word). There is nothing that Apple has created where its companion software has stood frozen at what it was when intro'ed.
And why do you assume I believe the iPad's software wont advance, just because I point out what advancements would be necessary to broaden it's market?
I don't put any credit into this, Apple has been very stubbornly against the 100% cloud approach because the internet just isn't there & won't be fore some time. Many people can't afford the ridiculous prices of cable internet & with wireless broadband capped at 5GB per month the concept of an all cloud based TV would be a flop. It also doesn't fit at all with the current model of iPhone OS and would require a severe re-tooling of it.
I think it's far more likely that Apple would release iPhone OS for ATV (with upgrade pricing for current ATVs) to allow ATV users to take advantage of apps & the web.
This is a bogus story, I don't buy any of it.
I have to agree with this, at least considering how the story is presented. To be honest, I was scrolling through because I thought Solipsism would be the one to call foul, but it seems he's (she's?) bought in as well.
It just doesn't seem quite right. There are a lot of people who wouldn't be able to take advantage of this because of the limits of their internet providers, and for Apple to aim only at those who have the right services would limit their market too far.
I could see them adding streaming video to AppleTV and possibly including apps, but I think they have to keep the syncing and local storage as well. If they did that, and kept the HD size at least at the previous 40GB minimum, I'll be looking at one when I upgrade to an HDTV. Otherwise, I think the streaming will be too slow or not actually high quality, or we'll constantly be running out of monthly bandwidth and paying excessive fees.
So, here's my question of the day... If Eric Schmidt had used his inside knowledge of Apple's plans as a former Apple board member to pass onto Google for a competitive advantage, couldn't he face an IP theft lawsuit?
Well, he could possibly face some sort of lawsuit, although, even though I discussed IP theft in relation to Google's Books program, just taking the ideas, and not the implementation details back to teams at Google probably wouldn't count as IP theft, since at the boardroom level they probably aren't discussed in a patentable level of detail. Whether Apple would think it worth and (the exact grounds) I'm not sure.
But, I think it's naive to think that he wasn't taking Apple ideas and plans back to Google and setting teams to work on parallel projects. Even if it wasn't illegal or actionable, it's certainly unethical behavior.