I could see using an app on your iPhone/iPad as a remote to run the iTV.
The Remote app already controls the AppleTV.
Quote:
I don't think it would take a lot of hand-eye coordination to use an iPhone/iPad app if you can see some kind of cursor on your TV screen that follows what you're doing on the iPhone/iPad.
Why would the user need to see anything on the TV screen when he sees everything he needs to on his iPhone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin
Umm, how would you run touch-based apps on a TV?
You would connect the iTV to your televisions and run apps on that (as explained in the sentence you quoted).
Note that the iTV is not a television set. It is a new/replacement AppleTV device which runs iOS.
One thing Apple seems to like is implementing the newest wi-fi protocols even before the standard has been ratified. I'm pretty sure they implemented 802.11-G and 802.11-N before either were ratified.
I've kept an eye on Wi-Fi Direct since it first made a splash several months back. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new AppleTV (iTV) implement Wi-Fi Direct technology, which allows for direct device to device wireless communication, bypassing the need for an intermediate Wi-Fi router. The awesome thing, from what I understand, is the Wi-Fi Direct capabilities can be enabled by new firmware on existing hardware and only one device needs to be Wi-Fi Direct-enabled for other devices to connect to it. A new AppleTV seems to be a relatively low-risk device on which to implement and test Wi-Fi Direct capabilities in the real world before Apple tried to implement it on desktops or other iDevices. Imagine being able to use the iPod Touch or iPhone as a remote control or game controller, etc., all wirelessly connected directly without needing the wi-fi router. I think it would be pretty cool.
I can see that cable TV will experience the same fate as landline phone. Everyone still has it, but many people use their mobile now. I think there is a market for in iDevice based TV. This will then go the way of the mobile phones, and in 5 years people find this much more attractive and versatile than cable TV. Let's just hope the price difference is not the same as between landline and mobile phones!
I wouldn't quite say that. Cable TV offers real-time "linear" channels, and I don't see people generally dumping those anytime soon. Rumors talk about Apple TV being a device that can stream on-demand movie rentals, and play games. So could this be the beginning of the end for Blu-Ray, cable TV's Movies on Demand, and perhaps even the Wii. If the latter applies, based on early Wii demand, Apple had better open up a new factory, or make their Foxconn factory employees work 28-hour days, eight days a week.
(By the way: That new Foxconn factory that could supposedly make 200k iPhones a day -- could they make Apple TVs when iPhone demand sags a tad? What about iPads?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porchland
Comcast/NBCU has a huge stake because they're a big player in both cable networks and local cable/broadband subscriptions, and I just don't see them contributing all of their current content to an internet-delivered, subscription-based service unless it replaces the revenue from reduced ad rates and fewer cable subscribers.
And would they want to give in to Steve Jobs like he'd like, or would CoNBC just put the stuff on Hulu Plus or something like that? The latter is possible, because that's the NBC 2.0 Jeff Zucker Way. Yeah, like that's worked, before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr
Which device you going to look at while playing a dynamic iOS game, the iPhone or the TV? Same question goes for the people that say the magic trackpad could be used as the controller.
This doesn't make much sense to me.
And really, I don't, either. As others pointed out, I'm pretty sure that Steve probably would have something brand new ready to go, something that could fit in the box, and not cost much to make (remember -- $99 for everything).
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Further a 2.1 product implys a revision to a current oroduct. I hope you realize that it is very important for Apple to get past its rev one device as fast as possible. For iPad to realize its potential and compete with coming competition it needs more robust hardware.
In this case, why? FaceTime? People seem satisfied with the current iPad; it's still on backorder, and it's not the holidays, yet, when demand for gadgets increase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
As to an entirely new device, that i hope is coming. As it would be in effect a smalker iPad i don't see it impacting the iPad at all. After all the Touch exist and nobody claims it impacts iPad sale. People buy to fit their needs.
Quote:
Apple is smart to release brand-new products in the early year, it gives the market an acceptance period; 11 months of hype before the holidays.
Except when they grossly underestimate demand. IPad and iPhone demand is such that the time of the year for the debut makes little difference. The sad reality is that the Christmas shopping season will be upon us in a couple of months and the indications are that Apple will not be able to cover demand. That is very bad.
And many of the people who buy iPad 2's would be repeat iPad 1 buyers, further hurting supply. Unless it's a 6-7" iPad, and/or they've got a supply trick up their sleeves, I can't see why Apple would rationally replace, or even supplement, a super-popular device so close to the holiday rush. And if it were a 7" iPad, why wouldn't the device be known as "iProd 1,2"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranum
One thing Apple seems to like is implementing the newest wi-fi protocols even before the standard has been ratified. I'm pretty sure they implemented 802.11-G and 802.11-N before either were ratified.
I've kept an eye on Wi-Fi Direct since it first made a splash several months back. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new AppleTV (iTV) implement Wi-Fi Direct technology, which allows for direct device to device wireless communication, bypassing the need for an intermediate Wi-Fi router. The awesome thing, from what I understand, is the Wi-Fi Direct capabilities can be enabled by new firmware on existing hardware and only one device needs to be Wi-Fi Direct-enabled for other devices to connect to it. A new AppleTV seems to be a relatively low-risk device on which to implement and test Wi-Fi Direct capabilities in the real world before Apple tried to implement it on desktops or other iDevices. Imagine being able to use the iPod Touch or iPhone as a remote control or game controller, etc., all wirelessly connected directly without needing the wi-fi router. I think it would be pretty cool.
1. Couldn't the same thing be done with Bluetooth?
2. 802.11g and n had been around for at least a year before Apple used it. You'd think they'd fast-track it with a few months' lead time, instead of using mature Bluetooth technology? Unlikely.
I have a hunch that we might see the current ipod nano be replaced with an ipod touch nano like device.
basically a shrunken down ipod touch - same res screen but maybe 2.8 or 3.0 inch diagonal at a higher pixel density - and the case would be much smaller in dimension: definitly losing the top "chin" and some of the bottom chin with a slightly smaller or rectangular home button.
Nano would retain the video camera functionality, but would not have the facetime or higher res still camera of the full size ipod touch.
With the ipod nano being the highest selling ipod, the boost to apple iOS device shipment numbers would definitly push it back past the 200,000+ android daily shipment numbers so proudly quoted by google recently...
I have a hunch that we might see the current ipod nano be replaced with an ipod touch nano like device.
basically a shrunken down ipod touch - same res screen but maybe 2.8 or 3.0 inch diagonal at a higher pixel density - and the case would be much smaller in dimension: definitly losing the top "chin" and some of the bottom chin with a slightly smaller or rectangular home button.
Nano would retain the video camera functionality, but would not have the facetime or higher res still camera of the full size ipod touch.
Unlikely for three reasons:
1. Apple's big into FaceTime. Steve Jobs has been pushing the application, and I suspect all future iPod Touches, and perhaps Nanos, will have it. Actually, an iPod nano with two cameras and FaceTime is more likely than what you suggested. And remember that 3x3cm touchscreen display? That may be the key to FaceTime in a future iPod nano.
2. A smaller iPod touch screen would make gameplay harder. Plus the pixel density would be really expensive to produce.
3. Such a device would likely be labelled as "iPod 4,2" or something like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IOSWeekly
With the ipod nano being the highest selling ipod, the boost to apple iOS device shipment numbers would definitly push it back past the 200,000+ android daily shipment numbers so proudly quoted by google recently...
All of them phones. Android could still claim the "top smartphone shipper" title even with all the added iOS devices, and that's what counts here. WiFi connectivity isn't as ubiquitous as 3G. Nor is there the phone part in those new iOS devices, unless you want to count VoIP apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IOSWeekly
another question:
does anyone think the new ipod touch will gain an optional 3G/GPS model with the same data plans available as the ipad?
I think yes....
Cannibalization of iPad and especially iPhone sales? Possible. Not sure if AT&T (or any other carrier) would allow that device to exist, since it would cannibalize expensive iPhone data plans. They'd definitely want an iPhone exclusivity extension, if they were to allow that device to see the light of day.
The iProd is a new device for ranchers so they can listen to music and move cattle with the same device.
Whatever the new device is I hope it comes out at the next event. I would like a smaller iPad or a much bigger iPod Touch.
Nobody in my area owns an iPhone because there is no AT&T coverage. I'd really like to see a retina display in person. Maybe it would be good enough to view movies. I know that an iPod Touch screen as is doesn't look that great for movies. A bigger screen would make viewing the web better and reading books much easier.
I've played with an iPad and I'd prefer something smaller.
does anyone think the new ipod touch will gain an optional 3G/GPS model with the same data plans available as the ipad?
I think yes....
That would be the start of a revolution.... but I don't think the carriers are ready and willing to support that... yet. Well, maybe if Apple bought a bunch of carriers (just AT&T, Orange, Vodafone, America Movil and China Unicom would do for a start) and then ruled the world.
QUOTE=mikemikeb;1699173]Unlikely for three reasons:
1. Apple's big into FaceTime. Steve Jobs has been pushing the application, and I suspect all future iPod Touches, and perhaps Nanos, will have it. Actually, an iPod nano with two cameras and FaceTime is more likely than what you suggested. And remember that 3x3cm touchscreen display? That may be the key to FaceTime in a future iPod nano.
Thats true, perhaps the differentiation in the back facing camera quality will be enough for apple.
2. A smaller iPod touch screen would make gameplay harder. Plus the pixel density would be really expensive to produce.
A 3 inch screen is only slightly smaller than the current 3.5 inch screen, not too much difference. Regarding pixel density - I think it will have same res as current ipod - which is half as much as the retina display - so i dont think it will be very expensive at all.
3. Such a device would likely be labelled as "iPod 4,2" or something like that.
But an ipod touch nano (or mini) would be an entirely new product, so wouldn't be a continuation of an existing produt identifier (think the ipod nano replacing the ipod mini).
All of them phones. Android could still claim the "top smartphone shipper" title even with all the added iOS devices, and that's what counts here. WiFi connectivity isn't as ubiquitous as 3G. Nor is there the phone part in those new iOS devices, unless you want to count VoIP apps.
THe android stats include ereaders like the nook and budget chineses netbooks & laptops. Regardless, apple doesn't care what an iOS device is: iPad, iPhone or iPod - all are its new computing platform - some has phone included, some have 3g connectivity, some just have wifi. Every device runs apps and consume content from itunes/ibooks/app store. This is what apple cares about - not who ships more phones, but who ships more devices.
Cannibalization of iPad and especially iPhone sales? Possible. Not sure if AT&T (or any other carrier) would allow that device to exist, since it would cannibalize expensive iPhone data plans. They'd definitely want an iPhone exclusivity extension, if they were to allow that device to see the light of day.[/QUOTE]
What??? The carriers are money hungry shills, any opportunity they have to get you to sign up for another overpriced data plan - they will take all day every day. especially if its locked to just one device.
Portable device for stunning Trolls and other Apple haters with an electric shock.
Comes with a years supply of extra strength Koolaid and an improved set of blinkers with even larger baffles.
I wish people would stop referring to 'Apple's custom A4' processor. It has well and truly been outed as a Samsung Hummingbird. Probably the only 'custom' bit of it is the labeling on the chip.
Why couldn't it be a verizon Iphone 4 that numerous major newspapers have reported would be announced in september and released in December?? Its known too that a verizon Iphone was being tested on LTE in Boston so why couldn't it be?? Although I do agree that the ITV makes more sense.. I was on an airplane two months ago sitting behind what appeared to be someone pretty high up in Intel and I was reading a little bit of his stuff he was working on about why Apple Tv makes sense... i couldn't read the rest because it was too far away for me to see but there is some sort of apple TV coming since Google TV was listed as a competitor to it.. we'll see! Cant wait for the IPod update tho!! Facetime would be awesome or a verizon data chip would be nice too.
... I've read the rumors of a Wii-style remote, but that requires all those sensors and ugly wires that SJ hates!
I think the Gyroscope in the new iPhones is so accurate in tracking one's movement so a future Wii-style remote for the Apple TV could be done without IR sensors all together. Just a gyroscope enabled Apple Remote with Bluetooth would pretty much do it, with an extra "reset position" button or something..
iOS is Apple's super hit OS, so I think an iOS Apple TV would make sense.
No multi touch on the Apple TV I guess, but if they REALLY would like to, they could add extended gaming controller features to their remote.. I don't know though.. Maybe that'll happen when they understand the quality of the games that start to emerge...
A 3 inch screen is only slightly smaller than the current 3.5 inch screen, not too much difference.
No, no, no. This rumored screen is three centimeters wide, not three inches. Very small screen, more suited for a Nano, or an Apple TV remote of some kind. What the last poster suggested about the Apple TV remote works well with this screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IOSWeekly
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb
Cannibalization of iPad and especially iPhone sales? Possible. Not sure if AT&T (or any other carrier) would allow that device to exist, since it would cannibalize expensive iPhone data plans. They'd definitely want an iPhone exclusivity extension, if they were to allow that device to see the light of day.
What??? The carriers are money hungry shills, any opportunity they have to get you to sign up for another overpriced data plan - they will take all day every day. especially if its locked to just one device.
The fact that they're money-hungry shills is exactly why they wouldn't accept this device you suggest. Put it this way: Put an iPhone and an iPod Touch 3G side-by-side. Both would have to have just about identical 3G hardware. Both would put about the same strain on the AT&T network (voice doesn't use much bandwidth).
But an iPod Touch 3G would probably have to have a similar data plan to that of the iPad, because of the lack of AT&T 3G-based phone calls. That is, unless you want consumer outrage. So the iPhone nets AT&T an extra $25/month/subscriber or so, with little added strain to the network. On top of that, the iPad is contract-free; the iPhone locks you in for two years. It's one thing to offer low-ish cost 3G data-only plans on something that complements the iPhone. But to do it on something that directly competes with the iPhone? Makes no sense.
Would I take an interest in a contract-free, no-talk iPod Touch 3G? Absolutely. But AT&T would be insane to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iwantaverizonlteiphone4G
Why couldn't it be a verizon Iphone 4 that numerous major newspapers have reported would be announced in september and released in December?? Its known too that a verizon Iphone was being tested on LTE in Boston so why couldn't it be??
I heard about Verizon testing LTE in Boston, yes. But an LTE-based Verizon iPhone? I didn't hear about that. Perhaps it happened, but it would likely have to be an early prototype of a model for the long-term future (like, being released in late 2011 or 2012).
Apple's previous MO is to wait for technology to mature before deploying it in mass-scale products. They could have launched the original iPhone with 3G technology, but they waited until the chipsets were less power-hungry. It's more likely that Apple has been testing an iPhone that can work with EVDO Rev. A, or perhaps even Rev. B, but not LTE.
I wish people would stop referring to 'Apple's custom A4' processor. It has well and truly been outed as a Samsung Hummingbird. Probably the only 'custom' bit of it is the labeling on the chip.
I wish trolls would stop making comments that even they know they can't back up, and thus qualify with words like 'probably'. Having the same CPU is not the same as being the same SOC.
Comments
I could see using an app on your iPhone/iPad as a remote to run the iTV.
The Remote app already controls the AppleTV.
I don't think it would take a lot of hand-eye coordination to use an iPhone/iPad app if you can see some kind of cursor on your TV screen that follows what you're doing on the iPhone/iPad.
Why would the user need to see anything on the TV screen when he sees everything he needs to on his iPhone?
Umm, how would you run touch-based apps on a TV?
You would connect the iTV to your televisions and run apps on that (as explained in the sentence you quoted).
Note that the iTV is not a television set. It is a new/replacement AppleTV device which runs iOS.
What is an iProd ???
Well,
if you have to ask . . .
I've kept an eye on Wi-Fi Direct since it first made a splash several months back. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new AppleTV (iTV) implement Wi-Fi Direct technology, which allows for direct device to device wireless communication, bypassing the need for an intermediate Wi-Fi router. The awesome thing, from what I understand, is the Wi-Fi Direct capabilities can be enabled by new firmware on existing hardware and only one device needs to be Wi-Fi Direct-enabled for other devices to connect to it. A new AppleTV seems to be a relatively low-risk device on which to implement and test Wi-Fi Direct capabilities in the real world before Apple tried to implement it on desktops or other iDevices. Imagine being able to use the iPod Touch or iPhone as a remote control or game controller, etc., all wirelessly connected directly without needing the wi-fi router. I think it would be pretty cool.
I can see that cable TV will experience the same fate as landline phone. Everyone still has it, but many people use their mobile now. I think there is a market for in iDevice based TV. This will then go the way of the mobile phones, and in 5 years people find this much more attractive and versatile than cable TV. Let's just hope the price difference is not the same as between landline and mobile phones!
I wouldn't quite say that. Cable TV offers real-time "linear" channels, and I don't see people generally dumping those anytime soon. Rumors talk about Apple TV being a device that can stream on-demand movie rentals, and play games. So could this be the beginning of the end for Blu-Ray, cable TV's Movies on Demand, and perhaps even the Wii. If the latter applies, based on early Wii demand, Apple had better open up a new factory, or make their Foxconn factory employees work 28-hour days, eight days a week.
(By the way: That new Foxconn factory that could supposedly make 200k iPhones a day -- could they make Apple TVs when iPhone demand sags a tad? What about iPads?)
Comcast/NBCU has a huge stake because they're a big player in both cable networks and local cable/broadband subscriptions, and I just don't see them contributing all of their current content to an internet-delivered, subscription-based service unless it replaces the revenue from reduced ad rates and fewer cable subscribers.
And would they want to give in to Steve Jobs like he'd like, or would CoNBC just put the stuff on Hulu Plus or something like that? The latter is possible, because that's the NBC 2.0 Jeff Zucker Way. Yeah, like that's worked, before.
Which device you going to look at while playing a dynamic iOS game, the iPhone or the TV? Same question goes for the people that say the magic trackpad could be used as the controller.
This doesn't make much sense to me.
And really, I don't, either. As others pointed out, I'm pretty sure that Steve probably would have something brand new ready to go, something that could fit in the box, and not cost much to make (remember -- $99 for everything).
Further a 2.1 product implys a revision to a current oroduct. I hope you realize that it is very important for Apple to get past its rev one device as fast as possible. For iPad to realize its potential and compete with coming competition it needs more robust hardware.
In this case, why? FaceTime? People seem satisfied with the current iPad; it's still on backorder, and it's not the holidays, yet, when demand for gadgets increase.
As to an entirely new device, that i hope is coming. As it would be in effect a smalker iPad i don't see it impacting the iPad at all. After all the Touch exist and nobody claims it impacts iPad sale. People buy to fit their needs.
Apple is smart to release brand-new products in the early year, it gives the market an acceptance period; 11 months of hype before the holidays.
Except when they grossly underestimate demand. IPad and iPhone demand is such that the time of the year for the debut makes little difference. The sad reality is that the Christmas shopping season will be upon us in a couple of months and the indications are that Apple will not be able to cover demand. That is very bad.
And many of the people who buy iPad 2's would be repeat iPad 1 buyers, further hurting supply. Unless it's a 6-7" iPad, and/or they've got a supply trick up their sleeves, I can't see why Apple would rationally replace, or even supplement, a super-popular device so close to the holiday rush. And if it were a 7" iPad, why wouldn't the device be known as "iProd 1,2"?
One thing Apple seems to like is implementing the newest wi-fi protocols even before the standard has been ratified. I'm pretty sure they implemented 802.11-G and 802.11-N before either were ratified.
I've kept an eye on Wi-Fi Direct since it first made a splash several months back. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new AppleTV (iTV) implement Wi-Fi Direct technology, which allows for direct device to device wireless communication, bypassing the need for an intermediate Wi-Fi router. The awesome thing, from what I understand, is the Wi-Fi Direct capabilities can be enabled by new firmware on existing hardware and only one device needs to be Wi-Fi Direct-enabled for other devices to connect to it. A new AppleTV seems to be a relatively low-risk device on which to implement and test Wi-Fi Direct capabilities in the real world before Apple tried to implement it on desktops or other iDevices. Imagine being able to use the iPod Touch or iPhone as a remote control or game controller, etc., all wirelessly connected directly without needing the wi-fi router. I think it would be pretty cool.
1. Couldn't the same thing be done with Bluetooth?
2. 802.11g and n had been around for at least a year before Apple used it. You'd think they'd fast-track it with a few months' lead time, instead of using mature Bluetooth technology? Unlikely.
I have a hunch that we might see the current ipod nano be replaced with an ipod touch nano like device.
basically a shrunken down ipod touch - same res screen but maybe 2.8 or 3.0 inch diagonal at a higher pixel density - and the case would be much smaller in dimension: definitly losing the top "chin" and some of the bottom chin with a slightly smaller or rectangular home button.
Nano would retain the video camera functionality, but would not have the facetime or higher res still camera of the full size ipod touch.
With the ipod nano being the highest selling ipod, the boost to apple iOS device shipment numbers would definitly push it back past the 200,000+ android daily shipment numbers so proudly quoted by google recently...
does anyone think the new ipod touch will gain an optional 3G/GPS model with the same data plans available as the ipad?
I think yes....
how about this for the unidentified iprod device:
I have a hunch that we might see the current ipod nano be replaced with an ipod touch nano like device.
basically a shrunken down ipod touch - same res screen but maybe 2.8 or 3.0 inch diagonal at a higher pixel density - and the case would be much smaller in dimension: definitly losing the top "chin" and some of the bottom chin with a slightly smaller or rectangular home button.
Nano would retain the video camera functionality, but would not have the facetime or higher res still camera of the full size ipod touch.
Unlikely for three reasons:
1. Apple's big into FaceTime. Steve Jobs has been pushing the application, and I suspect all future iPod Touches, and perhaps Nanos, will have it. Actually, an iPod nano with two cameras and FaceTime is more likely than what you suggested. And remember that 3x3cm touchscreen display? That may be the key to FaceTime in a future iPod nano.
2. A smaller iPod touch screen would make gameplay harder. Plus the pixel density would be really expensive to produce.
3. Such a device would likely be labelled as "iPod 4,2" or something like that.
With the ipod nano being the highest selling ipod, the boost to apple iOS device shipment numbers would definitly push it back past the 200,000+ android daily shipment numbers so proudly quoted by google recently...
All of them phones. Android could still claim the "top smartphone shipper" title even with all the added iOS devices, and that's what counts here. WiFi connectivity isn't as ubiquitous as 3G. Nor is there the phone part in those new iOS devices, unless you want to count VoIP apps.
another question:
does anyone think the new ipod touch will gain an optional 3G/GPS model with the same data plans available as the ipad?
I think yes....
Cannibalization of iPad and especially iPhone sales? Possible. Not sure if AT&T (or any other carrier) would allow that device to exist, since it would cannibalize expensive iPhone data plans. They'd definitely want an iPhone exclusivity extension, if they were to allow that device to see the light of day.
Whatever the new device is I hope it comes out at the next event. I would like a smaller iPad or a much bigger iPod Touch.
Nobody in my area owns an iPhone because there is no AT&T coverage. I'd really like to see a retina display in person. Maybe it would be good enough to view movies. I know that an iPod Touch screen as is doesn't look that great for movies. A bigger screen would make viewing the web better and reading books much easier.
I've played with an iPad and I'd prefer something smaller.
Portable device for stunning Trolls and other Apple haters with an electric shock.
Oh I'm gonna need a few of them.
another question:
does anyone think the new ipod touch will gain an optional 3G/GPS model with the same data plans available as the ipad?
I think yes....
That would be the start of a revolution.... but I don't think the carriers are ready and willing to support that... yet. Well, maybe if Apple bought a bunch of carriers (just AT&T, Orange, Vodafone, America Movil and China Unicom would do for a start) and then ruled the world.
QUOTE=mikemikeb;1699173]Unlikely for three reasons:
1. Apple's big into FaceTime. Steve Jobs has been pushing the application, and I suspect all future iPod Touches, and perhaps Nanos, will have it. Actually, an iPod nano with two cameras and FaceTime is more likely than what you suggested. And remember that 3x3cm touchscreen display? That may be the key to FaceTime in a future iPod nano.
Thats true, perhaps the differentiation in the back facing camera quality will be enough for apple.
2. A smaller iPod touch screen would make gameplay harder. Plus the pixel density would be really expensive to produce.
A 3 inch screen is only slightly smaller than the current 3.5 inch screen, not too much difference. Regarding pixel density - I think it will have same res as current ipod - which is half as much as the retina display - so i dont think it will be very expensive at all.
3. Such a device would likely be labelled as "iPod 4,2" or something like that.
But an ipod touch nano (or mini) would be an entirely new product, so wouldn't be a continuation of an existing produt identifier (think the ipod nano replacing the ipod mini).
All of them phones. Android could still claim the "top smartphone shipper" title even with all the added iOS devices, and that's what counts here. WiFi connectivity isn't as ubiquitous as 3G. Nor is there the phone part in those new iOS devices, unless you want to count VoIP apps.
THe android stats include ereaders like the nook and budget chineses netbooks & laptops. Regardless, apple doesn't care what an iOS device is: iPad, iPhone or iPod - all are its new computing platform - some has phone included, some have 3g connectivity, some just have wifi. Every device runs apps and consume content from itunes/ibooks/app store. This is what apple cares about - not who ships more phones, but who ships more devices.
Cannibalization of iPad and especially iPhone sales? Possible. Not sure if AT&T (or any other carrier) would allow that device to exist, since it would cannibalize expensive iPhone data plans. They'd definitely want an iPhone exclusivity extension, if they were to allow that device to see the light of day.[/QUOTE]
What??? The carriers are money hungry shills, any opportunity they have to get you to sign up for another overpriced data plan - they will take all day every day. especially if its locked to just one device.
Portable device for stunning Trolls and other Apple haters with an electric shock.
Comes with a years supply of extra strength Koolaid and an improved set of blinkers with even larger baffles.
I wish people would stop referring to 'Apple's custom A4' processor. It has well and truly been outed as a Samsung Hummingbird. Probably the only 'custom' bit of it is the labeling on the chip.
... I've read the rumors of a Wii-style remote, but that requires all those sensors and ugly wires that SJ hates!
I think the Gyroscope in the new iPhones is so accurate in tracking one's movement so a future Wii-style remote for the Apple TV could be done without IR sensors all together. Just a gyroscope enabled Apple Remote with Bluetooth would pretty much do it, with an extra "reset position" button or something..
iOS is Apple's super hit OS, so I think an iOS Apple TV would make sense.
No multi touch on the Apple TV I guess, but if they REALLY would like to, they could add extended gaming controller features to their remote.. I don't know though.. Maybe that'll happen when they understand the quality of the games that start to emerge...
A 3 inch screen is only slightly smaller than the current 3.5 inch screen, not too much difference.
No, no, no. This rumored screen is three centimeters wide, not three inches. Very small screen, more suited for a Nano, or an Apple TV remote of some kind. What the last poster suggested about the Apple TV remote works well with this screen.
Cannibalization of iPad and especially iPhone sales? Possible. Not sure if AT&T (or any other carrier) would allow that device to exist, since it would cannibalize expensive iPhone data plans. They'd definitely want an iPhone exclusivity extension, if they were to allow that device to see the light of day.
What??? The carriers are money hungry shills, any opportunity they have to get you to sign up for another overpriced data plan - they will take all day every day. especially if its locked to just one device.
The fact that they're money-hungry shills is exactly why they wouldn't accept this device you suggest. Put it this way: Put an iPhone and an iPod Touch 3G side-by-side. Both would have to have just about identical 3G hardware. Both would put about the same strain on the AT&T network (voice doesn't use much bandwidth).
But an iPod Touch 3G would probably have to have a similar data plan to that of the iPad, because of the lack of AT&T 3G-based phone calls. That is, unless you want consumer outrage. So the iPhone nets AT&T an extra $25/month/subscriber or so, with little added strain to the network. On top of that, the iPad is contract-free; the iPhone locks you in for two years. It's one thing to offer low-ish cost 3G data-only plans on something that complements the iPhone. But to do it on something that directly competes with the iPhone? Makes no sense.
Would I take an interest in a contract-free, no-talk iPod Touch 3G? Absolutely. But AT&T would be insane to do it.
Why couldn't it be a verizon Iphone 4 that numerous major newspapers have reported would be announced in september and released in December?? Its known too that a verizon Iphone was being tested on LTE in Boston so why couldn't it be??
I heard about Verizon testing LTE in Boston, yes. But an LTE-based Verizon iPhone? I didn't hear about that. Perhaps it happened, but it would likely have to be an early prototype of a model for the long-term future (like, being released in late 2011 or 2012).
Apple's previous MO is to wait for technology to mature before deploying it in mass-scale products. They could have launched the original iPhone with 3G technology, but they waited until the chipsets were less power-hungry. It's more likely that Apple has been testing an iPhone that can work with EVDO Rev. A, or perhaps even Rev. B, but not LTE.
iProd 1.1 --> WiFi
iProd 2.1 --> WiFi + 3G
Well,
if you have to ask . . .
It's ok I was just being a little slow yesterday.
I wish people would stop referring to 'Apple's custom A4' processor. It has well and truly been outed as a Samsung Hummingbird. Probably the only 'custom' bit of it is the labeling on the chip.
I wish trolls would stop making comments that even they know they can't back up, and thus qualify with words like 'probably'. Having the same CPU is not the same as being the same SOC.