apple as its own cell network would be interesting.
And highly unlikely given that setting one up is magnitudes more a bag of hurt than blu-ray. VoIP ish things like Facetime over wifi are as good as Apple is likely to get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
Never happen. ESPN or any major cable network is not going to give up cable subscribers who are still the majority of subscribers.
I agree and disagree. I think that the networks won't overnight jump off the cable train but I do think that they might go from 'watch anywhere if you already get us on your tv' to a la carte direct signups to try to catch some of the folks that don't have cable. But we're talking a progression over a couple of years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porchland
Apple did not build a giant data center in North Carolina and pre-announce the iCloud service to unveil a digital storage locker for backup copies of movies that people want to move off their hard drives and to stream music that you already own and already have saved on your iPod.
It is most likely that these things are only a small part of what the center is for. Mirroring the website, MAS, itunes stores etc are likely other things.
And highly unlikely given that setting one up is magnitudes more a bag of hurt than blu-ray.
And places Apple in direct competition with their largest partners, which isn't a sound idea unless they know that they can very quickly beat them at their own game.
I suppose these comments are reasonable advice to investors that do not read Apple forums.
I'm mostly curious to see if Apple can write cloud software that works more efficiently and reliably than MobileMe, which wasn't just poor at launch but has been poor in every iteration. I suspect that Apple's isolation from enterprise has left them weak when it comes to data processing as opposed to multimedia. Are they learning yet? I hope so.
Taking a page out of the Netflix book, though, I wonder if a "long tail" play could be made where you could subscribe to all the older tracks (a la the original netflix) but pay a la carte (like current iTunes) for the latest Ke$ha song (the spike). So sell the spike, subscribe the tail? Will the entire Windowing Phenomenon seen with hollywood films be layered within iTunes? One could see this happening, too: first you have to Pay-Per-View it, then buy it, then get it with a subscription.
That was basically my thought about a subscription-based music service possibly putting some restrictions on burning new releases to CD, but the long-tail approach at a lower price makes sense.
If the subscription is for streaming access to tracks that were released more than one year ago and you still had to pay $.99/$1.29 for new releases, I don't think I would pay more than $4.99 a month (and maybe not that) for access to catalog tracks. If the window is more like one or two months for new releases, I would probably pay $9.99 a month.
I would definitely pay $9.99 a month for catalog movies/TV shows and catalog music if the movie and TV catalog was as comprehensive as Netflix. That's basically getting Netflix ($7.99) plus the music catalog for $2 more. (BTW, if Apple announces more or less this at WWCD, Netflix's stock price will drop like a stone and possible make them an acquisition target for a studio or cable carrier.)
I still think the catalog approach is a little low-rent for Apple and that they're going to have a package that provides for access to newer content.
I feel that Apple will introduce the new iPhone. They put all that out to distract people, and it's working.
They will have the "One more thing" and it will be a freaking new iPhone. They might even introduce the cheap iPhone targeted at developing countries, and that one might be the SIM-less iPhone.
Watch out guys, just watch out. Remember the Apple supply manager charged with selling company secrets? Well, with the case he has now, leaks has been reduced.
The only thing I'll care about is the iPhone coming to Sprint. Any announcements regarding the iPhone will mean nothing to me if I still can't buy the damn thing.
4. Most of the stuff that's already in Mobile Me -- mail, contacts and calendar syncing and online space for documents. Included free with any paid service.
I have been expecting the syncing ability of MobileMe would become free to anyone who buys an OS X based device. I have found the cloud-sync ability alone to be worth the price of MobileMe, but I know many who will not pay for it.
Offering those services for free would probably provide a lead-in to purchasing more of Apple's iCloud services.
... They might even introduce the cheap iPhone targeted at developing countries, and that one might be the SIM-less iPhone. ...
This is the most likely I think.
They probably won't have hardware at all, but if they do it won't be the new iPhone, all indications are that they haven't even started production yet. If there is new hardware, it will be something totally new and out of left field. Possibly a "nano" feature phone.
I have been expecting the syncing ability of MobileMe would become free to anyone who buys an OS X based device. I have found the cloud-sync ability alone to be worth the price of MobileMe, but I know many who will not pay for it.
Offering those services for free would probably provide a lead-in to purchasing more of Apple's iCloud services.
Including it with the OS would make it sort of like iLife -- you buy a new Mac, you get the current version of iLife plus iCloud access. Also, it helps Apple market iCloud as a feature of Lion.
I used to think it would be cool if MobileMe was a kind of proxy so users had web pages reformatted by Apple for the device they were viewing it on. So mobile safari would see they have MobileMe and Apple would download the page and do all the web-kitty stuff at the server end, then send a page to the iPhone which uses minimum bandwidth, maybe even compressed, and minimum processing/battery power on the iPhone. Images made smaller; maybe even video could be reformatted for hardware acceleration - could popularly viewed flash be re-formatted and cached...
Surfing would be faster, you'd get more pages for your 3G data-cap, happy carriers that love your iPhone more than the data-hog competitors, longer battery life.
It's all about adding value to a paid software service.
[...] Apple is in a "unique position to shock and awe with enhancements, extensions and harmonization" of Lion, iOS 5 and iCloud. [...]
Apple's current revenue stream comes mostly from its hardware margins. That needs to change if Apple wants to stay relevant and profitable in 10 or 20 years. By then, ultra-powerful (by 2011 standards) hardware and ultra-fast wireless internet access will be available everywhere. And the hardware, at least, will be dirt cheap. Apple needs to evolve itself, once again.
But it's not an emergency. If iCloud does actually provide an infrastructure for iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch that lets those devices function without a Mac or PC, then Apple still has years to roll it out. Truly fast wireless data won't be available widely for years, and when it arrives, it may actually leapfrog fiber-to-the-home. Why bother with costly, expensive, high-maintenance optical fiber routed all through your house when your Macs, PCs, and iDevices can do it wirelessly?
Apple already has experience with iOS devices that don't need a Mac or PC to be activated. Remember Apple TV? Apple's little hobby? If you have one, did you need to connect it to your Mac or PC to activate it? Nope.
Apple TV has obviously been quite a learning experience for Apple. They've used it to test their iOS infrastructure, the same way they used those little click-wheel iPod games to test software downloads through the iTunes Store way back in 2006. The end result? Today's App Store. 500,000+ apps, $1 billion paid to developers.
Apple TV just might be the key that unlocks Apple's future. It's a standalone iOS device, no Mac or PC needed. It connects seamlessly to Apple's iTunes ecosystem. And therefore it is perfectly positioned to do use iCloud, whatever features that may have, and also to run apps on your HDTV set. But there's no hurry. Better to take it one little step at a time.
I just got a feeling this will be b the old saying "Sell on a rumors a couple of days before the announcement and then buy it right back after the announcement, when it doesn't live up to the unrealistic expectations".
I bet these "analysts" will see in a couple of days and just buy their shares back a day after the announcement.
Google is a cloud based service. ICloud is Steve Jobs's revenge to Google for copying iOS with Android OS.
I don't care if it's revenge. I like Google for a lot of free (as in ads pay for it services) and rapid innovation. I don't like Google for doing what the hell they like and breaking things underneath me every now and then.
Google can move out ahead and occasionally break stuff, and Apple can make things appealing and easy to use for the masses.
A world where Google and Apple are competing to deliver the best user experience is a lot better place than one where Microsoft was working hard at smothering all competition to avoid the need to do really good products.
Comments
apple as its own cell network would be interesting.
And highly unlikely given that setting one up is magnitudes more a bag of hurt than blu-ray. VoIP ish things like Facetime over wifi are as good as Apple is likely to get.
Never happen. ESPN or any major cable network is not going to give up cable subscribers who are still the majority of subscribers.
I agree and disagree. I think that the networks won't overnight jump off the cable train but I do think that they might go from 'watch anywhere if you already get us on your tv' to a la carte direct signups to try to catch some of the folks that don't have cable. But we're talking a progression over a couple of years.
Apple did not build a giant data center in North Carolina and pre-announce the iCloud service to unveil a digital storage locker for backup copies of movies that people want to move off their hard drives and to stream music that you already own and already have saved on your iPod.
It is most likely that these things are only a small part of what the center is for. Mirroring the website, MAS, itunes stores etc are likely other things.
And highly unlikely given that setting one up is magnitudes more a bag of hurt than blu-ray.
And places Apple in direct competition with their largest partners, which isn't a sound idea unless they know that they can very quickly beat them at their own game.
Joyent http://www.joyent.com/
VMWare CloudFoundry http://cloudfoundry.org/
Stackato http://www.activestate.com/cloud
Citrix http://deliver.citrix.com/projectolympus
OpenStack http://www.openstack.org/
Oracle http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/cloud/index.html
As for a MobileMe replacement, Atmail looks interesting: http://www.atmail.com/cloud/
OEM options are available: http://www.atmail.com/services/oem/
I suppose these comments are reasonable advice to investors that do not read Apple forums.
I'm mostly curious to see if Apple can write cloud software that works more efficiently and reliably than MobileMe, which wasn't just poor at launch but has been poor in every iteration. I suspect that Apple's isolation from enterprise has left them weak when it comes to data processing as opposed to multimedia. Are they learning yet? I hope so.
Taking a page out of the Netflix book, though, I wonder if a "long tail" play could be made where you could subscribe to all the older tracks (a la the original netflix) but pay a la carte (like current iTunes) for the latest Ke$ha song (the spike). So sell the spike, subscribe the tail? Will the entire Windowing Phenomenon seen with hollywood films be layered within iTunes? One could see this happening, too: first you have to Pay-Per-View it, then buy it, then get it with a subscription.
That was basically my thought about a subscription-based music service possibly putting some restrictions on burning new releases to CD, but the long-tail approach at a lower price makes sense.
If the subscription is for streaming access to tracks that were released more than one year ago and you still had to pay $.99/$1.29 for new releases, I don't think I would pay more than $4.99 a month (and maybe not that) for access to catalog tracks. If the window is more like one or two months for new releases, I would probably pay $9.99 a month.
I would definitely pay $9.99 a month for catalog movies/TV shows and catalog music if the movie and TV catalog was as comprehensive as Netflix. That's basically getting Netflix ($7.99) plus the music catalog for $2 more. (BTW, if Apple announces more or less this at WWCD, Netflix's stock price will drop like a stone and possible make them an acquisition target for a studio or cable carrier.)
I still think the catalog approach is a little low-rent for Apple and that they're going to have a package that provides for access to newer content.
They will have the "One more thing" and it will be a freaking new iPhone. They might even introduce the cheap iPhone targeted at developing countries, and that one might be the SIM-less iPhone.
Watch out guys, just watch out. Remember the Apple supply manager charged with selling company secrets? Well, with the case he has now, leaks has been reduced.
...
4. Most of the stuff that's already in Mobile Me -- mail, contacts and calendar syncing and online space for documents. Included free with any paid service.
I have been expecting the syncing ability of MobileMe would become free to anyone who buys an OS X based device. I have found the cloud-sync ability alone to be worth the price of MobileMe, but I know many who will not pay for it.
Offering those services for free would probably provide a lead-in to purchasing more of Apple's iCloud services.
... They might even introduce the cheap iPhone targeted at developing countries, and that one might be the SIM-less iPhone. ...
This is the most likely I think.
They probably won't have hardware at all, but if they do it won't be the new iPhone, all indications are that they haven't even started production yet. If there is new hardware, it will be something totally new and out of left field. Possibly a "nano" feature phone.
I have been expecting the syncing ability of MobileMe would become free to anyone who buys an OS X based device. I have found the cloud-sync ability alone to be worth the price of MobileMe, but I know many who will not pay for it.
Offering those services for free would probably provide a lead-in to purchasing more of Apple's iCloud services.
Including it with the OS would make it sort of like iLife -- you buy a new Mac, you get the current version of iLife plus iCloud access. Also, it helps Apple market iCloud as a feature of Lion.
Surfing would be faster, you'd get more pages for your 3G data-cap, happy carriers that love your iPhone more than the data-hog competitors, longer battery life.
It's all about adding value to a paid software service.
[...] Apple is in a "unique position to shock and awe with enhancements, extensions and harmonization" of Lion, iOS 5 and iCloud. [...]
Apple's current revenue stream comes mostly from its hardware margins. That needs to change if Apple wants to stay relevant and profitable in 10 or 20 years. By then, ultra-powerful (by 2011 standards) hardware and ultra-fast wireless internet access will be available everywhere. And the hardware, at least, will be dirt cheap. Apple needs to evolve itself, once again.
But it's not an emergency. If iCloud does actually provide an infrastructure for iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch that lets those devices function without a Mac or PC, then Apple still has years to roll it out. Truly fast wireless data won't be available widely for years, and when it arrives, it may actually leapfrog fiber-to-the-home. Why bother with costly, expensive, high-maintenance optical fiber routed all through your house when your Macs, PCs, and iDevices can do it wirelessly?
Apple already has experience with iOS devices that don't need a Mac or PC to be activated. Remember Apple TV? Apple's little hobby? If you have one, did you need to connect it to your Mac or PC to activate it? Nope.
Apple TV has obviously been quite a learning experience for Apple. They've used it to test their iOS infrastructure, the same way they used those little click-wheel iPod games to test software downloads through the iTunes Store way back in 2006. The end result? Today's App Store. 500,000+ apps, $1 billion paid to developers.
Apple TV just might be the key that unlocks Apple's future. It's a standalone iOS device, no Mac or PC needed. It connects seamlessly to Apple's iTunes ecosystem. And therefore it is perfectly positioned to do use iCloud, whatever features that may have, and also to run apps on your HDTV set. But there's no hurry. Better to take it one little step at a time.
I bet these "analysts" will see in a couple of days and just buy their shares back a day after the announcement.
Google is a cloud based service. ICloud is Steve Jobs's revenge to Google for copying iOS with Android OS.
I don't care if it's revenge. I like Google for a lot of free (as in ads pay for it services) and rapid innovation. I don't like Google for doing what the hell they like and breaking things underneath me every now and then.
Google can move out ahead and occasionally break stuff, and Apple can make things appealing and easy to use for the masses.
A world where Google and Apple are competing to deliver the best user experience is a lot better place than one where Microsoft was working hard at smothering all competition to avoid the need to do really good products.