The iPad Mini was hardly a me too product. If it had been, we'd see it at 7 inches, plastic and selling for $150 tops.
I have to agree with Tallest Skil here. The mini was absolutely last to market in this category. How Apple chose to implement it has nothing to do with where the product sits in the market.
As I understand it, when Apple introduced the iPad, the other tablet makers primarily chose the 7" format because Apple bought up all the 10" screens. Jobs derided the 7" tablet as being unusable. Maybe this was just marketing, or maybe there was something to it. Personally, I agree, I have use the mini and its not for me (unless I had a specific use for it) -- it's much too small for my fingers and I prefer the larger screen real estate for the purposes I use my iPad for. But I won't go so far as to say Jobs was right for a 100% of the world. Clearly there are some advantages to a smaller tablet size, price chief among them.
But the fact remains, Apple could have easily built the iPad mini when they released the iPad 2 -- after all it is nothing more than a smaller iPad, but they didn't. Why? No perceived threat from the competition? Couldn't deliver it at a low enough price point to make it practical? But in that span, the competition improved considerably, and I'm not talking about race-to-the-bottom $150 tablets here. The $250 Google Nexus 7 or Galaxy Tab comes to mind.
Jobs certainly was aware of the mini before his death, and as I chose to believe: once Apple established the iPad securely, they decided to release what I and others consider a compromised experience (as also stated by Jobs), which is certainly in keeping with Apple's history ... As long as the customer knows they are opting for less than optimal configuration (the current iPhone offerings -- 4/4S/5 -- are a perfect example), and not just an inferior product, they may be willing to pay less, the upside of which may get Apple a new customer, and definitely get them invested in the iTunes eco-system, and most likely keep them. And two years of the iPad accomplished this, and gave Apple the ability to offer it.
In the end, the question on the table is motivation, not whether the mini is better than the iPad or vice versa (that can't be definitively answered as it is subjective whatever Jobs said or may have actually believed) -- did Apple do this because of the perceived threat of the Nexus, galaxy, Nook and Kindle? Or did they do this to stick it to Google and deny them the only space they were competing in? Or did they do this because that was the plan all along, despite public statements to the contrary? Or, did they see a market segment that wasn't doing very well, but well enough to justify entering it? After all, the iPod Touch currently only represents something like 1.5% of their total net profits, but they persist in that market sucking sales away from Google offerings.
However you decide to view it (and we may not know the truth for another 25 years), Apple was indeed last to market in this category, without redefining it as they had done with the Apple II, Macintosh, iPod, iPhone and iPad. Again, Apple could have handily introduced the mini at the same time as the iPad 2, and 3 for that matter, but they chose not to. The fact they chose to do it around the same time the Google tablets are starting to go 10", and without really changing anything else but the size raises the question. As I see it, the only contribution Apple made to this space was raising the build quality. Apple has NEVER cared about matching the price point of the competition, so inflated price doesn't mean they didn't enter a particular market to compete. And certainly the timing of Apple's announcement is nothing short of strategic.
As I see it, the only contribution Apple made to this space was raising the build quality.
You and probably TS are selling this aspect short. "Build quality" does not capture what the iPad mini expresses.
It is irresistible, once you hold it in your hands. Why is it irresitible? It is satiny, soft, warm, at the same time firm and glossy. Do I need to go on? (For the record, I happen to like women more than machines, in case anyone is wondering.) And it's shockingly light and therefore precisely handle-able to an unprecedented degree.
If you don't get that Apple is selling eroticism by now, or techno-eroticism if you prefer, you don't get how Apple redefines every device category it goes into. This can't be emphasized enough. It's the key to Ive's aluminium sculpting.
And to whoever said they could have done the mini earlier, I say no, it had to wait until they had the machining of that case down. It has the longest, sharpest and shiniest CNC-machined chamfer ever put on a mass consumer device. That chamfer cost millions, it advances the art hugely, and it's there only for tacile reasons. Well, visual also, but tactile is what unifies Ive's designs.
Everybody who doubts this must go to the Apple store and handle the mini, maybe with eyes closed, before calling me crazy.
Edit: I forgot about the topic. Apple may be working with Foxconn on their projected Ultra HD panels that are 80" on up to 130", and waiting for them to build their US factories. See DigiTimes. : )
Mac_128, My guess is they couldn't build a design that was super thin and light and had 10 hr plus battery life. Or they may have decided to let somebody else tdip their toe in the water of smaller tablets and see what the market response was. But really who cares if they were first or not? The customer reviews are in and from the reviews I've read, most people who have purchased the iPad mini love it. And once it gets a retina display I can totally see it being the most popular iPad. So what if Apple was last the market with this concept. What exactly do you mean by redefining? How exactly do you think Apple should have redefined smaller tablet?
The problem with cloud on demand content is that you have to deliver it to the home and cable companies own that connection, in the US anyway. Apple doesn't have a choice except to work with the cable companies. I strongly suspect that cable companies are already interfering with the bandwidth when they see the packets are iTunes or NetFlix. They stall the throughput just enough to make it unenjoyable to use. Difficult to prove but nevertheless very likely based on my experience.
On the other hand it is essential that Apple negotiate with the media owners. Netflix for example has nothing but crap content offered through Apple TV. The content owners, for some reason, allow them to have great selection of DVDs but only "B" content for online.
Your experience is regrettable but isn't true for us, Our Netflix and iTunes play HD flawlessly and even when several devices are watching different programs at the same time. I'd suspect your set up or perhaps your provider. We use Verizon FiOS and 100% Apple routers for WiFi.
Since the very first iPhone was introduced I remember thinking how great that would also be in my car as a replacement for my audio/nav system. I still think that is really where iOS can shine especially now that they have their own maps solution. Granted, it has a ways to go but will improve. A Car iOS system would probably have to be more streamlined and also offer an easy way to sync with your iPhone or possibly iPad. The best results would come factory installed by the car company, but I think there is still a huge potential for after market installs as well. My current Pioneer systems has all the bells and whistles with DVD, navigation, multi-cd, bluetooth, satellite and HD radio, bluetooth, etc..but it is confusing and hard to use while driving if you want to change over to something else quickly. Apple knows how to simplify a GUI and I bet they could create a really fantastic car iOS system. Couple that with WiFi that could use your phone as a hotspot and Apple could be very successful in a very huge market.
As far as an Apple TV over and beyond what they currently offer....I just don't see how that could be a huge earner. People tend to keep their TV's for around 5 years or more. If you just spent $2,000 on a Samsung LED, why would you feel the need to spend more to buy one from Apple just to have a few more bells and whistles and probably at a much steeper price? I think their best bet is to just give the current Apple TV a faster CPU and iOS compatibility. Then offer better iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad integration as remotes and airplay options. They have given us hints at the potential of what Apple TV and iOS devices can do together with Airplay, but they could really take it to a whole other level of integration.
The problem with cloud on demand content is that you have to deliver it to the home and cable companies own that connection, in the US anyway. Apple doesn't have a choice except to work with the cable companies. I strongly suspect that cable companies are already interfering with the bandwidth when they see the packets are iTunes or NetFlix. They stall the throughput just enough to make it unenjoyable to use. Difficult to prove but nevertheless very likely based on my experience.
Different types of content are definitely throttled on some services at certain times of the day but not all content can be distinguished.
That's why I think there needs to be a new protocol.
I think it's obvious TV delivery should be done via the web and not some new connection type because the network is too big now but it needs to work on all devices with just a software update.
Browsers are the most ubiquitous software for content decoding so IMO it makes sense to do this via the browser rather than proprietary apps and content should be globally accessible.
I should be able to type in something like TV://HBO no matter if I am on a smartphone in Spain, a laptop in China, an iPad on a plane or a Roku box in America and the same HTML 5 content stream should be usable.
This can be more like a website than a stream so you can choose multiple shows or episodes from one link. On accessing the stream, there can be free content and premium and you'd agree to subscribe to it and the payments would be taken via the service offering the stream so say you are on an iPhone and you visit the link, Apple/iTunes would be the payment method. Apple would take a cut and the rest is given to the content provider. If you are using a Android phone, Google would take a cut. If you use a Roku box, they'd take a cut and so on. On the desktop, Microsoft would take a cut for IE, Google for Chrome etc.
These are authentication methods that can be monitored/approved by the content providers. Approved authentication is secure for the user, doesn't require a login for every stream or through the stream itself and there's less overhead in dealing with micropayments by the provider.
The actual payments have to be on a pay-per-view basis. This way if you start watching an episode on your TV but can't finish it, your minutes watched get paid to the network and a cut given to Roku. If you finish watching the episode on an Android phone on the commute to work, those minutes are paid to the network via Google and they take their cut.
But it's always instant-on, paying for what you watch. No ads needed but ads can reduce the rates.
Payments are secure as they are made through the device service you use. Content is available on all platforms at all times globally.
The streams themselves can be hosted by the people taking the payments or they can be hosted by the provider.
The HTML 5 capability allows providers to have simple multi-platform recommendations, viewing figures, social network links and other interactive features.
This report could be related to another rumor that involves Google. The Wall Street Journal reports that Dish Network and Google have been in talks about launching a new service.
"Google is just one of several companies that Dish has held talks with recently, and the discussions with other potential partners are also at an exploratory stage, said the people familiar with the discussions. It is unclear which other companies are discussing a potential partnership with Dish".
One of those "other potential partners" could be Apple.
It's now being reported as a done-deal, with Google and DISH Network partnering on a new data network service.
"Regarding the Google-Dish tie up that was reported last night, we just got word that this is really happening. While the details haven’t been finalized, Google is already deep into development on plans to roll out the service and have it live by mid-late 2013.
Google is launching its Glass head gear next year and would benefit from total control of the network. Without full control, Google is seeing its Voice and Wallet services being blocked by carriers, specifically AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile.
Dish has previously said on numerous occasions that it would like to build a wireless network with the wireless spectrum it has acquired since 2008, but the company wants a partner to help fulfill this endeavor. As the Wall Street Journal noted in its report from yesterday, Dish Chairman Charlie Ergen said potential partners include companies that would like to be in the industry and currently don’t have a wireless sector."
Is this perhaps the "cable company" discussions that took place?
I've considered purchasing the Apple TV for netflix and a few other things. I'd never buy an actual television from Apple.
Considered? Interesting.
Never? Interesting.
Just out of curiosity, when you do get your next TV in a few years, which brand(s) will you consider? Now, assuming Apple do produce a TV, would you consider the Apple branded one then? Or would you say, "no, I said never", and go buy a Samsung TV and an Apple TV box, if they still sell it at that point?
Besides, if the answer at that point for you is still "I said never", then you won't buy one, but that doesn't mean the market for such a product doesn't exist. If Apple can make an awesome, integrated, extremely simple and elegant, well constructed TV product, with a great UI, one-touch set-up and lots of content/apps, and the usual, healthy Apple-profit, there's no reason they couldn't eventually sell 5% of new TV's in many countries, as they establish the product - just like the iPhone.
You may disagree. That's your right. We'll see. The content is the key, though. But we all knew that already.
Create an App Store for the Apple TV. Content providers will create channels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Love this idea!
This idea is nothing new, it's been rumoured many times that this is how Apple eventually gets (will, possibly) the content they are desperate to get, but we'll see. It's an interesting idea, but I'd rather there were no-to-little sign of networks in the UI, just great shows, etc. But getting everything the way I want for this product is a pipe dream, when the providers have a stranglehold on that pipe, as they do.
One of the best arguments I've heard against an App Store on the Apple TV is that it lacks a hard drive. I'd personally rather they strike deals as they are doing, privately, adding the likes of Netflix and Hulu, etc. to the existing Apple TV box product, but releasing an App Store only for their AIO TV with hard drive (if/when they do one - I believe they will).
We'll see about this, but this is my dream.
I also want them to buy the rights to Sports, pretty much globally. Especially Sky Sports, which is on the chopping block next year, if I recall correctly.
This can be more like a website than a stream so you can choose multiple shows or episodes from one link. On accessing the stream, there can be free content and premium and you'd agree to subscribe to it and the payments would be taken via the service offering the stream so say you are on an iPhone and you visit the link, Apple/iTunes would be the payment method. Apple would take a cut and the rest is given to the content provider. If you are using a Android phone, Google would take a cut. If you use a Roku box, they'd take a cut and so on. On the desktop, Microsoft would take a cut for IE, Google for Chrome etc.
I agree in part on your overview of a new worldwide content delivery however the payment scheme is not ideal. Browser based delivery is ok but their needs to be accounts where you can store your purchases. If for example I start a movie on one device I don't want to pay for it again in order to resume watching on another device or if I want to channel surf, a browser is not well suited to that kind of behavior.
I'm not opposed to the idea of channels/networks either. I would rather just buy a month or a year of a channel. For me I would buy maybe HGTV, Velocity, FOOD, Discovery, a couple major networks, certainly not Fox News but perhaps Fox Sports and a few others which should just show up in my iTunes cloud under purchased content. But speaking of news and sports. That is another hurdle that needs to be addressed. A delivery system that cannot stream live content is never going to replace cable.
A la carte programming is probably the biggest issue that needs to be overcome, however, all the media stakeholders leverage the package model to their own advantage which is designed to get the most revenue possible. A la carte would work better for people who don't watch a lot of diverse content because they aren't paying for a bunch of stuff they will never watch, however, if you watch maybe 10 or more different channels it could end up actually costing more.
What ever eventually replaces cable it will not be easily done as the cable and media companies hold the advantage right now. Without net neutrality the cable companies are not going to let you use their infrastructure to work around their content model.
[...] But speaking of news and sports. That is another hurdle that needs to be addressed. A delivery system that cannot stream live content is never going to replace cable.
MLB.tv appears to be the model... just build a channel/app and stream HD. NFL, Basketball and baseball are no brainers... Colleges/Leagues can sell streaming rights. the delivery system is there. the subscription service is there. What isn't there is the motivation to break non-exclusivity and/or closed delivery at this point.
And I forgot to note another reason why... no one wants to give up the demographic information on the subscribers, as that is backend revenue. Apple gets the credit card, the purchase patterns (the 'genius' information), and the core demographics (ASL).
[...] But speaking of news and sports. That is another hurdle that needs to be addressed. A delivery system that cannot stream live content is never going to replace cable.
MLB.tv appears to be the model...
I never tried the MLB.tv only the MLB app I had it for a couple years but I dropped it this year. They kept taking away features and raising the price. Also they had blackouts unless you also bought the MLB online version as well for another $100. I only really care about one team and the playoffs. The MLB app model is not the solution.
actually, I think all of apple's history is 'you guys got it all wrong... here is how to do [personal computing|graphical computing|networked personal computing|personal music players|mobile computing on a phone|tablet computing].
I think that helps sum up the iPad mini. They didn't release between 2010-2012 when others were. My feeling is that the tech wasn't there for making it light enough to be the right feel. That came with the 32nm process and likely some lower power options in other components.
If we want to say that a 7.9" tablet is a "me too" product because 7.0" tablets had been on the market we have to say that about the iPad which came at least a half decade after Archos tablets and a decade after Win tablets, but I anyone would actually say that.
If memory serves it wasn't a "real" tablet because it didn't have a "real" OS, which I guess means that those now on the Android-based tablet bandwagon have moved their goalposts once again.
What don't you like about it? I haven't received mine yet but I played with one at the Apple Store and I really like it. It will be a great fit for my lifestyle.
I was too laconic in my previous comment. I love the new iPad mini and will likely get one in 2014 when Retina arrives, but since I have an iPad (3) it's not an option for me so long as I have that other device.
I regrettably admit the "pussies" label made me laugh, but that's because as an American I have known several people that unfortunately have that mentality.
The other thing about the MLB model is I don't think people want a bunch of different apps with different UIs. Personally I want one player app from Apple and all video content will have the same controls just like a physical TV. You click on the menu and choose your content where you can purchase single episodes, month, year, by series or network subscriptions. Very much like it works right now in iTunes except with better selection, better pricing for seasons, channels/networks which offer both live broadcasts of as well as past episodes if you miss one.
I regrettably admit the "pussies" label made me laugh, but that's because as an American I have known several people that unfortunately have that mentality.
The artist forgot to include Africa where we go to shoot big wild animals on safari.
The million dollar question is would Apple have made the iPad mini if no 7" tablets existed? I'd consider the iPod a "me too" product.
Maybe, maybe not. But there might not have been a variety of 7" tablets if the other companies were able to procure 10" panels because Apple was buying most of the supply. For the mini, I think Apple made a lot of reasonable choices, being nearly 8" in 4:3 gives a lot more usable screen area. Add in a metal shell vs. plastic, I think Apple's version is generally better. The only complaint I have about the design is speaker placement.
On the iPod topic, when it was introduced, the prevailing digital audio file player was either a 64MB flash unit or the size of a portable CD player at the time, using a 2.5" drive, a 12Mbps USB 1.0 connection, single state input and AA batteries. The iPod was in between those two segments, something that was pants or even shirt-pocketable, it used thinner and more compact 1.8" hard drives, offered a much faster Firewire connection, click wheel with proportional control and ran on rechargeable Lithium batteries. It's me-too only in the fact that it played digital files, so many other design choices were different and improved on the portable CD player sized brick to the point that the bulkier competitors went away pretty quickly and they all switched to a more iPod-like form factor.
Comments
As I understand it, when Apple introduced the iPad, the other tablet makers primarily chose the 7" format because Apple bought up all the 10" screens. Jobs derided the 7" tablet as being unusable. Maybe this was just marketing, or maybe there was something to it. Personally, I agree, I have use the mini and its not for me (unless I had a specific use for it) -- it's much too small for my fingers and I prefer the larger screen real estate for the purposes I use my iPad for. But I won't go so far as to say Jobs was right for a 100% of the world. Clearly there are some advantages to a smaller tablet size, price chief among them.
But the fact remains, Apple could have easily built the iPad mini when they released the iPad 2 -- after all it is nothing more than a smaller iPad, but they didn't. Why? No perceived threat from the competition? Couldn't deliver it at a low enough price point to make it practical? But in that span, the competition improved considerably, and I'm not talking about race-to-the-bottom $150 tablets here. The $250 Google Nexus 7 or Galaxy Tab comes to mind.
Jobs certainly was aware of the mini before his death, and as I chose to believe: once Apple established the iPad securely, they decided to release what I and others consider a compromised experience (as also stated by Jobs), which is certainly in keeping with Apple's history ... As long as the customer knows they are opting for less than optimal configuration (the current iPhone offerings -- 4/4S/5 -- are a perfect example), and not just an inferior product, they may be willing to pay less, the upside of which may get Apple a new customer, and definitely get them invested in the iTunes eco-system, and most likely keep them. And two years of the iPad accomplished this, and gave Apple the ability to offer it.
In the end, the question on the table is motivation, not whether the mini is better than the iPad or vice versa (that can't be definitively answered as it is subjective whatever Jobs said or may have actually believed) -- did Apple do this because of the perceived threat of the Nexus, galaxy, Nook and Kindle? Or did they do this to stick it to Google and deny them the only space they were competing in? Or did they do this because that was the plan all along, despite public statements to the contrary? Or, did they see a market segment that wasn't doing very well, but well enough to justify entering it? After all, the iPod Touch currently only represents something like 1.5% of their total net profits, but they persist in that market sucking sales away from Google offerings.
However you decide to view it (and we may not know the truth for another 25 years), Apple was indeed last to market in this category, without redefining it as they had done with the Apple II, Macintosh, iPod, iPhone and iPad. Again, Apple could have handily introduced the mini at the same time as the iPad 2, and 3 for that matter, but they chose not to. The fact they chose to do it around the same time the Google tablets are starting to go 10", and without really changing anything else but the size raises the question. As I see it, the only contribution Apple made to this space was raising the build quality. Apple has NEVER cared about matching the price point of the competition, so inflated price doesn't mean they didn't enter a particular market to compete. And certainly the timing of Apple's announcement is nothing short of strategic.
You and probably TS are selling this aspect short. "Build quality" does not capture what the iPad mini expresses.
It is irresistible, once you hold it in your hands. Why is it irresitible? It is satiny, soft, warm, at the same time firm and glossy. Do I need to go on? (For the record, I happen to like women more than machines, in case anyone is wondering.) And it's shockingly light and therefore precisely handle-able to an unprecedented degree.
If you don't get that Apple is selling eroticism by now, or techno-eroticism if you prefer, you don't get how Apple redefines every device category it goes into. This can't be emphasized enough. It's the key to Ive's aluminium sculpting.
And to whoever said they could have done the mini earlier, I say no, it had to wait until they had the machining of that case down. It has the longest, sharpest and shiniest CNC-machined chamfer ever put on a mass consumer device. That chamfer cost millions, it advances the art hugely, and it's there only for tacile reasons. Well, visual also, but tactile is what unifies Ive's designs.
Everybody who doubts this must go to the Apple store and handle the mini, maybe with eyes closed, before calling me crazy.
Edit: I forgot about the topic. Apple may be working with Foxconn on their projected Ultra HD panels that are 80" on up to 130", and waiting for them to build their US factories. See DigiTimes. : )
Your experience is regrettable but isn't true for us, Our Netflix and iTunes play HD flawlessly and even when several devices are watching different programs at the same time. I'd suspect your set up or perhaps your provider. We use Verizon FiOS and 100% Apple routers for WiFi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelsalt
...jesus
I wish there was "Like" button for this reply!!!
What do you think the thumbs up button is for?
Since the very first iPhone was introduced I remember thinking how great that would also be in my car as a replacement for my audio/nav system. I still think that is really where iOS can shine especially now that they have their own maps solution. Granted, it has a ways to go but will improve. A Car iOS system would probably have to be more streamlined and also offer an easy way to sync with your iPhone or possibly iPad. The best results would come factory installed by the car company, but I think there is still a huge potential for after market installs as well. My current Pioneer systems has all the bells and whistles with DVD, navigation, multi-cd, bluetooth, satellite and HD radio, bluetooth, etc..but it is confusing and hard to use while driving if you want to change over to something else quickly. Apple knows how to simplify a GUI and I bet they could create a really fantastic car iOS system. Couple that with WiFi that could use your phone as a hotspot and Apple could be very successful in a very huge market.
As far as an Apple TV over and beyond what they currently offer....I just don't see how that could be a huge earner. People tend to keep their TV's for around 5 years or more. If you just spent $2,000 on a Samsung LED, why would you feel the need to spend more to buy one from Apple just to have a few more bells and whistles and probably at a much steeper price? I think their best bet is to just give the current Apple TV a faster CPU and iOS compatibility. Then offer better iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad integration as remotes and airplay options. They have given us hints at the potential of what Apple TV and iOS devices can do together with Airplay, but they could really take it to a whole other level of integration.
Different types of content are definitely throttled on some services at certain times of the day but not all content can be distinguished.
That's why I think there needs to be a new protocol.
I think it's obvious TV delivery should be done via the web and not some new connection type because the network is too big now but it needs to work on all devices with just a software update.
Browsers are the most ubiquitous software for content decoding so IMO it makes sense to do this via the browser rather than proprietary apps and content should be globally accessible.
I should be able to type in something like TV://HBO no matter if I am on a smartphone in Spain, a laptop in China, an iPad on a plane or a Roku box in America and the same HTML 5 content stream should be usable.
This can be more like a website than a stream so you can choose multiple shows or episodes from one link. On accessing the stream, there can be free content and premium and you'd agree to subscribe to it and the payments would be taken via the service offering the stream so say you are on an iPhone and you visit the link, Apple/iTunes would be the payment method. Apple would take a cut and the rest is given to the content provider. If you are using a Android phone, Google would take a cut. If you use a Roku box, they'd take a cut and so on. On the desktop, Microsoft would take a cut for IE, Google for Chrome etc.
These are authentication methods that can be monitored/approved by the content providers. Approved authentication is secure for the user, doesn't require a login for every stream or through the stream itself and there's less overhead in dealing with micropayments by the provider.
The actual payments have to be on a pay-per-view basis. This way if you start watching an episode on your TV but can't finish it, your minutes watched get paid to the network and a cut given to Roku. If you finish watching the episode on an Android phone on the commute to work, those minutes are paid to the network via Google and they take their cut.
But it's always instant-on, paying for what you watch. No ads needed but ads can reduce the rates.
Payments are secure as they are made through the device service you use. Content is available on all platforms at all times globally.
The streams themselves can be hosted by the people taking the payments or they can be hosted by the provider.
The HTML 5 capability allows providers to have simple multi-platform recommendations, viewing figures, social network links and other interactive features.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Knowing New Apple, it's a TV, made because they read one rumor on one website that said they were making one, so "we better not disappoint our fans".
They'd disappoint most of us by making a TV.
Desperate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
This report could be related to another rumor that involves Google. The Wall Street Journal reports that Dish Network and Google have been in talks about launching a new service.
"Google is just one of several companies that Dish has held talks with recently, and the discussions with other potential partners are also at an exploratory stage, said the people familiar with the discussions. It is unclear which other companies are discussing a potential partnership with Dish".
One of those "other potential partners" could be Apple.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887324735104578121553147711538-lMyQjAxMTAyMDEwNTExNDUyWj.html
It's now being reported as a done-deal, with Google and DISH Network partnering on a new data network service.
"Regarding the Google-Dish tie up that was reported last night, we just got word that this is really happening. While the details haven’t been finalized, Google is already deep into development on plans to roll out the service and have it live by mid-late 2013.
Google plans to make the service data-only with voice and SMS only being used as VoIP services, likely with Google Voice. Google of course already has its ISP feet on the ground with its Fiber rollout on the Stanford Campus and its just-opened Kansas City network.
Google is launching its Glass head gear next year and would benefit from total control of the network. Without full control, Google is seeing its Voice and Wallet services being blocked by carriers, specifically AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile.
Dish has previously said on numerous occasions that it would like to build a wireless network with the wireless spectrum it has acquired since 2008, but the company wants a partner to help fulfill this endeavor. As the Wall Street Journal noted in its report from yesterday, Dish Chairman Charlie Ergen said potential partners include companies that would like to be in the industry and currently don’t have a wireless sector."
Is this perhaps the "cable company" discussions that took place?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I've considered purchasing the Apple TV for netflix and a few other things. I'd never buy an actual television from Apple.
Considered? Interesting.
Never? Interesting.
Just out of curiosity, when you do get your next TV in a few years, which brand(s) will you consider? Now, assuming Apple do produce a TV, would you consider the Apple branded one then? Or would you say, "no, I said never", and go buy a Samsung TV and an Apple TV box, if they still sell it at that point?
Besides, if the answer at that point for you is still "I said never", then you won't buy one, but that doesn't mean the market for such a product doesn't exist. If Apple can make an awesome, integrated, extremely simple and elegant, well constructed TV product, with a great UI, one-touch set-up and lots of content/apps, and the usual, healthy Apple-profit, there's no reason they couldn't eventually sell 5% of new TV's in many countries, as they establish the product - just like the iPhone.
You may disagree. That's your right. We'll see. The content is the key, though. But we all knew that already.
Quote:
Create an App Store for the Apple TV. Content providers will create channels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Love this idea!
This idea is nothing new, it's been rumoured many times that this is how Apple eventually gets (will, possibly) the content they are desperate to get, but we'll see. It's an interesting idea, but I'd rather there were no-to-little sign of networks in the UI, just great shows, etc. But getting everything the way I want for this product is a pipe dream, when the providers have a stranglehold on that pipe, as they do.
One of the best arguments I've heard against an App Store on the Apple TV is that it lacks a hard drive. I'd personally rather they strike deals as they are doing, privately, adding the likes of Netflix and Hulu, etc. to the existing Apple TV box product, but releasing an App Store only for their AIO TV with hard drive (if/when they do one - I believe they will).
We'll see about this, but this is my dream.
I also want them to buy the rights to Sports, pretty much globally. Especially Sky Sports, which is on the chopping block next year, if I recall correctly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
This can be more like a website than a stream so you can choose multiple shows or episodes from one link. On accessing the stream, there can be free content and premium and you'd agree to subscribe to it and the payments would be taken via the service offering the stream so say you are on an iPhone and you visit the link, Apple/iTunes would be the payment method. Apple would take a cut and the rest is given to the content provider. If you are using a Android phone, Google would take a cut. If you use a Roku box, they'd take a cut and so on. On the desktop, Microsoft would take a cut for IE, Google for Chrome etc.
I agree in part on your overview of a new worldwide content delivery however the payment scheme is not ideal. Browser based delivery is ok but their needs to be accounts where you can store your purchases. If for example I start a movie on one device I don't want to pay for it again in order to resume watching on another device or if I want to channel surf, a browser is not well suited to that kind of behavior.
I'm not opposed to the idea of channels/networks either. I would rather just buy a month or a year of a channel. For me I would buy maybe HGTV, Velocity, FOOD, Discovery, a couple major networks, certainly not Fox News but perhaps Fox Sports and a few others which should just show up in my iTunes cloud under purchased content. But speaking of news and sports. That is another hurdle that needs to be addressed. A delivery system that cannot stream live content is never going to replace cable.
A la carte programming is probably the biggest issue that needs to be overcome, however, all the media stakeholders leverage the package model to their own advantage which is designed to get the most revenue possible. A la carte would work better for people who don't watch a lot of diverse content because they aren't paying for a bunch of stuff they will never watch, however, if you watch maybe 10 or more different channels it could end up actually costing more.
What ever eventually replaces cable it will not be easily done as the cable and media companies hold the advantage right now. Without net neutrality the cable companies are not going to let you use their infrastructure to work around their content model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
[...] But speaking of news and sports. That is another hurdle that needs to be addressed. A delivery system that cannot stream live content is never going to replace cable.
MLB.tv appears to be the model... just build a channel/app and stream HD. NFL, Basketball and baseball are no brainers... Colleges/Leagues can sell streaming rights. the delivery system is there. the subscription service is there. What isn't there is the motivation to break non-exclusivity and/or closed delivery at this point.
And I forgot to note another reason why... no one wants to give up the demographic information on the subscribers, as that is backend revenue. Apple gets the credit card, the purchase patterns (the 'genius' information), and the core demographics (ASL).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
[...] But speaking of news and sports. That is another hurdle that needs to be addressed. A delivery system that cannot stream live content is never going to replace cable.
MLB.tv appears to be the model...
I never tried the MLB.tv only the MLB app I had it for a couple years but I dropped it this year. They kept taking away features and raising the price. Also they had blackouts unless you also bought the MLB online version as well for another $100. I only really care about one team and the playoffs. The MLB app model is not the solution.
That was a joke since others seem to not like that he can have a personal thought -and- help keep the forum clean from spammers and trolls.
I think that helps sum up the iPad mini. They didn't release between 2010-2012 when others were. My feeling is that the tech wasn't there for making it light enough to be the right feel. That came with the 32nm process and likely some lower power options in other components.
If we want to say that a 7.9" tablet is a "me too" product because 7.0" tablets had been on the market we have to say that about the iPad which came at least a half decade after Archos tablets and a decade after Win tablets, but I anyone would actually say that.
If memory serves it wasn't a "real" tablet because it didn't have a "real" OS, which I guess means that those now on the Android-based tablet bandwagon have moved their goalposts once again.
I was too laconic in my previous comment. I love the new iPad mini and will likely get one in 2014 when Retina arrives, but since I have an iPad (3) it's not an option for me so long as I have that other device.
I regrettably admit the "pussies" label made me laugh, but that's because as an American I have known several people that unfortunately have that mentality.
The other thing about the MLB model is I don't think people want a bunch of different apps with different UIs. Personally I want one player app from Apple and all video content will have the same controls just like a physical TV. You click on the menu and choose your content where you can purchase single episodes, month, year, by series or network subscriptions. Very much like it works right now in iTunes except with better selection, better pricing for seasons, channels/networks which offer both live broadcasts of as well as past episodes if you miss one.
Apple or not, the internet will break these fucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I regrettably admit the "pussies" label made me laugh, but that's because as an American I have known several people that unfortunately have that mentality.
The artist forgot to include Africa where we go to shoot big wild animals on safari.
Maybe, maybe not. But there might not have been a variety of 7" tablets if the other companies were able to procure 10" panels because Apple was buying most of the supply. For the mini, I think Apple made a lot of reasonable choices, being nearly 8" in 4:3 gives a lot more usable screen area. Add in a metal shell vs. plastic, I think Apple's version is generally better. The only complaint I have about the design is speaker placement.
On the iPod topic, when it was introduced, the prevailing digital audio file player was either a 64MB flash unit or the size of a portable CD player at the time, using a 2.5" drive, a 12Mbps USB 1.0 connection, single state input and AA batteries. The iPod was in between those two segments, something that was pants or even shirt-pocketable, it used thinner and more compact 1.8" hard drives, offered a much faster Firewire connection, click wheel with proportional control and ran on rechargeable Lithium batteries. It's me-too only in the fact that it played digital files, so many other design choices were different and improved on the portable CD player sized brick to the point that the bulkier competitors went away pretty quickly and they all switched to a more iPod-like form factor.