I wish they just included 4k from the start just like the iPhone 6s. That would be a major selling point to be able to watch your 6s 4k videos on the new AppleTV
It would be nice to playback your own 4k videos from your shinny new iPhone 6s like mine:). I agree there.
so if it isn't about profits why does the AppleTV not have 4k or uncompressed audio?
About the 4k thing. The new apple tv supports 4k with its hdmi 1.4 output at 30hz. We know for certain that the A8 is capable of 4k playback and it has been proven so on the iPhone 6. Do a search on the web for it. This A8 in the new apple tv is running at full power unlike the iPhone 6, so it will be more powerful right out of the box. (no concerns about power saving, it runs on wall current). The A8 also supports the HEVC (high efficiency video coding) H.265, which is already used on the iPhone 6 for FaceTime, this is the same standard which 4k video is compressed in. When and if the market for 4k matures enough to be worth it Apple will simply just make a software update and turn it on.
Currently I have a very fast connection to the internet that is 4k capable but I am hamstrung by my carriers 250 gig data cap. Until things like that change 4k for most If not 90% of U.S. users is a pipe dream. The data bandwidth needed is huge even compressed. Hell they haven't even got a blu ray disc standard hammered out yet for 4k. Its like the Blu ray HDDVD wars all over again.
I'm still veering off into 4K land here...
Although you wouldn't think it from the totally crappy Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) website, there is a UHD standard for Blu-ray (I had to find a press-release reference from another website):
omg...this Cook bashing is absurd. the reason he didnt speak about that stuff at the fall event is because IT WAS JAM PACKED of product. there was no time to re-tell the same old charts and "everything is going smashingly well" fluff for the umpteenth time.
you do realize youve had a steady narrative of why Cook sucks since he came to be CEO, right? first that he was just a "bean counter". then that he was too focused on civil rights. now, that he's not speaking enough at an already long event that had no time for anything but the hotly anticipated and demanded products...
some guys just cant win, can they?
I'm sorry I think Apple needs someone that does a better job of telling the story, of giving us the why not just the what. Jony Ive has admitted there was no one better than Steve at doing this. Of course there will never be another Steve but that's something I think Apple execs need to work on. Tim Cook said the iPad Pro is Apple's vision for the future of computing. OK well what does that mean for the Mac? And what/who was the retina MacBook created for if Apple believes iPad Pro is the future? Of course Apple isn't the only one with this problem. I don't get the point of this new Google Pixel C tablet. Why did they make it? Why does it run Android and not Chrome OS? And I'd say the same for Microsoft. What's the point of the Surface Pro and Surface Book? They both run the same OS. They both have touch screen with pen support. Surface Pro is hardly ever shown off without the keyboard or in portrait orientation. To me the Surface Book is basically saying 'we were wrong and the laptop is best' while still bowing to Intel and hedging its bet on 2-in-1 'convertibles' taking off. Apple's not the only one struggling to tell a story but it's the one I care most about.
I agree with the points but not the conclusion. Apple should release products that are ready for prime time to preserve its reputation as "best in class", not to placate Wall Street. I'm disappointed by the Apple Watch and TV because the Apple of old wouldn't release such mediocre products. Tim Cook is responsible for what Apple releases, not Wall Street.
Oh really? I could easily replace ?Watch and ?TV with 1st gen iPad and 1st gen MacBook Air.
Is EMC still going to be publicly traded? I know VMWare is.
No when EMC merges with Dell there will no longer be an EMC stock as it will be a private company. VMWare will still exist as a stock because EMC doesn't own VMWare outright but EMC does own a controlling amount of VMWare's stock so VMWare stock will still be trading on the market.
Another indication that 'old tech' is consolidating in response to the Cloud. All of these businesses (Servers, Storage, PC's, and Networking) are in decline as the emergence of competitors such as Amazon, MS Azure, and the likes of Salesforce.com (SaaS) are on the ascendancy.
Dell has been trying to diversify into Software and 'hyper-converged' infrastructure with little success against the likes of Cisco UCS. I predict that Cisco will acquire NetApp as they have/had a significant relationship with EMC.
As to how this will ultimately work out for the combined Dell-EMC, I am generally a pessimist against these types of mergers...
I think part of the success of this venture will turn on how the combines company sells these services. Not all businesses are keen or even plan to migrate to the cloud. Large business implementations have significant data center investments and see the cloud for what it is - OPS (other people's servers). The combined risks or manageability, recovery, response and confidentiality are far too high to move that off-premises.
However, on-premise management on a contract basis might be a profitable venue. That was a boat Blackberry failed to catch, which would have put them in a great position when their handset business tanked. Large enterprises love cutting costs and dislike headcount, and this is a prime opportunity to make better use of their in-place hardware and still reduce cost.
What's the point of the Surface Pro and Surface Book? They both run the same OS. They both have touch screen with pen support. Surface Pro is hardly ever shown off without the keyboard or in portrait orientation. To me the Surface Book is basically saying 'we were wrong and the laptop is best' while still bowing to Intel and hedging its bet on 2-in-1 'convertibles' taking off.
The Surface Pro is always showing off the stylus and touch screen. Do keep in mind, they brand it as "the tablet that can replace your laptop", so showing it with a keyboard/kickstand and other accessories makes a lot of sense.
Microsoft has had their story down since the original Surface Pro, they just needed the technology to catch up with their vision. Enter Surface Pro 3 and now the more refined Surface Pro 4.
The Surface Pro 4 and the Surface Book have different use cases. The Surface Book provides the user a more powerful laptop experience with the ability to detach the display (to flip it around or use it on its own for up to 3 hours). This is Microsoft expanding their Surface brand, they're not trying to change their story.
4K is pretty much here now if you think about all those nice pictures you took with your iPhone (or just about any other camera these days).
Airplay of photos to the TV via ATV is a convenient way to review or share pictures with friends and family in the living room. 1080p is fine on a 46" TV from the opposite side of the room, but you should check out your stills on a 4K screen (65" or larger from the same living room distance, or on a 4K desktop monitor--or a 5K iMac!). It's amazing how much added dimension some shots appear to have when your field of vision is filled with the higher resolution image. It would be nice to be able to Airplay photos to a 4K TV.
PS: 4K BluRay players should be available within a few months from now.
You are going to need a lot larger screen than 65" to see the difference between 2K and 4K even at 12' much less the other side of a living room.
The advantage of shooting video at 4K is that you have room to zoom, reframe or raise detail in editing (assuming delivery at 1080) 4K isn't going to be a reality in the living room (or bedroom) until 80"(and really more like -100"-150") screens are affordable. (and I estimate that at 2-3 years)
You could (currently) get a high resolution projector and a 150" screen and yes you will appreciate the "cinema experience" of 4k video but those kind of systems just aren't mainstream
You are going to need a lot larger screen than 65" to see the difference between 2K and 4K even at 12' much less the other side of a living room.
The advantage of shooting video at 4K is that you have room to zoom, reframe or raise detail in editing (assuming delivery at 1080) 4K isn't going to be a reality in the living room (or bedroom) until 80"(and really more like -100"-150") screens are affordable. (and I estimate that at 2-3 years)
You could (currently) get a high resolution projector and a 150" screen and yes you will appreciate the "cinema experience" of 4k video but those kind of systems just aren't mainstream http://www.projectorpeople.com/resources/4k-projectors.asp http://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/
Have you been in a city before? TVs are not 12' or farther away from where you sit. You can absolutely tell the difference with normal visual acuity on a 65" 4K v 1080p display in a typical living room.
I agree with the points but not the conclusion. Apple should release products that are ready for prime time to preserve its reputation as "best in class", not to placate Wall Street. I'm disappointed by the Apple Watch and TV because the Apple of old wouldn't release such mediocre products. Tim Cook is responsible for what Apple releases, not Wall Street.
Eh, the original iPad was a mediocre product. The original AppleTV was also mediocre.
Do you have a point? iPad 1 was the fastest selling product in Apple's history. AppleTV has been a self-confessed 'hobby' until about a year ago.
And you thought that the Applewach was a gangbuster product, repeatedly bragging about how you would ban yourself if it didn't sell at least 15M in the first year, and how you'd be buying a pure gold model as a keepsake and to make a profit in the future.
Either you're a hypocrite, or bipolar. Sell your Apple stock and move along, and spare us your complete buffoonery. If you can't stand the heat, stop whining and leave the kitchen.
No way on earth does this acquisition happen if they were still a public company. The shareholders would make too much of a protest worrying about the next quarters numbers instead of the long-term vision.
Wish Apple made solid plans to go public too. The emphasis on quarterly numbers and Wall Streets bullshit is hurting the companies long-term vision.
For example Apple just spent over $100 billion on buying back stock. That would have never happened if they were private. They could use that $100 billion to make strategic acquisitions or pay a nice special dividend. Apple should stop the buyback immediately and disclose that they are in early talks about going private.
Another example of short-term thinking to make quarterly numbers to please Wall Street is:
1. Starting iPhone at 16GB instead of 32GB. Yes starting at 32GB will hurt profits in the SHORT-TERM but in the long term it will solidify iPhone user base.
2. Bringing out a half-ready Apple Watch. Because of Wall Street pressure Apple brought out the Watch way to early. The software was not ready for big time. The hardware is not fast enough and the services are not build out enough. If Apple was private they could have waiting till it was truly ready.
3. AppleTV. Should have had 4k and uncompressed audio. Should have hammered a TV package even if in the short-term they would make zero profit on it. Should have made a more gamer ready remote and Ax9 chip. Should have integrated Homekit. All these things would hurt short term profits but it would establish AppleTV as the standard in the all in one home box. If they did this they could easily sell 50-75 million AppleTV's with TV packages. AT that point Apple could negotiate with the content providers a better deal once they have a dominate position.
The $100 billion buyback was to appease Wall Street. How has Wall Street rewarded Apple? By making the stock worth LESS than when the buyback began. Fuc Wall Street.
i am not sure how you know that wall street made all these decisions and not apple. it is one thing to state an idea, it is another to pass it along as fact. however, i agree with you that apple would and could do better if it went private, the funds are readily available.
Is EMC still going to be publicly traded? I know VMWare is.
No when EMC merges with Dell there will no longer be an EMC stock as it will be a private company. VMWare will still exist as a stock because EMC doesn't own VMWare outright but EMC does own a controlling amount of VMWare's stock so VMWare stock will still be trading on the market.
EMC will have a tracking stock based on the part that is public.
Cook is trying to do both. But unfortunately that is impossible. I hope they get more customer oriented in the next few releases.
1. iPhone7 - please start at 32GB
2. AppleTV 5 - please have 4k and uncompressed audio. And please close the deal on the TV package.
3. AppleMusic - drop the price to $5 single user, $10 family plan. Clean up the interface and bugs.
4. Mac - give us a more compelling base model for the iMac, MacMini, and MacBook. The base models are way too weak.
That's your opinion. In my opinion it is possible as long as the stock is extremely undervalued.
For a good number of users 16Gb is perfectly adequate. I'm one of them. It is a frigging phone with a few apps. That's it.
So exactly why do I need any more than 16Gb?
But hey, that's my Opinion so it don't count.
It's quite silly to spend $650 for a phone with a few apps.
Have you been in a city before? TVs are not 12' or farther away from where you sit. You can absolutely tell the difference with normal visual acuity on a 65" 4K v 1080p display in a typical living room.
Yes I lived in NY (midtown) and philadelphia when I was young. And here's some clue not everyone who lives in the city has a 250' efficiency
Here is a "typical" mid priced NY apartment you will note the TV screen is about 16' from the couch.
Ok with your your hypothetical 65" 4k tv you would need to be 6' from the screen to begin to see any difference in 2K and 4K to start and you would need to be about 4' from the screen to fully appreciate the 4k
4K is pretty much here now if you think about all those nice pictures you took with your iPhone (or just about any other camera these days).
Airplay of photos to the TV via ATV is a convenient way to review or share pictures with friends and family in the living room. 1080p is fine on a 46" TV from the opposite side of the room, but you should check out your stills on a 4K screen (65" or larger from the same living room distance, or on a 4K desktop monitor--or a 5K iMac!). It's amazing how much added dimension some shots appear to have when your field of vision is filled with the higher resolution image. It would be nice to be able to Airplay photos to a 4K TV.
PS: 4K BluRay players should be available within a few months from now.
You are going to need a lot larger screen than 65" to see the difference between 2K and 4K even at 12' much less the other side of a living room.
The advantage of shooting video at 4K is that you have room to zoom, reframe or raise detail in editing (assuming delivery at 1080) 4K isn't going to be a reality in the living room (or bedroom) until 80"(and really more like -100"-150") screens are affordable. (and I estimate that at 2-3 years)
You could (currently) get a high resolution projector and a 150" screen and yes you will appreciate the "cinema experience" of 4k video but those kind of systems just aren't mainstream
Sorry to Dell and EMC fans for going so off-topic here...
That Carlton Bale chart shows up a lot in the articles linked to these types of discussions. I get that the gains of image quality based on increased resolution are not as great as might be had, say, with some other qualitative properties such as HDR, HFR, and WCG, but these other properties look to be included with the direction that 4K/UHD is going. A lot of attention is being made toward "better pixels" not just more pixels these days, both on the content production side, and the image playback side.
Keep in mind that my opinion about image quality was based on still images (being the most readily available form of "4K" right now). It is a lot easier to appreciate all aspects of image quality (including spatial resolution) on a still image.
And just to put another couple of perspectives on the resolution issue, here is a link to an article about resolution (albeit focussed on mobile displays) by a noted specialist in the flat panel display and semiconductor industries:
You are going to need a lot larger screen than 65" to see the difference between 2K and 4K even at 12' much less the other side of a living room.
The advantage of shooting video at 4K is that you have room to zoom, reframe or raise detail in editing (assuming delivery at 1080) 4K isn't going to be a reality in the living room (or bedroom) until 80"(and really more like -100"-150") screens are affordable. (and I estimate that at 2-3 years)
You could (currently) get a high resolution projector and a 150" screen and yes you will appreciate the "cinema experience" of 4k video but those kind of systems just aren't mainstream http://www.projectorpeople.com/resources/4k-projectors.asp http://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/
Sorry but I disagree. 4K originated footage looks far batter even scaled down to 27" and sampled down to1080p than 1080p on the same screen natively. Any one shooting video now who isn't using 4K is nuts.
Sorry but I disagree. 4K originated footage looks far batter even scaled down to 27" and sampled down to1080p than 1080p on the same screen natively. Any one shooting video now who isn't using 4K is nuts.
No it doesn't (and I do this for a living)
And on the shooting 4K, yes and no. There is more to it than that, far more. Dynamic range, detail, bit depth, aliasing, Chroma subsampling, shutter skew, Compression quality and general feature "usability" can make a far larger difference than "4k"
Take for example the Canon Cinema 100 an indy film/documentary camera (around $3k body only (no lens)) is a 1080p camera that produces a stunning image (with more detail than many 4K cameras) using only a 25mb/s stream (4:2:0 chroma subsampled h.264/mp4) and can output a 4:2:2 10 bit image (uncompressed) to an external recorder (you can use an on camera recorder like the atomos to get direct 10 bit ProRes 4:2:2 data stream) It produces a more detailed image (with a far wider dynamic range) than the indy "gold standard" the 5D MkIII using half the data stream (very important to film & documentary makers)
Your fixation on 4k is clouding your judgement.
P.S. here is a link to the Canon Cinema 100 on B&H's site if you want to look at it
I agree with this. Cloud storage should be at least the size of your device.
That wouldn't be very easy to implement right? Every time you buy a new iOS device, your Cloud Storage is increased. What happens when you sell your device? Do you continue to have that storage and the person who you sell your iOS device to is not entitled to it?
Should Apple provide a means to transfer storage bytes to another Apple ID when you sell your device?
There are too many complications with tying your Cloud Storage allowance to your iOS device.
Apple's current solution of treating iCloud storage as a separate service is more elegant and more business savvy. The fact that it is business savvy should appeal to you as a shareholder.
I acknowledge your other point that Apple should increase free storage. That is a perfectly reasonable expectation and something relatively simple for Apple to implement.
I have no opinion on that point either way.
Full Disclosure: I have a 1TB iCloud storage plan that was upgraded from the 500GB tier.
It's quite silly to spend $650 for a phone with a few apps.
not if you don't want an Android device and the apps are not available on Windows.
I tend to keep my phones 3-4 years so the cost/year is reasonable especially as my SIM contract only costs $15/month and that gives me 2Gb data +500 minutes. I'm not in the USA so we don't get gouged by the carriers.
Have you been in a city before? TVs are not 12' or farther away from where you sit. You can absolutely tell the difference with normal visual acuity on a 65" 4K v 1080p display in a typical living room.
Come on, please, give me the science behind what the hell you just said. I bet you can't
Is the typical sofa 6-7 foot from the TV? I'm going to say NO, just from my limited samplin of hundreds of living rooms.
Most 4K tv on the market are utter garbage BTW, a 3 years plasma would crap them out in just about all metrics.
You'd have to go way up market for comparing 4K and a 1080P to even make even sense (so you wouldn't compare all other types of factors).
Also, what is that 4K source you talk about by the way? Native ones? Where did you get those, because otherwise your talking upsampled 1080P or ridiculously compressed net streams which allows me to see clear as day compression artifacts and contrast reduction on my computer screen (which is 4K, I do sit 2 feet away from it...).
There's no question that a clear 1080P OTA signal or a reference Blue Ray native 1080P disk (most recent animation The Blue Planet) beats a netflix 4K (because of compression) even if you have a decent 4K TV to watch it on and are at a distance where it matters.
It takes a minimum of 65 inch with your sofa 6 feet and closer (head at 8 feet and closer) from the TV to see the difference for 20/20 vision on something static, on something that moves, visual acuity is even harder to gauge considering how horrible LCD/LEDs are with movement in general.
Most people are used to watching crappy compressed 720P over cableand so for them, maybe 4K over the net is better. That's an indictment of cable more than proves they need 4K in their current setup. If I show them 1080P OTA, they're as amazed.
Comments
I wish they just included 4k from the start just like the iPhone 6s. That would be a major selling point to be able to watch your 6s 4k videos on the new AppleTV
It would be nice to playback your own 4k videos from your shinny new iPhone 6s like mine:). I agree there.
so if it isn't about profits why does the AppleTV not have 4k or uncompressed audio?
About the 4k thing. The new apple tv supports 4k with its hdmi 1.4 output at 30hz. We know for certain that the A8 is capable of 4k playback and it has been proven so on the iPhone 6. Do a search on the web for it. This A8 in the new apple tv is running at full power unlike the iPhone 6, so it will be more powerful right out of the box. (no concerns about power saving, it runs on wall current). The A8 also supports the HEVC (high efficiency video coding) H.265, which is already used on the iPhone 6 for FaceTime, this is the same standard which 4k video is compressed in. When and if the market for 4k matures enough to be worth it Apple will simply just make a software update and turn it on.
Currently I have a very fast connection to the internet that is 4k capable but I am hamstrung by my carriers 250 gig data cap. Until things like that change 4k for most If not 90% of U.S. users is a pipe dream. The data bandwidth needed is huge even compressed. Hell they haven't even got a blu ray disc standard hammered out yet for 4k. Its like the Blu ray HDDVD wars all over again.
I'm still veering off into 4K land here...
Although you wouldn't think it from the totally crappy Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) website, there is a UHD standard for Blu-ray (I had to find a press-release reference from another website):
http://hd-report.com/2015/08/07/ultra-hd-blu-ray-discs-expected-by-end-of-2015/
I'm sorry I think Apple needs someone that does a better job of telling the story, of giving us the why not just the what. Jony Ive has admitted there was no one better than Steve at doing this. Of course there will never be another Steve but that's something I think Apple execs need to work on. Tim Cook said the iPad Pro is Apple's vision for the future of computing. OK well what does that mean for the Mac? And what/who was the retina MacBook created for if Apple believes iPad Pro is the future? Of course Apple isn't the only one with this problem. I don't get the point of this new Google Pixel C tablet. Why did they make it? Why does it run Android and not Chrome OS? And I'd say the same for Microsoft. What's the point of the Surface Pro and Surface Book? They both run the same OS. They both have touch screen with pen support. Surface Pro is hardly ever shown off without the keyboard or in portrait orientation. To me the Surface Book is basically saying 'we were wrong and the laptop is best' while still bowing to Intel and hedging its bet on 2-in-1 'convertibles' taking off. Apple's not the only one struggling to tell a story but it's the one I care most about.
Oh really? I could easily replace ?Watch and ?TV with 1st gen iPad and 1st gen MacBook Air.
Is EMC still going to be publicly traded? I know VMWare is.
No when EMC merges with Dell there will no longer be an EMC stock as it will be a private company. VMWare will still exist as a stock because EMC doesn't own VMWare outright but EMC does own a controlling amount of VMWare's stock so VMWare stock will still be trading on the market.
Another indication that 'old tech' is consolidating in response to the Cloud. All of these businesses (Servers, Storage, PC's, and Networking) are in decline as the emergence of competitors such as Amazon, MS Azure, and the likes of Salesforce.com (SaaS) are on the ascendancy.
Dell has been trying to diversify into Software and 'hyper-converged' infrastructure with little success against the likes of Cisco UCS. I predict that Cisco will acquire NetApp as they have/had a significant relationship with EMC.
As to how this will ultimately work out for the combined Dell-EMC, I am generally a pessimist against these types of mergers...
I think part of the success of this venture will turn on how the combines company sells these services. Not all businesses are keen or even plan to migrate to the cloud. Large business implementations have significant data center investments and see the cloud for what it is - OPS (other people's servers). The combined risks or manageability, recovery, response and confidentiality are far too high to move that off-premises.
However, on-premise management on a contract basis might be a profitable venue. That was a boat Blackberry failed to catch, which would have put them in a great position when their handset business tanked. Large enterprises love cutting costs and dislike headcount, and this is a prime opportunity to make better use of their in-place hardware and still reduce cost.
What's the point of the Surface Pro and Surface Book? They both run the same OS. They both have touch screen with pen support. Surface Pro is hardly ever shown off without the keyboard or in portrait orientation. To me the Surface Book is basically saying 'we were wrong and the laptop is best' while still bowing to Intel and hedging its bet on 2-in-1 'convertibles' taking off.
The Surface Pro is always showing off the stylus and touch screen. Do keep in mind, they brand it as "the tablet that can replace your laptop", so showing it with a keyboard/kickstand and other accessories makes a lot of sense.
Microsoft has had their story down since the original Surface Pro, they just needed the technology to catch up with their vision. Enter Surface Pro 3 and now the more refined Surface Pro 4.
The Surface Pro 4 and the Surface Book have different use cases. The Surface Book provides the user a more powerful laptop experience with the ability to detach the display (to flip it around or use it on its own for up to 3 hours). This is Microsoft expanding their Surface brand, they're not trying to change their story.
4K is pretty much here now if you think about all those nice pictures you took with your iPhone (or just about any other camera these days).
Airplay of photos to the TV via ATV is a convenient way to review or share pictures with friends and family in the living room. 1080p is fine on a 46" TV from the opposite side of the room, but you should check out your stills on a 4K screen (65" or larger from the same living room distance, or on a 4K desktop monitor--or a 5K iMac!). It's amazing how much added dimension some shots appear to have when your field of vision is filled with the higher resolution image. It would be nice to be able to Airplay photos to a 4K TV.
PS: 4K BluRay players should be available within a few months from now.
You are going to need a lot larger screen than 65" to see the difference between 2K and 4K even at 12' much less the other side of a living room.
The advantage of shooting video at 4K is that you have room to zoom, reframe or raise detail in editing (assuming delivery at 1080) 4K isn't going to be a reality in the living room (or bedroom) until 80"(and really more like -100"-150") screens are affordable. (and I estimate that at 2-3 years)
You could (currently) get a high resolution projector and a 150" screen and yes you will appreciate the "cinema experience" of 4k video but those kind of systems just aren't mainstream
http://www.projectorpeople.com/resources/4k-projectors.asp
http://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/
Have you been in a city before? TVs are not 12' or farther away from where you sit. You can absolutely tell the difference with normal visual acuity on a 65" 4K v 1080p display in a typical living room.
Do you have a point? iPad 1 was the fastest selling product in Apple's history. AppleTV has been a self-confessed 'hobby' until about a year ago.
And you thought that the Applewach was a gangbuster product, repeatedly bragging about how you would ban yourself if it didn't sell at least 15M in the first year, and how you'd be buying a pure gold model as a keepsake and to make a profit in the future.
Either you're a hypocrite, or bipolar. Sell your Apple stock and move along, and spare us your complete buffoonery. If you can't stand the heat, stop whining and leave the kitchen.
Dell kicking total ass since the went private.
No way on earth does this acquisition happen if they were still a public company. The shareholders would make too much of a protest worrying about the next quarters numbers instead of the long-term vision.
Wish Apple made solid plans to go public too. The emphasis on quarterly numbers and Wall Streets bullshit is hurting the companies long-term vision.
For example Apple just spent over $100 billion on buying back stock. That would have never happened if they were private. They could use that $100 billion to make strategic acquisitions or pay a nice special dividend. Apple should stop the buyback immediately and disclose that they are in early talks about going private.
Another example of short-term thinking to make quarterly numbers to please Wall Street is:
1. Starting iPhone at 16GB instead of 32GB. Yes starting at 32GB will hurt profits in the SHORT-TERM but in the long term it will solidify iPhone user base.
2. Bringing out a half-ready Apple Watch. Because of Wall Street pressure Apple brought out the Watch way to early. The software was not ready for big time. The hardware is not fast enough and the services are not build out enough. If Apple was private they could have waiting till it was truly ready.
3. AppleTV. Should have had 4k and uncompressed audio. Should have hammered a TV package even if in the short-term they would make zero profit on it. Should have made a more gamer ready remote and Ax9 chip. Should have integrated Homekit. All these things would hurt short term profits but it would establish AppleTV as the standard in the all in one home box. If they did this they could easily sell 50-75 million AppleTV's with TV packages. AT that point Apple could negotiate with the content providers a better deal once they have a dominate position.
The $100 billion buyback was to appease Wall Street. How has Wall Street rewarded Apple? By making the stock worth LESS than when the buyback began. Fuc Wall Street.
i am not sure how you know that wall street made all these decisions and not apple. it is one thing to state an idea, it is another to pass it along as fact. however, i agree with you that apple would and could do better if it went private, the funds are readily available.
EMC will have a tracking stock based on the part that is public.
It's quite silly to spend $650 for a phone with a few apps.
Have you been in a city before? TVs are not 12' or farther away from where you sit. You can absolutely tell the difference with normal visual acuity on a 65" 4K v 1080p display in a typical living room.
Yes I lived in NY (midtown) and philadelphia when I was young. And here's some clue not everyone who lives in the city has a 250' efficiency
http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/09/23/what_an_865000_manhattan_apartment_looks_like.php
Here is a "typical" mid priced NY apartment you will note the TV screen is about 16' from the couch.
Ok with your your hypothetical 65" 4k tv you would need to be 6' from the screen to begin to see any difference in 2K and 4K to start and you would need to be about 4' from the screen to fully appreciate the 4k
4K is pretty much here now if you think about all those nice pictures you took with your iPhone (or just about any other camera these days).
Airplay of photos to the TV via ATV is a convenient way to review or share pictures with friends and family in the living room. 1080p is fine on a 46" TV from the opposite side of the room, but you should check out your stills on a 4K screen (65" or larger from the same living room distance, or on a 4K desktop monitor--or a 5K iMac!). It's amazing how much added dimension some shots appear to have when your field of vision is filled with the higher resolution image. It would be nice to be able to Airplay photos to a 4K TV.
PS: 4K BluRay players should be available within a few months from now.
You are going to need a lot larger screen than 65" to see the difference between 2K and 4K even at 12' much less the other side of a living room.
The advantage of shooting video at 4K is that you have room to zoom, reframe or raise detail in editing (assuming delivery at 1080) 4K isn't going to be a reality in the living room (or bedroom) until 80"(and really more like -100"-150") screens are affordable. (and I estimate that at 2-3 years)
You could (currently) get a high resolution projector and a 150" screen and yes you will appreciate the "cinema experience" of 4k video but those kind of systems just aren't mainstream
http://www.projectorpeople.com/resources/4k-projectors.asp
http://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/
Sorry to Dell and EMC fans for going so off-topic here...
That Carlton Bale chart shows up a lot in the articles linked to these types of discussions. I get that the gains of image quality based on increased resolution are not as great as might be had, say, with some other qualitative properties such as HDR, HFR, and WCG, but these other properties look to be included with the direction that 4K/UHD is going. A lot of attention is being made toward "better pixels" not just more pixels these days, both on the content production side, and the image playback side.
Keep in mind that my opinion about image quality was based on still images (being the most readily available form of "4K" right now). It is a lot easier to appreciate all aspects of image quality (including spatial resolution) on a still image.
And just to put another couple of perspectives on the resolution issue, here is a link to an article about resolution (albeit focussed on mobile displays) by a noted specialist in the flat panel display and semiconductor industries:
http://www.displaydaily.com/component/content/article?id=9518:the-display-resolution-war-how-much-resolution-is-enough
There is also this thing called "hyperacuity" (which pretty much all humans possess, and which relates to the above article):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperacuity_(scientific_term)
Sorry but I disagree. 4K originated footage looks far batter even scaled down to 27" and sampled down to1080p than 1080p on the same screen natively. Any one shooting video now who isn't using 4K is nuts.
Sorry but I disagree. 4K originated footage looks far batter even scaled down to 27" and sampled down to1080p than 1080p on the same screen natively. Any one shooting video now who isn't using 4K is nuts.
No it doesn't (and I do this for a living)
And on the shooting 4K, yes and no. There is more to it than that, far more. Dynamic range, detail, bit depth, aliasing, Chroma subsampling, shutter skew, Compression quality and general feature "usability" can make a far larger difference than "4k"
Take for example the Canon Cinema 100 an indy film/documentary camera (around $3k body only (no lens)) is a 1080p camera that produces a stunning image (with more detail than many 4K cameras) using only a 25mb/s stream (4:2:0 chroma subsampled h.264/mp4) and can output a 4:2:2 10 bit image (uncompressed) to an external recorder (you can use an on camera recorder like the atomos to get direct 10 bit ProRes 4:2:2 data stream) It produces a more detailed image (with a far wider dynamic range) than the indy "gold standard" the 5D MkIII using half the data stream (very important to film & documentary makers)
Your fixation on 4k is clouding your judgement.
P.S. here is a link to the Canon Cinema 100 on B&H's site if you want to look at it
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/889545-REG/Canon_EOS_C100_EF_Cinema.html
I agree with this. Cloud storage should be at least the size of your device.
That wouldn't be very easy to implement right? Every time you buy a new iOS device, your Cloud Storage is increased. What happens when you sell your device? Do you continue to have that storage and the person who you sell your iOS device to is not entitled to it?
Should Apple provide a means to transfer storage bytes to another Apple ID when you sell your device?
There are too many complications with tying your Cloud Storage allowance to your iOS device.
Apple's current solution of treating iCloud storage as a separate service is more elegant and more business savvy. The fact that it is business savvy should appeal to you as a shareholder.
I acknowledge your other point that Apple should increase free storage. That is a perfectly reasonable expectation and something relatively simple for Apple to implement.
I have no opinion on that point either way.
Full Disclosure: I have a 1TB iCloud storage plan that was upgraded from the 500GB tier.
It's quite silly to spend $650 for a phone with a few apps.
not if you don't want an Android device and the apps are not available on Windows.
I tend to keep my phones 3-4 years so the cost/year is reasonable especially as my SIM contract only costs $15/month and that gives me 2Gb data +500 minutes. I'm not in the USA so we don't get gouged by the carriers.
Have you been in a city before? TVs are not 12' or farther away from where you sit. You can absolutely tell the difference with normal visual acuity on a 65" 4K v 1080p display in a typical living room.
Come on, please, give me the science behind what the hell you just said. I bet you can't
Is the typical sofa 6-7 foot from the TV? I'm going to say NO, just from my limited samplin of hundreds of living rooms.
Most 4K tv on the market are utter garbage BTW, a 3 years plasma would crap them out in just about all metrics.
You'd have to go way up market for comparing 4K and a 1080P to even make even sense (so you wouldn't compare all other types of factors).
Also, what is that 4K source you talk about by the way? Native ones? Where did you get those, because otherwise your talking upsampled 1080P or ridiculously compressed net streams which allows me to see clear as day compression artifacts and contrast reduction on my computer screen (which is 4K, I do sit 2 feet away from it...).
There's no question that a clear 1080P OTA signal or a reference Blue Ray native 1080P disk (most recent animation The Blue Planet) beats a netflix 4K (because of compression) even if you have a decent 4K TV to watch it on and are at a distance where it matters.
It takes a minimum of 65 inch with your sofa 6 feet and closer (head at 8 feet and closer) from the TV to see the difference for 20/20 vision on something static, on something that moves, visual acuity is even harder to gauge considering how horrible LCD/LEDs are with movement in general.
Most people are used to watching crappy compressed 720P over cableand so for them, maybe 4K over the net is better. That's an indictment of cable more than proves they need 4K in their current setup. If I show them 1080P OTA, they're as amazed.