Apple could easily broaden what "iPod" means to be a "platform" of products (music player, phone, video player, home DVR, tablet, PDA, etc.)
I have to respectfully disagree. The Macintosh is a line of products that contains Apple computer hardware (iMac, PowerMac, MacBook, Mac Mini, etc.), whereas the iPod line contains three different types variations of a digital music player. If Apple braodened the term iPod to mean PDA, Smartphone, whatever, I can just see the consumer rebuff. Right now it's entrenched in society that an iPod is portable music (and video) player, where you can keep a few things like your contacts and address book and pictures handy. I just think we'd have more conversations like this going on:
Hey, cool! What's that!!!
-It's the new iPod! It's got Wi-Fi and Office Lite on it
Umm ... isn't that a Palm?
-Hell no! It's an iPod!
No ... this is an iPod (pulls out beautiful 5G white iPod)
-Oh, well this is the iPod PDA.
Apple's too deep to make the iPod a line of gadgety products. If they had done it back around 2nd or 3rd gen, MAYBE it would have worked, but I just don't see it happening. Apple will name their new products some other weird name ... PocketMac, iPhone, whatever...
Now, what these all share is that they are "personal computing devices".
Quote:
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
whereas the iPod line contains three different types variations of a digital music player.
Currently, yes. But ultimately, iPod is a brand. Apple may be only at the beginning of defining what that brand is and means.
Perhaps the "iPod platform" becomes a line of "portable personal digital lifestyle devices" (music, video, camera, communication/phone, data, etc.)
It certainly isn't an insane idea.
Sometimes people get too fixated on how things are/appear now. I don't know how many complaints I've heard about "Apple is a computer company! Enough with the iPod!"
Quote:
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
If Apple braodened the term iPod to mean PDA, Smartphone, whatever, I can just see the consumer rebuff.
Possibly.
Quote:
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
Right now it's entrenched in society that an iPod is portable music (and video) player,
"and video"...see the evolution has already started.
Quote:
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
Apple will name their new products some other weird name ... PocketMac, iPhone, whatever...
Maybe...but remember...name recognition means a lot in the world of marketing. Part of the reason that Apple hasn't changed the name of iTunes to something more generic (it sells more than "tunes" now) is because of the name recognition issue.
In case you all haven't noticed, people use "iPod" as a generic name for an mp3 player. I've heard many people refer to their NON-APPLE mp3 players as an iPod.
What I am noticing now is people referring to their iPods by the second name, i.e. "shuffle", "nano", "mini". They refer to their 5G iPods as just "iPod" or "video iPod." On the first point, I could see Apple releasing a video-specific iPod line and call it something like "iPod flix." That would make it so people would still use the second name when referring to it: "Hey, I got a flix! Check it out!"
I have never heard that it stands for or means anything at all.
pod 1 |päd| noun
1 an elongated seed vessel of a leguminous plant such as the pea, splitting open on both sides when ripe. ? the egg case of a locust. ? Geology a body of rock or sediment whose length greatly exceeds its other dimensions : pods of blue quartz in Virginia. ? a narrow-necked purse seine for catching eels.
2 [often with adj. ] a detachable or self-contained unit on an aircraft, spacecraft, vehicle, or vessel, having a particular function : the torpedo's sensor pod contains a television camera.
verb ( podded, podding) 1 [ intrans. ] (of a plant) bear or form pods : the peas have failed to pod. 2 [ trans. ] remove (peas or beans) from their pods prior to cooking.
DERIVATIVES podlike |-?l?k| adjective ORIGIN late 17th cent.: back-formation from dialect podware, podder [field crops,] of unknown origin.pod
2 noun a small herd or school of marine animals, esp. whales. ORIGIN mid 19th cent.(originally U.S.): of unknown origin.
...so it's all clear now... they meant iWhaleSchool. 8)
Currently, yes. But ultimately, iPod is a brand. Apple may be only at the beginning of defining what that brand is and means.
Perhaps the "iPod platform" becomes a line of "portable personal digital lifestyle devices" (music, video, camera, communication/phone, data, etc.)
It certainly isn't an insane idea.
Sometimes people get too fixated on how things are/appear now. I don't know how many complaints I've heard about "Apple is a computer company! Enough with the iPod!"
You may be right, and I'm certainly not saying the iPod as we know it now doesn't have room to evolve ... they keep evolving and I keep buying them. What I'm saying is Apple is making too much headway with the iPod (as a portable media device) brand to turn it into The iPod PDA, iPod DVR home theater System, or something else along those lines. I understand your point about product and brand recognition, but that's where I think the problems will start. People recognize the iPod for what it is now, and I don't see consumers buying into a marketing scheme that places iPod in front of some other words. I'm not saying an Apple PDA or DVR is bad either. I'm just hoping the iPod doesn't become a PDA, DVR, etc. It's too much for what's already an elegantly simple design and implamentation.
this sounds plausible to me. not that i "know" anything. but it just makes sense from a marketing perspective.
I'm not so sure, icibaqu
First, the dual core chip is not as far of a price jump as many thought. So I think that there may be 2 models, as was described in a post on this page, where the base model is a single core and the nicer, upgraded version has a duo chip.
Second, there have been rumors for months now that Apple may not continue making a 12inch pro portable, so there's no telling if they will make one or not.
Other than those two things, I think you are pretty close to on track.
So the first, most obvious question is whether or not this is you having fun with Photoshop or you are claiming you go hold of some actual Apple product art.
So the first, most obvious question is whether or not this is you having fun with Photoshop or you are claiming you go hold of some actual Apple product art.
Given that mock-up art of this type rarely, if ever appears from Apple before an introduction, I would just say it is almost certain to be an outsider concept mock-up.
Given that mock-up art of this type rarely, if ever appears from Apple before an introduction, I would just say it is almost certain to be an outsider concept mock-up.
Well...we never see it, that is certain...but the artwork (within Apple) is most certainly done well before public announcement. So that is the only thing I am giving him benefit of the doubt on...somehow he got hold of it. Otherwise, yes this is a fake. Though it certainly looks exactly like what they might do.
a year ago i could still see students listenings to ipods and other mp3 players. now those same students are listening to their mp3 capable 1-2mpx cellphones.
sony introduced in june their first walkman phone. in 6 months has sold 3 million units. every single new cellphone released today can play mp3. end of story.
the iPod must grow up into somthing like palm's lifedrive, with full video playing capabilities, or it's dead. i'm sure cupertino is aware of this.
sony introduced in june their first walkman phone. in 6 months has sold 3 million units.
Apple sold 14 millions in 3 months.
Now, what were you saying again?
I don't mean to diminish the threat of alternative options (cellphones, etc.) but I think this is all a bit more complex than we all think. Content (iTMS) is one issue that complicates things for example. Another is how people perceive certain devices (phone, music players, etc.)
Personally I would hate using a cell phone/music player combo. I just want a phone that works well as a phone. Is that too much to ask? Probably.
Personally I would hate using a cell phone/music player combo. I just want a phone that works well as a phone. Is that too much to ask? Probably.
I think the point was that just one model of a phone sold that many in a market where there are several dozen models with no single brand hogging the market, and nearly all of those several dozen phone models also play music, so that could mean 50M+ such phones sold worldwide in the same time period.
I do think a dedicated device is easier to use and in other ways better than a converged multi-device, but which way the market goes simply depends on buyer preference.
from people i know who have gotten mp3 phones, the main issue to them is battery life. so until that situation is addressed significantly, cellphone/mp3 players don't really present a market to the same degree the ipod does. the ipod simply wouldn't be as popular w/o that 10+ hour battery life.
First, the dual core chip is not as far of a price jump as many thought. So I think that there may be 2 models, as was described in a post on this page, where the base model is a single core and the nicer, upgraded version has a duo chip.
Second, there have been rumors for months now that Apple may not continue making a 12inch pro portable, so there's no telling if they will make one or not.
Other than those two things, I think you are pretty close to on track.
you may be right, i may be crazy. but small form factor professional machines is what a lot of business traveling professionals are looking for (hello vaio explosion). those same traveling professionals may like to watch a movie while on a flight on thier 13ish" macbook pro. the general dimensions/"form factor" can cross translate from the intel-ibook line along with making it a more "pro" machine.
so
ibook = 13". maybe a core-solo for younger users/less intense computing and core-duo option for older ibook users (like college kids or post-grad consumers) who will make use of the widescreen. the thing that battles against this for me is that part of the apple appeal is simplification. and so one standard chip choice (duo) makes more sense b/c you cast a wider net as well as probably are able to obtain more desirable pricing with bulk-buys from intel/etc.
i mean, here is the deal for me if i were going to be tempted into getting an ibook upgrade (from a few revisions ago 14" G4) or if i were a regular buyer looking at smallish laptops. basically, it's the "oh damn" factor. if apple releases an ibook with a core solo i'll just compare it to PC stuff getting a core solo -- and may decide to get something PC and small and cheaper. hell i know windows already. with the 14" ibook, i'll wait to upgrade b/c by the time the processor difference makes enough of a difference to me i know that other features (isight, front row, x-future feature) will have been improved/introduced. so there's no pressure to buy.
on the other hand if they have a consumer laptop that's using the same chips (although slower) than PC makers more expensive machines then i start to see some product difference and it's harder to say that a windows PC and a Mac are one in the same since they have the same chip. basically, i look at apple and see: top of the line chip in their consumer product, cool form factor, isight, front row, osx and itunes etc in a little book that i'll be able to use for the next few years. if "dual core processor" is how computer sales staff's are upselling their customers, what that says to me is that "core solo" technology doesn't have the longevity of "dual core" technology. who cares if that's true or not? it's about perception.
wow...that was much longer than i originally intended.
but that's the logic for a 13" macbook pro and a coreduo intel ibook.
I clearly remember that when the iPod was first introduced a lot of people said "Hmmmm, iPod eh? No music in that name, just a generic term for a small, portable enclosure that could carry anything. Betcha Apple has big plans for this form factor".
Comments
Originally posted by TednDi
What does iPod mean anyway? Is it an acronym?
i -interactive/individual
P- personal/play
O- on
D- demand
?
I have never heard that it stands for or means anything at all.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Be careful here.
iPod was an intentionally generic name.
Apple could easily broaden what "iPod" means to be a "platform" of products (music player, phone, video player, home DVR, tablet, PDA, etc.)
I have to respectfully disagree. The Macintosh is a line of products that contains Apple computer hardware (iMac, PowerMac, MacBook, Mac Mini, etc.), whereas the iPod line contains three different types variations of a digital music player. If Apple braodened the term iPod to mean PDA, Smartphone, whatever, I can just see the consumer rebuff. Right now it's entrenched in society that an iPod is portable music (and video) player, where you can keep a few things like your contacts and address book and pictures handy. I just think we'd have more conversations like this going on:
Hey, cool! What's that!!!
-It's the new iPod! It's got Wi-Fi and Office Lite on it
Umm ... isn't that a Palm?
-Hell no! It's an iPod!
No ... this is an iPod (pulls out beautiful 5G white iPod)
-Oh, well this is the iPod PDA.
Apple's too deep to make the iPod a line of gadgety products. If they had done it back around 2nd or 3rd gen, MAYBE it would have worked, but I just don't see it happening. Apple will name their new products some other weird name ... PocketMac, iPhone, whatever...
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
I have to respectfully disagree. The Macintosh is a line of products that contains Apple computer hardware (iMac, PowerMac, MacBook, Mac Mini, etc.),
Not always though.
Now, what these all share is that they are "personal computing devices".
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
whereas the iPod line contains three different types variations of a digital music player.
Currently, yes. But ultimately, iPod is a brand. Apple may be only at the beginning of defining what that brand is and means.
Perhaps the "iPod platform" becomes a line of "portable personal digital lifestyle devices" (music, video, camera, communication/phone, data, etc.)
It certainly isn't an insane idea.
Sometimes people get too fixated on how things are/appear now. I don't know how many complaints I've heard about "Apple is a computer company! Enough with the iPod!"
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
If Apple braodened the term iPod to mean PDA, Smartphone, whatever, I can just see the consumer rebuff.
Possibly.
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
Right now it's entrenched in society that an iPod is portable music (and video) player,
"and video"...see the evolution has already started.
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
Apple will name their new products some other weird name ... PocketMac, iPhone, whatever...
Maybe...but remember...name recognition means a lot in the world of marketing. Part of the reason that Apple hasn't changed the name of iTunes to something more generic (it sells more than "tunes" now) is because of the name recognition issue.
Personally, I expect them to leverage this.
You could be right though.
What I am noticing now is people referring to their iPods by the second name, i.e. "shuffle", "nano", "mini". They refer to their 5G iPods as just "iPod" or "video iPod." On the first point, I could see Apple releasing a video-specific iPod line and call it something like "iPod flix." That would make it so people would still use the second name when referring to it: "Hey, I got a flix! Check it out!"
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I have never heard that it stands for or means anything at all.
pod 1 |päd| noun
1 an elongated seed vessel of a leguminous plant such as the pea, splitting open on both sides when ripe. ? the egg case of a locust. ? Geology a body of rock or sediment whose length greatly exceeds its other dimensions : pods of blue quartz in Virginia. ? a narrow-necked purse seine for catching eels.
2 [often with adj. ] a detachable or self-contained unit on an aircraft, spacecraft, vehicle, or vessel, having a particular function : the torpedo's sensor pod contains a television camera.
verb ( podded, podding) 1 [ intrans. ] (of a plant) bear or form pods : the peas have failed to pod. 2 [ trans. ] remove (peas or beans) from their pods prior to cooking.
DERIVATIVES podlike |-?l?k| adjective ORIGIN late 17th cent.: back-formation from dialect podware, podder [field crops,] of unknown origin.pod
2 noun a small herd or school of marine animals, esp. whales. ORIGIN mid 19th cent.(originally U.S.): of unknown origin.
...so it's all clear now... they meant iWhaleSchool. 8)
Originally posted by troberts
My Analysis
1 - The MacBook (iBook) will get a core single.
2 - When the MacBook Pro gets the Merom chip the high-end MacBook will get the core duo.
3 - The 17" MacBook Pro will start out with the Merom.
4 - Apple will release a 13" MacBook Pro with Merom processor.
this sounds plausible to me. not that i "know" anything. but it just makes sense from a marketing perspective.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Currently, yes. But ultimately, iPod is a brand. Apple may be only at the beginning of defining what that brand is and means.
Perhaps the "iPod platform" becomes a line of "portable personal digital lifestyle devices" (music, video, camera, communication/phone, data, etc.)
It certainly isn't an insane idea.
Sometimes people get too fixated on how things are/appear now. I don't know how many complaints I've heard about "Apple is a computer company! Enough with the iPod!"
You may be right, and I'm certainly not saying the iPod as we know it now doesn't have room to evolve ... they keep evolving and I keep buying them. What I'm saying is Apple is making too much headway with the iPod (as a portable media device) brand to turn it into The iPod PDA, iPod DVR home theater System, or something else along those lines. I understand your point about product and brand recognition, but that's where I think the problems will start. People recognize the iPod for what it is now, and I don't see consumers buying into a marketing scheme that places iPod in front of some other words. I'm not saying an Apple PDA or DVR is bad either. I'm just hoping the iPod doesn't become a PDA, DVR, etc. It's too much for what's already an elegantly simple design and implamentation.
Originally posted by icibaqu
this sounds plausible to me. not that i "know" anything. but it just makes sense from a marketing perspective.
I'm not so sure, icibaqu
First, the dual core chip is not as far of a price jump as many thought. So I think that there may be 2 models, as was described in a post on this page, where the base model is a single core and the nicer, upgraded version has a duo chip.
Second, there have been rumors for months now that Apple may not continue making a 12inch pro portable, so there's no telling if they will make one or not.
Other than those two things, I think you are pretty close to on track.
Originally posted by TednDi
What does iPod mean anyway? Is it an acronym?
i -interactive/individual
P- personal/play
O- on
D- demand
?
The only time I've seen this was from Creative Labs or Napster or something, trying to deny the fact that the POD in PODCASTING is from iPod.
iPod just is. It is not an acronym. Unless you or BS marketing people want it to be.
Originally posted by Krob81
http://ipod-fullscreen.blogspot.com/
So the first, most obvious question is whether or not this is you having fun with Photoshop or you are claiming you go hold of some actual Apple product art.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So the first, most obvious question is whether or not this is you having fun with Photoshop or you are claiming you go hold of some actual Apple product art.
Given that mock-up art of this type rarely, if ever appears from Apple before an introduction, I would just say it is almost certain to be an outsider concept mock-up.
Originally posted by JeffDM
Given that mock-up art of this type rarely, if ever appears from Apple before an introduction, I would just say it is almost certain to be an outsider concept mock-up.
Well...we never see it, that is certain...but the artwork (within Apple) is most certainly done well before public announcement. So that is the only thing I am giving him benefit of the doubt on...somehow he got hold of it. Otherwise, yes this is a fake. Though it certainly looks exactly like what they might do.
a year ago i could still see students listenings to ipods and other mp3 players. now those same students are listening to their mp3 capable 1-2mpx cellphones.
sony introduced in june their first walkman phone. in 6 months has sold 3 million units. every single new cellphone released today can play mp3. end of story.
the iPod must grow up into somthing like palm's lifedrive, with full video playing capabilities, or it's dead. i'm sure cupertino is aware of this.
soon the ipod line would only comprise 2 models:
-nano: impossible small. music only.
-iPodFullScreen: 60GB, 5hr batt life (screen on), 320x480 touschscreen. music, video, photos, pda
Originally posted by jindrich
sony introduced in june their first walkman phone. in 6 months has sold 3 million units.
Apple sold 14 millions in 3 months.
Now, what were you saying again?
I don't mean to diminish the threat of alternative options (cellphones, etc.) but I think this is all a bit more complex than we all think. Content (iTMS) is one issue that complicates things for example. Another is how people perceive certain devices (phone, music players, etc.)
Personally I would hate using a cell phone/music player combo. I just want a phone that works well as a phone. Is that too much to ask? Probably.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Apple sold 14 millions in 3 months.
Now, what were you saying again?
Personally I would hate using a cell phone/music player combo. I just want a phone that works well as a phone. Is that too much to ask? Probably.
I think the point was that just one model of a phone sold that many in a market where there are several dozen models with no single brand hogging the market, and nearly all of those several dozen phone models also play music, so that could mean 50M+ such phones sold worldwide in the same time period.
I do think a dedicated device is easier to use and in other ways better than a converged multi-device, but which way the market goes simply depends on buyer preference.
Originally posted by opnsource
I'm not so sure, icibaqu
First, the dual core chip is not as far of a price jump as many thought. So I think that there may be 2 models, as was described in a post on this page, where the base model is a single core and the nicer, upgraded version has a duo chip.
Second, there have been rumors for months now that Apple may not continue making a 12inch pro portable, so there's no telling if they will make one or not.
Other than those two things, I think you are pretty close to on track.
you may be right, i may be crazy. but small form factor professional machines is what a lot of business traveling professionals are looking for (hello vaio explosion). those same traveling professionals may like to watch a movie while on a flight on thier 13ish" macbook pro. the general dimensions/"form factor" can cross translate from the intel-ibook line along with making it a more "pro" machine.
so
ibook = 13". maybe a core-solo for younger users/less intense computing and core-duo option for older ibook users (like college kids or post-grad consumers) who will make use of the widescreen. the thing that battles against this for me is that part of the apple appeal is simplification. and so one standard chip choice (duo) makes more sense b/c you cast a wider net as well as probably are able to obtain more desirable pricing with bulk-buys from intel/etc.
i mean, here is the deal for me if i were going to be tempted into getting an ibook upgrade (from a few revisions ago 14" G4) or if i were a regular buyer looking at smallish laptops. basically, it's the "oh damn" factor. if apple releases an ibook with a core solo i'll just compare it to PC stuff getting a core solo -- and may decide to get something PC and small and cheaper. hell i know windows already. with the 14" ibook, i'll wait to upgrade b/c by the time the processor difference makes enough of a difference to me i know that other features (isight, front row, x-future feature) will have been improved/introduced. so there's no pressure to buy.
on the other hand if they have a consumer laptop that's using the same chips (although slower) than PC makers more expensive machines then i start to see some product difference and it's harder to say that a windows PC and a Mac are one in the same since they have the same chip. basically, i look at apple and see: top of the line chip in their consumer product, cool form factor, isight, front row, osx and itunes etc in a little book that i'll be able to use for the next few years. if "dual core processor" is how computer sales staff's are upselling their customers, what that says to me is that "core solo" technology doesn't have the longevity of "dual core" technology. who cares if that's true or not? it's about perception.
wow...that was much longer than i originally intended.
but that's the logic for a 13" macbook pro and a coreduo intel ibook.