- Posts tagged Apple
- Explore Apple on posterous
Apple to Provide Live Video Streaming of September 1 Event
Apple® will broadcast its September 1 event online using Apple’s industry-leading HTTP Live Streaming, which is based on open standards. Viewing requires either a Mac® running Safari® on Mac OS® X version 10.6 Snow Leopard®, an iPhone® or iPod touch® running iOS 3.0 or higher, or an iPad™. The live broadcast will begin at 10:00 a.m. PDT on September 1, 2010 at www.apple.com.
Limiting the stream to Apple devices is a nice touch.
I doubt Apple's decision to live stream this particular event means it's extra special. I doubt this specific event had anything to do with the decision at all. Rather, I tend to think Apple was going to do this whenever they felt they were ready, or got over whatever objections they've had to it in the past. I guess that time's come.
On the other hand, if video streaming to a new Apple TV (both rumored) is announced tomorrow, then the event streaming—using, I presume, the same technology—could serve as a "live demo" of that technology. Nice marketing.
Unless it fails, my expectation is that Apple will live stream events from now on.
Observatory on the different-thinking iCEO
What’s really important is what Steve had to say. His presentation is both a primer on the value of brand advertising and an insight into the soul of a company. If you dismiss it as yet another example of Steve Jobs programming his automatons, well — you just don’t get it. This thinking is what separates Apple from the hundreds of companies who simply churn out products.
The Think Different ads were about identifying who Apple's heroes were and defining the company based on that criterion. Steve Jobs felt you could judge a lot about an individual or company by who they most admired, and I still believe there's some truth to that.
But even beyond letting the public know, after a decade of raising prices and producing relatively generic Macs the Think Different campaign was about reminding Apple who they were. It worked.
Android or iPhone: Where is the Mobile Developer Money?
Android has more developers, yet its percentage of paid apps is much smaller than the iPhone platform. Why is that?
One might think the "open" nature of Android attracts a larger base of developers willing to contribute for nothing, but the fact is it's hard to sell apps on Android. You can only pay for apps in 13 countries, and you can only sell priced apps from nine countries. This is nuts compared to the iPhone's 90 countries, and just another Android "dirty little secret." Take heart, though, you can always sign a petition to make it better.
I know it doesn't have to be about money. Many people do labors of love for "free." Maybe it's a learning experience, a way to unwind, or a sense of community or connecting with people. These could all be valid payments for your work. Not wanting monetary compensation is a personal choice that can't be judged. Indeed, though I buy a lot of apps I appreciate "free" software as much as anybody.
Having said that, if money's what you're looking for the iPhone platform is clearly where you want to be in mobile development.
Business Insider On the Outside Regarding Apple Long-Term
Fast forward 5 to 10 years and it’s not hard to imagine seeing Apple with a small (but probably very profitable) share of the smartphone market. It will be a niche player in the market it revolutionized and could have dominated. History seems bound to repeat itself!
Actually, it's pretty hard to imagine the above outcome. In order to do so you'd have to forget that:
- Phones aren't PCs; that model doesn't apply.
- There's zero price advantage in non-iPhones. Indeed, Apple set the price points at $99 and $199, which initially could only be met by competitors via mail-in rebates.
- The iPod model is far closer to the iPhone model, and no one's touched Apple in this area.
- Android gains are almost all on the back of Verizon, who can't sell the iPhone.
- Android's becoming more fragmented every day. (A new phone released this week is using version 1.5.)
Ignore all of that—as many seem to—and it's still hard to imagine Business Insider's projected outcome. Because nowhere in the scenario does Apple's Board of Directors toss out their brilliant CEO (and the team he's put together) to bring in a line of unprepared bozos as replacements. Nope. Ain't happening.
What Did Antennagate Do To Apple iPhone Sales?
Will There Be An Apple HDTV? Steve Jobs Already Answered That Question.
There've been more rumors lately about an upcoming Apple television set, with one article going so far as to call it inevitable. But in watching Steve Jobs at the D8 Conference last June I think the question was already asked and answered.
Below is an exchange between a conference attendee (Dan Simpkins, CEO of Hillcrest Labs) and Jobs. Jobs does a good job explaining the fundamental reason it's hard to innovate in the television space. One can sense a certain resignation in Jobs' answers that signify, to me at least, he knows Apple can make better use of their resources than to try to break into such an ingrained system.
Jobs' remarks indicate that Apple will continue to dabble in the set top box approach, improving it as they go, but that an iPhone-like breakthrough TV is not possible in the current television market.
Simpkins:
"A topic that was noticeably absent tonight in your talk was television. And you talked about how to make the iPad and the iPhone you need to throw out the human interface in order to really make those products interactive. Do you think it’s time to throw out the interface for television—the classic up, down, left, right—and bring in a new human interface to make television truly interactive and, if so, when is Apple gonna do something in that arena?"
Jobs:
"The problem with the television market— the problem with innovation in the television industry is the go to market strategy. The television industry fundamentally has a subsidized business model that gives everybody a set top box for free—or for $10 a month—and that pretty much squashes any opportunity for innovation because nobody’s willing to buy a set top box. Ask Tivo, ask Replay TV, you know, ask Roku, ask VooDoo, ask us, ask Google in a few months.
"So, all you can do—Sony’s tried as well, Panasonic’s tried, a lot of people have tried, they’ve all failed—so all you can do is add a box onto the TV system. You can say, well, gosh, I noticed my HDTV has a bunch of HDMI ports on it, one of them is coming from the set top box, so I’ll just add another little box with another one. Well, you just end up with a table full of remotes, cluster full of boxes, bunch of different UIs, and that’s the situation we have today. The only way that’s ever gonna change is if you can really go back to square one, and tear up the set top box, and re-design it from scratch, with a consistent UI across all these different functions, and get it to the consumer in a way that they’re willing to pay for it. And right now there’s no way to do that.
"So that’s the problem with the TV market. You know, we decided what product do we want the most, a better TV or a better phone? Well, the phone won out, but there was no chance to do a better TV ‘cause there’s no way to get it to market. What do we want more, a tablet or a better TV? Well, probably a tablet, but it doesn’t matter because if we wanted a better TV there’s no way to get it to market. The TV’s gonna lose until there’s a better—until there is a viable—go to market strategy. Otherwise you’re just making another Tivo. Does that make sense to you?"
Simpkins:
"Yeah, absolutely."
Jobs:
"That’s the fundamental problem. It’s not a problem of technology, it’s not a problem of vision, it’s a fundamental go to market problem."
Simpkins:
"But obviously, in the phone area, you were able to recreate that go to market strategy by working with a carrier. So does it make sense to partner with a cable operator to—"
Jobs:
"Well then you run into another problem, which is there isn’t a cable operator that’s national. There’s a bunch of cable operators. And then, it’s not like there’s a GSM standard where you build a phone for the US and it also works in all these other countries. No, every single country has different standards, different government approvals, it’s very, um… balkanized. So, I’m sure smarter people than us will figure this out, but that’s why when we say Apple TV is a hobby, that’s why we use that phrase."
Does the iPad Have Competitors? No. Alternatives? No. iPadversaries? Um, ok.
I cheerfully admit that I’ve defined the term “iPadversary” loosely.
I've written about how tech pundits are itching for the iPad to have competition even as they must acknowledge it does not. Articles on the subject have taken to calling them "alternatives" instead of competitors. Now Technologizer's Harry McCracken has gone further, calling them adversaries in a clever take on the name.
I kind of like it.
This isn't a critique of McCracken's piece. Indeed, I appreciate his admission that there's really no rhyme or reason for items included in his list. If we applied some rationality, there's a number of reasonable criteria we could use to toss many of these out:
- Already on sale before the iPad? Then they've got to go, since obviously no one knew, or cared, or bought.
- Pure vapor? I don't mean "just" vapor, as most of these are, but there are some with so few details it's beyond the realm of reasonable thinking to include them on anything but a fun adversaries list.
- Android OS too old? C'mon, is it really anyone's contention that Android 1.5 or 1.6 is a viable competitor to even iOS 3.2, let alone the 4.x coming to the iPad in a month or so, especially long-term?
- And, if you really wanted to be serious, all the vapor devices would go, so 25 items drop off the list.
It seems clear McCracken is just having some fun with all the possibilities, while also providing a nice summary (as much as possible) about these devices. There are 32 of them, and one wonders how many will ever get to the mainstream market.
What's interesting is that if the iPad had even one real competitor—a device where one could make a reasonable case that a meaningful number of consumers would seriously compare the two and pick one over the other as a tablet—then none of this expanded definition of the playing field would be possible. (And the first commentor to point at some 1" thick, 3 pound netbook with the keyboard snapped off as a "real competitor" has lost the concept of the iPad entirely.)
Lacking a legitimate competitor, everyone's free to point out as contenders a number of devices in wildly varying form factors, even though we know the criteria being used is faulty at best. It makes for a fun write up, even fun reading, but can't be taken seriously.
Bottom line is that yet another article of this type serves to prove the only non-vapor and actual fact that we know: there is no iPad competitor right now.
WSJ Claims Jobs Lost Confidence in Papermaster
Mr. Papermaster had lost the confidence of Mr. Jobs months ago and hasn't been part of the decision-making process for some time, these people said. They added that Mr. Papermaster didn't appear to have the type of creative thinking expected at Apple and wasn't used to Apple's corporate culture, where even senior executives are expected to keep on top of the smallest details of their areas of responsibility and often have to handle many tasks directly, as opposed to delegating them.
Makes sense that Big Blue's and Apple's corporate culture differences would be a quite a shock. The article also states it was Jobs who green-lighted going ahead with the iPhone 4.
Analysts Report Apple Not Finished Releasing Products
Several analysts today claimed that Apple is not finished releasing products, and that the Cupertino company may have devices in the pipeline for release in the coming months and years.
According to Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster, new products could come as early as this year. “Apple’s iPhone has had a camera since the beginning, which is why I think a touch-based iPod shuffle is in the works.”
Citigroup’s Rich Gardner agrees. “MacBook Pros and iMacs are selling, and I think CPUs, graphics chips, and other stuff inside PCs is still being made, right? I believe Apple might update those products in the future.”
RBC Capital analyst Mike Abramsky is more bullish. “I think Apple may actually introduce something new, like they have countless times over the last decade, though I can’t say why I feel that way.”
Not everyone agrees with these reports, however. AmTech’s Shaw Wu is doubtful. “Apple has invented everything there is to invent. The Magic Trackpad is clearly the end of the line; what could possibly be left? From here on out they just coast.” He also noted that Apple will likely shut down its web site by the end of 2011.
Apple, Their Competitors, and Expectations
But when exceeding expectations becomes the expectation, things get a little sticky.
Good article about Apple and exceeding expectations. Yes, Apple is held to a higher standard. In some cases writers will even explain that they're criticizing Apple for something because they're being held to a higher standard. So Apple gets dinged for things that should cause their competition to get trashed, but never does.
A good example is Android's 2.2 release. Now over two months old, the Nexus One was about the only phone supporting it until this week when Samsung came on board with the Evo, but there are complaints about the install. Imagine if iOS 4 rolled out this way. It runs slow on a two-year-old phone (3G) and the tech community is howling. Android 2.2 can't even be installed on phones released in the last 30 days and no one cares. It must be nice to be in Android's shoes. The bar is set so low for them that anything short of actually setting themselves on fire during a product launch is considered a win.
This is wrong, of course. In fact, a "standard" can't even be a standard if not applied equally. The reality is whatever the "standard" (if properly applied) is, Apple beats it handily. The more you lower the "standard" to include Apple's competitors in the mix, the more Apple exceeds them.
Bottom line is the delta between Apple and their competitors remains the same no matter where you set the bar, as long as that bar is set the same for everyone.
