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.

All I'm saying is that HP made a deal to sell the iPod—

perhaps the most successful product of the last few decades—and managed to screw it up. What chance does Palm have?

What can we learn from the "moderated" Windows SuperSite blog?

The iPad is a big iPod touch, not a computer.

Forget the article, just read the comments, in which Thurrott states the above, and even more ridiculous things.

There are two things about Thurrott we can learn from this article on the new, "moderated" Windows SuperSite:

  • He defines "moderate" as "Keep the IT luddites and Windows fans I pander to; Apple supporters need not apply". 
  • His mind is incredibly, surprisingly, naively, and embarrassingly (it should be to him, anyway) closed.

Remember when tech pundits used to lead the charge for change, and get excited about new, powerful technologies that made things easier for non-technicians? Yeah, me neither.

Who Needs April Fools' Day When You've Got The Onion?

You could even listen halfheartedly as your lead designer attempts to explain MP3s to you in 1998 and then immediately fire him for losing sight of the project goal. At $29.99, this thing's a bargain. No? Fine. $9.99.

Riot.

iPod Touch: Selling Like Gangbusters?

Check out the above chart. It's no secret iPod sales had steadied, or even dropped a bit over the last couple years. Still, it's generally believed a lot of that is due to people buying iPhones, which are iPods that don't show up in these sales figures.

In any case, look at the first two months of the last three years. From Y/Y of -28 and -13 to +5 in January, and from -5 and -16 to +10 in February. While the iPod nano may have some hand in this, the iPod touch is clearly selling very well.

Don't Tell Me Steve Jobs Doesn't Love Music

CNN Money has a collection of a dozen photographs of Steve Jobs that show their "CEO of the Decade" in a more unusual light.

The above photo is #4 in the series, and my favorite by far. Anyone who doubts Jobs' proclaimed love of music -- a love that helped Apple build the iPod/iTunes ecosystem -- need only look to this photo as proof they're wrong.

Visit the link above to see all 12 photos.

What A Difference 12 Years And Steve Jobs Make.

Apple's incredible turnaround since acquiring NeXT (and Steve Jobs) 12 years ago is well known. Apple's been strong for over a decade, with exceptional growth far ahead of the industry, especially the last five years. 

When every quarter seems to set a new sales record, even amidst a glum economy, it's easy to become a bit jaded about the whole thing. I mean, ho hum, a few million more Macs, another 10 million iPods, and that new phone thing seems to be doing splendidly. 

So let's put some of this into perspective. The above slide is from Steve Jobs' talk at Macworld 1997 in Boston. It's the slide used when discussing "The Problem" at Apple. Put simply, sales in '95 were $11.1B, in '96 $9.5B, and in '97 (estimated) $7B. Going rapidly downhill, Apple was bleeding money. 

Fast forward to Apple's recent Q4 '09 results. Sales were $9.87B. That blows the doors off '97 and handily beats '96. Think about it; Apple bested these entire years' sales in just one quarter. And it wasn't even a holiday quarter.

But that's not all. Apple reports sales with one arm tied behind its back. It doesn't recognize all iPhone revenue immediately, instead spreading it out over two years due to specific accounting requirements. Those requirements are changing, however, and without them the adjusted figure for Q4 is $12.25B, which even blows '95 away. 

Turnaround, indeed. 

Picture This: Why the iPod Nano Has a Camera and the iPod Touch Does Not [UPDATED]

[UPDATE:] I added some additional thoughts in the comments section.

Lots of stuff announced and discussed in Apple’s recent iTunes/iPod announcements, but it seems the camera situation is the most complained about. Bottom line is the new nano has one, the new touch does not.

Isn’t this backwards? Isn’t it a no-brainer to add a camera to the touch? Is Apple ripping us off? Are they just trying to “force” us to buy iPhones? Let’s burn all our Apple equipment and buy Zunes before Arrington and Calacanis can accuse us all of being sellouts.

But, as usual, the truth is much less sinister. Apple has simply made what they feel are the most appropriate choices for each device given the target market and the priorities for each.

The iPod nano Got a Camera

Yes, but it's only a video camera. It does not shoot stills. That's an important distinction because stills require much better quality.

With the great popularity of the Flip line of video cameras, Apple feels there are still many people who haven’t tried it; they want a piece of that. Only time will tell, but they may be right. Given how quickly the iPhone took over the "uploaded photo" crown on Flickr, it's not hard to imagine the new nano making a dent in movie uploads.

But why is it only a video camera? Steve Jobs was asked that very question:

…the sensors you need to record video are extremely thin these days—thin enough to fit into the wafer-thin Nano. But the ones with enough resolution for stills, especially with autofocus (like the sensor in the iPhone), are much too thick to cram into a player that’s only .02 inches thick.

Well, well. There was no evil intent, just a technical limitation that even the geniuses at Apple can’t overcome. And I certainly agree with Apple’s decision to not make the nano thicker. Besides, they had a price point to consider.

No camera in the iPod touch.

It's hard to believe this was done to further distinguish the iPhone. You’re not going to "force" people to buy a phone — and the >$75 monthly bill that goes with it — by depriving them of a camera in a non-phone. No, the omission must be for some other reason.

I think people have forgotten how much an iPhone really costs. You only pay AT&T $199 or $299, but AT&T tosses around $400 to Apple. The iPhone is an expensive device. The various cell radios, GPS, and a camera with auto-focus and -exposure, not to mention video capabilities, don’t come cheap in such a small form factor.

Apple’s goal was to cut the touch’s price -- Schiller said so -- while adding enhancements that were most needed. They had to increase capacity, and the device was due for a speed bump as well. For the same $299 and $399 price as before, you get double the memory and the fast “guts” of the current iPhone 3GS. That speed difference is huge, allowing even better games that, in case you hand’t noticed, the touch is being marketed towards.

And, no, the simple video in the new nano would have made little sense (and fell too short of expectations) slapped in the touch as a stop-gap measure. That’s not how Apple rolls.

I’m sure the touch gets a camera at some point. I'm not sure it'll be the same as the iPhone's, given the slightly different cases, but it wasn’t the right change now. It would not have been practical given the level of quality needed, and the priorities of lower cost and more important enhancements.

The Beatles in iTunes Tomorrow? I Doubt It, But Not Because of the Rolling Stones.

Lots of people seem to think Apple couldn't announce the Beatles remastered catalog for sale on iTunes tomorrow because the invitations for the event used a variation of a line from a Rolling Stones song: "It's only rock and roll but we like it."

I don't think that's a valid reason; here's why:

  • Does it mean there's a Rolling Stones announcement tomorrow? Doubtful. Yet according to the theory there could be no other music sales announcement since a Rolling Stones song was used.
  • Had they used a Beatles song quote, surely it would have tipped their hand and, rumors aside, Apple would like to keep it under wraps as long as possible.
Personally, I think they used the quote to emphasize the event is only about iPods and iTunes, not tablets, Apple TV, Macs, etc.

Why They Wouldn't Be on iTunes Tomorrow

OK, but if the quote doesn't preclude the Beatles on iTunes, why do I think it won't happen yet? Because:
  1. Rock Band has been pumping up the volume on this for months, ever since the deal was inked. Further, there's a major  push for the remasters themselves. I suspect the intent is for RB to fuel remaster sales, and vice versa. They don't want the media frenzy to have a third story to write about (i.e., digital downloads). Yet.
  2. It would make sense to hold off on the digital tunes to get as many early adapters to buy the boxed set. Presumably there's more money involved there.
  3. It wouldn't even surprise me if digital downloads were specifically (and contractually) prohibited for X number of weeks/months after the 9/9/09 launch.
  4. You shouldn't make a big deal out of the ultra-fidelity of a remaster, and then sell it as a compressed music file.
Possibilities

Here's where it gets interesting. Could the Beatles remasters be the event that finally kicks off a catalog available in lossless format? That would certainly address point #4 above. Sure, the file sizes are much greater, but Apple is routinely delivering movies and TV shows now so it's not the issue it was when the store was opened six years ago.

If lossless is an option, then maybe it could be available tomorrow, but it would still run counter to nos. 2 and 3 above. Further, if such downloads were going to be available, why wouldn't Apple have allowed pre-orders, as they usually do, and as Amazon (and others) are doing for the boxed CDs?

Ultimately, I think no Beatles download sales tomorrow, but I do hope that when they are made available a lossless option will be available.

More Apple-Bashing Nonsense: Since Microsoft Was So Bad, Shouldn’t Apple Be Stopped?

Previously I wrote that the trolls are out for Apple, and to expect more ridiculous articles. Well, who better to supply one than Paul Thurrott, that constant source of Microsoft disinformation and FUD? Occasionally Thurrott reaches a new high in low, and did so with his post on Apple's “culture of lies”. His ranting in this piece rivals that of Jason Calacanis' recent nonsensical babbling about Apple; it's that bad.

So Many Words, So Few That Matter

The only two things worth noting in the entire screed are these:
As I write this, Apple doesn't quite have a monopoly in any given market
Yep, thanks, that covers Apple.
Microsoft got into antitrust trouble because they behaved in a manner that was illegal, but only for a company that holds monopoly power.
This is Paul's way of admitting that Microsoft was operating illegally. Though he normally spends most of his time ignoring their history or re-writing it, today he's coming clean. He added the last bit to setup the real purpose of his piece, which I'll get to shortly. The bottom line is you can’t abuse a monopoly unless you are a monopoly, and simply becoming a monopoly doesn’t mean you’ll abuse it. If you read the piece and think the above two quotes aren't the only ones that matter, I suggest you check your driver’s license to see if your name is Ed Bott, or Randall Kennedy, or Mary Jo Foley, or Rob Enderle, or… well, you get the idea.

Why The Confession?

What it boils down to is that Microsoft is incredibly abusive. The Microsoft Tax was real, stolen code was real, back door deals and threats of retribution were real. There are thousands of pages of sworn testimony and emails from numerous court cases attesting to this. Microsoft is a text-book monopoly abuse case. (Just like past abusive monopolies, when cracks in the armor appeared the founder ran off and began his philanthropy.) So why is Paul copping to Microsoft's true history now? Simple. If he claims Apple could become the same thing, maybe he can get the public and government to do what Microsoft and their partners can't: Put a dent in Apple's growth and prevent them from stomping most everyone in the marketplace with their superior products.

Apple Abuse?

But to suggest potential abuse by Apple down the road is kind of silly. What are they gonna do?
  • Threaten the non-Apple 90% of PC manufacturers that they must bundle iTunes on their PCs or Apple will crush them? Heck, iTunes isn’t even bundled now, customers have to download and install it. There is a bundled media player, but that would be Microsoft's.
  • Sell music tracks with DRM tied only to their own players with no way to defeat it? No, that was Microsoft. Apple never did, and ultimately removed DRM on music altogether.
  • App Store rejections? Compared to the ~70,000 apps approved, the percentage is tiny, and many were reconsidered and accepted. Most have shown to be a misunderstanding, or telling only one side of the story, or simple PR. Apple has admitted they're working on the acceptance process, that's not abuse.
  • Refuse to let iTunes “see” third-party devices? Nope. The devices are seen as external storage free to drag tracks onto. They don’t use Apple’s wonderful “sync” because Apple made that an advantage of their software. Other companies are free to do the same.
  • Refuse to let other companies write sync software for their devices? Nonsense. As I'll discuss later, RIM already has.
Where is the abuse when there are no barriers of entry to compete with Apple? Microsoft's proven this time and again as they continue to enter contestants (that keep getting clobbered). Google entered the fray with Android and nary a ripple from Apple. RIM made the Storm and Apple couldn't have cared less. Palm did their Pre and, except for their pirating iTunes software by hacking, Apple doesn't care. Further, any of these guys can write their own desktop software for their own devices to compete with iTunes any time they want. The reason companies don’t want to write their own software now is because it takes time and effort, and they’re already so far behind they want to take shortcuts, including hacking into Apple’s good work. Wah! We didn’t have Apple's foresight and vision, so they must let us use their stuff! It’s like the squealing two little pigs banging on the door of the house of bricks.

“I Know You Are But What Am I?”

For a while now, Microsoft and their press buddies have utilized a campaign to make Apple out to be just like them. They do this because they know they're hated while Apple is not. Windows 7 is a service pack? Yeah, well so is Snow Leopard. Windows 7 leaves XP users in the dust (upgrade to painful)? Yeah, well Snow Leopard doesn't work on non-Intel Macs. Windows is strewn with viruses? Hey, the Mac had a Trojan Horse so it's just the same. It's odd that no one at Microsoft questions this strategy. I mean, when the worst insult you can hurl at your competitor is that they're just like you, it reflects more on you than the competitor. It's an acknowledgment that you suck, but the competitor rightfully says “No, we're not like you, but thanks for admitting you suck”.

What Thurrott Really Wants

The real purpose of Thurrott's piece is to get somebody, anybody, to stop Apple. So he threatens us with the only "weapon" he has, which is to claim Microsoft's been a tyrant for 20 years and, gee whiz, let's not let Apple be the same. He admits Apple isn’t there, but apparently Microsoft was so bad that we shouldn't even wait this time! Let's stop Apple before they’re guilty of anything. Wow. There are just a few things wrong with Thurrott’s plea:
  • Exclusive phone deals were (and are) commonplace, and he never cared until Apple did it with a vastly superior smartphone, crushing Windows Mobile in the process.
  • Zune's software works with Zunes and not, say, the Palm Pre, but he never cared about this type of software being “open” until Microsoft’s failed while Apple's remained successful.
  • Microsoft's Plays For Sure partners were completely screwed when the exclusive Zune came out, but he never cared about that.
  • Every company is free to compete with Apple with their own software without any retribution from Apple or demands to "knife the baby". But Thurrott didn't care that they foolishly chose not to until it was obvious they missed the boat and have a lot of catching up to do. Catching up Thurrott apparently feels won't happen.
  • Even the mighty Google is free to put Google Voice on their own mobile OS (Android) and compete in the marketplace -- which Apple reminded them they should do. But Thurrott doesn’t care because, like Google, he knows it's not compelling enough for people to consider as an alternative to the iPhone.
This is the most ridiculous plea Thurrott has made since he begged those who value “your very livelihood" to band with him in demanding that Microsoft “respond to the challenges”. Well, now we see how they responded. Too bad it’s in the form of shameless rhetoric, not in the market place. Thurrott’s apologies in the past, and rant of the present, seem to indicate that a free market and competition are foreign to him. He simply can't imagine any company doing business without either being an illegal bully, or bullied by some other company or government. The whole concept of actually earning your place by making game-changing products that work as expected and are backed with stellar customer service completely eludes him. It eludes Microsoft as well.

Is There No Alternative?

Of course there is. For example, Research in Motion gets it. They stayed true to their successful BlackBerry devices while toying with an iPhone competitor in the Storm. They've also brought their own desktop software to the Mac. They didn’t whine or cry like Microsoft or Palm. They're not trying to hack into Apple’s technology and leach their hard work and foresight. They're building their own. Instead of crying for help, they focused on their own core strategies and business plans. It's clearly paid off; they've been as successful -- maybe even more so -- in the iPhone era as they were before it. And if their new stuff isn't quite up to snuff yet, at least it's a start, and they’ll make it better (witness the Storm 2).

But Apple Must Be Evil!

Thurrott's shameless begging for someone to stop Apple from something he admits they're not even doing reminds me that there are only two possible reasons for which these types of articles are written:
  • To stop Apple, or slow them down, in any manner possible except via the marketplace, where attempts by all comers have failed. In short, the articles are propaganda. Thurrott’s piece, and those of the rest of the Microsoft shill choir, fall into this category.
  • Page hits, tied to ego and self-importance. Face it, if you write a "Microsoft is Evil" piece, no one cares. Everyone already knows it; it's nothing new. But if you write an "Apple is Evil" piece, people flock to it wondering if there's some smoking gun. Instead, it's just self-serving FUD, innuendo, and speculation. Arrington's recent ravings, as well as the aforementioned Calacanis crap, fall into this category.
Both categories contain nothing but garbage.