- Posts tagged iPod
- Explore iPod 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.
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.
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.
