TVs Are Not Like Smartphones

Yes, there are a lot of problems that need to be solved, but the Macalope doesn’t really see where they’re that much bigger than the ones that supposedly were going to prevent the iPhone’s birth. Maybe it comes out for Comcast at first, like the iPhone with AT&T.

The AT&T iPhone was nationwide in the US, and used a global mobile standard (GSM) so Apple could roll it out in other countries. A Comcast “iTV” would only be regional in the US, and there is no global TV standard so that’s as far as it would get.

The carrier problem was one of control (i.e., dictating hardware, features and services), not getting to market. Apple got around the control with an AT&T exclusivity deal (and AT&T making a bold decision), and the rest is history.

The cable company problem is not about control of the hardware, but rather getting it to market. One GSM iPhone covers many markets across the globe, but for an iTV you’d need nearly as many models as there are markets.

I’m not saying the cable company issue is insurmountable, only that it won’t be solved the way the carrier problem was. They’re not the same problem.

TAB – Pre-Macworld 2009 Thoughts and Rumors

The good news is that with the keynote almost upon us, the Mac community has switched primarily from crying about Jobs not giving the keynote to instead focusing on the usual rumors and speculation. This is as it should be.

I’ve written about what I think of the change from Jobs to Schiller for Apple’s last Macworld keynote, so let’s talk about what we may see tomorrow. So many rumors, so little time…

Read the rest of this article on theAppleBlog >>

ZDNet Gets Blackfriars’ Marketing Memo: No Apple Loss Leaders.

howe.png
akh.png

Carl Howe at the Blackfriars’ Marketing wrote a great piece on Wednesday refuting all the garbage about Apple having to slash prices and sell loss-leader products. It’s fitting the headline began “News flash to reporters and analysts”, because a few of them appear to have read it.

The very next day we got a re-cycled version from ZDNet’s Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Let’s see:

  • Use the same headline as Carl (well, skipping the “news flash” part).
  • Link to the same two articles as Carl.
  • Draw similar conclusions to Carl.
  • Don’t mention Carl.

True, where Carl says this about Apple selling at a loss:

…it would undermine the marketing value of their products that they have labored for decades to build up.

Adrian says this:

…rather than looking for new features, customers get hooked into looking at little more than the bottom line.

But come on. That Carl’s article was the real motivation for Kingsley-Hughes’ piece is obvious. Adrian doesn’t get into the depth Carl does, but that’s only because he’s out of his.

I’m glad you got Carl’s memo, Adrian, but the proper thing to have done was:

  1. Link to it,
  2. Say you agree,
  3. Contribute anything worthwhile you have to say (which, let’s face it, would have ended at step 2),
  4. Add your little online poll.

As it is, you tried to give the impression you can make an analysis your past writings have shown you wholly incapable of. Pretty weak stuff.