Podcast #64: MacBook nano, Apple Laptops Over the Years and Ray Buys an eMate While Podcasting

This week we marvel at the workmanship of a Hackintosh netbook, share our thoughts on the best, and worst, Apple laptops and peer pressure Ray into buying an eMate off of eBay. Plus, we wish we all had a sweet name like Papermaster, we just don't want to be sued by Big Blue because of it.  read more

This week we marvel at the workmanship of a Hackintosh netbook, share our thoughts on the best, and worst, Apple laptops and peer pressure Ray into buying an eMate off of eBay. Plus, we wish we all had a sweet name like Papermaster, we just don't want to be sued by Big Blue because of it.  read more

  • Will Google's Android Play DOS to Apple's iPhone?

    Daniel Eran Dilger Today's broad array of smartphone operating system contenders are offering lots of potential answers to a problem that only requires one. It appears the market has two options ahead: either pool generic hardware makers behind a single operating system and deliver a smartphone marketplace that resembles the Windows PC market, or watch them fall to a dominant leader and have a smartphone market that resembles Apple's iPod ecosystem. This decision isn't going to be made by a class of intellectual elite, or by government mandate. it's going to be made by the market itself. Here are the factors that will influence the outcome, either marginalizing Apple's iPhone into a niche as the company has twice experienced previously at the hands of DOS in 1981 and Windows in 1991, or positioning it as the dominant leader as Apple has achieved for itself with the iPod since 2001. The third segment in this series looks at Google's Android and the Open Handset Alliance as a possible “DOS-attack” against Apple's iPhone. Subsequent segments will look at Nokia's newly opened Symbian and other mobile contenders challenging the iPhone. Will the iPhone Meet its Match from a Modern Day DOS? Will Windows Mobile Play DOS to Apple’s iPhone? Will Google's Android Play DOS to Apple's iPhone? Will Symbian Play DOS to Apple's iPhone? Google Acquires Android. In 2005, Google purchased a startup named Android, which had been in business for nearly two years. The secretive startup was known only to be working on software for mobile phones. It was being run by a who's who of mobile industry veterans, including Andy Rubin, the founder of Danger. Rubin had earlier worked at WebTV along with Chris White and Andy McFadden, both of whom had also joined Android. Richard Miner of Orange and Nick Sears of Tmobile also brought their mobile provider experience to Android. At the time of the acquisition, Google didn't announce any plans for Android and instead only told BusinessWeek, “We acquired Android because of the talented engineers and great technology. We're thrilled to have them here.” It appeared that Google was only going to be expanding its search services for mobile phone users, along the lines of the Google SMS answer system it had recently released. Google Buys Android for Its Mobile Arsenal - BusinessWeek Windows XP Media Center Edition vs Apple TV: The Fall of WebTV The GPhone Myth. As reports began to leak out about talks between Google and hardware makers throughout 2007, rumors began to fly about “the GPhone,” a competitive offering that was supposed to take on the iPhone. Some phone enthusiasts hoped Google would jump in to rescue the struggling OpenMoko project and turn it into a viable project that could attack Apple's new smartphone. In October 2007, I printed the Great Google GPhone Myth, taking apart the idea that Google would be directly competing against the iPhone, and describing that Google was really working on a free alternative to Windows Mobile as a conduit for getting its search and related services on a broader variety of mobiles. Google's services were already on the iPhone. In November, Google played its hand: it had organized a consortium of companies called the Open Handset Alliance to develop open standards for mobiles. The first product from the group would be Android, a mobile operating system built on the Linux kernel. Google wasn't getting into the phone handset business at all; it was only making sure that its mobile search products would not risk being marginalized by the threat of Windows Mobile on phones in the same way Microsoft had been working to leverage its PC monopoly to push Google search off the Windows desktop. The Great Google gPhone Myth Introducing Android: Leader of Linux. Two weeks later, Google released an early version of the Android software. On top of a Linux kernel, Android uses a specialized version of a Java Virtual Machine that takes Java language code and turns it into what Google calls “Dalvik bytecode” rather than Java bytecode as a standard JVM would. This allows Google to leverage existing and familiar Java language tools without paying Sun for a Java license. Like Mac OS X and its fraternal iPhone OS, Android includes a variety of open source libraries, including SQLite and WebKit. On top of that, Google developed a series of frameworks that handle the tasks Cocoa Touch does on the iPhone. Android also bundles a set of applications. While Apple adapted its existing Mac OS X to work in a mobile environment to create the iPhone OS, Android is more like a customized Java environment running on a specialized mobile Linux variant: elements of maturity in an otherwise experimental new platform. What is Android? -Google Android was by no means the first mobile OS using Linux. Both Palm and its amputated ACCESS software arm have Linux-based mobile platforms. Nokia has Maemo, which it uses in its Internet Tablets, and also recently acquired Trolltech and its Qtopia mobile Linux platform. Motorola has teamed up with MontaVista Software to use its Mobilinux. Intel created the Moblin project for mobile Linux, aimed at Internet devices. Google's OHA also isn't the first consortium to attempt to standardize a mobile Linux platform. The OSDL started the Mobile Linux Initiative to define requirements for hardware; the Consumer Electronics Linux Forum (CELF) then worked to define various phone profiles aimed at the Japanese market; the Linux Phone Standard (LiPS) Forum tried to do the same thing in Europe. In 2007, LiPS was folded into the new LiMo Foundation, along with the OSDL. All of these committees have had some overlap and some complementary features. Several of Google's OHA partners are also LiMo members, including NTT DoCoMo, Wind River, and Motorola. So why didn't Google just join LiMo? “LiMo, very candidly, wasn't moving fast enough,” OHA board member John Bruggeman told CNET. Google hopes to herd the Linux cats into a progressive, structured platform that can battle against Symbian and Windows Mobile to succeed as the new DOS of smartphones. Will Google fracture or unify mobile Linux? The Presumption of the Necessity of DOS. The previous segment examining Windows Mobile pointed out how the PC industry as a whole assumed that Microsoft's desktop Windows monopoly would easily take over dominance in the MP3 player market, pushing Apple into a niche position. This was expected because DOS had pushed Apple's early computers into a reduced role starting in 1981, and Microsoft had repeated this again in 1991 when the DOS world migrated to Windows, effectively pruning Apple's Macintosh into a Bonsai platform. The inability of one company to dominate any product category has been frequently repeated by PC industry pundits as a given, despite the fact that history is full of examples of this happening. Sony dominated personal music players for two decades under the Walkman brand even while equally large competitors tried to push it from this position; Nintendo has similarly owned handheld gaming despite ill-fated efforts to grab a piece of its pie by products running a generic platform such as Microsoft's WinCE (Gizmondo), Linux (GP32), and Symbian (N-Gage). In fact, outside of the Windows/DOS PC, there are actually few examples of a generic platform taking over an industry. Nearly every other consumer-facing product uses proprietary platforms: car makers, stereo equipment, appliances and so on typically all use designs custom to their maker. The paradox of the Windows PC market has been that Microsoft's broadly licensed software supposedly saves hardware makers from investing in software development while ensuring compatibility, when in reality it adds significant costs to PC makers while limiting their ability to differentiate themselves. That explains why PC makers have been perpetually merging together and going out of business while Microosft has rolled in money over the last two decades. Parallel efforts to copy Microsoft in broadly licensing an operating system have regularly failed: IBM's OS/2, Apple's Mac OS, Palm's PDA OS, even Microsoft's own efforts to duplicate Windows dominance in other markets, from copy machines to PDAs to smartphones to SPOT watches to music players. The closest copy may be Symbian, but its customers are partners, not simply consumers of a generic third party's operating system as Windows licensees are. That indicates it is not necessary to duplicate the dominance exercised by Microsoft over the PC industry in the smartphone market. Google's Android and Symbian exist more as technology sharing pacts among manufacturers, but both aspire to take Microsoft's DOS role among smartphones. However, the idea that Apple's iPhone must be dethroned by a modern-day DOS, whether Windows Mobile, Android, or Symbian, is not just debatable, but does not sync with the reality of more recent events. Apple's recent history of the iPod further refutes the idea that a software analog to Microsoft is needed. The iPod Emergence: Apple & Pixo vs IBM & Microsoft. Apple's iPod in 2001 made no effort to clone the DOS business model; it actually did the opposite. When Apple entered the market, there were a number of existing MP3 devices using custom software, hardware designs, and DRM codecs. The iPod used off the shelf components to deliver a custom MP3 player using third party software, but Apple also added its own technologies: easy to use sync with iTunes, a fast Firewire interface that made uploading music far faster than the prevailing USB 1.0, and an attractive industrial design. With the iPod, Apple played the role of IBM in 1981, using Pixo's embedded operating system to enter the market quickly, just as IBM had used DOS. The difference was that Apple didn't direct any market attention toward Pixo and added a lot of value on top of that core embedded OS. A modern day Compaq couldn't simply clone the hardware and license Pixo to run on it in order to compete against the iPod, because the iPod was much more than just generic hardware running Pixo software. As the iPod developed, Pixo's role diminished and was eventually displaced. Just like IBM, Apple jumped into a new market just as demand was beginning to explode. Apple made MP3 players far more attractive to a general audience by delivering greater playback capacity than most entry level devices offered, along with an ease of use that encouraged buyers to jump in at the higher end of the market. That left Apple with not only the lion's share of the market, but also by far the most profitable segments of the market. Two decades prior, IBM badly fumbled its play with the early PC and ended up irrelevant in the PC world by the late 80s, sideswiped by Microsoft's DOS and the cloners who were licensing it in parallel, notably Compaq and later HP and Dell. Steve Jobs had witnessed that happen, and was determined to not let it happen again to Apple. Rather than being manipulated by a software middleware vendor as IBM had, Apple worked to incrementally develop the iPod market itself. After consuming the hard drive-based player market, Apple took on the Flash RAM-based market with a tiny hard drive system used in the iPod Mini, and followed up with Flash-based devices of its own in the Nano and Shuffle. This allowed Apple to progressively serve an increasingly wider market, incrementally growing upon an established foundation. With the iPod, Apple became, in effect, an IBM with its own internal Microsoft. Microsoft's Failure Despite Features. In contrast, Microsoft entered the music player market by promoting music player hardware reference designs around WinCE. However, it was unable to ship a finished design until the iPod had become firmly established around 2005. Later branded as PlaysForSure, the devices were sold by various hardware makers and all purported to support the same DRM and the same music subscription services while also offering a broader array of hardware that presented video before the iPod did, supported wireless before the iPod, and so on. Despite these unique features, all of those PFS designs still failed. Microsoft blamed the failure of PFS upon its music store and hardware partners and decided to take Apple on itself in 2006. It relaunched a Toshiba PFS player as its own device under the Zune brand, adding WiFi music sharing features and a larger display than the current Pods had. It failed dramatically as well. Did Microsoft's attempts to float a new DOS among music players fail because of Apple's success, or due to Microsoft's own problems? The failure of the Zune, which followed the iPod model rather than the DOS model, seems to suggest that Microsoft itself was to blame. Consider too that Microsoft's Windows Mobile phones, which use the same underlying operating system as its failed PlaysForSure music players and the Zune, had similarly flopped even before Apple could release a charismatic phone equivalent to the iPod. Of course, when the iPhone was released, it hit Windows Mobile hardest. The iPhone made Windows Mobile Smartphones look ridiculous and underpowered, and made Windows Mobile Pocket PC phones look clumsy and awkward, despite the fact that they both supported a variety of features the iPhone didn't, including the ability to edit documents, capture video, send MMS, and so on. Simply adding on features did not enable Microsoft to compete against Apple. The only conclusion that can be drawn from all this is that competing against Apple requires more than just having a feature arsenal. Microsoft's failures in themselves do not necessarily mean that Google's Android will fail in its attempts to float its own smartphone platform. Why Microsoft’s Zune is Still Failing Microsoft’s Zune, Vista, and Windows Mobile 7 Strategy vs the iPhone Will Google Succeed where Microsoft Failed? Microsoft's demonstrated inability to successfully enter consumer markets for MP3 players and smartphones has given observers little faith that the company will somehow turn things around in late 2009 when its next generation of devices are expected to be released. However, prior to that the first fruits of Google's efforts to build its own smartphone operating environment will arrive. Will Google's Android take over Microsoft's crown as the “DOS vendor” among smartphones? Supporters of Google's Android project point to some parallels between Android for smartphones and Windows on the PC: Android will allow hardware makers to differentiate in ways that can offer features Apple can't (or doesn't want to); it should allow software developers to offer features Apple does not allow on the iPhone; it embraces open, hobbyist experimentation in ways that Apple currently isn't; and it opens the potential for content providers that Apple is not interested in allowing. Openness is Android's key competitive feature. Will all this openness allow Google to unseat the iPhone to become the primary platform developers want to participate in, and subsequently soak up the market for third party hardware makers that Windows Mobile serves? While Google currently has no market share due to the fact that no Android phones have yet shipped, it does have broad vocal support from a variety of the same kinds of hardware manufacturers that supported DOS and Windows and helped to make those platforms successful in the desktop PC market. HTC and Android. The first Android phone is expected to be the HTC Dream; Taiwan's HTC (High Tech Computer) also manufactures Palm's Treo Pro phone as well as many of the most visible Windows Mobile devices. In addition to models produced under its own name, HTC also sells Windows Mobile devices under the Dopod brand, as well as no-name phones branded by providers, such as AT&T, Orange, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, Vodafone, and others. HTC will also be building the XPERIA X1 Windows Mobile phone for Sony Ericsson. HTC was quick to throw its support behind Android despite its long term alliance with Windows Mobile. Why would it so enthusiastically support an unproven platform from a company that has no experience in consumer hardware platforms? One can only assume that HTC is not happy with the current state of Windows Mobile, and desperately wants another “DOS” to succeed where Microsoft's has so spectacularly failed. As an Original Design Manufacturer for Palm, HTC watched as Palm adopted Windows Mobile in place of the Palm OS and subsequently fell even deeper into crisis. Palm's only successful phone since has been its Palm OS-based Centro. HTC undoubtedly sees Android as its ticket to becoming the next Dell, but without a similar dependance upon Microsoft. Android for mobile phones is essentially playing the role of Linux for PCs, except that it has the backing of a major company behind it. Can Android Take on the iPhone with Openness as its Feature? As great as this sounds, it's important to consider that Linux on the desktop has made no significant progress in eating into Windows dominance after a decade of trying. Being open, free, flexible, and decentralized hasn't been enough of an advantage to get consumers to migrate from Windows to Linux in any fraction of significance. Similarly, in the music business, Linux-based MP3 players have had no impact on the iPod, despite offering more features, flexibility, support for additional codecs, and so on. In the mobile phone area, Linux enjoys a sizable portion of the smartphone market, but this is almost entirely due to phones sold by Motorola in China, where the advantages of Linux' openness are void. Motorola's Linux phones offer nothing to users in terms of openness or flexibility, and are really no different in terms of features than other appliance 'feature phones' based upon closed operating systems. And again, a key problem with assaulting Apple in a feature war is that neither the iPod nor the iPhone became popular by being “highly featured.” They both delivered perhaps 80% of the functionality found in all other devices in the market. Rather than trying to match every feature and cater to every niche as Microsoft had with Windows Mobile, Apple's devices did a few things very well at launch, and incrementally developed into full featured devices that still lack some of the more unique features of their competitors. Further, in terms of openness, the demographic that embraces Linux' characteristic freedoms is not the same as the demographic that buys smartphones in quantity and then pays for data service. This is a critical fact to consider because a big part of the iPhone's success stems from the fact that it is being pushed by mobile providers who want to capture the cream of the market willing to pay a premium for data services. The Frankenphone. Combining the fractured aesthetic of HTC's Windows Mobile phone hardware with Android's software, based upon Linux' perpetually unfinished DIY openness and Google's Java-like development platform, will not result in a product similar to the iPhone. Instead, it will look a lot like phones that have already failed in the market. Apple's advantage comes from slick hardware designs with a close attention to detail, combined with software that purposely does less so that it can do what it does better. Even Apple's own conservative attempts to broaden its software capabilities with iPhone 2.0 have resulted in instability problems that can be blamed upon both Apple's early releases of its phone operating system and software from inexperienced third party developers new to the platform. Would the current frustrations with iPhone 2.0 be somehow mitigated by additional openness that also embraced all kinds of variables from different hardware makers with less quality control than Apple, a loose committee of additional cooks working to serve up operating system features targeted at every possible conceived need, and a wider third party software group with fewer constraints on illegal behaviors? The Failure of Open. While it is politically unpopular to criticize the well meaning efforts of open source contributors, the failure of Linux on the desktop, the failure of the vaporware Indrema game console, and the failure of the OpenMoko project to deliver a workable phone within a year of its deadline all underline the serious problems open development faces in the world of consumer oriented devices. Open has simply failed to deliver on its promises in the world of consumer hardware. OpenMoko was supposed to release its first mobile phone to consumers for $250 several months in advance of the iPhone. When the iPhone shipped, the group then announced new plans to get its phone out by the end of 2007. Instead, this spring the group announced new plans to move to an entirely different development platform, and ship its phone mid year for $400 with limited functionality and incomplete software outside of basic GSM phone features. Linux's notable successes, from Motorola's Linux phones to the Tivo DVR to Linksys Routers, have often come without any associated openness or freedom, and were instead delivered simply to provide their manufacturer with a free kernel to build upon. This indicates that while Linux may find its way into an increasing number of smartphones, it will likely not be accompanied by the glorious freedom of an open development environment Google has said it would offer with Android. Apple iPhone vs the FIC Neo1973 OpenMoko Linux Smartphone Can Google Succeed Where Open Has Previously Failed? Despite “openness” being Android's strongest competitive feature compared to Apple's iPhone, Google recently revealed that its wide-open development model is intentionally gravitating towards a closed association of top tier partners due to practical considerations. In July, Google accidentally sent out a notice that revealed that it had been seeding private SDK updates to only a subset of its contributors, angering those who believed that Android would be as open as Linux on the desktop or the OpenMoko project. Further, Google has restricted initial development to higher level APIs just as Apple did, further indicating that Google itself realizes that being wildly open to impress a minority of hobbyists will not result in the commercial success of its new platform. That serves to neuter Android's primary advantage over the iPhone. Without delivering on the premise of being wide open, Android is really just a less mature set of Java libraries used to create a specialized binary that runs on a Linux foundation. Unlike Apple's iPhone, Android phones won't have a slick user interface developed by professional artists, nor the iPhone's legacy of mature software development frameworks crafted over the last thirty years, nor the iPhone's tightly integrated hardware with award winning industrial design, nor its marketing power tied into the iPod and Apple's retail stores. Android won't be an open iPhone, it will only be a Windows Mobile phone with a better kernel that runs specialized Java software instead of Win32 or .NET code. Don't expect consumers to be impressed by that. The Biggest Missing Feature. There is one remaining factor that strangles to death any last remaining hope that Android might assassinate the iPhone and assume the crown of the “DOS of smartphones.” That is: Android delivers zero price advantage to consumers. In 1981 and 1991, consumers who wanted Apple computers faced the sticker shock of a somewhat arrogant price tag. Apple sold its computers, as it still does, at the higher end of the market, but there was simply far more range in prices available. In 1981, that meant the Apple II was $2600 and the new Apple III was $3500, even before you added a monitor. On the low end, Commodore sold its far less powerful, but “still a computer” Vic-20 for $300, while IBM entered the market with the IBM PC at $3000. Over the next few years, Apple focused on delivering additional sophistication at the same price, releasing the $10,000 Lisa and then the $2,500 Macintosh. IBM continued selling PCs in the same $3,000 to $10,000 range, but other DOS PC vendors began selling machines at prices that ranged as low as $1500. That left Apple with a roughly $1000 price premium over low end PCs. The products weren't really comparable, but consumers only saw the huge price difference. In 1991, Apple was still selling moderate to high-end Macintoshes for $3,800 to $10,000; the crippled Mac LC was $2500, and obsolete-at-birth Mac Classic ranged from $999 to $1500. Windows allowed PC makers to ship a functional $1500 PC and claim a rough approximation to Apple's $2500 entry level system, maintaining that apparent $1000 price premium. Today, pundits are lucky to find a Dell or HP system that is even a couple hundred dollars less than a comparable Mac. However, in the smartphone business, the iPhone 3G is now the same price, if not less, than generic competing phones on the market. Even more significant is the fact that the price of the phone hardware is nearly nothing compared to the cost of the service plan. This fact simply eases any price premium that could cause buyers to flock to a smartphone running a generic operating system over buying the iPhone 3G, regardless of whether it runs Windows Mobile or Android. 1990-1995: Planting Software Seeds Android Partners Have Already Failed. That same pricing principle similarly prevented buyers from considering many of the alternatives to the iPod. While Apple's original iPod models were more expensive than many of the first MP3 players on the market, they were price competitive with models offering similar features. By 2004, it was Apple who was undercutting MP3 competitors on price. Microsoft offered zero price advantage when it began selling the Zune, a major factor in its failure, but Microsoft simply couldn't out-price the iPod; it was already losing money offering the Zune at the same price as the iPod. Apple now has tremendous market power in buying RAM and other components that will prevent any competitors from being able to offer a huge discount over the iPhone's $199 price tag. Even if competitors were to give their phones away, they would only offer a $200 discount to users who would then still need to pay the same mobile fees to use the phone. Android's other partners, including Samsung and LG, have already failed to capture any significant market share in the music player market. Are they going to maintain their position as smartphone makers now that they face similar competition from Apple, its iPod ecosystem, its iTunes Music and Apps Store, Apple's retail store experience, and other factors that are pushing the iPhone? If they can, it is not obvious how partnering with Android will help. Other Problems for Android. Android was announced in early November 2007 and was followed with an early preview SDK within a couple weeks, a month ahead of Apple's initial announcement of the iPhone 2.0 SDK. However, between March and July 2008, Apple delivered nine progressive releases of its SDK, opened its App Store, and sold 60 million apps, raising $30 million to support iPhone software development in just the first month. It has since released three more SDK updates to developers related to iPhone 2.1, which is expected next month. Android just published its first open SDK beta update earlier this week, warning developers that “applications developed with it may not quite be compatible with devices running the final Android 1.0.” Additionally, Android still has no phones available. By the time the HTC Dream is expected to launch, Apple will have an installed base of around ten million iPhone (and iPod touch) users supporting software development through iTunes. The business model for selling Android apps is no better than that for selling jailbreak iPhone apps: there is no iTunes Apps Store to promote them, so users will have to track them down on their own. Android developers also have no real freedom that jailbreak iPhone developers lack. The only difference is that there are ten million iPhones to sell jailbreak apps to, and currently zero Android phones. If selling a jailbreak iPhone app sounds like more trouble than its worth, imagine trying to sell Android apps to a non-existant audience. Now add the official iPhone App Store into the mix, where publicity, promotion and profits are booming. What platform is going to have the most applications? How many users will flock to a smartphone platform with no apps? The wisdom of releasing a desirable phone and achieving a significant installed base before releasing an SDK makes a lot more sense in retrospect. Additionally, while Apple has a decade of experience in shipping regular updates to Mac OS X and its Xcode developer tools, Google has only shipped a random assortment of web-oriented SDKs (a number of which have been abandoned) as a tangent to its core business of selling advertisements. When the Android SDK 1.0 is finished later this year, developers will not only lack an installed base to sell their apps to, but will also have no high profile market for selling their apps in, and subsequently no financial incentive to develop applications that add value to the Android platform, just like Linux on the PC desktop. Around the same time, possibly within the next month, Apple will be shipping its second major OS release: iPhone 2.1. Apple will also be upgrading its entire user base to the new software so that developers will have a cohesive platform to target. This mirrors the efforts Apple has taken to upgrade its Mac OS X users to the same reference release. Mobile developers will be seeing money pouring in via iTunes while crickets chirp in the Android section of various mobile online stores. Apple’s iPhone Vs. Other Mobile Hardware Makers: 5 Revenue Engines Same Same, But Different: DOS Model Problems. Android developers will also have a series of other problems to manage. Like Windows Mobile, Android is intended to support everything, from BlackBerry-style keypad phones with a small touchscreen to the simple Windows Mobile Smartphone form factor lacking a touch screen to iPhone-like full size touch screens. Also like Windows Mobile, Android phone makers will have the option to leave off Bluetooth, WiFi, GPS location services, graphics hardware acceleration, and so on. Each Android phone will also have unique camera hardware, support for different video and audio codecs, and varied support for other differentiating proprietary services demanded by mobile operators. This will force developers to to make complex decisions regarding the lowest common denominator they choose to support. So while the iPhone will have a cohesive feature set, a managed software environment, and a functional market, Android will be a loose federation of hardware makers selling the same random features found on Windows Mobile today, with a chaotic development environment that lacks any central market for users or developers. And it will be run as an experiment by a company with no experience in consumer hardware or platform development. The Missing Tap. One specific example of the “DOS model problem” is that Android currently does not support multitouch. It's not touched on in the API, and Google quietly tap dances around its omission. Why no multitouch? Because multitouch screens are expensive, and most OHA hardware members are more interested in making a profit in a competitive phone market rather than impressing consumers as Apple did with the iPhone. Most existing smartphones, even those trying to directly rival the iPhone, use a stylus driven, pressure sensitive tap screen or a simpler, cheaper touch technology that lacks support for sensing multitouch. The iPhone's screen can actually sense up to five fingers at once, but the primary feature multitouch offers on the iPhone is the two fingered tapping and the pinching effects everyone associates with it. Android could certainly support multitouch if there were a demand for it, but that's the point: Google knows that its hardware partners are cheap and unlikely to put out hardware that actually competes with the iPhone. Instead of using expensive technologies that deliver clever yet largely invisible functionality, OHA members, just like PC makers, are far more likely to add flashy, impractical gadgety fluff that's cheap to tack on, such as slide out keyboards, neon tubes, and scratch and sniff stickers. That's how you impress gullible nerds on the cheap. Google itself is blowing smoke and erecting mirrors to distract from the reality that it being a “DOS vendor” means supporting bargain basement hardware from penny pinching duplicators. Android has been demonstrating some “wow” features such as a Street Maps app that pans around based on an internal compass in the demonstration phone. The problem is that that kind of thing only makes for a fun demo. Nobody needs to twirl around their phone in the air to see a view of the other side of the street, but everyone who has used an iPhone will wonder why they can't pinch to zoom out. Even worse, most Android phones aren't going to have a compass built into them, so Google is demonstrating features most Android users won't be able to use. That Sounds Like Microsoft… Google's design decisions are beginning to look a lot like Windows Vista; rather than actually working to make laptops boot faster, Microsoft came up with the idea of adding a small screen to the back of Vista laptops so users could check their email without having to wake the system up. But this was a stupid idea for a number of reasons, the most obvious being that most users just want a laptop that boots up quickly. Few laptops got the mini screen, but every user who tries Vista on their laptop will wonder why it doesn't boot up as fast as Mac OS X Leopard. In the same way, Google is advertising features for Android that most users won't ever see in their actual phones while ignoring things people will expect based on their exposure to the iPhone. Android is simply selecting the wrong features. Android will offer the advantages of supporting MMS, recording video, and the list of other features Windows Mobile already supplies. Those features didn't stop Apple from firing past Microsoft in the smartphone arena however, just as the Zune's highly touted WiFi and screen didn't phase iPod buyers. Incidentally, just months after the Zune, Apple had not only demonstrated a larger display but a higher definition multitouch screen, and not only WiFi, but functional WiFi that could be used to browse the web or check email. This suggests that Apple, with its faster release schedule, won't stay behind any of the leading features potentially offered by Android for very long. Android partners, however, will find it as difficult to catch up with Apple's unique features, just as Microsoft has been stymied to keep up with Mac OS X, the iPod, and the iPhone. The underlying reason: both Google and Microosft are tasked with maintaing support for a huge variety of hardware options demanded by all their partners. Apple has the unique circumstances to do only what it needs to do itself. Android in Windows Mobile's Shoes. Like Windows Mobile, Android faces a difficult market. In the US, it competes against the popular BlackBerry in corporate markets and the iPhone among consumers. Worldwide, it competes against entrenched market leader Nokia. The difference is that Google, unlike Microsoft, has no in. Windows Mobile was adopted by Windows-bound IT shops despite its weaknesses. Nobody has any preexisting reason to try an Android phone apart from hobbyists and open software enthusiasts, a demographic that has done little to move Linux on the PC desktop. Google also lacks Microsoft's installed base; it's starting from zero. The smartphone industry initially doubted Apple's chances of making much progress with the iPhone, despite the company having the Mac platform, the iPod, retail stores, platform development experience, marketing savvy, industrial design prowess, and so on. Google doesn't have any of those things. Mobile Providers vs Android. Apple also started with an exclusive partnership with AT&T, a three legged race that demanded effort from both. Google is hoping that hardware makers handle the hardware details and that mobile providers will be excited to sell its Android phones. While hardware makers such as HTC clearly appreciate having found a free alternative to Windows Mobile, it's not obvious why providers would be excited about Android, as it promises an openness that most mobile providers strongly oppose. AT&T took a big risk in getting behind the iPhone, as the phone encouraged users to use email rather than fee-based SMS and MMS, it supported WiFi for data access, and it bypassed AT&T's MEdia Net services to plug into iTunes instead. Verizon refused to parter with Apple and grant it those kinds of concessions. Is AT&T going to take a similar risk to partner with a phone that is not exclusive to it, and is Verizon now going to open its arms to support phones that do not exclusively support BREW, VCast and its other proprietary services? While Android may well eat into Microsoft's Windows Mobile business by stealing away its hardware makers, it seems unlikely that Android will ever serve as more than free alternative to Windows Mobile in a market where Windows Mobile is increasingly irrelevant. Android may have the dubious distinction of swallowing Microsoft's mobile business the same way Microsoft ate up the Palm OS, but even if it accomplishes that goal, Google will likely find itself unsustainably hungry immediately afterward. It will also find itself swimming in a shark tank of hungry rivals, including Nokia's Symbian, RIM's BlackBerry, and Apple's iPhone. Symbian is the final generic platform vying for the opportunity to play DOS in the smartphone market. The next article will examine Nokia's chances in its bid to match Microsoft's PC dominance in the mobile market while setting out in a new venture to copy Android's open software model. Did you like this article? Let me know. Comment here, in the Forum, or email me with your ideas. Like reading RoughlyDrafted? Share articles with your friends, link from your blog, and subscribe to my podcast (oh wait, I have to fix that first). It's also cool to submit my articles to Digg, Reddit, or Slashdot where more people will see them. Consider making a small donation supporting this site. Thanks!

  • TUAW bloggers post their Apple predictions for 2010

    Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Odds and ends, AppleIt's the end of another calendar year, which can mean only two things. First, every blog is going to be posting lists of 2009 retrospectives, and second, there are going to be a lot of posts filled with completely off-target predictions for 2010. So that we're not leaving our readership sitting in the dark wondering what the TUAW bloggers are prognosticating for the next year, here are our wild guesses well-researched and intelligent predictions for Apple in 2010. Enjoy 'em, and from all of us at TUAW, have a safe and happy New Year's Eve and Day. Steve Sande Big DUH! The Apple Tablet arrives. There are way too many hints flying around the blogosphere for this to be a non-product for another year. It's gotta happen! The Apple TV disappears from the Apple lineup. I hates it, I does. It just doesn't seem like an Apple product. iPhone moves to multiple US carriers, but not Verizon. Why? Wrong network for a world (read GSM) phone, and I think Apple is probably irritated with Verizon's Droid and their advertising. Apple closes some low-producing Apple Stores. The economy is still bad, and there have to be some locations with stores that aren't pulling their weight. Apple buys Dropbox, BackBlaze, and Evernote, makes MobileMe useful. Dropbox for better and faster folder syncing between devices, BackBlaze for external backups to the cloud, Evernote just because it's cool. Add 'em all together and what do you have? Something that's really worth paying $99 a year for. Apple definitely has the cash to buy these services. The Apple TV reappears in the Apple lineup as a high-quality autostereoscopic 3DTV with TiVo, Slingbox, and Boxee functionality built in. I can dream, can't I? Erica Sadun I'm hoping this will be the year of the tablet. Of course, I've been anticipating the year of the tablet since, oh say, around 1993 or so. Apple's future isn't about the hardware though, and it's not about their OS line: it's about their ability to deliver media. I'm thinking "iTunes gone large". Apple's Lala acquisiition, rumored TV deals, and possible textbook distribution agreements point to a renewed focus on content delivery devices. Admittedly, Apple TV has never really evolved into its promise, perhaps due to areas into which Apple was not able to expand due to licensing deals with companies with Cable/Broadband interests but the iPhone has gone above and beyond in the media realm. So do I see a tablet (or a line of tablet devices) as a natural extension of the Apple content store? Absolutely. Will we see it this year? Possibly. Will it be early this year? Hard to say. Ask me again in a month. Michael Rose The tablet, yes, there will be one, it will be spectacular, and about three months after introduction it will drop in price by $200. People who bought the original version would be annoyed except they're so giddy from having had a piece of the future in their knapsacks for three months. We'll see Apple get serious about cloud services by buying a company that's doing online storage right (Dropbox guys, don't make your numbers unlisted) and creating a capability that will actually rival some of the more effective platforms out there. Apple needs a Microsoft Mesh-like solution to really unlock the portable power of its devices. Then again, the tablet. 2010 will be the year that hackintoshes become more than a distraction and a legal burden. The Psystar battle shows that Apple knows there's risk, and sooner or later the netbooks-on-OS-X market will collide with the business realities of Apple's day to day operations. Then again, the tablet. We'll see a secondary carrier for the iPhone in the US (yay!). It will not be Verizon (darn!), it will be T-Mobile. The Verizon iPhone is a 2011 phenomenon, but by then the prevalence of portable Wi-Fi and VoIP solutions for mobile will start to scratch away at the cellphone market's power. Then again, the tablet. Mac OS X 10.7 will return us to 'new features' land; we'll learn about it at WWDC and see it by 2011. Mel Martin There will be a tablet. Even though Steve Jobs said Apple wasn't working on one, remember he also denied the iPhone was coming for a long time too. There seems to be a crescendo of stories about the tablet (i-Slate, i-Pad, whatever) and that's a pretty good indication something is on the way. Changes to MobileMe. Maybe cheaper, certainly some new features. The system has come a long way, but it can hardly be called reliable, and I think for the money it needs more features and/or a lower price. The notification system could use some improving as well. When things go down it seems to take an awfully long time for Apple support to post something about it. A new AppleTV. I think something is likely, something beyond the current hardware/software. I like my AppleTV, but it is still feature poor and very limited in sources for video. Apple should get something a bit more interesting out, or hang this product out to dry. Blu-ray. Originally Apple was a big proponent of this hi-rez video disc. Now, not so much. I expect Apple will have to start adding Blu-ray to desktops and laptops, maybe even to the AppleTV. Sure there have been some licensing cost issues, but others are getting past it and offering it on windows based hardware. Come on Apple, get with it. Apple will get 'Back to my Mac' working. It was a highly touted feature of MobileMe, but for a large population of Mac users, it simply doesn't work. Hard to get excited about a feature I pay for and can't use. Other applications seem to be able to solve these router and security issues. Back to my Mac should just work. A new iPhone. The easiest prediction of all to make. They seem to come out like clockwork, and force many of us to ditch our older models and re-up with our favorite carrier. Speaking of favorite carriers, I think Apple will finally end AT&T exclusivity. Apple's image has taken a beating over AT&T service and support. The world's best smartphone shouldn't be stuck on the world's worst network. I think Apple will change this. Apple market share will continue to increase. Apple users are generally happy users, and Apple users tend to be evangelical about their experiences. In both the U.S., and around the globe, I expect Apple to increase share of laptops, desktops, iPhones and following on that, OS share. Apple will move more services to the 'cloud'. MobileMe is certainly there, iWork looks like it is heading that direction as well. Microsoft and Google have ambitious cloud-based designs, so it's an easy prediction, and a likely outcome. Most predictions will be wrong. There's something about predicting the future. Things take unexpected turns and don't come out exactly as planned. The film '2001' is really dated, and 'Space 1999', well, it looks pretty silly today. My favorite bad prediction? The GM produced film [YouTube Video link] done for the 1939 World's Fair that predicted the sixties. My, what a miss. Michael Grothaus The iPod classic will be no more. By September 2010 the iPod touch will have a max capacity of 128GB, making the iPod classic look archaic and redundant. The iPod lineup will solely consist of 'iPod touch' and 'iPod' - the former 'iPod nano' that maxes out at 32GB. The iSlate is announced in January, followed by a mid-year product launch. The iSlate will make the iPhone look 2005. It will have multi-touch on front and back of the device. Sometime during the year there will be an interesting anecdote about Steve Jobs showing the iSlate to a famous industrial designer (no, not Johnny Ive) this past December whom Jobs then attempted to call a cab for when the designer was leaving Jobs' "modest" home. The industrial designer will tell how Jobs, the most creative tech genius on the planet, had trouble calling a cab from his home phone. Apple (AAPL) stock will hit $300 a share and the stock will do a 2-for-1 split. The iPhone will be the #1 smartphone in the world by a wide margin by December 2010. Blackberry will be #2, and the Google Phone will be a distant third. Palm isn't even a blip on the radar. 'The iSlate will bomb.' Or so will say numerous tech CEOs who will bemoan its 'limited appeal'. They will all be wrong. And though the iSlate won't kill it until 2011, the Kindle will be handed its hat at the door in 2010. Apple will partner with Visa and Mastercard for turning your iPhone into a swipe credit card using the 4th gen iPhone's RFID chip. iLife 2010 will replace iDVD with 'iLP'. iLP will allow users to easily created iTunes LP albums which they can instantly upload to MobileMe for download onto their friends and families new AppleTVs. The new AppleTV will have the cable companies quaking in their pants. Steve Jobs wants to do for the broadcast industry what he did for the music, movie, mobile, and publishing industries. 32" LED Cinema Display. iPhone: Two more US carriers, one of them Verizon. OLED screen and new industrial design that takes lessons from the iSlate. iPhone OS 4.0. Expect to see a multi-touch surface on the iPhone that is not part of the screen. iTunes Store: another late-year redesign to help facilitate making app search easier. Tabbed browsing. Apps top 200,000. Mike Schramm I think we'll finally see the iTablet this year, but it'll be much closer to an iPhone or a Kindle than a traditional tablet computer, with complete App Store integration and a relatively limited UI. The iPhone will finally be released to multiple carriers, T-Mobile first among them. And Apple will focus on cloud services -- they'll host your music and documents online whenever you want them, accessible from all your Apple devices and/or Apple software. What, those aren't out-on-a-limb enough for you? The Mac Pro will get a major update, possibly even a rebranding. The Apple TV will start running App Store apps. And the iPod touch will finally get a camera. Victor Agreda, Jr. Apparently the tablet is a forgone conclusion, so I'll just say that the tablet is just the beginning... I predict that Apple's tablet move will nearly cement its reign in the digital home of tomorrow. Apple will begin partnering with companies such as LG, KitchenAid and others to bring integration into the kitchen, the spare room, etc. The tablet ecosystem and 3rd-party markets will soon resemble the iPod ecosystems from just a few years ago. Remember the iPod dock with built-in toilet paper dispenser? Prepare yourself for a mirror with enough transparency so you can shave AND read your iTablet at the same time. Apple will also spend 2010 getting into the cloud like never before. iWork, iTunes and iLife will be the first to get online application, further hooks and functionality. But at WWDC Apple will announce 10.7 and some "really amazing" features that leverage the power of the internet with the power of their OS. Online backups? Yes, and probably something new and a little bit innovative to deal with what is now at least a decade for many of us with digital cameras... You didn't think iPhoto's crappy behavior when confronted by huge libraries would go on forever, did you? Speaking of data management, depending on which winds the wireless ones blow, Apple may tie ever more services from app makers to its own cloudy ambitions. Look for some ad-fueled functionality to be provided free to tablet and iPhone users, and for announcements regarding iPhone on other networks... Plus look for some needed upgrades to the iPhone OS itself. Apple isn't dumb enough to ignore the jailbreak community and many of the awesome, time-saving tweaks found there. PogoPlank is one example and Stacks is another. Why can't I see the weather without unlocking my phone? Fixing things like this will put an end to some of the "Droid Does" nonsense.TUAWTUAW bloggers post their Apple predictions for 2010 originally appeared on The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) on Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.Permalink|Email this|Comments Apple - Steve Jobs - Microsoft - Apple Store - Apple Tablet

  • 10 Things that Apple Could Unveil Tomorrow (That's Not a Tablet)

    As everyone in the free world knows by now, Apple made its January 27 media event a reality at long last, complete with invites to the press. That means we’ve all been spending the days leading up the event like a bunch of kids waiting for Santa to fly down the chimney on Christmas, speculating on what wonderment our Techno-Santa (that would be Apple CEO Steve Jobs) will unveil. MacLife.com would like to take a moment to throw out our own list of possibilities -- some more realistic than others, naturally, but that’s half the fun.iPhone OS 4.0It’s been quite awhile (in tech time) since Apple rolled out the modest iPhone OS 3.1.2 update -- so much time that folks much wiser than us have predicted that iPhone OS 4.0 must be right around the bend. The logic behind such assumptions is that the refreshed OS contains too much code that will spill the beans on Apple’s aforementioned tablet, and therefore the company has boxed itself into a corner by having to wait and introduce them both together.Of course, all of that assumes that Apple even plans to use iPhone OS for its tablet, essentially turning it into a larger, souped-up iPod touch instead of allowing it to run a full (or even pared down) version of Mac OS X Snow Leopard 10.6. For the past two years, Apple has waited until March to unleash iPhone OS updates to developers via their SDK, with a proper release coming closer to early summer when the new hardware is ready. But plenty of folks are placing bets that this third year will buck that trend, especially after the recent leak of a screenshot claiming to show a device using iPhone OS 4.0. Among the rumored features are some graphical and UI changes, new ways to run applications in the background (we’re guessing that means a form of multitasking) and even new syncing abilities for contacts & calendars.We’d venture a guess that won’t be all that iPhone OS 4.0 has in store for us: Our wish list includes improved push notifications (preferably a solution to the problem of only one being displayed at a time), a more efficient home screen and hey, while we’re at it, isn’t it about time for the ability to wirelessly sync media between iTunes and our devices? There are plenty of occasions where the dock connector umbilical cord makes sense (for instance, when you need to get a battery charge while you sync), but really, it’s 2010 already. Wireless is where it’s at!Bonus points to Apple if they give us push e-mail on any account (even the Palm Pre can do it!) and maybe 720p HD video recording -- the iPhone 3GS hardware has already shown it's capable of doing it, so why not enable it?New MacBook ProsWe realize there’s only so much Apple can do with the notebook form at this point, and they’ve made some good choices, such as the unibody designs of late. But a peek over at the world of Windows-equipped laptops shows that those folks are really working overtime to pile on the features, and they generally do it for a whole lot less than Apple’s notebooks.There are already standing rumors that the MacBook Pro is going to get a nice speed bump -- courtesy of Intel’s latest Core i5 processor -- while retaining current battery life. That would be welcome, but what about a Blu-ray enabled SuperDrive so we can watch HD discs on the go -- and of course, have the ability to burn them as well. PC laptops have been doing that almost forever (okay, a couple years now), while Apple continues to tiptoe around the fact that the world isn’t quite ready to totally abandon optical media in favor of iTunes downloads. (That’s the real “bag of hurt,” if you ask us.)So, we say: Apple, bring on some real innovation with these laptops again! If you’re really going to sell us on a multitouch tablet computer, why not add the same technology to the MacBook Pro so we have the best of both worlds? Or better yet, give us some of that sweet swivel-screen action like HP has done, so your notebooks can actually double as a tablet? We figure while you’re at it, it’s also time to make the iSight camera part of the actual screen, so you can extend the screen real estate all the way to the edges, too.And hey, bring back those Firewire and ExpressCard ports! What’s with this Van Helsing routine, trying to put a stake through the heart of your own Firewire innovation?! Sure, an SD card slot would have been nice a few years ago, but true MacBook “pros” would get better use out of those ports, especially for digital video & audio use.iLife ‘10The 2009 edition of iLife added some welcome new features, particularly with iPhoto and the inclusion of Faces, Places and Facebook integration. But some components of the software got less love than others -- primarily iDVD, which, like its pro cousin DVD Studio Pro, appears to be on the outs with Apple.Rumors abound that iDVD will gain some new tricks with the next iLife release, such as the ability to create iTunes LP media. Color us not so impressed. For starters, it’s downright silly in this day & age that the program can’t burn Blu-ray discs in addition to DVDs, especially as hard as Apple has pushed the whole “create your own HD content” with iMovie.Perhaps our biggest wish for iLife ‘10 is less on new features and more on speed: All of the components in the iLife bundle have a lot of old legacy code (and lack 64-bit optimization), which makes them sluggish at best. What’s the point of ramping up the processor speeds in their systems when these aging products can barely keep up?iTunes 10Please oh please, Apple gods: Hear our pathetic cries for a near-total revamp of iTunes! For all of its joys -- such as the iTunes Store and pretty decent media management (at least for music & apps) -- iTunes is an old dog that’s ready to be put out of its misery. It’s slow to open, frequently sluggish to scroll through windows and as we mentioned above, enough with the tethered syncing already. MobileMe wireless syncing for contacts & calendars is already a year and a half old, and it’s just made us want to sync our media the same way even more (at least for photos, music & apps).It’s sort of embarrassing that iTunes opens faster and runs more efficiently on Windows than it does under even Mac OS X Snow Leopard 10.6 -- shame on you, Apple. (No wonder it was recently ranked number 46 on Forrester’s Consumer Experience Index.) There’s already speculation that Apple’s recent acquisition of Lala will push more of iTunes to the cloud -- we’re not big fans of that idea overall, unless it allows us to also keep our media on our computers at the same time (again, at least the smaller files such as photos, music & apps).iTunes is yet another Apple innovation that’s become a bit long in the tooth -- despite recent updates that have introduced features like Genius (which ultimately benefits Apple more than the user with their paid music suggestions), it’s taken way too long for truly inspired additions like the ability to manipulate the iPhone & iPod touch home screen from the app itself.Our biggest wish for iTunes 10 is to soup up the movies, television and, to a lesser degree, music video aspects of the program. Even with enormous hard drives in our computers, who wants to store gigantic HD video files inside their iTunes library? It’s like a noose around our necks. Apple needs to take a cue from Netflix here, with their excellent streaming video service to all kinds of content boxes -- or at the very least, make the downloading part of the equation at our discretion, particularly for times like traveling where Internet access may be spotty or simply unavailable. There will always be times when you want a TV show episode on your iPhone for when you’re traveling without data access. Freedom of choice, we say!MacPad (iPad?)There have been rampant rumors of late that Apple is trying to seize upon a trademark for the term “iPad,” which many tech bloggers are translating to mean that Cupertino intends to use it as the name of their tablet computer. But what if it was actually going to be a super-groovy combination of Magic Mouse and MacBook-style trackpad that could attach to any Mac via Bluetooth (or at the very least, USB 2.0)?The Magic Mouse was released last fall to plenty of anticipation, but if you ask us, it fell way short by delivering such a lackluster amount of multitouch fun. Sure, the third party developers have since stepped in with a multitude of choices to soup up the Magic Mouse, but we’re still left itching for more.We prefer to call it the “MacPad,” which is essentially a mouse replacement for your desktop that replicates a Mac notebook trackpad, complete with awesome multi-finger gestures assignable to most any task.You’ll recall, of course, that such technology once existed for the Mac courtesy of a small company called Fingerworks, who was subsequently purchased by Apple. Their website recently shut down after years of remaining live, leading many to speculate that Fingerworks technology will finally be implemented in the Apple tablet -- but we’d like to see it land in a small external pad that works with any Mac. Is that too much to ask? (Fingerworks image courtesy of MacRumors.com)Apple TV ReduxDon’t get us wrong: There’s nothing inherently wrong with Apple TV, especially if you buy into the entire iTunes ecosystem. But the mere fact that so many people buy the device with the intention of using ATV Flash or other methods to hack them should tell Apple something.That “something” is that they want more content choices besides the iTunes Store and YouTube. XBMC and Boxee are both widely used on hacked Apple TVs in order for users to watch their own home-brewed content -- be it ripped from their DVD collection or acquired by “other means.” (We wouldn’t endorse nor have any knowledge of that, however.) Netflix has made great strides to latch onto every conceivable kind of hardware with their streaming service (now including all three major gaming systems), yet it remains closed to Apple TV for the most obvious of reasons -- Apple’s greed (or rather, arrogance that the iTunes Store and its “pay per download” model is the best way).Expecting a new Apple TV may seem like a wildcard, but let’s not forget that the device hasn’t really, truly been refreshed in a looong time. It’s still running Tiger 10.4 Mac OS X, for God’s sake! Apple clearly wants to capture the living room and they’ve acknowledged that their first try didn’t quite cut it -- even dismissing the Apple TV as a “hobby” to the press. Entrenching themselves into customers’ living rooms should almost be a higher priority than that silly old tablet, we say.Macquarium, Featuring iFish OSSpeaking of the living room, messy aquariums and accidentally overfeeding your aquatic pets will soon become a thing of the past, thanks to Apple’s latest home entertainment wonder, Macquarium. If you’ve enjoyed the multitouch fun of the 99-cent App Store favorite Koi Pond, prepare to have Apple totally blow your mind with the first completely computer-driven fish tank -- no water required!Imagine a razor-thin, Jonathan Ive-designed, holographic fish tank that’s totally customizable thanks to its pared-down Mac OS X Snow Leopard 10.6 software interface. Fill Macquarium’s virtual tank with a wide variety of default "iFish" personally hand-picked by Steve Jobs himself, or use the included OceanMe software to customize the defaults and even create your own new fish -- whether they exist in real life or not! Of course, for the less-ambitious among us, additional fish will also be made available at the iFish Store, a new virtual market included as a feature of iTunes 10, with an SDK immediately available for download to all potential iFish OS developers.Of course, Macquarium includes accelerometers to allow your fish tank to stand vertically or horizontally (let’s see your real fish tank do that!) and the multitouch screen includes a new “multi-dimensional” feature that allows you to actually reach inside the device to play with or feed your iFish, all without ever getting wet. Amuse your friends by bumping the side of the tank and watch those iFish come running at chow time!Macquarium features a Mini DisplayPort jack so you can plug in your Apple laptop or desktop and use it as a convenient computer display when not in use, and includes a wireless 802.11 b/g/n network connection to sync with your iFish Store purchases. (Mac G4 Cube fish tank mod image courtesy of WalYou.com)iRumors.apple.comIn an effort to single-handedly kill the rumor-blogging community that’s made their products such a hit in the past, Apple Inc. will finally announce next week that they’re going public with all of their ideas under one easy-to-find shingle -- the ultimate “one more thing” for Apple CEO Steve Jobs.The Cupertino tech giant, finally backed into a corner by the Internet’s incessant digging for juicy trade secret nuggets to expose to the world prior to the launch of the Apple tablet, will launch the subdomain iRumors.apple.com as part of their strategy to give away all of their best (and worst!) future ideas, far in advance of the actual product launch and at long last, finally knock the wind out of our sails for all Apple events to come.Apple had “no comment” regarding speculation that unemployment lines would be overloaded with former tech journalists & bloggers as a result of next week’s move.iBabySure, Apple might have dropped “Computer” from their name back in 2007, but that doesn’t mean that a lifelike, computerized baby wouldn’t be in the cards. After all, in these tough economic times, both parents have to work just to eke out a living, so who has time for making babies the old-fashioned way? Enter Apple’s new iBaby.Your iBaby’s multitouch faux flesh will be perfect for tickling or stroking their lifelike hair, arriving complete with a pair of swanky new super-fast USB 3.0 ports for feeding your simulated baby with all the knowledge & dreams a real child would one day fail to retain (sorry, no Firewire here!). Also included is Mini DisplayPort for plugging iBaby into an external monitor (ideal for monitoring dreams and other brain activity that would cost thousands of dollars in real life) and of course, a standard headphone jack (which also doubles as an optical audio output) so you can enjoy your iPod playlists from the comfort of your stereo speakers. Of course, a Mute button comes standard with every iBaby, a must for all first-time parents.iBaby’s chest will include an iPhone/iPod dock connection built-in, so you can keep up with the latest news, sports scores and information while you rock your little bionic tot to sleep -- and if the charming lil’ tike won’t go to sleep on their own, you always have the easy Sleep menu option that you’ve come to know & love in Mac OS X to simply knock that sucker right out.Best of all, iBaby’s sleek unibody design has the option of giving a Steve Jobsian “Boom!” to take the guesswork out of those messy diaper changes, and the whole thing will run the latest & greatest Mac OS X Snow Leopard 10.6. Available as either male or female in Caucasian, African-American and Chinese models (with other races arriving in time for the holiday season in Q3 2010), your iBaby can easily swap personalities with a simple trip to the iTunes Store -- a handful of new ones will be available for only 99 cents each when the product hits stores in March.Apple AirAs if to hammer home the point that Apple fanatics will buy virtually anything the company makes and love it unconditionally, Steve Jobs will announce a tiny clear plastic box next week, similar to the current diminutive casing that the iPod nano comes in. The contents of this package will make even the iPod shuffle look positively obese.Called “Apple Air,” the packaging will contain absolutely nothing, save for the nitrogen and oxygen (aka, air) exhaled in the hallowed halls of the Apple Cupertino campus. The company will offer a variety of different Apple Air models, each indicated by the iPod nano-style color scheme of the packaging: One color for Steve Jobs’ office, another for the reception area, different colors for both Phil Schiller and Jonathan Ive’s offices -- the possibilities are endless.Prices will start at $199 with the equivalent of 8GB of air space. Remember, you heard it here first!*****Did we miss anything that you’d like to see? Make your own predictions heard in the comments!

  • BBC Prints Irresponsible Rubbish on Apple

    Daniel Eran DilgerThe BBC has joined the London tabloid press in printing a series of articles skewering Apple over invented suppositions based entirely upon misinformed speculation and some outright lies. The worst part is that the BBC is being grossly hypocritical in its misinformation campaign against Apple, because the company is up to its eyeballs in the Microsoft-encrusted scandal surrounding its proprietary, Windows-only iPlayer imbroglio.[UK Tabloids Pick Up Zoon Awards for Technical Incompetence]Beyond Spin: Bill Thompson Wades Through BBC Hypocrisy to Spread False Information.It's bad enough that the BBC needs to bend facts to support fear, uncertainty and doubt about the iPhone. Now consider that the BBC--as a public corporation funded by British TV license taxes--is building its web video strategy on failed, proprietary technology propped up by an internationally convicted monopolist. At the same time, its publishing a uninformed rant based on speculation and conjecture that accuses Apple of doing things that approach the gravity of its own activities.This hypocrisy slows from the words of Bill Thompson, who followed the crowd in reporting that Microsoft's failed appeal in its EU monopoly case says less about Microsoft's established, anticompetitive practices spanning the last thirty years than it does about Apple's iPod popularity over the last five. Thompson weeps for Microsoft because "its every move is examined for evidence that it might be making life difficult for its rivals," while noting that "some of its competitors seem to get a very easy ride." One might expect the BBC to make excuses for the crimes of its iPlayer partner as it giggly walks lockstep with Microsoft in using the company’s proprietary and Windows-only DRM for video distribution of its publicly funded content.[BBC's iPlayer's Prospects Looking Bleak - Slashdot]Thompson's Specious Attack on Apple."The best example of this [easy ride] is Apple," Thompson announced, because the company got so much coverage for the iPhone despite it being "closed, locked down and restricted." Actually that's not a good example at all, because Apple doesn't have a market monopoly in mobiles. Apple has also never been convicted of monopolistic behaviors in the UK, the EU, or the US because it doesn't have a monopoly and doesn’t act to stop competition the way Microsoft has. Thompson admits that the iPhone doesn't leverage monopoly control among mobiles, but says "the situation is very different" in the area of music players and music downloads. What is this very different situation?"Apple has spent much time trying to ensure that anyone who buys an iPod is completely locked in to an Apple-centred world," Thompson wrote, "in which they use iTunes, buy from the iTunes Music Store, purchase only Apple-certified iPod accessories and, ideally, abandon their plans to migrate from Windows XP to Vista and instead purchase a shiny new iMac." Yes, Apple does want to sell Macs and serve its customers. However, it's simply a lie to say that iPod users are "locked into" anything, let alone being harmed by not being able to migrate to Vista, which Apple actually supports on the iPod and iTunes.Users are not locked into iTunes Music Store purchases; recall that the wags like to point out that a tiny minority of the music on iPods is purchased from iTunes and the vast majority comes from ripped CDs. Purchased tracks from iTunes can also be effortlessly burned to CD for use other other players, following the most liberal and open fair use rights in the industry. Thompson simply lied.
Saying that iPod users are locked into Apple-certified iPod accessories is also not true at all. Apple tries to earn licensing revenue from putting a "made for iPod" logo on devices in the same way Nintendo puts its "seal of approval" on its games, but anyone can deliver iPod accessories, and there's no way for Apple to stop headphones and boomboxes from working with the iPod. Thompson lied again.
His first idea was that iPod users are locked into iTunes. Yes, Apple sets up a system that's easy to use out of the box, but users aren't forced to use it. The iPod can be used with a variety of other applications, or even wiped clean and used with completely alternative firmware like RockBox. Again, Thompson just lied.[Time for Apple to face the music? - BBC NEWS]Thompson Lies Some More: Ringtones.In order to jump from lying about the iPod with generalities and get into specifics, Thompson announced, "the recent launch of the new range of iPods, including the video Nano and the iPod Touch, has shown just how far Apple is willing to go to make life difficult for its users in order to shore up its dominant position in the market for music players and downloads." He backed up his claim by browsing for some sensationalist headlines, doing zero fact checking, and then printing his findings with an enraptured spin that is simply shameful hypocrisy coming from anyone working for the BBC.First, Thompson complains, Apple now sells ringtones and doesn't support homebrew attempts to copy ringtones to the iPhone. Yes, this is unfortunate. Users shouldn't face limitations from using their own song clips, and they shouldn't have to pay extra to carve out a ringtone from songs they purchased or already own. However, this isn't entirely Apple's decision because it has to answer to the labels. It's not illegal, and it has nothing to do with anticompetitive monopoly dominance of the music industry. It's really the opposite: an opportunity for rivals to compete against the iPhone by offering a nicer way to play "My Humps" when their phones ring. So far, the US ringtone industry revolves around $2.50 - $3.00 clips that expire after several months. Thompson lied with a half story and a false premise that do nothing to support the idea that Apple has a monopoly.[Apple's iTunes Ringtones and the Complex World of Copyright Law]Thompsons Lies Some More: Video Output.His second proof that Apple is "shoring up its dominant position" is that "it seems that the new generation of iPods will not output video through cables or docks that aren't Apple authorized and have a specific 'authentication' chip." It seems? Why doesn't Thompson point out that he read some high pitched conspiracy theory about why older cables and docks don't work with the new models, and is presenting it as a proof of anticompetitive, monopolist behavior without even checking the claim out?The reality is that all the new iPods continue to support the same docks as they did, but their video output has changed due to using different hardware. The Nano and Classic continue to work with old docks and cables, while the Touch and the iPhone will require a new dock connector cable because they now output both composite and component video. They work differently; no conspiracy, no spy authentication chips. The iPhone and the latest generation of iPods will work via a dock connector cable without a dock unit, so there's no chip involved. Even if there were, it would not be illegal for Apple to sell proprietary cables such as those that come with the Xbox, the Zune, the Palm Pilot, and most every music player and mobile phone on the market. The only difference is that Apple has kept its dock connector the same over the last several years so that iPod customers can reuse their old cables. Even if Thompson doesn't understand the issues and didn't bother to look into it, presenting false information as facts to support an idea that they do not support is still a lie. [An in-depth iPod Touch review: Video output differences - AppleInsider]Thompsons Lies Some More: Linux Music Management."The nastiest little change is to the iTunes library itself," Thompson wrote. Apple made minor changes to the metadata database used on the iPod. When this change broke unauthorized music management software, some Linux advocates announced press releases saying Apple was persecuting them and trampling their rights to use the iPod. It turned out that the outcry was simply overwrought, and that a fix was easy to deliver. What Apple had really done was improve how the iPod stores its data so that it would be less susceptible to file corruption. Apple doesn't officially support the small minority of people who use the iPod with Linux or alternatives to iTunes on other platforms, so it bears no accountability for fixing their homebrew software when it makes changes to its products. It might be valid to complain that Apple should offer such support, but ignoring Linux has no relationship to establishing a monopoly or market dominance. If Apple was offering a locked in, anti-consumer product, it wouldn't have open source users buying its product in the first place. Unlike the Xbox and Zune, Apple doesn't stop users from installing Linux or RockBox on their iPods, a difference Thompson can’t seem to grasp. Thompson admitted that Apple "will not limit copying or restrict attempts to strip digital rights management code from tracks" and "will not stop people adding non-DRM files they have downloaded from the internet to their library," but then jumped at the opportunity to speculate that Apple is shutting out Linux users, as if Apple would prefer Linux users to either install Windows or buy a music player elsewhere. Which scenario helps Apple "maintain music dominance?" It's an inane argument.Irresponsible Open Source Mouths.Remember when the EFF irresponsibly announced its speculation that Apple was stuffing megabytes of personal information into iTunes tracks? It later recanted, but didn't apologize for the false accusation. The fact that open source advocates are quick to fire out accusations but commonly shrug off any accountability for what they say makes their comments very hard to take seriously. Thompson's uncritical, uninformed parroting of such accusations is not only stomach churning, but egregious given the BBC's wholehearted support for a video distribution system that unilaterally forces people to use Windows to access content that is not available elsewhere, as iTunes music is.Thompson keeps going, castigating Apple for stopping Real from selling its own flavor of DRM that promised support for the iPod, and impugning Apple for supposedly having "business practices do not stand up to scrutiny." Thompson added, "when it comes to music downloads it [Apple] is just as bad as Microsoft on servers."Oh really? Do you have to pay Apple client access licenses for the right to connect your iPod to iTunes or to access the Music Store? Does your music die after three plays or three days? Do you have no choice in the market for MP3 players apart from devices that run the iPod firmware or use Apple’s iTunes software? Equating Apple with Microsoft would be foolish for anyone to do, let alone some misinformed, generalizing, sensationalist wag writing for a public corporation that ties its video downloads to Microsoft's Windows-only DRM.Thompson's Faulty Conclusion to a Shoddy Article.The great model of interoperability, Thompson points out, is Microsoft's PowerPoint. That's because Apple was able to deliver Keynote with PowerPoint compatibility. "Apple can sell Keynote because it took PowerPoint apart and figured out how the files work," Thompson explained.Perhaps Thompson doesn't get it: Apple's ability to maintain compatibility with PowerPoint is just as tenuous as Linux users' ability to make iTunes-compatible song management software for the iPod. Microsoft doesn't support standards in PowerPoint. It uses a crufty, weird, undocumented, proprietary format that changes with every release. That's why the industry is aligning behind Open Document as an international standard, and why Microsoft stuffed ballots in Cuba, Azerbaijan, and Sweden to fast track the establishment of its own proprietary formats as a false "standard" without having to answer the concerns of worldwide standards organizations who overwhelmingly determined that Microsoft's OOXML format was problematic and technically inferior.Oblivious to all this, Thompson announced, "had Apple been unable to do so [reverse engineer the proprietary PowerPoint format], or found that every time it figured out what was happening Microsoft changed the format, it would have complained loudly." Apparently Thompson has been paying no attention to technology over the last two decades as the world community has complained about Microsoft's doing just that.[Office Wars 3 - How Microsoft Got Its Office Monopoly][Office Wars 4 - Microsoft’s Assault on Lotus, IBM][Myth 4: The iTunes Monopoly Myth]The reason Microsoft was on trial in the EU dates back to complaints filed in 1998. The independent US monopoly trial followed up on earlier complaints from the FTC and Department of Justice. Similar complaints haven't ever been filed about Apple's iPod business, but rather only about the arcane, territorial pricing of music established by the big labels, most of whom are owned and managed by European companies.The EU certainly should fix the problems of the music business in its countries, and demand fair use provisions from music and media providers. However, trying to spin the complex situation off as proof that Apple is anything like Microsoft is not only disingenuous, it's an outright lie. Using a bunch of half-baked, ignorant web rumors to support a position that Apple should just allow anything and everything is also dishonest. Doing all of this speciously false complaining while standing on the Microsoft-enamored soapbox of the BBC just makes Thompson look even more incompetent and clueless about the reality around him. What do you think? I really like to hear from readers. Comment in the Forum or email me with your ideas. Like reading RoughlyDrafted? Share articles with your friends, link from your blog, and subscribe to my podcast! Submit to Reddit or Slashdot, or consider making a small donation supporting this site. Thanks!

  • Macworld 2010 special iPad event liveblog

    Filed under: Macworld, Hardware, Blogging, iPad We are live from the floor of Macworld 2010, where they're be talking about the iPad in a special event feature Jason Snell, Macworld editor-in-chief, and a panel of industry experts. We have heard that won't be an actual iPad on the show floor, so it's not clear whether we'll get to see the device, but we will hear commentary and insight on what the iPad means for Apple and the world at large. After the break, find an updating liveblog of the event as it happens, straight from Moscone Center in San Francisco.2:04PM Ted: I would like to see 1) if there will be iPhone OS changes brought back from the iPad, and what hidden features we'll see there. And 2) what options are available for printing. Dan: Can I use it as a phone? Or a camera? (laughter) No, when we saw it, we said, the screen looks kind of empty, doesn't it? You can put about six apps in the dock, so I think we'll see a newer design for the homescreen, something that takes more advantage of the extra space. Something more appropriate for the product rather than just a large iPhone.2:02PM Jason: Frasier Spiers said do you realize how amazing this will be in education? And yes, you'll see a real change there. One last question: what is your biggest unanswered question about the iPad?2:01PM Andy: It will lend credibility to the idea of computing via tablet, and Android and others will follow that path in another year or so as well. It'll finally break us free from the "type on this, look at this" paradigm we've been stuck with.2:00PM Andy: We'll also see a halo effect. Star Wars didn't invent the sci-fi movie, but it showed that sci-fi wasn't the problem, bad movies were. So tablets aren't the problem, bad tablets are, and the iPad will remind people of that.2:00PM Andy: iPad won't be a big hit until 2011 -- it will take a while after the people in this room buy them to show them off to the normal civilian, and the next time they need a portable computer, they'll remember the iPad they saw on the airplane or in the classroom.1:59PM Ted: I also think we'll be surprised. Third-party developers will surprise us. Jason: Right, apps are front and center on iPad, and we only had web apps when the iPhone came out. Andy: I don't believe that tablets have been tried and failed, I don't believe they've ever been tried. No tablet I've seen compares to the iPad -- tablets I've seen are a desktop computer in tablet form, the iPad is an actual tablet.1:58PM Ted: This is also the ultimate remote control. We'll see it controlling a more digital home in the next few years, and the iPad is the way to control it. Turn on stereo, run lights, control thermostat, the iPad is made for that.1:57PM Jason: What about people who use only a fraction of a computer -- only email or only web browsing? Ryan: Sure, it's fine if netbooks get assassinated by the iPad -- around the house computer. But it's still not going to take the place of productivity or when I need to go on the road. In addition to, but not a replacement for. Ted: Agreed, around the house computer instead of a laptop. I'm optimistic about the long-term as well -- it's not there today, but things will change. Majority of people with a computer today don't really utilize it to the full extent, and the iPad will satisfy those folks.1:55PM Ryan: I'm not so sure -- you need feedback, you need tactility, you can type fast because you need the keys and you need to know where they are. Apple did release a keyboard dock -- the tech may change, but we're not there now, and it's going to be a while before we abandon the keyboard or the traditional computer. Steve even acknowledged that it was an in-between device.1:54PM Dan: Younger people will be the one to watch. When this becomes an option, will people not bother to learn or use the traditional mouse and keyboard? We're used to it, but if you look at someone learning, you realize the challenges behind the mouse and the cursor and the traditional interface. There's a huge disconnect, and especially for kids, we'll have to see if they prefer the iPad to the exclusion of traditional computing. Their intial reaction is to touch.. which is why you don't take them to museums (laughter). When kids grow up with this, will they wonder what's wrong with us for using archaic keyboards and mice?1:52PM Jason: Time to talk about the future. What impact will the iPad have in the next five years? What about the tablet market? MS said a while ago that tablets were the future, and they're a flop so far, basically. Will we see a significant change in tablet computing or how we use them?1:52PM Jason: Some people don't mind reading on screens like the iPad, some people do. There will be options no matter what. Kindle is for reading books, iPad has more functionality. Please no, Amazon, put in an API for apps -- its strength is reading books. Ted: Will you feel that way when you have to carry two devices? Dan: I still carry an iPhone and an iPod, but then again I'm really strange.1:50PM Andy: We already have an iPad nano, it's the iPhone. If you want something with less or more functionality, you've got choices.1:50PM Dan: They can totally coexist, just like the original iPod was still around after the iPod touch. The iPad won't kill the Kindle any more than the Kindle killed the book.1:50PM Andy: The $500 price point is now radioactive if you're an ereader. But you can do very well at a lower price point. Ted: I also think there will be a cheaper iPad, just as the iPhone dropped in price after it came out. Jason: I can see a day when the Kindle is free. Ryan: Absolutely. That's the future of Amazon's business model. It's not going away.1:48PM Ryan: The question is: are you going to want to read on the iPad. Comic books make a ton of sense, but I didn't want to read a book on the iPad -- too bright, colors too vivid, I feel like the contrast on the Kindle is better for certain reading. Books will still be best read on e-Ink. Jason: I agree that even with the iPad, there's a future for something like the kindle or a more traditional ereader. Ted: I've read books on my iPhone and it's not painful by any means. I think from a price perspective, the Kindle is a hard sell. Dan: Ha, well the large Kindle is a bad investment anyway.1:46PM Dan: Bookstore wasn't even active in the iPads we used -- the icon was there, but it didn't work, we haven't even seen it yet. Jason: A Kindle app for the iPad will be interesting, too. Comic books, thanks for mentioning those, because comics on the iPad's bigger screen will be a big deal.1:45PM Andy: I'm co-authoring an app that will work as my printing press -- once the press gets built, then it's just making the content. There's always an outlet, as opposed to a third-party where you have to wait for approval.1:44PM Andy: Application-based content is here to stay -- designing your own app can help you release content your own way. Jason: Except that costs more money. Build your own app is great, but some devs can't do that. Maybe a third-party will, but not everyone can do their own.1:43PM Andy: iBooks won't be the most signficant part of the periodical delivery mechanism on the iPad -- even comic book and periodical publishers aren't supporting the iPad so much as tablet devices in general. They're using Webkit -- not platform specific, but iPad included.1:42PM Andy: The iBooks app is a quiet piece of news, but that's an incredibly significant announcement. That app that we tried that day was probably the least functional of all the apps on there -- will it freeze up, will it slow down? It's downloadable because it's not ready in time for shipping, and Apple understands that the app will have to evolve quickly and update often.1:41PM Ted: A semester's worth of books on the iPad at (hopefully) a fraction of the cost, not to mention that the used market could possibly be gone for good, a good thing in publisher's eyes. Jason: Lower the price of the new textbook, make more money back on the lost used market. If they'll agree to that, which they probably won't.1:40PM Ted: I want to get back to books for a second. Textbooks will change thanks to the iPad for sure.1:39PM Jason: There will be apps for newspapers or magazines, but it'll have to be someone else or they'll have to make their own, and that's a fractured space. Ryan: Apple could have changed the game on that, but they aren't doing that now.1:38PM Ryan: Except that book aspect here is books. There's no periodicals for the iPad right now, no iMagazines. If Apple had created a standard or introduced an app like the Kindle, maybe revolutionary. But all they're talking about right now is books. There's no solution for the industries that are having trouble.1:37PM Dan: Still, the music industry lost the battle for DRM, will that happen to book publishers? Andy: The web was an experiment that absolutely failed for books and magazines, and what it did was train the average consumer that a web browser is free -- charging for web content isn't right. But the Kindle taught that produced content by professionals does cost money, and the iPad can run that same market.1:36PM Andy: It's a computer, so it can do whatever devs and content publishers want it to do. Apple is using epub, which is remarkably flexible for sharing and lending books and licenses, even to libraries. So it could make it easier to share and borrow books -- your local public library as a version of Amazon.com. "There's a license available for Tom Clancy's book, I'll sign that out." Dan: Sure, libraries may have applications even -- if they can find the money.1:35PM Dan: It seems like the early days of the music industry's digital revolution, where publishers want to lock things down. It's a good idea for convenience -- a whole library in a device. But losing that freedom to content and sharing worries me.1:34PM Jason: When this product was rumored for months... Ryan: Years... Decades.... Jason: When Nostradamus predicted the iPad (laughter), ebooks were a big deal. What does this mean for books and newspapers and magazines?1:33PM Ryan: It's not as intimate of an experience on a laptop, but it's a little more convenient. Jason: Accessories will be key -- cradles, docks, stands. Ted: Two different modes -- primarily a consumption device, like a book. But more serious work will require a keyboard, stand, different environment.1:32PM Jason: In the testing area at the event, iPads were on raised platforms, with each one having an Apple employee told "if you let this thing out of your sight, we won't just fire you, your family will end up wondering what happened to you." Andy: Glossy front. Not a problem with a notebook, but what about a tablet? We'll see. Dan: It's easier, I can tilt the iPad anyway I want. Ryan: You also don't have to be holding your laptop at all times, but the iPad will have to be held up most of the time.1:30PM Andy: That'll be interesting to see what happens in real life though. Apple events are magic acts -- they're planned. When Steve was using that book on stage, was the chair even designed for him to hold the iPad in the right place? What will it be like to hold an iPad (1.5 lbs) while standing or trying to do something in a weird position? What about when people see what you're doing in a coffeeshop, or at a table? We will have to see.1:29PM Ted: People that are happy with an iPad today will be happy with a laptop in three or four years. Dan: That's a bold statement. There's a duality between iPad today vs. iPad in three or four years. But there is a ubiquity to computers today, and we've all adapted quickly to having them around in the same places the iPad will be -- on the couch, in the kitchen, and so on. It's nice to have something that doesn't make you feel like you have to match to it, but it matches to you.1:27PM Ted: The iPad can't do everything that a Mac can do, but the release of the iWork software was an opening salvo. You can start using this as a productivity machine -- you can't use it tomorrow, but look how far the iPhone has come thus far.1:27PM Andy: There are two checkboxes for me as a user -- I need to write a lot at any given moment, and I need to transfer files on and off of it, and the iPad meets both needs just fine for me. This will be as transformative a product as the original Mac was.1:26PM Jason: Is it right to say that Apple is taking another crack at what computers are, and is it the right approach? Andy: Yes, I think so. Computers don't have to have file systems or browsers, they just have to solve problems, and the iPad still does that.1:25PM Andy: I agree -- if you have a system level switch, it even solves the problem of support. If something breaks, make sure that override on third-party apps is turned off, and you're back to working paradise.1:24PM Dan: I'm playing devil's advocate, because I agree with you, but Apple's philsophy is that. They don't want you to be a tinkerer, because they aren't aimed at tinkerers. We don't agree with that, but it's their product, even if we're buying it. You can do what you want, if you go down the jailbreak road, and people will always find a way. But it is a lot harder than it needs to be, even if I understand why Apple is doing that.1:23PM Jason: Yeah I think there's room for non-App Store apps, but App Store apps would get preference. Ryan: Yes, the App Store is literally a revolution in software distribution. But Apple is not bugding on their philsophy at all. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to set the override switch and do what you want.1:22PM Ryan: 3rd party apps are dangerous, but as long as you warn users, what's the problem? It is my toaster oven, right?1:21PM Jason: App Store -- will it work the same on the iPad, will we see the same iPhone issues? Andy: If it works, then great. If not, the weaknesses will be more clear. I want a computer that will potentially will always work, never crash, will always run software. The win from the App Store concept is that you get a more stable machine at the expense of freedom that you might not excercise anyway. Steve Jobs is a benevolent tyrant -- he'll give you everything you want, all he demands is absolute obedience, and you'll be fine.1:20PM Ted: What do you care, I said? And no, they say, it will degrade the experience of using the toaster oven. And one more thing, they said -- those poptarts in your pantry won't work with your toaster oven either -- you didn't buy them directly from our CuisineArts store. Plus, they'd actually rejected Poptarts from the Art Store. Extended metaphor -- if the iPhone was a toaster, Ted would have issues getting it to do what he wanted.1:18PM Ted: All of the closed things concern me as they apply to the iPad. He's telling a story about how the lower story of his house is very cold downstairs, so he decided to rig up a toaster oven to serve as a space heater. He rigged it up with an extension cord, and it didn't work. He called tech support, and said he was using an extension cord, and they asked if it had a "Made for Cuisinart" sticker on it. It didn't, so he bought a special Cuisinart cord, but it still didn't work. Called back tech support for the toaster, and finally had to admit he was using the toaster oven as a space heater. "No," they said, "you're not authorized to do that." Terms of purchase actually prohibit "jailbaking" (laughs from the audience).1:15PM Ted: On the record, I think the iPad will be a great success, so I like it, I'm buying one. But I expect the iPad is still a closed platform, and it will not replace laptops and more complex computers.1:14PM Jason: Ted is here, even though he didn't use the iPhone, because this seems like Apple saying "we're moving the ball forward" in computing. This is a new paradigm -- touchscreen, direct interaction. iWork is going from Mac straight to the iPad -- is this a netbook/laptop replacement or not?1:13PM Dan: Yeah without the bezel, there's no place to put your thumb - we're so accustomed to the iPhone that it seems like wasted space, but once you use it, it'll fade into the background like everything else.1:12PM Jason: The bezel got complaints, but we have thumbs and you need that extra not-screen space to actually hold it. Ryan disagrees -- he says the iPhone has no bezel and people hold it just find. Andy: This one I really need a grip on, though -- people may even put grip tape on the back to help you not drop it. In the tub for example. (laughs)1:11PM Ihnatko: We could probably charge $499 for these foam iPads though. If anyone wants some blog hits, just take one of these and get some blurry shots of it, you'll get thousands of hits in a few seconds.1:10PM Andy's first impression: build was high quality. It feels like a premium product -- no gaps, it really does disappear in your hand. The device itself disappears within the first five seconds -- it's all experience. Holding it is not the same as seeing it, which most of the complainers have only done.1:08PM Jason: The screen is 4:3, not 16:9 -- even when they showed Star Trek, it was a little weird, but a 16:9 device would be more uncomfortable to hold. Ryan: Right, you can't have both. Either be really wide or more traditional, and they went 4:3, and I kind of prefer it.1:08PM Ryan: Also slightly less foamy than these foam prototypes on stage. It feels really well constructed, a bit heavier than it should feel, but still portable. I do have complaints, but we'll get to that.1:07PM Jason: It helps that we've seen the iPhone interface. Ryan: Everything serves the screen. As a browser, it's nice to go in and see nothing but the content.1:06PM Dan Warren: It's suprising how natural it feels. There's something about it that feels very intuitive. Like a book, you don't pick it up and think "how can I use this?" It makes sense.1:06PM Ted is the only one who hasn't touched the iPad, but everyone else was at the event. What were your first impressions?1:05PM Panels are coming up on stage. Jason says "We don't have a real one, Apple's not here." Four of the five people on stage have used an iPad, however. Dan Warren of Macworld, Ted Landau, Mac Observer and Macfixit. Ryan Block of GDGT and our old Engadget colleague, and Andy Ihnatko.1:04PM Paul introducing Jason Snell, finishes with "We'll see you next year, right?" Hope so!1:03PM The person holding one of the balls that was bouncing around? She just won an iPad from Macworld -- they're going to give her one when the iPad actually ships. Congrats! Maybe we should have participated in the ball bouncing.1:02PM Here's Paul Kent. "Welcome to our iPad special event." He's got an iPad mockup, but it's not the real thing. "You know that this is not shipping yet?" He just dropped it as a joke.1:01PM The lights are going down.12:59PM "Ladies and gentlemen, we need to fill every seat." The hall is practically full, and still more are coming in the door. Someone behind us thinks there will be an iPad here, but we'll see. 12:57PM Four minutes out -- even the press corps is really batting these balls around. I just got hit in the head. That's what we go through for you readers. 12:54PM The crowd is bouncing around a big ball and they seem excited about the iPad. Good thing they probably don't have one -- if one showed up in the hall here, they might get mobbed. 12:50PM Once again, word direct from Jason Snell this morning is that we will not see an actual iPad at this event. But of course, you never know. 12:49PM They're showing the promotional video that's been playing all week here at Macworld. The public has just been allowed in to see the show, and seats are filling up.TUAWMacworld 2010 special iPad event liveblog originally appeared on The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) on Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:55:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.Permalink|Email this|Comments Apple - San Francisco - Moscone Center - Jason Snell - Macworld

  • Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News

    Skype to get new owner. eBay (EBAY) is expected to announce this morning that it has reached a deal to sell its Skype unit to a group of private investors. The investment group likely includes new venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, as well as early Skype investor Index Ventures and private-equity firm Silver Lake Partners. The price of the deal is still unknown, but eBay has said previously that it wants around $2B for Skype. Shares +2% premarket (7:00 ET). BoA ready to repay? Bank of America (BAC) is reportedly offering to repay part of its bailout money, and the U.S. is pressuring the bank to pay at least $500M to cancel a potential loss-share deal with the government. Sources said both sets of discussions relate to extra aid Bank of America received to complete its acquisition of Merrill Lynch. If Bank of America repays the additional $20B it was given in January, it will no longer be considered an 'exceptional' aid recipient and therefore won't be subject to the intense scrutiny of Congress and pay czar Kenneth Feinberg. Shares -2.4% premarket (7:00 ET). Disney's marvelous acquisition. Disney (DIS) agreed to acquire Marvel Entertainment (MRVL) in a stock-cash transaction worth around $4B, a 29% premium for Marvel shareholders. Disney will begin to feature Marvel's portfolio of over 5,000 characters in Disney movies, theme park rides, TV shows and merchandise, a move which may help Disney better target the demographic of boys from their preteen years into young adulthood. S&P warned it may downgrade Disney because the relatively expensive acquisition, combined with stock buyback plans and the potential for continued recession-related declines, could lead to "debt leverage remaining above our threshold for an extended period." The deal is a setback for Paramount (VIA), which will be able to complete but not extend a recent distribution deal with Marvel, and for Electronic Arts (ERTS), which some analysts had thought might be acquired by Disney, a deal that no longer seems likely in the short term. (Read Disney's press release) AIG loses Starr case. A federal judge ruled against AIG (AIG) in its efforts to win $4.3B in damages from Starr International, the company run by former AIG chief Hank Greenberg. The judge affirmed a jury verdict that found no breach of trust by Starr for selling AIG stock rather than using its AIG shares to fund an executive retirement program for generations of the insurer's employees. Separately, AIG, Greenberg and former CFO Howard Smith agreed to enter binding arbitration by October 15 to settle various outstanding legal disputes. Shares -6.9% premarket (7:00 ET). Citi sheds credit card portfolios. As part of its effort to shed weak businesses, Citigroup (C) said it sold three credit card portfolios representing $1.3B in managed assets, but didn't disclose the terms of the deal. Though the sale is relatively small, the lack of transparency didn't sit well with critics, who noted the taxpayer-funded bank "said it had sold undisclosed assets to an undisclosed buyer for an undisclosed price, resulting in an undisclosed profit or loss." Sources said the buyer is likely U.S. Bancorp (USB). C -3.6% premarket (7:00 ET). PetroChina buys Canadian oil stake. PetroChina (PTR) moved forward in its quest for overseas expansion, agreeing to pay C$1.9B ($1.7B) to closely-held Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. for a stake in a Canadian oil sands project. PetroChina's deals represent around 20% of China's $17B in spending on overseas energy assets since December, and this is PetroChina's largest North American acquisition to date. Icahn offloads Yahoo shares. Activist investor Carl Icahn disclosed in a regulatory filing that he sold 12.7M shares of Yahoo (YHOO) at the end of August, bringing his stake down to 4.48%. Icahn said he remains 'optimistic' about Yahoo's long-term outlook and the sales were only meant to 'provide a more desired balance' in his portfolios. Sony goes Chrome. Sony (SNE) plans to put Google's (GOOG) Chrome browser on Vaio laptops in the U.S., the first such deal for Chrome since it was announced last year. Google declined to disclose details of the deal, which went into effect this summer, and said it's looking to reach similar arrangements with other computer makers. Without those partnerships, Google's Sony deal may be too small to matter. Apple may opt for more carriers, face SEC probe. Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster wrote in a research note that Apple (AAPL) is likely to add new U.S. carriers for its iPhone within a year. Repeated speculation points to Verizon (VZ) as a likely addition, while AT&T (T) faces questions about how much it really gained from its role as exclusive carrier. Separately, the Huffington Post reported the SEC is investigating possible insider-trading offenses in shares of Apple, including whether anyone was given enhanced insight into Steve Jobs' health condition or if some investors had advanced notice of iPod sales results. Both Apple and the SEC declined to comment. AAPL -1.3% premarket (7:00 ET). JetBlue, Lufthansa to share codes. JetBlue (JBLU) and Lufthansa announced a code-sharing agreement allowing the airliners to expand their networks through connecting flights. Lufthansa holds a 19% stake in JetBlue, but the relationship has raised some concerns among rivals and this latest move will likely exacerbate those concerns. The deal must be approved by the Department of Transportation. Big Tobacco files free speech suit. Tobacco company R.J. Reynolds (RAI) joined other tobacco makers in suing the FDA, challenging the regulator's new authority over tobacco. The companies say their First Amendment rights to free speech have been violated and the law's provisions "severely restrict the few remaining channels we have to communicate with adult tobacco consumers." Charities scammed by Madoff face clawbacks. Madoff liquidator Irving Picard said he may sue charities that were Madoff clients to reclaim the fake profits they withdrew. By law, Picard must file clawback suits against investors that profited from Madoff's scam, even if they did so unknowingly. Picard, who until now hadn't outlined his strategy for dealing with charities, said charitable organizations aren't exempt from such 'avoidance actions.' Cities are gloomy on shrinking revenues. City revenues fell in FY '09 for the first time in seven years, according to a report by the National League of Cities to be released later today. Weak growth in property taxes and sharp declines in sales taxes, income taxes and state aid contributed to a 0.4% decline in city revenues even as expenses rose 2.5%, creating the worst outlook in the 24 years since surveying began. Nor is relief in sight, as tax revenue is expected to lag any economic recovery. European leaders target bank pay. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy promised to fight excessive pay in financial firms and to toughen regulation of the financial sector. The U.K.'s Gordon Brown echoed those sentiments, saying excessive pay must be reined in and compensation should be based on long-term success rather than short-term speculative gains. The comments come ahead of a G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh on Sept. 24-25. Commercial mortgage defaults rising. The commercial mortgage default rate more than doubled in Q2 as compared to the year before, reaching 2.88% of outstanding balances. Commercial mortgage-backed securities [CMBS] account for 22% of the $3.4T in commercial real estate debt, and researchers believe defaults on CMBS could pass 7% by the end of the year. Chicago business activity improves (.pdf). The Chicago Purchasing Managers Index registered at 50 in August, better than the consensus of 48 and up from 43.4 in July. This is the index's highest level since September 2008. New orders were up 4.5 to 52.5, while prices paid jumped 15 points to 50. European joblessness climbs (.pdf). Unemployment in the 16-nation eurozone climbed to a new ten-year high of 9.5% in July even as the economy began to signal a recovery. Across the entire 27-nation European Union, unemployment rose to 9% in July. Spain leads the bloc in joblessness, with nearly one in five workers without a job. Earnings: Monday After Close Benihana (BNHN): FQ1 EPS of $0.05 misses by $0.05. Revenue of $96M (+2%) vs. $97M. Sees full-year EPS of $0.40-0.45 vs. $0.46, and full-year revenue of $305M-310M vs. $323M. (PR) Culp (CFI): FQ1 EPS of $0.15 beats by $0.03. Revenue of $46M (-23%) vs. $45M. Sees Q2 revenue down 5%. (PR) Sina (SINA): Q2 EPS of $0.29 in-line. Revenue of $90M (-1%) vs. $88M. Sees Q3 revenue of $91M-94M vs. $96M. (PR) Today's MarketsIn Asia, stocks managed to pull back into positive territory after yesterday's selloff. European markets and U.S. futures are slipping.

  • What's Next from Apple: New iPods Sept 22, iPhone OS 2.1, iTunes 8.0

    Daniel Eran Dilger Kevin Rose has been trying his hand at making broad sweeping generalizations about the next generation of iPods, but sorry, no digg. Most of his predictions are not even original, and those that are are so vague that they're really just worthless. Here's what you can really expect. Rose likes to suggest what's next from Apple, but his guesses only approach reality when they're based on leaks that occur days prior to an announcement. His flat out guesswork tends to be yet far further removed from reality, indicating that he has no special inside track on things at Apple, nor much of an imagination tempered by realistic appraisal. A month before the iPhone was unveiled, Rose predicted it would be available from CDMA providers, have a pull out keyboard, and sport two batteries, one for music and one for the phone. Of course, splitting a battery in half is not really a brilliant solution to prevent music playback from running down your phone, but the simple fact that Rose didn't know about the exclusive deal with Cingular (come on, it was Apple's only mobile partner to date) and the unlikelihood of Apple tacking on an HTC-esque keyboard makes his guesswork easy to dismiss. I had imagineered the iPhone as a web browsing iPod (“based on Nokia’s mobile contributions to Safari”) with SMS messaging features, contacts, calendar, and a camera… six months earlier. And CDMA? I recommended Apple “leave Verizon alone and partner with Cingular, TMobile, and MetroPCS using GSM technology.” The difference between my ideas and those from Rose, apart from mine being six months earlier, is that I presented mine as only reasonable ideas with some rationale behind them; Rose insisted he had special knowledge from reliable sources. Generation 6 iPods An iPhone Worth Talking About The Real iPod touch Deets. Now he's predicting new iPods. The iPod touch is supposed to get “fairly large price drops to distance itself from the $199 iPhone.” Sorry, wrong. The iPhone is only $199 in the minds of consumers. It gets a subsidy from AT&T, which is why you can't just buy one for $199 and walk out the door without signing a phone contract. The iPhone's $2,000 service contract offers plenty of distance between it and the iPod touch. The iPod touch is not possibly going to get cheaper than the iPhone for a couple reasons. First, obviously, it costs nearly as much to make. The lack of a subsidy pretty much balances out its lack of mobile radio components. Second, Apple isn't desperately trying to sell the iPod touch. It exists as a product to sell to users who can't or won't buy an iPhone because they're tied to Verizon or don't want a phone. Rose worries that the iPhone is “cannibalizing sales of the iPod,” but there's nothing more Apple would like to do than to feed every iPod user an iPhone. Sure the bonehead analysts will have another field day complaining about how there's only minor growth among iPod sales while they ignore iPhone numbers, but these guys aren't easy to reach with basic facts. Apple has been giving away the $300 iPod touch to students buying a laptop; that looks like an effort to broaden the iPhone platform. Apple wants college kids playing iPhone games and interested in creating their own iPhone software. Left to their own devices, most kids would buy the old hard drive iPod Classic because they think they need to walk around with their entire torrent library of stolen music. (Get off my lawn!) In any case, we all knew the iPod refresh was coming. I'm pretty sure they're coming on September 22. I'm also pretty sure that the 8GB iPod touch is going away, making the 16GB model the new $199 version. That outrageous price drop, facilitated by today's cheaper Flash RAM, would kill the remaining market for the hard drive-based iPod Classic, converting Apple's entire lineup to Flash RAM. Additionally, it would migrate even more iPod buyers into the installed base of iPhone App Store users and hasten the cannibalization food chain that leads toward the iPhone. The 16GB iPod touch will be sold next to the existing 32GB model, which was just released earlier this year. For that reason, I don't see a larger capacity model being introduced now. I don't see tremendous demand for carrying 64GB of music from people who are also ready to pay for 64GB of Flash. Nano 4: Zune 2007? Rose says the Nano will get a redesign that makes it look like last year's Flash RAM Zune; iLounge already predicted this a month ago, although Rose embellished his version with the idea that “the actual plastic on the outside will be curved,” presumably like a TV from the 80s. How nostalgic! I miss having a wildly distorted tube picture, almost as much as a scratchable plastic iPod screen. Oh the good ol' days. Will Apple expend significant resources to make the Nano 4 into a widescreen tall/long player and define a new 4GB hardware model to fit into a niche that is only $50 less than the new 16GB $199 iPod touch? How much room for differentiation is there under $200? Seems more likely that Apple will instead only release a cheaper version of the existing 4GB Nano that's closer to $99, leaving room for a $149 8GB Nano in between. That will pull Shuffle buyers up into splurging on a full video Nano. If you want to watch video sideways, you can get an iPod touch for $199. What kind of widescreen cinematic experience can you get with a long/tall Nano/Zune? When I reviewed the Flash Zune, one of the complaints was that half (but only half) of the controls reconfigure when you hold it sideways. Plus, existing iPod Games wouldn't work in the widescreen orientation; both the display and the controls would be messed up. On top of that, regular video playback would be forced to play back wide, and/or look bad because its stretched. Microsoft has no qualms with playing video in an odd aspect radio, but the iPod is made by Apple, which has some aesthetic boundaries that constrain its behavior. Winter 2007 Buyer’s Guide: Microsoft Zune 8 vs iPod Nano iPhone 2.1 Rose says Apple will also release “iPod touch 2.1 software, iPhone to get update very soon after.” We already all knew the iPhone 2.1 update was coming, and that it's going to be significant, and that it is due for release around the same time as the new iPods. Whether the new iPod touch will ship with it in advance of the iPhone would depend on whether iPhone-only features in the release hold it up, but Rose doesn't suggest any special knowledge or rationale behind this claim. iPhone 2.1 is supposed to usher in new GPS features and the push Notification system, but the real demand for downloading it will be that it fixes a major problem that currently causes third party iPhone apps to crash on launch and randomly when running. Apple needs to get this out quick before it blows the reputation of iPhone software stability in the minds of users. That's reason to believe that iPhone 2.1 might ship even before the new iPods, rather than the other way around. Because software developed using the iPhone 2.1 SDK won't run on iPhone 2.0.x, expect everyone to need to update their software to download a new generation of 2.1-only apps. This will be free for iPhone users, but might incur a nominal fee for iPod touch users due to accounting rules. Myths of Snow Leopard 3: Mac Sidelined for iPhone Ten Big New Features in Mac OS X Snow Leopard iTunes 8.0 Rose says iTunes 8.0 “it's a big update with new features,” but doesn't say what they are. He also says it will be “a real point upgrade” deserving the 8.0 name. However, there is little rhyme or reason to Apple's iTunes version numbering, and no real correlation between the amount features introduced and the version number increment. iTunes 2.0 added iPod support after ten months of iTunes 1.0, but iTunes 3.0 only added minor features the next year. It was replaced by iTunes 4.0 a year later, which added the Music Store and AAC support. Two years later, iTunes 5 introduced some cosmetic changes and was immediately replaced with iTunes 6.0 only a month later, without any major new features. Another year later, iTunes 7.0 arrived with a new look, video game support, and Coverflow. It has since seen loads of new features, from support for Apple TV to the iPhone to new iPods and new movie rentals, all of which were only numbered as minor updates. We've had iTunes 7.x for two years now, so iTunes 8.0 is not really ballsy prediction at this point. Of course, Apple is just as likely to skip ahead and release iTunes X. And if iTunes X isn't ready, we can might even get iTunes 7.8 and 7.9 over the next couple years. Oh my sides. With the likelihood of entirely new iPod touch or Nano models being quite low (after all, the Zune isn't going to get a refresh until late next year, and Apple isn't facing any tough competition at the moment), Apple's iPod announcement might end up more about a new iTunes than the iPod. Rose doesn't make any iTunes 8.0 feature predictions, instead jumping ahead to suggest that Apple is working to make sure Mac OS X 10.5.6 will provide support for Sony's BluRay, the competition to iTunes that nobody cares about. Hmm. Steve Jobs has so little regard for optical discs that he basically shunned iDVD last year when showing off iLife 08, but now he's going to resurrect BluRay and excite customers by including it on the company's laptops, where any resolution advantage it offers over DVD would be nearly invisible? Oh ho ho my sides. iTunes Unlimited? The rumor mill is talking about subscription music in the next iTunes. Steve Jobs has opposed subscription music since iTunes got started. He worked for years to convince the labels to let go of the dream of billing users to essentially listen to the radio. Subscription music has always revolved around outrageous DRM that requires the (historically Microsoft PlaysForSure) player to sync up and check in every month or lose its music. I've written up lots of reasons why subscription music was an awful idea that wouldn't fly. I doubt Apple will actually float it as rumored (“iTunes Unlimited” for $129 sounds awful). However, enough has changed in the last two years to reconsider how subscription music could be delivered. For starters, the iPhone and iPod touch are now wireless, so they can both stream and verify exploding media DRM. Apple's iTunes, modern iPods, Apple TV, and the iPhone also now already handle exploding DRM for movie rentals, which blew over last year without any complaint, although it doesn't look like iTunes' movie rentals have had a massive impact on the world due to their relatively high price point. Offering movie rentals appeared to be a requisite concession leading up to convincing the movie studios to agree to movie sales in iTunes. Apple could sell access to subscription music directly from the iPhone and iPod touch that worked similar to movie rentals, and the labels might even allow users to freely copy rental tracks between computers linked to the same iTunes account. Such an arrangement hasn't found mainstream popularity elsewhere, but nobody else had been able to sell music prior to iTunes either. While the rumors suggest there could be a discount for MobileMe users, it would be a lot smarter to make it part of MobileMe instead. That would limit subscribers to Apple's loyal base, easing in the system rather than exposing a brand new subscription service to ten million handheld users and 150 million iTunes users and all but promising another meltdown. At least by making it part of MobileMe, Apple could add lots of subscribers and upgrade existing subscribers to a $99 “unlimited music” additional fee. Keep in mind that all this is highly speculative. I doubt “unlimited iTunes” will fly, as the idea was not leaked but rather simply invented. How Apple Could Deliver Workable iTunes Rentals The Online Music and Movie Rental Myth Rise of the iTunes Killers Myth As Long As We're Speculating… If Apple does convert its entire iPod line to Flash players, it would make sense to incorporate a new audio codec setting that maximized the amount of songs you could copy into an 8GB player. For years, Apple's major selling point on the iPod what that it offered massive hard drive storage capacity. Now it's migrating to Flash, which is more expensive but considerably more shock resistant and suitable for a handheld computer device like the iPod touch. Working to cram more music into tighter spaces would allow Apple to make the iPod touch and iPhone more competitive against a hard drive player. AAC is already optimized for low-bitrate playback. Apple also needs to add remote functionality for controlling Apple TV to iTunes, just as you can already do via the free iPhone app. And how about direct streaming of content between iTunes, Apple TV, and the iPhone, such as for movie rentals. Currently, to get a rented movie from an iPhone to Apple TV you have to do two syncs involving a middleman iTunes PC. iTunes also needs to expand on the options for syncing media to the iPod and iPhone. In addition to syncing specific playlists, it should be able to automatically sync over a smart “Party Shuffle” mix of music that fills a specific proportion of the device, such as 50% music, 10% podcasts, and then the specific movies, TV, and audio books the user selects. Then shuffle out the listened to tracks and add new music every time it's synced. Allow users to hide songs from iTunes just as you can hide photos from your iPhoto album to simplify the view without deleting anything. Add Time Machine support so you can go back to see earlier play counts and browse your media library as it appeared in the past. Add integrated support for viewing PDFs and other QuickView document types, so you could use iTunes as a metadata-rich document browser with search and playlist features. Or give Preview an iTunes metadata document database interface. More Music Deals. Add other corporate sponsors to the Starbucks deal, so you can discover their playing music and buy tunes over their WiFi link. And isn't it about time Apple and AT&T got together and hammered out that plan to open iPhones to AT&T's hotspots? I'd debit a 99 cent WiFi access fee from my iTunes account if it were necessary. What's the point of setting up $8 per hour WiFi services for the zero people who use them? And on that tangent, how about rolling out my Ubiquitous WiFi idea for allowing other mobile users to borrow your AirPort's WiFi signal? I'd also like to see Apple get AT&T to allow users to place calls over their WiFi link as a concession for not having a functional 3G network in place yet. I also think AT&T should sell or rent AirPort base stations to its millions of broadband users, with all of them open to WiFi sharing so that iPhone users could place a freaking call and access the web at faster than EDGE speeds between now and whenever AT&T actually gets 3G rolled out. Apple also really needs to deliver some sort of central media server, possibly tacked onto Apple TV. Just add a USB hard drive and have it serve up the contents as a Bonjour-discoverable iTunes library to your local network. This would allows users to dump all the media off their laptop. And then allow WiFi sync to optionally copy fresh media to the iPhone from the central media server library. There's plenty that could be tacked onto iTunes, but the biggest new thing in the iPod announcement actually might be something entirely different than last year's iPods for cheaper and a new rev to iTunes. I'll spill that in the next article. Ten Big Predictions for Apple in 2008 Did you like this article? Let me know. Comment here, in the Forum, or email me with your ideas. Like reading RoughlyDrafted? Share articles with your friends, link from your blog, and subscribe to my podcast (oh wait, I have to fix that first). It's also cool to submit my articles to Digg, Reddit, or Slashdot where more people will see them. Consider making a small donation supporting this site. Thanks!

  • Microsoft's Mojave Attempts to Wet Vista's Desert

    Daniel Eran Dilger Nearly two years after Windows Vista was finally released, Microsoft has remained unable to shake off its reputation as being slow, incompatible with existing hardware and software, and generally a poor and overpriced product that nobody wants. Microsoft is now trying to reverse Vista's bad reputation by insisting that the software's problems are not technical but rather just the fault of ignorant customers duped in part by Apple's “Get a Mac” campaign. What's Vista's real problems, and will Microsoft's “Mojave Experiment” help solve them? Blame Apple! Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has joined Windows Enthusiast pundits in theorizing that Vista's image problems are primarily the result of Apple's advertisements that regularly poke fun at the problems in Vista. The company has now taken aim at shooting at the messenger with a $300 million ad campaign. In July, Brad Brooks, Microsoft's VP of Windows Vista consumer marketing, addressed the company's business partners at its Worldwide Partner Conference, saying, “We've got a pretty noisy competitor out there. You know it. I know it. It's caused some impact. We're going to start countering it. They tell us it's the iWay or the highway. We think that's a sad message.” Another sad message Brooks had to deliver was that Vista's problems aren't really the fault of Apple. “We broke a lot of things,” Brooks admitted. “We know that, and we know it caused you a lot of pain. It got customers thinking, hey, is Windows Vista a generation we want to get invested in?” Vista: Pay it Forward! Brooks also noted that “Windows Vista is an investment in the long term. When you make the investment into Windows Vista, it's going to pay it forward into the operating system we call Windows 7.” Pay it forward? Is Windows 7 going to be a free upgrade to Windows Vista users, in the same way Apple is expected to offer the next Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard release to existing users of 10.5 Leopard? That's highly unlikely, as Microsoft can't sustain its egregious profits collected through the Windows monopoly by giving away updates for free. Windows Vista raised the price of Windows, putting a new definition on the phrase “pay it forward.” Myths of Snow Leopard 7: Free?! Microsoft Admits Windows Vista Mistakes, Criticizes Apple Ads - InformationWeek Reality Impairment at Microsoft Talking out one's ass appears to be a job requirement for all Microsoft executives, starting at the top. A serious case of reality impairment has resulted in the paradox of the company both admitting that Vista is flawed and “broke a lot of things,” while at the same time maintaining that Vista's reputation is entirely the fault of stupid customers and a comically unflattering portrayal by its competitor. In the “Mojave Experiment,” Microsoft plans to dispel the notion that Windows Vista is problematic and incompatible by publishing a series of videotaped interviews with users who arrived with negative impressions of Vista and left excited about the new operating system. This was achieved by presenting the users with a demonstration of “Mojave,” a new operating system that Microsoft later revealed to be Vista, much to the surprise of the interviewed users who'd heard so many bad things about it. However, the Mojave Experiment is so full of false information and saccharine gloss that it couldn't possibly appeal to anyone smart enough to turn on a PC. Even setting aside the fact that the ad experiment basically seeks to blame users for being dumb, the attempt by Microsoft to paint over Vista's problems is transparent and flawed, for a number of reasons. What's wrong with Mojave. Microsoft can't seem to decide whether it wants to admit that Vista has problems or not, and its waffling back and forth just makes the company look increasingly disingenuous. Is Vista a poorly launched, flawed product that the company is working to fix as quickly as possible, or is it awesome and wildly successful and just the victim of bad press? Microsoft tries to tell both stories at once, which is purely dishonest. In contrast, Apple said from the start last year that its Apple TV product was a “hobby” attempting to break into a difficult market. Critics lambasted it for not immediately taking over the market like the iPod had or iPhone later did. Apple's more recent problems in launching MobileMe were quickly noted by the company along with the intent to address complaints about it rapidly. Microsoft isn't alone in being able to stumble, but its complete lack of candor makes it hard to understand if the company realizes that it even has problems to solve. With Vista, Microsoft has issued a flurry of giddy press releases claiming widespread adoption based on the number of licenses sold and naming it “the fastest selling operating system in Microsoft history,” ignoring the fact that Windows sales are increasing simply because they are tied to PC sales. Microsoft has no competition in the PC operating system market due to its monopoly position, so it could release Windows Wet Toast and still sell it faster than XP and ME and 98 Special Edition and every other version of Windows in the past that was tied to an increasingly younger and smaller hardware market. Vista Sales to Non-Users. Many of Vista's “sales” were free vouchers distributed with PCs sold in the holiday season prior to its launch. Even more than a year and a half later, PC makers continue to put Windows XP on their systems, even those sold with a Vista license, while corporate users almost always remove the default Vista to install an earlier version of Windows. There's also a busy third party industry developing around removing Vista for consumers. In late July APCMag cited Jane Bradburn, a manager for commercial notebook sales at HP, as saying, “From the 30th of June, we have no longer been able to ship a PC with a XP license. However, what we have been able to do with Microsoft is ship PCs with a Vista Business licence but with XP pre-loaded. That is still the majority of business computers we are selling today.” The arrangement is supposed to end by January 2009, but HP is trying to extend the deadline because customers simply don't want Vista installed. EWeek also noted that between April 2007 and May 2008, its survey of business users indicated that Vista climbed from 2% to 5%, but that Windows XP jumped from 74% to 83%, three times the adoption of Vista. That growth came from migration from older versions of Windows. Even in its wildest projections, EWeek says Vista will only reach 28% adoption in businesses by the end of 2010. CNET reported that a Jully 2008 survey by systems management appliance company KASE found that 60% of companies surveyed have no plans to deploy Windows Vista, a ten percent increase in disinterest from late 2007. A full 42% were actively exploring Vista alternatives, and 11% had already made the switch to Mac OS X or Linux. Microsoft is simply lying about the level of Vista excitement, and it's gotten too obvious for the company to continue to do so. XP still killing Vista in sales volume: HP 60 percent skipping Vista, so Ballmer looks to Apple | The Open Road The Truth Is… oh Look a Distraction! At the same time, Microsoft notes on its Vista website “we know a few of you were disappointed by your early encounter. Printers didn't work. Games felt sluggish. You told us—loudly at times—that the latest Windows wasn't always living up to your high expectations for a Microsoft product.” That's some brutal honesty for a company with a knack for spinning wild fantasies about fictitious product enthusiasm for a product never actually put to use in many cases. At the same time however, in trying to refute away Vista's real problems, Microsoft uses a variety of tactics that just return to blind fantasyland. Microsoft is a Marketing Company, not a Tech Company. The company plays its Mojave Experiment hand on a new website, incidentally designed using Adobe Flash rather than the company's own Silverlight. Despite the site's oddly designed, usability-impared interface, it's still possible to pull out lots of details from the experiment that say as much about Microsoft's crafty, misleading marketing as they do about its technical problems, underling the simple fact that Microsoft is first and foremost a marketing company that flogs third rate technology products. Mojave took 140 people and asked them to score Windows Vista. The average response was 4.4. After demonstrating Vista SP2 under the name “Mojave,” respondents ranked Vista at 8.5, a stunning improvement. But what were they ranking? Microsoft notes that “many said they would have rated it higher, but wanted more time to use it themselves.” That sounds good at first blush, but it really indicates that the responses were biased by hyped up enthusiasm rather than facts, and that participants realized it, reserving their final judgement until they could actually see more. The “Mojave Experiment” What does Mojave Prove? Mojave tries to represent that Vista's bad reputation is the fault of ignorant consumers who have heard bad things that aren't true about Vista, and have made up their mind without getting the facts. At the same time however, Microsoft also publicly admits that Vista “broke a lot of things” and that specifically, “Printers didn't work. Games felt sluggish.” Did Mojave clear up mistaken notions for participants, or did it just erect smoke and mirrors in a carefully controlled demonstration that skirted around Vista's real problems, including those Microsoft admits? That's a question that answers itself. Mojave didn't send uses home with Vista in a Mojave package and then ask them how well it worked with their existing peripherals and games, or how fast it was in comparison to their existing PC software. This is Not the Droid You're Running Vista On. Instead, Microsoft sat them down in front of a HP Pavillion DV 2000 with 2GB of RAM. That's what HP called its “entertainment powerhouse” laptop, although HP only shipped it with 1GB RAM. Microsoft maxed out the RAM for the purposes of the test, making the laptop a bit more expensive than its usual street price of around $1050. According to Windows enthusiast Joe Wilcox, PC laptops actually cost $700, “half as much” as Apple's laptops. At least that's the Average Selling Price for consumer retail PC laptops according to NPD's Stephen Baker, compared to Apple's $1500 ASP. Wilcox insisted that his spin on NPD's figures couldn't possibly be biased because he wrote his article on a MacBook Air running Leopard. However, his $2,700 laptop did help drive up Apple's stellar ASP for its laptops well above the entry price for Mac Books, discounting his theory that revolved around the assumption that every Mac buyer pays the average price of all the laptops Apple sells. Wilcox and Microsoft are both disingenuously dancing on both ends of the truth. Many consumers are actually buying cheap laptops at Target that can't run Vista ideally, while Microsoft demonstrates its Vista on a considerably better equipped system in the Mojave Experiment to suggest that Vista doesn't have the performance problems that users have heard about from the majority of their peers who bought cheap PCs and are seeing Vista run particularly sluggishly on them. Should You Pay Twice as Much for a Mac? I Did! You Get What You Pay For. The fact that Apple sells more high end laptops to pro users at retail, and that it does not sell anything in the range of the cheap junk being hawked at big box retailers like Wilcox' Target both result in Mac laptops fetching a higher ASP. That fact also means that Mac buyers will be happier with their purchase and have a more favorable impression of Mac OS X because they're running it on a better system. That's all obvious stuff. However, selling people cheap laptops that don't work well, and then demonstrating a fake “new operating system” that appears to work well when running on a faster machine full of RAM is simply a dishonest bait and switch scam. Wilcox does nearly admit that PC makers are already stretching their credibility as they attempt to sell cheap boxes based on price alone, citing Baker as saying, “We aren't seeing any particularly substantive moves down in price on the Windows side, either in desktops or notebooks.” PCs can't get cheaper because they're already unprofitable and consumers are already disgusted with their performance when running the increased overhead of Vista. Wilcox also sets up a tilted comparison between a Dell PC desktop with integrated graphics and an iMac with dedicated graphics and claims a price advantage for Dell, although noting that, while “Dell offers more for less than the iMac,” “that 'more' also means Windows Vista, which won't satisfy some shoppers.” Why Aren't Shoppers Satisfied with Vista? Like Microsoft, Wilcox and his Windows Enthusiast pundit friends can't seem to decide if Vista has any real problems or if it's all just an unfair taint suggested by Apple's Get a Mac ads. However, while Apple has taken shots at Vista's incompatibility with printers and other hardware and its scarce updates that have been few and far between over the last year and a half of its being on the market, Apple also notes in its Get a Mac ads that Macs can run Vista, and can run it faster than PCs. So Apple isn't inventing and publishing false reports on Vista, it's merely advertising its Mac hardware as superior to PCs. The Vista flaws Apple's ads have referenced are flaws Microsoft itself has admitted to its partners, so the Get a Mac umbrage frequently voiced by Windows Enthusiasts is both hypocritical and ridiculous. However, in the Mojave Experiment, Microsoft downplayed those well-known faults by only carefully demonstrating certain features on a high end machine, and without actually exposing Mojave/Vista users to 'a lot of things Vista broke,' 'printers that didn't work', or 'games that felt sluggish.' It Can't Even Print. In response to complaints that Vista doesn't work well with existing PC hardware, Microsoft's Mojave website says that “the Windows Vista Compatibility Center lists compatibility status for over 9,000 products (5,500 devices and 3,500 software programs).” It even notes 2,000 printers, 200 scanners, and 500 cameras specifically. That sounds good until you realize that Apple ships support for over 3,100 printers in Mac OS X Leopard, a product that is targeted primarily toward education and consumers and which is not expected by users to run on any old hardware that might be in use by PC users. Vista is supposed to run on 95% of the world's PCs, and yet it doesn't even match the printer drivers that ship with Leopard, a number which does not include all of the third party drivers available for the Mac. Oh, but there's more. Not only did Microsoft dance around the truth to feed its Mojave Experiment participants a carefully controlled stream of garbage, but it also inadvertently revealed more serious problems related to Vista, which I'll consider in the following article. Did you like this article? Let me know. Comment here, in the Forum, or email me with your ideas. Like reading RoughlyDrafted? Share articles with your friends, link from your blog, and subscribe to my podcast (oh wait, I have to fix that first). It's also cool to submit my articles to Digg, Reddit, or Slashdot where more people will see them. Consider making a small donation supporting this site. Thanks!

  • Snow Leopard Still a Better Ride Than Windows 7, Even for the Not-Rich

    ChannelWeb's Steven Burke says that in the manifold comparisons of Windows 7 with Snow Leopard burning up the Web, what all the reviewers and pundits seem to be forgetting is that it's not about the operating system, which he maintains is simply the engine that runs the PC. As Burke puts it, you don't go into a car dealership and buy an engine. You buy a car, and in his opinion, starting October 22, there will be no better ride available for the money than Windows 7. Burke leans heavily on the initial purchase price angle, noting that an Apple Mac Pro desktop he cites as an example is nearly four times the price of an HP Pavilion, asking rhetorically whether anyone really believes the Mac is four times better than the HP Pavilion? I think some of us would argue that the value is there under the right circumstances, but it would've been more relevant to compare a mainstream Mac model such as the iMac or MacBook to their still admittedly cheaper, but not so dramatically so, Windows competition. Apple Ignoring “Economic Reality?” Burke accuses Apple and company CEO Steve Jobs of not considering “economic reality,” and having no interest in producing mass-market PCs, which is fair comment I suppose. However I'm constrained to observe that as Forbes' Brian Caulfield pointed out last weekend, over the past year, banks have collapsed, PC sales have plummeted, unemployment has soared, and Steve Jobs went on mysterious medical leave for a liver transplant, but meanwhile Apple has thrived through all this with sales and earnings down less than everyone else in the industry and actually up year-over-year — on Monday reporting the company's best quarter ever and a net quarterly profit of $1.67 billion on revenues of $9.87 billion. Consequently the question is begged as to who is and is not considering economic reality. Netbook Sales Soar But Profitability Fizzles NPD Group's DisplaySearch Q2 '09 PC shipment data released last week estimated that netbook sales soared a whopping 264 percent year-over-year in the quarter, accounting for 22.2 percent of overall PC sales, but woefully for PC manufacturers and for Microsoft — only 11.7 percent of revenues. Overall PC laptop sales (excluding netbooks) declined 14 percent and PC laptop average selling prices dropped to $688 in Q2 2009 from $704 in Q1 2009 and from $849 in Q2 2008. Apple, on the other hand, eased prices somewhat on entry level MacBook Pro models in all three sizes while holding the $999 price point for its price leader white MacBook, and is still enjoying healthy sales and profits on its laptops. Even the most substantial MacBook Pro price cut — $400 on the base 15″ model — was partly compensated by substituting an SD Card slot for the preceding model's ExpressCard slot, and leaving out the discrete NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT graphics processor unit with its 256MB of dedicated VRAM in the new price-leader model, so I doubt that Apple has taken a major profitability hit. It's more about marketing refocus. Burke says Jobs wants to build “Rolls Royces,” not “Fords” and for him it was never about putting a PC on every desktop, while Microsoft has always had more of a Henry Ford style mass production bent. Again, partially true I suppose, although it doesn't hold up particularly well in the iPod and iPhone context, and I don't think Mr. Jobs has anything against growing market share provided he can do it without compromising quality standards or profitability, as his “there are some markets Apple doesn't choose to serve” comment a year ago attests. Simplistic Fixation On Initial Purchase Cost I don't gainsay that Windows Vista was a gift to Apple that just kept on giving, or that Windows 7 will prove much stiffer competition for OS X, but I think Burke is overstating his case in contending that Apple's market share gains over the past several years are now destined to evaporate. To borrow his own analogy, it's the whole car, not just the engine, and many of us perceive the Mac as being not only a smoother, better-handling ride, but also a better value in a whole raft of contexts that transcend simplistic fixation on initial purchase cost. CNET's Dong Ngo reports that Snow Leopard consistently beats Windows 7 in many general performance areas including boot up time and battery charge life in laptops, for example. Burke says PCs running Windows 7 are for “the masses” while Macs running OS X are for “the rich.” I'm not rich by the wildest stretch and neither are most of the other Mac-users I know. I do like to think that I appreciate value, a superior user experience, lower total cost of ownership, and elegance of form and execution, and that while Windows 7 will narrow the gap somewhat, it will fall well short of closing it. In Q3, NewNet focus turns to business models and search. Read the, "NewNet Q3 Wrap-up."

  • Apple Q3'09 results: breaking records, not taking names

    Filed under: Apple Corporate, Apple Financial In yesterday's earnings announcement and subsequent analysts' call, Apple reported another record-breaking quarter; the company posted its "best non-holiday quarter [in terms of] revenue and earnings." This is pretty impressive given, as Engadget points out, what some consider the "worst recession since the Great Depression." Specifically, Apple's books (not that kind) are reporting revenues of $8.34 billion with a take-away profit of $1.3 billion; the bump from the year-ago quarter in earnings per diluted share takes us from $1.19/share in Q3'08 to $1.35 in Q3'09. In the midst of these impressive numbers, Apple's CFO Peter Oppenheimer is optimistic. Apple is expecting revenue in the range of $8.7 billion to $8.9 billion for the current quarter, forecasting an increase in Mac sales as we enter the back-to-school shopping season. This is a safe bet, given Apple's "best ever" line of current MacBooks. For Q3'09 Apple sold 2.6 million Macs -- 1.75M of them were laptops, per Macworld -- representing a 4% increase in units sold over the year-ago quarter. The laptop rush continues to swing the balance of Apple's CPU sales towards the MacBook Pro line; laptop units sold jumped 13% year over year, while desktop sales dropped almost 100K units (849K vs. 943K) against Q3'09. Ignoring the subscription-based accounting methodologies for both iPhone and Apple TV, Apple's non-GAAP revenue was a staggering $9.74 billion with net income of $1.94 billion. In order to allow for future free updates to the products, Apple uses subscription based accounting for iPhone and Apple TV; revenue from iPod touch & iPod, Macs, software and accessories is fully recognized when the products are sold. This approach "parcels out income from iPhone and Apple TV sales over a 24-month period." Apple also sold 10.2 million iPods and 5.2 million iPhones, representing a 7% decline and 626% increase over the year-ago quarter. This fact is significant because the decrease in iPod sales indicates that the iPhone is now cannibalizing its older siblings in the "traditional" (shuffle, nano, and classic) family of iPods. Apple is also quick to point out that the entire market for traditional MP3 players is declining. While the increase in iPhone sales does seem quite impressive, it is worth noting that the iPhone is available in many more countries than it was a year ago (although the 3GS is only in 18 of the 80 markets so far). I would be interested in knowing if iPhone sales increased domestically or if these numbers are completely driven by international success. Another interesting metric will be to compare iPhone sales this quarter to sales in Q3'10. With a similar sampling of countries the numbers should make for a better comparison. Although, I will go ahead and jump the rumor-gun and say I think that next year's iPhone is going to be a bigger improvement vs. the current model, as compared to the 3GS vs. the 3G; for this reason iPhone sales will continue to increase. Again the question of netbooks was presented and again Apple suggests that the netbook is currently a sub-standard computing platform with a poor user experience. If we consider that Apple had at one time said they were not doing a video iPod, then it is pretty likely that an Apple netbook is in our future. Apple's third-quarter results are very strong and the stock is up substantially in early trading today. This should be great news for anyone holding any AAPL in their portfolio especially given the close for Q2'09 was a mere $121.51. I think Apple is doing a great job and as an investor myself, I am pleased with the results -- as is the rest of Wall Street. TUAWApple Q3'09 results: breaking records, not taking names originally appeared on The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:20:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.Read|Permalink|Email this|Comments

The Comments Go Here

Software Releases