Slashdot Mirror

You both forgot the most important part of the Apple Cycle.

Conspiracy theories about how Apple "leaks" things again? Do you not know of the Apple product cycle. Especially given Jobs' devotion to secrecy?

The original concept (and funnier).

Ten years ago Apple applied for a patent for a color-changing device case and the entire Internet was almost swept away in the ensuing geekgasm. However, in the decade since, we have never seen it in production. There have been many other "Apple has a patent on..." stories since then for plenty of products that have not been made.

See also the Apple Product Cycle which has been very accurate in the decade since it was first published.

...what those glass-cutting machines were for.

You'd think that by now people would learn how it goes with Apple rumors.

Which is funny because it's true: Look at The Apple Product Cycle and scroll a little more than two thirds of the way down...

http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/

It's continuously relevant.

Yes, I think we could even at this point pen a new meme around it, much like the steps in an Apple Product Cycle

Seems like we're at:

"An obscure component manufacturer somewhere in the Pacific Rim announces a major order for some bleeding-edge piece of technology that could conceivably become part of an expensive, digital-lifestyle-enhancing nerd toy"

http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/

I believe this put's us right about here:

A minor, rarely occurring flaw in the device begins to be discussed in the Apple support forums. Whiny, artistic types post lengthy diatribes about how this terrible design flaw has made the device unusable and scarred them emotionally. Electronic petitions are created demanding that Apple replace the devices for free, plus pay for counseling to help traumatized users overcome their emotional distress.

In the Apple Product Cycle

This is why apple is so leak paranoid: leaks like this really contribute to the Osborne Effect

No, no. That doesn't happen with True Acolytes - Computers in those days weren't very powerful - not nearly strong enough to pull off a Reality Distortion Field. Why to do think current Apples run such powerful processors? After all UNIX ran on much more humble machines for most of it's life. And you all think that little antenna is for Wi-Fi. Fools.

This is the truth, and we all know you can't have opinions about the truth.

Obligatory Apple Product Cycle. Though they seem to have changed the "wait for nerds to throw wild-ass guesses based on our manufacturers' orders" to "leave a few prototypes around and hope somebody with a clue picks them up".

Sort of like this?

The problem is that people expect to have news available instantly, with pictures and video and editorialization. Broadcasters have to fill the air/page with something, so it's all kittens in trees and reports on biases in other reports, etc. etc. Look at the damn iPad; months and motnhs of speculation, blogs reporting on other blogs, mocked up pictures, theories about components being produced by obscure hardware companies... OK, so that's the norm for the Apple product cycle, but this kind of stuff is taking over the evening news. When important news does come along, its ripped apart immediately and presented in the most minute detail because each publisher wants to offer something that the others don't have. This level of detail is difficult to read - when the NYT is tearing apart what X said to Y about Z, the casual reader is left wondering who X and Y are, why they're important, and what Z has to do with their life.

If we expected a more relaxed news cycle, news of important local/national/international events would be presented better, easier to digest and more relevant. As it is, there's too much information, too quickly, and so people run for shelter to personalized news about things they do understand, where they have a chance at grokking the details and understanding their relevance, or where they are at least entertained.

We are now in the "As Macworld or the Worldwide Developer’s Conference draws near, the chatter builds to a fever pitch. Rumor sites jockey for position, posting a new unverifiable, contradictory rumor every hour or so. eBay is flooded with six-month-old, slightly used gadgets as college students, underemployed web designers and independent musicians struggle to clear credit card space." phase.

Click here for the rest of the Apple life cycle

I'm not sure - can you clarify where exactly they are on the release cycle?

Obligatory: http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/

It explains everything you need to know about the Apple rumor mill.

So we're at the first step in the Apple Product Cycle? It's nice to see we're right on track.

As an aside, I think it makes lots of sense for Apple to produce a tablet product, but I can't imagine them actually producing 10,000,000 of these things for launch.
First, it's a ridiculously high number, far exceeding the number of iPhones sold in a year and coming close to the number of all types of iPods combined.
Second, I doubt Apple would ever allow any of their new products to be overproduced. Artificial scarcity only adds to the perceived desirability of Apple products, driving the hype engine even more.

http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/

Part of The Apple Product Cycle.

Slashdot is one of those "Mac Internet forums" described therein. Or do you think that it is a coincidence that Slashdot's sections are:

* Main
        * Apple
        * AskSlashdot
        * Book Reviews
        * Developers
        * Games
        * Hardware
        * IT
        * Idle
        * Index
        * Interviews
        * Linux
        * Mobile
        * Politics
        * Science
        * Technology
        * YRO

Linux? HA!
Linux is a topic here only to attract more M$ haters.
When was the last time we had a story about Linus or RMS sneezing? See what I mean? Exactly!

Apple's cycle is well known.

Yeah, but the truly exciting part is when their cycle doesn't come...

Apple's cycle is well known.
But could this mean that it should be amended?

For example, with a new, secondary, starting point such as: "An obscure software developer spots references to what could conceivably be a next version of Apple hardware in one of its logs".

My advice would be to turn off the battery percentage as I would not be surprised if it is buggy somehow and causing a battery drain by running in the background. Not only that, but turning it off would relieve all of you OCD types from obsessing over the numbers rather than looking at actual use of the device.

I think that the number of unit is relatively low but my fellow apple aficionados tend to be a bunch of whiny cry babies so you end up seeing the same damn people complaining all over the internet causing it to seem more widespread than it actually is.

I submit for your perusal the Apple product cycle: http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/

I kind of feel left out of all this fun give than I have yet to have a problem with my iPhone but I did notice that turning on the battery percentage does tend to drain my battery faster so I'm going to turn it off for now until 3.1 comes out. Hopefully, bugs related to battery consumption will be fixed with a new release.

This seems a little like Google acquiring Facebook. What value do either of things generate? While the article may not be true, could we please get away from more DotBomb 2.0 mentality? Maybe Apple wants to spread the rumor to drive up their stock price. See the following, as always re: Apple and Rumors: http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/

http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/
Should we even be falling for this stuff anymore?

Looks like the Apple Product Cycle may have to be revised slightly.

An anonymous source in Taiwan? http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/

I would not bet the "Netbook" has a keyboard. More like small 10" tablet what has virtual keyboard.

But actually I am not believing this "inside news" at all.

We are at step 4 already?

The Apple Product Cycle:

"An obscure component manufacturer somewhere in the Pacific Rim announces a major order for some bleeding-edge piece of technology that could conceivably become part of an expensive, digital-lifestyle-enhancing nerd toy."

... an anonymous source in Taiwan has leaked that Apple has ordered some 10 inch touch-screens from WinTek, the maker of the touch-screen for the iPhone. It looks like an Apple netbook could possibly be in the works for a delivery date in Q3 of this year, in time for back-to-school sales.

Yet another example of how this is so true.

Just look at the Apple Product Cycle page.

In recent years, fact-based reporting about Apple and its products has been almost completely overwhelmed by gossip, predictions, and speculation -- an amazing percentage of which is embarrassingly wrong.

This has been going on for a long time.

In my humble opinion, there should be a law that would make linking of The Apple Product Cycle with every single mac/slashvertisement mandatory.

Step 28 of the Apple Product Cycle. Step 28 for the iPhone was the chipset, so maybe that's the problem with these scratches ... er, blue screens ... er, faulty plastic backs ... er, WPA network errors as well.

We have now reached Whiny, artistic types post lengthy diatribes about how this terrible design flaw has made the device unusable and scarred them emotionally.

http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/

What's the acronym for the opposite of FUD?

More than likely, this is just more nonsense from the standard Apple product cycle.

Guess you haven't seen this ;-)

http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/

hth.

Remember the history of all Apple products.

The Apple Product Cycle

Obviously, you haven't seen the Apple Product Cycle.

Interesting that despite Vista's high score on the low list, not too many people have noticed OS X 10.5 on there as well. But one of the main reasons for it being on the list should have taken no one by surprise: new versions of OS X always have nasty bugs that affect a few scattered people and make big headlines. In fact, it's not just limited to Apple's operating systems, but rather is a key part of the Apple Product Cycle. The company's products are usually quite good, but it's always worth letting the early adopters try them first.

I think we are in this stage:

Apple releases the first software update for the new device through its Software Update control panel. Several hours later, it pulls the updater. A small number of people who applied the update experience crashes, data loss, headaches and ennui. The Apple support forums are filled with outraged posts. A day or so later, Apple releases a revised installer without comment, then quietly removes the angry posts from its support forums.

or possibly this one still:

A minor, rarely occurring flaw in the device begins to be discussed in the Apple support forums. Whiny, artistic types post lengthy diatribes about how this terrible design flaw has made the device unusable and scarred them emotionally. Electronic petitions are created demanding that Apple replace the devices for free, plus pay for counseling to help traumatized users overcome their emotional distress.

and just about to enter the former stage.

I'm amazed at how accurate this product cycle document is...

Also, I'm decidedly disappointed in the people who are complaining about this warning. First of all, it's nothing more than a warning so far. It is probably not going to amount to ANYTHING. Second, why shouldn't this warning be issued? The company is displaying that they are aware of what is being done with their product and reiterating that they don't support it and their actions could conflict with those of the hackers.

As for the armchair lawyers, why do you think you have any idea what you are talking about? These areas of law are gray, and extremely tenebrous unexplored areas, and the requirements on companies like Apple or AT&T are unknown. That's the point of trials. If this ends up with a trial behind it, regardless of the winner, it's a positive thing to clarify some laws for us with precedents. But, the important thing to remember is that you don't know what you're talking about. Neither do any of you, or you, or you. So please, stfu about the law aspect of this issue.

The naiveness displayed by all parties of this issue is blinding. You have the hackers making permanent changes to an embedded device. Apple haters claiming legal foul on an issue that hasn't even HAPPENED yet. The apologists blindly supporting the downsides of vendor lock-in. The armchair lawyers deciding for the courts before anyone has even offered a case.

Has anyone bothered to point out that this is the same issue you have in any other example of firmware hacks to accomplish device unlocking?

Has anyone bothered to realize that the DMCA exception protects you from legal action, AGAINST you, under copyright law, and nothing else? Why do so many people think this somehow implies responsibility on the side of the OEM?

Personally I'm happy to see Apple showing that they have the guts to continue on with their business model on the iPhone, without taking heed to the tech world underbelly who likes to have it both ways til Sunday. This is the only way we're going to continue to receive excellent software on mobile devices, which simply has not existed before the iPhone. These negative aspects of the iPhone model and release are exactly what we need to motivate other companies to create devices that may actually rival the iPhone and sell them by advertising that they aren't locking you in, that you can get SIM unlocked versions, etc.

Slashdot won't bring you any news or valid commentary but it sure as hell can generate massive amounts of speculative fiction for those who like to read that genre.

Yeah. Generally, a few days before an Apple event, stock analysts predict about ten announcements, and only half of them come true. As a result, every Apple event is a "let-down", because Apple only updated the iPods and dropped the iPhone price. They didn't announce a deal with the Beatles, drop an ultra-portable Mac or announce the Leopard ship date, announce European iPhone dates, or sell a million iPhones yet. Granted, expecting all of that is pretty ludicrous, but analysts are generally worse than rumor site posters.

I'm in store for a new iPod, so I can't wait for the new release. Not because I can't wait for some panty-knot feature, but simply because if I can get a better product for the same price... well, go figure.

That said, at this point all I can hope is that the new product won't suck. As a lot of iPod users will likely agree, from the very beginning the iPod was a great product. All you wanted, and just a tad bit more. (No WiFi, less storage, lame... yada yada yada, sure...) With every new model, I sort of cringed, expecting to see a product with some stupid feature that would make the iPod less usable. Something that Sony might pull off. But that has never happened, and I'm hoping that it won't. With that in mind, I somehow find it hard to imagine an iPhone minus the phone. That would sort of be lame, and actually stop me from buying it.

But then again, I've been an on-and-off Mac user for over 20 years now. I probably have followed the Apple product life cycle to a certain extent in the past. ;-)

http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/

"On the morning of Steve Jobs's keynote presentation, the online Apple store grinds to a halt as Mac-heads set their browsers to refresh every 15 seconds."

(from the Apple Product Life Cycle)

This article is worthless and the Slashdot headline is misleading. "Apple Plans Nano-Based iPhone"? Hardly. From TFA: "Apple Inc. plans to launch a cheaper version of the iPhone in the fourth quarter that could be based on the ultra-slim iPod Nano music player, according to a JP Morgan report [from] Kevin Chang, a JP Morgan analyst " (emphasis added.) He "cited people in the supply channel... and an application with the U.S Patent and Trademark office for his report... Apple filed a patent application document dated July 5 that refers to a multifunctional handheld device with a circular touch pad control, similar to the Nano's scroll wheel."

How many of these "Apple is buying parts/Apple filed an application" articles have there been? So many that it's a joke. (That page is several years old--it came out around the time of the first- or second-gen iPod.) Now that multitouch is "out there," Apple can start filing patents on all multitouch-related things without everyone wondering what they're up to.

Everything else is OBVIOUS. OF COURSE Apple will make a better/faster/smaller/cheaper iPhone with more features at some point in the future. Next from JP Morgan: the sky is blue, water is wet. Film at 11.

I stand by my prediction that there will NOT be ANY revs to the iPhone before Jan 2008; more likely late Spring or Summer. (Note that this doesn't count improvements to the current iPhone, like a software update that enables the camera to shoot video, for example.)

It's pretty much on-target within the Apple Product Cycle.

Seriously, can we cut down just a bit on the iphone articles. We won't really know what it is or what it can do until it's been out for long enough to get over the initial inevitable noise-and-lack-of-supply issue.

To what extent can all iPhone discussion be replaced by citations of the appropriate paragraph of this page? Other than the long delay between paragraph 9 and the actual availability of the product, to what extent does that not describe the iPhone product cycle so far?