That's a highly emotive and (if I may say so), flawed comment. A) Mr Jobs probably won't sue you because you're not worth suing. B) The issue is what Apple (as the copyright holder) chooses to do with its IP, not what you think they should do to satisfy your perception of what equitable and fair. C) You can decide what you like regarding the copy of OSX you "bought", but that doesn't take away the fact that Apple is the sole arbiter of how it wants its products to be used and, fundamentally, the methods by which it chooses to make money. Same goes for Microsoft. Microsoft uses serial numbers and activation to control how its products are used - Apple forgoes serial numbers and activation in favour of a "hardware tax". Up to you to determine which one suits you, but you're misguided if you think that Apple will let you and the Miami lot have your cake and eat it too.
For one, most cell-phone music players are bad. Very bad. For example, the Digital Audio Player application on most Motorola phones has innate trouble finding MP3s correctly! Totally agree with that. Indeed, I was watching my boss trying to upload some music onto his Nokia N95 and it looked like an unbelievably frustrating experience. The point is that geeks will have to learn to think a little more outside the box on this one. In any market (not just the handset market) you cannot automatically assume that functionality = market success. It just doesn't work like that and Apple almost certainly better than any of us at working this one out. Indeed, they have shown in the past that this idea holds true (c.f iPod).
I think that the choice of spec for the iPhone is interesting and it tells me that Apple does not see 3G as being as "killer" as people think it is for the time being. Here in Europe, 3G is ubiquitous but irrelevant. We tried it for a while with video calling but it was expensive and rubbish and people don't determine their purchases on whether the handset is capable of doing it - 3G is just a marketing tool to foll people into thinking that they are buying something revolutionary (a kind of tech security blanket if you like).
That doesn't mean that Apple won't introduce it (they've certainly said they would), it's just that there is no real justification for having it. If you want bandwidth to surf the web, use wifi - plenty of it about here in London and so much cheaper than the data plans the operators currently offer, "web'n'walk"-type deals notwithstanding.
Ultimately, the success of the device will hinge on whether people think they are getting a great experience "using" the device for the money that they will be charged. People will forget about the lack of 3G if the fascination with the UI and the iPod functionality becomes the primary focus of the device.
I think it's quite and interesting contest. It might be a case of Cisco only telling half the story (why would it open up completely on a blog?). The negotiations will almost certainly have been fairly complex. I see four major factors which may decide the outcome of this one. The two most-quoted ones are:
1) Apple's reliance on the "i" series of trade marks it already has. It will use this as a means of satisfying a test to determine the likelihood of confusion between the products. Some US legal experts have already claimed that this may not be a runner. We'll see (the area is heavily fact-specific so don't judge!)
2) Cisco's failure properly to defend its iphone trademark against usage by other third parties involved in a similar line of business. Can't really comment on that seeing as I don't know enough about it. what's funny however is that a google search for "iphone" gives you about 7 pages of results on the Apple product and diddly squat on any else.
There are two other factors which I can see, but which I think haven't necessarily been talked about much:
3) Cisco knows full well (but omits to mention) that Cingular will not allow Apple to "do VoIP" on its cells. An invitation to commit to interoperability between two companies looks on the surface like something both would want. After all, both are respected organisations with lots of R&D skills and a (generally well thought-of) reputation for execution. However, because the business plan could not yet allow that, Apple sensed a dangerous honey trap designed to lure it into an exclusive tie-in on VoIP on the iPhone platform. As we know, Apple partners with who it wants when it wants.
4) As this article http://www.out-law.com/page-7650 suggests, Cisco may lose its EU trade marks in "iPhone" shortly. Apple may have filed the revocation notice itself. If the filing succeeds, Cisco will almost certainly have to settle.
As you can see, it's a muddy one. I'm not hugely impressed with Cisco's line that "it was never about the money". It's always about money if you think that you're paying more than something is worth. Apple's probably seen that 4) is likely to succeed, and will stall until Cisco is forced back to the table with a lower price.
My 0.2$
I stream iTunes to an Audiolab amplifier and some Dali speakers, and from what I can hear, the 128K iTunes files are just as good as 256K CD rips. Hell, even on my father's Strumenti speakers ($20,000) with a Naim amp, iTMS files sound pretty damn amazing.
Sounds like an excuse to me. The first Xbox was fine - it was well executed, the game were pretty good, it gained enough traction to make Xbox360 relevant today. I don't buy this "they're new to this music player lark and therefore we can allow the at least one cock up" business. They've had 5 years to get this right, clever techies and a boatload of cash. Apple's first iPod wasn't perfect, but it was still beautifully executed.
Looks to me like they've:
- mis-judged the market; - executed the product poorly; and - marketed the product naively.
They might get it right over time, but I'm not taking part in this extended beta testing program when I have a mature platform (iPod) that already gives me what I want.
I have to say, I thought that Bertrand Serlet and Scott Forstall's presentations were quite interesting. It seems to me that Apple is moving very gradually towards a new kind of GUI, perhaps the oft-mentioned Piles. I think that Core Animation is key to this vision. While there is practically no chance of seeing piles appear in Leopard, I would fancy Apple'd chances of developing it in time for 10.6 or perhaps even OSXI. This would be a huge undertaking and one which would require users to adjust their habits . Seeing a greater degree of graphical fluidity in the way the OS performs its tasks is the best way to encourage users to embrace this change.
I thought Steve Jobs did fine. As many of you have already mentioned, this is a developer conference. The effort that Apple puts in to these events is proportional to the size of the target audience. Accordingly, people shouldn't get too hung up or antsy if he fails to announce an iPhone or upgraded iPod. Wait until the pre-Holiday season for that. Similarly, expect more wizz-bang "end-user"-type features in Leopard to be announced at Macworld in January.
FUD.
Instead or relying on notoriety (which in this context is unhelpful), please base ALL your comments on personal experience. It is just as easy (and inaccurate) to say that Macs never break down and that OSX is the greatest OS since sliced bread.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a highly emotive and (if I may say so), flawed comment. A) Mr Jobs probably won't sue you because you're not worth suing. B) The issue is what Apple (as the copyright holder) chooses to do with its IP, not what you think they should do to satisfy your perception of what equitable and fair. C) You can decide what you like regarding the copy of OSX you "bought", but that doesn't take away the fact that Apple is the sole arbiter of how it wants its products to be used and, fundamentally, the methods by which it chooses to make money. Same goes for Microsoft. Microsoft uses serial numbers and activation to control how its products are used - Apple forgoes serial numbers and activation in favour of a "hardware tax". Up to you to determine which one suits you, but you're misguided if you think that Apple will let you and the Miami lot have your cake and eat it too.
I think that the choice of spec for the iPhone is interesting and it tells me that Apple does not see 3G as being as "killer" as people think it is for the time being. Here in Europe, 3G is ubiquitous but irrelevant. We tried it for a while with video calling but it was expensive and rubbish and people don't determine their purchases on whether the handset is capable of doing it - 3G is just a marketing tool to foll people into thinking that they are buying something revolutionary (a kind of tech security blanket if you like).
That doesn't mean that Apple won't introduce it (they've certainly said they would), it's just that there is no real justification for having it. If you want bandwidth to surf the web, use wifi - plenty of it about here in London and so much cheaper than the data plans the operators currently offer, "web'n'walk"-type deals notwithstanding.
Ultimately, the success of the device will hinge on whether people think they are getting a great experience "using" the device for the money that they will be charged. People will forget about the lack of 3G if the fascination with the UI and the iPod functionality becomes the primary focus of the device.
We shall see...
My typos are clearly worth more than my thoughts! :-)
1) Apple's reliance on the "i" series of trade marks it already has. It will use this as a means of satisfying a test to determine the likelihood of confusion between the products. Some US legal experts have already claimed that this may not be a runner. We'll see (the area is heavily fact-specific so don't judge!)
2) Cisco's failure properly to defend its iphone trademark against usage by other third parties involved in a similar line of business. Can't really comment on that seeing as I don't know enough about it. what's funny however is that a google search for "iphone" gives you about 7 pages of results on the Apple product and diddly squat on any else.
There are two other factors which I can see, but which I think haven't necessarily been talked about much:
3) Cisco knows full well (but omits to mention) that Cingular will not allow Apple to "do VoIP" on its cells. An invitation to commit to interoperability between two companies looks on the surface like something both would want. After all, both are respected organisations with lots of R&D skills and a (generally well thought-of) reputation for execution. However, because the business plan could not yet allow that, Apple sensed a dangerous honey trap designed to lure it into an exclusive tie-in on VoIP on the iPhone platform. As we know, Apple partners with who it wants when it wants.
4) As this article http://www.out-law.com/page-7650 suggests, Cisco may lose its EU trade marks in "iPhone" shortly. Apple may have filed the revocation notice itself. If the filing succeeds, Cisco will almost certainly have to settle.
As you can see, it's a muddy one. I'm not hugely impressed with Cisco's line that "it was never about the money". It's always about money if you think that you're paying more than something is worth. Apple's probably seen that 4) is likely to succeed, and will stall until Cisco is forced back to the table with a lower price. My 0.2$
Hear Hear!
I stream iTunes to an Audiolab amplifier and some Dali speakers, and from what I can hear, the 128K iTunes files are just as good as 256K CD rips. Hell, even on my father's Strumenti speakers ($20,000) with a Naim amp, iTMS files sound pretty damn amazing.
Sounds like an excuse to me. The first Xbox was fine - it was well executed, the game were pretty good, it gained enough traction to make Xbox360 relevant today. I don't buy this "they're new to this music player lark and therefore we can allow the at least one cock up" business. They've had 5 years to get this right, clever techies and a boatload of cash. Apple's first iPod wasn't perfect, but it was still beautifully executed.
Looks to me like they've:
- mis-judged the market;
- executed the product poorly; and
- marketed the product naively.
They might get it right over time, but I'm not taking part in this extended beta testing program when I have a mature platform (iPod) that already gives me what I want.
I have to say, I thought that Bertrand Serlet and Scott Forstall's presentations were quite interesting. It seems to me that Apple is moving very gradually towards a new kind of GUI, perhaps the oft-mentioned Piles. I think that Core Animation is key to this vision. While there is practically no chance of seeing piles appear in Leopard, I would fancy Apple'd chances of developing it in time for 10.6 or perhaps even OSXI. This would be a huge undertaking and one which would require users to adjust their habits . Seeing a greater degree of graphical fluidity in the way the OS performs its tasks is the best way to encourage users to embrace this change. I thought Steve Jobs did fine. As many of you have already mentioned, this is a developer conference. The effort that Apple puts in to these events is proportional to the size of the target audience. Accordingly, people shouldn't get too hung up or antsy if he fails to announce an iPhone or upgraded iPod. Wait until the pre-Holiday season for that. Similarly, expect more wizz-bang "end-user"-type features in Leopard to be announced at Macworld in January.
FUD. Instead or relying on notoriety (which in this context is unhelpful), please base ALL your comments on personal experience. It is just as easy (and inaccurate) to say that Macs never break down and that OSX is the greatest OS since sliced bread.