PDA

View Full Version : Peter Oppenheimer on Apple iPhone and Apple TV




MacRumors
Mar 6, 2007, 09:47 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Apple's CFO Peter Oppenheimer spoke at the Morgan Stanley Technology Conference today. Macworld provides a summary (http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/03/06/cfoevent/index.php?lsrc=mwrss), a full audio feed is available from Apple (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/morganstanley07/), and a transcript is available from Appleinsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2551).

In summary, Oppenheimer offers nothing particularly revealing and reaffirms that the Apple TV will be shipping this month.

One audience member asked directly if Apple would consider licensing Mac OS X to PC vendors and the reply was "no plans to do so."

When questioned about future advertising plans for the iPhone beyond the recent Oscars ad, Oppenheimer states that "Steve and the team have some great plans but I can't share those with you in advance".



nazmac21
Mar 6, 2007, 09:49 PM
Only if there were AppleTV games. I might buy an AppleTV someday.

D3LM3L
Mar 6, 2007, 09:52 PM
Only if there were AppleTV games. I might buy an AppleTV someday.

Apple probably has an in-house game controller being developed. Maybe the iPhone will work with the appletv over wi-fi with some widget/app that Apple will introduce. According to iTunes 7.1's strings, there will definitely be games for the appletv.

AlBDamned
Mar 6, 2007, 10:08 PM
More corporate towing the exact company line ********.

I just lost ten minutes of my life reading that crap. What a mug. :rolleyes:

Doctor Q
Mar 6, 2007, 10:14 PM
Peter Oppenheimer agrees with Steve Jobs' recently voiced opinion about DRM:The fact is DRM is required by the big four labels in order for us to protect [inaudible] from being illegally downloaded. We believe that consumers would be best served in a marketplace where any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store could sell music that would be playable on any player.Are others in Apple going to repeat this statement of a goal? It might take some heat off the demands in Europe for freer use of iTunes Store music, while putting more heat on the record labels they still need as partners.

dude-x
Mar 6, 2007, 10:19 PM
One of the dumbest things that people suggest is that Apple licenses the OS to PC manufacturers. While Mac OS X would be good on cheaper systems, the lack of quality control by respective device manufacturers will make it a headache for Apple to support. It's better that Apple keeps a tight leash on the hardware options available so that quality control can be consistent.

There's one reason why Windows is problematic on many machines. Crappy hardware.

Though Apple needs to have midrange products for their hardware.

Sandfleaz
Mar 6, 2007, 11:06 PM
Apple has spent years branding themselves as a premium product in a market with traditionally very thin margins. Licensing the OS to PC manufacturers would dilute that branding effort.

MasterJediDan
Mar 6, 2007, 11:08 PM
It's hard to tell whether or not it would be advantageous to Apple to license Mac OS X to other manufacturers....one thing is for sure, it would be a big hassle to support all the other manufacturer's hardware and all the peripherals that go along with them. However, it would be interesting to see what other companies would do if, say, Dell started putting OS X on their machines. We could potentially see Microsoft go downhill if the majority of PC manufacturers started putting OS X on their machines instead of Windows. But, as it sounds, Apple is going to play it safe instead of taking the risk of licensing OS X. However, there are still people who have been able to run OS X on their PC's. For example, in all the Qwest advertisements I see these days, they show their website on a Dell PC but their website is being shown in Safari (and it's not a Windows looking like OS X). Just some stuff to think about.

BenRoethig
Mar 6, 2007, 11:15 PM
To be perfectly honest, I think Apple is putting too much faith in AppleTV. Unlike the music side of things, compression and video playback technology hasn't advanced to a point where iTunes movies have any kind edge over DVDs. ACC files are compressed roughly a tenth the size of the audio file you'd see on a CD. Video compression is nowhere near that and it gives up quality. If any thing DVDs have the edge since the players are about 6-10 times cheapers, they usually have bonus material that iTunes movie do not, have higher playback quality, and if you want to play them on your friend's TV, you don't have to bring your Mac or AppleTV unit with you. I really only see it selling to a few higher budget people who have an extensive iTunes TV show library.

As for the iPhone, it will do well, but the line really won't take off until Apple has something in a similar class to the Slyvr or razr.

Curtis72
Mar 6, 2007, 11:15 PM
So did the previous Mac-clones run Mac OS?

Anyway, PC manufactures do make quality products. They tend to cost about the same as a Mac. But these same PC manufactures also make low-end crap as well. :eek:

Has anyone been to Wal-mart and seen the HP computers they sell??? Scary stuff! :eek:

thejadedmonkey
Mar 6, 2007, 11:23 PM
Has anyone been to Wal-mart and seen the HP computers they sell??? Scary stuff! :eek:

It's times like that where I almost wish Microsoft made their own hardware, much like Apple does.

BenRoethig
Mar 6, 2007, 11:49 PM
It's hard to tell whether or not it would be advantageous to Apple to license Mac OS X to other manufacturers....one thing is for sure, it would be a big hassle to support all the other manufacturer's hardware and all the peripherals that go along with them. However, it would be interesting to see what other companies would do if, say, Dell started putting OS X on their machines. We could potentially see Microsoft go downhill if the majority of PC manufacturers started putting OS X on their machines instead of Windows. But, as it sounds, Apple is going to play it safe instead of taking the risk of licensing OS X. However, there are still people who have been able to run OS X on their PC's. For example, in all the Qwest advertisements I see these days, they show their website on a Dell PC but their website is being shown in Safari (and it's not a Windows looking like OS X). Just some stuff to think about.

For support, it shouldn't be much harder than adding a EFI chip to the current Viiv, Centrino, and vPro packages and possibly nForce 6. Support for legacy BIOS machines and AMD machines is a waste of time and effort.

For the reasoning, the Mac and PC have evolved so far apart where they rarely overlap in terms of mainstream products. As much as you guys would love to believe that Apple is someone perfect and the pinnacle of design for all users, that simply is not the case. Apple caters to a specific group of computer users that lie outside convention. They are willing make sacrifices both financially and in terms of functionality for something that is as much a work of art as it is a functioning computer. Sometimes those sacrifices can be pretty severe. Take the iMac for example, I would consider it the ultimate family machine. It's powerful, but easy enough for even the most basic user to understand. However, take a step up to the prosumer ranks and its stock drops dramatically and its strengths as a family computer become glaring weaknesses. The lack of expansion, a card reader, a more credible video card and full size optical bays can come back to haunt it. It's not ignorance that keeps most on the windows side, but a a mismatch.

OSX has much more potential than windows and even more than Apple's hardware allows. There has to come a point where they realize that most computer users are not within grasp of Apple computer, but may be within the grasp of Mac OS X. Right now they're trying to gain users who not interested in what Apple has to offer while trying to retain users who would never leave. In other words when it comes to licensing, Apple places too much faith in its weaknesses while not realizing their strengths.

balamw
Mar 6, 2007, 11:57 PM
I really only see it selling to a few higher budget people who have an extensive iTunes TV show library.

While it does seem like a very different equation, it's pretty clear that Apple is already not positioning :apple:TV as a low-end device to throw on top of your trusty 10 year old 20" CRT, or even as a replacement to your DVD player. It has no composite or S-video out and does not seem to have an "easy" path from prerecorded DVD to :apple:TV.

So, let's just see what March 20 brings, before you pronounce :apple:TV dead, as many did for the iPod.

B

GFLPraxis
Mar 6, 2007, 11:58 PM
Video compression is nowhere near that and it gives up quality.


I must disagree; considering I can get a movie off a dual-layer DVD and down to 1.25 GB, video compression has some significant size advantages.

You could fit an HD movie on a regular DVD disk with H.264.

AlBDamned
Mar 7, 2007, 12:05 AM
While it does seem like a very different equation, it's pretty clear that Apple is already not positioning :apple:TV as a low-end device to throw on top of your trusty 10 year old 20" CRT, or even as a replacement to your DVD player. It has no composite or S-video out and does not seem to have an "easy" path from prerecorded DVD to :apple:TV.

B

It does have component output, so it will connect to a lot of TVs - or are composite and component not the same?

Apple TV connects to your TV via an HDMI port or component video and audio ports.

gauchogolfer
Mar 7, 2007, 12:07 AM
It does have component output, so it will connect to a lot of TVs - or are composite and component not the same?

Component does not equal Composite

BenRoethig
Mar 7, 2007, 12:08 AM
So did the previous Mac-clones run Mac OS?

Yes. The problem was not with the OS, it was with not licensing to better known companies with established user bases and large advertising budgets. The way they did it with startups did not reach out to new users and only drew sales away from an Apple that was already weak from an inability to react to changing market conditions. The Apple of the mid-90s would have been in serious trouble if the clones would have arrived or not. In fact, I would have to say Power Computing and Umax probably kept quite a few users from leaving the platform.

Anyway, PC manufactures do make quality products. They tend to cost about the same as a Mac. But these same PC manufactures also make low-end crap as well. :eek:

Has anyone been to Wal-mart and seen the HP computers they sell??? Scary stuff! :eek:

My mother has one of those scary Wal-Mart HPs and its been rock solid for the last 18 months. My iBook was pretty close to dropping its second motherboard by that time. It may not be flashy or be able to edit home movies, but it does what she needs it to do. To be honest, the card reader also makes it a lot easier to transfer photos than the hook up camera using USB cable method.

AlBDamned
Mar 7, 2007, 12:13 AM
Component does not equal Composite

Quick trip to Wikipedia highlights some of the differences! :)

balamw
Mar 7, 2007, 12:16 AM
It does have component output, so it will connect to a lot of TVs - or are composite and component not the same?

Video connectors 101:

composite = "the yellow plug for video"
S-video = "the round/multi-pin connector for video"
component = "the red green and blue plugs for video"
VGA = "essentially component video, but in a D-Sub connector"
DVI = "a digital version of VGA"
HDMI = "DVI+audio in a single miniature connector"

:apple:TV only supports component and HDMI though VGA and DVI should be doable with inexpensive adapters. The converters from component or HDMI to composite or S-video (which are the ports found on most TVs older than 5 years old) cost as much as the :apple:TV.

EDIT: I see you've been to Wiki for the answers. I left off some of the other connectors like SCART and other variants from accross the ages.

B

BenRoethig
Mar 7, 2007, 12:20 AM
It does have component output, so it will connect to a lot of TVs - or are composite and component not the same?

It requires you to have a high definition set.

IJ Reilly
Mar 7, 2007, 12:21 AM
Yes. The problem was not with the OS, it was with not licensing to better known companies with established user bases and large advertising budgets. The way they did it with startups did not reach out to new users and only drew sales away from an Apple that was already weak from an inability to react to changing market conditions. The Apple of the mid-90s would have been in serious trouble if the clones would have arrived or not. In fact, I would have to say Power Computing and Umax probably kept quite a few users from leaving the platform.

You mean startups, like Motorola? If you think the cloning disaster would have turned out better if Apple had licensed to Dell or HP, then I think you need to come up with a better reason. You are also apparently assuming that Dell or HP would have been interested in building Mac clones. Why?

The simple inescapable fact is that Apple was desperately attempting to figure out how they could successfully create competitors for their own products. This is a very weird business strategy, with almost no chance of turning out well. It failed because it was bound to fail.

balamw
Mar 7, 2007, 12:24 AM
It requires you to have a high definition set.

No it doesn't. A 480p compatible EDTV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced-definition_television) should work just fine.

B

BenRoethig
Mar 7, 2007, 12:27 AM
Quick trip to Wikipedia highlights some of the differences! :)

For the most obvious difference, component has a single plug for for the entire video spectrum. Composite has separate connectors for the red, green, and blue spectrums giving it about three times the output bandwidth compared to component video. It is all based on the same analog technology though. HDMI is the digital replacement for the entire RCA jack family

matticus008
Mar 7, 2007, 01:21 AM
No it doesn't. A 480p compatible EDTV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced-definition_television) should work just fine.

B
480p is a specified HDTV resolution contained in the HDTV broadcast standard. EDTV is just a convenient marketing name to separate colloquial "HD" programming (720p/1080x) from the other resolutions specified by digital television to differentiate it from SDTV (480i). HDTV might be better served if it were called "not standard definition," because HD and HDTV mean effectively different things thanks to market fragmentation.

donlphi
Mar 7, 2007, 01:48 AM
I wonder if I'll be able to access the apple TV with SLINGBOX or if the virtual remote will not be available. It can't be that tough.

That would give me access to my comcast (hi-def stations, on demand, dvr), and all of my movies and TV shows on my computer.

That would be great.:D

MacVault
Mar 7, 2007, 04:29 AM
Q: So mentioned the OS launch. Can you update us? Is the Leopard OS launch on time...
A: OK. Our next release of Mac OS X is called Leopard. We've previously announced that it will ship this Spring.

For some reason that answer makes me cringe. Not very reassuring.

And is Apple really having to strip features out of Leopard as did MS with Vista? I hope not. I'd rather them take another 6 months to release it with all features than give us a half baked update and make us wait another 2+ years for those stripped features.

BigHat
Mar 7, 2007, 04:56 AM
Video connectors 101:

composite = "the yellow plug for video"
S-video = "the round/multi-pin connector for video"
component = "the red green and blue plugs for video"
VGA = "essentially component video, but in a D-Sub connector"
DVI = "a digital version of VGA"
HDMI = "DVI+audio in a single miniature connector"

:apple:TV only supports component and HDMI though VGA and DVI should be doable with inexpensive adapters. The converters from component or HDMI to composite or S-video (which are the ports found on most TVs older than 5 years old) cost as much as the :apple:TV.

EDIT: I see you've been to Wiki for the answers. I left off some of the other connectors like SCART and other variants from accross the ages.

B

Thanks for posting this. My head was about to explode reading to assertive statements from people who obviously have NO idea what they are talking about.

Note: If you TV can't accept at least a component input -- go buy a new TV !!!

imikem
Mar 7, 2007, 07:26 AM
For the most obvious difference, component has a single plug for for the entire video spectrum. Composite has separate connectors for the red, green, and blue spectrums giving it about three times the output bandwidth compared to component video.

Umm, no. First off, your definitions are reversed. Composite video uses the single RCA plug, carrying all color and sync information, i.e., crap.

Component as implemented in the DVD world uses one plug to carry luminance (Y), and two carrying color information, labeled as YPbPr. Some older computer monitors carried RGB component video as BNC plugs, sometimes with a fourth carrying sync.

dernhelm
Mar 7, 2007, 08:42 AM
Umm, no. First off, your definitions are reversed. Composite video uses the single RCA plug, carrying all color and sync information, i.e., crap.

Component as implemented in the DVD world uses one plug to carry luminance (Y), and two carrying color information, labeled as YPbPr. Some older computer monitors carried RGB component video as BNC plugs, sometimes with a fourth carrying sync.

Right. I had Sun monitors with the 4 plugs. The looked great for a little while, but were extremely tempermental, prone to one plug or another getting wrenched around and broken, and most people really hated the things. DVI really was a godsend.

It amuses me the number of people that get confused about all this. I just tell people to remember: Composite is bad, component is good.

AidenShaw
Mar 7, 2007, 09:21 AM
You could fit an HD movie on a regular DVD disk with H.264.

You could fit an HD movie onto a CD with Sorenson, but would you want to watch it?

Take your "HD" DVD to a store that's showing movies from a Blu-ray on a 46" or so 1080p LCD. After watching the Blu-ray movie for a bit, put your "HD" DVD in.

Not a pretty picture, now is it?

CrackedButter
Mar 7, 2007, 11:26 AM
For some reason that answer makes me cringe. Not very reassuring.

And is Apple really having to strip features out of Leopard as did MS with Vista? I hope not. I'd rather them take another 6 months to release it with all features than give us a half baked update and make us wait another 2+ years for those stripped features.

Like which features, they haven't mentioned any bar the 10 we already got a preview of... and they exist. They haven't promised the earth like MS did with Vista.

Also on another note, why do people still insist on the idea of OSX for PC's, didn't they watch the keynote? I got the hint when Steve read a quote about being serious about the software, you have to be serious about the hardware as well. Hope it was a PC user who asked that silly question.:p

Maccus Aurelius
Mar 8, 2007, 02:35 PM
Hmmm.......licensing OS X to the OEM stream. Then people will clamor for firmware updates for their PC's from the Apple site like they do for macs. Pffffff I say.