Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Analyst Meeting Conference Call

Originally posted by DanUk2003
They've already got music, photos, movies and DVD's covered, what else is there?!?!?!?!?!

Any ideas?!?!
Click to expand...

I can think of a few, but whether Apple and Steve Jobs think the same is another question:
1. Streaming DVDs (e.g. like streaming iTunes music). This would be something like iVideo - your DVDs in your Video Library etc. Essentially iTunes for Video. Yes you need lots of disk space, but it is coming just like iMovie and iDVD were there first.
2. ReplayTV/TiVo recording functionality. But without the need for LOTS of big extra boxes (just a little client to stream to connected to your TV). This device would also allow Music stream too.
3. Improved iSync. Works great over Bluetooth now, but always room for improvement.
4. Streaming iTunes music over Airport/Airport Extreme to what would amount to a 'thin' iPod (e.g. iPod without much storage, but Airport Extreme, screen to pic tunes). It would essentially be a thin music (and later video?) playing client, iPod-like except built to stream from iTunes and then plugs into your regular stereo system.
5. I'd still like to see a thin PB. Essentially a portable display that allows you to access your desktop anywhere you have an Airport connection.
6. iPod streaming over Bluetooth for nearby devices.
7. [Had to add this:]Something I want, but doubt will be from Apple soon: combo phone, MP3/etc (e.g. on a 8GB xD memory card), good camera etc. Essentially iPod (with less storage), with phone and camera. Similar to the Nokia 6600.

Regarding the "next... timeframes". I am guessing he was going to say "few months." (or quarters at worst). Nothing else would make sense (e.g. "years"). And the comment means multiple things over time (obvious I think).

Regarding WMA. A *huge* point of iTunes is to get Quicktime installed (plus show off nice software). Supporting WMA right away would really hurt that (depending upon the implementation of course - they could just throw something in there to require it). The big issue is to get it to be the default, as high quality playback for audio now, then video. Likewise I think they'd fear that MSFT would change their *proprietary* specs out from under them. Yes, Apple's DRM isn't open yet, but I bet that is a contractual issue with the record companies for now.
 
Misc

Steve: Well he better be cocky, he better be too full of himself, he better be a complete evangelist of the "Apple Way", and if he isn't, find someone else. You don't get to be a *successful* CEO of two different major corporations because you're a *****(cat). He has to believe, and he has to communicate that to EVERYONE. His whole goal is to make people believe that Apple is a winner. Capitulation is not the way to do that. Those of you that find Steve to be arrogant aren't going to be CEOs, sorry. And, if he can do that while he's doing a dobbie back stage, more power to him. Don't forget that W. Churchhill, by most accounts, was a functioning drunk (god, am I going to get flamed now), but he (and his ego) saved Europe.

MP3: Legally requires a license, just like MPEG4/ACC (ACC being the audio piece). VorbisOgg exists to implement MP3 sans license fees, i.e. a clean room re-implementation. The MP3 licensing is on the encoding side.

AAC: Several posts have referred to AAC as owned by Dolby, but I believe it is Dolby's contribution to the MPEG4 group. MPEG4 is a standard made up of a number of pieces of technology from a number of vendors that form the consortium, Apple being one of them. Yes, you have to license it, but it is simply a way for the various players to recoup their R&D investment. The goal is to have a multi-vendor supported standard that everyone can hang their hat on, instead of kissing MSs tush. Phillips has already rejected WMA for the simple reason that it is controlled by a single corporation. More will follow.

I guess I shouldn't post after my evening Martini :)
 
Originally posted by reyesmac
If AAC is not proprietary why would you need a license to use it? Do you have to pay for the license? Is this how other free codecs have you do, like mp3? If anyone knows the answers to these questions I would appreciate it.

Sometimes it sounds like Apple is the only one out there that can play AAC songs. That just sucks if true.
Click to expand...
AAC is an open standard created by Dolby labs. The DRM is also I believe non Apple, created by fairplay. AAC is mp4 and fairplay can b licensed.
WMA just feeds the beast!
 
Re: Misc

Originally posted by daveL
Steve: Well he better be cocky, he better be too full of himself, he better be a complete evangelist of the "Apple Way", and if he isn't, find someone else. You don't get to be a *successful* CEO of two different major corporations because you're a *****(cat). He has to believe, and he has to communicate that to EVERYONE. His whole goal is to make people believe that Apple is a winner. Capitulation is not the way to do that. Those of you that find Steve to be arrogant aren't going to be CEOs, sorry. And, if he can do that while he's doing a dobbie back stage, more power to him. Don't forget that W. Churchhill, by most accounts, was a functioning drunk (god, am I going to get flamed now), but he (and his ego) saved Europe.

MP3: Legally requires a license, just like MPEG4/ACC (ACC being the audio piece). VorbisOgg exists to implement MP3 sans license fees, i.e. a clean room re-implementation. The MP3 licensing is on the encoding side.

AAC: Several posts have referred to AAC as owned by Dolby, but I believe it is Dolby's contribution to the MPEG4 group. MPEG4 is a standard made up of a number of pieces of technology from a number of vendors that form the consortium, Apple being one of them. Yes, you have to license it, but it is simply a way for the various players to recoup their R&D investment. The goal is to have a multi-vendor supported standard that everyone can hang their hat on, instead of kissing MSs tush. Phillips has already rejected WMA for the simple reason that it is controlled by a single corporation. More will follow.

I guess I shouldn't post after my evening Martini :)
Click to expand...
Vodka / Gin and how dry?

:cool:
 
Originally posted by Sayhey
Personally, I looking forward to the iPod being upgraded to a tricorder. Beam me up, Steve!:p
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the tricorder was not a communications device. I believe that it was more of an assesssment device.
Most humble salutations if I am in error.
:p
 
Originally posted by doc_mac
Unfortunately the tricorder was not a communications device. I believe that it was more of an assesssment device.
Most humble salutations if I am in error.
:p
Click to expand...

I think he was referring to the communicator. The tricorder is just a scanning device used for everything.
 
Originally posted by Dippo
I think he was referring to the communicator. The tricorder is just a scanning device used for everything.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was trying to make a wry comment on how the tricorder seemed to be able to do just about anything. Especially after Scott, Spock, or some other technical wizard applied a hairpin from a scantily clad yeoman. I always thought it as the Star Trek equivilant of Batman's utility belt. Do you think the iPod is a few generations away from that? ;)
 
Originally posted by x86isslow
did he just compare itms with micro$uck? omg he did:

now thats negative association. why does steve-o keep saying dumb things like that.. anyone else read the newsweek interview? he sounded like he was high.
Click to expand...

That's that good Cupertino bud! I'm waiting for my iBong.
 
Originally posted by coopdog
DO you think he is taling about Real media or Real Audio codec? I think it is kind of a strange choice of words. Isn't proper english "really good" not "real good." Whatever
Click to expand...

Yes. You've hit on it. The CEO of one of the most secretive companies on Earth is secretly informing us of his plans by embedding clues in everyday speech.

I mean, what else could it be? After all no one ever says 'real good' instead of 'really good', especially in the US.:rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Macco
That whole Microsoft comment is sort of counterproductive. If Apple is unwilling to develop iTunes so that it will work with other players, just because the iPod is the most popular player, what reason is there for companies to develop software for the Mac when the overwhelming majority of PCs run Windows?

Yes, I know that Apple is only integrating the iPod to encourage sales and so on, but I'm just making the point that some people could take this comment the wrong way.
Click to expand...

It's too early to make that call. Everyone seems to be jumping on the bandwagon and coming out with their music player or music download service. Apple can't be spending time and money trying to support everyone else's crap. A lot of these products and services are not going to be around for very long. Jobs did point out that money can not be easily made with these types of services. If one or two of them stay the course and are able to offer reasonable competition then Apple will work with it, but right now, for Apple to do this would actually give credibility to products and technology that doesn't deserve it. Apple is leading the pack. Let the competition learn to be compatible with AAC, iTunes, and the iPod, not the other way around! 80% percent market share, what are you people thinking?!!
 
Anyone else see a potential problem?

I see a possibility that the first online music store that folds could kill the entire market for online music stores. Think about this possibility:

ordinary (as in not computer) people begin to consider digital music distribution as a real possibility. About this time, we start to see who can cut it and who can't in the market. The ones that drop out of the market leave thousands of former customers with songs that they are unable to play because they can no longer connect to the now-defunct retailer's servers to authorize their music. When news of this hits headlines, the masses, who are just beginning to warm up to commercial digital music distribution dismiss it because their "purchases" are only useful as long as the retailer is around, and the entire market dies.

It's a worst-case-scenario, I know, but I see no reason why it couldn't happen.
 
Portable digital device makers should support AAC.

In addition, other digital music download stores should offer songs in AAC.

Resistance is futile. The market has spoken.

The iPod commands 50% market share in the portable digital device market. I suspect this will only increase in the near future.

Thusly, digital music download stores should offer files that will play on the most popular---by a long shot---player.

iPod + iTunes.

Apple should stay the current course.

Customers don't care about AAC vs. WMA, or Apple vs. Microsft. They care about "how am I going to get my music, and where am I going to play it?"

Right now, Apple owns both positions.

If the others want a piece of the action, they better start rethinking their strategies. Licensing fees are licensing fees. Whether they go to Microsoft for WMA, or Apple for Fairplay (Digital Rights Management technology, or DRM for those who asked earlier) should be irrelevant.

However, as Steve said, I don't see much sense in entering the digital download market without a vertically integrated solution.

Walmart can afford to create a service and sell songs at a loss simply to drive traffic to their stores and/or site. Roxio, MusicMatch, BuyMusic (remember them? ;)) though, are no Walmarts.

Dell can sell a cheap player, but teaming it with an inferior download service is destructive from the start. If Dell really wanted to make a splash, they would support the iTMS and not MusicMatch, et al. Hit Apple in the gut. That would knock iPod prices down pretty quickly. (Most Mac users, of course, would still buy the iPod...because they have an innate concern for quality. I mean, they bought a Mac in the first place. Of course, there are a lot of users that would gladly pay less for an inferior player because it's "almost as good.")

Support AAC. Support the iPod. Survive.
 
AAC vs WMA Support

At first thought it seems as though Steve's statement about not supporting other formats and stores is offending, and seems like a shot in the foot about Apple's own PC market-share. However, these are too very different issues and his statement seems to be justified and reasonable. Adobe and other companies develop software for the mac because they can sell enough to make money after the cost of porting the software. This is a different situation in that Apple would have to spend money on testing, coding, and licensing for WMA, but they would probably not sell more iPods because of this support. If you were going to buy an iPod then you can use iTMS. There is no reason for Apple to allow you to use another store when using iTMS is built in. Why would WMA make people buy an iPod? Apple would even potentially lose more money because people are purchasing songs from other stores. Apple wants others to support the iPod so the other companies spend money to make money, not Apple spending it for them. I don't think Adobe is really helping Apple sell computers that much, and even if they were it would be no reason to write the software if it didn't mean profit for Adobe. Apple is in a similar situation as Adobe when it comes to SMB, Office, and other Windows formats. They spend money to include these compatibilities to sell more Macs, not to help promote the sale of Windows. This is exactly what Apple is saying for competitors to do. Support iTMS and AAC so you can make money, not to support the sale of iPods.

Man, Steve was acting his part from Pirates of Silicon Valley nicely.:D I can't image what he was like then if people say he is more toned down now. And this was at an Analysts meeting!:eek:
 
Originally posted by x86isslow
did he just compare itms with micro$uck? omg he did:

now thats negative association. why does steve-o keep saying dumb things like that.. anyone else read the newsweek interview? he sounded like he was high.
Click to expand...

I didn't read the newsweek article, but I wouldn't doubt that he sounded high, I think he's still stuck in the 60's, no matter how innovative his ideas are.
 
Originally posted by ALoLA
As far as the "arrogance" goes, if he can walk the walk, he can talk the talk. :cool:
Click to expand...
Agreed. Every time I see a Jobs Keynote or hear an interview, it's "'we're leading the way' and 'no one is even close' and 'we're better than M$ or Dell'" ... I think "He's a bit over-selling this" -- but then I realize that he's crowing because Apple IS really doing some great innovating and too few people will notice unless they're informed.

I've heard many times "It ain't bragging if you can do it". Steve is just letting everyone else know what 4% of us already know.
 
Originally posted by reyesmac
If AAC is not proprietary why would you need a license to use it? Do you have to pay for the license? Is this how other free codecs have you do, like mp3? If anyone knows the answers to these questions I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...

The MPEG Layer-3 audio (mp3) codec is not free - the algorithm is patented. The owners of said patent have allowed home users to use both encoders and decoders for free - as long as this is solely for home use. If you distribute, even for free, an encoder and or decoder, you're supposed to pay the patent holders. Last year, several Linux distributions removed several mp3 encoders/decoders due to potential patent violations - I don't know if Fraunhofer IIS and Thomson sent them a cease and desist, or if during licensing reviews they came across this potential land mine. Don't take my word for any of this though, as I am not a lawyer - check out http://www.mp3licensing.com/ for more information. Oh - and yes, Apple has definetely obtained a license for this - check the legal section of your iPod or about iTunes.
 
Re: Anyone else see a potential problem?

Originally posted by coolsoldier
I see a possibility that the first online music store that folds could kill the entire market for online music stores. Think about this possibility:

ordinary (as in not computer) people begin to consider digital music distribution as a real possibility. About this time, we start to see who can cut it and who can't in the market. The ones that drop out of the market leave thousands of former customers with songs that they are unable to play because they can no longer connect to the now-defunct retailer's servers to authorize their music. When news of this hits headlines, the masses, who are just beginning to warm up to commercial digital music distribution dismiss it because their "purchases" are only useful as long as the retailer is around, and the entire market dies.

It's a worst-case-scenario, I know, but I see no reason why it couldn't happen.
Click to expand...

Well, just to put a little bit of ease into this idea, it'd only be if the whole company went under. Therefore, it would tend to turn more people away from companies like MusicMatch, Napster, et al. (MusicMatch might stick around, but Napster, etc, would likely be more frowned upon.) By contrast, Apple would be the golden child. While it's conceivable that Apple might one day close iTMS, I'd venture to guess that they'd still have authorization servers available to allow people to authorize their computers for listening to their music. Besides, if we're talking five to ten years from now, how many times over do you think that the DRM will have been cracked and revised? Wait a little longer, after the service has died, and even the final version of the DRM would be cracked, allowing you full access to all of your music. (Just imagine, a m4p to m4a converter... I wouldn't be at all surprized to learn that someone was working on just such a thing right now...)
 
Re: Go Jobs Go!

Originally posted by ITR 81
I don't think Apple will ever support an MS std unless it has too..just like MS will never support an Apple std unless it has too.

The std that Apples using is the way to go and rest will soon follow.
Click to expand...

But they will add inline support for MICROSOFT WORD documents in TextEdit? They will follow standards that make sense, financially and rationally. Supporting an audio codec that (comparatively speaking) nobody uses isn't a wise business move.
 
Re: Re: Go Jobs Go!

Originally posted by thebigo
But they will add inline support for MICROSOFT WORD documents in TextEdit? They will follow standards that make sense, financially and rationally. Supporting an audio codec that (comparatively speaking) nobody uses isn't a wise business move.
Click to expand...

Dang, I stayed off this thread for three hours, and bam, I am already lost. Silly me!
 
Unblurring of Photos and Multi-user iChat

I am supprised that no-one has picked up on Steve talking about the uses of 64 bit computing to the analyst. The features sounded astounding and promissing since some of the features are not current features that Apple offers within current apps. My favorite one on the list was the unblurring of blurry photos.

1) DVD compression can take 2 minutes to burn instead of 45 minutes.

2) iChat would be able to process 3-5 users.

3) Unblurring of photos. Mentioned as a ferrorcious process to the processor and is able to happen with 64 bit processor with a good algorithm since the photos contain all the needed information. This sounds amazing. My bad blurry photos may one day see the light of day.
 
he's right

Originally posted by x86isslow
did he just compare itms with micro$uck? omg he did:

now thats negative association. why does steve-o keep saying dumb things like that.. anyone else read the newsweek interview? he sounded like he was high.
Click to expand...

Remember that this has been an analyst talk, not a developer briefing. MS has some good record of financial success and analysts like to hear that reference.

I encounter this tyoe of quote every now and then when companies try claiming to be successful that they measure themselfs up as to be the "new" MS. However, there's a difference in owning a maketshare for an OS with many software depending on it, or to own this number of marketshare from a retail shop. Since there is no dependency where music was bought from, the retialer will drop it's share much more quickly if he's not ahead of the crowd anymore.
 
It's Pouncing Time!!

They only use a std that makes them money which makes sense. Why support the enemy when you don't have too??
I bet right now Apple is working on iOffice suite that will be better then Mac Office and copies 98% of all it's features and improves upon them. Then 2-3 months later Apples iOffice goes Windows. Gates has heart attack due to huge migration of Office users to Apples iOffice suite.

I believe Jobs going to have something very big in Jan because the upcoming CES show is coming then and MS is suppose to be putting on big show. It would be like jobs to introduce something that would still the show away from MS and Gates.


The lines have been drawn. Now let the pouncing begin!!!!!
 
why iTunes won't do WMA

right now they're working with AAC, which is an open standard. any company can use AAC (as long as they pay the licensing fees for it), while WMA is up to Microsoft to let you develop for it or not. so, why doesn't napster start supporting AAC, an open standard, instead of apple doing the hard work of implementing an MS codec?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back