Tim Cook Speaks on Apple, iPhone, Apple TV

[halse]

most interesting bit

WiFi calling with iPhone?: COO Tim Cook said
"Second, the product has wifi capabilities, so many people -- like in this room, I'm sure there's wifi in this room, and there are hotspots everwhere -- they're going to use wifi."

sounds like it will/can do some variant on skype (maybe via iChat?), this is one of the key unknowns (the other being price) about the iPhone

 

[shadowfax]

Try Sony Ericsson. I just got the W880i in black, for free. 3G, great battery, 2MP camera for snaps, instant blogging, push email, 1GB M2 card in box (expandable) headphones and adaptor, oh - and it's less than 1cm thick. INSANE. Weighs about 70-80 grams. Got the best UI out there in my opinion, uses Salling clicker (google it), bluetooth remote, isync ready... need I say more...

In the UK we still have to wait ages for the iPhone, but I am not sure I want to go forward in some features (touch screen etc) to go back in others, GSM only (3G on the way is a good thing) and the size of the handset. This SE is so small it's perfect. A normal 2MP camera (if you can still buy them) wouldn't be this small.

Anyway, it's awesome so get one whilst you wait for iPhone.

Eh, I am fresh out of a contract, and I'm actually sharing a family plan with my wife, and her sister and brother in law. together, my wife and I pay $35/month for our plan. just about any plan we switch to would double that.

You're right though. I had an SE T637 before my RAZR, and it was a pretty design as well, PLUS the UI was pretty intuitive. It had some stupid mMode crap on it forced on by the carrier (AT&T at the time), but it was much easier to use overall. Anyway, the iPhone's lack of 3G doesn't concern me--I couldn't use it if they had it, it's not available in Norman, OK. What tempts me is the ability to leverage wifi in my home/on campus. That is just kickass.

I think I'll just survive the razr while I wait. Someone should hack up the OS and give it a proper UI, then it could be an iPhone competitor, inasmuch as it'd be an intuitive, easy to use phone.

 

[Krevnik]

That might be true, but I don't see it as a sustainable revenue source. Why would *anyone* buy a TV show for $3 or whatever it costs [$.20 is too much if on a per-show basis]? Maybe the very, very seldom chance of missing an episode [which doesn't happen with a DVR anyways], and 1/1000 people would maybe buy that single episode. But that's about it. While Apple can make miracles, there's no way, absolutely no way that they will make money off of charging for TV shows, per show, when I can get them via cable [all TV shows, 1 price].

I disagree... I am actually very seriously considering throwing out my cable subscription and using OTA for HD simply because I will save myself a couple hundred dollars a year if I use iTunes for the handful of cable series I actually watch, and stick with broadcast for the rest. That money can easily go into new content... HD discs, a DVR, etc, etc...

Save money, and get some of my TV series commercial free? Sounds like a win-win to me. While it would be nice to get ad-supported free episodes so you can sample a series first... I don't need it to save money over my current cable subscription.

On the other hand, if they did build in DVR functionality as well - they could sell me on the movie part, possibly. At least they'd have my attention and I'd be using the box daily to watch all TV content. They wouldn't be loosing any money, because again - there will never be many people paying for TV shows unless cable goes to utter hell. But they would be making money from my original Apple TV purchase, possibly more iTunes music purchases, and possible movie purchases.

I think the main problem is that A) people believe cable hasn't already gone to utter hell, and B) that cable is cheaper than a la carte TV. For me, Comcast is a thorn in my side, offering SD quality worse than iTunes, and offering HD quality worse than OTA. I don't have any other options...

No, I won't buy Lost or something like that over iTunes (instead if I really wanted to own a copy, I'll get the DVDs and rip them)... but Stargate or Battlestar at 35$/season so I don't have to pay Comcast nearly a grand a year for the privilege to watch SciFi which only has a couple shows worth watching?

Sad thing is, I have been disappointed with the content of my cable subscription, and I don't feel like paying an extra 20 bucks on an even crappier package so I get the 'privilege' of being able to select/buy a premium channel.

I used to think like you do, and agree that Apple has in a couple different ways mis-priced or mis-featured the product. They could shoehorn it into the 200$ range, and remove the HDD in it... which would better meet the needs of some customers, or they could make it a DVR at a higher price point (unless they swapped out the laptop drive for a desktop drive to counter-balance the price difference).

Smaller, better, cheaper... pick any two... but always expect Apple to pick smaller, every time.

 

[Seasought]

Today the cell phone industry, a lot of people pay $0 for the cell phone. Guess why? That's what its worth! If we offer something that has tremendous value that is sort of this thing that people didn't have in their consciousness, it was not imaginable... I think there are a bunch of people that will pay $499 or $599 and our target is clearly to hit 10 million and I would guess some of those people are paying $0 because its worth $0 and willing to pay a bit more because its worth more.

This just sounds like BS to rationalize high price points on the iPhone. Maybe the wording just rubbed me the wrong way.

 

[3282872]

He's horrific. If this were a job interview on why he should be CEO then he just failed the interview.

I left shortly after he arrived and it's not a surprise that this gets passed for being "insightful."



How about, "Since we were in transition many of our current offerings weren't able to capture our current base and new user base at a level we were comfortable with; and instead of cannibalizing our profit margins we decided to integrate peripherals to increase our selling power. The peripheral that optimized our profit margins and increase sales was an integrated camera. This way we could leverage FrontRow out-of-the-box and hint at our future directions in Home Entertainment.

From the response it is clear our choice has proven to be a winning strategy."

I'm glad I did Engineering and Professional Services. The Reality bull**** spewing from his thoughts is mind-numbing in the worst sense.

VERY well said. You should have been in PR =).

 

[3282872]

Try Sony Ericsson. I just got the W880i in black, for free. 3G, great battery, 2MP camera for snaps, instant blogging, push email, 1GB M2 card in box (expandable) headphones and adaptor, oh - and it's less than 1cm thick. INSANE. Weighs about 70-80 grams. Got the best UI out there in my opinion, uses Salling clicker (google it), bluetooth remote, isync ready... need I say more...

In the UK we still have to wait ages for the iPhone, but I am not sure I want to go forward in some features (touch screen etc) to go back in others, GSM only (3G on the way is a good thing) and the size of the handset. This SE is so small it's perfect. A normal 2MP camera (if you can still buy them) wouldn't be this small.

Anyway, it's awesome so get one whilst you wait for iPhone.

I switched to Cingular from Verizon, and my few complaints with Motorola's software as opposed to Verizon's is 1) Verizon's software was intuitive, meaning it automatically knew how the address book entry should sound when pronounced, so there was no needing in voice programming each entry for handsfree calling 2) Multiple entries for one name 3) the incredibly slow UI (especially in texting, it is PAINFUL).

Those complaints are enough for me to drop $499 on a new iPhone, even though I want to wait for version 2.0 (no 3G, external battery, third party apps, bigger flash drive).

 

[sccaldwell]

First version of Apple TV is a stepping stone

I still do not see a point to the Apple TV. If it was also a DVR, I'd toss my Tivo in the trash instantly. Without it, what on earth would I want to watch? I'm not going to buy TV episodes that I can watch with Tivo for free, how many YouTube videos can you really want?

Ok so my family comes to visit for Hanukkah once a year. So I can play a few videos and show a couple pictures, neat. Besides that, what is this thing really good for? Am I just completely missing the point of it?

Partly, I think. I also wish the Apple TV was a DVR and/or less expensive, but it's not. So, what is it?

I compare it to the Airport Express, because the wireless music streaming is the #1 reason I've considered buying an Airport Express.

The Apple TV provides ALL music-related functions of an Airport Express (which sold for $129 prior to Apple TV being announced), but with VIDEO and CONTROL over the music, so that you can select your music FROM your Entertainment Center instead of having to run back to your home office or wherever to change what's playing. That's worth a lot. Granted, it doesn't have the wireless router functions of the Airport Express, but I already have a wireless router, as do many people.

Unlike Airport Express, it also lets you play VIDEOS, MOVIES, including home movies, TV shows and movies you've downloaded, etc (that's worth another $100, IMHO) and lets you view PHOTOS (maybe worth a little more...$20-30?). It has a hard drive in it to buffer these movies (and possibly photos, too?) so that they'll play smoothly...that's an expensive component. It's also 802.11n, which is more expensive. Components to support HDMI are hardly cheap, I'd guess.

Is it worth $299? Maybe, maybe not. But it's clearly worth more than $150...that's only $20 more than the Airport Express, and adds video.

I fully expect that they'll do one of the following within a year:
(1) Allow you to run Mac OS X (or a limited version) from Apple TV using a Bluetooth keyboard/mouse (there is a USB port on it for a dongle) either with OS X running directly on Apple TV *or* using something like Remote Desktop or VNC to access a remote session on your Mac (or maybe PC, too, if they used VNC).
(2) Add DVR support
(3) Sell games that play on it, again using the USB port for a controller connection.
(4) Drop the price by at least $50.

I really think Apple is primarily targetting people who are tired of paying $50-100 per month for cable TV or satellite when all they really watch or care about is 1 or 2 shows. Drop the cable/satellite, buy an Apple TV, and now you pay $1.99 per episode (typically $8 per show, per month) and can watch them any time you want, easiliy streamed to your big TV without dealing with a DVR, VCR, or big cable bill. Just like iTunes allowed consumers to cherry pick the GOOD songs off of a CD, iTunes+AppleTV allows consumers to cherry pick the GOOD shows off of TV, instead of paying $50-100 and having to sort through (and pay for) all the crap.

I also think AppleTV is an obvious stepping stone for Apple supporting video RENTALS. Remember....Apple TV can stream QuickTime previews DIRECTLY from Apple's web site. What's to say they won't announce that you can now stream MOVIES directly from Apple's web site (via Apple TV), for let's say $3 each. The movies could be stored on Apple TV's internal hard drive, which makes it harder for people to illegally pirate them (similar to people renting a DVD/VHS tape and copying it before returning it). Apple TV could manage the "rental" process, storing the movie for the agreed-upon rental time. You can watch it as many times as you want during that time, then it's automatically deleted. Perhaps as an option, you can pay and extra amount of money to be able to keep it (ie. rent-to-own).

Personally, I think that's where they're headed, and this first release is just "Part 1" of the plan.

We'll see!

Craig

 

[Lucy Brown]

I disagree... I am actually very seriously considering throwing out my cable subscription and using OTA for HD simply because I will save myself a couple hundred dollars a year if I use iTunes for the handful of cable series I actually watch, and stick with broadcast for the rest. That money can easily go into new content... HD discs, a DVR, etc, etc...

Save money, and get some of my TV series commercial free? Sounds like a win-win to me. While it would be nice to get ad-supported free episodes so you can sample a series first... I don't need it to save money over my current cable subscription.



I think the main problem is that A) people believe cable hasn't already gone to utter hell, and B) that cable is cheaper than a la carte TV. For me, Comcast is a thorn in my side, offering SD quality worse than iTunes, and offering HD quality worse than OTA. I don't have any other options...

No, I won't buy Lost or something like that over iTunes (instead if I really wanted to own a copy, I'll get the DVDs and rip them)... but Stargate or Battlestar at 35$/season so I don't have to pay Comcast nearly a grand a year for the privilege to watch SciFi which only has a couple shows worth watching?

Sad thing is, I have been disappointed with the content of my cable subscription, and I don't feel like paying an extra 20 bucks on an even crappier package so I get the 'privilege' of being able to select/buy a premium channel.

I used to think like you do, and agree that Apple has in a couple different ways mis-priced or mis-featured the product. They could shoehorn it into the 200$ range, and remove the HDD in it... which would better meet the needs of some customers, or they could make it a DVR at a higher price point (unless they swapped out the laptop drive for a desktop drive to counter-balance the price difference).

Smaller, better, cheaper... pick any two... but always expect Apple to pick smaller, every time.

Looks like apple tv may work for you then. But what about people who actually watch tv. Sports, news, weather, reruns. For somebody that watches 2 shows and nothing else cable does seem to be a waste for you. From what I've been reading your in the minority though and that doesnt bode well for this product.

 

[tribulation]

The only problem I see is most cable companies offer a DVR/cable box, so how wouls Apple's DVR work with an existing one?

With Tivo, I still have the cable co's digital tuner box, but don't use it's guide or any of it's functionality other than it just being there to do the actual tuning. Tivo has the guide, season passes, etc, and just tells the tuner box to tune into the channel via IR or a direct connection cable. I don't see why TV couldn't do that to?

 

[sccaldwell]

I have no interest in tv unless I can rent movies and they play them in 5.1 surround. I think they missed the boat by not launching it with rentals and with a tuner so i can record and watch tv shows on my mac or my tv.

Many companies try to release products that are everything to everyone, that try to do too much, and fail miserably.

Apple had great success with the iPod, making incremental updates to it. Furthermore, they've sold WAY more of them by doing it that way than they would have if the 5G iPod had simply come out in 2001. Why? UPGRADES. I'd bet that half of the sales of 5G iPods were to people who already owned an early model. People loved their 1G and 2G iPods, but wanted color...or video...or more storage space, so they upgraded.

Also, I think that Apple's being smart by not trying to be everything to everyone with Apple TV. Why? Several reasons:

(1) They'll sell less initially. How is that a good thing? It's a BRAND NEW type of product for them, so fewer initial sales minimizes the effect (and possible bad press) of any problems.
(2) Gives time to add more features. Like the iPhone, Apple TV is just hardware...basically a computer with nice software. Adding DVR functionality, games, remote desktop access, etc can all be done with software....later.
(3) Maximize profits. If it sells like hotcakes at $299, I can't blame them for keeping the price there. If it doesn't, and they can still make a profit at $249 or $199, they'll drop it to there, as needed. You never advertise a house or car for sale at your "rock bottom" price...you test the waters....price it for what you THINK someone might pay. If you're wrong, you lower the price.

Craig

 

[tribulation]

Looks like apple tv may work for you then. But what about people who actually watch tv. Sports, news, weather, reruns. For somebody that watches 2 shows and nothing else cable does seem to be a waste for you. From what I've been reading your in the minority though and that doesnt bode well for this product.

Exactly. I get 150+ channels and enjoy a ton of shows, most aren't even offered on iTunes store anyways. Just like you said, local news, any random show, random Discovery channel shows, history channel shows, etc etc etc. I watch a heck of a lot more than 2 shows. When I'm bored, I can always just browse the guide and tune into something new, if I don't like it, I just go to something else. With TV, I would have to browse their catalog, pay $3 for every show, even if I didn't like it, and be stuck with all of this crap.....doesn't make any sense at all to me. Plus, a show that was just on some off-channel, like A&E (just an example) won't most likely be on iTunes immediately, let alone probably ever.

 

[Hunts121]

Component input didn't EXIST in 1991, so no, it doesn't.


Which ones? There are no consumer SDTVs with Y-Pb-Pr component video to my knowledge.

I think you are all confusing component video with composite video. Component video consists of 3 RCA-style jacks for video only, with one red, one green, and one blue plug. Alternately, a VGA DB15 plug may be used.

This is DIFFERENT from the red-yellow-white set of RCA audio inputs plus composite video (the yellow RCA plug).

I have had two tvs (SDTV) that have/had component, one a cheap philips the other a nice toshiba....so I'm gonna have to say you're wrong...I know the difference. Its how my XBOX 360 is hooked up to the TV in my bedroom, via the same color plugs it is when its on the plasma in my living room (PS3 is on that now).

Hell my 8 year old DVD player had component outs and that was way before the HD craze

 

[tribulation]

I disagree... I am actually very seriously considering throwing out my cable subscription and using OTA for HD simply because I will save myself a couple hundred dollars a year if I use iTunes for the handful of cable series I actually watch, and stick with broadcast for the rest. That money can easily go into new content... HD discs, a DVR, etc, etc...

Save money, and get some of my TV series commercial free? Sounds like a win-win to me. While it would be nice to get ad-supported free episodes so you can sample a series first... I don't need it to save money over my current cable subscription.

I mentioned this above, but how could the majority of people who watch more than 1 or 2 shows, ever, toss their cable box?? I only pay for basic cable, and get about 150 or so channels (changes all the time). I watch lots of shows. Tivo's season pass gets them all on my DVR and I watch as needed. A season pass on iTunes for a single show, say "24" is $45. That's about 2 months of FULL cable access for my basic cable, in which I also get the other 149 channels, plus the other 1 channel (fox)'s content that's playing all day, not just 1 hour, 1 time a week.

I don't see how Apple could **loose** any money by adding in DVR support. I want 1 box to control my main TV viewing. Now if my DVR could play a few movies from my Mac now and then, cool. All the better. But the majority of the time, I want to use it for "normal" TV purposes, watching TV channels, channel surfing, etc.

Another thing is, I don't want to have to be forced to leave my Mac on all the time. If you add in the extra power consumption for a Mac into your equation of savings, that's actually a significant amount of cash every year. Without your Mac turned on, the iTV is useless. The built in 40gb drive won't hold much worthwhile, so it requires your Mac being on. While this would be nice when I want to view some home movies or such from my Mac, what about the rest of the time?

They could have at least built in something cool into the iTV. Why not a web browser? It runs some sort of stripped OS X, heck even the iPhone has a webkit browser, I'm sure they could fit one onto the iTV. At least that would offer some incentive (I could check my email or such from upstairs). As it stands, I still really just don't get it, at all.

 

[tribulation]

I really think Apple is primarily targetting people who are tired of paying $50-100 per month for cable TV or satellite when all they really watch or care about is 1 or 2 shows. Drop the cable/satellite, buy an Apple TV, and now you pay $1.99 per episode (typically $8 per show, per month) and can watch them any time you want, easiliy streamed to your big TV without dealing with a DVR, VCR, or big cable bill.

I agree. I see that as the only real audience that would see any benefit for it. But are there really that many people that only watch 2 or 3 shows? What about news, and all the other stuff? I'm not a TV-addict, but I certainly watch more than 2 shows. And with basic cable + Tivo, I get them all for about $26/mo.

The argument about just adding the iTV to your TV setup just seems like a big waste. Why would I want another box, that provides so very little, with it's own little remote? If it had a DVR, I could toss Tivo, and use it full time to do everything, including the current iTV features (streaming a couple videos from my mac, which I'd probably do like once a month, if that). Add on a web browser (which would be so easy for them) and that would triple the incentive to get one.

But as it stands it is just another box that basically does nothing except sell some ad space for Apple. I think they could have seriously revolutionized the industry if they'd have added a DVR in ADDITION to the current feature set. But that single missing feature will be a killer.

 

[Maccus Aurelius]

If one can actually use the WiFi to the fullest potential...imagine being free from Cingular and using the iPhone as the world's most expensive cordless VoIP phone at home!

I've yet to find a single person that can convince me that purchasing $2 TV episodes is a bad thing. The DVD sets are almost or over $50, at least $2 every now and then has a significantly smaller impact on my wallet. Also, if I'm somewhere far away and I don't have the luxury to watch my show as it airs, I can always download it and watch it later on my laptop. Since I have a US iTunes account I can purchase this content anywhere I please.

Ok, where the hell are people getting this idea that you pay $3 for content you don't like? You purchase them; you're not forced to buy it.

 

[tribulation]

Many companies try to release products that are everything to everyone, that try to do too much, and fail miserably.

I just feel that the iTV is providing nothing to anyone. In my opinion, it wouldn't take much at all for them to have added DVR features. It doesn't even need to have a tuner - my Tivo doesn't. All it does is take the video signal out from a cable box and then control the cable box (which isn't hard to do at all). For round 1, they would have needed to have a TV Tuner, cablecard, or anything complicated like that. Just the simple support of showing a guide (there are free ones like elgato uses), and record. That's it.

 

[Scarpad]

At 7+ GB a disc (dual layer DVD movie), you'd have to have a dedicated computer (to make any worthwhile use of it, to be "always on") and terabytes of hard drive space. And then what's the point? I'll just hook up my mac to a TV if I wanted that. On the other hand, if it had DVR functionality I'd get one in a heartbeat. It's Apple for god's sake, couldn't they just partner up with Tivo to provide the TV guide part, assuming they don't want to deal with it?

I still see no good reasons to buy one of these things......

I've given up on the Whole HTPC scene. I currently rip my TV and Movies Disks to play on my various Portables, but I see no sense in investing Hundreds of Dollars for Storage, to what?, Have a movie I might watch twice a Year at my Beckon Fingertips? So I can show them all off on a TV Screen?
I don't see the point. The Actual DVD upconverted by my DVD Player thru HDMI is still going to maximize the potential of my TV, a 640x480 encode won't, not very hard and it's much cheaper to grab the disk and load it up.

 

[Peace]

I just feel that the iTV is providing nothing to anyone. In my opinion, it wouldn't take much at all for them to have added DVR features. It doesn't even need to have a tuner - my Tivo doesn't. All it does is take the video signal out from a cable box and then control the cable box (which isn't hard to do at all). For round 1, they would have needed to have a TV Tuner, cablecard, or anything complicated like that. Just the simple support of showing a guide (there are free ones like elgato uses), and record. That's it.

Maybe the reason Apple didn't do that is because they have some deals in the works with cable companies.

 

[Maccus Aurelius]

I agree. I see that as the only real audience that would see any benefit for it. But are there really that many people that only watch 2 or 3 shows? What about news, and all the other stuff? I'm not a TV-addict, but I certainly watch more than 2 shows. And with basic cable + Tivo, I get them all for about $26/mo.

Actually, yes there are tons of people who care for only a small handful of television shows. People that generally work and are not home to be with their TV's don't watch much more than their favorite prime time stuff, which usually only comes once a week and only spans over 1, 2 or even 3 channels aren't really concerned about other stuff unless they're avid sports fans or couch potatoes. I can't remember the last time I've actually had enough time to watch that much television since I work every weekday and have only a few hours of my evening for it. So the shows I really care about are very few, and generally one's favorite shows are small in number.

 

[tribulation]

Ok, where the hell are people getting this idea that you pay $3 for content you don't like? You purchase them; you're not forced to buy it.

You don't have to buy things you don't like, but I think you are in a very small minority of users that watch that few shows. Do you ever watch local news, or even something like The Tonight Show, or some random show on at 3am? With cable, you can. With iTV, you can't, you would have to keep continuously buying shows, a very limited supply of them at that currently as well.

I also never miss a show with my DVR. It records them all for me, and I can go back and watch them anytime. My Tivo records about 20 different shows this season alone, not to mention the news and mentioned random shows. For even 10 series through iTunes, at $50 per season, that's $500.

For that price, it buys me 20 months of FULL cable access. That's everything, including those series, thousands of other series as well, live news (multiple channels of course), and over a hundred other channels of content. There's just no comparison.

And again, since my Tivo DVR records the all for me, I don't have to watch them live. I can watch them whenever I want, and not pay a per-episode fee.

 

[Peace]

You don't have to buy things you don't like, but I think you are in a very small minority of users that watch that few shows. Do you ever watch local news, or even something like The Tonight Show, or some random show on at 3am? With cable, you can. With iTV, you can't, you would have to keep continuously buying shows, a very limited supply of them at that currently as well.

I also never miss a show with my DVR. It records them all for me, and I can go back and watch them anytime. My Tivo records about 20 different shows this season alone, not to mention the news and mentioned random shows. For even 10 series through iTunes, at $50 per season, that's $500.

For that price, it buys me 20 months of FULL cable access. That's everything, including those series, thousands of other series as well, live news (multiple channels of course), and over a hundred other channels of content. There's just no comparison.

And again, since my Tivo DVR records the all for me, I don't have to watch them live. I can watch them whenever I want, and not pay a per-episode fee.

What do you do if say..A family member has this great HD video/Movie on his/her computer and you want to watch it on the HDTV in the living room?

 

[tribulation]

Actually, yes there are tons of people who care for only a small handful of television shows.

Ok
You are the market that I think Apple must be going after then. I just don't think it's a very big market, but maybe so. When I watch TV, if all I saw on it were 2 shows and no chance of seeing anything else (without forking over another $3 to watch just one more episode of something), I would be pretty annoyed and would probably just give up on TV

I see your point, but also think that they could have targeted 98% of the population by adding something very simple, rather than alienating the 98% of the audience and only serving the other small few - which I have no data to back up, but I really think that most people would rather see a TV guide full of channels with instant access to anything, rather than just 1 or 2 recorded shows. Maybe I'm completely wrong.

 

[tribulation]

What do you do if say..A family member has this great HD video/Movie on his/her computer and you want to watch it on the HDTV in the living room?

For that yes, the TV would be great. But at least for me, that would only happen a few times a year. So I would never buy the iTV box for that. On the other hand, if it had normal TV/DVR features also (the key is *also*) then I'd have it, and access to the other features as well.

I'm not saying that it doesn't have a purpose. I'm only saying that that purpose isn't something that's so needed that you wouldn't need a DVR also, and that most people would probably not use the iTV's features for much after the initial, "Wow I got this thing and can see some youtube movies", 2 weeks later, how often most people with need that, I can't say for sure, but am guessing not much.

The feature would be nice to have, but not by itself. Especially not with it's own box taking up space, power, and yet another little remote. Like I said above, basic DVR features would have been very very easy to add, they just chose not to for some unknown reason.

 

[mattibek]

What I don't understand is all the complaints about having to pay for the initial unit of the iphone + the cost of the phone service. If you buy an ipod for $350 that is not the final cost that you pay. The ipod is useless without the music or videos that you purchase to play on it (except for podcasts). I have over 60 Gb of music and video which I purchased legally at a cost that is easily over the $3,000 mark. But the music industry doesn't send me rebates or offer me free music players. I am not convinced that iphone is the greatest product... yet.

But this is a product that is revolutionary, meaning it will change how the cellphone industry works. We have to stop thinking how units were sold prior to the iphone. The understanding I have is that the seperation of the cost of the phone from the service allows mac to have complete control over the design of the units hardware and software. This is not something that bothers me as mac does things right and protects its products so that it can continue to do things right. As we should keep in mind this is only the beginning for iphone and it will innovate evolution as all apple products do. So if you want a free phone then get one, if you want a mini computer that runs OSX and has the ability to expand within itself with the creation of aps then shell out some money.

I'll buy one... in a couple of years.

 

[mattibek]

What I don't understand is all the complaints about having to pay for the initial unit of the iphone + the cost of the phone service. If you buy an ipod for $350 that is not the final cost that you pay. The ipod is useless without the music or videos that you purchase to play on it (except for podcasts). I have over 60 Gb of music and video which I purchased legally at a cost that is easily over the $3,000 mark. But the music industry doesn't send me rebates or offer me free music players. I am not convinced that iphone is the greatest product... yet.

But this is a product that is revolutionary, meaning it will change how the cellphone industry works. We have to stop thinking how units were sold prior to the iphone. The understanding I have is that the seperation of the cost of the phone from the service allows mac to have complete control over the design of the units hardware and software. This is not something that bothers me as mac does things right and protects its products so that it can continue to do things right. As we should keep in mind this is only the beginning for iphone and it will innovate evolution as all apple products do. So if you want a free phone then get one, if you want a mini computer that runs OSX and has the ability to expand within itself with the creation of aps then shell out some money.

I'll buy one... in a couple of years.