milo
Aug 11, 02:34 PM
Cheaper per chip price. Factor in all the design changes that would have to be made, and it might not be in the long run.
And those design changes still have to be made in the future if you want to run kentsfield. Since those changes are inevitable, why not make them sooner and take advantage of cheaper chips earlier?
No, my point is that I think Apple will continue to do what it's always done, and that those arguing that they'll suddenly treat product announcements differently just because their chips are now supplied by Intel are only speculating.
Since the intel switch, apple has ALREADY broken away from "what they've always done". We saw a speed bump in MPB before it even shipped, and another bump not long after that.
Correction, your both wrong...they both went intel at the same time, January 12, 2006
No, they were *announced* at the same time. iMac shipped immediately, MBP shipped weeks later. So the intel iMacs did arrive first.
And those design changes still have to be made in the future if you want to run kentsfield. Since those changes are inevitable, why not make them sooner and take advantage of cheaper chips earlier?
No, my point is that I think Apple will continue to do what it's always done, and that those arguing that they'll suddenly treat product announcements differently just because their chips are now supplied by Intel are only speculating.
Since the intel switch, apple has ALREADY broken away from "what they've always done". We saw a speed bump in MPB before it even shipped, and another bump not long after that.
Correction, your both wrong...they both went intel at the same time, January 12, 2006
No, they were *announced* at the same time. iMac shipped immediately, MBP shipped weeks later. So the intel iMacs did arrive first.
ender land
Apr 10, 10:46 AM
hence the ambiguity, IMO, of the presentation of the equation.
Ambiguity would be something like
what does 48 2 9 3 equal?
A mathematical expression such as the one addressed here is not ambiguous unless people draw inferences from it which are not present. Just because people can incorrectly draw information does not make something inherently ambiguous.
It would be ambiguous if there were two right answers from the given information. In this case, there is not, there is only one answer which makes sense mathematically from the equation.
Ambiguity would be something like
what does 48 2 9 3 equal?
A mathematical expression such as the one addressed here is not ambiguous unless people draw inferences from it which are not present. Just because people can incorrectly draw information does not make something inherently ambiguous.
It would be ambiguous if there were two right answers from the given information. In this case, there is not, there is only one answer which makes sense mathematically from the equation.
MacSA
Jul 22, 08:48 AM
Surely they can't continue to justify a Core Solo.
I hope not, it seems even Apple are embarassed by them, they only have the dual core models out on the shop floors.
I hope not, it seems even Apple are embarassed by them, they only have the dual core models out on the shop floors.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 5, 04:10 PM
There is no i in iOS.
AZREOSpecialist
Apr 18, 03:21 PM
Ooop. Apple already so afraid? No wonder when a phone OS (Galaxy tab with Android 2.2) takes almost 20% marketshare in less than 3 months in the tablet market...
What is your source for this information?
What is your source for this information?
shawnce
Jul 21, 07:17 PM
plus with Core 2 chips being more expensive than Yonah...
T2600 (Yonah @ 2.16GHz) currently goes for $423 (trays of 1000)
T2500 (Yonah @ 2.00GHz) currently goes for $294 (trays of 1000)
T2400 (Yonah @ 1.83GHz) currently goes for $241 (trays of 1000)
T7600 (Merom @ 2.33GHz) is reported to go for $637 (trays of 1000)
T7400 (Merom @ 2.16GHz) is reported to go for $423 (trays of 1000)
T7200 (Merom @ 2.00GHz) is reported to go for $294 (trays of 1000)
...in other words it looks like the Yonah is either being replaced whole sale or is going to see further price drops when the Merom comes out. Of course I am still not 100% convinced the reported pricing for Merom is correct.
T2600 (Yonah @ 2.16GHz) currently goes for $423 (trays of 1000)
T2500 (Yonah @ 2.00GHz) currently goes for $294 (trays of 1000)
T2400 (Yonah @ 1.83GHz) currently goes for $241 (trays of 1000)
T7600 (Merom @ 2.33GHz) is reported to go for $637 (trays of 1000)
T7400 (Merom @ 2.16GHz) is reported to go for $423 (trays of 1000)
T7200 (Merom @ 2.00GHz) is reported to go for $294 (trays of 1000)
...in other words it looks like the Yonah is either being replaced whole sale or is going to see further price drops when the Merom comes out. Of course I am still not 100% convinced the reported pricing for Merom is correct.
ticman
Dec 4, 07:30 PM
I have 3 apple stores in my state. One about 25 miles and the others at the opposite end of the state. None have the car kit in stock and suggested ordering online. Last time i checked it was a 2 to 3 week delivery time. Now it appears from above post that 7 to 10 days may be new ETA.
I am thinking of giving BLT another week and then biting the bullet and ordering from Apple.com
Thoughts????
BTW 30% off of something you not receive suddenly doesn't look like such a bargain.
I am thinking of giving BLT another week and then biting the bullet and ordering from Apple.com
Thoughts????
BTW 30% off of something you not receive suddenly doesn't look like such a bargain.
bense27
Aug 5, 09:24 AM
I am really interested to see what this iPhone is all about. And of course Leopard.
Cavepainter
Mar 30, 02:36 PM
I hardly think $1 for 20 gigabytes of available anywhere storage is very unreasonable.
Maybe that rate wouldn't be bad, but if you read the article, that's not what they're charging. Beyond the initial free amount, its $1 per 1 gig, not $1 per 20 gigs. A terabyte per year is a thousand dollars a year. That's not too cheap. And this isn't including bandwidth usage, which is gonna cost money too, of course. Plus, what do you think, are these rates and bandwidth usage costs gonna be higher or lower in the future?
They (banks) aren't storing physical cash somewhere anymore, it's all just a line of electronic code that states what your balance is.
Well, it actually it still exists as money, but of course banks aren't storing it all in a vault- they're loaning it out to other people, at rates 10 to 100 times greater than the interest rate they are offering you for using that money- and they're using your money to make them money. I'm sure they could loan out money at much lower rates and still do fine, but that's what we're used to paying, so there you go. But anyway, back on track-
If you want premium content, you pay for it.
That premium content you're happy to be paying lots of money for is actually making the provider plenty of money on the back end too- remember cable and satellite television still has plenty of advertisements. Again, they could probably charge you a third of what you currently pay and it would still be profitable. (I'm just sayin'...)
People just think it's ridiculous to spend money on music because avenues have popped up where you can get it for free.
True, but for me, no, I actually buy my music and support the artists- I just think its ridiculous to buy my music and pay someone else over and over and over again, forever, just to be able listen to it.
I have 2 computers at home, a laptop, a phone that has storage, a DVR, even my Xbox can store music files..... How nice to be able to visit my parents, or go on vacation, or be at a friend's house, log on to their computer, and have my entire music library instantly available at my fingertips.
80 gigs of music in a computer's memory doesn't actually "weigh" all that much. You can have all those files right there on your devices right now, unless you have terabytes of things to store. As storage continues to grow on computers, I think you'll find that the prices will be more and more appealing for larger and larger amounts of storage.
Look, I understand your points, and if you have multiple platforms that need to share and sync enormous amounts of files, that can be a challenge and the cloud would be convenient. But for the amount of music and photography and other files I have and the way I would store it and access it, I personally would rather just have all the files I need right there on my computer at my fingertips without having to pay someone to access it from a remote location. You're certainly free to spend money to access things you already purchased, but its not for me. To each their own.
Maybe that rate wouldn't be bad, but if you read the article, that's not what they're charging. Beyond the initial free amount, its $1 per 1 gig, not $1 per 20 gigs. A terabyte per year is a thousand dollars a year. That's not too cheap. And this isn't including bandwidth usage, which is gonna cost money too, of course. Plus, what do you think, are these rates and bandwidth usage costs gonna be higher or lower in the future?
They (banks) aren't storing physical cash somewhere anymore, it's all just a line of electronic code that states what your balance is.
Well, it actually it still exists as money, but of course banks aren't storing it all in a vault- they're loaning it out to other people, at rates 10 to 100 times greater than the interest rate they are offering you for using that money- and they're using your money to make them money. I'm sure they could loan out money at much lower rates and still do fine, but that's what we're used to paying, so there you go. But anyway, back on track-
If you want premium content, you pay for it.
That premium content you're happy to be paying lots of money for is actually making the provider plenty of money on the back end too- remember cable and satellite television still has plenty of advertisements. Again, they could probably charge you a third of what you currently pay and it would still be profitable. (I'm just sayin'...)
People just think it's ridiculous to spend money on music because avenues have popped up where you can get it for free.
True, but for me, no, I actually buy my music and support the artists- I just think its ridiculous to buy my music and pay someone else over and over and over again, forever, just to be able listen to it.
I have 2 computers at home, a laptop, a phone that has storage, a DVR, even my Xbox can store music files..... How nice to be able to visit my parents, or go on vacation, or be at a friend's house, log on to their computer, and have my entire music library instantly available at my fingertips.
80 gigs of music in a computer's memory doesn't actually "weigh" all that much. You can have all those files right there on your devices right now, unless you have terabytes of things to store. As storage continues to grow on computers, I think you'll find that the prices will be more and more appealing for larger and larger amounts of storage.
Look, I understand your points, and if you have multiple platforms that need to share and sync enormous amounts of files, that can be a challenge and the cloud would be convenient. But for the amount of music and photography and other files I have and the way I would store it and access it, I personally would rather just have all the files I need right there on my computer at my fingertips without having to pay someone to access it from a remote location. You're certainly free to spend money to access things you already purchased, but its not for me. To each their own.
kas23
Apr 5, 04:05 PM
Hmmm, a car company catering to a group largely comprised of teenagers and young adults whom (presumably) have little disposable income? Doesn't sound like the best idea to me personally, but what do I know...
Um, what do you think Apple does? Have you been in an Apple Store lately? I'll tell you, its like a high school pep rally. Even Apple admits that the majority of their revenue comes from iGadgets, not Macs. That is, the majority of Apple's revenue comes from devices that cost less than $500. Devices that are based around an mp3 player. Apple would not likely be around today if it wasn't for "teenagers and young adults whom (presumably) have little disposable income" buying iPods.
Um, what do you think Apple does? Have you been in an Apple Store lately? I'll tell you, its like a high school pep rally. Even Apple admits that the majority of their revenue comes from iGadgets, not Macs. That is, the majority of Apple's revenue comes from devices that cost less than $500. Devices that are based around an mp3 player. Apple would not likely be around today if it wasn't for "teenagers and young adults whom (presumably) have little disposable income" buying iPods.
corywoolf
Aug 4, 01:22 AM
Not really any new news, but the September date bummed me out.
I knew it would be another month or so, but I am so anxious to get a new laptop, the thought of waiting another 4-6 weeks (at best) is a bummer.
I just hope Apple doesn't wait until Paris Expo to announce it. Then we're talking 2+ months.
My money is on iMac and iPod nano updates in Paris, MacBook in November, the Long awaited Media Mac Mini at Macworld, new video iPod along with the launch of iTunes Video Store, as well as the long rumored new games for the iPod. Maybe a new iSight that is small enough to clip onto the iPod? Bah, I am getting way too carried away. Back to the point, since this is a pro targeted conference, it makes perfect sense for the MacBook Pro and Mac Pro to make appearances.
I knew it would be another month or so, but I am so anxious to get a new laptop, the thought of waiting another 4-6 weeks (at best) is a bummer.
I just hope Apple doesn't wait until Paris Expo to announce it. Then we're talking 2+ months.
My money is on iMac and iPod nano updates in Paris, MacBook in November, the Long awaited Media Mac Mini at Macworld, new video iPod along with the launch of iTunes Video Store, as well as the long rumored new games for the iPod. Maybe a new iSight that is small enough to clip onto the iPod? Bah, I am getting way too carried away. Back to the point, since this is a pro targeted conference, it makes perfect sense for the MacBook Pro and Mac Pro to make appearances.
Arcus
Apr 25, 09:03 AM
No. Re-read the three sentences he typed. He said that Apple is not tracking anyone. That infers that the database of locations is not being used to track a users location.
No, he said "the info circulating". "THE" info includes the info about the database.
No, he said "the info circulating". "THE" info includes the info about the database.
MrSmith
Mar 28, 10:12 AM
Sort of relieved no iPhone 5 announcements, Im firmly bogged down into a 2 year contract.
My 2-year contract finishes next month and my 3G is almost inoperative. No way I want to buy into the antenna problems with a 4. Glad you're happy though.
My 2-year contract finishes next month and my 3G is almost inoperative. No way I want to buy into the antenna problems with a 4. Glad you're happy though.
nuckinfutz
May 7, 11:32 AM
OK, I'll grant you that MobileMe doesn't suck as much as I make it sound. I just don't like it and so I don't use it anymore. Fair enough.
But, I think you misunderstand how Google's ads work. They aren't indexing and storing your emails in some data bank to sell off to ad companies. They do simple pattern matching on the text in your email to figure out which ads are most relevant and then displays those to you. The ad companies don't have access to your emails and can't read them, etc. I'm not being capitalized. If I don't want the ads I can pay $50 / year, or I can take the ads for free. That's just business, I enter into that in full agreement. And I trust Google just as much (if not more) than some random schmo ISP that would give me shoddy email service and just as much privacy as Google does but without the ads.
Point taken but what kind of FOOL am I to trade my privacy to Google for a paltry $6 at any level?
Where you go, who you speak to and how you communicate is of tremendous value and I recommend that people think about actual value. We're moving from this era where the expectation should be that Cloud services at a basic level should be incorporated into the product without the vendor resorting to advertisements.
Google and Facebook have both come out with disturbing revelations about how they feel about consumer privacy. I think the beauty of the web is that no company is irreplaceable. I could continue to get email, online calendar, pictures, documents and more without Google and that's a great feeling.
But, I think you misunderstand how Google's ads work. They aren't indexing and storing your emails in some data bank to sell off to ad companies. They do simple pattern matching on the text in your email to figure out which ads are most relevant and then displays those to you. The ad companies don't have access to your emails and can't read them, etc. I'm not being capitalized. If I don't want the ads I can pay $50 / year, or I can take the ads for free. That's just business, I enter into that in full agreement. And I trust Google just as much (if not more) than some random schmo ISP that would give me shoddy email service and just as much privacy as Google does but without the ads.
Point taken but what kind of FOOL am I to trade my privacy to Google for a paltry $6 at any level?
Where you go, who you speak to and how you communicate is of tremendous value and I recommend that people think about actual value. We're moving from this era where the expectation should be that Cloud services at a basic level should be incorporated into the product without the vendor resorting to advertisements.
Google and Facebook have both come out with disturbing revelations about how they feel about consumer privacy. I think the beauty of the web is that no company is irreplaceable. I could continue to get email, online calendar, pictures, documents and more without Google and that's a great feeling.
Grimace
Aug 3, 10:52 PM
I think the negative votes were from those who wanted Steve to announce Merom in updated Macs on Monday and not wait until September...
treblah
Aug 3, 11:25 AM
How Do You Make A Yonah MBP Run @ 2.33GHz? You Don't. It's Merom Inside.
I see that you misunderstood the context of the 2.33Ghz but you are still incorrect. You can buy a 2.33Ghz Yonah today, its called the T2700. I know there are not any T2700's in a MBP but Apple could have done so if they wanted.
Now, back to your 1.67X Battery life…
Straight from a "Merom vs. Yonah" AnandTech article (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2808&p=15) released earlier today:
Here there's no difference between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo, which in the mobile world is important. If Intel isn't going to give us any more battery life, it had better not take any away.
In our final battery life test, the Core 2 Duo T7600 actually falls behind its Core Duo counterpart by 2 minutes, but the margin of error for battery life tests is usually at least 1%, so overall battery life is essentially identical.
:)
I see that you misunderstood the context of the 2.33Ghz but you are still incorrect. You can buy a 2.33Ghz Yonah today, its called the T2700. I know there are not any T2700's in a MBP but Apple could have done so if they wanted.
Now, back to your 1.67X Battery life…
Straight from a "Merom vs. Yonah" AnandTech article (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2808&p=15) released earlier today:
Here there's no difference between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo, which in the mobile world is important. If Intel isn't going to give us any more battery life, it had better not take any away.
In our final battery life test, the Core 2 Duo T7600 actually falls behind its Core Duo counterpart by 2 minutes, but the margin of error for battery life tests is usually at least 1%, so overall battery life is essentially identical.
:)
ChrisTX
Apr 20, 05:34 AM
I dont agree. A 4" screen would be larger real estate, but that would mean developers would have to rewrite their apps to fit the new size. For example, the iPad has an obviously larger screen space, which means that developers had to scale their software up to match, because lets face it, the 2x button just makes things look like pixels and thats just awful, this is not SNES system.
But the iPad has similar dimensions and screen ratio. But a 4" display would makes things look stretched, so developers would have to code each app to fit the new stretched screen. This would also be quite annoying on the app store, looking for apps which work on 3g, 3gs, i4 and i5 and iPad and iPad 2. It would just become a nuisance to download an app to see its stretched on older phones. this wouldn't be a good move by apple just yet. Apple like to care for older tech users, the 3g and 3gs users, and this larger screen would make apps not run as smoothly.
Have you ever tried to run any iPhone apps on the iPad? Have you not noticed that what they scale down to is a size larger than the iPhone's current 3.5" size? Not sure why Apple chose a size slightly larger than 3.5" but none the less they scale just fine.
But the iPad has similar dimensions and screen ratio. But a 4" display would makes things look stretched, so developers would have to code each app to fit the new stretched screen. This would also be quite annoying on the app store, looking for apps which work on 3g, 3gs, i4 and i5 and iPad and iPad 2. It would just become a nuisance to download an app to see its stretched on older phones. this wouldn't be a good move by apple just yet. Apple like to care for older tech users, the 3g and 3gs users, and this larger screen would make apps not run as smoothly.
Have you ever tried to run any iPhone apps on the iPad? Have you not noticed that what they scale down to is a size larger than the iPhone's current 3.5" size? Not sure why Apple chose a size slightly larger than 3.5" but none the less they scale just fine.
maclaptop
Apr 26, 02:21 PM
As much as I want to see Apple sell phones, I also like to see healthy competition to keep away anti-trust issues. Apple is for people who like quality high-end stuff and Android is for Kmart shoppers ;)
It's Wal Mart, Wally :)
It's Wal Mart, Wally :)
dontwalkhand
Apr 20, 01:32 AM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone : Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
iPhone 4 with 3.5" screen: 115.2mm x 58.6mm x 9.3mm
weight: 137 grams
HTC Thunderbolt with 4" screen: 122mm x 66mm x 13mm
weight: 164 grams
I am not sure about you, but on composite that HTC with a 4" screen is noticeably larger in every possible way over the iPhone 4.
Sure it is only 5% taller, but 12% wider and almost 50% thicker as well as 15% heavier.
Perhaps you don't know anything about Apple, but they take the size of their devices very seriously.
I also don't understand how some of you think it is possible to have a significantly larger screen without making the phone bigger. It is not like the current iPhone has a lot of space. Again it seems people just read a bigger number and think it must be better. If we left it up to other companies smartphones would all be twice as thick and weigh twice as much as they do now, while being massively unwieldy. Apple actually has an aesthetic set of benchmarks that are important to them as anything else. It is not only aesthetic either, but actually using the device and carrying it around, the size makes a big difference.
My 3.5" iPhone 4 screen is pretty amazing, especially considering the size and weight of the device. Much more impressive than any 4" screened device I have seen.
Edit: In case anyone is wondering the 4" Samsung Galaxy S specs: 122.4mm x 64.2mm x 9.9mm weight 118 grams. It weighs less, but the physical dimensions are larger in ever way.
Please! Make the damn phone bigger! Oh no, it may weigh a few more grams. Currently, the iphone4 is a tiny phone. For us adults, please increase the screen size, and probably, the width.
iPhone Pro ?
iPhone 4 with 3.5" screen: 115.2mm x 58.6mm x 9.3mm
weight: 137 grams
HTC Thunderbolt with 4" screen: 122mm x 66mm x 13mm
weight: 164 grams
I am not sure about you, but on composite that HTC with a 4" screen is noticeably larger in every possible way over the iPhone 4.
Sure it is only 5% taller, but 12% wider and almost 50% thicker as well as 15% heavier.
Perhaps you don't know anything about Apple, but they take the size of their devices very seriously.
I also don't understand how some of you think it is possible to have a significantly larger screen without making the phone bigger. It is not like the current iPhone has a lot of space. Again it seems people just read a bigger number and think it must be better. If we left it up to other companies smartphones would all be twice as thick and weigh twice as much as they do now, while being massively unwieldy. Apple actually has an aesthetic set of benchmarks that are important to them as anything else. It is not only aesthetic either, but actually using the device and carrying it around, the size makes a big difference.
My 3.5" iPhone 4 screen is pretty amazing, especially considering the size and weight of the device. Much more impressive than any 4" screened device I have seen.
Edit: In case anyone is wondering the 4" Samsung Galaxy S specs: 122.4mm x 64.2mm x 9.9mm weight 118 grams. It weighs less, but the physical dimensions are larger in ever way.
Please! Make the damn phone bigger! Oh no, it may weigh a few more grams. Currently, the iphone4 is a tiny phone. For us adults, please increase the screen size, and probably, the width.
iPhone Pro ?
caspersoong
Apr 23, 07:57 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
This is really nice. But is it really necessary? How many ppi will it be?
This is really nice. But is it really necessary? How many ppi will it be?
0815
Apr 5, 03:00 PM
(throw out Android tablet and iOS tablet as those are different categories and distort reality).
I guess you mean they disturb your view of the world .... ;)
I guess you mean they disturb your view of the world .... ;)
shadowx
Sep 16, 02:02 PM
I agree with everything, except for the keyboard. If they put in a MB style keyboard I will go with a Rev A (or Thinkpad) for sure, no matter what else they do with the MBP. Neccessities aside, there's nothing I use more on my laptop than the keyboard, and even though I find the MB keyboard all right for touch typing, I don't find it acceptable for my constant use.
I don't think you have to worry... I highly doubt a keyboard change. I would love a little more key travel on the current MBP keyboard, but obviously they would have to make the MBP thicker - so I'll live ;)
I don't remember who said it (after reading over 200 posts!), but I agree that the MBP 15'' 1-3 day shipping vs the 17'' 5-7 (or was it 8-10) day shipping is merely due to lower stock on the 17'', not a sign of a 17'' only update. I would think they probably manufacture and sell at least 2X the number of 15'' vs 17'' MBP's.
I don't think you have to worry... I highly doubt a keyboard change. I would love a little more key travel on the current MBP keyboard, but obviously they would have to make the MBP thicker - so I'll live ;)
I don't remember who said it (after reading over 200 posts!), but I agree that the MBP 15'' 1-3 day shipping vs the 17'' 5-7 (or was it 8-10) day shipping is merely due to lower stock on the 17'', not a sign of a 17'' only update. I would think they probably manufacture and sell at least 2X the number of 15'' vs 17'' MBP's.
-hh
Sep 11, 09:16 AM
Apple has over 150 stores in US(or is it 250?). So is it possible if someone wants to Buy or rent a movie he just goes to any of these stores(which will have Optic fibre connectivity with the online store) and download the desired movie on his iPod/Laptop/mini taking no more than 10 minutes. Now this might not sound that great but it should definitely up the sales of iFlicks by atleast 10-15% IMO. All these stores are located in prime locations in big cities. There is a huge number of footfalls in and around these stores...It`s just a thought and it might not really be possible...
One of the more interesting comments I've seen here.
If you think about the success of iTunes, much of it has been in the "long tail" of obscure music that gets a new chance to be sold, rather than just the Top 10 (or 20) mainstream hits that you would normally find in your local record store (Tower Records, etc).
The same also holds true with NetFlix: because the customer effectively "mail orders" his movie from a centralized distributor, he has more choices than what he finds in the local Blockbuster, since their distribution model suffers from shelf space being finite inside a brick-n-mortar store.
So where is this going?
Cross the concept of using the brick-&-mortar's storefront (Apple's) the the essentially "BTO" feature for buying DVD's of Netflix.
You order your movie online, then go pick it up at your local Apple store where they've freshly downloaded (across their GB connection), burned it to DVD (with copy protections) and stuck in a jewelbox for you.
Managing your consumers to prevent friday afternoon rushes can be built into the price structure: all movies are, say, $14.99, but there's a $5 discount for 12 hour notice and an extra 'rush' $5 handling fee if you order it in-store as a 'while you wait'.
What's in it for Apple? Besides the sale of movies themselves, its one way to increase foot traffic in your stores, for anytime a consumer is in the store, there might be an add-on sale or two.
In theory, Apple could make this a rental service model as well if they wanted to, but I consider that to be fairly unlikely. Similarly, a simliar idea could be done with the localized publishing (at the Apple Store) of iPhoto books ... what all of these ideas have in common is to reduce the delay in delayed gratification.
-hh
One of the more interesting comments I've seen here.
If you think about the success of iTunes, much of it has been in the "long tail" of obscure music that gets a new chance to be sold, rather than just the Top 10 (or 20) mainstream hits that you would normally find in your local record store (Tower Records, etc).
The same also holds true with NetFlix: because the customer effectively "mail orders" his movie from a centralized distributor, he has more choices than what he finds in the local Blockbuster, since their distribution model suffers from shelf space being finite inside a brick-n-mortar store.
So where is this going?
Cross the concept of using the brick-&-mortar's storefront (Apple's) the the essentially "BTO" feature for buying DVD's of Netflix.
You order your movie online, then go pick it up at your local Apple store where they've freshly downloaded (across their GB connection), burned it to DVD (with copy protections) and stuck in a jewelbox for you.
Managing your consumers to prevent friday afternoon rushes can be built into the price structure: all movies are, say, $14.99, but there's a $5 discount for 12 hour notice and an extra 'rush' $5 handling fee if you order it in-store as a 'while you wait'.
What's in it for Apple? Besides the sale of movies themselves, its one way to increase foot traffic in your stores, for anytime a consumer is in the store, there might be an add-on sale or two.
In theory, Apple could make this a rental service model as well if they wanted to, but I consider that to be fairly unlikely. Similarly, a simliar idea could be done with the localized publishing (at the Apple Store) of iPhoto books ... what all of these ideas have in common is to reduce the delay in delayed gratification.
-hh
seanjs
Apr 20, 02:36 AM
Anyone think they won't call it the iPhone 5? I suspect, if they only update the speed, they'll call it the iPhone 4S and save the '5' for a mores substantial refresh.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий