Greg Alexander's Profile

I too can not find a suitable "target". Sure, consumer electronics like Sony... but which company fits more cleanly? A mobile phone company? (Nokia is too expensive I think :) ... can't find their valuation). I wonder about a home automation company... but none are very big, are they? Similarly could they buy out some big business telephone system producer.... like a Nortel?... something that allows them to better define the future of collaboration & video conferencing. I just don't see the right fit though. I'd hate to see them buy a production studio (like MGM, or NBC if it was available), I would rather all studios saw iTunes as a distribution partner rather than see as a competitor. And yet buying an international network like "Discovery" (and reinventing how TV is shown) would be interesting.

So you're saying if Apple thinks the product will get them sales (without taking them straight from another product), they'll make one. Fair enough. But that's a relatively easy prediction! :) Do you think such a product? I do agree it'd be an iOS netbook, probably with a very similar screen size to the iPad so that it'll run regular iPad apps without any changes (a horizontal iPad with keyboard). Apple would have its apps (iWork/iLife, basically), possibly the only app maker to customise for the netbook. Personally I think there's room for the device. The keyboard is useful to many people, as is the long battery life, and it'll be inexpensive. It'll compete directly with ChromeOS netbooks.

I agree there's a market for a TiVo-like device, until the content providers offer on-demand rental/subscription/ad-supported versions of their content. But it would be a device focussed on "the old way of doing things", and Apple wants to focus on the future. Perhaps we need a clear integration with Elgato eyeTV, or even an ability to stream stuff recorded on a TiVo elsewhere in the house.

Well you can certainly still buy TV shows, OR rent them, on your Mac. So with only 2 studios allowing rentals (ABC/Fox) if you are a Stargate viewer (etc) you'll need to buy on your Mac first. Can you tell me what you base your suspicion that while downloading a purchase, it'll also stream it? As I said above, I'd like to see that - but I've seen no indication of it. On the iOS note - interesting that you define it as iOS only if it runs apps, but it would be absolutely impossible to run iPhone apps without modification. We know that the previous AppleTV was based on OSX10.4.7 - and yet it didn't run OSX apps. Personally I look at iOS as the slimmed down version of OSX to run on a much smaller footprint, with minimal extras and a focus on responsiveness and playing media, on an ARM chip. But if you say "it must run iPhone apps" then sure, it won't do that. (In your definition, must it run iPad apps or iPhone apps, to be iOS?)

Hello all. Interesting posts! (though I'm rushed so may have missed some!) I think there are a couple of issues that may be important. First the iOS can't run "as is" on the AppleTV. But whatever TVOS ends up on the AppleTV, iOS is CLOSER to what's needed than regular MacOSX. Secondly, while iPhone or iPad apps could run okay if you had an iPhone controller, it won't be a seamless and simple experience. Much better to have an app custom made for the iTV - but again, if you are choosing between porting from the Mac or iPhone, an iPhone app would be a more suitable starting point. I believe Apple will force the use of an iPhone/touch/iPad as a remote control. But they will not market it as "if you want an iTV you have to buy an iPhone!". They'll market it as "do you have an iPhone? This is the ultimate device to bring your iPhone and TV together. Play your music, rent movies, watch your photos...." etc etc. Apple won't care if they limit there market to everyone with an iPhone. They keep the price cheaper, and they will probably sell a low-end iPod Touch/iTV combo pack. If they can assume EVERY remote has a touch screen, gyroscope/accelerometer, and its own content - they can design a better interface, perhaps revolutionary. But I do hope they have some sort of IR input even if it can't really run the interface very well - just so my universal remote can press "pause" occasionally.

The list of facts seems incomplete.. going back to what you accuse Apple of doing with uncertainty :) * "Any iPhone 4 user who is dissatisfied with their iPhone can return it within 30 days." true. * "Apple has stated there is a software glitch that over-reports signal strength." - true to a point. This software glitch is important in that it should make it clear that the signal loss is only one bar, never 3 or 4 bars! Also 3) Every phone's signal is blocked by hands to some degree, depending on how and where it is held 4) Touching an antenna directly blocks a little more signal. 5) Bridging the wifi and 3G antennas by touching the black line (the original criticism afaik) significantly affects signal, so avoid doing this. Note: although this is still an issue when wifi is off, it may make a difference - so perhaps a software update could turn off wifi while making a call in low signal areas (or just before a call drops). I'm under the impression that even with 3 & 4, the iPhone4 reception is better than the 3GS. #5 causes the biggest problem and is worse than 3GS. But every article just sensationalizes the whole thing and gives little useful information to make that guess.

I am interested in seeing the screen too. Other than that, the great thing in this is HD video - depending on how good it REALLY is (and how good the audio is). I think of processor speed mainly as future proofing - like the iPhoneOS3 was designed to work well on both the 3G and 3GS, the current iPhoneOS4 is designed to work well on the 3GS too. Then again, perhaps iMovie really works better on an A4. The biggest unknown is reception. If it can be a better PHONE that'd be brilliant (and it's also great that it supports 3G900, for Australia & NZ!!)