TetOn

They don't want to partner with anybody. All that would do is recreate the problem they faced with Google: losing control and sooner or later negatively affecting user experience as New Partner Co. begins to favor its interests over whatever future interests Apple may or may not have.

Far better to rip the band-aid off now, tune the dataset over time, and ultimately emerge with a better overall experience that you now control completely. Already the system-wide integration of mapping is far superior in that regard. That just wasn't going to happen with Google or any other partner which would forever live as a walled garden of an App.

Inaccurate mapping data is, after all, a (relatively) finite problem.

>Finding floor space to display 15 TVs ranging from 27 to 60-inches, plus hundreds of units of inventory, is no easy feat.

What in the wide, wide world of sports indicates that Apple will or would introduce a line of 15 TVs? Assuming they ever do enter the market, there will be exactly one model (edited to add: including a good, better, best within the model). Maybe more models and sizes later, but there will be only one to start.

Nothing in Apple's recent history suggests this is true. Think of the recent kerfuffle over Final Cut; they had no intention of continuing to sell the older version even though the new one was feature incomplete. It is highly likely that, when it appears, Aperture4 will similarly just replace Aperture3 at approximately the same price point. You can choose to buy the new one or not, but there's no discounted upgrade path.

Based on Shipley's numbers, it would seem that developers wanting to make money long-term on the Mac App Store would be wise to get on the same "lower initial price, but all major upgrades are full price" app model as soon as they can.

IMHO a computer that is usable within the hour by a one year old goes far beyond "wow factor" and well into contribution realm.

You make a key point. When you think of the original iPod or the iPhone or several of the iMac designs, you most likely first think of the striking physical design of the device. The "Jony Ive" effect, if you will.

But each of these is and was utterly defined by the software they ran. Take the original iPod; without that great interface the device really would have boiled down to "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." and gone nowhere in the market, like basically all of its competitors at the time. Same thing with the iPhone. The interface is the thing, but that interface happens to exist only inside a wonderful, plainly well built and beautifully designed device that you enjoy holding in your hand even when it's off. One without the other would utterly change the effect of the whole...and I'd say this has been the key to Apple's resurgence: More often than not over the last ~14 years, they've delivered the whole package.

Wouldn't you first have to know that the passphrase consists of four randomly chosen words (eg not three, five, or eight)? To me, that's the underlying strength of the approach that the comic (!) is trying to highlight.

Presumably it's considered useful because there's a measurable error rate in the nurse a) reading -and/or- b) recording the observed data. Assuming this thing works properly more often, you've not only guaranteed you get the data entered properly, but it's more likely to be right.

In fairness, it's worth noting that Readability app is Instapaper; it's just been repackaged. http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/05/instapaper-readability/

Also worth noting that non-app solutions do exist. [NextBus](http://www.nextbus.com/), for instance, includes both a web interface and an SMS-based query centered around texting it your stop number.

Gruber has made definite predictions based on Verizon's ability to move iPhones (one example among others): http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/12/09/verizon-iphone

In that case, either they sell a million on day one or they don't (this presumes that we are ever told or can divine a semi-reliable sales estimate). His opinion doesn't enter into it.

I'd say part of the reason he is and remains popular is that he pretty consistently tries to present the data or line of reasoning behind the opinion, and on occasion adjusts to fit the new data...and but says so when it happens.

What has always interested me in this vein is the intersection between Jobs' own "Real artists ship" and his obvious and well documented details-oriented perfectionism. It seems to me the real power of Jobs intellect is in that ability to know that the product has reached some critical mass of good enough to ship (and improve later).

Reminds me of nothing more than this: http://xkcd.com/619/

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperCard#History) reports: Work for it began in March 1985 under the name of WildCard

I doubt very seriously that next year will be the "Mac centric" year as Jobs states; but I'd guess it will at least still be there, and may well be more of a focus...or at least 50% of the focus.

Seems to me that, of the two branches, iPhone OS is just the one that's currently evolving more rapidly. WWDC attendees would be naturally most curious/hungry for deep information about it. Desktop OS X won't even have a major revision for some time yet...so why take a rote focus on "well, more of the same Mac OS X" when pretty major changes are afoot in another, admittedly closely related segment?

>Apple rarely (never?) releases products as loss leaders

Ever heard of the iTunes music store? Minimally profitable and repeatedly referred to as a driver for iPod/iWhatever sales rather than a profit center. Without the iPhone's popularity, the same concept would apply to the App Store as well. When announced, it was directly compared to the music operation, and not expected to make any measurable impact on the bottom line.

This analysis (though obviously flawed by Apple's own sales data release policies) largely backs up these statements: http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/255967-timeline-strategy-c...

Also peak helium: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/going_going_gone/

Again, though, the method is what he says offends him.

And, honestly, in such a case as this almost anyone is going to have the first reaction along the lines of "this device is almost certainly stolen" no matter how good the purported finder's tale may be...and this one's excuse seems pretty threadbare.

Engadget (apparently) reacted by publishing the photos that accompanied the shady proposal; e.g. they got the story but stayed out of the morass. Gizmodo (again, apparently) reacted by accepting the shady proposal...this is what dismays Gruber who, as someone noted above, is going to be painted with the same (admittedly) broad brush as a result and suffer its consequences, large or small.

Yep. I also think it's a function of the location of the two apps. For whatever reason I find myself switching between apps on pages (say) 1 and 4. A surprisingly large hassle after a few switches. Yes, I could move one for a while to get around the issue, but this obviates the need for remodeling, as that other app will be right there.

Free full text: http://www.google.com/url?q=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB...

People tend to think it's a lot more of the federal budget than it is: "For example, in 1997 the average estimate of NASA's share of the federal budget by those polled was 20 percent." From http://bit.ly/aAg7I3 Er, try 0.58%. But this misconception is a real problem: if people think there's just tons of money in there, cuts don't seem like a big deal; in fact, they seem entirely reasonable.

Add to that the unwillingness of our political class (both parties) to do anything about spending and cost growth on defense, medicare, and medicaid and you've severely limited "what you can cut" to NASA and a handful of other programs, even though cuts to those are a fractional percent of the budget and barely enough to even register over a 10-year window.

Leadership takes hard decisions. Our "leaders" have shown no interest in same.

>for a UT football game

This seems to be the rub. I can't imagine the networks/cable-cos letting these assets go in a "pay $X to stream this game" way anytime soon. It seems likely that live sports (more than anything else I can think of) will likely be the cudgel for much broader content delivery service agreements for some time to come.

I think you're leaving out the fact that an iPhone sized device with desktop capabilities is still going to require exquisite integration and interface, the very qualities iTouch devices have today in excess. Raw processing power doesn't change that, it only adds to the advantage.

Everyone gets distracted by the phone. The phone is just an app (and some extra electronics). The platform is the thing, and Apple is light years ahead of the competition at this point. Use a Kindle. Then use an iPod Touch.

I tend to agree, though my feelings fall more on getting student buy-in. Without some real outcome that matters (a grade, or something similar) what's to insure a reliable sample. Assuming things haven't changed since I was in high school, I'm pretty sure we'd have gone out of our way to skew the test purposely with outrageously wrong answers...

This is exactly right, and down in comments, the author mentions that larger operations can't let content dictate schedule without a whit of awareness that perhaps the larger operations are failing precisely because they are too frequently letting arbitrary schedules (i.e. hewing too tightly to a historical "way we've always done it") dictate content.

Not always easy and certainly rarely painless to break those schedule/content cycles, but it can be done and, if we're to have anything resembling newspapers around in a decade, it has to be done. By somebody...and soon.

Indeed, iPhone v. Android was trouble enough. Add in ChromeOS vs. Mac OS X, and Google Apps v. their Apple counterparts and you begin to wonder just which parts of the board meeting after coffee and bagels that he could actually take part in. I'd imagine that GV was, at best, a side-show to this decision.

Seems like a reasonable guess, but I still don't see where the widespread capability for hijacking the phone would come from. For that there would seem to be a requirement to launch and concurrently run an application permanently...and, unless I'm missing something, such an approach is inherently quite difficult and (intentionally) limited on the current iPhone OS.

Skype is WiFi only...perhaps GV will ultimately appear as a similarly limited app (thus protecting the frequently mentioned voice and SMS revenue, at least temporarily).

I'm not so sure. If they provided the information content of the paper, including crosswords and other things they currently charge extra for, allowed me to format the daily information dump in the way I see fit, and reduced the number of pixels taken up by ad-space (specific to iPhone app here) while charging substantially less than daily home delivery for that package, I'd likely bite.

Instead, I suspect they'll simply re-wrap the current app in an ongoing subscription charge and call it a day. Then wonder why nobody bites (aforementioned Safari access will most likely still be there, after all). It's the strategy they chose with ill-conceived (and abandoned) the Op-Ed paywall, and I imagine it's more or less the same path they'll take again because it seems safer to them.

Even with push, TextFree (or AIM, for that matter) can't be even reasonably disruptive to iPhone texting rates until they are ubiquitously distributed. Unless and until Apple makes AIM (or something like it) a default app or an alternate carrier comes on the scene, AT&T will continue to charge outrageous texting rates. Let's all hold our breath...

Nonsensical argument based on mortality rates between teens and 30s, precisely before obesity-related health effects begin to kick in. What's truly terrifying, and mentioned not at all by TFA, is that we're seeing an uptick on when said health effects start showing up. That's the line people should be looking at, not some lackadaisical projection that everyone will be obese...and, oh my gods, athletes aren't on the curve and they're healthy, right?!? Very, very poorly reasoned.