Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Advertising Movies Television The Media Apple Entertainment

The Apple Broadcast Network 190

Posted by timothy
from the interesting-future-ahead dept.
Hodejo1 writes "In 1959 5,749,000 television sets were sold in the US, bringing the cumulative total of sets sold since 1950 to 63,542,128 units. This number supported, through advertising, three national television networks, ABC, NBC, and CBS (a fourth, Dumont, folded in 1956) and numerous local independent stations. Now here are another set of numbers. As of April this year Apple sold 75 million iPhone and iPod touch units, devices capable of delivering video via Wi-Fi and 3G connectivity. Add to that figure 2 million iPads and counting. By the end of the year Apple should have about 90 million smart mobile devices in the wild. That makes a proprietary amalgam greater than what the TV networks had in 1959 and one that easily serves as a foundation for a pending broadcast network that will be delivered not through tall radio towers, but through small wireless hubs and the Internet. Call it the Apple Broadcast Network. iAd is how Apple plans to pay for it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Apple Broadcast Network

Comments Filter:
  • by ravenspear (756059) on Saturday June 05, 2010 @07:33PM (#32471812)
    They've already "paid for it" with the bucketloads of cash they've made from selling all the devices.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 05, 2010 @09:42PM (#32472416)

      Using my rough calculations, with $100 bills, $900 million is about 1 cubic meter in volume. Apple makes about $8 billion in profit per year. 1 bucket (unit) is 0.01818 m^3. This is about 480 bucketloads of cash (roughly 80 tonnes). Really, at this scale they should be thinking of using barrels or truckloads to move their cash. Even a pipeline would be more feasible than buckets.

      • At about 1 gram per bill, that's in the neighborhood of 10 tons (US) of cash... I'd like to live in that neighborhood...
      • by w0mprat (1317953)
        The unit you should be using is one metric asston. Mathematically speaking all non-zero integers of bucketloads, truckloads or shitloads always equal one metric asston and gets the point across.
      • by Hatta (162192)

        This is about 480 bucketloads of cash (roughly 80 tonnes). Really, at this scale they should be thinking of using barrels or truckloads to move their cash

        How do you think they fill the barrels, genius?

  • Over what bandwidth? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tftp (111690) on Saturday June 05, 2010 @07:34PM (#32471828) Homepage

    s of April this year Apple sold 75 million iPhone and iPod touch units, devices capable of delivering video via Wi-Fi and 3G connectivity.

    The 3G connectivity is not sufficient for watching video in volume comparable to TV. TV bandwidth is essentially free (a true one-to-many broadcast,) whereas 3G is not (it's limited and shared.)

    Even the Wi-Fi connectivity is lacking in many cities, let alone countryside. I think we are a good decade away from being able to depend on our Internet links for reliable, always-on TV viewing.

    • by fredmosby (545378) on Saturday June 05, 2010 @07:46PM (#32471890)
      I haven't watched 'traditional' television since I discovered hulu.com and bought a computer to drive my HDTV. I can't believe I used to be willing to make an appointment to watch a TV show.

      I agree about the 3G though. Cell phone networks have been slow to realize that they need to develop a high speed high bandwidth data only network and deploy it everywhere.
      • by tftp (111690) on Saturday June 05, 2010 @08:08PM (#32471982) Homepage

        Cell phone networks have been slow to realize that they need to develop a high speed high bandwidth data only network and deploy it everywhere.

        Laws of physics may be against them. If each handset consumes 10 Mbps (10^7 bps) (which is about half of what broadcast digital TV uses - 19+ Mbps) and if you have 10,000 (10^4) viewers in service area of each cell site then you need roughly (10^4 * 10^7) = 10^11 bps. If we assume s/n = 20 dB that requires [wikipedia.org] 10^11 / 6.65 = 11.5 * 10^9 Hz, or about 12 GHz of bandwidth. That can't be done on a carrier that is around 2 GHz! Variations of multicasting could be used to reduce that number somewhat, but it's a lot in any case, even if you reduce the bit rate at the client. At best you could achieve some mediocre reliability of a small picture for a limited number of clients. You can't get to the target bit rate without going into millimeter wave, and that isn't going to work due to poor penetration of buildings. And the root cause of all that trouble is that indeed "never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon loaded with magnetic tapes." Broadcast TV delivers an incredible amount of bits per second, even though each client gets exactly the same bits as any other client.

        • by gig (78408)

          No, it wouldn't be simultaneous. Nor will it be in black and white or feature ads for cigarettes.

          • by tftp (111690)

            No, it wouldn't be simultaneous.

            That's just too bad because TV consumption has well defined highs and lows. Think of a major football game, for example.

        • by FuckingNickName (1362625) on Saturday June 05, 2010 @08:45PM (#32472164) Journal

          As a radio ham and general "get off my lawn!" sort of person, I still feel guilty when I catch up to some TV programme online. There's something very wasteful (at an instant) about using a one-to-one link for what should have been multicast/broadcast.

          It's really weird to see more recently arrived 'net users not even stop to contemplate bandwidth allocation. Or throw away food or packaging. The trend's reversing, but at a snail's pace. We can assume there is an infinite amount of sunlight (beyond Earth) - anything else is something we're quite fortunate to have right now.

          • When I heard multicast in 1990s and couldn't try because my ISP (like 99% others) didn't support it, it became a mystery for me.

            Why doesn't consumer multicast take off? OK, the original specs are too low for today's needs, why not multicast 2.0? Especially when Google like companies has to pay billions for same video and they are experimenting with "live" broadcast?

            Before Youtube I'd say MPAA or TV network conspiracy but it really seems something else as we hear even Microsoft is experimenting with P2P for

          • by fredmosby (545378)
            Bandwidth doesn't work the way oil or minerals do. It can't be saved for the future. Unused bandwidth is basically a wasted resource. Why wait for a TV broadcast, which is inconvenient, when the technology exists for me to watch what I want when I want.
          • Indeed. I'd totally avoid any HTTP:GET commands as well. It's terribly wasteful to receive information like that, rather than via town crier.

            The thing is, information has steadily become more and more personalized. At first, our information was broadcast - around the campfire, from the center of town, from the pulpit. Then, our desire for information became more specific - competing printed works, consumed at our own time and choosing, composed of what we wanted to consume.

            Radio and TV put us back into t
            • Broadcasting of information from a single source over a scarce resource fundamentally puts up gates, gatekeepers and imposes an economic structure over the free flow of information. (It doesn't matter if its a rented town crier, paper, radio or stone tablet, its all scarce and controllable. It describes a monopoly or at best an oligopoly.)

              The true power of the internet lies in subsuming the existing oligopolistic business models since N:M includes the ability of 1:N existentially.

              The facts that the digital

        • by Vellmont (569020) on Saturday June 05, 2010 @09:06PM (#32472274)


          If each handset consumes 10 Mbps (10^7 bps)

          Straight off, you're off by a factor of 10. Streaming video can quite easily be compressed down to 1 Mb/second corresponding to about the quality of SDTV. Since you'd only then require 1/10th of the bandwidth, that means only 1.2 ghz.

          • by faedle (114018)

            He's also wrong on the size of cell sites.

            In most metro areas, a cell site would probably cover an area equal to about 5,000 handset users.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by digitalchinky (650880)

              Probably you know this already, apologies in advance...

              In most metro areas these days you have small footprint systems, several per block. In larger buildings they are often placed on each floor, the antennas anyway. I'd be quite surprised if any single cell footprint had 5000 users at one time. Back when I was working in the field, this was more than 10 years ago now so things have probably progressed a bit, SS7 was almost always a 64kbps transmission going down one of the channels in the trunk. Overall th

      • by sootman (158191)

        I haven't watched 'traditional' television since I discovered hulu.com and bought a computer to drive my HDTV. I can't believe I used to be willing to make an appointment to watch a TV show.

        If "making an appointment" is your definition of "traditional" television, then I haven't watched "traditional" television in the decade I've owned my TiVo.

    • s of April this year Apple sold 75 million iPhone and iPod touch units, devices capable of delivering video via Wi-Fi and 3G connectivity.

      The 3G connectivity is not sufficient for watching video in volume comparable to TV. TV bandwidth is essentially free (a true one-to-many broadcast,) whereas 3G is not (it's limited and shared.)

      Even the Wi-Fi connectivity is lacking in many cities, let alone countryside. I think we are a good decade away from being able to depend on our Internet links for reliable, always-on TV viewing.

      For "live" tv no, it's insufficient. For cached TV, it works fine. My ipod can download podcasts at whatever speed it can manage and I watch when it's done. It wouldn't take too much more effort for Apple to put automatic downloading into the operating system on the phones/pods. On my Mac, I run Miro and it downloads automatically without me asking a damn thing. Same with itunes itself. But since the units are so powerful these days and have so much space, needing to go back to home base for automatic downl

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by AHuxley (892839)
      Well they could have used an idea like Digital Multimedia Broadcasting
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Multimedia_Broadcasting [wikipedia.org]
      But now seem to only have the option to push data on closed networks rather than satellite or terrestrial transmission like radio or TV.
      Could US telco networks be opened to all, a new 'broadcast' standard is offered or the US public is herded into brand only walled media subscriptions?
      The US telcos feeling data use, bandwidth upgrades and pricing is clear.
      Apple and telco $$
    • by fermion (181285)
      Exactly, this is why a broadcast model does not apply. As the parent says, Broadcast has a fixed cost, the transmission towers, but it costs essentially the same to transmit to one viewer as it does to 1 million, within a geographical area that is. Cable has fixed costs to get the signal to a customer, but then the recurring costs for infrastructure are minimal. In both cases the issue, I suppose, to get enough viewers to cover the fixed costs, and then the rest is profit. The more customers the better.
  • Drivel.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Wovel (964431) on Saturday June 05, 2010 @07:38PM (#32471852) Homepage

    I told the firehose this link-bait was stupid, not sure why it did not listen. TFA article does not make any sense. There is no meat to it. It does not offer any information. The entire thing is pointless.

    BTW there is nothing in the article that is not in the summary, so feel free to comment away without clicking. Not clicking is actually preferable in this case. I would dispute the point of the article, but since it makes no point, it is difficult to dispute. It is also, umm, pointless....

    • Re:Drivel.. (Score:4, Funny)

      by IndustrialComplex (975015) on Saturday June 05, 2010 @08:12PM (#32472012)

      Hell and the summary sounds like it came from the movie 'The Ten Commandments'. And Apple declares it.... So let it be written.

    • by icebike (68054)

      Not only that, but they compare US tv sales to Apple WORLD sales.

      When you purchased your TV set, you knew you weren't going to get any content from Philco or Sylvania. Those companies would not limit what you could watch.

      • Plus cellphones are, inherently, personal devices. It is not surprising that ideally each person would like to own one. Have four people living in a house? Good chance they'd like to have 4 cell phones, and will provided they have the money. TVs are not the same. TVs can be shared. While not every person in America owns a TV, I would venture to say that very nearly, like 99.99999%, of all American households owns a TV, even the very poor.

        So I wouldn't expect an equal number, even in the US. However I would

    • by EdIII (1114411)

      I don't know about pointless....

      "Call it the Apple Broadcast Network. iAd is how Apple plans to pay for it."

      What preceded that statement was a bunch of hype and cheer leading, but that is a pretty big statement there at the end.

      1) Apple is going to become a television network. Considering the recent article about their market capitalization surpassing Microsoft for the first time, they just *might* decide to go for it. I really dunno. Sony went took a bunch of steps backwards financially to support the P

    • by wkcole (644783)

      I told the firehose this link-bait was stupid, not sure why it did not listen.

      Professional courtesy. One robotic mindless incompetent website editor giving another a free pass.

      TFA article does not make any sense. There is no meat to it. It does not offer any information. The entire thing is pointless.

      It got a bunch of /.ers to visit MP3 Newswire, which appears to the the point of everything "Hodejo1" submits to /.

    • by Yaur (1069446)
      The article is pure speculation by someone that doesn't even understand the basics of what it would take to bring something like this to market.
  • by phantomfive (622387) on Saturday June 05, 2010 @07:39PM (#32471856) Journal
    As often happens when someone is trying to support their position, these numbers are exaggerated. A lot of people have bought two iPhones, so there really aren't that many iPhones out in the wild. The phones are not all in the US, either, and an iPod touch with nothing but wifi may not be the best media delivery system.

    In other words, if your business plan (or anything real, other than a slashdot story) depends on these numbers, you better dig deeper so you know what you are really dealing with.
    • by sznupi (719324)

      Plus TV, especially in its early days, is a single device shared among many eyeballs.

    • by polymath69 (94161)

      The guy doesn't even write his dates in ISO standard format. He must think he's posting to the USA Wide Web.

    • by Dr. Spork (142693)
      On the other hand, if Apple made something like an IP TV station, they wouldn't be crazy enough to make it accessible only from their mobile devices. I'm quite sure that there would be an interface in the style of iTunes that even works in Windows. But having said that, I don't think the problem is the lack of an installed base with the right hardware. I think the problem is getting this service to work and getting content for it.
    • Also (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Saturday June 05, 2010 @09:47PM (#32472442)

      People don't buy phones to watch TV. They buy, well, TVs.

      I do not get this idea that retards in the press have that TVs and computers are going to go away and be replaced with phones. No, they aren't. It isn't a matter of technology, it is a matter of convenience and features. Yes, modern smartphones have no problem displaying SD video, and you can surf the web on them. No, that doesn't mean you want to use only them.

      I just bought a new TV, it is a nice 46" LCD TV. Why did I do that, if my phone could play media? Because I want a 46" TV. When I want TV I want to sack out on my couch and have a nice large screen to watch on. I do not want to have to hold a phone right up to my face to see what is going on. For that matter I don't even want to watch on my computer. My computer has a nice screen, and it is plenty large for using close up, but I don't want to sit in my computer chair all the time. Likewise, it wouldn't work well to move the system out in to the living room and try to use it there. Hence, I have a TV. Even though I have other devices that could technically fulfill its function, they do not have the features, namely the size, that I want.

      I certainly think people will continue to consume media on their portable devices. After all, if you are in the doctor's office waiting it is convenient to have a device in your pocket that can entertain you. However that doesn't mean it'll become the primary or major way people get their media.

      A big problem, in terms of streaming to mobile phones, is that pesky little thing called Shannon's Law. It states that the amount of information you can get in a given channel equals the bandwidth (in Hz) of the channel times the log of the signal to noise ratio. Well this is a real problem for high speed sustained wireless. The frequencies you are working with aren't that wide. When you are working in the 1900MHz range, you can only have channels that are tens of MHz wide. You can't have 1GHz channels or anything. Also, because of the low signal levels (-80dBm or less generally) your SNR sucks. 20dB at best, and it can be as low as 6dB for GSM. That equals not a whole lot of bandwidth. Now it can be fine when people use it in spurts. You allow someone to use a bunch of channels and get a big transfer, then someone else can use them. However if everyone is trying to sustain downloads, as is the case in streaming media, you simply run out of bandwidth.

      Unfortunately, just upping the frequency isn't a solution either. The higher the frequency, the less penetrating power it has, and the more line of sight it is. A 100GHz signal could have great bandwidth, but won't even go through a wall. So in the frequency ranges that are useful, there's just only so much bandwidth you get.

      As such, you aren't likely to see anything replace TV and cable/fibre as the main video content delivery for most people. It is simply a nice way to watch. Phones will remain a peripheral device, used occasionally but not the main thing.

    • by fredmosby (545378)
      I've bought two iPhones. Of coarse when I bought my second, I gave my old one to my brother, and when he bought a new iPhone he sold it to a friend. There are at least three people who want my current iPhone if I decide to buy Apple's next phone. None of the iPhone models are so old that they are obsolete. Judging by my experience the vast majority of iPhones that that have been sold are probably still in circulation.
    • I suspect a lot of the people who bought two iPhones or iPods handed their old model down to family. My mom now has my old iPod Touch, since I have an iPhone.

      You're correct that not all are in the US, but then again: Does it matter? The internet is already decentralized. Heck, it could be the first step to kill off geoblocking - and wouldn't that be lovely?

  • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Scareduck (177470) on Saturday June 05, 2010 @07:42PM (#32471868) Homepage Journal
    How do you get from "people own devices made by X" to "X has a network"? Dumbest. Story. Idea. Ever.
    • Yeah, we've seen what titans Zenith and RCA became by making television sets.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MrNonchalant (767683)

        Right, because RCA TVs and Apple iPhones are absolutely comparable. They both display moving images. They both play sound. And they are both internet-connected devices running software written and updated by a single party. That party maintains a persistent connection to them, and has an avowed interest in becoming a media distribution power. Oh, wait.

        I am not suggesting that Apple will literally play streaming video over all these devices. However, it's an interesting way to think about the vested power he

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      How do you get from "people own devices made by X" to "X has a network"? Dumbest. Story. Idea. Ever.

      Everything Apple requires that you use iTunes. This provides Apple a chance to show you ads. Comparing to the number of TV sets in 1957 is phenomenally stupid though. I have more computing power in my lap than the whole world had in 1957 but it doesn't mean I'm the god of computers.

  • Of course, since there was a story on Microsoft on the front page, we had to see this baseless speculation of a random guy on the net. I suppose everyone wants this stories, because they keep coming...

    As for the subject I understand they have a content distribution network called iTunes and it works quite well. They will produce the iFridge before ever creating two competing products. Is there any point at all in this speculation?

  • Uhh, 1959? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thenextstevejobs (1586847) on Saturday June 05, 2010 @07:54PM (#32471926)
    Anyone care to enlighten me to why the ___ it matters how many Apple devices there are compared to how many TVs there were in 1959? Somebody playing madlibs with summaries?
  • Ads (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RafaelAngel (249818) on Saturday June 05, 2010 @07:55PM (#32471932)

    I despise how everything I now want to interact with (TV, Internet, video games, the old paper media) must be all based on ads. Can't somebody think of a better way? And if I have a subscription, can't I receive an ad free version. Thank (your favorite deity) for AdBlock and the mute button. I remember a time when there were only two commercial breaks when watching a TV program, now it's four. It sometimes feels like there is more commercials than actual program. I demand that these media outlets pay me for watching these ads. I might actually pay attention to them if I was paid to watch them.

    • by sznupi (719324)

      In Soviet Union, a better way has you!

    • There are only two models, ads and subscription/purchase. Ads have worked for radio, TV, newspaper for decades (and still more or less does for TV and radio). Subscription/purchase has worked for... HBO and books, it used to work for music and movies but then they became easy to rip and it was over.

      Also, you are paid to watch the ads, you are paid with the content that you are given (otherwise gratis). If you don't want the ads: don't consume the content.

      As for a better way, I've noticed that it is always s

      • by vertinox (846076)

        There are only two models, ads and subscription/purchase.

        You forgot donations, subsidies, and patronization.

        Hey patronization worked during the Renaissance for starving artists. Could work now.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by NF6X (725054)

      I despise ads so much that I've quit watching broadcast TV or listening to radio. The few TV shows that I do watch, I buy from the iTunes store, because I'd rather pay a couple bucks than have to watch any ads, and I don't watch enough TV shows to justify bothering with a cable TV subscription and DVR (to skip the ads).

      When I'm in a friend's vehicle and they have the radio on, hearing the ads is worse torture than their incompatible taste in music. I used to subscribe to XM radio, but cancelled when they

      • If it's crap, why would you waste your time watching/listening to it? Is it possible this is just a way to justify to yourself not paying for content?

        Just curious, do you have a limit, like once the play count on a song goes over 10, then you buy it? Or might you play a song 40 times but still claim it is crap even if it is catchy?

        • by NF6X (725054)

          Maybe I wasn't clear enough. The "crap" that I referred to "stealing" is only ad-supported stuff. Like a broadcast TV show that I might record and then watch while skipping the ads (I don't bother doing that any more), or a web page that's festooned with annoying ads (that I happily block). I don't pirate music at all. I have just under 3,500 songs in my music collection, and I've paid for all of them either by ripping a CD that I bought (and still own/possess), or by buying them from a digital provider lik

      • I bet you roll over and go to sleep immediately after orgasm, too. (Yes, I am aware that this is /.)
        • by NF6X (725054)

          I bet you roll over and go to sleep immediately after orgasm, too. (Yes, I am aware that this is /.)

          Depends on what's on TV... ;)

    • SO -paid content with product placement, but benefiting me. Sign me up.
  • by LoverOfJoy (820058) on Saturday June 05, 2010 @07:58PM (#32471944) Homepage
    The whole family (which was larger on average back then compared to now) would gather around a single TV to watch together back in 1959. Iphones and even Ipads aren't really conducive to shared viewing like that.
  • Competition (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Puk (80503) on Saturday June 05, 2010 @07:59PM (#32471956)
    In 1959, the television broadcast networks were competing with... radio? Today, Apple is competing with an enormous number of Windows- (and Linux-, Android-, WebOS-...) based Internet-connected laptops (and desktops, phones, PDAs, tablets...) capable of showing the same quality video. Oh, and with television (broadcast, cables, satellite...), which has grown a bit since 1959.

    -puk
  • Apple has to compete with every other content delivery option. Pbpbpbpttt.
  • by C_Kode (102755) on Saturday June 05, 2010 @08:39PM (#32472132) Journal

    They may have sold that many, but there aren't that many in use. I'm guessing somewhere near 25% of those 75 million (15-18 million) are out of use. (damaged or retired/upgraded)

    Not that it matters really to the story, just making it know that the numbers are overstated.

  • "In 1959 5,749,000 television sets were sold in the US, bringing the cumulative total of sets sold since 1950 to 63,542,128 units."

    There are 300 + Million people in the U.S. and you're telling me that only 63.5 million sets have been sold from 1950 to now???

    I call Bullshit.

    "By 1960, there were 52 million sets in American homes, one in almost nine out of ten households."
    Jordan, Winthrop. The Americans. Boston: McDougal Littell, 1996: 798.

    "According to data from the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), the

  • by gig (78408) on Saturday June 05, 2010 @08:47PM (#32472180)

    The reason Apple is doing iAds is to improve the experience of in-app ads. User like free and $1-2 apps, and so developers have been putting ads in their apps and the ads are very basic and they take you out to the Web. So iAds are advertising-focused mini HTML5 apps that run inside native C apps, and keep you in your app.

    If used in a media app, they may support media, like a free Hulu app. But they work on all kinds of apps.

    Besides, $8.99 a month for Netflix on iPad absolutely destroys Hulu. There is no shortage of TV already on Apple devices.

    • The reason Apple is doing iAds is to improve the experience of in-app ads.

      Please, please, please, stop with the marketeer-speak!

      Personally, I don't want *ANY* advertising so I don't give a toss what someone else does to "improve the experience" because to me, it's *STILL* advertising.

      The *ONLY* criteria I have is whether or not an advertising-free paid-for service is worth the money or not - if it is, I'll buy it and enjoy an "advert-free experience", otherwise I will endure the advertising for the sake of

  • Hyman Roth (Meyer Lansky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_Lansky [wikipedia.org]) to Michael Corleone: "Mike, we're bigger than US Steel."

    I'm really not sure what that means, or is appropriate for this story, but that is the first thing that came into my head.

    Which is, as I will admit, full of holes.

  • 1959? fail. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by timmarhy (659436)
    who gives a fuck how many sets existed in 1959. that was a fledging market, the TV market is now very very mature with lots of players. who wants to watch a significant amount of tv on a small fucking iphone screen anyway??!! this is all besides the point that current plans make it impossibly expensive to stream more then a few minutes of video, the cell phone networks can't cope either.

    this whole story is just stupid, has /. run out of real stories and resorted to recycling crap from mac rumor forums or s

  • Goodbye Flash. (Score:3, Informative)

    by owlnation (858981) on Saturday June 05, 2010 @09:33PM (#32472376)
    That's 90 million people (with a good income) who won't be seeing anything designed in Flash.

    If that's not a good reason to stop using Flash on websites, I don't know what is. If you're an advertiser, and you use those annoying Flash ads that we all hate, then it's time to change, or die.

    I may not agree with all of Apple's reasons for not using Flash, but I sure as hell love the result.
    • Three words:

      "Betamax Versus VHS"

      Just because everyone agrees HTML5 is a better and more open technology than Flash does not mean the former will win over the latter.

      Jobs has his own reasons for trying to destroy Adobe and I can imagine him in his office now repeating the words "Adobe is a cancer" to himself, over and over again, as Ballmer did with Linux.

  • Apple fanbois = new media bitches

  • Either I missed a major news release and this was a bad article or... this is all merely speculation. Sure, I could see Apple rolling out an advertising system, it's already been mentioned vaguely before, especially since they could lock your system for the ads if they wanted to, it's just... unless it was specifically tied to certain sources of content, forcing adverts on everyone's devices could really start a slow backlash towards Apple on their level of control on the devices.

    At least... I think this
  • If you watch this video (which may work without Flash on Safari/Chrome):

    http://video.allthingsd.com/video/d8-steve-jobs-on-television/FF922002-FA63-4B68-A326-EA12EC800612 [allthingsd.com]

    Steve Jobs told the exact problem with "Apple TV" or anything regarding "replacing TV" or "inventing things to plug into TV". He also said he will not let (!) a nation of "bloggers". Perhaps he meant such blogs/news sites (!) who doesn't understand the basic concept of millions of devices pulling some random data at same time and making mon

  • Bearing in mind that most of what Apple sells is bought by kids and teenagers who never venture onto Slashdot, leaving a minority of fanbois who do, why-oh-why do we have to keep putting up with these "zero content" articles every day just so we can be constantly reminded that Apple exist in the first place?

    But I'll bite anyway...

    1. Comparisons to TV purchases in 1959 are meaningless figures unless you take into account the relative populations of the USA then and now. Also, you probably should look at the

  • I am guessing the author never paid a mobile phone/broadband bill. I haven't paid for cable TV in at least 20 years. I object to the notion that I will have to pay to see advertising. If Apple pushes advertising over its devices, it would mean all the more reason to feel justified in never having owned one. (Still, my main reason for not owning one is the non-removable battery issue... I once owned a Sony Clie' -- sweet hi-res Palm OS device... battery couldn't be changed by the user, device discontinue

  • I am not saying that the number are not impressive, or that iTV is not right around the corner, but I sold more cell phones in 2010 (one) than the entire market in 1959 ;)

    Similarly, there are a _lot_ more devices out there that can display video than the mere 100 million iXs. Again, not saying this is not a large install base, but the comparision was useless, imo.

  • Apple network (Score:3, Interesting)

    by alfredo (18243) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @10:19AM (#32475142)
    Ever since Jobs returned, Apple has been about delivering content. They didn't want to take over enterprise, they wanted to take over Hollywood. I think it would be a great idea if Apple could compete with the cable companies. Most cable companies have no competition within their regions and can gouge us at will. We need Apple or some other entity to challenge them.

It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. - W. K. Clifford, British philosopher, circa 1876

Working...