Why Apple Is Wrestling With Relevance

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]smeker[/nom]OK genius.... You have no idea what you are talking about.Apple had an exclusivity contract with AT& which prevented them from going to Verison and other mobile service companies. So it's not that those companies did not want to sell the iPhone, and most of the iPhone users although disliking AT&T are still going there because of the iPhone....Do you know what will happen to Android sales at Verison as iPhone hits their stores? Imagine a downward slope..... yeah... brace for January Verison iPhone sales...THe problem with Android is not that it offers alternative mobile OS but that it embraces way to many hardware platforms, making it more difficult to develop apps for.That is why Epic and other game developers are producing games for the iPhone and the iOS.. because it has a solid hardware platform...[/citation]

Okay Genius… you have no idea what you’re talking about. Apple signed an exclusivity contract with AT&T only after trying to get the same contract with Verizon. “Apple wanted a percentage of the monthly service fees, control over distribution that would limit iPhone sales to Apple and Verizon stores, and even control over service and support for iPhone customers” – quoted from Jim Gerace, Verizon VP: quote from http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/29/verizon-passed-up-apple-iphone-deal/

Next time, do some research before you go around thinking you know what you’re talking about. Verizon had first dibs, they turned it down. You think Verizon users will drop their superior Android phones (open source, faster CPU) for an outdated iPhone with a that can even work as a phone due to a crappy antenna? Verizon and AT&T were similar on price points, so any customer that was going to get the iPhone would have left to AT&T already.

Androids market share has done nothing but skyrocket compared to the iPhone. Apple fanbois said, “iPhone is the best, Android will never take over” and look… already in such a short period, Android has the higher market share.
 
Hey, I want to fit in here. "I hate Apple too" or "I only have one Apple product..."
Some cliches from those who complain a lot about cliche's companies...
 
[citation][nom]zak_mckraken[/nom]@Awax : I agree with you to some extent. However, you have to keep in mind that people buy products while thinking of tomorrow. 720p might be the average resolution for current content, but with Super HD and UHDTV coming in really fast, you can be assured that 720p will soon be a thing of the past. Technology evolves fast and there's (thankfully) no way to stop it. Everything you buy now will sooner or later become obsolete. However, there's no way in hell I'm gonna buy a brand new product that is already obsolete.[/citation]

Meh...

I bought a 65" 1080i Mitsu in 2002. Only in the last couple years have I started to really get HD content. And it would have taken longer if not for the govt. passing laws forcing digital. Even after all that time, a lot of HD content is still 720p.

It will be more than another 10 years before there is substantial content available in resolutions greater than 1080p/i. It will probably be at least 5 years before there are any TVs that support anything higher.

Most games on PS3/Xbox are 720p at most (many actually less in their rendering). The most popular console on the market is 480p. The most popular video medium, DVD, is capped at 480p.

So trust me when I say, your SuperHD and UHDTV dreams are a long ways off. Apple does not need to be worrying too much about obsolescence of 720p, especially because 720p on a 50" or less screen, looks near flawless.

Personally I'm a fan of 1080p (PS3), on my 60" Sony SXRD. But I have no delusions that 720p will go away any time soon, especially since 720p looks very good on my TV.
 
If a streaming media player cannot play 1080P media its a failure and piece of garbage. I'd get the WD Live plus. It costs $150 and can do 1080P and just about ever format. It can do netflix and youtube but not Hulu. But that may change in an update.
 
Well the last gen shuffle was idiotic, you'd be locked to Apple headphones. The main use for the shuffle, IMO is for exercise.

The new nano seams gimmicky, it is overpriced for what it does, which is "looks cool"; I can see parents getting this for there teens & tweens (who would want the iPhone or iPod Touch). And I totally agree that The 16 GB versions is a ripoff, it would be hard to use the full 16 GB with just music (because video on s small screen is an eye strain).

Having video on the new iPod Touch brings it up to another level, this is going to be a hot want item for teens, and a good deal for parents; it gives the kids essentially - a bad camera, fair camcorder, MP3/multimedia player, portable gaming system, planner, pocket calculator, and wifi connectivity device (for updating the online status).
 
I am still wondering were the 160gb ipod touch is that would be the only product that would deter me from buying an iPod classic. Since I listen to lots of music and book on my 20gb Ipod I hate having to keep taking things on and off I want something I can keep a larger amount of my collections on.
 
[citation][nom]bamslang[/nom]Okay Genius… you have no idea what you’re talking about. Apple signed an exclusivity contract with AT&T only after trying to get the same contract with Verizon. Androids market share has done nothing but skyrocket compared to the iPhone. Apple fanbois said, “iPhone is the best, Android will never take over” and look… already in such a short period, Android has the higher market share.[/citation]

Yes Genious, do your research: "Verizon CEO Admits He's Begging Steve For The iPhone"

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/verizon-ceo-has-told-apple-of-iphone-interest-2010-4

About the Android taking over market share, it's easy when they have several different hardware manufacturers and are offering it on every single mobile service provider...

Recent research has shown that iPhone users are most loyal customers and that "21 percent of current Android users would like an iPhone" Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38529854/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/ and here: "Android Phone Users More Willing to Switch to iPhone, Finds Nielsen" http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Android-Phone-Users-More-Willing-to-Switch-to-IPhone-Finds-Nielsen158224/

 
[citation][nom]adonn78[/nom]If a streaming media player cannot play 1080P media its a failure and piece of garbage. I'd get the WD Live plus. It costs $150 and can do 1080P and just about ever format. It can do netflix and youtube but not Hulu. But that may change in an update.[/citation]

Fair enough. But just don't think anything better than 1080p is coming any time soon. And about 3/4 of all the 1080p sets on the market do not look any different in 1080p and 720p (due to their size constraints). Just saying...
 
[citation][nom]adonn78[/nom]If a streaming media player cannot play 1080P media its a failure and piece of garbage. I'd get the WD Live plus. It costs $150 and can do 1080P and just about ever format. It can do netflix and youtube but not Hulu. But that may change in an update.[/citation]

Right.... You do know that Netflix, Hulu, or any of these other streaming services, currently, do not offer 1080p streaming.
 
[citation][nom]dredj[/nom]I agree. I have an ipod classic 160gb. For someone who has thousands (upon thousands) of songs, it really is a great device. Anywhere I go I have my entire collection of music with me for whatever mood I happen to be in. Other mp3 players tried to take apple but there just wasn't anything effective with the 100+gb of storage that I needed. As far as everything else? Meh.[/citation]
If you really like music, you'd enjoy it 1000x more if it was in .flac or even .wav format, both of which are perfectly fit for the ipod classic.
 
Ehh the new nano is gonna be terrible for people who like to work out with music. Touch screens work terribly with sweaty fingers.
 
[citation][nom]nevertell[/nom]If you really like music, you'd enjoy it 1000x more if it was in .flac or even .wav format, both of which are perfectly fit for the ipod classic.[/citation]

I did a side by side comparison between flac, aac@192, aac@160, mp3@192, and mp3@160. The difference between 160 and 192 was almost undetectable and I could not tell the difference between 192 and flac. My enjoyment of the music really wasn't affected by minor differences in audio quality, certainly not 1000 fold. It might be a big deal to some, but I doubt most people really mind.
 
Apple still hasn't learned to give us a product worth the price tag. They still haven't learned to give us a product with features that rival their competition. All they've learned was how to be even scummier than ever before, look at Apple blasting Flash for market control reasons and lyign to their users about it being about "security," "stability," or "standards," three things Apple has yet to bring to the table.

Apple always has and always will suck while Steve Jobs conceptualizes their products.
 
I've been thinking of the iPod Touch for a while now, but I refused to buy it last time because it had no camera at all. Now it has a camera, but it's sub 1MP, while the iPhone comes with a 5MP. Oh well, I'll just keep waiting til they get it right...
 
[citation][nom]mattmock[/nom]I did a side by side comparison between flac, aac@192, aac@160, mp3@192, and mp3@160. The difference between 160 and 192 was almost undetectable and I could not tell the difference between 192 and flac. My enjoyment of the music really wasn't affected by minor differences in audio quality, certainly not 1000 fold. It might be a big deal to some, but I doubt most people really mind.[/citation]

For archiving your CD collection and listening at home with a good stereo system, lossless makes sense. When you're using an iPod or other portable media player to listen to your music, you're usually on the move - out taking a jog, on a bus or train etc. There's lots of background noise, and you're probably using light, portable headphones, so lossless is fine.

I think the whole concept of MP3 players is outdated as the functionality is being merged into smartphones. I bought a 16Gb Micro-SD card for my phone so I could ditch the mp3 player. One thing less to cram into the jeans pockets every morning. Now if they would only add debit card, ID and car/house key functionality to smartphones, I could leave my wallet and keys at home too.
 
I didn't watch the event, nor did I keep up with the stream of "news" on Engadget, but one thing's certain: this year's lineup is extremely underwhelming. Nothing really new here. Nano and Shuffle are pretty much the same thing now, except that the Nano goes for $100 more. And the touch is proving to be a dead end in design; how can you change it further, other than making it thinner and thinner?

I think Apple is beginning to run out of ideas, at least for the portable music line.
 
Whoever wrote this needs to get a real job. A very cool $150 device will definately appeal to some people. It won't cure cancer or promote world peace butIt's a fun little toy and a far superior music player than most out there.

To say that the Apple TV is for renting TV shows misses the point. It seems like a nice bridge between the TV and iOS devices. Remember most people who buy this stuff are not computer science degree holders and the type of simple integration Apple offers brings some nice high tech capabilities to thge average living room. It won't sell like the iPhone but I bet many people give it a try.
 
Does anyone here even know that PING is a brand name for golf equipment?

They're pretty cool too since they have putters that make the PING sound when you hit a ball straight.
 
Every time Apple introduced a new version of a product it was a step forward, even if a very small one. That ended with the new Nano. The old Nano was a very hot seller (I work for a major retailer) and had a lot of value and functionality for the price. The new Nano makes no sense and actually has less than the old generation. I really do think they made this product to fail to force people to spend more and get a touch.
 
This is normal for Apple to release an intentionally obsolete product so you have to buy it again and again as they release more and more technology that should have been released the first day. I really don't understand how someone can continue to be loyal to Apple with the way they are constantly ripped off. I understand loyalty to a product but I think even if I loved Apple I would be wavering.
 
[citation][nom]Benihana[/nom]I've been thinking of the iPod Touch for a while now, but I refused to buy it last time because it had no camera at all. Now it has a camera, but it's sub 1MP, while the iPhone comes with a 5MP. Oh well, I'll just keep waiting til they get it right...[/citation]
You could buy someones old iPhone disable the phone mode and you have exactly what you want.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom