06-07-11 09:45 PM
96 123 ...
tools
  1. PlayBookGeek's Avatar
    Apple will announce its iCloud service next week.

    Should we care?

    Amazon, Google, Microsoft and RIM need to get serious and provide some coordinated competition. Each has strengths that beat Apple in particular areas. Individually, they lack the breadth of solutions to match Apple in the consumer oriented application space. They need to seriously consider a more unified response - or at least - a less proprietary approach.

    The iPad will be less about hardware and more about the underlying services. Just like the iPod was never really about MP3. It was always the vehicle for weaning users onto iTunes. iPads will now wean users onto the iCloud. It's Dj vu all over again.

    Here is a link to my complete blog entry:

    PlayBook Geek: The Apple iCloud

    Comments???

    ----------Added by PK full text of blog-----------------
    The Apple iCloud
    Anyone who has read my blog knows I have a certain dislike for the Apple iPad. For me, it is more toy than technology. And I think the Apple jihad against Adobe Flash is disdainful and bad for all of us in the long run.

    Yet, I have respect for Apple in other areas. I use my MacBook Air more than any computer I have ever owned. After using Adobe media editing products for more than a decade, I switched to Final Cut Pro in 2007. It is a tremendous video editing product.

    Apple will announce its iCloud service next Monday. Leveraging its South Carolina Data Center (see satellite image below), Apple is going to shake up the world again.


    View Larger Map

    Why should we care?

    Apple is making another of their signature BIG bets on a technology that everyone else has just been talking about.

    In the past, I have complained that you need another computer to synchronize and backup the iPad. This tethering requirement never made much sense to me. Starting next week, the iPad will lose its umbilical cord.

    Storing your digital life on the web is an obvious path for Apple. They will subsequently use the iCloud to leverage greater dependency on iOS devices

    How will it work?

    iCloud will be like Facebook for data. Or for those who have been around long enough: It will be the 21st century equivalent of AOL.


    You want some music? It's on the iCloud. But music is not the only part. Want to rent a movie? iCloud. Want to start watching that video on an Apple TV and finish watching on your iPad? iCloud. Update your software? iCloud. Want to share the pictures you are looking at in iPhoto? iCloud. Want to make a video call to Grandma? iCloud. Want to make a free phone (a.k.a. Skype) call to another part of the world? iCloud will eventually be there to.

    Apple is going to make the iPad the Control Window to everything you have on the iCloud. A computer will be completely optional.


    (Aside: expect to see to see iTune branding fade with time. iCloud is the new brand)


    Cloud Storage for Dummies

    I never understood why Apple outlawed files and folders on the iPad. Now it is clear. iPad content will seamlessly move from iPad to iPad to iPhone to desktop using the iCloud. Newbee users won't know that it is just a synchronized file system. Apple will call it 'magical' - and many users will buy it.

    What About RIM and everyone else?

    Amazon, Google, Microsoft and RIM need to get serious and provide some coordinated competition. Each has strengths that beat Apple in particular areas. Individually, they lack the breadth of solutions to match Apple in the consumer oriented application space. They need to seriously consider a more unified response - or at least - a less proprietary approach. Either way, they will need to back their bets with significant investment. Will they do it? That is a good question.

    The iPad will be less about hardware and more about the underlying services. Just like the iPod was never really about MP3. It was always the vehicle for weaning users onto iTunes and thereby locking them into iPod hardware. iPads will now wean us onto the iCloud. It's Dj vu all over again


    -----------------


    UPDATE: Based on question from CrackBerry.com forum


    Hardware Paradox


    Apple is primarily a hardware company. Yet iTunes is more important to them than hardware.


    Here's why I say that: To continue selling hardware, Apple needs barriers that stop others from offering alternative hardware that just costs less. iTunes is that barrier. Mac Computer buyers are offered exclusive iWork and iLife applications. Where do they by these apps today? iTunes!

    Now Apple is doing the same with the iPad. You can buy cheaper hardware (Soon to be 200+ Android tablets available - many with attractive prices). You can buy better hardware (the PlayBook). But you cannot get Apple services any other way.

    iPads are no longer just about hardware. Competitors need to take note.
    Last edited by pkcable; 06-02-11 at 09:09 AM. Reason: added full text of blog
    06-01-11 10:26 AM
  2. s219's Avatar
    I am not sure anyone here should care. Apple has historically been weak with cloud services, and this will merely bring them into the big leagues with the likes of Google, FaceBook, and Amazon. If they can do the online music locker right, unlike the half-baked solutions from Google and Amazon, it might be the industry leader for a while. All speculation, of course, until we hear just what iCloud is all about.

    I am curious about this part of your statement:

    Just like the iPod was never really about MP3. It was always the vehicle for weaning users onto iTunes.
    It is well known that iTunes is a driver to sell hardware, by providing services/features you can only access from Apple devices. Apple's revenue from hardware sales is several orders of magnitude higher than that from iTunes. In fact, years ago, iTunes was operating as a break even proposition. It has always primarily existed to drive sales of hardware where Apple makes their real money.

    So please clarify what you mean, because it seems backwards to me. If you're suggesting it's a way to lock users into the Apple ecosystem, I could see how you'd think that 4-5 years ago. But since iTunes went DRM-free with music, that's not the case (video is another story, but since all legal video has DRM no matter who you buy it from, you're locking yourself to someone, and iTunes is no different).
    06-01-11 10:50 AM
  3. PlayBookGeek's Avatar
    Well spotted! Here's what I meant:

    Apple is primarily a hardware company. Yet iTunes is more important to them than hardware. Here's why I say that:

    To continue selling hardware, Apple needs barriers that stop others from offering alternative hardware that just costs less. iTunes is that barrier.

    Now they are doing the same with the iPad. You can buy cheaper hardware (200x Androids available + to come later this year). You can buy better hardware (the PlayBook). But you cannot get Apple services any other way.

    iPads are no longer about hardware. Competitors need to take note.
    06-01-11 10:58 AM
  4. cfoxx's Avatar
    I'm not sold on the idea of Cloud services. I can't think of a single instance where I've desperately needed access to my entire music collection, which all fits onto an MP3 player anyway. Is Syncing an iPod/BlackBerry really so much effort that people will pay to subscribe to a cloud service to reduce the need for this? Syncing will become effortless once Wifi Sharing works on phones like it does the PlayBook.

    The only 'cloud' RIM need to focus on is getting my MemoPad, Calendar, Tasks, Contacts, BBM etc onto my PlayBook securely, without having to use the godawful bridge. Now that I have a 'BBID', this should be set into action.

    Cloud music storage? I can't see why I'd ever need that, likewise with 20GB document storage. If I need to access a document at work, I email it.
    06-01-11 11:01 AM
  5. cfoxx's Avatar
    You can buy better hardware (the PlayBook). But you cannot get Apple services any other way.
    I think it's a bit of both. RIM has an equivalent of most Apple services. They just don't do as good a job as Apple.

    They have a music store on the Playbook, but it's more expensive than iTunes. If RIM want to attract the entertainment users, they need an affordable music AND movie store.

    They have a Facetime equivalent but it doesn't have a PC/Mac application and doesn't work on a single one of the millions of BlackBerrys out there (and the new phones STILL don't have a front facing camera). So I can't call anybody because nobody here has a PlayBook. If RIM want to attract people for video calling, they need to get videochat out there to people with smartphones! Even provide an iPhone app!

    iPads are no longer about hardware. Competitors need to take note.
    I think Apple is all about making as much money off cheap hardware as possible. The iPad2's VGA front camera is evidence of that.

    A lot of Apple's popular services and features are free (Facetime, iTunes software, AirPlay), they just lure you into buying the overpriced hardware.
    06-01-11 11:15 AM
  6. papped's Avatar
    Cloud music is zzzzzz.....
    06-01-11 11:20 AM
  7. Economist101's Avatar
    I think Apple is all about making as much money off cheap hardware as possible. The iPad2's VGA front camera is evidence of that.
    .
    Any examples other than that camera, keeping in mind that both cameras in the iPad 2 are limited by the device's overall thickness?
    06-01-11 11:24 AM
  8. cfoxx's Avatar
    Any examples other than that camera, keeping in mind that both cameras in the iPad 2 are limited by the device's overall thickness?
    So you're suggesting the iPad3 will still have that **** VGA camera? Of course it won't. It's a deliberate trick to force people to upgrade every year. By your argument, the original iPad should have had the best tablet camera ever - and yet it had NONE!

    Other examples include releasing the original iPhone without 3G internet, and not putting a flash on the iPhone 3G, releasing the original iPad without a camera - these are all features they know people want but hold back to force an upgrade.
    06-01-11 11:42 AM
  9. s219's Avatar
    The iPad 2 cameras do suck, but the rest of the hardware is quite good for the price. The iPhone 4 has top-line hardware for a $199 price point (for instance, the screen is still among the best available in that size in *any* price range). I don't really see Apple cheaping out on hardware, though they do prioritize around fewer key features which means their competitors often have more/broader features overall.
    06-01-11 11:52 AM
  10. Economist101's Avatar
    So you're suggesting the iPad3 will still have that **** VGA camera? Of course it won't. It's a deliberate trick to force people to upgrade every year. By your argument, the original iPad should have had the best tablet camera ever - and yet it had NONE!
    I didn't make any statements about an iPad3, nor did I make any statements about the original iPad and cameras. I merely noted that the size of the device limits the size of all that is included within it. As for "forcing" people to upgrade every year, you could argue that the poor quality hardware you believe Apple is fond of using acts as a disincentive to upgrade.

    Other examples include releasing the original iPhone without 3G internet, and not putting a flash on the iPhone 3G, releasing the original iPad without a camera - these are all features they know people want but hold back to force an upgrade.
    Okay how do any of these features "force" an upgrade? You keep repeating this as if it's obvious, but I don't see how adding features "forces" anyone to do anything. When you say "forced upgrade" I think of hardware that doesn't support OS upgrades, but Apple's been pretty good about providing support going back multiple hardware generations, at least in iOS.

    Also, doesn't holding back features to encourage future upgrades risk current sales? Note that if you can't answer this question, your argument is dead in the water.
    Last edited by Economist101; 06-01-11 at 12:12 PM. Reason: Clarity
    06-01-11 11:55 AM
  11. yzf.shaun's Avatar
    The only Apple service I use is Itunes for listening to my music collecting and syncing with my Ipod Classic. There is no other Mp3 player out there to match the Classic in terms of storage space.

    As for the cloud I'm not to bothered as I have my own in the for of a 4tb NAS at home.
    06-01-11 11:56 AM
  12. Blacklac's Avatar
    The iPad 2 cameras do suck, but the rest of the hardware is quite good for the price. The iPhone 4 has top-line hardware for a $199 price point (for instance, the screen is still among the best available in that size in *any* price range). I don't really see Apple cheaping out on hardware, though they do prioritize around fewer key features which means their competitors often have more/broader features overall.
    Thats not fair at all. What the carriers, and perhaps Apple, choose to subsidize the phone for does not mean the phone is a $200 phone. Regardless is you only pay $200 or not. Maybe I just have the full retail mentality because I hate having the same phone for 2 years or dont mind buying phones to unlock on different carriers, but the iPhone 4 is right up there with the most expensive phones by mainstream manufacturers for its no contract price. You can thank the carriers for the subsidized price.

    It is a $599/699 phone.
    Last edited by Blacklac; 06-01-11 at 12:03 PM.
    06-01-11 12:00 PM
  13. infamyx's Avatar
    So you're suggesting the iPad3 will still have that **** VGA camera? Of course it won't. It's a deliberate trick to force people to upgrade every year. By your argument, the original iPad should have had the best tablet camera ever - and yet it had NONE!

    Other examples include releasing the original iPhone without 3G internet, and not putting a flash on the iPhone 3G, releasing the original iPad without a camera - these are all features they know people want but hold back to force an upgrade.
    You know wasnt the Bold 9000 the first 3G BlackBerry, which also launched right after the iPhone 3G? Didnt the iPhone also have a better camera than said Blackberry, even though it lacked a flash?

    I can wholesomely assure you, people didnt buy iPad 2s just because of lolcameras. Facetime is a complete failure just like iChat before it.
    06-01-11 12:06 PM
  14. s219's Avatar
    Thats not fair at all. What the carriers, and perhaps Apple, choose to subsidize the phone for does not mean the phone is a $200 phone. Regardless is you only pay $200 or not. Maybe I just have the full retail mentality because I hate having the same phone for 2 years or dont mind buying phones to unlock on different carriers, but the iPhone 4 is right up there with the most expensive phones by mainstream manufacturers for its no contract price. You can thank the carriers for the subsidized price.

    It is a $599/699 phone.
    Uh, OK. Compare un-subsidized prices if you want. The iPhone 4 and competing Android devices are all in the same price ballpark either way.
    06-01-11 01:23 PM
  15. Thumbtyper's Avatar
    We should mark this thread for future reference and amusement. It will be similar to past threads from spring 2010 that declared the concept of the IPAD a non-event too.

    Cloud computing will transform mobile computing completely. I can't wait to see what the future holds including (but not limited to) possibly cutting the cable and ala carte television..

    Cloud computing unfortunately will be yet another problem for RIm as they continue to attempt to perpetuate their superior security as their chief selling point. Expect RIM to get on board at least 12-18 months behind all competitors.
    PlayBookGeek and kevinnugent like this.
    06-01-11 02:27 PM
  16. jwn66's Avatar
    I have no interest for this type of system. Zero, I can't even stand watching new TV shows streaming from a website. It turns me off. Now, watching them thru my slingbox is something completely different. This is pointless, and a disaster just waiting to happen.
    06-01-11 02:29 PM
  17. Foreverup's Avatar
    I'm glad someone brought up the apple yearly refreshes because I always wanted to make this comparison.

    Apple=Madden games

    With iphone or ipad2 there was no mind blowing jump in spec or OS to me it always seemed like a roster update. Yeah they do release big upgrades but the yearly releases are just to have you buy something new.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    06-01-11 02:29 PM
  18. Blacklac's Avatar
    I completely agree about the Apple update process, however, most companies do this. Its just Apple only has 1 phone and 1 tablet. BlackBerry usually has atleast 4 phones a year and Android has a zillion that all compete with themselves. It just more noticeable with Apple.

    Was the 9700 leaps and bounds improved over the 9000? No. Was the 9780 leaps and bounds improved over the 9700? No. Was the Storm 2 lightyears ahead of the Storm 1? No.

    So, this was about iCloud?

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    06-01-11 02:38 PM
  19. Foreverup's Avatar
    I completely agree about the Apple update process, however, most companies do this. Its just Apple only has 1 phone and 1 tablet. BlackBerry usually has atleast 4 phones a year and Android has a zillion that all compete with themselves. It just more noticeable with Apple.

    Was the 9700 leaps and bounds improved over the 9000? No. Was the 9780 leaps and bounds improved over the 9700? No. Was the Storm 2 lightyears ahead of the Storm 1? No.

    So, this was about iCloud?

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    If this is about icloud is this any great advance on the services that Amazon or Google already provide? From what I read it doesn't seem to be.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    06-01-11 02:44 PM
  20. PlayBookGeek's Avatar
    We should mark this thread for future reference and amusement. It will be similar to past threads from spring 2010 that declared the concept of the IPAD a non-event too...
    Exactly! The same was said about the iPhone too. The Apple Cloud is not just about music storage - although that may be a component since content will be abstract. It will not necessarily exist in any physical location.

    Apple iCloud = Distributed Storage for Dummies

    I never understood why Apple outlawed files and folders on the iPad. Now it is clear. iPad content will seamlessly move from iPad to iPad to iPhone to desktop using the iCloud. Unsophisticated users (a.k.a. the target Apple user) won't know that it is just a synchronized file system. Apple will call it 'magical' - and many users will buy it.
    06-01-11 02:55 PM
  21. Foreverup's Avatar
    Exactly! The same was said about the iPhone too. The Apple Cloud is not just about music storage - although that may be a component since content will be abstract. It will not necessarily exist in any physical location.

    Apple iCloud = Distributed Storage for Dummies

    I never understood why Apple outlawed files and folders on the iPad. Now it is clear. iPad content will seamlessly move from iPad to iPad to iPhone to desktop using the iCloud. Unsophisticated users (a.k.a. the target Apple user) won't know that it is just a synchronized file system. Apple will call it 'magical' - and many users will buy it.
    In the Immortal words of my brother, who owns everything Apple, "I don't know a third about computers as you do that's why I buy Apple products."

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    06-01-11 03:17 PM
  22. Blacklac's Avatar
    Basically your iTunes content will be stored on Apple servers for OTA access? Is there more than just that? I don't mean to say JUST that, but... It is a nice feature.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    06-01-11 03:26 PM
  23. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    I am a big proponent of cloud computing. If Apple did away with iTunes, I might actually consider iOS.

    Don't sleep on this development. While I am not completely sold on cloud based music just yet, I could definitely live with the prospect.
    06-01-11 03:31 PM
  24. Foreverup's Avatar
    Basically your iTunes content will be stored on Apple servers for OTA access? Is there more than just that? I don't mean to say JUST that, but... It is a nice feature.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    So if you never used itunes it is no better than any other cloud services.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    06-01-11 03:32 PM
  25. cfoxx's Avatar
    I didn't make any statements about an iPad3, nor did I make any statements about the original iPad and cameras. I merely noted that the size of the device limits the size of all that is included within it.
    But you did specifically point out that the iPad2 is too thin for anything more than VGA on the front facing camera, which isn't true. The iPad2's front facing camera is arbitrarily low quality to draw people back to buy another iPad later.

    You could argue that the poor quality hardware you believe Apple is fond of using acts as a disincentive to upgrade.
    Overall, Apple to make good hardware. But there are some shortcomings, some would say deliberately so. Their non-removable batteries are a particular gripe of many people due to their short life, and of course, only an Apple technician can replace it for you.

    Okay how do any of these features "force" an upgrade? You keep repeating this as if it's obvious, but I don't see how adding features "forces" anyone to do anything.
    You're right, force is the wrong word. What I meant is that people see these new features that are incompatible with their current device, and they have to upgrade if they want them. I mean, isn't MMS disabled on the original iPhone still? There's no good reason for that. The most basic, awful old Nokia phones handle picture messaging.

    Also, doesn't holding back features to encourage future upgrades risk current sales? Note that if you can't answer this question, your argument is dead in the water.
    I can answer this question, and it's quite simply no. Holding back desirable features doesn't harm you at all if you have a raft of other desirable features to take the attention away from a device's shortcomings. The original iPhone had plenty of features which made it stand out in the marketplace, so they didn't need to put decent cameras in - because that would secure upgrade sales in the next cycle.

    As for RIM's upgrade cycle, sure, they upgrade their phones yearly as well. But RIM are so far behind anyway that I get the impression their attitude is more "will this do?" than "let's leave this off to secure upgrades".
    06-01-11 03:40 PM
96 123 ...
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD