An Apple-produced television set is still in the rumour-mill, but the concept still mystifies us. Media outlets are proposing that Apple will do with the television industry what they did with the computer, music, and cell-phone industries. But TV isn’t the same beast, because of much of what TV is is not the hardware, or even the software, but the content distribution. That is to say, what brings value to your television beyond its size and image quality is what you have connected to your TV: a DVD or Blu-ray player, a gaming console, or simply your cable tuner. All of these accessories make use of content from different distribution methods, be it optical media, digital streaming, or something else.

Apple influenced computers by re-engineering the hardware and software; they made computers simpler.¹ They didn’t invent a better internet. And they backed content distribution formats that already existed, favoring those with longer expected lifespans (first optical discs, now digital streaming) versus those that were on their way out (first floppies, now Blu-ray). People bought Macs because they were easier to learn, were more stable, and abstracted a lot of the things Average Joe hates about computers (blue screens of death, configuration issues, et al).

Apple repeated the process with the music industry by making a better mp3 player, and then pushing a distribution method that already existed (digital downloads), albeit in a pay-for-content form. People bought iPods because they had better interfaces than the competition, generally greater storage capacities, all wrapped in a robust package that interfaced nicely with Apple software.

When Apple took on the cell phone market, they took on hardware that, like PCs earlier, were built on a myriad of shaky hardware platforms, with non-intuitive software interfaces, and with limited downloadable apps available through expensive, extremely proprietary outlets. People bought iPhones because the price was right, and because the iPhone easily leveraged the market Apple built with the iPod.

With tablets, Apple further abstracted the things Average Joe hates about PCs, providing the iPhone’s intuitive UI in a larger format for better web browsing and general computer use. Arguably, they made the tablet space, which is somewhat of a first for Apple.²

But televisions aren’t tablets. While Apple may have thrown around the idea of taking on carriers directly with the release of the iPhone, they ultimately signed a deal with AT&T to use existing infrastructure. Now surely, in the television space, Apple is better positioned to take on the carriers, because Apple already has a distribution platform they’ve successfully used since the iPod was born. But unlike each area Apple tackled before, televisions aren’t inherently broken. You can argue that TVs should be easier to set up, what with channel scanning, picture calibration, input configuration, DVR setup, etc. But these are problems with accessories, particularly those utilizing legacy inputs. If Apple sold a TV that dismissed legacy devices entirely (as Apple once shirked floppies and Blu-ray), would consumers buy the device? Would enough consumers buy the device to make entering this market worthwhile?

The Apple TV of today (the iOS-running media box) is a perfect test of this market, and it’s not clear just how profitable it’s been for Apple. The Apple TV is great because it’s instant-on, and it’s not hard to see how embedding this device into a conventional TV may make sense, just as some TVs sold today already offer some internet services like Pandora, Netflix, etc. But if you can buy an Apple TV today for $100, why would anyone replace their entire television to the tune of $2000+ just to have a fully-integrated solution? For such a solution to be elegant, it would likely reserve only HDMI inputs, and no matter how Apple wanted to go about it, setup would remain tedious without lots of hardware being integrated off the bat (like an audio solution).

Sure, we can envision a sleek, Apple-branded television that comes with surround-sound speakers, complete with an audio configuration wizard to optimize sound. It would indeed be an elegant solution, but at what price? People don’t replace their TVs as often as they do their computers and mobile devices. If anything, most people wait until they actually have the space for a big-screen TV, their TV dies, or a major new display technology is unveiled.³ So sure, we can envision such an object, but not outside Apple’s research lab.

For a consumer product, Apple would be better off working with TV manufacturers to create “Apple TV-ready” televisions, where a designated HDMI port would always be the default when turning a TV on, such that the first thing a user sees is the Apple TV. With some fancy integration, attached Apple TVs could control access to other input ports to access attached consoles and legacy hardware, so in effect, an Apple TV “brain” would ensure a perfect user experience. With no Apple TV attached, however, the television would simply revert back to the “generic” menus most TVs have today.

Think we’re wrong? Drop us a tweet and explain what would compel you to shell out big money to replace your existing HDTV.⁴

Similar Posts:

• Apple TV, AirPlay, and Plex. – When we mentioned jailbreaking the Apple TV, we didn’t make clear that yes, a jailbreak for Apple TV…


• Enderle just wanted to write “JewJew.” – While we brought the Joo Joo up in passing, Rob Enderle proclaimed that the former CrunchPad could c…


• Apple will sooner release a netbook than an iTablet. – Why the Apple-faithful pray for an iTablet is anyone’s guess. Perhaps it’s their love for the long-d…

We mentioned earlier that we were interested in doing a side-by-side comparison of the Jawbone UP’s sleep analysis and that done by the Sleep Cycle iPhone app. Well, user alexw at the official UP forum beat us to the punch with a sample one-day analysis. As expected, because the UP is attached to you, it’s accuracy is better than Sleep Cycle, which relies on the iPhone sitting on the corner of your bed.

Another user compared the UP to another body-mounted device, and the results were very similar. It sounds like the UP’s sleep analysis will be a much better log of sleep activity than what Sleep Cycle offers, so the UP is definitely an upgrade. The downside at the moment is that several users have noted bugs in the sleep analysis display, which at least for one night, didn’t show up at all in the detailed, landscape-based mode. Jawbone has already released an update for the UP, which is a good start, but on our end, the logged sleep from last night remains missing. Hopefully the update ensures that future logged nights display correctly.

Similar Posts:

• Why we’re getting a Jawbone Up. – Firstly, Jawbone products are good. Sure, we had problems with the Jawbone 2 earpiece because of a p…


• The exception-al UP? – On browsing the feed for Stephen Hackett’s excellent blog, 512 Pixels, we came across [a post](http:…


• First take on the Jawbone UP. – On Friday, we drove by two Targets, a Best Buy, and an AT&T store to see if anyone was selling the J…

On Friday, we drove by two Targets, a Best Buy, and an AT&T store to see if anyone was selling the Jawbone UP early. None were. The reports we heard about UPs selling early must have been very isolated experiences, though it seems people had more success at Apple stores, who apparently are more likely to not play by the rules.¹ Both Target stores we visited had places set aside, complete with labels, for the three sizes of the UP initially available, yet employees at neither store could tell me whether they already sold out of their UP stock, or if they hadn’t received any yet. We decided to return to the AT&T store on Sunday morning.

We had sized our wrist using the printable template available at the UP site. This proved to be a waste of time, because not only did the AT&T store have demo units out to try on, but the packaging on each UP box has a plastic template included, so buyers can check for their size when in the store. It’s a nice touch, and shows Jawbone’s attention to detail. So we bought our UP, and set it up in the car on the way home.² We won’t bother to give a full review here, because we found Shawn Wall’s review to be plenty thorough for a product that’s only officially been on shelves for less than two days, but we will respond to some points he made for the sake of completeness.

The rubberized bracelet is bendable to a degree. It’s not the simplest task in the world getting it on or off your wrist, but thankfully you don’t really need to take it off given its waterproof nature.

Jawbone actually calls the bracelet water resistant, and only to a fairly shallow depth. The idea is that you can wash your hands, and even take it into the shower, without worrying about it getting damaged. We even saw a picture of someone wearing it in a shallow pool, so the idea that you can wear it most places is obviously something Jawbone wants customers to understand. But don’t think about taking the UP diving. In fact, the notion of taking this thing in the ocean makes us a bit uncomfortable, and we’d rather someone else tried it first.

When we took a shower this morning, our hesitation for getting the UP wet made us take it off. It’s not like you’ll be missing out on too much activity tracking in those few minutes of the morning anyway. Though, we did notice that the black rubberized band³ attracts dirt pretty quickly, so wearing it into the shower may not be a bad idea after all.

As far as bendability goes, the UP has to be somewhat bendable to get it on and off. But that’s only for the “ends” of the band, and the bendability is temporary. In other words, you can’t bend the UP into a different shape, or make it larger or smaller.

There’s really not much in the way of moving parts here; there is a button at one end that is used for switching modes (more on that later), and the opposite end has a cap that is pulled off to reveal the 3.5mm male jack that is used to sync the device with your mobile phone (currently iPhone-only, but Android “coming soon”).

The one thing we don’t like about the UP is that the button on one end, as well as the cap, is painted silver. We’d much rather have these match the main band colour, as we don’t expecially like the accent color. The cap is only silver on one side though, so if you put it on backwards, it appears black to all but the closest observer. A backwards cap also means you’re not proudly displaying “Jawbone” written on your jewelry; we don’t need to advertise for the company we already supported by buying their product. Depending on how much we dislike the button on the other end being an “off” colour, we may end up painting it black down the road.

One really great feature in regards to sleep is that the bracelet can be used as an alarm clock using vibration. Even better, it supposedly will wake you up out of a light sleep instead of a deep sleep by getting you up a little earlier if it can (by looking at your deep vs. light sleep somehow).

This feature worked well for us this morning, though to be fair, we didn’t sleep all that great last night anyway, and noticeably tumbled around a bunch. In this case, we were quick to feel the pulsing vibration of the alarm, but we wonder if it will wake us on days that we have a deeper sleep. Today, it woke us up 15 minutes early. We’re considering doing a side-by-side test of the UP and Sleep Cycle iPhone app to see how consistent the two are, or if one tends to go off before the other. For now, though, we expect the UP to handle our alarms equally well, if not better, with the only concern being whether the vibration is strong enough to rouse us from a deep sleep.

One of my favorite feature of the device is found in this area. You can set your bracelet to remind you to be active if you are sedentary for too long. The time range is user defined. This is great as it can remind us programmers to get out of our chairs once an hour

We’re rather fond of this feature also. We have it enabled during business hours, and its a great reminder to get up and do something, even if it’s just to pee or get some fresh water.

I do not own another pedometor, Fitbit or anything else along those lines so I cannot speak for the accuracy of the UP. It feels like the numbers are too high though.

Whether they’re too high or not, all we can say is that the “lightly active” category is cake during an average weekend, and that’s not even with workout scheduled. From noon until night yesterday, we scored over 8k steps taken, which means we can easily up our steps goal to the next level. We’ll have to see how our weekend activity compares to the average workday to see whether it’s worth adjusting our goals at this time, though.

The food diary portion of the application is well… a little underwhelming in my opinion.

We haven’t played with this feature too much yet, and honestly, we’re not too tempted considering there’s no way to count calories. We’ve used other apps to compare our caloric intake to our ideal goal (at least 3k calories a day), and the fact that such a simple feature is missing makes us feel like we’d gain little from the UP app’s inclusion of a food log. Maybe once this feature becomes more robust, we’ll be more likely to keep up with it.

Game mechanics are a huge portion to an offering such as the UP, and I feel they currently fall a little short.

We agree with Shawn here, and don’t like how simply accepting a challenge means others who accepted the challenge can suddenly see your progress. We’d prefer “private” challenges that don’t involved any reporting, or at the very least, allow users to select a username instead of their registered (true) name. Sure, the public feed only uses first names, but we’d still prefer a nickname.

The problem of the food log and the game mechanics points at the one flaw the UP currently has, and that’s a very simplistic piece of software. If Jawbone maintains a regular release schedule of updates and bug fixes, however, we can truly see the pair being a useful lifestyle assistant for some time to come.

More thoughts to follow as we spend more time with our new bracelet.

Similar Posts:

• Why we’re getting a Jawbone Up. – Firstly, Jawbone products are good. Sure, we had problems with the Jawbone 2 earpiece because of a p…


• More on the UP. – We mentioned earlier that we were interested in doing a side-by-side comparison of the Jawbone UP’s …


• Here’s to Jawbone’s customer service. – As a followup to our last post on the Jawbone UP, we thought it appropriate to provide an update to …

Firstly, Jawbone products are good. Sure, we had problems with the Jawbone 2 earpiece because of a particular weak link, but overall their products are stylish and innovative. We don’t use a bluetooth headset at the moment, but we did receive the Jawbone Jambox as a birthday gift this year, and we love it. When we heard about Jawbone’s Up device, which tracks lifestyle actions, we were immediately intrigued, because we knew the engineering behind it would be good, and better than devices like the FitBit that the Up challenges for market space. Which brings us to our second point: the Up is a bracelet, which means there’s no need to hang it from your belt, waist, or pocket. Instead, it sits on your arm where, unless you’re a bracelet aficionado, is likely bare at the moment anyway; a perfect place for a device that tracks what you’re doing.

Scary Orwellian conspiracy theories about user tracking aside, the Up is the perfect N=1 logging system. Not only does it track your movement, but you can configure it to ensure you’re getting enough of it by having the Up remind you to move. This follows Cornell’s findings about sitting and standing at work. We use a standing desk at home, and tried one at work for several weeks, and while we believe it definitely has its merits, there’s something to be said for simply moving more; standing around, while perhaps beneficial in certain areas, is simply not as good as getting the opportunity to move. Regardless of what desk type you use, the Up can remind you to get more movement in, as it will vibrate to alert you when it senses minimal movement for a particular amount of time.

At night, we’ve relied on the iPhone Sleep Cycle app as our alarm clock for well over a year. The concept is simple: the app tracks movement in the bed using the iPhone’s hardware, and will set off your morning alarm up to half-an-hour before your alarm was set to go off, based on your movement patterns. In other words, if it senses movement 30 minutes before your alarm is supposed to go off, indicating that you’re likely no longer in a deep sleep, the alarm will go off. Otherwise, it will wait within that 30-minute window and sound the alarm when it does notice movement. Worst case scenario, the alarm will go off at the time you set it to, but in our use, we’ve rarely run into that problem, and always hear the alarm a little early, suggesting that the app is working as intended.

The problem with Sleep Cycle is that it requires the iPhone to be sitting on the bed, so it’s detection of movement isn’t as precise as if the iPhone were attached to your body. Some people may also not like the idea of their iPhone sitting next to their head all night, what with all those radio waves. More practically, the iPhone can be pushed off the bed, or your bed is too small for you, your partner, your cats, and all those pillows. Or maybe, -something- iOS 5 will cause Sleep Cycle to crash, or you’ll somehow accidentally exit the app by pushing the Home button. In any case, Sleep Cycle is obviously not perfect, and much of these faults are addressed by the Up, since you wear it 24/7. And, like Sleep Cycle, the Up will track your natural sleep pattern based on your movement at night, and wake you up with a vibration once it notices you’re no longer fast asleep.

Available Sunday in the basic colours,¹ the Up will replace Sleep Timer for us, and hopefully serve to better track our sleep. The software also offers “challenges”, which are novelty proposals to get you to do something you otherwise might not, whether that’s simply moving more, or getting enough sleep.² And further, the Up software includes a food log, which we hope that Jawbone expands to include calorie tracking. We hope to pick up the Jawbone Up this weekend, and write more about our experiences with it in the upcoming weeks. If we can tie this experiment in with paleo/primal living, even better.

Similar Posts:

• More on the UP. – We mentioned earlier that we were interested in doing a side-by-side comparison of the Jawbone UP’s …


• The exception-al UP? – On browsing the feed for Stephen Hackett’s excellent blog, 512 Pixels, we came across [a post](http:…


• First take on the Jawbone UP. – On Friday, we drove by two Targets, a Best Buy, and an AT&T store to see if anyone was selling the J…

Microsoft recently sent out a heads-up to the masses that XBox Live will undergo another update later this year, adding some new multimedia capabilities like integration with certain cable television channels, as well as the long-ago-announced-but-never-realized IPTV integration.¹ There’s even Kinect support, so XBox owners can speak commands to switch what they’re viewing. Not only does this further direct us to what the future will be like, but it also prompting the question of, “Why can’t Apple do this?”

That is to say, the Apple TV is a much cheaper set-top solution than the XBox. (Of course it is, as it’s not a traditional gaming console.) But the features Microsoft is advertising with the new XBox dashboard upgrade is straight up the territory that Apple has fought for with the Apple TV, and it’s not hard to see how Apple may respond.

Why wouldn’t Apple be vying for similar contracts that Microsoft has snatched up for the XBox? Players like HBO, Bravo, the UFC, and others are clearly good to have on your team, and while Apple is still pushing content via iTunes, there are several others like real-time streaming pay-per-view that Apple could go after. But it’s not just content that Apple can try to match, it’s also cost and functionality.

Take Siri, for example, which is premiering on the iPhone 4S. Whether or not it comes to the next-gen Apple TV, there’s already solid integration between Apple devices, so it’s not hard to imagine that Apple might leverage Siri on the iPhone to control the Apple TV. From browsing the iTunes catalogue for TV shows and movies, to playback control, Siri looks like it could become an integral part of the future television experience. And Siri becoming a foundation for future control methods doesn’t need to stop there, considering how third-parties could leverage the technology.

We already have games utilizing AirPlay to stream video and audio to the AppleTV. Add in a third element, voice commands, and suddenly games can become even more complex and immersive. The XBox can do the same, of course, but whereas the Kinect remains an almost novelty purchase, Siri is part of the new iPhone experience, which means it won’t be too long before every iPhone Apple sells will offer the virtual assistant built in.

Siri’s real future is how third-party developers can integrate Siri functionality in their apps. It’s already great for Apple’s included apps, but it becomes ever more cool when we can create new tasks in OmniFocus using voice commands, or new notes in SimpleNote, than relying on first-party apps. Especially if we can use Siri to manipulate these apps along with AirPlay, giving us a big-screen picture to control with our voice.

Similar Posts:

• Apple TV, AirPlay, and Plex. – When we mentioned jailbreaking the Apple TV, we didn’t make clear that yes, a jailbreak for Apple TV…


• Microsoft Kinect: a cute novelty. – We haven’t weighed in on Microsoft’s Kinect (formerly “Project Natal”) because we haven’t seen anyth…


• Apple’s console already exists. – We’ve been somewhat critical of the Apple TV as a gaming console, and when [we last wrote about the …

Talking about stands for the iPad that would work just as well regardless of iPad orientation, and regardless of whether your work surface is a tabletop or your lap, we proposed a unique design back in May:

…a more convenient accessory for the iPad would be a well-designed “clip” that attaches to Apple’s bluetooth keyboard with a stand for the iPad in either orientation. This would be a fairly small gadget, would complement existing iPad accessories, and allow one to use the iPad in a lap environment without forcing the user into a given orientation. There are several accessories that exist to incorporate a physical keyboard into an iPad user’s workflow, but nothing yet that’s this versatile which maintains the iPad’s flexibility for supreme mobility when a physical keyboard isn’t needed.

Shortly after we wrote that, we placed an order for the InCase Origami Workstation, which we’ve used ever since. Our only complaint with the InCase solution is that because the Origami Workstation wraps around Apple’s bluetooth keyboard, there’s wasted space in our briefcase when we travel. Before, the bluetooth keyboard could be slid between papers, or sit battery-side down against the briefcase wall, but with the Origami Workstation wrapped around it, the keyboard is a larger “wedge” that takes up more room. It’s not a huge deal, but when space in the briefcase is at a premium, we’d prefer a smaller footprint.¹

Fortunately, there’s a solution on the horizon that’s a much closer match to what we described back in May. Before funding ended, we managed to support Kickstarter project WINGStand, which is a two-part clip system that attaches to an Apple bluetooth keyboard, allowing you to rest an iOS device on the resulting stand. As soon as our WINGStand arrives, we’ll be sure to comment on real-world use. But, if you missed the Kickstarter campaign and can’t wait to pick one up now, there’s a web site set up to take orders.

Similar Posts:

• Gearing up with the WINGstand. – Searching for a good iPad stand solution that incorporates a keyboard has proven difficult. [We set...


• Orienting the iPad for use with a keyboard. - The iPhone Blog posted [a poll](http://www.tipb.com/2011/05/18/poll-iphone-keyboard-portrait-landsca…


• iPad setup time is negligible. – Following up on our comments regarding the iPad and MacBook Air, we’d like to address Ben Brooks’ ar…

Since 2007′s release of the iPhone, Nintendo has adamantly opposed the device in favor of its own mobile consoles, much as they’ve done with every competitor’s hardware in the past. And Nintendo has a legacy to stand on, with the NES and SNES and even the N64. But things kind of break down after that, as competitors moved to optical media and basically left Nintendo in the dust. With the Gamecube, Nintendo attempted to get back in the game, but it wasn’t until the Wii that they were finally back in the good graces of the gaming populace. But even that momentary lack of judgement on our part has faded, as Nintendo’s ability to capitalize on the Wii’s innovations leave us with a few nice gimmicks, but ultimately little staying power.

The argument for Nintendo has been two-fold:

1. Nintendo will use the momentum of the Wii to finally offer competitive hardware in their next console.
2. Nintendo still has the mobile gaming market locked down.

Early reports of the Wii successor leave little to drool over, and the mobile market has slowly been pushed into iPhone territory, even though Nintendo ironically called it a novelty. It’s one thing for Nintendo to have dismissed the iPhone in 2007, but year after year is no longer excusable, especially when their countermeasures are a poorly performing 3D Gameboy. Nintendo’s now no longer leading much of anything, other than a steady march to the grave, much as SEGA did when they fell over thanks to the Dreamcast flopping.

There are investor calls for Nintendo to develop for iOS, but we’re still seeing push-back. It’s the same stubborn push-back that Nintendo of America has been cooing for the last couple years, and now it’s coming straight from Japan. “No, we want our software to run on our hardware.” Nintendo must be quoting a long-lost SEGA exec. The problem is that Nintendo’s hardware is, in a nutshell, crap.

Nintendo does one thing well: it makes great games. Old ports would be wonderfully on the iPhone, let alone new games using Nintendo IP. It’s a no-brainer to bring these titles over, and if Nintendo really wanted to brand some hardware to go along with it, we’d gladly support an iPhone sleeve with hardware bluetooth controls to go along with it.¹

If Nintendo doesn’t wake up soon, they’ll be forced to go this route anyway. Why not capitalize on the transition early instead of blowing more capital on failed hardware projects?

Similar Posts:

• iOS devices as mobile consoles. – That iOS games are threatening the traditional mobile gaming market is no longer a surprise. Today, …


• Microsoft Kinect: a cute novelty. – We haven’t weighed in on Microsoft’s Kinect (formerly “Project Natal”) because we haven’t seen anyth…


• Microsoft wants another monopoly, or, the Vivendi Deal. – Microsoft is yet again reaching out with greedy hands for a bigger market share in the console gamin…

Two years ago we addressed eBooks and the Kindle, pointing out how the $360 device required about 150 book purchases just to break even compared to the cost of buying paper books. Convenience aside, eBooks were no cheaper than paper books short-term, which is ridiculous considering the savings a publisher has by not having to acquire resources, print the physical books, and distribute them to retailers.

Today, the ad-supported Kindle runs $114. With an average price savings of $2 per book,¹ a Kindle owner still needs to buy 57 books to break even on print sales. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal from last August, the average eBook reader goes through 2.6 books per month, which means their average savings are $5.20/month. We can say, then, that the break-even point for the $114 Kindle will be in about 22 months.

So just under two years for the average eBook reader to break even? That doesn’t seem like a great deal, even considering the nearly $250 price drop on the Kindle from two years ago. Rumours suggest that Amazon intends to release another e-ink version of the Kindle for even cheaper later this year, but even a $99 Kindle won’t rectify this rather major pricing issue. As we pointed out in the past, this pricing discrepancy isn’t as bad when we considering eBooks on a device that does substantially more than just present eBooks, like the iPad and similar devices. Here, the savings are considerable, because we don’t have to make up the cost of the hardware on eBook sales alone, since most people aren’t buying devices like the iPad for the primary purpose of reading books.

Yet, eBook sales appear to be eclipsing print sales despite the fact that the average reader isn’t saving money. Is it a matter of the up-front hardware costs not being considered by the consumer, or do most people simply value convenience this much? We imagine it’s a rather thin line, which is why so many people are still on-the-fence about switching over to eBooks. Presumably, by the time the Kindle reaches a price-point of $60, where a $2 price difference between book versions means that savings start after the first year of ownership, a lot more people will jump on the bandwagon.

Similar Posts:

• If eBooks are so successful, why the push-back? – Things have come a long way since we [voiced our concerns](http://wyldkard.com/2009/05/05/on-amazons…


• On Amazon’s Kindle and the eBook format. – The very idea of an eBook reader is the stuff of the future. One device to store a library of inform…


• More obstacles for eBook adoption. – By chance, shortly after writing our take on the status of eBooks and the Kindle movement, we hopped…

Not typically a fan of extended warranties, we do make an exception: AppleCare. And that’s because had we not invested in AppleCare in the past, we would have been royally screwed. This, contrary to the Apple-products-are-rock-solid belief that many, including Shawn Blanc, share:

For the record, I bought AppleCare once. It was for my first Mac; a 12-inch PowerBook. I never needed AppleCare for that Mac, nor have I needed AppleCare for any other Apple computer or device I’ve owned since then.

Shawn’s an Apple enthusiast, so we can assume he’s owned his fare share of Apple devices. Still, our own experience has made AppleCare invaluable, as we can’t even remember every time some Apple device needed this or that fixed/replaced. But, off the top of our head:

• Our iPod Mini needed replacement after the battery stopped, well, charging.
• The RAM in our 17″ Powerbook needed to be replaced after the computer stopped booting.
• The logic board in our 17″ Powerbook needed to be replaced after the screen developed random, horizontal lines.
• Our iPhone 3GS needed replacing after it stopped turning on.
• The RAM in out 17″ MacBook Pro needed to be replaced after the computer stopped booting.
• The logic board on our 17″ MacBook Pro needed to be replaced after the computer stopped booting.
• The battery on our 17″ MacBook Pro needed to be replaced after it exploded.¹
• Our TimeCapsule’s hard drive died and needed to be replaced.

It’s not even that we beat up on our hardware – we’re actually quite anal about our equipment staying in a pretty pristine condition. And again, this is just off the top of our head, as we’re fairly certain that we brought our 17″ monsters into a local Apple Store more than this in order to get stuff fixed. Between these problems and those our friends/family have encountered over the last several years, we consider AppleCare a pretty good deal, as we’re well ahead in what we otherwise would have paid on getting things fixed outside of the basic Apple warranty.

Mind you, this isn’t to say that Apple quality sucks (because we still consider Apple gear better than competing products), merely that any sufficiently complex technological device is bound to have problems. We’re just on the opposite end of the spectrum than Shawn, who has apparently been very lucky with his Apple gear.² We’ve had no problems with our more recent Apple purchases (Mac Mini, iPhone 4, iPad, and iPad 2), but three out of four are different beasts compared to traditional Apple computers. If anything, we’d recommend AppleCare for any traditional Apple computer purchase, but may be hesitant to recommend it for Apple mobile devices.

Similar Posts:

• Bridget Riley strikes. – My computer workhorse is a 17″ G4 Powerbook that replaced my old 15-incher. At the time, my PC was h…


• The iPod Touch is a baby iPad. – One of the common quips about the iPad is that it’s nothing more than a “large iPod Touch.” It’s a s…


• The MacBook Air and the iPad. – At the recent Back to the Mac event, Apple unveiled their redone Macbook Air, which now comes in two…

When Deutsche Bank’s Chris Whitmore claimed Apple would release a second iPhone model, we considered it just another random claim. After all, people have been saying for years that Apple would release an iPhone variant model, be it smaller than the original, or otherwise watered down. John Gruber weighed in on the claim and considers it a matter of fact; to Gruber, a second iPhone is just a matter of time.

Examine the history of the iPod to see how this will play out. They’ll press technologically at the high end, and they’ll expand into the mid-range market with lower priced models. Why not now?

The difference with the iPod is that all the iPod models did the same thing: they played mp3s. Some had larger storage options than others (just as the iPhone already does), but functionally they were all equal. The biggest difference between them, and still today, is storage, which comes down to a matter of form factor choice, not features. The only reason the iPod Shuffle lacks features (a visual screen) is because the form factor takes precedence. Just look at the iPod lineup today. The choice boils down to how much music you want at your fingertips, and how small you need your music player to be. The only exception here is the iPod Touch, which is the exception because it’s a phone-less iPhone; if storage costs weren’t an issue, then the Touch would replace the iPod Classic without consideration.

Taking the iPhone along a road similar to the iPod is problematic because the success of the iPhone isn’t in the core phone software. That is to say, the iPhone, unlike the iPod, is not a one-trick pony. It does a lot of things well, whereas the iPod did one primary thing well: play mp3s. This means the iPhone experience can’t be replicated by watering the device down and selling it for cheap, because customers will still want the iPhone experience, which means downloading, and using, all the same apps that other iPhone users have. That means the hardware needs to stay pretty much the same in every iPhone sold, which means the form factor can’t be tweaked too much.

Cellular telephone carriers have had success in selling older iPhone models for cheaper prices, this much is true. That’s because the features these devices offered weren’t too far different from the features available in the latest iPhone. So long as Apple rolls out the next iOS version and doesn’t abandon last year’s iPhones, everyone gets to play with the latest apps, even if there’s slight degradation in performance.¹ So Apple could just keep up production of last year’s iPhone when a new version comes out, and use that as a lower-cost alternative. But beyond that, there’s not much Apple can do to offer a next-gen, low-cost iPhone without cutting too many experiential features. Nixing things like the camera, gyroscope, or GPS would detract from the iPhone experience, and Apple wants to maintain consistency of user experience as much as possible across their lineup, which is why the only alternative versions of the iPhone we’ve seen to date have been storage or carrier based.

Moving to a smaller form factor doesn’t make much of a difference either; Apple would still need to cram all the latest technology into a smaller package, with maybe the only fair trade-off being storage. But that likely wouldn’t make up for the cut in price, and graphically, the device would have to fit at least the original iPhone’s resolution into a smaller screen. Not to mention, who’s complaining that the iPhone is too big? It made sense for Apple to offer smaller (and lighter) iPods for those wanting to take their tunes into the gym or on the trail, but the iPhone is a different beast.²

Maybe Apple will brand a totally different phone as an iPhone lite, but why would it sacrifice the very things that make the iPhone awesome just to sell a phone that’s cheaper? If carriers can sell the iPhone 3GS for $50 with a two-year contract, then Apple can figure out a way to keep up production of older iPhones models for another year or two just to make sales to those who still can’t afford a new iPhone. But for the time being, don’t expect “lite”, “mini”, or “nano”-like branding for a future iPhone variant.

Similar Posts:

• iPhone firmware 1.1.3 useless, just like 1.1.2. – According to PhoneDifferent, version 1.1.3 of the iPhone firmware is soon to be released, and as wit…


• European law aims to propagate the iPhone culture. – After Apple’s lawyers presumably spent many nights awake looking for looholes, they finally gave in …


• No seven-inch iPad on the horizon. – The rumour bandwagon is loose, talking about an upcoming 7″ iOS tablet device. Steven Sande at TUAW …