Technology Apple confirms Jan. 27 media event to show off 'latest creation'

[masta247]

I actually think what Apple's doing is a plus for the print industry but if you want corporate sponsorships to ruin journalistic integrity in exchange for reasonable prices - then go right ahead.

Yeah and rising gas prices is good for certain industries too. Come on, let's all forget about alternative solutions and pay 1000$ for a gallon. How cool is that?

I'd rather have the print industry on the decline because I care for nature and trees

The biggest favor Apple are doing is ripping fanboys off - those who will actually pay that much. Obviously a great deal of that money will go to Apple.

Obviously, Apple will offer competitive pricing on the e-books and digital format magazines/newspapers it sells.

That's what my logic suggests but prices on Apple products are not always competitive and they still sell well. Ebooks are damn expensive right now and I expect Apple to sell them for even a slightly higher price.

 

[S O F I]

^$9.99 for an e-book is not expensive. That's the price most e-book readers charge.

 

[Casey]

^$9.99 for an e-book is not expensive. That's the price most e-book readers charge.

It's expensive for what it is.

Besides which, we're headed into an age where digital content becomes free. That's why Google are on the right path and Apple are essentially trying to make money simply by digitizing "the old model" and just like with iTunes....that has a very limited lifespan.

 

[masta247]

^$9.99 for an e-book is not expensive. That's the price most e-book readers charge.

Here it's more like 5-7$ and that's only slightly cheaper than most "analog" books cost. Okay then I'm sure that Apple will charge at least 12$/book.

What could be cool for those tablets though is that you could get a monthly subscription of your favorite paper in its digital form, pay 10$/month or so and get it sent on your tablet daily so it's there when you wake up and drink your coffee. That would be a decent idea if you really want to pay to read the news. I'm sure it would make everyone happy. Okay maybe except for these guys who prefer casual papers.

 

[S. Fourteen]

Besides which, we're headed into an age where digital content becomes free. That's why Google are on the right path and Apple are essentially trying to make money simply by digitizing "the old model" and just like with iTunes....that has a very limited lifespan.

At least Apple makes money off actual products rather than profiling its users.

Don't make that mistake Casey, you're not getting anything for free. Believe it or not, Google has stockholders as well.

 

[S O F I]

It's expensive for what it is.

It depends. I'd pay a lot more money to read Camus' The Stranger. I guess it depends on the value you put on the information and pleasure you get from books.

Besides which, we're headed into an age where digital content becomes free. That's why Google are on the right path and Apple are essentially trying to make money simply by digitizing "the old model" and just like with iTunes....that has a very limited lifespan.

Well, we're going to witness a bit of a backlash. The New York Times will start charging for online content next year. We'll see how that goes. Also, some countries will look to put a "technology tax" on companies like Google. It's been proposed in France.

Also, the reason Google seems to offer many services for free is not because they're this great company who thinks we should all get stuff for free. They have a business model that allows them to do this. Their core business is advertising. Their purpose with Android is to gain entry into mobile phones and for their apps to be ubiquitous to the point that they will be able to reach every consumer with ads, and companies will gladly pay a premium for that.

 

[S O F I]

What could be cool for those tablets though is that you could get a monthly subscription of your favorite paper in its digital form, pay 10$/month or so and get it sent on your tablet daily so it's there when you wake up and drink your coffee. That would be a decent idea if you really want to pay to read the news. I'm sure it would make everyone happy. Okay maybe except for these guys who prefer casual papers.

Every e-reader out has this feature. Hell, I get an audio podcast of every word written in the Economist.

 

[masta247]

Every e-reader out has this feature. Hell, I get an audio podcast of every word written in the Economist.

Then it's a cool feature to have on a tablet too with a better screen and all.
I didn't know, I never had an e-reader and never had an opportunity to use one.
There are only 2 weekly papers I buy and everything else I read online. I prefer reading news online actually but I can imagine that it would be more fun on a tablet.

 

[Casey]

Also, the reason Google seems to offer many services for free is not because they're this great company who thinks we should all get stuff for free. They have a business model that allows them to do this. Their core business is advertising. Their purpose with Android is to gain entry into mobile phones and for their apps to be ubiquitous to the point that they will be able to reach every consumer with ads, and companies will gladly pay a premium for that.

I never said it was anything other than an ad-funded model. That is the model of the future. Same reason Spotify has been so insanely successful.

At least Apple makes money off actual products rather than profiling its users.

Don't make that mistake Casey, you're not getting anything for free. Believe it or not, Google has stockholders as well.

Oh noez! Big bad Google wants to USE the information that I willingly provide it with! Puhleez. I know all about how Google operates.

In case you forgot, their company motto is "Don't be evil" and they very much adhere to that. Larry and Sergey are worth a hundred Steve Jobs.......the former are giving the middle finger to China over censorship while the latter puts so much pressure on Foxconn that their employees kill themselves over accidental prototype leaks.

Even after Larry and Sergey sell $5billion of shares over the next few years, they'll still have 48% of the company, and with Eric Schmidt's shares added, still have a controlling interest. And these three men are proven to be among the most forward thinking, intelligent, progressive and trustworthy people in the entire tech world....unlike ol' Jobsy who even fucks over his own friends like Wozniak (the real brains behind Apple) on a regular basis. :cheesy::cheesy:

 

[Rukas]

Google is just as evil as Apple and Microsoft. It is called business.

If you believe Google is so high and mighty I bet you believe Obama doesnt have agendas and puppet masters too.

Blind faith

Casey, Google is your religion

 

[S. Fourteen]

Yes, and to take on the direction of this thread - People Willingly pay for contents on iTunes. Oh noes!

 

[masta247]

Even after Larry and Sergey sell $5billion of shares over the next few years, they'll still have 48% of the company, and with Eric Schmidt's shares added, still have a controlling interest. And these three men are proven to be among the most forward thinking, intelligent, progressive and trustworthy people in the entire tech world....unlike ol' Jobsy who even fucks over his own friends like Wozniak (the real brains behind Apple) on a regular basis. :cheesy::cheesy:

yeah while all companies are all for their income Google doesn't do it in a straightforward way and they're going for a good image.
In theory of organization all companies should care about people first but in reality there are companies like IBM or Google and then there are companies like Wal-Mart.
Apple's personality would be "I'm so cool now pay me". Google pick a softer way at least trying to look like a good guy. And it leads to better results too. That's what convinces me more.
And business is not as cold as it seems. There's a place for ethics too and it's pretty important.
Sure Wozniak was the brain behind Apple - he designed their first computers (and he's Polish) while Jobs was their face. It pretty much shows how this corporation operates. Their face is more important than their brains.

 

[S. Fourteen]

masta - you remind me of "I am god" guy on a train in the funny pictures thread.

look at all these corporate sheeps, they know nothing!

 

[S O F I]

I never said it was anything other than an ad-funded model. That is the model of the future. Same reason Spotify has been so insanely successful.

You say it like it's a good thing. The issue with the future of advertising lies within bounds of privacy. At this point, with using Google applications and the Internet in general, we are giving up a lot of privacy and although we realize it, we don't really care. It will be interesting to see in the future what Google and other software companies will do with the massive amounts of information they've collected from us. There will be a backlash against the technocrats.

In case you forgot, their company motto is "Don't be evil" and they very much adhere to that. Larry and Sergey are worth a hundred Steve Jobs.......the former are giving the middle finger to China over censorship while the latter puts so much pressure on Foxconn that their employees kill themselves over accidental prototype leaks.

Even after Larry and Sergey sell $5billion of shares over the next few years, they'll still have 48% of the company, and with Eric Schmidt's shares added, still have a controlling interest. And these three men are proven to be among the most forward thinking, intelligent, progressive and trustworthy people in the entire tech world.

I don't think they'll exit China, I think it's a bluff. Also, I don't think China will give in. I actually think one of the reasons they are selling their shares is because they realize that in the long run, the company will less and less be able to adhere to their motto and they consciously don't want a part of that.

yeah while all companies are all for their income Google doesn't do it in a straightforward way and they're going for a good image.
In theory of organization all companies should care about people first but in reality there are companies like IBM or Google and then there are companies like Wal-Mart.
Apple's personality would be "I'm so cool now pay me". Sure Wozniak was the brain behind Apple - he designed their first computers (he's Polish btw) while Jobs was their face. It pretty much shows how this corporation operates. Their face is more important than their brains.

Apple employs top talent. Steve Jobs is a visionary (cliche term describing him), and he's a good manager. He brings the best out of the best brains.

 

[masta247]

You say it like it's a good thing. The issue with the future of advertising lies within bounds of privacy. At this point, with using Google applications and the Internet in general, we are giving up a lot of privacy and although we realize it, we don't really care. It will be interesting to see in the future what Google and other software companies will do with the massive amounts of information they've collected from us. There will be a backlash against the technocrats.

Well, I study information management and while most of my courses are either IT or Business I also had a lot of lectures about the information itself and companies like Google also.
Most of all people don't actually understand the value of information in the first place. Google understands that gathering information is important and it will be more and more expensive with time. The value of information rises and most people yet don't understand that it's a very important resource. Picture a database full of information about people, their habits, interests and text messages as well as emails. They have rights to use them for their own causes. We give away our info "for free" - for services that we want to receive. Why not? E-mail address? Why not? Search history? Why not?
In reality it's worth way more than we receive in exchange which is usually a specific service.
People getting information emails or popups, ads on youtube they agreed to see - think it's okay, it's normal.
Convincing someone that receiving a spam e-mail is equal to "getting robbed" would be pretty hard.

However right now this database is valuable because it helps their clients reach potential customers with their products on almost perfect conditions. However possibilities are almost endless. I can see them shooting customization of their partners offers to our specific needs and interests to a whole another level.
Google succeeds because they seem to offer services for free using people who are unaware of what they're actually paying and they are subtle enough to get away with it. They don't sell our information. Actually selling it would be stupid. A company having the most information about people has all the power. In the future I can see them being a leader middleman between companies and their clients and opening endless possibilities selling services to anyone willing to use these information for any cause. However I doubt they'll ever be too aggressive with it as people would stop trusting them. There's a perfect balance right now and it probably won't stop as there's always more info to gain.

Apple employs top talent. Steve Jobs is a visionary (cliche term describing him), and he's a good manager. He brings the best out of the best brains.

Yeah business wise that's very true.

 

[Casey]

Google is just as evil as Apple and Microsoft. It is called business.

If you believe Google is so high and mighty I bet you believe Obama doesnt have agendas and puppet masters too.

Blind faith

Casey, Google is your religion

This is complete and utter horseshit. Google is nowhere near as blindly money-centric as companies like Apple and Microsoft, who's agendas are clearly visible.

I know people who work for Google including a cousin of mine who was recently hired on the Android team. Point being - I know about this shit from an inside perspective. I've had lengthy conversations about it. I know all about how Larry and Sergey percieve the future of information and technology. Do you?

So who is Obama's "Puppet-master"? If you seriously start throwing names around like Zbigniew Brzezinski you're getting an e-slap for being a conspiracy theorist.

There is nothing "blind" about what I know about Google, and I dare you to call me out on my knowledge.....you should know better by now that I very rarely (if ever) speak on anything that I don't have in depth knowledge of.

Google is not my "religion". I have my own religion, which is as equally valid as any another. Actually I have many, I just invented some more. The universe is controlled by Rex the spacedog. There we go, that's my new religion. Arguably, if anything was my religion, it would actually be music, because music is infallible.

Yes, and to take on the direction of this thread - People Willingly pay for contents on iTunes. Oh noes!

But it's a dying model compared to ad-funded methods and streaming.

Why do you think Apple acquired Lala and some mobile ad company that is inferior to AdMob? (which Google acquired).

in reality there are companies like IBM or Google and then there are companies like Wal-Mart.
Apple's personality would be "I'm so cool now pay me". Google pick a softer way at least trying to look like a good guy. And it leads to better results too. That's what convinces me more.
And business is not as cold as it seems. There's a place for ethics too and it's pretty important.

bingo.

 

[S O F I]

Well, I study information management and while most of my courses are either IT or Business I also had a lot of lectures about the information itself and companies like Google also.
Most of all people don't actually understand the value of information in the first place. Google understands that gathering information is important and it will be more and more expensive with time. The value of information rises and most people yet don't understand that it's a very important resource. Picture a database full of information about people, their habits, interests and text messages as well as emails. They have rights to use them for their own causes. We give away our info "for free" - for services that we want to receive. Why not? E-mail address? Why not? Search history? Why not?
In reality it's worth way more than we receive in exchange which is usually a specific service.
People getting information emails or popups, ads on youtube they agreed to see - think it's okay, it's normal.
Convincing someone that receiving a spam e-mail is equal to "getting robbed" would be pretty hard.

However right now this database is valuable because it helps their clients reach potential customers with their products on almost perfect conditions. However possibilities are almost endless. I can see them shooting customization of their partners offers to our specific needs and interests to a whole another level.
Google succeeds because they seem to offer services for free using people who are unaware of what they're actually paying and they are subtle enough to get away with it. They don't sell our information. Actually selling it would be stupid. A company having the most information about people has all the power. In the future I can see them being a leader middleman between companies and their clients and opening endless possibilities selling services to anyone willing to use these information for any cause. However I doubt they'll ever be too aggressive with it as people would stop trusting them. There's a perfect balance right now and it probably won't stop as there's always more info to gain.

No doubt. I just find it weird that you don't seem to be disgusted with that. You like the not-so-straightforward approach of Google making money off of you. Apple might take $300 more from me than another company, but at least I'm more aware of what I've sacrificed, as opposed to sacrificing my privacy, one that I cannot put a dollar value on.

 

[Flipmo]

Wasn't Google the number 1 corporation in the world for employee satisfaction (I think it was in Fortune Magazine)? I've heard great things about working there, and how worker stress is generally a non-factor. I would think that the respect they have for their own employees trickles down to the people that buy or use their products. It's only logical, show me that you care about me, and I'll support you. Not saying they're saints, cause their priority is the make money, but still, Google has not disappointed me yet (and I'm a jerk, I criticize everything lol), so it must be doing something right.

 

[Casey]

Wasn't Google the number 1 corporation in the world for employee satisfaction (I think it was in Fortune Magazine)? I've heard great things about working there, and how worker stress is generally a non-factor. I would think that the respect they have for their own employees trickles down to the people that buy or use their products. It's only logical, show me that you care about me, and I'll support you. Not saying they're saints, cause their priority is the make money, but still, Google has not disappointed me yet (and I'm a jerk, I criticize everything lol), so it must be doing something right.

A cousin of mine recently was hired to work on Android. The atmosphere and the amenities they give to their workers are unrivalled. It's a technological workplace utopia as far as I can see.

 

[Flipmo]

A cousin of mine recently was hired to work on Android. The atmosphere and the amenities they give to their workers are unrivalled. It's a technological workplace utopia as far as I can see.

Yeah, I've heard incredible things. One of the main offices in L.A I think has like 3 cafeterias all free, a jogging lane for when you want to unload a bit, relaxation rooms, etc. That's what a professor of mine told us when he was invited for a visit. Even if I was making a crap 25 000/year, I wouldn't care as long as I was working there.

Being able to get up in the morning happy to go to work cause you feel valued > Making a lot of money and being treated like a slave

Anytime.