Take this with a grain of salt, but Fortune’s Scott Moritz has filed a report claiming that AT&T will subsidize the price of the hotly awaited 3G iPhone down to start at $199 with a two-year agreement, which would be a clear sign that the company is serious about starting to move some massive numbers of the device when it drops in June.
There are definitely parts of the story that I don’t buy — I don’t think Apple is going to go 8 and 16 gig on the new iPhone, let alone “8-gigabit-memory and 16-gigabit-memory,” and the pricing strategy only makes sense if the iPhone is non-exclusive to AT&T. If Apple’s selling the 3G iPhone unlocked at Apple Stores for $200 more, this makes sense. If not, this is just bizarre.
Thoughts? I really hope we see a 32-gigabyte model of the 3G iPhone - that makes it not just a nano replacement for me, but an actual iPod replacement.
FORTUNE: Techland AT&T to cut the price of Apple’s new iPhone
Thanks, Matt!
Tags: iphone, rumor, at&t, speculation
Written by Pete Mortensen on April 29th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on iPhone and Rumors.
Filed under: Still Speculating, just not wildly.
My inept Photoshop skills aside, Leander’s post below and the prevalence of the OSX86 project and similar efforts really speak to a single problem within the Macintosh lineup: The Tweener. That is, the Mac that is in between the Mac Mini and the MacPro. Apparently there are a WHOLE lot of folks who are desperate for this machine. Why it doesn’t exist is a mystery. Not only is there apparently a huge market for this kind of machine, there is an even larger market for “Certified Mac” after-market parts.
It’s a wonder that being the “Salesy” part of a duo that built their first computer in a garage, Steve doesn’t seem to get that enthusiasts want a computer they can “tinker” with.
As always I am gratuitously soliciting your comments as to what you’d like to see in this machine. My specs follow after the break
(more…)
Written by Leigh McMullen on April 17th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on Macintosh and Hardware and Rumors.
Filed under: Pure, Wild, Speculation
In my post regarding Apple’s apparent targeting of Adobe (if not them specifically then certainly their space) , there were such great, insightful comments that I decided to play a little game: What Would Steve Do? Taking a look at a potential Corel acquisition, how could we leverage the direct and indirect effects of that acquisition into an inferred Apple business strategy.
Now clearly, I’m not inside Steve’s head, that’s Leander’s niche, but these kinds of strategies are very much what I do for a living, so lets make some irresponsible, purely speculative, wild guesses, shall we? Of course gazing into the looking glass is no fun all by yourself, so lets make this an audience participation piece. I’ll lay out the basic framework after the break, and then we’ll pull from the comments for a follow-up piece.
(more…)
Written by Leigh McMullen on April 11th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on Rumors and Software.
Leigh looks over at fellow consultant Pete M., “if this is true, buddy, we’re going to be RICH! RICH beyond our wildest dreams…”
Fake Steve, in a recent story, referred to an article by Dev Corvin, which was breaking news about the forthcoming Windows 7 (which has moved its ship date up to 2009 as a result of the spectacular results Vista has demonstrated in the market…). Found amid the usual Windows blah-blah-blah, which I suffer through so you don’t have to, was this tasty quote:
Dev Corvin, thebetaguy.com :
Windows 7 takes a different approach to the componentization and backwards compatibility issues; in short, it doesn’t think about them at all. Windows 7 will be a from-the-ground-up packaging of the Windows codebase; partially source, but not binary compatible with previous versions of Windows.
Now I didn’t just take FSJ and this Dev guy’s word for it, I employed minimalist “journalistic” research and went ahead and Googled “Windows 7″ “Not Backwards Compatible”, which yeilded some 1.8 million hits.
This has me literally giddy with anticipation, see I am a consultant, which my mom thinks is code for being unemployed, and about 55% of my firm’s business world-wide is Microsoft-related. I have half a mind to switch practices from Strategy and Transformation to MS (though those practitioners do look hostilely at my Blackberry let alone my Macbook Pro).
In short, fixing all that broken .NET code out there in corporate America will be tantamount to the Y2K effort 10 years ago; a license to print money for consultants. From the bottom of my heart, Thank you Bill.
Now why should anybody who reads Cult of Mac care about this, other than some kind of surrogate pleasure to be gained from my anticipated financial success?
Because, friends, Microsoft’s lock on corporate IT has every everything to do with backwards compatibility. Should Redmond choose to proceed with this folly, our ranks (of Mac loyalists) are destined to swell such that I might have to consider something other than my MB Pro to make me cool and hip in the eyes of our college hires (as-if… might I suggest a really expensive (and thus exclusive) accessory, like a tablet. –ed)
Written by Leigh McMullen on April 6th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on Rumors and Software and Humor and News Coverage and Fake Steve.
Filed under: Pure, Wild Speculation.
John Gruber, writes today in Daring Fireball, an article about Adobe CS4 and the fact that while it will be 64bit on Windows it will only be 32Bit on the Mac. He writes (as usual) a simply wonderful analysis on the topic (well worth the full read), pointing out that lack of Carbon support in Leopard is making it difficult for Adobe (as well as some other cross platform vendors) to develop applications for both Windows and the Mac using the same code base.
John Gruber, Daring Fireball:
… the degree to which Apple pulled the rug out from under Adobe’s feet at WWDC 2007 last June. When Leopard was first announced at WWDC 2006 nine months prior, it included full 64-bit support for both Carbon and Cocoa.64-bit.
Carbon wasn’t promised to be coming “sometime”, like with, say, resolution independence. It was promised for 10.5.0. And it existed — developer seeds of Leopard up through WWDC 2007 had in-progress 64-bit Carbon libraries, and Adobe engineers were developing against them. Several sources1 have confirmed to me that Adobe found out that Apple was dropping support for 64-bit Carbon at the same time everyone else outside Apple did: on the first day of WWDC 2007.
If Apple had shipped Leopard with the 64-bit Carbon support promised at WWDC 2006, Photoshop CS4 would run in 64-bit mode on the Mac.
I’m not rushing right out to get my tinfoil hat, but this coupled with the new Aperture plug-in framework, really starts to make me wonder. The only question which remains is how might Apple augment its current suite of products to more fully take on Adobe (remember, in the software space, Apple grows as much by acquisition, as by innovation).
My bet, they acquire Corel, but I’d love to hear your ideas.
Written by Leigh McMullen on April 4th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on Macintosh and Rumors and Software.
« Older articles
No newer articles
