Hidden Frequency

My Apple Predictions (updated)

1. Yes to the iPod Touch with FaceTime rumor. I’d expect a $299 price for the Touch with the cameras and the retina display. $199 iPod Touch gets faster processor, more memory and retina display. Maybe an iPod with 3G. That would be revolutionary too. You can own and Android and an iPhone.

This was the obvious one. I was surprised that Apple was able to release it at $229. The lack of the 5MP camera explains it.

2. Yes to the iPod Nano going touch screen. I think it’ll be easier to navigate than some people think.

Yep.

3. Apple TV gets apps (like games and Netflix). Think about an AppleTV that runs apps - many of them free games supported by iAds. Game changer. I think casual gaming is a much bigger market than X-Box and PS3 and Wii games.

Well, we got a Netflix app… In retrospect it makes more sense that we’ll see an app enabled AppleTV in a January event when Apple can tell developers how many of them are out there. I think…

4. I don’t see a $99 Apple TV if it has that cool magic trackpad. Maybe a $149 Apple TV that’s ram based and comes with a magic remote. Maybe a $99 Apple TV that you control with your iPod or iPhone.

No trackpad. I think we’ll see that with an AppleTV that does apps. It’ll need an input device like that. Maybe a remote that flips over to a trackpad on the other side.

Although the iPod app for the AppleTV does have this function…

5. The biggest news regardless of price will be Apple TV with apps. This is what the public will focus on. Forget the tech pundits. This is the device that makes it the last mile. The iMac is the desktop. The iPhone and iPod are in your pocket outside. The iPad is in your bedroom and around the house. Apple TV is your living. The only thing left is implants.

The app-focused Apple TV is Apple’s new approach to their “hobby” and the reason they don’t take Google TV seriously.

Technically, this is what people were talking about…the lack of apps. I underestimated how big of a deal this would be. I think Apple wants to just sell a streaming AppleTV for now and then move up to apps like they did the iPhone.

The really big deal is AirPlay. That’s the killer feature that didn’t get enough attention. Forgetting everything else, a $99 box that lets you show what’s on your iPhone or iPad on the big screen. This is huge.

This Christmas will be about 3 things: iPod, iPad and Apple TV.

Duh.

Andrew Mayne is founder of Blurbtastic.com and publisher of WeirdThings.com. His personal website can be found at AndrewMayne.com.

Apple’s iAd will probably not destroy life on this planet as we know it

Before the even the first iAd has been served, panic over Apple’s iAd platform has begun. Dave Johnson at BNet has decided that the mere suggestion of it is reason enough to switch phones right away (BNet). He fears that because it functions at the “platform level”, it’ll be too easy to put ads into every app in the App Store - even the paid ones.

He’s making a very strange assumption I can’t quite wrap my head around.

Right now, any app developer can put ads into their applications free or paid. The lack of an Apple ad revenue system isn’t holding them back. Market forces are what guides each developer’s decision. Want to put ads into a $3.99 image retouching application? Go for it. Think people won’t complain? Guess again. There are plenty of other applications in the App Store that would be happy to sell you an ad free version.

Johnson’s fear implies a misunderstanding about how markets work. Since the decision to put ads into each application is made by the developers and not Steve Jobs, there’s not a whole lot of coercison going on by Apple. Don’t want an application that uses ads on your iPhone? Don’t install it. Given the growth of the App Store, you’re likely going to find another app that’s more suited to what you want.

What the iAd solution will do is create a solid business model for developers to launch apps, get wide exposure and create two revenue streams: One for ad supported versions and one for ad-free paid upgrades. This means we’re going to see even more apps coming into the App Store, many from developers that want to focus on writing great apps you’ll want to buy and/or keep using. This is good for everyone.

The other focus of his argument is that the ads will take up too much space on the small screen. He says, “It’s like iPhone OS 4 is able to shrink the size of your iPhone’s screen without your permission.” This is such an odd statement. Again it implies that the decision to implement ads in an application is made by Apple and not the developer. Every internet browser and every OS ever created has had this same ability. The choice to crowd your screen has been always been up to the content creators and the consumer, as it should be.

Mr. Johnson says, “Apple has found a way to turn their mighty iPhone into a ghetto of banner ads and reduced usability.”

That’s a choice each content creator will have to make for themselves. In Mr. Johnson’s case he’s made that decision for his own BNet site by putting up his own pop-up ad in the middle of the page that arguably turns it into it’s own “ghetto” of “reduced usability”.

I’m not knocking his choice to do that. Content needs to get paid. I just wish that he would be a little more understanding that other forms of content also need to find ways to get paid. And at least Apple’s iAd solution is a little more tastefully done.

For more commentary check out Daring Fireball’s promise to “mark” Johnson’s words about the ubiquity of iAds in paid applications in the future: Daring Fireball

The Unofficial Apple Weblog, one of my favorite Apple news sites has some interesting comments (and a really not cool headline): TUAW

Counterintuitive: Why Murdoch’s overpriced Wall Street Journal iPad subscription may be a stroke of genius

When the Wall Street Journal iPad app hit the Apple app store most people including myself were taken aback by the price for the actual subscription. Priced higher than the print version and web version combined, it didn’t seem to make any sense. Add to that the fact that the subscription based app also includes ads. An overpriced subscription app that isn’t ad free? What’s the deal with that? But after thinking about it, it makes sense. It may in fact be genius.

The WSJ is different than other papers. It has a specialized content aimed at a specific audience. A generally affluent audience that puts a high value on information. While many of us appreciate the content the WSJ has, few of us actually subscribe to it. For Rupert Murdoch, we’re a lost cause. While a cheaper subscription might entice more people to subscribe, that’s not his goal. Murdoch doesn’t want a lot of people paying a little. He’d rather have a few people paying through the nose. While that may seem counterintuitive, it makes sense when you think about why the iPad version also includes advertising. That’s the whole purpose of the high price: Murdoch wants to attract high income subscribers (think $200,000 or more a year). He can then turn around and sell advertising at a ridiculously high CPM.

Companies that lease jets or offer CEO head hunting services aren’t interested in advertising to $30,000 a year just out of college graphic designers. They want viewers who can afford their high cost services. Ads for services like that can run in the hundreds of dollars per CPM.

By creating a pricey iPad app, the WSJ has created a way for the very affluent to self identify themselves and given Murdoch one of the most prized audiences in all of advertising.

Time will tell if it works. It’ll be interesting to find out.