Never miss an update Follow AppleInsider
Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 07:00 pm
New iPhone 2 build; iTunes video rumors; Safari on Samsung L870
Apple on Wednesday released beta 6 of its iPhone SDK and also issued a new build of iPhone Software 2.0 to select developers. Meanwhile, the company is said to be warming up to variable TV show pricing as it primes a French iTunes video store for launch. And Samsung has chosen Safari as the default browser for its new L870 handset.iPhone SDK beta 6, iPhone Software v2.0 build 5A308
Joining the release of Mac OS X 10.5.3 Update on Wednesday was iPhone SDK version 6.0, which requires that users apply the new Leopard update ahead of installation.
More privately, however, Apple also equipped a select group of developers with iPhone software v2.0 build 5A308, AppleInsider has been told. On the heels of build 5A292g, which arrived last week with geo-tagging support, the latest build is said to boost overall performance of the iPhone OS significantly.
Those people familiar with the software say both scrolling and transitions have seen vast improvements over the previous builds -- a sign that Apple is now moving towards optimizing the new iPhone OS ahead of its release next month.
Apple iTunes rumors
Apple has changed its tune on variable iTunes TV show pricing, according to unnamed studio executives speaking to the Hollywood Reporter.
The publication cites some of those execs as saying that content providers have been nagging Apple for quite some time to market certain TV shows above the standard $1.99, but others as low as 33 cents.
"The conversations I've had with them over the last quarter are markedly different than they were a year or two ago," one content exec said. "Apple is much more flexible than people presume."
As a result, more than one studio is said to be aggressively asking for TV shows to be structured like films on iTunes, which offers new releases and catalog titles at separate price points.
Of course, this is all relevant now given that Apple has conceded to price some of HBOs shows at $2.99, while seemingly declining to extend the same courtesy to NBC Universal last year, which ultimately led to the networks abandonment of iTunes.
The Reporter, however, adds a bit more color on the matter, citing sources who say "it wasn't Apple but NBC Universal that was being stubborn in their previous negotiation stalemate."
Specifically, those sources say NBC was pushing to not only test a $4.99 price point, but also to institute dynamic pricing -- an experimental model that re-calibrates (or taxes up) prices on the fly based on consumer demand for a particular piece of media.
Apple also brings its own opinions to the bargaining table regarding the value of a network's programming, according to the execs, but is believed to have agreed to higher pricing in the case of HBO because the premium network also has a DVD business to project.
In related news, the French-language MacGeneration is reporting that a French version of the iTunes video store may be announced very soon.
"You can already browse the video section if you search the name of a TV show or a series, but it still not mentionned on the iTunes home page," one of the publication's editors told AppleInsider.
MacGeneration's full report, with some screenshots, is available here.
Samsung L870
Samsung drew some attention on Wednesday by unveiling the L870, its latest slider phone. Of interest to Apple followers is that a spec sheet indicates that the handset sports a full browsing experience via Apple's "Safari" web browser.
It's unclear, however, if Samsung made a documentation error and is simply following in the footsteps of the Symbian S60, which uses Apple's Webkit framework, for which Safari is based, but not the browser itself.
Regardless, the browsing experience on the L870 will likely fall well short of that of Safari on the iPhone, given the Samsung handset does not include a touch screen.
Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 2
Apple on Wednesday also released Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 2 [2.4MB], which extends RAW file compatibility for Aperture 2 and iPhoto ’08 for the following cameras:
Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi/Kiss Digital x2/450D
Epson R-D1
Leaf AFi 7
Leaf AFi 6
Leaf AFi 5
Pentax K200D
Pentax K20D
On Topic: iTunes
- Apple now adding 500,000 new iTunes accounts per day
- Apple's iBooks grew 100% in 2012, maintaining 20% share of eBook market
- Apple announces iTunes Radio for iOS 7, Mac, PC & Apple TV
- Sony inks 'iRadio' deal, giving Apple all 3 major labels
- Apple's free ad-supported 'iRadio' on track for WWDC announcement - report
Previous Comments View All
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave 
I can think of two reason why.
Firstly, Apple had too much at stake selling the concept of TV/movies on iPod if the content pricing wasn't right the concept would fail. Now the platform's gained a more solid footing they can allow more of a market-driven approach where they don't really care what shows are being sold.
Secondly, they have bigger fish to fry. Here in lil' old NZ, being a bit people/resource constrained, we've pretty much always had download capacity limits on our broadband services. To download a decent quality movie costs me as much in download charges (NZ$2/GB) as it does to rent the DVD and more for a near-HiDef one and that's without the cost of the movie! Put another way our current amount of TV per month it would cost us $88 without news, movies or any weekend viewing (Sky costs $65 with all of those). I understand the ISPs in the US are looking to move to a similar model (though probably better pricing). Unless Apple can get some good deals together, the "Apple Channel" isn't going to be a feasible alternative to existing services.
What are you guys finding?
McD
I can think of two reason why.
Firstly, Apple had too much at stake selling the concept of TV/movies on iPod if the content pricing wasn't right the concept would fail. Now the platform's gained a more solid footing they can allow more of a market-driven approach where they don't really care what shows are being sold.
Secondly, they have bigger fish to fry. Here in lil' old NZ, being a bit people/resource constrained, we've pretty much always had download capacity limits on our broadband services. To download a decent quality movie costs me as much in download charges (NZ$2/GB) as it does to rent the DVD and more for a near-HiDef one and that's without the cost of the movie! Put another way our current amount of TV per month it would cost us $88 without news, movies or any weekend viewing (Sky costs $65 with all of those). I understand the ISPs in the US are looking to move to a similar model (though probably better pricing). Unless Apple can get some good deals together, the "Apple Channel" isn't going to be a feasible alternative to existing services.
What are you guys finding?
McD
I've been saying that Apple will have to give in at some point and compromise. People have pummeled me for that. So many people here seemed to think that Apple had total control over these companies. They didn't.
I'm happy it's happening though. Now we'll see if the new prices lead to many more bits of programming, and whether people will be willing to pay for it. It's the only way to find out who was right.
Apple will have to give a bit on music as well.
So far, other than with Cox and Cablevision throttling P2P, we haven't seen too much of that. One ISP did do something about a few people who used what they thought was too much bandwidth, but I don't remember which company, or whether they still do it. Otherwise no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
One ISP did do something about a few people who used what they thought was too much bandwidth, but I don't remember which company, or whether they still do it. Otherwise no.
One ISP did do something about a few people who used what they thought was too much bandwidth, but I don't remember which company, or whether they still do it. Otherwise no.
Comcast called me up and threatened to drop me as a customer if I didn't curtail my bandwidth usage. They said I far exceeded anyone else on their network, but that may have just been hyperbole to get me to stop [reading AI].
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Comcast called me up and threatened to drop me as a customer if I didn't curtail my bandwidth usage. They said I far exceeded anyone else on their network, but that may have just been hyperbole to get me to stop [reading AI].
Comcast called me up and threatened to drop me as a customer if I didn't curtail my bandwidth usage. They said I far exceeded anyone else on their network, but that may have just been hyperbole to get me to stop [reading AI].
So you were the one! Also Comcast. interesting.
Quote:
...hyperbole to get me to stop [reading AI].
Can you blame them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Can you blame them?
Can you blame them?
I think he propably should blame them, they shouldn't mind how he uses his paid bandwith. As I see it, your quota for bandwidth per month is XkB/s*60(seconds in minute)*60(minutes in hour)*24(hours in day)*30(days in month). Unless of cource your contract with your ISP defines the connection differently, but in that case the ISP clearly can't use terms like unlimited or X MB/s in their marketing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Project2501
I think he propably should blame them, they shouldn't mind how he uses his paid bandwith. As I see it, your quota for bandwidth per month is XkB/s*60(seconds in minute)*60(minutes in hour)*24(hours in day)*30(days in month). Unless of cource your contract with your ISP defines the connection differently, but in that case the ISP clearly can't use terms like unlimited or X MB/s in their marketing.
I think he propably should blame them, they shouldn't mind how he uses his paid bandwith. As I see it, your quota for bandwidth per month is XkB/s*60(seconds in minute)*60(minutes in hour)*24(hours in day)*30(days in month). Unless of cource your contract with your ISP defines the connection differently, but in that case the ISP clearly can't use terms like unlimited or X MB/s in their marketing.
It was a joke.
"The Reporter, however, adds a bit more color on the matter, citing sources who say "it wasn't Apple but NBC Universal that was being stubborn in their previous negotiation stalemate."
Specifically, those sources say NBC was pushing to not only test a $4.99 price point, but also to institute dynamic pricing -- an experimental model that re-calibrates (or taxes up) prices on the fly based on consumer demand for a particular piece of media."
After the negotiations stalled, Jobs said NBC wanted to charge $4.99 per episode, but Apple wouldn't agree. Universal said that wasn't true. Obviously, Universal wanted to fleece the customers, and have Apple take the heat. Now it comes out they also wanted dynamic pricing? Imagine that - a movie sells for a certain price one day, then the next day it goes up a dollar because 20 people bought it the day before.
How can Universal be successful when they hate their customers? They show it over and over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth
"The Reporter, however, adds a bit more color on the matter, citing sources who say "it wasn't Apple but NBC Universal that was being stubborn in their previous negotiation stalemate."
Specifically, those sources say NBC was pushing to not only test a $4.99 price point, but also to institute dynamic pricing -- an experimental model that re-calibrates (or taxes up) prices on the fly based on consumer demand for a particular piece of media."
After the negotiations stalled, Jobs said NBC wanted to charge $4.99 per episode, but Apple wouldn't agree. Universal said that wasn't true. Obviously, Universal wanted to fleece the customers, and have Apple take the heat. Now it comes out they also wanted dynamic pricing? Imagine that - a movie sells for a certain price one day, then the next day it goes up a dollar because 20 people bought it the day before.
How can Universal be successful when they hate their customers? They show it over and over again.
"The Reporter, however, adds a bit more color on the matter, citing sources who say "it wasn't Apple but NBC Universal that was being stubborn in their previous negotiation stalemate."
Specifically, those sources say NBC was pushing to not only test a $4.99 price point, but also to institute dynamic pricing -- an experimental model that re-calibrates (or taxes up) prices on the fly based on consumer demand for a particular piece of media."
After the negotiations stalled, Jobs said NBC wanted to charge $4.99 per episode, but Apple wouldn't agree. Universal said that wasn't true. Obviously, Universal wanted to fleece the customers, and have Apple take the heat. Now it comes out they also wanted dynamic pricing? Imagine that - a movie sells for a certain price one day, then the next day it goes up a dollar because 20 people bought it the day before.
How can Universal be successful when they hate their customers? They show it over and over again.
That idea isn't unique with them. There is a web site that uses that method of pricing.
Actually when a song first goes up, it's free. The more people that download it the more the price goes up (to a certain point) after a certain minimum downloads have occured. I don't remember the name of the site, but it's been discussed in various places.
And didn't 9 Inch Nails do something similar?
You're just guessing about everything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
That idea isn't unique with them. There is a web site that uses that method of pricing.
Actually when a song first goes up, it's free. The more people that download it the more the price goes up (to a certain point) after a certain minimum downloads have occured. I don't remember the name of the site, but it's been discussed in various places.
And didn't 9 Inch Nails do something similar?
You're just guessing about everything else.
That idea isn't unique with them. There is a web site that uses that method of pricing.
Actually when a song first goes up, it's free. The more people that download it the more the price goes up (to a certain point) after a certain minimum downloads have occured. I don't remember the name of the site, but it's been discussed in various places.
And didn't 9 Inch Nails do something similar?
You're just guessing about everything else.
I'm taking the article for what it says - quoting "unnamed studio executives." There's always the possibility it's not true, of course, but it does reflect exactly what Jobs said after negotiations broke down (with the additional info on dynamic pricing). All the info together leads to the conclusion (for me) that Universal was trying to get $4.99 TV shows, then lying about it afterwards to put the blame for failed negotiations on Apple.
Remember, if you use an iPod you're a thief, according to Universal (they said this after negotiating a $1 fee for each Zune sold).
It may be that some website uses dynamic pricing. I can't see Apple ever agreeing to it, and I can't see me ever using a website that uses dynamic pricing for established media.
YES!!! Just checked, and I got 5A308! Yes! Installing now! (iPhone OS)
Latest Apple Headlines
-
Researchers crack default iPhone Personal Hot passwords in under a minute
~1 hour ago -
Apple wins $30 million iPad contract from LA school district [u]
~2 hours ago -
Apple patent chief departs amid major ongoing IP lawsuits
~4 hours ago -
Apple TV update adds HBO Go, WatchESPN & more channels
~5 hours ago -
Leaked schematics reveal what case makers expect Apple's low-cost iPhone & 'iPhone 5S' will look like
~6 hours ago - more...
Want to write for AppleInsider? Submit your application now!
| Model | White | Black | |
|---|---|---|---|
| iPad mini (WiFi only) | |||
| 16GB WiFi |  |
$329.00 | $329.00 |
| 32GB WiFi | |
$429.00 | $429.00 |
| 64GB WiFi | |
$529.00 | $529.00 |
| iPad mini (WiFi + 4G) | |||
 |
 |
 |
|
| 16GB 4G White | $459.00 | $459.00 | $459.00 |
| 32GB 4G White | $559.00 | $539.99 | $559.00 |
| 64GB 4G White | $659.00 | $659.00 | $629.99 |
| 16GB 4G Black | $459.00 | $459.00 | $459.00 |
| 32GB 4G Black | $559.00 | $539.99 | $539.99 |
| 64GB 4G Black | $659.00 | $659.00 | $629.99 |
Lowest Prices Anywhere!
| Model | Price | You Save |
|---|---|---|
| 11"1.3GHz/4GB/128GB | $964.18* | $34.82 |
| 11" 1.3GHz/8GB/128GB | $1,061.18* | $37.82 |
| 11" 1.3GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,255.18* | $43.82 |
| 11"1.7GHz/8GB/128GB | $1,206.68* | $42.32 |
| 11"1.7GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,400.68* | $48.32 |
| 11" 1.7GHz/8GB/512GB | $1,691.68* | $57.32 |
| 13" 1.3GHz/4GB/128GB | $1,061.18* | $37.82 |
| 13" 1.3GHz/4GB/256GB | $1,255.18* | $43.82 |
| 13" 1.3GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,352.18* | $46.82 |
| 13" 1.3GHz/8GB/512GB | $1,643.18* | $46.82 |
| 13" 1.7GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,497.00* | $52.00 |
| 13" 1.7GHz/8GB/512GB | $1,788.68* | $60.32 |
* price with Promo Code:
APPLEINSIDER01
|
||
| Click for even more configurations | ||
"The conversations I've had with them over the last quarter are markedly different than they were a year or two ago," one content exec said. "Apple is much more flexible than people presume."
I can think of two reason why.
Firstly, Apple had too much at stake selling the concept of TV/movies on iPod if the content pricing wasn't right the concept would fail. Now the platform's gained a more solid footing they can allow more of a market-driven approach where they don't really care what shows are being sold.
Secondly, they have bigger fish to fry. Here in lil' old NZ, being a bit people/resource constrained, we've pretty much always had download capacity limits on our broadband services. To download a decent quality movie costs me as much in download charges (NZ$2/GB) as it does to rent the DVD and more for a near-HiDef one and that's without the cost of the movie! Put another way our current amount of TV per month it would cost us $88 without news, movies or any weekend viewing (Sky costs $65 with all of those). I understand the ISPs in the US are looking to move to a similar model (though probably better pricing). Unless Apple can get some good deals together, the "Apple Channel" isn't going to be a feasible alternative to existing services.
What are you guys finding?
McD