The Federal Aviation Administration is believed to be re-examining the rules which prohibit the use of electronic devices during takeoff and landing.
According to the New York Times, the FAA plans to conduct tests to see whether there's any danger of new devices affecting the operation of the plane.
However, the mandated test procedures are so thorough that there's real doubt as to whether devices could be approved before they're completely out of date.
The blurb I got in e-mail that linked to this story misspelled the word "fortunately" in the following sentence... "Unfortunately, it looks like cellphones will still be off the list." See how they accidentally put the letters "Un-" in front of the correct spelling?
If there's just *one* convenience I absolutely do not need at any point in the future, it's the person behind me able to shout into their cellphone during takeoff and landing. {Shudder}
The most surprising finding might be that despite having sold just 20 million tablets worldwide, Apple’s iPad already accounts for 20 percent of videos viewed on mobile devices, according to FreeWheel. We thought the iPad would be an ideal device for viewing video when it was announced, but the extent to which it has been embraced by even traditional video producers and distributors speaks to the power of the platform. TV networks like ABC and HBO have built applications for the iPad, as have pay TV operators like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cablevision and others.
iPad is big for video? I can believe it. I'd say there's been a clear increase in video consumption on my iPad in recent weeks... for instance, this past week, I've found it very handy for watching TED presentations on YouTube while I'm preparing dinner. The TED talks are 20 minutes long, and it usually doesn’t take too much longer than that to crack a beer, heat some food and get it to the table. (If you watch the Jamie Oliver talk on obesity then you won't spend too much time eating, either.)
We're headed back out for some travels in June and I'll likely have just my iPad with me (and Ms. D's laptop) for keeping in touch with the office and clients. As before when I travelled, I'll likely find it wanting. (I'm considering a quick purchase of a keyboard-inclusive iPad case before we go, although I'm pre-lamenting the bulk.) Even something as simple as a Posterous blog entry can be cumbersome on the iPad.
But, watching video -- at least non-Flash video that's compatible with the iPad, via YouTube or Netflix, mostly -- is certainly a strength for this data *consumption* device.
BI posted this chart last week, meant to show that iPad users are increasingly using their iPad for "personal computing." Makes sense. I still plan to do my write-up on the iPad at some point, but suffice to say that for my next trip (where I know I'll have to do some work) I'm going to take a laptop along with the iPad. I can't get enough done -- particularly if something like a need to FTP or go deep with our web CMS crops up -- on the iPad alone, like I tried during our last trip.
BUT... I spent probably 3-4 hours with it over the weekend reading, surfing, watching Netflix, checking eBay for a notebook to buy for my trip...
Apple just put up a monster quarter, and investors should send the stock upwards Wednesday, erasing today's doubts about Steve Jobs' health.
Apple's Q1 EPS was $6.43, beating by a mile, and representing $6 billion in profit. Revenue was massive too, at $26.7 billion, beating consensus by more than $2 billion.
I remember back in 1997-98 when Apple was going to retrench and be willing to shrink a bit -- I think the number was $6 billion in annual revenue for that fiscal year -- so that Steve could start to recognize his vision of a simply company with fewer product lines.
The company just did $6 billion in profit in one quarter on nearly $27 billion in revenue.
If they could annualize those numbers (which would be tough -- they're guiding lower for the March quarter) they'd be pretty darned close to the most profitable company in the world... which might explain their market cap. (By way of comparison, Wal-Mart made $14.3 billion in profits and Exxon-Mobile a bit over $19 billion last year. Apple's $6 billion x 4 would be $24 billion.)
As for revenue, it's huge. A big number. Wal-Mart brings in more revenue, but at much lower margins. But $26.7 billion is a big number. Indeed, if Apple ends the fiscal year over $100 billion in revenue, it would be about the 50th largest country in the world based on GDP.
Cash on hand, meanwhile, has grown to nearly $60 billion (roughly the GDP of Syria) which is about three times the market cap of Yahoo! and nearly twice the market cap of... Sony. Is it time the start the acquisition rumors again for no particularly good reason? (Just kidding!)
The Motorola Xoom looks pretty cool and, assuming the price makes sense, it may well give the iPad a run for its money.
But in checking it out, what caught my eye was this video -- it's almost like a parody of those obligatory Apple rollout videos with Jonathan Ive and Phil Schiller, right down to the accent of Melissa Gardner, who is playing the "explain how we managed to capture magic and sexy and then cram them into our technology product... all whilst being a subject-of-the-crown" role generally reserved for Ive.
The funniest moments early on (I couldn't get through the whole thing) are a couple of quick-cut to Gardner saying, "I want to be connected to the Internet all the time" and "I just wish I could rip my HD screen off the wall" in a way that almost seems out of context.
She comes off a bit unhinged, frankly. I could imagine cutting to Ive against his white backdrop at Apple, waiting a beat and then saying "Oh my. My my. Down. Girl."
The other funny bit is where a good chunk of the video is simply them pretending then didn't try to out-spec the iPad and give their tablet Flash, which is described as "add[ing] Adobe in" so as to give you an experience "exactly like the experience you have at home."
"That's the magic." Ms. Gardner tells us. Flash is magic?
But, kudos anyway... could be a good product and I'll be interested to see what "Android designed for a tablet" looks and feels like. And then there's perhaps the key question -- price. My understanding is that's it's going to have a Verizon contract with it, which might be OK if the purchase price is subsidized, but will remain a disadvantage if it's priced close to the iPad.
Investors displayed renewed confidence in Apple's 2011 plans by lifting the company's stock seven points to $329.57 at close of market on Monday. The gains added $6 billion in value to the Mac maker, bringing its market capitalization to $302.32 billion.
Wow. Apple is holding steady, apparently, as the second most valuable company in the world by market-cap, behind Exxon Mobil. (Can you imagine a day when the largest company in the world isn't an oil company? Could be interesting.) Analysts believe Apple's stock price could go north of $500 (assuming no splits, which Steve seems not to favor) even though nobody expects a breakout product next year -- just more iPhone, iPads, Apple TV, a $2 billion Mac App Store, etc.
Maybe I'll buy a share. Even after 20 years of following the company, I've never owned Apple stock!
Did we receive similar interest or support from Apple? Not so much. The app was rejected 3 times in total, and today we’ve had to make the very hard decision not to resubmit it again. We cannot give out specifics about why our app was rejected by Apple. But let’s just say that sometimes even the very best efforts to stay open for everyone can shut you out. We have no desire to make our publishing community more restricted than it is today, and thus we’ll have to consider an alternative path of how to support the iPhone than through the App Store. Stay tuned.
Issuu, which makes the page-flip technology that we use at the Jackson Free Press, has had an Android app for some time now, with the iPhone app right behind it. Apparently Apple won't approve the app... the suggestion appears to be that Apple doesn't like that Issuu doesn't block objectionable content in its flipbook magazines. (I've never seen anything pornographic in Issuu, although I haven't dug deeply for that sort of thing. I have seen things that struck me as both "artsy" and "vaguely European" which might be what Apple is objecting to.)
I was recently installing an iOS Web browser alternative to Safari and noticed all of the disclaimers it comes with... I guess because you can see "bad stuff" in a browser. But if the browser gets through, why not the magazine flip app? Double standard? Or is the standard simply too subjective?
Apple... this isn't good. It's nice that you're all about the quality, but you should be testing apps to see if they handle data elegantly, avoid crashing and don't do things in the OS that they're not allowed to do. The Orwellian focus on how many fart apps or whether or not you might see a bare breast or two is a bit much for my taste, and I'm a fanboy.
I've got to figure that sooner or later Apple's going to hit a legal wall with this much control, too, if not in the U.S. then in Europe.
Meanwhile, it looks like I might need a new flipbook solution if I'm going to have an iOS app...
This could have to do with the fact that thanks to AT&T, the iPhone is only available to 1/3 of the U.S. population. Or, it could mean that Android (and maybe Windows Phone 7?) are more appealing now than ever.
Or... it could mean that you're adding together total demand for all smartphones and coming up 6 points higher than iPhone on its own. Why not break out Android, Windows, Web OS, Blackberry and other smartphones?
Meanwhile, back at the iPad...only 1% more people want a TV in the next six months as compared with an iPad? Yowza. Apple better start cranking.
According to the New York Times, the FAA plans to conduct tests to see whether there's any danger of new devices affecting the operation of the plane.
