A mysterious link to Apple’s Mac mini as a set top box
Posted by Dennis Sellers 
Jun 21, 2005 at 1:49am
Since last Friday’s Next Wave chapter that briefly touched on Apple’s Mac mini as a possible Set Top box, I discovered an odd development that furthers this argument for your consideration.
Siemens Myrio
Monday’s CNET article entitled “Siemens tackles Microsoft IPTV dominance” was a very interesting read. What Macite doesn’t like to read about someone taking on Microsoft? So it motivated me enough to dig around a little more and was rewarded with a very interesting yet odd development indeed.
I began my dig with Myrio which first lead me to their PDF in relation to
Update: You’ll now have to put the phrase, “see a demonstration of Myrio’s IP Video product portfolio and a chance to win a custom painted Mac mini,” into a Google search to verify that such an offer was made, as it’s been pulled from their site being that their event is now over.
So back I went to CNET’s article that stated: “Unlike Microsoft, Siemens doesn’t yet have all the software pieces in place.”While Myrio gave it the “brains” of its solution, it is still missing some parts. For example, Myrio provides subscriber and content-management software and software for the set-top boxes. But Siemens is missing software that can get content from either satellite or archived sources into an on-demand format.”
The missing pieces that C/Net suggests are perhaps valid to a certain degree but there are other missing pieces like having hot Web services like iTunes—that just happens to be kicking Microsoft’s butt at present. How about that missing piece of the puzzle! Many in the broadcasting community have been making it clear that they don’t want what happened in the PC industry to happen in theirs, with one dominant player playing Lord and Master. No thanks. They don’t want to be locked into one vendor. So this one stop shop argument of old is just that, old school thinking. What Siemens needs is an ally that could deliver a hot web services platform to go along with their Myrio package. A web services platform based on open standards that could provide them with maximum flexibility and most importantly, add some excitement to their set top Boxes.
Siemens Set Top Box
In March 2005, I covered “Siemens Advanced Set Top Box with Web Browsing & VOIP” in a report that clearly demonstrated Siemens commitment to H.264. Here are a few excerpts from that report:
Mobile telephony is already so popular that a sizeable proportion of telephone traffic in Germany is no longer conducted from an indoor telephone, but from a cell phone away from the home or office. This is a good reason for the telecommunications companies to look for new ways of using the fixed network. One technology that looks likely to become established over the next few years is so-called home entertainment systems.
The idea is to connect the television set to the telephone line by means of a supplementary device, the set top box, thereby transforming it into a multifunctional device. Users will be able to call up Internet pages by remote control without any programming or computer knowledge whatsoever, conduct video telephone conferences or call up videos. The last of these functions, video-on-demand, looks particularly promising. It would make visits to the video rental store a thing of the past. Instead, you’ll be able to watch your favorite film on the Internet over the telephone line simply by pressing a button on the remote control. The charge for watching the video would then be billed conveniently with your next telephone bill.
Up until now the transmitting of videos has been a problem. Not even the high transmission performance of DSL connections is good enough to transmit the large volumes of video data to the television set fast enough to generate an acceptable picture. A compression standard known as H.264 or MPEG-4 AVC, halves the data volume of the digital video.
It’s interesting to note what Set Top Box features Siemens decided to emphasize. With Apple’s WebCore, Siemens could provide consumers with Safari as their default web browser or be able to choose another browser that is WebCore compliant.
Apple’s iChat AV could provide consumers with a cool three dimensional view of their video conference with friends, family or colleagues in the comfort of their living rooms. So the only ingredient left to be revealed is Apple’s next generation of iMovie as a web service through their iTunes Music Store. Yes, always save the best for last. So without going into other surprises in order to stay in context with what Siemens is actually proposing, we could easily see Apple being able to deliver what Siemens needs most to take on Microsoft.
Bottom line
Frank Casanova stated back in October 2004 that Apple’s servers didn’t get as much fanfare as Apple’s iPod; yet 25 (Telco and Cellco) operators were in trials with Xserves and that Apple was in fact in discussions with about 25 more.
So could Siemens be an ally in Apple’s new venture into the Telecom sector? Well, keep in mind that Siemens acquired Myrio in April 2005. So the question comes back to why was Myrio, now a part of Siemens, presenting Mac Mini’s in their draw last week?
With Siemens taking on Microsoft, they’re in need of an Ally like Apple that could deliver some of those missing pieces in their Set Top Box strategy – hot web services that consumers will want. It fills the gaps for web browsing, videoconferencing and could deliver Apple’s market leading iTunes.
I told you just last week that AVC’s president stated that he personally felt that what was going to sit on top of the TV, if anything, was going to look more like a Mac mini than a traditional set top box. I even provided you with a photo of VNL’s Mac Mini like Set Top Box for comparison. So Siemens/Myrio presenting the Mac Mini in a giveaway is very telling. It reminded me of when Sun Microsystems had iPod giveaways which seemed odd to many who didn’t know that Sun owned Pixo, whose software is behind Apple’s iPod. The context of the show Myrio was attending was about IPTV and Set Top Boxes, not a computer show. So the Mac Mini as a giveaway has a context.
The case for an Apple Set Top Box is mounting, even against my hopes that Apple would stay away from hardware on that front. Thanks to Myrio’s little surprise giveaway the same week that Apple hit us with the Intel bombshell, is adding up quite nicely. I know someone in Redmond who’s hoping against this. Like I care!
Is an Apple Siemens alliance in the Making? It’s beginning to seem plausible. What’s your take on this?
Neo Says:
Eduardo, this story was to posted last week, so my reference to last Friday was really Friday June 10. Here’s the link to that story:
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/next_wave_apple_intel_xsan_holographic_storage_solutions/
Posted on June 21, 2005
Johnny Appleseed Says:
Hey Neo, depending on who you believe, either Microsoft or Apple already has the future of home entertainment sewn up with their respective video offerings. So which is true, or is the battle yet to be decided?
Posted on June 21, 2005
Neo Says:
Hey Johnny,
I’ve never seen either of their services yet, have you? So I don’t know how anything could be “sewn up” yet. The rumblings are loud on Microsoft’s side, but we keep hearing about how it’s not panning out yet or about defections beginning to occur. But where’s Apple’s solution? Supposedly it’s “about to roll out” - whatever that means.
Apple took their time with iTunes, and we all know the result of their first consumer iService. So it’s a patience game. Let’s hope it’s sooner rather than later, because with Microsoft’s new XBox entering the scene this fall, there’s no time to waste!
I know that Steve Jobs has said on several occations that the MS Media centre only sold 100,000 copies - which was considered a failure by industry standards. So obviously Steve brought that up that point for a reason.
I’ve covered IPTV in chapter 2 of the “Next Wave Series” and have quoted Frank Casanova on several occasions pointing to working with leading Japanese Telco’s delivering media content including TV. Apple’s “TVN - Xsan Drives 24-Hour News Station” webpage makes it clear that TV is major market focus at Apple: http://www.apple.com/uk/pro/video/tvn/
So the battle hasn’t even begun yet Johnny. Though it sure sounds like Intel will be happy to work with Apple. With the XBox now on the PPC, I’m sure Intel is going to bend over backwards to make QTV a winner on their architecture!
Posted on June 21, 2005
Eduardo Dias Says:
Johnny,
We may start to see a winner only by 2008. Until then everyone will play the cards they have. Two curious years, 2006 and 2007!
Posted on June 21, 2005
Bob Says:
Thanks for the update. I am very interested in Wi-Max distribution enabling open standards and loosening the stranglehold on technology that the Telcos, cell phone networks, and cable have at present. While I applaud Apple’s efforts to penetrate those existing consumer networks I can forsee a much more enticing arena that could develop with the deployment of Wi-Max. Apple’s new collaboration with Intel could bode well in the later part of this decade when new badwidth becomes available. A competitive environment is more favorable to Apple’s strengths,and Wi-Max with open standards could lead to that market developing. It was also interesting to have Apple’s open source browser technologies adopted by Nokia in the same week that Web Objects was opened up by Apple as well. Microsoft’s .Net services just got some competition!
Posted on June 21, 2005
Johnny Appleseed Says:
Thanks for the replies guys. I have to say, going by track records I have more faith in Apple delivering the “insanely great” solution (having Sony, Intel and Nokia onside helps), but time will tell.
Posted on June 21, 2005
Neo Says:
That’s an interesting perspective Bob.
In the first chapter of the “Next Wave Series” (that was originally posted on August 2004) I included a video of how 802.20 was being implemented in Australia as a test pilot program. It’s competitor is 802.16 - which is now known as Wi-Max. Apple was working with Unwired in Australia but nothing was ever made public other than Unwired’s statement of working with Apple. So Apple has some experience to bring to Wi-Max.
Republished Chapter 1: http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/next_wave_darwins_leap_to_man
Video: http://www.unwired.com.au/video_broadband.htm
That particular Next Wave chapter was the lead up to Apple’s wireless iPod chapter, before the patent ever surfaced.
But your twist Bob as it being a vehicle to circumvent Telco’s is very interesting. Especially if Apple introduces an iPhone.
Hmmm, Apple works with Telcos so it has to be something that is compatible with Telcos to a certain degree. Maybe it’s a plausable way to get around Telco DRM’s that are overly restrictive. I was just reading a story on that this morning out of Japan because of a question posed by Alex, who’s a Macsimum guest. So pretty timely actually. Here’s a link to that article: http://www.japanmediareview.com/japan/stories/050210bovens/
Your point Bob is definitely excellent food for thought!
Cheers
Neo
Posted on June 21, 2005
Louis Wheeler Says:
Neo, I like your opinion of the following product shown off at Computex Taipei 2005.
http://club.aopen.com.tw/news/News_ShowAnswer.aspx?RecNo=8387&Language=English
I saw this press release on June 3rd. The product was dismissed as a Mac mini knock-off, so all mention of it shortly disappeared. It could mean nothing.
But…
Intel asked Aopen to design it.
It is a fully featured PC with the same specifications as that of the Mac mini.
A person in the article said that with a Pentium M chip and Microsoft Windows installed, he didn’t see how it could compete at the Mac mini’s price point.
This was released just before Apple declared that it was switching to Intel on June 7th.
It is difficult to keep rumors from flying about such products. It is far easier to give people a false interpretation.
I see the Mac mini as serving two objectives; it furthers Apple’s iTune Video Store agenda, but also, it is a loss-leader introduction to the Macintosh for the Wintel masses. Might this product be an Intel based Mac mini that was designed for Apple to be ready sooner than June 2006-- for the coming Christmas market? Apple does not comment on future products, but it kept the Intel move very close to its vest. If Apple had asked any of its normal suppliers to develop this product, then rumors would have flown earlier. But, if Intel asked for Apple, who would pay any attention? If Apple wanted to surprise people with its early introduction, would this product have been handled any differently?
Of course, this is predicated on the idea that Apple’s move to Intel was not impulse on the spur of the moment, but was planned long ago. Apple has had problems with its chip suppliers for the last five years. Steve Jobs is known to like options. This is why NeXTstep was designed to be cross-platform.
Steve also likes to control events and he wasn’t able to do that with Motorola or IBM. He might not be able to do so with Intel either, but I get the impression that Intel wants to break loose from the trap Microsoft has placed it in-- supplying a boring replacement market. Intel wants to move beyond x86, IA64 and ADM64 to create new computer architectures, but hasn’t had the partner to do so, until now. Intel and Apple seem to going in the same direction, for the moment, at least.
Any thoughts?
Posted on June 21, 2005
Bob Says:
What I was considering was the FCC’s ruling on the Telco’s not having to share their new capacity, and the groups control over which consumer hardware is compatible. Wi-Max might have enough spectrum to allow a provider to share the capacity for specific service providers. This way service providers could lease capacity instead of a single entity controlling it’s use. Apple doesn’t even need to enter the direct service market if an improved high speed connection is achieved.
Also, with open hardware standards, the manufacturer’s solutions could be easily matched to the service vendors as the present wi-fi hot spots do. Apple could penetrate this market with the services and or hardware that they design for it. After all it is fundamentally just a connection to the Internet itself. This way Apple can work with Telcos but also provide VoIP capability in some devices that have Wi-Max capabilities along with others. Entertainment, as you’ve so effectively developed, is going to become something delivered in many, many ways.
Posted on June 21, 2005
Neo Says:
Hey Louis,
I loved this quote in that article: “What is more important, billions of Win-tel users in the world no longer have to tolerate the hassle of switching operating systems just to take advantage of the miniaturized and stylish personal computing devices,”
Wow, chicken little lives in Taiwan - Who knew? Hmm, the smell of fear and hysteria from the Wintel camp. Just the beginning!! Thanks for the link, it made me laugh:-).
Like I stated in the article. Licensing is my preference for an Apple QTV platform. Apple couldn’t handle globalizing QTV on their own hardware and it would be the “Mac” syndrome repeating itself. But the shift to Intel allows for a crack in that door for an Apple STB. An Apple STB could be this era’s “Mac" done right on Intel.
So it could be...could be a new beginning. New platform for a new era - clean slate. It could be Apple’s counter to XBox. So, I have to keep the door open for yet another twist. Sorry, but I like twists and surprises - as I expect that to be the norm in the Next Wave of the Internet. It’s going to be disruptive.
I don’t think it was impulse but rather a crossroads that was anticipated. That’s why there was so much emphasis in the “Next Wave” series about licensing and Steve Jobs always giving us QuickTime count updates relishing the Wintel count. It was clear then and that’s why I pointed it out. Wintel counts proved that it wasn’t impulse.
The Sunday before the bombshell, I wrote a story that Apple could launch a device with Intel inside - because the evidence was building. The experiment with iTunes being a grand success on Windows proved that Winteler’s were open to Apple products in a big way. So while I was surprised of the wholesale change to Intel, it only empowers Apple’s Next Wave of the Internet.
So while it took Taiwan to clone a box, they obviously don’t get it. It’s not the box stupid, it’s the OS!
Bob,
Believe me, that was an excellent point you made that got my wheels turning. I wasn’t aware of the DRM lock in Asia on cell phones until this morning due to another Macsimum readers comments. While I don’t reply to emails that come my way, due to lack of time, I sure appreciate a good point on something my eye isn’t on in the least (Thanks Alex).
Hmm, it sure makes the upcoming Moto/Apple phone event that much more important. The timing of this phone is also lining up with Apple’s iTMS Japan launch. Interesting times ahead indeed. Thanks again for your keen eye Bob and bringing this point to the table.
Cheers!
Neo
Posted on June 21, 2005
Louis Wheeler Says:
Actually, Neo, I was thinking that Apple was intending to issue the Mactel mini early. It would keep Apple’s stock from dropping too far in the business slump ahead during the change-over to Intel. Mactel mini users wouldn’t need as much software, so it could be issued early. The logistical problem was how to design and prototype it without telling the world prematurely, so I thought that Intel could have passed on Apple’s specifications and designs to Aopen without suspicion. Apple doesn’t make any of its own hardware anymore. The box the Mini PC is in is ugly, but the internals could easily fit in a Mac mini enclosure.
I’ve thought about this “Next Step For Apple” in several ways, but mostly as different fronts in a coming technological war. You talk about how Apple is going to release a host of iAppliance services that will work on Wintel boxes. That is a reasonable front.
Next, there is iTune Video Store and the set-top box market.
But, the Desktop and Laptop computer market doesn’t go away; it just becomes part of a larger mix of products and services. I don’t think Steve Jobs has really given up in the browser wars, but he had to make a tactical retreat. The problem was that Apple couldn’t play its hand too early; Microsoft had gotten quite good at stealing Apple’s thunder. The way computing works is that it is quite easy and cheap to turn out junk, but expensive and time consuming to pursue excellence. Everyone wants excellence, but will stick it out with “good enough.” Microsoft’s motto was always “good enough.” But, Steve Jobs doesn’t pursue mediocrity.
It has seemed to me that Steve’s way to attain market share was to cut Apple’s loses, overcome its negatives, build something better and innovate his way out the hole Apple was in. He did this by product differentiation: that is, of creating stylish, upper-crust, carriage trade brand name computers. That is one reason for the image of the Apple stores.
Until recently, Steve Jobs ignored the bottom of the market, but in his presentations, he always promised the best computing experience imaginable. There were times when he promised more than he could deliver. His partners often let him down.
A speculative part of this is Intel’s motivation. We know Steve Jobs wants to live up there on the edge, but does Intel? I think so. Otherwise, why would Intel take over the Pa-RISC team from HP? Microsoft is never going to drive a technological wonder like that to perfection.
Microsoft is sitting pretty; it is king of the hill-- complacent. It is devoting its energies to defending its monopoly. Neither Apple or Intel can let the cat out of the bag; they have to distract Microsoft’s attention away from what they are doing. They have to put the pieces of the puzzle into place and then spring the trap on Microsoft.
I suspect this means new products from Apple. What if by this time there is a form of WINE or VMware to run Windows programs inside Mac OS X? And what if Intel designs some new chips for Apple that the Windows Operating System won’t run on? About a quarter of the transistors in a Pentium are overhead for taking CISC x86 commands and converting them into the RISC commands that the processor really uses. What if Intel removes those transistors?
Mac OS X and its software can be easily recompiled as a FatBinary to run on that chip which will be less expensive to construct, faster running and cooler. Microsoft could do little about that. Longhorn has been five years in construction and won’t be ready for another year or two. Will it be cross platform then? Not likely. Will it be able to run on new RISC commands? Not likely.
If Apple intended to License its OS that is the time to do it. The White-box manufacturers like Dell would be demanding the better chips, chip sets and Mac OS X to run it with. Apple could still keep making the upper-crust portable and desktop hardware. Microsoft would be forced to run on the older, slower, x86 code for two to four years. That is a lifetime in computing terms.
Just a possibility. But, an intriguing thought.
Posted on June 21, 2005
Yosh Schmenge Says:
Louis, I like your sharp insights. Your thinking parallels my own on most matters. I also believe that Jobs has a lot more in his deck of cards than people realize.
The best strategy to ‘spring a trap’ on your opponent is to undertake a servies of what look like random actions with no cohesive thought. By the time the opponent(s) connect the dots it is too late to respond. I think that this is Jobs’ modus operandi since coming back to Apple. He is a very, very smart person.
I think that we are defintely living in interesting times! Two years from now I predict that Microsoft will be looked at as a has been technology provider. Much like Electrohome TV’s were the top of the hill in full consoles many years ago and then went to oblivion.
Successful organizations need vision and leadership to achieve that vision. Most have neither but alot of platitudes. Jobs has both.
Posted on June 21, 2005
Neo Says:
Louis,
Re releasing a Mac Mini early. As a Web Services/iServices platform, an advanced STB like the Mac Mini fits the bill as illustrated in this article. Yes, Apple could and should strike this fall. How they so choose to do so is the question.
Legacy apps are not relevant in respect to IPTV. So Apple’s comprehensive list of WebCore components/iapps like Safari, QTV, iPhoto, iChat AV, iTunes, iMovie etc. form a great new consumer platform that could launch NOW on the Intel architecture, as the Myrio/Intel PDF above proves out. Apple’s iTunes runs on Wintel, so it’s already a done deal. If Apple has had a dual path with OS X for years, then that obviously extends to web services including all of the above!
However, they should also license their consumer web services platform to companies like Siemens, Motorola/Scientific Atlantic and host of other boxes that are in the market NOW. Giving consumers choice in hardware for the home, is the way to go with price points from A to Z.
Apple is working with Moto on phones and I doubt that Moto would have eagerly signed on with Apple for iTunes, only to be screwed by them later on with an Apple STB. Moto has had the contracts with cable companies forever, so why reinvent the bloody wheel now. The logic demands licensing.
Apple could work with Telcos who are entering the IPTV market this fall. Not just for phones but for the in-home TV market. Telcos could act as retailers for Apple. My telco works with Apple and the buzz is about a coming TV platform. So Apple could strike a ballance with launching their own STB’s and licencing.
How Apple does it in the end, is irrelevant to me. But I still believe that in order to beat MS, Apple has to license.
Just today, I was taking a look at 2 MS patents on IPTV just released. So the war is on. Apple has all of the pieces of the puzzle, so let’s hope news comes this fall!
Interesting times ahead, Louis. Thanks for your time in sharing your views on this. The more we talk and think things through, we’ll spark ideas and angles some of us haven’t seen yet. That’s what it’s all about.
Cheers!
Posted on June 21, 2005
Louis Wheeler Says:
"Springing the trap.”
It wasn’t until I had finished posting that last missive I got to thinking about Rosetta. Why did Apple use another company to construct its G3 emulation program for Intel? I’m assuming that this is a long-term part of the plan; they could have been working on it for years, but didn’t. Shiller has said that Apple won’t stop people from running Windows on Mactel boxes. Let’s take him at his word.
There are major disadvantages with running Windows on Mactel boxes though: security. Its like, before you leave the house, you throw open all the doors and windows and use a bullhorn to announce that you won’t be back for a few hours.
The other problem is that Windows is ugly. What if there were a “Rosetta for Windows Programs?” They would act just like a Macintosh program, be just as secure, but not as fast. Transmeta, (?) the company I vaguely remember writing Rosetta would sell it, not Apple. So Apple’s hands would be clean.
Normally, this would be a disadvantage; Mac developers would complain that they were being undercut by larger and more numerous Windows developers. But, if Intel and Apple moved to new computer architectures and Mac OS X is licensed, the situation would change; the shoe would be on the other foot. The native Mac software would be faster, more fully featured and tightly integrated. Emulation in “Rosetta for Windows Programs” wouldn’t run as fast and there would be problems. But, it would be recompiled so Windows programs could run on the new chip.
Apple, then, would bow to the will of the people and offer a “Carbon program for Windows” to developers which will offer them most of the Mac’s capabilities while letting them keep most of their code. Since the compiler would use proven Mac API’s rather than WIndows, there would be an increase in stability over x86 boxes. No more DDL’s, Hey!
But, Apple would caution the Windows programers that they should write their new programs in Cocoa to attain full compatibility. The developers could then compile for Windows x86, the new RISC architecture or PowerPC singly or as a FatBinary. So, all the Windows programers are suddenly converted into Mac programmers. Wouldn’t that be a nice trap?
Licensing QTV.
Yes. The important thing to remember here is that Microsoft stirs up so much hate, because it is a pig. It leaves nothing on the table for anyone else. There is plenty of money to be made here. Every company contributing can have part of the action.
I consider it a hopeful sign that Apple gave away WebCore and WebDev in Xcode 2.1. WebDev was the star program of NeXT company ten years ago; in the last year before Apple bought it, NeXT was charging $50 thousand for a license for it. Not long ago it was licensed for $695, now it is free in every copy of the next version of Mac OS X 10.4.
Posted on June 22, 2005
Louis Wheeler Says:
I’ve been pondering on the proper metaphor to think of Apple in the Next Step: Apple is the spider at the center of the web. Steve Jobs is in the middle, alert to the vibrations. Apple has all these partners, like Siemens, Motorola/Scientific Atlantic, IBM etc who profit from their piece the Web.
But, Apple created the web of services that each them uses so it gets a tiny piece of their profit and through iServices Steve gets the profit due to transactions between them. Microsoft kills innovation because it tries to control every event. Apple won’t try; it won’t kill the new ways in which its partners will use its creation. Steve Jobs will ask, “How can I make their vision more complete. What can I add which makes this a better experience for the customer? How can I thus, make myself indispensable to the innovation and reap the rewards along with the partners?” It is by NOT being selfish, selectively, that gains Apple the rewards.
It’s like Apple with the Open Source Community. Conceptually, Open Source is nuts-- “You’re going to spend time and money creating something- intellectual property- and just give it away?” Open Source is a reflection that computing started as a hobby, not a business, such as with the Homebrew Computer club. The reason that Open Source is important is in the creation of standards. What’s the value of creating a new standard that no one else uses?
Apple, in its early history, continually did this. It would create all these new hardware concepts- NuBus comes to mind- and then demand money for using them. Apple’s competitors would steal the idea and create something not quite as good- PCI- and freeze Apple out of the new standard. This is why Apple is in the Open Source community; it can’t afford to be frozen out of the standards.
Look at how WebCore developed. When Apple created Safari, it used the Open Source kHTML rendering engine. When, in Mac OS X 10.4, it replaced kHTML with WebCore, the Open Source community became offended. Of course, The GPL license would allow Apple to do this. I saw an article from an Apple developer saying, “Hey! Wait a minute. Apple has vastly improved kHTML in WebCore.” And a few days later, Apple releases WebCore’s source code. Was the Open Source community grateful? Not so far as I could see.
What did Apple get from giving away its intellectual property? Apple got to design into WebCore the parts that aided it in its Web strategy; parts that the Linux and Open Source community couldn’t care about. But, Apple does, because they include a way for Apple to sell iServices. Did I get anything wrong?
Posted on June 22, 2005
Bill Says:
Hey Neo, great articles!
Just wanted to point out an article at WSJ that I didn’t read since I’m not regitered there, but may be of interest to you and the fans of your Next Wave series. It’s “Telstra Drops Out Of Microsoft Deal For Internet TV” and seems relevant to Apple wrt the Next Wave.
Posted on June 22, 2005
Neo Says:
Bill, thanks for the news. I dug around and found a clean link to the story that should be posted later today or tomorrow. If Dennis doesn’t post it, I’ll come back here tomorrow afternoon to provide the link. Once again, thanks for the tip, and I’m soooo sad over that news :-)
Louis, it’s all about distribution, says Casanova. Companies like Nokia get a great platform to customize and Apple gains distribution for their developers as well as a new avenue to sell iServices to. It’s a win-win scenario. More annnouncements like that will continue to surface.
Cheers!
Posted on June 22, 2005
Neo Says:
Bill,
The story won’t get up until next week on Macsimum because Dennis is covering the graphic expo. So here’s the link to that story ahead of time:
http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&articleid=5331356&subject=companies&action=article
Posted on June 22, 2005
Derrick Says:
I found another link which provides a bit more information:
http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=12471&hed=Telstra+Cancels+Microsoft+TV
Take care,
Derrick
Posted on June 22, 2005
Neo Says:
Thanks Derrick, I’ve added your link in the news story:
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/australias_telstra_drops_microsoft_tv/
Posted on June 22, 2005
Article Information
Comment on this Article Print this Article Email this Article Digg This
Contributor
Dennis Sellers
Dennis has been a newspaper editor/reporter (seven years) and teacher (seven years). He has over 4,000 magazine, newspaper and online articles to his credit. He has also covered the Mac and tech industries for over a decade for such online publications as MacCentral, MacMinute and now MacsimumNews.
Recent Articles
Eduardo Dias Says:
Where is your “last Friday’s Next Wave chapter”? I haven’t see it.
Posted on June 21, 2005