Spotify could become the best music service ever
My curiosity got the best of me, and I finally wrangled an invitation to the beta version of the free service. I'm happy to report it works exactly as advertised and is unquestionably the best music service I've ever used.Apart from finally delivering the promise of on-demand music that I've been waiting for since the first time I listened to an audio stream over the Web in 1996 or so, the Spotify designers must be praised for designing a beautifully simple and functional piece of software that combines the best of online and offline so you don't know (or care) which is which.Playlists and searches are saved, so you don't have to retrace your steps. Apparently they're going to insert audio advertisements into the service, but I didn't hear any. (I'll post an update when I hear back from the company on this.)Most amazingly, there's no lag time. You click on a song and it starts playing immediately. It launches so much faster than iTunes (and don't get me started on the Zune client, which gives you long enough to make an espresso while you wait for it to launch), and songs play so quickly, I'd favor it even for songs that are already on my hard drive. The only flaw is song selection. Apparently, Spotify had to take some songs down because of the licensing deals it signed with the majors, and consequently there are some big gaps. No Zeppelin, no Beatles, the only Pink Floyd album available is the execrable live "Pulse," and Radiohead is limited (weirdly) to "Kid A" and a greatest-hits record from the band's EMI days.But it found everything else I was looking for: extensive catalogs for David Bowie, Charles Mingus, Brian Eno, Iron Maiden, and The Rolling Stones; lost classic rock hits (UFO's "Love to Love," Blue Oyster Cult's "I Love the Night," Jeff Beck's "Bolero"); obscure dub act Scientist; plenty of Aphex Twin; Amon Tobin's "Foley Room"...you get the idea.Your mileage may vary, but once Spotify gets its licensing on par with iTunes and the other online streaming services, and as long as the audio ads aren't too frequent or annoying, I don't see how Spotify can lose. So why is it not available in the U.S., and when's it coming? I'll let you know what I hear back.Follow Matt on Twitter
iPad tip- Always buy or rent the SD versions of movies and TV shows
iPad tip: Always buy or rent the SD versions of movies and TV shows
The same movie in HD costs $5 more to buy or $1 more to rent.Screenshot by Rick BroidaAs I sit here at 33,000 feet, watching my kids watch "How to Train Your Dragon" on my iPad, I'm struck by several thoughts.First, in-flight Wi-Fi is just plain awesome. Second, coach seats were made for Netbooks, not laptops. The sardine-can contortions I'm enduring right now are just plain painful.Third, buying high-definition (HD) movies or TV shows from iTunes is a waste of money--if you're planning to watch them solely on your iPad.See, many users make the mistake of thinking that standard-definition (SD) videos are intended for iPhones and iPods, while the iPad's large, 1,024x768-pixel screen automatically warrants the HD variety. That's not the case at all.An SD video purchased from iTunes typically has a resolution of 853x480 pixels, meaning it's almost twice as wide as it is tall--much like the 16:9 aspect ratio you find on modern TVs. The typical HD movie is 1,280x720 pixels, which would seem to match up better to the iPad's screen resolution--at least in terms of height.However, the iPad's square-ish screen has a 4:3 aspect ratio, meaning if you maintain a movie's 16:9 aspect ratio (meaning, you don't zoom in), you're getting an effective resolution of 1,024x576 pixels--barely higher than what you get from an SD movie (which is upscaled to fill the available screen estate).In other words, HD might look a tad better than SD, but only a tad. And I know there's only a $1 difference between most SD and HD rentals, but when it comes to buying movies, the difference is upwards of $5. From a purely subjective standpoint, the kids' SD version of "How to Train Your Dragon" looks stunning, at least to my eyes. If you buy and/or rent a lot of stuff, you might save yourself a decent chunk of change over the course of a year by opting for SD over HD. (You'll also save a considerable amount of storage space.)So why does anybody buy HD at all? For viewing on PCs and TVs, which have more than sufficient resolution to accommodate what HD has to offer. Indeed, if you own an iPad and, say, an Apple TV, or you sometimes watch your videos on your laptop, HD might be worth the extra expense.What are your thoughts on this? Am I off my rocker, or do you agree that SD is the right choice for iPad viewing?
The same movie in HD costs $5 more to buy or $1 more to rent.Screenshot by Rick BroidaAs I sit here at 33,000 feet, watching my kids watch "How to Train Your Dragon" on my iPad, I'm struck by several thoughts.First, in-flight Wi-Fi is just plain awesome. Second, coach seats were made for Netbooks, not laptops. The sardine-can contortions I'm enduring right now are just plain painful.Third, buying high-definition (HD) movies or TV shows from iTunes is a waste of money--if you're planning to watch them solely on your iPad.See, many users make the mistake of thinking that standard-definition (SD) videos are intended for iPhones and iPods, while the iPad's large, 1,024x768-pixel screen automatically warrants the HD variety. That's not the case at all.An SD video purchased from iTunes typically has a resolution of 853x480 pixels, meaning it's almost twice as wide as it is tall--much like the 16:9 aspect ratio you find on modern TVs. The typical HD movie is 1,280x720 pixels, which would seem to match up better to the iPad's screen resolution--at least in terms of height.However, the iPad's square-ish screen has a 4:3 aspect ratio, meaning if you maintain a movie's 16:9 aspect ratio (meaning, you don't zoom in), you're getting an effective resolution of 1,024x576 pixels--barely higher than what you get from an SD movie (which is upscaled to fill the available screen estate).In other words, HD might look a tad better than SD, but only a tad. And I know there's only a $1 difference between most SD and HD rentals, but when it comes to buying movies, the difference is upwards of $5. From a purely subjective standpoint, the kids' SD version of "How to Train Your Dragon" looks stunning, at least to my eyes. If you buy and/or rent a lot of stuff, you might save yourself a decent chunk of change over the course of a year by opting for SD over HD. (You'll also save a considerable amount of storage space.)So why does anybody buy HD at all? For viewing on PCs and TVs, which have more than sufficient resolution to accommodate what HD has to offer. Indeed, if you own an iPad and, say, an Apple TV, or you sometimes watch your videos on your laptop, HD might be worth the extra expense.What are your thoughts on this? Am I off my rocker, or do you agree that SD is the right choice for iPad viewing?
Was Napster or iTunes more influential-
Was Napster or iTunes more influential?
Hardest-working music sitesWhich has influenced the most?As Amazon, Google, and Apple appear to be leading digital music in the direction of the cloud, it seems a good time to look back at some of the most influential online music services of the past.Some people might argue that the modern digital music era started with the launch of iTunes. Others will say the birth of Napster kicked it off. The truth is two years before Napster launched in 2000, there were plenty of companies jockeying for dominance in online CD sales as well as downloads. They were competing in nascent Internet radio or trying to create audio standards and digital rights formats. The early pioneers included Amazon, MP3.com, Liquid Audio, Artistdirect, CD Baby, Spinner.com, and RealAudio to name a few. Later on, a new wave of services followed the path blazed by Napster, which demonstrated the power of the Web to deliver digital music.Some of them were file-sharing services like Napster, companies such as Kazaa, eDonkey, TorrentSpy, LimeWire, and Grokster. Others tried to sell music legally, such as Urge, Pressplay, MusicNet,Yahoo Music Unlimited, eMusic, Sony Connect, MSN Music, and the Zune Marketplace. After them came Imeem, MySpace Music, Ruckus, Spotify, iLike, Lala, and a host of others. Most of these companies don't exist anymore, chased out of the sector by Apple's iTunes, digital music's reigning power for most of the past decade.Scores of music services have come and gone. The slideshow below features some that left their mark. Top 10 most influential music sites (pho...See full gallery1 - 4 / 10NextPrev
Hardest-working music sitesWhich has influenced the most?As Amazon, Google, and Apple appear to be leading digital music in the direction of the cloud, it seems a good time to look back at some of the most influential online music services of the past.Some people might argue that the modern digital music era started with the launch of iTunes. Others will say the birth of Napster kicked it off. The truth is two years before Napster launched in 2000, there were plenty of companies jockeying for dominance in online CD sales as well as downloads. They were competing in nascent Internet radio or trying to create audio standards and digital rights formats. The early pioneers included Amazon, MP3.com, Liquid Audio, Artistdirect, CD Baby, Spinner.com, and RealAudio to name a few. Later on, a new wave of services followed the path blazed by Napster, which demonstrated the power of the Web to deliver digital music.Some of them were file-sharing services like Napster, companies such as Kazaa, eDonkey, TorrentSpy, LimeWire, and Grokster. Others tried to sell music legally, such as Urge, Pressplay, MusicNet,Yahoo Music Unlimited, eMusic, Sony Connect, MSN Music, and the Zune Marketplace. After them came Imeem, MySpace Music, Ruckus, Spotify, iLike, Lala, and a host of others. Most of these companies don't exist anymore, chased out of the sector by Apple's iTunes, digital music's reigning power for most of the past decade.Scores of music services have come and gone. The slideshow below features some that left their mark. Top 10 most influential music sites (pho...See full gallery1 - 4 / 10NextPrev
Was 2014 the geekiest year yet- Join the CraveCast discussion
Was 2014 the geekiest year yet? Join the CraveCast discussion
This year we saw an insane game of a tag between a robot and a comet, at least two real-life hoverboards (finally!), jetpacks for flying and for running, all kinds of zombie news and at least one statue of Jesus with human teeth.There was so much geeky goodness -- from Hollywood's latest and greatest to saving lives through 3D printing and alien-spotting all over the place -- that I think there's a strong case to be made for declaring 2014 the geekiest yet. Previously on the CraveCast:What the CraveCast lost and found in spaceBrainstorming plans to fix democracy and fight zombiesFoaming at the mouth: A CraveCast wrap-up and debriefThe CraveCast crew will look back at the past 12 months and their nerdy significance in our next live taping Tuesday, December 16 at noon PT, and we want you to chime in.Let us know in the comments below or on Twitter @ericcmack and @crave what your favorite moments were from the past year.Then mark your calendar and bookmark this page to join us live for the CraveCast on Tuesday.You also can watch and chat with us live via YouTube and Livestream.This content is rated TV-MA, and is for viewers 18 years or older. Are you of age?YesNoSorry, you are not old enough to view this content.Play Subscribe to the CraveCast: iTunes (HD)| iTunes (SD)| iTunes (HQ)| iTunes (MP3) RSS (HD)| RSS (SD)| RSS (HQ)| RSS (MP3)
This year we saw an insane game of a tag between a robot and a comet, at least two real-life hoverboards (finally!), jetpacks for flying and for running, all kinds of zombie news and at least one statue of Jesus with human teeth.There was so much geeky goodness -- from Hollywood's latest and greatest to saving lives through 3D printing and alien-spotting all over the place -- that I think there's a strong case to be made for declaring 2014 the geekiest yet. Previously on the CraveCast:What the CraveCast lost and found in spaceBrainstorming plans to fix democracy and fight zombiesFoaming at the mouth: A CraveCast wrap-up and debriefThe CraveCast crew will look back at the past 12 months and their nerdy significance in our next live taping Tuesday, December 16 at noon PT, and we want you to chime in.Let us know in the comments below or on Twitter @ericcmack and @crave what your favorite moments were from the past year.Then mark your calendar and bookmark this page to join us live for the CraveCast on Tuesday.You also can watch and chat with us live via YouTube and Livestream.This content is rated TV-MA, and is for viewers 18 years or older. Are you of age?YesNoSorry, you are not old enough to view this content.Play Subscribe to the CraveCast: iTunes (HD)| iTunes (SD)| iTunes (HQ)| iTunes (MP3) RSS (HD)| RSS (SD)| RSS (HQ)| RSS (MP3)
Control Windows Media Center with Mediamote (review)
Control Windows Media Center with Mediamote (review)
Mediamote is a free app that turns your iPhone or iPod Touch into a remote control for Windows Media Center.That's awesome news for anyone who runs WMC on, say, a laptop or den PC, and wants a way to control it from the couch. Mediamote sets up a simple ad-hoc Wi-Fi network between Windows and the iPhone.I'm not sure I've ever seen an App Store listing with less information than the one for Mediamote, which is something of a problem: there's no indication that you need to visit the developer's Web site and install the Mediamote server on your PC.With that step done, run the server and then fire up the Mediamote app on your iPhone. It should immediately find the server and get you connected. Now just start Windows Media Center and you should be all set.Mediamote isn't much to look at--if ever a program needed skins, it's this one--but it gets the job done. It sports all the controls you need to operate WMC, with dedicated buttons for Recorded TV, Guide, Live TV, and DVD Menu. (Here's a complete button guide if you need help.)Ironically, the one thing missing is WMC's signature big, green Start button. But at least there's a pop-up numeric keypad for punching in channel numbers.In my initial tests, Mediamote worked like a charm, with zero lag between button-taps and the corresponding action on the PC. And guess what? There's a nifty hidden feature: shake your iPhone and you can choose two other apps to control: iTunes and Windows Media Player 11. (Needless to say, Apple's own Remote app handles the former much better.)Although Mediamote definitely comes across as a 1.0 release (actually, more like 0.9), it works as advertised. It's a very handy little freebie for those seeking some distance from Windows Media Center.
Mediamote is a free app that turns your iPhone or iPod Touch into a remote control for Windows Media Center.That's awesome news for anyone who runs WMC on, say, a laptop or den PC, and wants a way to control it from the couch. Mediamote sets up a simple ad-hoc Wi-Fi network between Windows and the iPhone.I'm not sure I've ever seen an App Store listing with less information than the one for Mediamote, which is something of a problem: there's no indication that you need to visit the developer's Web site and install the Mediamote server on your PC.With that step done, run the server and then fire up the Mediamote app on your iPhone. It should immediately find the server and get you connected. Now just start Windows Media Center and you should be all set.Mediamote isn't much to look at--if ever a program needed skins, it's this one--but it gets the job done. It sports all the controls you need to operate WMC, with dedicated buttons for Recorded TV, Guide, Live TV, and DVD Menu. (Here's a complete button guide if you need help.)Ironically, the one thing missing is WMC's signature big, green Start button. But at least there's a pop-up numeric keypad for punching in channel numbers.In my initial tests, Mediamote worked like a charm, with zero lag between button-taps and the corresponding action on the PC. And guess what? There's a nifty hidden feature: shake your iPhone and you can choose two other apps to control: iTunes and Windows Media Player 11. (Needless to say, Apple's own Remote app handles the former much better.)Although Mediamote definitely comes across as a 1.0 release (actually, more like 0.9), it works as advertised. It's a very handy little freebie for those seeking some distance from Windows Media Center.
Confused about iTunes Match- Apple tries a new explanation
Confused about iTunes Match? Apple tries a new explanation
Hey, iOS users! Are you still scratching your heads over what exactly iTunes Match is supposed to do for you? Apple has done its best to come to your rescue with a new Web page designed to answer your lingering questions about the service.Launched last month, the $24.99-per-year iTunes Match service lets you store your iTunes collection in Apple's cloud-- even content you've ripped from CDs or purchased from other music sites. From the cloud, you can then sync and listen to your music across an array of devices, including an iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, Mac, PC, and Apple TV.But there's at least one area of confusion that Apple has attempted to address on its new page: Does iTunes Match stream songs or download them? Well, it depends.iOS devices will start playing songs from iCloud as they download, though they'll also store them locally for you to play without a network connection. PCs and Macs will stream your songs, but you can download them by clicking on the iCloud download button. And Apple TV will only stream your songs.Further, you can store as many as 25,000 songs in iCloud, or more if you buy them from iTunes. But only the tracks you want to play are stored on your device.Related storiesiTunes Match arrives, as does a new Apple board memberHow to use iTunes MatchHow to use iTunes Match to upgrade audio qualityApple also explains that iTunes Match can handle any music format iTunes itself uses, including AAC, MP3, WAV, and AIFF. The service will support up to 10 different devices.You also have the option of downloading and playing music via your 3G connection or only Wi-Fi.And for people who purchased or ripped songs at a low quality, iTunes Match will automatically match your music with a higher-quality 256-Kbps AAC DRM-free format.To learn more about setting up and using iTunes Match, you can check out CNET's helpful how-to guide.
Hey, iOS users! Are you still scratching your heads over what exactly iTunes Match is supposed to do for you? Apple has done its best to come to your rescue with a new Web page designed to answer your lingering questions about the service.Launched last month, the $24.99-per-year iTunes Match service lets you store your iTunes collection in Apple's cloud-- even content you've ripped from CDs or purchased from other music sites. From the cloud, you can then sync and listen to your music across an array of devices, including an iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, Mac, PC, and Apple TV.But there's at least one area of confusion that Apple has attempted to address on its new page: Does iTunes Match stream songs or download them? Well, it depends.iOS devices will start playing songs from iCloud as they download, though they'll also store them locally for you to play without a network connection. PCs and Macs will stream your songs, but you can download them by clicking on the iCloud download button. And Apple TV will only stream your songs.Further, you can store as many as 25,000 songs in iCloud, or more if you buy them from iTunes. But only the tracks you want to play are stored on your device.Related storiesiTunes Match arrives, as does a new Apple board memberHow to use iTunes MatchHow to use iTunes Match to upgrade audio qualityApple also explains that iTunes Match can handle any music format iTunes itself uses, including AAC, MP3, WAV, and AIFF. The service will support up to 10 different devices.You also have the option of downloading and playing music via your 3G connection or only Wi-Fi.And for people who purchased or ripped songs at a low quality, iTunes Match will automatically match your music with a higher-quality 256-Kbps AAC DRM-free format.To learn more about setting up and using iTunes Match, you can check out CNET's helpful how-to guide.
Apple 'snapped up' sapphire displays, says Canonical founder
Apple 'snapped up' sapphire displays, says Canonical founder
Does Canonical's Mark Shuttleworth know something about Apple's rumored sapphire displays that we don't? During a Town Hall Hangout Wednesday, Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth made comments about displays that his company was planning for its own Ubuntu Edge smartphone -- a concept announced by Canonical in July of 2013. "Apple just snapped up three year's worth of the supply of sapphire screens from the company that we had engaged to make the screens for the Edge," he said (at roughly the 30:45 mark linked to above). The report about the sapphire display comments first appeared at Gigaom.He didn't stop there. "Isn't it interesting that how many of the things we said the future needed to include are showing up on other people's roadmaps...Apple has also started describing their latest-generation mobile CPUs as desktop-class.That's another thing we said we need to have in the Edge was a desktop-class CPU. And we're starting to see the roadmaps for the devices from Samsung and others that have the same amount of RAM we were proposing for the Edge." Indeed, the Edge, as planned, was slated to have 4GB of RAM, 128GB of storage, Ubuntu and Android operating systems (dual boot), and a 4.5-inch display cover made from sapphire. Which brings us to the rumored next-gen Apple device, possibly the iPhone 6.That too may use sapphire in some way, not unlike the sapphire crystal Apple already uses for the cover glass on the iPhone 5S' rear camera and Touch ID fingerprint scanner. In November of 2013, Apple signed a deal with GT Advanced Technology, a sapphire manufacturer.That plant, a "new state-of-the-art sapphire material manufacturing facility" in Mesa, Arizona is being readied for production of the rumored 5-inch class display for a future iPhone. It's not clear how Shuttleworth's comments jibe with Apple's and GT Advanced Technology's plans.
Does Canonical's Mark Shuttleworth know something about Apple's rumored sapphire displays that we don't? During a Town Hall Hangout Wednesday, Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth made comments about displays that his company was planning for its own Ubuntu Edge smartphone -- a concept announced by Canonical in July of 2013. "Apple just snapped up three year's worth of the supply of sapphire screens from the company that we had engaged to make the screens for the Edge," he said (at roughly the 30:45 mark linked to above). The report about the sapphire display comments first appeared at Gigaom.He didn't stop there. "Isn't it interesting that how many of the things we said the future needed to include are showing up on other people's roadmaps...Apple has also started describing their latest-generation mobile CPUs as desktop-class.That's another thing we said we need to have in the Edge was a desktop-class CPU. And we're starting to see the roadmaps for the devices from Samsung and others that have the same amount of RAM we were proposing for the Edge." Indeed, the Edge, as planned, was slated to have 4GB of RAM, 128GB of storage, Ubuntu and Android operating systems (dual boot), and a 4.5-inch display cover made from sapphire. Which brings us to the rumored next-gen Apple device, possibly the iPhone 6.That too may use sapphire in some way, not unlike the sapphire crystal Apple already uses for the cover glass on the iPhone 5S' rear camera and Touch ID fingerprint scanner. In November of 2013, Apple signed a deal with GT Advanced Technology, a sapphire manufacturer.That plant, a "new state-of-the-art sapphire material manufacturing facility" in Mesa, Arizona is being readied for production of the rumored 5-inch class display for a future iPhone. It's not clear how Shuttleworth's comments jibe with Apple's and GT Advanced Technology's plans.
Apple snagged NeXT 15 years ago
Apple snagged NeXT 15 years ago
On December 20, 1996--15 years ago today--Apple announced that it would acquire NeXT.Oh, and its CEO was part of the deal.That CEO of course was Steve Jobs, as CNET reported. "Jobs...will leave his post as Next's chief executive to become an 'adviser,' reporting directly to Apple chairman and CEO Gilbert Amelio," CNET said. Daniel Kunstler, at that time an analyst with J.P. Morgan, may have had the most prescient understatement of the decade (at least). "I really don't see any downside to Steve Jobs returning to Apple," he said. The $429 million deal centered on Apple's quest for a new operating system.The company had "been shopping for an operating system since abandoning its own Copland system...and had been negotiating with Be and other companies to fill that void," CNET said. Be was not to be, though.Apple opted for Next's object-oriented, Java-enabled NextStep.And, lest we forget, Mac OS X is built on top of this.Prior the acquisition, NeXT struggled mightily, though.Before it was a software-only company, NeXT made hardware too.It built upscale workstations--which debuted at more than $6,000--at a cutting-edge factory in Fremont, Calif. Jobs attempt to control everything from circuit boards to software ran into trouble pretty quickly when the workstations didn't sell.(Jobs' goal was laudable, though: imagine building a factory in California today to assemble cutting-edge computers.)So, in the early 1990s, Next turned to its Japanese partner Canon for cash. On top of an original $100 million investment in 1989, Canon provided another $10 million to $20 million in 1991 and extended a $55 million credit line in 1992, as CNET reported. Then, in February 1993, Next said it would stop making the Nextcube and Nextstation and focus on object-oriented software for mainstream platforms. That move worked.The company posted a profit in 1994 and licensed its WebObjects to more than 275 customers, including Chrysler, Nike, and Walt Disney. And take a gander at this video of a master salesman explaining NeXT to the rank and file. Via Engadget and TUAW.
On December 20, 1996--15 years ago today--Apple announced that it would acquire NeXT.Oh, and its CEO was part of the deal.That CEO of course was Steve Jobs, as CNET reported. "Jobs...will leave his post as Next's chief executive to become an 'adviser,' reporting directly to Apple chairman and CEO Gilbert Amelio," CNET said. Daniel Kunstler, at that time an analyst with J.P. Morgan, may have had the most prescient understatement of the decade (at least). "I really don't see any downside to Steve Jobs returning to Apple," he said. The $429 million deal centered on Apple's quest for a new operating system.The company had "been shopping for an operating system since abandoning its own Copland system...and had been negotiating with Be and other companies to fill that void," CNET said. Be was not to be, though.Apple opted for Next's object-oriented, Java-enabled NextStep.And, lest we forget, Mac OS X is built on top of this.Prior the acquisition, NeXT struggled mightily, though.Before it was a software-only company, NeXT made hardware too.It built upscale workstations--which debuted at more than $6,000--at a cutting-edge factory in Fremont, Calif. Jobs attempt to control everything from circuit boards to software ran into trouble pretty quickly when the workstations didn't sell.(Jobs' goal was laudable, though: imagine building a factory in California today to assemble cutting-edge computers.)So, in the early 1990s, Next turned to its Japanese partner Canon for cash. On top of an original $100 million investment in 1989, Canon provided another $10 million to $20 million in 1991 and extended a $55 million credit line in 1992, as CNET reported. Then, in February 1993, Next said it would stop making the Nextcube and Nextstation and focus on object-oriented software for mainstream platforms. That move worked.The company posted a profit in 1994 and licensed its WebObjects to more than 275 customers, including Chrysler, Nike, and Walt Disney. And take a gander at this video of a master salesman explaining NeXT to the rank and file. Via Engadget and TUAW.
Apple slips below $600 in first trading day after exec shake-up
Apple slips below $600 in first trading day after exec shake-up
Last updated at 2 p.m. PT Apple's stock has entered territory it hasn't been in for quite some time.The stock finished at $595.32, down $8.68, or 1.44 percent today. At one point earlier in the day Apple's shares fell as low as $587.70.Apple's stock hasn't closed a day below the $600 mark since July. For a brief period on Friday, Apple's shares dropped to $591 before closing the day at $604.Might today's decline be attributable to Apple's announcement Monday of the departure of two senior executives -- Scott Forstall and John Browett? Maybe, maybe not. Since September 21 when Apple's shares closed the day at $700.71, the company's stock has been on the decline. In addition, today's decline seems to fall in line with previous single-day drops. So, it's possible the drop is as much a part of a negative trend as it is a reaction to the executive departures.Still, Apple may have been concerned about Wall Street's reaction to the news about Forstall and Browett, which came while trading was canceled because of Hurricane Sandy. Companies often announce bad news in the stock markets' off-hours, to give shareholders a bit more time to let issues marinate.The loss of Forstall could worry investors who see him as a key ingredient in the development of Apple's iOS platform. According to reports, he was ousted because of his unwillingness to sign a letter apologizing for problems with Apple's Maps application. Apple's ousted retail chief John Browett was let go for unrelated reasons.For its part, Apple has tried to allay fears, saying that its current executive team, including Jonathan Ive and Eddy Cue, will pick up the slack.Over the last year, Apple's share price has swung widely from $363.32 to $705.07. As of this writing, the company's market capitalization -- a measure of corporate value -- is about $557 billion.Update at 9:45 a.m. PT, at 12:10 p.m. PT, and at 2 p.m. PT: New and closing stock prices noted.
Last updated at 2 p.m. PT Apple's stock has entered territory it hasn't been in for quite some time.The stock finished at $595.32, down $8.68, or 1.44 percent today. At one point earlier in the day Apple's shares fell as low as $587.70.Apple's stock hasn't closed a day below the $600 mark since July. For a brief period on Friday, Apple's shares dropped to $591 before closing the day at $604.Might today's decline be attributable to Apple's announcement Monday of the departure of two senior executives -- Scott Forstall and John Browett? Maybe, maybe not. Since September 21 when Apple's shares closed the day at $700.71, the company's stock has been on the decline. In addition, today's decline seems to fall in line with previous single-day drops. So, it's possible the drop is as much a part of a negative trend as it is a reaction to the executive departures.Still, Apple may have been concerned about Wall Street's reaction to the news about Forstall and Browett, which came while trading was canceled because of Hurricane Sandy. Companies often announce bad news in the stock markets' off-hours, to give shareholders a bit more time to let issues marinate.The loss of Forstall could worry investors who see him as a key ingredient in the development of Apple's iOS platform. According to reports, he was ousted because of his unwillingness to sign a letter apologizing for problems with Apple's Maps application. Apple's ousted retail chief John Browett was let go for unrelated reasons.For its part, Apple has tried to allay fears, saying that its current executive team, including Jonathan Ive and Eddy Cue, will pick up the slack.Over the last year, Apple's share price has swung widely from $363.32 to $705.07. As of this writing, the company's market capitalization -- a measure of corporate value -- is about $557 billion.Update at 9:45 a.m. PT, at 12:10 p.m. PT, and at 2 p.m. PT: New and closing stock prices noted.
Apple slashes fourth-quarter iPad orders, report says
Apple slashes fourth-quarter iPad orders, report says
Apple has cut iPad orders from manufacturing partners, Bloomberg is reporting, citing an investment report from JP Morgan Chase.Apple has reportedly cut fourth-quarter iPad shipments by 25 percent, Bloomberg says, per JP Morgan Chase. The analysts at JP Morgan said that this is the first time they've seen Apple slash iPad shipments since the tablet launched last year.If Apple has, in fact, cut iPad shipments for the fourth quarter, it will have a profound impact on many of its suppliers, including Hon Hai Precision. According to the analysts, Bloomberg says, Hon Hai was planning to ship 17 million iPads in the fourth quarter, but will now only ship 13 million units.Related stories:• Tablet shipments jump 304 percent in second quarter• Apple to sell 149 million iPads in '15, researcher says• PC shipment growth to slow in 2011, jump in 2012It's unclear why Apple might want to cut back on iPad shipments, if that is in fact what's happening. Perhaps it ordered too many iPads in previous quarters, or it's slowing down iPad 2 production to prepare for the eventual iPad 3, or there might be other supply chain management and spending issues involved. What's more, even with those purportedly reduced shipments, analysts aren't ready to say that Apple will sell fewer iPads in the fourth quarter. According to Bloomberg, JP Morgan analyst Mark Moskowitz will maintain estimates that Apple will ship up to 12 million iPad units in that quarter, even with reduced orders to suppliers.If Apple can keep up its momentum, and sell as many iPads as researchers expect, this could be another big year for the tablet. Last week, research firm Gartner reported that it expects Apple to sell nearly 47 million iPads this year, up from the 14.7 million it sold last year. Even more impressive, Gartner believes Apple will ship nearly 149 million iPads in 2015.Apple did not immediately respond to CNET's request for comment on the Bloomberg report.
Apple has cut iPad orders from manufacturing partners, Bloomberg is reporting, citing an investment report from JP Morgan Chase.Apple has reportedly cut fourth-quarter iPad shipments by 25 percent, Bloomberg says, per JP Morgan Chase. The analysts at JP Morgan said that this is the first time they've seen Apple slash iPad shipments since the tablet launched last year.If Apple has, in fact, cut iPad shipments for the fourth quarter, it will have a profound impact on many of its suppliers, including Hon Hai Precision. According to the analysts, Bloomberg says, Hon Hai was planning to ship 17 million iPads in the fourth quarter, but will now only ship 13 million units.Related stories:• Tablet shipments jump 304 percent in second quarter• Apple to sell 149 million iPads in '15, researcher says• PC shipment growth to slow in 2011, jump in 2012It's unclear why Apple might want to cut back on iPad shipments, if that is in fact what's happening. Perhaps it ordered too many iPads in previous quarters, or it's slowing down iPad 2 production to prepare for the eventual iPad 3, or there might be other supply chain management and spending issues involved. What's more, even with those purportedly reduced shipments, analysts aren't ready to say that Apple will sell fewer iPads in the fourth quarter. According to Bloomberg, JP Morgan analyst Mark Moskowitz will maintain estimates that Apple will ship up to 12 million iPad units in that quarter, even with reduced orders to suppliers.If Apple can keep up its momentum, and sell as many iPads as researchers expect, this could be another big year for the tablet. Last week, research firm Gartner reported that it expects Apple to sell nearly 47 million iPads this year, up from the 14.7 million it sold last year. Even more impressive, Gartner believes Apple will ship nearly 149 million iPads in 2015.Apple did not immediately respond to CNET's request for comment on the Bloomberg report.
Apple slapped with lawsuit over mandatory employee bag checks
Apple slapped with lawsuit over mandatory employee bag checks
Apple's policy of requiring its retail store employees to undergo two mandatory bag searches per day has now become grounds for a class action lawsuit.Two former workers from Apple stores in New York and Los Angeles filed a complaint in San Francisco federal court on Thursday regarding this policy. These employees claim that they had to stand in lines up to 30 minutes long every day for store managers to check their bags and ensure they weren't smuggling home stolen goods. Adding up these daily waits, the employees say they were deprived of dozens of hours of unpaid wages, which totaled about $1,500 per year."Apple has engaged and continues to engage in illegal and improper wage practices that have deprived Apple Hourly Employees throughout the United States of millions of dollars in wages and overtime compensation," the complaint reads. "These practices include requiring Apple Hourly Employees to wait in line and undergo two off-the-clock security bag searches and clearance checks when they leave for their meal breaks and after they have clocked out at the end of their shifts." According to the complaint, Apple's retail stores, which span 13 countries, employed about 42,400 people and generated net sales of $156.5 billion in 2012. Most hourly workers make between minimum wage and $18.75 per hour and work 40 hours per week. The two former employees who filed the lawsuit, Amanda Frlekin and Dean Pelle, worked as "specialists," which is basically an in-store customer support position. Describing the bag searches as "required but uncompensated security checks," the lawsuit claims that Apple violated both the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York and California state laws. The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages and aims to sue Apple on behalf of hourly workers from its retail stores across the U.S. CNET contacted Apple for comment. We'll update the story when we get more information.(Via GigaOm)Here's the complaint:Apple Employee Class Action by jeff_roberts881
Apple's policy of requiring its retail store employees to undergo two mandatory bag searches per day has now become grounds for a class action lawsuit.Two former workers from Apple stores in New York and Los Angeles filed a complaint in San Francisco federal court on Thursday regarding this policy. These employees claim that they had to stand in lines up to 30 minutes long every day for store managers to check their bags and ensure they weren't smuggling home stolen goods. Adding up these daily waits, the employees say they were deprived of dozens of hours of unpaid wages, which totaled about $1,500 per year."Apple has engaged and continues to engage in illegal and improper wage practices that have deprived Apple Hourly Employees throughout the United States of millions of dollars in wages and overtime compensation," the complaint reads. "These practices include requiring Apple Hourly Employees to wait in line and undergo two off-the-clock security bag searches and clearance checks when they leave for their meal breaks and after they have clocked out at the end of their shifts." According to the complaint, Apple's retail stores, which span 13 countries, employed about 42,400 people and generated net sales of $156.5 billion in 2012. Most hourly workers make between minimum wage and $18.75 per hour and work 40 hours per week. The two former employees who filed the lawsuit, Amanda Frlekin and Dean Pelle, worked as "specialists," which is basically an in-store customer support position. Describing the bag searches as "required but uncompensated security checks," the lawsuit claims that Apple violated both the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York and California state laws. The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages and aims to sue Apple on behalf of hourly workers from its retail stores across the U.S. CNET contacted Apple for comment. We'll update the story when we get more information.(Via GigaOm)Here's the complaint:Apple Employee Class Action by jeff_roberts881
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)