The Mac is Dead !!!
Do you think Apple will still be making Apple Mac Computers in 5 -10 years time? I think it's pretty much dead as a platform, the future for Apple is in the mobile device platform - iPhone, which is why Apple has poured EVERYTHING into iPhone delevopment, to the the detriment of many of its other products. Much of it's current hardware lies seriously neglected and overpriced, shoddy software updates. Leopard was sidelined for many months to concentrate on iPhone development. It seems pretty clear where Apple's future lies in my opinion and it's not with the Mac Computer.
Comments
I think that they are concentrating more resources on the iphone etc than they should but once they get into a cycle, they will be able to jump between them. This is the whole idea of the company having multiple legs.
Other companies like Microsoft have really only got one leg to stand on and when that leg wobbles or worse breaks, they are flat on their ass.
When Intel aren't releasing chips and Macs aren't being updated, Apple push ipods/iphones/itunes updates. Then when the new processors arrive, they push the Macs. Apple TV fits in there somewhere too.
They're not exactly going to do iphone software development on Windows. I don't think you can as it's Cocoa.
I think that they are concentrating more resources on the iphone etc than they should but once they get into a cycle, they will be able to jump between them. This is the whole idea of the company having multiple legs.
Other companies like Microsoft have really only got one leg to stand on and when that leg wobbles or worse breaks, they are flat on their ass.
When Intel aren't releasing chips and Macs aren't being updated, Apple push ipods/iphones/itunes updates. Then when the new processors arrive, they push the Macs. Apple TV fits in there somewhere too.
Mac sales are always ongoing too, they don't sell them all on the first day of a new release. Macs have gotten to the point of being able to handle most needs, for most people, without a dire need for something too far beyond current capabilities. A perfect machine for video compression, and some scientific applications, might not be just around the corner, but for other work the current offerings do very well indeed.
I think not.
Do you think Apple will still be making Apple Mac Computers in 5 -10 years time? I think it's pretty much dead as a platform, the future for Apple is in the mobile device platform - iPhone, which is why Apple has poured EVERYTHING into iPhone delevopment, to the the detriment of many of its other products. Much of it's current hardware lies seriously neglected and overpriced, shoddy software updates. Leopard was sidelined for many months to concentrate on iPhone development. It seems pretty clear where Apple's future lies in my opinion and it's not with the Mac Computer.
Of course they will. The needs of plenty of people go beyond the capabilities of portable devices. There really isn't much case for Apple jettisoning the desktop/laptop lines in lieu of mobile because it's simply not an either/or proposition. In fact the combination of both strengthens the platform.
Naturally Apple's pouring a lot of resources into the iPhone. They're trying to unseat incumbents and get the platform off the ground. Remember they snatched other resources to finish Aperture as well and everyone freaked when they found out the Aperture team was shrinking (of course it was because they were using borrowed engineers) and many called for Aperture's demise but look at today. Aperture 2.0 is here. Once iPhone development plateaus there will be more of an egalitarian distribution of resources.
Is not Snow Leopard a move to "reign in" some of the issues that have been caused by thin resources? I think we all realize that Apple's resources have been tight and OS X has indeed suffered but they certainly seem keen on getting the ship back on course. Grand Central and OpenCL are products aimed squarely at the Desktop/Laptop user with more cores and beefy GPU. It'll be a while before mobile products have the type of core/gpu stratification that we see in the everyday desktop/laptop.
Other companies like Microsoft have really only got one leg to stand on and when that leg wobbles or worse breaks, they are flat on their ass.
Microsoft has its hands in a lot of different products too, though, from the Zune (admittedly not nearly as iconic as the iPod), to the very popular XBox game system, to gaming peripherals like the Sidewinder joystick, to the Sync voice control system in Ford/Lincoln/Mercury cars.
Even among Mac users, what percentage of people use Microsoft Powerpoint or Microsoft Word?
Microsoft has a lot going on besides Windows.
Even among Mac users, what percentage of people use Microsoft Powerpoint or Microsoft Word?
Probably more, now that Apple has killed AppleWorks.
Microsoft has its hands in a lot of different products too, though, from the Zune (admittedly not nearly as iconic as the iPod), to the very popular XBox game system, to gaming peripherals like the Sidewinder joystick, to the Sync voice control system in Ford/Lincoln/Mercury cars.
Even among Mac users, what percentage of people use Microsoft Powerpoint or Microsoft Word?
Microsoft has a lot going on besides Windows.
Other than Windows and Office, anything that's *profitable*? Not really. They make a lot of things, but lose money on most. Windows and Office *are* the company, the rest are hobbies.
Other than Windows and Office, anything that's *profitable*? Not really. They make a lot of things, but lose money on most. Windows and Office *are* the company, the rest are hobbies.
The XBox console series isn't profitable for Microsoft? Got any evidence of that? It's huge in the console gaming industry. One of the big three (along with Sony and Nintendo).
According to figures supplied to MCV by ELSPA and ChartTrack it is the Xbox 360 which has earned the largest market share by value in 2007. Microsoft's second home console took an 18.6% market share and is followed by the Nintendo DS with 18.2%.
http://www.videogamer.com/news/10-01-2008-7223.html I don't know if the Xbox 360 has the largest market share as of September 2008, but it's clearly not some unprofitable small potato for gamers.
How do you know that Microsoft loses money on Sync? I don't know the financial terms of Microsoft's contract with Ford. Do you?
Other than Windows and Office, anything that's *profitable*? Not really. They make a lot of things, but lose money on most. Windows and Office *are* the company, the rest are hobbies.
No kidding... Even the crazier VC firms have success percentages well beyond what MS has with its long history of non-Windows, non-Office failures. If MS weren't making so much money with those two, any sensible CEO would have stripped the company to its essentials: those two. If Windows were to somehow cataclysmically fail, it's not as if the rest of their products would be able to cushion the blow and allow them to move on. MS would be done. I'm really surprised they haven't spun off all of their non-core units. Having worked for a monopoly in the past (not MS), I suspect that the culture is such poison that there's simply no way for any of their non-monopoly units to thrive within the corporation.
The XBox console series isn't profitable for Microsoft? Got any evidence of that? It's huge in the console gaming industry. One of the big three (along with Sony and Nintendo).
Of course. That would also be the *only* three, right?
http://www.videogamer.com/news/10-01-2008-7223.html I don't know if the Xbox 360 has the largest market share as of September 2008, but it's clearly not some unprofitable small potato for gamers.
By golly you're right. In Q1 2008, the *very first time* that Xbox was profitable in its entire history, it made $89 million.
Out of $4.7billion for that quarter.
So yes, Xbox is a whopping 1.9% of Microsoft's profit, and it only took them several years to get there.
Yeah, really a third leg of the company. Methinks the stool is a bit lopsided.
(Hint, this is why I said 'not really' as opposed to 'not at all', and 'lose money on most' not 'lose money on everything else'. They make small amounts of money in some other markets, but if Windows and/or Office profits ever drop substantially, the whole company is screwed. Which was Marvin's original point.)
How do you know that Microsoft loses money on Sync? I don't know the financial terms of Microsoft's contract with Ford. Do you?
No kidding... Even the crazier VC firms have success percentages well beyond what MS has with its long history of non-Windows, non-Office failures. If MS weren't making so much money with those two, any sensible CEO would have stripped the company to its essentials: those two. If Windows were to somehow cataclysmically fail, it's not as if the rest of their products would be able to cushion the blow and allow them to move on. MS would be done.
Eeeeeexactly. The rest of the company can't survive without them. The question is... can they survive *with* them?
I'm really surprised they haven't spun off all of their non-core units. Having worked for a monopoly in the past (not MS), I suspect that the culture is such poison that there's simply no way for any of their non-monopoly units to thrive within the corporation.
Quite probably. Fiefdoms in corporations just get more solidified the more successful they get, until they are in full defensive mode.