Originally Posted by jragosta
Other than, of course, the millions of graphics designers who switched to Windows when Adobe started making crappy Mac software. If Apple were to redo CS5 to take full advantage of the Mac's performance capabilities and usability, they'd get many of those designers back. Lots of new hardware sales - which is a very important consideration.
Adobe already make okay Mac software.
If a handful of graphic designers returned to Mac because Apple caused Adobe to sabotage its PC software, I am not sure the resulting profits would be even visible in the bottom line. Everyone is buying Macs now.
At one point in time the revenues from computer sales to graphic designers was an important issue for Apple. Now it is not. Apple's computer sales are heading in the right direction. But consumer electronic profits from phones and iPods and iTunes music have passed sales of Macs.
That fact is what will determine Apple's next steps to generate growth. The TV thing is ripe for growth.
Originally Posted by jragosta
I guess that depends on what 'television thing' you're referring to. Frankly, the margin on TVs is low enough and the value added falls outside of Apple's core competencies, so I don't see any value in selling a TV. If you're talking about some kind of a set top box, that's a possibility, but doesn't require an acquisition (unless they were to buy Slingbox).
Manufacturing televisions is not going to make any money for anyone. Nor is selling set top boxes.
The goal is Apple doing with home movies and TV, the same thing as it has already done with music.
Apple displaced the traditional network of record stores, CD publishers and so on - with a single Internet based distribution network - leveraged by an elegant playback device. iTunes benefits consumers, offering lower prices and more choice. It also benefits content creators by allowing them access to a huge market. It's only the middle men who lose out.
Apple clearly want to repeat the same trick with TV. Displacing traditional networks, of disc vendors, cable channels and satellite broadcasters, with a single internet-based media network - which delivers content direct to viewers via some elegant TV add-on.
The Intel based AppleTV was not it. It was too expensive for consumers - did too little and became one of many set-top boxes competing for space beside the big screen.
The project needs a reboot. The hardware needs to be cheaper. Consumers need to subscribe to content services, not compelled to buy single shows. The content deals need to be better. The device needs to be better integrated with the TV and do more. Ideally, the device should be seamlessly integrated into the TV - so that it is invisible.
The real breakthrough in nailing this gigantic market will be solving the advertising problem. For decades, advertising is stuck in a stone-age dumb model. Advertisers pay too much to push their stuff blindly to all consumers, regardless of demographics, regardless of age or gender. This is bad for advertisers and bad for viewers.
The future is targeted advertising. Relevant to the consumer, laser targeted for the advertiser.
Google have been wanting to do this for a while. But I'd wager that Jobs is keen to drink their milkshake before they have had the first suck.
Jobs will secure better content deals. - And after failing the first time, he will get the hardware right. A tiny A4 powered slab - paid for entirely by content subscription and advertising revenues will potentially have the power to upset the TV applecart in much the same way as the iPod changed music.