The Reinvention of Apple Computer - Page 3

So, um, how large? 42 inches? Resolution? GUI scales to resolution so controls don't keep getting tinier? A revolution in resolution? A true canvas for the digital artist? Huge roll-up displays that compete with costly digital projectors? How about 60 inches?

You are speaking about people buying their first computer. Those who have a 3 year old PC with a decent monitor (and monitors do have a longer lifetime), won't have to shell out some $200 for a monitor they don't need. It is a common argument against AIOs; I hear this sort of thing every day.

And the $1k, $2k, ..., $10k numbers are a psychological barrier to many.

And, btw, does kormac suck (or is it just me?)

"Everything EVERYTHING is going to get an update.

No Crystal ball or magic 8 ball needed here. Of course Apple will update everything, it's what they do. Myself and others have speculated that the AIO iMac will be replaced by something that covers more bases. Making the display an optional and upgradable component of the next Macintosh makes the most sense.

I've predicted that replacing the iBlob with something more elegant and useful seems to be the best course of action and evolution for the iMac. I own (and LOVE) a Cube and would love to see it's return. But Apple has been there, done that, so I don't really see it's coming back. Besides, any make-over of that form factor would be less elegant than the original. The clear plastic case has got to be very expensive to manufacture. I don't think they will go there again.

As I have predicted earlier, I think the only form factor that Apple has not exploited is the pyramid. It offers a timeless elegance that will be seen by Ives as irresistible. It alone offers a form factor that will allow Apple to hang one of it's next generation displays from the apex to maintain the AIO form factor they seem to think is so essential.

Saving money by hanging a standard next generation display, with adjustable arm from the new Macintosh with bundled pricing to make it appealing to customers, will give price points that cover the spectrum from headless to 20" display included, to choose from.

I believe Apple will use the future 12" Powerbook motherboard as the basis for the new Macintosh. Of course it will be powered by a G5, and releasing it first in a desktop will allow it's design to be tested on a large scale before they cram it into a portable. Using a mobo across product lines will save enormous amounts in development and manufacturing costs, something Apple will have to do to keep the price points competitive in today's market. It's a no-brainer going forward.

The pyramid as a form factor also has some significant pluses. Plenty of volume for air cooling and stacking components. A relatively tip-proof platform from which to hang a display, yet great looking if you want to go headless. Entry level buyers can plug in their crappy Dell display and have great upgrades available to them when they want to go with an Apple display. Going this route will reduce barriers to entry for buyers.

"OH yes and "One more thing ..."


Disney is in turmoil right now, and I could envision Eisner's ouster and Steve Jobs' being offered his job as a way to keep Pixar in the Disney fold. Much like his return to Apple via purchase of Next. The only way Disney could keep Pixar would be to buy it, and the only way Steve would do that is if he came along to run things.

If the above scenario came to pass, then I could see Disney buying Apple Corps and maybe others to consolidate a music and movie empire. With Steve Jobs at the helm of both Apple and Disney who knows where that might take us.

Regardless of all that, the iTMS will eventually sign independent artists and labels to make RIAA irrelevant over the long term. (take that you MUDDA's!).

Four way or even 8 way Apple workstations? But of course, as my sig since 1999 has stated, Apple can completely blow away Intel and AMD as well as Sun and SGI with high end powerhouse workstations. I see a 4 CPU PowerStation as inevitable given Apple's interest in the high graphics and music markets.

The 4 CPU workstation will go 8 way when the dual core IBM chips come out. Imagine Maya complete or Mathematica running on one of these puppys.

This is the crux of the problem. It would be a HUGE gamble, but exactly the kind of thing that I could see Steve getting excited about. Would the RDF protect him through the process of talking (conning) the Big 5 into licensing their catalog to the iTMS only to have him turn around and compete directly against them? As both a musician and a Mac user I'd love to think so...

Music is changing, and the Big 5 can't stop it. For 80 years they've had the luxury of a business model built around shipping physical media to brick and mortar stores. The iTMS has already shown this idea is dead. Once that particular stranglehold is gone, then their whole status as middle men is in jeopardy.

Enter Apple. Becoming a music label (whether by acquiring Apple Corp. or not) now gets a lot easier since 100% of the distribution is virtual. Buy a Mac, create your music, upload to iTMS, sell online and split the profits. Everybody wins.

I don't know, it's just crazy enough to work. Steve would LOVE to make Apple Computer and Apple Corp. one and the same and it would shock the world. Isn't that what One Infinite Loop is all about?

The pyramid and...uh, the sphere!!!!

That's right folks, the G5 Disco Ball:

Everything you ever wanted from the G5 in a mirrored sphere enclosure. No need for messy wires, every peripheral will use Bluetooth!

The Apple Projector rumors? ALL TRUE!!! The mirrors that reflect light from the G5 Disco Ball are closely tied with ColorSync and other special software that enables them to reflect all the light beams onto a wall and organizes these colored beams so that a recognizable OS X desktop is seen.

BTW, buying Apple Records would not make Apple (Computer) free to put the entire Beatles collection up on iTunes. About 40% of the Beatles music is now owned by Michael Jackson, not Apple Records.

NeilyB

Everything EVERYTHING is going to get an update.

That's nothing new.

1. G5 XServes: Of course. Nothing unexpected here. Already announced. Expect XServe updates to keep better pace with PowerMac updates for the foreseeable future. 3U 4-processor and 8-processor XServes are in the labs, but its unclear whether these will be released in 2004 (or at all).

The grid is not the solution to every computing problem. So those machienes will be very welcome to Apple's markets in Higher Ed, SciTech and Government.
There is a market for those machienes and for the first time Apple has all the technology it needs to build such a machiene.
Probably is will play out differently than what we expect now.
What if we get dual core smt processors from IBM in 2005. A machiene with 8 simultanious threads would be a dual processor machiene!
Couple that with the multithreaded model of OS X and you have a real winner.

2. PowerMac Updates: All Dual, starting at 2GHz/$1999. New impressive internal specs as well. $1999 for the entry-level tower model? People will surely revolt! Not when they see whats coming next.

Heck where are they???

3. AIO (All In One) iMacs are bye-bye. Take the pod/base of the iMac, chop off the display, redesign it to look uber-cool as only Ives can do, plop in single G5s and impressive (albeit less impressive than PowerMac) internals, and price-points of $999/1.6GHz, $1299/1.8GHz, $1599/2.0GHz. No super-drive or oodles of memory at $999.

This sounds okay, but prices are to high. A G5 at 0.09 micron will cost nearly next to nothing. All the design cost have already be recouped by the PM G5.
One open topic, where will all the ports go? And how ist Apple going to adress the issue of desk real estate. The current iMac is hard to beat in this respect.

5. Display Update #2: Kill me now. Think large. Think ULTIMATE viewing experience.

I have a 22' Cinema Display and while I think it could be even bigger there is a certain sensible limit. Think Fitt's law.

6. PowerBook Updates: Yes. Q1/2004 PowerBook G4s at 1.4, 1.6, and 1.8GHz. Other impressive internals to take advantage of the new IBM-based G4. An even better form factor (is that possible?). New, higher-resolution screens and better video cards across the board. G5 PowerBooks wont appear until late 2004. There are just too many heat and power issues to work out without compromising the portables form factor.

I don't think so.
I doubt Apple will develop a new mobo for an IBM G4+ for just one revision of the PB. As soon as the system controller for the G5 is fabbed at 0.09 micron I expect a PB built around it.
*Maybe* we will see a PB bump with existing Moto G4s in them.
My main concern with PBs right now is their limited battery. They need to ship a higher capacity battery with the PBs.

7. iBook Updates: Yes. Basically a crippled PowerBook.

You hit the nail on the head. iBooks will be last years PBs (12'). That way they save the engineering for a whole line!

8. eMac Updates: But of course! But first, for those who think Apple should abandon this design, forget it. Theres a market that requires this design and is willing to shell out your tax dollars in order to get it.

I think we will see a bump based on Moto G4s and late in the year a redesign with a G5 and a better screen (<- the current one is a shame).

Oh yes. One more thing.

:-)

Well you discribed the situation really well.
I think Apple will always have the best mp3 player around, but they might loose again when the comoditiy manufacturers sell their products to the great unwashed masses through their channels.
I think the solution to the problem is to license the basic hardware and software design of the iPods to the other manufacturers at the lowest cost possible. They need to drive WMA out of the market.
They should open source and standardise their DRM (FairPlay) and allow any music service provider and hardware producer to use it for free.
In case that doesn't work out they have still the option to jump ships and use M$.

I think it would be a phenomenal failiure if Apple bought AppleRecords and Pixar or Disney or Universal.
Except for AppleRecords they could buy or control the others.
I'm very sure that AppleRecords is not for sale. And that means that either you or your sources are bogus.

Let everyone do what they do best. Let the record labels produce the stars of tomorrow and let Apple create the consumer applications of tomorrow.
It really does not work when either one does try to do one thing in the other domain (e.g. Rhapsody in case of the music labels).
Collaboration is the magic word.
The music industry has always worked by collaboration.
Music was never sold directly by the record labels.
The sole thing that changes is the name of the distributor.
That's Apple.

I think you have an interesting point with the independant labels.
Apple should really foster them and ensure that they have the broadest music catalog around.

BTW I'm *very* disappointed, that Apple didn't release anything of the long list for the Pepsi promotion. I consider it highly dumb not to capatilize on 100 million extra clicks on your website.

The one thing that I (especially) dont buy is the prediction that Apple will ditch the AIO iMac. While the role played by the iMac at Apple is less important now than it was, I think that there is far too much brand recognition among ordinary consumers for Apple to discontinue it. Change it? Yes (and there have been many threads about that), but get rid of it? I dont think so. Making a headless option is certainly a strong possibility, but I just cant see them getting rid of the AIO desktop concept.

There's still the eMac for the brand recoignition(?).

IMO the Apple logo is a much stronger brand.

It seems that quite a few people are missing the point about content. Apple are positioning themselves at the centre of the content business.
does anyone even care that apple is the centre for movie trailer downloads? NOW IN NOT SAYING apple is getting into ther movie download market ( as we all know what SJ thinks there ) but i believe that Apple will focus OSX more and more on being very closly intergrated with content services that apple develops rev share deals with. Apple Computer will not buy Apple records... Thats a funny one to me... Remember its just a name and i think apple computer's legal will have a good handle on this one shortly... but Pixar well theres potential for content there dont think full movies think a sitcom length show say 30mins... Think quick push content to the osx desktop ...

As far as HW my guess apple will bring back the dalmation i mac....
Seriously when did anyone come up with hard facts ( A PICTURE )on an upcoming apple product since the pics of the MMD G4 powermac...

I don't think so...

Michael Jackson owns 40% (I'll take your word on that figure) of the PUBLISHING RIGHTS of the Beatles songs which is quite different to owning the Beatles music recordings.

Here is something that sums it up quite well...


Taken from: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a951027.html

Dave

Then, buy him too !

Probably wouldn't cost too much, either.

Debt Debt Debt

thanks DaveGee for clearing that up, i think

Yes. I believe this is "it". The DRM is the secret key hear.

Regarding what Steve Jobs has said about "iPod AV", be careful that you don't make an illogical leap that Steve is opposed to SOME video based product. Just not necessarily iPod. Perhaps a TiVO-like device at home.

Fairplay (Apple's DRM) is the key here. Zoom out. Watch the ENTIRE chess board.

Many say that the record companies will freak out if Apple follows this path... the thing is that they are already freaking out, and they haven't been able to figure out what their business model will be in this new age of the digital hub & broadband Internet. Apple is already leading them in a new direction with iTMS, perhaps that will continue and Mr. Jobs will show them the way to their new business model. The record companies need to find and maximize the value they bring to the modern music industry. If SJ and Apple can pull this off, it could be quite a coup for them... but somebody is going to do it.

Is the new property Apple is looking into purchasing (see front page of AI) the new headquarters for Apple Inc....or am I completely off?

It's HQ for any Apple employees who like Willie Nelson and stuff.

You're off, it's just consolidation of the employees they already have scattered around Austin in various buildings. Being discussed in another thread.

Agreed.

Let's consider that if many years ago someone had suggested that Steve would be buying a special effects software house and wind up producing movies that would blow Disney off the map, everyone here would have laughed heartily. I don't think that buying a label to secure Apples software an hardware is that far fetched. I have an iPod and it's probably 10x the investment I've made in music over the last year. Right now, people are paying a lot for the convenience of accesing their music, but long-term people will just pay for the content. I've got a lot more invested in DVDs than in my DVD player.

I agree that Apple's lead here is not secure long-term. There are different ways of addressing this, but Apple needs to get themselves locked to the content somehow or to outposition MS, which is far from a reasonable strategy. I wouldn't discount this line of thinking at all. In fact, I haven't really seen anyone look forward realistically at the future of the iPod until this.

Faelyns predictions are disturbingly reasonable. I agree that G4 powerbooks are more likely. In spite of low-power G5, I don't think the whole package (memory controller, etc.) will work in the powerbook (see heatpipe reference above). An IBM G3+Altivec+integrated memory controller sounds perfect for a powerbook. The thing that makes me the most skeptical is how well his predictions mirror the things here and over in Ars. The headless iMac could be straight out of a thread over there. But major points for reasonableness and for insight regarding iPod.

Honestly, if I were in charge of apple i would cut the iBook line and the iMac line. The PowerBooks could be made cheaper and already have good price points for the education market. The iMacs have lost there point and no longer serve their purpose. The eMac is the new iMac. The iMac needs to be replaced by a mini PowerMac G5. Something like the cube but cheaper and a little bigger (more expandibility). Apple can sell them seperatly or with good prices including displays. The G4 should be completely replaced by the end of the year as it has been around for way to long.

I realize that the iBook is rather popular so maybe cutting it would be bad idea; however, I have never really understood it. The iMac, however, needs to be cut from the product line, at least in its current form.

People who can afford the top of the line can never understand why someone would want something that's cheaper.

Good point

IMO it would be a big mistake to get rid of Apple's most accessible product. The iBook is cheap, light, performs reasonably well, and has a great form factor. All of the recent switchers I know have bought one. It's also great for educational use.

Why does Joe Average user need spanned display support? DVI output? Backlit keyboards? Huge wads of RAM? None of those things are necessary for the typical user, who types in Word, surfs the net, and listens to MP3s. Don't make them pay for it.

The cheapest PowerBook you can get right now (12" combo drive) is $1599. This is not a good price point for education (or for switchers).

Now, if you want to make PowerBooks available at a lower price, that's a fine idea. But you will end up stripping out some of the features that currently make them 'Power' books. Of course, I could care less what Apple calls their low-cost portable line, as long as they make em cheap and sell em by the truck load.

Probably, but on the other hand Pixar is almost 100% content. They don't really do anything else, so there's no conflict. (Although Renderman did bubble back up recently.)

The difference between Steve owning Pixar and Apple owning Pixar is significant. Steve is just a guy with a lot of money. Apple is a vendor of content creation solutions. You don't want to compete with your market if you can help it. Steve isn't; Apple would be.


There is no lack of content. The weak spot is distribution, and that's where Apple is showing the way. Even if Apple did start or buy a label, their net contribution to the overall market would be tiny, and if they kept their roster exclusive they'd just annoy both artists and customers - artists want distribution (and iTMS currently represents a miniscule percentage of overall sales), and customers were annoyed by having to go to each label's music store to find their favorite artists before iTMS. By and large, consumers don't care about labels. They care about artists. Any imposition of the label into the purchasing process will just drive people away. This is not just a prediction. It's something that's already happened.


Nothing is secure long term, so you don't worry about that. The more you lock yourself into some forecast, the less able you are to react to the market (see Apple's late entry into music), and if Apple can't react to the new, burgeoning and rapidly evolving market for online music then they'll lose their lead.

They've already outpositioned MS, which is currently flailing around and introducing a great deal of noise and confusion into the market and seasoning it with FUD. Apple is ahead. They just have to stay ahead.

Sony is a pretty bad example.

Consumer electronics vendors and content creators have been at loggerheads for decades now, ever since the reel to reel tape. You might recall a landmark Supreme Court case, Sony vs. Universal, over the legality of the VCR. Now, it's true that Sony bought its way into Hollywood to try to turn this antagonism into a smoothly functioning vertical market. It's also true that, instead, they created two factions under the same tent that have been reenacting Sony vs. Universal ever since. The two are separated by a lot more than just the world's largest ocean. I've read recently that Sony Japan has been nursing the idea of bailing out of Hollywood altogether and going back to its roots.

But Apple isn't so much a consumer electronics company (obvious exception: the iPod). What it is is a provider of solutions for content creation. It's true that Sony offers a lot of hardware for content creation as well, but Apple is much smaller, just now breaking into video in a big way, and much more dependent on the content creation market; they, unlike Sony, can't afford to piss off the content professionals without very serious consequences.

While they're still getting people on board, they can't turn around and say, "oh, by the way, we're going to try to run you out of business." I can see Apple cutting a deal with Apple Records, and making a deal that buries the hatchet permanently - and maybe iTMS will get a Beatles exclusive for a while. That's the only reason I can see for Apple buying Apple Records. I don't see it as given that Apple Records will sell itself, either.

Faeylyn's posts are getting more and more ordinary and seemingly off the mark.

Apple's professional market is content creation. You know, publishing, Photoshop, DV, music... This is so true that people who know nothing else about Macs know that they're "good for graphics". If you go to Berklee College of Music, it's Macs wall to wall. Ditto any major recording studio. There are Macs in Electronic Arts doing all the 2D art and graphics and layout for all those PC-only game titles. Right now Apple is virtually synonymous with content creation. The only exceptions are markets that they're currently trying to get into - so this is becoming more true, not less.

Content creation is a huge, huge chunk of Apple's sales. Far more than Sony's stake, at least relative to the sizes of the companies. Apple's purchases of Logic, Shake, and what became Final Cut Pro show that they want to be even more deeply involved in content creation.

I don't offer specifics about what the consequences are because they're impossible to know. But if Sony pisses off video professionals, they lose a few high-end camera sales. If Apple does, they lose the market they've gained a foothold in, and that they want to be in, and all of a sudden they're back to where they were in '97. Their situation is not analogous to Sony's in any way that I can see.


Initially. But if they're going to run an actual label, like some people are talking about, and give it favored access to iTMS, like some people are talking about, then the industry has a problem. The Big 5 have a delicately balanced system supporting their perilously inefficient business models. They don't want it disturbed. Now, I'd love to see that system shaken up, but Apple can do that merely by giving the smaller, better-run labels an even shot at distribution (always the bugbear of smaller labels). They're already doing that.

If it begins and ends at Apple buying Apple Records and putting Beatles stuff online, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with Apple becoming an active record label. I don't think they want to go there.


Sony wasn't in the content creation market when they did, so they weren't competing with their customers.

Also, Sony's purchase has not done at all well for them. Something else Apple needs to consider. They don't need to bring a war in-house, especially not one that's older than they are.


No, because the labels all use Macs and Logic to make music, and to design the packaging for their product. The movie studios didn't all use Sonys to make movies. That's the huge, crucial difference.

What does that even mean?

Yeah, one of the top ten research institutions in the world, also responsible for producing a man named Jeff Raskin, one of the lead engineers on the original Macintosh team--so there is an Apple history and presence at Penn State still. There are also many, many Mac labs considering the 43,000 students on campus.

Also, I have an iPod and use the iTMS. Napster allows for streaming and pay downloading, **** it if I'm gonna put coin in Roxio's pocket.

Yeah, I think we've learned by now that these emotional reponses don't actually exist in companies. Apple works with MS and MS with Apple because it's profitable to do so. IBM and AMD work together because it's profitable to do so. Ford and GM work together because it's profitable to do so.

So long as Apple doesn't impact the financials of the labels or limit their ability to operate, they really won't care. If Apple-the-hardware-and-software-company doesn't disturb the labels, they won't drop them due to Apple-the-content-creator.

Now, if Apple buys a label and only offers content in AAC and doesn't restrict/tax the ability of other labels to offer in AAC or impede their ability to offer in WMP or anything else, why on earth should they care? Yeah, they might be annoyed that Apple's decision keeps them in AAC when they might prefer WMP only, but that could happen even without Apple being involved. What'll *really* piss off the other labels is if Apple really dicks with the contract/distribution system, but that's them being pissed off with a label breaking ranks, not a label being in with a tech company. That, I believe, is a real possibility, BTW, but really has nothing to do with Apple-the-hardware-and-software-company.

Dudes,

Apple is not getting into content creation. It does not benefit their core model, at all. If Apple buys Apple records ( by kidnapping and brainwashing Paul, Ringo, Yoko and the Harrison estate) AND if they offer exclusive content for the Beatles recordings this will offer them no benefit whatsoever - besides the royalties from the records played on radio.

And let me say again - they happen to have the same name is all. Beyond that and the legal issues it has created, there is NO relationship between Apple computer and Apple records, and the latter is privately owned.

And let me say this: If Apple does buy exclusive Beatles content and make it only available on iTunes and banned from Radio ( or whatever "exclusive" means) they will succeed in annoying everybody else on other platforms, and have proven themselves a corporate monopoly in other people's eyes. If they do have 70% of the music download market and they abuse that position they will earn the respect of no one - and Beatles fans are not going to flock to buying a mac or using iTunes, but will launch a campaign against Apple.

What for instance - if this happens - will Apple do about the aging Beatles demographics who want to replace their vinyl or lost Beatles CD's with new versions. Is Apple going to get into the CD printing and distribution business - this is what labels do, right? Or will Apple just stop producing hard copies of Beatles records and urge the 60 years olds to get on a computer, for chrissakes.

This is all made up nonsense. It will never happen.

asdasd is absolutely on the button. This Apple 'production company' schtik is nonsense and goes against every business strategy that Steve believes in. The last thing Apple will ever do is create a 'conglomerate'. Read Tom Peters; he and Steve are buddies.

[edit: Sorry to anyone reading: I'm using OW5, and I keep forgetting that it really hates text fields, so I had to submit this mid-composition in order to switch browsers. -Amorph]


1) I love the pretense that money turns human beings into objective robots. That transformation is, if anything, miraculous when it does happen.

2) It's not an emotional reaction. If you have a supplier:customer relationship between two customers, and the supplier suddenly becomes a competitor, then the customer can no longer assume that the supplier will be committed to supplying their best stuff. We're already seeing this with Apple: Logic is shipping with internal frameworks to work around holes in CoreAudio that are preventing other companies from shipping their flagship audio software. It's not going over well.

3) I've seen exactly this happen in other industries. Remo lost lots of accounts as a drumhead supplier when they rolled out their own drums. In fact, businesses actually sprang into existence to fill the gap. It's flatly obvious that it's unwise to depend on a competitor for the materials and equipment you need in order to maintain a competitive edge.


Apple, IBM and MS entered into the agreements they have knowing already that they were working with competitors. Ford and GM entered into their agreements knowing for decades that they were competitors.

Those examples have even less relevance to Apple-as-publisher than Sony does. Apple as publisher changes the fundamental relationship between Apple itself and its bedrock professional market.


Right, and all of a sudden there's a big if there, isn't there? Adobe's been talking this line for a while now. Now, you or I could argue that they're wrong, but development cancelled and goodwill lost because of fear rather than fact is still development cancelled and goodwill lost.

If Apple stays where they are now, there is no if. Apple only impacts the financials of the labels positively, enhances their ability to operate, etc. The relationship is completely unambiguous as it stands.


If you had any idea what insane lengths record companies went to to railroad artists and control markets, you might think twice before asking that. The big 5 are not known for being reasonable.

That said, you know why the content companies have kept MS at arm's length? Because they don't trust MS. Why? Because MS is too aggressive and too competitive. They don't consider MS a reliable partner. They do consider Apple reliable, however, because Apple has for years done nothing but supply them with the best stuff available to create and publish content.


Apple is already "dicking with" the contractual and distribution systems, but they can do this because they've earned the trust of the label heads. If they lose that trust, they lose a lot of the power they have to get the contractual and distribution agreements that have powered iTMS' success up to this point.

The fact that he is on iTunes floored me. The revolution has begun. I think your post my be the most significant in this thread.

Looks like he got there the same way my band did:

Brad Sucks on CD Baby.

8)