Apple plans mystery "product transition" before September's end - Page 9

As a way of making fun of your mistake, I mischievously wrote...

"Was this OS X version 6 or OS X version 7 ? "

So then you said...


lol

Anyway...

You really ought to explain your points, instead of just writing assertions.

As for the clones, some of them sucked, but so did Apple hardware at the time. The clones were competing with Apple on its home PowerPC hardware. At that point in time Jobs *had* to kill off the clones because they were drinking Apple's milkshake.

But I don't know if you have noticed, but things have changed a bit since then.

Apple is now a powerful and successful company. It makes standard commodity PC hardware like everyone else. Everyone buys their chips from the same manufacturer. Everyone gets their kit glued together in the same Chinese factories.

Apple's hardware is differentiated by much higher design standards. It can then sell the computers at a higher premium and gets a better profit margin than most.

But there are computer hardware markets that Apple does not want to go into.
Now either Apple rolls over and hands that entire sector to Microsoft. Or it permits licensees to sell OS X pre installed on their hardware.

Business, dude, is war.
When Apple was a broken and ineffective hardware manufacturer, its only choice was to cease licensing to give it's uncompetitive hardware a fighting chance.

Apple is a much fitter company now. Microsoft is looking weak and flabby. A full-on assault on Vista couldn't be more timely. Apple would be able to cherry pick the best licensees and specify the right hardware to approve.

Times have changed.

C.

Trboyden's idea that the transition may involve virtualization has the virtue of accounting for the absence of leaks about this transition. (I.e., if customers are going to be given a free disk, that would be something that outside hardware suppliers would be unaware of.) If Apple were to bundle either Parallels or VMware's product with their OS, it would cost them say $25+ per sale. But it would make it possible for Apple to produce TV ads showing an Apple user switching from Windows to Leopard and back again at the touch of a button. (Or the tap of a screen.) They can't do that now. It would be worth a lower margin to be able to make such an appealing pitch, because they'd make it up in volume.

PS: Also, in order to ensure that virtualization works without delay and paging, they may raise the minimum amount of RAM that's in their computers (e.g., to 2G), without raising the price. That would impact their margins.

PPS: Say, you don't think they might be bundling Vista as well?!? Or instead!?!

I'd really like an Air. Because I want a very light notebook I can toss into my bag.

But some of the Wind-a-likes have this spec...

80Gb Hard drive (same as Air)
1.6GHz Atom (only one core)
2GB Memory (same as Air)
10" screen with huge bezel vs 13" screen with huge bezel.
1Kg weight. (Lighter than Air!
Edge-to-edge keyboard.
802.11n (same)
1/4 the price.

The Air is much prettier. But this is no slamdunk.

C.

That's assuming that there would be little cannabolization. I disagree with that assumption. Apple's previous clone experience resulted in significant cannabolization. Absent any other evidence, think we'd see similar results today.


Except that Apple doesn't have to share the profit with a middle man. When Dell sells a computer, they need to have enough profit margin to pay for the Vista license. Apple gets to keep it all to themselves. That's an efficiency (no middle men) that Apple has over the Windows world.

This is a really interesting idea. But how many more chips would it take to make every Mac a PC as well, so it could run Windows without virtualization? Of course, you'd want to keep the Windows partition thoroughly sandboxed. This wouldn't add all that much to the hardware cost, though, and it wouldn't make sense (or affect earnings that much) unless they were bundling a copy of Vista with it. If they were signing an OEM license to sell Windows, we'd know about it by now. Never Mind!

The Surface Computer could be mounted in the wall, or be under a transparent sheet that could be cleaned or replaced. The virtue of it is that diners could order large-size items just by tapping on pictures of them--there'd be no need for a waiter to get involved.

And the restaurant application isn't the only one. David Pogue's NYT review lists half a dozen, as does the Popular Mechanics review. These are rich markets in the sense that the buyers are large companies that would get a good return, even at $10K. That's obviously a skim-the-cream price that would come down.

Sorry, but I think you are the one who has it wrong. The reason Apple "promotes" open standards is because it is cheaper for them than licensing third party software. It has nothing to do with Apple wanting to create an open environment; it's all about cost savings that in turn translate into larger profits. Once you slap Fairplay DRM on top of an iTunes purchase that file is essentially a proprietary format regardless of its AAC or MP4 basis.

Though the rest of what you said about surrendering control is also very valid reasoning. As for Adobe or Microsoft crippling their Mac software, I just don't buy that and it sounds more like conspiracy theory nonsense. If you make crap software, people WILL find alternatives.

Apple's hardware has never "sucked." While they were lazy and unfocused at that time, they never lost money. The computers they made were not the junk PC clones, they were simply outdated.


Alright, a few things here. While Apple's switch to Intel may have made cloning by rivals easier, their recent acquisition of PA Semi shows they're interested in differentiating their products through hardware again (because they are primarily a hardware company). Once custom PA Semi chips make their way into Apple's systems, PC vendors like Dell and HP will be out of luck. Also, Apple doesn't just go with what others are using right now. They pick and choose from good manufacturers that produce reliable, energy efficient components.

Meanwhile, PC hardware vendors are still selling power hungry, ugly, run of the mill desktop towers. Dell is not a good hardware vendor, nor is HP. That's why Apple's outpacing them 3 to 1. Apple has no interest in jumping on the sinking ship that is desktop PCs. Desktop Linux has a better chance there as it can run on almost anything and Linux licenses cost much less than Windows licenses

Also, as most people know, the Overpriced Mac Myth is just that, a myth. When you spec-out most Windows desktops and laptops, they end up being around the same price or more than the Mac they're competing against. Of course, those figures don't even factor in the value of a cohesive hardware-software device made by one company, which the competition can't hope to offer any time soon.

I don't think it's a conspiracy (well, in the case of Microsoft: yeah, I do) but it is an observed fact that the Mac versions of MS and Adobe's applications blow chunks. Whether that's deliberate, or because they can't be bothered to do any better on a platform that represents a very small portion of their sales is up for debate.

yeah oops. got me on that one.

About me backing up my assertions, well I did that several posts back, and so did others. At this point it's just meh vs meh. Instead, I bet that Apple will NOT license OSX. So...if apple don't do this, say, by the end of 2009. I win and get 10^10 e-penis points.

Oh and if Apple do start licensing OSX, you win and therefore get an e-cookie.

I am fairly sure that Apple will release a Mac Book Air with a smaller screen sometime soon and this could well be one of the product transitions being talked about. The world has started buying ultra-portables and Apple need to get on board and release on of there own.

So I predict a Mac Book Air with an 11" screen that will sell for $800 and become the first mass-market Apple Notebook, it could and should take at least 30% of the ultra-portable market by Christmas.

But I still want my new Mac Mini, or Ultra-Apple TV, or iBlue-Ray player or whatever you are going to call it. Hurry up!!!!

Has anyone given any thought to the usability issues involved with this idea? Making users reach over their keyboards to touch the screen when the mouse would work just as well seems to be ... misguided.

Adding multi-touch to hand held products makes sense. Your hands are right there already, why not use them? A laptop, a tablet, ipod, iphone, sure thing. However, I do not carry my Cinema Display around with me. I don't hold it in my lap while watching television, and I don't carry it out onto the deck. Maybe I'm missing something here, but adding touch screen capabilities to the Cinema Display / iMac will create all sorts of ergonomic and usability issues that Apple should avoid.

What if the 'folio was able to access your mac for more computing power? Kind of like your own personal computing cloud. More speed, etc. Or if it could net boot a more capable version of the OS when connected to your network, but used a less heavy version when away from the parent network?

And I agree, there's some great ideas popping up around here.

I never said Apple "wanted" to "create an open environment." They promote open standards so companies like Microsoft can't tie up media to Windows, as they've tried with Janus DRM, WMA, WMV. It's in their interest to keep things truly interoperable. Also, Apple's FairPlay was created to get the weary music studios onto the iTunes store. It can be easily removed by burning a CD of the FairPlay encrypted songs and re-importing them into iTunes.


It's no conspiracy, you can see for yourself. Flash is very sluggish on Macs compared to the Windows version. Microsoft's Mac Office has always been terrible compared to the Windows suite. Whether that intentional, laziness, or a bit of both is obviously unknown; that's why I said likely.

Apple famously partnered with Microsoft to provide a competent spreadsheet app (Excel) in the mid to late 1980's that made them dependent on third party support and inadvertently helped Microsoft get the monopolistic position it holds today.

Here's an article on the subject:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/0...fice-monopoly/

Cannibalization of Apples *hardware* would only occur if Apple's hardware was not competitive.
I'd say it is competitive, and its the unique design of the hardware which makes it so.

Saying "cannibalization would occur" is like saying Apple's hardware still isn't good enough.

C.

Yes. Exactly!
If Apple have credible and differentiated hardware products, they have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO LOSE FROM LICENSING!


You are confusing two different things.

Apple's current differentiated hardware creates a floor. It's not going to put its hardware beneath that floor. There are hardware products it does not want to make. Let Apple (the hardware company) stay in the profitable place.

BUT

There is no reason not to sell *software* into that market.
There is no reason to hand that massive sector over to Microsoft without a fight.


Did you know that Microsoft actually makes money by selling the OS to computers that it does not make. Apple could do that too.

Apple could never achieve 50% hardware share. But with licensing, it could achieve a 50% OS share.

C.

Please re-read my earlier posts. In the categories that Apple has offerings, we agree that they are very competitive. In the sub $1000 category, Apple is not competitive because their only offering (the mini) is too expensive for what it offers (my opinion) and they have no laptop offering. In the mini-tower category, Apple is not competitive because they have none. In the sub-notebook category, they are not competitive because they have none (I wouldn't consider the Air a sub-notebook). To think that if a clone vendor offered options in these later three categories it would not cannibalize Apple's sales in the areas that it does have offerings is, I think, a poor assumption.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the validity of the assumption.

I think it likely that no one is still reading this, but on the off chance you are: I say the MBA becomes the pro laptop. The Macbook Pro begins going for MacBook prices and is called the MacBook. The MacBook Light debuts as a tablet.

iTouch+

It would be a bit larger then the iPod touch and would have a built-in GPS like the iPhone. There's a reason turn-by-turn GPS navigation is not allowed for the iPhone. I suspect it is because they are partnering with someone to deliver it. If not on the iPhone, on what? This device would have a windshield mount for the car and an iMac style dock for home. In hand, it would be a great ebook reader (Kindle killer) and provide a decent sized web browser via wifi. This will create another entry point to bring regular, i.e. non-technical, consumers into the Apple fold.

You're taking my points out of context to prove your own points. No offense, but you have to consider everything I've said.

Apple most certainly would lose hardware sales by licensing Mac OS X out to third party hardware vendors. People will buy a $300 Dell instead of a $500 Mac mini, they'll buy a $1000 HP tower instead of a Mac Pro or iMac, they could even buy a $1200 Acer instead of a $1100 MacBook because "well I like the color blue more than black or white."



That massive sector is STAGNANT. The market is OVER-SATURATED by crummy desktop tower PCs. Apple has NO INTEREST IN REVIVING THAT MARKET. All but the Mac Pro are basically running on laptop hardware. Mobile platforms are the future and are profitable. Apple doesn't jump into established markets like Microsoft and try to dominate. They release products in emerging markets with competition they can easily trounce, like they have with the iPhone, like they did with the iPod.



It's funny, Steve Jobs noted either in an interview or during a keynote that Apple will likely never reach 50% parity with Windows PCs. I believe he said not even 30%. He knows they don't need to take on the insurmountable global PC desktop install base. Apple is dominant in the entertainment creation industry, are doing great in the education market, and are aiming to get a good portion of the CONSUMER MARKET, the cream of the crop. They are on their way to displacing RIM's established BlackBerry with their iPhone that's hardly been out a year.

Yes, a "transition" here is an evolution not a revolution. Whether it's a game changing phase shift depends on how extensive the makeover - at minimum, sure to be cosmetic and environmental improvements as well as updating the processors. New feature for macbook would be the oversized touchpad.

MobileMe, iPhone, MB's, mail pop and push, going into the business world: a solid, cheep, easy to configure and use, multipurpose server.

Maybe Apple will come out with another Pro computer or software...much of Apple's success has been consumer-driven the past 10 years or so.

I think Apple is going to kill iPod Classic, replacing it with iPod Touch. This would be a "product transition" which would likely not be popular or cost effective at first, but would ultimately move many people to their Touch platform -- opening up a HUGE world for App Store, etc. and lots of future revenue. This would also explain the statement that the new product would include "technologies and features that others can't match." In fact, no other manufacturer is offering such a vastly scalable, multitouch platform disguised as a music player.

I think you are spot on, Bret. It's not rocket science. The next question is what is the really new thing, and that looks like super touch-tablet, aggressively priced.

If Apple licenses OSX it will be cannibalised. But it's not an all or nothing licensing... Apple could choose just to license to HP and just in their cheap home desktop area (sub $1000?) - if it wanted. Although $129 is not the price of OSX (it is the price of an upgrade from whatever version is on your Mac, but a licensing deal might also be much cheaper), Apple would still make a high return on whatever is paid for OSX.

Instead of making $155 on a $599 MacMini (35%), it might make $80 on a HP. The question is whether it would sell twice as many.


With Apple, OSX is a hidden cost. With HP, Windows is a listed cost. If Apple considered that OSX was a $130 cost on every Mac, their 35% margin on hardware would drop to 20% or something (with the side effect that OSX would show as far more profitable!). Overall profit would be unchanged, it's just how it's listed.

If anyone releases a touch screen and expects us to throw away the mouse, it will fail.

Single touch actions are usually quicker and easier with a mouse. A small flick of the wrist versus whole arm movement. Mice are also more accurate for using menus and selecting small icons etc. But you make the wrong assumption that the touch screen would be used identically to a mouse.

The touch screen will substantially change how people use their computers - if Apple created a touch iMac with touch OS (with the basic thoughts we have as to how it'd be used), then sat 10 users in front of them and watched what they did, Apple would go away with many changes. When they sit 10 new users in front of their modified system, they'll again go away with many changes and discoveries. Do that 3 or 4 times, combined with some creative and way out ideas they'd need to test, and they'll come up with a different way of interacting.

I'm not saying they'll release touch screens and a new interaction model But they may know enough to say it's a big change coming, and if they do release touch screens and come up with a new interface in 18 months then a substantial number of current users will have the hardware ready to go.

The main/obvious difference in screens and mice is multitouch. A mouse can't simulate 2 points, just one. The iPhone allows pinching for zoom (interesting when combined with OSX resolution independence?), and allows photos to be rotated by twisting the photo. Coverflow can work with a mouse or finger so it's not a game changer (though currently the finger pushes left while the mouse needs to click right!). Another difference is that a touch screen doesn't MOVE the pointer to the correct place before you do something with it - it is immediately in the right place.

Perhaps a touch interface will hide the elevator bar entirely? Instead just put 2 fingers on the onscreen-document and push it.

Touch is plausible. Remember until we saw the Mac, the mouse didn't make sense (and even then many people thought it was just a toy).

I disagree. Your argument is basically that Apple hardware is not competitive. That's patently not true.

If Apple stopped making OS X today, which Apple hardware would continue to sell on the merits of the hardware alone? The Mac Mini is a perfect silent micro PC. The iMac is the best in class AiO. The Air is unique. The Pro is still pretty hard to beat. Only the MacBook is fairly generic.
If someone wants a $300 WallMart PC - they don't buy a Mac Mini. They buy the $300 tin box.

In 1996 the cannibalization argument was true. But with the current Apple line up, it's bullshit. It's almost as if someone designed the current product range that way!


Are you unable to read? It does not matter.

The commoditized low-profit HARDWARE MARKET should not be entered by Apple. They don't want to go there with their nice fancy hardware. No one is suggesting they should.

The important thing is the OS MARKET. There are millions of these machines being sold every week. And with each sale they send a big fat check to Microsoft.

Where is it written that this money belongs to Microsoft? Is there some hidden commandment carved on Apple's HQ which reads. "Touch ye not the revenues of Redmond"?


C.

$130 does give you the full Mac OS X. These aren't the reinstall discs that ship with Macs, they're the real deal. You don't need to buy Tiger to upgrade from Panther to Leopard. You just go straight to Leopard. When Snow Leopard ships next year, Tiger users on Intel Macs won't have to first buy Leopard and then buy Snow Leopard.

Don't they have to send a big fat check to Microsoft whether they use the OS or not? And what OEM is going to brave the Wrath of Redmond by installing OS X on their machines?


The point is, somebody (not necessarily you) bought a Mac in the first place with its first version of OS X. When you buy a shrink-wrapped box, it's an upgrade to install on that already paid-for machine. It doesn't matter if you skip a version, that's a red herring if I ever saw one. Retail copies of OS X would be $400 like Vista Ultimate, if this weren't the case. This is also what Psystar is doing wrong: selling an OS upgrade without anyone having bought the initial copy (which Apple only sells with a computer purchase.)

Why is it that you only have 11 posts over the past three years, while jackasses like Rot'nApple have hundreds?

Every Tiger buyer already has OSX on their Mac. When Snow Leopard ships next year, every buyer will have some previous version of OSX on their system. With normal applications it is possible that a buyer has NEVER had a previous version, and this is also possible with Windows.

As I said - it's all a matter of perspective.


No, my argument is basically that if 1000 people like the Mac Mini, and now they have an option of a HP at the same price, some of those 1000 people are likely to get the HP instead. Conversely, it's possible that some people will get interested in the HP with OSX who never wanted Apple who might change their mind and get something Apple. But the first is more likely.

I don't know if it'll be 5 people in 1000, or 50, or 500... I suspect the number is reasonably low but I don't know. I do know that there will always be a portion of people that will take another choice, when presented.

Eesh! You are suggesting Apple enter and try to revive the entrenched beige-box PC market by selling Mac OS X as an alternative to Windows. The statement of yours that I bolded shows you're not quite getting what the problem is. Microsoft has a MONOPOLISTIC POSITION THANKS TO EXCLUSIVE, ANTI-COMPETITIVE, ANTI-CONSUMER OEM LICENSING DEALS WITH THIRD PARTY HARDWARE VENDORS. MICROSOFT MAKES 90% OF THEIR MONEY FROM THESE GUARANTEED OEM WINDOWS LICENSES, NOT FROM SALES OF STANDALONE WINDOWS LICENSES!!

Similarly, Apple makes next to nothing on standalone Mac OS X licenses. Apple can't bundle their OS with Apple-certified third party hardware vendors because that's both illegal and nearly impossible, which is why desktop Linux distros haven't made any major headway. Microsoft is breaking the law by bundling their software, the U.S. government simply hasn't intervened. Software and hardware are treated differently by people, which is why Microsoft sees so few lawsuits about their back-door Windows software bundling while Apple is constantly having lawsuits filed against its hardware products. There's a mental disconnect between hard/tangible and soft/electronic intellectual properties.

I also was certainly not making the argument that Apple's hardware is not competitive, thus they shouldn't license out their OS to avoid being overshadowed by Mac OS X running Dells. That's crazy. The reason people would do as I said is because people aren't that smart. They'd look at prices and say, "well both are stamped with Apple's approval, I don't mind having a less than elegant desktop tower/laptop. I'll go with the cheap HP." PC desktop sales are stagnating, as I mentioned before. It's an over-saturated market. So, most desktop PC users aren't interested in buying yet another desktop PC, regardless if it's running Windows Vista or XP, Linux, or Mac OS X. That leaves Apple to sell Mac OS X as an alternative operating system on its own, not bundled with certified hardware.

Apple makes next to nothing selling standalone Mac OS X licenses to their own generally more tech savvy Mac users, let alone trying to sell to the millions of indifferent Windows users who just want Windows to browse the internet and write emails in Outlook. Apple is shooting for the competitive consumer market that's fed up with Windows and wants something different and better. People are MUCH more likely to buy a new computer - a new piece of hardware - because everyone knows (including Apple) that people are loathe to pay for software.

That's why iPod touch owners bitch and moan about major software updates that iPhone users also pay over the length of their far more expensive cellular contracts. That's why millions are OK with stealing music online, but would never consider robbing a record store. People would likely steal OS X before they'd buy it, just as many steal Windows.

While we're on technology that competitors can't match:

This is a very long shot, but could Apple secretly have an exclusive for some length of time on EEstor's hypercapacitors? ZENN Motors says they're going to have a car on sale in fall of next year; that means they have to have prototypes running around right now. Both EEstor and Apple's App Store are backed by Kleiner, Perkins; maybe they put the deal together? Of course, every story about EEstor is met with a blizzard of raving about how it can't possibly work, it's a scam, nothing but "hype," etc., etc. (Since EEstor actually says next to nothing, this is the new definition of hype that was leveled against Apple on the runup to the iPhone.)

Apple can't really keep things as secret as they used to, since now they buy the same commodity parts as everybody else, but dealing with another super-secretive outfit to come up with a product that will blindside everybody--that sounds much more like the Apple we used to know!

While the idea of rental software is interesting, are you saying that Fairplay is ineffective? Also... I don't think a security chip would be a substantial cost.

If Apple does allow this kind of model some day, it's not just good for rental. You could BUY something like FilemakerPro and register it to your MobileMe account - so that you can move between machines and sync your dashboard apps & taskbar - and even the actual applications themselves.

No, the Centris 610 sucked the day I bought it.

that would be awesome. i highly doubt that will be the september suprise. i wish though

Right! There are plenty of consumers out there that don't give a sh*t about style. They're called Dell customers. These beige tin boxes that Mac fanboys love to bash have a place (a very big place, in fact) in the market.

What I've found is that consumers who use Macs fall in love with the OS. Yes, Apple's industrial design rocks. No doubt. But there are a lot of people who put computers next to their desks and don't care what they look like.

Case in point: Apple couldn't deliver a competitive price on 17" iMacs for a large lab (even using refurbed units). Yes, the purchasing authority knew we could dual purpose that lab (thus effectively double booking it) by installing bootcamp. But, Dell came in something like $300 a unit cheaper, and running Windows apps was the priority. So guess what? Dell won the bid. Even though the PA recognized the Mac was A) technically superior and B) sweet to look at, price won. It generally does in a business setting. Thus color the boxes beige.

the new product is a touch screen keyboard.
The reason it's also a transition is that people will need snow lepard to make it work.

The reason snow leapod is not going to appear much different is that the main addition will be a behind the scenes addition of touch control of the os

The reduced profit margin is to help people take up the new keyboard knowing that it will be substatially dearer than a standard keyboard and mouse

My guess at a name would be iSlate

It will also feature inkwell for written input and act as a basic graphics tablet