Apple plans mystery "product transition" before September's end - Page 10

It's just me, but i think the OS is one of the biggest things separating a Mac from a PC. Apple would be selling out if they offered it on PCs.

good idea, but snow leopord isn't coming out until next summer. this is a new product for september

Hmm, forgot about the Centris. Those were introduced during the mid 90's by John Sculley's successor, Michael Spindler, who apparently tried to imitate Sony's computers by releasing ranges of Mac hardware under a variety of vaguely Latin sounding names–Quadra, Centris, and Performa–and a series of confusing, nondescript model numbers. Haha, and he's responsible for Apple's first and last failed attempt to license the Mac OS to other hardware makers, including APS, Bandai, DayStar, Motorola, Pioneer, Power Computing, Radius, and UMAX. Big surprise.

I'm paraphrasing from an RDM article, which also notes:
That effort skimmed off the cream of Apple’s profitability and handed it to the cloners, leaving Apple to service the low end of the market at Sears with its Performas while also funding the development of nearly profitless Mac System Software to support an increasingly wide range of hardware.

Link:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/0...-x-on-powerpc/



Yes, precisely! And that market is not one Apple can, nor wants to "conquer," or compete in. More importantly, they don't need to. They can still be extremely successful with the consumer space that's frustrated by Windows, in entertainment production, higher education (and increasingly, K-12), science, and of course, the iPod and the new iPhone WiFi mobile platforms are highly desirable, regardless of the buyer's computer operating system.

"In the months ahead..."

Anyone consider that this might not refer to an imminent product release? Like... maybe 6 months from now?

I think chip-supported rental software would be needed to get the big boys in software to offer their products on that basis. They'd be too wary otherwise. I'm glad you can envisage another use for such a chip--I think it would be wonderful if Apple offered it. (It would also benefit them, by encouraging more software vendors to port their products--since there'd be a low marketing expense. Products would be downloaded free from an Apple Ap Store.)

I agree it's hard to see that a chip would add much cost. But maybe what they've done is license someone's anti-virus, anti-malware code and bundled it, perhaps by putting it on a chip. Or maybe onto an unused "core." I like the idea of some sort of bundled software because it's the sort of thing that meets the constraints of the Apple exec's statement. It's transitional (a product enhancement) that applies across a major product range and that will differentiate Apple from competitors (cloners in particular I imagine), and that will be hard or impossible to copy (especially if they've got an exclusive deal with the software vendor). Also, I think a bundled software deal would be a lot easier to keep secret than any sort of major hardware upgrade across all product lines.

No other Apple product can come close in their arsenal that would affect margins that much. If you look at the future the Moble internet device will be like a wallet in the future. Apple wants this everywhere. I think IPod Touch becomes the only Ipod execept for maybe shuffe. Prediction: huge price drop to make IPod Touch mainstream. 8GB $99 16GB $149 32GB $199 64GB $249. Game over.

What, so we can't have a Nano sized touch? What was that scifi show where the guy had a mainframe computer hidden in his credit card...?

I wrote this yesterday and something stuffed up.. I somehow still have the post ... with some updates

Speaking about an iTablet - I think (unlike azhoops) that Apple will be having trouble with the iPod Touch.

It all comes down to the "subsidised" iPhone versus an "unsubsidised iPod Touch". Naturally the iPhone costs more for Apple to produce than the iPod touch. The maths was easy last year - $100 extra for an iPhone versus the iPod Touch of the same size. Now, it appears that the RRP for an iPhone 3G would be about $800 if it was unlocked and off contract - but it's on contract and selling for $299. In some countries its free on plans, others have higher costs. Experience tells us people don't think about the monthly fee as much as the upfront cost.

So to many people the iPod Touch looks expensive now... why not get the iPhone? I don't know if the touch will survive once the iPhone shortages are handled (let alone be able to replace the entire iPod range as Azhoops thinks). One answer is for Apple to make the touch cheaper - though then they'll lose iPhone sales and AT&T is rewarding them nicely (and it doesn't really lock out competitors... does it?). The other is for them to re-invent the iPod Touch - make it bigger (either 1.5 times the size or double), add pen input, but still use the iPhone OS. They could sell that as a significantly different product to the iPhone, a different market, but they would have to price it at a much lower margin to make it appealing, especially in the early days.

The Tablet could be the mystery product. It is a transition product (from the iPod Touch), it would require a lower cost to gain traction, and if Apple did it right it could sell enough to make an impact on margin. I think the possibility is small, but it's there.

no, no ,no. the whole point of the iphone-ipod touch is there is no pen/stylus or whatever, a pen ruins the beauty of it but bigger maybe. i agree that a bigger ipod touch would be transitionary but there still is the whole thing about shutting out the market. ipod already has 90% of the market. what more do they need to shut out? i think the product is going to be elsewhere.

end of internal harddrive in consumer products.
usage of SSD, TimeCapsule/'Homeserver' and The Cloud ..

So what you are saying is..

"For all those millions of consumers out there, without the taste or decency to purchase proper Apple equipment. It should be their fate to endure the horrors of Windows. And Microsoft is entitled to their filthy tasteless cash. And we have a better MP3 player to boot!" We need them not!"

I counter with...

"Apple's hardware sales are solid, and its product range is profitable. That profit is not based on an OS X lock-in but is because its hardware is good enough to hold its own in the market. We all agree it would make no sense to go down-market with hardware.
But..
Restricting OS X to Apple-only hardware is now a bad thing. It is limiting Apple's growth as a software company. And it hands a de-facto victory to Microsoft."

At this precise moment in time, the dis-satisfaction with Microsoft amongst hardware vendors is at a peak. Apple could negotiate very favorable licensing terms because hardware manufacturers are simply desperate to give Microsoft a bloody nose.

A straight OS-X vs. Vista showdown would be much more interesting if Apple didn't have one hand tied behind its back.

There's only one reason to hold back and that is the cannibalization argument.
And I don't buy it. In fact, in time, if Apples OS share increased, its hardware sales would be pulled up too. As long as they don't go back to the Centris. (cough Macbook)

C.

From everything i've read on this and other websites that seek to predict Apple's next moves, i think the product transition will consist of the following:

• New MacBook Pros (possibly including a 13" version)
  
• New MacBooks (sold at a sub-$1,000 price)
  
• new MacMini (also sold at an attractive price)
  
• A further price cut for the MacBook Air

I don't believe a tablet PC (MacFolio) will arrive before January 2009.

I don't believe that SSDs are yet ready for prime time, but I certainly expect them to be added as cost options to most product lines.

I don't think that the MacBook Pros will come in at a price below existing models in case they are perceived to be inferior to the existing models.

i believe that what will most enable Apple to drive unit sales is by offering its new MacBook and MacMini at extremely attractive prices. in other words they will sacrifice margin to achieve volume. I don't think that either model will compromised in terms of spec.
I base these observations on only my own opinion not on any facts.

I don't believe Apple is a software company. Instead, I believe they are fundamentally a hardware company that uses superior software to help differentiate their products.

Alright... anyone can make the above statement but here's why I think it to be true:

1) Apple has moved away from software in recent years. They virtually spun off Claris, killed AppleWorks, and never really promoted the Next software they obtained (WebObjects?).

2) Apple really doesn't make any Windows software despite the belief that they could easily do so. There are no Windows versions of Final Cut Pro, Aperature, etc. If they were fundamentally a software company, wouldn't they sell Windows software like almost every other software company? I don't include Safari or QuickTime because they are free.

3) The Windows software that they do make is generally all oriented toward only working with their hardware offerings. I'm speaking of iTunes here.

What about a home television with the computer built in, isn't that where Apple wants to go?
Could be wrong.

There's no doubt that Apple has a very extensive software team(s). Unlike other hardware companies like Dell, which don't really do any software R&D. After all Apple does not only make a very complex and advanced OS, they also make an array of consumer and pro apps. So to say that Apple is in every way a hardware company (with some nice software as a bonus) is a hyperbole. In practice Apple is by all means a software/hardware company which basically deliver a perfect marriage of the two as a single kick ass product.

But in the business context it looks a bit different. This is the interesting part. From a business standpoint Apple is a hardware company.

Let's just look at Final Cut Studio as an example. It's easy for me to talk about this because this is the business I am in. Now, Final Cut Studio is an incredibly powerful software package, at this point it's the industry standard for commercial video production, it no longer rivals Avid, it's passed it miles ago. In addition, some of the components of this suit where bought and re developed as apple apps. Like Color for example, this program went for somewhere near 10,000 bucks before apple bought it. Now it comes as part of a $1,200 package (along with all the other FCP apps).

Anyone would say that this is just way too cheap. How on earth is Apple making any money with this? Easy, it's on the hardware. Because after all, you need their $3500 workstation to run FCP.

Do you catch my drift?

Your argument is better thought out than the others. But not correct. You can run Final Cut on an iMac. It will even run on a Mac Mini.

But as a pro, you'd know that if you want to run FCS, you really need a Mac Pro.
Even with OS licensing, Apple would still get the hardware sale. Some people buy MacPros to run Windows and Linux. There's no need to strong-arm its customers by locking them into its hardware.

And in the time it takes one professional to think about how many cores he needs, Best Buy have sold a hundred laptops and with each one send a chunk of cash to Redmond.

Again this boils down to cannibalization. "If Apple licensed OS X, hardware sales would migrate to better-value non-Apple hardware." or "The only reason people pay good money for that overpriced Apple hardware is to get their hands on OS X"

We know that isn't true. Apple sales *increased* when customers gained the option of running Windows.

C.

That still doesn't take into account the nightmare it would be to actually get OSX to run on all the 3rd party hardware out there. You said that the OS is already paid for, so why not just sell it off to other platforms as well. The truth is that it would cost a lot of money to make OSX universal. I'm no software engineer, but feel free to ask one, I'm sure he'll confirm, that it's not just a matter of adding in a few drivers and we're good to go. I honestly think that Apple would pour more money into r&d into OSX "universal" than it would make selling it. And at the end of the day, end up selling an inferior product, therefore damaging it's image as a sort of upper class/elite company.

You keep arguing that apple hardware is doing great. Well, you're right, so why not continue pushing those sales instead of trying to push other peoples hardware and possibly losing tons of money. So this is what apple will continue to do (imo), continue to sell more and more hardware, and continue to make more and more money by doing so.

You also have to keep in mind that Apple aren't out there to kill MS. They are out there to make money. So they really don't care if MS has a huge market share in operating systems, they don't care if all those poor saps have to settle for vista when they buy $600 best buy notebooks, as far as they are concerned they are making more and more money just by producing and selling their own hardware/software package.

Apple would be crazy to launch OS X as a universal OS.

But there'd be nothing wrong with licensing EFI-equipped hardware which was essentially just an Apple reference design. It wouldn't cost Apple a penny. In fact a "Made for OS-X" sticker would also make money for Cupertino.

If you hadn't noticed, there's a ton of amateurs who already have OS X running on recent hardware.

One mistake that Microsoft made was greed. In order to accommodate the vast unwashed mess of all hardware vendors, Microsoft permitted unsigned drivers to pollute their OS.
The result was an unstable and sluggish OS because the driver for a Taiwanese sound board was incompatible with the Korean USB hub.

If Apple avoided this mistake, OS X on third party hardware would be dramatically more stable than Windows.

C.

15" Macbook Pro - $1999
32 GB iPod Touch - $499
iPhone 3G 16 GB - $399
13" Aluminum MB - $999
Not knowing what the hell apple is going to do next - priceless

Ok. So if apple can't make more money in volume by making OSX available on anything, then why would they lisence only to Dell or HP in a limited fashion, if they can just do the same exact thing on their own, effectively cutting out the big ugly sore of a thumb middle man?

Without getting myself into this argument again... ... hopefully


If Apple only supported HP & Dell computers, they'd cover a huge percentage (more than 70%... I don't remember the figure). If they only supported a subset of those (say sub $1000 desktops) then they make things easier again.


That is also true.

Not saying they should or shouldn't - there are arguments both ways, advantages and disadvantages to both.

The pen was just my need. It's the easiest way to be able to draw a box, make notes in the box, draw an arrow to another box with other notes... move them around etc. It also works great if holding the tablet in one hand. But that's my personal need and that doesn't make it useful for others.

The reason I threw out an iPod Touch idea was that I can't see it surviving as is against a subsidised iPhone. A larger tablet though steps out of the iPod market into tablet PC territory, and it's a market that hasn't met much success. Apple's iPhone apps, app store, + iWork could make and own the market. The details of the tablet itself are less critical in the discussion of whether it fits Apple's mystery product comments.

ps.
I too think the mystery product is more likely to be elsewhere. The only real "transition" I can see is to all multi-touch on every screen they sell.

As a former Palm user and having an ipod touch, I've often longed for the old styus for jotting quick notes, pointing to a specific spot without accidently setting off another program or option I didn't want but got because of large fingers etc. Including typing on the key board. Notes and drawing in particular. But I get why they don't have it here.

I don't agree that the iphone kills the touch. Unless ATT gets better coverage where I live, I'll never sign up with them even though it would save me money on a combo package. ATT will not get 100% of the phone market and there will always be people who want an ipod for music first and don't care if its a phone. So the touch will live on.

I think MacMini will get an update with all Centrino 2 component. And possibly starting price at 499 USD.
Since Apple dont make much money from MacMini, wouldn't it be one factor that contribute to lower margin.

Or MacAir without an Optical drive. Making it Super Slim like thin Client.

i always think the concept of Air like Mac would be great use in Educational and other sectors where small devices are needed for simple task. Library Computers as example.

Your clearly out of touch here, Dell and HP have been bundling Linux (RedHat, Ubuntu, and Suse) for awhile now. There's nothing illegal about it, and obviously not impossible. The reason Linux distros haven't made any headway is due to 1) lack of marketing, 2) lack of mainstream applications like Microsoft Office, and 3) Usability issues. Mac OS X solved all those issues while maintaining the strong and secure Linux underpingings making it ideal as competition to Microsoft. Why do you think Microsoft is going to run a huge advertising campaign against Apple? It's because Microsoft sees that Apple is beating them in everything they do, and if they don't act now, they'll be left as a company that makes Microsoft Office and Xboxes.

Simple - it costs a lot of money to design and manufacture a desktop computer.

As far as drivers go, Microsoft doesn't make the drivers for other hardware vendors, so neither would Apple. If you read the documentation on your operating system, you'll see they say to contact your hardware manufacturer for compatible drivers. If you look at Dell's site you'll see they re-package all the drivers required for their systems. These drivers are based on reference drivers provided by the actual hardware vendors like Intel, Nvidia, ATI, etc... So hardware support is not an issue for Apple, if the hardware manufacturers' want their product to work with OS X, they'll provide the driver.

If they simple choose a low-end Dell/HP model that meets their specs, these costs are eliminated and increases their margins for operating system/branding licensing. Restricting the licensing deal to low-end desktops protect Apple's higher-end products. Someone who wants a cheap low-end desktop would have no interest in an iMac, so there is no cannibalization there. Yes this would mean the end of the Mac Mini, but that's a low profit center for Apple and doesn't affect their bottom line that much. The sheer volume of sales of such a low-end desktop would completely over-shadow those losses.

Cross-branded, cross-sales are the ultimate win as everyone benefits. That's why Apple has done deals with big names in the past like Nike, BMW, Best Buy and Circuit City. The value is in exposing your brand to the other brand's customers thus getting you more sales from consumers who wouldn't seek you out otherwise.

Apple makes probably the highest margins on hardware than any other computer manufacturer. So obviously the high cost is still worth it. Remember that it's not always about volume, sometimes higher margins are a better strategy.


It's more complicated than that, the drivers have to be recognized by the OS. It takes a lot more than just telling the OEMs to provide drivers.




Nike, BMW, Best Buy and Circuit City are NOT direct competitors. (BB and CC being distributors actually).

I mean, it would kind of be like Jaguar going to Ford and saying, hey look, how about you produce cars under our brand name and design because it's just so much cheaper and easier if you do it since you are a much bigger company. That way we can make more by volume.

It just doesn't make sense now does it? Well, we all know what happened to Jaguar. They don't actually exist anymore, now Jaguar is just a division of Ford. And guess what? Most Jaguar enthusiast will agree that the new cars pale in comparison to what Jaguar used to offer. Now they are just fords with shiny jaguar logos.

It's a bit of a far fetched analogy, but you can see what I mean.

I don't buy the OS X licensing thing. They certainly aren't going to throw it wide open and license to everybody, and I don't think they will follow the model used back in the 90s either... I've read your arguments about why cannibalization wouldn't happen, but you're ignoring a very large number of people who will buy a lesser product to have $100 (or more). Many of that type of person want to run OS X but wince at the margin that Apple charges.

As for licensing to particular PC manufacturers... why? You'll note that Apple already out sources all of its production to other companies, but they get to completely control the design, earn all of the profits, and strengthen their brand all at the same time.

And finally, why would Apple be motivated to license OS X? To increase market share? Well their market share has been growing nicely for several years now, I don't see their burning need to drive it faster. SJ's comment about never seeing OS X hitting 50% or even 30% wasn't about how that can't its about how they don't see the need to. Low margin business doesn't make any money and delivers inferior product, so why go there?

Back to the original thread quesetion...

I rather like that MacBook/tablet picture link a few pages back, and the transition to the new Intel chipset does qualify as a major transition. It doesn't explain the "shut out" comment unless you fold in the whole SSD/TheCloud/etc. model on the theory that nobody else has the infrastructure currently to build that. I still think the CFO's quote implies something across the entire product line though. I don't think hard drives are going away yet, but perhaps built-in flash across the line is coming and leveraging Apple's position as a huge consumer of flash memory.

Irrelevant.
The computer can be a commercial hit, or a commercial miss. It matters to the manufacturer, but either way, Microsoft makes money on that bundled copy of Vista. It's time to divert some of that cash away from Redmond.


It's not complicated at all.
Look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ7mDwMyTLk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF45r...eature=related

And so on. Modern PC hardware is the same as modern Mac hardware. Off-the-shelf parts already have OS X drivers, because Apple wrote them. If a bunch of amateurs can get OS X running on tablets and netbooks, do you really think it would be a problem for manufacturers with Apples active support?

Remember as a licensor Apple has the right to not hand out a sticker if it doesn't like the hardware.

THERE IS NO HARDWARE SUPPORT PROBLEM.

C.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8

Windows is still at 90%.
When Dell make a computer, the profit margin is indeed very low. Sometimes a few tens of dollars. Microsoft makes almost as much money from that computer as Dell.

That's why.

There's a giant underground pool of hardware that Apple will never ever want to build. And sticking into that pool is a big fat pipe sucking money up and into Microsoft. That pipe is called Vista OEM.

I happen to think that it's the perfect time for Apple to start drilling.

C.

Irrelevant? How can you say that? It's not irrelevant that Apple makes huge margins on their computer sales.

What is irrelevant is that Redmond is making money selling Vista. Like I said in a previous post, Apple really could care less how much money MS make, they only care how much Apple makes.

It's not a direct competition to see who can "win", it's about making money. And as for as I can see, Apple's business is growing, and MS is slowly sliding into oblivion. So why you think Apple should do exactly what MS has been doing is beyond me.

If you are Apple ($146.39B)
It's better to go after Microsoft ($243.69B)
than go after Dell. ($47.92B)

Software is a bigger business than hardware. And I happen to believe that Apple are better at software development than Microsoft.

C.

what are those numbers? assets? That doesn't take into account growth and other factors.

Microsoft is a sinking ship, and there's no reason to model your business strategies on theirs.

And like I said before, it's not about going after anybody. If I found a way to make money by entering a market in a different way than a big huge competitor does, then I would stick with that instead of going head on with the other guy just so I can put him out of business (if I can even succeed in doing that). To be honest, I don't think Apple really wants to be the biggest guy in town. History tells us that bigger isn't always better. Not every business is a McDonalds one. Large volume and huge market share make work for hamburgers, but I don't know if it's the same for computers.

I'm not out of touch, I know Dell and HP have offered LInux as an alternative on some of their computers. That's why I said Linux hasn't made "major headway" instead of "no headway."

However, go to either Dell or HP's websites and try to configure any of their consumer laptops or desktops with Linux. You can't; I just tried.

What does it say on each of their sites everywhere? "Dell/HP recommend Windows Vista Home Premium" Oh yeah, they certainly do. They are dependent on Microsoft just like the vast majority of cell phone makers are dependent on cellular service providers. Neither Dell or HP can really sell their hardware outside of Microsoft thanks to these third party hardware vendors signing exclusive anti-competitive, anti-consumer OEM licensing deals with Microsoft. That's the real reason Linux has made no serious inroads into the Microsoft monopoly and Carniphage, that's why Apple has no interest in licensing its OS to third parties.

Apple has a symbiotic relationship with the open source community. Mac OS X is the biggest and most popular Unix distribution in the world and often leverages work already done by the open source community to better its offerings without having to spend time and money on R&D. Apple doesn't need to sell its OS to the PC bargain bin when nearly free Linux distros can do the job much better. That puts pressure on Microsoft from two sides: Apple on the profitable high-end and consumer markets, Linux on the low end, leaving Microsoft with its stagnating base of beige-box Windows PCs.

Vista has Microsoft lying in the gutter, bleeding.
Now is the perfect moment to kick them where it hurts. In their precious OS market share.

C.

Or Apple could go after markets they can grow and dominate as opposed to low margin, saturated markets.

Lemme see...go into the commodity OS market where some competitors GIVE their product away (Ubuntu, Sun, etc) or go into the smartphone market and rake in huge margins.

Gee. I think I'd rather keep my competitive advantage to myself and not let Dell, Sony, Acer, HP, Toshiba, etc capture any of my very valuable share of the high end PC market where healthy margins actually exist...

Apple's objective it to make awesome products and great margins. Not fight some war with Microsoft over territory it doesn't even want to win.

Argument 1) "Cannibalization"
Apple hardware is so bad that no one would buy it if they could get OS X on a Dell.

Argument 2) "Taste"
Apple has simply no interest in growth if it means selling to working-class people.

Argument 3) "Anti-Competetive"
Microsoft don't play fair! Waaaaaah!

C.

Carniphage, please stop putting words in my mouth and trying to tell me what I think.

HP and Dell don't hold the power, Microsoft does. That's why neither can sell their PCs on their own and why free Linux licenses are unable to compete with the much more expensive Windows licenses. Do you not understand that? It's a monopoly, not a free market.

I've been saying for years that eventually they are going to oust the notebook line into convertible versions of the same product. That way you get two products for your money, but also if all you want is a notebook it's there and if you never want to use a tablet you don't have to. The technology is at the point to where these things can be just as thin and light as a regular notebook. MacBook Air as proven that. I think we'll see convertible tablets. I dont see the MacBook leaving and the phone taking over. It's way to small to anything on.