Apple plans mystery "product transition" before September's end - Page 12

Just to throw a spanner in the works - would iTunes moving to a subscription based model be regarded as a 'transition'?

Look! Olternaut wants a tablet and Apple won't make them.
Kinda supports my case.

C.

Your case? Have you presented "your case" to Apple, and were you injured when they tossed you out the door?

The amount of people here that think they know how to run Apple, better than it's being run, is amazing. How many have put their money where their mouth is and actually started a company to compete with Apple, using their "case" to corner Apple's market share? Why absolutely none!

We have saying about such people, "All hat, and no cattle!".

Resorting to that kind of talk negates any persuasiveness that you had going.

I've been fooling around with Ubuntu and with Dell offering it pre-installed and with media codecs pre-installed, I'm beginning to think that Linux is about to gain some ground in market share.

Eliminating installation of media codecs and most common HW drivers for Linux will go a long way towards making Linux more appealing to mainstream users. Yes, users will need drivers for printers and other peripherals, but often they have to do this with Vista too. But Ubuntu has a nice UI and is teh snappy on just about any hardware. On low end HW its really the best OS available IMO.

I don't agree with it, but that's a valid argument.
You are saying that if Sony offered OS X, Apple customers would migrate to (better/cheaper) Sony hardware.

I don't agree. because...
1) I think Apple hardware is superior to Sony design-wise and is competitive price/performance-wise.
2) If it isn't, it really ought to be.


This is also true. Some people actually *like* Windows. And quite a few folks need to run apps which are only in Win32 versions. So Apple cannot capture that 92% overnight.

But a lot of people seem very eager to move away from Windows too. There is a groundswell of Windows anger out there. A sizable minority of the 92% are unhappy with Windows and would happily switch to Leopard.

The justaposition of Apples best OS, at the same moment as Windows most bungled OS introduction creates a historic opportunity. Persuade just 10% of Windows users to switch, and the OS X market share would double rapidly.

Doubling the OS X market share would be very significant for Apple. The visibility of the brand would increase, the acceptance of it standards would increase. And you might get some momentum. It might also drive forward hardware sales. In a halo effect.

Currently potential switchers are road-blocked because the only way to get Mac OS, is by buying a high-end boutique system. Which according to you, is poor value.

C.

Dude, we *invented* the computer. You heard of it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

C.

Olternaut had unwittingly missed the point I was making. He quoted from my post which said that Apple do not make many different lines. There were folks, including on this forum who pine for exotic hardware which Apple will never ever make. Including (euggh) tablets.

So by saying "Hey, I want a tablet, I'm no idiot" he was actually supporting my argument.
(That Apple's software growth is potentially much greater than its hardware growth)

C.

Tablet fans should read....
http://www.tuaw.com/2008/07/23/a-mac...o-but-heck-no/

Yeah, everyone is wanting a Colossus.

Oh, Carniphage, the British invented so many things of which others reaped the benefits! The jet engine, the fully electronic programmable computer.... Most of the cars on the road owe their existence to the original Mini, but they waited till the patents on the constant-velocity U-joints that made front-wheel-drive really practical were just running out to start copying it. Hell, even the atomic bomb: the Manhattan Project would never have gotten started if Tube Alloys wasn't already there and the Frisch-Peierls report hadn't concluded that, against all previous speculation, an atomic bomb might be achievable, and in a reasonable time-frame.... As an Anglophile, it just makes me sad!

That said, I disagree pretty strongly with your argument here, but weirder things have happened in the business world, and you only have to look at the history of Apple to see that! However, even if licensing OS X was a good idea (mind you, I think it's a very bad idea,) what was the first thing Steve Jobs did when he regained control of the company? That's right: he put an end to the previous clone experiment. You can argue that times have changed, and circumstances have changed, but unless Steve Jobs has changed as well, I don't think it's a psychological possibility. You may say that's a bad thing, I say it's a good thing, but the fact is, it's not going to happen as long as he's at the helm. And personally, I want him to stay at the helm for as long as possible, because he must be doing something right.

Why is that do you think? If your company developed an business class software app which OS would you write it for? the 99% of business machines that run windows or the 1% that run OSX? It is not even worth writing for both.

Now, what would you do if suddenly the bar to business running OSX had been lifted and a good proportion (20-30% ?) of your customer base were telling you they wanted to switch to OSX. You would immediately get to work rewriting code.

Your issue does not exist.



I am sorry but where on Earth did you get this idea from? How on earth is bundling an operating system with new hardware illegal? I have never heard so much rubbish in my life. Are you saying selling an iMac with OSX is illegal too?

What about a DVD player? or a new Air Conditioning unit? Are they illegal too?

The only reason why Microsoft has a monopoly is because they have been the only company making a brilliant OS capable of delivering what the consumer needs and made available to all PC manufacturers and home PC builders at a low cost.

Illegal? You are mad, if you really want to see the monopoly broken then the only way is for someone else to step up to the plate with an OS that can replace Windows on the PC market.

What's illegal is using your monopoly position to force OEMs to buy a Windows license for every computer they sell, whether they want to sell it with some other OS or not, and then telling them they'd damn well better not sell it with any other OS, or you'll stop selling them Windows. Has Apple ever done anything like that?

Nobody is forcing OEM's to do anything. Microsoft has every right to include whatever terms and conditions in its OEM contracts as it pleases and further has every right to enforce those terms if it pleases. If the OEM does not agree then they do not have to sign and they can sell something else instead.

Illegal? No, Immoral? Probably, yes.

If it were Apple who owned the market like Microsoft does then they more than likely be doing something very similar themeless. Apple are a business too and their one and only primary goal is to make money, just like Microsoft believe it or not.

The only reason why Microsoft are able to get away this this is because they have such a large monopoly. But the reason for that is because they were brilliant at what they did. Nobody minded having windows bundled on PC's because it was perfect for the job. There was and still is no viable option if you are an ordinary home user and want a PC. If you want to be different you could buy a mac but people only buy mac's to look cool* and they don't really build the types of PC that you like. So what is the point?

* Not my opinion of course but the general opinion, these are people who have no idea what OSX is remember, hell many of them think Mac's run windows too!

So either someone offers an alternative or we stop bashing Microsoft for being guilty of only doing their job correctly.

At the end of the day, can anyone make software for managing songs on an iPod? Can i use my iPod to buy music from another store?

Do you complain about this, or think it is also illegal?

carniphage is a total riot

Yeah, they can sell a computer with some other OS that nobody's ever heard of, that won't run the apps everybody needs to use. Sounds like a viable business model to me!


They've been convicted of this crime in open court. That doesn't mean they've stopped committing it.


Brilliant? They copied Mac OS when that idiot Sculley handed it to them on a silver platter, and you can see the results: Windows! Brilliant? LMAO! Microsoft has never written anything original in its existence! They bought DOS, from a company that had ported CP/M to 16-bit, they copied Apple's GUI, with disastrous results.... Windows is a total train wreck, from the word go. If it weren't for the criminal tactics they've used to achieve their monopoly, nobody would remember their name today!

But how is that Microsoft's fault? They cannot be blamed for the lack of serious competition.
What if I owned an MP3 retail outlet? I would have no choice but to sell iPods would I?

What if I never really wanted to sell iPods because Apple kept the margins so low but felt forced to because that was what everyone wanted to buy. Are Apple stuffing me over? Are Apple abusing their position or is this simply a case of a business doing what it takes to make money?

You cannot have it both ways, you cannot cherry pick between the best of Capitalism and the best of Communism (unless of course you were in China). Business is Business.



? Of course they were brilliant at what they did, your post only serves to highlight that more!

If the product is as bad as you say they Microsoft were even more brilliant than I thought to get to the position they are in now. As a business they are outstanding.

Microsoft are a great company, they made less bad decisions along the way than Apple did full stop. Put Apple in Microsoft's place and they would be just the same. You would probably on here every day telling everyone how Vista is wonderful and how Apple are a bunch of crooks.

Windows has been wonderful and is totally responsible for the fact that just about everybody in the developed world owns a computer and every business runs on one. Hell Windows is even partly responsible for the number of Mac users out there today.

Microsoft did what Apple failed to do. Apple may well have the best product in OSX (And I think they do) and they may have some of the nicest looking machines on the market but that does not mean that Microsoft are a bunch of crooks with a bad product. If you really believe that then your are seriously deluded.

Do not underestimate the general public, I know it is easy to think people can be forced into buying things they do not want but as a rule this is not true. It is a fact that is that if Windows was not such a great, life changing product then Microsoft would not be where they are today. You cannot become a world leader with a bad product, it simply does not work like that.

Well, they did just exactly that, so I guess that disproves your point pretty effectively. Windows has succeeded because it has always been made the Path of Least Resistance (Maybe that should be their new slogan?) Now it's finally encountering some. I don't think it can survive the experience. Your contention that Microsoft has done nothing illegal has been disproved in court again and again. Seriously, switch to a Windows forum! (I'm assuming there are some?)

Your socialism is showing.

I know you consider this an insult, but it didn't land.

I could switch to a Windows forum you are right but as I am typing this on a Mac Book Pro what would be the point?

You are clearly one of these people who assume that is Apple = Good then MS must = Bad. A very silly view to have and one that has no basis in reality.

You of course have every right to think as you do and you clearly have no intention of trying to understand the truth of the matter. So I will let you carry on in your deluded world.

I have to stop typing now, my hands get sore after a while. Nothing serious, just a throwback to my early teens when Bill Gates came round to my house and repeatedly smashed my hands with a hammer until I reluctantly agreed to buy his crappy product. They brainwashed me too, though of course everyone back then had been put under his evil spell so we all know what that is like.

Do me a favour and type this into Google "apple illegal trading"

Not only are the expected hits on stories about the dodgy share trading activity that seems to have dogged Apple for a while but you will also see stories on anti-trust lawsuits filed against Apple for it's itunes store and also a story on the Korean FTC investigating Apple for unfair trade practices. This is just the first page.

Welcome to the real world, this is business, stuff like this goes on all the time. The more successful you are the more mud gets thrown at you, sometimes the mud sticks but that is fine too. As long as you turn a profit that is all that is important.

You do know that Apple is a business don't you?

EDIT: Clarification!

I am not saying that anything goes in business and of course there should be laws and guidelines to protect the free market. But I was just pointing out that just because MS get their wrists slapped sometimes for crossing the line it does not mean they have got to the top by illegal practices alone. My point is simply to highlight that any GOOD business will push the boundaries and blur the lines in any way they can in order to get a competitive advantage. Sometimes they go to far and get penalised but this does not make them a bad company and does not mean their product is crap because of it.

I have to stop typing too, since you are obviously impervious to history, facts, reason, or legal findings.

You left out the fact that it was the Clinton administration that went after MS. The Democrats always see every corporation as evil, because they've become socialists too.

No, they and the Progressive (Roosevelt wing) of the Republican party became socialists when they adopted the Socialist Party's platform in its entirety in the 1912 campaign, so frightened were they by the 8 % Eugene V. Debs garnered from his jail cell in the 1908 election. The Taft wing eventually retook control and are now working on destroying the Progressive Era reforms of the 1912-1920 era, now that they've succeeded in destroying the Great Society and the New Deal.

Yawn!

Er, can anyone explain what the above post is supposed to mean?


Why are you inventing things that I have supposedly said? Are you a child?

It has nothing to do with your absurd suggestion that Microsoft have only become the company they are now because they have abused their monopoly.

It is such lunacy to even have such a stance. You only become a monopoly in one of two ways, one, you are state owned, state sponsored or exist in a state where compeition is forbidden. And two, you make a bloody good product that everybody wants to buy and your competition is either not as good as you or they make the wrong decisions and miss the boat.

You may not like Windows, you may prefer OSX, that is fine, so do I. But being a good product is not just about how nice the GUI is or how stable it is or even how it makes everything "just work". Being a good product also means it is sold well, marketed well, supported well, managed well, gone out to town and kicked everyones ass well and taken advantage of weaknesses in the competition well. The product is everything, and in a capitallist nation where consumers have choice if product A sells a billion units and product B sell a thousand units then product A is by far the better product regardless of whether Product B is technically better.

Obviously, you have no idea of the history of Microsoft, so there's no point in continuing this discussion


So Standard Oil became a monopoly in the 19th Century by selling a better product than the other oil companies? Right. Unfortunately, 100%, dog-eat-dog, let-'em-eat-cake, robber-baron Capitalism is thoroughly back in the driver's seat in this country, so let the good times roll!


I know you don't want to hear about history, but honestly, this is just so rich I can't pass it up! How exactly does the consumer have a "choice" if every OEM has to buy Windows for every box they sell, whether they want to or not? Even if Microsoft didn't carry out their threat to cut them off if they sell a computer with another OS, what are they going to do? Pay for two OSs on every computer, and only ship one? This is capitalism in action? Thanks, but no thanks!

No it is not, you are completely missing the point and getting your arguments backwards.

We would not be in this situation if Microsoft had any competition. The lack of a competing product meant that Microsoft became a monopoly by default. They were able to get away with strict and unfair OEM agreements because the OEM builders had nowhere else to go to. If there had been another choice Microsoft would never have been able to build up such a dominant position in the marketplace that enables such practices to work.

This is not Microsoft's fault, they can hardly be blamed if nobody was good enough to take them on. All they did was to release a fantastic product that people wanted to buy (and today the vast majority still want to buy).

So yes you can argue that their sales practices are restrictive and unfair, but this is not HOW they became so dominant it is BECAUSE they became so dominant. You have got your thinking the wrong way round - really, don't you get that?

They became so dominant because they had a great product that people wanted and zero competition.

They became dominant in the DOS era. They bought 86DOS from Seattle Computer Products and then sold it to IBM. IBM neglected to get an exclusive on it, and then went on to create an open hardware architecture through their own arrogance and stupidity. The clone makers jumped on that, and started producing IBM-compatible computers. DOS was the only OS that would run on them. By the time anybody came up with any more (and there were several) Microsoft's pirate tactics had created a monopoly, because no one dared sell a computer with anything but DOS on them. Meanwhile, Apple had been taken over in a palace revolution by insensate bean-counters who proceeded to run it into the ground. We are just now approaching the situation we should have been in 20 years ago, with Microsoft getting a little competition. They have never had a great product; they have never created an adequate product without buying it from somebody else!

Man, if there was ever a need for an American COMPUTER History class, it's now.

There WERE alternatives besides the beleaguered Apple of the past. You do realize the Microsoft of today is now eerily mimicking the floundering Apple of the '90s, right?

Read the following to watch history repeat itself:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/0...ered-apple-96/


Now read the following to get up to speed on...history:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Hom...EF7FAFD3A.html

At the bottom of that ^ article, it links to the next article: 1980-1985: 8-bit Platforms

At the bottom of that article on 8-bit systems will be one on 16-bit systems. Read that too. Keep following the links 'til you reach the end.

The articles are all part of a logical, well written, and easy to understand series: The Rise and Fall of Platforms.

After your done reading all that, please tell Carniphage about it and make sure to say pass it on.

Then rejoin the discussion if you wish.

Here's another article from that series. It should be quite relevant to you: 1990-1995: Why the World Went Windows

But seriously, make sure to read the rest.

Don't you people even TRY to change the subject. Carniphage, you implied ever so casually that those who will be enjoying the upcoming tablet product from Apple are idiots.
Well they are not. They....WE, like Steveo, are forward thinking individuals while primitives such as yourself will continue to have to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming. You can keep your colossus if that is your idea of a computer.
Oh, and if your thinking you will be buying the tablet when Steve debuts it THINK AGAIN. Your another one I'm adding to the list for Steve to refuse tablet sales to!

<Grin>.
I have no intention of changing the subject. I just thought I would patriotically respond to your casual anti-English insult. We Brits do travel however. And some of use have computers. Or "electric computing apparatuses" as they are known here.

If you had some patience you might have re-read the post which you objected to.

I was saying there is a limit to the number of lines that Apple makes. Apple, as a sensible hardware manufacturer, only creates lines which will be profitable. That is a smart business strategy, but causes a problem. There is a bigger demand for Apple OS than there is demand for Mac "boutique" hardware. People like yourself want hardware formats which Apple don't make.

You are going to say "Currently Make"

For your benefit only Olternaut, here's why I think "tablet - hell no"

There have been tablets coming out for the last 10 years and all have failed commercially. You might think that Apple could do better, and it probably could do a little better. But the underlying problems remain.

In vertical markets, Hospital and factory workers find tablets too large to carry around. For Nurses on bed-pad detail, iPod touch is probably an ideal format for checking on Mr. Smith's bowel movements.

Desk workers want a keyboard. They don't want to type on a screen. A screen lying flat is uncomfortable to look at. A screen held vertically must be mounted on a secure base if it to remain vertical. Put those issues together and it leads to to a conventional notebook format.

Digital artists want a large screen with a small control surface. I use a 30" Cinema display with an A5 graphics tablet. They also want a stylus not touch.

I love the idea of radical and new form factors and innovative user-interface designs.
But I can't think of a single application for a small computer where the answer is "Tablet" apart from: "How can I design a computer that looks like something from Star Trek"

Perhaps you could suggest a scenario where a tablet would be the right answer?

C.

I agree with you about the desirability of tablet computers. Well, at least I don't think I want one.

Back to OS X... Yes, I can understand that there's probably a demand for the product apart from Apple computers themselves. What I don't think has been sufficiently demonstrated is why it's in the interest of Apple's shareholders for Apple to sell OS X for computers other than the ones on which they already make a considerable profit.

By the way, Carniphage, have you thought about my question on why Apple is not already selling software for Windows-based computers?

I think product transition conveys this information- Apple is preparing for that will cut profit margins to help shut out rivals.
__________________________________________________ ____
Baby clothes,Kids wear,Maternity wear,baby designer cloth

You are quite possibly the rudest most stuck up person i have ever seen post on a forum. You think that you are all mighty god and no matter what anyone else says that you will be correct. That has to be a joke, because im sure that there are others that feel the same way as me. This is a speculation thread for the most part, and when people give their opinions you are making people feel uncomfortable and out of place when you answer with complete shut downs of their ideas. Maybe everyone doesn't want the same thing as you, get over yourself.

Carniphage:

After the recent press releases of Sony's new laptop lineup, it shows that Sony's hardware in terms of laptops are far superior. I myself am definitely thinking of porting from my current MacBook Pro to the new Sony Z Series laptop. It packs better specs into a footprint similar to the MacBook that is competetive to current MacBook Pro's and goes beyond them in certain cases.

Apple will need to update their laptop line soon to compete against such laptop releases before they slip too far behind. This is an important product update needed but probably not a products transition unless large overhauls have beeen made.

I definitely prefer OSX, it makes life easy whereas Vista can make computing hard work at times, but I am prepared to port over to much better hardware if I still have a desktop Mac.

SJ...please update the laptop line !!!

I wasn't being anti-English you freak so save it! I was pointing out that you obviously are not an expert on global markets and the idiosyncrasies of each area of the planet. Suggest a scenario? Who the hell cares?! Just don't call people who are interested in an Apple version of what a tablet might be an idiot. END OF STORY!

No offense, but Carniphage made a very logical argument against a Mac tablet. Shoot, the main pusher of that kind of computer is Bill Gates. Sure, Apple could release a Mac tablet that's beyond what Microsoft or most third party hardware vendors can hope to create. They're a hardware company and a great one. But a tablet has not been released for a reason: cannibalization.

Where would a tablet fit in their current Mac lineup? It's a touch-screen laptop. What size screen do you use? 13"? Probably too small. 15"? Possibly too big. Do they make it more powerful than the MacBook Air or MacBook Pro? Mainly, how do they price it so it doesn't affect sales of their other laptops OR iPod touch/iPhone mobile WiFi devices? And who's going to buy one? It's just such a niche market and why would they introduce the MacBook Air with a big Multi-Touch trackpad in January and then release a full-on touch-screen Mac now? Seems like the main people calling for such a device in the tech media are places like Joystiq, Endgadget, Gizmodo, and CNET, all of which slander Apple constantly and want them to go out of business more than anything else.

Carniphage and I certainly haven't agreed in this thread about licensing out the Mac OS, but his argument on this subject is very reasoned and I didn't catch any major sneering.

Olternaut clearly isnt happy with him either. Carniphage is indeed calling people idiots and is being rude and saucy in the comments he makes. Other people have their opinions too. Its not just "his case" that is supported here, everyone has their own opinion on the future of apple. He needs to start respecting the opinions of others.