This is not a good report because this is not good news.
All this is going to do is encourage Apple NOT to innovate. Or it might encourage them to innovate at a slower pace. Reports like these takes the pressure off of Apple to keep coming out with products that are leaps and bounds beyond the competition.
Lately, Apple has been only doing slight incremental updates to their products especially with the iphone/ipod touch. Reports like this is only going to encourage Apple to do the same.
This means you can only expect slight updates to the iphone's software and hardware so Apple can maintain their lead.
I disagree... Apple is driven by an inner voice to innovate... they can't help themselves, it's in their DNA.
Periodically, they will look at the competition, their own product offerings and make tactical adjustments. But, that won't change their long term goals.
While others are looking for ways to incrementally improve the "smart phone", Apple already has those solutions in various stages of implementation (and plans to obsolete it on the drawing board).
Where Apple will innovate is by changing entire industries-- redefining or replacing entire segments.
Think about it! With the iPhone, Apple has wrapped a personal computer, a web client, PMP, PDA... in a single package that anyone from age 4 to 90 can easily use. They can milk that for a few years.
Sooner, rather than later, "someone" will release devices that replace the computer ecology (including smart phones) as we know it today... not with incremental improvements to word processors, spreadsheets or phone features, but by making them unnecessary.
Ah, you've fallen into the 'cannibalization' trap that tech 'analysts' routinely trot out whenever they feel the need to say something that sounds like they know stuff.
Cannibalizing your own product is not a bad thing. I always said when asked, or even when not asked, you better be ready to cannibalize your own product because if you don't do it to yourself, your competitor will do it to you. And furthermore, if you're doing it to yourself, you're probably doing it to your competitors as well.
So what is preferable to Apple?
A consumer computer industry where desktops and laptops remain significant despite the rise of compact mobile computing devices? Or . . .
A industry where compact mobile devices virtually supplant (i.e cannibalize) desktops and laptops?
I think Apple would prefer the latter because then they own the whole market (or close to it) while the former, in all likelihood, leaves significant room for Windows.
If consumer habits trend towards compact mobile computing devices and away from the two tops (desk and lap) then any effort to prevent cannibalizing your own product is futile. Bottom line it is not really Apple's choice whether a market for large devices exists or not.
Apple does not, and never has innovated because of outside pressure. This is just ignorance about the company, it's history, and it's core values.
Exactly what I was going to say.
Evidence #1: iPhone. Analysts and pundits, especially those in Europe, were saying even in 2005 that music phones (but in all other respects they were dumb phones) were selling in far greater numbers than iPods, and that the days of standalone mp3 players were numbered. Yet Apple took its time to get it right - Jobs said it took 2.5 years, and others said that it was scrapped at least once, thus delaying its intro until Jan-Jul 2007.
Evidence #2: Rumored tablet. Microsoft launched Origami/UMPCs years ago but it did not cause Apple to rush one to market; and despite all the talk about CrunchPad/JooJoo and others, Apple still hasn't come to market. Instead, Apple is waiting until the technology is ready to make a useful, responsive tablet at a price people are willing to pay. That technology includes multitouch, PA Semi-modified ARM chips, low-power graphics and wifi chips, lower-cost screens, batteries, and software.
Apple is looking at technology 3-5 years out, and at customer usage expectations 3-5 years out, and innovating to get the right product at the right price at that point. It takes time to design products (iPhone 4th Gen is just about finished), and Apple isn't directly reacting to what's being sold right now.
My assertion was NOT that Apple had any power to prevent the potential market move to mobile nor that they would shy away from being ready to capitalize on that event.
The context I was originally responding to was this: a previous poster suggested that the desire to perform desktop computing (i.e. with keyboard and full sized screen) would remain a market in its own right but that smart-phones would replace the CPUs in that capacity, rendering the current desktop OSes obsolete. My response was that I don't believe that Apple will facilitate that particular outcome.
In short, I agree that when cannibalization naturally occurs, Apple would be wise to be the one that benefits rather than letting someone else do it, but I don't believe that Apple should instigate it by actively making their current products completely redundant.
It would appear that my only true mistake was using the word "cannibalization", which I agree has been misused by industry pundits and which, therefore, engenders an immediate response that completely missed my thrust.
I don' think this will happen because its simply not practical. The iPhone makes a great mobile supplementary device, but it does not at all replace a more capable computer.
Three years ago I used to have a desktop at home and carry around a notebook as my portable machine. Now I don't own a desktop, my notebook stays at home more than it used to, and I carry my iPhone as my portable machine. The iPhone keeps me connected until I can get home to my notebook.
PCs will continue to exist, no doubt. But will they still be a primary/secondary device bought by pretty much everyone?
Desktops have already given way to notebooks for the most part because people don't need the extra power and display space of the desktop. And I think Apple is forecasting that soon most people won't even need all the power and display space of the notebook; they'll be happy with the rumored 10" display tablet thing that runs on batteries for a whole day. By 2010, the CPU chip in that tablet thing could be in the same class as a Pentium 4 though using far less juice, and that's enough for most people, especially if it's instant-on and the UI is smoothly responsive like the iPhone.
Certainly some will want to run CPU/GPU-intensive games or apps, and they'll buy a desktop/notebook either as their primary or secondary machine. But I think that will soon no longer be most people.
How does more broswer time using free products turn people into spenders?
what was said was that hits that turned to sales on line came from the losers you are talking about who went to the sites from their social face book etc etc and made a purchase.. the point is that the social sites are a base for advertising that pulls sales to on line sites that advertise on them.. the percentages of overall sales were substantial in that a large number came from hits on those sites..
but you are really hard one to convince as you continually alienate the substance of what you say with IM0 statements..
it is like you need attention really really bad... I hope you can find someone who you will enjoy spending the holidays with.. it must be hard for you..
I couldn't agree more. The market will decide, and Apple would prefer to be the one doing the cannibalization. The distinction I'm making here is one of "passive" versus "active" cannibalization. That is, while I agree that Apple has moved (and will continue to move) to be at the nexus of the emerging mobile market so they can be the ones that benefit from whatever cannibalization may occur, I do not believe that Apple will actively encourage it by making it possible to run your desktop keyboard and monitor from your iPhone together with an API for building full-featured applications such as the ones we commonly run on said desktops. You won't be finding that capability in their publicly available iPhone API or in the iPhone OS anytime soon.
Doesn't anybody actually follow the logic of a conversation anymore prior to jumping on their soapbox?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr
Please see my subsequent response.
My assertion was NOT that Apple had any power to prevent the potential market move to mobile nor that they would shy away from being ready to capitalize on that event.
The context I was originally responding to was this: a previous poster suggested that the desire to perform desktop computing (i.e. with keyboard and full sized screen) would remain a market in its own right but that smart-phones would replace the CPUs in that capacity, rendering the current desktop OSes obsolete. My response was that I don't believe that Apple will facilitate that particular outcome.
In short, I agree that when cannibalization naturally occurs, Apple would be wise to be the one that benefits rather than letting someone else do it, but I don't believe that Apple should instigate it by actively making their current products completely redundant.
It would appear that my only true mistake was using the word "cannibalization", which I agree has been misused by industry pundits and which, therefore, engenders an immediate response that completely missed my thrust.
Thompson
I have read your posts and think I follow your logic.
Here's the way I see the situation:
1) There are a certain percentage of power users, whether it be for personal or business use. Likely, there will always be this class of users.
2) There are a certain percentage of business users which I'll call "Slim Clients" -- who sit in cubicles connected to LANs/WANs which contain the data necessary to to do their jobs. The "Slim Client" set of custom apps are data-driven and do not use or require the power of today's computers. In fact, many of these custom apps can be (or are) just web apps-- the kind you can access with your desktop, laptop or mobile
3) There are a certain percentage of home users who use their computers in the same way as a "Slim Client" in business-- web connectivity, contacts, calendars, etc. and a few (relatively) low power local/remote apps: iTunes, iPhoto, etc.
4) Finally, a certain percentage of home users who do require power user capability to work at home, or act as the IT department for the other "Slim Clients" in the home.
5) The mobile users of smart phones, netbooks and laptops-- who are in the middle of the emigration from the desktop.
I think that groups 1 and 4 will likely continue to use a combination of high-end hardware and software, with secondary use of mobile.
Groups 2 and 3 could, largely, be replaced by a mobile with a little more capability than the smart phone or the netbook.
Lets just say that the rumored Apple Tablet has a large enough display size, easy-enough data-entry (voice, virtual kb, handwriting), and powerful enough hardware (CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD Storage, connectivity)..
So the, homie, commutes to work with his tablet getting/staying connected as necessary. Once he gets to the office his tablet connects to the LAN/WAN via WiFi or physical plug. Some users will want a large display, a kb & mouse, whatever... many will need nothing else.
I submit that the tablet will be necessary and sufficient for most users in the "Slim Client" category.
These are the ones (desktops/laptops/netbooks) that will be displaced by the tablet.
I believe that Apple is very much interested in facilitating this transition because they will be replacing windows boxes with Apple devices... and they constitute a large portion of that 90% Windows market share.
The secret to being a successful cannibal is to eat someone else's flesh.
For the same token, I don't believe that it has ever been Apple's goal to sell the most computers or the most phones. Instead make something innovative and then have fun watching others playing catch-up, but don't get caught into the competition game. For this reason, I would be very disappointed if they would make a phone for Verizon, because that would mean giving in to outside pressures.
If that were true they would never lower their prices. Believe it or not, they are a business, that has to make money to exist, and has had more then their share of flops. Some catch, some do not. They have been fairly lucky in the past few years. They appeal to a younger crowd that really like Apple more because they are not Microsoft. Perception is that Microsoft is uncool and stuffy and is "big brother", and Apple is cool and trendy and special. Ironically, Apple's business practices are much more elitus, and restrictive, and inflexible that any other major IT player. If Steve Jobs was in Balmer's shoes today we would all be screwed. There would be no competition. We would do it Steve's way, or we would be able to do it. Apple is great competition for the mainstream IT businesses but having them as the only major player in any one sector is not good for that sector at all. MP3's are the prime example of this. ipod sales are driven primarily by iTunes that promotes a proprietary format that is not open. If you don't want to use an ipod anymore you are "locked in". Did they make their proprietary format because it was better than the competition, no, for the soul purpose of not being interoperable.
Apple is great if you only ever want to do what Apple wants you to do.
I have read your posts and think I follow your logic.
Here's the way I see the situation:
1) There are a certain percentage of power users, whether it be for personal or business use. Likely, there will always be this class of users.
2) There are a certain percentage of business users which I'll call "Slim Clients" -- who sit in cubicles connected to LANs/WANs which contain the data necessary to to do their jobs. The "Slim Client" set of custom apps are data-driven and do not use or require the power of today's computers. In fact, many of these custom apps can be (or are) just web apps-- the kind you can access with your desktop, laptop or mobile
3) There are a certain percentage of home users who use their computers in the same way as a "Slim Client" in business-- web connectivity, contacts, calendars, etc. and a few (relatively) low power local/remote apps: iTunes, iPhoto, etc.
4) Finally, a certain percentage of home users who do require power user capability to work at home, or act as the IT department for the other "Slim Clients" in the home.
5) The mobile users of smart phones, netbooks and laptops-- who are in the middle of the emigration from the desktop.
I think that groups 1 and 4 will likely continue to use a combination of high-end hardware and software, with secondary use of mobile.
Groups 2 and 3 could, largely, be replaced by a mobile with a little more capability than the smart phone or the netbook.
Lets just say that the rumored Apple Tablet has a large enough display size, easy-enough data-entry (voice, virtual kb, handwriting), and powerful enough hardware (CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD Storage, connectivity)..
So the, homie, commutes to work with his tablet getting/staying connected as necessary. Once he gets to the office his tablet connects to the LAN/WAN via WiFi or physical plug. Some users will want a large display, a kb & mouse, whatever... many will need nothing else.
I submit that the tablet will be necessary and sufficient for most users in the "Slim Client" category.
These are the ones (desktops/laptops/netbooks) that will be displaced by the tablet.
I believe that Apple is very much interested in facilitating this transition because they will be replacing windows boxes with Apple devices... and they constitute a large portion of that 90% Windows market share.
The secret to being a successful cannibal is to eat someone else's flesh.
*
*
My original logic was actually so simple that most people read too much into it. They thought I was engaging in some broader topic. My comments were entirely focused on the concept of "iPhone connected to keyboard and monitor and replacing the desktop CPU" that was raised by an earlier poster. I don't believe that Apple would actively support this, even if it were currently practical. There was no greater implication to my post.
As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I agree with your assessment. It is much more broad than my entry point to this thread.
Here in Australia I had someone come buy an iPhone o go with the MacBook they bought a couple of weeks ago, I told them a bit about MobileMe and how I use it and a few Apps.
My wife still falls into a slackjawed state of miscomprehension when I add a contact to my iPhone and show it to her on my MacBook a couple of seconds later.
Actually whenever anyone comes in our store with an iPhone I ask about Apps, I've found some good one's that way.
I did the opposite, iPhone first MacBook later (after getting sick of syncing with iTunes in Windows).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
Just thought I'd add an update to what's going on here in Europe. The iPhone is a tremendous hit here in Germany (T-Mobile), and the halo effect around it is blinding. Within this year alone, I have only 2 people in my close circle of friends, that haven't bought an Apple device of one kind or another; MBP's, iPhones, iTouches, iMacs.
A close friend just came by this afternoon to show his new iPhone... didn't even tell me he was gettin' one. This is a non-tech, "I-have-to-use-Windows-because of business" guy! Now he's "stating", (opposed to asking whether he should), that he's getting the 15-MBP right after Xmas.
What have others been trying to do for years, attract social losers that have nothing better to do but stream music and check their facebook 3 million times a day? Thats about all this shows. There isn't anything in this article about innovation its about the surfing habits of the average iPhone/Touch user which we all know is obsessive.
Maybe this article should read Apple in pole position of having the most losers checking their facebook at the same time while streaming Pandora and not getting any real work done.
This is an interesting chart but I don?t care for the comparisons. Are these the fastest growing markets they could find?
Very fair comparisons, growth-wise. Netscape, DoComo, and AOL were all HUGE in their time. For instance, netscape was the hottest IPO in history (as of the time they went public). AOL's growth prospects were so highly valued by the market that they were able to 'acquire' Time Warner for $160B!
However, let's hope these are not fair comparisons of history-repeating-itself-wise. \
Very fair comparisons, growth-wise. Netscape, DoComo, and AOL were all HUGE in their time. For instance, netscape was the hottest IPO in history (as of the time they went public). AOL's growth prospects were so highly valued by the market that they were able to 'acquire' Time Warner for $160B!
However, let's hope these are not fair comparisons of history-repeating-itself-wise. \
That is exactly why I don?t think they may not be the best comparisons. The chart is measuring unique user growth, not company valuation growth.
I?d like to see how other handheld electronic products fared in that same time period. Like the Sony Walkman, Nintendo Gameboy and even the iPod, in general.
This is why Microsoft is quaking in its boots. All along they thought search was the ebola-like threat looming on the horizon. More and more it looks like it's mobile computing.
MS can totally fail in search and they will still sell millions upon millions of Windows licenses. Mobile computing however is the real threat because as mobile devices get more and more powerful, people will start to turn away from laptops and desktops and just rely on their Gen 6 iPhones.
Don't people still want a computer to do large-screen stuff on? Sure. They'll go home, wirelessly connect their iPhone to the screen, keyboard, mouse, and printer in their home office and work away. No Windows in this equation.
I agree, the leap of iPhone to personal desktop use could happen today if Apple really wanted to put the effort into it. If people could view their entire iPhone interface on their TV you'd see a lot of people using the iPhone or iPod Touch in place of devices like an AppleTV as well.
Products aren't quite fast enough & mature enough but it can't be more than 2 - 3 years out before you start seeing this.
I agree, the leap of iPhone to personal desktop use could happen today if Apple really wanted to put the effort into it. If people could view their entire iPhone interface on their TV you'd see a lot of people using the iPhone or iPod Touch in place of devices like an AppleTV as well.
Products aren't quite fast enough & mature enough but it can't be more than 2 - 3 years out before you start seeing this.
Yep. The handheld that you keep on your person will have all the processing power most people need for most tasks (of course there will still be specialized fields that need more powerful hardware), with simple wireless docking solutions for screens and input. Put your files in the cloud, and you carry your computing environment with you at all times.
I wouldn't be surprised to see, with a few years, a social norm wherein not having any and all of your digital stuff ready to product at a moment's notice will seem weird, like not having an email account or being able to tell someone your phone number.
Actually, "pole position" suggests that Apple has the fastest car but all competitors are starting from scratch. This is clearly not the case. The race is already underway and Apple has opened up a big lead. Can anyone catch them? Not unless Apple spins out or runs into a wall.
Comments
This is not a good report because this is not good news.
All this is going to do is encourage Apple NOT to innovate. Or it might encourage them to innovate at a slower pace. Reports like these takes the pressure off of Apple to keep coming out with products that are leaps and bounds beyond the competition.
Lately, Apple has been only doing slight incremental updates to their products especially with the iphone/ipod touch. Reports like this is only going to encourage Apple to do the same.
This means you can only expect slight updates to the iphone's software and hardware so Apple can maintain their lead.
I disagree... Apple is driven by an inner voice to innovate... they can't help themselves, it's in their DNA.
Periodically, they will look at the competition, their own product offerings and make tactical adjustments. But, that won't change their long term goals.
While others are looking for ways to incrementally improve the "smart phone", Apple already has those solutions in various stages of implementation (and plans to obsolete it on the drawing board).
Where Apple will innovate is by changing entire industries-- redefining or replacing entire segments.
Think about it! With the iPhone, Apple has wrapped a personal computer, a web client, PMP, PDA... in a single package that anyone from age 4 to 90 can easily use. They can milk that for a few years.
Sooner, rather than later, "someone" will release devices that replace the computer ecology (including smart phones) as we know it today... not with incremental improvements to word processors, spreadsheets or phone features, but by making them unnecessary.
I believe that "someone" is Apple!
*
Ah, you've fallen into the 'cannibalization' trap that tech 'analysts' routinely trot out whenever they feel the need to say something that sounds like they know stuff.
Cannibalizing your own product is not a bad thing. I always said when asked, or even when not asked, you better be ready to cannibalize your own product because if you don't do it to yourself, your competitor will do it to you. And furthermore, if you're doing it to yourself, you're probably doing it to your competitors as well.
So what is preferable to Apple?
A consumer computer industry where desktops and laptops remain significant despite the rise of compact mobile computing devices? Or . . .
A industry where compact mobile devices virtually supplant (i.e cannibalize) desktops and laptops?
I think Apple would prefer the latter because then they own the whole market (or close to it) while the former, in all likelihood, leaves significant room for Windows.
If consumer habits trend towards compact mobile computing devices and away from the two tops (desk and lap) then any effort to prevent cannibalizing your own product is futile. Bottom line it is not really Apple's choice whether a market for large devices exists or not.
*
Bingo!
*
Apple does not, and never has innovated because of outside pressure. This is just ignorance about the company, it's history, and it's core values.
Exactly what I was going to say.
Evidence #1: iPhone. Analysts and pundits, especially those in Europe, were saying even in 2005 that music phones (but in all other respects they were dumb phones) were selling in far greater numbers than iPods, and that the days of standalone mp3 players were numbered. Yet Apple took its time to get it right - Jobs said it took 2.5 years, and others said that it was scrapped at least once, thus delaying its intro until Jan-Jul 2007.
Evidence #2: Rumored tablet. Microsoft launched Origami/UMPCs years ago but it did not cause Apple to rush one to market; and despite all the talk about CrunchPad/JooJoo and others, Apple still hasn't come to market. Instead, Apple is waiting until the technology is ready to make a useful, responsive tablet at a price people are willing to pay. That technology includes multitouch, PA Semi-modified ARM chips, low-power graphics and wifi chips, lower-cost screens, batteries, and software.
Apple is looking at technology 3-5 years out, and at customer usage expectations 3-5 years out, and innovating to get the right product at the right price at that point. It takes time to design products (iPhone 4th Gen is just about finished), and Apple isn't directly reacting to what's being sold right now.
*
Bingo!
*
Please see my subsequent response.
My assertion was NOT that Apple had any power to prevent the potential market move to mobile nor that they would shy away from being ready to capitalize on that event.
The context I was originally responding to was this: a previous poster suggested that the desire to perform desktop computing (i.e. with keyboard and full sized screen) would remain a market in its own right but that smart-phones would replace the CPUs in that capacity, rendering the current desktop OSes obsolete. My response was that I don't believe that Apple will facilitate that particular outcome.
In short, I agree that when cannibalization naturally occurs, Apple would be wise to be the one that benefits rather than letting someone else do it, but I don't believe that Apple should instigate it by actively making their current products completely redundant.
It would appear that my only true mistake was using the word "cannibalization", which I agree has been misused by industry pundits and which, therefore, engenders an immediate response that completely missed my thrust.
Thompson
I don' think this will happen because its simply not practical. The iPhone makes a great mobile supplementary device, but it does not at all replace a more capable computer.
Three years ago I used to have a desktop at home and carry around a notebook as my portable machine. Now I don't own a desktop, my notebook stays at home more than it used to, and I carry my iPhone as my portable machine. The iPhone keeps me connected until I can get home to my notebook.
PCs will continue to exist, no doubt. But will they still be a primary/secondary device bought by pretty much everyone?
Desktops have already given way to notebooks for the most part because people don't need the extra power and display space of the desktop. And I think Apple is forecasting that soon most people won't even need all the power and display space of the notebook; they'll be happy with the rumored 10" display tablet thing that runs on batteries for a whole day. By 2010, the CPU chip in that tablet thing could be in the same class as a Pentium 4 though using far less juice, and that's enough for most people, especially if it's instant-on and the UI is smoothly responsive like the iPhone.
Certainly some will want to run CPU/GPU-intensive games or apps, and they'll buy a desktop/notebook either as their primary or secondary machine. But I think that will soon no longer be most people.
How does more broswer time using free products turn people into spenders?
what was said was that hits that turned to sales on line came from the losers you are talking about who went to the sites from their social face book etc etc and made a purchase.. the point is that the social sites are a base for advertising that pulls sales to on line sites that advertise on them.. the percentages of overall sales were substantial in that a large number came from hits on those sites..
but you are really hard one to convince as you continually alienate the substance of what you say with IM0 statements..
it is like you need attention really really bad... I hope you can find someone who you will enjoy spending the holidays with.. it must be hard for you..
Yeah, and that is way worse than constantly replying to these posts. Really hope your getting paid for all of your time here.
Thats a good idea they should pay me....
I couldn't agree more. The market will decide, and Apple would prefer to be the one doing the cannibalization. The distinction I'm making here is one of "passive" versus "active" cannibalization. That is, while I agree that Apple has moved (and will continue to move) to be at the nexus of the emerging mobile market so they can be the ones that benefit from whatever cannibalization may occur, I do not believe that Apple will actively encourage it by making it possible to run your desktop keyboard and monitor from your iPhone together with an API for building full-featured applications such as the ones we commonly run on said desktops. You won't be finding that capability in their publicly available iPhone API or in the iPhone OS anytime soon.
Doesn't anybody actually follow the logic of a conversation anymore prior to jumping on their soapbox?
Please see my subsequent response.
My assertion was NOT that Apple had any power to prevent the potential market move to mobile nor that they would shy away from being ready to capitalize on that event.
The context I was originally responding to was this: a previous poster suggested that the desire to perform desktop computing (i.e. with keyboard and full sized screen) would remain a market in its own right but that smart-phones would replace the CPUs in that capacity, rendering the current desktop OSes obsolete. My response was that I don't believe that Apple will facilitate that particular outcome.
In short, I agree that when cannibalization naturally occurs, Apple would be wise to be the one that benefits rather than letting someone else do it, but I don't believe that Apple should instigate it by actively making their current products completely redundant.
It would appear that my only true mistake was using the word "cannibalization", which I agree has been misused by industry pundits and which, therefore, engenders an immediate response that completely missed my thrust.
Thompson
I have read your posts and think I follow your logic.
Here's the way I see the situation:
1) There are a certain percentage of power users, whether it be for personal or business use. Likely, there will always be this class of users.
2) There are a certain percentage of business users which I'll call "Slim Clients" -- who sit in cubicles connected to LANs/WANs which contain the data necessary to to do their jobs. The "Slim Client" set of custom apps are data-driven and do not use or require the power of today's computers. In fact, many of these custom apps can be (or are) just web apps-- the kind you can access with your desktop, laptop or mobile
3) There are a certain percentage of home users who use their computers in the same way as a "Slim Client" in business-- web connectivity, contacts, calendars, etc. and a few (relatively) low power local/remote apps: iTunes, iPhoto, etc.
4) Finally, a certain percentage of home users who do require power user capability to work at home, or act as the IT department for the other "Slim Clients" in the home.
5) The mobile users of smart phones, netbooks and laptops-- who are in the middle of the emigration from the desktop.
I think that groups 1 and 4 will likely continue to use a combination of high-end hardware and software, with secondary use of mobile.
Groups 2 and 3 could, largely, be replaced by a mobile with a little more capability than the smart phone or the netbook.
Lets just say that the rumored Apple Tablet has a large enough display size, easy-enough data-entry (voice, virtual kb, handwriting), and powerful enough hardware (CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD Storage, connectivity)..
So the, homie, commutes to work with his tablet getting/staying connected as necessary. Once he gets to the office his tablet connects to the LAN/WAN via WiFi or physical plug. Some users will want a large display, a kb & mouse, whatever... many will need nothing else.
I submit that the tablet will be necessary and sufficient for most users in the "Slim Client" category.
These are the ones (desktops/laptops/netbooks) that will be displaced by the tablet.
I believe that Apple is very much interested in facilitating this transition because they will be replacing windows boxes with Apple devices... and they constitute a large portion of that 90% Windows market share.
The secret to being a successful cannibal is to eat someone else's flesh.
*
*
So true.
For the same token, I don't believe that it has ever been Apple's goal to sell the most computers or the most phones. Instead make something innovative and then have fun watching others playing catch-up, but don't get caught into the competition game. For this reason, I would be very disappointed if they would make a phone for Verizon, because that would mean giving in to outside pressures.
If that were true they would never lower their prices. Believe it or not, they are a business, that has to make money to exist, and has had more then their share of flops. Some catch, some do not. They have been fairly lucky in the past few years. They appeal to a younger crowd that really like Apple more because they are not Microsoft. Perception is that Microsoft is uncool and stuffy and is "big brother", and Apple is cool and trendy and special. Ironically, Apple's business practices are much more elitus, and restrictive, and inflexible that any other major IT player. If Steve Jobs was in Balmer's shoes today we would all be screwed. There would be no competition. We would do it Steve's way, or we would be able to do it. Apple is great competition for the mainstream IT businesses but having them as the only major player in any one sector is not good for that sector at all. MP3's are the prime example of this. ipod sales are driven primarily by iTunes that promotes a proprietary format that is not open. If you don't want to use an ipod anymore you are "locked in". Did they make their proprietary format because it was better than the competition, no, for the soul purpose of not being interoperable.
Apple is great if you only ever want to do what Apple wants you to do.
I have read your posts and think I follow your logic.
Here's the way I see the situation:
1) There are a certain percentage of power users, whether it be for personal or business use. Likely, there will always be this class of users.
2) There are a certain percentage of business users which I'll call "Slim Clients" -- who sit in cubicles connected to LANs/WANs which contain the data necessary to to do their jobs. The "Slim Client" set of custom apps are data-driven and do not use or require the power of today's computers. In fact, many of these custom apps can be (or are) just web apps-- the kind you can access with your desktop, laptop or mobile
3) There are a certain percentage of home users who use their computers in the same way as a "Slim Client" in business-- web connectivity, contacts, calendars, etc. and a few (relatively) low power local/remote apps: iTunes, iPhoto, etc.
4) Finally, a certain percentage of home users who do require power user capability to work at home, or act as the IT department for the other "Slim Clients" in the home.
5) The mobile users of smart phones, netbooks and laptops-- who are in the middle of the emigration from the desktop.
I think that groups 1 and 4 will likely continue to use a combination of high-end hardware and software, with secondary use of mobile.
Groups 2 and 3 could, largely, be replaced by a mobile with a little more capability than the smart phone or the netbook.
Lets just say that the rumored Apple Tablet has a large enough display size, easy-enough data-entry (voice, virtual kb, handwriting), and powerful enough hardware (CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD Storage, connectivity)..
So the, homie, commutes to work with his tablet getting/staying connected as necessary. Once he gets to the office his tablet connects to the LAN/WAN via WiFi or physical plug. Some users will want a large display, a kb & mouse, whatever... many will need nothing else.
I submit that the tablet will be necessary and sufficient for most users in the "Slim Client" category.
These are the ones (desktops/laptops/netbooks) that will be displaced by the tablet.
I believe that Apple is very much interested in facilitating this transition because they will be replacing windows boxes with Apple devices... and they constitute a large portion of that 90% Windows market share.
The secret to being a successful cannibal is to eat someone else's flesh.
*
*
My original logic was actually so simple that most people read too much into it. They thought I was engaging in some broader topic. My comments were entirely focused on the concept of "iPhone connected to keyboard and monitor and replacing the desktop CPU" that was raised by an earlier poster. I don't believe that Apple would actively support this, even if it were currently practical. There was no greater implication to my post.
As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I agree with your assessment. It is much more broad than my entry point to this thread.
Thompson
My wife still falls into a slackjawed state of miscomprehension when I add a contact to my iPhone and show it to her on my MacBook a couple of seconds later.
Actually whenever anyone comes in our store with an iPhone I ask about Apps, I've found some good one's that way.
I did the opposite, iPhone first MacBook later (after getting sick of syncing with iTunes in Windows).
Just thought I'd add an update to what's going on here in Europe. The iPhone is a tremendous hit here in Germany (T-Mobile), and the halo effect around it is blinding. Within this year alone, I have only 2 people in my close circle of friends, that haven't bought an Apple device of one kind or another; MBP's, iPhones, iTouches, iMacs.
A close friend just came by this afternoon to show his new iPhone... didn't even tell me he was gettin' one. This is a non-tech, "I-have-to-use-Windows-because of business" guy! Now he's "stating", (opposed to asking whether he should), that he's getting the 15-MBP right after Xmas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5oGaZIKYvo
What have others been trying to do for years, attract social losers that have nothing better to do but stream music and check their facebook 3 million times a day? Thats about all this shows. There isn't anything in this article about innovation its about the surfing habits of the average iPhone/Touch user which we all know is obsessive.
Maybe this article should read Apple in pole position of having the most losers checking their facebook at the same time while streaming Pandora and not getting any real work done.
This is an interesting chart but I don?t care for the comparisons. Are these the fastest growing markets they could find?
Very fair comparisons, growth-wise. Netscape, DoComo, and AOL were all HUGE in their time. For instance, netscape was the hottest IPO in history (as of the time they went public). AOL's growth prospects were so highly valued by the market that they were able to 'acquire' Time Warner for $160B!
However, let's hope these are not fair comparisons of history-repeating-itself-wise.
Very fair comparisons, growth-wise. Netscape, DoComo, and AOL were all HUGE in their time. For instance, netscape was the hottest IPO in history (as of the time they went public). AOL's growth prospects were so highly valued by the market that they were able to 'acquire' Time Warner for $160B!
However, let's hope these are not fair comparisons of history-repeating-itself-wise.
That is exactly why I don?t think they may not be the best comparisons. The chart is measuring unique user growth, not company valuation growth.
I?d like to see how other handheld electronic products fared in that same time period. Like the Sony Walkman, Nintendo Gameboy and even the iPod, in general.
That is exactly why I don?t think they maybe the best comparisons. The chart is measuring unique user growth, not company valuation growth.
Excellent point. I stand corrected.
This is why Microsoft is quaking in its boots. All along they thought search was the ebola-like threat looming on the horizon. More and more it looks like it's mobile computing.
MS can totally fail in search and they will still sell millions upon millions of Windows licenses. Mobile computing however is the real threat because as mobile devices get more and more powerful, people will start to turn away from laptops and desktops and just rely on their Gen 6 iPhones.
Don't people still want a computer to do large-screen stuff on? Sure. They'll go home, wirelessly connect their iPhone to the screen, keyboard, mouse, and printer in their home office and work away. No Windows in this equation.
I agree, the leap of iPhone to personal desktop use could happen today if Apple really wanted to put the effort into it. If people could view their entire iPhone interface on their TV you'd see a lot of people using the iPhone or iPod Touch in place of devices like an AppleTV as well.
Products aren't quite fast enough & mature enough but it can't be more than 2 - 3 years out before you start seeing this.
I agree, the leap of iPhone to personal desktop use could happen today if Apple really wanted to put the effort into it. If people could view their entire iPhone interface on their TV you'd see a lot of people using the iPhone or iPod Touch in place of devices like an AppleTV as well.
Products aren't quite fast enough & mature enough but it can't be more than 2 - 3 years out before you start seeing this.
Yep. The handheld that you keep on your person will have all the processing power most people need for most tasks (of course there will still be specialized fields that need more powerful hardware), with simple wireless docking solutions for screens and input. Put your files in the cloud, and you carry your computing environment with you at all times.
I wouldn't be surprised to see, with a few years, a social norm wherein not having any and all of your digital stuff ready to product at a moment's notice will seem weird, like not having an email account or being able to tell someone your phone number.
Apple does not, and never has innovated because of outside pressure. This is just ignorance about the company, it's history, and it's core values.
Hello? That's the freakin point. There IS NO outside pressure!