'Important' rather than, say, simply 'exciting'...
Maybe it's wresting control of how the networks are used from the cellular service providers, the broadcasters, the cable networks, the phone networks, the satellite networks, etc. Digital freedom.
No, it's saving the press from going out of business.
Surely it's unheard of for Apple itself to be hyping up a product before it's announcement. It normally just gives the date of the press conference and lets the speculation gather naturally to the usual intense level.
Apple appears to be trying to actually raise expectation, despite there already being what can only be described as a huge level of tablet hysteria. Strange.
I'm as excited about the event as anyone, but can't help feeling that unless Apple REALLY delivers something truly revolutionary, there will be a lot of disappointed folk out there. All this for a product most people think they don't even need.
They must have something VERY special about to land...
The puff piece on Jobs career gloss over many of Jobs' failures.
The Apple Lisa
The Hiring of Scully
NeXT failure to find a niche (it was not started as an OS company, but as a hardware vendor to compete with MS and Apple)
The eMate
The Mac Cube
Apple TV
They also left out some important points.
NeXTs Acquisition of Renderman
The Formation of Pixar
I believe this tablet, if announced, can be a game changer. I have wanted a functional tablet for years, I even own a Fujitsu tablet -- which sucks.
If he delivers a blinding brilliant product, but misses the price point, it will still be a failure.
It's been said that if you don't have any failures, then you're not taking enough risks. Apple's failures (since Jobs' return) have been few and far between and minor in importance. (So the Cube wasn't a real big success - big deal!)
Most of Jobs' failure at Apple were before his return. Think about how young and how inexperienced he was at the time. He was only 30 when he left Apple.
Especially considering that critics said that Apple should be closed or sold, that the retail operation would be a failure, that cheap MP3 players would destroy the market for the iPod, that since people could get a phone for free or near-free, no one outside of business executives would pay $200-$300 for a phone, that no one would buy Macs when they could buy Dells cheaper, that Macs could not survive because there wasn't enough application software, that Apple would fail at the PowerPC to Intel transition, etc., their success is truly remarkable.
Add to that their continued success during a worldwide recession where even flat revenue would be considered success for almost any other company and you have a truly remarkable company that has been running on all cylinders for some time.
When most companies have a failing product, they simply discontinue it and produce something else instead and no one even notices. (Sony's XBR10 series of TVs has barely made it to retail and they seem already discontinued.) If Dell or Lenovo stopped making a computer, would you even know? But everything Apple does is placed under a microscope.
Some critics have complained that Apple is not really a computer company anymore, but so what? Apple understands that it's in the business of selling hardware and software products and services that enable the delivery and manipulation of media and data. The particular device you use to accomplish this is not really important. Companies who don't understand that do so at their peril. (In post-WWII, the railroad companies essentially went out of business in the U.S. because they did not understand that they were in the transportation business, not the train business. Imagine if the railroads had invested in airlines and built lines to airports to transport people to downtown and to smaller cities, etc. Likewise, in the early 1950s, the Hollywood movie studios did not understand that they were in the entertainment business, not the "movie" business, and originally refused to sell product to or invest in TV production.) What Apple has understood better than anyone else is the importance of the ecosystem. It's the ecosystem that has made the iPod, the iPhone and Apple retail an enormous success.
And it's not just Apple. Jobs bought Pixar from Lucas for $5 million (+ an investment of $ 5 million), managed it brilliantly and sold it to Disney for $4.7 billion.
I actually would like to see Apple have another (moderate) failure. One learns more from failure than from success and Apple still has a bit of an "arrogance" problem.
Name one other company that has executed as brilliantly as Apple during the last ten years. Imagine if there were ten companies in the U.S. that performed as well as Apple (not just financial success, but in terms of impact on the marketplace and industry.)
i remember reading articles reporting how Jobs was so disappointed that the iphone didn't get more wide-spread adoption in industries other than entertainment. Saying that the medical, government, educational, etc. would benefit much more from the iphone than the media industry. I think that's what is meant when SJ is quoted as saying this "creation" is the most important thing he's ever done. And i see his point. when the 3GS came out i remember the keynote where they were promoting educaiton apps and medical apps (i.e. the blood glucose tester). The technology of the iphone and this new "Creation" are important to the greater good. The problem is that Apple has never been a heavy hitter in the corporate sector, which is largely dominated by Microsoft products. If SJ want's to go to the philanthropic route, he's going to have to make a much larger effort to win over the corporate world. The real problem with it all is that it boggles my mind as to why SJ is so surprised that the gaming/entertainment aspect of the iPhone/Touch is dominating. Well, when you're marketing a product to the non-techinical, non-corporate user, that's mainly what we need from a device like these.
It's been said that if you don't have any failures, then you're not taking enough risks. Apple's failures (since Jobs' return) have been few and far between and minor in importance. (So the Cube wasn't a real big success - big deal!)
Most of Jobs' failure at Apple were before his return. Think about how young and how inexperienced he was at the time. He was only 30 when he left Apple.
Especially considering that critics said that Apple should be closed or sold, that the retail operation would be a failure, that cheap MP3 players would destroy the market for the iPod, that since people could get a phone for free or near-free, no one outside of business executives would pay $200-$300 for a phone, that no one would buy Macs when they could buy Dells cheaper, that Macs could not survive because there wasn't enough application software, that Apple would fail at the PowerPC to Intel transition, etc., their success is truly remarkable.
Add to that their continued success during a worldwide recession where even flat revenue would be considered success for almost any other company and you have a truly remarkable company that has been running on all cylinders for some time.
When most companies have a failing product, they simply discontinue it and produce something else instead and no one even notices. (Sony's XBR10 series of TVs has barely made it to retail and they seem already discontinued.) If Dell or Lenovo stopped making a computer, would you even know? But everything Apple does is placed under a microscope.
Some critics have complained that Apple is not really a computer company anymore, but so what? Apple understands that it's in the business of selling hardware and software products and services that enable the delivery and manipulation of media and data. The particular device you use to accomplish this is not really important. Companies who don't understand that do so at their peril. (In post-WWII, the railroad companies essentially went out of business in the U.S. because they did not understand that they were in the transportation business, not the train business. Imagine if the railroads had invested in airlines and built lines to airports to transport people to downtown and to smaller cities, etc. Likewise, in the early 1950s, the Hollywood movie studios did not understand that they were in the entertainment business, not the "movie" business, and originally refused to sell product to or invest in TV production.) What Apple has understood better than anyone else is the importance of the ecosystem. It's the ecosystem that has made the iPod, the iPhone and Apple retail an enormous success.
And it's not just Apple. Jobs bought Pixar from Lucas for $5 million (+ an investment of $ 5 million), managed it brilliantly and sold it to Disney for $4.7 billion.
I actually would like to see Apple have another (moderate) failure. One learns more from failure than from success and Apple still has a bit of an "arrogance" problem.
Name one other company that has executed as brilliantly as Apple during the last ten years. Imagine if there were ten companies in the U.S. that performed as well as Apple (not just financial success, but in terms of impact on the marketplace and industry.)
The most significant aspect of Apple's success when Jobs came back is that it's by no means accidental. Years ago I remember Jobs making a presentation about the computer becoming the hub for a digital lifestyle. Everything Apple has done since has been geared towards promoting that lifestyle. Even as Apple has worked its way towards that goal, many simply have lacked the vision to grasp what the company has been doing. That's why it has only been recently that most have connected the dots and come to realize the iPod is part of a much more substantial system that integrates iTunes, the App Store, etc. While the competition was busy trying to figure out what hardware features to pack into their MP3 players in order to take on the iPod, Apple was busy developing a system that flawlessly brings together hardware and software taking advantage of the connectivity possible thanks to the Internet. The competition never saw it coming while Jobs had it figured out years ago.
People keep talking about failure, and it makes me think of the most ubiquitous electric device in history. The light bulb. Something so common place today that it's hard to imagine life without it. Developed by arguably the most famous inventor in human history, and he failed (if the quote is to be believed) over a thousand times.
?We now know a thousand ways not to build a light bulb?
I sit here listening to Pandora on my iPhone. Something I would never have even thought of doing a mere year ago, before I bought my iPhone. Apple has a history of producing truly revolutionary products. Personally, I don't see the tablet being a device for me, but I'm really interested to see what it is and does. I've honestly never been this excited about a product announcement before in my life.
Here's to hoping that they also announce a hardware update on the MacBook Pro tomorrow too. I'm planning on buying one in the next few weeks. I've even prepared the wife for the $2400 sticker shock.
The revelation of Michael Arrington is a bit like John the Baptist:
I thought I was doing a good job but someone else was doing a similar job. At first I thought I could compete, but I later realised I didn't have a chance, so I aligned my reputation with his/hers and became a spokesman for them.
and now, Steve Jobs has been reported as saying that the upcoming Apple tablet "will be the most important thing I've ever done."
If Steve is right, it will be because the upcoming Apple tablet will take over from the iMac as the personal computer paradigm. The original Mac replaced the Apple II as the first "personal computer" for ordinary people.
Mac OS X, the iPod and the iPhone augmented that with a Unix base and handheld connectivity, but if the upcoming Apple tablet can, as expected, provide the connectivity and functionality of all three, then it will indeed be more important than the original Mac. That will make it "the most important thing I've ever done."
It is amazing what stupid people will believe....."We haven?t heard this first hand, but we?ve heard it multiple times second and third hand from completely independent sources."
Last summer a cafe (Jax on the Tracks) in Truckee, California, was closed for a day to shoot an Apple commercial. Cafes are a typical venue for people to read the newspaper, especially on their Apple tablets.
i remember reading articles reporting how Jobs was so disappointed that the iphone didn't get more wide-spread adoption in industries other than entertainment. Saying that the medical, government, educational, etc. would benefit much more from the iphone than the media industry. I think that's what is meant when SJ is quoted as saying this "creation" is the most important thing he's ever done. And i see his point. when the 3GS came out i remember the keynote where they were promoting educaiton apps and medical apps (i.e. the blood glucose tester). The technology of the iphone and this new "Creation" are important to the greater good. The problem is that Apple has never been a heavy hitter in the corporate sector, which is largely dominated by Microsoft products. If SJ want's to go to the philanthropic route, he's going to have to make a much larger effort to win over the corporate world. The real problem with it all is that it boggles my mind as to why SJ is so surprised that the gaming/entertainment aspect of the iPhone/Touch is dominating. Well, when you're marketing a product to the non-techinical, non-corporate user, that's mainly what we need from a device like these.
Let's hope the "creation" is a bold step forward.
I dont remember seeing those articles but the iPhone fails miserably at security so you can nix that idea. iPhone in education...maybe but limited. Medical field i cant really say but im not sure how i would feel about someone carrying/having access to my medical records in their pocket. Sure the extent goes beyond that but im too tired to think of anything.
Their computers work well for education/medical/science purposes but the government essentially runs on Windows and that most likely wont be changing.
I personally would rather see this tablet be more education focused than being some useless content device to carry around.
Add to that list the Mac Mini...have a soft spot for the G4 cube though! Oh and first gen iMac G5s were crap...
How do you figure the Mini is a failure? They're still making them. I know. I just bought one.
Great computer, by the way.
Most are opting for the iMac instead but I like the idea of being able to retain my monitor when I decide to trade up to a new desktop. With the iMac you're stuck having to get rid of a perfectly good monitor years before it has stopped working well on account of the computer attached to it has packed it in. Last time I checked, computers don't last more than 10 years but good monitors do.
Granted, for the price of my Mini, an external hard drive and a 24" Cinema Display (terrific monitor, by the way) I could have bought a 27" iMac and had better specs. But the Mini is fast enough for my needs and a few years from now, I will be able to trade it in for a machine faster than the current iMac, get a decent dollar in trade, and be good to go for a few more years. I'll be able to do that several times during the lifespan of the monitor. Every time I get a new machine, I can update my OS and iLife free of charge. Long-term, the Mini is a better deal.
Comments
'Important' rather than, say, simply 'exciting'...
Maybe it's wresting control of how the networks are used from the cellular service providers, the broadcasters, the cable networks, the phone networks, the satellite networks, etc. Digital freedom.
No, it's saving the press from going out of business.
can't live up to the hype how?
We'll see. Sheesh, it was a joke!!
Apple appears to be trying to actually raise expectation, despite there already being what can only be described as a huge level of tablet hysteria. Strange.
I'm as excited about the event as anyone, but can't help feeling that unless Apple REALLY delivers something truly revolutionary, there will be a lot of disappointed folk out there. All this for a product most people think they don't even need.
They must have something VERY special about to land...
The puff piece on Jobs career gloss over many of Jobs' failures.
The Apple Lisa
The Hiring of Scully
NeXT failure to find a niche (it was not started as an OS company, but as a hardware vendor to compete with MS and Apple)
The eMate
The Mac Cube
Apple TV
They also left out some important points.
NeXTs Acquisition of Renderman
The Formation of Pixar
I believe this tablet, if announced, can be a game changer. I have wanted a functional tablet for years, I even own a Fujitsu tablet -- which sucks.
If he delivers a blinding brilliant product, but misses the price point, it will still be a failure.
It's been said that if you don't have any failures, then you're not taking enough risks. Apple's failures (since Jobs' return) have been few and far between and minor in importance. (So the Cube wasn't a real big success - big deal!)
Most of Jobs' failure at Apple were before his return. Think about how young and how inexperienced he was at the time. He was only 30 when he left Apple.
Especially considering that critics said that Apple should be closed or sold, that the retail operation would be a failure, that cheap MP3 players would destroy the market for the iPod, that since people could get a phone for free or near-free, no one outside of business executives would pay $200-$300 for a phone, that no one would buy Macs when they could buy Dells cheaper, that Macs could not survive because there wasn't enough application software, that Apple would fail at the PowerPC to Intel transition, etc., their success is truly remarkable.
Add to that their continued success during a worldwide recession where even flat revenue would be considered success for almost any other company and you have a truly remarkable company that has been running on all cylinders for some time.
When most companies have a failing product, they simply discontinue it and produce something else instead and no one even notices. (Sony's XBR10 series of TVs has barely made it to retail and they seem already discontinued.) If Dell or Lenovo stopped making a computer, would you even know? But everything Apple does is placed under a microscope.
Some critics have complained that Apple is not really a computer company anymore, but so what? Apple understands that it's in the business of selling hardware and software products and services that enable the delivery and manipulation of media and data. The particular device you use to accomplish this is not really important. Companies who don't understand that do so at their peril. (In post-WWII, the railroad companies essentially went out of business in the U.S. because they did not understand that they were in the transportation business, not the train business. Imagine if the railroads had invested in airlines and built lines to airports to transport people to downtown and to smaller cities, etc. Likewise, in the early 1950s, the Hollywood movie studios did not understand that they were in the entertainment business, not the "movie" business, and originally refused to sell product to or invest in TV production.) What Apple has understood better than anyone else is the importance of the ecosystem. It's the ecosystem that has made the iPod, the iPhone and Apple retail an enormous success.
And it's not just Apple. Jobs bought Pixar from Lucas for $5 million (+ an investment of $ 5 million), managed it brilliantly and sold it to Disney for $4.7 billion.
I actually would like to see Apple have another (moderate) failure. One learns more from failure than from success and Apple still has a bit of an "arrogance" problem.
Name one other company that has executed as brilliantly as Apple during the last ten years. Imagine if there were ten companies in the U.S. that performed as well as Apple (not just financial success, but in terms of impact on the marketplace and industry.)
I thought the porno would be "The Devil Wears Nothing"
Or maybe The Devil Does Pravda.
Let's hope the "creation" is a bold step forward.
It's been said that if you don't have any failures, then you're not taking enough risks. Apple's failures (since Jobs' return) have been few and far between and minor in importance. (So the Cube wasn't a real big success - big deal!)
Most of Jobs' failure at Apple were before his return. Think about how young and how inexperienced he was at the time. He was only 30 when he left Apple.
Especially considering that critics said that Apple should be closed or sold, that the retail operation would be a failure, that cheap MP3 players would destroy the market for the iPod, that since people could get a phone for free or near-free, no one outside of business executives would pay $200-$300 for a phone, that no one would buy Macs when they could buy Dells cheaper, that Macs could not survive because there wasn't enough application software, that Apple would fail at the PowerPC to Intel transition, etc., their success is truly remarkable.
Add to that their continued success during a worldwide recession where even flat revenue would be considered success for almost any other company and you have a truly remarkable company that has been running on all cylinders for some time.
When most companies have a failing product, they simply discontinue it and produce something else instead and no one even notices. (Sony's XBR10 series of TVs has barely made it to retail and they seem already discontinued.) If Dell or Lenovo stopped making a computer, would you even know? But everything Apple does is placed under a microscope.
Some critics have complained that Apple is not really a computer company anymore, but so what? Apple understands that it's in the business of selling hardware and software products and services that enable the delivery and manipulation of media and data. The particular device you use to accomplish this is not really important. Companies who don't understand that do so at their peril. (In post-WWII, the railroad companies essentially went out of business in the U.S. because they did not understand that they were in the transportation business, not the train business. Imagine if the railroads had invested in airlines and built lines to airports to transport people to downtown and to smaller cities, etc. Likewise, in the early 1950s, the Hollywood movie studios did not understand that they were in the entertainment business, not the "movie" business, and originally refused to sell product to or invest in TV production.) What Apple has understood better than anyone else is the importance of the ecosystem. It's the ecosystem that has made the iPod, the iPhone and Apple retail an enormous success.
And it's not just Apple. Jobs bought Pixar from Lucas for $5 million (+ an investment of $ 5 million), managed it brilliantly and sold it to Disney for $4.7 billion.
I actually would like to see Apple have another (moderate) failure. One learns more from failure than from success and Apple still has a bit of an "arrogance" problem.
Name one other company that has executed as brilliantly as Apple during the last ten years. Imagine if there were ten companies in the U.S. that performed as well as Apple (not just financial success, but in terms of impact on the marketplace and industry.)
The most significant aspect of Apple's success when Jobs came back is that it's by no means accidental. Years ago I remember Jobs making a presentation about the computer becoming the hub for a digital lifestyle. Everything Apple has done since has been geared towards promoting that lifestyle. Even as Apple has worked its way towards that goal, many simply have lacked the vision to grasp what the company has been doing. That's why it has only been recently that most have connected the dots and come to realize the iPod is part of a much more substantial system that integrates iTunes, the App Store, etc. While the competition was busy trying to figure out what hardware features to pack into their MP3 players in order to take on the iPod, Apple was busy developing a system that flawlessly brings together hardware and software taking advantage of the connectivity possible thanks to the Internet. The competition never saw it coming while Jobs had it figured out years ago.
?We now know a thousand ways not to build a light bulb?
I sit here listening to Pandora on my iPhone. Something I would never have even thought of doing a mere year ago, before I bought my iPhone. Apple has a history of producing truly revolutionary products. Personally, I don't see the tablet being a device for me, but I'm really interested to see what it is and does. I've honestly never been this excited about a product announcement before in my life.
Here's to hoping that they also announce a hardware update on the MacBook Pro tomorrow too. I'm planning on buying one in the next few weeks. I've even prepared the wife for the $2400 sticker shock.
I thought I was doing a good job but someone else was doing a similar job. At first I thought I could compete, but I later realised I didn't have a chance, so I aligned my reputation with his/hers and became a spokesman for them.
and now, Steve Jobs has been reported as saying that the upcoming Apple tablet "will be the most important thing I've ever done."
If Steve is right, it will be because the upcoming Apple tablet will take over from the iMac as the personal computer paradigm. The original Mac replaced the Apple II as the first "personal computer" for ordinary people.
Mac OS X, the iPod and the iPhone augmented that with a Unix base and handheld connectivity, but if the upcoming Apple tablet can, as expected, provide the connectivity and functionality of all three, then it will indeed be more important than the original Mac. That will make it "the most important thing I've ever done."
The puff piece on Jobs career gloss over many of Jobs' failures.
The Apple Lisa
The Hiring of Scully
NeXT failure to find a niche (it was not started as an OS company, but as a hardware vendor to compete with MS and Apple)
The eMate
The Mac Cube
Apple TV
They also left out some important points.
NeXTs Acquisition of Renderman
The Formation of Pixar
I believe this tablet, if announced, can be a game changer. I have wanted a functional tablet for years, I even own a Fujitsu tablet -- which sucks.
If he delivers a blinding brilliant product, but misses the price point, it will still be a failure.
The eMate was under Spindler and released under Gil Amelio in 1997. In 1998 under Steve Jobs the product was discontinued.
The puff piece on Jobs career gloss over many of Jobs' failures.
The Apple Lisa
The Hiring of Scully
NeXT failure to find a niche (it was not started as an OS company, but as a hardware vendor to compete with MS and Apple)
The eMate
The Mac Cube
Apple TV
They also left out some important points.
NeXTs Acquisition of Renderman
The Formation of Pixar
I believe this tablet, if announced, can be a game changer. I have wanted a functional tablet for years, I even own a Fujitsu tablet -- which sucks.
If he delivers a blinding brilliant product, but misses the price point, it will still be a failure.
eMate was an offshoot of Newton. Jobs had nothing to do with it other than canceling it.
The puff piece on Jobs career gloss over many of Jobs' failures.
The Apple Lisa
The Hiring of Scully
NeXT failure to find a niche (it was not started as an OS company, but as a hardware vendor to compete with MS and Apple)
The eMate
The Mac Cube
Apple TV
They also left out some important points.
NeXTs Acquisition of Renderman
The Formation of Pixar
I believe this tablet, if announced, can be a game changer. I have wanted a functional tablet for years, I even own a Fujitsu tablet -- which sucks.
If he delivers a blinding brilliant product, but misses the price point, it will still be a failure.
Add to that list the Mac Mini...have a soft spot for the G4 cube though! Oh and first gen iMac G5s were crap...
i remember reading articles reporting how Jobs was so disappointed that the iphone didn't get more wide-spread adoption in industries other than entertainment. Saying that the medical, government, educational, etc. would benefit much more from the iphone than the media industry. I think that's what is meant when SJ is quoted as saying this "creation" is the most important thing he's ever done. And i see his point. when the 3GS came out i remember the keynote where they were promoting educaiton apps and medical apps (i.e. the blood glucose tester). The technology of the iphone and this new "Creation" are important to the greater good. The problem is that Apple has never been a heavy hitter in the corporate sector, which is largely dominated by Microsoft products. If SJ want's to go to the philanthropic route, he's going to have to make a much larger effort to win over the corporate world. The real problem with it all is that it boggles my mind as to why SJ is so surprised that the gaming/entertainment aspect of the iPhone/Touch is dominating. Well, when you're marketing a product to the non-techinical, non-corporate user, that's mainly what we need from a device like these.
Let's hope the "creation" is a bold step forward.
I dont remember seeing those articles but the iPhone fails miserably at security so you can nix that idea. iPhone in education...maybe but limited. Medical field i cant really say but im not sure how i would feel about someone carrying/having access to my medical records in their pocket. Sure the extent goes beyond that but im too tired to think of anything.
Their computers work well for education/medical/science purposes but the government essentially runs on Windows and that most likely wont be changing.
I personally would rather see this tablet be more education focused than being some useless content device to carry around.
blazing bonfire of excited anticipation
Yep pretty much sums it up for me
"the most important thing I've ever done"
So he didn't say it then?
Add to that list the Mac Mini...have a soft spot for the G4 cube though! Oh and first gen iMac G5s were crap...
How do you figure the Mini is a failure? They're still making them. I know. I just bought one.
Great computer, by the way.
Most are opting for the iMac instead but I like the idea of being able to retain my monitor when I decide to trade up to a new desktop. With the iMac you're stuck having to get rid of a perfectly good monitor years before it has stopped working well on account of the computer attached to it has packed it in. Last time I checked, computers don't last more than 10 years but good monitors do.
Granted, for the price of my Mini, an external hard drive and a 24" Cinema Display (terrific monitor, by the way) I could have bought a 27" iMac and had better specs. But the Mini is fast enough for my needs and a few years from now, I will be able to trade it in for a machine faster than the current iMac, get a decent dollar in trade, and be good to go for a few more years. I'll be able to do that several times during the lifespan of the monitor. Every time I get a new machine, I can update my OS and iLife free of charge. Long-term, the Mini is a better deal.