His sarcasm is often stated without the standard sarcasm notation to stir the pot, so to speak, to get responses pure and simple.
Enjoy your fantasy world.
Originally Posted by jragosta
Good. So you're going to drop your silly sarcasm tag since it offers no advantage over the conventional one and the total effect is actually worse (since most people don't recognize it).
Once again, not mine, not non-standard, and no. When even the standard one is ignored, it doesn't really matter.
Good. So you're going to drop your silly sarcasm tag since it offers no advantage over the conventional one and the total effect is actually worse (since most people don't recognize it).
Right?
I started the experiment 5 years ago so lay off him. Just as the inefficient and sloppy /s was invented to deal with the shortcomings of multiple casual conversations in a text forum so was the everything else in language. In fact, the ¡ to denote irony is far older than the /s you are claiming is the only irony mark we need and will apparently ever need. I disagree for reasons already stated.
Do you recognize that a colon+capital-D means a smiley face? Surely at some point that had to be invented and at some point you had to see it for the first time. Did you then say it was more effective just to say you're smiling as opposed to the more efficient double-letter option? Of course you did and you probably adopted those right away, and if not have surely accepted them even if you don't personally use them.
That's language! It might even evolve more frequently than consumer electronics. Whether you accept the use of a sarcmark or not is up to you but the odds are high there will eventually be a single character to denote irony. Someone will likely adopt an existing character and use it and it all catch on and if you are around when that happens you adopt it to just as you have with other changes in language throughout your life.
Have you seen the freaks at NAMM? Not exactly what I would call a cross section of professionals. And, the content they create well...let's just say it is a small niche at best. I seriously doubt Apple would ever align themselves with that sort of subculture as an example of how people use the iPad.
Hardware? Software? Both can do the job. Solutions work better. The bigger the problem that Apple solves, the better it does financially: Can't buy tunes the way you wish, get iTunes and an iPod. Can't use your phone as a fully fledged communicator, with email, messaging, voice? Get iOS and an iPhone. Can't buy magical apps and games cheaply? Get iOS and an iPad. Can't have TV shows cheaply and ala carte? ...
Both hardware and software are getting cheaper, which will be a problem for Apple and Samsung both. As Dilger says, it's a bigger problem for Samsung 'cus Apple has already figured out how to make money off of games, apps, tunes ... and later books and shows ... at a buck a title. It already makes money on volume. Samsung, on the other hand, has zero developer allied with it; they are allied to Android and Google. And Apple has ten of thousands hooked up. All of Samsung billions of dollars of marketing money can't buy it developer love; it does kill their margins.
This chart labels each category more explicitly, with results not much different from the other one:
Are other breakdowns more readily available which would show a different mix?
And more relevant here, as I asked above, has Apple made stats available which would show profits from software vs hardware?
I'm not convinced you get it yet. The problem is that only Apple knows its figures. Every other data is either presenting the information Apple has published, or is making guesses as to what Apple's exact product mix is.
You may well be right. it may be that neither Digler, nor Chowdhry, nor anyone else gets it. Except yourself, of course. Bravo.
But if you can pull your eyes away from the pretty picture, you'll find that I also included some text there. Not much, just two questions. I had thought the question marks at the end of each line might have helped distinguish them as questions, but perhaps I was too assuming. My bad. Let me try this again here:
I don't claim to have any of the specifics so many others here and in this article claim to have. I just have questions. And these are questions precisely for the reasons you noted, that Apple is not forthcoming with the details which might answer them.
So while I'm cool with acknowledging that no one has enough specific data to answer them, I'm apparently in a small minority, as others write with great certainty about what Apple should or should not do.
That said, it may be worth noting AI's coverage of the conference call:
In those notes it appears that Apple has included all App Store revenues in the category of "iTunes/Software/Services", as Apple themselves calls it in their PDF summary.
Now I can't say with certainty that Apple meant to say "software" when perhaps they really didn't mean to write that at all. Maybe they, as was suggested earlier in this thread, actually included all of the software people use on their iOS devices under "iPod sales" and "iPad sales", and somehow Digler, Chowdry, and Apple's own investor notes got it wrong.
More importantly, as I noted above, revenue, however modest it may seem for software relative to hardware, tells us nothing of profits. Which is why I included that as a question.
And thus far, it seems neither Digler, nor Chowdry, nor anyone here in this forum has yet produced those profit numbers.
So while this has been good fun and all, the only relevant question which might help anyone understand if Chowdry's making any sense or is just another armchair quarterback has not been answered.
Perhaps you can answer it.
Feel free to continue offering explanations for questions no one's asking, but if you happen to have the answer for the only relevant question, the one about profits, your taking a break to share that would be much appreciated. Thanks.
I hope this encouraging re-emphasis by Apple on software isn't just word play. Because it really is that important to their future. As already mentioned here, their current first party apps are generally inferior to the Google equivalents and their cloud services still too patchy. It should be within their capabilities to do this as they used to be very good at it in the recent past. Here's hoping because without really good in-house software and Internet services they're going to be in big trouble down the line.
As someone who has used Apple software almost daily since Apple started making software I have to strongly disagree with the (biased) assumption underneath this article.
With very few exceptions, Apple does not make "the best software" or anything close to it IMO. Based on decades of experience I would say rather that they make:
- excellent firmware or underlying systems software (the background stuff that no one sees)
- good and sometimes great system software (OS X)
- not very good anything else. (Almost all their application software is "OK" at best) *
They also have a long sad history of "abandon ware" because of the fact that the only reason they create a lot of their stuff, is to sell a piece of hardware.
Thus you get iChat, Pages, Numbers, etc. which all start off with great fanfare and then are left in the dust for multiple years. iChat was eventually updated by turning it into "Messages" and now it's been abandoned again. Since iWork hasn't been updated in many years now, I can hardly wait for the "all-NEW!" "Completely Different!" iWork to come out (we know it will be soon), which will then be left in the dust without updates for another five years.
* - The only exception to this rule is when they buy something wholesale and just put their brand on it (i.e. - application software actually made by someone else)
It means Apple has a distant lead in creating a real mobile software platform and is apparently the only company that understands the value in building one.
Yeah but there is no such thing as a "distant lead." It's made up nonsense words, but hey ... maybe it will catch on.
"People who write software should want to do their own hardware."
Jobs often said that Apple is a software company, but that's probably just because people demand a distinction. Makes them feel more comfortable.
I'm sure Microsoft is feeling pretty comfortable, watching the cracks slip through the facade…
Jobs was not infallible either. I think on the balance of evidence, Apple is actually a hardware company that makes it's own integrated software. I know Jobs said different and Apple's position whenever I hear it mentioned by any Apple employees is close to what Jobs said, but I don't see that there is any reason to really believe them (or him). Apple is f*cking obsessed with hardware. Apple sells hardware. All their major money comes from hardware. The software is arguably just the bit of the product that makes the hardware work.
I'm not saying you can't argue the opposite as well, but everything Jobs ever said on stage or in person leads me to think his main interest is the hardware. Jony Ive is also the single most important designer and he is the hardware guy. Remember too, Apple doesn't even tell you (except in a few rare circumstances) who designed the software. It's just "that stuff" that they put into the hardware to make it work and look cool.
They are always constantly happy to shuck off the software task to third parties also. They would absolutely *love* it for example, if a company designed a good, working Office suite for iOS, it would mean they could put the pretence that is iWork out to pasture and not have to worry about it again. They created iWork/Appleworks specifically because there was no good alternative at the time and supported it spottily ever since.
People who just quote Jobs' dogma on the matter are not thinking clearly in my view.
Sure they say they are a software company (mostly), but judge them by what they do not by what they say.
"People who write software should want to do their own hardware."
Jobs often said that Apple is a software company, but that's probably just because people demand a distinction. Makes them feel more comfortable.
I'm sure Microsoft is feeling pretty comfortable, watching the cracks slip through the facade…
Jobs was not infallible either. I think on the balance of evidence, Apple is actually a hardware company that makes it's own integrated software. I know Jobs said different and Apple's position whenever I hear it mentioned by any Apple employees is close to what Jobs said, but I don't see that there is any reason to really believe them (or him). Apple is f*cking obsessed with hardware. Apple sells hardware. All their major money comes from hardware. The software is arguably just the bit of the product that makes the hardware work.
I'm not saying you can't argue the opposite as well, but everything Jobs ever said on stage or in person leads me to think his main interest is the hardware. Jony Ive is also the single most important designer and he is the hardware guy. Remember too, Apple doesn't even tell you (except in a few rare circumstances) who designed the software. It's just "that stuff" that they put into the hardware to make it work and look cool.
They are always constantly happy to shuck off the software task to third parties also. They would absolutely *love* it for example, if a company designed a good, working Office suite for iOS, it would mean they could put the pretence that is iWork out to pasture and not have to worry about it again. They created iWork/Appleworks specifically because there was no good alternative at the time and supported it spottily ever since.
People who just quote Jobs' dogma on the matter are not thinking clearly in my view.
Sure they say they are a software company (mostly), but judge them by what they do not by what they say.
No sure Shitlock...
At best Apple's history with Application Software is uneven. They pretty much treat apps as a challenge to be conquered -- then jilted to twist in the wind. Component software like QuickTime is alternately embraced then ignored -- like an abused spouse.
I would have responded sooner, but I misplaced my CyberDog disk.
Edit: IMO, Apple is missing a major opportunity with iWork:
a) update the apps to current state-of-the art
b) implement the 20% of features that 80% of the people need
c) bring parity among OSX and iOS implementions
d) commit to supporting the apps
Done right, they could satisfy 80% of the people who need an office suite on the desktop and mobile.
Steve may have said Apple was a software company but I think it was sleek hardware he was most passionate about. Arguably ther most important guy at Apple (besides Cook) is a hardware guy. Of course he's being thrown in to software now because I think Cook realizes more focus needs to be put in to software.
NeXT wasn’t performing any better. With money rapidly disappearing, Jobs had announced in early 1993 that NeXT would get out of the costly hardware business. Instead it would license its NeXTStep software, a variant of the powerful UNIX operating system that could work with many processors and more effectively handle sound and graphics. The move was long overdue, but according to Tevanian, Jobs lost interest once there were no more sleek machines to make. By 1995, Jobs told a family friend that he was prepared to let NeXT go bankrupt
When you are an Apple fan you pretty much need to be cool with being in a codependent relationship with a very passive aggressive if not downright sociopathic partner at times. As Gazzoobee said above, much of Apple software quickly turns to abandonware at will with no rhyme or reason. They release XYZ to be a Microsoft or Adobe killer and it is widely acclaimed and then seemingly abandoned only a short time later. iWorks and iLife are but two examples. Sure, fewer people might be burning DVD's or making websites than a few years ago but probably still more than use Garageband for writing music which they decided to keep.
I have been using Apple computers since the early 80's so this is no surprise. Chrome in my opinion is a far better browser than Safari and I really don't use too many Apple made applications.I use iTunes very rarely and only when absolutely necessary and even on my Iphone and iPad I tend to use 3rd party apps far more than Apple apps. The main exceptions being Mail and Text Messages because we have little choice. But for the web I prefer the Google app since it provides that handy little microphone and is far better at web searches than Siri. You can ask it almost any search query and it seems to get it right nearly every time.
I used to rely on iChat, Quicktime, and many other very nice Apple made applications but after being orphaned or forgotten about I have learned my lesson. I do still use iPhoto and Aperture largely because I am too lazy to try and find an alternative until I am forced to.
If this article is correct and Apple wants to refocus their energy, update all their apps left on the vine to rot and possibly release some new applications that is good news. But I will be skeptical given their history of axing apps as soon as they decide you should move on to their new vision of content creation.
Have you seen the freaks at NAMM? Not exactly what I would call a cross section of professionals. And, the content they create well...let's just say it is a small niche at best. I seriously doubt Apple would ever align themselves with that sort of subculture as an example of how people use the iPad.
Your Google-fu is quite adequate for your limited experiences, ...
Cheers
Whatever...Insults aside as well as you taking my original comments out of context, I don't consider a 16 channel mixing application for iPad as a must have for the the broader business user or anywhere close to the same category as MS Office was during the 90s. What is the iPad good for? It seems to me to be a horrible compromise in every aspect except portability. Does a recording studio really benefit from miniaturization or portability? Same question as in a previous thread where medical imaging applications were discussed. I don't see the traditional business sectors really benefiting from the iPad's portability alone. Every other aspect of the user experience is decreased. I use my iPad as a casual browsing device and a traditional computer for everything related to business and professional content creation. I simply asked the question who can totally ditch real computers and work exclusively on an iPad? Serious question because I just don't see it as anything other than a consumer device for browsing and email. But then that is what Apple is targeting their marketing towards so I guess I would be mistaken to expect any other outcome.
Have you seen the freaks at NAMM? Not exactly what I would call a cross section of professionals. And, the content they create well...let's just say it is a small niche at best. I seriously doubt Apple would ever align themselves with that sort of subculture as an example of how people use the iPad.
Your Google-fu is quite adequate for your limited experiences, ...
Cheers
Whatever...Insults aside as well as you taking my original comments out of context, I don't consider a 16 channel mixing application for iPad as a must have for the the broader business user or anywhere close to the same category as MS Office was during the 90s. What is the iPad good for? It seems to me to be a horrible compromise in every aspect except portability. Does a recording studio really benefit from miniaturization or portability? Same question as in a previous thread where medical imaging applications were discussed. I don't see the traditional business sectors really benefiting from the iPad's portability alone. Every other aspect of the user experience is decreased. I use my iPad as a casual browsing device and a traditional computer for everything related to business and professional content creation. I simply asked the question who can totally ditch real computers and work exclusively on an iPad? Serious question because I just don't see it as anything other than a consumer device for browsing and email. But then that is what Apple is targeting their marketing towards so I guess I would be mistaken to expect any other outcome.
I think that Apple promotes/considers the iPad as a companion device, for some uses, for people who already own a computer.
For people who do not own a computer the iPad is promoted as the only device.
Give an iPad Mini voice/text capability and it will satisfy both computer and phone needs for many people.
[VIDEO][/VIDEO]@mstone. Have you ever used KeyNote on an iPad, WiFi connected to an AppleTV, to give a preso -- possibly switching to other apps during the preso to demonstrate something or other? Being retired, I no-longer have need for these capabilities -- but I would have died for it when I worked for IBM, and later owned my own businesses.
I can see this as a natural productivity use (along with other iWork and iLife apps) to teach, demonstrate, sell in the classroom, boardroom, meetingroom, lecture hall, etc. Sure you can do the same things using Macs and Projectors -- but I believe you could be much more productive and agile with the iPad/ATV combo.
I have used a similar setup to do a preso at the grandkids' team party at the end of the soccer season -- showing season highlights, Final Cut Pro X and iMovie... I even created an ad hoc slide show of the trophy presentations stills and videos captured during the partty.
@mstone. Have you ever used KeyNote on an iPad, WiFi connected to an AppleTV, to give a preso --
Actually no. Most of the time I am required to put together a section of my work in PPT for someone else's presentation. I have used Keynote on my Mac mostly although I have it on my iPad as well. I export stuff as PPT from Keynote. Lately the trend for our corporation is super wide panoramic dual projector presentations from the AV dept at trade shows which is not iPad type stuff. All Windows PC.
Comments
Originally Posted by Realistic
His sarcasm is often stated without the standard sarcasm notation to stir the pot, so to speak, to get responses pure and simple.
Enjoy your fantasy world.
Originally Posted by jragosta
Good. So you're going to drop your silly sarcasm tag since it offers no advantage over the conventional one and the total effect is actually worse (since most people don't recognize it).
Once again, not mine, not non-standard, and no. When even the standard one is ignored, it doesn't really matter.
I started the experiment 5 years ago so lay off him. Just as the inefficient and sloppy /s was invented to deal with the shortcomings of multiple casual conversations in a text forum so was the everything else in language. In fact, the ¡ to denote irony is far older than the /s you are claiming is the only irony mark we need and will apparently ever need. I disagree for reasons already stated.
Do you recognize that a colon+capital-D means a smiley face? Surely at some point that had to be invented and at some point you had to see it for the first time. Did you then say it was more effective just to say you're smiling as opposed to the more efficient double-letter option? Of course you did and you probably adopted those right away, and if not have surely accepted them even if you don't personally use them.
That's language! It might even evolve more frequently than consumer electronics. Whether you accept the use of a sarcmark or not is up to you but the odds are high there will eventually be a single character to denote irony. Someone will likely adopt an existing character and use it and it all catch on and if you are around when that happens you adopt it to just as you have with other changes in language throughout your life.
PS: Nazis!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Have you seen the freaks at NAMM? Not exactly what I would call a cross section of professionals. And, the content they create well...let's just say it is a small niche at best. I seriously doubt Apple would ever align themselves with that sort of subculture as an example of how people use the iPad.
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/heardmentality/2013/01/the_people_at_namm_weirder_tha.php
Your Google-fu is quite adequate for your limited experiences, ...
Cheers
Both hardware and software are getting cheaper, which will be a problem for Apple and Samsung both. As Dilger says, it's a bigger problem for Samsung 'cus Apple has already figured out how to make money off of games, apps, tunes ... and later books and shows ... at a buck a title. It already makes money on volume. Samsung, on the other hand, has zero developer allied with it; they are allied to Android and Google. And Apple has ten of thousands hooked up. All of Samsung billions of dollars of marketing money can't buy it developer love; it does kill their margins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
This chart labels each category more explicitly, with results not much different from the other one:
Are other breakdowns more readily available which would show a different mix?
And more relevant here, as I asked above, has Apple made stats available which would show profits from software vs hardware?
I'm not convinced you get it yet. The problem is that only Apple knows its figures. Every other data is either presenting the information Apple has published, or is making guesses as to what Apple's exact product mix is.
You may well be right. it may be that neither Digler, nor Chowdhry, nor anyone else gets it. Except yourself, of course. Bravo.
But if you can pull your eyes away from the pretty picture, you'll find that I also included some text there. Not much, just two questions. I had thought the question marks at the end of each line might have helped distinguish them as questions, but perhaps I was too assuming. My bad. Let me try this again here:
I don't claim to have any of the specifics so many others here and in this article claim to have. I just have questions. And these are questions precisely for the reasons you noted, that Apple is not forthcoming with the details which might answer them.
So while I'm cool with acknowledging that no one has enough specific data to answer them, I'm apparently in a small minority, as others write with great certainty about what Apple should or should not do.
That said, it may be worth noting AI's coverage of the conference call:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/01/23/notes-of-interest-from-apples-q1-2013-conference-call
In those notes it appears that Apple has included all App Store revenues in the category of "iTunes/Software/Services", as Apple themselves calls it in their PDF summary.
Now I can't say with certainty that Apple meant to say "software" when perhaps they really didn't mean to write that at all. Maybe they, as was suggested earlier in this thread, actually included all of the software people use on their iOS devices under "iPod sales" and "iPad sales", and somehow Digler, Chowdry, and Apple's own investor notes got it wrong.
More importantly, as I noted above, revenue, however modest it may seem for software relative to hardware, tells us nothing of profits. Which is why I included that as a question.
And thus far, it seems neither Digler, nor Chowdry, nor anyone here in this forum has yet produced those profit numbers.
So while this has been good fun and all, the only relevant question which might help anyone understand if Chowdry's making any sense or is just another armchair quarterback has not been answered.
Perhaps you can answer it.
Feel free to continue offering explanations for questions no one's asking, but if you happen to have the answer for the only relevant question, the one about profits, your taking a break to share that would be much appreciated. Thanks.
@MacRulez... You do realize that:
Prince McLean == DED == Daniel Eran Dilger == Corrections...
Here's the meat of the chart below vis a vis this thread:
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/1268196664x0x630364/ad8fe602-72bb-4a3a-bcaf-0e4d2a300fb2/Reclassified_Summary_Data.pdf
Click image to enlarge:
Apple == System
Apple == Hardware
Apple == Software
Apple == Platform
Apple == Computer
Apple == Content
Apple == Apps
Apple == Productivity
Apple == Solutions
Apple == Source of 3rd-party provider Opportunity and income
Apple == Killer -- any of the above
Apple == Ecosystem
Apple == Appliance Computing
Apple == Enablement
So, which is it?
None of the above
One of the above
Some of the above
Any of the above
Many of the above
All of the above
Maybe... Just maybe... the i in iMac, iPhone, iPod, iPad, iCloud... stands for individual... Whatever the individual wants it to be!
As someone who has used Apple software almost daily since Apple started making software I have to strongly disagree with the (biased) assumption underneath this article.
With very few exceptions, Apple does not make "the best software" or anything close to it IMO. Based on decades of experience I would say rather that they make:
- excellent firmware or underlying systems software (the background stuff that no one sees)
- good and sometimes great system software (OS X)
- not very good anything else. (Almost all their application software is "OK" at best) *
They also have a long sad history of "abandon ware" because of the fact that the only reason they create a lot of their stuff, is to sell a piece of hardware.
Thus you get iChat, Pages, Numbers, etc. which all start off with great fanfare and then are left in the dust for multiple years. iChat was eventually updated by turning it into "Messages" and now it's been abandoned again. Since iWork hasn't been updated in many years now, I can hardly wait for the "all-NEW!" "Completely Different!" iWork to come out (we know it will be soon), which will then be left in the dust without updates for another five years.
* - The only exception to this rule is when they buy something wholesale and just put their brand on it (i.e. - application software actually made by someone else)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
It means Apple has a distant lead in creating a real mobile software platform and is apparently the only company that understands the value in building one.
Yeah but there is no such thing as a "distant lead." It's made up nonsense words, but hey ... maybe it will catch on.
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
"People who write software should want to do their own hardware."
Jobs often said that Apple is a software company, but that's probably just because people demand a distinction. Makes them feel more comfortable.
I'm sure Microsoft is feeling pretty comfortable, watching the cracks slip through the facade…
Jobs was not infallible either. I think on the balance of evidence, Apple is actually a hardware company that makes it's own integrated software. I know Jobs said different and Apple's position whenever I hear it mentioned by any Apple employees is close to what Jobs said, but I don't see that there is any reason to really believe them (or him). Apple is f*cking obsessed with hardware. Apple sells hardware. All their major money comes from hardware. The software is arguably just the bit of the product that makes the hardware work.
I'm not saying you can't argue the opposite as well, but everything Jobs ever said on stage or in person leads me to think his main interest is the hardware. Jony Ive is also the single most important designer and he is the hardware guy. Remember too, Apple doesn't even tell you (except in a few rare circumstances) who designed the software. It's just "that stuff" that they put into the hardware to make it work and look cool.
They are always constantly happy to shuck off the software task to third parties also. They would absolutely *love* it for example, if a company designed a good, working Office suite for iOS, it would mean they could put the pretence that is iWork out to pasture and not have to worry about it again. They created iWork/Appleworks specifically because there was no good alternative at the time and supported it spottily ever since.
People who just quote Jobs' dogma on the matter are not thinking clearly in my view.
Sure they say they are a software company (mostly), but judge them by what they do not by what they say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
"People who write software should want to do their own hardware."
Jobs often said that Apple is a software company, but that's probably just because people demand a distinction. Makes them feel more comfortable.
I'm sure Microsoft is feeling pretty comfortable, watching the cracks slip through the facade…
Jobs was not infallible either. I think on the balance of evidence, Apple is actually a hardware company that makes it's own integrated software. I know Jobs said different and Apple's position whenever I hear it mentioned by any Apple employees is close to what Jobs said, but I don't see that there is any reason to really believe them (or him). Apple is f*cking obsessed with hardware. Apple sells hardware. All their major money comes from hardware. The software is arguably just the bit of the product that makes the hardware work.
I'm not saying you can't argue the opposite as well, but everything Jobs ever said on stage or in person leads me to think his main interest is the hardware. Jony Ive is also the single most important designer and he is the hardware guy. Remember too, Apple doesn't even tell you (except in a few rare circumstances) who designed the software. It's just "that stuff" that they put into the hardware to make it work and look cool.
They are always constantly happy to shuck off the software task to third parties also. They would absolutely *love* it for example, if a company designed a good, working Office suite for iOS, it would mean they could put the pretence that is iWork out to pasture and not have to worry about it again. They created iWork/Appleworks specifically because there was no good alternative at the time and supported it spottily ever since.
People who just quote Jobs' dogma on the matter are not thinking clearly in my view.
Sure they say they are a software company (mostly), but judge them by what they do not by what they say.
No sure Shitlock...
At best Apple's history with Application Software is uneven. They pretty much treat apps as a challenge to be conquered -- then jilted to twist in the wind. Component software like QuickTime is alternately embraced then ignored -- like an abused spouse.
I would have responded sooner, but I misplaced my CyberDog disk.
Edit: IMO, Apple is missing a major opportunity with iWork:
a) update the apps to current state-of-the art
b) implement the 20% of features that 80% of the people need
c) bring parity among OSX and iOS implementions
d) commit to supporting the apps
Done right, they could satisfy 80% of the people who need an office suite on the desktop and mobile.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/the-wilderness-19851997-10062011.html#p4
When you are an Apple fan you pretty much need to be cool with being in a codependent relationship with a very passive aggressive if not downright sociopathic partner at times. As Gazzoobee said above, much of Apple software quickly turns to abandonware at will with no rhyme or reason. They release XYZ to be a Microsoft or Adobe killer and it is widely acclaimed and then seemingly abandoned only a short time later. iWorks and iLife are but two examples. Sure, fewer people might be burning DVD's or making websites than a few years ago but probably still more than use Garageband for writing music which they decided to keep.
I have been using Apple computers since the early 80's so this is no surprise. Chrome in my opinion is a far better browser than Safari and I really don't use too many Apple made applications.I use iTunes very rarely and only when absolutely necessary and even on my Iphone and iPad I tend to use 3rd party apps far more than Apple apps. The main exceptions being Mail and Text Messages because we have little choice. But for the web I prefer the Google app since it provides that handy little microphone and is far better at web searches than Siri. You can ask it almost any search query and it seems to get it right nearly every time.
I used to rely on iChat, Quicktime, and many other very nice Apple made applications but after being orphaned or forgotten about I have learned my lesson. I do still use iPhoto and Aperture largely because I am too lazy to try and find an alternative until I am forced to.
If this article is correct and Apple wants to refocus their energy, update all their apps left on the vine to rot and possibly release some new applications that is good news. But I will be skeptical given their history of axing apps as soon as they decide you should move on to their new vision of content creation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minicapt
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Have you seen the freaks at NAMM? Not exactly what I would call a cross section of professionals. And, the content they create well...let's just say it is a small niche at best. I seriously doubt Apple would ever align themselves with that sort of subculture as an example of how people use the iPad.
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/heardmentality/2013/01/the_people_at_namm_weirder_tha.php
Your Google-fu is quite adequate for your limited experiences, ...
Cheers
Whatever...Insults aside as well as you taking my original comments out of context, I don't consider a 16 channel mixing application for iPad as a must have for the the broader business user or anywhere close to the same category as MS Office was during the 90s. What is the iPad good for? It seems to me to be a horrible compromise in every aspect except portability. Does a recording studio really benefit from miniaturization or portability? Same question as in a previous thread where medical imaging applications were discussed. I don't see the traditional business sectors really benefiting from the iPad's portability alone. Every other aspect of the user experience is decreased. I use my iPad as a casual browsing device and a traditional computer for everything related to business and professional content creation. I simply asked the question who can totally ditch real computers and work exclusively on an iPad? Serious question because I just don't see it as anything other than a consumer device for browsing and email. But then that is what Apple is targeting their marketing towards so I guess I would be mistaken to expect any other outcome.
I think that Apple promotes/considers the iPad as a companion device, for some uses, for people who already own a computer.
For people who do not own a computer the iPad is promoted as the only device.
Give an iPad Mini voice/text capability and it will satisfy both computer and phone needs for many people.
I can see this as a natural productivity use (along with other iWork and iLife apps) to teach, demonstrate, sell in the classroom, boardroom, meetingroom, lecture hall, etc. Sure you can do the same things using Macs and Projectors -- but I believe you could be much more productive and agile with the iPad/ATV combo.
I have used a similar setup to do a preso at the grandkids' team party at the end of the soccer season -- showing season highlights, Final Cut Pro X and iMovie... I even created an ad hoc slide show of the trophy presentations stills and videos captured during the partty.
[VIDEO]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
@mstone. Have you ever used KeyNote on an iPad, WiFi connected to an AppleTV, to give a preso --
Actually no. Most of the time I am required to put together a section of my work in PPT for someone else's presentation. I have used Keynote on my Mac mostly although I have it on my iPad as well. I export stuff as PPT from Keynote. Lately the trend for our corporation is super wide panoramic dual projector presentations from the AV dept at trade shows which is not iPad type stuff. All Windows PC.
deleted