I think by saying what most "reasonable" people would consider new categories, Cook is saying that they are not going to be "absolute" new product categories, such as a wearable device. Rather, I believe that he is referring to a phablet or a refreshed AppleTV STB that has some new functionality such as gaming. Either of these would be interpreted by the media and analysts as "refreshes" or iterative changes to existing products, whereas Apple may consider them "new categories."
I could be wrong, but adding the "reasonable people" qualifier has me concerned. If they were going to introduce the wearable product(s) there would be no question whatsoever as to whether it was a new product category for Apple. TC is parsing his words here, which is OK. They can do very well with adding larger iPhones to the line and by adding some gaming capability to the AppleTV. Then, next year or whenvever the wearable products are fully baked, BOOM -- they roll out those.
In all fairness I consider driverless cars innovative. And google glass.
In all fairness, I agree with the comment about Google Glasses.
I think Augmented Reality Glasses is a brilliant idea as long as it is implemented correctly while still giving consideration for an individual's privacy.
Augmented reality via one eye is not a strategy for anything other than developing a squint.
In the blind eyes of the media and Wall Street, Apple is the only company not innovating right now. To them things like the Surface, Google buying Nest, driverless cars, Google Glass, etc., is far more innovative than anything Apple is doing. Whether or not it has any basis in reality is irrelevant, unfortunately.
In all fairness I consider driverless cars innovative. And google glass.
Lots of companies are working on both driverless cars and the equivalent of Glass. Google's not doing anything unique in either. They're just getting a lot of press attention relative to others, that's all.
Re. Glass, can you tell me what its use(s) could be that will result in tens of millions being sold? I can see some specialized applications -- e.g., teaching surgery -- but little else.
Also, the amount of regulation, infrastructure upgrades, liability/insurance laws, etc. that have to be put in place for driverless cars to become reality suggest that it is many, many years away.
In any event, as a company that gets 90+% of its revenues from search, what's Google's strategy here? How does this help their core business?
Also, since when did commercial shipment become the key benchmark of innovation? Only in the eyes of those who don't know any better. There are many instances of innovation when it has nothing to do with shipment of commercial products.
I agree, and I am not aiming this rant at you ... Yet, when Apple both innovate and ship by the billions at unheard of profit levels, unless Apple ships exponentially more YoY then Apple is deemed a failure. Unless Apple innovates paradigm shifting products bi-annually Apple is a failure.
Apple can't just dominate the profits in world wide sales of computers, phones, music, and now tablets, unless Apple also does this with at least one new category of products no one has heard of every six months, Apple is a failure.
Apple can't just return five of the highest quarterly returns in history of the planet along side only the oil giants and totally eclipse every other tech company on the planet, no, Apple must be suffering from the 'law of big numbers' and Apple is a failure..
Apple can't just have more money in the bank than most countries, Apple has to spend it all on buying other companies, even at massive losses, otherwise Apple is a failure.
Face it, it doesn't matter what Apple does in the eyes of Wall Street it's a failure.
I have to think either, there is some massive conspiracy out there in the financial world or these so called experts, be they so called tech media writers or Wall Street analysts, are in fact nothing more than your basic Apple haters and beyond reason. Clutching their Windows XP PCs, terrified now that they will never get another upgrade from Microsoft and blaming Apple. Their hope for continuing life as they know it resting on Android wiping out Apple or the rising from the ashes of Microsoft so that Office, and their knowledge of how to use it, can once again rule the World.
I could be wrong, but adding the "reasonable people" qualifier has me concerned.
Agreed. Can someone get this guy media training and a charisma transplant? You don't defend and qualify your new products before you've even introduced them.
The new product I would like to see Apple develop is an electric analog wall IClock that would keep perfect time through a Wifi connection. The "atomic" clocks currently on the market do not work.
I think by saying what most "reasonable" people would consider new categories, Cook is saying that they are not going to be "absolute" new product categories, such as a wearable device. Rather, I believe that he is referring to a phablet or a refreshed AppleTV STB that has some new functionality such as gaming. Either of these would be interpreted my the media and analysts as "refreshes" or iterative changes to existing products, whereas Apple may consider them "new categories."
I could be wrong, but adding the "reasonable people" qualifier has me concerned. If they were going to introduce the wearable product(s) there would be no question whatsoever as to whether it was a new product category for Apple. TC is parsing his words here, which is OK. They can do very well with adding larger iPhones to the line and by adding some gaming capability to the AppleTV. Then, next year or whenvever the wearable products are fully baked, BOOM -- they roll out those.
I was going to say exactly this. The qualifier "reasonable" wouldn't be needed for a watch. A watch would be a new category even for an unreasonable person. Expect only an Apple TV ( ie a set top box) revamped - and possibly renamed - to be a games console.
You get more evidence of Apples future intentions from its SDK than its recent hires. Those hires - like company purchases - are indicative of products down the line. Not this year.
Last year Apple added a lot of new Games API - the games controller, and Sprite Kit - This year it's a console. That's good for me.
Augmented reality via one eye is not a strategy for anything other than developing a squint.
Google Glass isn't augmented reality. Did you actually try them? Making such fundamental mistakes throws a lot of doubt on your statement.
RE: Apple, I hope this isn't just an iWatch (haven't worn a watch in 15 years) or a TV (I already have a decent XBMC machine) but some unexpected category none of us can think of.
I think by saying what most "reasonable" people would consider new categories, Cook is saying that they are not going to be "absolute" new product categories, such as a wearable device.
Cool is not saying that. I think he's just using those words to temper expectations.
Makes sense considering it was manufactured by the most utterly laughable company ever.
So laughable that Apple needed them on iPhone from the very beginning? I don't understand why people have to pretend like Google is completely incompetent and Samsung can't make devices people like on this site. It's a weird form of collective enforced delusion.
Agreed. Can someone get this guy media training and a charisma transplant? You don't defend and qualify your new products before you've even introduced them.
That's not defensive language, it's more likely carefully chosen language to temper expectations of what's to come, so Apple can work at their own pace and get these products right. And btw, what exactly is "media training", and how would you run the largest company on planet earth? Tim is not Steve and never will be, but what's good about Tim is he understands Apple, understands himself and is a good delegator.
I think they are working on big stuff and are just putting out a few teasers to tell the fuckers on Wall St. that they know what they are doing and to be patient. I see nothing unusual about the words he used there and am confident they're working on great things. Just look at the gap between the first iPod and the iPhone: 6 years. It has been 4 years since the iPad and if you take TV, for example, even Steve shied away from going non-hobby there. Releasing an iWatch is all well and good, but releasing a product that really and truly should exist is a different matter altogether.
The new product I would like to see Apple develop is an electric analog wall IClock that would keep perfect time through a Wifi connection. The "atomic" clocks currently on the market do not work.
The likelihood of this happening is basically zero I would say.
I'd like to see Apple buy Blackmagic Design, incorporate their colour software into FCPX, and use their team's expertise in digital cameras to both improve the iPhone camera and in turn produce an easy to use, plug-and-play, affordable, dedicated cinema camera that is designed to work hand-in-hand with FCPX and is built upon the groundwork done on the Blackmagic cinema camera. This would would sell Mac Pros to many upcoming filmmakers and would make FCPX and even the idea of becoming a filmmaker enticing. They wouldn't do it, but this market is ripe for some real Apple-style innovation.
I'd also like to see Apple make an affordable, dedicated iPad mini-style car entertainment and information appliance they would licence to car manufacturers.
Comments
I think by saying what most "reasonable" people would consider new categories, Cook is saying that they are not going to be "absolute" new product categories, such as a wearable device. Rather, I believe that he is referring to a phablet or a refreshed AppleTV STB that has some new functionality such as gaming. Either of these would be interpreted by the media and analysts as "refreshes" or iterative changes to existing products, whereas Apple may consider them "new categories."
I could be wrong, but adding the "reasonable people" qualifier has me concerned. If they were going to introduce the wearable product(s) there would be no question whatsoever as to whether it was a new product category for Apple. TC is parsing his words here, which is OK. They can do very well with adding larger iPhones to the line and by adding some gaming capability to the AppleTV. Then, next year or whenvever the wearable products are fully baked, BOOM -- they roll out those.
I spent a couple of hours with GG a couple of weeks ago. The most utterly laughable product ever.
Augmented reality via one eye is not a strategy for anything other than developing a squint.
Tim Cook revealed the company is hard at work on devices any "reasonable" person would consider to be new product categories.
Note: Dumb Analysts, Wall Street lazy ass fatties, android / google losers are NOT considered "Reasonable"!
Lots of companies are working on both driverless cars and the equivalent of Glass. Google's not doing anything unique in either. They're just getting a lot of press attention relative to others, that's all.
Re. Glass, can you tell me what its use(s) could be that will result in tens of millions being sold? I can see some specialized applications -- e.g., teaching surgery -- but little else.
Also, the amount of regulation, infrastructure upgrades, liability/insurance laws, etc. that have to be put in place for driverless cars to become reality suggest that it is many, many years away.
In any event, as a company that gets 90+% of its revenues from search, what's Google's strategy here? How does this help their core business?
New category to a reasonable person... so whatever it is, it can not reasonably be considered a phone, tablet, computer or set-top box.
Oh my God, they are going to start selling Android devices!
Really?
What a shame.
I agree, and I am not aiming this rant at you ...
Apple can't just dominate the profits in world wide sales of computers, phones, music, and now tablets, unless Apple also does this with at least one new category of products no one has heard of every six months, Apple is a failure.
Apple can't just return five of the highest quarterly returns in history of the planet along side only the oil giants and totally eclipse every other tech company on the planet, no, Apple must be suffering from the 'law of big numbers' and Apple is a failure..
Apple can't just have more money in the bank than most countries, Apple has to spend it all on buying other companies, even at massive losses, otherwise Apple is a failure.
Face it, it doesn't matter what Apple does in the eyes of Wall Street it's a failure.
I have to think either, there is some massive conspiracy out there in the financial world or these so called experts, be they so called tech media writers or Wall Street analysts, are in fact nothing more than your basic Apple haters and beyond reason. Clutching their Windows XP PCs, terrified now that they will never get another upgrade from Microsoft and blaming Apple. Their hope for continuing life as they know it resting on Android wiping out Apple or the rising from the ashes of Microsoft so that Office, and their knowledge of how to use it, can once again rule the World.
Agreed. Can someone get this guy media training and a charisma transplant? You don't defend and qualify your new products before you've even introduced them.
Leave an audio recorder there and find out.
I was going to say exactly this. The qualifier "reasonable" wouldn't be needed for a watch. A watch would be a new category even for an unreasonable person. Expect only an Apple TV ( ie a set top box) revamped - and possibly renamed - to be a games console.
You get more evidence of Apples future intentions from its SDK than its recent hires. Those hires - like company purchases - are indicative of products down the line. Not this year.
Last year Apple added a lot of new Games API - the games controller, and Sprite Kit - This year it's a console. That's good for me.
Augmented reality via one eye is not a strategy for anything other than developing a squint.
Google Glass isn't augmented reality. Did you actually try them? Making such fundamental mistakes throws a lot of doubt on your statement.
RE: Apple, I hope this isn't just an iWatch (haven't worn a watch in 15 years) or a TV (I already have a decent XBMC machine) but some unexpected category none of us can think of.
Cool is not saying that. I think he's just using those words to temper expectations.
Makes sense considering it was manufactured by the most utterly laughable company ever.
Makes sense considering it was manufactured by the most utterly laughable company ever.
So laughable that Apple needed them on iPhone from the very beginning? I don't understand why people have to pretend like Google is completely incompetent and Samsung can't make devices people like on this site. It's a weird form of collective enforced delusion.
Seriously, I don't get it.
That's not defensive language, it's more likely carefully chosen language to temper expectations of what's to come, so Apple can work at their own pace and get these products right. And btw, what exactly is "media training", and how would you run the largest company on planet earth? Tim is not Steve and never will be, but what's good about Tim is he understands Apple, understands himself and is a good delegator.
I think they are working on big stuff and are just putting out a few teasers to tell the fuckers on Wall St. that they know what they are doing and to be patient. I see nothing unusual about the words he used there and am confident they're working on great things. Just look at the gap between the first iPod and the iPhone: 6 years. It has been 4 years since the iPad and if you take TV, for example, even Steve shied away from going non-hobby there. Releasing an iWatch is all well and good, but releasing a product that really and truly should exist is a different matter altogether.
The likelihood of this happening is basically zero I would say.
I'd like to see Apple buy Blackmagic Design, incorporate their colour software into FCPX, and use their team's expertise in digital cameras to both improve the iPhone camera and in turn produce an easy to use, plug-and-play, affordable, dedicated cinema camera that is designed to work hand-in-hand with FCPX and is built upon the groundwork done on the Blackmagic cinema camera. This would would sell Mac Pros to many upcoming filmmakers and would make FCPX and even the idea of becoming a filmmaker enticing. They wouldn't do it, but this market is ripe for some real Apple-style innovation.
I'd also like to see Apple make an affordable, dedicated iPad mini-style car entertainment and information appliance they would licence to car manufacturers.