Another excellent article by Daniel, that blows the bullshit away, that many other tech writers spew, when they write about Apple. I love reading Daniel’s articles, because he does such a great job of illustrating how wrong those tech writers and pundits have been in the past, about Apple.
Right because the past cycles will simply automatically repeat and Apple will continue to find the next big thing everytime like clockwork??? With Jobs gone and the infiltration of a few bozos (and departure of some great folks) don't count on it (not that it may not happen... but just assuming is the sign of a dumb investor/prognosticator)
I could imagine a similar logic being written by a Roman ~2000 years ago about the empire and how it should be totally dominant even today... sorry but it doesn't work like that
For all those lamenting the lack of development in Mac's:
Perhaps it has nothing to do with sales figures or lack of interest. Perhaps it is due to the fact that Intel based hardware has plateaued. Yes, you can demonstrate improvements using testing software. But, in real life for MOST users there is not an overwhelming difference between today's Intel hardware and that of 2, 3 4 even 5 years ago.
I believe that Apple has retained Job's vision to create technological gadgets that make people's lives better. So, if a new & improved is not new & improved enough to make people's lives better and instead is directed at just making a new & improved gadget to boost sales, then why do it?
And, on top of that, another factor is creeping into the mix: Increasingly computing is going back to the future to cloud/mainframe computing and the user gadget is mostly just a (semi) dumb terminal. So why chase after an increasingly capable (but costly) user device if the future is headed in the opposite direction?
Five years from now we won't be arguing Android vs. iOS like we do now. The OS on a device will be of less importance to users than the voice assistant. That's why you see so much emphasis on Google Assistant, Alexa, Viv, and Siri.
There is no argument. Why compare a product with <5% of the world profits with one that has 95%? It seems pointless surely.
Five years from now we won't be arguing Android vs. iOS like we do now. The OS on a device will be of less importance to users than the voice assistant. That's why you see so much emphasis on Google Assistant, Alexa, Viv, and Siri.
There is no argument. Why compare a product with <5% of the world profits with one that has 95%? It seems pointless surely.
Profits.... LOL! None of the companies behind those listed voice assistants are going broke. They've all been made wealthy from our spending of our money.
Sorry, there is simply no excuse for Apple not updating core products like the MacPro and Mac Mini. They are leaving money on the table. They are not innovating. The PC is not dead. The Microsoft Surface Pro is more compelling than any iMac in the last three years. Come on Apple, you are leaving your customers high and dry.
Nonsense. The hardware innovation in the latest iphones, ipads, macbooks and airpods is astounding. They don't improve themselves.
But MS makes yet another surface, this one for the the ultra niche of illustrators, and you're impressed? Show me the sales numbers, which prove people are actually buying them (which they will if they truly add value).
A lot of Pet Rocks were sold too, but it doesn't prove people found they added value afterwards.
As for sharing sales numbers it looks to me like most techs prefer to avoid specifics and avoid mentioning how much of a particular product sold for the most part. Numbers end up coming from educated guesses via analysts and market studies instead of the manufacturer.
I have on more that one occasion noted that Apple will likely generate more revenue from AirPods, I've stated $3 B in calendar year 2017, than MS will from Surface products. I might be a bit off on that, but it provides a comparative context.
You might know the answer to this: Why is there that straw hanging that looks like it's missing wires on the AirPods? I'm assuming that it's a necessary piece because otherwise it's not very attractive being there. Do you know its function?
It won't be long before many other copycat products have a similar design. One can be sure in the Apple design that part is of great importance to performance as per tear down, in copy cats it will probably be empty.
Sorry, there is simply no excuse for Apple not updating core products like the MacPro and Mac Mini. They are leaving money on the table. They are not innovating. The PC is not dead. The Microsoft Surface Pro is more compelling than any iMac in the last three years. Come on Apple, you are leaving your customers high and dry.
Nonsense. The hardware innovation in the latest iphones, ipads, macbooks and airpods is astounding. They don't improve themselves.
But MS makes yet another surface, this one for the the ultra niche of illustrators, and you're impressed? Show me the sales numbers, which prove people are actually buying them (which they will if they truly add value).
A lot of Pet Rocks were sold too, but it doesn't prove people found they added value afterwards.
As for sharing sales numbers it looks to me like most techs prefer to avoid specifics and avoid mentioning how much of a particular product sold for the most part. Numbers end up coming from educated guesses via analysts and market studies instead of the manufacturer.
I have on more that one occasion noted that Apple will likely generate more revenue from AirPods, I've stated $3 B in calendar year 2017, than MS will from Surface products. I might be a bit off on that, but it provides a comparative context.
You might know the answer to this: Why is there that straw hanging that looks like it's missing wires on the AirPods? I'm assuming that it's a necessary piece because otherwise it's not very attractive being there. Do you know its function?
It won't be long before many other copycat products have a similar design. One can be sure in the Apple design that part is of great importance to performance as per tear down, in copy cats it will probably be empty.
On the contrary I see that "feature" disappearing in the next generation or two of the AirPods. I doubt Apple really wants it there either, just not simple for them to get rid of it yet without causing other issues.
Sorry, there is simply no excuse for Apple not updating core products like the MacPro and Mac Mini. They are leaving money on the table. They are not innovating. The PC is not dead. The Microsoft Surface Pro is more compelling than any iMac in the last three years. Come on Apple, you are leaving your customers high and dry.
Nonsense. The hardware innovation in the latest iphones, ipads, macbooks and airpods is astounding. They don't improve themselves.
But MS makes yet another surface, this one for the the ultra niche of illustrators, and you're impressed? Show me the sales numbers, which prove people are actually buying them (which they will if they truly add value).
A lot of Pet Rocks were sold too, but it doesn't prove people found they added value afterwards.
As for sharing sales numbers it looks to me like most techs prefer to avoid specifics and avoid mentioning how much of a particular product sold for the most part. Numbers end up coming from educated guesses via analysts and market studies instead of the manufacturer.
I have on more that one occasion noted that Apple will likely generate more revenue from AirPods, I've stated $3 B in calendar year 2017, than MS will from Surface products. I might be a bit off on that, but it provides a comparative context.
That doesn't mean that what MS is doing isn't of interest, or that Surface Revenue isn't important, just that Wintel desktops are just much less relevant than what is happening in mobile, controlled by the duopoly of iOS and Android OS.
Well, if the the Surface Drafting Table or whatever it's called doesn't sell in significant numbers, I'm pretty sure that means it isn't important.
My large-format printers don't sell in great numbers, but the products they produce are considered pretty important to businesses both large and small.
Not pertaining to this post in particular but as we have already established you have no computers at home would you share what you use at work? I only ask as your opinions on Apple equipments' failings seem to cover the entire product range so I assume you use them all to be so knowledgeable.
Sorry, there is simply no excuse for Apple not updating core products like the MacPro and Mac Mini. They are leaving money on the table. They are not innovating. The PC is not dead. The Microsoft Surface Pro is more compelling than any iMac in the last three years. Come on Apple, you are leaving your customers high and dry.
Nonsense. The hardware innovation in the latest iphones, ipads, macbooks and airpods is astounding. They don't improve themselves.
But MS makes yet another surface, this one for the the ultra niche of illustrators, and you're impressed? Show me the sales numbers, which prove people are actually buying them (which they will if they truly add value).
A lot of Pet Rocks were sold too, but it doesn't prove people found they added value afterwards.
As for sharing sales numbers it looks to me like most techs prefer to avoid specifics and avoid mentioning how much of a particular product sold for the most part. Numbers end up coming from educated guesses via analysts and market studies instead of the manufacturer.
I have on more that one occasion noted that Apple will likely generate more revenue from AirPods, I've stated $3 B in calendar year 2017, than MS will from Surface products. I might be a bit off on that, but it provides a comparative context.
That doesn't mean that what MS is doing isn't of interest, or that Surface Revenue isn't important, just that Wintel desktops are just much less relevant than what is happening in mobile, controlled by the duopoly of iOS and Android OS.
Well, if the the Surface Drafting Table or whatever it's called doesn't sell in significant numbers, I'm pretty sure that means it isn't important.
My large-format printers don't sell in great numbers, but the products they produce are considered pretty important to businesses both large and small.
Not pertaining to this post in particular but as we have already established you have no computers at home would you share what you use at work? I only ask as your opinions on Apple equipments' failings seem to cover the entire product range so I assume you use them all to be so knowledgeable.
No, everything I've learned I've learned from good folks like you.
As for "opinions on Apple failings across the entire product range" I believe you will find you're mistaken if you go look. In reality I very rarely if at all comment on the usefulness or desirability of Apple products and especially avoid promoting any supposed Apple product failings that folks here have noted. If you look you'll be hard-pressed to find any from me. Even my comments about the AirPod straws, probably the closest you can find, were more about why were they there as IMO they don't add to the look, which some Apple buyers have mentioned too. A couple of other posters here were kind enough to answer my questions to explain their purpose so it makes sense and hardly a "failing".
I still expect they'll go away as soon as Apple can do so.
EDIT: I do remember complaining about the bloat in iTunes for Windows here a few years ago, so I guess I did one time. My opinion of that product hasn't changed so at least I'm consistent.
It is my hope, as the article speculates as a possibility, that Apple chooses to either license the MacOS for high end workstations, or spins it off as its own separate business, rather than discontinue the product line, altogether. My company's graphics workflow is dependent on a considerable Mac investment, both hardware and software.
FWiW: my compliments for demonstrating a sound grasp of economics.
Sorry, there is simply no excuse for Apple not updating core products like the MacPro and Mac Mini. They are leaving money on the table. They are not innovating. The PC is not dead. The Microsoft Surface Pro is more compelling than any iMac in the last three years. Come on Apple, you are leaving your customers high and dry.
Nonsense. The hardware innovation in the latest iphones, ipads, macbooks and airpods is astounding. They don't improve themselves.
But MS makes yet another surface, this one for the the ultra niche of illustrators, and you're impressed? Show me the sales numbers, which prove people are actually buying them (which they will if they truly add value).
A lot of Pet Rocks were sold too, but it doesn't prove people found they added value afterwards.
As for sharing sales numbers it looks to me like most techs prefer to avoid specifics and avoid mentioning how much of a particular product sold for the most part. Numbers end up coming from educated guesses via analysts and market studies instead of the manufacturer.
I have on more that one occasion noted that Apple will likely generate more revenue from AirPods, I've stated $3 B in calendar year 2017, than MS will from Surface products. I might be a bit off on that, but it provides a comparative context.
You might know the answer to this: Why is there that straw hanging that looks like it's missing wires on the AirPods? I'm assuming that it's a necessary piece because otherwise it's not very attractive being there. Do you know its function?
It won't be long before many other copycat products have a similar design. One can be sure in the Apple design that part is of great importance to performance as per tear down, in copy cats it will probably be empty.
On the contrary I see that "feature" disappearing in the next generation or two of the AirPods. I doubt Apple really wants it there either, just not simple for them to get rid of it yet without causing other issues.
I doubt the Apple will eliminate the "style" of the AirPod; it has already become a signature design feature.
Apple may shorten the stem over time, but otherwise, I've noted only a few people as yourself make such a fuss over it, and you aren't even a potential buyer.
The stems are a persistent design feature of EarPods; it's the lack of the continuum of the cable that makes the AirPods seem odd at first glance.
As for your meme about voice assistants, I'm not seeing them displace the mobile OS, either in five, or ten years.
Voice is good for queries, but output is almost always better visually on a screen, assuming the query isn't "where can I can a mug of the local swill". Voice is also good for output of sequential instructions or status, great for driving, or maintaining the state of a 5th gen F-35. Visual bandwidth greatly exceeds aural bandwidth for humans, excepting conversation and singing, I suppose.
"One of the core problems in predicting the future path of technology is that even a minor change in one variable can frequently result in a totally different competitive environment going forward."
The problem is that Apple is no longer the one creating those variables.
Arguing that Apple will continue to make gobs of money is besides the point (and, frankly, feels kind of desperate). None of us started following and obsessing over Apple because of their bottom line, we did so because they thought differently and did things from a place of passion for the user experience. It seems more and more that they have been reduced to adding gimmicky widgets of limited value (e.g. touch bar) and advertising them as miracles. Not a problem from a business standpoint (lots of big companies follow this model and make loads of money), but it's a blow to anyone who wants Apple to be something bigger than its next earnings release.
"One of the core problems in predicting the future path of technology is that even a minor change in one variable can frequently result in a totally different competitive environment going forward."
The problem is that Apple is no longer the one creating those variables.
Arguing that Apple will continue to make gobs of money is besides the point (and, frankly, feels kind of desperate). None of us started following and obsessing over Apple because of their bottom line, we did so because they thought differently and did things from a place of passion for the user experience. It seems more and more that they have been reduced to adding gimmicky widgets of limited value (e.g. touch bar) and advertising them as miracles. Not a problem from a business standpoint (lots of big companies follow this model and make loads of money), but it's a blow to anyone who wants Apple to be something bigger than its next earnings release.
Disagree. For years haters pointed to Apple's low sales as proof of their suckitude. Now the numbers are way, way in Apple's favor -- proving that without a doubt, consumers favor their products. Big time. The profit and the consumer satisfaction ratings are the proof. To try to discredit that now is moving the goal posts.
Claiming Apple isn't innovated (which is what you've said re the variables) is quite misguided. I don't own a new MBP but reviewers i trust say it's no gimmick. It also has amazing display tech, trackpad tech, etc....meanwhile nobody else in imdustry has done anything worth mentioning with their notebooks.
And you've conveniently ignored the Watch and AirPods.
Sorry, there is simply no excuse for Apple not updating core products like the MacPro and Mac Mini. They are leaving money on the table. They are not innovating. The PC is not dead. The Microsoft Surface Pro is more compelling than any iMac in the last three years. Come on Apple, you are leaving your customers high and dry.
Nonsense. The hardware innovation in the latest iphones, ipads, macbooks and airpods is astounding. They don't improve themselves.
But MS makes yet another surface, this one for the the ultra niche of illustrators, and you're impressed? Show me the sales numbers, which prove people are actually buying them (which they will if they truly add value).
A lot of Pet Rocks were sold too, but it doesn't prove people found they added value afterwards.
As for sharing sales numbers it looks to me like most techs prefer to avoid specifics and avoid mentioning how much of a particular product sold for the most part. Numbers end up coming from educated guesses via analysts and market studies instead of the manufacturer.
I have on more that one occasion noted that Apple will likely generate more revenue from AirPods, I've stated $3 B in calendar year 2017, than MS will from Surface products. I might be a bit off on that, but it provides a comparative context.
You might know the answer to this: Why is there that straw hanging that looks like it's missing wires on the AirPods? I'm assuming that it's a necessary piece because otherwise it's not very attractive being there. Do you know its function?
It won't be long before many other copycat products have a similar design. One can be sure in the Apple design that part is of great importance to performance as per tear down, in copy cats it will probably be empty.
On the contrary I see that "feature" disappearing in the next generation or two of the AirPods. I doubt Apple really wants it there either, just not simple for them to get rid of it yet without causing other issues.
I doubt the Apple will eliminate the "style" of the AirPod; it has already become a signature design feature.
Apple may shorten the stem over time, but otherwise, I've noted only a few people as yourself make such a fuss over it, and you aren't even a potential buyer.
Au contraire, a bad assumption!
I actually WAS considering them. Believe it or not they're a recommended product by a high-profile Android forum for use with Android phones. Got a great write-up there. They just don't offer all the same functionality as they would with an iPhone. Still recommended highly tho. There's a lot of respect for Apple among Android users and blogs, with many folks using both platforms depending on where and when. http://www.androidcentral.com/airpods-android-seriously
Picked up an Apple TV (4th Gen) a couple weeks ago too for an upstairs bedroom. I quite like most of Apple's design choices, just not a fan of the current AirPod straw, yet probably still would have bought a pair to try if the value was there as it is when using with an iPhone.
Sorry, there is simply no excuse for Apple not updating core products like the MacPro and Mac Mini. They are leaving money on the table. They are not innovating. The PC is not dead. The Microsoft Surface Pro is more compelling than any iMac in the last three years. Come on Apple, you are leaving your customers high and dry.
Nonsense. The hardware innovation in the latest iphones, ipads, macbooks and airpods is astounding. They don't improve themselves.
But MS makes yet another surface, this one for the the ultra niche of illustrators, and you're impressed? Show me the sales numbers, which prove people are actually buying them (which they will if they truly add value).
A lot of Pet Rocks were sold too, but it doesn't prove people found they added value afterwards.
As for sharing sales numbers it looks to me like most techs prefer to avoid specifics and avoid mentioning how much of a particular product sold for the most part. Numbers end up coming from educated guesses via analysts and market studies instead of the manufacturer.
I have on more that one occasion noted that Apple will likely generate more revenue from AirPods, I've stated $3 B in calendar year 2017, than MS will from Surface products. I might be a bit off on that, but it provides a comparative context.
You might know the answer to this: Why is there that straw hanging that looks like it's missing wires on the AirPods? I'm assuming that it's a necessary piece because otherwise it's not very attractive being there. Do you know its function?
It won't be long before many other copycat products have a similar design. One can be sure in the Apple design that part is of great importance to performance as per tear down, in copy cats it will probably be empty.
On the contrary I see that "feature" disappearing in the next generation or two of the AirPods. I doubt Apple really wants it there either, just not simple for them to get rid of it yet without causing other issues.
I doubt the Apple will eliminate the "style" of the AirPod; it has already become a signature design feature.
Apple may shorten the stem over time, but otherwise, I've noted only a few people as yourself make such a fuss over it, and you aren't even a potential buyer.
Au contraire, a bad assumption!
I actually WAS considering them. Believe it or not they're a recommended product by a high-profile Android forum for use with Android phones. Got a great write-up there. They just don't offer all the same functionality as they would with an iPhone. Still recommended highly tho. There's a lot of respect for Apple among Android users and blogs, with many folks using both platforms depending on where and when. http://www.androidcentral.com/airpods-android-seriously
Picked up an Apple TV (4th Gen) a couple weeks ago too for an upstairs bedroom. I quite like most of Apple's design choices, just not a fan of the current AirPod straw, yet probably still would have bought a pair to try if the value was there as it is when using with an iPhone.
You weren't very serious about a purchase if yesterday you were so uninformed about the design. A bad inference of mine based on your obvious incuriosity about AirPod design.
Sorry, there is simply no excuse for Apple not updating core products like the MacPro and Mac Mini. They are leaving money on the table. They are not innovating. The PC is not dead. The Microsoft Surface Pro is more compelling than any iMac in the last three years. Come on Apple, you are leaving your customers high and dry.
Nonsense. The hardware innovation in the latest iphones, ipads, macbooks and airpods is astounding. They don't improve themselves.
But MS makes yet another surface, this one for the the ultra niche of illustrators, and you're impressed? Show me the sales numbers, which prove people are actually buying them (which they will if they truly add value).
A lot of Pet Rocks were sold too, but it doesn't prove people found they added value afterwards.
As for sharing sales numbers it looks to me like most techs prefer to avoid specifics and avoid mentioning how much of a particular product sold for the most part. Numbers end up coming from educated guesses via analysts and market studies instead of the manufacturer.
I have on more that one occasion noted that Apple will likely generate more revenue from AirPods, I've stated $3 B in calendar year 2017, than MS will from Surface products. I might be a bit off on that, but it provides a comparative context.
You might know the answer to this: Why is there that straw hanging that looks like it's missing wires on the AirPods? I'm assuming that it's a necessary piece because otherwise it's not very attractive being there. Do you know its function?
It won't be long before many other copycat products have a similar design. One can be sure in the Apple design that part is of great importance to performance as per tear down, in copy cats it will probably be empty.
On the contrary I see that "feature" disappearing in the next generation or two of the AirPods. I doubt Apple really wants it there either, just not simple for them to get rid of it yet without causing other issues.
I doubt the Apple will eliminate the "style" of the AirPod; it has already become a signature design feature.
Apple may shorten the stem over time, but otherwise, I've noted only a few people as yourself make such a fuss over it, and you aren't even a potential buyer.
Au contraire, a bad assumption!
I actually WAS considering them. Believe it or not they're a recommended product by a high-profile Android forum for use with Android phones. Got a great write-up there. They just don't offer all the same functionality as they would with an iPhone. Still recommended highly tho. There's a lot of respect for Apple among Android users and blogs, with many folks using both platforms depending on where and when. http://www.androidcentral.com/airpods-android-seriously
Picked up an Apple TV (4th Gen) a couple weeks ago too for an upstairs bedroom. I quite like most of Apple's design choices, just not a fan of the current AirPod straw, yet probably still would have bought a pair to try if the value was there as it is when using with an iPhone.
You weren't very serious about a purchase if yesterday you were so uninformed about the design.
And yet another bad assumption, tho I'm absolutely certain there's a purpose to it.
Anyway FWIW I've been actively looking at reviews of bluetooth earbuds for a few weeks now, but not settled on anything yet. There seems to be so much in the works that I've decided to be a bit patient. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the sound from the wired ones I have now, but would dump the wires for comparable sound and good range at a fair price.
As somebody who's interested in the products, not the financials, and actually owns an old Mac Pro, I'm still allowed to want an up to date Mac Pro, right? Or should I just shut up about it, because I should care more about Apple's profitability?
I'm going to say what Daniel won't (because he has to retain future credibility...)
Let's look at the full picture here. - Are Macs PROFITABLE? Yes. Certainly as a class, probably even just in the Mac Pro category.
- Are Mac STRATEGIC? Yes. Where else are developers (inside and outside Apple) going to write apps? Sure, in THEORY, they could do this on Linux or using Dev Studio, but get serious. Apple's whole philosophy is based on owning everything, from the CPUs to the dev tools to the UI. Giving up control of dev tools makes ZERO sense.
- Are Macs POPULAR? Sure they are. I expect every Apple technical employee and most of the non-tech employees owns a Mac. They are white goods (meaning that you update them when they die, after seven to ten years, not every two years) but that's not the same thing as being unloved.
OK, this means Apple has serious reasons to keep Macs going. So why does it seem otherwise? To me the answer is obvious: Apple is working on their NEXT "large screen+keyboard" platform and all the serious resources are going into that. Today's Mac is in a holding pattern, receiving the bare minimum of attention and no more.
On the hardware side, Apple has basically reached the point where they no longer need Intel. If they're willing to give their existing cores an Intel power budget, they can exceed Intel performance. And Intel has been a LOUSY partner over the past few years, constantly limiting Apple's freedom of action. Instead of a competent deep security model they gave something so complicated that no-one understands it and most security experts don't trust it --- and of course with the usual "it's in some chips but not others". Their in-built GPU performance has constantly lagged, and thwarted Apple's attempts at a big-bang introducing 4K h.265 content across the entire product line. Intel took way too long to roll out USB3 support in its chips (and then subsequent USB updates), and Intel's attitude to Thunderbolt makes no sense --- they claim to love it but seem to do everything they can to prevent it taking off in a big way. So Apple would be far better off ditching Intel for its own hardware control. We're getting close to the point where that's possible. The core's are ready and (my guess) the entire chip (ie not just the cores, but multiple cores [3 or 4] on a chip, multi-processing links to glue multiple chips together, more aggressive GPUs, on-board TB and USB, etc etc, probably already exist in various prototype forms and are being tested, both in Apple labs and perhaps even as part of Apple data centers.
On the software side, likewise, MacOS has its strengths but, of course, is also showing its age. It's riddled with concepts at the OS level that made sense when it was introduced almost 20 years ago, but make rather less sense given the way we do things today. Obviously some iOS ideas have been retrofitted, but even iOS is ten years old, and iOS is solving a different problem. There are a variety of good ideas for how to design future OSs given the current priorities of mobility (between devices), many cores, and low power, and it would make sense to create a new OS built on these ideas. (For example the Barrelfish research OS starts with the idea of having many cores available connected by not necessarily coherent links, and builds a performant OS on these foundations using a shared-nothing model. This gives you much better scaling, more easily translates to a world of heterogeneous processors --- big and LITTLE cores and GPUs --- AND [most interesting] generalizes better to a personal compute cluster where you want your Macs, your iPhone, your iPad, your Watch, your Airpods etc all communicating reliably and rapidly with each other.)
So the way I see it, Mac looks like its dead because, in a sense, it is. 90% of the "Mac" team, hardware and software, are working on Project Hexagon (or some other cool code name) creating the whole range of new Mac laptops, desktops, Pros, even (at least for Apple internal consumption) serious servers, together with a new OS that not only does what we want our Macs to do (ie fixes all the damn bugs we've been complaining about for the past three years) but also lays the foundations for the next twenty years of computing. There's only a skeleton team working on the Mac today making minimal HW changes and the minimal OS changes necessary to track the new features in WatchOS and iOS.
Use common sense people. Apple, you think???, know they have more money than IBM, Intel, MS, VMWare, etc. They also know, more than the rest of us, how MacOS has been pushed to its limits, and how the future of computing includes many more wearables and other such devices, includes lotsa AI, new sensors, new UI modalities, includes lotsa cloud computing. They also know that there's lotsa money in enterprise, along with lots of pain. And that Mac, in its current form (and for that matter iPhone soon) have pretty much reached maximum penetration. Finally Apple has always been willing to throw out the past and "think different". Mac 1.0 Newton. OSX, iOS, Swift, each time Apple didn't just do continue to patch the old way of doing things the way MS and say, the Unix community, do things --- they rethought everything and threw out most of the past. Why wouldn't Apple put this all together to come up with a new compute paradigm --- new hardware (Apple designed from the ground up) running a new OS and using new frameworks? Of course there'll be backward compatibility, just like there was with the PPC transition, the MacOS->OSX transition, the Intel transition. That's so obvious it's not worth talking about. Likewise the supposed "oh it's essential to be able to run Windows apps" argument strikes me as absurd. You can buy PCs on a stick today --- plug one of those into your USB3.1 connector, run a virtualization app (that feeds the PC-on-a-stick virtual keyboard, pointing device and display) and voila, you have your PC solution.
So that's my answer. Sometime in the near future (before 2020) Apple introduces the future of desktop/laptop computing...
In which country was WebOS hailed as a sure success? Did not see that at all. Now I should not say that DanielEran is rewriting history in this forum.
People sure have a bad memory. WebOS was awesome and a great iOS competition that Palm bet the farm on. ... If Google hadn't been so immoral, I have no doubt it would be iOS and Palm in the phone market today.
Yes, WebOS was awesome and Palm bet on it. Again, in which country did it even look like Palm could catch up with Apple, Microsoft, BlackBerry and Google? I somehow doubt Palm woul have succeeded even if you take Android out of the equation.
Yes janeshepard, it is quite apparent that DanielEran articles are written expressly to warm up the heart of fanboys and fangirls and provide them with material to contradict the naysayers. Some of it is actually good info, usually presented in the best possible light for Apple.
Disagree. For years haters pointed to Apple's low sales as proof of their suckitude. Now the numbers are way, way in Apple's favor -- proving that without a doubt, consumers favor their products. Big time. The profit and the consumer satisfaction ratings are the proof. To try to discredit that now is moving the goal posts.
Claiming Apple isn't innovated (which is what you've said re the variables) is quite misguided. I don't own a new MBP but reviewers i trust say it's no gimmick. It also has amazing display tech, trackpad tech, etc....meanwhile nobody else in imdustry has done anything worth mentioning with their notebooks.
And you've conveniently ignored the Watch and AirPods.
Haters hated Apple for a variety of reasons. I think their walled-garden approach and artistic snobbery were actually bigger issues than their low sales numbers. Today the negative mood around Apple as a company is coming from haters and fans alike, not because they are financially successful, but because it is easy to find the successful Apple boring.
I didn't claim Apple hasn't innovated (they have), I claimed that they were no longer the origin of the kind of variables that cause major shifts in the tech landscape. For many years, they were one of the biggest variables. Now their innovations are mostly small and incremental (displays, trackpad, Touch Bar, AirPods). Nothing wrong with that (in fact it's necessary and good), but I think many are looking to Apple for more. I'm sad that it seems the "more" years are over, and Apple has grown into a corporate behemoth where incremental innovation is the most we'll get.
You're right, the Watch was a new product category with lots of innovation and they deserve credit for that. But, it didn't have a big industry impact. Also, the problem for me is that I wear one on my wrist (have since day one) and find it utterly uninspiring as a product. It's basically just used as a timepiece with notifications. I'm about as passionate about it as I am my Hue bulbs -- they're nice to have, but I could live without them.
"One of the core problems in predicting the future path of technology is that even a minor change in one variable can frequently result in a totally different competitive environment going forward."
The problem is that Apple is no longer the one creating those variables.
Arguing that Apple will continue to make gobs of money is besides the point (and, frankly, feels kind of desperate). None of us started following and obsessing over Apple because of their bottom line, we did so because they thought differently and did things from a place of passion for the user experience. It seems more and more that they have been reduced to adding gimmicky widgets of limited value (e.g. touch bar) and advertising them as miracles. Not a problem from a business standpoint (lots of big companies follow this model and make loads of money), but it's a blow to anyone who wants Apple to be something bigger than its next earnings release.
I get your point. But the flip side of that is Apple is working in a mature market and earth shattering changes just aren't going to happen. I believe that Apple did NOT market the touch bar the way you think they did. Rather, they see it as an answer to growing industry trend: the merger of the tablet and laptop. Microsoft went with a touch screen on a laptop. Apple thought that was a dumb solution and opted for the touch bar instead. To you it may be a gimmicky widget. To Apple it was their answer to a user demand.
As somebody who's interested in the products, not the financials, and actually owns an old Mac Pro, I'm still allowed to want an up to date Mac Pro, right? Or should I just shut up about it, because I should care more about Apple's profitability?
I'm going to say what Daniel won't (because he has to retain future credibility...)
Let's look at the full picture here. - Are Macs PROFITABLE? Yes. Certainly as a class, probably even just in the Mac Pro category.
- Are Mac STRATEGIC? Yes. Where else are developers (inside and outside Apple) going to write apps? Sure, in THEORY, they could do this on Linux or using Dev Studio, but get serious. Apple's whole philosophy is based on owning everything, from the CPUs to the dev tools to the UI. Giving up control of dev tools makes ZERO sense.
- Are Macs POPULAR? Sure they are. I expect every Apple technical employee and most of the non-tech employees owns a Mac. They are white goods (meaning that you update them when they die, after seven to ten years, not every two years) but that's not the same thing as being unloved.
OK, this means Apple has serious reasons to keep Macs going. So why does it seem otherwise? To me the answer is obvious: Apple is working on their NEXT "large screen+keyboard" platform and all the serious resources are going into that. Today's Mac is in a holding pattern, receiving the bare minimum of attention and no more.
On the hardware side, Apple has basically reached the point where they no longer need Intel. If they're willing to give their existing cores an Intel power budget, they can exceed Intel performance. And Intel has been a LOUSY partner over the past few years, constantly limiting Apple's freedom of action. Instead of a competent deep security model they gave something so complicated that no-one understands it and most security experts don't trust it --- and of course with the usual "it's in some chips but not others". Their in-built GPU performance has constantly lagged, and thwarted Apple's attempts at a big-bang introducing 4K h.265 content across the entire product line. Intel took way too long to roll out USB3 support in its chips (and then subsequent USB updates), and Intel's attitude to Thunderbolt makes no sense --- they claim to love it but seem to do everything they can to prevent it taking off in a big way. So Apple would be far better off ditching Intel for its own hardware control. We're getting close to the point where that's possible. The core's are ready and (my guess) the entire chip (ie not just the cores, but multiple cores [3 or 4] on a chip, multi-processing links to glue multiple chips together, more aggressive GPUs, on-board TB and USB, etc etc, probably already exist in various prototype forms and are being tested, both in Apple labs and perhaps even as part of Apple data centers.
On the software side, likewise, MacOS has its strengths but, of course, is also showing its age. It's riddled with concepts at the OS level that made sense when it was introduced almost 20 years ago, but make rather less sense given the way we do things today. Obviously some iOS ideas have been retrofitted, but even iOS is ten years old, and iOS is solving a different problem. There are a variety of good ideas for how to design future OSs given the current priorities of mobility (between devices), many cores, and low power, and it would make sense to create a new OS built on these ideas. (For example the Barrelfish research OS starts with the idea of having many cores available connected by not necessarily coherent links, and builds a performant OS on these foundations using a shared-nothing model. This gives you much better scaling, more easily translates to a world of heterogeneous processors --- big and LITTLE cores and GPUs --- AND [most interesting] generalizes better to a personal compute cluster where you want your Macs, your iPhone, your iPad, your Watch, your Airpods etc all communicating reliably and rapidly with each other.)
So the way I see it, Mac looks like its dead because, in a sense, it is. 90% of the "Mac" team, hardware and software, are working on Project Hexagon (or some other cool code name) creating the whole range of new Mac laptops, desktops, Pros, even (at least for Apple internal consumption) serious servers, together with a new OS that not only does what we want our Macs to do (ie fixes all the damn bugs we've been complaining about for the past three years) but also lays the foundations for the next twenty years of computing. There's only a skeleton team working on the Mac today making minimal HW changes and the minimal OS changes necessary to track the new features in WatchOS and iOS.
Use common sense people. Apple, you think???, know they have more money than IBM, Intel, MS, VMWare, etc. They also know, more than the rest of us, how MacOS has been pushed to its limits, and how the future of computing includes many more wearables and other such devices, includes lotsa AI, new sensors, new UI modalities, includes lotsa cloud computing. They also know that there's lotsa money in enterprise, along with lots of pain. And that Mac, in its current form (and for that matter iPhone soon) have pretty much reached maximum penetration. Finally Apple has always been willing to throw out the past and "think different". Mac 1.0 Newton. OSX, iOS, Swift, each time Apple didn't just do continue to patch the old way of doing things the way MS and say, the Unix community, do things --- they rethought everything and threw out most of the past. Why wouldn't Apple put this all together to come up with a new compute paradigm --- new hardware (Apple designed from the ground up) running a new OS and using new frameworks? Of course there'll be backward compatibility, just like there was with the PPC transition, the MacOS->OSX transition, the Intel transition. That's so obvious it's not worth talking about. Likewise the supposed "oh it's essential to be able to run Windows apps" argument strikes me as absurd. You can buy PCs on a stick today --- plug one of those into your USB3.1 connector, run a virtualization app (that feeds the PC-on-a-stick virtual keyboard, pointing device and display) and voila, you have your PC solution.
So that's my answer. Sometime in the near future (before 2020) Apple introduces the future of desktop/laptop computing...
Good points... But are sure that future won't simply be an IPad with a keyboard? ... Oh wait... Never mind.
Comments
Perhaps it has nothing to do with sales figures or lack of interest.
Perhaps it is due to the fact that Intel based hardware has plateaued. Yes, you can demonstrate improvements using testing software. But, in real life for MOST users there is not an overwhelming difference between today's Intel hardware and that of 2, 3 4 even 5 years ago.
I believe that Apple has retained Job's vision to create technological gadgets that make people's lives better. So, if a new & improved is not new & improved enough to make people's lives better and instead is directed at just making a new & improved gadget to boost sales, then why do it?
And, on top of that, another factor is creeping into the mix: Increasingly computing is going back to the future to cloud/mainframe computing and the user gadget is mostly just a (semi) dumb terminal. So why chase after an increasingly capable (but costly) user device if the future is headed in the opposite direction?
None of the companies behind those listed voice assistants are going broke. They've all been made wealthy from our spending of our money.
Not pertaining to this post in particular but as we have already established you have no computers at home would you share what you use at work? I only ask as your opinions on Apple equipments' failings seem to cover the entire product range so I assume you use them all to be so knowledgeable.
As for "opinions on Apple failings across the entire product range" I believe you will find you're mistaken if you go look. In reality I very rarely if at all comment on the usefulness or desirability of Apple products and especially avoid promoting any supposed Apple product failings that folks here have noted. If you look you'll be hard-pressed to find any from me. Even my comments about the AirPod straws, probably the closest you can find, were more about why were they there as IMO they don't add to the look, which some Apple buyers have mentioned too. A couple of other posters here were kind enough to answer my questions to explain their purpose so it makes sense and hardly a "failing".
I still expect they'll go away as soon as Apple can do so.
EDIT: I do remember complaining about the bloat in iTunes for Windows here a few years ago, so I guess I did one time. My opinion of that product hasn't changed so at least I'm consistent.
FWiW: my compliments for demonstrating a sound grasp of economics.
Apple may shorten the stem over time, but otherwise, I've noted only a few people as yourself make such a fuss over it, and you aren't even a potential buyer.
The stems are a persistent design feature of EarPods; it's the lack of the continuum of the cable that makes the AirPods seem odd at first glance.
As for your meme about voice assistants, I'm not seeing them displace the mobile OS, either in five, or ten years.
Voice is good for queries, but output is almost always better visually on a screen, assuming the query isn't "where can I can a mug of the local swill". Voice is also good for output of sequential instructions or status, great for driving, or maintaining the state of a 5th gen F-35. Visual bandwidth greatly exceeds aural bandwidth for humans, excepting conversation and singing, I suppose.
The problem is that Apple is no longer the one creating those variables.
Arguing that Apple will continue to make gobs of money is besides the point (and, frankly, feels kind of desperate). None of us started following and obsessing over Apple because of their bottom line, we did so because they thought differently and did things from a place of passion for the user experience. It seems more and more that they have been reduced to adding gimmicky widgets of limited value (e.g. touch bar) and advertising them as miracles. Not a problem from a business standpoint (lots of big companies follow this model and make loads of money), but it's a blow to anyone who wants Apple to be something bigger than its next earnings release.
Claiming Apple isn't innovated (which is what you've said re the variables) is quite misguided. I don't own a new MBP but reviewers i trust say it's no gimmick. It also has amazing display tech, trackpad tech, etc....meanwhile nobody else in imdustry has done anything worth mentioning with their notebooks.
And you've conveniently ignored the Watch and AirPods.
I actually WAS considering them. Believe it or not they're a recommended product by a high-profile Android forum for use with Android phones. Got a great write-up there. They just don't offer all the same functionality as they would with an iPhone. Still recommended highly tho. There's a lot of respect for Apple among Android users and blogs, with many folks using both platforms depending on where and when.
http://www.androidcentral.com/airpods-android-seriously
Picked up an Apple TV (4th Gen) a couple weeks ago too for an upstairs bedroom. I quite like most of Apple's design choices, just not a fan of the current AirPod straw, yet probably still would have bought a pair to try if the value was there as it is when using with an iPhone.
Anyway FWIW I've been actively looking at reviews of bluetooth earbuds for a few weeks now, but not settled on anything yet. There seems to be so much in the works that I've decided to be a bit patient. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the sound from the wired ones I have now, but would dump the wires for comparable sound and good range at a fair price.
Let's look at the full picture here.
- Are Macs PROFITABLE?
Yes. Certainly as a class, probably even just in the Mac Pro category.
- Are Mac STRATEGIC?
Yes. Where else are developers (inside and outside Apple) going to write apps? Sure, in THEORY, they could do this on Linux or using Dev Studio, but get serious. Apple's whole philosophy is based on owning everything, from the CPUs to the dev tools to the UI. Giving up control of dev tools makes ZERO sense.
- Are Macs POPULAR?
Sure they are. I expect every Apple technical employee and most of the non-tech employees owns a Mac. They are white goods (meaning that you update them when they die, after seven to ten years, not every two years) but that's not the same thing as being unloved.
OK, this means Apple has serious reasons to keep Macs going. So why does it seem otherwise? To me the answer is obvious:
Apple is working on their NEXT "large screen+keyboard" platform and all the serious resources are going into that. Today's Mac is in a holding pattern, receiving the bare minimum of attention and no more.
On the hardware side, Apple has basically reached the point where they no longer need Intel. If they're willing to give their existing cores an Intel power budget, they can exceed Intel performance. And Intel has been a LOUSY partner over the past few years, constantly limiting Apple's freedom of action. Instead of a competent deep security model they gave something so complicated that no-one understands it and most security experts don't trust it --- and of course with the usual "it's in some chips but not others". Their in-built GPU performance has constantly lagged, and thwarted Apple's attempts at a big-bang introducing 4K h.265 content across the entire product line. Intel took way too long to roll out USB3 support in its chips (and then subsequent USB updates), and Intel's attitude to Thunderbolt makes no sense --- they claim to love it but seem to do everything they can to prevent it taking off in a big way.
So Apple would be far better off ditching Intel for its own hardware control. We're getting close to the point where that's possible. The core's are ready and (my guess) the entire chip (ie not just the cores, but multiple cores [3 or 4] on a chip, multi-processing links to glue multiple chips together, more aggressive GPUs, on-board TB and USB, etc etc, probably already exist in various prototype forms and are being tested, both in Apple labs and perhaps even as part of Apple data centers.
On the software side, likewise, MacOS has its strengths but, of course, is also showing its age. It's riddled with concepts at the OS level that made sense when it was introduced almost 20 years ago, but make rather less sense given the way we do things today. Obviously some iOS ideas have been retrofitted, but even iOS is ten years old, and iOS is solving a different problem. There are a variety of good ideas for how to design future OSs given the current priorities of mobility (between devices), many cores, and low power, and it would make sense to create a new OS built on these ideas. (For example the Barrelfish research OS starts with the idea of having many cores available connected by not necessarily coherent links, and builds a performant OS on these foundations using a shared-nothing model. This gives you much better scaling, more easily translates to a world of heterogeneous processors --- big and LITTLE cores and GPUs --- AND [most interesting] generalizes better to a personal compute cluster where you want your Macs, your iPhone, your iPad, your Watch, your Airpods etc all communicating reliably and rapidly with each other.)
So the way I see it, Mac looks like its dead because, in a sense, it is. 90% of the "Mac" team, hardware and software, are working on Project Hexagon (or some other cool code name) creating the whole range of new Mac laptops, desktops, Pros, even (at least for Apple internal consumption) serious servers, together with a new OS that not only does what we want our Macs to do (ie fixes all the damn bugs we've been complaining about for the past three years) but also lays the foundations for the next twenty years of computing. There's only a skeleton team working on the Mac today making minimal HW changes and the minimal OS changes necessary to track the new features in WatchOS and iOS.
Use common sense people.
Apple, you think???, know they have more money than IBM, Intel, MS, VMWare, etc.
They also know, more than the rest of us, how MacOS has been pushed to its limits, and how the future of computing includes many more wearables and other such devices, includes lotsa AI, new sensors, new UI modalities, includes lotsa cloud computing. They also know that there's lotsa money in enterprise, along with lots of pain. And that Mac, in its current form (and for that matter iPhone soon) have pretty much reached maximum penetration.
Finally Apple has always been willing to throw out the past and "think different". Mac 1.0 Newton. OSX, iOS, Swift, each time Apple didn't just do continue to patch the old way of doing things the way MS and say, the Unix community, do things --- they rethought everything and threw out most of the past.
Why wouldn't Apple put this all together to come up with a new compute paradigm --- new hardware (Apple designed from the ground up) running a new OS and using new frameworks?
Of course there'll be backward compatibility, just like there was with the PPC transition, the MacOS->OSX transition, the Intel transition. That's so obvious it's not worth talking about. Likewise the supposed "oh it's essential to be able to run Windows apps" argument strikes me as absurd. You can buy PCs on a stick today --- plug one of those into your USB3.1 connector, run a virtualization app (that feeds the PC-on-a-stick virtual keyboard, pointing device and display) and voila, you have your PC solution.
So that's my answer. Sometime in the near future (before 2020) Apple introduces the future of desktop/laptop computing...
Again, in which country did it even look like Palm could catch up with Apple, Microsoft, BlackBerry and Google? I somehow doubt Palm woul have succeeded even if you take Android out of the equation.
Yes janeshepard, it is quite apparent that DanielEran articles are written expressly to warm up the heart of fanboys and fangirls and provide them with material to contradict the naysayers. Some of it is actually good info, usually presented in the best possible light for Apple.
I didn't claim Apple hasn't innovated (they have), I claimed that they were no longer the origin of the kind of variables that cause major shifts in the tech landscape. For many years, they were one of the biggest variables. Now their innovations are mostly small and incremental (displays, trackpad, Touch Bar, AirPods). Nothing wrong with that (in fact it's necessary and good), but I think many are looking to Apple for more. I'm sad that it seems the "more" years are over, and Apple has grown into a corporate behemoth where incremental innovation is the most we'll get.
You're right, the Watch was a new product category with lots of innovation and they deserve credit for that. But, it didn't have a big industry impact. Also, the problem for me is that I wear one on my wrist (have since day one) and find it utterly uninspiring as a product. It's basically just used as a timepiece with notifications. I'm about as passionate about it as I am my Hue bulbs -- they're nice to have, but I could live without them.
But are sure that future won't simply be an IPad with a keyboard?
... Oh wait... Never mind.