Am I the only person who noticed that the "headless iMac" represents a cost increase over the current model?
$999 just gets you the base. How much is the LCD on top?
All else being equal (i.e., if you have to design the case and board for both), AIOs are more cost-efficient than any collection of separate units. For this to work, Apple will have to resort to the old sleight-of-hand of advertising an iMac as $999*
*monitor sold separately.
You are speaking about people buying their first computer. Those who have a 3 year old PC with a decent monitor (and monitors do have a longer lifetime), won't have to shell out some $200 for a monitor they don't need. It is a common argument against AIOs; I hear this sort of thing every day.
And the $1k, $2k, ..., $10k numbers are a psychological barrier to many.
"Everything ? EVERYTHING ? is going to get an update.
No Crystal ball or magic 8 ball needed here. Of course Apple will update everything, it's what they do. Myself and others have speculated that the AIO iMac will be replaced by something that covers more bases. Making the display an optional and upgradable component of the next Macintosh makes the most sense.
I've predicted that replacing the iBlob with something more elegant and useful seems to be the best course of action and evolution for the iMac. I own (and LOVE) a Cube and would love to see it's return. But Apple has been there, done that, so I don't really see it's coming back. Besides, any make-over of that form factor would be less elegant than the original. The clear plastic case has got to be very expensive to manufacture. I don't think they will go there again.
As I have predicted earlier, I think the only form factor that Apple has not exploited is the pyramid. It offers a timeless elegance that will be seen by Ives as irresistible. It alone offers a form factor that will allow Apple to hang one of it's next generation displays from the apex to maintain the AIO form factor they seem to think is so essential.
Saving money by hanging a standard next generation display, with adjustable arm from the new Macintosh with bundled pricing to make it appealing to customers, will give price points that cover the spectrum from headless to 20" display included, to choose from.
I believe Apple will use the future 12" Powerbook motherboard as the basis for the new Macintosh. Of course it will be powered by a G5, and releasing it first in a desktop will allow it's design to be tested on a large scale before they cram it into a portable. Using a mobo across product lines will save enormous amounts in development and manufacturing costs, something Apple will have to do to keep the price points competitive in today's market. It's a no-brainer going forward.
The pyramid as a form factor also has some significant pluses. Plenty of volume for air cooling and stacking components. A relatively tip-proof platform from which to hang a display, yet great looking if you want to go headless. Entry level buyers can plug in their crappy Dell display and have great upgrades available to them when they want to go with an Apple display. Going this route will reduce barriers to entry for buyers.
"OH yes and "One more thing ..."
Quote:
Originally posted by shawk
There has been talk of Steve Jobs replacing Michael Eisner at Disney.
Plugging Disney into the Apple Computer/Pixar/Apple Records/IBM equation could make for interesting speculation...
Disney is in turmoil right now, and I could envision Eisner's ouster and Steve Jobs' being offered his job as a way to keep Pixar in the Disney fold. Much like his return to Apple via purchase of Next. The only way Disney could keep Pixar would be to buy it, and the only way Steve would do that is if he came along to run things.
If the above scenario came to pass, then I could see Disney buying Apple Corps and maybe others to consolidate a music and movie empire. With Steve Jobs at the helm of both Apple and Disney who knows where that might take us.
Regardless of all that, the iTMS will eventually sign independent artists and labels to make RIAA irrelevant over the long term. (take that you MUDDA's!).
Four way or even 8 way Apple workstations? But of course, as my sig since 1999 has stated, Apple can completely blow away Intel and AMD as well as Sun and SGI with high end powerhouse workstations. I see a 4 CPU PowerStation as inevitable given Apple's interest in the high graphics and music markets.
The 4 CPU workstation will go 8 way when the dual core IBM chips come out. Imagine Maya complete or Mathematica running on one of these puppys.
I just don't see how Apple can succeed without damaging the Big 5. They are on divergent paths.
This is the crux of the problem. It would be a HUGE gamble, but exactly the kind of thing that I could see Steve getting excited about. Would the RDF protect him through the process of talking (conning) the Big 5 into licensing their catalog to the iTMS only to have him turn around and compete directly against them? As both a musician and a Mac user I'd love to think so...
Music is changing, and the Big 5 can't stop it. For 80 years they've had the luxury of a business model built around shipping physical media to brick and mortar stores. The iTMS has already shown this idea is dead. Once that particular stranglehold is gone, then their whole status as middle men is in jeopardy.
Enter Apple. Becoming a music label (whether by acquiring Apple Corp. or not) now gets a lot easier since 100% of the distribution is virtual. Buy a Mac, create your music, upload to iTMS, sell online and split the profits. Everybody wins.
I don't know, it's just crazy enough to work. Steve would LOVE to make Apple Computer and Apple Corp. one and the same and it would shock the world. Isn't that what One Infinite Loop is all about?
As I have predicted earlier, I think the only form factor that Apple has not exploited is the pyramid. It offers a timeless elegance that will be seen by Ives as irresistible. It alone offers a form factor that will allow Apple to hang one of it's next generation displays from the apex to maintain the AIO form factor they seem to think is so essential.
The pyramid and...uh, the sphere!!!!
That's right folks, the G5 Disco Ball:
Everything you ever wanted from the G5 in a mirrored sphere enclosure. No need for messy wires, every peripheral will use Bluetooth!
The Apple Projector rumors? ALL TRUE!!! The mirrors that reflect light from the G5 Disco Ball are closely tied with ColorSync and other special software that enables them to reflect all the light beams onto a wall and organizes these colored beams so that a recognizable OS X desktop is seen.
BTW, buying Apple Records would not make Apple (Computer) free to put the entire Beatles collection up on iTunes. About 40% of the Beatles music is now owned by Michael Jackson, not Apple Records.
Everything ? EVERYTHING ? is going to get an update.
That's nothing new.
1. G5 XServes: Of course. Nothing unexpected here. Already announced. Expect XServe updates to keep better pace with PowerMac updates for the foreseeable future. 3U 4-processor and 8-processor XServes are in the labs, but it?s unclear whether these will be released in 2004 (or at all).
The grid is not the solution to every computing problem. So those machienes will be very welcome to Apple's markets in Higher Ed, SciTech and Government.
There is a market for those machienes and for the first time Apple has all the technology it needs to build such a machiene.
Probably is will play out differently than what we expect now.
What if we get dual core smt processors from IBM in 2005. A machiene with 8 simultanious threads would be a dual processor machiene!
Couple that with the multithreaded model of OS X and you have a real winner.
2. PowerMac Updates: All Dual, starting at 2GHz/$1999. New impressive internal specs as well. $1999 for the entry-level tower model? People will surely revolt! Not when they see what?s coming next.
Heck where are they???
3. AIO (All In One) iMacs are bye-bye. Take the pod/base of the iMac, chop off the display, redesign it to look uber-cool as only Ives can do, plop in single G5s and impressive (albeit less impressive than PowerMac) internals, and price-points of $999/1.6GHz, $1299/1.8GHz, $1599/2.0GHz. No super-drive or oodles of memory at $999.
This sounds okay, but prices are to high. A G5 at 0.09 micron will cost nearly next to nothing. All the design cost have already be recouped by the PM G5.
One open topic, where will all the ports go? And how ist Apple going to adress the issue of desk real estate. The current iMac is hard to beat in this respect.
I have a 22' Cinema Display and while I think it could be even bigger there is a certain sensible limit. Think Fitt's law.
6. PowerBook Updates: Yes. Q1/2004 PowerBook G4s at 1.4, 1.6, and 1.8GHz. Other impressive internals to take advantage of the new IBM-based G4. An even better form factor (is that possible?). New, higher-resolution screens and better video cards across the board. G5 PowerBooks won?t appear until late 2004. There are just too many heat and power issues to work out without compromising the portable?s form factor.
I don't think so.
I doubt Apple will develop a new mobo for an IBM G4+ for just one revision of the PB. As soon as the system controller for the G5 is fabbed at 0.09 micron I expect a PB built around it.
*Maybe* we will see a PB bump with existing Moto G4s in them.
My main concern with PBs right now is their limited battery. They need to ship a higher capacity battery with the PBs.
7. iBook Updates: Yes. Basically a crippled PowerBook.
You hit the nail on the head. iBooks will be last years PBs (12'). That way they save the engineering for a whole line!
8. eMac Updates: But of course! But first, for those who think Apple should abandon this design, forget it. There?s a market that requires this design and is willing to shell out your tax dollars in order to get it.
I think we will see a bump based on Moto G4s and late in the year a redesign with a G5 and a better screen (<- the current one is a shame).
Oh yes. One more thing?.
:-)
Well you discribed the situation really well.
I think Apple will always have the best mp3 player around, but they might loose again when the comoditiy manufacturers sell their products to the great unwashed masses through their channels.
I think the solution to the problem is to license the basic hardware and software design of the iPods to the other manufacturers at the lowest cost possible. They need to drive WMA out of the market.
They should open source and standardise their DRM (FairPlay) and allow any music service provider and hardware producer to use it for free.
In case that doesn't work out they have still the option to jump ships and use M$.
I think it would be a phenomenal failiure if Apple bought AppleRecords and Pixar or Disney or Universal.
Except for AppleRecords they could buy or control the others.
I'm very sure that AppleRecords is not for sale. And that means that either you or your sources are bogus.
Let everyone do what they do best. Let the record labels produce the stars of tomorrow and let Apple create the consumer applications of tomorrow.
It really does not work when either one does try to do one thing in the other domain (e.g. Rhapsody in case of the music labels).
Collaboration is the magic word.
The music industry has always worked by collaboration.
Music was never sold directly by the record labels.
The sole thing that changes is the name of the distributor.
That's Apple.
I think you have an interesting point with the independant labels.
Apple should really foster them and ensure that they have the broadest music catalog around.
BTW I'm *very* disappointed, that Apple didn't release anything of the long list for the Pepsi promotion. I consider it highly dumb not to capatilize on 100 million extra clicks on your website.
The one thing that I (especially) don?t buy is the prediction that Apple will ditch the AIO iMac. While the role played by the iMac at Apple is less important now than it was, I think that there is far too much brand recognition among ordinary consumers for Apple to discontinue it. Change it? Yes (and there have been many threads about that), but get rid of it? I don?t think so. Making a headless ?option? is certainly a strong possibility, but I just can?t see them getting rid of the AIO desktop concept.
The one thing that I (especially) don?t buy is the prediction that Apple will ditch the AIO iMac. While the role played by the iMac at Apple is less important now than it was, I think that there is far too much brand recognition among ordinary consumers for Apple to discontinue it. Change it? Yes (and there have been many threads about that), but get rid of it? I don?t think so. Making a headless ?option? is certainly a strong possibility, but I just can?t see them getting rid of the AIO desktop concept.
There's still the eMac for the brand recoignition(?).
It seems that quite a few people are missing the point about content. Apple are positioning themselves at the centre of the content business.
does anyone even care that apple is the centre for movie trailer downloads? NOW IN NOT SAYING apple is getting into ther movie download market ( as we all know what SJ thinks there ) but i believe that Apple will focus OSX more and more on being very closly intergrated with content services that apple develops rev share deals with. Apple Computer will not buy Apple records... Thats a funny one to me... Remember its just a name and i think apple computer's legal will have a good handle on this one shortly... but Pixar well theres potential for content there dont think full movies think a sitcom length show say 30mins... Think quick push content to the osx desktop ...
As far as HW my guess apple will bring back the dalmation i mac....
Seriously when did anyone come up with hard facts ( A PICTURE )on an upcoming apple product since the pics of the MMD G4 powermac...
BTW, buying Apple Records would not make Apple (Computer) free to put the entire Beatles collection up on iTunes. About 40% of the Beatles music is now owned by Michael Jackson, not Apple Records.
NeilyB
I don't think so...
Michael Jackson owns 40% (I'll take your word on that figure) of the PUBLISHING RIGHTS of the Beatles songs which is quite different to owning the Beatles music recordings.
Here is something that sums it up quite well...
Quote:
What Michael Jackson bought for $47.5 million in 1985 was the publishing rights to 159 or 251 Beatles songs, depending on who's counting. To maybe oversimplify a complicated business, publishing rights are basically the sheet music rights. When Paul McCartney wanted to print the lyrics to "Eleanor Rigby" and other Beatles classics in the program for his 1989 world tour, he discovered he'd have to pay a fee to Michael Jackson. The owner of the publishing rights (hereinafter the publisher) also gets a royalty when someone plays a Beatles song on a jukebox or the radio or does a cover version of a Fab Four tune. Particularly in the case of elevator music, to which, let's be frank, a lot of Beatles tunes are well suited, this can earn the publisher some serious cash.
But there are a couple things the publisher can't do. The first is to mess with, or license the use of, Beatles recordings. Michael Jackson agreed to license the words and music of "Revolution" to Nike for a 1987 shoe commercial, but he had to persuade Capitol Records, owner of the tune's North American recording rights, to allow use of the actual record. Most likely he'd have to do the same to overdub said record with his own voice, although he might get away with including a snippet in a musical collage, something even John Lennon did that has now become impossible to control.
Apple are positioning themselves at the centre of the content business.
Yes. I believe this is "it". The DRM is the secret key hear.
Regarding what Steve Jobs has said about "iPod AV", be careful that you don't make an illogical leap that Steve is opposed to SOME video based product. Just not necessarily iPod. Perhaps a TiVO-like device at home.
Fairplay (Apple's DRM) is the key here. Zoom out. Watch the ENTIRE chess board.
Many say that the record companies will freak out if Apple follows this path... the thing is that they are already freaking out, and they haven't been able to figure out what their business model will be in this new age of the digital hub & broadband Internet. Apple is already leading them in a new direction with iTMS, perhaps that will continue and Mr. Jobs will show them the way to their new business model. The record companies need to find and maximize the value they bring to the modern music industry. If SJ and Apple can pull this off, it could be quite a coup for them... but somebody is going to do it.
You're off, it's just consolidation of the employees they already have scattered around Austin in various buildings. Being discussed in another thread.
Many say that the record companies will freak out if Apple follows this path... the thing is that they are already freaking out, and they haven't been able to figure out what their business model will be in this new age of the digital hub & broadband Internet. Apple is already leading them in a new direction with iTMS, perhaps that will continue and Mr. Jobs will show them the way to their new business model. The record companies need to find and maximize the value they bring to the modern music industry. If SJ and Apple can pull this off, it could be quite a coup for them... but somebody is going to do it.
Agreed.
Let's consider that if many years ago someone had suggested that Steve would be buying a special effects software house and wind up producing movies that would blow Disney off the map, everyone here would have laughed heartily. I don't think that buying a label to secure Apples software an hardware is that far fetched. I have an iPod and it's probably 10x the investment I've made in music over the last year. Right now, people are paying a lot for the convenience of accesing their music, but long-term people will just pay for the content. I've got a lot more invested in DVDs than in my DVD player.
I agree that Apple's lead here is not secure long-term. There are different ways of addressing this, but Apple needs to get themselves locked to the content somehow or to outposition MS, which is far from a reasonable strategy. I wouldn't discount this line of thinking at all. In fact, I haven't really seen anyone look forward realistically at the future of the iPod until this.
Faelyns predictions are disturbingly reasonable. I agree that G4 powerbooks are more likely. In spite of low-power G5, I don't think the whole package (memory controller, etc.) will work in the powerbook (see heatpipe reference above). An IBM G3+Altivec+integrated memory controller sounds perfect for a powerbook. The thing that makes me the most skeptical is how well his predictions mirror the things here and over in Ars. The headless iMac could be straight out of a thread over there. But major points for reasonableness and for insight regarding iPod.
Honestly, if I were in charge of apple i would cut the iBook line and the iMac line. The PowerBooks could be made cheaper and already have good price points for the education market. The iMacs have lost there point and no longer serve their purpose. The eMac is the new iMac. The iMac needs to be replaced by a mini PowerMac G5. Something like the cube but cheaper and a little bigger (more expandibility). Apple can sell them seperatly or with good prices including displays. The G4 should be completely replaced by the end of the year as it has been around for way to long.
I realize that the iBook is rather popular so maybe cutting it would be bad idea; however, I have never really understood it. The iMac, however, needs to be cut from the product line, at least in its current form.
Comments
Originally posted by Amorph
Am I the only person who noticed that the "headless iMac" represents a cost increase over the current model?
$999 just gets you the base. How much is the LCD on top?
All else being equal (i.e., if you have to design the case and board for both), AIOs are more cost-efficient than any collection of separate units. For this to work, Apple will have to resort to the old sleight-of-hand of advertising an iMac as $999*
*monitor sold separately.
You are speaking about people buying their first computer. Those who have a 3 year old PC with a decent monitor (and monitors do have a longer lifetime), won't have to shell out some $200 for a monitor they don't need. It is a common argument against AIOs; I hear this sort of thing every day.
And the $1k, $2k, ..., $10k numbers are a psychological barrier to many.
And, btw, does kormac suck (or is it just me?)
No Crystal ball or magic 8 ball needed here. Of course Apple will update everything, it's what they do. Myself and others have speculated that the AIO iMac will be replaced by something that covers more bases. Making the display an optional and upgradable component of the next Macintosh makes the most sense.
I've predicted that replacing the iBlob with something more elegant and useful seems to be the best course of action and evolution for the iMac. I own (and LOVE) a Cube and would love to see it's return. But Apple has been there, done that, so I don't really see it's coming back. Besides, any make-over of that form factor would be less elegant than the original. The clear plastic case has got to be very expensive to manufacture. I don't think they will go there again.
As I have predicted earlier, I think the only form factor that Apple has not exploited is the pyramid. It offers a timeless elegance that will be seen by Ives as irresistible. It alone offers a form factor that will allow Apple to hang one of it's next generation displays from the apex to maintain the AIO form factor they seem to think is so essential.
Saving money by hanging a standard next generation display, with adjustable arm from the new Macintosh with bundled pricing to make it appealing to customers, will give price points that cover the spectrum from headless to 20" display included, to choose from.
I believe Apple will use the future 12" Powerbook motherboard as the basis for the new Macintosh. Of course it will be powered by a G5, and releasing it first in a desktop will allow it's design to be tested on a large scale before they cram it into a portable. Using a mobo across product lines will save enormous amounts in development and manufacturing costs, something Apple will have to do to keep the price points competitive in today's market. It's a no-brainer going forward.
The pyramid as a form factor also has some significant pluses. Plenty of volume for air cooling and stacking components. A relatively tip-proof platform from which to hang a display, yet great looking if you want to go headless. Entry level buyers can plug in their crappy Dell display and have great upgrades available to them when they want to go with an Apple display. Going this route will reduce barriers to entry for buyers.
"OH yes and "One more thing ..."
Originally posted by shawk
There has been talk of Steve Jobs replacing Michael Eisner at Disney.
Plugging Disney into the Apple Computer/Pixar/Apple Records/IBM equation could make for interesting speculation...
Disney is in turmoil right now, and I could envision Eisner's ouster and Steve Jobs' being offered his job as a way to keep Pixar in the Disney fold. Much like his return to Apple via purchase of Next. The only way Disney could keep Pixar would be to buy it, and the only way Steve would do that is if he came along to run things.
If the above scenario came to pass, then I could see Disney buying Apple Corps and maybe others to consolidate a music and movie empire. With Steve Jobs at the helm of both Apple and Disney who knows where that might take us.
Regardless of all that, the iTMS will eventually sign independent artists and labels to make RIAA irrelevant over the long term. (take that you MUDDA's!).
Four way or even 8 way Apple workstations? But of course, as my sig since 1999 has stated, Apple can completely blow away Intel and AMD as well as Sun and SGI with high end powerhouse workstations. I see a 4 CPU PowerStation as inevitable given Apple's interest in the high graphics and music markets.
The 4 CPU workstation will go 8 way when the dual core IBM chips come out. Imagine Maya complete or Mathematica running on one of these puppys.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I just don't see how Apple can succeed without damaging the Big 5. They are on divergent paths.
This is the crux of the problem. It would be a HUGE gamble, but exactly the kind of thing that I could see Steve getting excited about. Would the RDF protect him through the process of talking (conning) the Big 5 into licensing their catalog to the iTMS only to have him turn around and compete directly against them? As both a musician and a Mac user I'd love to think so...
Music is changing, and the Big 5 can't stop it. For 80 years they've had the luxury of a business model built around shipping physical media to brick and mortar stores. The iTMS has already shown this idea is dead. Once that particular stranglehold is gone, then their whole status as middle men is in jeopardy.
Enter Apple. Becoming a music label (whether by acquiring Apple Corp. or not) now gets a lot easier since 100% of the distribution is virtual. Buy a Mac, create your music, upload to iTMS, sell online and split the profits. Everybody wins.
I don't know, it's just crazy enough to work. Steve would LOVE to make Apple Computer and Apple Corp. one and the same and it would shock the world. Isn't that what One Infinite Loop is all about?
Originally posted by Aphelion
[B]
As I have predicted earlier, I think the only form factor that Apple has not exploited is the pyramid. It offers a timeless elegance that will be seen by Ives as irresistible. It alone offers a form factor that will allow Apple to hang one of it's next generation displays from the apex to maintain the AIO form factor they seem to think is so essential.
The pyramid and...uh, the sphere!!!!
That's right folks, the G5 Disco Ball:
Everything you ever wanted from the G5 in a mirrored sphere enclosure. No need for messy wires, every peripheral will use Bluetooth!
The Apple Projector rumors? ALL TRUE!!! The mirrors that reflect light from the G5 Disco Ball are closely tied with ColorSync and other special software that enables them to reflect all the light beams onto a wall and organizes these colored beams so that a recognizable OS X desktop is seen.
NeilyB
That's nothing new.
1. G5 XServes: Of course. Nothing unexpected here. Already announced. Expect XServe updates to keep better pace with PowerMac updates for the foreseeable future. 3U 4-processor and 8-processor XServes are in the labs, but it?s unclear whether these will be released in 2004 (or at all).
The grid is not the solution to every computing problem. So those machienes will be very welcome to Apple's markets in Higher Ed, SciTech and Government.
There is a market for those machienes and for the first time Apple has all the technology it needs to build such a machiene.
Probably is will play out differently than what we expect now.
What if we get dual core smt processors from IBM in 2005. A machiene with 8 simultanious threads would be a dual processor machiene!
Couple that with the multithreaded model of OS X and you have a real winner.
2. PowerMac Updates: All Dual, starting at 2GHz/$1999. New impressive internal specs as well. $1999 for the entry-level tower model? People will surely revolt! Not when they see what?s coming next.
Heck where are they???
3. AIO (All In One) iMacs are bye-bye. Take the pod/base of the iMac, chop off the display, redesign it to look uber-cool as only Ives can do, plop in single G5s and impressive (albeit less impressive than PowerMac) internals, and price-points of $999/1.6GHz, $1299/1.8GHz, $1599/2.0GHz. No super-drive or oodles of memory at $999.
This sounds okay, but prices are to high. A G5 at 0.09 micron will cost nearly next to nothing. All the design cost have already be recouped by the PM G5.
One open topic, where will all the ports go? And how ist Apple going to adress the issue of desk real estate. The current iMac is hard to beat in this respect.
5. Display Update #2: Kill me now. Think large. Think ULTIMATE viewing experience.
I have a 22' Cinema Display and while I think it could be even bigger there is a certain sensible limit. Think Fitt's law.
6. PowerBook Updates: Yes. Q1/2004 PowerBook G4s at 1.4, 1.6, and 1.8GHz. Other impressive internals to take advantage of the new IBM-based G4. An even better form factor (is that possible?). New, higher-resolution screens and better video cards across the board. G5 PowerBooks won?t appear until late 2004. There are just too many heat and power issues to work out without compromising the portable?s form factor.
I don't think so.
I doubt Apple will develop a new mobo for an IBM G4+ for just one revision of the PB. As soon as the system controller for the G5 is fabbed at 0.09 micron I expect a PB built around it.
*Maybe* we will see a PB bump with existing Moto G4s in them.
My main concern with PBs right now is their limited battery. They need to ship a higher capacity battery with the PBs.
7. iBook Updates: Yes. Basically a crippled PowerBook.
You hit the nail on the head. iBooks will be last years PBs (12'). That way they save the engineering for a whole line!
8. eMac Updates: But of course! But first, for those who think Apple should abandon this design, forget it. There?s a market that requires this design and is willing to shell out your tax dollars in order to get it.
I think we will see a bump based on Moto G4s and late in the year a redesign with a G5 and a better screen (<- the current one is a shame).
Oh yes. One more thing?.
:-)
Well you discribed the situation really well.
I think Apple will always have the best mp3 player around, but they might loose again when the comoditiy manufacturers sell their products to the great unwashed masses through their channels.
I think the solution to the problem is to license the basic hardware and software design of the iPods to the other manufacturers at the lowest cost possible. They need to drive WMA out of the market.
They should open source and standardise their DRM (FairPlay) and allow any music service provider and hardware producer to use it for free.
In case that doesn't work out they have still the option to jump ships and use M$.
I think it would be a phenomenal failiure if Apple bought AppleRecords and Pixar or Disney or Universal.
Except for AppleRecords they could buy or control the others.
I'm very sure that AppleRecords is not for sale. And that means that either you or your sources are bogus.
Let everyone do what they do best. Let the record labels produce the stars of tomorrow and let Apple create the consumer applications of tomorrow.
It really does not work when either one does try to do one thing in the other domain (e.g. Rhapsody in case of the music labels).
Collaboration is the magic word.
The music industry has always worked by collaboration.
Music was never sold directly by the record labels.
The sole thing that changes is the name of the distributor.
That's Apple.
I think you have an interesting point with the independant labels.
Apple should really foster them and ensure that they have the broadest music catalog around.
BTW I'm *very* disappointed, that Apple didn't release anything of the long list for the Pepsi promotion. I consider it highly dumb not to capatilize on 100 million extra clicks on your website.
Originally posted by Chinney
The one thing that I (especially) don?t buy is the prediction that Apple will ditch the AIO iMac. While the role played by the iMac at Apple is less important now than it was, I think that there is far too much brand recognition among ordinary consumers for Apple to discontinue it. Change it? Yes (and there have been many threads about that), but get rid of it? I don?t think so. Making a headless ?option? is certainly a strong possibility, but I just can?t see them getting rid of the AIO desktop concept.
There's still the eMac for the brand recoignition(?).
IMO the Apple logo is a much stronger brand.
does anyone even care that apple is the centre for movie trailer downloads? NOW IN NOT SAYING apple is getting into ther movie download market ( as we all know what SJ thinks there ) but i believe that Apple will focus OSX more and more on being very closly intergrated with content services that apple develops rev share deals with. Apple Computer will not buy Apple records... Thats a funny one to me... Remember its just a name and i think apple computer's legal will have a good handle on this one shortly... but Pixar well theres potential for content there dont think full movies think a sitcom length show say 30mins... Think quick push content to the osx desktop ...
As far as HW my guess apple will bring back the dalmation i mac....
Seriously when did anyone come up with hard facts ( A PICTURE )on an upcoming apple product since the pics of the MMD G4 powermac...
Originally posted by NeilyB
BTW, buying Apple Records would not make Apple (Computer) free to put the entire Beatles collection up on iTunes. About 40% of the Beatles music is now owned by Michael Jackson, not Apple Records.
NeilyB
I don't think so...
Michael Jackson owns 40% (I'll take your word on that figure) of the PUBLISHING RIGHTS of the Beatles songs which is quite different to owning the Beatles music recordings.
Here is something that sums it up quite well...
What Michael Jackson bought for $47.5 million in 1985 was the publishing rights to 159 or 251 Beatles songs, depending on who's counting. To maybe oversimplify a complicated business, publishing rights are basically the sheet music rights. When Paul McCartney wanted to print the lyrics to "Eleanor Rigby" and other Beatles classics in the program for his 1989 world tour, he discovered he'd have to pay a fee to Michael Jackson. The owner of the publishing rights (hereinafter the publisher) also gets a royalty when someone plays a Beatles song on a jukebox or the radio or does a cover version of a Fab Four tune. Particularly in the case of elevator music, to which, let's be frank, a lot of Beatles tunes are well suited, this can earn the publisher some serious cash.
But there are a couple things the publisher can't do. The first is to mess with, or license the use of, Beatles recordings. Michael Jackson agreed to license the words and music of "Revolution" to Nike for a 1987 shoe commercial, but he had to persuade Capitol Records, owner of the tune's North American recording rights, to allow use of the actual record. Most likely he'd have to do the same to overdub said record with his own voice, although he might get away with including a snippet in a musical collage, something even John Lennon did that has now become impossible to control.
Taken from: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a951027.html
Dave
Originally posted by NeilyB
About 40% of the Beatles music is now owned by Michael Jackson, not Apple Records.
NeilyB
Then, buy him too
Originally posted by PB
Then, buy him too
Probably wouldn't cost too much, either.
Debt Debt Debt
Originally posted by Celco
Apple are positioning themselves at the centre of the content business.
Yes. I believe this is "it". The DRM is the secret key hear.
Regarding what Steve Jobs has said about "iPod AV", be careful that you don't make an illogical leap that Steve is opposed to SOME video based product. Just not necessarily iPod. Perhaps a TiVO-like device at home.
Fairplay (Apple's DRM) is the key here. Zoom out. Watch the ENTIRE chess board.
Originally posted by Programmer
Many say that the record companies will freak out if Apple follows this path... the thing is that they are already freaking out, and they haven't been able to figure out what their business model will be in this new age of the digital hub & broadband Internet. Apple is already leading them in a new direction with iTMS, perhaps that will continue and Mr. Jobs will show them the way to their new business model. The record companies need to find and maximize the value they bring to the modern music industry. If SJ and Apple can pull this off, it could be quite a coup for them... but somebody is going to do it.
Agreed.
Let's consider that if many years ago someone had suggested that Steve would be buying a special effects software house and wind up producing movies that would blow Disney off the map, everyone here would have laughed heartily. I don't think that buying a label to secure Apples software an hardware is that far fetched. I have an iPod and it's probably 10x the investment I've made in music over the last year. Right now, people are paying a lot for the convenience of accesing their music, but long-term people will just pay for the content. I've got a lot more invested in DVDs than in my DVD player.
I agree that Apple's lead here is not secure long-term. There are different ways of addressing this, but Apple needs to get themselves locked to the content somehow or to outposition MS, which is far from a reasonable strategy. I wouldn't discount this line of thinking at all. In fact, I haven't really seen anyone look forward realistically at the future of the iPod until this.
Faelyns predictions are disturbingly reasonable. I agree that G4 powerbooks are more likely. In spite of low-power G5, I don't think the whole package (memory controller, etc.) will work in the powerbook (see heatpipe reference above). An IBM G3+Altivec+integrated memory controller sounds perfect for a powerbook. The thing that makes me the most skeptical is how well his predictions mirror the things here and over in Ars. The headless iMac could be straight out of a thread over there. But major points for reasonableness and for insight regarding iPod.
I realize that the iBook is rather popular so maybe cutting it would be bad idea; however, I have never really understood it. The iMac, however, needs to be cut from the product line, at least in its current form.