Very well. Fair enough. It does say specualation as well, so here is my speculation
Fuel Cell Powered notebooks - Future powerbook upgrade. Your talking around a month of battery life right there, and most major PC vendors have been flaunting concept designs. Apple (as per usual) has remained silient. I believe it would be something really impressive if apple pulls out a Powerbook with a month of battery life, without the chunky apendages of current PC designs. Eminently Possible as well.
Multi-core Machines - Again, practically every major PC manufaturer has been flaunting these things, again Apple has remained (suspicously?) silent. Going back to my original post, surely apple is not blind, and has seen multi core in the works for ages, and hasn't allowed themselves to fall behind.
Can you provide any more detail on a fuel cell that provides a month of battery life for a laptop? My brief Google search can't find any laptop prototypes remotely close to that. The closest I saw was speculation of maybe a week's worth of life.
Multi-core? Meh. Natural evolution, especially given IBM's Power line and the movement by AMD/Intel. Couple it with the CHUD screenshots - merely a matter of time.
So far, I'm not as much interested in the hardware specs as I am with the software evolution. The better that OS X and supporting apps can take advantage of the underlying architectures, the more improvement we will see as a whole. Software is what holds it all together - and with the loads of information that we deal with on a constant basis, the more crucial it is for software to allow us to find, use, and present our data effectively and efficiently.
I'd rather see Apple pour their R&D money into new, innovative software, UI paradigms and computer<->computer integration than some Quad Core 10 GHz G6 mini that the vast majority of people will never come close to taking advantage of.
Everything is evolutionary. Even the Wright brothers adapted existing technology to create their first airplane.
The first personal computer was merely a repackaging of existing technology. The first Mac was done by applying GUI innovation done 20 years earlier by someone at HP. OS X was only NeXT, which was only an updated Mac GUI slapped on a Unix derivative.
-SNIP-
Repackaging? Sounds like someone has the gift of understatement. I guess Einstien was just expressing in math what was already there, in nature.
For Apple to come out with something really big, is what they are doing. OK think back, when Steve arrived there was not much to crow about. Along came the iMac, and then laer came OSX, and then came the iPod and now we have the MacMini and Quicktime, and Tiger. The MacMini is for the switchers, and for the software developers a larger sudience to sell their stuff to. QuickTime will get Apple much deeper into markets that have real growth. Tiger is Longhorn, or the best MS will have to offer, over a year ahead of schedule. Apple has huge toolsets in Tiger and they have an applications team that is over 1,000 people strong to, after Tiger is released, begin to take advantage of those tools. Apple was behind and now they are ahead. The hardware is lacking on the high end but that will change. IBM appears to have made it through the rough transition to 90nm. For curtain we will all know much more in the next three months. If the halo effect is anywhere near 20% then Apple is clearly much better off than anyone could imagine. As for really big things look for Apple to once again to go to the open source community, and to buy small developers out the rest of this year. and maybe next. Once Quicktime is on the market watch out, so once it is released then it will take a few months to get it out in big numbers, but as it goes out itwill be opening doors for Apple. Quicktime will be huge, later this year. It just needs to large enough user group to start to gain traction. So if you are looking for something really big from Apple then Quicktime is it, for us users Tiger is it along with the new dual core Macs. I believe tha currently OSX uses the GPU very little, and clearly that will change, that is just one of the things Core Image is about. Apple is now an for quite awhile now been moving faster than MS, and they were moving faster than the PC crowd until they hit the 90nm wall along with IBM, I think that is behind them so it is full steam ahead now.
Hate to break it to you, but Apple is not going to "invent" anything like IBM or Bell have done. No transistor-caliber inventions will come from Apple because they don't do the R&D.
Apple's breakthroughs come in the form of packaging. OS X is a brilliant package of software technologies most of which were developed by others. The Powermac is a great packag of technologies from other hardware makers. The iPod is all packaging, there is absolutely nothing new in it. iTunes is a repackaging of Sound Jam.
I'm not saying this means Apple sucks, only that Apple specializes in the consumer - computer interface where technologies are applied.
Bingo... they specialize and innovate in the interface. To call that 'merely' repackaging is, I think, a great disservice. If it were easy, good UI design would be ubiquitous. It's not.
Dell repackages. They don't add *anything* to the system of note.
Apple creates interfaces, and thereby makes the underlying technologies usable for perhaps the first time. A technology that isn't usable by the target user is just mental masturbation, and a waste of time.
TO me at least, and you are enttled to your opinion on the matter, I think that Apple is getting ready for something big, and the reason we haven't had anything really, really cool lately is becuase they are devoting resources to making something really, really cool.
Or they could be wasting all their revenue on suing college students and reducing upgradability on existing products.
The last few posts make an interesting point in re Apple innovation.
Imagine the impact it would make if Apple were to radically revise its line up by doing nothing more than changing prices, dropping some models, and further dividing existing lines into sub-offerings (as in JDs consumer towers). It would be like the mini times ten.
No new technology but a new sense of what is possible at a given price point, or within a given configuration.
Only Apple can generate excitement this way because they are an "ecology", with synergy across the entire product offering. Changes to the top change our perception of what the entry level is for, and vice versa.
I suspect that some of Apple's innovation in the near future will come from exactly this kind of vertical remix, in the way the shuffle/mini one-two punch has altered the larger world's impression of exactly what kind of company Apple is.
Hate to break it to you, but Apple is not going to "invent" anything like IBM or Bell have done. No transistor-caliber inventions will come from Apple because they don't do the R&D.
Apple spends about half a BILLION dollars on R&D each year. Compare that to any company as a percentage of sales, or a percentage of profits and you'll find them right at the top of the R&D list.
Apple also has a nice string of patents. Nothing like the transistor, but in reality, how many inventions today are at that level?
As with other products in the tech field Apple's products are evolutionary. The iPod only took 3 years to become an overnight success.
When we discuss Apples development we can only consider what is on the market. Trying to guess what is in the labs is a hopeless excercise - we can only guess that a lot of money is spent on making their core products better. Better in terms of hardware, design, the OS and the various products. For "little old Apple with only 2% of the market" I think they are doing a hell of a job moving the industry forward - with the competition racing to catch up.
Apple spends about half a BILLION dollars on R&D each year. Compare that to any company as a percentage of sales, or a percentage of profits and you'll find them right at the top of the R&D list.
I doubt it. Though if you ask them, they'll tell you that.
I doubt it. Though if you ask them, they'll tell you that.
Do a bit of research and you'll find the R&D spending is about $500,000,000 and that to me is about half a billion dollars. Best place to research is on a brokers web site - lying on SEC returns is something Apple isn't going to do.
Quicktime 7 is H.264 with a great GUI and the mature authoring abilities of Quicktime, and from what I have understood to be correct Apple has also greatly improved the API. The API was the only thing that I ever heard programmers complain about with Quicktime. With H.264 taking off and it will this year, that will be a given. How is that beneficial to Apple? It will open more doors to Apple and the doors that are currently open will be opened wider. To develop the content for H.264 more people will buy the PowerMac. With the numbers H.264 is throwing around, hundreds of millions of users. Some of that content will be developed on Macs, PowerMacs. Currently PowerMac sales are very low, some of the lowest numbers in recent history. I wonder how many PowerMacs being sold to people that are developing H.264 content would make a significant bump in PowerMac sales. So when the announcer asks Steve "How did you increase sales by xx%, Steve may reply, 'software', and he would be correct" Let's face it people do not buy Macs because they are the fastest machines on the planet, but they will for the software, enter Quicktime.
Everything is evolutionary. Even the Wright brothers adapted existing technology to create their first airplane. .
Sorry for jumping out of the subject.
Americans and few other countries believe the Wright brothers created the first airplane.
MOST of the world believe a Brazilian man called Santos Dumont was the first to take off from a flat ground underneath the Eiffel Tower on an airplane. He's then consider as the father of aviation. The Wright brothers used a step hill and strong winds to make their plane fly. This is a huge debate.
Now, I am going to hear all the Americans saying this is an absurd comment. please, inform yourselves first besides crucifying me on this post for saying what I am saying. Please check non American sources!
To be honest, I've always thought the headwind and hill made for a dodgy claim, but at the same time, it *was* the first heavier than air powered flight for *any* length of note. The lift was probably minimal, but it was enough to counteract the pilot and engine. The thrust from the engine was likewise minimal, but it was enough to keep the thing going for a bit. It was the first design that had just enough of both to make any sort of credible claim.
Santos obviously had a better design, but as for the claim of *first*... I'm going to have to go with the Wrights, sorry. By 1906, the Wrights were flying publicly, with much better performance... enough that by 1908, they were breaking Santos' record handily, as the article notes.
What's Portuguese for 'revisionist history'?
Now, if you want to discuss Edison vs. Swann on the light bulb, or RCA vs. Farnsworth on the TV, I'm all ears.
Oh wait, duh, this is *FUTURE* hardware, not *LONG PAST* hardware...
To be honest, I've always thought the headwind and hill made for a dodgy claim, but at the same time, it *was* the first heavier than air powered flight for *any* length of note. The lift was probably minimal, but it was enough to counteract the pilot and engine. The thrust from the engine was likewise minimal, but it was enough to keep the thing going for a bit. It was the first design that had just enough of both to make any sort of credible claim.
Santos obviously had a better design, but as for the claim of *first*... I'm going to have to go with the Wrights, sorry. By 1906, the Wrights were flying publicly, with much better performance... enough that by 1908, they were breaking Santos' record handily, as the article notes.
What's Portuguese for 'revisionist history'?
Now, if you want to discuss Edison vs. Swann on the light bulb, or RCA vs. Farnsworth on the TV, I'm all ears.
Oh wait, duh, this is *FUTURE* hardware, not *LONG PAST* hardware...
Thanks for being open minded.
Like I said, it's a huge debate. IMHO I think the credit goes to Santos Dumond because of the way the plane took off and the fact it was in front of many people. Hey, I am not Brazilian!
Do a bit of research and you'll find the R&D spending is about $500,000,000 and that to me is about half a billion dollars. Best place to research is on a brokers web site - lying on SEC returns is something Apple isn't going to do.
Hardly among the top. As for it being a percent of sales, it was only 8%. I'm sure there are other companies who spend quite a bit more. Those are usually the companies that get bought by companeis like Apple.
Hardly among the top. As for it being a percent of sales, it was only 8%. I'm sure there are other companies who spend quite a bit more. Those are usually the companies that get bought by companeis like Apple.
$471,000,000 is about half a billion dollars. There are "other companies' that spend more - 90 of them if Apple is #91. Drug companies have huge R&D expenditures, auto companies put in a rather big chunk. IBM is the king of the tech companies in terms of long term R&D efforts. But here we have "little old Apple with only 3% market share" being in the top 100 companies in the US in terms of R&D expenditures. That's pretty impressive in my book and points to a rather exciting future for those that go along for the ride.
Americans and few other countries believe the Wright brothers created the first airplane.
MOST of the world believe a Brazilian man called Santos Dumont was the first to take off from a flat ground underneath the Eiffel Tower on an airplane. He's then consider as the father of aviation. The Wright brothers used a step hill and strong winds to make their plane fly. This is a huge debate.
Now, I am going to hear all the Americans saying this is an absurd comment. please, inform yourselves first besides crucifying me on this post for saying what I am saying. Please check non American sources!
Peace and Love!
Be careful, u r well on your way to creating an international incident.
Comments
Originally posted by Kickaha
Becuz it dont hav a 6ghz quadcore G6!!!!111!1!!
Wow, I almost choked on my scrambled eggs while reading this...!!!1!!11!!!
Originally posted by pyriX
Very well. Fair enough. It does say specualation as well, so here is my speculation
Fuel Cell Powered notebooks - Future powerbook upgrade. Your talking around a month of battery life right there, and most major PC vendors have been flaunting concept designs. Apple (as per usual) has remained silient. I believe it would be something really impressive if apple pulls out a Powerbook with a month of battery life, without the chunky apendages of current PC designs. Eminently Possible as well.
Multi-core Machines - Again, practically every major PC manufaturer has been flaunting these things, again Apple has remained (suspicously?) silent. Going back to my original post, surely apple is not blind, and has seen multi core in the works for ages, and hasn't allowed themselves to fall behind.
Can you provide any more detail on a fuel cell that provides a month of battery life for a laptop? My brief Google search can't find any laptop prototypes remotely close to that. The closest I saw was speculation of maybe a week's worth of life.
Multi-core? Meh. Natural evolution, especially given IBM's Power line and the movement by AMD/Intel. Couple it with the CHUD screenshots - merely a matter of time.
So far, I'm not as much interested in the hardware specs as I am with the software evolution. The better that OS X and supporting apps can take advantage of the underlying architectures, the more improvement we will see as a whole. Software is what holds it all together - and with the loads of information that we deal with on a constant basis, the more crucial it is for software to allow us to find, use, and present our data effectively and efficiently.
I'd rather see Apple pour their R&D money into new, innovative software, UI paradigms and computer<->computer integration than some Quad Core 10 GHz G6 mini that the vast majority of people will never come close to taking advantage of.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Everything is evolutionary. Even the Wright brothers adapted existing technology to create their first airplane.
The first personal computer was merely a repackaging of existing technology. The first Mac was done by applying GUI innovation done 20 years earlier by someone at HP. OS X was only NeXT, which was only an updated Mac GUI slapped on a Unix derivative.
-SNIP-
Repackaging? Sounds like someone has the gift of understatement. I guess Einstien was just expressing in math what was already there, in nature.
For Apple to come out with something really big, is what they are doing. OK think back, when Steve arrived there was not much to crow about. Along came the iMac, and then laer came OSX, and then came the iPod and now we have the MacMini and Quicktime, and Tiger. The MacMini is for the switchers, and for the software developers a larger sudience to sell their stuff to. QuickTime will get Apple much deeper into markets that have real growth. Tiger is Longhorn, or the best MS will have to offer, over a year ahead of schedule. Apple has huge toolsets in Tiger and they have an applications team that is over 1,000 people strong to, after Tiger is released, begin to take advantage of those tools. Apple was behind and now they are ahead. The hardware is lacking on the high end but that will change. IBM appears to have made it through the rough transition to 90nm. For curtain we will all know much more in the next three months. If the halo effect is anywhere near 20% then Apple is clearly much better off than anyone could imagine. As for really big things look for Apple to once again to go to the open source community, and to buy small developers out the rest of this year. and maybe next. Once Quicktime is on the market watch out, so once it is released then it will take a few months to get it out in big numbers, but as it goes out itwill be opening doors for Apple. Quicktime will be huge, later this year. It just needs to large enough user group to start to gain traction. So if you are looking for something really big from Apple then Quicktime is it, for us users Tiger is it along with the new dual core Macs. I believe tha currently OSX uses the GPU very little, and clearly that will change, that is just one of the things Core Image is about. Apple is now an for quite awhile now been moving faster than MS, and they were moving faster than the PC crowd until they hit the 90nm wall along with IBM, I think that is behind them so it is full steam ahead now.
Apple's breakthroughs come in the form of packaging. OS X is a brilliant package of software technologies most of which were developed by others. The Powermac is a great packag of technologies from other hardware makers. The iPod is all packaging, there is absolutely nothing new in it. iTunes is a repackaging of Sound Jam.
I'm not saying this means Apple sucks, only that Apple specializes in the consumer - computer interface where technologies are applied.
Dell repackages. They don't add *anything* to the system of note.
Apple creates interfaces, and thereby makes the underlying technologies usable for perhaps the first time. A technology that isn't usable by the target user is just mental masturbation, and a waste of time.
Originally posted by pyriX
TO me at least, and you are enttled to your opinion on the matter, I think that Apple is getting ready for something big, and the reason we haven't had anything really, really cool lately is becuase they are devoting resources to making something really, really cool.
Or they could be wasting all their revenue on suing college students and reducing upgradability on existing products.
Imagine the impact it would make if Apple were to radically revise its line up by doing nothing more than changing prices, dropping some models, and further dividing existing lines into sub-offerings (as in JDs consumer towers). It would be like the mini times ten.
No new technology but a new sense of what is possible at a given price point, or within a given configuration.
Only Apple can generate excitement this way because they are an "ecology", with synergy across the entire product offering. Changes to the top change our perception of what the entry level is for, and vice versa.
I suspect that some of Apple's innovation in the near future will come from exactly this kind of vertical remix, in the way the shuffle/mini one-two punch has altered the larger world's impression of exactly what kind of company Apple is.
Originally posted by slughead
Or they could be wasting all their revenue on suing college students and reducing upgradability on existing products.
Well, that too.
LOL
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Hate to break it to you, but Apple is not going to "invent" anything like IBM or Bell have done. No transistor-caliber inventions will come from Apple because they don't do the R&D.
Apple spends about half a BILLION dollars on R&D each year. Compare that to any company as a percentage of sales, or a percentage of profits and you'll find them right at the top of the R&D list.
Apple also has a nice string of patents. Nothing like the transistor, but in reality, how many inventions today are at that level?
As with other products in the tech field Apple's products are evolutionary. The iPod only took 3 years to become an overnight success.
When we discuss Apples development we can only consider what is on the market. Trying to guess what is in the labs is a hopeless excercise - we can only guess that a lot of money is spent on making their core products better. Better in terms of hardware, design, the OS and the various products. For "little old Apple with only 2% of the market" I think they are doing a hell of a job moving the industry forward - with the competition racing to catch up.
Originally posted by kenaustus
Apple spends about half a BILLION dollars on R&D each year. Compare that to any company as a percentage of sales, or a percentage of profits and you'll find them right at the top of the R&D list.
I doubt it. Though if you ask them, they'll tell you that.
Originally posted by slughead
I doubt it. Though if you ask them, they'll tell you that.
Do a bit of research and you'll find the R&D spending is about $500,000,000 and that to me is about half a billion dollars. Best place to research is on a brokers web site - lying on SEC returns is something Apple isn't going to do.
Quicktime 7 is H.264 with a great GUI and the mature authoring abilities of Quicktime, and from what I have understood to be correct Apple has also greatly improved the API. The API was the only thing that I ever heard programmers complain about with Quicktime. With H.264 taking off and it will this year, that will be a given. How is that beneficial to Apple? It will open more doors to Apple and the doors that are currently open will be opened wider. To develop the content for H.264 more people will buy the PowerMac. With the numbers H.264 is throwing around, hundreds of millions of users. Some of that content will be developed on Macs, PowerMacs. Currently PowerMac sales are very low, some of the lowest numbers in recent history. I wonder how many PowerMacs being sold to people that are developing H.264 content would make a significant bump in PowerMac sales. So when the announcer asks Steve "How did you increase sales by xx%, Steve may reply, 'software', and he would be correct" Let's face it people do not buy Macs because they are the fastest machines on the planet, but they will for the software, enter Quicktime.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Everything is evolutionary. Even the Wright brothers adapted existing technology to create their first airplane. .
Sorry for jumping out of the subject.
Americans and few other countries believe the Wright brothers created the first airplane.
MOST of the world believe a Brazilian man called Santos Dumont was the first to take off from a flat ground underneath the Eiffel Tower on an airplane. He's then consider as the father of aviation. The Wright brothers used a step hill and strong winds to make their plane fly. This is a huge debate.
Check this link about the subject:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3320713.stm
Now, I am going to hear all the Americans saying this is an absurd comment. please, inform yourselves first besides crucifying me on this post for saying what I am saying. Please check non American sources!
Peace and Love!
Santos obviously had a better design, but as for the claim of *first*... I'm going to have to go with the Wrights, sorry. By 1906, the Wrights were flying publicly, with much better performance... enough that by 1908, they were breaking Santos' record handily, as the article notes.
What's Portuguese for 'revisionist history'?
Now, if you want to discuss Edison vs. Swann on the light bulb, or RCA vs. Farnsworth on the TV, I'm all ears.
Oh wait, duh, this is *FUTURE* hardware, not *LONG PAST* hardware...
Originally posted by Kickaha
To be honest, I've always thought the headwind and hill made for a dodgy claim, but at the same time, it *was* the first heavier than air powered flight for *any* length of note. The lift was probably minimal, but it was enough to counteract the pilot and engine. The thrust from the engine was likewise minimal, but it was enough to keep the thing going for a bit. It was the first design that had just enough of both to make any sort of credible claim.
Santos obviously had a better design, but as for the claim of *first*... I'm going to have to go with the Wrights, sorry. By 1906, the Wrights were flying publicly, with much better performance... enough that by 1908, they were breaking Santos' record handily, as the article notes.
What's Portuguese for 'revisionist history'?
Now, if you want to discuss Edison vs. Swann on the light bulb, or RCA vs. Farnsworth on the TV, I'm all ears.
Oh wait, duh, this is *FUTURE* hardware, not *LONG PAST* hardware...
Thanks for being open minded.
Like I said, it's a huge debate. IMHO I think the credit goes to Santos Dumond because of the way the plane took off and the fact it was in front of many people. Hey, I am not Brazilian!
Originally posted by kenaustus
Do a bit of research and you'll find the R&D spending is about $500,000,000 and that to me is about half a billion dollars. Best place to research is on a brokers web site - lying on SEC returns is something Apple isn't going to do.
Apple Ranks 91st in U.S. R&D Spending at $471M
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/12/01.3.shtml
Hardly among the top. As for it being a percent of sales, it was only 8%. I'm sure there are other companies who spend quite a bit more. Those are usually the companies that get bought by companeis like Apple.
Originally posted by slughead
Apple Ranks 91st in U.S. R&D Spending at $471M
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/12/01.3.shtml
Hardly among the top. As for it being a percent of sales, it was only 8%. I'm sure there are other companies who spend quite a bit more. Those are usually the companies that get bought by companeis like Apple.
$471,000,000 is about half a billion dollars. There are "other companies' that spend more - 90 of them if Apple is #91. Drug companies have huge R&D expenditures, auto companies put in a rather big chunk. IBM is the king of the tech companies in terms of long term R&D efforts. But here we have "little old Apple with only 3% market share" being in the top 100 companies in the US in terms of R&D expenditures. That's pretty impressive in my book and points to a rather exciting future for those that go along for the ride.
Pop over to Software though, and the margin average is 18%.
Biotech, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and telecom all have much higher averages than the Computer Hardware segment.
Out of the umpteen thousand companies in the US, 91st, or 61st, either way it's not too shabby by any means, and certainly in the top tier.
(Source: http://www.technologyreview.com/arti...recard1204.asp)
Originally posted by gugy
Sorry for jumping out of the subject.
Americans and few other countries believe the Wright brothers created the first airplane.
MOST of the world believe a Brazilian man called Santos Dumont was the first to take off from a flat ground underneath the Eiffel Tower on an airplane. He's then consider as the father of aviation. The Wright brothers used a step hill and strong winds to make their plane fly. This is a huge debate.
Check this link about the subject:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3320713.stm
Now, I am going to hear all the Americans saying this is an absurd comment. please, inform yourselves first besides crucifying me on this post for saying what I am saying. Please check non American sources!
Peace and Love!
Be careful, u r well on your way to creating an international incident.