Clearly it cannot be defintively stated as Apple is developing games for the iPod.
But it is clear Apple does not take hardcore gaming as seriously as Microsoft. Once you come to that understanding it would answer a lot of questions and conjecture over Apple's decisions.
Then what's the point of a Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Sharp, Hitachi, Mitsubushi, Hp, Sansung, or any other brand display?
Quite frankly, this is a silly argument. If people here don't know that Apple is deliberately becoming a consumer electronics company, then they aren't paying attention to what is happening. Apple is now a "hot" brand. They would be stupid to fail to take advantege of that fact.
Because they have all (except HP maybe) been making TVs for many years, not suddenly jumping it. Gateway makes TVs too but what percentage of the market do they have? Unless the Apple TV does something better than all these other brands, what is going to make any consumer purchase it?
If Apple put out a TV the same day I decided I needed a new TV, I'd look it over, compare its features and price with all the other TVs at the store. And I also be looking at the manufacturers; If I found myself looking at a TV and found myself thinking I had never heard of that company, I would probably NOT be buying their TV. Apple has brand appeal to a certain segment of the population, but I'm also fairly sure it's a pretty small segment. I'd be surprised if half of iPod owners could tell you who made it without looking at the back. You said you asked 2 dozen people, if they'd be interested in Apple-made TV. Go to Walmart and ask 2 dozen people if they've heard of Apple Computers and I doubt many would say they have.
Maybe you think I'm an Apple hater, but I'm not. I love my 5G iPod. I'm hoping to order my first Apple computer next Friday so I can axe my crap Wintel system. I just think an Apple TV would be a REALLY niche that would not do well at all in the market if all it is just a basic TV. That's not a compelling product.
Steve Jobs introducing the Apple TV: "I'd like to introduce you to our latest product, the Apple TV. You run the coaxial cable from your wall outlet or the a/v cables from you cable box, hit the power button and it just works. With it you can watch your favorite TV shows." Jobs pauses for the thundering applause and cheers, but he's greeted with confused looks. "One more thing, you can hear your favorite TV shows too through the built-in speakers." Another dramatic pause but still just confused looks from the crowd. "Oh and one more thing, you can also hook up your DVD player to WATCH and HEAR your movies through the Apple TV." Another pause, another round of confused looks. Someone in the audience bravely calls out, "What else does it do? Does it have iTV built in? Is there a dock connector for iPods? A wireless connection to the video iPod." Now it's Steve's turn to look confused. "Nope, it's just a TV." The brave audience member lets out a disappointed, "Oh," and slumps back down in his seat. Steve turns, walking off stage muttering, "I knew this needed another round in R&D."
Unless the Apple TV does something better than all these other brands, what is going to make any consumer purchase it?
Perhaps you haven't read the other posts here that suggest a built in iTV (streaming content from your Mac(s)) would go a long way to make an Apple branded LCD HDTV desirable to many people.
I know I'd rather combine devices instead of having multiple devices with multiple remotes.
As an example, I use of Scientific Atlanta'a 8300HD DVR from my cable provider, instead of TiVo, despite the fact that TiVo offers many options and hacks that I, as a techie, would find useful and fun. The convenience of the all in one device wins hands down every time.
Perhaps you haven't read the other posts here that suggest a built in iTV (streaming content from your Mac(s)) would go a long way to make an Apple branded LCD HDTV desirable to many people.
I know I'd rather combine devices instead of having multiple devices with multiple remotes.
As an example, I use of Scientific Atlanta'a 8300HD DVR from my cable provider, instead of TiVo, despite the fact that TiVo offers many options and hacks that I, as a techie, would find useful and fun. The convenience of the all in one device wins hands down every time.
I was responding to a post that suggested that if Apple produced a TV it shouldn't have anything (even iTV) built in. If an Apple TV had iTV built in, that would be a feature that could definitely make it more appealing over other TVs. Of course, it also depends on what iTV does; it seems to be basically a wireless router specifically for audio/video. And the enhanced Front Row interface would make a nice way to interact with the system.
But I definitely don't want my TV to have built in DVR or a built in DVD player in my TV. That's expensive equipment that if it fails cripples the TV. I would be fine with the iTV having those built into separate box from the TV.
My entertainment system consists of a surround sound receiver, 5.1 speaker set, a 300-disc CD player, DVD player, and of course the TV. All of these things can be controlled from the receiver's remote (with some loss of functionality for the other devices), but it all becomes problematic when you have to bring in a cable/satellite box. The cable-provided DVR box couldn't be controlled by the receiver remote, and the DVR remote couldn't control anything beyond the TV.
If there's an Apple TV with iTV, I think they should have a remote that can either learn from the other remotes or be programmed with the necessary commands via a USB computer connection. It should optimally have an LCD touch screen so the user can have access to all the abilities of the original remote.
A TV from Apple is not that different from their 23" LCD monitor. So it would be an easy product to make. As for Apple introducing just a tv, of course that would be stupid. It is the box that goes with the tv.
The point is the one box that connects to that tv and that one remote controls everything. Add a good speaker system and you have a simple solution for the masses that are confused by HDTV and Surround sound.
I can't get over how many people I know that want to show off their new entertainment system to me and it is crap. But hey, there is a subwoofer so it must sound good. They show off a HDTV monitor and it looks pixelated and has terrible ghosting.
It is the emperor's new clothes - they don't want to admit that their new $5,000 system looks and sound terrible. They see it and hear there is a problem but are not sure how to fix it. Of course, sometimes the cable company compresses the heck out of the signal so all the HD set shows off is how bad the compression is.
It all comes down to this. Apple is not a hardware company. They are not a software company. They are a solution company. There is a big difference. You can have ten components - or pieces of software, each a great system by itself. But combine them and it is a Tower of Babel and an erognomic nightmare. This is what a PC is and this is what people have been putting up with in the living room.
I want a Mac solution for the living room and I think so do millions of other people. I think Apple is in the best position to deliver this system of systems. Apple's only big threat is the game consoles. Apple needs to strike now and they need a gaming solution to hold off the competition. They need a solution that is not going to drag them into a console war.
This is not a new development. I saw this years ago when the Xbox first came out. Apple got the iPod market but MS went after the console market. Yeah, Sony is still the strongest player but Sony is slipping in many things and everybody sees it. They lost the walkman market and they are battling for survival in the console market. Of course their laptop batteries are costing them plenty too.
Sony could have been what Apple is today. With their consoles they could still be a big threat but they lack the software and control that Apple has. I don't think they understand they need to be a solutions company - a system of systems. One cannot just copy another company and hope to win. You have to innovate and stay a couple years ahead of the competition. This is what Apple does best and why they can win big.
I think this January is the time for Apple to launch their full out assault on MS. With Vista and Zune, Apple needs to fight hard now with everything they've got. Sony is fighting the console battle. They need to knock hard and Apple needs to gain control of the living room now.
But Apple needs to prepare a strategy to win the console and game wars - or at least not to get beat by them. I don;t know what the solution is but they need to solve it soon.
Why, when rumours of Apple trying something new hit the street, do so many negative responses hit the boards? Take this response:
'Apple hardware sucks for games.
The $2000 Macpro come with a low end video card and slow sever ram and has very few video card choices.
The mini has gam 950 carp that can?t run any game that good.
The I-mac?s have build in screens, laptop cpu, laptop ram and less video card choice then the macpro and a lot of games have there own good and high end monitors also they like the upgrade there systems a lots also games need a lot of ram and laptop ram costs more then desk top ram.'
What the....?
My neighbour has been a Windows man forever. He'll happily tell you that his latest PC is the best he's ever had (you'd hope so) and that it runs his son's first person games beautifully under XP. It also happens to be a 24" iMac, a consequence of living next to me! (He bought a Core 2 Duo MacBook at the same time. Further, this is his second generation Mac now, so he's obviously happy to be an Apple customer.)
I contend the following:
Apple IS hardware as much as software, so comaprisons with XBox financial wins and losses are perhaps a waste of time or at least a diversion. I don't think it is helpful or necessary to think in terms of gaming consoles.
Apple has the backing of Pixar and Disney for creative content and could easily arrange hooks, in scripts at least, for games to flow from future productions. The possibilities are almost endless. Imagine a release on DVD of some new Pixar/Disney feature that has some sort of 'cinema XML' embedded that lets the game take over during playback.
Further to my point above, Apple is constantly creating new software tools, such as the 'Core' API's that have the potential to dramatically advance the gaming experience. Games released in conjunction with game's oriented API's that include physics, atmospheric, multi-dimensional input, 3D display, further advanced Quicktime, cinematic hooks and others would run the risk only of putting existing games offerings to shame.
I'm sure that if someone set out to produce a game that took full advantage of the hardware and services offered by Apple and OS X, that the result would be awesome but perhaps too, the only company with the resources to do that is Apple itself.
Perhaps the question to ask is:
Who, apart possibly for Sony, could control the entire hardware, software, content creation production line as well as Apple could?
Perhaps the almost appropriate example is the iPod, except here Apple wouldn't be relying on the existing labels for content.
That seems to be controversial. Blizzard use it apparently, but it has been sited as the reason why the latest Myst release and Half life 2 weren't ported:
I believe Havok charges a flat fee per boxed version. For Mac publishers, that price is too high since the fee is based on high volume PC and console games. For Blizzard who ships the game in box, I think they might not have no pay anything more.
Yeahhh, I'm afraid it is. Consult 'Stevie Job's Magic Square'. MacBook is a consumer laptop. iMac is a consumer desktop. They both target... gasp... consumers.
And where does the Mac Mini fit into that box?
The iMac may have originally been intended as the cheaper alternative to the PowerMac, but I think it's been pretty obvious since the G5 iMac came out that the role has changed. The iMac is a powerful, well-rounded machine that is quite capable of servicing the needs of schools, families and small/home businesses.
There's no way that a person would buy a 24inch iMac with a dual core 2.33Ghz CPU, 3GB of RAM and 750GB hard disk costing nearly $4000 because they can't afford a Mac Pro. They'd buy it because it offers comparable power in a more appropriate form factor for their living room.
The Mac Pro is a very powerful machine but it is ugly and utilitarian by comparison to Apple's other offerings. The Mac Pro is a machine for people who need power more than they need style or convenience. The iMac is the all-rounder that scales from moderate family needs, though internet cafe or school or library environment, right up to a pro graphic designer/photographer, or musician or other creative professional. The Mini is for switchers or living-room media centers, and only the MacBook/MacBook Pro retain the roles from "Steve's magic square" (one is more-or-less just a more expensive version of the other with higher spec components and extra features for those who can afford it).
I think Apple realised some time ago that the rigid consumer/professional distinction they were pushing didn't fit their customer's needs and quietly allowed the machines to evolve into what the majority of consumers want from them, adding new models like the eMac and Mini to fit in where the gaps became too wide between price and purpose and they start losing customers.
So going back to my original point, the market for hardcore gamers or graphics professionals who want an Apple laptop but really can't afford a MacBook Pro is very slim, however the market for consumers who want an Apple laptop, can afford a MacBook Pro, but would rather buy a MacBook because it is cheaper is much wider.
It would not really be in Apple's interest to put more upgrade options on the MacBook to make that decision easier for those in that category.
This is the same reason Apple don't make an upgradeable mini-tower. There's nothing (in terms of their computing needs) that this would actually allow people to do that they can't already achieve with some combination of Apple's existing product offerings (at slightly greater expense and with more of that profit going to Apple, of course).
When people complain that they would buy Macs if only they allowed more upgrade options, what they really mean is that they would buy the cheapest possible Mac, and then keep upgrading it (with mostly 3rd party or 2nd-hand components) to run the latest OS, which would benefit Apple very little compared to what they make from the current Mac upgrade cycle.
Because they have all (except HP maybe) been making TVs for many years, not suddenly jumping it. Gateway makes TVs too but what percentage of the market do they have? Unless the Apple TV does something better than all these other brands, what is going to make any consumer purchase it?
If Apple put out a TV the same day I decided I needed a new TV, I'd look it over, compare its features and price with all the other TVs at the store. And I also be looking at the manufacturers; If I found myself looking at a TV and found myself thinking I had never heard of that company, I would probably NOT be buying their TV. Apple has brand appeal to a certain segment of the population, but I'm also fairly sure it's a pretty small segment. I'd be surprised if half of iPod owners could tell you who made it without looking at the back. You said you asked 2 dozen people, if they'd be interested in Apple-made TV. Go to Walmart and ask 2 dozen people if they've heard of Apple Computers and I doubt many would say they have.
Maybe you think I'm an Apple hater, but I'm not. I love my 5G iPod. I'm hoping to order my first Apple computer next Friday so I can axe my crap Wintel system. I just think an Apple TV would be a REALLY niche that would not do well at all in the market if all it is just a basic TV. That's not a compelling product.
Steve Jobs introducing the Apple TV: "I'd like to introduce you to our latest product, the Apple TV. You run the coaxial cable from your wall outlet or the a/v cables from you cable box, hit the power button and it just works. With it you can watch your favorite TV shows." Jobs pauses for the thundering applause and cheers, but he's greeted with confused looks. "One more thing, you can hear your favorite TV shows too through the built-in speakers." Another dramatic pause but still just confused looks from the crowd. "Oh and one more thing, you can also hook up your DVD player to WATCH and HEAR your movies through the Apple TV." Another pause, another round of confused looks. Someone in the audience bravely calls out, "What else does it do? Does it have iTV built in? Is there a dock connector for iPods? A wireless connection to the video iPod." Now it's Steve's turn to look confused. "Nope, it's just a TV." The brave audience member lets out a disappointed, "Oh," and slumps back down in his seat. Steve turns, walking off stage muttering, "I knew this needed another round in R&D."
Your making some mistakes in you reasoning here.
Every company has to start from somewhere. Sony and other manufacturers didn't make Tv's from the beginning of time. They all started out somewhere. If they made a good product, and marketed it well, they succeeded, as Sony did, even theought they started late here. The same thing is true with all of the other manufacturers that are here now. Not one of them was here in the '40's when it got atarted. Nor in the'50's when it began to become popular. Or in the '60's when color started to gain over black and white. Most came in at the end of the '80's, or even '90's.
In fact, some of the biggest sellers, such as Hp, didn't come in until quite recently.
GTW has not been in the consumer electronics market for years. Why? Because they sold older, discontinued products, under their brand name for cheap. The products were low quality, failed often, and were not backed up properly by GTW. They lost a big lawsuit over that issue. At least get the facts straight.
I don't think you are an Apple hater. I just think that you don't have much of an understanding of the average consumer. Consumers buy into "hot" brands. Apple is a hot brand. Sony WAS a hot brand. Many editorials over the past two years have made note of this. And many have suggested that a Tv would be a good product for Apple to have. I agree with that. People buy what their gut tells them to buy. Performance is a difficult issue for them to deal with because they don't even know what that means.
How many read CU, or any of the mags that test equipment? Very few. Look at the subscription numbers of the major mags. Compared to the buying population, they are very small. Not more than a low single digit.
People even buy cars that way, despite the high cost.
Many people like to think that they are cold, analytical consumers, but they are not.
I think that Apple would be good to make an iGame, a 802.11b controller mixed with iTV to let you play computer games on your TV. The games would comr from iTMS.
Under 'consumer desktop', obviously, just like iMac. Its basically an iMac a la carte... add the cost of a good screen, keyboard, and mouse to it, and it costs nearly the same as the $999 iMac. Its also a good idea, since it entices switchers who already have those things. But it doesn't change the fact that, yep, the iMac is indeed a consumer machine.
Quote:
The Mac Pro is a very powerful machine but it is ugly and utilitarian by comparison to Apple's other offerings. The Mac Pro is a machine for people who need power more than they need style or convenience. The iMac is the all-rounder that scales from moderate family needs, though internet cafe or school or library environment, right up to a pro graphic designer/photographer, or musician or other creative professional.
No. Thats tortured reasoning. The iMac is not a Pro machine at all, though it can be used to do some very nice things. If it were a Pro machine, it'd have a bunch of PCI Express slots, and be very expandable. It would also not have an integrated screen.
Sorry, but I haven't seen any revisions to Job's Magic Square that say that the iMac is now a Pro machine. Heck, by your own reasoning, you can use the Mini to do some very nice things too, even with no slots and no real expansion. Does that then make the Mini a 'Pro' machine? Technically it'd be even more suited to such work than the iMac, since you could attach a very high-end display to it if you so chose. Still doesn't make the Mini a Pro machine, though.
Quote:
The Mini is for switchers or living-room media centers, and only the MacBook/MacBook Pro retain the roles from "Steve's magic square" (one is more-or-less just a more expensive version of the other with higher spec components and extra features for those who can afford it).
Awesome. I'll let Jobs know that his Magic Square has been revised... because 'some guy on the Internet said so'. 8)
Quote:
So going back to my original point...
Let's skip that, since you had to use some pretty tortured reasoning to do so. And I'm very well aware of your arguments already.
Look, I understand 110% about where Apple's BEEN, product line and pricing-wise.
I'm only saying that they need to evolve, and do things in a way that aggressively expands the base, instead of continuing the bad old practices of milking a fixed base (hard). Because times have changed. Case in point, take a gander at the headline on AppleInsider today: Apple's number of 'new-to-Mac' buyers growing.
Apparently, 25 percent of recent Mac buyers at Apple Specialist retailers are totally new to the platform. That number rises to 50 percent at Apple Stores (!). These are switchers or folks who are new to computing, i.e. are not from the ol' 'fixed base'.
Why is this? Well, as the article cites, Boot Camp and the iPod Halo' effect are indeed reasons. But Apple has also contributed a semi-hospitable environment for this to occur in, by actually having some reasonable pricing in places ($999 iMac, Mac Mini). Even their notebook line, while still priced a bit high-ish, is more reasonable than it was several years ago.
So while Boot Camp is removing the 'no access to Windows-only stuff' fear, and the Halo effect is making folks give Apple a second look, this is all occurring in the context of, "Ohh, Macs are not as unreasonably priced as I had heard. Maybe I could get one after all."
And this is all great. But Apple could go further with it. Better, more flexible BTO options, and hitting some pricepoints in their notebook line. And yep, someday even getting a Minitower out (be interesting to see how many switchers and new adopters Apple could get with THAT).
I guess I don't see too much point in using the tired old 'milk the fixed base' strategy when that base is obviously expanding rapidly, and the growth is being driven by switchers and new-to-computers folks who probably aren't as accepting of being milked as us 'old school' Mac users are, and who, in the case of switchers, are accustomed to the PC sides' greater flexibility and wider variety of options in the BTO area.
Trust me, I could probably come up with as many or more reasons to maintain the 'old ways' than you. And I do understand that there was a time when Apple had to 'milk it' just to survive. But it just doesn't make sense in the context of what's happening to the platform now. Apple has partially adapted to the new situation, and has knocked down some of the reasons to not get a Mac. Now its time to complete the evolution, and really watch the growth take off. As in , "Watch out, PC makers. This isn't the 'bad old' Apple you're competing against anymore." 8)
Comments
I think there is some truth in this statement.
Clearly it cannot be defintively stated as Apple is developing games for the iPod.
But it is clear Apple does not take hardcore gaming as seriously as Microsoft. Once you come to that understanding it would answer a lot of questions and conjecture over Apple's decisions.
Bingo. Sad to say.
.
Then what's the point of a Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Sharp, Hitachi, Mitsubushi, Hp, Sansung, or any other brand display?
Quite frankly, this is a silly argument. If people here don't know that Apple is deliberately becoming a consumer electronics company, then they aren't paying attention to what is happening. Apple is now a "hot" brand. They would be stupid to fail to take advantege of that fact.
Because they have all (except HP maybe) been making TVs for many years, not suddenly jumping it. Gateway makes TVs too but what percentage of the market do they have? Unless the Apple TV does something better than all these other brands, what is going to make any consumer purchase it?
If Apple put out a TV the same day I decided I needed a new TV, I'd look it over, compare its features and price with all the other TVs at the store. And I also be looking at the manufacturers; If I found myself looking at a TV and found myself thinking I had never heard of that company, I would probably NOT be buying their TV. Apple has brand appeal to a certain segment of the population, but I'm also fairly sure it's a pretty small segment. I'd be surprised if half of iPod owners could tell you who made it without looking at the back. You said you asked 2 dozen people, if they'd be interested in Apple-made TV. Go to Walmart and ask 2 dozen people if they've heard of Apple Computers and I doubt many would say they have.
Maybe you think I'm an Apple hater, but I'm not. I love my 5G iPod. I'm hoping to order my first Apple computer next Friday so I can axe my crap Wintel system. I just think an Apple TV would be a REALLY niche that would not do well at all in the market if all it is just a basic TV. That's not a compelling product.
Steve Jobs introducing the Apple TV: "I'd like to introduce you to our latest product, the Apple TV. You run the coaxial cable from your wall outlet or the a/v cables from you cable box, hit the power button and it just works. With it you can watch your favorite TV shows." Jobs pauses for the thundering applause and cheers, but he's greeted with confused looks. "One more thing, you can hear your favorite TV shows too through the built-in speakers." Another dramatic pause but still just confused looks from the crowd. "Oh and one more thing, you can also hook up your DVD player to WATCH and HEAR your movies through the Apple TV." Another pause, another round of confused looks. Someone in the audience bravely calls out, "What else does it do? Does it have iTV built in? Is there a dock connector for iPods? A wireless connection to the video iPod." Now it's Steve's turn to look confused. "Nope, it's just a TV." The brave audience member lets out a disappointed, "Oh," and slumps back down in his seat. Steve turns, walking off stage muttering, "I knew this needed another round in R&D."
Unless the Apple TV does something better than all these other brands, what is going to make any consumer purchase it?
Perhaps you haven't read the other posts here that suggest a built in iTV (streaming content from your Mac(s)) would go a long way to make an Apple branded LCD HDTV desirable to many people.
I know I'd rather combine devices instead of having multiple devices with multiple remotes.
As an example, I use of Scientific Atlanta'a 8300HD DVR from my cable provider, instead of TiVo, despite the fact that TiVo offers many options and hacks that I, as a techie, would find useful and fun. The convenience of the all in one device wins hands down every time.
Perhaps you haven't read the other posts here that suggest a built in iTV (streaming content from your Mac(s)) would go a long way to make an Apple branded LCD HDTV desirable to many people.
I know I'd rather combine devices instead of having multiple devices with multiple remotes.
As an example, I use of Scientific Atlanta'a 8300HD DVR from my cable provider, instead of TiVo, despite the fact that TiVo offers many options and hacks that I, as a techie, would find useful and fun. The convenience of the all in one device wins hands down every time.
I was responding to a post that suggested that if Apple produced a TV it shouldn't have anything (even iTV) built in. If an Apple TV had iTV built in, that would be a feature that could definitely make it more appealing over other TVs. Of course, it also depends on what iTV does; it seems to be basically a wireless router specifically for audio/video. And the enhanced Front Row interface would make a nice way to interact with the system.
But I definitely don't want my TV to have built in DVR or a built in DVD player in my TV. That's expensive equipment that if it fails cripples the TV. I would be fine with the iTV having those built into separate box from the TV.
My entertainment system consists of a surround sound receiver, 5.1 speaker set, a 300-disc CD player, DVD player, and of course the TV. All of these things can be controlled from the receiver's remote (with some loss of functionality for the other devices), but it all becomes problematic when you have to bring in a cable/satellite box. The cable-provided DVR box couldn't be controlled by the receiver remote, and the DVR remote couldn't control anything beyond the TV.
If there's an Apple TV with iTV, I think they should have a remote that can either learn from the other remotes or be programmed with the necessary commands via a USB computer connection. It should optimally have an LCD touch screen so the user can have access to all the abilities of the original remote.
The point is the one box that connects to that tv and that one remote controls everything. Add a good speaker system and you have a simple solution for the masses that are confused by HDTV and Surround sound.
I can't get over how many people I know that want to show off their new entertainment system to me and it is crap. But hey, there is a subwoofer so it must sound good. They show off a HDTV monitor and it looks pixelated and has terrible ghosting.
It is the emperor's new clothes - they don't want to admit that their new $5,000 system looks and sound terrible. They see it and hear there is a problem but are not sure how to fix it. Of course, sometimes the cable company compresses the heck out of the signal so all the HD set shows off is how bad the compression is.
It all comes down to this. Apple is not a hardware company. They are not a software company. They are a solution company. There is a big difference. You can have ten components - or pieces of software, each a great system by itself. But combine them and it is a Tower of Babel and an erognomic nightmare. This is what a PC is and this is what people have been putting up with in the living room.
I want a Mac solution for the living room and I think so do millions of other people. I think Apple is in the best position to deliver this system of systems. Apple's only big threat is the game consoles. Apple needs to strike now and they need a gaming solution to hold off the competition. They need a solution that is not going to drag them into a console war.
This is not a new development. I saw this years ago when the Xbox first came out. Apple got the iPod market but MS went after the console market. Yeah, Sony is still the strongest player but Sony is slipping in many things and everybody sees it. They lost the walkman market and they are battling for survival in the console market. Of course their laptop batteries are costing them plenty too.
Sony could have been what Apple is today. With their consoles they could still be a big threat but they lack the software and control that Apple has. I don't think they understand they need to be a solutions company - a system of systems. One cannot just copy another company and hope to win. You have to innovate and stay a couple years ahead of the competition. This is what Apple does best and why they can win big.
I think this January is the time for Apple to launch their full out assault on MS. With Vista and Zune, Apple needs to fight hard now with everything they've got. Sony is fighting the console battle. They need to knock hard and Apple needs to gain control of the living room now.
But Apple needs to prepare a strategy to win the console and game wars - or at least not to get beat by them. I don;t know what the solution is but they need to solve it soon.
'Apple hardware sucks for games.
The $2000 Macpro come with a low end video card and slow sever ram and has very few video card choices.
The mini has gam 950 carp that can?t run any game that good.
The I-mac?s have build in screens, laptop cpu, laptop ram and less video card choice then the macpro and a lot of games have there own good and high end monitors also they like the upgrade there systems a lots also games need a lot of ram and laptop ram costs more then desk top ram.'
What the....?
My neighbour has been a Windows man forever. He'll happily tell you that his latest PC is the best he's ever had (you'd hope so) and that it runs his son's first person games beautifully under XP. It also happens to be a 24" iMac, a consequence of living next to me! (He bought a Core 2 Duo MacBook at the same time. Further, this is his second generation Mac now, so he's obviously happy to be an Apple customer.)
I contend the following:
Apple IS hardware as much as software, so comaprisons with XBox financial wins and losses are perhaps a waste of time or at least a diversion. I don't think it is helpful or necessary to think in terms of gaming consoles.
Apple has the backing of Pixar and Disney for creative content and could easily arrange hooks, in scripts at least, for games to flow from future productions. The possibilities are almost endless. Imagine a release on DVD of some new Pixar/Disney feature that has some sort of 'cinema XML' embedded that lets the game take over during playback.
Further to my point above, Apple is constantly creating new software tools, such as the 'Core' API's that have the potential to dramatically advance the gaming experience. Games released in conjunction with game's oriented API's that include physics, atmospheric, multi-dimensional input, 3D display, further advanced Quicktime, cinematic hooks and others would run the risk only of putting existing games offerings to shame.
I'm sure that if someone set out to produce a game that took full advantage of the hardware and services offered by Apple and OS X, that the result would be awesome but perhaps too, the only company with the resources to do that is Apple itself.
Perhaps the question to ask is:
Who, apart possibly for Sony, could control the entire hardware, software, content creation production line as well as Apple could?
Perhaps the almost appropriate example is the iPod, except here Apple wouldn't be relying on the existing labels for content.
That seems to be controversial. Blizzard use it apparently, but it has been sited as the reason why the latest Myst release and Half life 2 weren't ported:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2004/11/24/uru/index.php
I believe Havok charges a flat fee per boxed version. For Mac publishers, that price is too high since the fee is based on high volume PC and console games. For Blizzard who ships the game in box, I think they might not have no pay anything more.
Yeahhh, I'm afraid it is. Consult 'Stevie Job's Magic Square'. MacBook is a consumer laptop. iMac is a consumer desktop. They both target... gasp... consumers.
And where does the Mac Mini fit into that box?
The iMac may have originally been intended as the cheaper alternative to the PowerMac, but I think it's been pretty obvious since the G5 iMac came out that the role has changed. The iMac is a powerful, well-rounded machine that is quite capable of servicing the needs of schools, families and small/home businesses.
There's no way that a person would buy a 24inch iMac with a dual core 2.33Ghz CPU, 3GB of RAM and 750GB hard disk costing nearly $4000 because they can't afford a Mac Pro. They'd buy it because it offers comparable power in a more appropriate form factor for their living room.
The Mac Pro is a very powerful machine but it is ugly and utilitarian by comparison to Apple's other offerings. The Mac Pro is a machine for people who need power more than they need style or convenience. The iMac is the all-rounder that scales from moderate family needs, though internet cafe or school or library environment, right up to a pro graphic designer/photographer, or musician or other creative professional. The Mini is for switchers or living-room media centers, and only the MacBook/MacBook Pro retain the roles from "Steve's magic square" (one is more-or-less just a more expensive version of the other with higher spec components and extra features for those who can afford it).
I think Apple realised some time ago that the rigid consumer/professional distinction they were pushing didn't fit their customer's needs and quietly allowed the machines to evolve into what the majority of consumers want from them, adding new models like the eMac and Mini to fit in where the gaps became too wide between price and purpose and they start losing customers.
So going back to my original point, the market for hardcore gamers or graphics professionals who want an Apple laptop but really can't afford a MacBook Pro is very slim, however the market for consumers who want an Apple laptop, can afford a MacBook Pro, but would rather buy a MacBook because it is cheaper is much wider.
It would not really be in Apple's interest to put more upgrade options on the MacBook to make that decision easier for those in that category.
This is the same reason Apple don't make an upgradeable mini-tower. There's nothing (in terms of their computing needs) that this would actually allow people to do that they can't already achieve with some combination of Apple's existing product offerings (at slightly greater expense and with more of that profit going to Apple, of course).
When people complain that they would buy Macs if only they allowed more upgrade options, what they really mean is that they would buy the cheapest possible Mac, and then keep upgrading it (with mostly 3rd party or 2nd-hand components) to run the latest OS, which would benefit Apple very little compared to what they make from the current Mac upgrade cycle.
Because they have all (except HP maybe) been making TVs for many years, not suddenly jumping it. Gateway makes TVs too but what percentage of the market do they have? Unless the Apple TV does something better than all these other brands, what is going to make any consumer purchase it?
If Apple put out a TV the same day I decided I needed a new TV, I'd look it over, compare its features and price with all the other TVs at the store. And I also be looking at the manufacturers; If I found myself looking at a TV and found myself thinking I had never heard of that company, I would probably NOT be buying their TV. Apple has brand appeal to a certain segment of the population, but I'm also fairly sure it's a pretty small segment. I'd be surprised if half of iPod owners could tell you who made it without looking at the back. You said you asked 2 dozen people, if they'd be interested in Apple-made TV. Go to Walmart and ask 2 dozen people if they've heard of Apple Computers and I doubt many would say they have.
Maybe you think I'm an Apple hater, but I'm not. I love my 5G iPod. I'm hoping to order my first Apple computer next Friday so I can axe my crap Wintel system. I just think an Apple TV would be a REALLY niche that would not do well at all in the market if all it is just a basic TV. That's not a compelling product.
Steve Jobs introducing the Apple TV: "I'd like to introduce you to our latest product, the Apple TV. You run the coaxial cable from your wall outlet or the a/v cables from you cable box, hit the power button and it just works. With it you can watch your favorite TV shows." Jobs pauses for the thundering applause and cheers, but he's greeted with confused looks. "One more thing, you can hear your favorite TV shows too through the built-in speakers." Another dramatic pause but still just confused looks from the crowd. "Oh and one more thing, you can also hook up your DVD player to WATCH and HEAR your movies through the Apple TV." Another pause, another round of confused looks. Someone in the audience bravely calls out, "What else does it do? Does it have iTV built in? Is there a dock connector for iPods? A wireless connection to the video iPod." Now it's Steve's turn to look confused. "Nope, it's just a TV." The brave audience member lets out a disappointed, "Oh," and slumps back down in his seat. Steve turns, walking off stage muttering, "I knew this needed another round in R&D."
Your making some mistakes in you reasoning here.
Every company has to start from somewhere. Sony and other manufacturers didn't make Tv's from the beginning of time. They all started out somewhere. If they made a good product, and marketed it well, they succeeded, as Sony did, even theought they started late here. The same thing is true with all of the other manufacturers that are here now. Not one of them was here in the '40's when it got atarted. Nor in the'50's when it began to become popular. Or in the '60's when color started to gain over black and white. Most came in at the end of the '80's, or even '90's.
In fact, some of the biggest sellers, such as Hp, didn't come in until quite recently.
GTW has not been in the consumer electronics market for years. Why? Because they sold older, discontinued products, under their brand name for cheap. The products were low quality, failed often, and were not backed up properly by GTW. They lost a big lawsuit over that issue. At least get the facts straight.
I don't think you are an Apple hater. I just think that you don't have much of an understanding of the average consumer. Consumers buy into "hot" brands. Apple is a hot brand. Sony WAS a hot brand. Many editorials over the past two years have made note of this. And many have suggested that a Tv would be a good product for Apple to have. I agree with that. People buy what their gut tells them to buy. Performance is a difficult issue for them to deal with because they don't even know what that means.
How many read CU, or any of the mags that test equipment? Very few. Look at the subscription numbers of the major mags. Compared to the buying population, they are very small. Not more than a low single digit.
People even buy cars that way, despite the high cost.
Many people like to think that they are cold, analytical consumers, but they are not.
8)
And where does the Mac Mini fit into that box?
Under 'consumer desktop', obviously, just like iMac. Its basically an iMac a la carte... add the cost of a good screen, keyboard, and mouse to it, and it costs nearly the same as the $999 iMac. Its also a good idea, since it entices switchers who already have those things. But it doesn't change the fact that, yep, the iMac is indeed a consumer machine.
The Mac Pro is a very powerful machine but it is ugly and utilitarian by comparison to Apple's other offerings. The Mac Pro is a machine for people who need power more than they need style or convenience. The iMac is the all-rounder that scales from moderate family needs, though internet cafe or school or library environment, right up to a pro graphic designer/photographer, or musician or other creative professional.
No. Thats tortured reasoning. The iMac is not a Pro machine at all, though it can be used to do some very nice things. If it were a Pro machine, it'd have a bunch of PCI Express slots, and be very expandable. It would also not have an integrated screen.
Sorry, but I haven't seen any revisions to Job's Magic Square that say that the iMac is now a Pro machine. Heck, by your own reasoning, you can use the Mini to do some very nice things too, even with no slots and no real expansion. Does that then make the Mini a 'Pro' machine? Technically it'd be even more suited to such work than the iMac, since you could attach a very high-end display to it if you so chose. Still doesn't make the Mini a Pro machine, though.
The Mini is for switchers or living-room media centers, and only the MacBook/MacBook Pro retain the roles from "Steve's magic square" (one is more-or-less just a more expensive version of the other with higher spec components and extra features for those who can afford it).
Awesome. I'll let Jobs know that his Magic Square has been revised... because 'some guy on the Internet said so'. 8)
So going back to my original point...
Let's skip that, since you had to use some pretty tortured reasoning to do so. And I'm very well aware of your arguments already.
Look, I understand 110% about where Apple's BEEN, product line and pricing-wise.
I'm only saying that they need to evolve, and do things in a way that aggressively expands the base, instead of continuing the bad old practices of milking a fixed base (hard). Because times have changed. Case in point, take a gander at the headline on AppleInsider today: Apple's number of 'new-to-Mac' buyers growing.
Apparently, 25 percent of recent Mac buyers at Apple Specialist retailers are totally new to the platform. That number rises to 50 percent at Apple Stores (!). These are switchers or folks who are new to computing, i.e. are not from the ol' 'fixed base'.
Why is this? Well, as the article cites, Boot Camp and the iPod Halo' effect are indeed reasons. But Apple has also contributed a semi-hospitable environment for this to occur in, by actually having some reasonable pricing in places ($999 iMac, Mac Mini). Even their notebook line, while still priced a bit high-ish, is more reasonable than it was several years ago.
So while Boot Camp is removing the 'no access to Windows-only stuff' fear, and the Halo effect is making folks give Apple a second look, this is all occurring in the context of, "Ohh, Macs are not as unreasonably priced as I had heard. Maybe I could get one after all."
And this is all great. But Apple could go further with it. Better, more flexible BTO options, and hitting some pricepoints in their notebook line. And yep, someday even getting a Minitower out (be interesting to see how many switchers and new adopters Apple could get with THAT).
I guess I don't see too much point in using the tired old 'milk the fixed base' strategy when that base is obviously expanding rapidly, and the growth is being driven by switchers and new-to-computers folks who probably aren't as accepting of being milked as us 'old school' Mac users are, and who, in the case of switchers, are accustomed to the PC sides' greater flexibility and wider variety of options in the BTO area.
Trust me, I could probably come up with as many or more reasons to maintain the 'old ways' than you. And I do understand that there was a time when Apple had to 'milk it' just to survive. But it just doesn't make sense in the context of what's happening to the platform now. Apple has partially adapted to the new situation, and has knocked down some of the reasons to not get a Mac. Now its time to complete the evolution, and really watch the growth take off. As in , "Watch out, PC makers. This isn't the 'bad old' Apple you're competing against anymore." 8)
.