Yes, a "transition" here is an evolution not a revolution. Whether it's a game changing phase shift depends on how extensive the makeover - at minimum, sure to be cosmetic and environmental improvements as well as updating the processors. New feature for macbook would be the oversized touchpad.
I think Apple is going to kill iPod Classic, replacing it with iPod Touch. This would be a "product transition" which would likely not be popular or cost effective at first, but would ultimately move many people to their Touch platform -- opening up a HUGE world for App Store, etc. and lots of future revenue. This would also explain the statement that the new product would include "technologies and features that others can't match." In fact, no other manufacturer is offering such a vastly scalable, multitouch platform disguised as a music player.
Wow, there's a lot of replies to this article when the answer seems so obvious. I know Apple can never be predicted with 100% certainty, but lets get real.
1) New Montevena chips released
2) Dozens of competing notebooks flood the market
3) MB/MBP due for redesign
4) Microsoft about to launch a $300mil ad campaign going after Mac
5) Back to school
I'm not a Vegas odds maker, but come on!
I think you are spot on, Bret. It's not rocket science. The next question is what is the really new thing, and that looks like super touch-tablet, aggressively priced.
That's assuming that there would be little cannabolization. I disagree with that assumption. Apple's previous clone experience resulted in significant cannabolization. Absent any other evidence, think we'd see similar results today.
If Apple licenses OSX it will be cannibalised. But it's not an all or nothing licensing... Apple could choose just to license to HP and just in their cheap home desktop area (sub $1000?) - if it wanted. Although $129 is not the price of OSX (it is the price of an upgrade from whatever version is on your Mac, but a licensing deal might also be much cheaper), Apple would still make a high return on whatever is paid for OSX.
Instead of making $155 on a $599 MacMini (35%), it might make $80 on a HP. The question is whether it would sell twice as many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
Except that Apple doesn't have to share the profit with a middle man. When Dell sells a computer, they need to have enough profit margin to pay for the Vista license. Apple gets to keep it all to themselves. That's an efficiency (no middle men) that Apple has over the Windows world.
With Apple, OSX is a hidden cost. With HP, Windows is a listed cost. If Apple considered that OSX was a $130 cost on every Mac, their 35% margin on hardware would drop to 20% or something (with the side effect that OSX would show as far more profitable!). Overall profit would be unchanged, it's just how it's listed.
Has anyone given any thought to the usability issues involved with this idea? Making users reach over their keyboards to touch the screen when the mouse would work just as well seems to be ... misguided.
If anyone releases a touch screen and expects us to throw away the mouse, it will fail.
Single touch actions are usually quicker and easier with a mouse. A small flick of the wrist versus whole arm movement. Mice are also more accurate for using menus and selecting small icons etc. But you make the wrong assumption that the touch screen would be used identically to a mouse.
The touch screen will substantially change how people use their computers - if Apple created a touch iMac with touch OS (with the basic thoughts we have as to how it'd be used), then sat 10 users in front of them and watched what they did, Apple would go away with many changes. When they sit 10 new users in front of their modified system, they'll again go away with many changes and discoveries. Do that 3 or 4 times, combined with some creative and way out ideas they'd need to test, and they'll come up with a different way of interacting.
I'm not saying they'll release touch screens and a new interaction model But they may know enough to say it's a big change coming, and if they do release touch screens and come up with a new interface in 18 months then a substantial number of current users will have the hardware ready to go.
The main/obvious difference in screens and mice is multitouch. A mouse can't simulate 2 points, just one. The iPhone allows pinching for zoom (interesting when combined with OSX resolution independence?), and allows photos to be rotated by twisting the photo. Coverflow can work with a mouse or finger so it's not a game changer (though currently the finger pushes left while the mouse needs to click right!). Another difference is that a touch screen doesn't MOVE the pointer to the correct place before you do something with it - it is immediately in the right place.
Perhaps a touch interface will hide the elevator bar entirely? Instead just put 2 fingers on the onscreen-document and push it.
Touch is plausible. Remember until we saw the Mac, the mouse didn't make sense (and even then many people thought it was just a toy).
Apple most certainly would lose hardware sales by licensing Mac OS X out to third party hardware vendors. People will buy a $300 Dell instead of a $500 Mac mini, they'll buy a $1000 HP tower instead of a Mac Pro or iMac, they could even buy a $1200 Acer instead of a $1100 MacBook because "well I like the color blue more than black or white."
I disagree. Your argument is basically that Apple hardware is not competitive. That's patently not true.
If Apple stopped making OS X today, which Apple hardware would continue to sell on the merits of the hardware alone? The Mac Mini is a perfect silent micro PC. The iMac is the best in class AiO. The Air is unique. The Pro is still pretty hard to beat. Only the MacBook is fairly generic.
If someone wants a $300 WallMart PC - they don't buy a Mac Mini. They buy the $300 tin box.
In 1996 the cannibalization argument was true. But with the current Apple line up, it's bullshit. It's almost as if someone designed the current product range that way!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
That massive sector is STAGNANT. The market is OVER-SATURATED by crummy desktop tower PCs. Apple has NO INTEREST IN REVIVING THAT MARKET
Are you unable to read? It does not matter.
The commoditized low-profit HARDWARE MARKET should not be entered by Apple. They don't want to go there with their nice fancy hardware. No one is suggesting they should.
The important thing is the OS MARKET. There are millions of these machines being sold every week. And with each sale they send a big fat check to Microsoft.
Where is it written that this money belongs to Microsoft? Is there some hidden commandment carved on Apple's HQ which reads. "Touch ye not the revenues of Redmond"?
Although $129 is not the price of OSX (it is the price of an upgrade from whatever version is on your Mac, but a licensing deal might also be much cheaper)
$130 does give you the full Mac OS X. These aren't the reinstall discs that ship with Macs, they're the real deal. You don't need to buy Tiger to upgrade from Panther to Leopard. You just go straight to Leopard. When Snow Leopard ships next year, Tiger users on Intel Macs won't have to first buy Leopard and then buy Snow Leopard.
The important thing is the OS MARKET. There are millions of these machines being sold every week. And with each sale they send a big fat check to Microsoft.
Don't they have to send a big fat check to Microsoft whether they use the OS or not? And what OEM is going to brave the Wrath of Redmond? by installing OS X on their machines?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
$130 does give you the full Mac OS X. These aren't the reinstall discs that ship with Macs, they're the real deal.
The point is, somebody (not necessarily you) bought a Mac in the first place with its first version of OS X. When you buy a shrink-wrapped box, it's an upgrade to install on that already paid-for machine. It doesn't matter if you skip a version, that's a red herring if I ever saw one. Retail copies of OS X would be $400 like Vista Ultimate, if this weren't the case. This is also what Psystar is doing wrong: selling an OS upgrade without anyone having bought the initial copy (which Apple only sells with a computer purchase.)
A) The profit margin will stay at 35% until this new product is released.
b) This product won't be announced until August 19th at the earliest.
That means if the plan is to have a 30% unit margin at the end of the quarter, they are going to have something like a 25% margin for the second half of the quarter. Now since they are reducing the margin, we know they are planning to increase the volume. This means the mystery transition cannot be a new product. No product, however cool, is going to sell over a million units in the first month. There is literally no new product that Apple could introduce that would sell enough units within the first month to lower the per unit margins by 10%. So the change must involve some existing product.
I think there are two realistic options here. First, they sell more by reducing the price of the new MacBooks and MacBook Pros. A real possibility. Second, they sell more by keeping the price the same and adding an expensive component to one of their existing products. If the margins do go down because of more expensive components, the only real options are the MBP and the iPod. The iPhone isn't in for an update, and none of the other products ship enough units to have this big of an effect on the unit margins. In terms of components, the options are basically SSD, Blueray, or DDR3 for the MB and MBP and more SSD for the iPod. Blueray and faster RAM are unlikely to generate enough excitement among the general public to increase the units shipped enough to make up for the smaller margins, unless DDR3 uses so much less power that it drastically increases battery life. This is unlikely. So almost certainly what we are looking at here is either a sharp price drop in MBs and MBPs, or else adding SSD to the MB and MBP or else adding massive amounts of SSD to the iPod touch and eliminating the other iPods.
Why is it that you only have 11 posts over the past three years, while jackasses like Rot'nApple have hundreds?
$130 does give you the full Mac OS X. These aren't the reinstall discs that ship with Macs, they're the real deal. You don't need to buy Tiger to upgrade from Panther to Leopard. You just go straight to Leopard. When Snow Leopard ships next year, Tiger users on Intel Macs won't have to first buy Leopard and then buy Snow Leopard.
Every Tiger buyer already has OSX on their Mac. When Snow Leopard ships next year, every buyer will have some previous version of OSX on their system. With normal applications it is possible that a buyer has NEVER had a previous version, and this is also possible with Windows.
As I said - it's all a matter of perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
I disagree. Your argument is basically that Apple hardware is not competitive. That's patently not true.
No, my argument is basically that if 1000 people like the Mac Mini, and now they have an option of a HP at the same price, some of those 1000 people are likely to get the HP instead. Conversely, it's possible that some people will get interested in the HP with OSX who never wanted Apple who might change their mind and get something Apple. But the first is more likely.
I don't know if it'll be 5 people in 1000, or 50, or 500... I suspect the number is reasonably low but I don't know. I do know that there will always be a portion of people that will take another choice, when presented.
The commoditized low-profit HARDWARE MARKET should not be entered by Apple. They don't want to go there with their nice fancy hardware. No one is suggesting they should.
The important thing is the OS MARKET. There are millions of these machines being sold every week. And with each sale they send a big fat check to Microsoft.
Where is it written that this money belongs to Microsoft? Is there some hidden commandment carved on Apple's HQ which reads. "Touch ye not the revenues of Redmond"?
Eesh! You are suggesting Apple enter and try to revive the entrenched beige-box PC market by selling Mac OS X as an alternative to Windows. The statement of yours that I bolded shows you're not quite getting what the problem is. Microsoft has a MONOPOLISTIC POSITION THANKS TO EXCLUSIVE, ANTI-COMPETITIVE, ANTI-CONSUMER OEM LICENSING DEALS WITH THIRD PARTY HARDWARE VENDORS. MICROSOFT MAKES 90% OF THEIR MONEY FROM THESE GUARANTEED OEM WINDOWS LICENSES, NOT FROM SALES OF STANDALONE WINDOWS LICENSES!!
Similarly, Apple makes next to nothing on standalone Mac OS X licenses. Apple can't bundle their OS with Apple-certified third party hardware vendors because that's both illegal and nearly impossible, which is why desktop Linux distros haven't made any major headway. Microsoft is breaking the law by bundling their software, the U.S. government simply hasn't intervened. Software and hardware are treated differently by people, which is why Microsoft sees so few lawsuits about their back-door Windows software bundling while Apple is constantly having lawsuits filed against its hardware products. There's a mental disconnect between hard/tangible and soft/electronic intellectual properties.
I also was certainly not making the argument that Apple's hardware is not competitive, thus they shouldn't license out their OS to avoid being overshadowed by Mac OS X running Dells. That's crazy. The reason people would do as I said is because people aren't that smart. They'd look at prices and say, "well both are stamped with Apple's approval, I don't mind having a less than elegant desktop tower/laptop. I'll go with the cheap HP." PC desktop sales are stagnating, as I mentioned before. It's an over-saturated market. So, most desktop PC users aren't interested in buying yet another desktop PC, regardless if it's running Windows Vista or XP, Linux, or Mac OS X. That leaves Apple to sell Mac OS X as an alternative operating system on its own, not bundled with certified hardware.
Apple makes next to nothing selling standalone Mac OS X licenses to their own generally more tech savvy Mac users, let alone trying to sell to the millions of indifferent Windows users who just want Windows to browse the internet and write emails in Outlook. Apple is shooting for the competitive consumer market that's fed up with Windows and wants something different and better. People are MUCH more likely to buy a new computer - a new piece of hardware - because everyone knows (including Apple) that people are loathe to pay for software.
That's why iPod touch owners bitch and moan about major software updates that iPhone users also pay over the length of their far more expensive cellular contracts. That's why millions are OK with stealing music online, but would never consider robbing a record store. People would likely steal OS X before they'd buy it, just as many steal Windows.
While we're on technology that competitors can't match:
This is a very long shot, but could Apple secretly have an exclusive for some length of time on EEstor's hypercapacitors? ZENN Motors says they're going to have a car on sale in fall of next year; that means they have to have prototypes running around right now. Both EEstor and Apple's App Store are backed by Kleiner, Perkins; maybe they put the deal together? Of course, every story about EEstor is met with a blizzard of raving about how it can't possibly work, it's a scam, nothing but "hype," etc., etc. (Since EEstor actually says next to nothing, this is the new definition of hype that was leveled against Apple on the runup to the iPhone.)
Apple can't really keep things as secret as they used to, since now they buy the same commodity parts as everybody else, but dealing with another super-secretive outfit to come up with a product that will blindside everybody--that sounds much more like the Apple we used to know!
Transition candidates would be more plausible if they involved an innovation that could be kept a secret until just before release. One such innovation would be a chip that would give a Mac built-in, hardware-based "software metering," so that a user would be able to run software on a rental basis. This would give users inexpensive access to expensive software they would only rarely use--but that would be quite rewarding to them anyway. They'd have access to much more software than on any competing platform.
While the idea of rental software is interesting, are you saying that Fairplay is ineffective? Also... I don't think a security chip would be a substantial cost.
If Apple does allow this kind of model some day, it's not just good for rental. You could BUY something like FilemakerPro and register it to your MobileMe account - so that you can move between machines and sync your dashboard apps & taskbar - and even the actual applications themselves.
Apple's hardware has never "sucked." While they were lazy and unfocused at that time, they never lost money. The computers they made were not the junk PC clones, they were simply outdated.
The reason people would do as I said is because people aren't that smart. They'd look at prices and say, "well both are stamped with Apple's approval, I don't mind having a less than elegant desktop tower/laptop. I'll go with the cheap HP."
Right! There are plenty of consumers out there that don't give a sh*t about style. They're called Dell customers. These beige tin boxes that Mac fanboys love to bash have a place (a very big place, in fact) in the market.
What I've found is that consumers who use Macs fall in love with the OS. Yes, Apple's industrial design rocks. No doubt. But there are a lot of people who put computers next to their desks and don't care what they look like.
Case in point: Apple couldn't deliver a competitive price on 17" iMacs for a large lab (even using refurbed units). Yes, the purchasing authority knew we could dual purpose that lab (thus effectively double booking it) by installing bootcamp. But, Dell came in something like $300 a unit cheaper, and running Windows apps was the priority. So guess what? Dell won the bid. Even though the PA recognized the Mac was A) technically superior and sweet to look at, price won. It generally does in a business setting. Thus color the boxes beige.
Comments
Is that really a transition?
C.
Yes, a "transition" here is an evolution not a revolution. Whether it's a game changing phase shift depends on how extensive the makeover - at minimum, sure to be cosmetic and environmental improvements as well as updating the processors. New feature for macbook would be the oversized touchpad.
Wow, there's a lot of replies to this article when the answer seems so obvious. I know Apple can never be predicted with 100% certainty, but lets get real.
1) New Montevena chips released
2) Dozens of competing notebooks flood the market
3) MB/MBP due for redesign
4) Microsoft about to launch a $300mil ad campaign going after Mac
5) Back to school
I'm not a Vegas odds maker, but come on!
I think you are spot on, Bret. It's not rocket science. The next question is what is the really new thing, and that looks like super touch-tablet, aggressively priced.
That's assuming that there would be little cannabolization. I disagree with that assumption. Apple's previous clone experience resulted in significant cannabolization. Absent any other evidence, think we'd see similar results today.
If Apple licenses OSX it will be cannibalised. But it's not an all or nothing licensing... Apple could choose just to license to HP and just in their cheap home desktop area (sub $1000?) - if it wanted. Although $129 is not the price of OSX (it is the price of an upgrade from whatever version is on your Mac, but a licensing deal might also be much cheaper), Apple would still make a high return on whatever is paid for OSX.
Instead of making $155 on a $599 MacMini (35%), it might make $80 on a HP. The question is whether it would sell twice as many.
Except that Apple doesn't have to share the profit with a middle man. When Dell sells a computer, they need to have enough profit margin to pay for the Vista license. Apple gets to keep it all to themselves. That's an efficiency (no middle men) that Apple has over the Windows world.
With Apple, OSX is a hidden cost. With HP, Windows is a listed cost. If Apple considered that OSX was a $130 cost on every Mac, their 35% margin on hardware would drop to 20% or something (with the side effect that OSX would show as far more profitable!). Overall profit would be unchanged, it's just how it's listed.
Has anyone given any thought to the usability issues involved with this idea? Making users reach over their keyboards to touch the screen when the mouse would work just as well seems to be ... misguided.
If anyone releases a touch screen and expects us to throw away the mouse, it will fail.
Single touch actions are usually quicker and easier with a mouse. A small flick of the wrist versus whole arm movement. Mice are also more accurate for using menus and selecting small icons etc. But you make the wrong assumption that the touch screen would be used identically to a mouse.
The touch screen will substantially change how people use their computers - if Apple created a touch iMac with touch OS (with the basic thoughts we have as to how it'd be used), then sat 10 users in front of them and watched what they did, Apple would go away with many changes. When they sit 10 new users in front of their modified system, they'll again go away with many changes and discoveries. Do that 3 or 4 times, combined with some creative and way out ideas they'd need to test, and they'll come up with a different way of interacting.
I'm not saying they'll release touch screens and a new interaction model
The main/obvious difference in screens and mice is multitouch. A mouse can't simulate 2 points, just one. The iPhone allows pinching for zoom (interesting when combined with OSX resolution independence?), and allows photos to be rotated by twisting the photo. Coverflow can work with a mouse or finger so it's not a game changer (though currently the finger pushes left while the mouse needs to click right!). Another difference is that a touch screen doesn't MOVE the pointer to the correct place before you do something with it - it is immediately in the right place.
Perhaps a touch interface will hide the elevator bar entirely? Instead just put 2 fingers on the onscreen-document and push it.
Touch is plausible. Remember until we saw the Mac, the mouse didn't make sense (and even then many people thought it was just a toy).
Apple most certainly would lose hardware sales by licensing Mac OS X out to third party hardware vendors. People will buy a $300 Dell instead of a $500 Mac mini, they'll buy a $1000 HP tower instead of a Mac Pro or iMac, they could even buy a $1200 Acer instead of a $1100 MacBook because "well I like the color blue more than black or white."
I disagree. Your argument is basically that Apple hardware is not competitive. That's patently not true.
If Apple stopped making OS X today, which Apple hardware would continue to sell on the merits of the hardware alone? The Mac Mini is a perfect silent micro PC. The iMac is the best in class AiO. The Air is unique. The Pro is still pretty hard to beat. Only the MacBook is fairly generic.
If someone wants a $300 WallMart PC - they don't buy a Mac Mini. They buy the $300 tin box.
In 1996 the cannibalization argument was true. But with the current Apple line up, it's bullshit. It's almost as if someone designed the current product range that way!
That massive sector is STAGNANT. The market is OVER-SATURATED by crummy desktop tower PCs. Apple has NO INTEREST IN REVIVING THAT MARKET
Are you unable to read? It does not matter.
The commoditized low-profit HARDWARE MARKET should not be entered by Apple. They don't want to go there with their nice fancy hardware. No one is suggesting they should.
The important thing is the OS MARKET. There are millions of these machines being sold every week. And with each sale they send a big fat check to Microsoft.
Where is it written that this money belongs to Microsoft? Is there some hidden commandment carved on Apple's HQ which reads. "Touch ye not the revenues of Redmond"?
C.
Although $129 is not the price of OSX (it is the price of an upgrade from whatever version is on your Mac, but a licensing deal might also be much cheaper)
$130 does give you the full Mac OS X. These aren't the reinstall discs that ship with Macs, they're the real deal. You don't need to buy Tiger to upgrade from Panther to Leopard. You just go straight to Leopard. When Snow Leopard ships next year, Tiger users on Intel Macs won't have to first buy Leopard and then buy Snow Leopard.
The important thing is the OS MARKET. There are millions of these machines being sold every week. And with each sale they send a big fat check to Microsoft.
Don't they have to send a big fat check to Microsoft whether they use the OS or not? And what OEM is going to brave the Wrath of Redmond? by installing OS X on their machines?
$130 does give you the full Mac OS X. These aren't the reinstall discs that ship with Macs, they're the real deal.
The point is, somebody (not necessarily you) bought a Mac in the first place with its first version of OS X. When you buy a shrink-wrapped box, it's an upgrade to install on that already paid-for machine. It doesn't matter if you skip a version, that's a red herring if I ever saw one. Retail copies of OS X would be $400 like Vista Ultimate, if this weren't the case. This is also what Psystar is doing wrong: selling an OS upgrade without anyone having bought the initial copy (which Apple only sells with a computer purchase.)
Two assumptions:
A) The profit margin will stay at 35% until this new product is released.
b) This product won't be announced until August 19th at the earliest.
That means if the plan is to have a 30% unit margin at the end of the quarter, they are going to have something like a 25% margin for the second half of the quarter. Now since they are reducing the margin, we know they are planning to increase the volume. This means the mystery transition cannot be a new product. No product, however cool, is going to sell over a million units in the first month. There is literally no new product that Apple could introduce that would sell enough units within the first month to lower the per unit margins by 10%. So the change must involve some existing product.
I think there are two realistic options here. First, they sell more by reducing the price of the new MacBooks and MacBook Pros. A real possibility. Second, they sell more by keeping the price the same and adding an expensive component to one of their existing products. If the margins do go down because of more expensive components, the only real options are the MBP and the iPod. The iPhone isn't in for an update, and none of the other products ship enough units to have this big of an effect on the unit margins. In terms of components, the options are basically SSD, Blueray, or DDR3 for the MB and MBP and more SSD for the iPod. Blueray and faster RAM are unlikely to generate enough excitement among the general public to increase the units shipped enough to make up for the smaller margins, unless DDR3 uses so much less power that it drastically increases battery life. This is unlikely. So almost certainly what we are looking at here is either a sharp price drop in MBs and MBPs, or else adding SSD to the MB and MBP or else adding massive amounts of SSD to the iPod touch and eliminating the other iPods.
Why is it that you only have 11 posts over the past three years, while jackasses like Rot'nApple have hundreds?
$130 does give you the full Mac OS X. These aren't the reinstall discs that ship with Macs, they're the real deal. You don't need to buy Tiger to upgrade from Panther to Leopard. You just go straight to Leopard. When Snow Leopard ships next year, Tiger users on Intel Macs won't have to first buy Leopard and then buy Snow Leopard.
Every Tiger buyer already has OSX on their Mac. When Snow Leopard ships next year, every buyer will have some previous version of OSX on their system. With normal applications it is possible that a buyer has NEVER had a previous version, and this is also possible with Windows.
As I said - it's all a matter of perspective.
I disagree. Your argument is basically that Apple hardware is not competitive. That's patently not true.
No, my argument is basically that if 1000 people like the Mac Mini, and now they have an option of a HP at the same price, some of those 1000 people are likely to get the HP instead. Conversely, it's possible that some people will get interested in the HP with OSX who never wanted Apple who might change their mind and get something Apple. But the first is more likely.
I don't know if it'll be 5 people in 1000, or 50, or 500... I suspect the number is reasonably low but I don't know. I do know that there will always be a portion of people that will take another choice, when presented.
Are you unable to read? It does not matter.
The commoditized low-profit HARDWARE MARKET should not be entered by Apple. They don't want to go there with their nice fancy hardware. No one is suggesting they should.
The important thing is the OS MARKET. There are millions of these machines being sold every week. And with each sale they send a big fat check to Microsoft.
Where is it written that this money belongs to Microsoft? Is there some hidden commandment carved on Apple's HQ which reads. "Touch ye not the revenues of Redmond"?
Eesh!
Similarly, Apple makes next to nothing on standalone Mac OS X licenses. Apple can't bundle their OS with Apple-certified third party hardware vendors because that's both illegal and nearly impossible, which is why desktop Linux distros haven't made any major headway. Microsoft is breaking the law by bundling their software, the U.S. government simply hasn't intervened. Software and hardware are treated differently by people, which is why Microsoft sees so few lawsuits about their back-door Windows software bundling while Apple is constantly having lawsuits filed against its hardware products. There's a mental disconnect between hard/tangible and soft/electronic intellectual properties.
I also was certainly not making the argument that Apple's hardware is not competitive, thus they shouldn't license out their OS to avoid being overshadowed by Mac OS X running Dells. That's crazy.
Apple makes next to nothing selling standalone Mac OS X licenses to their own generally more tech savvy Mac users, let alone trying to sell to the millions of indifferent Windows users who just want Windows to browse the internet and write emails in Outlook. Apple is shooting for the competitive consumer market that's fed up with Windows and wants something different and better.
That's why iPod touch owners bitch and moan about major software updates that iPhone users also pay over the length of their far more expensive cellular contracts. That's why millions are OK with stealing music online, but would never consider robbing a record store. People would likely steal OS X before they'd buy it, just as many steal Windows.
This is a very long shot, but could Apple secretly have an exclusive for some length of time on EEstor's hypercapacitors? ZENN Motors says they're going to have a car on sale in fall of next year; that means they have to have prototypes running around right now. Both EEstor and Apple's App Store are backed by Kleiner, Perkins; maybe they put the deal together? Of course, every story about EEstor is met with a blizzard of raving about how it can't possibly work, it's a scam, nothing but "hype," etc., etc. (Since EEstor actually says next to nothing, this is the new definition of hype that was leveled against Apple on the runup to the iPhone.)
Apple can't really keep things as secret as they used to, since now they buy the same commodity parts as everybody else, but dealing with another super-secretive outfit to come up with a product that will blindside everybody--that sounds much more like the Apple we used to know!
Transition candidates would be more plausible if they involved an innovation that could be kept a secret until just before release. One such innovation would be a chip that would give a Mac built-in, hardware-based "software metering," so that a user would be able to run software on a rental basis. This would give users inexpensive access to expensive software they would only rarely use--but that would be quite rewarding to them anyway. They'd have access to much more software than on any competing platform.
While the idea of rental software is interesting, are you saying that Fairplay is ineffective? Also... I don't think a security chip would be a substantial cost.
If Apple does allow this kind of model some day, it's not just good for rental. You could BUY something like FilemakerPro and register it to your MobileMe account - so that you can move between machines and sync your dashboard apps & taskbar - and even the actual applications themselves.
Apple's hardware has never "sucked." While they were lazy and unfocused at that time, they never lost money. The computers they made were not the junk PC clones, they were simply outdated.
http://forum.macbidouille.com/index....=post&id=24914
that would be awesome. i highly doubt that will be the september suprise. i wish though
The reason people would do as I said is because people aren't that smart. They'd look at prices and say, "well both are stamped with Apple's approval, I don't mind having a less than elegant desktop tower/laptop. I'll go with the cheap HP."
Right! There are plenty of consumers out there that don't give a sh*t about style. They're called Dell customers. These beige tin boxes that Mac fanboys love to bash have a place (a very big place, in fact) in the market.
What I've found is that consumers who use Macs fall in love with the OS. Yes, Apple's industrial design rocks. No doubt. But there are a lot of people who put computers next to their desks and don't care what they look like.
Case in point: Apple couldn't deliver a competitive price on 17" iMacs for a large lab (even using refurbed units). Yes, the purchasing authority knew we could dual purpose that lab (thus effectively double booking it) by installing bootcamp. But, Dell came in something like $300 a unit cheaper, and running Windows apps was the priority. So guess what? Dell won the bid. Even though the PA recognized the Mac was A) technically superior and
The reason it's also a transition is that people will need snow lepard to make it work.
The reason snow leapod is not going to appear much different is that the main addition will be a behind the scenes addition of touch control of the os
The reduced profit margin is to help people take up the new keyboard knowing that it will be substatially dearer than a standard keyboard and mouse
My guess at a name would be iSlate
It will also feature inkwell for written input and act as a basic graphics tablet