I'm still waking up and a bit weak at the moment. Can someone please backslap this dude with an impressive rebuttal please.
I've noticed your immature posting and ridiculous questions since you unfortunately came aboard AI last year. But seriously, what are you, twelve? Can't you discuss anything at all in a mature fashion?
I've noticed your immature posting and ridiculous questions since you unfortunately came aboard AI last year. But seriously, what are you, twelve? Can't you discuss anything at all in a mature fashion?
I've noticed your tendency to critique the quality of the posts of others as though you were the bloody Speech Police. You have about as much authority and gravitas here as Alfred E Neuman.
I've noticed your tendency to critique the quality of the posts of others as though you were the bloody Speech Police. You have about as much authority and gravitas here as Alfred E Neuman.
Hey, don't be dissing Alfred.
The article I posted made some good points. If he (or anyone else) takes issue with certain points, that's fine.
But asking for people to be "backslapped" just for posting a contrary opinion is simply rude and immature.
I've noticed your immature posting and ridiculous questions since you unfortunately came aboard AI last year. But seriously, what are you, twelve? Can't you discuss anything at all in a mature fashion?
Yes dang nabbit you have something against twelve year olds?
immature and ridiculous huh. So that means you've read everyone last one of my posts since last year right? Right.
Anyways it will be a new product or products plural. Let me have my lunch.
The article I posted made some good points. If he (or anyone else) takes issue with certain points, that's fine.
But asking for people to be "backslapped" just for posting a contrary opinion is simply rude and immature.
For da luv of gawd. Who are you people a bunch of suit and ties? No I don't literally mean for any of you to backslap anyone. *sigh*
Where are the tablet fans who have months worth of data to debate Frank. Geez! Fine I'll speak boring so there is no confusion. My boring is a bit rusty though. Where the hell is the :rollseyes: smiley.
Anyways it will be a new product or products plural.
Okay, but the article I posted specifically rebuts the idea that a new product would have any significant effect on gross margins. And gross margins was the whole reason the mystery transition was brought up in the conference call.
It's not a new product. It's increasing costs (for whatever reason) on an existing line of products.
It's so gob-smackingly obvious it's not a "new" product that it beggars belief anyone could think that it will be. It must be self delusion.
Look at what Peter Oppenheimer said. He said a "product transition" and talked about how Apple sometimes "introduce new technology at a high price, then bring the price down later" to prevent competitors being able to sell similar products at a lower price.
He was clearly talking about an existing product (containing the technology that Apple have already introduced to the market) and making it cheaper (product transition) that will result in lower margins.
The more I think about it, the more I believe this has to do with the iPod touch. It ushered in touch technology to the iPod line at a high price, and it is now time to reduce the price of the iPod touch; this will affect Apple's margins significantly because they sell a lot of iPods.
I think there's a high probablity that the iPod touch is going to come down in price and the iPod classic will be retired.
I think there's a high probablity that the iPod touch is going to come down in price and the iPod classic will be retired.
Possibly...but 32GB doesn't really cut it does it for folks that want a lot of space. I could see the classic gaining the touch interface and losing the click wheel.
$249 for iPod 8GB
$349 for iPod 16GB
$349 for iPod 160GB (hdd)
$449 for iPod 32GB
Drop the touch and classic moniker. Perhaps make the Nano touch enabled as well with the older Nano form factor as rumored.
Possibly...but 32GB doesn't really cut it does it for folks that want a lot of space. I could see the classic gaining the touch interface and losing the click wheel.
$249 for iPod 8GB
$349 for iPod 16GB
$349 for iPod 160GB (hdd)
$449 for iPod 32GB
Drop the touch and classic moniker. Perhaps make the Nano touch enabled as well with the older Nano form factor as rumored.
Yes, I should have made that clearer.
There was a debate about it a few pages back, but I reckon an HDD-based touch is technically feasible. However, I have this nagging feeling that Apple may consider 64 GB to be "enough" storage and intro a 64 GB flash-based touch as the high-end when getting rid of the classic.
What I hope will happen is something closer to what you've suggested above, except I think your flash-based prices are too high.
Ok, help us here. Tell us what it DOESN'T involve.
For instance, it doesn't involve motorola making custom chips for Apple correct?
Or, it doesn't have anything to do with motorola's recent acquisition of AirDefense and their wireless security tech correct?
Help us out here will ya?
Many Mac users associate Motorola with some of Apple's darkest days. Be assured that Apple has no intention of ever again relying on the PPC architecture as a CPU.
Once you see the transition about to take place, the response will be "that was obvious, why didn't I think of that?" At least that's how I responded. Motorola currently has industry leading areas of expertise that Apple will leverage to create a novel but seemingly inevitable leap in the performance of Mac systems. The performance leap will utilize existing Intel CPUs, and Mac OS X is already uniquely engineered to exploit this new hardware technology, which will only be marginally more costly to produce than existing systems. I don't know anything about the business/marketing side of it, but presumably Apple expects increased volume to more than compensate for lower profit margins.
I don't think the iPod classic will be dropped yet, but I do think the touch will get a price drop. It's competing against the subsidized iPhone with the same capacity at a lower price.
So, the 8GB touch drops from $299 to $199, which also forces the 8GB nano to drop from $199 to ???. Or maybe the 8GB touch drops to $249, but that's still more than the iPhone.
Okay, but the article I posted specifically rebuts the idea that a new product would have any significant effect on gross margins. And gross margins was the whole reason the mystery transition was brought up in the conference call.
It's not a new product. It's increasing costs (for whatever reason) on an existing line of products.
I'm not going to read the oppenheimer statement again or post it here. But I thought it was understood by everyone that what he was talking about that was going to effect the margins was a combination of more than one thing. One being the slashing of prices on existing products (or revisions) that would decrease margins and to put pressure on competitors. And second, to introduce new products that would reflect an increase in spending on R&D and other cost factors.
Not one thing alone but several things. It seems plain to me and others that along with product revisions there will be new products introduced. Several with Multi-Touch and hopefully (and more than likely) a tablet like device of some sort.
Well every year sees new products introduced. That's almost a given.
But the "transition" referred to in the call (that sparked this thread) refers to existing products.
Thats not been confirmed! Nothing has been confirmed. It could be a tech transition based on the PA Semi unit making a whole bunch of custom internals (no not CPUs) for all their devices.
It could be on the type of products that they normally produce. You can make your arguments but I can say with dead assurance that it will not be just a product revision alone.
But the "transition" referred to in the call (that sparked this thread) refers to existing products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olternaut
Thats not been confirmed
Sure it has. It's very simple. How can the words "product transition" involving "technology" already introduced to the market by Apple at a high price being reduced in price possibly refer to an entirely new product? Peter said that the "new" product will continue to have technology that competitors can't match. A brand new product cannot continue to have something from before, because "before" doesn't exist for a brand new product.
Peter said that the "new" product will continue to have technology that competitors can't match. A brand new product cannot continue to have something from before, because "before" doesn't exist for a brand new product.
Actually, a brand new product can easily "continue" to have technology that competitors can't match. At that logical level we're vague enough to mean many things.
(eg: if they said "Apple will continue to release amazing products", that doesn't mean the next amazing product isn't entirely new)
But in general I agree that transition will mean a transition to existing products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olternaut
Thats not been confirmed! Nothing has been confirmed. It could be a tech transition based on the PA Semi unit making a whole bunch of custom internals (no not CPUs) for all their devices.
It could be on the type of products that they normally produce. You can make your arguments but I can say with dead assurance that it will not be just a product revision alone.
I personally rule out custom internals unless they make a change that competitors can't match... and simply faster doesn't do that for me. However, a tablet could be a transition from an iPod Touch (ie: bigger + pen input options), rather than a new type of Mac.
Actually, a brand new product can easily "continue" to have technology that competitors can't match. At that logical level we're vague enough to mean many things.
(eg: if they said "Apple will continue to release amazing products", that doesn't mean the next amazing product isn't entirely new)
They didn't say Apple will continue to have technology others can't match, they said the product would continue to have technology others can't match. A brand new product cannot "continue" to have anything because it has no past from which to continue.
Comments
Well I'm thinking Moto sucks.
I guessing it has something to do with the former Moto exec at Apple, or Apple is buying something of Moto, or possibly the whole company.
What could Motorola possibly have that Apple would be remotely interested in buying or using.
Those fuckwits are dead in the water.
Here's a great read on why this isn't a Tablet, xMac or any new product.
The "technology transition" refers to upgrading existing products with more expensive components.
As the article says, this could be referring to the placement of BR drives across the line.
Or maybe moving the MacBook line to 15" screens (my favourite).
What it isn't is some whiz bang new gadget. Guaranteed.
I'm still waking up and a bit weak at the moment. Can someone please backslap this dude with an impressive rebuttal please.
I'm still waking up and a bit weak at the moment. Can someone please backslap this dude with an impressive rebuttal please.
I've noticed your immature posting and ridiculous questions since you unfortunately came aboard AI last year. But seriously, what are you, twelve? Can't you discuss anything at all in a mature fashion?
I've noticed your immature posting and ridiculous questions since you unfortunately came aboard AI last year. But seriously, what are you, twelve? Can't you discuss anything at all in a mature fashion?
I've noticed your tendency to critique the quality of the posts of others as though you were the bloody Speech Police. You have about as much authority and gravitas here as Alfred E Neuman.
I've noticed your tendency to critique the quality of the posts of others as though you were the bloody Speech Police. You have about as much authority and gravitas here as Alfred E Neuman.
Hey, don't be dissing Alfred.
The article I posted made some good points. If he (or anyone else) takes issue with certain points, that's fine.
But asking for people to be "backslapped" just for posting a contrary opinion is simply rude and immature.
I've noticed your immature posting and ridiculous questions since you unfortunately came aboard AI last year. But seriously, what are you, twelve? Can't you discuss anything at all in a mature fashion?
Yes dang nabbit you have something against twelve year olds?
immature and ridiculous huh. So that means you've read everyone last one of my posts since last year right? Right.
Anyways it will be a new product or products plural. Let me have my lunch.
Hey, don't be dissing Alfred.
The article I posted made some good points. If he (or anyone else) takes issue with certain points, that's fine.
But asking for people to be "backslapped" just for posting a contrary opinion is simply rude and immature.
For da luv of gawd. Who are you people a bunch of suit and ties? No I don't literally mean for any of you to backslap anyone. *sigh*
Where are the tablet fans who have months worth of data to debate Frank. Geez! Fine I'll speak boring so there is no confusion. My boring is a bit rusty though. Where the hell is the :rollseyes: smiley.
Anyways it will be a new product or products plural.
Okay, but the article I posted specifically rebuts the idea that a new product would have any significant effect on gross margins. And gross margins was the whole reason the mystery transition was brought up in the conference call.
It's not a new product. It's increasing costs (for whatever reason) on an existing line of products.
It's so gob-smackingly obvious it's not a "new" product that it beggars belief anyone could think that it will be. It must be self delusion.
Look at what Peter Oppenheimer said. He said a "product transition" and talked about how Apple sometimes "introduce new technology at a high price, then bring the price down later" to prevent competitors being able to sell similar products at a lower price.
He was clearly talking about an existing product (containing the technology that Apple have already introduced to the market) and making it cheaper (product transition) that will result in lower margins.
The more I think about it, the more I believe this has to do with the iPod touch. It ushered in touch technology to the iPod line at a high price, and it is now time to reduce the price of the iPod touch; this will affect Apple's margins significantly because they sell a lot of iPods.
I think there's a high probablity that the iPod touch is going to come down in price and the iPod classic will be retired.
I think there's a high probablity that the iPod touch is going to come down in price and the iPod classic will be retired.
Possibly...but 32GB doesn't really cut it does it for folks that want a lot of space. I could see the classic gaining the touch interface and losing the click wheel.
$249 for iPod 8GB
$349 for iPod 16GB
$349 for iPod 160GB (hdd)
$449 for iPod 32GB
Drop the touch and classic moniker. Perhaps make the Nano touch enabled as well with the older Nano form factor as rumored.
Possibly...but 32GB doesn't really cut it does it for folks that want a lot of space. I could see the classic gaining the touch interface and losing the click wheel.
$249 for iPod 8GB
$349 for iPod 16GB
$349 for iPod 160GB (hdd)
$449 for iPod 32GB
Drop the touch and classic moniker. Perhaps make the Nano touch enabled as well with the older Nano form factor as rumored.
Yes, I should have made that clearer.
There was a debate about it a few pages back, but I reckon an HDD-based touch is technically feasible. However, I have this nagging feeling that Apple may consider 64 GB to be "enough" storage and intro a 64 GB flash-based touch as the high-end when getting rid of the classic.
What I hope will happen is something closer to what you've suggested above, except I think your flash-based prices are too high.
Ok, help us here. Tell us what it DOESN'T involve.
For instance, it doesn't involve motorola making custom chips for Apple correct?
Or, it doesn't have anything to do with motorola's recent acquisition of AirDefense and their wireless security tech correct?
Help us out here will ya?
Many Mac users associate Motorola with some of Apple's darkest days. Be assured that Apple has no intention of ever again relying on the PPC architecture as a CPU.
Once you see the transition about to take place, the response will be "that was obvious, why didn't I think of that?" At least that's how I responded. Motorola currently has industry leading areas of expertise that Apple will leverage to create a novel but seemingly inevitable leap in the performance of Mac systems. The performance leap will utilize existing Intel CPUs, and Mac OS X is already uniquely engineered to exploit this new hardware technology, which will only be marginally more costly to produce than existing systems. I don't know anything about the business/marketing side of it, but presumably Apple expects increased volume to more than compensate for lower profit margins.
So, the 8GB touch drops from $299 to $199, which also forces the 8GB nano to drop from $199 to ???. Or maybe the 8GB touch drops to $249, but that's still more than the iPhone.
Okay, but the article I posted specifically rebuts the idea that a new product would have any significant effect on gross margins. And gross margins was the whole reason the mystery transition was brought up in the conference call.
It's not a new product. It's increasing costs (for whatever reason) on an existing line of products.
I'm not going to read the oppenheimer statement again or post it here. But I thought it was understood by everyone that what he was talking about that was going to effect the margins was a combination of more than one thing. One being the slashing of prices on existing products (or revisions) that would decrease margins and to put pressure on competitors. And second, to introduce new products that would reflect an increase in spending on R&D and other cost factors.
Not one thing alone but several things. It seems plain to me and others that along with product revisions there will be new products introduced. Several with Multi-Touch and hopefully (and more than likely) a tablet like device of some sort.
But the "transition" referred to in the call (that sparked this thread) refers to existing products.
Well every year sees new products introduced. That's almost a given.
But the "transition" referred to in the call (that sparked this thread) refers to existing products.
Thats not been confirmed! Nothing has been confirmed. It could be a tech transition based on the PA Semi unit making a whole bunch of custom internals (no not CPUs) for all their devices.
It could be on the type of products that they normally produce. You can make your arguments but I can say with dead assurance that it will not be just a product revision alone.
But the "transition" referred to in the call (that sparked this thread) refers to existing products.
Thats not been confirmed
Sure it has. It's very simple. How can the words "product transition" involving "technology" already introduced to the market by Apple at a high price being reduced in price possibly refer to an entirely new product? Peter said that the "new" product will continue to have technology that competitors can't match. A brand new product cannot continue to have something from before, because "before" doesn't exist for a brand new product.
Peter said that the "new" product will continue to have technology that competitors can't match. A brand new product cannot continue to have something from before, because "before" doesn't exist for a brand new product.
Actually, a brand new product can easily "continue" to have technology that competitors can't match. At that logical level we're vague enough to mean many things.
(eg: if they said "Apple will continue to release amazing products", that doesn't mean the next amazing product isn't entirely new)
But in general I agree that transition will mean a transition to existing products.
Thats not been confirmed! Nothing has been confirmed. It could be a tech transition based on the PA Semi unit making a whole bunch of custom internals (no not CPUs) for all their devices.
It could be on the type of products that they normally produce. You can make your arguments but I can say with dead assurance that it will not be just a product revision alone.
I personally rule out custom internals unless they make a change that competitors can't match... and simply faster doesn't do that for me. However, a tablet could be a transition from an iPod Touch (ie: bigger + pen input options), rather than a new type of Mac.
Actually, a brand new product can easily "continue" to have technology that competitors can't match. At that logical level we're vague enough to mean many things.
(eg: if they said "Apple will continue to release amazing products", that doesn't mean the next amazing product isn't entirely new)