If Mac sales are being held back by the lack of even more Windows compatibility then OS X should be abandoned. Because after all - according to Meelah - Apple is a hardware company.
No, you're wrong, I never said that. I said Apple makes their money off of hardware, not that they're a hardware company. They use cheap/free software to differentiate their package and get people to buy the hardware+software package. They sell computers as a complete appliance, not as individual components, but the majority of their profit margins comes from the hardware sale.
You seem to be arguing with yourself, because you've obviously missed the point completely.
OS X needs to attract more developers, not less. And that means it's far more important to get OS X programs onto more PCs -than get Windows programs running on Macs.
OS X needs to be installed on more computers than the handful of boutique lines that Apple sells.
Dissatisfaction in Vista, plagues of Windows worms and a stagnating PC desktop market are all reasons for Apple to undertake an aggressive OS land-grab.
C.
This is how it works:
More software on OS X--> More people can switch --> People buy Mac hardware --> Apple makes money.
You are proposing to cut the third link in the chain, in order to make the first link stronger? Okay, maybe it would work (ignoring all of the other reasons everyone has already mentioned and you consistently ignore), but their still is no link between 1 and 4 without drastically changing Apple's business model to something like MS's (which is by the way laying off $5000 because of poor profits on their OS sales. hmmmm......
It benefits developers more than it benefits Apple. Apple will only profit if computer buyers switch to Mac. And with YellowBox - it could argued that the reason to switch is a bit less.
Perhaps if Apple opened an AppStore and this included Windows executables. It might generate a revenue.
Apple has this funny thing called patience. Also long term vision. Bringing new developers into the fold will undoubtedly sell more hardware, which is not so much of a revenue stream because developers are not as numerous as consumers.
However, where Apple will cash in is in their service-based model called the Apple Developer Connection. If they double or triple their developer numbers over the next five years, with each of these developers paying a subscription of $1500 PER YEAR (which is almost entirely profit since Apple develops XCode on it's own anyway), that will be some serious cash coming their way.
Additionally, Apple fostering a happy and healthy developer community will pay off for them in other ways, such as having a much more broad availability of quality applications, creating it's own Halo effect, which will bring many more consumers into the fold.
Programs like Papers and others are almost single-handedly making switchers. If we had another dozen or so killer-apps in new markets Apple will reap serious benefits.
The current maturity of OS X is such that YellowBox is now done (again e.g. iTunes and Safari running on Windows) and it will be minimal effort for them to integrate it into XCode proper for all developers, while also not cannibalizing their other revenue streams or endangering their current business model(s).
What Apple needs to do is make it easier for people to be able to justify purchase of their hardware. WebKit is one example where, by Apple making it easy for developers to take advantage of their efforts, Apple has repositioned itself as the leader of mobile web browsing.
what Apple will do, what the "big" thing is that will jaw drop your socks off is open up their ability to seamlessly deliver any and all Xcode applications to Windows for all OS X Developers.
This can't be done because the libraries have to be installed before the apps will run on Windows. For example, apps that depend on Core Image don't have these libraries bundled with each application. This means that people would be distributing apps that won't work unless users install the libraries required for the app to run.
They also have to keep them updated, Apple does this by bundling them with OS updates. They can't do this sort of thing on Windows as reliably.
Plus this means that Windows users may get access to apps that were previously Mac-only and therefore a selling point for the platform. Exclusive software is one of Apple's biggest selling points as meelash points out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
The biggest deterrent to Mac development isn't the API.
It's the market share.
I think both are problems. As I say, it's an effort/reward ratio. What's the sense in putting in so much effort to maintain 2 code-bases and learn a new development environment (it doesn't take an afternoon to completely change the way you write code) for such a small target market?
If they remove all or most of the effort it takes to port code (as evidenced by Cider for porting games), companies are more willing to bring apps to the Mac, even if they are done in a way that isn't a true port. At least the software can be used under OS X.
This compatibility layer needs to be made otherwise it badly affects the viability of using OS X in certain lines of work. One is games development (no 3DS Max), another is architecture (no AutoCAD), another is finance (no Quickbooks for certain countries - the UK being one of them).
This can't be done because the libraries have to be installed before the apps will run on Windows. For example, apps that depend on Core Image don't have these libraries bundled with each application. This means that people would be distributing apps that won't work unless users install the libraries required for the app to run.
They also have to keep them updated, Apple does this by bundling them with OS updates. They can't do this sort of thing on Windows as reliably.
Plus this means that Windows users may get access to apps that were previously Mac-only and therefore a selling point for the platform. Exclusive software is one of Apple's biggest selling points as meelash points out.
There's no technical reason this couldn't be done. As Apple updates the library, the developer will just update Xcode and rebuild the app and automagically have an app with updated libraries.
Apple does this kind of thing with their own software. Just checking another box for the target to be a Windows application will bundle an .exe with all required libraries. This is how iTunes and Safari work on Windows. It may add bloat to each software but hard drives are much cheaper/GB now. If this is really a problem as you posit then Apple could release a core runtime of libraries that would enable all of these YellowBox apps to run. It's called quicktime. It's why you have to install quicktime when you install iTunes and Safari on Windows.
... without drastically changing Apple's business model to something like MS's (which is by the way laying off $5000 because of poor profits on their OS sales. hmmmm......
I'd rather Apple have a business model like Microsoft (software) than a business model like Dell (hardware). Why? Because Microsoft makes more money on a typical Dell sale, than Dell does.
Desktop computer sales are flatlining. Computer hardware manufacture is largely a commodity business with nosediving profits.
Apple plays against this smartly by having great software and design, which add value to their computers and create a much bigger margin.
BUT.
That super-high margin turns Mac into a niche product; A premium brand for discerning consumers. The very mechanism that is keeping Apple's profit margin high - is creating a price ghetto which keeps their market-share low.
That low market share does not harm their hardware business. But it does undermine the viability of the OS X software platform. And its attractiveness to developers.
Apple is Lexus - but could grow more profitable by becoming Toyota Lexus. Yes, retain the boutique hardware, but go head to head with Microsoft by letting the Leopard off the leash.
Apple is Lexus - but could grow more profitable by becoming Toyota Lexus. Yes, retain the boutique hardware, but go head to head with Microsoft by letting the Leopard off the leash.
C.
I don't buy that argument, because Apple is at 8% market share and already has 25% of the cash flow of Microsoft.
Ireland has gone missing. It is because we hit the nail on the head? What is he to say?
Good intel not only works on existing pieces of data but on missing pieces of data. Since Ireland has gone missing, I think we are onto something...
A company with hardware and OS but no apps goes no where. But Apple has plenty of apps so actually they don't need hardware. Still, they will keep it though for breaking in cutting edge technology.
I think Apple should license OS X for PCs. It will effect their bottom line in the short term but open up their revenue long term. This is the transition they warned us about.
That combined with iWork for cheap (or at least no copy protection) and Snow Leopard running Windows natively without needing Parallels or its equivalent, will kill MS. Exchange support too will pull people away from MS.
Apple will then market Snow Leopard as "A Leopard that can change its spots!" I could also see Snow in reference to "Hell freezing over". So much for Snow Leopard having no new features.
More software on OS X--> More people can switch --> People buy Mac hardware --> Apple makes money.
So...err....
More WINDOWS software on OS X --> (even less reason to write OS X software) --> No reason to switch at all. If you love Windows so frikkin much just buy a frikkin Dell ---> People buy PC hardware instead ---> Apple loses money.
I'm not sold on the need for Yellow Box on OSX, but I think people are taking the threat of Windows API compatibility too seriously.
Any move by Apple to use Windows APIs would certainly see Windows apps running in their own box or 'lesser window environment', making Cocoa apps look and feel far superior.
The OS would almost certainly sense which Windows apps were being used, and tie that information into an App Store, offering suggestions for buying similar Mac-native software at significantly reduced prices.
Mac developers would have fun beating their Windows counterparts into the ground.
I don't buy that argument, because Apple is at 8% market share and already has 25% of the cash flow of Microsoft.
Yes, Apple punches above its weight - but you are comparing Apples to Lemons here.
Apart from the 360 - MS is basically a pure software business. Not a Hardware/Software/Music/Phone business.
For the comparison to be valid you should probably remove Apple's music and phone revenues.
And also remove the computer hardware sales too. Microsoft does not sell a lot of hardware.
Just for a moment forget those other businesses and look at the OS business. For every single PC sold on the planet - MS makes around $170 OEM profit. That's more profit than the poor computer manufacturer makes. If just 10% of those computers were sold with OS X instead - OS X would double its market share.
And the OS X revenue does not stop there. Apple is great at getting customers to pay for near annual...
Yes, Apple punches above its weight - but you are comparing Apples to Lemons here.
Apart from the 360 - MS is basically a pure software business. Not a Hardware/Software/Music/Phone business.
For the comparison to be valid you should probably remove Apple's music and phone revenues.
And also remove the computer hardware sales too. Microsoft does not sell a lot of hardware.
Focus entirely on the OS business. For every single PC sold on the planet - MS makes around $170 OEM profit. That's more profit than the poor computer manufacturer makes. If just 10% of those computers were sold with OS X instead - OS X would double its market share.
C.
That's because MS makes far more money on Office than Windows. Apple, nor anyone else, has anything that would topple the Office empire. People forget that Office is really the crown jewel of Microsoft and probably why an OS X version exists.
Last I recall, the OEM price of Windows was around $50 and not many people buy upgrades.
If Apple has all the source code for Windows, then wouldn't it have the ability to probe the source code for flaws? They could then create viruses to hack away at MS. Or just give a bunch of hackers the source code and they would gladly do the dirty work. Apple doesn't even have to reveal it was them behind the leak. Maybe that is why Windows is such a security nightmare.
Apple would also have the ability to refine Windows to run more efficiently and faster. Thus, their version of Windows could actually run better then that from MS. That would be an incentive to use Apple's Windows rather then Microsoft's.
If Apple had OS X take advantage of the GPU and multiple CPUs and it offered significant speed increases, then that is a big reason why people would want to run OS X native apps.
If Apple then created developer tools to develop apps for Mac, Windows, and the iPhone, then everybody would want to use their tools. The app would then truly be an universal app.
If Apple has all the source code for Windows, then wouldn't it have the ability to probe the source code for flaws? They could then create viruses to hack away at MS. Or just give a bunch of hackers the source code and they would gladly do the dirty work. Apple doesn't even have to reveal it was them behind the leak. Maybe that is why Windows is such a security nightmare.
*facepalm*
Yes, because that wouldn't draw a single law enforcement officer or lawyer after them, would it?
Nope, no risk there at all, nosiree...
Quote:
Apple would also have the ability to refine Windows to run more efficiently and faster. Thus, their version of Windows could actually run better then that from MS. That would be an incentive to use Apple's Windows rather then Microsoft's.
I'm nearly 100% that the cross-licensing was for the IP, not the copyright. ie, they had access to the API, not the source code. Big gulf of a difference between the two.
Quote:
If Apple had OS X take advantage of the GPU and multiple CPUs and it offered significant speed increases, then that is a big reason why people would want to run OS X native apps.
If Apple then created developer tools to develop apps for Mac, Windows, and the iPhone, then everybody would want to use their tools. The app would then truly be an universal app.
Just some thoughts...
The last two... not bad. Not that I think it'll *happen*, but...
There's no reason to think it's anything really as no one has provided any information that's believable or meaningful beyond the realm of 'it will rain somewhere in the world today'. The concept that Apple will produce software in the future is pretty much a certainty.
What you are seeing above are suggestions of what software Apple could deliver that would be quite useful. Hardware stuff has been covered so many times before (tablet etc) that it's getting tiresome rambling about it over and over. It's ok talking about hardware and then have Apple deliver something but to wait month after month and still no Mac Mini update, well what's the point? It's way past time for Apple to deliver something.
Yes, Apple punches above its weight - but you are comparing Apples to Lemons here.
Apart from the 360 - MS is basically a pure software business. Not a Hardware/Software/Music/Phone business.
For the comparison to be valid you should probably remove Apple's music and phone revenues.
And also remove the computer hardware sales too. Microsoft does not sell a lot of hardware.
Just for a moment forget those other businesses and look at the OS business. For every single PC sold on the planet - MS makes around $170 OEM profit. That's more profit than the poor computer manufacturer makes. If just 10% of those computers were sold with OS X instead - OS X would double its market share.
And the OS X revenue does not stop there. Apple is great at getting customers to pay for near annual...
Mobile Me accounts
OS Updates
iLife Updates
iWork Updates
C.
You just proved what all of us have been saying for three pages now! Your logic is that Apple makes much more profit than MS because MS doesn't sell the hardware. Subtract the hardware and Apple is doing worse than MS.. But that also proves that the hardware has much higher profit margins. Why in God's name would Apple want to " remove Apple's music and phone revenues. And also remove the computer hardware sales too" to get *down* to Microsoft's level when they can obviously do much better financially, and at the same time satisfy their loyal customers more with their current business model.
"If just 10% of those computers were sold with OS X instead - OS X would double its market share." But since MS has 9 times OS X's marketshare and make much less profit, how would that be a good thing if it came at the expense of Mac hardware sales?
It's way past time for Apple to deliver something.
Amen!
I've been watching a few old MacWorld keynotes on YouTube today and it is interesting to listen to Jobs alluding to all the cool new products they are working on - many years ago.
So what were they? These cool products alluded to in 2004 or 2007?
The last cool product I can think of is the first gen iPhone.
And to a lesser extent the MacBook Air and now the unibody 13" MacBook.
Everything else was pretty much standardware or follow-up products of existing producs like the PowerMac G5 (for the Mac Pro) or new products like the iPhone (for the iPod touch).
What it shows is that the reality is quite different to what Jobs announced - or expected to announce. Perhaps many great ideas at the time never turned into real products.
So I'm kind of weary of people hyping great future Apple products.
Apple is not that revolutionary. They are a lot more conservative than people think.
On this 25th Mac anniversary I am open to expect the successor to the iMac, which itself was the true successor to the first Macintosh.
The next personal all-in-one computer is probably more akin to an Internet tablet/netbook/external-screen-dockable iPod.
Comments
If Mac sales are being held back by the lack of even more Windows compatibility then OS X should be abandoned. Because after all - according to Meelah - Apple is a hardware company.
No, you're wrong, I never said that. I said Apple makes their money off of hardware, not that they're a hardware company. They use cheap/free software to differentiate their package and get people to buy the hardware+software package. They sell computers as a complete appliance, not as individual components, but the majority of their profit margins comes from the hardware sale.
You seem to be arguing with yourself, because you've obviously missed the point completely.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1925239,00.asp
Seriously? You quoted John Dvorak? Dear God.
OS X needs to attract more developers, not less. And that means it's far more important to get OS X programs onto more PCs -than get Windows programs running on Macs.
OS X needs to be installed on more computers than the handful of boutique lines that Apple sells.
Dissatisfaction in Vista, plagues of Windows worms and a stagnating PC desktop market are all reasons for Apple to undertake an aggressive OS land-grab.
C.
This is how it works:
More software on OS X--> More people can switch --> People buy Mac hardware --> Apple makes money.
You are proposing to cut the third link in the chain, in order to make the first link stronger? Okay, maybe it would work (ignoring all of the other reasons everyone has already mentioned and you consistently ignore), but their still is no link between 1 and 4 without drastically changing Apple's business model to something like MS's (which is by the way laying off $5000 because of poor profits on their OS sales. hmmmm......
It benefits developers more than it benefits Apple. Apple will only profit if computer buyers switch to Mac. And with YellowBox - it could argued that the reason to switch is a bit less.
Perhaps if Apple opened an AppStore and this included Windows executables. It might generate a revenue.
Apple has this funny thing called patience. Also long term vision. Bringing new developers into the fold will undoubtedly sell more hardware, which is not so much of a revenue stream because developers are not as numerous as consumers.
However, where Apple will cash in is in their service-based model called the Apple Developer Connection. If they double or triple their developer numbers over the next five years, with each of these developers paying a subscription of $1500 PER YEAR (which is almost entirely profit since Apple develops XCode on it's own anyway), that will be some serious cash coming their way.
Additionally, Apple fostering a happy and healthy developer community will pay off for them in other ways, such as having a much more broad availability of quality applications, creating it's own Halo effect, which will bring many more consumers into the fold.
Programs like Papers and others are almost single-handedly making switchers. If we had another dozen or so killer-apps in new markets Apple will reap serious benefits.
The current maturity of OS X is such that YellowBox is now done (again e.g. iTunes and Safari running on Windows) and it will be minimal effort for them to integrate it into XCode proper for all developers, while also not cannibalizing their other revenue streams or endangering their current business model(s).
What Apple needs to do is make it easier for people to be able to justify purchase of their hardware. WebKit is one example where, by Apple making it easy for developers to take advantage of their efforts, Apple has repositioned itself as the leader of mobile web browsing.
what Apple will do, what the "big" thing is that will jaw drop your socks off is open up their ability to seamlessly deliver any and all Xcode applications to Windows for all OS X Developers.
This can't be done because the libraries have to be installed before the apps will run on Windows. For example, apps that depend on Core Image don't have these libraries bundled with each application. This means that people would be distributing apps that won't work unless users install the libraries required for the app to run.
They also have to keep them updated, Apple does this by bundling them with OS updates. They can't do this sort of thing on Windows as reliably.
Plus this means that Windows users may get access to apps that were previously Mac-only and therefore a selling point for the platform. Exclusive software is one of Apple's biggest selling points as meelash points out.
The biggest deterrent to Mac development isn't the API.
It's the market share.
I think both are problems. As I say, it's an effort/reward ratio. What's the sense in putting in so much effort to maintain 2 code-bases and learn a new development environment (it doesn't take an afternoon to completely change the way you write code) for such a small target market?
If they remove all or most of the effort it takes to port code (as evidenced by Cider for porting games), companies are more willing to bring apps to the Mac, even if they are done in a way that isn't a true port. At least the software can be used under OS X.
This compatibility layer needs to be made otherwise it badly affects the viability of using OS X in certain lines of work. One is games development (no 3DS Max), another is architecture (no AutoCAD), another is finance (no Quickbooks for certain countries - the UK being one of them).
This can't be done because the libraries have to be installed before the apps will run on Windows. For example, apps that depend on Core Image don't have these libraries bundled with each application. This means that people would be distributing apps that won't work unless users install the libraries required for the app to run.
They also have to keep them updated, Apple does this by bundling them with OS updates. They can't do this sort of thing on Windows as reliably.
Plus this means that Windows users may get access to apps that were previously Mac-only and therefore a selling point for the platform. Exclusive software is one of Apple's biggest selling points as meelash points out.
There's no technical reason this couldn't be done. As Apple updates the library, the developer will just update Xcode and rebuild the app and automagically have an app with updated libraries.
Apple does this kind of thing with their own software. Just checking another box for the target to be a Windows application will bundle an .exe with all required libraries. This is how iTunes and Safari work on Windows. It may add bloat to each software but hard drives are much cheaper/GB now. If this is really a problem as you posit then Apple could release a core runtime of libraries that would enable all of these YellowBox apps to run. It's called quicktime. It's why you have to install quicktime when you install iTunes and Safari on Windows.
The all new Mac OS X - compatible with 99% of all know Windows Viruses.
C.
... without drastically changing Apple's business model to something like MS's (which is by the way laying off $5000 because of poor profits on their OS sales. hmmmm......
I'd rather Apple have a business model like Microsoft (software) than a business model like Dell (hardware). Why? Because Microsoft makes more money on a typical Dell sale, than Dell does.
Desktop computer sales are flatlining. Computer hardware manufacture is largely a commodity business with nosediving profits.
Apple plays against this smartly by having great software and design, which add value to their computers and create a much bigger margin.
BUT.
That super-high margin turns Mac into a niche product; A premium brand for discerning consumers. The very mechanism that is keeping Apple's profit margin high - is creating a price ghetto which keeps their market-share low.
That low market share does not harm their hardware business. But it does undermine the viability of the OS X software platform. And its attractiveness to developers.
Apple is Lexus - but could grow more profitable by becoming Toyota Lexus. Yes, retain the boutique hardware, but go head to head with Microsoft by letting the Leopard off the leash.
C.
Apple is Lexus - but could grow more profitable by becoming Toyota Lexus. Yes, retain the boutique hardware, but go head to head with Microsoft by letting the Leopard off the leash.
C.
I don't buy that argument, because Apple is at 8% market share and already has 25% of the cash flow of Microsoft.
Good intel not only works on existing pieces of data but on missing pieces of data. Since Ireland has gone missing, I think we are onto something...
A company with hardware and OS but no apps goes no where. But Apple has plenty of apps so actually they don't need hardware. Still, they will keep it though for breaking in cutting edge technology.
I think Apple should license OS X for PCs. It will effect their bottom line in the short term but open up their revenue long term. This is the transition they warned us about.
That combined with iWork for cheap (or at least no copy protection) and Snow Leopard running Windows natively without needing Parallels or its equivalent, will kill MS. Exchange support too will pull people away from MS.
Apple will then market Snow Leopard as "A Leopard that can change its spots!" I could also see Snow in reference to "Hell freezing over". So much for Snow Leopard having no new features.
Ireland has gone missing. It is because we hit the nail on the head? What is he to say?
Jobs sent the goon squad after him.
This is how it works:
More software on OS X--> More people can switch --> People buy Mac hardware --> Apple makes money.
So...err....
More WINDOWS software on OS X --> (even less reason to write OS X software) --> No reason to switch at all. If you love Windows so frikkin much just buy a frikkin Dell ---> People buy PC hardware instead ---> Apple loses money.
C.
Any move by Apple to use Windows APIs would certainly see Windows apps running in their own box or 'lesser window environment', making Cocoa apps look and feel far superior.
The OS would almost certainly sense which Windows apps were being used, and tie that information into an App Store, offering suggestions for buying similar Mac-native software at significantly reduced prices.
Mac developers would have fun beating their Windows counterparts into the ground.
I don't buy that argument, because Apple is at 8% market share and already has 25% of the cash flow of Microsoft.
Yes, Apple punches above its weight - but you are comparing Apples to Lemons here.
Apart from the 360 - MS is basically a pure software business. Not a Hardware/Software/Music/Phone business.
For the comparison to be valid you should probably remove Apple's music and phone revenues.
And also remove the computer hardware sales too. Microsoft does not sell a lot of hardware.
Just for a moment forget those other businesses and look at the OS business. For every single PC sold on the planet - MS makes around $170 OEM profit. That's more profit than the poor computer manufacturer makes. If just 10% of those computers were sold with OS X instead - OS X would double its market share.
And the OS X revenue does not stop there. Apple is great at getting customers to pay for near annual...
Mobile Me accounts
OS Updates
iLife Updates
iWork Updates
C.
Yes, Apple punches above its weight - but you are comparing Apples to Lemons here.
Apart from the 360 - MS is basically a pure software business. Not a Hardware/Software/Music/Phone business.
For the comparison to be valid you should probably remove Apple's music and phone revenues.
And also remove the computer hardware sales too. Microsoft does not sell a lot of hardware.
Focus entirely on the OS business. For every single PC sold on the planet - MS makes around $170 OEM profit. That's more profit than the poor computer manufacturer makes. If just 10% of those computers were sold with OS X instead - OS X would double its market share.
C.
That's because MS makes far more money on Office than Windows. Apple, nor anyone else, has anything that would topple the Office empire. People forget that Office is really the crown jewel of Microsoft and probably why an OS X version exists.
Last I recall, the OEM price of Windows was around $50 and not many people buy upgrades.
Apple would also have the ability to refine Windows to run more efficiently and faster. Thus, their version of Windows could actually run better then that from MS. That would be an incentive to use Apple's Windows rather then Microsoft's.
If Apple had OS X take advantage of the GPU and multiple CPUs and it offered significant speed increases, then that is a big reason why people would want to run OS X native apps.
If Apple then created developer tools to develop apps for Mac, Windows, and the iPhone, then everybody would want to use their tools. The app would then truly be an universal app.
Just some thoughts...
If Apple has all the source code for Windows, then wouldn't it have the ability to probe the source code for flaws? They could then create viruses to hack away at MS. Or just give a bunch of hackers the source code and they would gladly do the dirty work. Apple doesn't even have to reveal it was them behind the leak. Maybe that is why Windows is such a security nightmare.
*facepalm*
Yes, because that wouldn't draw a single law enforcement officer or lawyer after them, would it?
Nope, no risk there at all, nosiree...
Apple would also have the ability to refine Windows to run more efficiently and faster. Thus, their version of Windows could actually run better then that from MS. That would be an incentive to use Apple's Windows rather then Microsoft's.
I'm nearly 100% that the cross-licensing was for the IP, not the copyright. ie, they had access to the API, not the source code. Big gulf of a difference between the two.
If Apple had OS X take advantage of the GPU and multiple CPUs and it offered significant speed increases, then that is a big reason why people would want to run OS X native apps.
If Apple then created developer tools to develop apps for Mac, Windows, and the iPhone, then everybody would want to use their tools. The app would then truly be an universal app.
Just some thoughts...
The last two... not bad. Not that I think it'll *happen*, but...
Did somebody say it would be new software?
There's no reason to think it's anything really as no one has provided any information that's believable or meaningful beyond the realm of 'it will rain somewhere in the world today'. The concept that Apple will produce software in the future is pretty much a certainty.
What you are seeing above are suggestions of what software Apple could deliver that would be quite useful. Hardware stuff has been covered so many times before (tablet etc) that it's getting tiresome rambling about it over and over. It's ok talking about hardware and then have Apple deliver something but to wait month after month and still no Mac Mini update, well what's the point? It's way past time for Apple to deliver something.
Yes, Apple punches above its weight - but you are comparing Apples to Lemons here.
Apart from the 360 - MS is basically a pure software business. Not a Hardware/Software/Music/Phone business.
For the comparison to be valid you should probably remove Apple's music and phone revenues.
And also remove the computer hardware sales too. Microsoft does not sell a lot of hardware.
Just for a moment forget those other businesses and look at the OS business. For every single PC sold on the planet - MS makes around $170 OEM profit. That's more profit than the poor computer manufacturer makes. If just 10% of those computers were sold with OS X instead - OS X would double its market share.
And the OS X revenue does not stop there. Apple is great at getting customers to pay for near annual...
Mobile Me accounts
OS Updates
iLife Updates
iWork Updates
C.
"If just 10% of those computers were sold with OS X instead - OS X would double its market share." But since MS has 9 times OS X's marketshare and make much less profit, how would that be a good thing if it came at the expense of Mac hardware sales?
It's way past time for Apple to deliver something.
Amen!
I've been watching a few old MacWorld keynotes on YouTube today and it is interesting to listen to Jobs alluding to all the cool new products they are working on - many years ago.
So what were they? These cool products alluded to in 2004 or 2007?
The last cool product I can think of is the first gen iPhone.
And to a lesser extent the MacBook Air and now the unibody 13" MacBook.
Everything else was pretty much standardware or follow-up products of existing producs like the PowerMac G5 (for the Mac Pro) or new products like the iPhone (for the iPod touch).
What it shows is that the reality is quite different to what Jobs announced - or expected to announce. Perhaps many great ideas at the time never turned into real products.
So I'm kind of weary of people hyping great future Apple products.
Apple is not that revolutionary. They are a lot more conservative than people think.
On this 25th Mac anniversary I am open to expect the successor to the iMac, which itself was the true successor to the first Macintosh.
The next personal all-in-one computer is probably more akin to an Internet tablet/netbook/external-screen-dockable iPod.
Wake me up when it arrives...