If they release a netbook-class product running OS X, people will load desktop software on it and complain about performance/battery/ui/etc. It sets up expectations (laptop-class experience) that technology can't (yet) deliver on.
If it's more like an overgrown iPod touch, apps will be designed to the interface and the hardware and it will result in a far superior user experience. The expectation will be that it can do the sorts of things an iPod Touch can do, with a bigger screen.
In my opinion, the best netbook is a netbook sized tablet. Get rid of the keyboard and make the thing smaller and lighter. It is "net book" after all and trying to write an essay using that small keyboard is not better than writing it on a touch keyboard. However, it will probably have a learning curve and will increase whining volume on many internet forums. I just hope Apple don't follow MS in including a starters OS.
Well there's no way the half that aren't free can average $1, since that's the lowest price. Probably safer to average $1.50.
I figure as much, but I wanted to low ball it in every way possible to quell any counter-arguments about the success of the App Store before they could occur. Just to keep the thread on track a little longer, but does give the dissenters the argument that Apple must be charging too much.
If the growth continues as it is and it mirrors the iTMS growth year-over-year in percentage, then the App Store could easily be a multi-billion dollar business on its own. And that isn't even factoring in the licensing from 3rd-party devices connecting to the 30-pin connector.
Not going to happen. There is ONE version of OSX. There will always be ONE version of OSX.
My guess: no keyboard (external Bluetooth keyboards optional), basically an oversized, super-powered iPod Touch.
Well the iPhone runs OS X (Scaled down version). I believe AppleTV runs a scaled down version of OS X. iPod Touch runs OS X (scaled down version). So in reality, there are many different types of OS X out there.
This is why Apple changed Mac OS X to just simply OS X, because its not just made for the Mac anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation
I'm thinking "MacBook Touch"
Or just simply, MacTouch....unless Apple has something else planned for that?
And what device is that- that runs iPhoto and/or Aperture?
That's right. It's not your god given right to have a product that does what you want, unless you can make it yourself. If Apple decides that it can't make the kind of money it wants to make if it makes the product you're asking for, then you're out of luck. Sorry!
Where are the tablet naysayers now? Where are the arguments? With each passing moment they get quieter and quieter as the mystery iDevice draws nearer and nearer to release.
*cues original terminator theme music*
Soon you all will have to bow down before its glory!
Mactouch FTW!
........Hey its Monday in the office and I'm bored already.
Of course I'd like to see something in the mix to fill the gap between iPod touch/iPhone and MacBook/MacBook Pro, but I'm betting it's not gonna happen. All Apple resources are still going toward making iPhone (and possible derivatives) the best product in the Apple line-up. iPhone has several hugely important advantages: it's the lowest priced Apple product out there that has so far been proven unbeatable in the market, it remains a highly desirable product AND it provides incremental sales which continue to grow at a pace that seems to be unaffected by seasonal dips and spikes. Having consistent profitability in this market (and beyond) is paramount and shifting Apple over to these new business strategies that support bulletproof growth enhanced by mountains of consumer choice in apps has been the smartest move Apple has ever made.
Where are the tablet naysayers now? Where are the arguments? With each passing moment they get quieter and quieter as the mystery iDevice draws nearer and nearer to release.
*cues original terminator theme music*
Soon you all will have to bow down before its glory!
Mactouch FTW! ...
I'm still hoping that a tablet (if it turns out to be real) will be called ...
iBook
Makes more sense to me than any other name given it's potential uses.
Except for the versions that run on the iPhone and Touch.
I know, I know... But I really don't think iPhone OS really counts in the same sense. It's debatable, sure.
But he was talking about something like OSX Home Basic, not OSX Mobile (like iPhone OS), if you follow me.
I don't claim any authoritative knowledge about this, mind you; I just don't see that happening. Apple seems very, very attached to keeping OSX one size fits all.
If they do 1B in a year (rounding up) and half are free and the other half average $1 (rounding down, I think) they make a gross revenue of $500M. Multiply that by 0.3 and they make a gross profit of $150M. Not bad.]
Only if you ignore a little think called 'cost of sales'.
There is a cost associated with the App store. Just a few items:
- Server hardware and software
- Server support
- Bandwidth
- Software development for iTunes and App development tools
- Support costs for iTunes/App Store/iPhone (which can be either above the line or below the line depending on accounting procedures)
What you're referring to is closer to contribution margin than gross profit, but even that isn't quite correct.
If they release a netbook-class product running OS X, people will load desktop software on it and complain about performance/battery/ui/etc. It sets up expectations (laptop-class experience) that technology can't (yet) deliver on.
I hope more people read the above. Technology is changing fast but I think it will be a while until we can see solid x86 hardware in these portable devices. Mainly due to the power demands.
Quote:
If it's more like an overgrown iPod touch, apps will be designed to the interface and the hardware and it will result in a far superior user experience. The expectation will be that it can do the sorts of things an iPod Touch can do, with a bigger screen.
It would easily exceed that.
Yep, that is all Apple has to do, that is put iPhone apps in a window on this device. In a sense we would have virtual iPhone's to run the current app store apps. Of course native apps would be possible to leverage the higher resolution screen. The only difference I would see is that Apple will need to support multitasking on the device.
As to exceeding what the current Touch can do that is obviously easy to do. But I believe a key factor in the devices success will be it's ability to still excel at media playback. In effect we will have a video iPod worth the name. What is important here is that if Apple can mass produce this product at a reasonable price, that tech can then be leveraged by apps that can't justify the hardware development on their own. This is where app store comes in. App store give special case industries like medical or surveying the ability run solutions on far more affordable hardware, hardware that also supports mainstream apps.
Only if you ignore a little think called 'cost of sales'.
There is a cost associated with the App store. Just a few items:
- Server hardware and software
- Server support
- Bandwidth
- Software development for iTunes and App development tools
- Support costs for iTunes/App Store/iPhone (which can be either above the line or below the line depending on accounting procedures)
What you're referring to is closer to contribution margin than gross profit, but even that isn't quite correct.
I specifically used the would gross to indicate that their were no deductions included. If you figure out how much additinal cost per app is accounted for any software change made to iTunes then go for it, but I doubt you or anyone else posting on this board has the means to establish those costs. The point of my post is to very show that the App Store does generate significant funds. How much do other, more established carrier or vendor app stores generate? My guess is not as much, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Apple will never make something with a "slide-out" keyboard. It's just bad design and Apple doesn't do bad design.
Do you actually know what good design is?
You are actually saying that Apple make things simple and good looking, not doing bad design is something completely different.
AppleTV not having an on/off switch is bad design.
Airport Extreme having a power cable that comes out with the slightest touch is bad design.
MacBook Pro with a lid that does not close flush so when it is in a bag any old shit can get through the gap and scratch things up is bad design.
MacBook Pro lid that only opens just past halfway so you cannot see the screen while standing above it, or hunched over it is bad design.
MacBook's and iPhones made from cheap plastic that cracks is bad design.
Making products so thin that things overheat and you can fry eggs on them is bad design.
How anyones can make a statement like that is beyond me, the level of fanboyism sometimes is just pathetic. Apple's primary purpose is to make things look good, often at the expense of usability. This my friend, whichever way you want to look at it is bad design.
How anyones can make a statement like that is beyond me.
Well when you have copied and installed your very own version of your deities famed 'reality distotion field', it becomes really easy. Second nature almost; you might say.
Apple's primary purpose is to make things look good, often at the expense of usability.
Much as I tend to agree with your definition of 'bad design' your conclusion deserves the same kind of derision you heaped upon the original comment. How you can make a statement like that is beyond me. It is, my friend, a prime example of stupid prejudice.
Much as I tend to agree with your definition of 'bad design' your conclusion deserves the same kind of derision you heaped upon the original comment. How you can make a statement like that is beyond me. It is, my friend, a prime example of stupid prejudice.
No it's not- Form over function tends to be Apple's raison d'etre way too often.
Comments
If it's more like an overgrown iPod touch, apps will be designed to the interface and the hardware and it will result in a far superior user experience. The expectation will be that it can do the sorts of things an iPod Touch can do, with a bigger screen.
It would easily exceed that.
Well there's no way the half that aren't free can average $1, since that's the lowest price. Probably safer to average $1.50.
I figure as much, but I wanted to low ball it in every way possible to quell any counter-arguments about the success of the App Store before they could occur. Just to keep the thread on track a little longer, but does give the dissenters the argument that Apple must be charging too much.
If the growth continues as it is and it mirrors the iTMS growth year-over-year in percentage, then the App Store could easily be a multi-billion dollar business on its own. And that isn't even factoring in the licensing from 3rd-party devices connecting to the 30-pin connector.
Not going to happen. There is ONE version of OSX. There will always be ONE version of OSX.
My guess: no keyboard (external Bluetooth keyboards optional), basically an oversized, super-powered iPod Touch.
Well the iPhone runs OS X (Scaled down version). I believe AppleTV runs a scaled down version of OS X. iPod Touch runs OS X (scaled down version). So in reality, there are many different types of OS X out there.
This is why Apple changed Mac OS X to just simply OS X, because its not just made for the Mac anymore.
I'm thinking "MacBook Touch"
Or just simply, MacTouch....unless Apple has something else planned for that?
Hmm, third quarter... They could make an absolute killing with this if it is out in time for Christmas.
At least if the price is right. I would pay double what I paid for the AAO.. $600 - you hear me Apple?
$600!
And what device is that- that runs iPhoto and/or Aperture?
That's right. It's not your god given right to have a product that does what you want, unless you can make it yourself. If Apple decides that it can't make the kind of money it wants to make if it makes the product you're asking for, then you're out of luck. Sorry!
*cues original terminator theme music*
Soon you all will have to bow down before its glory!
Mactouch FTW!
........Hey its Monday in the office and I'm bored already.
Where are the tablet naysayers now? Where are the arguments? With each passing moment they get quieter and quieter as the mystery iDevice draws nearer and nearer to release.
*cues original terminator theme music*
Soon you all will have to bow down before its glory!
Mactouch FTW! ...
I'm still hoping that a tablet (if it turns out to be real) will be called ...
iBook
Makes more sense to me than any other name given it's potential uses.
Except for the versions that run on the iPhone and Touch.
I know, I know...
But he was talking about something like OSX Home Basic, not OSX Mobile (like iPhone OS), if you follow me.
I don't claim any authoritative knowledge about this, mind you; I just don't see that happening. Apple seems very, very attached to keeping OSX one size fits all.
If they do 1B in a year (rounding up) and half are free and the other half average $1 (rounding down, I think) they make a gross revenue of $500M. Multiply that by 0.3 and they make a gross profit of $150M. Not bad.]
Only if you ignore a little think called 'cost of sales'.
There is a cost associated with the App store. Just a few items:
- Server hardware and software
- Server support
- Bandwidth
- Software development for iTunes and App development tools
- Support costs for iTunes/App Store/iPhone (which can be either above the line or below the line depending on accounting procedures)
What you're referring to is closer to contribution margin than gross profit, but even that isn't quite correct.
If they release a netbook-class product running OS X, people will load desktop software on it and complain about performance/battery/ui/etc. It sets up expectations (laptop-class experience) that technology can't (yet) deliver on.
I hope more people read the above. Technology is changing fast but I think it will be a while until we can see solid x86 hardware in these portable devices. Mainly due to the power demands.
If it's more like an overgrown iPod touch, apps will be designed to the interface and the hardware and it will result in a far superior user experience. The expectation will be that it can do the sorts of things an iPod Touch can do, with a bigger screen.
It would easily exceed that.
Yep, that is all Apple has to do, that is put iPhone apps in a window on this device. In a sense we would have virtual iPhone's to run the current app store apps. Of course native apps would be possible to leverage the higher resolution screen. The only difference I would see is that Apple will need to support multitasking on the device.
As to exceeding what the current Touch can do that is obviously easy to do. But I believe a key factor in the devices success will be it's ability to still excel at media playback. In effect we will have a video iPod worth the name. What is important here is that if Apple can mass produce this product at a reasonable price, that tech can then be leveraged by apps that can't justify the hardware development on their own. This is where app store comes in. App store give special case industries like medical or surveying the ability run solutions on far more affordable hardware, hardware that also supports mainstream apps.
Only if you ignore a little think called 'cost of sales'.
There is a cost associated with the App store. Just a few items:
- Server hardware and software
- Server support
- Bandwidth
- Software development for iTunes and App development tools
- Support costs for iTunes/App Store/iPhone (which can be either above the line or below the line depending on accounting procedures)
What you're referring to is closer to contribution margin than gross profit, but even that isn't quite correct.
I specifically used the would gross to indicate that their were no deductions included. If you figure out how much additinal cost per app is accounted for any software change made to iTunes then go for it, but I doubt you or anyone else posting on this board has the means to establish those costs. The point of my post is to very show that the App Store does generate significant funds. How much do other, more established carrier or vendor app stores generate? My guess is not as much, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Apple will never make something with a "slide-out" keyboard. It's just bad design and Apple doesn't do bad design.
How about a transparent double sided touch screen? Something like this?
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...en_panels.html
Apple will never make something with a "slide-out" keyboard. It's just bad design and Apple doesn't do bad design.
Do you actually know what good design is?
You are actually saying that Apple make things simple and good looking, not doing bad design is something completely different.
AppleTV not having an on/off switch is bad design.
Airport Extreme having a power cable that comes out with the slightest touch is bad design.
MacBook Pro with a lid that does not close flush so when it is in a bag any old shit can get through the gap and scratch things up is bad design.
MacBook Pro lid that only opens just past halfway so you cannot see the screen while standing above it, or hunched over it is bad design.
MacBook's and iPhones made from cheap plastic that cracks is bad design.
Making products so thin that things overheat and you can fry eggs on them is bad design.
How anyones can make a statement like that is beyond me, the level of fanboyism sometimes is just pathetic. Apple's primary purpose is to make things look good, often at the expense of usability. This my friend, whichever way you want to look at it is bad design.
How anyones can make a statement like that is beyond me.
Well when you have copied and installed your very own version of your deities famed 'reality distotion field', it becomes really easy. Second nature almost; you might say.
Apple will never make something with a "slide-out" keyboard. It's just bad design and Apple doesn't do bad design.
What have you been smoking?
Apple's primary purpose is to make things look good, often at the expense of usability.
Much as I tend to agree with your definition of 'bad design' your conclusion deserves the same kind of derision you heaped upon the original comment. How you can make a statement like that is beyond me. It is, my friend, a prime example of stupid prejudice.
Much as I tend to agree with your definition of 'bad design' your conclusion deserves the same kind of derision you heaped upon the original comment. How you can make a statement like that is beyond me. It is, my friend, a prime example of stupid prejudice.
No it's not- Form over function tends to be Apple's raison d'etre way too often.