I suspect the Finder will be pretty much the same except they will use the core animation grid view to show the icons. So it will have more transitions (e.g. if you delete a file, the other icons animate when they rearrange instead of instantaniously rearranging).
We will all see in a few days... tick tock tick tock
Sun are a major player in the server industry right? Apple could be too if they bought them out. I really like how Apple is friends with the Goog too, the future could hold some good things for these three companies if they can play nice.
I really think that's the key here. Relationships with like minded companies such as Apple/Google/Sun could really influence a major technology shift. I don't see Apple and Google merging, Google are too big and to be honest I don't see a need. But Apple and Sun could be a realistic option. Although saying that, Larry Page did say that if Apple and Google merged they could call the company Applegoo! Perhaps he was hinting at a future partnership?! Anyway, partnership, buyout or a common goal, it makes little difference as long as technologies are shared with these kinds of companies.
is SPACES not one of the announced features???? this seems pretty in line with the artwork... EXPAND your universe (expand your desktop with SPACES virtual desktop)
I really think that's the key here. Relationships with like minded companies such as Apple/Google/Sun could really influence a major technology shift. I don't see Apple and Google merging, Google are too big and to be honest I don't see a need. But Apple and Sun could be a realistic option. Although saying that, Larry Page did say that if Apple and Google merged they could call the company Applegoo! Perhaps he was hinting at a future partnership?! Anyway, partnership, buyout or a common goal, it makes little difference as long as technologies are shared with these kinds of companies.
Google isn't too big.
While cooperation is good, there is only so much that can be gained by that.
Foe example, people here always complain that someone sitting on Apple's board should make their company do something beneficial for Apple.
They can't do that, because they are sitting on Apple's board, not as a representative of their company, but simply as themselves. They still have a fiduciary duty to their own company. Whatever they do must benefit their company, not Apple.
Likewise, each company in some sort of loose alliance can't do something that won't benefit their own company, even if it would help the others.
But, one division in a company can do something that will benefit the company as a whole, while losing out somewhat itself.
What this means is that Sun can't, as a separate company, lose low end sales to Apple, its competitor, in order to do something that would supposedly help them both in the longer term.
But, Sun as a division, could take over the X Serve, move it into the new server division, and discontinue some of its own competing models, if that would be better for the new company overall.
The same thing would be true of Apple and Google. Both are no doubt developing similar software. Even with an alliance, they must both do what is best for their own companies. Even if that results in duplicate work. With a merge, much duplicate work could be ended, and the best of the projects could themselves be merged, with the best of the engineers working on them.
Google could adapt its software, and search, to better take advantage of Apple's products. For example, Apple could merge the functions of Google search, with Spotlight.
Apple might also be able to take advantage of Googles hundreds of thousands of servers.
Those are just a very few areas in which the companies can't now cooperate without doing themselves some harm.
Well, yeah. anyone here can make claims, no one has to come with proofs. So, what's the point of this assertion, especially in the first post? Welcome by the way.
Well, yeah. anyone here can make claims, no one has to come with proofs. So, what's the point of this assertion, especially in the first post? Welcome by the way.
Since Steve Jobs said that developers will be receiving a feature-complete beta at WWDC, the feature set had to be frozen to make the beta disks.
I don't want Apple to be a huge directionless behemoth, the company is branching into consumer electronics, not into microelectronics and whatnot. Sun is growing slowly, the company is barely profitable after years of floundering and losses, the stock is not doing so great since the dot com bubble burst. Yuck!
To a certain extent, that's exactly what Apple is becoming now.
This would anchor it more firmly to the computer industry again.
Sun is actually doing well. Its stock hasn't performed as well as it should. That's one of the reasons why this would be a good idea now.
1) How does any of the original statement apply to the current Apple other than the 'consumer electronics'? Apple is hardly directionless. In fact they are almost razor focussed and doing things step by step instead of a scattershot, try everything approach which can defocuss a company.
2) Sun in not doing well, other than crossing from over 5 years of consistent losses with stagnant revenues into just barely breakeven ($0.04 per share net income for last 9 months) with still stagnant revenues. They may have controlled costs but they haven't done anything for their product line.
Well, yeah. anyone here can make claims, no one has to come with proofs. So, what's the point of this assertion, especially in the first post? Welcome by the way.
1) How does any of the original statement apply to the current Apple other than the 'consumer electronics'? Apple is hardly directionless. In fact they are almost razor focussed and doing things step by step instead of a scattershot, try everything approach which can defocuss a company.
You think they are razor focussed, but I think that they are ridinf the iPod wave, which came about almost through luck.
They are doing very well, but that doesn't mean that they are focussed.
Quote:
2) Sun in not doing well, other than crossing from over 5 years of consistent losses with stagnant revenues into just barely breakeven ($0.04 per share net income for last 9 months) with still stagnant revenues. They may have controlled costs but they haven't done anything for their product line.
Sun is now in the position Apple was in four years ago. If you pointed to Apple then, you would have said the same thing.
You think they are razor focussed, but I think that they are ridinf the iPod wave, which came about almost through luck.
They are doing very well, but that doesn't mean that they are focussed.
Sun is now in the position Apple was in four years ago. If you pointed to Apple then, you would have said the same thing.
Apple's actual execution is the evidence that they are focussed. If they weren't focussed then they would have released 10s of iPod models with all of the features that everyone else has put up as needed around here. They would have diluted the brand and opened the door for all of those 'iPod killers' to actually make a dent in the iPod 'wave'. The fact that they 'killed' the mini, at the height of its popularity, in favor of the nano, and were correct in doing so, shows a depth of understanding of the market and willingness to execute that is focus.
Their development of laptops and subsequent success in that market shows the same thing. They haven't gone wild with features and proliferation of models to, again, dilute their impact. They've succeeded wildly here has well, not only gaining market share but mind share as well. Just look at academia, hollywood, home users. More and more people are looked to get a macbook/macbook pro. This is focus.
Financially, Apple was never even close to as bad a shape as Sun is currently in. In the last 10 years (back to 1997) apple only had two years of loss one of which was basically just break even (2001 = 0.5% of revenue), Sun's loss last year was 6.6% of revenue. While there are some parallels between Sun and Apple 4 years ago Sun has a much longer road to hoe and unless Apple would have some specific plan for Sun's enterprise access I can't see a joining as being anything but a headache to Apple management.
Apple's actual execution is the evidence that they are focussed. If they weren't focussed then they would have released 10s of iPod models with all of the features that everyone else has put up as needed around here. They would have diluted the brand and opened the door for all of those 'iPod killers' to actually make a dent in the iPod 'wave'. The fact that they 'killed' the mini, at the height of its popularity, in favor of the nano, and were correct in doing so, shows a depth of understanding of the market and willingness to execute that is focus.
Execution doesn't denote overall focus. I've said that they are doing well.
Quote:
Their development of laptops and subsequent success in that market shows the same thing. They haven't gone wild with features and proliferation of models to, again, dilute their impact. They've succeeded wildly here has well, not only gaining market share but mind share as well. Just look at academia, hollywood, home users. More and more people are looked to get a macbook/macbook pro. This is focus.
Perhaps not. While they've done well with laptops, they haven't done well with anything else. Mac Pro sales are, well, barely hanging in. iMac sales have not gone up much. And now we here the rumor that they may discontinue the poorly selling (that is, compared to expectAtions) Mini.
Apple offers features long after everyone else does. They don't offer even minor things, such as enough USB ports, etc.
They don't seem to be on the same plane of existence as many of its potential customers. Listen to the complaints here about product design and availability.
Quote:
Financially, Apple was never even close to as bad a shape as Sun is currently in. In the last 10 years (back to 1997) apple only had two years of loss one of which was basically just break even (2001 = 0.5% of revenue), Sun's loss last year was 6.6% of revenue. While there are some parallels between Sun and Apple 4 years ago Sun has a much longer road to hoe and unless Apple would have some specific plan for Sun's enterprise access I can't see a joining as being anything but a headache to Apple management.
Four years is a long time, and if it weren't for the luck of the iPod taking off more than even Jobs thought it would, where would Apple be now? He said in an interview several years ago, that they thought that it would be a "modest sucess".
The fact is that nothing else that Apple did after he came back was helping the company grow.
Even the iMacs were, at best, staving off the inevitable.
I could go on, but most people here already know the story.
Execution doesn't denote overall focus. I've said that they are doing well.
Actually, it does. While Apple may not be 'satisfying' the technical pundits on forums like this they do seem to be satisfying the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Perhaps not. While they've done well with laptops, they haven't done well with anything else. Mac Pro sales are, well, barely hanging in. iMac sales have not gone up much. And now we here the rumor that they may discontinue the poorly selling (that is, compared to expectAtions) Mini.
But this is in support of their focus. They identified the market move to laptops before others and chose to focus resources and development there over the other areas. Their desktop sales have not grown as much as laptops but based on Apple's filings they are 'hanging in there' despite the overall shift in purchasing to laptops. I personally don't know what Apple's expectations were for the Mini but I never expected it to sell well (although I love it). It's not really aimed at where the rest of Apple marketing aims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Apple offers features long after everyone else does. They don't offer even minor things, such as enough USB ports, etc.
They don't seem to be on the same plane of existence as many of its potential customers. Listen to the complaints here about product design and availability.
But as I've said before the size of this market is such that Apple would rather put resources on other things like iPods and iPhones. I believe that Apple consciously chooses NOT to follow these types of input - This is part of their focus. It may be argued they are wrong about this. I don't think so. Clearly many (if not most) on this forums believe they are. But they are still focussed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Four years is a long time, and if it weren't for the luck of the iPod taking off more than even Jobs thought it would, where would Apple be now? He said in an interview several years ago, that they thought that it would be a "modest sucess".
The fact is that nothing else that Apple did after he came back was helping the company grow.
So, you are ignoring OS X, retail, iLife, Final Cut Pro, the iMac, (which I disagree with your statement below), iTunes (which is different than iPod), Quicktime (part of iTunes), etc..... Taking just one of these, Apple retail has been a HUGE success despite the universal negative response to its inception. Once again Apple took an area and 'did it differently' and in a way the showed a deep understanding of the needs of the consumer. I think its clear that the Apple store retail experience is quite different than almost any other retail experience. Its been reported that Apple retails is the fastest to $1 billion in revenue is history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Even the iMacs were, at best, staving off the inevitable.
I could go on, but most people here already know the story.
The story here is usually technically driven, not market driven (ducks for cover). If the definition of focus and execution is technically best in class on each detail, I could agree that Apple 'is not focussed', but that's not where they should be focussed. They are a business.
Comments
Top Secret Feature:
"We kept the Finder the same!!"
I suspect the Finder will be pretty much the same except they will use the core animation grid view to show the icons. So it will have more transitions (e.g. if you delete a file, the other icons animate when they rearrange instead of instantaniously rearranging).
We will all see in a few days... tick tock tick tock
Sun are a major player in the server industry right? Apple could be too if they bought them out. I really like how Apple is friends with the Goog too, the future could hold some good things for these three companies if they can play nice.
I really think that's the key here. Relationships with like minded companies such as Apple/Google/Sun could really influence a major technology shift. I don't see Apple and Google merging, Google are too big and to be honest I don't see a need. But Apple and Sun could be a realistic option. Although saying that, Larry Page did say that if Apple and Google merged they could call the company Applegoo! Perhaps he was hinting at a future partnership?! Anyway, partnership, buyout or a common goal, it makes little difference as long as technologies are shared with these kinds of companies.
Guys, guys......That isn't a galaxy, that's the kuiper belt.
I'm not sure it's either... From where I sit it sure looks like the tail of a comet.
Dave
Unless, of course, Apple buys Sun.
God, I can imagine the poorly constructed headlines ?Apple buys sun?.
Apple buys Sun
I'm not sure it's either... From where I sit it sure looks like the tail of a comet.
Dave
Guys it's a poster, get over it.
I really think that's the key here. Relationships with like minded companies such as Apple/Google/Sun could really influence a major technology shift. I don't see Apple and Google merging, Google are too big and to be honest I don't see a need. But Apple and Sun could be a realistic option. Although saying that, Larry Page did say that if Apple and Google merged they could call the company Applegoo! Perhaps he was hinting at a future partnership?! Anyway, partnership, buyout or a common goal, it makes little difference as long as technologies are shared with these kinds of companies.
Google isn't too big.
While cooperation is good, there is only so much that can be gained by that.
Foe example, people here always complain that someone sitting on Apple's board should make their company do something beneficial for Apple.
They can't do that, because they are sitting on Apple's board, not as a representative of their company, but simply as themselves. They still have a fiduciary duty to their own company. Whatever they do must benefit their company, not Apple.
Likewise, each company in some sort of loose alliance can't do something that won't benefit their own company, even if it would help the others.
But, one division in a company can do something that will benefit the company as a whole, while losing out somewhat itself.
What this means is that Sun can't, as a separate company, lose low end sales to Apple, its competitor, in order to do something that would supposedly help them both in the longer term.
But, Sun as a division, could take over the X Serve, move it into the new server division, and discontinue some of its own competing models, if that would be better for the new company overall.
The same thing would be true of Apple and Google. Both are no doubt developing similar software. Even with an alliance, they must both do what is best for their own companies. Even if that results in duplicate work. With a merge, much duplicate work could be ended, and the best of the projects could themselves be merged, with the best of the engineers working on them.
Google could adapt its software, and search, to better take advantage of Apple's products. For example, Apple could merge the functions of Google search, with Spotlight.
Apple might also be able to take advantage of Googles hundreds of thousands of servers.
Those are just a very few areas in which the companies can't now cooperate without doing themselves some harm.
God, I can imagine the poorly constructed headlines ?Apple buys sun?.
But, I lovvee baked apples.
But, I lovvee baked apples.
LOL. I think they?ll be singed if they go anywhere near the sun. The real one, of course.
Guys Google Image 'Sun', it's quite funny below.
Nooooooo! They stole my file system!!!
The Kuiper Belt is made up mainly of ice, I hope this doesn't mean the same Finder design has frozen.
Leopard's feature set has been frozen.
Leopard's feature set has been frozen.
Well, yeah. anyone here can make claims, no one has to come with proofs. So, what's the point of this assertion, especially in the first post? Welcome by the way.
Well, yeah. anyone here can make claims, no one has to come with proofs. So, what's the point of this assertion, especially in the first post? Welcome by the way.
Since Steve Jobs said that developers will be receiving a feature-complete beta at WWDC, the feature set had to be frozen to make the beta disks.
Originally Posted by AISI
I don't want Apple to be a huge directionless behemoth, the company is branching into consumer electronics, not into microelectronics and whatnot. Sun is growing slowly, the company is barely profitable after years of floundering and losses, the stock is not doing so great since the dot com bubble burst. Yuck!
To a certain extent, that's exactly what Apple is becoming now.
This would anchor it more firmly to the computer industry again.
Sun is actually doing well. Its stock hasn't performed as well as it should. That's one of the reasons why this would be a good idea now.
1) How does any of the original statement apply to the current Apple other than the 'consumer electronics'? Apple is hardly directionless. In fact they are almost razor focussed and doing things step by step instead of a scattershot, try everything approach which can defocuss a company.
2) Sun in not doing well, other than crossing from over 5 years of consistent losses with stagnant revenues into just barely breakeven ($0.04 per share net income for last 9 months) with still stagnant revenues. They may have controlled costs but they haven't done anything for their product line.
Well, yeah. anyone here can make claims, no one has to come with proofs. So, what's the point of this assertion, especially in the first post? Welcome by the way.
Because.
It's what we do.
1) How does any of the original statement apply to the current Apple other than the 'consumer electronics'? Apple is hardly directionless. In fact they are almost razor focussed and doing things step by step instead of a scattershot, try everything approach which can defocuss a company.
You think they are razor focussed, but I think that they are ridinf the iPod wave, which came about almost through luck.
They are doing very well, but that doesn't mean that they are focussed.
2) Sun in not doing well, other than crossing from over 5 years of consistent losses with stagnant revenues into just barely breakeven ($0.04 per share net income for last 9 months) with still stagnant revenues. They may have controlled costs but they haven't done anything for their product line.
Sun is now in the position Apple was in four years ago. If you pointed to Apple then, you would have said the same thing.
You think they are razor focussed, but I think that they are ridinf the iPod wave, which came about almost through luck.
They are doing very well, but that doesn't mean that they are focussed.
Sun is now in the position Apple was in four years ago. If you pointed to Apple then, you would have said the same thing.
Apple's actual execution is the evidence that they are focussed. If they weren't focussed then they would have released 10s of iPod models with all of the features that everyone else has put up as needed around here. They would have diluted the brand and opened the door for all of those 'iPod killers' to actually make a dent in the iPod 'wave'. The fact that they 'killed' the mini, at the height of its popularity, in favor of the nano, and were correct in doing so, shows a depth of understanding of the market and willingness to execute that is focus.
Their development of laptops and subsequent success in that market shows the same thing. They haven't gone wild with features and proliferation of models to, again, dilute their impact. They've succeeded wildly here has well, not only gaining market share but mind share as well. Just look at academia, hollywood, home users. More and more people are looked to get a macbook/macbook pro. This is focus.
Financially, Apple was never even close to as bad a shape as Sun is currently in. In the last 10 years (back to 1997) apple only had two years of loss one of which was basically just break even (2001 = 0.5% of revenue), Sun's loss last year was 6.6% of revenue. While there are some parallels between Sun and Apple 4 years ago Sun has a much longer road to hoe and unless Apple would have some specific plan for Sun's enterprise access I can't see a joining as being anything but a headache to Apple management.
Apple's actual execution is the evidence that they are focussed. If they weren't focussed then they would have released 10s of iPod models with all of the features that everyone else has put up as needed around here. They would have diluted the brand and opened the door for all of those 'iPod killers' to actually make a dent in the iPod 'wave'. The fact that they 'killed' the mini, at the height of its popularity, in favor of the nano, and were correct in doing so, shows a depth of understanding of the market and willingness to execute that is focus.
Execution doesn't denote overall focus. I've said that they are doing well.
Their development of laptops and subsequent success in that market shows the same thing. They haven't gone wild with features and proliferation of models to, again, dilute their impact. They've succeeded wildly here has well, not only gaining market share but mind share as well. Just look at academia, hollywood, home users. More and more people are looked to get a macbook/macbook pro. This is focus.
Perhaps not. While they've done well with laptops, they haven't done well with anything else. Mac Pro sales are, well, barely hanging in. iMac sales have not gone up much. And now we here the rumor that they may discontinue the poorly selling (that is, compared to expectAtions) Mini.
Apple offers features long after everyone else does. They don't offer even minor things, such as enough USB ports, etc.
They don't seem to be on the same plane of existence as many of its potential customers. Listen to the complaints here about product design and availability.
Financially, Apple was never even close to as bad a shape as Sun is currently in. In the last 10 years (back to 1997) apple only had two years of loss one of which was basically just break even (2001 = 0.5% of revenue), Sun's loss last year was 6.6% of revenue. While there are some parallels between Sun and Apple 4 years ago Sun has a much longer road to hoe and unless Apple would have some specific plan for Sun's enterprise access I can't see a joining as being anything but a headache to Apple management.
Four years is a long time, and if it weren't for the luck of the iPod taking off more than even Jobs thought it would, where would Apple be now? He said in an interview several years ago, that they thought that it would be a "modest sucess".
The fact is that nothing else that Apple did after he came back was helping the company grow.
Even the iMacs were, at best, staving off the inevitable.
I could go on, but most people here already know the story.
Execution doesn't denote overall focus. I've said that they are doing well.
Actually, it does. While Apple may not be 'satisfying' the technical pundits on forums like this they do seem to be satisfying the market.
Perhaps not. While they've done well with laptops, they haven't done well with anything else. Mac Pro sales are, well, barely hanging in. iMac sales have not gone up much. And now we here the rumor that they may discontinue the poorly selling (that is, compared to expectAtions) Mini.
But this is in support of their focus. They identified the market move to laptops before others and chose to focus resources and development there over the other areas. Their desktop sales have not grown as much as laptops but based on Apple's filings they are 'hanging in there' despite the overall shift in purchasing to laptops. I personally don't know what Apple's expectations were for the Mini but I never expected it to sell well (although I love it). It's not really aimed at where the rest of Apple marketing aims.
Apple offers features long after everyone else does. They don't offer even minor things, such as enough USB ports, etc.
They don't seem to be on the same plane of existence as many of its potential customers. Listen to the complaints here about product design and availability.
But as I've said before the size of this market is such that Apple would rather put resources on other things like iPods and iPhones. I believe that Apple consciously chooses NOT to follow these types of input - This is part of their focus. It may be argued they are wrong about this. I don't think so. Clearly many (if not most) on this forums believe they are. But they are still focussed.
Four years is a long time, and if it weren't for the luck of the iPod taking off more than even Jobs thought it would, where would Apple be now? He said in an interview several years ago, that they thought that it would be a "modest sucess".
The fact is that nothing else that Apple did after he came back was helping the company grow.
So, you are ignoring OS X, retail, iLife, Final Cut Pro, the iMac, (which I disagree with your statement below), iTunes (which is different than iPod), Quicktime (part of iTunes), etc..... Taking just one of these, Apple retail has been a HUGE success despite the universal negative response to its inception. Once again Apple took an area and 'did it differently' and in a way the showed a deep understanding of the needs of the consumer. I think its clear that the Apple store retail experience is quite different than almost any other retail experience. Its been reported that Apple retails is the fastest to $1 billion in revenue is history.
Even the iMacs were, at best, staving off the inevitable.
I could go on, but most people here already know the story.
The story here is usually technically driven, not market driven (ducks for cover). If the definition of focus and execution is technically best in class on each detail, I could agree that Apple 'is not focussed', but that's not where they should be focussed. They are a business.