Apple plans mystery "product transition" before September's end

1101113151637

Comments

  • Reply 241 of 735
    ironiron Posts: 1member
    I think the transition they are referring to is a Multi-Touch transition that will span multiple product lines. This transition is already underway:



    Macbook Air

    iPhone

    iPod Touch



    Here's what I predict will happen for the other product lines.



    Macbook and Macbook Pro will get multi-touch pads similar to the Macbook Air. Apple will probably not implement touch screen notebooks in the near future.



    New iPods will be released, all with multi-touch interfaces. The iPod Shuffle will remain without a screen.



    I don't think Apple will release multi-touch displays or iMacs. They may introduce a keyboard with a multi-touch interface or another input device.



    Finally, I think there is a possibility that Apple will introduce a tablet like device. It would be small, with no keyboard, and used as a companion device for the iPhone and Mac notebook/laptops.
  • Reply 242 of 735
    paprochypaprochy Posts: 129member
    As a professional mac user, I like to think that Apple still hasn't forgotten about that user base. You have to remember that even though the proportion of consumers on macs to Professionals on macs is like 100:1, that's just because there aren't that many professionals. But when it comes to that, almost all video production studios are mac based.



    Even though Blu-ray is available as a third party upgrade, I think it would be fair to include it as a standard feature on a $3000 computer.
  • Reply 243 of 735
    bigmc6000bigmc6000 Posts: 767member
    I wasn't trying to reference their Mac business but their iPod business. We've already seen what happens when you're the big guy on the block and people don't like how much control you have (the small DRM free catalogue). I could easily see the likes of SanDisk and Archos getting involved if they price their iPods so low that it drags the entire companies margin down 4%. Since the iPod is just a piece of the pie the price drop would obviously be more than 4% - it'd be more like 10-15%. I'm just saying they should watch their wording since they are out in the spotlight now and there's a number of companies that are upset with them (mostly just envious but those companies also have good legal teams just like Apple does).



    Anyway - where's my Aluminum MB?
  • Reply 244 of 735
    jdavyjdavy Posts: 66member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abracadabra View Post


    Looking into my crystal ball I can see a take 3 on a certain hobby product... it is a little bit hazy but it looks like this time it will be with 1080p, DVR, and something else, hard to see, wait a sec, it is a... yes!, a BluRay drive. And it is cheap and will sell in millions

    Oops, it is not a crystal ball, it's a wishing well I am staring into...



    I am with you. A BD drive in the AppleTV to download the digital copy with ease and or a BD drive in a upgraded MBP. Keep the dream alive.
  • Reply 245 of 735
    jbach67jbach67 Posts: 27member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wobegon View Post


    Noticed a few predictions that really don't make sense if you look at what Apple has done.





    Touch-screen Macs - I can see the thought process, but Apple has already put Multi-Touch into two of their three laptops in the last few months: the MacBook Air and the MacBook Pro. Why would they then slap a Multi-Touch display on any of their computers? Side note: Apple likely won't add Multi-Touch to their Cinema Displays, nor the iMac. Why? Because Apple is looking to the future, which is mobile WiFi devices like the iPhone, iPod touch, and MacBook Air, not desktops. Not saying they're going to kill the iMac or Mac Pro anytime soon, but they sell many more laptops and they promote mobile platforms.




    Wo- Having suggested this touch screen idea above, I think you make a good point about adding it to their computer line. It might make more sense to send out the more minimalist tablet touch first. The need to reach all the way to a big vertical screen on a desktop to move things around might (and grease up your movie screen) not be all that efficient - I could still see it for the macbooks, however, which could be considered to be big tablets for some.
  • Reply 246 of 735
    pokepoke Posts: 506member
    The only consumer electronics device you sell below cost is a console.



    You heard it here first: Apple console.
  • Reply 247 of 735
    paprochypaprochy Posts: 129member
    Like I said, a BD on a pro mac would still make some sense. But there is just no way it will make it's way onto the apple TV, the whole point of that device is to buy and rent video content from itunes. So yeah.
  • Reply 248 of 735
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wobegon View Post


    Licensing Mac OS X to third parties - Never happening. Apple's a hardware company.



    Not according to Jobs.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wobegon View Post


    They use software to add value to their products and differentiate them from the competition.



    I thought they built hardware to add value to their software.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wobegon View Post


    The reason Mac OS X is so much more stable than Windows and even Linux is because it is run off hardware built for it, and vice versa. Apple could never hope to support the umpteen PC configurations out there.



    You are 100% right there. Apple would never want to support a 5 year-old Athlon piece of crap PC. But if a manufacturer, who happened to be really angry with Microsoft, wanted to build a notebook, which was just a nice clean reference design from Apple. It would be a different matter. Remember how 3rd party iPod manufacturers have to pay Apple for the "Made for iPod" sticker? Now imagine a "Made for OS X" sticker.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wobegon View Post


    Don't forget, Windows is successful because of anti-competitive, anti-consumer exclusive OEM deals with third part hardware vendors that stifle competition from alternatives like Linux and Microsoft promotes closed, proprietary formats like WMA and WMV that tie the user to their platform. If Apple tried to sell Mac OS X on its own for profit, they'd be going up against a monopoly that even the free Linux distros are having a hell of a time breaking into.



    Well, if competing with Microsoft is so tough. We might as well shut the company and go home now!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wobegon View Post


    Don't forget, Apple is outpacing the PC industry 3 to 1. They have no reason to move into the stagnating market they're competing and winning against.



    Sony are very unhappy with Microsoft.

    HP are unhappy with Microsoft.

    Even Dell would ship OS X, if they were allowed to.



    If Apple announced this, shit would fly. Microsoft shares would start a 5 year nosedive.



    There's this commonly held belief that this could not happen, because it would destroy sales of Apple's profitable Macintosh computers. I say bullshit.



    Some people buy Macintosh computers to run Windows.

    The hardware is good enough to stand on its own two feet without an artificial advantage. The brand loyalty is great. Macs would continue to thrive as long as the hardware was price competitive.



    Suggesting that no one would buy a Mac, if they could buy a Dell to run OS X is pure and utter nonsense.



    Mac OS X is the best OS on the planet. It's time to go head-to-head with Windows.



    Bring it on Monkey boy!



    C.
  • Reply 249 of 735
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Iron View Post


    I think the transition they are referring to is a Multi-Touch transition that will span multiple product lines. This transition is already underway:



    Macbook Air

    iPhone

    iPod Touch



    Here's what I predict will happen for the other product lines.



    Macbook and Macbook Pro will get multi-touch pads similar to the Macbook Air. Apple will probably not implement touch screen notebooks in the near future.



    New iPods will be released, all with multi-touch interfaces. The iPod Shuffle will remain without a screen.



    I don't think Apple will release multi-touch displays or iMacs. They may introduce a keyboard with a multi-touch interface or another input device.



    Finally, I think there is a possibility that Apple will introduce a tablet like device. It would be small, with no keyboard, and used as a companion device for the iPhone and Mac notebook/laptops.



    The MacBook Pro already has the Air's touch pad (but a little bit smaller). Adding it to the MacBook isn't a "transition" worth hinting at in the financial call.



    Increasing the capacity of the iPod touch would be a step towards eliminating hard drives from all iPods. Are flash drives cheap enough to completely eliminate the iPod classic? I'd consider at least 80-100 GB to be the target max capacity Apple needs to maintain. A more likely "transition" product would be the larger screened iPod touch (aka tablet). I would find a modestly sized tablet or larger touch with screen sharing to maniulate the UI of a remote Mac very useful. Imagine only carrying around a small tablet and using Back to Your Mac to access your full-size computer at home!
  • Reply 250 of 735
    wobegonwobegon Posts: 764member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    The TRANSITION word is the interesting one.



    We are talking something big that will eat profits in order to get the company to a better place.

    So in the past there was OS9 -> OS X and recently we had Power -> Intel.



    It's not going to be Intel -> PA Semi



    Not now, no. But in the coming years, maybe months, it could be Intel -> Intel + PA Semi. The latter would develop custom chips that would make cloning by the competition more difficult than it is now. These would enhance Intel-based Macs, not replace Intel's chips.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    So what is it?

    It could be HDD -> SDD but I am not sure customers can actually feel the benefit yet.



    On the MacBook Air it makes a big difference. Take a look at the first couple videos of the HDD Air vs. the SSD model, especially the second one where they launch like 20 applications simultaneously:

    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ith_video.html





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    The only other one I can think of is..

    Notebook -> Netbook



    By this I mean completely reposition the Macbook as a lower-cost device. Going up against stuff like the MSI Wind. The Netbook thing is really picking-up speed. Apple already has a netbook, But the Air is 4 times the price of the competition.



    One word: cannibalization. If they try to go into the micro laptop market to compete with things like the Asus EEE, which are very underpowered and cheap because of it, they risk cutting into sales of their own tremendously successful mobile Wifi devices: the iPhone and iPod touch.
  • Reply 251 of 735
    paprochypaprochy Posts: 129member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    Not according to Jobs.





    I thought they built hardware to add value to their software.







    You are 100% right there. Apple would never want to support a 5 year-old Athlon piece of crap PC. But if a manufacturer, who happened to be really angry with Microsoft, wanted to build a notebook, which was just a nice clean reference design from Apple. It would be a different matter. Remember how 3rd party iPod manufacturers have to pay Apple for the "Made for iPod" sticker? Now imagine a "Made for OS X" sticker.







    Well, if competing with Microsoft is so tough. We might as well shut the company and go home now!







    Sony are very unhappy with Microsoft.

    HP are unhappy with Microsoft.

    Even Dell would ship OS X, if they were allowed to.



    If Apple announced this, shit would fly. Microsoft shares would start a 5 year nosedive.



    There's this commonly held belief that this could not happen, because it would destroy sales of Apple's profitable Macintosh computers. I say bullshit.



    Some people buy Macintosh computers to run Windows.

    The hardware is good enough to stand on its own two feet without an artificial advantage. The brand loyalty is great. Macs would continue to thrive as long as the hardware was price competitive.



    Suggesting that no one would buy a Mac, if they could buy a Dell to run OS X is pure and utter nonsense.



    Mac OS X is the best OS on the planet. It's time to go head-to-head with Windows.



    Bring it on Monkey boy!



    C.



    Did you read my previous posts? It's just not going to happen. Get over it.



    Not only does it not make any sense in the current situation. But Apple has had really bad experiences with licensing osx in the 90s, I don't think they want to go back there.
  • Reply 252 of 735
    bloggerblogbloggerblog Posts: 2,462member
    Mini Tower Mac!



    Yaaay!



  • Reply 253 of 735
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by paprochy View Post


    Did you read my previous posts? It's just not going to happen. Get over it.



    Not only does it not make any sense in the current situation. But Apple has had really bad experiences with licensing osx in the 90s, I don't think they want to go back there.



    Oh, but it does make sense, because of the current situation. If Apple were to partner with another major manufacturer like Dell or HP, it would step on tiny little companies like Psystar, which can't compete with that. And people really overstate how OSX is tied to Apple computers- it runs really, really well on some very common hardware. Hardly any work would be involved there, and the "experience" doesn't suffer a bit.



    Now, I don't think that is likely, but I do think it is a possibility. You can't simply dismiss anything these days.
  • Reply 254 of 735
    Crikey, people are working themselves into a tizz!



    I think we'll see some new aluminium MacBooks and maybe an iPod Touch Nano. Nothing more earth shattering than that.
  • Reply 255 of 735
    bigmc6000bigmc6000 Posts: 767member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post


    Oh, but it does make sense, because of the current situation. If Apple were to partner with another major manufacturer like Dell or HP, it would step on tiny little companies like Psystar, which can't compete with that. And people really overstate how OSX is tied to Apple computers- it runs really, really well on some very common hardware. Hardly any work would be involved there, and the "experience" doesn't suffer a bit.



    Now, I don't think that is likely, but I do think it is a possibility. You can't simply dismiss anything these days.



    Apple partnering with Dell is about as believable as saying the world is flat. The stock would sell off down to $15 and steve, for all the good he's done for Apple, would be kicked out again. Apple would cease to sell any decent number of computers since people could buy a Dell with the same OS for less and their gross margins would be cut, at the very least, in half. Not going to happen...



    In the end Apple wants to make money and they are doing a d@mn good job at it right now so I can't see them doing something so backwards as going after market share when what makes them money isn't the OS but the hardware they sell.
  • Reply 256 of 735
    wobegonwobegon Posts: 764member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    I thought they built hardware to add value to their software.



    ...No They are a hardware company meaning they make money off hardware. Ever wonder why Apple only brings attention to the first weekend or so of Mac OS X sales when a new version is released? Because after the initial rush, standalone OS X sales quickly decline. Most people get the new operating system with the purchase of a new Mac.



    Apple sells Mac OS X for $130; $70 with a student discount. iWork is sold for $80; $40 with a student discount. Those are shareware prices. Meanwhile, look at standalone Vista and Office licenses. Much more expensive. Why? Because MS is a software company while Apple mainly uses software to add value to their profitable hardware.



    Hope that makes sense.
  • Reply 257 of 735
    trboydentrboyden Posts: 165member
    I didn't have time to go through all the posts, but I'm sure it has been suggested.



    I believe Apple will license OS X to specific PC manufacturers.



    Licensing software to a specified distributer is the only way you could shut out competition - the competition being fly-by-night clone manufacturers. This is why it took so long for Apple to sue Psystar. They needed to develop a case that would allow them to only license Mac OS X to specific PC manufacturers. They needed a company to do a crappy job of distributing and supporting Mac OS X on common PC hardware so they could come out and say the only way they can insure the integrity of the Apple brand is to license the software to major manufacturers who can control the quality and thus avoid an anti-trust suite by smaller computer manufacturers.



    You won't be able to buy the software and just install it on any PC, you'll have to buy an HP, Dell or other major brand. This is why it would be a limited hit to their margins, only certain major brand PCs will qualify for the program, and only those that don't compete with Apple's current product lines. Basically low-cost tower PCs. The software will be tied to those systems and it won't be able to be installed (without hacks) on other systems such as notebooks. Much like how you can't install OS X on older Mac hardware.



    Psystar has basically shot the hobbiest computer builder in the foot, but has built the framework to allow Apple to license it's operating system on computers other than Apple hardware. Apple now doesn't need to beat Psystar in the court case on all accounts - that will be just a show trial - it just needs to show that it needs to and is allowed to control the licensing of it's software.



    What Apple loses in low-end computer sales, it will make up in OEM licensing of Mac OS X.
  • Reply 258 of 735
    wobegonwobegon Posts: 764member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post


    And people really overstate how OSX is tied to Apple computers...



    Yes, and people who do so are confused. Mac OS X is not "tied" to Apple's computers any more than the Nintendo Wii's operating system is tied to the Wii, or Sony's PS3 OS is tied to PS3s, or even Microsoft's own Xbox's OS is tied to its console.



    These are all EMBEDDED SYSTEMS. They are cohesive hardware-software products made by one company. People have the choice to use them or not. They differ from Windows, an operating system made by one company, MS, that is licensed to hardware vendors, a separate company, Dell, HP, etc. Microsoft has a monopolist position on PCs because every new PC sold equals a Windows license sale. People buying PCs don't have a choice because Windows is the de facto OS on every new PC, even though alternatives like Linux exist. Apple making their operating system available to third parties won't change Microsoft's anti-competitive, anti-consumer exclusive OEM deals they have with PC manufacturers.
  • Reply 259 of 735
    ecbecb Posts: 2member
    2 cents from a newbie:



    I figure on an AppleTV DVR



    Far out guess:



    Fuel cell power for MBP.
  • Reply 260 of 735
    trboydentrboyden Posts: 165member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post


    Apple partnering with Dell is about as believable as saying the world is flat.



    That's what they said about Apple switching to Intel chips...
Sign In or Register to comment.