Olternaut clearly isnt happy with him either. Carniphage is indeed calling people idiots and is being rude and saucy in the comments he makes. Other people have their opinions too. Its not just "his case" that is supported here, everyone has their own opinion on the future of apple. He needs to start respecting the opinions of others.
I have the deepest respect for the views of others. And I would never directly abuse anyone on this forum. (Apart from Bavlondon)
But if I think they are wrong, I try and argue my point. I think that is a lot of fun. It's like playing Call of Duty, but with words.
I try to make my points by arguing my corner, pointing to web links, using some facts, and occasional witty metaphors. Ok witty in my own mind.
I did not call anyone here an idiot and I never would.
I was provocative when I said "some idiots even want tablets" to illustrate that Apple does not make every form factor under the sun. And I used that word to indicate that I think it is the last form factor Apple will ever make.
It was not directed at any individual at all. And if you check my posts, I have never used personal attacks or direct abuse to anyone.
In return I have been directly abused. But I won't be responding in kind.
Carniphage and I certainly haven't agreed in this thread about licensing out the Mac OS, but his argument on this subject is very reasoned and I didn't catch any major sneering.
Wobegon, we may disagree on the issues. But you are a true gentleman!
Well iTunes and Safari and Airport Utility are a start.
But Apple making software for Windows does cause it to snow in hell.
C.
Yeah, but Apple's Windows software sucks.
With iTunes, it bundles QT, which is one of the worse video players out there, it runs slowly and supports nothing. However, with the latest version of iTunes, it comes with QT, as well as iPhone helpers, and a MobileMe option in the Control Panel, even if you don't use them. And many people have download Safari for Windows, as Apple slipped it in there with the updater. And I'm not a big fan of Safari on Mac or Windows anymore, ever since Opera 9.5 or FF3.
I'm glad Apple doesn't release iLife or iWork for Windows, as they would be buggy and slow, much like Microsoft's Office 2008, and people would see how lame iWork is for the most part, and go back to Office 2003/2007 or OOo, especially if they need Excel.
I'm glad Apple doesn't release iLife or iWork for Windows, as they would be buggy and slow, much like Microsoft's Office 2008, and people would see how lame iWork is for the most part, and go back to Office 2003/2007 or OOo, especially if they need Excel.
I agree. The only way Apple can easily make a port of a OS X program run under Windows, is to have a cut-down Mac OS running within Windows. This is *really* resource expensive. The resulting applications are slow and bloated and don't comply with Windows UI.
Personally, I like iWork, but it is sluggish, even on my Mac Pro.
Man, if there was ever a need for an American COMPUTER History class, it's now.
There WERE alternatives besides the beleaguered Apple of the past. You do realize the Microsoft of today is now eerily mimicking the floundering Apple of the '90s, right?
Read the following to watch history repeat itself:
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to rejoin the discussion, most kind of you.
And thanks for the history lesson, although you have not said a thing that I never already knew already and more to the point have not said a thing that changes anything I have said, if you could be bothered reading my posts you would know that.
I was going to reply to all your points but to be honest I cannot be bothered, I have made my point quite clear already. if I was some 14 year old child you could probably get away with talking to me like that once, But seen as I am the Managing Director and sole owner of an software company that turned over $68 Million dollars last FY then maybe you do not need to be talking to me like that, or to be honest not sure you should be patronising anybody like that!
I am fairly confident I know what I am talking about, but if you know better then fair enough.
I'm not sure I understand. How is this not what Apple is currently doing?
Thanks for reminding me about that statement, which has baffled sooo many people. \
This is how I should have phrased it:
The fatal flaw in your reasoning [Carniphage] is your assumption that Apple can just do the same thing [that Microsoft has been illegally doing]: bundle their operating system with new PCs PRODUCED BY THIRD PARTY HARDWARE VENDORS.
It's NOT illegal for Apple to sell their operating system with their computers. That's called an embedded system. That's what cell phones, video game consoles, and Macs are. People have the CHOICE to use them, or not. In addition, Apple is not preventing anyone from using alternative operating systems on their Macs; Windows and Linux can be run both natively using Boot Camp and virtually using third party programs like Parallels.
Meanwhile, it IS illegal to bundle an operating system from one independent company (Microsoft) with the hardware from a separate independent company (Dell, HP, etc.) through exclusive, anti-competitive OEM licensing contracts because it stifles competition from alternative operating systems (like Linux, FreeBSD, or if Apple threw their hat into the ring - which again, Apple has no interest in doing - Mac OS X).
EDIT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
Wobegon, we may disagree on the issues. But you are a true gentleman!
Thanks, especially coming from a British guy. Make sure to read my statement above.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to rejoin the discussion, most kind of you.
And thanks for the history lesson, although you have not said a thing that I never already knew already and more to the point have not said a thing that changes anything I have said, if you could be bothered reading my posts you would know that.
I was going to reply to all your points but to be honest I cannot be bothered, I have made my point quite clear already. if I was some 14 year old child you could probably get away with talking to me like that once, But seen as I am the Managing Director and sole owner of an software company that turned over $68 Million dollars last FY then maybe you do not need to be talking to me like that, or to be honest not sure you should be patronising anybody like that!
I am fairly confident I know what I am talking about, but if you know better then fair enough.
I was not responding to all of your posts, just your assertion that no alternatives to Microsoft's Windows existed, which is inaccurate. I did follow your and Mac-sochist's discussion over the likelihood of Apple licensing out their OS to third party hardware vendors, which is why I posted relevant articles that demonstrate there WERE alternatives and WHY Microsoft is REALLY where it is today.
I did not mean to patronize you, but to break some of the tension. Sheesh! I find it rather hypocritical of someone to be calling me out for prodding them a little in an attempt to lighten them up, and then have them condescend to me and others in the same breath.
I have no interest in fighting with people I don't know behind the veil of anonymity the internet provides. Regardless of what status you claim to hold in some business doesn't make your arguments any more right, nor does it invalidate mine in this situation.
I have the deepest respect for the views of others. And I would never directly abuse anyone on this forum. (Apart from Bavlondon)
But if I think they are wrong, I try and argue my point. I think that is a lot of fun. It's like playing Call of Duty, but with words.
I try to make my points by arguing my corner, pointing to web links, using some facts, and occasional witty metaphors. Ok witty in my own mind.
I did not call anyone here an idiot and I never would.
I was provocative when I said "some idiots even want tablets" to illustrate that Apple does not make every form factor under the sun. And I used that word to indicate that I think it is the last form factor Apple will ever make.
It was not directed at any individual at all. And if you check my posts, I have never used personal attacks or direct abuse to anyone.
In return I have been directly abused. But I won't be responding in kind.
C.
I apologize if you feel that i have personally attacked you. Now that this is settled lets get on with the apple talk shall we?!
Carniphage, you seem to do your research an awful lot after reading posts from other threads and i respect you now as i see your points that you were only presenting an arguement. I was wondering what you think specifically what this product transition will be because this thread seems to be getting off topic in some ways and i was wondering your "list" so to speak of speculated products.
I apologize if you feel that i have personally attacked you. Now that this is settled lets get on with the apple talk shall we?!
Carniphage, you seem to do your research an awful lot after reading posts from other threads and i respect you now as i see your points that you were only presenting an arguement. I was wondering what you think specifically what this product transition will be because this thread seems to be getting off topic in some ways and i was wondering your "list" so to speak of speculated products.
Apology accepted. :-)
I like it when we can argue the crap out of a topic and still remain friendly!
Apple has tended to use the word transition to mean a fairly large change in the way it does things.
Motorola -> PowerPC
OS9 -> OS-X
PowerPC -> Intel
These were all *huge* changes. But I could be wrong and it could be a much smaller transition.
The language we are all trying to pick-apart is :
There is a secret "product transition" that will affect Apple's product margins and drop them to about 30 percent, but which CFO Peter Oppenheimer can't talk about today.
Apple doesn't want to leave a margin so high that it creates an "umbrella" for competitors to rest under in terms of price; These state-of-the-art products will have technologies and features that others "can't match,"
My interpretation was this is about OS X. Apple is going to do a territory grab to take advantage of the Vista debacle. It fits with the language; the relatively high margin of Mac computers locks OS X into a high-end ghetto. OS X will never escape into wider usage. And Windows can shelter safe under this price Umberella.
If we go back to Next, Jobs eventually sold NextStep as a stand alone OS to try and pick up market share. (Unsucessfully)
Such a move *would* initially affect Apple's bottom line, because Apple would probably have to cut the least competitive hardware prices to prevent a degree of Cannibalization.
But of course there could be a simpler explanation of Oppenheimer's words.
The most compelling alternative argument in this thread would be a radical overhaul of the notebook line up.
I like it when we can argue the crap out of a topic and still remain friendly!
Apple has tended to use the word transition to mean a fairly large change in the way it does things.
Motorola -> PowerPC
OS9 -> OS-X
PowerPC -> Intel
These were all *huge* changes. But I could be wrong and it could be a much smaller transition.
The language we are all trying to pick-apart is :
There is a secret "product transition" that will affect Apple's product margins and drop them to about 30 percent, but which CFO Peter Oppenheimer can't talk about today.
Apple doesn't want to leave a margin so high that it creates an "umbrella" for competitors to rest under in terms of price; These state-of-the-art products will have technologies and features that others "can't match,"
My interpretation was this is about OS X. Apple is going to do a territory grab to take advantage of the Vista debacle. It fits with the language; the relatively high margin of Mac computers locks OS X into a high-end ghetto. OS X will never escape into wider usage. And Windows can shelter safe under this price Umberella.
If we go back to Next, Jobs eventually sold NextStep as a stand alone OS to try and pick up market share. (Unsucessfully)
Such a move *would* initially affect Apple's bottom line, because Apple would probably have to cut the least competitive hardware prices to prevent a degree of Cannibalization.
But of course there could be a simpler explanation of Oppenheimer's words.
The most compelling alternative argument in this thread would be a radical overhaul of the notebook line up.
Thanks for bringing us out of the wilderness and back into the supposed point of this thread, Zin. Apparently other "idiots" think it's going to be a touch tablet. One of them is a pro with some inside info. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/
In making a case for why a TT might be worth a marketing effort, he espouses a movie player and Kindle killer. I really have been thinking about getting a Kindle (next model out soon) and it costs around 400. Jobs reportedly thinks that's a dumb idea, but Amazon has sold several hundred thousand so far and ran out of them for a while. If Apple can find a similar link to a very large reasonably priced library to add to itunes, there's a market just for that. But what if it was on the order $500 with a form factor smaller than the Kindle and had all the extra goodies (including a plug in keyboard for back home) that an Atom makes possible? Funny, the air left off the internal op drive - this would leave out the internal keyboard, but you have it if you want it. Not the biggest market, but maybe enough to make it worthwhile. At $1000, fugetabowdit.
Thanks for bringing us out of the wilderness and back into the supposed point of this thread, Zin. Apparently other "idiots" think it's going to be a touch tablet. One of them is a pro with some inside info. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/
In making a case for why a TT might be worth a marketing effort, he espouses a movie player and Kindle killer. I really have been thinking about getting a Kindle (next model out soon) and it costs around 400. Jobs reportedly thinks that's a dumb idea, but Amazon has sold several hundred thousand so far and ran out of them for a while. If Apple can find a similar link to a very large reasonably priced library to add to itunes, there's a market just for that. But what if it was on the order $500 with a form factor smaller than the Kindle and had all the extra goodies (including a plug in keyboard for back home) that an Atom makes possible? Funny, the air left off the internal op drive - this would leave out the internal keyboard, but you have it if you want it. Not the biggest market, but maybe enough to make it worthwhile. At $1000, fugetabowdit.
Two things.
First, you do realize ZDNet is basically a Microsoft mouthpiece and major propagator of Mac FUD right?
Second, pricing a Mac tablet at $500 would make it only a stone's throw from Apple's iPod touch mobile WiFi device and anything that cheap would have to be lower-powered than the MacBook Air, Apple's slowest computer. On that note, why would Apple launch the MacBook Air, a sleek laptop with a large Multi-Touch trackpad in January (and subsequently, update their MacBook Pro line with the same touch functionality) only to basically obsolete those computers with a full-on touch-based tablet that could cannibalize Mac sales and/or be cannibalized by the iPod touch or iPhone?
Apparently other "idiots" think it's going to be a touch tablet. One of them is a pro with some inside info. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/
If anyone can make a successful tablet, it would be Apple. But there are massive design and technological hurdles to overcome. If Apple have done that, then that would be awesome. But I'm not holding my breath.
If it's a hardware transition. My money would be on a big overhaul of the notebooks. Interpreting Oppenheimer's remarks with regard to portables, would suggest something astonishingly inexpensive.
Perhaps a netbook, targetted at school use with a very low price and a very high specification. But such a device would hurt the Air.
I don't agree with it, but that's a valid argument.
You are saying that if Sony offered OS X, Apple customers would migrate to (better/cheaper) Sony hardware.
I don't agree. because...
1) I think Apple hardware is superior to Sony design-wise and is competitive price/performance-wise.
2) If it isn't, it really ought to be.
No...Sony doesn't make cheaper hardware. They made hardware with about as much margins as Apple does. They would migrate to HP and Dell machines...which are better/cheaper.
I am saying that Apple would be as successful in moving desktops as Sony was: not very.
Quote:
But a lot of people seem very eager to move away from Windows too. There is a groundswell of Windows anger out there. A sizable minority of the 92% are unhappy with Windows and would happily switch to Leopard.
I'm thinking that the number is smaller than we think and that most aren't angry enough to pay the Apple tax. Or they'd own Macs.
Quote:
The justaposition of Apples best OS, at the same moment as Windows most bungled OS introduction creates a historic opportunity. Persuade just 10% of Windows users to switch, and the OS X market share would double rapidly.
Which would be financial disaster for Apple if 50% of it's high margin hardware sales (desktop) went away.
Quote:
Doubling the OS X market share would be very significant for Apple. The visibility of the brand would increase, the acceptance of it standards would increase. And you might get some momentum. It might also drive forward hardware sales. In a halo effect.
Apple's branding is QUITE healthy thanks. Likewise momentum.
Quote:
Currently potential switchers are road-blocked because the only way to get Mac OS, is by buying a high-end boutique system. Which according to you, is poor value.
High margin items often are poor values unless they have some compelling advantage. For apple this is a combination of branding, design and OSX. Sony had branding and even design...if you care for Sony design anyway. Even if you didn't at least they were not the same old boxes that Dell/HP/Gateway/etc pushed out.
Steve has a specific ideal of computing. This ideal happens to be also the same market segments with high margins (SFF, AIO and laptops). So he gets his cake and eat it too with a highly profitable and successful Apple.
Why is that do you think? If your company developed an business class software app which OS would you write it for? the 99% of business machines that run windows or the 1% that run OSX? It is not even worth writing for both.
Now, what would you do if suddenly the bar to business running OSX had been lifted and a good proportion (20-30% ?) of your customer base were telling you they wanted to switch to OSX. You would immediately get to work rewriting code.
Your issue does not exist.
I would write for Windows because MS has put significant effort in tailoring their OS infrastructure for business just as Apple has put significant effort in tailoring their OS infrastructure for the home and creative desktop market. Apple has iLife which IMHO is unmatched by anything on the windows side. Microsoft has Active Directory, Exchange, SQL Server, etc which is unmatched by anything on the mac side.
The issue certainly exists. Apple has not had a business focus in some time and won't have a 20-30% share in business anytime soon. Probably ever.
This isn't a theoretical issue for me. I'm a .NET developer that usually uses Keynote for presentations and lives with OSX integration in a MS Server world. Would I try to move from C# to Java to service OSX? Not bloody likely given the piss poor Java support on OSX. At least Java 6 is finally in Leopard...sorta. Only for 64-bit Intel. So I'd be stuck using Java 5.
Would I recode everything in ObjC + IB? Not bloodly likely even though I used to be a NeXT developer.
Multiplatform to OSX is a royal pain in the arse. I'd do a web app front end first before doing anything native.
A full blown port to OSX? Really unlikely unless my market touched on the Apple strength areas (content producers for example...maybe academic and medical users).
I'd do an iPhone native app perhaps since it has a chance of significant share.
I think that the rebirth of Pippin is far more likely than either a multi-touch tablet or opening up OSX.
I think the rebirth of Pippin is a very low probability of occurance. On the other hand, I could see the aTV gaining as much gaming capability as an iPod touch with some kind of BT based controller with accelerometers...
The mini might be a viable platform if you stuck some kind of half decent GPU in there. At least up to Wii standards. This would have a negative effect on iMac sales and move ASPs downwards so a beefed up aTV running a cut down OSX seems more likely.
Comments
By the way, Carniphage, have you thought about my question on why Apple is not already selling software for Windows-based computers?
Well iTunes and Safari and Airport Utility are a start.
But Apple making software for Windows does cause it to snow in hell.
C.
but is there any definite news about what will be updated by september ?
Olternaut clearly isnt happy with him either. Carniphage is indeed calling people idiots and is being rude and saucy in the comments he makes. Other people have their opinions too. Its not just "his case" that is supported here, everyone has their own opinion on the future of apple. He needs to start respecting the opinions of others.
I have the deepest respect for the views of others. And I would never directly abuse anyone on this forum. (Apart from Bavlondon)
But if I think they are wrong, I try and argue my point. I think that is a lot of fun. It's like playing Call of Duty, but with words.
I try to make my points by arguing my corner, pointing to web links, using some facts, and occasional witty metaphors. Ok witty in my own mind.
I did not call anyone here an idiot and I never would.
I was provocative when I said "some idiots even want tablets" to illustrate that Apple does not make every form factor under the sun. And I used that word to indicate that I think it is the last form factor Apple will ever make.
It was not directed at any individual at all. And if you check my posts, I have never used personal attacks or direct abuse to anyone.
In return I have been directly abused. But I won't be responding in kind.
C.
Carniphage and I certainly haven't agreed in this thread about licensing out the Mac OS, but his argument on this subject is very reasoned and I didn't catch any major sneering.
Wobegon, we may disagree on the issues. But you are a true gentleman!
C.
The fatal flaw in your reasoning is your assumption that Apple can just do the same thing: bundle their operating system with new PCs.
I'm not sure I understand. How is this not what Apple is currently doing?
Well iTunes and Safari and Airport Utility are a start.
But Apple making software for Windows does cause it to snow in hell.
C.
Yeah, but Apple's Windows software sucks.
With iTunes, it bundles QT, which is one of the worse video players out there, it runs slowly and supports nothing. However, with the latest version of iTunes, it comes with QT, as well as iPhone helpers, and a MobileMe option in the Control Panel, even if you don't use them. And many people have download Safari for Windows, as Apple slipped it in there with the updater. And I'm not a big fan of Safari on Mac or Windows anymore, ever since Opera 9.5 or FF3.
I'm glad Apple doesn't release iLife or iWork for Windows, as they would be buggy and slow, much like Microsoft's Office 2008, and people would see how lame iWork is for the most part, and go back to Office 2003/2007 or OOo, especially if they need Excel.
Yeah, but Apple's Windows software sucks.
I'm glad Apple doesn't release iLife or iWork for Windows, as they would be buggy and slow, much like Microsoft's Office 2008, and people would see how lame iWork is for the most part, and go back to Office 2003/2007 or OOo, especially if they need Excel.
I agree. The only way Apple can easily make a port of a OS X program run under Windows, is to have a cut-down Mac OS running within Windows. This is *really* resource expensive. The resulting applications are slow and bloated and don't comply with Windows UI.
Personally, I like iWork, but it is sluggish, even on my Mac Pro.
C.
Man, if there was ever a need for an American COMPUTER History class, it's now.
There WERE alternatives besides the beleaguered Apple of the past. You do realize the Microsoft of today is now eerily mimicking the floundering Apple of the '90s, right?
Read the following to watch history repeat itself:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/0...ered-apple-96/
Now read the following to get up to speed on...history:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Hom...EF7FAFD3A.html
At the bottom of that ^ article, it links to the next article: 1980-1985: 8-bit Platforms
At the bottom of that article on 8-bit systems will be one on 16-bit systems. Read that too. Keep following the links 'til you reach the end.
The articles are all part of a logical, well written, and easy to understand series: The Rise and Fall of Platforms.
After your done reading all that, please tell Carniphage about it and make sure to say pass it on.
Then rejoin the discussion if you wish.
Here's another article from that series. It's should be quite relevant to you: 1990-1995: Why the World Went Windows
But seriously, make sure to read the rest.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to rejoin the discussion, most kind of you.
And thanks for the history lesson, although you have not said a thing that I never already knew already and more to the point have not said a thing that changes anything I have said, if you could be bothered reading my posts you would know that.
I was going to reply to all your points but to be honest I cannot be bothered, I have made my point quite clear already. if I was some 14 year old child you could probably get away with talking to me like that once, But seen as I am the Managing Director and sole owner of an software company that turned over $68 Million dollars last FY then maybe you do not need to be talking to me like that, or to be honest not sure you should be patronising anybody like that!
I am fairly confident I know what I am talking about, but if you know better then fair enough.
I'm not sure I understand. How is this not what Apple is currently doing?
Thanks for reminding me about that statement, which has baffled sooo many people.
This is how I should have phrased it:
The fatal flaw in your reasoning [Carniphage] is your assumption that Apple can just do the same thing [that Microsoft has been illegally doing]: bundle their operating system with new PCs PRODUCED BY THIRD PARTY HARDWARE VENDORS.
It's NOT illegal for Apple to sell their operating system with their computers. That's called an embedded system. That's what cell phones, video game consoles, and Macs are. People have the CHOICE to use them, or not. In addition, Apple is not preventing anyone from using alternative operating systems on their Macs; Windows and Linux can be run both natively using Boot Camp and virtually using third party programs like Parallels.
Meanwhile, it IS illegal to bundle an operating system from one independent company (Microsoft) with the hardware from a separate independent company (Dell, HP, etc.) through exclusive, anti-competitive OEM licensing contracts because it stifles competition from alternative operating systems (like Linux, FreeBSD, or if Apple threw their hat into the ring - which again, Apple has no interest in doing - Mac OS X).
EDIT
Wobegon, we may disagree on the issues. But you are a true gentleman!
Thanks, especially coming from a British guy.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to rejoin the discussion, most kind of you.
And thanks for the history lesson, although you have not said a thing that I never already knew already and more to the point have not said a thing that changes anything I have said, if you could be bothered reading my posts you would know that.
I was going to reply to all your points but to be honest I cannot be bothered, I have made my point quite clear already. if I was some 14 year old child you could probably get away with talking to me like that once, But seen as I am the Managing Director and sole owner of an software company that turned over $68 Million dollars last FY then maybe you do not need to be talking to me like that, or to be honest not sure you should be patronising anybody like that!
I am fairly confident I know what I am talking about, but if you know better then fair enough.
I was not responding to all of your posts, just your assertion that no alternatives to Microsoft's Windows existed, which is inaccurate. I did follow your and Mac-sochist's discussion over the likelihood of Apple licensing out their OS to third party hardware vendors, which is why I posted relevant articles that demonstrate there WERE alternatives and WHY Microsoft is REALLY where it is today.
I did not mean to patronize you, but to break some of the tension. Sheesh! I find it rather hypocritical of someone to be calling me out for prodding them a little in an attempt to lighten them up, and then have them condescend to me and others in the same breath.
I have no interest in fighting with people I don't know behind the veil of anonymity the internet provides. Regardless of what status you claim to hold in some business doesn't make your arguments any more right, nor does it invalidate mine in this situation.
I have the deepest respect for the views of others. And I would never directly abuse anyone on this forum. (Apart from Bavlondon)
But if I think they are wrong, I try and argue my point. I think that is a lot of fun. It's like playing Call of Duty, but with words.
I try to make my points by arguing my corner, pointing to web links, using some facts, and occasional witty metaphors. Ok witty in my own mind.
I did not call anyone here an idiot and I never would.
I was provocative when I said "some idiots even want tablets" to illustrate that Apple does not make every form factor under the sun. And I used that word to indicate that I think it is the last form factor Apple will ever make.
It was not directed at any individual at all. And if you check my posts, I have never used personal attacks or direct abuse to anyone.
In return I have been directly abused. But I won't be responding in kind.
C.
I apologize if you feel that i have personally attacked you. Now that this is settled lets get on with the apple talk shall we?!
Carniphage, you seem to do your research an awful lot after reading posts from other threads and i respect you now as i see your points that you were only presenting an arguement. I was wondering what you think specifically what this product transition will be because this thread seems to be getting off topic in some ways and i was wondering your "list" so to speak of speculated products.
I apologize if you feel that i have personally attacked you. Now that this is settled lets get on with the apple talk shall we?!
Carniphage, you seem to do your research an awful lot after reading posts from other threads and i respect you now as i see your points that you were only presenting an arguement. I was wondering what you think specifically what this product transition will be because this thread seems to be getting off topic in some ways and i was wondering your "list" so to speak of speculated products.
Apology accepted. :-)
I like it when we can argue the crap out of a topic and still remain friendly!
Apple has tended to use the word transition to mean a fairly large change in the way it does things.
Motorola -> PowerPC
OS9 -> OS-X
PowerPC -> Intel
These were all *huge* changes. But I could be wrong and it could be a much smaller transition.
The language we are all trying to pick-apart is :
There is a secret "product transition" that will affect Apple's product margins and drop them to about 30 percent, but which CFO Peter Oppenheimer can't talk about today.
Apple doesn't want to leave a margin so high that it creates an "umbrella" for competitors to rest under in terms of price; These state-of-the-art products will have technologies and features that others "can't match,"
My interpretation was this is about OS X. Apple is going to do a territory grab to take advantage of the Vista debacle. It fits with the language; the relatively high margin of Mac computers locks OS X into a high-end ghetto. OS X will never escape into wider usage. And Windows can shelter safe under this price Umberella.
If we go back to Next, Jobs eventually sold NextStep as a stand alone OS to try and pick up market share. (Unsucessfully)
Such a move *would* initially affect Apple's bottom line, because Apple would probably have to cut the least competitive hardware prices to prevent a degree of Cannibalization.
But of course there could be a simpler explanation of Oppenheimer's words.
The most compelling alternative argument in this thread would be a radical overhaul of the notebook line up.
C.
Apology accepted. :-)
I like it when we can argue the crap out of a topic and still remain friendly!
Apple has tended to use the word transition to mean a fairly large change in the way it does things.
Motorola -> PowerPC
OS9 -> OS-X
PowerPC -> Intel
These were all *huge* changes. But I could be wrong and it could be a much smaller transition.
The language we are all trying to pick-apart is :
There is a secret "product transition" that will affect Apple's product margins and drop them to about 30 percent, but which CFO Peter Oppenheimer can't talk about today.
Apple doesn't want to leave a margin so high that it creates an "umbrella" for competitors to rest under in terms of price; These state-of-the-art products will have technologies and features that others "can't match,"
My interpretation was this is about OS X. Apple is going to do a territory grab to take advantage of the Vista debacle. It fits with the language; the relatively high margin of Mac computers locks OS X into a high-end ghetto. OS X will never escape into wider usage. And Windows can shelter safe under this price Umberella.
If we go back to Next, Jobs eventually sold NextStep as a stand alone OS to try and pick up market share. (Unsucessfully)
Such a move *would* initially affect Apple's bottom line, because Apple would probably have to cut the least competitive hardware prices to prevent a degree of Cannibalization.
But of course there could be a simpler explanation of Oppenheimer's words.
The most compelling alternative argument in this thread would be a radical overhaul of the notebook line up.
C.
It's going to be a MacBook Touch.
In making a case for why a TT might be worth a marketing effort, he espouses a movie player and Kindle killer. I really have been thinking about getting a Kindle (next model out soon) and it costs around 400. Jobs reportedly thinks that's a dumb idea, but Amazon has sold several hundred thousand so far and ran out of them for a while. If Apple can find a similar link to a very large reasonably priced library to add to itunes, there's a market just for that. But what if it was on the order $500 with a form factor smaller than the Kindle and had all the extra goodies (including a plug in keyboard for back home) that an Atom makes possible? Funny, the air left off the internal op drive - this would leave out the internal keyboard, but you have it if you want it. Not the biggest market, but maybe enough to make it worthwhile. At $1000, fugetabowdit.
Thanks for bringing us out of the wilderness and back into the supposed point of this thread, Zin. Apparently other "idiots" think it's going to be a touch tablet. One of them is a pro with some inside info. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/
In making a case for why a TT might be worth a marketing effort, he espouses a movie player and Kindle killer. I really have been thinking about getting a Kindle (next model out soon) and it costs around 400. Jobs reportedly thinks that's a dumb idea, but Amazon has sold several hundred thousand so far and ran out of them for a while. If Apple can find a similar link to a very large reasonably priced library to add to itunes, there's a market just for that. But what if it was on the order $500 with a form factor smaller than the Kindle and had all the extra goodies (including a plug in keyboard for back home) that an Atom makes possible? Funny, the air left off the internal op drive - this would leave out the internal keyboard, but you have it if you want it. Not the biggest market, but maybe enough to make it worthwhile. At $1000, fugetabowdit.
Two things.
First, you do realize ZDNet is basically a Microsoft mouthpiece and major propagator of Mac FUD right?
Second, pricing a Mac tablet at $500 would make it only a stone's throw from Apple's iPod touch mobile WiFi device and anything that cheap would have to be lower-powered than the MacBook Air, Apple's slowest computer. On that note, why would Apple launch the MacBook Air, a sleek laptop with a large Multi-Touch trackpad in January (and subsequently, update their MacBook Pro line with the same touch functionality) only to basically obsolete those computers with a full-on touch-based tablet that could cannibalize Mac sales and/or be cannibalized by the iPod touch or iPhone?
Apparently other "idiots" think it's going to be a touch tablet. One of them is a pro with some inside info. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/
If anyone can make a successful tablet, it would be Apple. But there are massive design and technological hurdles to overcome. If Apple have done that, then that would be awesome. But I'm not holding my breath.
If it's a hardware transition. My money would be on a big overhaul of the notebooks. Interpreting Oppenheimer's remarks with regard to portables, would suggest something astonishingly inexpensive.
Perhaps a netbook, targetted at school use with a very low price and a very high specification. But such a device would hurt the Air.
C.
I don't agree with it, but that's a valid argument.
You are saying that if Sony offered OS X, Apple customers would migrate to (better/cheaper) Sony hardware.
I don't agree. because...
1) I think Apple hardware is superior to Sony design-wise and is competitive price/performance-wise.
2) If it isn't, it really ought to be.
No...Sony doesn't make cheaper hardware. They made hardware with about as much margins as Apple does. They would migrate to HP and Dell machines...which are better/cheaper.
I am saying that Apple would be as successful in moving desktops as Sony was: not very.
But a lot of people seem very eager to move away from Windows too. There is a groundswell of Windows anger out there. A sizable minority of the 92% are unhappy with Windows and would happily switch to Leopard.
I'm thinking that the number is smaller than we think and that most aren't angry enough to pay the Apple tax. Or they'd own Macs.
The justaposition of Apples best OS, at the same moment as Windows most bungled OS introduction creates a historic opportunity. Persuade just 10% of Windows users to switch, and the OS X market share would double rapidly.
Which would be financial disaster for Apple if 50% of it's high margin hardware sales (desktop) went away.
Doubling the OS X market share would be very significant for Apple. The visibility of the brand would increase, the acceptance of it standards would increase. And you might get some momentum. It might also drive forward hardware sales. In a halo effect.
Apple's branding is QUITE healthy thanks. Likewise momentum.
Currently potential switchers are road-blocked because the only way to get Mac OS, is by buying a high-end boutique system. Which according to you, is poor value.
High margin items often are poor values unless they have some compelling advantage. For apple this is a combination of branding, design and OSX. Sony had branding and even design...if you care for Sony design anyway. Even if you didn't at least they were not the same old boxes that Dell/HP/Gateway/etc pushed out.
Steve has a specific ideal of computing. This ideal happens to be also the same market segments with high margins (SFF, AIO and laptops). So he gets his cake and eat it too with a highly profitable and successful Apple.
Why is that do you think? If your company developed an business class software app which OS would you write it for? the 99% of business machines that run windows or the 1% that run OSX? It is not even worth writing for both.
Now, what would you do if suddenly the bar to business running OSX had been lifted and a good proportion (20-30% ?) of your customer base were telling you they wanted to switch to OSX. You would immediately get to work rewriting code.
Your issue does not exist.
I would write for Windows because MS has put significant effort in tailoring their OS infrastructure for business just as Apple has put significant effort in tailoring their OS infrastructure for the home and creative desktop market. Apple has iLife which IMHO is unmatched by anything on the windows side. Microsoft has Active Directory, Exchange, SQL Server, etc which is unmatched by anything on the mac side.
The issue certainly exists. Apple has not had a business focus in some time and won't have a 20-30% share in business anytime soon. Probably ever.
This isn't a theoretical issue for me. I'm a .NET developer that usually uses Keynote for presentations and lives with OSX integration in a MS Server world. Would I try to move from C# to Java to service OSX? Not bloody likely given the piss poor Java support on OSX. At least Java 6 is finally in Leopard...sorta. Only for 64-bit Intel. So I'd be stuck using Java 5.
Would I recode everything in ObjC + IB? Not bloodly likely even though I used to be a NeXT developer.
Multiplatform to OSX is a royal pain in the arse. I'd do a web app front end first before doing anything native.
A full blown port to OSX? Really unlikely unless my market touched on the Apple strength areas (content producers for example...maybe academic and medical users).
I'd do an iPhone native app perhaps since it has a chance of significant share.
I think the rebirth of Pippin is a very low probability of occurance. On the other hand, I could see the aTV gaining as much gaming capability as an iPod touch with some kind of BT based controller with accelerometers...
The mini might be a viable platform if you stuck some kind of half decent GPU in there. At least up to Wii standards. This would have a negative effect on iMac sales and move ASPs downwards so a beefed up aTV running a cut down OSX seems more likely.