Well, there are some limits to how revolutionary a company can be. For one thing, it would be annoying for customers to have a revolution of the type the original Macintosh was more than once every decade or two. Modifying workflows for new paradigms and dealing with backward compatibility, especially these days, is a PITA. For another thing, it takes time to see how people are using technology and how it can be improved, and often times such improvements are only thought up in an evolutionary manner.
Revolutionary products is not what I expect from Apple. What I appreciate most about them is the attention they pay to detail, to make things work in logical, easy-to-use ways. And after all that is the only sustainable advantage they can keep over Windows, since any revolutionary ideas can be promptly copied. Careful thought behind how existing features work is more important to me than having radical new features every year.
Well after I suggested the new big thing might be windows APIs in snow leopard, plenty of people (with a better understanding of how that might work) have contributed to this thread. But Hymie's comments really got me thinking.
Instead of including windows APIs in OSX is it not more logical to produce a new breed of universal apps using XCode, and any new libraries needed on the windows side would just be updated like a normal software update.
So we wouldn't be running windows apps we'd be running osx versions of the same app?
Then if Steve gave away the dev kits or something? Wrapped the whole idea up like only Steve can, used the app store etc.
This way development of mac software wouldn't dive it would increase, and we know you'd get the best experience on the mac due to iLife integration etc.
Why in God's name would Apple want to " remove Apple's music and phone revenues.
My goodness - you didn't do well in reading class did you? To make a valid comparison between and Apple and Microsoft - you have to compare like with like. Ever encountered that idea?
Without Music and Phones. Apple makes modest revenues on the Mac hardware and software. Of that, very little is software. Because Apple uses the software as a free give-away to attract consumers to its boutique computers.
Get.
it .
now?
Apple's niche hardware is profitable but expensive hardware is a growth straightjacket. Apple have been pushed down into 4th place. As desktop sales continue to nosedive, Apple should consider seeking growth by directly monetizing OS X.
Apple's Mac boat is very profitable. But with declining hardware sales, that boat could sink.
My goodness - you didn't do well in reading class did you? To make a valid comparison between and Apple and Microsoft - you have to compare like with like. Ever encountered that idea?
Without Music and Phones. Apple makes modest revenues on the Mac hardware and software. Of that, very little is software. Because Apple uses the software as a free give-away to attract consumers to its boutique computers.
Get.
it .
now?
Apple's niche hardware is profitable but expensive hardware is a growth straightjacket. Apple have been pushed down into 4th place. As desktop sales continue to nosedive, Apple should consider seeking growth by directly monetizing OS X.
Apple's Mac boat is very profitable. But with declining hardware sales, that boat could sink.
Apple intros 25th Anniversary Mac - the "X-Mac" at last, and the display floats above the desk with no obvious support, the keyboard is just an image projected on the desk and the unit requires no cords or cables of any kind. Screen images can optionally be projected straight into your mind if you desire, we'll never have to buy another app of any kind, it comes pre-loaded with any app you could want, but uses no additional storage space on you drive. The entire iTunes Music store come built into every Mac, free music for everybody...
Well, there are some limits to how revolutionary a company can be. For one thing, it would be annoying for customers to have a revolution of the type the original Macintosh was more than once every decade or two. Modifying workflows for new paradigms and dealing with backward compatibility, especially these days, is a PITA. For another thing, it takes time to see how people are using technology and how it can be improved, and often times such improvements are only thought up in an evolutionary manner.
Revolutionary products is not what I expect from Apple. What I appreciate most about them is the attention they pay to detail, to make things work in logical, easy-to-use ways. And after all that is the only sustainable advantage they can keep over Windows, since any revolutionary ideas can be promptly copied. Careful thought behind how existing features work is more important to me than having radical new features every year.
Apple has gradually moved into the same position that used to (sort of) belong to Microsoft. That of the company that waits for others to invent and then copy. The difference is, Apple waits until there is a consumer audience worth pursuing (big enough to make a nice profit), collects all of the information on the competition and then radically improves the end-to-end experience. Microsoft could never figure out that last part.
Well after I suggested the new big thing might be windows APIs in snow leopard, plenty of people (with a better understanding of how that might work) have contributed to this thread. But Hymie's comments really got me thinking.
Instead of including windows APIs in OSX is it not more logical to produce a new breed of universal apps using XCode, and any new libraries needed on the windows side would just be updated like a normal software update.
So we wouldn't be running windows apps we'd be running osx versions of the same app?
Then if Steve gave away the dev kits or something? Wrapped the whole idea up like only Steve can, used the app store etc.
This way development of mac software wouldn't dive it would increase, and we know you'd get the best experience on the mac due to iLife integration etc.
The problem here is that the Windows API is quite a different animal from any of the Core services, Carbon, or Cocoa. In fact, there are several incompatibilities that would sabotage this idea. First off, the Windows API is not completely documented for the developers: it's very well known that Microsoft applications get access to function calls that are not available to anyone else. Second, Windows' low-level API uses C++ which involves quite a different animal when it comes to code generation compared to Objective-C; getting the two to get along with respect to memory allocation -- and far more importantly, deallocation -- is asking for the entire Mac OS X system to introduce random crashes and protection exceptions. Very bad stuff.
Then there's critical danger #1: the Windows API is horribly designed from the word go with respect to system security. Many functions cannot execute properly without root privileges. Buffer overruns and stack manipulation continue to plague the Windows platform. Well, it's the design of the API itself that allows these kinds of virus invasions. Basically you'd be giving every Windows worm an entry point into the Mac's protected core.
Considering the problems introduced by attempting to bring the Windows API into XCode, I think it's better to just run Windows in an emulation layer.
Buffer overruns and stack manipulation continue to plague the Windows platform. Well, it's the design of the API itself that allows these kinds of virus invasions. Basically you'd be giving every Windows worm an entry point into the Mac's protected core.
They could maybe throw some gypsum and aqua in the sandbox.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoboNerd
Considering the problems introduced by attempting to bring the Windows API into XCode, I think it's better to just run Windows in an emulation layer.
Not for certain important apps though and those are the ones people really need the compatibility for.
Like I say, if it's a development layer not runtime, people will only get the ported apps, so the number of viruses possible would be negligible.
FWIW, I think Apple is most likely to release an actual Apple TV, say 42" minimum, with built-in iSight, iTunes, and front row. Combine this with a possible cable exclusive with ATT (UVerse), and Verizon (?), and you have the multimedia hub that the average consumer would buy. Maybe the Chinese iPhone Nano ripoffs were actually based on a new touchscreen remote for said TV. Just sayin'.
No, you don't need apple-tinted glasses to see that Apple's total number of shipments grew and their market share increased.
A yr on yr 1.3% increase of market share is not insignificant. Especially when Apple has such a small amount to begin with. But the faster-growing Acer pushed Apple from 3rd to 4th place. Which is why I thought Acer deserved the standout award.
Apple is sensibly focussed on profitability and not market-share or unit sales. But at some point it's going to own the premium segment entirely and at that point, finding more growth will need a change in direction. Either a move to commodity hardware. (eugh!) - or a shift to software.
To my mind, software has much more potential for growth.
A yr on yr 1.3% increase of market share is not insignificant. Especially when Apple has such a small amount to begin with. But the faster-growing Acer pushed Apple from 3rd to 4th place. Which is why I thought Acer deserved the standout award.
Apple is sensibly focussed on profitability and not market-share or unit sales. But at some point it's going to own the premium segment entirely and at that point, finding more growth will need a change in direction. Either a move to commodity hardware. (eugh!) - or a shift to software.
To my mind, software has much more potential for growth.
C.
True, Acer displaced Apple at the #3 spot in market share but the numbers show that Acer did this at the expense of Dell, HP, and "others", not Apple. Importantly, Acer has done this at the low end of the hardware/price range where Apple chooses not to participate except for perhaps the mini. Also, growing your market share from 6.7 to 8.0 is a 19% increase in relative terms. That's not the sign of a company employing a losing strategy, especially considering that it was profitable growth.
The standout to my eyes seems to be Acer. Not Apple. Perhaps I need new apple tinted glasses?
C.
I'd guess that a lot of Acer's rise is due to people buying Aspire netbooks, as standalone or as part of mobile phone deals, those things are everywhere, probably more so now than EeePC's.
Additionally, "Apple reported sales of 2.52 million Macs in the final quarter of 2008 (the company's fiscal 2009 Q1), down 3% from the previous September quarter but up 9% from the year ago winter quarter."
A yr on yr 1.3% increase of market share is not insignificant. Especially when Apple has such a small amount to begin with. But the faster-growing Acer pushed Apple from 3rd to 4th place. Which is why I thought Acer deserved the standout award.
Apple is sensibly focussed on profitability and not market-share or unit sales. But at some point it's going to own the premium segment entirely and at that point, finding more growth will need a change in direction. Either a move to commodity hardware. (eugh!) - or a shift to software.
To my mind, software has much more potential for growth.
C.
Yeah we're starting to talk about a whole bunch of things here. There's market share, then unit sales, then actual revenue, then profitability growth.
I do agree with you that Apple is sensibly focused on profitability. Market-share is not that important, although Mac units moved is always, always an important metric for Apple, even if Macs are only "one of the three legs" of Apple.
Re: the "premium segment", I don't think Apple will ever own that entirely. Because lets say in the next 5-10 years as the economy recovers, and emerging markets get back on 5%-20% yearly growth, the premium segment is still going to grow and still going to be open. You can bet a lot of tech/ gadget/ fashion companies are still dissecting Apple's success, a lot of them are saying, damn, I want a bite of this premium market. Dell's XPS and Alienware definitely takes a nice juicy bite out of the premium segment, for example.
I think Apple does not need to own the premium segment to continue profitability growth (growth at whatever amount, even 1%-5% worldwide).
Comments
Revolutionary products is not what I expect from Apple. What I appreciate most about them is the attention they pay to detail, to make things work in logical, easy-to-use ways. And after all that is the only sustainable advantage they can keep over Windows, since any revolutionary ideas can be promptly copied. Careful thought behind how existing features work is more important to me than having radical new features every year.
Instead of including windows APIs in OSX is it not more logical to produce a new breed of universal apps using XCode, and any new libraries needed on the windows side would just be updated like a normal software update.
So we wouldn't be running windows apps we'd be running osx versions of the same app?
Then if Steve gave away the dev kits or something? Wrapped the whole idea up like only Steve can, used the app store etc.
This way development of mac software wouldn't dive it would increase, and we know you'd get the best experience on the mac due to iLife integration etc.
Why in God's name would Apple want to " remove Apple's music and phone revenues.
My goodness - you didn't do well in reading class did you? To make a valid comparison between and Apple and Microsoft - you have to compare like with like. Ever encountered that idea?
Without Music and Phones. Apple makes modest revenues on the Mac hardware and software. Of that, very little is software. Because Apple uses the software as a free give-away to attract consumers to its boutique computers.
Get.
it .
now?
Apple's niche hardware is profitable but expensive hardware is a growth straightjacket. Apple have been pushed down into 4th place. As desktop sales continue to nosedive, Apple should consider seeking growth by directly monetizing OS X.
Apple's Mac boat is very profitable. But with declining hardware sales, that boat could sink.
C.
My goodness - you didn't do well in reading class did you? To make a valid comparison between and Apple and Microsoft - you have to compare like with like. Ever encountered that idea?
Without Music and Phones. Apple makes modest revenues on the Mac hardware and software. Of that, very little is software. Because Apple uses the software as a free give-away to attract consumers to its boutique computers.
Get.
it .
now?
Apple's niche hardware is profitable but expensive hardware is a growth straightjacket. Apple have been pushed down into 4th place. As desktop sales continue to nosedive, Apple should consider seeking growth by directly monetizing OS X.
Apple's Mac boat is very profitable. But with declining hardware sales, that boat could sink.
C.
Apple laptops are everywhere.
Apple's Mac boat is very profitable. But with declining hardware sales, that boat could sink.
C.
Did you read the AppleInsider story titled "Apple's Mac growth a standout in ailing PC market"?
People have been predicting declining hardware sales for years and have been wrong so far.
Apple intros 25th Anniversary Mac - the "X-Mac" at last, and the display floats above the desk with no obvious support, the keyboard is just an image projected on the desk and the unit requires no cords or cables of any kind. Screen images can optionally be projected straight into your mind if you desire, we'll never have to buy another app of any kind, it comes pre-loaded with any app you could want, but uses no additional storage space on you drive. The entire iTunes Music store come built into every Mac, free music for everybody...
Um, then I woke up....
Well, there are some limits to how revolutionary a company can be. For one thing, it would be annoying for customers to have a revolution of the type the original Macintosh was more than once every decade or two. Modifying workflows for new paradigms and dealing with backward compatibility, especially these days, is a PITA. For another thing, it takes time to see how people are using technology and how it can be improved, and often times such improvements are only thought up in an evolutionary manner.
Revolutionary products is not what I expect from Apple. What I appreciate most about them is the attention they pay to detail, to make things work in logical, easy-to-use ways. And after all that is the only sustainable advantage they can keep over Windows, since any revolutionary ideas can be promptly copied. Careful thought behind how existing features work is more important to me than having radical new features every year.
Apple has gradually moved into the same position that used to (sort of) belong to Microsoft. That of the company that waits for others to invent and then copy. The difference is, Apple waits until there is a consumer audience worth pursuing (big enough to make a nice profit), collects all of the information on the competition and then radically improves the end-to-end experience. Microsoft could never figure out that last part.
Well after I suggested the new big thing might be windows APIs in snow leopard, plenty of people (with a better understanding of how that might work) have contributed to this thread. But Hymie's comments really got me thinking.
Instead of including windows APIs in OSX is it not more logical to produce a new breed of universal apps using XCode, and any new libraries needed on the windows side would just be updated like a normal software update.
So we wouldn't be running windows apps we'd be running osx versions of the same app?
Then if Steve gave away the dev kits or something? Wrapped the whole idea up like only Steve can, used the app store etc.
This way development of mac software wouldn't dive it would increase, and we know you'd get the best experience on the mac due to iLife integration etc.
The problem here is that the Windows API is quite a different animal from any of the Core services, Carbon, or Cocoa. In fact, there are several incompatibilities that would sabotage this idea. First off, the Windows API is not completely documented for the developers: it's very well known that Microsoft applications get access to function calls that are not available to anyone else. Second, Windows' low-level API uses C++ which involves quite a different animal when it comes to code generation compared to Objective-C; getting the two to get along with respect to memory allocation -- and far more importantly, deallocation -- is asking for the entire Mac OS X system to introduce random crashes and protection exceptions. Very bad stuff.
Then there's critical danger #1: the Windows API is horribly designed from the word go with respect to system security. Many functions cannot execute properly without root privileges. Buffer overruns and stack manipulation continue to plague the Windows platform. Well, it's the design of the API itself that allows these kinds of virus invasions. Basically you'd be giving every Windows worm an entry point into the Mac's protected core.
Considering the problems introduced by attempting to bring the Windows API into XCode, I think it's better to just run Windows in an emulation layer.
Did you read the AppleInsider story titled "Apple's Mac growth a standout in ailing PC market"?
People have been predicting declining hardware sales for years and have been wrong so far.
The standout to my eyes seems to be Acer. Not Apple. Perhaps I need new apple tinted glasses?
C.
Buffer overruns and stack manipulation continue to plague the Windows platform. Well, it's the design of the API itself that allows these kinds of virus invasions. Basically you'd be giving every Windows worm an entry point into the Mac's protected core.
They could maybe throw some gypsum and aqua in the sandbox.
Considering the problems introduced by attempting to bring the Windows API into XCode, I think it's better to just run Windows in an emulation layer.
Not for certain important apps though and those are the ones people really need the compatibility for.
Like I say, if it's a development layer not runtime, people will only get the ported apps, so the number of viruses possible would be negligible.
The standout to my eyes seems to be Acer. Not Apple. Perhaps I need new apple tinted glasses?
C.
Those numbers are for the US only. Apple's growth *internationally* is a stand out.
Sure about that?
C.
The standout to my eyes seems to be Acer. Not Apple. Perhaps I need new apple tinted glasses?
C.
No, you don't need apple-tinted glasses to see that Apple's total number of shipments grew and their market share increased.
Further, Apple competes most directly with Dell and HP and much less so with Acer. Dell's and HP's market share decreased.
No, you don't need apple-tinted glasses to see that Apple's total number of shipments grew and their market share increased.
A yr on yr 1.3% increase of market share is not insignificant. Especially when Apple has such a small amount to begin with. But the faster-growing Acer pushed Apple from 3rd to 4th place. Which is why I thought Acer deserved the standout award.
Apple is sensibly focussed on profitability and not market-share or unit sales. But at some point it's going to own the premium segment entirely and at that point, finding more growth will need a change in direction. Either a move to commodity hardware. (eugh!) - or a shift to software.
To my mind, software has much more potential for growth.
C.
A yr on yr 1.3% increase of market share is not insignificant. Especially when Apple has such a small amount to begin with. But the faster-growing Acer pushed Apple from 3rd to 4th place. Which is why I thought Acer deserved the standout award.
Apple is sensibly focussed on profitability and not market-share or unit sales. But at some point it's going to own the premium segment entirely and at that point, finding more growth will need a change in direction. Either a move to commodity hardware. (eugh!) - or a shift to software.
To my mind, software has much more potential for growth.
C.
True, Acer displaced Apple at the #3 spot in market share but the numbers show that Acer did this at the expense of Dell, HP, and "others", not Apple. Importantly, Acer has done this at the low end of the hardware/price range where Apple chooses not to participate except for perhaps the mini. Also, growing your market share from 6.7 to 8.0 is a 19% increase in relative terms. That's not the sign of a company employing a losing strategy, especially considering that it was profitable growth.
The standout to my eyes seems to be Acer. Not Apple. Perhaps I need new apple tinted glasses?
C.
I'd guess that a lot of Acer's rise is due to people buying Aspire netbooks, as standalone or as part of mobile phone deals, those things are everywhere, probably more so now than EeePC's.
Sure about that?
C.
What's Apple's number in that chart, comparatively.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...pc_market.html says "Apple's quarter over quarter revenue growth was 28.8%".
Additionally, "Apple reported sales of 2.52 million Macs in the final quarter of 2008 (the company's fiscal 2009 Q1), down 3% from the previous September quarter but up 9% from the year ago winter quarter."
A yr on yr 1.3% increase of market share is not insignificant. Especially when Apple has such a small amount to begin with. But the faster-growing Acer pushed Apple from 3rd to 4th place. Which is why I thought Acer deserved the standout award.
Apple is sensibly focussed on profitability and not market-share or unit sales. But at some point it's going to own the premium segment entirely and at that point, finding more growth will need a change in direction. Either a move to commodity hardware. (eugh!) - or a shift to software.
To my mind, software has much more potential for growth.
C.
Yeah we're starting to talk about a whole bunch of things here. There's market share, then unit sales, then actual revenue, then profitability growth.
I do agree with you that Apple is sensibly focused on profitability. Market-share is not that important, although Mac units moved is always, always an important metric for Apple, even if Macs are only "one of the three legs" of Apple.
Re: the "premium segment", I don't think Apple will ever own that entirely. Because lets say in the next 5-10 years as the economy recovers, and emerging markets get back on 5%-20% yearly growth, the premium segment is still going to grow and still going to be open. You can bet a lot of tech/ gadget/ fashion companies are still dissecting Apple's success, a lot of them are saying, damn, I want a bite of this premium market. Dell's XPS and Alienware definitely takes a nice juicy bite out of the premium segment, for example.
I think Apple does not need to own the premium segment to continue profitability growth (growth at whatever amount, even 1%-5% worldwide).