No. If it doesn't exist, make it. That's what engineering is about.
The first personal computer didn't exist, computer parts didn't exist. Apple made them, programmed them. Graphical user interfaces barely existed outside corporate labs. Apple made it available.
Things don't work like that. You cannot just will something into being simply because you want it to. Of course everyone is working on improving technology. But it takes the time it takes and it won't happen any faster.
The graphic user interface had been around for some years before Apple used it. It took the time it took to make it into a viable product.
Quote:
Apple has enough money in the bank to try a few things and fail a few times. It won't break them.
They just need the will to do it. To be bold. And not do conservative baby steps that consist of refining existing technology, rather than making something completely new.
Technology doesn't just come about simply because you want it to.
The iPhone is many times more powerful than the computer that sent a rocket to the moon. That happened incrementally over 40 years, their was no big sudden leap.
Quote:
Regarding battery technologies:
And to those critics who say that these technologies are not ready for prime time I'd say, make it ready! That's what engineering is about.
Again you are using unrealistic expectations, things don't work like that.
I'm not saying that Apple should not use quad processors.
I'm simply saying quad processors are not automatically better just because their are four processors. The performance gains come under certain circumstances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I wonder which chips they'd use because the prices of the mobile chips haven't dropped that much. The Core 2 Extremes are still pretty high. If they transition to desktop processors, the prices should drop considerably.
For example, the Core 2 Extreme 3.06GHz is $851 but the Core 2 Quad 2.83GHz is just $369. This could mean the iMac would top out at $1699.
The lowest model even with a quad processor would stay around the same price. I doubt they'd go with the 24" across the lineup and drop the 20". I wonder how they will fit a 65W chip into the 20" shell. The 24" at least has some leg room for more advanced cooling.
Things don't work like that. You cannot just will something into being simply because you want it to.
How else is technology moved forward? Someone must be the first to try a new part/component/technology.
More and more it seems businesses just patent ideas with no intent to actually ever use them. They want patents only so they can sue others who are bold enough to actually apply the same idea first.
It is no longer about keeping others from using your ideas, but rather about keeping others from using new ideas altogether - while you yourself never intended to use it in the first place. At that point it is stiling progress. Companies should be forced to lose patents they don't use. And not decades later.
But boring patent issues aside, Apple does have a lot of great ideas patented, they just never seem to make it to happen.
I understand the conservative business approach, motto: "Let's see someone else do it first, and then we can do it better by learning from their mistakes" (while we sue their asses off because we hold the patent too).
But that way the Macintosh would have never happened. You cannot introduce radically new technology with a guaranteed market.
There is no success guarantee in new technologies. That's not how things work either.
As a middle ground I think Apple should start releasing 'Special' or 'Limited Editions' where they can test new technologies on a small run (with a premium price). There will always be people willing to pay a premium for the latest and greatest, the true 'consumer pioneers' (and it shouldn't be hard to find many of them among Macintosh folk).
This approach hedges potential losses, yet gives Apple a chance to introduce radically new technology without upsetting everyone automatically. So Apple can be bolder while testing the waters for things that could eventually roll out to everyone.
How else is technology moved forward? Someone must be the first to try a new part/component/technology.
All electronics companies have research and development labs where they are testing new technology. They are not going to ship a product with new technology until its ready, reliable, and cost effective.
Quote:
More and more it seems businesses just patent ideas with no intent to actually ever use them.
Patents are used for different reasons. Sometimes its a defensive measure for a product that you may not release for awhile, if ever.
Quote:
I understand the conservative business approach, motto: "Let's see someone else do it first, and then we can do it better by learning from their mistakes" (while we sue their asses off because we hold the patent too).
What you call the conservative business approach is the line between remaining profitable and going out of business.
Quote:
But that way the Macintosh would have never happened. You cannot introduce radically new technology with a guaranteed market. There is no success guarantee in new technologies. That's not how things work either.
The goal is to release a product that does what it does as best as you could design it. Shipping new technology just because its new does not necessarily accomplish this goal.
Quote:
As a middle ground I think Apple should start releasing 'Special' or 'Limited Editions' where they can test new technologies on a small run (with a premium price). There will always be people willing to pay a premium for the latest and greatest, the true 'consumer pioneers' (and it shouldn't be hard to find many of them among Macintosh folk).
This is not a good business strategy. You have to understand business is not a game. A company cannot afford to ship experimental products. They have to ship reliable, functional, cost effective technology when it becomes available.
Quote:
This approach hedges potential losses, yet gives Apple a chance to introduce radically new technology without upsetting everyone automatically. So Apple can be bolder while testing the waters for things that could eventually roll out to everyone.
Shipping radically new technology for the sake of shipping radically new technology is not a mission statement of Apple. This strategy would not be supported by Apple's board of directors or major stock holders.
What you call the conservative business approach is the line between remaining profitable and going out of business.
I'm totally with you on the general assessment. Yet I think Apple should think differently.
- If everyone waits for others to make the first step nothing will ever happen. Someone has to be the first using a new technology. Apple did so with quite a few products and I really think it should be their mission statement. It is at least their legacy.
- While a misstep might mean going out of business for many technology companies, Apple surely is in a different league. With 23 Billion dollars of cash reserves they can make total losses on a number of products and still not go out of business in a long time.
I really think Apple should start putting this cash to work. At least part of it.
And more daring product releases would be one way. And it would be in line with Apple's legacy.
I'm not saying they should release technology for technology's sake. Release something that's immature. But I have the impression that they're sitting on the fence with a lot of technologies, unsure if they would succeed or not, 50:50. At that point, they should be bolder IMHO and go for it.
Anyway, back on topic.
How if Ireland would get in contact with Andy Ihnatko and exchange 'ideas'. Just to see if they both talk about the same thing.
Or, Ireland, are you 100% sure you've got the same thing in mind as what Andy was alluding to?
Simply being the first to implement a new technology does not automatically make you the winner. Their are plenty of examples where a company improved on a technology that was pioneered by a competitor.
Apple has been on both sides of this equation.
Apple was the first company to launch a PDA with the Newton, only to be beat three years later in the market by Palm.
In 1997 SaeHan Information Systems shipped the first mass produced mp3 player. Four years later Apple came with the iPod and conquered the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobBIT
- If everyone waits for others to make the first step nothing will ever happen. Someone has to be the first using a new technology. Apple did so with quite a few products and I really think it should be their mission statement. It is at least their legacy.
I'm not saying that Apple should not use quad processors.
I'm simply saying quad processors are not automatically better just because their are four processors. The performance gains come under certain circumstances.
I agree to an extent, you only notice the difference if you do multiple intensive tasks and keep working. For example, you can do a Shake render and a Final Cut encode at the same time and the quad will still let you do basic tasks whereas a dual core would stutter.
But now that desktop quad processors are so cheap, in the interests of price vs performance, there's no sense in using dual core chips unless they use desktop dual core chips of course but they run too hot (95W TDP).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
Ah don't be so touchy. As the old one goes; if you didn't care, you wouldn't need to let us know.
So if someone was sitting next to you on a train with a foghorn blasting in your ear, you wouldn't tell him to knock it off? After all by doing so, you're saying that you care about his reasons for making the noise.
This goes back to what I was saying before about your SNR approaching zero. Look back at all the posts you made in this thread and weigh up the content relevant to the discussion. You're welcome to join in the discussions at any time but choose to simply make empty posts, which as kickaha correctly points out, most of us can't really be bothered with.
The impressive part of whatever Apple are up to is the implementation, not the idea. The idea that Apple were making a phone was terrible. The implementation was very different.
Whatever ideas Apple are toying with right now are meaningless until they start implementing something.
Days since updates:
Mini = 546
iMac = 281
Mac Pro = 392
Cinema displays = 671
XServe = 392
As I've said before, at this point, unless they come out with time travel and anti-gravity, the reactions won't be 'WOW' but 'it's about f* time '.
i'd have bought a new iMac already in october/november ... but i'm still waiting.
i don't want to buy a 1-year-old system ... update the iMac (and every other system) twice a year: once for a new hw-design and once with updated cpu or gpu
I didn't think it was going anywhere in the first place. That's what happens when a thread starts based on a wild, empty, factless, baseless rumor. Anything can happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
AppleInsider Express. Choo-choo!!!
Hmm, another clue. What could it mean?
BUY STOCK IN TRAIN MAKING EQUIPMENT!! Instead of having you haul your broken iMac screens back to the Apple store, they will send out the Apple Train to pick them up. At most 48 hour turnaround time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
Is it possible the delay is due to some significant architectural changes?
Nah, I think it's partly Intel's fault combined with Apple's design choices. Good desktop chips have been out for ages but they can't go into Apple's consumer lineup. The mobile chips haven't really improved or dropped price so there's little that would sell an upgrade model besides it being new but the desktop chips are racing ahead.
This is why the new laptops are pretty much the exact same speed as the old ones. The selling point they can make on the laptop is durability, better cooling etc. This doesn't fly on a desktop where it's about performance and value for money.
They can't shoehorn a 95W CPU into an iMac that is only meant to hold about 55W tops so they had to wait until Intel landed the new low power desktop quads running at 65W. Still a bit of a technical challenge as the iMacs are still not much more than laptops.
This shouldn't affect the mini if they are crippling it again but they won't push it out ahead of their favorite in case, god forbid, people actually prefer them. If they put quads in the Mini too, well that would be awesome but they probably won't.
Either way, since Intel only released these chips recently (last week):
they couldn't really have put anything significant out earlier.
The Mac Pro and XServe share the same chips and AI reports these won't come until the end of March from Intel. Gainestown is already out though but not all the chips so it will depend on which ones Apple chooses.
The Cinema display line will come with the Mac Pro I imagine but they're probably ready to push out an all glossy lineup and smart people inside the company holding them back saying 'are you crazy, the 517 people we manage to sell these expensive displays to worldwide won't ever buy from us again, we'll lose thousands of pounds'.
Not to mention on top of this Apple may be fumbling around like a headless chicken now that number 1 is out of action.
Still, the positive things to note are that the low powered quads are out and there is a timeframe for Mac Pros. Given that they don't usually update these machines together, we can only hope that the Mini and iMacs will be out within a matter of days. If so, it would be a new strategy for Apple not to have an event for a redesign but you saw what happened to their stock the last time they did that. I think it's safer to just put the updates on the store and let people figure out the spec for themselves. The US dollar prices they quote are always pretty meaningless worldwide anyway given that Apple use their own tax calculators.
Not to mention on top of this Apple may be fumbling around like a headless chicken now that number 1 is out of action.
Quote:
This shouldn't affect the mini if they are crippling it again but they won't push it out ahead of their favorite in case, god forbid, people actually prefer them. If they put quads in the Mini too, well that would be awesome but they probably won't.
I think its pretty clear Jobs doesn't care for the Mac mini. Someone else in the company is saving it, and why it has been in a strange limbo.
Just throwing this one out there in what has been a thoroughly entertaining thread.
The, err, spirited discussion Steve Jobs had with Sony Music in December got me thinking back to a few tiny rumors that emerged twelve or so months ago.
Smart people are not always leaders. I find a lot of company bosses are not all that smart. But smart doesn't have a universal definition. Is Einstein smart because of his intellect but died in poverty or is Donald Trump smart because he is a billionaire with a model wife half his age yet far from intellectual?
There are a great many smart people at Apple, engineers etc. but they don't keep the company ticking over. That report indicates what I had previously thought that Jobs is more a marketing face for the company but other reports had consistently indicated that certain key individuals reported directly to him and he has been involved in major negotiations.
I think it's a good thing that Cook is more of an unknown but in control. The media will be less likely to tie Apple's success to an individual with him in charge.
One thing I found odd is Steve Jobs' involvement with the financial reports:
Just throwing this one out there in what has been a thoroughly entertaining thread.
The, err, spirited discussion Steve Jobs had with Sony Music in December got me thinking back to a few tiny rumors that emerged twelve or so months ago.
Apple to start record label?
I don;t know if this is necessary - artists can use services like CD Baby to get their tracks on iTunes. Perhaps Apple might get rid of the middle man and turn iTunes into a pay-to-own YouTube of sorts, allowing people creating content with Apple products (Logic, Logic Express, Garage Band, iMovie, Final Cut) to post content for sale in the iTunes store.
This could be a HUGE step to win over the people who made Mac important, and have been neglected by Apple with the lack of pro updates. If this is something Apple has planned, I would definitely welcome it, I just hope they have some quality control, or else it could be flooded by people who think that someone will want to spend money for a webcam rant or their cat doing something cute.
Comments
No. If it doesn't exist, make it. That's what engineering is about.
The first personal computer didn't exist, computer parts didn't exist. Apple made them, programmed them. Graphical user interfaces barely existed outside corporate labs. Apple made it available.
Things don't work like that. You cannot just will something into being simply because you want it to. Of course everyone is working on improving technology. But it takes the time it takes and it won't happen any faster.
The graphic user interface had been around for some years before Apple used it. It took the time it took to make it into a viable product.
Apple has enough money in the bank to try a few things and fail a few times. It won't break them.
They just need the will to do it. To be bold. And not do conservative baby steps that consist of refining existing technology, rather than making something completely new.
Technology doesn't just come about simply because you want it to.
The iPhone is many times more powerful than the computer that sent a rocket to the moon. That happened incrementally over 40 years, their was no big sudden leap.
Regarding battery technologies:
And to those critics who say that these technologies are not ready for prime time I'd say, make it ready! That's what engineering is about.
Again you are using unrealistic expectations, things don't work like that.
I'm simply saying quad processors are not automatically better just because their are four processors. The performance gains come under certain circumstances.
I wonder which chips they'd use because the prices of the mobile chips haven't dropped that much. The Core 2 Extremes are still pretty high. If they transition to desktop processors, the prices should drop considerably.
For example, the Core 2 Extreme 3.06GHz is $851 but the Core 2 Quad 2.83GHz is just $369. This could mean the iMac would top out at $1699.
The lowest model even with a quad processor would stay around the same price. I doubt they'd go with the 24" across the lineup and drop the 20". I wonder how they will fit a 65W chip into the 20" shell. The 24" at least has some leg room for more advanced cooling.
Things don't work like that. You cannot just will something into being simply because you want it to.
How else is technology moved forward? Someone must be the first to try a new part/component/technology.
More and more it seems businesses just patent ideas with no intent to actually ever use them. They want patents only so they can sue others who are bold enough to actually apply the same idea first.
It is no longer about keeping others from using your ideas, but rather about keeping others from using new ideas altogether - while you yourself never intended to use it in the first place. At that point it is stiling progress. Companies should be forced to lose patents they don't use. And not decades later.
But boring patent issues aside, Apple does have a lot of great ideas patented, they just never seem to make it to happen.
I understand the conservative business approach, motto: "Let's see someone else do it first, and then we can do it better by learning from their mistakes" (while we sue their asses off because we hold the patent too).
But that way the Macintosh would have never happened. You cannot introduce radically new technology with a guaranteed market.
There is no success guarantee in new technologies. That's not how things work either.
As a middle ground I think Apple should start releasing 'Special' or 'Limited Editions' where they can test new technologies on a small run (with a premium price). There will always be people willing to pay a premium for the latest and greatest, the true 'consumer pioneers' (and it shouldn't be hard to find many of them among Macintosh folk).
This approach hedges potential losses, yet gives Apple a chance to introduce radically new technology without upsetting everyone automatically. So Apple can be bolder while testing the waters for things that could eventually roll out to everyone.
How else is technology moved forward? Someone must be the first to try a new part/component/technology.
All electronics companies have research and development labs where they are testing new technology. They are not going to ship a product with new technology until its ready, reliable, and cost effective.
More and more it seems businesses just patent ideas with no intent to actually ever use them.
Patents are used for different reasons. Sometimes its a defensive measure for a product that you may not release for awhile, if ever.
I understand the conservative business approach, motto: "Let's see someone else do it first, and then we can do it better by learning from their mistakes" (while we sue their asses off because we hold the patent too).
What you call the conservative business approach is the line between remaining profitable and going out of business.
But that way the Macintosh would have never happened. You cannot introduce radically new technology with a guaranteed market. There is no success guarantee in new technologies. That's not how things work either.
The goal is to release a product that does what it does as best as you could design it. Shipping new technology just because its new does not necessarily accomplish this goal.
As a middle ground I think Apple should start releasing 'Special' or 'Limited Editions' where they can test new technologies on a small run (with a premium price). There will always be people willing to pay a premium for the latest and greatest, the true 'consumer pioneers' (and it shouldn't be hard to find many of them among Macintosh folk).
This is not a good business strategy. You have to understand business is not a game. A company cannot afford to ship experimental products. They have to ship reliable, functional, cost effective technology when it becomes available.
This approach hedges potential losses, yet gives Apple a chance to introduce radically new technology without upsetting everyone automatically. So Apple can be bolder while testing the waters for things that could eventually roll out to everyone.
Shipping radically new technology for the sake of shipping radically new technology is not a mission statement of Apple. This strategy would not be supported by Apple's board of directors or major stock holders.
What you call the conservative business approach is the line between remaining profitable and going out of business.
I'm totally with you on the general assessment. Yet I think Apple should think differently.
- If everyone waits for others to make the first step nothing will ever happen. Someone has to be the first using a new technology. Apple did so with quite a few products and I really think it should be their mission statement. It is at least their legacy.
- While a misstep might mean going out of business for many technology companies, Apple surely is in a different league. With 23 Billion dollars of cash reserves they can make total losses on a number of products and still not go out of business in a long time.
I really think Apple should start putting this cash to work. At least part of it.
And more daring product releases would be one way. And it would be in line with Apple's legacy.
I'm not saying they should release technology for technology's sake. Release something that's immature. But I have the impression that they're sitting on the fence with a lot of technologies, unsure if they would succeed or not, 50:50. At that point, they should be bolder IMHO and go for it.
Anyway, back on topic.
How if Ireland would get in contact with Andy Ihnatko and exchange 'ideas'. Just to see if they both talk about the same thing.
Or, Ireland, are you 100% sure you've got the same thing in mind as what Andy was alluding to?
Apple has been on both sides of this equation.
Apple was the first company to launch a PDA with the Newton, only to be beat three years later in the market by Palm.
In 1997 SaeHan Information Systems shipped the first mass produced mp3 player. Four years later Apple came with the iPod and conquered the market.
- If everyone waits for others to make the first step nothing will ever happen. Someone has to be the first using a new technology. Apple did so with quite a few products and I really think it should be their mission statement. It is at least their legacy.
Ireland... hobBIT... you guys are missing the point.
NONE OF US CARE!
Ah don't be so touchy. As the old one goes; if you didn't care, you wouldn't need to let us know.
I'm not saying that Apple should not use quad processors.
I'm simply saying quad processors are not automatically better just because their are four processors. The performance gains come under certain circumstances.
I agree to an extent, you only notice the difference if you do multiple intensive tasks and keep working. For example, you can do a Shake render and a Final Cut encode at the same time and the quad will still let you do basic tasks whereas a dual core would stutter.
But now that desktop quad processors are so cheap, in the interests of price vs performance, there's no sense in using dual core chips unless they use desktop dual core chips of course but they run too hot (95W TDP).
Ah don't be so touchy. As the old one goes; if you didn't care, you wouldn't need to let us know.
So if someone was sitting next to you on a train with a foghorn blasting in your ear, you wouldn't tell him to knock it off? After all by doing so, you're saying that you care about his reasons for making the noise.
This goes back to what I was saying before about your SNR approaching zero. Look back at all the posts you made in this thread and weigh up the content relevant to the discussion. You're welcome to join in the discussions at any time but choose to simply make empty posts, which as kickaha correctly points out, most of us can't really be bothered with.
The impressive part of whatever Apple are up to is the implementation, not the idea. The idea that Apple were making a phone was terrible. The implementation was very different.
Whatever ideas Apple are toying with right now are meaningless until they start implementing something.
Days since updates:
Mini = 546
iMac = 281
Mac Pro = 392
Cinema displays = 671
XServe = 392
As I've said before, at this point, unless they come out with time travel and anti-gravity, the reactions won't be 'WOW' but 'it's about f* time
Days since updates:
Mini = 546
iMac = 281
Mac Pro = 392
Cinema displays = 671
XServe = 392
i'd have bought a new iMac already in october/november ... but i'm still waiting.
i don't want to buy a 1-year-old system ... update the iMac (and every other system) twice a year: once for a new hw-design and once with updated cpu or gpu
....
Days since updates:
Mini = 546
iMac = 281
Mac Pro = 392
Cinema displays = 671
XServe = 392
...
Is it possible the delay is due to some significant architectural changes?
Has anyone figured out what the heck Andy Ihnatko was so impressed with, maybe he should come out and explain.
So if someone was sitting next to you on a train with a foghorn blasting in your ear, you wouldn't tell him to knock it off?
AppleInsider Express. Choo-choo!!!
AppleInsider Express. Choo-choo!!!
AppleInsider Express. Choo-choo!!!
This thread certainly has been *de-railed*...
OH SNAP!
This thread certainly has been *de-railed*... !
I didn't think it was going anywhere in the first place. That's what happens when a thread starts based on a wild, empty, factless, baseless rumor. Anything can happen.
AppleInsider Express. Choo-choo!!!
Hmm, another clue. What could it mean?
BUY STOCK IN TRAIN MAKING EQUIPMENT!! Instead of having you haul your broken iMac screens back to the Apple store, they will send out the Apple Train to pick them up. At most 48 hour turnaround time.
Is it possible the delay is due to some significant architectural changes?
Nah, I think it's partly Intel's fault combined with Apple's design choices. Good desktop chips have been out for ages but they can't go into Apple's consumer lineup. The mobile chips haven't really improved or dropped price so there's little that would sell an upgrade model besides it being new but the desktop chips are racing ahead.
This is why the new laptops are pretty much the exact same speed as the old ones. The selling point they can make on the laptop is durability, better cooling etc. This doesn't fly on a desktop where it's about performance and value for money.
They can't shoehorn a 95W CPU into an iMac that is only meant to hold about 55W tops so they had to wait until Intel landed the new low power desktop quads running at 65W. Still a bit of a technical challenge as the iMacs are still not much more than laptops.
This shouldn't affect the mini if they are crippling it again but they won't push it out ahead of their favorite in case, god forbid, people actually prefer them. If they put quads in the Mini too, well that would be awesome but they probably won't.
Either way, since Intel only released these chips recently (last week):
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=3505
they couldn't really have put anything significant out earlier.
The Mac Pro and XServe share the same chips and AI reports these won't come until the end of March from Intel. Gainestown is already out though but not all the chips so it will depend on which ones Apple chooses.
The Cinema display line will come with the Mac Pro I imagine but they're probably ready to push out an all glossy lineup and smart people inside the company holding them back saying 'are you crazy, the 517 people we manage to sell these expensive displays to worldwide won't ever buy from us again, we'll lose thousands of pounds'.
Not to mention on top of this Apple may be fumbling around like a headless chicken now that number 1 is out of action.
Still, the positive things to note are that the low powered quads are out and there is a timeframe for Mac Pros. Given that they don't usually update these machines together, we can only hope that the Mini and iMacs will be out within a matter of days. If so, it would be a new strategy for Apple not to have an event for a redesign but you saw what happened to their stock the last time they did that. I think it's safer to just put the updates on the store and let people figure out the spec for themselves. The US dollar prices they quote are always pretty meaningless worldwide anyway given that Apple use their own tax calculators.
Former Apple Exec: Tim Cook's Been Running The Company For Years ...
Not to mention on top of this Apple may be fumbling around like a headless chicken now that number 1 is out of action.
This shouldn't affect the mini if they are crippling it again but they won't push it out ahead of their favorite in case, god forbid, people actually prefer them. If they put quads in the Mini too, well that would be awesome but they probably won't.
I think its pretty clear Jobs doesn't care for the Mac mini. Someone else in the company is saving it, and why it has been in a strange limbo.
The, err, spirited discussion Steve Jobs had with Sony Music in December got me thinking back to a few tiny rumors that emerged twelve or so months ago.
Apple to start record label?
This thread certainly has been *de-railed*...
I've always been a Monorail guy myself.
You really think Jobs is the only smart person at Apple?
Former Apple Exec: Tim Cook's Been Running The Company For Years ...
Smart people are not always leaders. I find a lot of company bosses are not all that smart. But smart doesn't have a universal definition. Is Einstein smart because of his intellect but died in poverty or is Donald Trump smart because he is a billionaire with a model wife half his age yet far from intellectual?
There are a great many smart people at Apple, engineers etc. but they don't keep the company ticking over. That report indicates what I had previously thought that Jobs is more a marketing face for the company but other reports had consistently indicated that certain key individuals reported directly to him and he has been involved in major negotiations.
I think it's a good thing that Cook is more of an unknown but in control. The media will be less likely to tie Apple's success to an individual with him in charge.
One thing I found odd is Steve Jobs' involvement with the financial reports:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/21results.html
Maybe his break starts after that.
Hmm, another clue. What could it mean?
I presume that was sarcasm?
Just throwing this one out there in what has been a thoroughly entertaining thread.
The, err, spirited discussion Steve Jobs had with Sony Music in December got me thinking back to a few tiny rumors that emerged twelve or so months ago.
Apple to start record label?
I don;t know if this is necessary - artists can use services like CD Baby to get their tracks on iTunes. Perhaps Apple might get rid of the middle man and turn iTunes into a pay-to-own YouTube of sorts, allowing people creating content with Apple products (Logic, Logic Express, Garage Band, iMovie, Final Cut) to post content for sale in the iTunes store.
This could be a HUGE step to win over the people who made Mac important, and have been neglected by Apple with the lack of pro updates. If this is something Apple has planned, I would definitely welcome it, I just hope they have some quality control, or else it could be flooded by people who think that someone will want to spend money for a webcam rant or their cat doing something cute.