What a sharp mind you have, but are you paying attention?
Do you think Apple spent a billion plus on Sharp by just writing them a check with no strings, or do you think maybe Apple has engineers working on the production procesess for their IGZO screens with them? Do you imagine that Apple is sitting around in Cupertino, after spending a billion, waiting for Sharp to say, "Ok, we're ready, how many millions of displays was it that you needed again?"
Yes the technology comes from Sharp and Semiconductor Research Laboratories, but it ain't going into tens of millions of mobile devices without Apple bankrolling and overseeing the devlopment. So who's the developer in this scenario?
My point was that there are people whining about Apple's pace of development who are incapable of cause and effect technical reasoning, probably because they have never seen a factory floor in the whole of their sheltered lives. You may now join that club. I nominate you.
Apple did the same thing with Samsung some years back... I would be ready to bet a lot (just short of my private parts) that they have learned from the experience and are now much more protected/involved - technology and design wise.
Apple did the same thing with Samsung some years back... I would be ready to bet a lot (just short of my private parts) that they have learned from the experience and are now much more protected/involved - technology and design wise.
Indeed. I wish we could learn more about this sort of thing, but how you manage your supplier partnerships are probably as much a trade secret as any other piece of the technical puzzle of making an "incredible" Tim Cook product. He'll never get credit for what they pull off, because we'll never know how it all works in this new global game.
Can you remind us what the Samsung investment or partnership was about?
Everyone is curious, excited and even anxious about the big reveal tomorrow. The buzz surrounds first and foremost the anticipated new look and feel that iOS7. Second or equal to that is the anticipation of new hardware - new MacBooks, new Mac Pro and maybe even new Apple TV? Running third but not least is Mac OS 10.9.
Personally, I think none of the above is the big reveal. Instead, the most important thing we will learn tomorrow is whether Jony Ive is the rightful successor to Steve Jobs as the arbiter of design at the most visible computer design company in the world. It is not the fate of Apple that is at stake. The evolution of computing could be reshaped if Ive is up to the task. If he falters, it leaves an opening for someone else, possibly outside Apple, to steal the spotlight.
It will be interesting to see if Ive himself takes the stage. He has done this so rarely in the past, opting instead to present his design in video. How will he unveil his handiwork this time?
What a sharp mind you have, but are you paying attention?
Do you think Apple spent a billion plus on Sharp by just writing them a check with no strings, or do you think maybe Apple has engineers working on the production procesess for their IGZO screens with them? Do you imagine that Apple is sitting around in Cupertino, after spending a billion, waiting for Sharp to say, "Ok, we're ready, how many millions of displays was it that you needed again?"
Yes the technology comes from Sharp and Semiconductor Research Laboratories, but it ain't going into tens of millions of mobile devices without Apple bankrolling and overseeing the devlopment. So who's the developer in this scenario?
My point was that there are people whining about Apple's pace of development who are incapable of cause and effect technical reasoning, probably because they have never seen a factory floor in the whole of their sheltered lives. You may now join that club. I nominate you.
In the exact scenario you described, Sharp would be the developer. There isn't even a question about it. But the real scenario is not what you describe.
In the exact scenario you described, Sharp would be the developer. There isn't even a question about it. But the real scenario is not what you describe.
Ok you describe it.
Apple and Sharp are co-developers, the way I see it. The technology will not go mainstream in time (vis à vis OLED, say) unless Foxconn and Apple get behind it and spend the billions for production. And Samsung.
Apple and Sharp are co-developers, the way I see it. The technology will not go mainstream in time (vis à vis OLED, say) unless Foxconn and Apple get behind it and spend the billions for production. And Samsung.
Based on your logic, venture capitalists and bankers can be considered co-developers of all sorts of technology?
I don't know if I will be able to control myself from checking my favorite Apple coverage sites tomorrow. I mean all the secrecy has really got me amped up. I want to keep it that way and watch the keynote without any spoilers. Perhaps Apple will stream it live...
The vast majority of people could use Pages or Word. The vast majority of people could use PPT or Keynote. The number of people who need to use Excel instead of Numbers is somewhat larger, but I'll bet it's still a minority.
It obviously misses the point for you.
In the community in which I live, every high school kid is taught Excel. I'll bet that is similar in lots of other public schools. (The same kids, btw, use Pages and Keynote for their assignments and presentations, since pretty much all the school computers are Macs, and most of the kids I know end up buying Macs as their 4-year computer for high school.)
Perhaps the overall number of Excel users is less than the number of Word users, but I'd be willing to bet it's a heck of a lot larger than PPT users.
Based on your logic, venture capitalists and bankers can be considered co-developers of all sorts of technology?
Did you miss the part about the Apple engineers? Do you think it was money alone that brought us IPS, Retina displays, GF2 on the iPad mini, the new lamination to the top glass on the iMac? Do you think Apple gets these produced by diverse manufacturers with just a purchase order, or do you maybe suspect that they have engineers on site making sure things are humming right along quality and yield wise as a worldwide launch date involving say five million units for the first weekend approaches?
Did you miss the part about the Apple engineers? Do you think it was money alone that brought us IPS, Retina displays, GF2 on the iPad mini, the new lamination to the top glass on the iMac? Do you think Apple gets these produced by diverse manufacturers with just a purchase order, or do you maybe suspect that they have engineers on site making sure things are humming right along quality and yield wise as a worldwide launch date involving say five million units for the first weekend approaches?
Did you miss the part blah blah blah blah blah?
You confuse development with production, along with many other things. How ironic that you are constantly challenging people on whether they know this and that, and whether they've been on a production floor, when in fact you clearly have little experience in all of these areas. No problem. I get it.
You confuse development with production, along with many other things. How ironic that you are constantly challenging people on whether they know this and that, and whether they've been on a production floor, when in fact you clearly have little experience in all of these areas. No problem. I get it.
So inform us. All I know is what's in the papers, and I don't see people thinking it through. Production, the making of the thing, is just as much a part of the development as the chemistry or the electronics. You don't have an invention until you can make it in the millions in this game.
"....Over the past decade, Apple has built a tech empire that rivals the scope and influence of Microsoft in the 1990s, differentiated primarily in that Apple's products are being sold openly next to the competition; Microsoft helped ensure that there simply wasn't any competition. And this factor seems to be a key reason why the media, pundits and investment community analysts have such a hard time understanding why Apple is still in business...."
At least for me this is the key message in this article...
What a sharp mind you have, but are you paying attention?
Do you think Apple spent a billion plus on Sharp by just writing them a check with no strings, or do you think maybe Apple has engineers working on the production procesess for their IGZO screens with them? Do you imagine that Apple is sitting around in Cupertino, after spending a billion, waiting for Sharp to say, "Ok, we're ready, how many millions of displays was it that you needed again?"
Yes the technology comes from Sharp and Semiconductor Energy Laboratories, but it ain't going into tens of millions of mobile devices without Apple bankrolling and overseeing the devlopment. So who's the developer in this scenario?
My point was that there are people whining about Apple's pace of development who are incapable of cause and effect technical reasoning, probably because they have never seen a factory floor in the whole of their sheltered lives. You may now join that club. I nominate you.
I think Apple absolutely has engineers on site. They oversee development, the development done by the companies who are actually making the displays (just one example part). They are there to guide the process to make sure it meets specifications, but they aren't developing the technology and may not even be working with the suppliers from start to end. Apple is great at designing products where all their suppliers' parts come into a beautiful, cohesive whole, but the parts are still developed and manufactured by those suppliers. The way it works is that suppliers bring prototypes and reports about current/expected yields, cost, design constraints, etc. to Apple, who has requested these things as they work on the overall product design. They choose the best supplier or suppliers based on these “auditions" and go from there to assemble lustworthy products. But don't confuse the coordination and design of the final product with the development of all the components it contains.
In the community in which I live, every high school kid is taught Excel. I'll bet that is similar in lots of other public schools. (The same kids, btw, use Pages and Keynote for their assignments and presentations, since pretty much all the school computers are Macs, and most of the kids I know end up buying Macs as their 4-year computer for high school.)
Perhaps the overall number of Excel users is less than the number of Word users, but I'd be willing to bet it's a heck of a lot larger than PPT users.
But of that number, the overwhelming majority could just as easily use Numbers. The point is that most users could use either one - but choose the one they're most familiar with.
Not sure what you mean. You want it to be cheaper, or expected it to cost more, with all its high tech and well designed hardware and software?
Not sure what you're getting at, but it looks like you wish for 'a richer sound experience'. But how will this work if the majority listens to music on their iOS device, with the included cheap headphones or self procured $300 ones? If these files are 20 times as large iDevices would be filled rather rapidly, no?
Yes, for home use we are still in the HDD area, but I sure hope Apple is going to kill it like they have done so many times in the past. All for the better, I say.
People are more likely to buy what they want. Buying things is an emotional decision when work isn't part of the equation. If people can't get what they want then they are less likely to buy a product.
The iPod Touch is way overpriced for what you get.
If Apple created a lossless codec that totally reproduced the full range of analog recordings they could resell their entire iTunes library to people who want the best experience. That would bring in billions of dollars.
If the iDevices filled up then Apple could sell bigger capacity models and earn more money.
People are more likely to buy what they want. Buying things is an emotional decision when work isn't part of the equation. If people can't get what they want then they are less likely to buy a product.
The iPod Touch is way overpriced for what you get.
If Apple created a lossless codec that totally reproduced the full range of analog recordings they could resell their entire iTunes library to people who want the best experience. That would bring in billions of dollars.
If the iDevices filled up then Apple could sell bigger capacity models and earn more money.
Apple shows people what they want before the people realize this.
iPod touch is cheaper than what the original iPod cost. Not looking at inflation, that is. But the price is not the sum of its components. I think 400 is fair. The iPhone is getting more expensive, at my location at least.
They have indeed been tinkering on the idea of higher bit rate, 96kHz and all that, so an upsell could work.
Good point on the bigger capacity and earning more money. But why haven't they made the Classic 1TB? I thought there was a 9.5mm laptop-sized HDD, no?
Oh, cloud of doubt. It's an Apple event. It never lives up to the expectation, even when it exceeds the expectation. People (Wall Street) are worthless idiots. If every single Apple product WAS updated simultaneously, as they desire, at every single Apple event, they'd complain that Apple didn't update them enough.
They'll never be happy. The point for Apple is to make people (real people) happy and ignore Wall Street. And they're gonna do it. They always do, you know? We're two days out and how many leaks have we had? None. Not a one. Everything we know, Apple has told us.
It's gonna be big.
Here's to OS X and iOS, as well as hopefully Haswell Macs. And here's to Apple, showing us that they won't give up on workstations. Hopefully.
That's absolutely correct. The press and Wall Street only think in the simplest of terms, so the only thing that would satisfy them would be a surprise announcement of a totally new product line, akin to the iPod, iPhone or iPad. Since that is not going to happen, they'll be countless stories about "Apple has lost it, since they haven't released a new product line since Steve Jobs passed away, blah, blah, blah." The general press does not care about an upgraded processor if the industrial design of the product looks the same as the last one. They don't care if a device is faster. They don't even care much if the display has a higher resolution. They're idiots. But if Apple came out with a 3D display that didn't require glasses, they would get very excited even though it would be useless to almost everyone except perhaps gamers.
Wall Street doesn't seem to care that there are multiple and competing car manufacturers or TV manufacturers or camera manufacturers or clothing manufacturers. But because Apple hasn't put Samsung out of business, that's interpreted as a flaw in Apple's strategy. And if Apple had succeeded in knocking Samsung out, Apple would probably be subject to monopoly investigations and the like. The fact is that competition is good and I believe that Samsung (and Android) drive Apple to produce better products. However, if iOS6 is just a very minor upgrade, I might start to get a bit concerned.
Frankly, I can't think of a single thing Apple could do in the current product line to get Wall Street and the Press excited. Even if they doubled performance and halved the price, I don't think they'd be excited.
Having said that, I do think Apple needs to find a way to create some excitement even when they're not announcing new product lines. I realize that's harder to do when we're overwhelmed with new devices from multiple manufacturers all the time.
I still maintain that Apple is working on something very secretly - the number of employees to be housed at the old and new campuses seems to me to be too many for their current activities, aside from more people to handle third party sales. As I've stated before, my prediction is that in ten years, Apple will be a robotics company. I think Siri is the first zygote step in that evolution.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
What a sharp mind you have, but are you paying attention?
Do you think Apple spent a billion plus on Sharp by just writing them a check with no strings, or do you think maybe Apple has engineers working on the production procesess for their IGZO screens with them? Do you imagine that Apple is sitting around in Cupertino, after spending a billion, waiting for Sharp to say, "Ok, we're ready, how many millions of displays was it that you needed again?"
Yes the technology comes from Sharp and Semiconductor Research Laboratories, but it ain't going into tens of millions of mobile devices without Apple bankrolling and overseeing the devlopment. So who's the developer in this scenario?
My point was that there are people whining about Apple's pace of development who are incapable of cause and effect technical reasoning, probably because they have never seen a factory floor in the whole of their sheltered lives. You may now join that club. I nominate you.
Apple did the same thing with Samsung some years back... I would be ready to bet a lot (just short of my private parts) that they have learned from the experience and are now much more protected/involved - technology and design wise.
Indeed. I wish we could learn more about this sort of thing, but how you manage your supplier partnerships are probably as much a trade secret as any other piece of the technical puzzle of making an "incredible" Tim Cook product. He'll never get credit for what they pull off, because we'll never know how it all works in this new global game.
Can you remind us what the Samsung investment or partnership was about?
Everyone is curious, excited and even anxious about the big reveal tomorrow. The buzz surrounds first and foremost the anticipated new look and feel that iOS7. Second or equal to that is the anticipation of new hardware - new MacBooks, new Mac Pro and maybe even new Apple TV? Running third but not least is Mac OS 10.9.
Personally, I think none of the above is the big reveal. Instead, the most important thing we will learn tomorrow is whether Jony Ive is the rightful successor to Steve Jobs as the arbiter of design at the most visible computer design company in the world. It is not the fate of Apple that is at stake. The evolution of computing could be reshaped if Ive is up to the task. If he falters, it leaves an opening for someone else, possibly outside Apple, to steal the spotlight.
It will be interesting to see if Ive himself takes the stage. He has done this so rarely in the past, opting instead to present his design in video. How will he unveil his handiwork this time?
As the Scots say, Dun Dun Dun Dundee Dun ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
What a sharp mind you have, but are you paying attention?
Do you think Apple spent a billion plus on Sharp by just writing them a check with no strings, or do you think maybe Apple has engineers working on the production procesess for their IGZO screens with them? Do you imagine that Apple is sitting around in Cupertino, after spending a billion, waiting for Sharp to say, "Ok, we're ready, how many millions of displays was it that you needed again?"
Yes the technology comes from Sharp and Semiconductor Research Laboratories, but it ain't going into tens of millions of mobile devices without Apple bankrolling and overseeing the devlopment. So who's the developer in this scenario?
My point was that there are people whining about Apple's pace of development who are incapable of cause and effect technical reasoning, probably because they have never seen a factory floor in the whole of their sheltered lives. You may now join that club. I nominate you.
In the exact scenario you described, Sharp would be the developer. There isn't even a question about it. But the real scenario is not what you describe.
Ok you describe it.
Apple and Sharp are co-developers, the way I see it. The technology will not go mainstream in time (vis à vis OLED, say) unless Foxconn and Apple get behind it and spend the billions for production. And Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Please tell us exactly how Pages and Keynote are 'crippled', instead of just making bland assertions?
These types never do. They expect you to accept their statement as fact without question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Ok you describe it.
Apple and Sharp are co-developers, the way I see it. The technology will not go mainstream in time (vis à vis OLED, say) unless Foxconn and Apple get behind it and spend the billions for production. And Samsung.
Based on your logic, venture capitalists and bankers can be considered co-developers of all sorts of technology?
I don't know if I will be able to control myself from checking my favorite Apple coverage sites tomorrow. I mean all the secrecy has really got me amped up. I want to keep it that way and watch the keynote without any spoilers. Perhaps Apple will stream it live...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That misses the point, too.
The vast majority of people could use Pages or Word. The vast majority of people could use PPT or Keynote. The number of people who need to use Excel instead of Numbers is somewhat larger, but I'll bet it's still a minority.
It obviously misses the point for you.
In the community in which I live, every high school kid is taught Excel. I'll bet that is similar in lots of other public schools. (The same kids, btw, use Pages and Keynote for their assignments and presentations, since pretty much all the school computers are Macs, and most of the kids I know end up buying Macs as their 4-year computer for high school.)
Perhaps the overall number of Excel users is less than the number of Word users, but I'd be willing to bet it's a heck of a lot larger than PPT users.
Did you miss the part about the Apple engineers? Do you think it was money alone that brought us IPS, Retina displays, GF2 on the iPad mini, the new lamination to the top glass on the iMac? Do you think Apple gets these produced by diverse manufacturers with just a purchase order, or do you maybe suspect that they have engineers on site making sure things are humming right along quality and yield wise as a worldwide launch date involving say five million units for the first weekend approaches?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Did you miss the part about the Apple engineers? Do you think it was money alone that brought us IPS, Retina displays, GF2 on the iPad mini, the new lamination to the top glass on the iMac? Do you think Apple gets these produced by diverse manufacturers with just a purchase order, or do you maybe suspect that they have engineers on site making sure things are humming right along quality and yield wise as a worldwide launch date involving say five million units for the first weekend approaches?
Did you miss the part blah blah blah blah blah?
You confuse development with production, along with many other things. How ironic that you are constantly challenging people on whether they know this and that, and whether they've been on a production floor, when in fact you clearly have little experience in all of these areas. No problem. I get it.
So inform us. All I know is what's in the papers, and I don't see people thinking it through. Production, the making of the thing, is just as much a part of the development as the chemistry or the electronics. You don't have an invention until you can make it in the millions in this game.
"....Over the past decade, Apple has built a tech empire that rivals the scope and influence of Microsoft in the 1990s, differentiated primarily in that Apple's products are being sold openly next to the competition; Microsoft helped ensure that there simply wasn't any competition. And this factor seems to be a key reason why the media, pundits and investment community analysts have such a hard time understanding why Apple is still in business...."
At least for me this is the key message in this article...
I think Apple absolutely has engineers on site. They oversee development, the development done by the companies who are actually making the displays (just one example part). They are there to guide the process to make sure it meets specifications, but they aren't developing the technology and may not even be working with the suppliers from start to end. Apple is great at designing products where all their suppliers' parts come into a beautiful, cohesive whole, but the parts are still developed and manufactured by those suppliers. The way it works is that suppliers bring prototypes and reports about current/expected yields, cost, design constraints, etc. to Apple, who has requested these things as they work on the overall product design. They choose the best supplier or suppliers based on these “auditions" and go from there to assemble lustworthy products. But don't confuse the coordination and design of the final product with the development of all the components it contains.
But of that number, the overwhelming majority could just as easily use Numbers. The point is that most users could use either one - but choose the one they're most familiar with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
No. Apple gives what people need.
Not sure what you mean. You want it to be cheaper, or expected it to cost more, with all its high tech and well designed hardware and software?
Not sure what you're getting at, but it looks like you wish for 'a richer sound experience'. But how will this work if the majority listens to music on their iOS device, with the included cheap headphones or self procured $300 ones? If these files are 20 times as large iDevices would be filled rather rapidly, no?
Yes, for home use we are still in the HDD area, but I sure hope Apple is going to kill it like they have done so many times in the past. All for the better, I say.
People are more likely to buy what they want. Buying things is an emotional decision when work isn't part of the equation. If people can't get what they want then they are less likely to buy a product.
The iPod Touch is way overpriced for what you get.
If Apple created a lossless codec that totally reproduced the full range of analog recordings they could resell their entire iTunes library to people who want the best experience. That would bring in billions of dollars.
If the iDevices filled up then Apple could sell bigger capacity models and earn more money.
apple web site changes......
Apple shows people what they want before the people realize this.
iPod touch is cheaper than what the original iPod cost. Not looking at inflation, that is. But the price is not the sum of its components. I think 400 is fair. The iPhone is getting more expensive, at my location at least.
They have indeed been tinkering on the idea of higher bit rate, 96kHz and all that, so an upsell could work.
Good point on the bigger capacity and earning more money. But why haven't they made the Classic 1TB? I thought there was a 9.5mm laptop-sized HDD, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Oh, cloud of doubt. It's an Apple event. It never lives up to the expectation, even when it exceeds the expectation. People (Wall Street) are worthless idiots. If every single Apple product WAS updated simultaneously, as they desire, at every single Apple event, they'd complain that Apple didn't update them enough.
They'll never be happy. The point for Apple is to make people (real people) happy and ignore Wall Street. And they're gonna do it. They always do, you know? We're two days out and how many leaks have we had? None. Not a one. Everything we know, Apple has told us.
It's gonna be big.
Here's to OS X and iOS, as well as hopefully Haswell Macs. And here's to Apple, showing us that they won't give up on workstations. Hopefully.
That's absolutely correct. The press and Wall Street only think in the simplest of terms, so the only thing that would satisfy them would be a surprise announcement of a totally new product line, akin to the iPod, iPhone or iPad. Since that is not going to happen, they'll be countless stories about "Apple has lost it, since they haven't released a new product line since Steve Jobs passed away, blah, blah, blah." The general press does not care about an upgraded processor if the industrial design of the product looks the same as the last one. They don't care if a device is faster. They don't even care much if the display has a higher resolution. They're idiots. But if Apple came out with a 3D display that didn't require glasses, they would get very excited even though it would be useless to almost everyone except perhaps gamers.
Wall Street doesn't seem to care that there are multiple and competing car manufacturers or TV manufacturers or camera manufacturers or clothing manufacturers. But because Apple hasn't put Samsung out of business, that's interpreted as a flaw in Apple's strategy. And if Apple had succeeded in knocking Samsung out, Apple would probably be subject to monopoly investigations and the like. The fact is that competition is good and I believe that Samsung (and Android) drive Apple to produce better products. However, if iOS6 is just a very minor upgrade, I might start to get a bit concerned.
Frankly, I can't think of a single thing Apple could do in the current product line to get Wall Street and the Press excited. Even if they doubled performance and halved the price, I don't think they'd be excited.
Having said that, I do think Apple needs to find a way to create some excitement even when they're not announcing new product lines. I realize that's harder to do when we're overwhelmed with new devices from multiple manufacturers all the time.
I still maintain that Apple is working on something very secretly - the number of employees to be housed at the old and new campuses seems to me to be too many for their current activities, aside from more people to handle third party sales. As I've stated before, my prediction is that in ten years, Apple will be a robotics company. I think Siri is the first zygote step in that evolution.