Tim's biggest problem is that he doesn't have stage persona and his voice is tiring to listen to. Unfortunately he is also robotic and uses a monotonous tone.
That isn't a criticism of him. He just isn't cut out for large presentations, in fact most of us aren't. I was not a big Jobs fan but his presentations were well constructed and delivered. Obviously they suffered towards the end due to underlying illness.
I think Tim manages an uncomfortable situation as best he can and logically tries to hand over tasks to others ASAP while on stage.
He must dread it but there's no way out of it.
I'm not aware of any natural born presenters in Apple higher management right now.
Craig has come on a lot over the years, even running demos on completely different areas within the same presentation but still needs experience.
We should all give thanks that Jony Ive is limited to video appearances though. He makes Tim seem like Steve.
You seem to see these events as superficial entertainment; a performance. I don't. Tim is displaying a stronger personna as each event occurs. He shows the same fire within himself, the same laser focus for Apple, that Steve did, and that is what I, and most of the rest of us foliowing Apple, see every day.
I note that in most of your comments, you attempt to distract and divert attention from all the things that Apple does well, things that it is improving on, and things that it is leading on.
That must require a lot of energy on your part; working at being such a perfectly superficial, and shallow, participant on AI, as you have just demonstrated above, and so many times prior.
ALL presentations are performances whether you see them that way or not, and Tim Cook isn't cut out for them. It's not his fault but being the CEO there is little he can do about it. One of a presenter's most important and effective tools is the voice. Unfortunately Tim Cook lacks in that vital area and there is very little he can do about it.
Doubled down; bold.
Here's a video of a press event where the participants were, from your perspective, about the worst possible candidates for a press event as ever could be imagined.
We all know how this worked out:
What is your point and what does it have to do with what I wrote?
Your posts indicate that you are biased towards presentation; you certainly expound on that in a number of posts. I gave you a video all about content and context, pretty historic content at that, and demonstrably little in the way of presentation.
Myself, I'm biased towards the technology that Apple will provide at that upcoming event of September 12, in the form of products, software, and services, and whatever innovations that arrive at that time.
[...] There's no reason at all for the Mac Mini anymore;
None at all? I listed three, and your alternative only addresses one of them.
One of the things I use mine for is ripping, transcoding and rendering DVDs and Blu-Rays, as well as personal video projects and the odd small client job. I just don't want to tie up my primary machine for hours (or sometimes days) at a time as it does nothing but munch munch munch munch. I could use an iMac for that, but it's a waste of money to buy a fancy display for something I connect to via screen sharing, and I'd have to find a big opening for it somewhere because it couldn't just sit on a bookshelf like the mini does.
My other big use for it is feeding local content to the TV. I have thousands of TV episodes and hundreds of movies ripped from the aforementioned DVDs and Blu-Rays on a shared RAID. If there was a way to just connect a hard drive full of movies and TV shows directly to the AppleTV without having to have a @#$& Mac in between, it would be a major step towards a post-mini world for me.
Soli said: Personally, I don't believe that Apple would be as successful today if Jobs was still at the helm. I'm not saying it would be failing—far from it, but I think Cook's longterm vision and either nonexistent or muted hubris makes Apple a better company from a business standpoint. Jobs vision and talent can't be stated strongly enough, but what Cook did under Jobs and continues to do as CEO doesn't get enough credit, IMO.
Because I wish I had written pretty much exactly exactly what you did, I'm gonna quote it and add some redundant "me too" verbiage.
I appreciated Mr. Jobs for his vision and passion, but I think his ego may have sometimes interfered with product development (as if I know anything about Steve Jobs; I'm just basing my opinion on what I read in Isaacson's book). Tim Cook seems like a pretty level-headed and rational guy, who does a good job of balancing user wishes with the best interests of the company.
Tim's biggest problem is that he doesn't have stage persona and his voice is tiring to listen to. Unfortunately he is also robotic and uses a monotonous tone.
That isn't a criticism of him. He just isn't cut out for large presentations, in fact most of us aren't. I was not a big Jobs fan but his presentations were well constructed and delivered. Obviously they suffered towards the end due to underlying illness.
I think Tim manages an uncomfortable situation as best he can and logically tries to hand over tasks to others ASAP while on stage.
He must dread it but there's no way out of it.
I'm not aware of any natural born presenters in Apple higher management right now.
Craig has come on a lot over the years, even running demos on completely different areas within the same presentation but still needs experience.
We should all give thanks that Jony Ive is limited to video appearances though. He makes Tim seem like Steve.
You seem to see these events as superficial entertainment; a performance. I don't. Tim is displaying a stronger personna as each event occurs. He shows the same fire within himself, the same laser focus for Apple, that Steve did, and that is what I, and most of the rest of us foliowing Apple, see every day.
I note that in most of your comments, you attempt to distract and divert attention from all the things that Apple does well, things that it is improving on, and things that it is leading on.
That must require a lot of energy on your part; working at being such a perfectly superficial, and shallow, participant on AI, as you have just demonstrated above, and so many times prior.
ALL presentations are performances whether you see them that way or not, and Tim Cook isn't cut out for them. It's not his fault but being the CEO there is little he can do about it. One of a presenter's most important and effective tools is the voice. Unfortunately Tim Cook lacks in that vital area and there is very little he can do about it.
I don't think Steve jobs sounded like James Earl Jones either. Yet, he was a master presenter.
Your comment is totally... oops... TOTALLY shallow.
No, he's right. We tend to judge people -- and by extension, their companies -- on the basis of how they present in person. When the presenter is not a strong personality on stage, it has an affect on our perception of the product being presented. Consider how Steve Jobs was able to cast a reality distortion field, then think about Steve Ballmer jumping around like a lunatic. If you could put yourself in a place where you had no prior knowledge of what each was selling, whose product would you be more likely to trust?
Let's face it, while Cook doesn't suck at presentations, he's no Robin Williams. Even if he did kinda suck at it, avon b7 is right: that's not a "fault" per se and is largely beyond his control anyway. I didn't take the comment as a judgement, but just an observation. There was clearly no offence intended.
Mac mini???? Bahahahahahaha! Who gives a shit about the Mac mini? Any new Mac mini is going to be the same as what's available today, only with faster processors and the latest Intel graphics. I wouldn't get your hopes up on anything more.
First, LOTS of people give a shit about the Mac mini. "Lots' obviously being a relative term in comparison to the iPhone, but enough that it keeps coming up. I can't imagine what you find funny about that, nor why you would feel inclined to insult what others wish for.
Second, a wish list for the mini could include Thunderbolt 3 on USB-C connectors to provide consistency with the new notebooks, a return to quad-core processors, and native hardware acceleration for h.265.
Third, what would be wrong with just a CPU and GPU upgrade? I might pull the trigger based on that alone.
LOTS is a very relative term....Lots could be 1000, or it could be 50. The bottomline is that the Mac mini is just about the worst selling Mac they have in the lineup. Just because you have a use for it, doesn't mean LOTS of people give a shit about the Mac mini.
Maybe you aren't thinking this, but there are those out there (including here in AI forums) that seem to think Apple is going to make this modular Mac mini with swappable RAM, and storage as well as discrete graphics, and all for $799!!! This simply isn't gonna happen.
I've said it here many times and I'll say it again...the Mac mini exists for one reason and one reason only, so nobody can say Macs are expensive. They used to be for switchers, but in today's world I'd like to know how many "switchers" buy a Mac mini over an iMac. The same can be said for the MacBook Air...it only exists so people can't say Apple's notebooks are too expensive.
Quite right. There's no reason at all for the Mac Mini anymore; Apple has no need to push x86 switchers to MacOS.
Still, I can see a market for a "Pro" AppleTV which would include AirPort, and media storage internally, and/or via USB Type C.
Given a second HDMI port for a BD Player connection, such a device could manage BD, CD, and DVD media seamlessly with iTunes; Home Theater suitable for a great number of people.
I think that Apple is missing the boat by not making a cheap, basic Tv device as Amazon and Google are doing. We know that Apple has slipped to four or five in tv hardware sales, and a new, expensive, 4K model isn’t going to change that much. Because of a lack of a popular, cheap, way of getting movies and Tv shows, their renting and sales of Tv shows and movies has also slipped. They used to be number one there, but they’re closer to number three now.
i get that Apple wants to change the way we watch Tv, but those efforts are failing there. I’m willing to bet that what they’re doing now is a result of failing to secure agreements at the pricing they want for what they wanted to do. Meanwhile, even small players are gaining access to the content Apple is having problems with, because they are willing to play ball more. We see Sonos doing very well with that, and others too. Maybe if Apple came out with a $60-$75 Tv device, that might change. If Apple were back on top in rentals and purchase, they would have more leverage, but as they slip, whatever leverage they may have had, slips too.
amazon gives a certain number of movies. Tv shows and music away for free each month with Prime. I think they lose money with Prime for most of those users. I just use Prime for shipping. But others take advantage of everything else. Amazon is willing to lose money on these services, but Apple isn’t, maybe they should.
Why? To increase attendance at the Church of Marketshare? Not Apple's bag. Contrary to your concern I believe Apple services income is growing.
For whatever it's worth, which ain't much, I'm a little concerned too. Not because I'm worried about Apple's health, but because of how developments affect my preferred entertainment channels.
I prefer to buy my content via the iTunes Store. It's convenient and provides a free off-site backup. The problem is that content almost invariably costs more -- sometimes WAAAAY more -- via iTunes than physical media (see the example I cited earlier this week about buying a Blu-Ray with an iTunes download for less than half the price of the download alone through the iTunes Store). That means I still often wind up buying physical media and converting it to iTunes format myself.
With increased marketshare comes increased clout with distributors and studios. A minor player isn't in a very good position to negotiate deals because the amount of business they represent to the supplier isn't enough to sway them with fear or incentive. A major player, one that the ultimate consumer of the product considers a "go-to" choice for purchasing, is able to exert pressure on suppliers to sharpen their pencils, improve their delivery models, and adjust their timelines, because they don't want to risk adversely affecting their path to the buyer.
That means that in this case, I think there's a benefit to me as a consumer to Apple gaining marketshare. It allows for greater and faster availability with lower prices.
Mac mini???? Bahahahahahaha! Who gives a shit about the Mac mini? Any new Mac mini is going to be the same as what's available today, only with faster processors and the latest Intel graphics. I wouldn't get your hopes up on anything more.
First, LOTS of people give a shit about the Mac mini. "Lots' obviously being a relative term in comparison to the iPhone, but enough that it keeps coming up. I can't imagine what you find funny about that, nor why you would feel inclined to insult what others wish for.
Second, a wish list for the mini could include Thunderbolt 3 on USB-C connectors to provide consistency with the new notebooks, a return to quad-core processors, and native hardware acceleration for h.265.
Third, what would be wrong with just a CPU and GPU upgrade? I might pull the trigger based on that alone.
LOTS is a very relative term....Lots could be 1000, or it could be 50. The bottomline is that the Mac mini is just about the worst selling Mac they have in the lineup. Just because you have a use for it, doesn't mean LOTS of people give a shit about the Mac mini.
Maybe you aren't thinking this, but there are those out there (including here in AI forums) that seem to think Apple is going to make this modular Mac mini with swappable RAM, and storage as well as discrete graphics, and all for $799!!! This simply isn't gonna happen.
I've said it here many times and I'll say it again...the Mac mini exists for one reason and one reason only, so nobody can say Macs are expensive. They used to be for switchers, but in today's world I'd like to know how many "switchers" buy a Mac mini over an iMac. The same can be said for the MacBook Air...it only exists so people can't say Apple's notebooks are too expensive.
Quite right. There's no reason at all for the Mac Mini anymore; Apple has no need to push x86 switchers to MacOS.
Still, I can see a market for a "Pro" AppleTV which would include AirPort, and media storage internally, and/or via USB Type C.
Given a second HDMI port for a BD Player connection, such a device could manage BD, CD, and DVD media seamlessly with iTunes; Home Theater suitable for a great number of people.
I think that Apple is missing the boat by not making a cheap, basic Tv device as Amazon and Google are doing. We know that Apple has slipped to four or five in tv hardware sales, and a new, expensive, 4K model isn’t going to change that much. Because of a lack of a popular, cheap, way of getting movies and Tv shows, their renting and sales of Tv shows and movies has also slipped. They used to be number one there, but they’re closer to number three now.
i get that Apple wants to change the way we watch Tv, but those efforts are failing there. I’m willing to bet that what they’re doing now is a result of failing to secure agreements at the pricing they want for what they wanted to do. Meanwhile, even small players are gaining access to the content Apple is having problems with, because they are willing to play ball more. We see Sonos doing very well with that, and others too. Maybe if Apple came out with a $60-$75 Tv device, that might change. If Apple were back on top in rentals and purchase, they would have more leverage, but as they slip, whatever leverage they may have had, slips too.
amazon gives a certain number of movies. Tv shows and music away for free each month with Prime. I think they lose money with Prime for most of those users. I just use Prime for shipping. But others take advantage of everything else. Amazon is willing to lose money on these services, but Apple isn’t, maybe they should.
Why? To increase attendance at the Church of Marketshare? Not Apple's bag. Contrary to your concern I believe Apple services income is growing.
Contrary to your belief, it’s known that sales and rentals are down. Services cover a big area. They’re up mostly because of increased sales in the App Store.
companies are in business to make sales and profits. I attempted to give a logical reason showing why their efforts haven’t been working. It’s so well known that their efforts aren’t working, that I’m surprised that you aren’t aware of it. It’s been reported a number of times over the past couple of years, or so. It’s known what movie and Tv rentals are doing. Forbes, Billboard, and the WSJ among other sources have reported this. Articles about Apple’s troubles negotiations with industry have also been reported.
With some in the negotiations stating that Apple wants certain pricing, and that they haven’t backed down from that, we can tell that things have been at a standstill. Now we also know that they’re battling about 4K pricing too.
in addition, it’s known that their competitors have made deals in content that Apple hasn’t been able to. When you diss market share, you’re doing what others like to do. But while it may be nice to think that Apple doesn’t care about market share, that’s wouldn’t be true. Apple cares very much about it, and states market share numbers every quarterly report. You should listen into the conference calls.
when I say that they are losing leverage with content producers, it’s true, and very important. When Jobs made his pitch to the music industry for low song pricing, it was still very early, and theft was a major issue, and self sales were very poor. They didn’t believe iTunes would be a success, and so let him have his way. That’s been documented, by the way, with interviews with several of those involved in the talks. But it succeeded way beyond what anyone, including Apple, expected. That gave Apple a lot of power in the music industry. Movie and Tv production companies are now wary of Apple. But if Apple were still number one there, they would have to give Apple more attention. But right now, they can walk away. That’s what marketshare means.
in addition, Apple had been asked a number of times over the past few years if they would be doing their own original content the way their competitors such as Amazon, Google and others were doing. Apple’s response each time was that they preferred leaving production to content producers, and handle distribution. But, here they are doing production. Do you wonder why?
Soli said: This will be landmark event for many reasons, one of which I hope will make this the most remembered event since the original 2007 introduction of the iPhone*.
Won't be with out Steve Jobs. Tim Cook is no where close to what Steve could do with an audience...
He’s enthusiastic to be sure, but he says that he’s uncomfortable in front of large audiences. Apple has a management school, and one thing it teaches is presentation. He’s much better than in the beginning, but his quiet demeanor comes across on the stage, and his slight southern drawl doesn’t give him the sharpness needed. Steve, of course, was unmatched. Just watching some old presentations shows that.
I think the major difference -- what made Steve so great -- was that he understood the underlying technology and how it was being utilized to make people's live better -- as well as the infinite care from late and sleepless nights that went into making it a great product. Tim is doing well -- but he just doesn't have Steve's underlying emotional investment or understanding of the product.
Steve was like any entrepreneur, but he was just better at this whole marketing thing, because he really BELIEVED. Cook is really much better than he’s given credit for. Just watch presentations from other large companies, and you'll see what I mean. I think he also really believes, as do the others below him. But Steve had a talent for this, without having to learn it. Natural charismatics, are rare.
edit; the usual typos, errors in auto correction that I always seem to miss until much later.
You seem to have a far more in depth and inside knowledge of Apple than I do -- so I respect your opinion. But on this I would, knowing that my opinion may be based more on bias than fact, would differ with you.
To me it seems that Steve's "charisma" stemmed from a deep conviction (that underlies mere 'faith' or 'belief' because it is founded on knowledge rather than faith) as well as a passion to present something that will make a difference in the world and make people's lives better.
While I very much respect Tim Cook and believe that he was an outstanding choice for CEO, I don't think he can every have that same magic as Steve -- not for lack of charisma (which I don't think that either has) but because he lacks the conviction and passion that show when presenting a product that you have personally spent long nights down in the nuts and bolts, bits and bytes while perfecting that product.
I think Markkula, during the first Jobs movie said it best: "I see that look in your eye -- because I've had myself".
We all know people who have charisma. We all know people who don’t. While believing in something helps, you either have it, or you don’t.
They're going to be cutting it close on the Steve Jobs Theater. The latest quadrocopter "spy videos" showed people still working on it. Could still be some loose nuts and bolts in need of tightening.
There's a bigger issue which is that the Steve Jobs Theater only seats 1000 people. The Bill Graham Civic Auditorium sat 7000. I don't know if they filled it, but it always looked filled. Let's say 5000 attended. That means 80% of the people who attended can no longer attend. Those people are going to be pissed and will probably take it out on their reviews of the event and the products. On the other hand, if they have 2 people each from the top 500 press entities, that's probably more than enough.
The last video I saw had two workers either sweeping, waxing or painting the upper lobby floor. It was hard to tell which, but it was probably no more than a 1- or 2-day project.
The developer conferences have 5,000 developers attending. Apple says they have 1,000 engineers, though how many of those are seated when the presentations are going on, I don’t know. Plus, there are others.
Their press conferences are much smaller. So 1,100 seats is plenty.
Tim's biggest problem is that he doesn't have stage persona and his voice is tiring to listen to. Unfortunately he is also robotic and uses a monotonous tone.
That isn't a criticism of him. He just isn't cut out for large presentations, in fact most of us aren't. I was not a big Jobs fan but his presentations were well constructed and delivered. Obviously they suffered towards the end due to underlying illness.
I think Tim manages an uncomfortable situation as best he can and logically tries to hand over tasks to others ASAP while on stage.
He must dread it but there's no way out of it.
I'm not aware of any natural born presenters in Apple higher management right now.
Craig has come on a lot over the years, even running demos on completely different areas within the same presentation but still needs experience.
We should all give thanks that Jony Ive is limited to video appearances though. He makes Tim seem like Steve.
You seem to see these events as superficial entertainment; a performance. I don't. Tim is displaying a stronger personna as each event occurs. He shows the same fire within himself, the same laser focus for Apple, that Steve did, and that is what I, and most of the rest of us foliowing Apple, see every day.
I note that in most of your comments, you attempt to distract and divert attention from all the things that Apple does well, things that it is improving on, and things that it is leading on.
That must require a lot of energy on your part; working at being such a perfectly superficial, and shallow, participant on AI, as you have just demonstrated above, and so many times prior.
ALL presentations are performances whether you see them that way or not, and Tim Cook isn't cut out for them. It's not his fault but being the CEO there is little he can do about it. One of a presenter's most important and effective tools is the voice. Unfortunately Tim Cook lacks in that vital area and there is very little he can do about it.
I don't think Steve jobs sounded like James Earl Jones either. Yet, he was a master presenter.
Your comment is totally... oops... TOTALLY shallow.
No, he's right. We tend to judge people -- and by extension, their companies -- on the basis of how they present in person. When the presenter is not a strong personality on stage, it has an affect on our perception of the product being presented. Consider how Steve Jobs was able to cast a reality distortion field, then think about Steve Ballmer jumping around like a lunatic. If you could put yourself in a place where you had no prior knowledge of what each was selling, whose product would you be more likely to trust?
Let's face it, while Cook doesn't suck at presentations, he's no Robin Williams. Even if he did kinda suck at it, avon b7 is right: that's not a "fault" per se and is largely beyond his control anyway. I didn't take the comment as a judgement, but just an observation. There was clearly no offence intended.
Tim's been launching iPhones since 2012. I'm guessing most people don't give a shit about his presentation skills at this point in time. Heck, the only notably bad stint was Jimmy Iovine, who couldn't figure out either how he had arrived, nor why he was there.
I understand why Avon B7 is focussing on this, his experience and worldview is wrapped around not acknowledging anything Apple in a positive way. Avon B7 was judging, no less than if these were beauty pageants.
tmay said: Tim's been launching iPhones since 2012. I'm guessing most people don't give a shit about his presentation skills at this point in time. a positive way. Avon B7 was judging, no less than if these were beauty pageants.
I don't think conscious shits given are the issue. It's the subconscious response that's a concern. In theory anyway. I think Tim's presentation is quite serviceable, if a bit too slow for my particular liking.
tmay said: Avon B7 was judging, no less than if these were beauty pageants.
I guess it comes do to perception. I didn't read it that way at all, perhaps because he noted that any surviving shortcomings are beyond Tim's control, and that they probably don't really matter to most of the audience anyway.
Tim's biggest problem is that he doesn't have stage persona and his voice is tiring to listen to. Unfortunately he is also robotic and uses a monotonous tone.
That isn't a criticism of him. He just isn't cut out for large presentations, in fact most of us aren't. I was not a big Jobs fan but his presentations were well constructed and delivered. Obviously they suffered towards the end due to underlying illness.
I think Tim manages an uncomfortable situation as best he can and logically tries to hand over tasks to others ASAP while on stage.
He must dread it but there's no way out of it.
I'm not aware of any natural born presenters in Apple higher management right now.
Craig has come on a lot over the years, even running demos on completely different areas within the same presentation but still needs experience.
We should all give thanks that Jony Ive is limited to video appearances though. He makes Tim seem like Steve.
You seem to see these events as superficial entertainment; a performance. I don't. Tim is displaying a stronger personna as each event occurs. He shows the same fire within himself, the same laser focus for Apple, that Steve did, and that is what I, and most of the rest of us foliowing Apple, see every day.
I note that in most of your comments, you attempt to distract and divert attention from all the things that Apple does well, things that it is improving on, and things that it is leading on.
That must require a lot of energy on your part; working at being such a perfectly superficial, and shallow, participant on AI, as you have just demonstrated above, and so many times prior.
ALL presentations are performances whether you see them that way or not, and Tim Cook isn't cut out for them. It's not his fault but being the CEO there is little he can do about it. One of a presenter's most important and effective tools is the voice. Unfortunately Tim Cook lacks in that vital area and there is very little he can do about it.
Doubled down; bold.
Here's a video of a press event where the participants were, from your perspective, about the worst possible candidates for a press event as ever could be imagined.
We all know how this worked out:
What is your point and what does it have to do with what I wrote?
Your posts indicate that you are biased towards presentation; you certainly expound on that in a number of posts. I gave you a video all about content and context, pretty historic content at that, and demonstrably little in the way of presentation.
Myself, I'm biased towards the technology that Apple will provide at that upcoming event of September 12, in the form of products, software, and services, and whatever innovations that arrive at that time.
No, not biased. The subject of presentations appeared and I commented on it from an impartial perspective and evaluated Jobs and Cook's presentation skills.
I'm sure Tim would agree with my observations.
I know first hand the terror stage fright can bring to some people. People handle it in different ways.
I know people that have learned to vomit in a particular way so they can reduce the damage to their throats when they are doing it. Vomiting is a common problem for some people before big events. I wouldn't be surprised if Tim took some kind of medication before going on stage. That is very common for big events.
People that aren't professional presenters or who have lots of experience, do not enjoy the moments prior to the presentations. When they are up there and things are going well, things normally get much better but the hours beforehand can be torture.
I will never forget a chance meeting on a ferry I had in 1987 with probably the most talented singer I have ever heard. He opened up to me on that night crossing and revealed his biggest fear: stage fright.
I followed his career as best I could and he disappeared from performing for years. His way of resolving his stage fright seemed to be through alcohol. At 47 he was dead. Not as a direct result of alcohol but it definitely screwed him up. I have a very good understanding of alcoholism and drug addiction and although I have never been there personally, I know how easy it is to end up there.
From the audience's perspective most people simply don't need to understand what the presenter is going through but I get to see things from the other side. I run through rehearsals, body language, relaxation, timing, backup etc and most of my clients are giving presentations in a non-native language. One had huge problems saying the word 'interoperability' and needed to say it over and over during a presentation. Sometimes, from the outside, you just don't see how one 'simple' word could cause someone so many problems. Although I speak fluent Spanish, I never ever use the word 'perros' (dogs) while giving examples. I always use 'gatos' (cats). Rolling my R's is difficult for me so I simply avoid them where possible.
I don't know exactly what Tim's preparation routine is, I don't know if he sleeps well the night before, I don't know what's going on in him during the presentation.
I can only watch him and give my opinion and that is what I have done. It's impossible for him not to be compared to Steve Jobs and he arguably has an extra layer of pressure as a result.
For what it is worth, he is a far better presenter than me.
I have a very good sounding voice and can easily shake off my natural accent, I am good in a classroom setting but I need the possibility of improvisation. I don't feel safe in the timed rigid world of complex presentations. I help people with them but luckily never have to give any.
Anyway, after chatting with this guy, he left a mark on me. RIP John
I've heard that the new Apple TV will come with up to 512GB of storage and include a PlayStation-like gaming controller with it. Can anyone confirm this??
Drewster99 said: I've heard that the new Apple TV will come with up to 512GB of storage
That'd be nice, but it goes against Apple's delusions of "your local content can go to hell." What does it have now, 16 and 64? I'd bet no more than 128 for the next one.
Mac mini???? Bahahahahahaha! Who gives a shit about the Mac mini? Any new Mac mini is going to be the same as what's available today, only with faster processors and the latest Intel graphics. I wouldn't get your hopes up on anything more.
First, LOTS of people give a shit about the Mac mini. "Lots' obviously being a relative term in comparison to the iPhone, but enough that it keeps coming up. I can't imagine what you find funny about that, nor why you would feel inclined to insult what others wish for.
Second, a wish list for the mini could include Thunderbolt 3 on USB-C connectors to provide consistency with the new notebooks, a return to quad-core processors, and native hardware acceleration for h.265.
Third, what would be wrong with just a CPU and GPU upgrade? I might pull the trigger based on that alone.
LOTS is a very relative term....Lots could be 1000, or it could be 50. The bottomline is that the Mac mini is just about the worst selling Mac they have in the lineup. Just because you have a use for it, doesn't mean LOTS of people give a shit about the Mac mini.
Maybe you aren't thinking this, but there are those out there (including here in AI forums) that seem to think Apple is going to make this modular Mac mini with swappable RAM, and storage as well as discrete graphics, and all for $799!!! This simply isn't gonna happen.
I've said it here many times and I'll say it again...the Mac mini exists for one reason and one reason only, so nobody can say Macs are expensive. They used to be for switchers, but in today's world I'd like to know how many "switchers" buy a Mac mini over an iMac. The same can be said for the MacBook Air...it only exists so people can't say Apple's notebooks are too expensive.
Quite right. There's no reason at all for the Mac Mini anymore; Apple has no need to push x86 switchers to MacOS.
Still, I can see a market for a "Pro" AppleTV which would include AirPort, and media storage internally, and/or via USB Type C.
Given a second HDMI port for a BD Player connection, such a device could manage BD, CD, and DVD media seamlessly with iTunes; Home Theater suitable for a great number of people.
I think that Apple is missing the boat by not making a cheap, basic Tv device as Amazon and Google are doing. We know that Apple has slipped to four or five in tv hardware sales, and a new, expensive, 4K model isn’t going to change that much. Because of a lack of a popular, cheap, way of getting movies and Tv shows, their renting and sales of Tv shows and movies has also slipped. They used to be number one there, but they’re closer to number three now.
i get that Apple wants to change the way we watch Tv, but those efforts are failing there. I’m willing to bet that what they’re doing now is a result of failing to secure agreements at the pricing they want for what they wanted to do. Meanwhile, even small players are gaining access to the content Apple is having problems with, because they are willing to play ball more. We see Sonos doing very well with that, and others too. Maybe if Apple came out with a $60-$75 Tv device, that might change. If Apple were back on top in rentals and purchase, they would have more leverage, but as they slip, whatever leverage they may have had, slips too.
amazon gives a certain number of movies. Tv shows and music away for free each month with Prime. I think they lose money with Prime for most of those users. I just use Prime for shipping. But others take advantage of everything else. Amazon is willing to lose money on these services, but Apple isn’t, maybe they should.
Why? To increase attendance at the Church of Marketshare? Not Apple's bag. Contrary to your concern I believe Apple services income is growing.
With increased marketshare comes increased clout with distributors and studios. A minor player isn't in a very good position to negotiate deals because the amount of business they represent to the supplier isn't enough to sway them with fear or incentive. A major player, one that the ultimate consumer of the product considers a "go-to" choice for purchasing, is able to exert pressure on suppliers to sharpen their pencils, improve their delivery models, and adjust their timelines, because they don't want to risk adversely affecting their path to the buyer.
That means that in this case, I think there's a benefit to me as a consumer to Apple gaining marketshare. It allows for greater and faster availability with lower prices.
I seem to remember a certain Eric Schmidt predicting back in Dec 2011 that developers would start to favor Android over iOS in 6 months because of market share (to many snickers in the audience). I'm still waiting for that prediction to come true.
Apple has the highest market share in all the areas that count. iOS currently has half the number of App downloads as Android, yet generates twice the revenues. For online shopping iOS generates 5x the revenues as Android. Market share is meaningless unless you qualify it. I doubt people buying $50 disposable Android phones are also buying 4K HDR TVs, let alone spending money on content.
The only reason, IMO, that Apple has difficulty with studios or networks in getting deals signed is because they're all dinosaurs who still think their distribution model is relevant today. It has nothing to do with market share. The music industry took time to come around to the idea of selling individual songs (through iTunes) or streaming music for a fee (Apple Music and Spotify) instead of relying on sales of physical media (CDs). Eventually the big networks and studios will also be dragged into the 21st century.
Tim's biggest problem is that he doesn't have stage persona and his voice is tiring to listen to. Unfortunately he is also robotic and uses a monotonous tone.
That isn't a criticism of him. He just isn't cut out for large presentations, in fact most of us aren't. I was not a big Jobs fan but his presentations were well constructed and delivered. Obviously they suffered towards the end due to underlying illness.
I think Tim manages an uncomfortable situation as best he can and logically tries to hand over tasks to others ASAP while on stage.
He must dread it but there's no way out of it.
I'm not aware of any natural born presenters in Apple higher management right now.
Craig has come on a lot over the years, even running demos on completely different areas within the same presentation but still needs experience.
We should all give thanks that Jony Ive is limited to video appearances though. He makes Tim seem like Steve.
You seem to see these events as superficial entertainment; a performance. I don't. Tim is displaying a stronger personna as each event occurs. He shows the same fire within himself, the same laser focus for Apple, that Steve did, and that is what I, and most of the rest of us foliowing Apple, see every day.
I note that in most of your comments, you attempt to distract and divert attention from all the things that Apple does well, things that it is improving on, and things that it is leading on.
That must require a lot of energy on your part; working at being such a perfectly superficial, and shallow, participant on AI, as you have just demonstrated above, and so many times prior.
ALL presentations are performances whether you see them that way or not, and Tim Cook isn't cut out for them. It's not his fault but being the CEO there is little he can do about it. One of a presenter's most important and effective tools is the voice. Unfortunately Tim Cook lacks in that vital area and there is very little he can do about it.
Doubled down; bold.
Here's a video of a press event where the participants were, from your perspective, about the worst possible candidates for a press event as ever could be imagined.
We all know how this worked out:
What is your point and what does it have to do with what I wrote?
Your posts indicate that you are biased towards presentation; you certainly expound on that in a number of posts. I gave you a video all about content and context, pretty historic content at that, and demonstrably little in the way of presentation.
Myself, I'm biased towards the technology that Apple will provide at that upcoming event of September 12, in the form of products, software, and services, and whatever innovations that arrive at that time.
No, not biased. The subject of presentations appeared and I commented on it from an impartial perspective and evaluated Jobs and Cook's presentation skills.
I'm sure Tim would agree with my observations.
I know first hand the terror stage fright can bring to some people. People handle it in different ways.
I know people that have learned to vomit in a particular way so they can reduce the damage to their throats when they are doing it. Vomiting is a common problem for some people before big events. I wouldn't be surprised if Tim took some kind of medication before going on stage. That is very common for big events.
People that aren't professional presenters or who have lots of experience, do not enjoy the moments prior to the presentations. When they are up there and things are going well, things normally get much better but the hours beforehand can be torture.
I will never forget a chance meeting on a ferry I had in 1987 with probably the most talented singer I have ever heard. He opened up to me on that night crossing and revealed his biggest fear: stage fright.
I followed his career as best I could and he disappeared from performing for years. His way of resolving his stage fright seemed to be through alcohol. At 47 he was dead. Not as a direct result of alcohol but it definitely screwed him up. I have a very good understanding of alcoholism and drug addiction and although I have never been there personally, I know how easy it is to end up there.
From the audience's perspective most people simply don't need to understand what the presenter is going through but I get to see things from the other side. I run through rehearsals, body language, relaxation, timing, backup etc and most of my clients are giving presentations in a non-native language. One had huge problems saying the word 'interoperability' and needed to say it over and over during a presentation. Sometimes, from the outside, you just don't see how one 'simple' word could cause someone so many problems. Although I speak fluent Spanish, I never ever use the word 'perros' (dogs) while giving examples. I always use 'gatos' (cats). Rolling my R's is difficult for me so I simply avoid them where possible.
I don't know exactly what Tim's preparation routine is, I don't know if he sleeps well the night before, I don't know what's going on in him during the presentation.
I can only watch him and give my opinion and that is what I have done. It's impossible for him not to be compared to Steve Jobs and he arguably has an extra layer of pressure as a result.
For what it is worth, he is a far better presenter than me.
I have a very good sounding voice and can easily shake off my natural accent, I am good in a classroom setting but I need the possibility of improvisation. I don't feel safe in the timed rigid world of complex presentations. I help people with them but luckily never have to give any.
Anyway, after chatting with this guy, he left a mark on me. RIP John
I'm sure you're the best.
That said, during and after the event, I'm just really looking forward to discussion of the event sans, for the most part, discussion of the presentation and delivery by the participants. There's a lot of technology reveals, and maybe even a few surprises in store. I certainly expect your participation, and welcome it.
I'm thinking that the industry holds its breath for 2 hours just to see if Apple has blindsided them, or if a potential disruption is at hand. It will certainly be worth a number of discussions.
Looking forward to seeing everybody here the 12th after the event. Take notes, or not.
Tim's biggest problem is that he doesn't have stage persona and his voice is tiring to listen to. Unfortunately he is also robotic and uses a monotonous tone.
That isn't a criticism of him. He just isn't cut out for large presentations, in fact most of us aren't. I was not a big Jobs fan but his presentations were well constructed and delivered. Obviously they suffered towards the end due to underlying illness.
I think Tim manages an uncomfortable situation as best he can and logically tries to hand over tasks to others ASAP while on stage.
He must dread it but there's no way out of it.
I'm not aware of any natural born presenters in Apple higher management right now.
Craig has come on a lot over the years, even running demos on completely different areas within the same presentation but still needs experience.
We should all give thanks that Jony Ive is limited to video appearances though. He makes Tim seem like Steve.
I note that in most of your comments, you attempt to distract and divert attention from all the things that Apple does well, things that it is improving on, and things that it is leading on.
That must require a lot of energy on your part; working at being such a perfectly superficial, and shallow, participant on AI, as you have just demonstrated above, and so many times prior.
But but but -- balance! We need balance!
Whataboutism is usually either a straw man or false equivalence, cloaked in a measured tone. There are several forum users skilled at this type of rhetoric. You know their names.
Mac mini???? Bahahahahahaha! Who gives a shit about the Mac mini? Any new Mac mini is going to be the same as what's available today, only with faster processors and the latest Intel graphics. I wouldn't get your hopes up on anything more.
First, LOTS of people give a shit about the Mac mini. "Lots' obviously being a relative term in comparison to the iPhone, but enough that it keeps coming up. I can't imagine what you find funny about that, nor why you would feel inclined to insult what others wish for.
Second, a wish list for the mini could include Thunderbolt 3 on USB-C connectors to provide consistency with the new notebooks, a return to quad-core processors, and native hardware acceleration for h.265.
Third, what would be wrong with just a CPU and GPU upgrade? I might pull the trigger based on that alone.
LOTS is a very relative term....Lots could be 1000, or it could be 50. The bottomline is that the Mac mini is just about the worst selling Mac they have in the lineup. Just because you have a use for it, doesn't mean LOTS of people give a shit about the Mac mini.
Maybe you aren't thinking this, but there are those out there (including here in AI forums) that seem to think Apple is going to make this modular Mac mini with swappable RAM, and storage as well as discrete graphics, and all for $799!!! This simply isn't gonna happen.
I've said it here many times and I'll say it again...the Mac mini exists for one reason and one reason only, so nobody can say Macs are expensive. They used to be for switchers, but in today's world I'd like to know how many "switchers" buy a Mac mini over an iMac. The same can be said for the MacBook Air...it only exists so people can't say Apple's notebooks are too expensive.
Quite right. There's no reason at all for the Mac Mini anymore; Apple has no need to push x86 switchers to MacOS.
Still, I can see a market for a "Pro" AppleTV which would include AirPort, and media storage internally, and/or via USB Type C.
Given a second HDMI port for a BD Player connection, such a device could manage BD, CD, and DVD media seamlessly with iTunes; Home Theater suitable for a great number of people.
I think that Apple is missing the boat by not making a cheap, basic Tv device as Amazon and Google are doing. We know that Apple has slipped to four or five in tv hardware sales, and a new, expensive, 4K model isn’t going to change that much. Because of a lack of a popular, cheap, way of getting movies and Tv shows, their renting and sales of Tv shows and movies has also slipped. They used to be number one there, but they’re closer to number three now.
i get that Apple wants to change the way we watch Tv, but those efforts are failing there. I’m willing to bet that what they’re doing now is a result of failing to secure agreements at the pricing they want for what they wanted to do. Meanwhile, even small players are gaining access to the content Apple is having problems with, because they are willing to play ball more. We see Sonos doing very well with that, and others too. Maybe if Apple came out with a $60-$75 Tv device, that might change. If Apple were back on top in rentals and purchase, they would have more leverage, but as they slip, whatever leverage they may have had, slips too.
amazon gives a certain number of movies. Tv shows and music away for free each month with Prime. I think they lose money with Prime for most of those users. I just use Prime for shipping. But others take advantage of everything else. Amazon is willing to lose money on these services, but Apple isn’t, maybe they should.
Why? To increase attendance at the Church of Marketshare? Not Apple's bag. Contrary to your concern I believe Apple services income is growing.
Contrary to your belief, it’s known that sales and rentals are down. Services cover a big area. They’re up mostly because of increased sales in the App Store.
companies are in business to make sales and profits. I attempted to give a logical reason showing why their efforts haven’t been working. It’s so well known that their efforts aren’t working, that I’m surprised that you aren’t aware of it. It’s been reported a number of times over the past couple of years, or so. It’s known what movie and Tv rentals are doing. Forbes, Billboard, and the WSJ among other sources have reported this. Articles about Apple’s troubles negotiations with industry have also been reported.
With some in the negotiations stating that Apple wants certain pricing, and that they haven’t backed down from that, we can tell that things have been at a standstill. Now we also know that they’re battling about 4K pricing too.
in addition, it’s known that their competitors have made deals in content that Apple hasn’t been able to. When you diss market share, you’re doing what others like to do. But while it may be nice to think that Apple doesn’t care about market share, that’s wouldn’t be true. Apple cares very much about it, and states market share numbers every quarterly report. You should listen into the conference calls.
when I say that they are losing leverage with content producers, it’s true, and very important. When Jobs made his pitch to the music industry for low song pricing, it was still very early, and theft was a major issue, and self sales were very poor. They didn’t believe iTunes would be a success, and so let him have his way. That’s been documented, by the way, with interviews with several of those involved in the talks. But it succeeded way beyond what anyone, including Apple, expected. That gave Apple a lot of power in the music industry. Movie and Tv production companies are now wary of Apple. But if Apple were still number one there, they would have to give Apple more attention. But right now, they can walk away. That’s what marketshare means.
in addition, Apple had been asked a number of times over the past few years if they would be doing their own original content the way their competitors such as Amazon, Google and others were doing. Apple’s response each time was that they preferred leaving production to content producers, and handle distribution. But, here they are doing production. Do you wonder why?"
"Do you wonder why?" - Yes, and still haven't found a viable answer.
I've heard that the new Apple TV will come with up to 512GB of storage and include a PlayStation-like gaming controller with it. Can anyone confirm this??
no one can confirm anything. As much as I think this should happen, I say keep dreaming.
Comments
Myself, I'm biased towards the technology that Apple will provide at that upcoming event of September 12, in the form of products, software, and services, and whatever innovations that arrive at that time.
One of the things I use mine for is ripping, transcoding and rendering DVDs and Blu-Rays, as well as personal video projects and the odd small client job. I just don't want to tie up my primary machine for hours (or sometimes days) at a time as it does nothing but munch munch munch munch. I could use an iMac for that, but it's a waste of money to buy a fancy display for something I connect to via screen sharing, and I'd have to find a big opening for it somewhere because it couldn't just sit on a bookshelf like the mini does.
My other big use for it is feeding local content to the TV. I have thousands of TV episodes and hundreds of movies ripped from the aforementioned DVDs and Blu-Rays on a shared RAID. If there was a way to just connect a hard drive full of movies and TV shows directly to the AppleTV without having to have a @#$& Mac in between, it would be a major step towards a post-mini world for me.
Because I wish I had written pretty much exactly exactly what you did, I'm gonna quote it and add some redundant "me too" verbiage.
I appreciated Mr. Jobs for his vision and passion, but I think his ego may have sometimes interfered with product development (as if I know anything about Steve Jobs; I'm just basing my opinion on what I read in Isaacson's book). Tim Cook seems like a pretty level-headed and rational guy, who does a good job of balancing user wishes with the best interests of the company.
Now gimme a new mini, dammit.
No, he's right. We tend to judge people -- and by extension, their companies -- on the basis of how they present in person. When the presenter is not a strong personality on stage, it has an affect on our perception of the product being presented. Consider how Steve Jobs was able to cast a reality distortion field, then think about Steve Ballmer jumping around like a lunatic. If you could put yourself in a place where you had no prior knowledge of what each was selling, whose product would you be more likely to trust?
Let's face it, while Cook doesn't suck at presentations, he's no Robin Williams. Even if he did kinda suck at it, avon b7 is right: that's not a "fault" per se and is largely beyond his control anyway. I didn't take the comment as a judgement, but just an observation. There was clearly no offence intended.
For whatever it's worth, which ain't much, I'm a little concerned too. Not because I'm worried about Apple's health, but because of how developments affect my preferred entertainment channels.
I prefer to buy my content via the iTunes Store. It's convenient and provides a free off-site backup. The problem is that content almost invariably costs more -- sometimes WAAAAY more -- via iTunes than physical media (see the example I cited earlier this week about buying a Blu-Ray with an iTunes download for less than half the price of the download alone through the iTunes Store). That means I still often wind up buying physical media and converting it to iTunes format myself.
With increased marketshare comes increased clout with distributors and studios. A minor player isn't in a very good position to negotiate deals because the amount of business they represent to the supplier isn't enough to sway them with fear or incentive. A major player, one that the ultimate consumer of the product considers a "go-to" choice for purchasing, is able to exert pressure on suppliers to sharpen their pencils, improve their delivery models, and adjust their timelines, because they don't want to risk adversely affecting their path to the buyer.
That means that in this case, I think there's a benefit to me as a consumer to Apple gaining marketshare. It allows for greater and faster availability with lower prices.
companies are in business to make sales and profits. I attempted to give a logical reason showing why their efforts haven’t been working. It’s so well known that their efforts aren’t working, that I’m surprised that you aren’t aware of it. It’s been reported a number of times over the past couple of years, or so. It’s known what movie and Tv rentals are doing. Forbes, Billboard, and the WSJ among other sources have reported this. Articles about Apple’s troubles negotiations with industry have also been reported.
With some in the negotiations stating that Apple wants certain pricing, and that they haven’t backed down from that, we can tell that things have been at a standstill. Now we also know that they’re battling about 4K pricing too.
in addition, it’s known that their competitors have made deals in content that Apple hasn’t been able to. When you diss market share, you’re doing what others like to do. But while it may be nice to think that Apple doesn’t care about market share, that’s wouldn’t be true. Apple cares very much about it, and states market share numbers every quarterly report. You should listen into the conference calls.
when I say that they are losing leverage with content producers, it’s true, and very important. When Jobs made his pitch to the music industry for low song pricing, it was still very early, and theft was a major issue, and self sales were very poor. They didn’t believe iTunes would be a success, and so let him have his way. That’s been documented, by the way, with interviews with several of those involved in the talks. But it succeeded way beyond what anyone, including Apple, expected. That gave Apple a lot of power in the music industry. Movie and Tv production companies are now wary of Apple. But if Apple were still number one there, they would have to give Apple more attention. But right now, they can walk away. That’s what marketshare means.
in addition, Apple had been asked a number of times over the past few years if they would be doing their own original content the way their competitors such as Amazon, Google and others were doing. Apple’s response each time was that they preferred leaving production to content producers, and handle distribution. But, here they are doing production. Do you wonder why?
Their press conferences are much smaller. So 1,100 seats is plenty.
I understand why Avon B7 is focussing on this, his experience and worldview is wrapped around not acknowledging anything Apple in a positive way. Avon B7 was judging, no less than if these were beauty pageants.
I guess it comes do to perception. I didn't read it that way at all, perhaps because he noted that any surviving shortcomings are beyond Tim's control, and that they probably don't really matter to most of the audience anyway.
I'm sure Tim would agree with my observations.
I know first hand the terror stage fright can bring to some people. People handle it in different ways.
I know people that have learned to vomit in a particular way so they can reduce the damage to their throats when they are doing it. Vomiting is a common problem for some people before big events. I wouldn't be surprised if Tim took some kind of medication before going on stage. That is very common for big events.
People that aren't professional presenters or who have lots of experience, do not enjoy the moments prior to the presentations. When they are up there and things are going well, things normally get much better but the hours beforehand can be torture.
I will never forget a chance meeting on a ferry I had in 1987 with probably the most talented singer I have ever heard. He opened up to me on that night crossing and revealed his biggest fear: stage fright.
I followed his career as best I could and he disappeared from performing for years. His way of resolving his stage fright seemed to be through alcohol. At 47 he was dead. Not as a direct result of alcohol but it definitely screwed him up. I have a very good understanding of alcoholism and drug addiction and although I have never been there personally, I know how easy it is to end up there.
From the audience's perspective most people simply don't need to understand what the presenter is going through but I get to see things from the other side. I run through rehearsals, body language, relaxation, timing, backup etc and most of my clients are giving presentations in a non-native language. One had huge problems saying the word 'interoperability' and needed to say it over and over during a presentation. Sometimes, from the outside, you just don't see how one 'simple' word could cause someone so many problems. Although I speak fluent Spanish, I never ever use the word 'perros' (dogs) while giving examples. I always use 'gatos' (cats). Rolling my R's is difficult for me so I simply avoid them where possible.
I don't know exactly what Tim's preparation routine is, I don't know if he sleeps well the night before, I don't know what's going on in him during the presentation.
I can only watch him and give my opinion and that is what I have done. It's impossible for him not to be compared to Steve Jobs and he arguably has an extra layer of pressure as a result.
For what it is worth, he is a far better presenter than me.
I have a very good sounding voice and can easily shake off my natural accent, I am good in a classroom setting but I need the possibility of improvisation. I don't feel safe in the timed rigid world of complex presentations. I help people with them but luckily never have to give any.
Anyway, after chatting with this guy, he left a mark on me. RIP John
Something tells me they won't do that.
I seem to remember a certain Eric Schmidt predicting back in Dec 2011 that developers would start to favor Android over iOS in 6 months because of market share (to many snickers in the audience). I'm still waiting for that prediction to come true.
Apple has the highest market share in all the areas that count. iOS currently has half the number of App downloads as Android, yet generates twice the revenues. For online shopping iOS generates 5x the revenues as Android. Market share is meaningless unless you qualify it. I doubt people buying $50 disposable Android phones are also buying 4K HDR TVs, let alone spending money on content.
The only reason, IMO, that Apple has difficulty with studios or networks in getting deals signed is because they're all dinosaurs who still think their distribution model is relevant today. It has nothing to do with market share. The music industry took time to come around to the idea of selling individual songs (through iTunes) or streaming music for a fee (Apple Music and Spotify) instead of relying on sales of physical media (CDs). Eventually the big networks and studios will also be dragged into the 21st century.
That said, during and after the event, I'm just really looking forward to discussion of the event sans, for the most part, discussion of the presentation and delivery by the participants. There's a lot of technology reveals, and maybe even a few surprises in store. I certainly expect your participation, and welcome it.
I'm thinking that the industry holds its breath for 2 hours just to see if Apple has blindsided them, or if a potential disruption is at hand. It will certainly be worth a number of discussions.
Looking forward to seeing everybody here the 12th after the event. Take notes, or not.