Price is THE decider on whether this headset will be a success. This author - and others who’ve made the same point that Apple has had supposed failures many times before turn into successes - doesn’t seem to realize this. When has Apple *ever* introduced a completely new product category at an initial price point of $3k? Maybe the original Apple 2 (adjusted for inflation) - but nothing since then. Sure, there are several niche “pro” products in THS range and beyond, but nothing with hoped for mass market appeal. And Apple clearly wants this to eventually become the next iPhone. And I think the AR glasses originally promised for this timeframe had/has this potential - but not some dorky headset costing as much as a used car.
The decider will be the hardware and software integration, and the quality of the programs designed to use the capabilities of the device, if Apple has those things nailed down, then the device will succeed, however no matter what price Apple sets, it will be too much and the complaining will go on and on because many people will want it, but will not be able to afford it.
Even to this day, there are still many financial analysts who think Apple should drop their prices on all products to pick up more marketshare, which, if you know anything about Apple, you know that isn’t their way of doing business.
Yeah, well, remember when all the analysts said that Apple is Doomed™ if they don't release a netbook?
IMO, the lack of a true netbook was a huge miss. As was the original iMac with only USB1. As was, ironically, the delay in getting USB2 onto Macs. As was not buying Netflix. As was not opening up firewire. As was fiasco on 5G/QC...
Let's not forget the whole concept of NetBoot and where that could have gone for business and education.
The question should not be if Apple was doomed because of those 'errors' but how much more they could have achieved by following through with some moves.
How did that work out for netbook makers? Fizzled out before they ever achieved any decent profits.
Even Apple dropped their 11” MBA because it wasn’t popular enough at that size.
Now there's an ARM version of Windows and SoCs are considerably more powerful and power efficient, but you don't see netbooks making a comeback. Perhaps that's because it was never a great idea.
The product category evolved. Just like the iPod.
There was enough business to go around for many companies to sell their products for years before tablets caught on and phones became more versatile. And of course regular laptops are going for very low prices nowadays.
Tablets of course required a physical keyboard to get close to what a netbook could do and were way behind when it came to could be presented through a browser.
But the error here for Apple wasn't simply competing in that space but using the product as a hook to catch users. And then the possibility of following through on the NetBoot promise via OSX Server.
That was a lost opportunity.
And none of those are netbooks. Netbooks failed miserably. End of story.
It's evolution and netbooks were a huge success and had huge demand in there hey day. 2008/9 saw global sales triple, hitting a high of around 35 million. There was a time when all you basically saw were netbooks.
It's obvious why, too.
It's very obvious why, but you keep failing to accept the why.
Yes, absolutely doomed. It's so sad. No doubt the VR headset will be relegated to the trash bin of history alongside the many other widely predicted failures for Apple: the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad, the Watch. It's just one useless product after another that nobody buys.
A few years ago I agreed with you - I also predicted iPhone 1, iPod 1 (I had the first model) to be massive successes.
I didn't predict iPhone would wipe the floor with the competition for the next 20 years, OK, but I knew it was a new class and a new paradigm.
Was lukewarm at iPads, and watch.
The watch is particularly strange - it doesn't really do anything useful for me, but I guess a lot of people love tracking their health and like the looks... I bought one but found it completely useless. But it has a fashion appeal and Apple did extremely well capitalizing on that. Who knew?!
The VR headset to me sounds about as useful as getting hit with a stick. It's the first real post - Jobs product, and the VR hype is already gone.
Crypto is more interesting; and now AI, is about 1000 times more interesting - because AI does useful stuff, out of the box. It does amazing things, when you realize you no longer need marketing people or programmers - it can do it all.
VR headset - has no real life usefulness. I get that the gamer market is large but is a VR set so much better at gaming - like 10x better? I don't think so. It is cool, has novelty value, but people have yet to find anything where it's really a 10x revolution in product.
This one will tank. Mark my words.
The iPhone hasn't wiped the floor with the competition.
XR isn't VR but even VR as a technology has an enormous range of use cases.
The problem is that, for wide acceptance, it depends on a series of external factors lining up. ICT infrastructure, content creation and deployment, pricing...
That hasn't happened yet but we know it will.
XR just opens up the technology to even more use cases.
This is nothing like 3D TVs or curved screens and let's not forget that XR is already is use, just not very rooted (yet) in the consumer space.
I see virtually unlimited use cases but just as with modern smartphones and AI, I also see potential problems.
There is nothing new on that front. We just need to be careful and adapt.
If it hasn't wiped the floor with the competition, it certainly has stolen most of the competitors lunch money.
More profitable for sure.
Competitors have made high profits though.
More than enough to cover lunch, LOL, and a plethora of tech advances that only years later would reach iPhones.
Begs the question, where did all those iPhone profits end up? Doing very little in product terms, cough, Paradise Papers, cough!
So, according to Statista, Apple has 27.58% of the world market, and Android OS has 71.72%.
Apple has 50% of revenues WW and more than 80% of profits, so if competitors "have made high profits though" those profits aren't anywhere close to Apple's.
I should mention that the "plethora of tech advances that only years later would reach iPhones" doesn't really seem to tip the sales balance in Android favor, so maybe those "advances' don't actually add much value at the time of sale.
As for the profits, most of that ends up with the stockholders, as dividends, but of course, you must be aware of that.
What does the amount (more vs much more) of profits have to do with anything?
Making enough to offer bang for buck and run the business it what makes sense from my point of view.
Making a profit and just sitting on it is not something I'm going to buy into. It's why I jumped ship in the first place.
Instead of doing nothing with it, which was the case for many years, give users bang for buck.
Ten years of shipping a 5W charger is a perfect example of not giving users what they could do with. The same applies to skimping for years on base storage.
Now, something completely different, is getting users to pay more in the first place.
Who earns more profit. The ASP. Any other metric. It's all irrelevant to the point.
The Paradise Papers amounted to a flock of Lawyers putting their feelers out for a rug big enough to cover what couldn't fit in the mattress.
Sales, as you suggest, actually do point to tipping in Android's favour. That's what over 70% means.
Yes, absolutely doomed. It's so sad. No doubt the VR headset will be relegated to the trash bin of history alongside the many other widely predicted failures for Apple: the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad, the Watch. It's just one useless product after another that nobody buys.
A few years ago I agreed with you - I also predicted iPhone 1, iPod 1 (I had the first model) to be massive successes.
I didn't predict iPhone would wipe the floor with the competition for the next 20 years, OK, but I knew it was a new class and a new paradigm.
Was lukewarm at iPads, and watch.
The watch is particularly strange - it doesn't really do anything useful for me, but I guess a lot of people love tracking their health and like the looks... I bought one but found it completely useless. But it has a fashion appeal and Apple did extremely well capitalizing on that. Who knew?!
The VR headset to me sounds about as useful as getting hit with a stick. It's the first real post - Jobs product, and the VR hype is already gone.
Crypto is more interesting; and now AI, is about 1000 times more interesting - because AI does useful stuff, out of the box. It does amazing things, when you realize you no longer need marketing people or programmers - it can do it all.
VR headset - has no real life usefulness. I get that the gamer market is large but is a VR set so much better at gaming - like 10x better? I don't think so. It is cool, has novelty value, but people have yet to find anything where it's really a 10x revolution in product.
This one will tank. Mark my words.
The iPhone hasn't wiped the floor with the competition.
XR isn't VR but even VR as a technology has an enormous range of use cases.
The problem is that, for wide acceptance, it depends on a series of external factors lining up. ICT infrastructure, content creation and deployment, pricing...
That hasn't happened yet but we know it will.
XR just opens up the technology to even more use cases.
This is nothing like 3D TVs or curved screens and let's not forget that XR is already is use, just not very rooted (yet) in the consumer space.
I see virtually unlimited use cases but just as with modern smartphones and AI, I also see potential problems.
There is nothing new on that front. We just need to be careful and adapt.
If it hasn't wiped the floor with the competition, it certainly has stolen most of the competitors lunch money.
More profitable for sure.
Competitors have made high profits though.
More than enough to cover lunch, LOL, and a plethora of tech advances that only years later would reach iPhones.
Begs the question, where did all those iPhone profits end up? Doing very little in product terms, cough, Paradise Papers, cough!
So, according to Statista, Apple has 27.58% of the world market, and Android OS has 71.72%.
Apple has 50% of revenues WW and more than 80% of profits, so if competitors "have made high profits though" those profits aren't anywhere close to Apple's.
I should mention that the "plethora of tech advances that only years later would reach iPhones" doesn't really seem to tip the sales balance in Android favor, so maybe those "advances' don't actually add much value at the time of sale.
As for the profits, most of that ends up with the stockholders, as dividends, but of course, you must be aware of that.
What does the amount (more vs much more) of profits have to do with anything?
Making enough to offer bang for buck and run the business it what makes sense from my point of view.
Making a profit and just sitting on it is not something I'm going to buy into. It's why I jumped ship in the first place.
Instead of doing nothing with it, which was the case for many years, give users bang for buck.
Ten years of shipping a 5W charger is a perfect example of not giving users what they could do with. The same applies to skimping for years on base storage.
Now, something completely different, is getting users to pay more in the first place.
Who earns more profit. The ASP. Any other metric. It's all irrelevant to the point.
The Paradise Papers amounted to a flock of Lawyers putting their feelers out for a rug big enough to cover what couldn't fit in the mattress.
Sales, as you suggest, actually do point to tipping in Android's favour. That's what over 70% means.
Your attitude about profits is why the EU can't compete in tech, and why the Baltics are the tech champions of the EU, not France or Germany.
Oh, the Paradise Papers. Yeah, heard of them. How's that actually working out, almost six years after release?
As for trending Android, nope, it's basically flat after trending downward from a peak years ago.
Price is THE decider on whether this headset will be a success. This author - and others who’ve made the same point that Apple has had supposed failures many times before turn into successes - doesn’t seem to realize this. When has Apple *ever* introduced a completely new product category at an initial price point of $3k? Maybe the original Apple 2 (adjusted for inflation) - but nothing since then. Sure, there are several niche “pro” products in THS range and beyond, but nothing with hoped for mass market appeal. And Apple clearly wants this to eventually become the next iPhone. And I think the AR glasses originally promised for this timeframe had/has this potential - but not some dorky headset costing as much as a used car.
The decider will be the hardware and software integration, and the quality of the programs designed to use the capabilities of the device, if Apple has those things nailed down, then the device will succeed, however no matter what price Apple sets, it will be too much and the complaining will go on and on because many people will want it, but will not be able to afford it.
Even to this day, there are still many financial analysts who think Apple should drop their prices on all products to pick up more marketshare, which, if you know anything about Apple, you know that isn’t their way of doing business.
Yeah, well, remember when all the analysts said that Apple is Doomed™ if they don't release a netbook?
IMO, the lack of a true netbook was a huge miss. As was the original iMac with only USB1. As was, ironically, the delay in getting USB2 onto Macs. As was not buying Netflix. As was not opening up firewire. As was fiasco on 5G/QC...
Let's not forget the whole concept of NetBoot and where that could have gone for business and education.
The question should not be if Apple was doomed because of those 'errors' but how much more they could have achieved by following through with some moves.
How did that work out for netbook makers? Fizzled out before they ever achieved any decent profits.
Even Apple dropped their 11” MBA because it wasn’t popular enough at that size.
Now there's an ARM version of Windows and SoCs are considerably more powerful and power efficient, but you don't see netbooks making a comeback. Perhaps that's because it was never a great idea.
The product category evolved. Just like the iPod.
There was enough business to go around for many companies to sell their products for years before tablets caught on and phones became more versatile. And of course regular laptops are going for very low prices nowadays.
Tablets of course required a physical keyboard to get close to what a netbook could do and were way behind when it came to could be presented through a browser.
But the error here for Apple wasn't simply competing in that space but using the product as a hook to catch users. And then the possibility of following through on the NetBoot promise via OSX Server.
That was a lost opportunity.
And none of those are netbooks. Netbooks failed miserably. End of story.
It's evolution and netbooks were a huge success and had huge demand in there hey day. 2008/9 saw global sales triple, hitting a high of around 35 million. There was a time when all you basically saw were netbooks.
It's obvious why, too.
More hyperbole.
At its peak, netbooks were 20% of the market, but given how short a time span netbooks were "popular", they were a fail. Consumers bought them because they were cheap, but then they realized that they were limited.
I bet Steve Balmer winces every time he reads his quote saying the iphone had no chance of gaining significant market share.
I'm sure he's crying all the way to the bank. One of the ones he owns.
Maybe he's not, but I bet Microsoft is. He's the exact reason why Microsoft was completely left out of the smartphone space. He never took its competitors seriously and when you have companies like Apple entering your space you damn well better sit up straight and pay attention.
Price is THE decider on whether this headset will be a success. This author - and others who’ve made the same point that Apple has had supposed failures many times before turn into successes - doesn’t seem to realize this. When has Apple *ever* introduced a completely new product category at an initial price point of $3k? Maybe the original Apple 2 (adjusted for inflation) - but nothing since then. Sure, there are several niche “pro” products in THS range and beyond, but nothing with hoped for mass market appeal. And Apple clearly wants this to eventually become the next iPhone. And I think the AR glasses originally promised for this timeframe had/has this potential - but not some dorky headset costing as much as a used car.
The decider will be the hardware and software integration, and the quality of the programs designed to use the capabilities of the device, if Apple has those things nailed down, then the device will succeed, however no matter what price Apple sets, it will be too much and the complaining will go on and on because many people will want it, but will not be able to afford it.
Even to this day, there are still many financial analysts who think Apple should drop their prices on all products to pick up more marketshare, which, if you know anything about Apple, you know that isn’t their way of doing business.
Yeah, well, remember when all the analysts said that Apple is Doomed™ if they don't release a netbook?
IMO, the lack of a true netbook was a huge miss. As was the original iMac with only USB1. As was, ironically, the delay in getting USB2 onto Macs. As was not buying Netflix. As was not opening up firewire. As was fiasco on 5G/QC...
Let's not forget the whole concept of NetBoot and where that could have gone for business and education.
The question should not be if Apple was doomed because of those 'errors' but how much more they could have achieved by following through with some moves.
How did that work out for netbook makers? Fizzled out before they ever achieved any decent profits.
Even Apple dropped their 11” MBA because it wasn’t popular enough at that size.
Now there's an ARM version of Windows and SoCs are considerably more powerful and power efficient, but you don't see netbooks making a comeback. Perhaps that's because it was never a great idea.
The product category evolved. Just like the iPod.
There was enough business to go around for many companies to sell their products for years before tablets caught on and phones became more versatile. And of course regular laptops are going for very low prices nowadays.
Tablets of course required a physical keyboard to get close to what a netbook could do and were way behind when it came to could be presented through a browser.
But the error here for Apple wasn't simply competing in that space but using the product as a hook to catch users. And then the possibility of following through on the NetBoot promise via OSX Server.
That was a lost opportunity.
And none of those are netbooks. Netbooks failed miserably. End of story.
It's evolution and netbooks were a huge success and had huge demand in there hey day. 2008/9 saw global sales triple, hitting a high of around 35 million. There was a time when all you basically saw were netbooks.
It's obvious why, too.
More hyperbole.
At its peak, netbooks were 20% of the market, but given how short a time span netbooks were "popular", they were a fail. Consumers bought them because they were cheap, but then they realized that they were limited.
Nobody bought a netbook thinking it was remotely more than it was.
Yes, they bought them mainly because they were cheap. That was the whole point.
They had their moment and were a huge success.
No hyperbole. No fail.
They served a purpose and Apple could have used them in various ways to stimulate further growth.
As it was, a $500 iPad came along and people swiftly looked for keyboards for them. And still do for anything more than passive or casual use.
Price is THE decider on whether this headset will be a success. This author - and others who’ve made the same point that Apple has had supposed failures many times before turn into successes - doesn’t seem to realize this. When has Apple *ever* introduced a completely new product category at an initial price point of $3k? Maybe the original Apple 2 (adjusted for inflation) - but nothing since then. Sure, there are several niche “pro” products in THS range and beyond, but nothing with hoped for mass market appeal. And Apple clearly wants this to eventually become the next iPhone. And I think the AR glasses originally promised for this timeframe had/has this potential - but not some dorky headset costing as much as a used car.
The decider will be the hardware and software integration, and the quality of the programs designed to use the capabilities of the device, if Apple has those things nailed down, then the device will succeed, however no matter what price Apple sets, it will be too much and the complaining will go on and on because many people will want it, but will not be able to afford it.
Even to this day, there are still many financial analysts who think Apple should drop their prices on all products to pick up more marketshare, which, if you know anything about Apple, you know that isn’t their way of doing business.
Yeah, well, remember when all the analysts said that Apple is Doomed™ if they don't release a netbook?
IMO, the lack of a true netbook was a huge miss. As was the original iMac with only USB1. As was, ironically, the delay in getting USB2 onto Macs. As was not buying Netflix. As was not opening up firewire. As was fiasco on 5G/QC...
Let's not forget the whole concept of NetBoot and where that could have gone for business and education.
The question should not be if Apple was doomed because of those 'errors' but how much more they could have achieved by following through with some moves.
How did that work out for netbook makers? Fizzled out before they ever achieved any decent profits.
Even Apple dropped their 11” MBA because it wasn’t popular enough at that size.
Now there's an ARM version of Windows and SoCs are considerably more powerful and power efficient, but you don't see netbooks making a comeback. Perhaps that's because it was never a great idea.
The product category evolved. Just like the iPod.
There was enough business to go around for many companies to sell their products for years before tablets caught on and phones became more versatile. And of course regular laptops are going for very low prices nowadays.
Tablets of course required a physical keyboard to get close to what a netbook could do and were way behind when it came to could be presented through a browser.
But the error here for Apple wasn't simply competing in that space but using the product as a hook to catch users. And then the possibility of following through on the NetBoot promise via OSX Server.
That was a lost opportunity.
And none of those are netbooks. Netbooks failed miserably. End of story.
It's evolution and netbooks were a huge success and had huge demand in there hey day. 2008/9 saw global sales triple, hitting a high of around 35 million. There was a time when all you basically saw were netbooks.
It's obvious why, too.
More hyperbole.
At its peak, netbooks were 20% of the market, but given how short a time span netbooks were "popular", they were a fail. Consumers bought them because they were cheap, but then they realized that they were limited.
Nobody bought a netbook thinking it was remotely more than it was.
Yes, they bought them mainly because they were cheap. That was the whole point.
They had their moment and were a huge success.
No hyperbole. No fail.
They served a purpose and Apple could have used them in various ways to stimulate further growth.
As it was, a $500 iPad came along and people swiftly looked for keyboards for them. And still do for anything more than passive or casual use.
I've underlined the statement YOU made that shows that you don't understand why that product category failed so quickly. Even Steve Jobs has stated it outright in plain English.
"They're slow, they have low quality displays and they run clunky old PC software. They're not better than a laptop at anything, they're just cheaper: they're just cheap laptops. We don't think they're a third category device."
Price is THE decider on whether this headset will be a success. This author - and others who’ve made the same point that Apple has had supposed failures many times before turn into successes - doesn’t seem to realize this. When has Apple *ever* introduced a completely new product category at an initial price point of $3k? Maybe the original Apple 2 (adjusted for inflation) - but nothing since then. Sure, there are several niche “pro” products in THS range and beyond, but nothing with hoped for mass market appeal. And Apple clearly wants this to eventually become the next iPhone. And I think the AR glasses originally promised for this timeframe had/has this potential - but not some dorky headset costing as much as a used car.
The decider will be the hardware and software integration, and the quality of the programs designed to use the capabilities of the device, if Apple has those things nailed down, then the device will succeed, however no matter what price Apple sets, it will be too much and the complaining will go on and on because many people will want it, but will not be able to afford it.
Even to this day, there are still many financial analysts who think Apple should drop their prices on all products to pick up more marketshare, which, if you know anything about Apple, you know that isn’t their way of doing business.
Yeah, well, remember when all the analysts said that Apple is Doomed™ if they don't release a netbook?
IMO, the lack of a true netbook was a huge miss. As was the original iMac with only USB1. As was, ironically, the delay in getting USB2 onto Macs. As was not buying Netflix. As was not opening up firewire. As was fiasco on 5G/QC...
Let's not forget the whole concept of NetBoot and where that could have gone for business and education.
The question should not be if Apple was doomed because of those 'errors' but how much more they could have achieved by following through with some moves.
How did that work out for netbook makers? Fizzled out before they ever achieved any decent profits.
Even Apple dropped their 11” MBA because it wasn’t popular enough at that size.
Now there's an ARM version of Windows and SoCs are considerably more powerful and power efficient, but you don't see netbooks making a comeback. Perhaps that's because it was never a great idea.
The product category evolved. Just like the iPod.
There was enough business to go around for many companies to sell their products for years before tablets caught on and phones became more versatile. And of course regular laptops are going for very low prices nowadays.
Tablets of course required a physical keyboard to get close to what a netbook could do and were way behind when it came to could be presented through a browser.
But the error here for Apple wasn't simply competing in that space but using the product as a hook to catch users. And then the possibility of following through on the NetBoot promise via OSX Server.
That was a lost opportunity.
And none of those are netbooks. Netbooks failed miserably. End of story.
It's evolution and netbooks were a huge success and had huge demand in there hey day. 2008/9 saw global sales triple, hitting a high of around 35 million. There was a time when all you basically saw were netbooks.
It's obvious why, too.
More hyperbole.
At its peak, netbooks were 20% of the market, but given how short a time span netbooks were "popular", they were a fail. Consumers bought them because they were cheap, but then they realized that they were limited.
Nobody bought a netbook thinking it was remotely more than it was.
Yes, they bought them mainly because they were cheap. That was the whole point.
They had their moment and were a huge success.
No hyperbole. No fail.
They served a purpose and Apple could have used them in various ways to stimulate further growth.
As it was, a $500 iPad came along and people swiftly looked for keyboards for them. And still do for anything more than passive or casual use.
There seems to be a disagreement with your position on netbooks;
Many people bought netbooks. After all, they were such a great deal — especially if you could grab a $200 netbook when it was marked down to $100 or so! However, people weren’t all that happy using them. The hardware was cramped, tiny, and slow. The Windows operating system was too heavy for the hardware, and it wasn’t designed to be very useable on such a small screen.
Eventually, netbook sales began to drop fast. People had bought enough netbooks and realized they weren’t even using them — people didn’t want netbooks. Even PC makers didn’t want to sell netbooks, as those ever-cheaper machines drove their profits down.
"They had their moment and were a huge success."
As moments go, it was a very short timespan of only a few years. Happily, Apple threw its effort at the iPad, not netbooks
Price is THE decider on whether this headset will be a success. This author - and others who’ve made the same point that Apple has had supposed failures many times before turn into successes - doesn’t seem to realize this. When has Apple *ever* introduced a completely new product category at an initial price point of $3k? Maybe the original Apple 2 (adjusted for inflation) - but nothing since then. Sure, there are several niche “pro” products in THS range and beyond, but nothing with hoped for mass market appeal. And Apple clearly wants this to eventually become the next iPhone. And I think the AR glasses originally promised for this timeframe had/has this potential - but not some dorky headset costing as much as a used car.
The decider will be the hardware and software integration, and the quality of the programs designed to use the capabilities of the device, if Apple has those things nailed down, then the device will succeed, however no matter what price Apple sets, it will be too much and the complaining will go on and on because many people will want it, but will not be able to afford it.
Even to this day, there are still many financial analysts who think Apple should drop their prices on all products to pick up more marketshare, which, if you know anything about Apple, you know that isn’t their way of doing business.
Yeah, well, remember when all the analysts said that Apple is Doomed™ if they don't release a netbook?
IMO, the lack of a true netbook was a huge miss. As was the original iMac with only USB1. As was, ironically, the delay in getting USB2 onto Macs. As was not buying Netflix. As was not opening up firewire. As was fiasco on 5G/QC...
Let's not forget the whole concept of NetBoot and where that could have gone for business and education.
The question should not be if Apple was doomed because of those 'errors' but how much more they could have achieved by following through with some moves.
How did that work out for netbook makers? Fizzled out before they ever achieved any decent profits.
Even Apple dropped their 11” MBA because it wasn’t popular enough at that size.
Now there's an ARM version of Windows and SoCs are considerably more powerful and power efficient, but you don't see netbooks making a comeback. Perhaps that's because it was never a great idea.
The product category evolved. Just like the iPod.
There was enough business to go around for many companies to sell their products for years before tablets caught on and phones became more versatile. And of course regular laptops are going for very low prices nowadays.
Tablets of course required a physical keyboard to get close to what a netbook could do and were way behind when it came to could be presented through a browser.
But the error here for Apple wasn't simply competing in that space but using the product as a hook to catch users. And then the possibility of following through on the NetBoot promise via OSX Server.
That was a lost opportunity.
And none of those are netbooks. Netbooks failed miserably. End of story.
It's evolution and netbooks were a huge success and had huge demand in there hey day. 2008/9 saw global sales triple, hitting a high of around 35 million. There was a time when all you basically saw were netbooks.
It's obvious why, too.
More hyperbole.
At its peak, netbooks were 20% of the market, but given how short a time span netbooks were "popular", they were a fail. Consumers bought them because they were cheap, but then they realized that they were limited.
Nobody bought a netbook thinking it was remotely more than it was.
Yes, they bought them mainly because they were cheap. That was the whole point.
They had their moment and were a huge success.
No hyperbole. No fail.
They served a purpose and Apple could have used them in various ways to stimulate further growth.
As it was, a $500 iPad came along and people swiftly looked for keyboards for them. And still do for anything more than passive or casual use.
And yet...Apple is the most valuable (publicly-traded) company in the world. It appears they survived this "missed opportunity."
And now back to "As you may expect, the internet already says that Apple's headset is doomed, apparently."
And let's not forget that the market cap has nothing really to do with laptops or iPads.
As for the headset being doomed as per the internet, personally I can't see it being an iPod HiFi or HomePod style 'doomed'.
XR cannot not exist. In the same way modern devices cannot exist without electronic screens.
In that sense, the only 'doomed' notion which is applicable is the one which marks the switch from first generation device to second generation device and then third, fourth etc. Devices are doomed to be replaced by later generations until such a time when the 'device' is no longer needed. Be it a netbook, iPod or, one day, a smartphone.
Of course, AR, VR, XR are already here and showing no signs of going away. The devices which bridge us to the content are getting better and better, too.
If we take 'doomed' to mean a commercial failure, that's possible depending on various factors (not least price and timing) but were the first folding phones doomed in the same way, too? No. They paved the way for what we have today and show no signs of going away.
Today's (and next week's) headsets are doing exactly the same thing. They are necessary steps.
Price is THE decider on whether this headset will be a success. This author - and others who’ve made the same point that Apple has had supposed failures many times before turn into successes - doesn’t seem to realize this. When has Apple *ever* introduced a completely new product category at an initial price point of $3k? Maybe the original Apple 2 (adjusted for inflation) - but nothing since then. Sure, there are several niche “pro” products in THS range and beyond, but nothing with hoped for mass market appeal. And Apple clearly wants this to eventually become the next iPhone. And I think the AR glasses originally promised for this timeframe had/has this potential - but not some dorky headset costing as much as a used car.
The decider will be the hardware and software integration, and the quality of the programs designed to use the capabilities of the device, if Apple has those things nailed down, then the device will succeed, however no matter what price Apple sets, it will be too much and the complaining will go on and on because many people will want it, but will not be able to afford it.
Even to this day, there are still many financial analysts who think Apple should drop their prices on all products to pick up more marketshare, which, if you know anything about Apple, you know that isn’t their way of doing business.
Yeah, well, remember when all the analysts said that Apple is Doomed™ if they don't release a netbook?
IMO, the lack of a true netbook was a huge miss. As was the original iMac with only USB1. As was, ironically, the delay in getting USB2 onto Macs. As was not buying Netflix. As was not opening up firewire. As was fiasco on 5G/QC...
Let's not forget the whole concept of NetBoot and where that could have gone for business and education.
The question should not be if Apple was doomed because of those 'errors' but how much more they could have achieved by following through with some moves.
How did that work out for netbook makers? Fizzled out before they ever achieved any decent profits.
Even Apple dropped their 11” MBA because it wasn’t popular enough at that size.
Now there's an ARM version of Windows and SoCs are considerably more powerful and power efficient, but you don't see netbooks making a comeback. Perhaps that's because it was never a great idea.
The product category evolved. Just like the iPod.
There was enough business to go around for many companies to sell their products for years before tablets caught on and phones became more versatile. And of course regular laptops are going for very low prices nowadays.
Tablets of course required a physical keyboard to get close to what a netbook could do and were way behind when it came to could be presented through a browser.
But the error here for Apple wasn't simply competing in that space but using the product as a hook to catch users. And then the possibility of following through on the NetBoot promise via OSX Server.
That was a lost opportunity.
And none of those are netbooks. Netbooks failed miserably. End of story.
It's evolution and netbooks were a huge success and had huge demand in there hey day. 2008/9 saw global sales triple, hitting a high of around 35 million. There was a time when all you basically saw were netbooks.
It's obvious why, too.
More hyperbole.
At its peak, netbooks were 20% of the market, but given how short a time span netbooks were "popular", they were a fail. Consumers bought them because they were cheap, but then they realized that they were limited.
Nobody bought a netbook thinking it was remotely more than it was.
Yes, they bought them mainly because they were cheap. That was the whole point.
They had their moment and were a huge success.
No hyperbole. No fail.
They served a purpose and Apple could have used them in various ways to stimulate further growth.
As it was, a $500 iPad came along and people swiftly looked for keyboards for them. And still do for anything more than passive or casual use.
And yet...Apple is the most valuable (publicly-traded) company in the world. It appears they survived this "missed opportunity."
And now back to "As you may expect, the internet already says that Apple's headset is doomed, apparently."
And let's not forget that the market cap has nothing really to do with laptops or iPads.
As for the headset being doomed as per the internet, personally I can't see it being an iPod HiFi or HomePod style 'doomed'.
XR cannot not exist. In the same way modern devices cannot exist without electronic screens.
In that sense, the only 'doomed' notion which is applicable is the one which marks the switch from first generation device to second generation device and then third, fourth etc. Devices are doomed to be replaced by later generations until such a time when the 'device' is no longer needed. Be it a netbook, iPod or, one day, a smartphone.
Of course, AR, VR, XR are already here and showing no signs of going away. The devices which bridge us to the content are getting better and better, too.
If we take 'doomed' to mean a commercial failure, that's possible depending on various factors (not least price and timing) but were the first folding phones doomed in the same way, too? No. They paved the way for what we have today and show no signs of going away.
Today's (and next week's) headsets are doing exactly the same thing. They are necessary steps.
Just like AR huds on cars.
According to recent data, 52% of Apple's revenue is iPhone. You are, of course, mistaken that the market cap has "nothing to do with laptops and iPad".
Those laptops and iPads, plus all of the other product lines, are part of the ecosystem that makes iPhone so useful and successful. The reality is that there are very few companies that challenge Apple's ecosystem of hardware and software, and none have Apple's retail presence WW.
I bet Steve Balmer winces every time he reads his quote saying the iphone had no chance of gaining significant market share.
I'm sure he's crying all the way to the bank. One of the ones he owns.
Maybe he's not, but I bet Microsoft is. He's the exact reason why Microsoft was completely left out of the smartphone space. He never took its competitors seriously and when you have companies like Apple entering your space you damn well better sit up straight and pay attention.
Suppose you'd invested $1,000 in Microsoft on June 29, 2007, when the iPhone was introduced. What do you suppose it would be worth today?
At Friday's market close, that would now be $20,703.70.
Of course, by calculating the same metric, $1,000 in Apple on that day is now worth (are you sitting down?): $1,206,333.33
I doubt Microsoft is crying. But I bet Apple is popping the corks on Dom Perignon Vintage 2007! (BTW, it's because, adjusted for splits, Apple stock was worth 15¢/share on the day the iPhone was introduced. Microsoft was worth $16.20, over 100 times as much as Apple). Each currently have a market cap. approaching $3 trillion. Put away the kleenex!
WTF does all that shit have to do with losing the smartphone market? I don't really give a shit about anyone's stock price.
Price is THE decider on whether this headset will be a success. This author - and others who’ve made the same point that Apple has had supposed failures many times before turn into successes - doesn’t seem to realize this. When has Apple *ever* introduced a completely new product category at an initial price point of $3k? Maybe the original Apple 2 (adjusted for inflation) - but nothing since then. Sure, there are several niche “pro” products in THS range and beyond, but nothing with hoped for mass market appeal. And Apple clearly wants this to eventually become the next iPhone. And I think the AR glasses originally promised for this timeframe had/has this potential - but not some dorky headset costing as much as a used car.
The decider will be the hardware and software integration, and the quality of the programs designed to use the capabilities of the device, if Apple has those things nailed down, then the device will succeed, however no matter what price Apple sets, it will be too much and the complaining will go on and on because many people will want it, but will not be able to afford it.
Even to this day, there are still many financial analysts who think Apple should drop their prices on all products to pick up more marketshare, which, if you know anything about Apple, you know that isn’t their way of doing business.
Yeah, well, remember when all the analysts said that Apple is Doomed™ if they don't release a netbook?
IMO, the lack of a true netbook was a huge miss. As was the original iMac with only USB1. As was, ironically, the delay in getting USB2 onto Macs. As was not buying Netflix. As was not opening up firewire. As was fiasco on 5G/QC...
Let's not forget the whole concept of NetBoot and where that could have gone for business and education.
The question should not be if Apple was doomed because of those 'errors' but how much more they could have achieved by following through with some moves.
How did that work out for netbook makers? Fizzled out before they ever achieved any decent profits.
Even Apple dropped their 11” MBA because it wasn’t popular enough at that size.
Now there's an ARM version of Windows and SoCs are considerably more powerful and power efficient, but you don't see netbooks making a comeback. Perhaps that's because it was never a great idea.
The product category evolved. Just like the iPod.
There was enough business to go around for many companies to sell their products for years before tablets caught on and phones became more versatile. And of course regular laptops are going for very low prices nowadays.
Tablets of course required a physical keyboard to get close to what a netbook could do and were way behind when it came to could be presented through a browser.
But the error here for Apple wasn't simply competing in that space but using the product as a hook to catch users. And then the possibility of following through on the NetBoot promise via OSX Server.
That was a lost opportunity.
And none of those are netbooks. Netbooks failed miserably. End of story.
It's evolution and netbooks were a huge success and had huge demand in there hey day. 2008/9 saw global sales triple, hitting a high of around 35 million. There was a time when all you basically saw were netbooks.
It's obvious why, too.
More hyperbole.
At its peak, netbooks were 20% of the market, but given how short a time span netbooks were "popular", they were a fail. Consumers bought them because they were cheap, but then they realized that they were limited.
Nobody bought a netbook thinking it was remotely more than it was.
Yes, they bought them mainly because they were cheap. That was the whole point.
They had their moment and were a huge success.
No hyperbole. No fail.
They served a purpose and Apple could have used them in various ways to stimulate further growth.
As it was, a $500 iPad came along and people swiftly looked for keyboards for them. And still do for anything more than passive or casual use.
And yet...Apple is the most valuable (publicly-traded) company in the world. It appears they survived this "missed opportunity."
And now back to "As you may expect, the internet already says that Apple's headset is doomed, apparently."
And let's not forget that the market cap has nothing really to do with laptops or iPads.
Nothing? Nothing at all? I agree that a majority of Apple's market cap is attributable to iPhone, but not 100%. Certainly, some of their market cap is attributable to their laptops and iPads.
If Apple were to lose everything but the iPhone, which includes Macs, iPads, wearables, and all their services, they'd lose 48% of their revenues overnight. But let's remember that it's not simply the iPhone that brings in customers, but how all these elements work together. It reminds me when Dvorak said that Apple shouldn't bother with anything else but iPods, when it was right on the cusp of the iPod's demise as a product category.
Price is THE decider on whether this headset will be a success. This author - and others who’ve made the same point that Apple has had supposed failures many times before turn into successes - doesn’t seem to realize this. When has Apple *ever* introduced a completely new product category at an initial price point of $3k? Maybe the original Apple 2 (adjusted for inflation) - but nothing since then. Sure, there are several niche “pro” products in THS range and beyond, but nothing with hoped for mass market appeal. And Apple clearly wants this to eventually become the next iPhone. And I think the AR glasses originally promised for this timeframe had/has this potential - but not some dorky headset costing as much as a used car.
The decider will be the hardware and software integration, and the quality of the programs designed to use the capabilities of the device, if Apple has those things nailed down, then the device will succeed, however no matter what price Apple sets, it will be too much and the complaining will go on and on because many people will want it, but will not be able to afford it.
Even to this day, there are still many financial analysts who think Apple should drop their prices on all products to pick up more marketshare, which, if you know anything about Apple, you know that isn’t their way of doing business.
Yeah, well, remember when all the analysts said that Apple is Doomed™ if they don't release a netbook?
IMO, the lack of a true netbook was a huge miss. As was the original iMac with only USB1. As was, ironically, the delay in getting USB2 onto Macs. As was not buying Netflix. As was not opening up firewire. As was fiasco on 5G/QC...
Let's not forget the whole concept of NetBoot and where that could have gone for business and education.
The question should not be if Apple was doomed because of those 'errors' but how much more they could have achieved by following through with some moves.
How did that work out for netbook makers? Fizzled out before they ever achieved any decent profits.
Even Apple dropped their 11” MBA because it wasn’t popular enough at that size.
Now there's an ARM version of Windows and SoCs are considerably more powerful and power efficient, but you don't see netbooks making a comeback. Perhaps that's because it was never a great idea.
The product category evolved. Just like the iPod.
There was enough business to go around for many companies to sell their products for years before tablets caught on and phones became more versatile. And of course regular laptops are going for very low prices nowadays.
Tablets of course required a physical keyboard to get close to what a netbook could do and were way behind when it came to could be presented through a browser.
But the error here for Apple wasn't simply competing in that space but using the product as a hook to catch users. And then the possibility of following through on the NetBoot promise via OSX Server.
That was a lost opportunity.
And none of those are netbooks. Netbooks failed miserably. End of story.
It's evolution and netbooks were a huge success and had huge demand in there hey day. 2008/9 saw global sales triple, hitting a high of around 35 million. There was a time when all you basically saw were netbooks.
It's obvious why, too.
More hyperbole.
At its peak, netbooks were 20% of the market, but given how short a time span netbooks were "popular", they were a fail. Consumers bought them because they were cheap, but then they realized that they were limited.
Nobody bought a netbook thinking it was remotely more than it was.
Yes, they bought them mainly because they were cheap. That was the whole point.
They had their moment and were a huge success.
No hyperbole. No fail.
They served a purpose and Apple could have used them in various ways to stimulate further growth.
As it was, a $500 iPad came along and people swiftly looked for keyboards for them. And still do for anything more than passive or casual use.
And yet...Apple is the most valuable (publicly-traded) company in the world. It appears they survived this "missed opportunity."
And now back to "As you may expect, the internet already says that Apple's headset is doomed, apparently."
And let's not forget that the market cap has nothing really to do with laptops or iPads.
Nothing? Nothing at all? I agree that a majority of Apple's market cap is attributable to iPhone, but not 100%. Certainly, some of their market cap is attributable to their laptops and iPads.
If Apple were to lose everything but the iPhone, which includes Macs, iPads, wearables, and all their services, they'd lose 48% of their revenues overnight. But let's remember that it's not simply the iPhone that brings in customers, but how all these elements work together. It reminds me when Dvorak said that Apple shouldn't bother with anything else but iPods, when it was right on the cusp of the iPod's demise as a product category.
Yes. Apple is building out an integrated and (well, mostly) seamless ecosystem of products and services. Much of it is anchored around the truly personal "computer" (i.e., the iPhone). Macs and iPads can be parts of a person's ecosystem. I'm sure that many Apple customers leverage this (e.g., an iPhone, some AirPods, an Watch, a Mac or two, and maybe an iPad, etc.) and all of this contributes to their market cap.
In the last 6 months two people in my circle have decided to switch from a lifetime of using Windows to using the Mac. There's one defining aspect that has led to them switching to the Mac, and that's their use o the iPhone—their least frustrating technological device. I can find a thousand issues with the iPhone, but I can find a million with Windows and their OEMs.
I bet Steve Balmer winces every time he reads his quote saying the iphone had no chance of gaining significant market share.
I'm sure he's crying all the way to the bank. One of the ones he owns.
Maybe he's not, but I bet Microsoft is. He's the exact reason why Microsoft was completely left out of the smartphone space. He never took its competitors seriously and when you have companies like Apple entering your space you damn well better sit up straight and pay attention.
Suppose you'd invested $1,000 in Microsoft on June 29, 2007, when the iPhone was introduced. What do you suppose it would be worth today?
At Friday's market close, that would now be $20,703.70.
Of course, by calculating the same metric, $1,000 in Apple on that day is now worth (are you sitting down?): $1,206,333.33
I doubt Microsoft is crying. But I bet Apple is popping the corks on Dom Perignon Vintage 2007! (BTW, it's because, adjusted for splits, Apple stock was worth 15¢/share on the day the iPhone was introduced. Microsoft was worth $16.20, over 100 times as much as Apple). Each currently have a market cap. approaching $3 trillion. Put away the kleenex!
Wind back 10years further to 97 when Apple was "beleaguered" and pre iMac, $1,000 bucks then was already 40 times better by 2007.
Price is THE decider on whether this headset will be a success. This author - and others who’ve made the same point that Apple has had supposed failures many times before turn into successes - doesn’t seem to realize this. When has Apple *ever* introduced a completely new product category at an initial price point of $3k? Maybe the original Apple 2 (adjusted for inflation) - but nothing since then. Sure, there are several niche “pro” products in THS range and beyond, but nothing with hoped for mass market appeal. And Apple clearly wants this to eventually become the next iPhone. And I think the AR glasses originally promised for this timeframe had/has this potential - but not some dorky headset costing as much as a used car.
The decider will be the hardware and software integration, and the quality of the programs designed to use the capabilities of the device, if Apple has those things nailed down, then the device will succeed, however no matter what price Apple sets, it will be too much and the complaining will go on and on because many people will want it, but will not be able to afford it.
Even to this day, there are still many financial analysts who think Apple should drop their prices on all products to pick up more marketshare, which, if you know anything about Apple, you know that isn’t their way of doing business.
Yeah, well, remember when all the analysts said that Apple is Doomed™ if they don't release a netbook?
IMO, the lack of a true netbook was a huge miss. As was the original iMac with only USB1. As was, ironically, the delay in getting USB2 onto Macs. As was not buying Netflix. As was not opening up firewire. As was fiasco on 5G/QC...
Let's not forget the whole concept of NetBoot and where that could have gone for business and education.
The question should not be if Apple was doomed because of those 'errors' but how much more they could have achieved by following through with some moves.
How did that work out for netbook makers? Fizzled out before they ever achieved any decent profits.
Even Apple dropped their 11” MBA because it wasn’t popular enough at that size.
Now there's an ARM version of Windows and SoCs are considerably more powerful and power efficient, but you don't see netbooks making a comeback. Perhaps that's because it was never a great idea.
The product category evolved. Just like the iPod.
There was enough business to go around for many companies to sell their products for years before tablets caught on and phones became more versatile. And of course regular laptops are going for very low prices nowadays.
Tablets of course required a physical keyboard to get close to what a netbook could do and were way behind when it came to could be presented through a browser.
But the error here for Apple wasn't simply competing in that space but using the product as a hook to catch users. And then the possibility of following through on the NetBoot promise via OSX Server.
That was a lost opportunity.
And none of those are netbooks. Netbooks failed miserably. End of story.
It's evolution and netbooks were a huge success and had huge demand in there hey day. 2008/9 saw global sales triple, hitting a high of around 35 million. There was a time when all you basically saw were netbooks.
It's obvious why, too.
More hyperbole.
At its peak, netbooks were 20% of the market, but given how short a time span netbooks were "popular", they were a fail. Consumers bought them because they were cheap, but then they realized that they were limited.
Nobody bought a netbook thinking it was remotely more than it was.
Yes, they bought them mainly because they were cheap. That was the whole point.
They had their moment and were a huge success.
No hyperbole. No fail.
They served a purpose and Apple could have used them in various ways to stimulate further growth.
As it was, a $500 iPad came along and people swiftly looked for keyboards for them. And still do for anything more than passive or casual use.
And yet...Apple is the most valuable (publicly-traded) company in the world. It appears they survived this "missed opportunity."
And now back to "As you may expect, the internet already says that Apple's headset is doomed, apparently."
And let's not forget that the market cap has nothing really to do with laptops or iPads.
Nothing? Nothing at all? I agree that a majority of Apple's market cap is attributable to iPhone, but not 100%. Certainly, some of their market cap is attributable to their laptops and iPads.
Zippo. ;-)
The iPad and Laptops are part of the billion dollar Apple, not the trillion dollar Apple.
Without iPhone, Apple wouldn't have reached its current cap in a gazillion years.
At least when taken in the context of 'missed opportunities', which was your point here.
Price is THE decider on whether this headset will be a success. This author - and others who’ve made the same point that Apple has had supposed failures many times before turn into successes - doesn’t seem to realize this. When has Apple *ever* introduced a completely new product category at an initial price point of $3k? Maybe the original Apple 2 (adjusted for inflation) - but nothing since then. Sure, there are several niche “pro” products in THS range and beyond, but nothing with hoped for mass market appeal. And Apple clearly wants this to eventually become the next iPhone. And I think the AR glasses originally promised for this timeframe had/has this potential - but not some dorky headset costing as much as a used car.
The decider will be the hardware and software integration, and the quality of the programs designed to use the capabilities of the device, if Apple has those things nailed down, then the device will succeed, however no matter what price Apple sets, it will be too much and the complaining will go on and on because many people will want it, but will not be able to afford it.
Even to this day, there are still many financial analysts who think Apple should drop their prices on all products to pick up more marketshare, which, if you know anything about Apple, you know that isn’t their way of doing business.
Yeah, well, remember when all the analysts said that Apple is Doomed™ if they don't release a netbook?
IMO, the lack of a true netbook was a huge miss. As was the original iMac with only USB1. As was, ironically, the delay in getting USB2 onto Macs. As was not buying Netflix. As was not opening up firewire. As was fiasco on 5G/QC...
Let's not forget the whole concept of NetBoot and where that could have gone for business and education.
The question should not be if Apple was doomed because of those 'errors' but how much more they could have achieved by following through with some moves.
How did that work out for netbook makers? Fizzled out before they ever achieved any decent profits.
Even Apple dropped their 11” MBA because it wasn’t popular enough at that size.
Now there's an ARM version of Windows and SoCs are considerably more powerful and power efficient, but you don't see netbooks making a comeback. Perhaps that's because it was never a great idea.
The product category evolved. Just like the iPod.
There was enough business to go around for many companies to sell their products for years before tablets caught on and phones became more versatile. And of course regular laptops are going for very low prices nowadays.
Tablets of course required a physical keyboard to get close to what a netbook could do and were way behind when it came to could be presented through a browser.
But the error here for Apple wasn't simply competing in that space but using the product as a hook to catch users. And then the possibility of following through on the NetBoot promise via OSX Server.
That was a lost opportunity.
And none of those are netbooks. Netbooks failed miserably. End of story.
It's evolution and netbooks were a huge success and had huge demand in there hey day. 2008/9 saw global sales triple, hitting a high of around 35 million. There was a time when all you basically saw were netbooks.
It's obvious why, too.
More hyperbole.
At its peak, netbooks were 20% of the market, but given how short a time span netbooks were "popular", they were a fail. Consumers bought them because they were cheap, but then they realized that they were limited.
Nobody bought a netbook thinking it was remotely more than it was.
Yes, they bought them mainly because they were cheap. That was the whole point.
They had their moment and were a huge success.
No hyperbole. No fail.
They served a purpose and Apple could have used them in various ways to stimulate further growth.
As it was, a $500 iPad came along and people swiftly looked for keyboards for them. And still do for anything more than passive or casual use.
And yet...Apple is the most valuable (publicly-traded) company in the world. It appears they survived this "missed opportunity."
And now back to "As you may expect, the internet already says that Apple's headset is doomed, apparently."
And let's not forget that the market cap has nothing really to do with laptops or iPads.
Nothing? Nothing at all? I agree that a majority of Apple's market cap is attributable to iPhone, but not 100%. Certainly, some of their market cap is attributable to their laptops and iPads.
Zippo. ;-)
The iPad and Laptops are part of the billion dollar Apple, not the trillion dollar Apple.
Without iPhone, Apple wouldn't have reached its current cap in a gazillion years.
At least when taken in the context of 'missed opportunities', which was your point here.
If that was the point you were trying to make, you failed massively.
For an example; Apple's market value on December 1, 1998 was $6B, but what happened that year?
The iMac's introduction is an important moment in Apple history. It came a year after Jobs returned to Apple following the company's purchase of his company NeXT; at the time of the keynote he was still interim CEO. The computer's success helped reverse of a decade of struggles for the company, leading into the the company's huge run of growth after the turn of the millennium.
It also helped set a template for a long run of products, that caught the eye with beautiful design. Apple touted that introductory event as "Back on Track," and it certainly was, even though it would take several years for Apple to return to significant profitability.
The other big move was the one away from plastic, at least on premium laptops. (Keep in mind, every single Apple product in 2001 was completely wrapped in plastic, from the Power Macs to PowerBook to iMac to iBook.) Eventually, Apple would migrate every Mac to a metallic design, and this is where the move started.
Ive and his design lab had been experimenting with interesting materials for a while now. The obsession with translucent plastic originally evinced in the eMate and some late-model beige Power Macs led to the iMac and Blue and White Power Mac G3. But there were other materials in the mix. The Twentieth Anniversary Macintosh had an aluminum stand and leather wrist rests, and even its plastic body had a metallic sparkle.
So the decision was made: The new PowerBook G4 would prioritize thinness and lightness, and would be sheathed in metal, not plastic. And Apple chose to use a very light metal— titanium—to build it. “It’s stronger than steel, yet lighter than aluminum,” Jobs said on stage when introducing the laptop. “Like they build airplanes out of.”
It was a mistake.
The Titanium PowerBook G4 was a mind-blowing product when it was announced. It looked great, offered enormous power for a laptop, and everyone wanted one. But it turned out to also be a great teacher for Apple.
Titanium is light, but it also proved to be brittle. The PowerBook’s hinges had an unfortunate tendency to snap. My daughter, who was a toddler at the time, grabbed the top of my Titanium PowerBook G4 one day and snapped it clean off.
And to get the two-toned look that Apple wanted, the computer was painted silver and white. Titanium is not that great at holding paint or resisting scratches, so the surface of the laptop eventually became marred by scratches and flaked-off paint. Companies began selling color-matched Titanium PowerBook paint for touch-up jobs.
Having learned its lesson, Apple shifted gears a couple of years later and released a PowerBook G4 sheathed in aluminum. Over time, Apple would become one of the world’s most expert companies in working with aluminum, and every Mac would get an aluminum shell. At the time, the choice of using aluminum probably came down to its strength and lightness. It was also possible to anodize it, creating a nearly impervious surface coating that doesn’t require any paint.
Color can even be added as part of the anodization process, a feature that Apple would use across several generations of the iPod mini and nano later in the decade.
Though it was hampered by quality issues that would emerge over time, the Titanium PowerBook G4 was an immediate hit, showing Apple that it was on the right track. Though a laptop that’s an inch thick and weighs 5.4 pounds seems ridiculously chunky today, in 2001 terms it was shockingly thin and light. (The PowerBook G3 it replaced was 1.7 inches thick, and about half a pound heavier.)
It also feels like a trailblazer in terms of the display itself. It was Apple’s first real widescreen laptop, and the bezels around the display are small even by today’s standards. The screen is also impressively thin, even viewed from 2020.
Finally, in another example of style over substance, the Titanium PowerBook G4 was the first Apple laptop to reorient the Apple logo on the back of the display so that it was upright when opened. At the time, the orientation of the Apple logo on laptops was heavily debated. Some people felt it was too weird to have the Apple logo upside-down when you were using it, while others took the view that it was weird to have the logo upside-down when you were reaching to open it up.
Guess which one looked better on television and in movies during product placement, as well as in cafes full of potential laptop buyers. Who knows how many products that glowing Apple logo on the back of a laptop sold over the years?
In Apple, after Jobs return, I see a continuum of design and development, and a culture, that almost inevitably lead to the iPod, iPhone, iPad, AirPods, and Watch, all massive successes for Apple.
Apple's market value growth acknowledges those early successes, as much as the iPhone, and later successes, but sure, the iPhone was the Black Swan of success.
The question that has to be asked; why is it Apple that always seems to find success, and not those competitors that you constantly shill for?
Price is THE decider on whether this headset will be a success. This author - and others who’ve made the same point that Apple has had supposed failures many times before turn into successes - doesn’t seem to realize this. When has Apple *ever* introduced a completely new product category at an initial price point of $3k? Maybe the original Apple 2 (adjusted for inflation) - but nothing since then. Sure, there are several niche “pro” products in THS range and beyond, but nothing with hoped for mass market appeal. And Apple clearly wants this to eventually become the next iPhone. And I think the AR glasses originally promised for this timeframe had/has this potential - but not some dorky headset costing as much as a used car.
The decider will be the hardware and software integration, and the quality of the programs designed to use the capabilities of the device, if Apple has those things nailed down, then the device will succeed, however no matter what price Apple sets, it will be too much and the complaining will go on and on because many people will want it, but will not be able to afford it.
Even to this day, there are still many financial analysts who think Apple should drop their prices on all products to pick up more marketshare, which, if you know anything about Apple, you know that isn’t their way of doing business.
Yeah, well, remember when all the analysts said that Apple is Doomed™ if they don't release a netbook?
IMO, the lack of a true netbook was a huge miss. As was the original iMac with only USB1. As was, ironically, the delay in getting USB2 onto Macs. As was not buying Netflix. As was not opening up firewire. As was fiasco on 5G/QC...
Let's not forget the whole concept of NetBoot and where that could have gone for business and education.
The question should not be if Apple was doomed because of those 'errors' but how much more they could have achieved by following through with some moves.
How did that work out for netbook makers? Fizzled out before they ever achieved any decent profits.
Even Apple dropped their 11” MBA because it wasn’t popular enough at that size.
Now there's an ARM version of Windows and SoCs are considerably more powerful and power efficient, but you don't see netbooks making a comeback. Perhaps that's because it was never a great idea.
The product category evolved. Just like the iPod.
There was enough business to go around for many companies to sell their products for years before tablets caught on and phones became more versatile. And of course regular laptops are going for very low prices nowadays.
Tablets of course required a physical keyboard to get close to what a netbook could do and were way behind when it came to could be presented through a browser.
But the error here for Apple wasn't simply competing in that space but using the product as a hook to catch users. And then the possibility of following through on the NetBoot promise via OSX Server.
That was a lost opportunity.
And none of those are netbooks. Netbooks failed miserably. End of story.
It's evolution and netbooks were a huge success and had huge demand in there hey day. 2008/9 saw global sales triple, hitting a high of around 35 million. There was a time when all you basically saw were netbooks.
It's obvious why, too.
More hyperbole.
At its peak, netbooks were 20% of the market, but given how short a time span netbooks were "popular", they were a fail. Consumers bought them because they were cheap, but then they realized that they were limited.
Nobody bought a netbook thinking it was remotely more than it was.
Yes, they bought them mainly because they were cheap. That was the whole point.
They had their moment and were a huge success.
No hyperbole. No fail.
They served a purpose and Apple could have used them in various ways to stimulate further growth.
As it was, a $500 iPad came along and people swiftly looked for keyboards for them. And still do for anything more than passive or casual use.
And yet...Apple is the most valuable (publicly-traded) company in the world. It appears they survived this "missed opportunity."
And now back to "As you may expect, the internet already says that Apple's headset is doomed, apparently."
And let's not forget that the market cap has nothing really to do with laptops or iPads.
Nothing? Nothing at all? I agree that a majority of Apple's market cap is attributable to iPhone, but not 100%. Certainly, some of their market cap is attributable to their laptops and iPads.
Zippo. ;-)
The iPad and Laptops are part of the billion dollar Apple, not the trillion dollar Apple.
Without iPhone, Apple wouldn't have reached its current cap in a gazillion years.
At least when taken in the context of 'missed opportunities', which was your point here.
If that was the point you were trying to make, you failed massively.
For an example; Apple's market value on December 1, 1998 was $6B, but what happened that year?
The iMac's introduction is an important moment in Apple history. It came a year after Jobs returned to Apple following the company's purchase of his company NeXT; at the time of the keynote he was still interim CEO. The computer's success helped reverse of a decade of struggles for the company, leading into the the company's huge run of growth after the turn of the millennium.
It also helped set a template for a long run of products, that caught the eye with beautiful design. Apple touted that introductory event as "Back on Track," and it certainly was, even though it would take several years for Apple to return to significant profitability.
The other big move was the one away from plastic, at least on premium laptops. (Keep in mind, every single Apple product in 2001 was completely wrapped in plastic, from the Power Macs to PowerBook to iMac to iBook.) Eventually, Apple would migrate every Mac to a metallic design, and this is where the move started.
Ive and his design lab had been experimenting with interesting materials for a while now. The obsession with translucent plastic originally evinced in the eMate and some late-model beige Power Macs led to the iMac and Blue and White Power Mac G3. But there were other materials in the mix. The Twentieth Anniversary Macintosh had an aluminum stand and leather wrist rests, and even its plastic body had a metallic sparkle.
So the decision was made: The new PowerBook G4 would prioritize thinness and lightness, and would be sheathed in metal, not plastic. And Apple chose to use a very light metal— titanium—to build it. “It’s stronger than steel, yet lighter than aluminum,” Jobs said on stage when introducing the laptop. “Like they build airplanes out of.”
It was a mistake.
The Titanium PowerBook G4 was a mind-blowing product when it was announced. It looked great, offered enormous power for a laptop, and everyone wanted one. But it turned out to also be a great teacher for Apple.
Titanium is light, but it also proved to be brittle. The PowerBook’s hinges had an unfortunate tendency to snap. My daughter, who was a toddler at the time, grabbed the top of my Titanium PowerBook G4 one day and snapped it clean off.
And to get the two-toned look that Apple wanted, the computer was painted silver and white. Titanium is not that great at holding paint or resisting scratches, so the surface of the laptop eventually became marred by scratches and flaked-off paint. Companies began selling color-matched Titanium PowerBook paint for touch-up jobs.
Having learned its lesson, Apple shifted gears a couple of years later and released a PowerBook G4 sheathed in aluminum. Over time, Apple would become one of the world’s most expert companies in working with aluminum, and every Mac would get an aluminum shell. At the time, the choice of using aluminum probably came down to its strength and lightness. It was also possible to anodize it, creating a nearly impervious surface coating that doesn’t require any paint.
Color can even be added as part of the anodization process, a feature that Apple would use across several generations of the iPod mini and nano later in the decade.
Though it was hampered by quality issues that would emerge over time, the Titanium PowerBook G4 was an immediate hit, showing Apple that it was on the right track. Though a laptop that’s an inch thick and weighs 5.4 pounds seems ridiculously chunky today, in 2001 terms it was shockingly thin and light. (The PowerBook G3 it replaced was 1.7 inches thick, and about half a pound heavier.)
It also feels like a trailblazer in terms of the display itself. It was Apple’s first real widescreen laptop, and the bezels around the display are small even by today’s standards. The screen is also impressively thin, even viewed from 2020.
Finally, in another example of style over substance, the Titanium PowerBook G4 was the first Apple laptop to reorient the Apple logo on the back of the display so that it was upright when opened. At the time, the orientation of the Apple logo on laptops was heavily debated. Some people felt it was too weird to have the Apple logo upside-down when you were using it, while others took the view that it was weird to have the logo upside-down when you were reaching to open it up.
Guess which one looked better on television and in movies during product placement, as well as in cafes full of potential laptop buyers. Who knows how many products that glowing Apple logo on the back of a laptop sold over the years?
In Apple, after Jobs return, I see a continuum of design and development, and a culture, that almost inevitably lead to the iPod, iPhone, iPad, AirPods, and Watch, all massive successes for Apple.
Apple's market value growth acknowledges those early successes, as much as the iPhone, and later successes, but sure, the iPhone was the Black Swan of success.
The question that has to be asked; why is it Apple that always seems to find success, and not those competitors that you constantly shill for?
Erm. Re-read my post. Slowly.
Without the iPhone Apple would not be a trillion dollar company.
Aside from that absolute truth, my comment was also somewhat tongue in cheek.
I love the old Mac laptops. I have a few of them but unfortunately, not my all time favourite: The Pismo.
Price is THE decider on whether this headset will be a success. This author - and others who’ve made the same point that Apple has had supposed failures many times before turn into successes - doesn’t seem to realize this. When has Apple *ever* introduced a completely new product category at an initial price point of $3k? Maybe the original Apple 2 (adjusted for inflation) - but nothing since then. Sure, there are several niche “pro” products in THS range and beyond, but nothing with hoped for mass market appeal. And Apple clearly wants this to eventually become the next iPhone. And I think the AR glasses originally promised for this timeframe had/has this potential - but not some dorky headset costing as much as a used car.
The decider will be the hardware and software integration, and the quality of the programs designed to use the capabilities of the device, if Apple has those things nailed down, then the device will succeed, however no matter what price Apple sets, it will be too much and the complaining will go on and on because many people will want it, but will not be able to afford it.
Even to this day, there are still many financial analysts who think Apple should drop their prices on all products to pick up more marketshare, which, if you know anything about Apple, you know that isn’t their way of doing business.
Yeah, well, remember when all the analysts said that Apple is Doomed™ if they don't release a netbook?
IMO, the lack of a true netbook was a huge miss. As was the original iMac with only USB1. As was, ironically, the delay in getting USB2 onto Macs. As was not buying Netflix. As was not opening up firewire. As was fiasco on 5G/QC...
Let's not forget the whole concept of NetBoot and where that could have gone for business and education.
The question should not be if Apple was doomed because of those 'errors' but how much more they could have achieved by following through with some moves.
How did that work out for netbook makers? Fizzled out before they ever achieved any decent profits.
Even Apple dropped their 11” MBA because it wasn’t popular enough at that size.
Now there's an ARM version of Windows and SoCs are considerably more powerful and power efficient, but you don't see netbooks making a comeback. Perhaps that's because it was never a great idea.
The product category evolved. Just like the iPod.
There was enough business to go around for many companies to sell their products for years before tablets caught on and phones became more versatile. And of course regular laptops are going for very low prices nowadays.
Tablets of course required a physical keyboard to get close to what a netbook could do and were way behind when it came to could be presented through a browser.
But the error here for Apple wasn't simply competing in that space but using the product as a hook to catch users. And then the possibility of following through on the NetBoot promise via OSX Server.
That was a lost opportunity.
And none of those are netbooks. Netbooks failed miserably. End of story.
It's evolution and netbooks were a huge success and had huge demand in there hey day. 2008/9 saw global sales triple, hitting a high of around 35 million. There was a time when all you basically saw were netbooks.
It's obvious why, too.
More hyperbole.
At its peak, netbooks were 20% of the market, but given how short a time span netbooks were "popular", they were a fail. Consumers bought them because they were cheap, but then they realized that they were limited.
Nobody bought a netbook thinking it was remotely more than it was.
Yes, they bought them mainly because they were cheap. That was the whole point.
They had their moment and were a huge success.
No hyperbole. No fail.
They served a purpose and Apple could have used them in various ways to stimulate further growth.
As it was, a $500 iPad came along and people swiftly looked for keyboards for them. And still do for anything more than passive or casual use.
And yet...Apple is the most valuable (publicly-traded) company in the world. It appears they survived this "missed opportunity."
And now back to "As you may expect, the internet already says that Apple's headset is doomed, apparently."
And let's not forget that the market cap has nothing really to do with laptops or iPads.
Nothing? Nothing at all? I agree that a majority of Apple's market cap is attributable to iPhone, but not 100%. Certainly, some of their market cap is attributable to their laptops and iPads.
Zippo. ;-)
The iPad and Laptops are part of the billion dollar Apple, not the trillion dollar Apple.
Without iPhone, Apple wouldn't have reached its current cap in a gazillion years.
At least when taken in the context of 'missed opportunities', which was your point here.
If that was the point you were trying to make, you failed massively.
For an example; Apple's market value on December 1, 1998 was $6B, but what happened that year?
The iMac's introduction is an important moment in Apple history. It came a year after Jobs returned to Apple following the company's purchase of his company NeXT; at the time of the keynote he was still interim CEO. The computer's success helped reverse of a decade of struggles for the company, leading into the the company's huge run of growth after the turn of the millennium.
It also helped set a template for a long run of products, that caught the eye with beautiful design. Apple touted that introductory event as "Back on Track," and it certainly was, even though it would take several years for Apple to return to significant profitability.
The other big move was the one away from plastic, at least on premium laptops. (Keep in mind, every single Apple product in 2001 was completely wrapped in plastic, from the Power Macs to PowerBook to iMac to iBook.) Eventually, Apple would migrate every Mac to a metallic design, and this is where the move started.
Ive and his design lab had been experimenting with interesting materials for a while now. The obsession with translucent plastic originally evinced in the eMate and some late-model beige Power Macs led to the iMac and Blue and White Power Mac G3. But there were other materials in the mix. The Twentieth Anniversary Macintosh had an aluminum stand and leather wrist rests, and even its plastic body had a metallic sparkle.
So the decision was made: The new PowerBook G4 would prioritize thinness and lightness, and would be sheathed in metal, not plastic. And Apple chose to use a very light metal— titanium—to build it. “It’s stronger than steel, yet lighter than aluminum,” Jobs said on stage when introducing the laptop. “Like they build airplanes out of.”
It was a mistake.
The Titanium PowerBook G4 was a mind-blowing product when it was announced. It looked great, offered enormous power for a laptop, and everyone wanted one. But it turned out to also be a great teacher for Apple.
Titanium is light, but it also proved to be brittle. The PowerBook’s hinges had an unfortunate tendency to snap. My daughter, who was a toddler at the time, grabbed the top of my Titanium PowerBook G4 one day and snapped it clean off.
And to get the two-toned look that Apple wanted, the computer was painted silver and white. Titanium is not that great at holding paint or resisting scratches, so the surface of the laptop eventually became marred by scratches and flaked-off paint. Companies began selling color-matched Titanium PowerBook paint for touch-up jobs.
Having learned its lesson, Apple shifted gears a couple of years later and released a PowerBook G4 sheathed in aluminum. Over time, Apple would become one of the world’s most expert companies in working with aluminum, and every Mac would get an aluminum shell. At the time, the choice of using aluminum probably came down to its strength and lightness. It was also possible to anodize it, creating a nearly impervious surface coating that doesn’t require any paint.
Color can even be added as part of the anodization process, a feature that Apple would use across several generations of the iPod mini and nano later in the decade.
Though it was hampered by quality issues that would emerge over time, the Titanium PowerBook G4 was an immediate hit, showing Apple that it was on the right track. Though a laptop that’s an inch thick and weighs 5.4 pounds seems ridiculously chunky today, in 2001 terms it was shockingly thin and light. (The PowerBook G3 it replaced was 1.7 inches thick, and about half a pound heavier.)
It also feels like a trailblazer in terms of the display itself. It was Apple’s first real widescreen laptop, and the bezels around the display are small even by today’s standards. The screen is also impressively thin, even viewed from 2020.
Finally, in another example of style over substance, the Titanium PowerBook G4 was the first Apple laptop to reorient the Apple logo on the back of the display so that it was upright when opened. At the time, the orientation of the Apple logo on laptops was heavily debated. Some people felt it was too weird to have the Apple logo upside-down when you were using it, while others took the view that it was weird to have the logo upside-down when you were reaching to open it up.
Guess which one looked better on television and in movies during product placement, as well as in cafes full of potential laptop buyers. Who knows how many products that glowing Apple logo on the back of a laptop sold over the years?
In Apple, after Jobs return, I see a continuum of design and development, and a culture, that almost inevitably lead to the iPod, iPhone, iPad, AirPods, and Watch, all massive successes for Apple.
Apple's market value growth acknowledges those early successes, as much as the iPhone, and later successes, but sure, the iPhone was the Black Swan of success.
The question that has to be asked; why is it Apple that always seems to find success, and not those competitors that you constantly shill for?
Erm. Re-read my post. Slowly.
Without the iPhone Apple would not be a trillion dollar company.
Aside from that absolute truth, my comment was also somewhat tongue in cheek.
I love the old Mac laptops. I have a few of them but unfortunately, not my all time favourite: The Pismo.
LOL!
In your alternate universe where iPhone doesn't exist, Apple may very well have created a tablet first, that then goes on to evolve into a diminutive version that becomes the mobile device of choice for 28% of the world's population.
But please keep attempting to make the obvious point that everyone is aware of, and continue leaving out any context of how Apple achieved that, while so many others failed. That's the real point, that Apple succeeded, time and time again, while others failed.
Price is THE decider on whether this headset will be a success. This author - and others who’ve made the same point that Apple has had supposed failures many times before turn into successes - doesn’t seem to realize this. When has Apple *ever* introduced a completely new product category at an initial price point of $3k? Maybe the original Apple 2 (adjusted for inflation) - but nothing since then. Sure, there are several niche “pro” products in THS range and beyond, but nothing with hoped for mass market appeal. And Apple clearly wants this to eventually become the next iPhone. And I think the AR glasses originally promised for this timeframe had/has this potential - but not some dorky headset costing as much as a used car.
The decider will be the hardware and software integration, and the quality of the programs designed to use the capabilities of the device, if Apple has those things nailed down, then the device will succeed, however no matter what price Apple sets, it will be too much and the complaining will go on and on because many people will want it, but will not be able to afford it.
Even to this day, there are still many financial analysts who think Apple should drop their prices on all products to pick up more marketshare, which, if you know anything about Apple, you know that isn’t their way of doing business.
Yeah, well, remember when all the analysts said that Apple is Doomed™ if they don't release a netbook?
IMO, the lack of a true netbook was a huge miss. As was the original iMac with only USB1. As was, ironically, the delay in getting USB2 onto Macs. As was not buying Netflix. As was not opening up firewire. As was fiasco on 5G/QC...
Let's not forget the whole concept of NetBoot and where that could have gone for business and education.
The question should not be if Apple was doomed because of those 'errors' but how much more they could have achieved by following through with some moves.
How did that work out for netbook makers? Fizzled out before they ever achieved any decent profits.
Even Apple dropped their 11” MBA because it wasn’t popular enough at that size.
Now there's an ARM version of Windows and SoCs are considerably more powerful and power efficient, but you don't see netbooks making a comeback. Perhaps that's because it was never a great idea.
The product category evolved. Just like the iPod.
There was enough business to go around for many companies to sell their products for years before tablets caught on and phones became more versatile. And of course regular laptops are going for very low prices nowadays.
Tablets of course required a physical keyboard to get close to what a netbook could do and were way behind when it came to could be presented through a browser.
But the error here for Apple wasn't simply competing in that space but using the product as a hook to catch users. And then the possibility of following through on the NetBoot promise via OSX Server.
That was a lost opportunity.
And none of those are netbooks. Netbooks failed miserably. End of story.
It's evolution and netbooks were a huge success and had huge demand in there hey day. 2008/9 saw global sales triple, hitting a high of around 35 million. There was a time when all you basically saw were netbooks.
It's obvious why, too.
More hyperbole.
At its peak, netbooks were 20% of the market, but given how short a time span netbooks were "popular", they were a fail. Consumers bought them because they were cheap, but then they realized that they were limited.
Nobody bought a netbook thinking it was remotely more than it was.
Yes, they bought them mainly because they were cheap. That was the whole point.
They had their moment and were a huge success.
No hyperbole. No fail.
They served a purpose and Apple could have used them in various ways to stimulate further growth.
As it was, a $500 iPad came along and people swiftly looked for keyboards for them. And still do for anything more than passive or casual use.
And yet...Apple is the most valuable (publicly-traded) company in the world. It appears they survived this "missed opportunity."
And now back to "As you may expect, the internet already says that Apple's headset is doomed, apparently."
And let's not forget that the market cap has nothing really to do with laptops or iPads.
Nothing? Nothing at all? I agree that a majority of Apple's market cap is attributable to iPhone, but not 100%. Certainly, some of their market cap is attributable to their laptops and iPads.
Zippo. ;-)
The iPad and Laptops are part of the billion dollar Apple, not the trillion dollar Apple.
Without iPhone, Apple wouldn't have reached its current cap in a gazillion years.
At least when taken in the context of 'missed opportunities', which was your point here.
If that was the point you were trying to make, you failed massively.
For an example; Apple's market value on December 1, 1998 was $6B, but what happened that year?
The iMac's introduction is an important moment in Apple history. It came a year after Jobs returned to Apple following the company's purchase of his company NeXT; at the time of the keynote he was still interim CEO. The computer's success helped reverse of a decade of struggles for the company, leading into the the company's huge run of growth after the turn of the millennium.
It also helped set a template for a long run of products, that caught the eye with beautiful design. Apple touted that introductory event as "Back on Track," and it certainly was, even though it would take several years for Apple to return to significant profitability.
The other big move was the one away from plastic, at least on premium laptops. (Keep in mind, every single Apple product in 2001 was completely wrapped in plastic, from the Power Macs to PowerBook to iMac to iBook.) Eventually, Apple would migrate every Mac to a metallic design, and this is where the move started.
Ive and his design lab had been experimenting with interesting materials for a while now. The obsession with translucent plastic originally evinced in the eMate and some late-model beige Power Macs led to the iMac and Blue and White Power Mac G3. But there were other materials in the mix. The Twentieth Anniversary Macintosh had an aluminum stand and leather wrist rests, and even its plastic body had a metallic sparkle.
So the decision was made: The new PowerBook G4 would prioritize thinness and lightness, and would be sheathed in metal, not plastic. And Apple chose to use a very light metal— titanium—to build it. “It’s stronger than steel, yet lighter than aluminum,” Jobs said on stage when introducing the laptop. “Like they build airplanes out of.”
It was a mistake.
The Titanium PowerBook G4 was a mind-blowing product when it was announced. It looked great, offered enormous power for a laptop, and everyone wanted one. But it turned out to also be a great teacher for Apple.
Titanium is light, but it also proved to be brittle. The PowerBook’s hinges had an unfortunate tendency to snap. My daughter, who was a toddler at the time, grabbed the top of my Titanium PowerBook G4 one day and snapped it clean off.
And to get the two-toned look that Apple wanted, the computer was painted silver and white. Titanium is not that great at holding paint or resisting scratches, so the surface of the laptop eventually became marred by scratches and flaked-off paint. Companies began selling color-matched Titanium PowerBook paint for touch-up jobs.
Having learned its lesson, Apple shifted gears a couple of years later and released a PowerBook G4 sheathed in aluminum. Over time, Apple would become one of the world’s most expert companies in working with aluminum, and every Mac would get an aluminum shell. At the time, the choice of using aluminum probably came down to its strength and lightness. It was also possible to anodize it, creating a nearly impervious surface coating that doesn’t require any paint.
Color can even be added as part of the anodization process, a feature that Apple would use across several generations of the iPod mini and nano later in the decade.
Though it was hampered by quality issues that would emerge over time, the Titanium PowerBook G4 was an immediate hit, showing Apple that it was on the right track. Though a laptop that’s an inch thick and weighs 5.4 pounds seems ridiculously chunky today, in 2001 terms it was shockingly thin and light. (The PowerBook G3 it replaced was 1.7 inches thick, and about half a pound heavier.)
It also feels like a trailblazer in terms of the display itself. It was Apple’s first real widescreen laptop, and the bezels around the display are small even by today’s standards. The screen is also impressively thin, even viewed from 2020.
Finally, in another example of style over substance, the Titanium PowerBook G4 was the first Apple laptop to reorient the Apple logo on the back of the display so that it was upright when opened. At the time, the orientation of the Apple logo on laptops was heavily debated. Some people felt it was too weird to have the Apple logo upside-down when you were using it, while others took the view that it was weird to have the logo upside-down when you were reaching to open it up.
Guess which one looked better on television and in movies during product placement, as well as in cafes full of potential laptop buyers. Who knows how many products that glowing Apple logo on the back of a laptop sold over the years?
In Apple, after Jobs return, I see a continuum of design and development, and a culture, that almost inevitably lead to the iPod, iPhone, iPad, AirPods, and Watch, all massive successes for Apple.
Apple's market value growth acknowledges those early successes, as much as the iPhone, and later successes, but sure, the iPhone was the Black Swan of success.
The question that has to be asked; why is it Apple that always seems to find success, and not those competitors that you constantly shill for?
Erm. Re-read my post. Slowly.
Without the iPhone Apple would not be a trillion dollar company.
Aside from that absolute truth, my comment was also somewhat tongue in cheek.
I love the old Mac laptops. I have a few of them but unfortunately, not my all time favourite: The Pismo.
LOL!
In your alternate universe where iPhone doesn't exist, Apple may very well have created a tablet first, that then goes on to evolve into a diminutive version that becomes the mobile device of choice for 28% of the world's population.
But please keep attempting to make the obvious point that everyone is aware of, and continue leaving out any context of how Apple achieved that, while so many others failed. That's the real point, that Apple succeeded, time and time again, while others failed.
Simmer down buddy. This vendetta you have against avon is leading you into far too many pointless arguments. Nothing has been achieved here.
Apple's AR headset hasn't been announced yet and there are already those who insist it is a flop that is dead on arrival -- just like they said with the iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and even the Mac.
My tech memory goes as far back as the 1984 Mac and I don't recall potential users saying that. Their complaints were generally that the technology was great but the cost too high. I know I wanted an IPhone as soon as it was announced, but I had to wait for the 3gs before one bought used fit my budget.
The failure predictions didn't come from potential buyers. They came from competitors who had nothing similar to offer. I tried Sony's music player. It was far interior to the iPod. And all Microsoft executives could do when the iPhone was released was whine that it lacked a tiny physical keyboard.
The problem with this AR headset isn't just its price, likely to be about what I paid for my new Mac Studio. It's that it is seen as a niche product, useful only for specialized applications. All the products you claimed were sneered at actually addressed a very felt need by the public. This headset does not.
Comments
Making enough to offer bang for buck and run the business it what makes sense from my point of view.
Making a profit and just sitting on it is not something I'm going to buy into. It's why I jumped ship in the first place.
Instead of doing nothing with it, which was the case for many years, give users bang for buck.
Ten years of shipping a 5W charger is a perfect example of not giving users what they could do with. The same applies to skimping for years on base storage.
Now, something completely different, is getting users to pay more in the first place.
Who earns more profit. The ASP. Any other metric. It's all irrelevant to the point.
The Paradise Papers amounted to a flock of Lawyers putting their feelers out for a rug big enough to cover what couldn't fit in the mattress.
Sales, as you suggest, actually do point to tipping in Android's favour. That's what over 70% means.
Oh, the Paradise Papers. Yeah, heard of them. How's that actually working out, almost six years after release?
As for trending Android, nope, it's basically flat after trending downward from a peak years ago.
At its peak, netbooks were 20% of the market, but given how short a time span netbooks were "popular", they were a fail. Consumers bought them because they were cheap, but then they realized that they were limited.
Yes, they bought them mainly because they were cheap. That was the whole point.
They had their moment and were a huge success.
No hyperbole. No fail.
They served a purpose and Apple could have used them in various ways to stimulate further growth.
As it was, a $500 iPad came along and people swiftly looked for keyboards for them. And still do for anything more than passive or casual use.
"They're slow, they have low quality displays and they run clunky old PC software. They're not better than a laptop at anything, they're just cheaper: they're just cheap laptops. We don't think they're a third category device."
They failed. You failed. Move on.
There seems to be a disagreement with your position on netbooks;
https://www.howtogeek.com/195256/a-short-history-of-netbooks-a-technology-before-their-time/#:~:text=The%20hardware%20was%20cramped%2C%20tiny,sales%20began%20to%20drop%20fast.
"They had their moment and were a huge success."
As moments go, it was a very short timespan of only a few years. Happily, Apple threw its effort at the iPad, not netbooks
As for the headset being doomed as per the internet, personally I can't see it being an iPod HiFi or HomePod style 'doomed'.
XR cannot not exist. In the same way modern devices cannot exist without electronic screens.
In that sense, the only 'doomed' notion which is applicable is the one which marks the switch from first generation device to second generation device and then third, fourth etc. Devices are doomed to be replaced by later generations until such a time when the 'device' is no longer needed. Be it a netbook, iPod or, one day, a smartphone.
Of course, AR, VR, XR are already here and showing no signs of going away. The devices which bridge us to the content are getting better and better, too.
If we take 'doomed' to mean a commercial failure, that's possible depending on various factors (not least price and timing) but were the first folding phones doomed in the same way, too? No. They paved the way for what we have today and show no signs of going away.
Today's (and next week's) headsets are doing exactly the same thing. They are necessary steps.
Just like AR huds on cars.
Those laptops and iPads, plus all of the other product lines, are part of the ecosystem that makes iPhone so useful and successful. The reality is that there are very few companies that challenge Apple's ecosystem of hardware and software, and none have Apple's retail presence WW.
The iPad and Laptops are part of the billion dollar Apple, not the trillion dollar Apple.
Without iPhone, Apple wouldn't have reached its current cap in a gazillion years.
At least when taken in the context of 'missed opportunities', which was your point here.
For an example; Apple's market value on December 1, 1998 was $6B, but what happened that year?
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/05/06/20-years-ago-the-imac-changed-the-world
How about the Powerbook G4 Titanium?
https://sixcolors.com/post/2020/11/20-macs-for-2020-5-titanium-powerbook-g4/
In Apple, after Jobs return, I see a continuum of design and development, and a culture, that almost inevitably lead to the iPod, iPhone, iPad, AirPods, and Watch, all massive successes for Apple.
Apple's market value growth acknowledges those early successes, as much as the iPhone, and later successes, but sure, the iPhone was the Black Swan of success.
The question that has to be asked; why is it Apple that always seems to find success, and not those competitors that you constantly shill for?
Without the iPhone Apple would not be a trillion dollar company.
Aside from that absolute truth, my comment was also somewhat tongue in cheek.
I love the old Mac laptops. I have a few of them but unfortunately, not my all time favourite: The Pismo.
In your alternate universe where iPhone doesn't exist, Apple may very well have created a tablet first, that then goes on to evolve into a diminutive version that becomes the mobile device of choice for 28% of the world's population.
But please keep attempting to make the obvious point that everyone is aware of, and continue leaving out any context of how Apple achieved that, while so many others failed. That's the real point, that Apple succeeded, time and time again, while others failed.
My tech memory goes as far back as the 1984 Mac and I don't recall potential users saying that. Their complaints were generally that the technology was great but the cost too high. I know I wanted an IPhone as soon as it was announced, but I had to wait for the 3gs before one bought used fit my budget.
The failure predictions didn't come from potential buyers. They came from competitors who had nothing similar to offer. I tried Sony's music player. It was far interior to the iPod. And all Microsoft executives could do when the iPhone was released was whine that it lacked a tiny physical keyboard.
The problem with this AR headset isn't just its price, likely to be about what I paid for my new Mac Studio. It's that it is seen as a niche product, useful only for specialized applications. All the products you claimed were sneered at actually addressed a very felt need by the public. This headset does not.