Think Different, people! New iDevices and Apple philosophy



  • Reply 61 of 95
    spotbugspotbug Posts: 361member
    [quote]Originally posted by Trav:

    <strong>... iFrame ... </strong><hr></blockquote>

    You know, I think this is one of the best MWNY predictions I've read.

    Totally doable - pretty close to the iPod in tech. - there wouldn't be a whole lot of engineering involved. Plus, it seems like something SJ would like to have all over is house. And it's got just the right level of announcement disappointment factor (ADF). You mean that's it?. I mean, it would be cool to have one, but not "insanely great," by any means. It just feels right for a MWNY release.

    Can you tell I'm a little cynical about the keynote and the possibility that we won't get anything worth buying?
  • Reply 62 of 95
    iq78iq78 Posts: 256member
    [quote]Originally posted by warpd:

    <strong>Also...I know that this does not fit in with our wildly over active imaginations, but I just wanted to put this out there; Perhaps MS is thinking about yanking office because, and I know this sounds silly, but because it really isn't selling enough to cover the huge expenses involved in maintaining and updating it's code base. I know, they could not possibly be telling the truth, therefore it must be some gatesian plan to stop Apple before they come out with a carbon based, Powerbook, for under $300.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Well, MS could be telling the truth (and monkeys could fly out my butt).

    In all seriousness. MS could be telling the truth about Office v.X sells being short of expectations. Apple's response to MS's comment was, "Well, the $499 price tag could have something to do with lack of MS sales."

    I admit, my previous post was a bit on the conspiracy theory side of things, but the timing is something to note. AND Microsoft has been known to strong arm and threaten potential competition. Certainly, if they wanted to yank Office v.X they might need to suggest their intentions before a major Apple announcement that would directly compete with a MS strategy. Maybe it's the switch campaign that bothers MS... but I tend to think it is something more like the .Mac idea, or AppleWorks for Windows, or agressive licensing fees, or something else that really dives into MS's market.
  • Reply 63 of 95
    tabootaboo Posts: 128member
    [quote]Originally posted by warpd:

    <strong>I must say, I found it interesting that MS actually had to step in and help Apple get 10.1 out of the door, and it is true that MS took a lot of flack for the office X delay, when it was clearly the state of Apple's OS that was the issue. In MS's defense, I know some people with the Mac BU, and they are all bona fide Mac nuts. The lack of support, and often complete disrespect that they get from Apple has long been a issue. I know we are all here because we love the platform, but let's not forget that Apple is hardly the most humble company on earth.

    [ 07-15-2002: Message edited by: warpd ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Huh? In what way did M$ "step in and help Apple get 10.1 out of the door"?

    Yes, part of the reason for the Office delay had to be Apple and the flux of X during developement, but why do you think that it was the whole issue?

    I have considerable respect for M$'s MacBU.....they continue despite the incredible flack they receive from other M$ employees, but the sad truth is that they still work for M$, and must therefore toe the company line.

    While I have to admit that it could very well be that there are poor sales for OfficeX, that could be due to many issues. This release came very soon after the newest "classic" version, for one. Price is a good candidate, as well.....Office is, and always has been, insanely expensive when compared with other competing products. The only reason they have acheived dominance with it is because of market share of Windows, and "bundling" free versions with a variety of manufacturers computers. That combined with lack of available information to create compatability (deliberate) with other companies software has led to a virtual monopoly.

    Also, one of the main reasons for suspecting "conspiracy" on the part of M$ is that M$, over and over again, has engaged in exactly this sort of predatory practice. 9 times bitten, tenth shy.
  • Reply 64 of 95
    vox barbaravox barbara Posts: 2,021member
    [quote]Originally posted by SQUÅSH:

    <strong>I think we do get the best computers made....maybe not the fastest as you define best. They run and run and run, which is what I'd rather have. Buy a PC is you need the fastest chip, or so they say. Enjoy your hardware problems and tech support.

    I'll stick with the best OS and hardware money can buy....::hugs dual ghz::</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Thank you very much indeed. That's all about.
  • Reply 65 of 95
    naepstnnaepstn Posts: 78member
    To get this thread back on topic (how discussion of the M$ comments fit in with this thread, I have no idea)...

    DV cameras and digital still cameras are still largely a pro-sumer item, where people are pretty concerned with the reputation of the manufacturer in terms of optics, image quality, workmanship, etc. The analogy with the iPod I think is a bit flawed, in that as someone mentioned, it was a new market with really no established leaders. MP3 player technology seemed outdated until the iPod (eg. 64MB of memory seemed silly when 512MB DIMMS were dirt cheap). I think that Apple would have a very tough time making money on a digital still or video camera all on its own. I would say the the MiniDV market is too small and "pro" for Apple to compete in.

    As a result, I think Apple should partner with an established manufacturer for a digital still camera. As an example, they partner with Olympus to jointly develop a new model, but largely based on an existing one.

    - Take a good mid-range camera like the new C-700 UltraZoom (or the new C-720), but replaced USB with Firewire and refine the interface a bit in terms of button placement, etc. (which btw is already pretty nice) Apple would be a huge help here, no doubt.

    - Olympus cameras already can capture video (with sound) directly to Quicktime format. Update this so that it captures directly to MPEG4/QT6. Now, these cameras will also capture in real-time, so there is no limit on the length of video other than the available storage space (and the video quality setting).

    - Now, with Firewire connectivity, one doesn't even need a computer for data transfer, so the camera could be updated so that it would sense if it was connected to a computer or iPod (or other FW HDD), and could then write directly out to the connected machine/device. In this way, the camera could be used to capture long stretches of video or loads of stills. It could also be used as a webcam device through software when connected to a computer with FW.

    - The camera, however, would still have a SmartMedia slot, so that it could be used standalone, and wouldn't require a user to have an iPod or another device and people with loads of SM cards could still use them. Integrating an internal HD into a camera will necessarily make the camera bigger than competitors with similar feature sets. This way, people can have the functionality if wanted, but aren't stuck with it if they don't. The existence of a SM card slot would also make the camera perfectly useable by Windows users (with or without a Firewire port), which would likely be required for a camera manufacturer to deam it worthwhile. The product wouldn't be limited to the Mac market, yet the user experience and integration would be that much better on a Mac. Essentially, what the iPod gives people for MP3s.

    This scenario gives users the benefits of Apple products in terms of interface and hardware/software integration, yet leaves the key hardware technology in the hands of a trusted name with lots of experience in the market. Because Apple hardware and devices are always positioned in the upper-mid to high end of the price range, they will be targetting people who won't be too likely to buy from someone just entering the market, when there are other trusted names like Canon, Sony, Olympus, etc. already there. But this type of partnership would cover all the bases.
  • Reply 66 of 95
    Remember when Apple released the iPod? Steve said that "iTunes knows about MP3 players, but none of the MP3 players know about iTunes," or something along those lines. When Apple originally released iTunes, it was great because it made it so much easier to use the existing MP3 players that had been out there for so long. Then, when they released the iPod, it took things one step further.

    So first, Apple released an app that made using existing devices easier, then they released a device that made using that app worth more to the user.

    So what does this mean now? Well, think about it. What kind of device could Apple create that would enhance iPhoto? iMovie? iDVD?
  • Reply 67 of 95
    mrbilldatamrbilldata Posts: 489member
    To follow that line of thought.

    iPod plays music, it doesn't record it.

    Therefore the next device would be used to display the photos, videos, etc.

    Not take them.

    Right <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
  • Reply 68 of 95
    overhopeoverhope Posts: 1,123member
    I guess it's all a question of how far away SJ wants to let Apple from being purely a "computer" company.

    iPod was a fairly natural extension, showing the power of Firewire and how much easier life is with a well-designed UI, while basically using computer components.

    All this talk of cameras makes me uneasy. Yes, it's been done before (remember Quicktake?), but that market has expanded so much now that Apple would be competing in a market that it has no relevant experience of, and competing against companies who have years of experience and reputation in still camera technology.

    My Sony miniDV video camera has a Memory Stick to which it can capture Quicktime movies or stills, accessible through USB, and works beautifully in iMovie, accessible through Firewire. I don't see how Apple could improve on a fully IEE1394 compliant camera interface, since you end up driving it via the Mac anyway.

    Cool as it would be to have an Ives-designed camera, I suspect these are not the iDevices we are looking for.
  • Reply 69 of 95
    We know for a fact that Jaguar's gonna rock. That alone they could have kept relatively under wraps.

    Adding two more inches to the iMac's screen is dissapointment-worthy. They could have released that soon.

    Think about iPhoto: IMHO Steve likes the idea of ordering a book with all your pictures better than putting them all on an electronic picture frame. Scratch iFrame.

    Sorry, but I just don't see Apple making a camera. Major camera companies currently have a stranglehold on the camera market. The pros are the people who will be buying the cams at Apple-ish prices, and they won't want a single-button camera. So much for iCam.

    Now is not the time to come out with a DV Cam. Besides myself, I know nobody who owns one. I don't think many consumers are ready to fork out the dough for one. No iVideo this month.

    iPod's due for a minor upgrade. That's probable.

    No way are we getting AppleWorks for Windows. Jobs wants PC users to switch, not to stick. No way would they want to create any motive whatsoever to stick with a PC.

    There already is a home server; it's called Mac OS X.

    Jobs would kill himself if he released a two-button mouse. Like the theme of this thread, simplicity and elegance are two pillars of Apple products.

    Apple would be crazy to compete with Palm at this stage. They're too dominant to defy right now. And Apple's not going to release a Palm OS handheld. It doesn't make sense. Why would the iPod have an address book if they were about to release a PDA?

    The market just isn't ready for a Tablet PC, much less a tablet Mac.

    A cell phone would be a good idea, but I dont think that Apple's looking in that direction right now. What can get PC users to switch? It's got to be something on the computer.

    AppleWorks Pro would be perfect if it could top Office. iPhoto 2 is definitely coming on account of v1.1 needs more features. I get the feeling that they would bundle that with Jaguar. These two combined would really help attract PC users if they were very good.

    What else? To attract Windows users, Apple needs to attract Windows developers. Some incentive that says, "Hey, it's better to develop on our platform!" Have you ever noticed Steve Jobs takes frequent drinks during his keynote? He seems rather attached to that coffee cup. What would he think of? Of course! The PowerLatte! Not only would it be his new favorite drink, it would attract more Windows programmers to develop for Mac OS X (thus attracting more Windows users to switch) by fueling their caffeine addictions! See? It's been right under all your noses all this time. Literally. Can't you smell it already?
  • Reply 70 of 95
    jet powersjet powers Posts: 288member
    Appleworks for Windows is up to version 6.2.

    <a href=""; target="_blank"></a>;

    <a href=""; target="_blank"></a>;


    [ 07-15-2002: Message edited by: Yet Another Registration ]</p>
  • Reply 71 of 95
    mrbilldatamrbilldata Posts: 489member
    But, do you know anyone that uses it?

    I work with hundreds of people from many different companies that use PCs and Workstations exclusively and I have never heard even one ever mention using Appleworks when I mention being an Apple user.
  • Reply 72 of 95
    icodeicode Posts: 23member
    [quote]Originally posted by DanRuleUniverse:



    Jobs would kill himself if he released a two-button mouse. Like the theme of this thread, simplicity and elegance are two pillars of Apple products.



    Probably no-one can reliably say what Steve Jobs thinks, but if this is the actual reason for not having a two/three button mouse, that says a lot about what Steve thinks of Mac users.

    "Oh my God! Those poor knuckle dragging morons can't possibly deal with two extra buttons on that mouse! We'll have to save them and give them something that is 'simple', yeah!"


    "A three button mouse is ugly and it does not fit with Apple's sense of aesthetics. Therefore, We declare the single mouse button as the epidemy of beauty, to hell with usefulness."

    Apple IS doomed!
  • Reply 73 of 95
    lol, Steve IS a weird guy...

    I personally see nothing wrong with a multi-button mouse. That new Kensington looks awesome. I should get it. But Apple mice are one-button. I guess that's what makes 'em Apple mice. A mouse with any more buttons than one would not be an Apple mouse. Do not ask why, grasshopper, this is simply the way it is.
  • Reply 74 of 95
    Well, suppose for a minute that Apple did release a multi-button mouse. Everyone says they won't do it because it complicates things. But wait a minute! This is Apple we're talking about! What would Apple do to make a multi-button mouse? The only way it would complicate things is if it were like all the other mouses out there. Since Apple would be making it, you know they wouldn't make it just like everything else. Look at the current Pro Mouse... no buttons... yet it's still a "one button" mouse. So, what would an Apple branded multi-button mouse be like?


    Perhaps not a multi-button mouse, but a multi-function mouse. What do you think?

    [ 07-15-2002: Message edited by: crawlingparanoia ]</p>
  • Reply 75 of 95
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Anyone know if either satellite radio company has electronics small enough to fit into an iPod?
  • Reply 76 of 95
    Let's "think different" about a one button mouse.

    For now you can with the one button mouse

    Select --one click

    Open -- 2 click

    open/Drill down (spring folder are back in jaguar)-- click click hold

    So there is one action left click and hold and you have your contextual need for a 2 button mouse.
  • Reply 77 of 95
    gspottergspotter Posts: 342member
    [quote]Originally posted by michelc:

    <strong>Let's "think different" about a one button mouse.


    Maybe they could to something like the <a href=""; target="_blank">sideclick mouse</a>: No visible button. Clicks are made by rocking the mouse to the left or right. Then make a preference setting with default to similar behaviour (-&gt; left click) for both clicks.
  • Reply 78 of 95
    [quote]Originally posted by MrBillData:

    <strong>To follow that line of thought.

    iPod plays music, it doesn't record it.

    Therefore the next device would be used to display the photos, videos, etc.


    Or to further extend the reach of music...

    I *really* want to see a home server.

    500MHz G4 running Mac OS X. USB, Firewire, ethernet, modem, Airport ready. 96MB RAM, 40GB+ hard drive. Composite video in/out, line out. Component size. IR (Bluetooth?) remote.

    Hook it into your stereo and TV. It can play MP3s through your stereo, Quicktime and slideshows on your TV. Plug it into your cable modem and it can play audio and QT streams. It can serve both using your .mac account as a proxy to other users on the internet. No need to ship DVDs to family, MPEG-4 will do just fine. Software base station lets it replace the hardware base station. Of course, it can also be a regular file server.

    Rendezvous allows this to happen without getting RIAAs dander up. It can play MP3s through your stereo that exist on your computer, or the reverse - no duplicating the file. Same goes for your iMovies or photo slide shows.

    QT broadcaster turns it into a video conferencing conduit - even in your living room. Apple's directory work of late hooks in in with AOL buddies and .mac so you can see when your conference (even audio) friends are available. Hey, iPhone...

    QT and Velocity Engine lets you encode video and use the device as a PVR. .mac account (paid, presumably) provides the program data.

    Finally, it has a docking port for your iPod. Drop in your iPod, and it'll charge and sync with the server. <a href=""; target="_blank">Proof</a> you can do it.

    Basically, it takes all of the things Apple has been doing in their iApps (except iDVD), Quicktime, and Mac OS X and gives you a means to share and enjoy this content in your home and across the internet. If you want more bandwidth, you can use your .mac account (paid, presumably) to cache frequently viewed content - the latest slideshow or movie. In the same way that weblogs allow anyone to publish their writing, this will allow anyone to broadcast anything else.

    Steve introduced Quicktime TV 3 years ago and laid out the whole broadcast model. Akamai was one piece of that solution, and he promised the other pieces would come. Apple is serving up some of that content from BBC, etc. but what about us, with our video cameras and iMovie software.

    If a tablet were to come, you'd want something like this on the market first with the tablet able to serve as the interface.

    It's not a KISS product like the iPod, but then it's not a particularly simple problem to solve. Nobody wants to take their regular computer and move it 3 feet from their TV or stereo, and any attempt for an electronics company to do this will fail because of interface problems. You admin the box with your computer, but control it with a remote.

    Just thinking about how the iPod might be the focus of this show, how .mac could plug in, and other little things. I'm guessing $499 or a bit more.

    Edit: Much speculation has been put forth that MS is building exactly this item off of the XBox. Further, HP and Compaq both have similar devices (that suck). And just to make the idea totally stupid - toss in a DVD drive and Gamecube compatability (which is virtually free given an ATI chip and the PPC already there). Nintendo would probably be thrilled with the added sales.

    [ 07-16-2002: Message edited by: johnsonwax ]</p>
  • Reply 79 of 95
    k_munick_munic Posts: 357member
    thanx for stopping the "M$Office blabla" in this thread....-

    talking ´bout a new iDevice/DigitalHub and the KISS theory i mentioned a few lines ahead:

    How ´bout iWire?

    I got a Cube, which is located in my little working space at home = cellar. My tvset is in the living room, I like to listen to music in bedroom, i need cooking recipes in the kitchen...- so, how does video, music or information come from my Box to my existing Displays (tvset, radio)?

    don´t tell me Airport+iBook, that´s engineers thinking/overkill. when you want to transport your mp3 files, you dont´need a fully equipped laptop, you just need a hd, a lil display, a single button and some chips....- an iPod.

    how bout a pair of white (sic!) boxes: connect the "transmitter" to firewire and the powerplug. the "receiver(s)" connects to the powerplug anywhere in your home, and it comes with a audio/video jack and a remote control - voila!

    so, my bigbox is the hub, music/data is on the move, and my home gets connected....- plug and play in its own meaning....-

    too simple? wait and see (not tomorrow...-)

    btw: QT6 is fun!
  • Reply 80 of 95
    craiger77craiger77 Posts: 133member
    I don't think Apple is going to release any kind of camera, either still or digital. Just to much competition in that market.

    What I think they should, and hopefully will, come out with is something along the lines of the Nixvue Vista ( <a href=""; target="_blank"></a>; ).

    Put the smaller Toshiba drives in it to reduce the size, provide a bigger, better screen, firwire, and the navigation wheel of the iPod and you would have a killer device to subliment digital photography and video.

    You want a digital frame? Just hook it up to your TV. Want to show friends your photos? Take it over to their house and use their TV. Don't want to haul your laptop on your vacation (or don't own one)? Just take this along and store THOUSANDS of high resolution photos from your digital camera.

    I think this sort of device, done right by Apple, would be just as useful for photography as the iPod is for music and create the same kind of buzz the iPod has generated for Apple.
Sign In or Register to comment.