And that's the problem with your argument: The iPod has always been a commodity product.
Yeah, I like that. I dont know whether this commodity-arguement works.
On some levels, the iPod is so radical - it redefines music. So the followup products from Apple will go this way. That is why the Home Server-idea, that is named various places, is probably a good bet - we get a HomePod with an iPod-like remote to control it. And the iPod-mobile phone - that sounds like a good winner.
I would like to see Apple integrate the iPod into a car radio. Not just connect your ipod to your radio, make it the radio/jukebox. There is no need for a micro drive, plenty of room for a regular size.
The numbers are there, heck in Ca. there are two or three cars per person. Also, most people spend a lot of time in their vehicles, not to mention this is where you can listen at the volume of your choice.
That would certainly be a great option on any new car sold.
Just think how many people go from the dealership to the corner car stereo shop to upgrade their sound system. I can't think of a better company to exploit this, as I know they would get the interface right.
Trumpet raises some quite valid points, but misses one subtle issue. Amorph's typically well balanced PR response is similarly an entirely valid critique, but again, missing the same subtle issue.
The initial question was about stock price. If history is any indication, APPL has enough brand presence that it seems to ride fairly regular waves of enthusiasm. How high will it go? When will it come back down? What Trumpetman is talking about adequately predicts the investors' interpretation of the market, and their subsequent reactions.
The debate over commodities; however, can't, at the same time as it explains the market stake of the iMac, predict the future of the iPod. Why? Because cool counts when it comes to iPods, not when it comes to computers. They're both commodities, but that doesn't tell the whole story.
We buy music 'cause it's cool. We buy computers because we need them, or think we do. The people on these boards might buy computers because they're cool -- but we're not really considered cool by those who spend their time on better things than message boards. And because people are esentially silly creatures, they will pay for cool, but not tool.
Basically, the synergy between brand acceptance, price tolerance, and market penetration never happened in the general market as concerns the mac. It happened in a few specialized markets, and that allows Apple to charge a premium to those areas. In the case of the iPod, interesingly enough, the market seems more tolerant of a high cost to brand ratio. So long as we can use it to advertise our inner hipster to the world, it's easier to sell a $200-400 music player than a $1000 computer.
Ever wonder why the mac holds 98% of the sit-com market, and 2% of the real world market?
Early examinations of the first iPod remarked on how it was almost entirely made of off-the-shelf parts, including the OS.
Exactly, the iPod is great because of the operating system and the integration with the computer. It's not a revolutionary product it's a revolutionary solution. That's why people choose the iPod, making iTunes free for windows was the best thing Apple did with the iPod. At my girlfriends uni everyone uses iTunes and they all listen to each other's music over the network, no-one wants to buy an MP3 player that doesn't work with iTunes. I used WMP the other day for the first time, songs are cheaper but the interface is poor and anti-intuitive, they've copied some of the features of itunes but left out the cool one's. One-click burning, sharing music, easy purchasing and the great compatibility with an MP3 player.
The initial post stands. No matter how great we think the iPod, people are already matching and surpassing it with regard to specs.
I would dispute you that it is just a matter of specs. It is a combination of the design, ancillary services (iTunes, iTMS,...) and the specs. This is why the analysts were so wrong about the iPod Mini. They just looked at the number of megabytes and such and decided that it was overpriced and wouldn't sell.
Quote:
Apple and Jobs specifically have NEVER realized this. They simply believe that their art, which is subjective anyway, will always demand a premium.
The iPod is not that much higher priced than other disk based players. Actually, it is cheaper than Sony's. As Apple has not yet released a Flash based player we don't know what they will charge for that.
There is a problem with thinking of the iPod as a commodity. It is a new kind of product. We'll have to wait till everyone has one (maybe a billion sold) and it becomes just a replacement market to see it become a commodity.
Apple is in the cat-bird seat now and it is their market to lose. They are getting the lion's share of the revenue. They are getting major media attention. Third party companies are focusing on making accessories for iPods. Everyone else has to eat their dust. If it seems that they are starting to lose market share Apple could easily drop prices having already paid off their costs and having already gained a huge amount of profit.
Regarding Apple's computer market share, the Powermac, Powerbook and (finally) iMac lines are very compelling in their price range but Michael Dell was correct when he said that Apple's prices are too high for the mainstream market.
PC Magazine gave the iMac a 5-star rating but panned the eMac. Hopefully that will be fixed in January but my point is that Apple has not had the processor horsepower/cost ratio to compete in that market for several years now. Hopefully as IBM improves the G5 (970GX, 970MP) they will be able to crank out low-end, low-cost G5s in mass quantities so Apple can play in that market.
Then maybe we'll see things like the headless $600 G5 that many of us would like. And their market share will go up so buy AAPL now!
Regarding Apple's computer market share, the Powermac, Powerbook and (finally) iMac lines are very compelling in their price range but Michael Dell was correct when he said that Apple's prices are too high for the mainstream market.
PC Magazine gave the iMac a 5-star rating but panned the eMac. Hopefully that will be fixed in January but my point is that Apple has not had the processor horsepower/cost ratio to compete in that market for several years now. Hopefully as IBM improves the G5 (970GX, 970MP) they will be able to crank out low-end, low-cost G5s in mass quantities so Apple can play in that market.
Then maybe we'll see things like the headless $600 G5 that many of us would like. And their market share will go up so buy AAPL now!
The top of the range Dell compared to the top of the range PowerBook aren't too dissimilar in price. There's about £500 in it, but if you're spending 2500, the extra 500 isn't that noticeable. The problem, i agree though, is that Apple don;t ship a low-end unit, but Apple is about quality products so it is difficult to do that. Do Sony have low-end products?
. . . We buy music 'cause it's cool. We buy computers because we need them, or think we do. . .
I think you have some insight on this issue, but you cannot categorize markets as either a necessity or something cool. Most useful things are purchased, to some degree, based on cool looks or prestigious brand name. Clothing and cars are two obvious examples. Computers are no exception, but a higher percentage of folks might be influenced by low price here. The ratio varies by market.
Yet, the biggest hurdle for Apple is the dominance of Windows. If the iMac G5 looks cool to PC users, they will typically just wait for Windows hardware to catch up, Did you ever consider that Windows OS might be the cool factor for many computer users? I know that sounds like heresy here, but there could be some truth to it. How many teenagers want to be independent and do their own thing, but end up trying to be just like everybody else? My apologies to any thoughtful, self-directed teenagers reading this post.
I also believe Apple needs a model for the real price sensitive crowd too, but that is for another thread.
The whole Windows/Apple debate is wasted in my opinion, as it is known that its not health, but disease that spreads around the globe. I think we can all pinpoint who the disease-carrier is.
Apple is much better with a smaller market share, compared to Windows, that has the lions share of the market, but also the lions share of the problems.
If Apple can make a decent profit of their computers (which they are), and capitalize on the iPod+iTunes momentum they're in right now, we could see an Apple that is a leader in one market, and just a small part of another. As iPods are simple products that create small problems, it is much cheaper for Apple to maintain them, then, say, Mac. Therefore more time for Apple to advance their OS and their hardware and make even more profit as undoubtfully, a lot of iPod users that are on the Windows side now will switch at some point.
What I think Apple should do now to ensure a strong future for Apple now that they have such a success in the iPod, and can afford another venture is:
Buy a few Mac game developers, and a semi-seasoned game company like M$ did with bungie that has some great original titles, and start a game company (software only) that makes XBOX2, and PS3 games.
In console gaming money is lost in hardware, for the most part. and re-cuped in selling game titles at $50.00 a pop.
Gaming has become a multi billion dollar industry that is more profitable than the movie industry. If Apple were to do this they would have a second big money maker in their belt, and they would also be able to make, and launch titles that were available for the XBOX2, PS3, and the Mac at the same time - thus removing the title that the "Macintosh is not a good gaming machine" because of the lack of titles.
If they had a good development strategy for making these games on the Mac at the same time as being compatible for XBOX2, and PS3 they could show existing console developers what it takes, and possibly influence other XBOX, and/or PS3 game developers to release their titles for the Mac simultaneously if it appears profitable to them being that G5, and G6 PowerMacs will be used for developing most of these games anyway.
Look at where Microsoft went developing software only. BIG $$$$
Apple could get in on this while there was still a chance to buy a few good development teams, and a good game company, and start a gaming division at the same time. without being tied down to manufacturing another "Pippen" that would again flop.
Like it or not this is a big money venture, and putting an Apple logo on games is a great idea IMO.
i agree with everything with everything you said onlooker. but which game developer should apple buy ? since you mentioned bungie, wideload comes to mind. are there any other obvious choices for apple i'm missing ?
Games would be a new market for Apple but I'd rather see them fill in some holes in their lineup. They do not have intermediate and pro-level photography software and that's something that is really needed. With core image, maybe they would rather build something from the ground up. Otherwise, they would gain instant credibility if they bought someone like PhaseOne that would be quite similar to their purchase of Emagic (Logic).
Photoshop is one of those "don't compete against" products like Microsoft Word and Excel but digital photography is a market that needs better Mac software and core image is the foundation to build it on.
Games would be a new market for Apple but I'd rather see them fill in some holes in their lineup. They do not have intermediate and pro-level photography software and that's something that is really needed. With core image, maybe they would rather build something from the ground up. Otherwise, they would gain instant credibility if they bought someone like PhaseOne that would be quite similar to their purchase of Emagic (Logic).
Photoshop is one of those "don't compete against" products like Microsoft Word and Excel but digital photography is a market that needs better Mac software and core image is the foundation to build it on.
Jobs is hoping Adobe will make Photoshop's new version around core image
Games would be a new market for Apple but I'd rather see them fill in some holes in their lineup. They do not have intermediate and pro-level photography software and that's something that is really needed. With core image, maybe they would rather build something from the ground up. Otherwise, they would gain instant credibility if they bought someone like PhaseOne that would be quite similar to their purchase of Emagic (Logic).
Photoshop is one of those "don't compete against" products like Microsoft Word and Excel but digital photography is a market that needs better Mac software and core image is the foundation to build it on.
But there really is no hole. Photoshop has no competitors even though imaging software is in abundance. Apple has iPhoto for the casual user, and for use in cataloging, but photoshop will always be industry standard, and Apple has a good relationship with Adobe. This market is already filled, and it is in no way the type of product that Apple could sell to more than just the Mac audience, and those who already use photoshop probably wouldn't even bother with it.
I think Adobe has this covered. I'm sure Apple already looked into this when Painter could have been bought for cheap, and chose not to because they new adobe would always rule digital imaging software. Thus they chose to Make iPhoto for the casual photographer, and the "user with a camera" to fill one hole that actually did exist.
Apple does not need to make every Application that is used on the Mac when there are already great companies, and developers making the best applications in some fields already that are made for the Mac.
Plus there is not the kind of money in it that can be made by developing a console gaming software division.
First, Steve Jobs is not the only person at Apple making their products great - there are a lot of very talented people who are all working together - from hardware, design, software & OS. Most unique in the industry and Steve J is the one driving them to always make it better.
Apple is spending a huge amount on R&D on a continuous basis - around half a billion dollars. This isn't just for making the G4 iPod neat - it's for development in all areas. Remember that Apple worked on the G5 with IBM for over two years before releasing the original G5 PM. While we tend to think that Apple is just what they are selling today (plus the G5 PB) the reality is that what they are selling today is what they spent R&D money on 2 or 3 years ago.
Commodities are just that - like a truck load of corn. Nothing special and highly risky. Noticed that IBM sold their commodity PC business? Check out how well Gateway has done in this commodity business, or Compaq - ooops, HP. Even Dell is at risk of a flood of PCs from China that are $100 less than Dell can make them. Check back on that in 18 to 24 months to see how healthy the Win based PC business is.
Apple does have a strong position with the iPod and a lot of companies are going after part of that market. For quite a while it is going to be a them and us situation, but "them" are going to be competing with each other - not with Apple.
To really take on the iPod a company is going to have to develop a total environment - just like Apple did. Most will probably depend on MS and MS ain't gong to deliver anything better than Apple has today - much less what Apple has in the future.
If you're really looking for cheap computers from Apple - or a PC maker selling boxes with OS X included - I think you'll be disappointed. There is an "Apple Tax" applied to each Mac. That money goes to the development of OS X (and OS 11 when it's time), to a lot of very high level engineering efforts with IBM and some money spent on basic apps that we can enjoy - like iLife. When that "tax" disappears grab your last Mac fast as the future will be rather bleak.
The hole I am referring to is in the Apple software lineup:
Video: iMovie - FCP Express - FCP
Music: Garageband - Logic Express - Logic
Photography: iPhoto - Nothing - Nothing
I'm not sure how many of you use digital SLRs and understand workflow using RAW format but most pro photographers use software like PhaseOne's or several compeditors that are available on Windows. I use Photoshop for a number of reasons (#1 = $$$) but the workflow sucks. There's absolutely no chance that Adobe will develop a special version of Photoshop for Mac since Windows is a huge part of their business and they remember what FCP did to Premere. Adobe dumping the Mac would be the biggest concern that Apple would have in bringing their own product to market. It's a shame because the "industry standard" really sucks whether you realize it or not.
Even without pro features, there's certainly room for a mid-range photo management product. iPhoto is nice for casual users but there are many people who are serious about photography and would pay for better software.
First, Steve Jobs is not the only person at Apple making their products great - there are a lot of very talented people who are all working together - from hardware, design, software & OS. Most unique in the industry and Steve J is the one driving them to always make it better.
Very good points kenaustus. Not much to add, you've pretty much summed up the point.
Photoshop is a good app, although sluggish, many times. I think the preview of liquifying in Core Video at the WWDC last year was a sign of things to come. Any app, even an Apple-made one, can use it. It was pretty cool and things on that end are sure to be enhanced. Wake up Adobe, Apple is including some of your affects in the OS now. Develop on!
Comments
Originally posted by Amorph
And that's the problem with your argument: The iPod has always been a commodity product.
Yeah, I like that. I dont know whether this commodity-arguement works.
On some levels, the iPod is so radical - it redefines music. So the followup products from Apple will go this way. That is why the Home Server-idea, that is named various places, is probably a good bet - we get a HomePod with an iPod-like remote to control it. And the iPod-mobile phone - that sounds like a good winner.
The future is here and Apple is late to the party!
The numbers are there, heck in Ca. there are two or three cars per person. Also, most people spend a lot of time in their vehicles, not to mention this is where you can listen at the volume of your choice.
That would certainly be a great option on any new car sold.
Just think how many people go from the dealership to the corner car stereo shop to upgrade their sound system. I can't think of a better company to exploit this, as I know they would get the interface right.
Just my two cents.
The initial question was about stock price. If history is any indication, APPL has enough brand presence that it seems to ride fairly regular waves of enthusiasm. How high will it go? When will it come back down? What Trumpetman is talking about adequately predicts the investors' interpretation of the market, and their subsequent reactions.
The debate over commodities; however, can't, at the same time as it explains the market stake of the iMac, predict the future of the iPod. Why? Because cool counts when it comes to iPods, not when it comes to computers. They're both commodities, but that doesn't tell the whole story.
We buy music 'cause it's cool. We buy computers because we need them, or think we do. The people on these boards might buy computers because they're cool -- but we're not really considered cool by those who spend their time on better things than message boards. And because people are esentially silly creatures, they will pay for cool, but not tool.
Basically, the synergy between brand acceptance, price tolerance, and market penetration never happened in the general market as concerns the mac. It happened in a few specialized markets, and that allows Apple to charge a premium to those areas. In the case of the iPod, interesingly enough, the market seems more tolerant of a high cost to brand ratio. So long as we can use it to advertise our inner hipster to the world, it's easier to sell a $200-400 music player than a $1000 computer.
Ever wonder why the mac holds 98% of the sit-com market, and 2% of the real world market?
Originally posted by Amorph
Early examinations of the first iPod remarked on how it was almost entirely made of off-the-shelf parts, including the OS.
Exactly, the iPod is great because of the operating system and the integration with the computer. It's not a revolutionary product it's a revolutionary solution. That's why people choose the iPod, making iTunes free for windows was the best thing Apple did with the iPod. At my girlfriends uni everyone uses iTunes and they all listen to each other's music over the network, no-one wants to buy an MP3 player that doesn't work with iTunes. I used WMP the other day for the first time, songs are cheaper but the interface is poor and anti-intuitive, they've copied some of the features of itunes but left out the cool one's. One-click burning, sharing music, easy purchasing and the great compatibility with an MP3 player.
Originally posted by Matsu
Ever wonder why the mac holds 98% of the sit-com market, and 2% of the real world market?
'cause they're pretty and appeal to women?
Originally posted by trumptman
The initial post stands. No matter how great we think the iPod, people are already matching and surpassing it with regard to specs.
I would dispute you that it is just a matter of specs. It is a combination of the design, ancillary services (iTunes, iTMS,...) and the specs. This is why the analysts were so wrong about the iPod Mini. They just looked at the number of megabytes and such and decided that it was overpriced and wouldn't sell.
Apple and Jobs specifically have NEVER realized this. They simply believe that their art, which is subjective anyway, will always demand a premium.
The iPod is not that much higher priced than other disk based players. Actually, it is cheaper than Sony's. As Apple has not yet released a Flash based player we don't know what they will charge for that.
There is a problem with thinking of the iPod as a commodity. It is a new kind of product. We'll have to wait till everyone has one (maybe a billion sold) and it becomes just a replacement market to see it become a commodity.
Apple is in the cat-bird seat now and it is their market to lose. They are getting the lion's share of the revenue. They are getting major media attention. Third party companies are focusing on making accessories for iPods. Everyone else has to eat their dust. If it seems that they are starting to lose market share Apple could easily drop prices having already paid off their costs and having already gained a huge amount of profit.
PC Magazine gave the iMac a 5-star rating but panned the eMac. Hopefully that will be fixed in January but my point is that Apple has not had the processor horsepower/cost ratio to compete in that market for several years now. Hopefully as IBM improves the G5 (970GX, 970MP) they will be able to crank out low-end, low-cost G5s in mass quantities so Apple can play in that market.
Then maybe we'll see things like the headless $600 G5 that many of us would like. And their market share will go up so buy AAPL now!
Originally posted by jaslu81
Regarding Apple's computer market share, the Powermac, Powerbook and (finally) iMac lines are very compelling in their price range but Michael Dell was correct when he said that Apple's prices are too high for the mainstream market.
PC Magazine gave the iMac a 5-star rating but panned the eMac. Hopefully that will be fixed in January but my point is that Apple has not had the processor horsepower/cost ratio to compete in that market for several years now. Hopefully as IBM improves the G5 (970GX, 970MP) they will be able to crank out low-end, low-cost G5s in mass quantities so Apple can play in that market.
Then maybe we'll see things like the headless $600 G5 that many of us would like. And their market share will go up so buy AAPL now!
The top of the range Dell compared to the top of the range PowerBook aren't too dissimilar in price. There's about £500 in it, but if you're spending 2500, the extra 500 isn't that noticeable. The problem, i agree though, is that Apple don;t ship a low-end unit, but Apple is about quality products so it is difficult to do that. Do Sony have low-end products?
Originally posted by Matsu
. . . We buy music 'cause it's cool. We buy computers because we need them, or think we do. . .
I think you have some insight on this issue, but you cannot categorize markets as either a necessity or something cool. Most useful things are purchased, to some degree, based on cool looks or prestigious brand name. Clothing and cars are two obvious examples. Computers are no exception, but a higher percentage of folks might be influenced by low price here. The ratio varies by market.
Yet, the biggest hurdle for Apple is the dominance of Windows. If the iMac G5 looks cool to PC users, they will typically just wait for Windows hardware to catch up, Did you ever consider that Windows OS might be the cool factor for many computer users? I know that sounds like heresy here, but there could be some truth to it. How many teenagers want to be independent and do their own thing, but end up trying to be just like everybody else? My apologies to any thoughtful, self-directed teenagers reading this post.
I also believe Apple needs a model for the real price sensitive crowd too, but that is for another thread.
Apple is much better with a smaller market share, compared to Windows, that has the lions share of the market, but also the lions share of the problems.
If Apple can make a decent profit of their computers (which they are), and capitalize on the iPod+iTunes momentum they're in right now, we could see an Apple that is a leader in one market, and just a small part of another. As iPods are simple products that create small problems, it is much cheaper for Apple to maintain them, then, say, Mac. Therefore more time for Apple to advance their OS and their hardware and make even more profit as undoubtfully, a lot of iPod users that are on the Windows side now will switch at some point.
Buy a few Mac game developers, and a semi-seasoned game company like M$ did with bungie that has some great original titles, and start a game company (software only) that makes XBOX2, and PS3 games.
In console gaming money is lost in hardware, for the most part. and re-cuped in selling game titles at $50.00 a pop.
Gaming has become a multi billion dollar industry that is more profitable than the movie industry. If Apple were to do this they would have a second big money maker in their belt, and they would also be able to make, and launch titles that were available for the XBOX2, PS3, and the Mac at the same time - thus removing the title that the "Macintosh is not a good gaming machine" because of the lack of titles.
If they had a good development strategy for making these games on the Mac at the same time as being compatible for XBOX2, and PS3 they could show existing console developers what it takes, and possibly influence other XBOX, and/or PS3 game developers to release their titles for the Mac simultaneously if it appears profitable to them being that G5, and G6 PowerMacs will be used for developing most of these games anyway.
Look at where Microsoft went developing software only. BIG $$$$
Apple could get in on this while there was still a chance to buy a few good development teams, and a good game company, and start a gaming division at the same time. without being tied down to manufacturing another "Pippen" that would again flop.
Like it or not this is a big money venture, and putting an Apple logo on games is a great idea IMO.
http://www.phaseone.com/
Photoshop is one of those "don't compete against" products like Microsoft Word and Excel but digital photography is a market that needs better Mac software and core image is the foundation to build it on.
Originally posted by jaslu81
Games would be a new market for Apple but I'd rather see them fill in some holes in their lineup. They do not have intermediate and pro-level photography software and that's something that is really needed. With core image, maybe they would rather build something from the ground up. Otherwise, they would gain instant credibility if they bought someone like PhaseOne that would be quite similar to their purchase of Emagic (Logic).
http://www.phaseone.com/
Photoshop is one of those "don't compete against" products like Microsoft Word and Excel but digital photography is a market that needs better Mac software and core image is the foundation to build it on.
Jobs is hoping Adobe will make Photoshop's new version around core image
Originally posted by jaslu81
Games would be a new market for Apple but I'd rather see them fill in some holes in their lineup. They do not have intermediate and pro-level photography software and that's something that is really needed. With core image, maybe they would rather build something from the ground up. Otherwise, they would gain instant credibility if they bought someone like PhaseOne that would be quite similar to their purchase of Emagic (Logic).
http://www.phaseone.com/
Photoshop is one of those "don't compete against" products like Microsoft Word and Excel but digital photography is a market that needs better Mac software and core image is the foundation to build it on.
But there really is no hole. Photoshop has no competitors even though imaging software is in abundance. Apple has iPhoto for the casual user, and for use in cataloging, but photoshop will always be industry standard, and Apple has a good relationship with Adobe. This market is already filled, and it is in no way the type of product that Apple could sell to more than just the Mac audience, and those who already use photoshop probably wouldn't even bother with it.
I think Adobe has this covered. I'm sure Apple already looked into this when Painter could have been bought for cheap, and chose not to because they new adobe would always rule digital imaging software. Thus they chose to Make iPhoto for the casual photographer, and the "user with a camera" to fill one hole that actually did exist.
Apple does not need to make every Application that is used on the Mac when there are already great companies, and developers making the best applications in some fields already that are made for the Mac.
Plus there is not the kind of money in it that can be made by developing a console gaming software division.
First, Steve Jobs is not the only person at Apple making their products great - there are a lot of very talented people who are all working together - from hardware, design, software & OS. Most unique in the industry and Steve J is the one driving them to always make it better.
Apple is spending a huge amount on R&D on a continuous basis - around half a billion dollars. This isn't just for making the G4 iPod neat - it's for development in all areas. Remember that Apple worked on the G5 with IBM for over two years before releasing the original G5 PM. While we tend to think that Apple is just what they are selling today (plus the G5 PB) the reality is that what they are selling today is what they spent R&D money on 2 or 3 years ago.
Commodities are just that - like a truck load of corn. Nothing special and highly risky. Noticed that IBM sold their commodity PC business? Check out how well Gateway has done in this commodity business, or Compaq - ooops, HP. Even Dell is at risk of a flood of PCs from China that are $100 less than Dell can make them. Check back on that in 18 to 24 months to see how healthy the Win based PC business is.
Apple does have a strong position with the iPod and a lot of companies are going after part of that market. For quite a while it is going to be a them and us situation, but "them" are going to be competing with each other - not with Apple.
To really take on the iPod a company is going to have to develop a total environment - just like Apple did. Most will probably depend on MS and MS ain't gong to deliver anything better than Apple has today - much less what Apple has in the future.
If you're really looking for cheap computers from Apple - or a PC maker selling boxes with OS X included - I think you'll be disappointed. There is an "Apple Tax" applied to each Mac. That money goes to the development of OS X (and OS 11 when it's time), to a lot of very high level engineering efforts with IBM and some money spent on basic apps that we can enjoy - like iLife. When that "tax" disappears grab your last Mac fast as the future will be rather bleak.
Video: iMovie - FCP Express - FCP
Music: Garageband - Logic Express - Logic
Photography: iPhoto - Nothing - Nothing
I'm not sure how many of you use digital SLRs and understand workflow using RAW format but most pro photographers use software like PhaseOne's or several compeditors that are available on Windows. I use Photoshop for a number of reasons (#1 = $$$) but the workflow sucks. There's absolutely no chance that Adobe will develop a special version of Photoshop for Mac since Windows is a huge part of their business and they remember what FCP did to Premere. Adobe dumping the Mac would be the biggest concern that Apple would have in bringing their own product to market. It's a shame because the "industry standard" really sucks whether you realize it or not.
Even without pro features, there's certainly room for a mid-range photo management product. iPhoto is nice for casual users but there are many people who are serious about photography and would pay for better software.
Originally posted by jaslu81
The hole I am referring to is in the Apple software lineup:
Video: iMovie - FCP Express - FCP
Music: Garageband - Logic Express - Logic
Photography: iPhoto - Nothing - Nothing
This is how I see it.
Video: iMovie - FCP Express - FCP
Music: Garageband - Logic Express - Logic
Photography: iPhoto - Adobe Photoshop Elements 3.0 - Adobe Photoshop CS.
I don't think Apple will venture far past enhancing iPhoto. But it will probably never reach the level of PS LE 3.0
Originally posted by kenaustus
I think that a few factors have been overlooked.
First, Steve Jobs is not the only person at Apple making their products great - there are a lot of very talented people who are all working together - from hardware, design, software & OS. Most unique in the industry and Steve J is the one driving them to always make it better.
Very good points kenaustus. Not much to add, you've pretty much summed up the point.
Photoshop is a good app, although sluggish, many times. I think the preview of liquifying in Core Video at the WWDC last year was a sign of things to come. Any app, even an Apple-made one, can use it. It was pretty cool and things on that end are sure to be enhanced. Wake up Adobe, Apple is including some of your affects in the OS now. Develop on!