Tokyo Macworld Canceled

jlechem writes "Wired is running a story about Apple pulling out of Macworld Tokyo. It seems they decided to pull out quietly several months ago. And once they left all the major Apple Developers followed, and IDG canceled the show due to 'lack of exhibitor interest.' Macworld Tokyo is the biggest gathering of Mac fans in the world. Although the three-day show draws about half the exhibitors of U.S. shows, it attracts double the number of visitors, about 190,000. Traditionally held in March, the Tokyo show has run for the last 12 years. After their threat to ditch Macworld Boston, you have to wonder why Apple is pulling out of these expos?"

Comments

we call it predictability

[kraksmoka]

every mac user knows that a macworld means new hardware. each macworld makes it more difficult for Apple to sell existing supply of their machines. add that to the convention company woes, and it makes sense.

we'll miss em if they go. maybe now they can finish that port of OS X for the Hammer

Re:we call it predictability

[derch]

propriate to say that every mac user *expects* great new hardware from a MacWorld. When the "next great thing" isn't delivered, everyone grumbles. Just look at posts to Macslash, Slashdot, and other Mac sites when we find out the only really new hardware is upgrading the Powermac line to dual processors or the new iMac *only* features a G4 w/ LCD across the board.

People have come to expect something amazing every time when in fact no company can produce that many truly innovative gee-whiz-bang new products several times a year, every year, for years on end while meeting development deadlines and maintaining the secrecy needed to keep expectations going till the moment of revelation. People have been expecting too much - a revamped Newton, a move to AMD procs, an iPhone, an iMac 2 that will clean the house, give you mind blowing sex, cure cancer, teach the kids, and fit you into a size 3.

And please tell me the OS X on Hammer line was a joke. That rumor has been completely discredited 20 times over. The most likely processor move is to the IBM proc because it offers much easier compatibility with existing software.

killing hardware sales

[Hadlock]

i think it's pretty obvious why apple has decided to nix it's mac worlds, now that apple has OS X out the door, it doesn't need mac worlds to sell it, planned obselecence should do that nicely. starting around 2000, people started catching on and letting other people in on the big secret: don't buy hardware in the month(s) before macworld, you're gonna get screwed. mucho true. apple's hardware sales slow to a trickle, and then gush once new hardware is released, making it so that there's a ton of spare inventory laying around they have to sell almost at used prices. this is bad buisness. so they're getting rid of announcing new hardware at mac worlds, and more or less randomly announcing things as they come to frutition. i suspsect this makes hardware design deadlines more flexible, allowing for smarter and better designs also. the new iMac was the last big macworld announcment, the eMac was the first big non Macworld announcment.

Re:It takes ignorance to run a mac

[Hadlock]

this sounds like the same (very true) argument of someone who can't afford a jaguar and instead opts for a toyota camry. nice troll.

The Problem with Apple

[agentkhaki]

Apple's biggest problem, and what I believe is the reason for them pulling out of these trade shows, is simply that they can't keep up - ie produce new stuff worthy of the expense of attending the show, putting on a presentation, meeting strick show-time deadlines, etc.

Here's why in one word: Motorola

What Apple should have done is made one big fancy switch all at once. In other words, they should have gone with a new processor producer *before* they started coding OS X. That way, software producers who would have had to re-write the code for the new OS anyway could also take into account the new processor architecture.

Right now, unless someone else (likely IBM, but when?) can produce the PPC chips, Apple is stuck with Motorla and their craptastic ability to produce new, faster processors. Sure, OS X screams on a dual 1.25 GHz system compared to the 450 MHz I'm running right now, but Windows 2000 also screams on a 3.0 GHz system when compared to a 1 GHz system.

The point is, Apple can't switch to a new architecture now as it would mean software producers would have to once more re-write software they just re-wrote for OS X, and those who haven't gotten that far yet would be back to square one. This is, in short, a problem.

Furthermore, Apple's own 'Think Different' ideaology might be turning around to bite them in the ass. Here they are, presenting this new OS to Windows users and saying "Switch. We're different. And better. And we'll give you cool stuff." But people have short attention spans. If Apple doesn't put out new/cool stuff on a really regular basis, people wonder if Apple is still inovating.

I don't think any what I just wrote is clear. Sigh...

Trade shows ending?

[bay43270]

There was a lot of talk after the last Comdex that trade shows may be dying all together. Since the main purposes of the trade show have always been announcements and demonstrations, the internet has made a major dent in their usefulness. Tech companies used to use the shows to band together their announcements. The release of several products at the same time increased the odds of tv airtime. Now, with specialized media and a 24 hour news cycle, there isn't as much a need for it. In fact, its now better to announce a product during a dry spell in the news week.

Re:It takes ignorance to run a mac

[schnell]

It takes ignorance to run a mac, it really does... they are (as compared to a PC): 1.) Expensive 2.) Perform poorer @ most things 3.) Not upgradable 4.) Software is becoming more and more limited ..

I can't believe I'm responding to such an incredibly blatant troll. Oh, well, here's the answers to your questions anyway: 1.) Yes, Macs are more expensive. If you buy your computers based on price alone, don't get one. 2.) Their CPUs are currently slower than x86 CPUs, also. That has absolutely jack to do with being "better" at "most things" (my poor slow G4 probably burns DVDs at 1.15x the rate your PC does ... big deal). 3.) Pure crap, what is "unexpandable" about PCI and AGP slots, SDRAM, FireWire/USB/Bluetooth and CPU upgrade cards? Where are you getting your "information?" 4.) The software is actually becoming less and less limited. MacOS X runs basically everything Linux does ... plus lots of real-world apps that Linux doesn't, like Office, Photoshop, games, etc. Of course Macs have less software available than Windows ... but I seem to be doing fine without Bonzi Buddy and Deer Hunter 3, thank you.

i fail to see the reason to be running a mac? Am i alone here?

Evidently you are. Seriously, if you don't see the advantage in running a version of Unix with a REAL usable interface and major commercial application support, then don't worry about it, they're not for you. But the rest of us are doing just fine with ours.

Re:Cost!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a lot of companies are using the current 'changes' in the economy to trim a lot of the fat that has developed over the past few years, as companies grew more and more gluttanous and swallowed more and more workers, many of which became redundant. Now, with the changes that are happening in accounting practices and such, companies must cut some costs, so that way the books still look good for the stock holders. It is a vicious circle, but the things will get better in the next year.