Slashdot Mirror
Dismal Apple Forecasts Are Wrong
Nutrimentia writes "Tom Yager has a new column at Infoworld disputing poor analytic forecasts of Apple's future, especially based on criticism of Apple's lack of innovation (which seems to me to be pretty easy to refute, but whatever). It's a balanced article that looks at what Apple is doing right and wrong, and he offers some good reasons to pay attention to Apple even if you aren't a Mac fan, namely that the company's approaches to the market help understand many broader trends in effect."
He's right on target about developer training & documentation. It sucks big-time: poorly categorized and there is lots of missing information.
When I'm looking for an answer to a technical problem, I typically find answers at sites like Mamasam or CocoaDev. The Cocoa Dev Central site is a good source of sample code, too. Many more resources are listed here
Historically, Mac developer's have been very picky about this: Inside Macintosh is wonderful. It's an excellent technical reference presented in a consistent and easily readible format.
As an admitted Apple zealot, I used to get so pissed off about finacial analysts getting thier collective panties in a bunch about Apple going out of business within a year or so... Now I just don't care what they say. Apple is a good company, they respond quickly to market trends, and often are the ones setting trends, but they are not too quick to create a stupid PDA that nobody wants (anymore). They have about $4 billion on paper, the good kind of paper, CASH. For a company as relatively small as Apple is, they innovate and create or help to create more standards they just about anyone out there.
One last thought, just to show I'm not a completely blind follower of Lord Jobs. Had Apple not gotten OSX so gosh darn right, I would have bailed, OS9 was showing it's age and starting to get real flakey under stress. I'd either be running a user-friendly (although OSX has taught me a good deal of under the hood UNIX stuff) or, shudder to think, Win2K. However, I believe they did get OSX right, in my opinion, besides the first Macintosh, it's the greatest thing Apple has ever done.
Apple needs some fast processors from IBM and the education market back.
They will be fine.
Cloud City Digital: DVD Production at its cheapest/finest
Apple is still a computer company to watch, although it may be of lesser interest to stockholders today. Still, if you were to bet on any one personal computer company to make something that would transform a process, Apple is a safe bet.
Apple is where it is now for several great ideas and collossal screw-ups, many of which determined the company's present destiny.
(My history highlights come from Apple History to make my point easier, and for your reference.)
1977: The Apple II is born, beginning the personal computer boom in earnest. Apple develops, by some estimates, a 75% market share.
1984: Apple develops a successor to the Apple II line, the Macintosh. It used a graphical interface and mouse and was the first computer with a GUI to become commercially successful. Apple boneheads the initial fate of the Mac's success by: (1) failing to make Apple II apps work with the computer, (2) making the system underpowered until 1986, (3) making the computer with a 9-inch screen that was hard on the eyes, and (4) making the Mac very expensive ($2495).
1986: Apple updates the Macintosh with the Mac Plus, with more RAM, external SCSI support, and a true hierarchial file system update for the OS. A software company, Aldus, creates PageMaker, which takes steam as the first desktop publishing program. Apple soon offers the LaserWriter, one of the first laser printers. A good move by Apple that still gives them the lead in DTP and prepress work today.
1985: Bill Gates sends a memo to then-Apple CEO John Sculley (having been hired by Steve Jobs and then, shortly, has Jobs ousted from Apple). Gates recommends that Apple license the Macintosh (warning: PDF) to make it a standard computer operating system. Gates recognized that Macs were great but weren't reaching critical mass. When Apple refused, Gates requested a license to duplicate the look and feel of some of the Mac OS in a product he was considering with IBM. Biggest bonehead move of all for Apple as this would've made the landscape completely different from the OS world we know today.
1988: Apple finally offers a Mac with internal hardware expandability, including a larger screen: the Macintosh II. It was too late for those who chose a more expandable IBM PC. This moves breathes life into its products, and vendor support improves.
1990-1998: Apple creates more good, innovative ideas, such as the PowerBook laptop (whose design elements are commonplace on PC laptops today) and the Newton (the first PDA), but never capitalizes on them as they want to hold on to all rights. This"not-invented-here" policy nearly kills the company as expensive, confusing models aren't clear, and developers find Windows apps more lucrative. Apple's overall market share plummets. Windows 95's debut makes this worse. Apple considers and offers Mac OS licensing, but this only makes Apple's problems worse as 3rd party clones are better products than Apple's.
Apple completely loses its marketing model. Steve Jobs ousts CEO Gil Amelio to return to as company CEO and begins to repair Apple's products and credibility.
In my opinion, Apple's best move would've been in licensing themselves. It may have killed Apple ultimately, but the Macintosh technologies would have survived and improved dramatically as the PC clones have proved out over time.
Is Apple still a force to be reckoned with? Even if you don't know an Apple from a PC, the company history suggests that, if there is a new spin on a computer program or hardware product, Apple usually thinks of it first. Unlike the Apple of the past, however, don't expect Apple to abandon its creations at the first sign of trouble.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
If you'd said "don't blame the OS for crappy apps," or "don't blame the hardware for crappy apps," I might agree with you. But you specifically brought up the term "platform," which implies that we're talking about the whole package that's actually available to the user. Application quality is extremely relevant to that discussion.
The software you recommend appears to have a list price of $999.99. Compared to iDVD's price of free, that's a substantial downside. For that additional thousand bucks, you could buy a copy of Final Cut Pro, and once again leapfrog the functionality of the Windows software.