Apple CFO Gives Info on Company Direction

osViews.com writes "Mac World is reporting a recent talk given by Apple's Chief Financial Officer (Peter Oppenheimer) at the Goldman Sachs Technology Investment Symposium. The article illustrates several things about about Apple's business plan, much of which is totally new information about the company's current and future direction. Here's the nutshell summary: iPod "Halo" effect is causing some Windows switchers, little demand for satellite radio/iPod integration, iPod shuffle margins below HD ipods, happy with rate of growth - no plans to license OS X, margins on Mac mini equal to eMac (both below corporate average), retail store to expand to 125, no plans for media center PC - prefers to stream multimedia to TV from primary computer over wireless network, no video for iPod, portable media centers a failure."

Comments

great submission!

[KingPrad]

Kudos to the submitter and the editor for posting a useful and interesting story with a useful and concise summary. I wish we had more stories done exactly like this one.

Re:great submission!

[tehshen]

I wish we had more stories done exactly like this one.

It'll be posted again within the next week or so, don't worry.

Sounds like Apple is planning Airport Express 2

[2nd Post!]

Hook up near a TV, plug in your S-Video+Optical out, and you have your 'media center pc-less', or something.

So for $189 you have a base station, streaming music, streaming video, a print server, and no need for another computer.

Any bets on whether we'll see something like this soon?

Re:Sounds like Apple is planning Airport Express 2

[TWX]

That depends on how much it costs to develop, and how many computers are already owned by the target audience. I have a video projector and a lot of other AV equipment and I've had various rackmount form factor computers hooked up to it. I like having all of it right there usable with the wireless IR keyboard. For quite some time my DVD playback was through the computer. I've since taken that computer apart and not gotten it back together, so right now I'm without a web browser in there.

If too many Apple fans already have a G3 or G4 tower laying around that has been obseleted by a more powerful Apple then they probably would hook that computer up instead of this one. Even an iMac could be integrated into an AV cabinet using a "TV View" or other VGA to NTSC device, or people could upgrade to something nicer like a TV with RGB inputs or digital. If too many people have other fairly easy options then Apple won't sell enough of these "Express 2" devices to pay off the development costs, let alone get into profit.

Re:Sounds like Apple is planning Airport Express 2

[2nd Post!]

You have to consider the population in general: How many people have computers near the TV; isn't that why the PC/Microsoft world is hyping media center PCs?

What I am describing is NOT a PC.

Take that old G3 or G4, and have it running iTunes. Equip it with a $60 wifi card.

Take the new Airport Express 2 and hook it up to the TV.

Stream from the computer to the TV; build in 20ft bluetooth into the Airport Express to enable a wireless keyboard and mouse. Play DVDs, music, and other content on the TV, sans PC.

Look up the Airport Express because I don't think you understand what I'm talking about here.

A $189 device! Not a PC at all!

Re:Sounds like Apple is planning Airport Express 2

[Leo McGarry]

First, SD video is dead. Forget it. It's history, over, gone. So there will be no S-video output. It'll be either DVI or HDMI with a pigtail-style adapter to go to component analog. (DVI has the ability to carry an analog signal alongside the digital one. I'm only assuming HDMI does too.)

Second, such a device would require a dedicated AVC decoder chip, which would push the price range up into at least the $400 range. Mark my words, when it debuts at $399, every armchair CEO in the world is going to bitch about the price.

Finally, what's the point of building a print server into a device that's meant to plug into your television? Anybody who wants to plug a printer into a wireless network can already buy either an AirPort Extreme base station or an AirPort Express, or any number of third-party wireless products.

Re:Sounds like Apple is planning Airport Express 2

[BasilBrush]

Because most people aren't like you. Take a look next time you visit a non-geek. You'll notice that there isn't a tatty old computer sitting by or under the TV. And if you even suggested such a thing, Mrs Non-geek will tell you your not having any such thing in her lounge thank you very much. Computers belong in the office/den.

Even for those people that are OK with the idea, most desktop computers have too much fan noise to be used for the purpose.

You go with your idea. It's just the thing that geeks do. I might consider doing it myself. But recognise that you and I are in the tiny minority.

Re:Sounds like Apple is planning Airport Express 2

[2nd Post!]

The iTunes TV Store for $1 an episode!
Or $15 a month!

That's the back end solution I'm sure Apple will find.

Re:Sounds like Apple is planning Airport Express 2

[Ohreally_factor]

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the next version of OS X will be codenamed LYGER.

That would be sweet.

Re:Sounds like Apple is planning Airport Express 2

[Admiral Llama]

HDMI is digital DVI + HDCP and digital audio. Nothing analog about it.

Proudly dying for 20 years

[2nd Post!]

Why do you think that, of all things, is going to sink Apple?

If anything I would have thought their intensely secretive nature would kill them.

Their iPod and iTunes products are exactly how they are expanding to the PC world.
Their mini is exactly how the PC world will get OS X.

If OS X is the only real desktop alternative, nothing is stopping people from buying Macs you know.

Re:Proudly dying for 20 years

[solios]

Everything Apple's ever done has, according to people who get paid to be taken seriously, been the death knell of the company.

And the only thing that's stopping some people from buying Macs isn't the price point or the applications, it's the games.

Feel free to spout off the list of everything with Mac support, and realize that Painkiller, System Shock, GTA, Half-Life, Half-Life 2 (and by extent Steam, CCS, etc) and a shitload of other games aren't available. And several Mac ports have been gutted on the way over- it's an old example, but Baldur's Gate for the Mac is missing multiplayer and any character customization capability.

There's a large chunk of the vocal PC userbase who use the thing as glorified nintendo- it's really (imo) the ONLY area where the PC has any kind of advantage over the Mac.

Re:Proudly dying for 20 years

[2nd Post!]

Since when can you build a 6"x6"x2" PC for $249?

I thought the cheapest 6"x6"x2" PC was $900? That's more like 50% more expensive than a Mac. Just the case, alone, at Cappuccino PC is $379!

Re:Proudly dying for 20 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Macs are actually less expensive than PCs.

When you equip a PC with the exact same components in hardware and software as that which come standard on a Mac... the PC always comes out to be more expensive.

people misunderstand this because... with a PC, you can buy less and spend less. That does not make the PC less expensive... though it does make it more configurable... at least at the origional buying stage.

Re:Proudly dying for 20 years

[MBCook]

Games are one of the reason I've switched to the Mac, in an odd way.

I used to play tons of PC games, but recently there have been very few that I have been interested in. I want to play Pirates!, HL2, and Doom 3. That's basically it. Pirates! will get ported (I'm guessing, but it's not that important), Doom 3 has gone gold (comes out the 15th of next month, I think), and HL2... well I'll play that on my sister's PC.

Consoles provide me with about all the gaming I want. If it's a good enough game, it will get ported (and I don't mind the extra time it will take to get to the Mac). Very few games remain PC only forever.

For most people, games are not a good reason to cling to PCs, in my expiriance. And that's not counting people like my mom, who only play web games (like PopCap's) anyway.

Re:Proudly dying for 20 years

[BasilBrush]

Reality check, most people don't know one end of a screwdriver from another, let alone what parts to buy and how to assemble a PC. Geeks who build their own PCs are a fraction of 1% of the computer market. Apple have the other 99%+ as their potential market.

Re:Proudly dying for 20 years

[justin12345]

Adding to what you said:

At this point, every geek I know (hardly a scientific sample, I know) who used to build their own unix/ linux boxes has now bought a powerbook. Eventually they just got tired of fooling with something that was going to be their primary machine (plus BSD tends to be a pain on laptops).

I know... I'm getting flamed for this one.

Re:Proudly dying for 20 years

[2nd Post!]

Okay, forget size for a moment.

Where can you get a $499 PC with:

CD-RW
DVD-ROM
Firewire
non integrated, non shared 32mb video (ATI or NVIDIA)

And with software, to boot:
Movie making
DVD making
Music making
Photo album

Yes, all that software exists. Yes all that hardware exists. None, to my knowledge, come in kit that's $499. For $349 you can get a PC without CD-RW and with shared video ram and integrated video. For $649 you can get the video+CD-RW and DVD.

Likewise software; for $699 or more, you get the movie making software, but for bundles of $499? You get Quicken or Windows XP Home and Norton Antivirus.

Re:Proudly dying for 20 years

[2nd Post!]

Why do you proclaim it to be obsolete?

Anyway, even without taking software into account (By Apple's account, it's at least $80 worth), the Compaq is still $509.99 after the mail in rebate. This is with 40gb, 256mb, Windows XP Home, 1.8GHz CPU, CD-RW/DVD, and the NVIDIA 5200XT.

The only 'benefit' is that, out of the box, the PC may be faster, while out of the box the Mac will do more:
Edit videos
Make music
Make DVDs
Organize photos

If you don't apply the rebate, the PC costs $559.99. What kind of math were you taught where $559.99 $499?

Even worse, if you do want firewire, it seems the only way to get it is with the Creative soundcard, which bumps the price up to $609.99!

Re:Proudly dying for 20 years

[danila]

Check out Apple Games. I guarantee that you will be surprised.

My younger sister wants to buy a laptop and is seriously considering an Apple (no "halo effect", just word of mouth). She asked me about games and initially I responded with a comment similar to yours - there aren't many games available for Mac.

However, I actually bothered to check whether I was correct and went to apple.com. As you can see for yourself, the quantity and quality of available games is more than satisfactory. Many bestselling games are available in all possible genres. While this may not be enough for me (I'd like to play all good FPS games on top graphics settings with a relatively new graphics card from ATi/nVidia), there are definitely enough games on Apple for a casual gamer.

My sister doesn't need to play all PC games and she doesn't care for particular titles/franchises. If she can get 5-10 titles per year, that would probably be enough.

Re:Proudly dying for 20 years

[Phillup]

Here is a bit of perspective:

Today, more than 130 million personal computers are sold each year!

link

Let's be conservative and call it a 100 Million.

That means 92 percent DO NOT play one of the most populare games out today.

A clear majority, even if you let the "other party" count the votes.

I just don't get this

[Anonymous Coward]

Halo wasn't even that good, but it's being given now not only credit for the success of the XBox but the success of the iPod??

Something is seriously wrong with us as consumers if we are so reordering our world for such a mediocre FPS.

Re:So, Mac's dying?

[phillymjs]

Looks like it's once again time to dust off my "why OS X on x86 won't ever happen" post:

----------
Look, you guys just can't get it through your heads that the reason why OS X works so well is because it runs on such a limited pool of hardware-- this allows the engineers coding OS X to make assumptions THAT CANNOT BE MADE in the x86 world, where a machine could be using one of thousands of motherboards, network cards, graphics cards, sound cards, etc. Windows developers have to code for the lowest common denominator. OS X developers code for specific hardware. Even the version of NeXTStep that ran on Intel hardware ran on a tiny subset of the then-available PC hardware. If your CD-ROM drive and motherboard weren't on the "supported hardware" list that came with NeXTStep, you were SOL.

That little fantasy you all have of buying "Mac OS X for x86", running it on some homebuilt shitbox you cobbled together from spare parts, and having it work as well as a G5 runs Panther today will NEVER come to pass. Microsoft has spent twenty years and untold millions trying to achieve that goal, and they still have quite a way to go.

Do you think Jobs could just snap his fingers one day and a few months later have a product on the shelves that would run perfectly on every PC capable of running XP today? It's impossible. And even if it were possible, you wouldn't buy it. Why? Because Apple uses their software to sell their hardware, so a copy of OS X for x86 would have to be priced to ease the pain of a lost hardware sale-- you'd either do without it and bitterly bitch about the price here on /., or you'd pirate it-- either way, Apple would lose money on it.

~Philly

and one for you

[Anonymous Coward]

running OS X on a piece of shit Fry's discount x86 box doth not a Mac make.

Mac Mini good for college kids?

[Faust7]

This is somewhat believable. I'd wager that average college students would be a prime target for the Mac Mini, as well - unlike Apple's laptops, it doesn't cost a mint, and its size would be a great advantage for students living in space-challenged dorm rooms. Most of the software they'd need would be on it, too. Your usual non-computer-geeky college kid would play games on their console, not their computer, and the Mac has Microsoft Office and fine Internet capabilities. Colleges use plenty of specialized software (e.g. statistics packages) but most kids go to the labs to use that stuff rather than bothering to acquire their own copies. If the Mini can make a successful tie-in with the iPod in the minds of this particular target audience, then Apple stands a fighting chance of boosting its market share at least with that segment.

Apple is very good at marketing perceived value (iMac, iPod, etc.) as opposed to embedded value (the way Microsoft pushes most of their products). I'd say that perceived value is what matters a lot in the impressionable minds of young students.

Re:Mac Mini good for college kids?

[mrchaotica]

unlike Apple's laptops, it doesn't cost a mint

Bullshit. An iBook only costs ~$400 more than the Mini, and that's including a keyboard, mouse, LCD screen, battery, and portablility. At least an equally good value, I'd say.

I am a college student, and I bought my "good for college students" Mac more than a year before anyone had even heard of the Mini! Saying "the Mini is a good value" is good, but saying it's the only Apple with good value is just FUD.

Re:Mac Mini good for college kids?

[Leo McGarry]

You seem sure that the emac is what EDU wants.

When the original Bondi Blue iMac was first shipping, Apple sat down with their education customers and asked, "What can we do to this computer to make it more suitable for your needs?" They were given some very specific answers. The result was the eMac. In fact, when the eMac was first released, it wasn't even available to the general public. Only schools could buy it.

Now any EDU customer with their brain screwed on is going to figure out they can save ~$200 (25%!) per machine by going with 3rd Party monitors and keyboards.

The added cost would far outweigh. Just look at the simplest possible side-effect: You'd be doubling the number of electrical outlets you need. Doubling it. That's huge. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Procurement costs alone would be gigantic.

Not to mention the security problems. The customers would have to spend a fortune purchasing and installing security equipment to tie down each and every one of those little computers. Practically speaking, nobody can steal an eMac. It's big and bulky and impossible to conceal. Stealing a mini would be child's play ... literally! The cost of labor required to lock each mini to a desk would be enormous.

Very few Mac users want more Macs???

Yes. There are about 40 million individual, non-business Mac owners out there. Of that number, fewer than one percent respond that they own more than one Mac. Of those, nine out of ten own one Mac desktop and one Mac laptop. When asked, Apple customers consistently respond that they are not interested in purchasing additional computers. Market research trumps anecdotal evidence every time.

As for "switchers", my guess is 20% of sales tops.

Fully one out of every two Mac sales during Q42004 was made to a customer who self-identified as a Windows user.

We don't have to guess at this stuff. We have actual data.

This is where the Tivo rumors could come in

[Dark Paladin]

no plans for media center PC - prefers to stream multimedia to TV from primary computer over wireless network

I don't buy that Apple will buy Tivo, but I can see them creating a Tivo-like device with these abilities:

DVR with free remote control service (why free? wait a second)
Ties right into the iTunes Movie store.

Right, Movie store. Imagine Jobs going to the MPAA and saying "Hey, remember all the problems the RIAA had with downloading? Lawsuits didn't help enough - but now we have legal music, and people are buying music online, and look how many songs I've sold.

"Join with me, and we can end this pointless conflict, and bring order to - *cough*, I mean, we can sell movies."

The PC/Mac will still be the hub - use iTunes to buy music, or buy a movie. You can put either on a new iPod, but for the movies, the iView (just a name I threw in) will be the best way.

Want to watch a movie? Forget Netflix - just use the iTunes store. How about a documentary (independent movie makers who have limited releases would love this - what if you could pick up a documentary for $10, and around 50,000 people all wanted to - now that little indie project just broke even).

Miss a TV show? Why DVR it (though you have that power) when you can go to your computer, type "Battlestar" or "Babylon" to get the entire current archives (including commercial), and for $3 (or $20 for the entire season), you can watch your movies *now* (or, with broadband and figuring about 300 MB per 30 minutes, about 30 minutes or so).

The biggest thing of this is what it turns Apple into. With the iPod and the iTunes Music store, apple is moving away from hardware systems, and going towards hardware accessories and services. Eventually, I can see a Linux client - but in the end, Apple won't care what you run as long as you buy an iPod and use their iTunes store for movies and music - they still make money (though they'll still tell you a Mac will work better, and as the services do well they'll sell more Macs along the way).

Anyway, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

No, Apple will not die, here is why...

[Wonderkid]

OSX is in fact irrelevant to Apple's future, as are most other major operating systems to their creators. What is the future, and the iPod and Nokia's 200million per year mobile phone sales prove, is that various interconnected devices that confirm to industry standard protocols are the way forward. The electronic musical instrument industry has proven this thanks to the amazing success of MIDI which binds most instruments, yet each instrument is based on it's own unique software/hardware. OSX will become a server OS and Apple will eventually tailor software to suite the client device - as per the iPod which communicates with it's host using standard protocols (USB, MP3, Firewire etc). And if Apple don't (continue) to do this, an as yet unheard of (unformed?) company will, and they will sell products in the sort of quantities Nokia do, which dwarf even sales of the iPod and Mac. Ironically, Nokia could become the all powerful mega entity that networks our world. After all, the future is all based on communication and sharing.

Re:So, Mac's dying?

[Elranzer]

True. Not to mention the binaries for OS X software is built for PowerPC, not x86. Let's take Photoshop for example...

Say, for argument's sake, that Mac OS X 10.5 came out for Pentium/Athlon PC. You buy it, install it, presto. Now, you want to run Photoshop. OOH, which do you install? Photoshop for Mac OS X? No, it's compiled for PowerPC. Photoshop for Windows? No, it's compiled for Windows. You would need to buy a special Photoshop for OSX/x86, a third option.

Basically, when you put aside the software pirates (99% of Slashdot users who use Photoshop) and the rich artist/musician types (who would buy the Mac hardware anyway), OS X for x86 would be a software nightmare. For corporations, it would be a software investment crash. You can't use your legally owned Windows software on it. You also can't use your legally owned OSX PowerPC software. It just would be a failure.

The only reason Linux works on multiple platforms is because 99% of its software is open-source and can therefor be compiled for the installed architecture when needed. When you get to the prorpietary stuff, like Photoshop, it becomes a nightmare.

If you need a Linux example, look at Macromedia Flash (player) and VMware Workstatioin. Heck, even look at official NVidia drivers. Try and get those for SPARC or PowerPC Linux (or any non-x86 Linux). You can't. Now, imagine all the software for your operating system in the Flash/VMware situation. You go to buy Photoshop for OSX only to realize it's coimpiled only for PowerPC.

The only way it could work is if Adobe, Macromedia, Apple, even Microsoft (Office 2004 for Mac) needs to compile an x86 version of all its Mac OS X software and then recall all discs that only contain the PowerPC software. It would be a financial nightmare, for the consumer and the manufacturer. If you want a living example of the whole situation, look at the "64-bit" Windows XP for Itanium, or hell even Solaris.

Of course, 99% of Slashdotters who use Windows XP run a pirated copy, with a pirated version of Photoshop or whatever, so I'm sure this has all gone through one ear and out the other...

I Switched

[MBCook]

I switched. There are about 10-15 blog style entries on the page mentioned in my sig about it. Here is a short version of why:

Used to like Apple, moved to PC for customizability/etc (in mid 90s). Never considered moving back because the more I learned, the more obviously out of date the Mac OS was. Then I learned Linux and fell in love with Unix. Add to that the hate and distrust I've gained in MS and I was ready to jump ship (and I knew it wouldn't be too hard for me, unlike some people). Linux didn't seem "there", I wanted something more mainstream. When OS X came around (and I got to try it on my brother's PB) I really liked it, and started following it. I got an iPod, which did serve to remind me of Apple's quality. Then when my current computer (a Dell laptop that served me well for 4+ years) became too slow for my needs I waited until new PowerBooks were announced and I bought one. The whole (longer) story is in the site linked to in my sig.

So as for "the halo effect", I'm not so sure. It might happen for some people. I used to love Apple so I was really just finding them again. And even without the iPod I would have switched because of OS X. I have three observations on all of this. First is that iTunes really showed me how nice Apple software was these days (iTunes on Windows was the first Apple program I'd used since leaving my old LC II in about 95). Second was if OS X was available on a PC (as some want it, and as some other companies have been asking Apple) I doubt I would have switched (why switch processor architectures when you don't have to?). And third, I had been wanting a Mac to try OS X on for the last few years, but even used Macs were expensive (for what you got). Had the Mini been available 2 years go (the equivelent kind of computer, at that price point, not neccessisarily that size) I would have bought one as fast as I could and I may have switched earlier.

I'm not the "typical" switcher (someone relativly new to computers and raised on Wintel that went to Apple) since I'm a power user (used the OS 7 back in the day, Linux, most flavors of Windows, etc); but I switched and I am VERY happy with my new little Mac. Next step: evangilizing when people ask me about what to buy for their first computer!

Bingo bango bongo

[mblase]

Miss a TV show? Why DVR it when you can go to your computer, type "Battlestar" or "Babylon" to get the entire current archives, and for $3 (or $20 for the entire season), you can watch your movies *now*.

A column not too long ago (don't ask me to recall who or when or where) discussed this sort of thing in light of sites like "Homestar Runner". The case was that this is the future of video entertainment -- visit the show's web site and download and watch any episode you like, in any order, at any time, rather than wait for your favorite episode to reach syndication or buy the whole season on DVD.

The bandwidth, I think, is still the biggest problem, but that's just a matter of time and R&D. And the difference in quality from downloadable video vs. HDTV will, like the difference between MP3 and CD quality audio, keep the downloadable format from completely replacing TV broadcasts or DVD sales.

All we (and Apple) need is the device to do it, at a price point people can afford. That too is a matter of time -- iPods arrived costing, what, $400? $500? Now you can get a Mini for $200 and a Shuffle for even less.

I think Apple would like to sell just what it described in the article: a program that lets you download and view video on your computer, but supplemented by a small remote-controlled set-top device that streams it wirelessly to your television set, a la Airport Express. Video on an iPod-sized device is impractical by any measure, but video on your television set is a given -- but it has to be as easy to use as a DVD player. Fortunately, that sort of ease of use is Apple's specialty.

I perceive this as a certainty, not a possibility -- it's just a matter of when.

switchers

[tverbeek]

iPod "Halo" effect is causing some Windows switchers

I can confirm that anecdotally. Last night I got a call from my uncle and my cousin the college student. She has yet another broken Windows laptop (it'll cost several hundred bucks to fix it), and they wanted the family geek's advice on what kind of computer to get to replace it. Without me even having to suggest it, she (an iPod owner) had already been looking at Apples. So I just steered them toward the 12" iBook with AppleCare. Talking to her, I added that it'd match her iPod; to him, I explained that it was the best bang for the buck of the Apple line, and AppleCare would be cheaper than any repairs that might be needed.

Re:switchers

[michaeldot]

they wanted the family geek's advice on what kind of computer to get to replace it.

Yes, I think that's how most people decide to buy computers - word of mouth from trusted friends & family.

Lucky for her (and Apple), you're obviously a Mac enthusiast, but 97% of the market is not, and will continue to advise people to get what THEY know.

(Most of my computer using relatives know nothing about Macs, just that they can't stand them because they only have one mouse button, don't have any software, no one uses them at work, and are too expensive, blah, blah, blah. Guess what most of my extended family uses? Windows...)

I guess that's why us Apple fan(atic)s get so annoyingly evangelical: we have to get our 2% voices heard about the 97% louder voices.

Games running "on" the Mac mini

[tepples]

There's a large chunk of the vocal PC userbase who use the thing as glorified nintendo- it's really (imo) the ONLY area where the PC has any kind of advantage over the Mac.

The Mac mini is just the right size to fit a GameCube on top of it. The only thing keeping Macs from having a lot of games running "on" it :) is that very few consumer 17" monitors can display both Mac mini's 768p DVI/VGA output and the GameCube's 480i S-video output (the component cable is nearly unavailable, and newer Cubes don't even have the jack for it).

I'm niche...I admit it.....

[The Mutant]

I've got not only a one hour train commute, but also an Archos AV400.

I'm an American finance geek living in London, so every morning my handheld PVR records the overnite BBC Business News at 3:45AM. I watch the 45 news broadcast while I'm headed to work at 5:51AM damn early in the morning!

I get a lot of utility out of time shifting the BBC, and would dump my iPod(s) (3G 20GB, 1GB Shuffle) in a heartbeat if my Archos (it also plays MP3's with cover art) matched half my iPods battery life. At present I get three hours tops.

I own ten Mac's (two G3 iMacs, a ClamShell iBook, two SEs, a MacTV, a PowerMac 5500/275, a G4 TiBook, a 15" G4 PowerBook, a G4 Cube) and still use the OS X capable machines daily. Even though I grok Apple deeply, they'd better put together a PVR solution ASAP.

It's their market to lose. I only own two iPaqs because my Newtons were getting long in the tooth.

Re:So, Mac's dying?

[jcr]

Not to mention the binaries for OS X software is built for PowerPC, not x86.

NeXT solved the multi-architecture binary problem many years ago. If Apple ever offered the OS on x86 again, you can bet that every software vendor would recompile their apps and have them available within a month. Most of them could do it in a week.

The only way it could work is if Adobe, Macromedia, Apple, even Microsoft (Office 2004 for Mac) needs to compile an x86 version of all its Mac OS X software and then recall all discs that only contain the PowerPC software.

No, you don't need to recall anything. Just make the x86-specific parts of the app (about 1/3 of the package) available to download.

-jcr

Re:no video for ipod ...

[BasilBrush]

The processor in an iPod can barely handle OGG remember, let alone video. So it would have to be upgraded. And then the major thing that consumes power on an iPod is the disk spinning up every 20 minutes to shunt a lot of data into the cache before powering down again. With video, that disk would be powered up most of the time, and so an 8/16 hour battery life would become something like a 30 minute battery life. When you look at the Microsoft PMC devices, they aren't that size because they thought a large size would be nice, or because they need to be that size for a decent sized screen (the device is normally much bigger than the screen). It's that size because it needs a big battery.

Putting video on an iPod would require much bigger iPods than we have now. And Apple thinks there isn't a market for it. And lack of interest in PMCs means they are probably right.

Re:I have the opposite problem

[orange7]

Go to System Preferences, Accounts, add a new account, click on the limitations panel, choose simple finder, and check the smallest subset of applications you need to get by. (Say Safari, iTunes, maybe that's it.)

Log into the account. You'll notice there is just the dock at the bottom with an applications folder, and a documents folder. Single clicking opens apps or documents. Now, for maximum simplicity, open up each app, choose Open, and drag over the middle bar in the open dialog so the disks and default folders are covered up. That leaves no distraction from the documents folder.

That's what I do to create an account for someone who doesn't "get" all that techie computer stuff. (And fair play to them.)

Now, your point might be that there should be an option to set the machine up like this the first time you boot it up, and I'd totally agree.

A.

Re:So, Mac's dying?

[porcupine8]

That stubborn and insanely stubborn backward mentality is what's finally going to sink Apple.

Absolutely. The first 20 years of their existence, the only thing that kept them afloat was licensing their OS to other manufacturers. This new no-licensing policy is really a death knell, there's no way they can stay in business like that.

Rare insight from CFO helpful

[amichalo]

I think it was a wise decision for the regularly tight lipped CFO to give some insight from the company. Here's why:

(1) Usually it is Jobs that announces any sort of strategy or "feelings" Apple may have on a technology. This helps investors feel like someoen other than the CEO is running the ship.

(2) With iPod obviously so huge, it is important to know if Apple is seeing itself as a music playrer company or what. Also, with TIVO rumors abounding, it is important for Apple to stake out their position on the DVR battle field.

(3) Stating the intent of the Mac mini. Obviously people are seeing cool applications for the Mac mini and as the CFO said, some people will try to use it as a home media PC, but he clearly states that it isn't that which helps to determine what the thing IS - a Windows Switcher PC.

(4) A glimp into Apple's crystal ball. It is interesting how he proclaimed the death of the personal video players. Jobs has said this before but with people trying to make the iPod Photo into a video player, it is interesting to hear another cheif reiterate the position.

(5) Points 3 (Mac mini not a PVR) and 4 (iPod Video not in the future) help us to see Apple's implementation of the Digital Hub more clearly. At home, the Mac becomes a dual purposed iLife Workstation as well as a media server. Using products like AirTunes to stream audio around the house and one day perhaps AirFlicks (FireFlicks?) to deliver a 21st century family slideshow, streaming video from DVD, or even PVR style recordings.

Re:So, Mac's dying?

[TheRaven64]

I suspect that a lot of the problem with corporate acceptance of OS X is that there is no second source. The MS monopoly has conditioned buyers to ignore the fact that there is no second source for their OS, but PC users are used to being able to second source their hardware if their primary source puts prices up. Licensing the OS to someone like IBM would eliminate this, particularly since Apple have repeatedly stated that most of their market is home users. Let IBM bring to the market cheap, no frills, OS X boxes aimed at corporate users (similar price / spec to the Mini, but a more boring box), and pay Apple for every copy of OS X they ship, and they could make a significant impact on the corporate sector.