Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Stop the Slashdot Effect! Don't read the articles!
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?
GPL Deconstructed
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.
GPL Deconstructed
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.
Looks like it's once again time to dust off my "why OS X on x86 won't ever happen" post:
/., or you'd pirate it-- either way, Apple would lose money on it.
----------
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
~Philly
running OS X on a piece of shit Fry's discount x86 box doth not a Mac make.
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.
The coolest voice ever.
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.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
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.
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
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...
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!
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
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.
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.
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.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
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.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.