Roundtable on Apple's Future

John Murrell writes "Given the insatiable appetite for Apple rumors, analysis and speculation, SiliconValley.com has opened a week long roundtable discussion on the company's post-Intel future. Among those on the panel are Andy Hertzfeld, Tim Bray, Brent Simmons, John Gruber, Keven Krewell, Mark Gonzales and Leander Kahney."

Comments

Post-Intel?

[WillerZ]

Surely should be post-PPC, unless they've ditched Intel already.

Re:Post-Intel?

[XxtraLarGe]

I think they meant post-intel switch...

Re:Post-Intel?

[tabkey12]

And so another Apple rumour begins...

Re:Post-Intel?

[StrawberryFrog]

That may be the case, but that's not what they said. You have to wonder if the submitters of articles like this are so imprecise in their code. If they are coding geeks at all.

Re:Post-Intel?

[bhirsch]

Such corrections seem to be beyond the capabilities of most Slashdot editors. I wonder how much editing actually goes on for any story submission.

Re:Post-Intel?

['nother poster]

Well... Some of us are system geeks. And some of us are architecture geeks, and then there are the music geeks, and the medical geeks, and oh, the experimental physics and math geeks. And...

Re:Post-Intel?

[StrawberryFrog]

And some submitters seem to work in fields that don't require any exactness or rigour at all, such as marketing and PR?

Re:Post-Intel?

[tomhudson]

You have to wonder if the submitters of articles like this are so imprecise in their code. If they are coding geeks at all.

Well, given as all these things degenerate into "Apple is dying", its probably from some Microsoftie ,which would explain both the post and the code being such "works of (im)precision".

Only time will tell, of course.

Re:Post-Intel?

[FidelCatsro]

I wonder if it's the same John Murrell who Proof read Tom Clancys latest and greatest . It would explain a lot

Re:Post-Intel?

[daniil]

If one monkey on a keyboard can make so many mistakes in such a short blurb, then million monkeys on typewriters will never be able to reproduce "Hamlet" -- they'll invariably end up producing "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead" instead. Even the laws of probability will fail there.

Re:Post-Intel?

[Anonymous Coward]

n the Kingdom of Denmark an unusually long and warm summer had given way to a biting early winter. The castle of Elsinore, on the north-east corner of the island of Zealand, was cloaked in a freezing fog. It was midnight, the time to change the guard on the castle ramparts. These were tense and uneasy times when the guards on duty had to be very prudent, doubly so when the thick grey fog made it difficult for a man to see beyond his nose. The sentinel Barnardo had climbed up the stairwell onto the ramparts to take over the watch from his colleague Francisco. Barnardo heard footsteps. The brittle night air gave them an unfamiliar echo.
"Who's there?" asked Barnardo.
"No, you answer me. Stop and identify yourself!" demanded Francisco.
"Long live the King!"
"Barnardo?"
"It certainly is!"
"You're on time!" said Francisco.
"It's midnight. You can get off home now, Francisco."
"Thanks for this break. Its freezing and I'm bored."
"No problems tonight?"
"Even the mice haven't stirred!"
"Well, good night," said Barnardo. "If you see my colleagues Horatio and Marcellus, tell them to get a move on."
"I think I can hear them," Francisco said as he was walking away. He walked on a few paces more and heard some voices.
"Stop! Who's there?" Francisco bawled.
"Comrades," said Horatio.
"And loyal subjects of His Majesty, the King of the Danes," said Marcellus.
On hearing that Francisco walked on to meet his fellow guards. He pulled out his flask and finished the last of his mead to ward off the chill.
"Well, good night to you," said Francisco as he was leaving.
"Good night to you, honest soldier. Who replaced you?" asked Marcellus.
"Barnardo is on duty now. Good night."
Francisco disappeared in the freezing fog.
"Hello, Barnardo!" Marcellus called into the murk of the night to locate his colleague.
"Say, is that Horatio?" called back Barnardo, obviously nearer than Horatio had thought.
"What's left of me, shrivelled as I am by the chill!" Horatio yelled back.
Barnardo's figure appeared in the mist: "Welcome, Horatio! Welcome, Marcellus!"
"Well, has this thing appeared again tonight?" asked Horatio.
"I've seen nothing," said Barnardo.
"Horatio says it's all in our imaginations and doesn't believe we've seen it twice," said Marcellus, "so, I've brought him with me on the night watch so he can see it for himself."
"Tut, tut, tut! It won't appear!" said Horatio.
"Right then," said Barnardo, "you sit down a minute and let us once again assail yours ears with the story, which they are determined to disbelieve, of what happened on these past two nights."
Horatio laughed at them and dismissed their tale with a wave of his hand. The men sat attentive throughout the hours of the cold night, occasionally sharing their flasks of liquor and bread. In the deepest, calmest part of the night when the world was still, they huddled together and Marcellus and Barnardo began to talk again about what they had seen on two previous nights during their watch. Horatio so enjoyed ribbing about it that he relented to hear their story again.
"Well, sit then and let's hear Barnardo tells his tale first!" Horatio said.
"Last night," began Barnardo, "when yonder star that's westward of the North pole had crossed the sky to where it is now, Marcellus and myself were just sitting when the bell struck for one...."
"... Shoosh!" said Marcellus. "Don't say another word. Here it comes!"
The three men were silent with curiosity and more than a touch of fear as they saw a figure slowly walk out of the fog.
"Again it looks like the late King!" said Barnardo, his voice quivering with terror.
"You're an educated man, Horatio, speak to it!" said Marcellus.
"Doesn't it look like the King? I told you, Horatio!" exclaimed Barnardo.
"Too much so. It fills me with fear and wonder," Horatio said.
"It wants to be spoken to," said Barnardo.
"Question it, Horatio," said Marcellus.
Horatio was hesitant, although he had mocked his colleagues' account if the vision he wa

Re:Post-Intel?

[Basehart]

It certainly appears that way from time to time.

Some replies to comments seem like damage control from PR types, especially when they're posted as AC.

Re:Post-Intel?

[tomhudson]

Tom Clancy still writes?

I thought all he was doing today was "collaborations" - where he puts his name on the jacket and some other stiff does all the writing.

All his most recent stuff lacks the tightness of his early work, as well as smelling like he did an "#include std_techno_formula_plot.h"

Re:Post-Intel?

['nother poster]

Of course. "Hey, the Adsense revenues are down. Time for a good Slashdotting!"

Re:Post-Intel?

[Kwelstr]

---News flash - turns out the Bible was written by a dyslexic - you must worship DOG and believe in Santa.---

Eh, I do not mean to nitpick but... should't that read DOG and SATAN?

Re:Post-Intel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tsk! And you have such a low uid too...

dyslexia

A learning disorder marked by impairment of the ability to recognize and comprehend written words.

In dyslexic writing, letters in words are often transposed, e.g. "Satan" becomes "Santa".

The moral of the story? When you are trying to "look cool" by pointing out a mistake in someone's sig, do it anonymously. It's less embarrassing that way when it turns out to be just YOU not having a clue.

Re:Post-Intel?

[tomhudson]

Can work either way :-)

I prefer santa - makes people think a bit harder before they "get" it. Satan is still too tied into religion.

Re:Post-Intel?

[Kwelstr]

Hmmmmmmm ok I get your reasoning... it's like the Double Super-Secret Background thingy in Rovegate.

I was more on the line of, you should worship God and believe in Santa... a dyslexic should then worship Dog and believe in Satan.

But I've got you, it works both ways. :-)

Re:Post-Intel?

[tomhudson]

Here's one for you:

4 brothers who were opticians decided to retire to breed cattle. They called their ranch "Focus".

Why?

Because "focus" is where the sons raise meat/suns rays meet.

Okay, all together, ... groan!

- or this one -

You learned this in math or geometry:

An amerindian woman is sitting on a hippopotamus hide. Her sisters are sitting on cow hides. The combined weight of the male offspring of the sisters is the same as the single male offspring of the first woman.

It's a restatement of the pythagorean theorum:

The son of the squaw on the hippopotomus hide is equal to the sons of the squaws on the other two hides.

Hmm....

[Dhalphir]

Google, anyone?

My prediction for the predictions

[Deadguy2322]

Somebody willpredict great success, somebody will predict total failure, and many slashdot assholes will bitch about the iPod throughout this thread.

Re:My prediction for the predictions

[DenDave]

The iPod will lead Job's into the oval office!!
The iPod will solve world hunger!!
The iPod will bring peace to the middle east!!
The iPod will make airline food taste good!!
The iPod will ensure she swallows!!
The iPod will give us nuclear fusion, environmently friendly cars and help the Iraqis form a peaceful democratic society!!
The iPod will make first contact possible!!
The iPod will cure cancer!!
The iPod will get rid of viruses, even on windows!!

Re:My prediction for the predictions

[JBHarris]

My iPod Nano works great!

Re:My prediction for the predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget: the ipod will never support ogg vorbis and 37 people will be pissed.

Oval table

[LittleGuernica]

Rumors are that the table is not round, but oval. Is the thinnest table on the market (thin as a pencil) and has a color surface. Some talk of video capabilities in future table models. Apple bought massive amounts of table legs from a undisclosed south korean company at great discounts. Introducing this tabel was a bold move, since it's highly succesful Apple footstool was introduced last year and is now the best selling piece of furniture in the world..

Re:Oval table

[synotia]

Again, Apple just show how innovative they can be...

Re:Oval table

[minginqunt]

Netcraft has unconfirmed it: Apple is *not* dying.

I think Apple must now hold the record for the longest period of time a company has been not going out of business.

Re:Oval table

[ben_rh]

... Initial reports coming in from early buyers praise the table as 'impossibly' sturdy ...

Re:Oval table

[dostick]

There was nothing wrong with the creative cells of the designers at Apple; Table is simply Jobs taking a calculated risk. He doesn't want a table that doubles as an MP3 player to become too popular as that would cut straight into Apple's bread and butter product, the iPod.

Re:Oval table

[mjpaci]

I dunno, there's a rug store by me that's been going out of business for 38 years...

Re:Oval table

[dangitman]

That's because oval tables make conversations snappier than round ones.

POST-INTEL????

[spectrokid]

on the company's post-Intel future...
You mean they are already moving away from Intel again? Help, I can't keep up anymore!

Impressive

[tabkey12]

They have some extremely impressive names on the list of people taking part:

Tim Bray, who created he XML specification
Michael Gartenberg, an extremely influential industry analyst
John Gruber, who writes the great Daring Fireball blog
Andy Hertzfeld, one of the original Macintosh dev team, and the list goes on!

Re:Impressive

[Mr. Underbridge]

Hey, you have something brown on your tongue.

Re:Impressive

[Willeh]

Either my sarcasm detector is broke, or you're a moron with a dumb sig.

Re:Impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

Tim Bray, who created he XML specification

o..kay..

Michael Gartenberg, an extremely influential industry analyst

buzzword-asshole...

John Gruber, who writes the great Daring Fireball [daringfireball.net] blog

blabla-asshole...

Andy Hertzfeld, one of the original Macintosh dev team,

good man...

and the list goes on!

blabla-asshole... (Did someone of them wear a Casio?)

Re:Impressive

[ifwm]

My sarcasm detector is flawless, so I vote for moron

Re:Impressive

[cowscows]

I don't know gartenberg, and although I do enjoy Daring Fireball, it seems odd to me that those two would be held in the same regards as Bray and Hertzfeld, at least in this instance.

The roundtable intro describes Gruber as an influential blogger. Who does he influence? Apple? I doubt it. Although most of Gruber's posts are well written and reasonable, they're still often wrong. I don't think Steve Jobs is influenced by any Apple related sites, except maybe he's totally enraged when a rumor site scoops a new product announcement. Do you think Apple really cares what industry analysts think?

Bray and Hertzfeld are definitely smart guys, and they've contributed some great stuff, but I'm not sure I'd even give their predictions much weight. They're kind of out of the loop. This whole roundtable discussion is fun, because Apple is so secretive, and their products are so distinctive. But honestly, I think you could have a similar discussion with just about any six random people who were at least mildly familiar with the computer industry. Nothing that has been said so far goes beyond random comments that have been floating around on Apple related articles on slashdot for the past couple months.

Re:Impressive

[hunterx11]

Oh a sacrasm dectector; that's real useful!

Simple Concecpt.

[jellomizer]

You can buy a fancy computer that is relatively well built that runs OS X. But if you don't like OS X then you can put Windows or Linux on it. Most older PPC applications should work, Newer Applications have Fat binaries so both platforms work for a while. The OS has been tested on x86 in duel Development from day 1. All this ends are the annoying xPlatform is faster then yPlatform debates. Sure PPC may have its strong points but not much, this is probably a good move for Apple. While I am sure hacks for OS X that will make it run on any PC will be out most people are not going to try to hack there system to run OS X, or bother looking for it, when OS X says I can't install on my platform, most people don't have the time to make a hack for the OS. So not much will change, with the exception of some compiler flags that are different in some applications.

Re:Simple Concecpt.

[BoomerSooner]

Yes but can you do the opposite? Why the fuck should you have to buy an Apple branded computer just to run BSD with a better Windowing System?

I hope they at least release OS X Live CD's for normal people to try OS X on their CURRENT x86 machines.

Re:Simple Concecpt.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank god I've dumped the Mac.

Nothing but rationalizing idiots like you seem to be left...

Just dump OS X Apple, just get it over with and move on to migrating the company to iPod/iTMS.

Re:Simple Concecpt.

[Mr. Underbridge]

Well they have me left - I like unix, I like functional interfaces, I don't want to screw with drivers constantly, and I need compatibility with the rest of the world. Got any suggestions aside from Apple?

Re:Simple Concecpt.

[Anonymous Coward]

if you don't like OS X then you can put Windows or Linux on it.

You can already put Linux on your Mac.

All this ends are the annoying xPlatform is faster then yPlatform debates.

No, it'll just replace them with OMG OS X x86 is 0.00001% faster than t3h Winblow$!!!!11one1lololol "debates". Go look at a thread comparing Linux to FreeBSD sometime. The fact that they run on identical hardware doesn't stop their respective zealots getting all frothy-mouthed over which is better.

Re:Simple Concecpt.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, why should you have to pay this company to develop and produce cutting edge high tech software???

Re:Simple Concecpt.

[BoomerSooner]

Yeah, why should you have to pay this company to develop and produce cutting edge high tech software???

I bet you've paid a lot for Linux, or BSD, or Apache, or OpenOffice, or any number of free products.

When I pay $129 for OS X that is more that what I've paid for Windows. So what is the fucking problem with running it on any piece of hardware that can run it?

Re:Simple Concecpt.

[Anonymous Coward]

Could the mods explain to me how that's a flame, or else pass the crackpipe?

Re:Simple Concecpt.

[soft_guy]

So what is the problem with running it on any piece of hardware that can run it?

Apple likes staying in business.

Re:Simple Concecpt.

[Anonymous Coward]

The GP should be modded Flaimbait! I prefer a hash pipe.

Re:Simple Concecpt.

[Marc2k]

I bet you've paid a lot for Linux, or BSD, or Apache, or OpenOffice, or any number of free products.

A lot of lead developers on those projects work for, or are subsidized by, large companies that make money off of these products. Face it, on the scale that Apple sells OS X, $129 probably doesn't cover the cost of R&D, packaging, etc. that go into the system, the markup on hardware is what contributes to them making any profit whatsoever.

When I pay $129 for OS X that is more that what I've paid for Windows. So what is the fucking problem with running it on any piece of hardware that can run it?

Are you running the absolutely wretched Windows XP Home? Or are you running Windows ME? Because Windows XP Professional is on sale today at Newegg, OEM version (not retail, meaning you need to buy hardware to get it that cheap), for $140.95. Even Windows 2000 costs $147.95 for an OEM license. ...or are you actually just running a pirated, corporate (no activation!) copy of Windows XP Professional, pretending for us that you showed your support by paying for your operating system, then forgetting how much Windows actually costs?

Re:Simple Concecpt.

[Overly Critical Guy]

When I pay $129 for OS X that is more that what I've paid for Windows. So what is the fucking problem with running it on any piece of hardware that can run it?

First of all, calm the fuck down.

Second, Windows XP Professional is $250.

Third, you can't run OS X on anything because OS X is designed to provide a seamless experience with Apple's hardware. I don't get your sense of entitlement here.

Re:Simple Concecpt.

[Overly Critical Guy]

Because it's more than just BSD with a better windowing system.

OS X Live CDs? Uh, sure. *rolls eyes*

Some people just want OS X for generic x86 so they can pirate it to death like they have with Windows XP. Nothing more. I don't get the whiney sense of entitlement, but hey. I'm also used to reliable computer hardware with an operating system that just freaking works.

Re:Simple Concecpt.

[bigKM]

BSD with a better Windowing System?
if only you knew how well it handles animations , transparencies and other eye candy, on a bottom of the range system like a ibook G4, you might realise that better is the wrong word

Re:Simple Concecpt.

[russellh]

Why the fuck should you have to buy an Apple branded computer just to run BSD with a better Windowing System?

Yeah, kde and gnome suck in comparison, don't they. well then you better tell those bsd and linux guys to get cracking (heh.. no pun intended).

Re:Simple Concecpt.

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides Apple? No.

Re:Simple Concecpt.

[Anonymous Coward]

How is what you said in any way related to the article? You're basically an idiot.

Re:Simple Concecpt.

[elemental23]

If you don't want to buy Apple hardware, you are, of course, still free to write your own Better Windowing System for your non-Apple x86 BSD machine. The rest of us realize that Apple hardware is worth the small premium we pay for it, and that for 99.9% of the computer using population, processor architecture is largely irrelevant.

Re:Simple Concecpt.

[toddestan]

Are you running the absolutely wretched Windows XP Home? Or are you running Windows ME? Because Windows XP Professional is on sale today at Newegg, OEM version (not retail, meaning you need to buy hardware to get it that cheap), for $140.95. Even Windows 2000 costs $147.95 for an OEM license. ...or are you actually just running a pirated, corporate (no activation!) copy of Windows XP Professional, pretending for us that you showed your support by paying for your operating system, then forgetting how much Windows actually costs?

Maybe he bought the upgrade edition? $129 is the upgrade price for OSX, because every OSX capable computer ever bought came with some version of MacOS already on it.

Re:Simple Concecpt.

[jellomizer]

Their Sense of entitlement is due to this strange belief that computers and software are part of our basic human rights, although computers have only been around 60 years, (Over 100 if you count Babbages differential engine). But these people are so into these machines and their software they think they have some rights with them.

So what happens after the move to Intel?

[ReformedExCon]

First, the move to Intel will not impact their sales negatively. It will irritate some current Mac owners because of the loss of compatibility. Eventually those faithful will stop fighting the tide and buy into Intel/Apple.

Apple's operating system will come full of DRM. The industry is moving in that direction, and Intel is incorporating it in their designs, so Apple would have been left out in the cold (and not where the content providers are) if they didn't make the switch. Now that they will make it, DRM will be a big part of their next OS.

Apple will continue to move into areas where they have little expertise but seem to be a good fit. Cell phones, (more) portable music players, and other gadgets which can help spread the Apple brand. They will stay away from the medical industry, auto industry (though they may seek partnerships to get iPod technology into cars), and overseas shipping (for the time being).

Apple's future is bright, but they need to focus on keeping their products tightly controlled. They can't start branding everything they see and expect to keep a good focus and positive revenue stream. They will continue to focus on music, but probably start looking into video as well.

Their OS will remain a non-commodity item. You will be able to buy the OS off the shelf, but it will only run on Apple-branded computers. Hardware selection will be limited as well, but for the user experience, such a scheme will benefit the end users.

Re:So what happens after the move to Intel?

[Anonymous Coward]

" First, the move to Intel will not impact their sales negatively. "

Dream on!

WTF is this lalaland pipedream people are clinging to?

Apple themselves are already warning analysts about the major downturn the now EOLed PPC hardware is going to have. This next quarter will be the first full quarter after getting dumped by IBM - watch out below! And it will continue to get worse over the next year.

Intel Roadmap. Mac fans will finally get that joke...

Re:So what happens after the move to Intel?

[mysqlrocks]

It's too bad that Apple is integrating so much DRM into their OS. One of the things that I've always like about Macs is that they work for you - not for someone else. However, DRM seems to be a major shift in this philosophy.

Re:So what happens after the move to Intel?

[amodm]

Not to mean any offences, but its exactly what I was afraid of when I first saw this article.

We would end up doing the same discussion what those guys are doing at siliconvalley.com.

Some or the other discussion always goes on about the future of apple/ms/sun/intel whatever. Do we need to discuss a discussion ?

Re:So what happens after the move to Intel?

[penfold69]

Apple's future is bright,

Or, in the UK - The Future's Bright... The Future is Orange^H^H^H^H^H^HApple.

B.

Re:So what happens after the move to Intel?

[Lussarn]

Apple's future is bright, but they need to focus on keeping their products tightly controlled.

Shouldn't be a problem with DRM, DMCA, stupid patents and all other new tools mainly used (and designed) for anti-competitive behaviour.

Re:So what happens after the move to Intel?

[dan the person]

DRM != x86

DRM is just as easy to incorporate into a MIPS based machine as a intel one.

IBM is a big player in the DRM world, a founding member of trusted computing etc etc apple did not need to switch to intel CPUs to get DRM.

Re:So what happens after the move to Intel?

[fshalor]

I actually don't eitnrely agree...

I have a strange feeling the main reason, besides low power consumption laptop chips, that apple is doing this will be seen in the next 1.4 years. All of a sudden, "windows" only software will start running with no hitches in mac.

And I seriously doubt the x86 version of mac will only run on branded hardware. I don't think apple wants it to only run on branded hardware.

This will get them market share of the desktop OS arena, and for all the right reasons. While at the same time they'll be increasing their hardware sales.

Soon to come: sub $800 iBooks and $450 mid sized desktop cases built from good hardware at a good price with a good OS. That also run more software, since software makers will have an eaisier job of making their stuff portable.

Cheers.

Re:So what happens after the move to Intel?

[vertinox]

Now that they will make it, DRM will be a big part of their next OS.

What does that mean? DRM to prevent you from putting OS X on a non-Apple hardware x86? Or does that mean you can't play non-DRM MP3s on OS X or does prevent installation any app that circumvents this?

I'm assuming the former, but the way its put is very vague.

Re:So what happens after the move to Intel?

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM is indeed a big player, because they make the TPM chips that everyone except them will be using. After all, IBM now only make servers, most of which run Linux, and there isn't much point in putting DRM technologies that protect rich media content on a system whose hardware probably isn't capable of being used to watch or listen to it. So they get the best of both worlds: earning money off every desktop, console, and portable computer that will be manufactured, while blithely ignoring the existence of such monstrosities in their own computers.

Re:So what happens after the move to Intel?

[prototypical]

Soon to come: sub $800 iBooks and $450 mid sized desktop cases built from good hardware at a good price with a good OS. That also run more software, since software makers will have an eaisier job of making their stuff portable.

Soon to come: The death of OS X specific coding, if they actually allow Windows applications to run natively. Assume for a moment that they achieve Rosetta-like compatibility and keep a reasonable speed for most applications. What, then, is the incentive for a large developer like Adobe to write separate version of their software when you can just run it in the emulation layer?

Also, as I'm sure has been pointed out here innumerable times, Apple would have to make one hell of a leap in software sales to make up for lost hardware if the OS is opened to commodity PC hardware. It's not like they were losing 30-40% of their marketshare back during the PowerPC cloning da... Oh, they were, weren't they?

Contrary to what many people claim, Apples largest revenue stream is still their hardware, and not iPods.

Re:So what happens after the move to Intel?

[tsm_sf]

First, the move to Intel will not impact their sales negatively. It will irritate some current Mac owners because of the loss of compatibility. Eventually those faithful will stop fighting the tide and buy into Intel/Apple.

Apple has a history of abandoning platforms. II family to Mac, 680x0 to PPC, 9 to X... It's always irritating when you're on the tail end of an Apple epoch, but the change has always been net-positive(aside from the IIgs, which I am still bitter about). Point being that Apple fans are pretty used to the idea of an evolving system.

Yes, I heard they are moving to

[Shivetya]

using chips from the Atom Chip Corporation

http://atomchip.com/_wsn/page4.html

I am sure Dianetics is involved here somewhere.

This just in

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft claims it plans to have a two-week polygonal table meeting in the near future.

Who the hell cares?

Re:This just in

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately the implementation of Microsoft PolygonTableX wasn't as good as the hype.

A table that the seated people sat at from the centre, facing outwards that extended towards the wall, and that to get seated at you had to climb over the table, or under the table, to the polygon shaped space in the centre. Unfortunately the table was installed with the door shut, so noone can enter the room ... or leave it (poor installers).

And the point of this is??

[ewe2]

Great way to manufacture "news" guys.

Pardon my scepticism, but a bunch of people sitting around pontificating about Apple won't affect Steve's vision.

You might as well shout "Users!" at Ballmer.

Re:And the point of this is??

[Mr. Underbridge]

Pardon my scepticism, but a bunch of people sitting around pontificating about Apple won't affect Steve's vision.

Um...was that the goal? Quite frankly, he's enough that his own people have trouble affecting Steve's "vision," I'll guarantee these people won't and aren't trying.

This is at least more worthwhile than the rest of Mac rumor sites - these people kind of know what the hell they're talking about.

A forum on the future of Objective-C.

[CyricZ]

As a developer, I'm far more interested in a forum on the future of Objective-C. While a totally fantastic language, it still is lacking some amenities one expects from modern languages. Automated garbage collection is one such example. There are rumors (as recently as April) that Apple is/was working on a garbage collection system for Objective-C.

Re:A forum on the future of Objective-C.

[Pius II.]

Rumors? Just look at the documentation, specifically at the finalize method in NSObject.
May I quote:
"Called by the garbage collector when the receiver is not referenced by other objects.

Note: Garbage collection is not available for use in Mac OS X v10.4, nor in earlier versions.

The garbage collector invokes this method on the receiver before disposing of the memory it uses. When garbage collection is enabled, this method is invoked instead of dealloc."

There's already build options for turning garbage collection on in your own projects; however, it doesn't work yet. But you can be damn sure Apple is working on it (most of Foundation's objects already implement the finalize method, as do the more recent frameworks such as CoreData or CoreImage).

Re:A forum on the future of Objective-C.

[OmniVector]

They're not rumors pal, they said it loud and clear at last year's WWDC. Garbage collection is coming.

Re:A forum on the future of Objective-C.

[TheRaven64]

There are rumors (as recently as April) that Apple is/was working on a garbage collection system for Objective-C.

Hardly rumours. Garbage collection was added to the Objective-C runtime with Tiger. The GNU Objective-C runtime has supported the Boehm GC for some time, and Apple recently introduced their own GC.

GNUstep has been used with GC (using a Smalltalk bridge), where the GC simply called the release methods on objects when it detected that references had gone away. This works for Foundation, but not for AppKit. The problem with AppKit is that, in a lot of cases, no one retains references to AppKit objects. Combining AppKit and GC requires AppKit to be hacked a bit so references to components are kept.

The problem with Objective-C is that when you start trying to improve it you end up re-inventing Smalltalk. The GNUstep project is currently looking at using C for very low-level things, Objective-C for libraries and Smalltalk for applications. Since Objective-C and Smalltalk share an object model, it is very easy to interface the two.

Re:A forum on the future of Objective-C.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with Objective-C is that when you start trying to improve it you end up re-inventing Smalltalk.

That isn't true, since logic written in Smalltalk runs at a small fraction of C speed.

Re:A forum on the future of Objective-C.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking nice.

Re:A forum on the future of Objective-C.

[Lord of the Fries]

This is a very interesting comment indeed. I'm a big Smalltalk/Objective-C/C fan. And I'd use mod points to mod you up, but you've already hit 5, so I'll just add my thoughts.

One of my frustrations with GNUstep is the historical apathy about GC. Sure, it's an obscure configure/compile option you might find and use, but the community doesn't. I have been so greatful that Apple is attempting to break this long standing tradition.

After that, the real thing that will differentiate Smalltalk from Objective-C will be BlockClosures.

One wonders if Apple's next move will be to add a Smalltalk system to their development suite. Something like they guys at http://ambrai.com/> have put together, backed by Apple, would be the coolest.

Re:A forum on the future of Objective-C.

[TheRaven64]

You might like to take a look at Nicolas Roard's blog. He wrote a GORM[1] palette containing StepTalk objects. StepTalk is the GNUstep scripting framework, and the default language is Smalltalk. The aim is that it should be possible to use GORM as a prototyping tool like Visual Basic (although backed by a decent framework and a proper language) using Smalltalk code and GNUstep objects, and then rewrite anything that profiling indicates is a bottleneck in Objective-C at a later date.

Blocks are an interesting feature in Smalltalk. They are implemented for Objective-C in the Portable Object Compiler, but the author of that is somewhat hostile to GNUstep.

[1] GNUstep Object Relational Modeller - the GNUstep equivalent of Interface builder. Named to reflect the fact that it can be use to build any kind of serialised object graph, not just those used to create interfaces.

Re:A forum on the future of Objective-C.

[Billly Gates]

I think Objective-c++ which is part of gcc 4.0 will have many more modern features (I doubt it will have garbage collection though )and will make porting c++ apps to macosx easier. ... this does assume that Apple develops aqua bindings and official support for objectivec++ in the next release. God I hope they do.

Aah, I see we've moved on.

[Benanov]

I wonder if this is to counter FUD or if it's just another step in the Apple Product Cycle: http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/

Upcoming Events: What features would you like in the of the MacIntel?

Haven't you heard?

[binaryDigit]

Surely should be post-PPC, unless they've ditched Intel already.

Jobs announced that Apple will be switching over to the PortalPlayer processors. He also stated that due to the overwhelming success of the iPod line, that all Macintosh's will ship with only a clickwheel for input (eliminating the now outdated keyboard and mouse). He was widely expected to announce a totally revamped OSX (to be called OSXI) that, in a radical shift in user interfaces) eliminated the gui altogether and replaces it with a much simply hierarchical series of menus. However, pending litigation with Creative will mean that the future of software user interfaces will be put on hold, pending the lawsuits outcome.

Re:Haven't you heard?

[Doctor Memory]

a totally revamped OSX (to be called OSXI)

And will, predictably, be pronounced "oh, sexy"...

Why Intel?

[squiggleslash]

I think I know the answer, and it's kind of interesting.

The official line is Intel knows where it's going with certain types of chip and wa[tt]age. While there's some truth to this, it's not really a reason to abandon an entire CPU line for an entirely incompatable one, as it's essentially a short term aim, not a long term one.

My guess? Apple intends to sell off the Mac, probably with the Apple brandname too.

Apple's focus has been, primarily, on the iPod/iTunes line over the last few years, and this is becoming a growing part of the business. Once upon a time it was seen as something to be sold off eventually, a nice cash investment in a short-term industry. But as time goes by, it becomes abundantly clear that's not Apple's direction. Apple would not be doing what it can to lock competitors out of the iPod business (such as by tying iTunes to the iPod and a limited range (like, right now, one) of Apple licensed products) if it saw this as a short-term business. Apple, I believe, sees the iPod as the first in a line of gadgets, though it doesn't necessarily have a roadmap as it's waiting for the technologies needed to implement the remainder. When Apple is able to get flash-based iPod nanos in the 10G range, then I think we'll start seeing some major new developments.

So, what of the Mac? Apple faces a major issue in that the Mac has succeeded for the most part over the last few years by not competing with Microsoft-based boxes. But when this was really happening, the Mac stagnated. Its marketshare is still some way away from being significant or growing significantly, even though the period of non-competition is pretty much over. The Macintosh, in some ways, is dying. It's still a profitable niche, and will be for a long time to come, but it has to beat an 800lb Gorilla, and it's questionable it'll ever be able to do so.

Apple therefore needs to make the Mac an attractive aquisition target for someone else. The most obvious is to build the brandname and focus on one element, the operating system, so when it comes to it, a company like Dell, HP, or Gateway, can essentially buy the brand, and simply rebrand its existing lines without having to pour billions into investing in custom PowerPC based technologies, separate manufacturing lines, etc. That company can milk the platform for as long as necessary (allowing OS X to stagnate, and making Microsoft well aware of that, so Microsoft doesn't see it as a competitor)

My prediction. By 2010, once the Intel-based Mac line is well established, Apple will have sold the Macintosh and the Apple brandname to an existing, major, PC manufacturer. Apple itself will then rename itself to iTunes. To go with the iTunes Music Store. And iTunes Phone (ROKR doesn't run iTunes, but everyone reports it does. Why? Because that's the brand Apple is promoting.)

Re:Why Intel?

[Mr. Underbridge]

My guess? Apple intends to sell off the Mac, probably with the Apple brandname too.

No way. They don't trust anyone with their image/name, there's no way they pull an IBM here. They *might* contract out all manufacturing and some of the crap work, but Stevie's a control freak so they're not selling it.

Apple itself will then rename itself to iTunes.

They're not changing the name either, and not to that of a product, for two reasons. One, the Apple name is incredibly recognizable. Two, they're not going to hardwire themselves to a product, as that would be stupid.

The Macintosh, in some ways, is dying. It's still a profitable niche, and will be for a long time to come, but it has to beat an 800lb Gorilla, and it's questionable it'll ever be able to do so.

So since it's rather profitable, why sell it off? Everything they've done with the Mac mini etc. suggests they're trying to leverage their iPod windows userbase to try the Mac. Remember, Stevie still loves the Mac, and that's all that matters. Its marketshare isn't dropping anymore, and their long term plan seems to be to sacrifice some of their famous margins to boost share.

As far as Mac goes, they won't kill it, and they won't sell it, but they might contract out more of the work.

Re:Why Intel?

[Anonymous Coward]

and canibalize their core market?

Re:Why Intel?

[mstroeck]

This is utter nonsense. I'm feeling silly just replying to this. Apple in its current form is all about having the designers of every link in the chain that is the Mac-OSX-iLife-iTunes-iPod experience orbiting around Steve Jobs at 1, Infinite Loop in Cupertino.

They are NOT going to give away OS X to anybody else, and just buying the Apple brand would be worthless to Dell and other potential buyers.

You are right in a way: Apple does not want to build their computers themselves - and that's exactly why they don't do it, even today. iBooks, Powerbooks, iPod ... you name it, all are built by OEMs in Asia. That means scaling back is not a problem in case sales should stagnate for a while, but they are still in control and can continue to perfectly coordinate their computer products with their other ventures.

If there is one word to sum up Apple's success, it's "integration". Everything has to be so fucking integrated, they even started writing Windows software because they knew that, without iTunes, the iPod had nothing but design on it's competitors. (Of course they also used iTunes Windows to push Quicktime, which is automatically installed with it, but that's an other story...).

You seem to think they make boatloads of money in the music business. Well, think again. Their music store just broke even. The iPod line as a whole may have fairly high profit margins right now, but Apple is already pushing to commoditize the portable player industry. Take a look at the iPod nano's prize-tag. The margins on this thing are probably razor-thin, considering all the engineering that went into it and all the marketing dollars that are spent to promote it now.

Re:Why Intel?

[squiggleslash]

No way. They don't trust anyone with their image/name

They do if it's not their name. I didn't say they'll license the name, I said they'll sell it. That is, the computer company known today as Apple will be called iTunes, and the Apple trademark will belong to Dell/HP/Gateway/etc. The Company Run By Jobs will no longer use Apple as the trademark and will not have any reason to care what gets done with it.

They're not changing the name either, and not to that of a product, for two reasons. One, the Apple name is incredibly recognizable. Two, they're not going to hardwire themselves to a product, as that would be stupid.

iTunes is a brand, not a product. There's iTunes.app, the iTunes Music Store, and iTunes for Phones. In any case, iTunes is the most obvious name, not necessarily the name they'll pick, but I have a hard time believing they will not use it. Five years is a long time to build the iTunes brand up to be as recognizable as "Apple", and that's exactly what they're doing with the ROKR phone and music store.

So since it's rather profitable, why sell it off?

When you believe someone else can make more profits on it than you could ever do, and therefore are able to raise more money by selling it than you would by owning it.

And we come full circle. How do you ensure someone else could make more money from the Mac than Apple can? Answer: by essentially making the hardware the same machine that those other people already make, so unlike Apple, they can take advantage of economies of scale and sell the things at a premium.

Everything they've done with the Mac mini etc. suggests they're trying to leverage their iPod windows userbase to try the Mac.

Nope. There is no advantage the Mac offers in terms of iPod functionality. The only connection is one of "Wow, this iPod's high quality, I see Apple makes computers too, maybe I should try one!" If they were leveraging one to sell the other, they're doing so incompetantly.

With the iPod nano, they've even gone one step further and have features that work on the nano but not on the Mac. You can boot your PC from a nano. You can't boot your Mac (no firewire.)

Remember, Stevie still loves the Mac, and that's all that matters.

"Stevie"? Jesus, man.

In any case, "Stevie" isn't as fickle as you might think. "Stevie" had a Thinkpad for a very long time after he rejoined Apple. "Stevie" is a shrewd businessman, he's not going to prop up a platform unless it's in Apple's best interests.

Its marketshare isn't dropping anymore, and their long term plan seems to be to sacrifice some of their famous margins to boost share.

Its marketshare isn't increasing, either. So we're seeing reduced profit margins, and no serious increase in marketshare. Does this strike you as a good long-term profit strategy? It would strike me as a good reason to package the Mac as an aquisition target.

Re:Why Intel?

[bidule]

Tell me what you've been smoking, I'd like to try some.

OTOH, I'd have said the same about switching to Intel.

Re:Why Intel?

[wild_berry]

>> Apple itself will then rename itself to iTunes.

>They're not changing the name either...

It makes sense for Apple Computer to be distanced from the content-distribution arena in which iTunes acts because of their contracts with Apple Corps (the Beatles' publishing company). Note that iTunes Music Store and the iTunes software have mininal Apple branding, and are referred to as "iTunes" and "iTunes Music Store" rather than Apple iTunes, etc.

I doubt that Apple will stop selling home computers. If the "digital home" is the direction that both Apple Computer and Intel wish to take, then selling boxes which are basically Apple Computers with a HDTV & surround sound output will benefit from the economies of scale of ongoing PC design and development.

Re:Why Intel?

[Mr. Underbridge]

They do if it's not their name. I didn't say they'll license the name, I said they'll sell it.

Brand association doesn't end as soon as you sell something. There is no way they will ever trust anyone else to their core image. Mac is a big part of that. If there were any chance of seeing a payoff, I'd lay serious cash on them never selling the rights to the Mac name.

iTunes is a brand, not a product. There's iTunes.app, the iTunes Music Store, and iTunes for Phones. In any case, iTunes is the most obvious name, not necessarily the name they'll pick, but I have a hard time believing they will not use it. Five years is a long time to build the iTunes brand up to be as recognizable as "Apple", and that's exactly what they're doing with the ROKR phone and music store.

OK, they'll never change their name to that of a suite of products either. If they were going to do that they'd be called "Macintosh" by now since that's all they sold for 15 years.

And changing the name to "iTunes" is still a bad idea since the clear direction for them is to get into more gadgets that aren't musical. There is absolutely no reason for them to change the name, and they won't.

You also don't address the fact that abandoning one of the world's most recognizable brands/logos would be retarded.

When you believe someone else can make more profits on it than you could ever do, and therefore are able to raise more money by selling it than you would by owning it.

There's no indication at all that this is feasible, and you ignore the other side of the coin - namely, why the hell would a PC builder want to buy Mac?

The only connection is one of "Wow, this iPod's high quality, I see Apple makes computers too, maybe I should try one!" If they were leveraging one to sell the other, they're doing so incompetantly.

Even according to Apple, that is the Mac mini's complete reason for existance. Getting Windows iPod users to try the Mac from that exact rationale.

In any case, "Stevie" isn't as fickle as you might think. "Stevie" had a Thinkpad for a very long time after he rejoined Apple. "Stevie" is a shrewd businessman, he's not going to prop up a platform unless it's in Apple's best interests.

I'm Glad he owned a thinkpad, I guarantee he also owned a mac. And he's more stubborn than shrewd.

Its marketshare isn't increasing, either. So we're seeing reduced profit margins, and no serious increase in marketshare. Does this strike you as a good long-term profit strategy? It would strike me as a good reason to package the Mac as an aquisition target.

Their clear goal is to increase Mac share. The Mac business is also a very dependable cash cow with lots of long term customers. It is a good thing to leverage when starting up a new business like iPod. There's no good reason to get rid of your mist dependable income stream.

You also ignore the integration issue, in that there's no way they sell Mac without selling OS X, and they're not getting out of the computer business alltogether.

Also, since this is a Neal Armstrong sized leap, do you have absolutely anything to support this? Because it's thin on evidence and rationale even by Macrumors standards.

Re:Why Intel?

[Gulthek]

Do you run some kind of market prediction or tech future column? I want to be sure to avoid it.

Points:

How is Apple not competing directly with Microsoft now?

Demonstrate how Apple's focus has been primary on iPod/iTunes. Did we not see the release of a greatly improved OS X version about every 18 months? Has iLife not been expanding and also greatly improving each year? Is iWork just a throwaway package?

Do you think that Apple is somehow cloaking OS X from Microsoft? That if Microsoft notices the fancy OS under its nose it will quash it with some kind of super marketing blitz?

Re:Why Intel?

[jdb8167]

Apple is one of the most recognizable brands in the history of marketing. Steve Jobs is not stupid. Your prediction doesn't make much sense in light of those two facts.

I can believe that Apple spins out their hardware manufacturing at some point in the future but to stop calling themselves Apple is not likely.

Re:Why Intel?

[squiggleslash]

How is Apple not competing directly with Microsoft now?

Point: where did I say they weren't?

Oh wait, I said they *were*. I said, after saying that the Mac survived by (past tense) not competing, I wrote "But when this was really happening, the Mac stagnated." (again, past tense) You didn't read what I wrote! What a BIG FAT FUCKING SURPRISE!

Demonstrate how Apple's focus has been primary on iPod/iTunes. Did we not see the release of a greatly improved OS X version about every 18 months? Has iLife not been expanding and also greatly improving each year? Is iWork just a throwaway package?

Point: Who gives an eff? How does the development of Mac software in any way counter the point that Apple's primary focus is on iPod/iTunes? When was the last time you saw an ad for any Macintosh hardware? For OS X? For iLife. (I'm talking about outside of an Apple website or magazine, obviously.) Now, take a look at the TV right now. Look at it for the last two years. Have you noticed what they're pushing? Have you noticed where the major new products are?

Do you think that Apple is somehow cloaking OS X from Microsoft? That if Microsoft notices the fancy OS under its nose it will quash it with some kind of super marketing blitz?

Point: Why do you think Microsoft wants to buy France? That's completely ridiculous and I can't see any reason why you should think that. You should stop making that point, otherwise we'll all point and laugh at you and call you names.

Re:Why Intel?

[squiggleslash]

Apple is also a brandname they can't use with any part of their music business, and that's where the money is coming from. If they're selling the Macintosh platform, then they have absolutely no reason to keep the Apple trademark, because they'll have absolutely no use for it.

There's a reason why it's called the iTunes Music Store and not the Apple Music Store. Apple Corps has the trademark, and will sue (and has done so in the past) if Apple associates "Apple" with "Music".

The Apple trademark may be well known, but it's a liability. Apple can easily build up an alternative trademark such as iTunes or iPod with as much, if not more, recognizability than Apple ever had. The evidence is they're doing this with iTunes.

Re:Why Intel?

[squiggleslash]

Brand association doesn't end as soon as you sell something. There is no way they will ever trust anyone else to their core image. Mac is a big part of that. If there were any chance of seeing a payoff, I'd lay serious cash on them never selling the rights to the Mac name.

So you're now arguing that if they sell the Macintosh business to Dell/etc, they'd keep the Mac name? Why would they do that?

Moving back to Apple: Yes, brand association does end as soon as you sell the business that's associated with that brand. Apple is not significantly associated with the music/iPod part of Apple's business, it's there (on iPods) but it's always "the iPod" or "the iPod from Apple", never "The Apple iPod". There's a good reason for that. It's called trademark infringement.

There is no reason on earth why Apple would want to keep the Apple name if ditch the Macintosh line. There's nothing for them to sell under that brand. Apple Corps would sue them into the ground, and quite legitimately. It's a liability. And we're talking about four, five, years hence from now.

And there's no reason on Earth why anyone would buy the Macintosh business without buying the Macintosh trademarks, or why Apple would consider the Macintosh trademarks useful if they sell the Macintosh business. That's, to use your phrase, "retarded".

OK, they'll never change their name to that of a suite of products either. If they were going to do that they'd be called "Macintosh" by now since that's all they sold for 15 years.

It's not a product or suite of products. It's a brand. If you keep pretending iTunes is a product, you'll continue to miss the wood for the trees.

Apple has until the Intel Macs are established and in a state fit to sell as a business to build up the iTunes brand. They've started already.

You also don't address the fact that abandoning one of the world's most recognizable brands/logos would be retarded.

I've addressed it repeatedly.

There's no indication at all that this is feasible, and you ignore the other side of the coin - namely, why the hell would a PC builder want to buy Mac?

I've addressed this repeatedly.

Even according to Apple, that is the Mac mini's complete reason for existance. Getting Windows iPod users to try the Mac from that exact rationale.

Irrelevent. They may want iPod users to try the Mac, but they'd be fools not to try to continue to build up the Mac business if there's interest in it. However, the fact is that the Mac line simply isn't going anywhere. Marketshare is not significantly increasing and there's an increasing focus on the low end, lowering profits. Switch to Intel, sell the business, a company like Dell would jump at the chance to stick Apple logos on some of its PCs, pre-install OS X, and sell them as Macintoshes for as long as people want them. Dell can afford that. Apple can't. Apple has to continue to invest R&D into its PC line. Dell will be spending that money anyway, adding the Mac for Dell means doing what it was doing anyway, but slapping a different sticker on the machine, a different OS installation CD in the box, deducting the Microsoft tax from their costs, and adding $200-500 to the sticker price.

Apple, of course, needs the line to continue selling otherwise it'll be impossible to sell the business.

You also ignore the integration issue, in that there's no way they sell Mac without selling OS X, and they're not getting out of the computer business alltogether.

I ignore the integration issue because it's an irrelevence. Apple doesn't control Windows. Apple never will. What? You think Apple needs OS X as a result? How does OS X help? OS X is on 5% of their customer's PCs. If all their iPod to Mac user sales dropped off the face of the Earth, they'd continue raking in the moolah. If, on the other hand, they decided to limit sales of

Re:Why Intel?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a reason why it's called the iTunes Music Store and not the Apple Music Store.

Actually, I think it has more to do with the software you use to access it being called "iTunes". It isn't something you can access through any other Apple product, or any other company's product. iTunes-the-music-store is, for all intents and purposes, a part of iTunes-the-program.

Also, If you look at Apple's advertising, they hardly ever use "Apple" at all. They use the incredibly valuable logo (which has nothing to do with Apple Corps.) So, again, I think your theory is wrong. Yes, they are building up other brands, like iTunes and iPod, but that it isn't because they are trying to ditch the Apple trademark.

Re:Why Intel?

[soft_guy]

You are completely wrong. Apple will be in the Macintosh business for a long time to come. Also, in a later post you are incorrect in saying that their marketshare isn't increasing. It is.

Re:Why Intel?

[soft_guy]

I agree with your post except for a minor point. Apple doesn't manufacture anything.

Their computers are made for them by a company called Quantas. They also make Dell systems.

The iPod is made by a company called FoxComm.

I may have misspelled the names of these companies.

Both companies are contract manufacturers in Asia and do work for a wide variety of companies, not just Apple. FoxComm in particular is known for being able to make really nice products very cheaply.

Re:Why Intel?

[squiggleslash]

No, you're completely wrong.

I've generally been careful to make it clear I'm talking about significant increases in marketshare. The only place I can find where I've been "careless", it was clear from the context I was talking about serious increases (the comment I'm refering to says "Its marketshare isn't increasing, either. So we're seeing reduced profit margins, and no serious increase in marketshare."), and everywhere else I've qualified the term I used. It's hard to see why someone would read what I wrote and come to the conclusion that I'm saying there's no increase whatsoever, as opposed to no SIGNIFICANT increase. Worse still, they're cutting their profit margins to achieve what little increases they're getting. I don't see them moving from 3% to 30% in five years, I think an optimist might say they might get 10% of the market in five years, if everything goes well. But will three times the sales make up for the tiny profits they'll be making from each machine? I have my doubts.

I'm guessing this is just an attempt to point score on your part. I'm sure if there was a legitimate argument for why Apple would hold on to a business that really will never be as profitable for it as it would be for Dell or HP or Gateway, or even Sony, someone would have come up with it by now.

Re:Why Intel?

[That's Unpossible!]

Apple itself will then rename itself to iTunes. To go with the iTunes Music Store.

Since by 2010, Apple will be the largest distributor of movies in the world, I would think they should name their company iMedia.

Re:Why Intel?

[MKalus]

ignore the integration issue because it's an irrelevence. Apple doesn't control Windows. Apple never will. What? You think Apple needs OS X as a result? How does OS X help? OS X is on 5% of their customer's PCs.

And what a profitable 5% they are.

If all their iPod to Mac user sales dropped off the face of the Earth, they'd continue raking in the moolah.

Yes, on the iPod. How long will it be the king of portable music players though? Sooner or later someone else comes along. Apple at one point in time also had a large part of the home PC market.

If, on the other hand, they decided to limit sales of iPods to Mac users, they'd be out of the portable music player (and online music sales) business in six months.

Maybe, or the iPod would just become more expensive again.

The integration issue is a myth as far as it concerns Macs and iPods. It's a wetdream propogated by the Mac-enthusiast club who need reasons to believe the Mac revival is just around the corner.

A lot of the things that you see in the iPod today came from the Mac first, there is a reason for that as well: Apple could control this end to end and they KNEW it would work.

As for the revival: I know a LOT of people who have bought a Mac Mini or iMac after they had an iPod and played a bit with my Macs. They are definetly selling more Macs these days and you can find them at BestBuy and CompuSmart, two places who didn't had them just a few years ago.

The only integration that exists is between iTunes and iPod. The Mac is only a part of it insofar as the Mac can run iTunes, but as Windows can also run iTunes, it's no more a key component than a Belkin mouse or Sony monitor.

True, to some extend. iPod relies on iTunes and iTMS, but there are still things that are first "prototyped" on the Mac before they show up in windows (Quicktime 7).

So, even though the iPod can work without a Mac, there are good reasons for the Mac to be around still.

iTunes Inc is the future of the company today known as Apple. The future of Macintosh lies in the PC industry.

They won't sell the Apple brand and they won't rename themselves, maybe one day they'll get out of the PC business, but I don't really see that either. Apple has a very profitable business there, and Mac OS X seems to be the main drawing point. Maybe they will abandonen the boxes one day and just make the software, or sell the assetts off, but not the Apple product name, it has too much of a history and too high of a brand recognition.

Re:Why Intel?

[soft_guy]

Let me say this again so you can understand:

Nott going to happen.

Re:Why Intel?

[dr.badass]

The official line is Intel knows where it's going with certain types of chip and wa[tt]age. While there's some truth to this, it's not really a reason to abandon an entire CPU line for an entirely incompatable one, as it's essentially a short term aim, not a long term one.

1) Apple has no reason to lie about this. The official line is that moving to Intel lets them continue to make new and better products. If that isn't a reason, I don't know what is.
2) There is no "entirely incompatable" CPU line. Apple has already demonstrated both an emulation layer and fat binaries. For "incompatable", it seems to work pretty much the same.
3) How on earth can you consider it a "short term aim", when you go on to describe them selling off a ~30 year old business?

Apple's focus has been, primarily, on the iPod/iTunes line over the last few years, and this is becoming a growing part of the business. Once upon a time it was seen as something to be sold off eventually, a nice cash investment in a short-term industry.

1) Apple has continued to release new products across all of it's hardware and software lines consistently. iPod/iTunes probably gets the lions share of the marketing budget, but that's because it's a cash cow. You make it sound as though Apple's other products have taken a back seat, when there is no evidence of this.

2) There is also no evidence that Apple planned to sell off the iPod. This goes against pretty much everything the company has done since Steve Jobs returned.

The Macintosh, in some ways, is dying.

You misspelled "beleaguered".

It's still a profitable niche, and will be for a long time to come, but it has to beat an 800lb Gorilla, and it's questionable it'll ever be able to do so.

Apple doesn't have to beat diddly squat. They're a profitable company with growing sales. The move to Intel chips means virtually nothing in regards to Microsoft.

Apple therefore needs to make the Mac an attractive aquisition target for someone else.

Because two of the most valuable brands in all of personal computing, the best ID in the industry, and an intensely loyal customer base aren't worth anything if Dell can't "milk it until it's stagnant". Apple has every reason to sell off it's highly succesful and profitable business, with all of it's well-respected, quality products, so that it can be "milked until stagnant" by the Wal-Mart of the PC world.

a company like Dell, HP, or Gateway, can essentially buy the brand, and simply rebrand its existing lines...

This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. And I've been reading Slashdot for a long time.

Re:Why Intel?

[Mr. Underbridge]

Before I get in the line-by-line, my basic response comes down to "show me some evidence," otherwise all your responses are unsubstantiated in any way, would drastically change Apple's business, and are unlikely.

All arguments that ignore what Apple actually is doing in favor of what they should do are irrelevant until they hire you as CEO.

********************

So you're now arguing that if they sell the Macintosh business to Dell/etc, they'd keep the Mac name? Why would they do that?

They probably won't. That's kind of the point. They won't sell the name, and they probably won't sell the line without the name. Recall that my assertion is that the sale won't happen at all.

Moving back to Apple: Yes, brand association does end as soon as you sell the business that's associated with that brand.

Really? Do you plan on carrying out those lobotomies to 300 million consumers in the US plus more worldwide? Most computer manufacturers make crap computers. Apple doesn't want to be associated with crap computers. As such, Apple will not give up control to the trademark that has been synonymous with them for 20 years. QED. Hell, remember when Jobs came back in 96 and killed all the clone agreements? He hates that crap. He won't do it.

There is no reason on earth why Apple would want to keep the Apple name if ditch the Macintosh line.

It's worth many millions of dollars, that's why. They've developed strong brand loyalty, recognition, etc. I swear, if they ever drop the Apple name I will kiss your ass. It will never happen. Point to anything other than conjecture that suggests otherwise.

Apple Corps would sue them into the ground, and quite legitimately. It's a liability. And we're talking about four, five, years hence from now.

Them selling Mac or not has nothing whatsoever to do with their liability with regard to the music label. They've made a deal before with Apple Records, they can and will do it again. That is simply not worth canning their name and image.

Also, despite your assertion, you've not addressed why the hell a PC maker would want to screw with Macs which, as you state, have such a low market share. They integrate into Dell's core business badly.

Irrelevent. They may want iPod users to try the Mac, but they'd be fools not to try to continue to build up the Mac business if there's interest in it.

Actually, that's the only relevant thing here, because it's what Apple is actually doing, and plans to do. I'm pretty sure they know their business better than you do. Everything you've said is conjecture based on absolutely nothing. Apple has said they are actively trying to migrate Windows users to the Mac. You might remember their switch campaign, for example. I think I'll trust Apple over your assertions.

However, the fact is that the Mac line simply isn't going anywhere. Marketshare is not significantly increasing and there's an increasing focus on the low end, lowering profits.

First, the marketshare doesn't need to significantly increase, they need a stable source of income which you ignore. Despite its success, its iTunes line is less than 5 years old.

Banking their entire future on a single product that has NO customer lock-in is a poor idea. With Mac, they have basically guaranteed income of $2000 every 4 years from damn near every Mac owner on the planet, as well as continuous smaller purchases. That is a very good source of stable income to use as a cash cow to support risky ventures like Apple does. Getting rid of that stable income would be incredibly stupid right now.

I ignore the integration issue because it's an irrelevence. Apple doesn't control Windows. Apple never will. What? You think Apple needs OS X as a result? How does OS X help? OS X is on 5% of their customer's PCs.

I'm pretty sure Apple isn't dropping out of the computer business entirely. Again, if you have a single shred of evidence to

Re:Why Intel?

[badWisdom]

Congratulations, i have been reading slashdot for 5 years and have remained a solid lurker. But god damn your post is so stupid that you have actually made me want to login and respond to it. Apple renames itself iTunes ? Are you insane ? Thats like Microsoft renaming itself Windows, it makes absolutely NO sense. Apple is a generic name that does not reference one product or service. Even if they were to abandon its Hardware and OS line (yeah, right) why would they want to change their name apart from the (sarcasm on) solid argument "to go with the iTunes Music Store" ? (sarcasm off)

Re:Why Intel?

[squiggleslash]

Because they can't legally use Apple with the music side of their business?

You're saying you think Apple should hold on to a name they cannot legally use if they sell their Macintosh line to another company, and you're calling me stupid?

Re:Why Intel?

[vertinox]

Apple intends to sell off the Mac, probably with the Apple brandname too.

Public companies don't sell off parts of itself unless facing bankruptcy or outside pressure.

Selling parts of the companies causes the Stock value to drop because they have to split it off to the shareholders so its something they try to avoid.

Re:Why Intel?

[badWisdom]

And they can today ? Unless you didnt know, they're already being sued for this so i dont understand how getting rid of their macintosh line actually changes anything. Its not like their hardware protects them from being sued or from having to change their name. You're just not making any sense, business or otherwise.

Re:Why Intel?

[squiggleslash]

What the fuck are you talking about? Honestly?

Apple cannot use the Apple trademark in association with its iPod and iTunes lines. Therefore, if it sells the Macintosh business, leaving itself only with the music business, it has no reason to keep the Apple trademark, because it will not be able to use it.

Right now, the only defense Apple has against any lawsuits it currently suffers is that it does, actually, use the trademark for the non-media side of the business. The most likely affect of the lawsuit is that Apple will be forbidden from associating iPods and iTunes with music altogether.

So, tell me, why does the fact Apple is being used over its use of Apple in association with iPods and iTunes mean that Apple shouldn't sell the Apple trademark if it sells the Macintosh line? How does it not make business sense to KEEP SOMETHING YOU CANNOT USE WITH YOUR REMAINING PRODUCTS?

Re:Why Intel?

[The Lynxpro]

"In any case, "Stevie" isn't as fickle as you might think. "Stevie" had a Thinkpad for a very long time after he rejoined Apple. "Stevie" is a shrewd businessman, he's not going to prop up a platform unless it's in Apple's best interests."

So what? It was probably running the NeXTStep OS, which is now known as Mac OS X.

You are also wrong about marketshare. Check the figures. Apple is up in marketshare this year over lasts. The "iPod halo effect" is working and without a real advertising campaign for the Mac platform either.

Re:Why Intel?

[The Lynxpro]

"Marketshare is not significantly increasing and there's an increasing focus on the low end, lowering profits. Switch to Intel, sell the business, a company like Dell would jump at the chance to stick Apple logos on some of its PCs, pre-install OS X, and sell them as Macintoshes for as long as people want them. Dell can afford that. Apple can't. Apple has to continue to invest R&D into its PC line. Dell will be spending that money anyway, adding the Mac for Dell means doing what it was doing anyway, but slapping a different sticker on the machine, a different OS installation CD in the box, deducting the Microsoft tax from their costs, and adding $200-500 to the sticker price."

R&D is an alien concept for Dell. Dell is a glorified "screwdriver shop" that has *Walmartified* the computer industry. They rely on everyone else to do the innovation.

Jobs would sell the Apple computer business to Sony before he sold out to the likes of Dell.

Re:Why Intel?

[squiggleslash]

Yes, it will.

Sorry. I know it's hard for the Mac enthusiasts to take, but there's not much you can do about it. My money would be on Dell, it's no secret that Michael Dell has wanted to sell Macintoshes for a long time.

Re:Why Intel?

[javaxman]

My guess? Apple intends to sell off the Mac, probably with the Apple brandname too.

HAHAHAHAHA!!

I don't suppose you've ever met Steve Jobs, have you? No?

It shows.

Re:Why Intel?

[FrkyD]

Actually, Apple has done this twice already. Once with their software division which became Claris (with titles like MacPaint, Hypercard, ClarisWorks and even for a short time the distribution of the OS itself) and with the Newton which became Newton Inc. for a couple of months before it was reabsorbed only to be killed.

Re:Why Intel?

[stew-a-cide]

The iPod/iTunes line mentions the "Apple" name just as often as the Mac line does, which is about nowhere. The only place I can find "Apple" written on my iBook or in OS X are the copyright/trademark/"Designed by Apple in California" notices. Same as the iPod.

The Apple LOGO however is all over both lines. It's not exactly a secret the iPod is made by Apple Computer when it has that logo on the product and all over the packaging.

Apple Records is a problem for Apple, and I suspect it will cost them a lot of money in the end, but it hasn't caused them to change their branding strategy in any way.

Re:Why Intel?

[dangitman]

That's totally stupid reasoning. Just because the iPod is a big success, doesn't mean it comes at the expense of the mac platform. Macs and software are still highly profitable for Apple. Why would they want to reduce their products, AND destroy their stellar brand-name by having someone else screw with the Macintosh?

Re:Why Intel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the reason is the Apple music suit - Apple computer can't call it the Apple Music Store. iTunes is brand. Your statement is like saying "HP is calling thier computers Pavillions... HP must be getting out of the PC business in favor of calculators."

Apple + Intel - Speech processing

[minsyntax]

Apple already controls the music market, has excellent MIDI stuff, and seems to have the sound side covered. Intel's website points to significant research in the text-to-speech/voice recognition/continuous voice processing areas. As a result, if I were to speculate 5 years ahead (a long time) then I'd offer speech/language processing to be a likely avenue of exploration for the new Apple/Intel matchup.

They need to take Sun into account, too.

[CyricZ]

It is important for them to take the actions of Sun into account while discussing the future of Apple. Indeed, these days were are seeing an effort by Sun to reattract some of the more technical users they have lost.

Sun is now putting out powerful, relatively inexpensive Opteron-based workstations that run Solaris 10. They could, in theory, provide what Apple is providing for developers, but with some added benefits.

Since they're not as gung-ho with the media industries as Apple is, they should not feel the need to incorporate DRM into their systems. That alone will be a major purchasing factor in many technical users' eyes.

If they're able to get their act together and provide a very fast, very efficient desktop Java implementation, then they could lure developers away from Apple.

Sun has the potential to regain their late-1980's, mid-1990's reputation as the supreme workstation vendor. While there were some doubts as to their direction the past few years, it appears as though they are on-track and soon to be very successful.

Re:They need to take Sun into account, too.

[TheRaven64]

OS X on a Solaris kernel would be something close to my ideal OS. It's a real shame that Sun abandoned OpenStep - if they'd kept up with it then I would have switched to Sun rather than Apple. If you've ever developed with OpenStep (or Cocoa) then you will realise that Java is not going to lure developers away from the platform.

Re:They need to take Sun into account, too.

[dago]

Now, go back in time and imagine :
"Running Mac OS on a Sun workstation powered by an x86 CPU"

almost as weird as NT for Sparc ...

Re:They need to take Sun into account, too.

[wandazulu]

I'm in complete agreement with you...I went *from* Java to ObjC and Cocoa. To me, cross-platform compatibility isn't essential, and besides, I've just never ever gottan a Java app to run with that...crispness...that a C/C++/ObjC program has.

Of course, it helps that my target audience are Mac folks already, but XCode + ObjC/Cocoa has proven so good that I'd happily develop for any platform that could run that combo.

It's sad to think that I had access to a NeXT machine back-in-the-day and apart from firing up Project Builder once or twice, never really considered trying to learn to program on it.

Re:Good idea

[tomhudson]

We're talking about Apple, not Microsoft, or the White House or FEMA.

Seriously, we always get these "what is the future of Apple" things. With Microsoft pushing their "7 flavours of Vista", I'd like to see a round-table on Microsofts future, with some serious consideration as to how they're going to survive now that varous governments (Mass.) have officially rejected their Office cash cow.

MP3's

[carbon116]

I think Apple should make an MP3 player. I hear youngsters use these quite a lot nowadays so there might be a market for it.

this goes too far!

[mbaudis]

> The iPod will get rid of viruses, even on windows!! to a certain point, all of your prediction-predictions may come up. but nobody would really predict the last prediction, if i may predict so.

Re:Hey Mods:

[Itchy Rich]

Idiots. Drool on yourselves much?

Wow. Aggressive, unfunny, penchent for jokes about WMDs... Are you George Bush Jr?

Re:Hey Mods:

[grasshoppa]

You must learn to differentiate between brutal honestly ( my post ) and fucking idiocy ( bush and co ).

Re:Why talking about Apple?

[hcob$]

Sure, go off and boycott Apple. Then we, who want to hear about Apple, can do so in peace.

Apple seeks to be the next Sony

[gelfling]

And therefore computing will become less important over time as other media lines become more important. Expect that AppleTel to become yet another commodity line. Expect AppleWinTel to develop more media oriented hardware-software.

Since I wasn't invited...

[CptNerd]

Here's my prediction for what "the next big thing" from Apple will be: an Apple "Intelligent TV", or "iTV". They almost made that step with the integrated iMac, except it left out the tuner and video digitizer. I believe they will be able to make an iTV using the Intel chips that they couldn't with PowerPC, and with DRM support built-in, they'll be able to sell the idea to the networks as well as the movie companies.

They would need to provide something that works like a remote control, probably a Bluetooth or Airport-type wireless device, and an application that lets the user choose channels to watch or record. If the iTV has a built-in cable modem as well as an Ethernet interface, it could tie into an in-house Internet TV schedule database, or use something like TitanTV, for TiVo-like time-shifting, without needing yet another external box.

And of course, being a complete home computer as well, it would run iWork or Office or whatever other programs people would want or need, as well as web browsing. And of course it would let people plug in their iPods and iSights and all the other gadgets, too.

Okay, now feel free to call me ten kinds of idiot! :-)

Re:Since I wasn't invited...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Britain we already have iTV - well ITV. It provides real-time wireless streaming of full motion video to reasonably affordable analogue or digital receivers - sort of like a non-portable, wireless video iPod. You can even back up the streams on various different media including a kind of analogue tape (sort of like the Commodore-64 only the tapes are much bigger).

Anyway, ITV is also a content producer, however, most of its content is complete crap except for The Bill.

If Apple could get away with selling a second ITV in Britain, they will only succeed if they can get The Bill.

Re:Since I wasn't invited...

[quickbrownfox]

It seems like Apple wants to keep the TV in the living room, with video possibly being delivered to the TV via some kind of Airport Express type of device. Someone name As Seen On TV, who used to post pretty frequently, and who seemed to be privy to some reliable inside information had this to say about video content:

...If you want to know where we're going with video playback, look not to the iPod but to its considerably less famous little brother, AirPort Express. ... Yes, of course we're going to be selling new types of content via the iTunes distribution model. It may or may not happen through the "iTunes" name. On the one hand, selling movies and TV shows through a store called "iTunes" makes no sense. On the other, iTunes has HUGE brand recognition right now. It's a marketing decision. What exactly we offer depends on whose content you're talking about. Some content will be provided to us in 720-by-486 anamorphic, which we'll encode in H.264 at between 1 and 2 megabits. (Did you notice that QuickTime 7 has additional support for anamorphic video? I knew you would.) Other content will come in at HD, and for the time being we'll scale that down to half-HD at 2 Mbps. Doing full 1080/24p at 8 Mbps just isn't practical right now given that even the fastest cable modems in the US top out at 4 Mbps; in order to get real-time streaming of full-HD content, you'd need one of those new-fangled fiber optic Internet services that the telcos are starting to roll out. That's too forward-thinking for phase one. But we can do 2 Mbps now to the same customers we're shipping iTunes songs to.

So, you might be close, but I don't think it will be a stand-alone device. Rather, I'm imagining some kind of set-top box which would allow you to stream video from your Mac to the TV.

Re:Since I wasn't invited...

[Lars T.]

Been there...

Re:Since I wasn't invited...

[Anonymous Coward]

ASOT (=SJ?) was here just to get rumor mill's focus out from upcoming Intel-switch. They did it to protect PPC-computer sales, witch could get serious hit if rumor about Intel-machines would have leaked before the official announcement.

ASOT stopped posting just week before WWDC got started and Jobs gave Intel-announcement. There wasn't need to post any information after that. Think Seceret-case was one part of that plan: To get rumor sites worried lawsuits and not to spoil the big Intel-switch.

Re:Since I wasn't invited...

[quickbrownfox]

That seems plausible enough, I suppose. Does this mean, though, that his/her information w/r/t other developments should be deemed unreliable?

Re:Since I wasn't invited...

[solios]

They already made one of those.

In the 90s.

It never got out of prototyping. Combination Quadra 605/610 based motherboard and MPEG decoder hardware. I have a small stack of the things - the 605s are chunky and ugly, the 610s look like actual cable boxes.

Think TIVO a few years before the technology was reasonably viable.

The iPod's the first thing from Apple since the Second Coming Of Jobs that either Apple or NeXT hasn't already done at least once before (think ADC/Applevision, OS X/AUX, etc).

Re:Since I wasn't invited...

[shummer_mc]

I'm with you... I've always thought that the reason that Apple went to Intel was not because of their processors, but because of their WiMax stuff and their low-power architecture (for laptops and small consumer electronic devices). I think WiMax, etc. will provide the capability to stream TV programming to a computer.

Well, we've seen that Apple can, indeed, integrate a computer with a screen, and the Mac mini (although I'm not sure how successful they've been with it) is evidence that they are going toward consumer electronics and away from what we call a general-purpose computer.

Those few factors (plus maybe a NAND HDD), and a trend toward IPTV provide you with a completely wireless (except the power cable) Stereo/TV/Internet/Video game appliance sitting/hanging from your wall.

Now enter iTunes. Apple expands and creates iTV and iMovies, and BANG... you're the 'digital hub' that Apple is striving for...

I think that it's possible for Apple to become a major player in the globalization of digital media. 'The Steve' is enough of an ego-maniac to try it, too.

Let's let history judge Steve Jobs the reason that Farenheit 451 came to pass. : )

Re:Since I wasn't invited...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Does this mean, though, that his/her information w/r/t other developments should be deemed unreliable?"

No, ASOT seemed very reliable.

ASOT told us exact information and features about Apple's releases weeks before the announcement and AFAIK that info was not from rumor sites.

Re:Since I wasn't invited...

[dangitman]

Okay, now feel free to call me ten kinds of idiot! :-)

Sorry, but your idiocy goes all the way up to 11. ;-)

Re:Since I wasn't invited...

[CptNerd]

I'm thinking the time may be right, if he tries it again. Like I said, he's almost there now with the all-in-one iMac. I'll bet with the new Intel chips they could make one that's as thin as a regular HDTV (my Samsung is only a little thinner than my iMac as it is), so you could hang it on the wall if you wanted.

"A man can dream, can't he? A man can dream..." - Prof. Farnsworth

Re:Since I wasn't invited...

[CptNerd]

All he needs is something that's as easy to use as a home appliance, and breaks as seldom. All of the computer manufacturers have a ways to go to get there, but I can see Apple and Sony duking it out in the near future for supremacy in the "infotainment processor" space.

Could be some fun times ahead!

Re:Since I wasn't invited...

[CptNerd]

Sorry, but your idiocy goes all the way up to 11. ;-)

Excellent! :-)

Yellow box comment from TFA

[foniksonik]

I thought the comment regarding the yellow box implementation (sic Rhapsody era) was very interesting and plausible.

This idea is that with the switch to Intel, Apple will be porting (has already ported) and developers will be porting all their apps to Intel compile to run native... has to happen...

to continue...

iTunes on Windows has already introduced a significant amount of OS X AppKit codebase to Windows (on Intel of course)...

which means that anyone with iTunes on Windows is ready to run many of these soon to be available intel compiled OS X Apps
inside Windows, ala Yellow Box (basically an OS X runtime space on Windows).

SO..... we will end up seeing all of the Apple consumer / free apps for OS X also running on Windows inside the YellowBox space at native speeds (cause they're built for intel) and an increasing number of developers using XCode to compile apps that run perfectly on both OS X and Windows/YellowBox and decreasing number of developers not doing so as there will be no performance hit or added overhead and thr upside is you hit two OS's for the price of one. Which also means consumers can pay for one license while being able to install their purchased software on both Windows and Mac.

Over time people start thinking "I really only use the free Apple Apps and all my installed and paid for apps will run on Macs, so why not buy a Mac?"

This could take less than 5 years but at least 2 years... just long enough for Game developers to start the process.

IMHO

Re:Yellow box comment from TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

iTunes on Windows has already introduced a significant amount of OS X AppKit codebase to Windows (on Intel of course)...

iTunes is a Carbon app. It doesn't use AppKit.

Personally, My bets are on...

[Jasin Natael]

a post-Intel future where each application is a CPU-affine process, and each widget has its own independent thread with asynchronous communication. Reportedly, the system will have 4 primary chips, each a consumer-level descendent of Sun's upcoming Niagara series processors. Each of the new chips will have 64 discrete processing units on-die (256 sets of registers per physical chip for thread execution, for a total of 1024 actively running threads on the machine). The chips will use an optical interconnect among themselves to transfer memory contents, and send messages to each other using the on-chip 10,000 base-T Ethernet.

I mean, Apple pioneered using the GPU to parallelize GUI action, why not just take it to the extreme and start targeting the desktop with throughput-based computing? We'll need it eventually.

--Jasin Natael

Re:Why talking about Apple?

[soft_guy]

Why not adjust your settings to hide articles about Apple instead of bitching about it?

My predictions for Apple

[LWATCDR]

1. OSX intergrating Wine or VMWare. This is a big jump but if you could run those programs that you have to run under windows on OS/X then using OS/X becomes a lot less painful. You could see Apple moving into corporate settings using this tactic.
2. Apple Cell phone. Could we see an iPhone? What about a PDA? This one is a big question mark. Can Apple make better hardware than Palm with the Treo? When those new 32G sdcards are out then a Treo can store as much music as an iPod.
3. iTV this seems like a no brainier. The Mac Mini is so close to a perfect form for a home entertainment PC it is just not funny. Add a remote, tuner, and maybe a display on the front and you have the ideal entertainment Pc

Apple's GOing Out of Business

[tfcdesign]

I've been telling you for the last 20 years, Apple is about to go bankrupt and collapse.

Re:Apple's GOing Out of Business

[erikvcl]

What kind of brain-dead moron modded this post Flamebait? It's obviously FUNNY! Get a sense of humor!

Re:Apple's GOing Out of Business

[ifanyonehasthisnickn]

Yeah, well if u have been saying for the past 20 years that Apple will go out of business, then u have been wrong for a long time!! However it is true, they are slowly dying and I think the reason is because of the product being so oo damn expensive!! I love Apple computers but I have to buy a PC because my school won't support Apple. If they were more wallet friendly than the PC alternative, everybody would have an Apple computer.

Re:Apple's GOing Out of Business

[tfcdesign]

And just when I though you got it...

Maybe they're pondering where OSX-on-Intel will go

[Jumpin' Jon]

As I understand it, OSX-on-Intel does not mean you can take any off-the-shelf components from PC World (e.g. the latest ASUS MoBo, 7800GTX, etc.) and install OSX on them... rather, Apple will retain a rather "closed" platform; just a different platform.

But, maybe this is what a think-tank would be discussing...

What if they did release a shrink-wrapped OSX that you could install on the kind of hardware that Windows and Linux run on today? Would that effectively "ruin" OSX, as shabby drivers and applications lowered the quality of the product?

Just my 2p...

JJ

Re:Here's why . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you too stupid to ignore or hide the Apple section? It would be refreshing to have a thread that I'm genuinely interested in not riddled with inane blatherings from mentally challenged, self-important asshats. Be patient indeed. Dumbass.

PointyHeads:: Paradigm: Shift

[ElitistWhiner]

Post-Intel Fruedian Slip is most apt phrasing for the re-vived Apple.

4) integration:: iPhone-> OSX5.0 2006
4) Diversification:: WebObjects Inc. IPO 2007
5) newProducts:: Apple/*automfg'r styling/branding
6) newIndustry:: AppleFARES direct book'g 2010
7) oldParadigm:: AppleTel terminals
9) retroModel:: LisaConcierge in-car .Mac svcs
10)theSteve:: CorpBusLogix service 2020

Predicting the present?

[argent]

1. OSX intergrating Wine or VMWare.

I think you're prediccting the present. Integrating? No. Selling or sopporting/promoting? They already do that with SoftWindows, so I imagine they'll continue to do so with that or some similar product in the future. I doubt it would be included by default... i see no advantage for Apple in that.

Why is it...

[solios]

That all the Sony and Microsoft and IBM and Sun and SGI and HP fanboys just shut up and take it, while Every. Single. Fucking. Educated Stupid. Mac User spouts off APPLE SHOULD _____________!!!!!!!! like they have even the ghost of a clue?

I've heard some of the STUPIDEST shit pour out of otherwise intelligent mouths - people who obviously have no grasp of what Apple's interested in, where the market is going, or even what good / viable business practices are.

Yet the "brand" attracts this verbal ejaculate like a fresh pile of shit attracts flies.

Awesome.

Re:Why is it...

[bloodmusic]

Sony, Microsoft, IBM, Sun, and HP would be lucky to scrounge up a single fan apiece. Apple fans "spout off" because they are emotionally invested in the company and products; they actually *like* Apple and its products. None of the other companies you mentioned -- with the possible exception of SGI -- inspire or merit that level of involvement.

Also, I second the "decaf" comment.

Re:Why is it...

[solios]

HP calculators (enthusiast, niche market), SGI (before Maya was ported to windows NT and before consumer-level video cards caught up, they were THE bomb and had quite a fan following), Sun (I know several solaris admins who dig the OS and the kit), IBM kit(ditto, mainframes and AIX) - all have enthusiastic niche followings.

Sony? Playstation, Walkman, etc.

Microsoft? Yeah, uh.... k.

Just because you're not part of the userbase and/or don't know anybody who is, doesn't mean the aforementioned companies don't have some degree of fan/cult following.

I've been using Apple kit since the Quadra 650 - the rash of OS X / iPod newcomers and their faddish enthusiasm for Apple The Brand and ignorance of the history of Apple The Company is alternatingly amusing and infuriating.

Re:Why is it...

[Anonymous Coward]

"verbal ejaculate like a fresh pile of shit attracts flies"

That is poetry!

Misunderstood title?

[statemachine]

Did anyone else wonder why a pizza chain was commenting on a computer company?

iTunes is Carbon based (as is QuickTime)

[shawnce]

iTunes on Windows has already introduced a significant amount of OS X AppKit codebase to Windows (on Intel of course)...

iTunes and QuickTime (both ported to Windows) are Carbon based, they are not Cocoa based nor do they use Objective-C (at least not in any main stream way that I know of).

So no AppKit came about as a result of iTunes being ported. Of course AppKit was ported to Windows (and other environments) back in the OpenStep days but likely the port hasn't been maintained much with the newer UI paradigm that Mac OS X has been using (sheets, etc)..

[G5:~] shawnce% otool -L /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes
/A pplications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes:
/usr/lib/libz.1.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.2.2)
/System/Library/Frameworks/Carbon.framework/Versio ns/A/Carbon (compatibility version 2.0.0, current version 128.0.0)
/usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 88.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/IOKit.framework/Version s/A/IOKit (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 271.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/QuickTime.framework/Ver sions/A/QuickTime (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 47.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/vecLib.framework/Versio ns/A/vecLib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 176.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/AGL.framework/Versions/ A/AGL (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/OpenGL.framework/Versio ns/A/OpenGL (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/CoreAudio.framework/Ver sions/A/CoreAudio (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/AudioUnit.framework/Ver sions/A/AudioUnit (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/CoreServices.framework/ Versions/A/CoreServices (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 18.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/SystemConfiguration.fra mework/Versions/A/SystemConfiguration (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/Security.framework/Vers ions/A/Security (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 222.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/AudioToolbox.framework/ Versions/A/AudioToolbox (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/AddressBook.framework/V ersions/A/AddressBook (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 461.0.0)
Inconsistent mh_sizeofcmds

Re:iTunes is Carbon based (as is QuickTime)

[shawnce]

Oops... this was a meant as a reply to this post.

Re:iTunes is Carbon based (as is QuickTime)

[Symphonix]

Not true. As of QuickTime 7, QuickTime has been migrated to Cocoa.

Re:iTunes is Carbon based (as is QuickTime)

[shawnce]

Sorry you are wrong.

QuickTime has been wrapped with an Objective-C interface (QuickTime Kit) to make using it from Cocoa easier but it has not be "migrated". It still depends on Carbon and not Cocoa.

Note...

[G5:~] shawnce% otool -L /System/Library/Frameworks/QuickTime.framework/Ver sions/A/QuickTime
/System/Library/Frameworks/Quic kTime.framework/Versions/A/QuickTime:
/System/Library/Frameworks/QuickTime.framework/Ver sions/A/QuickTime (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 106.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/CoreServices.framework/ Versions/A/CoreServices (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 18.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/Carbon.framework/Versio ns/A/Carbon (compatibility version 2.0.0, current version 128.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/CoreFoundation.framewor k/Versions/A/CoreFoundation (compatibility version 150.0.0, current version 368.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/CoreAudio.framework/Ver sions/A/CoreAudio (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/AudioToolbox.framework/ Versions/A/AudioToolbox (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/AudioUnit.framework/Ver sions/A/AudioUnit (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/vecLib.framework/Versio ns/A/vecLib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 176.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/ApplicationServices.fra mework/Versions/A/ApplicationServices (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 22.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/Security.framework/Vers ions/A/Security (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 222.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/IOKit.framework/Version s/A/IOKit (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 271.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/SystemConfiguration.fra mework/Versions/A/SystemConfiguration (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
/usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 88.0.0)
 
[G5:~] shawnce% otool -o /System/Library/Frameworks/QuickTime.framework/Ver sions/A/QuickTime
/System/Library/Frameworks/Quic kTime.framework/Versions/A/QuickTime:
Objective-C segment
can't print objective-C information no (__OBJC,__module_info) section

Re:iTunes is Carbon based (as is QuickTime)

[foniksonik]

Thanks for the reply... if you'd gottent the placement right it would have been modded up I'm sure... (strange how comments posted under already modded posts seem to then also get modded ;-) one of the obvious failings of /. moderation system).

Anyways, it appears you are correct and I was wrong about the AppKit stuff... which makes my comment a little more speculative in nature.

What do you think of the overall hypothesis though?

Re:One word for you . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

"decaf" :o)

DRM is an enabling technology

[benwaggoner]

You've got the wrong take on DRM.

How DRM works is that content will be released that requires DRM hardware for playback. No one in the computer industry is proposing technologies that would prevent non-DRM'ed media files from playing back! And if that was going to happen, it wouldn't be using Intel's DRM technology.

A DRM-free system will keep on working like today's systems - it just won't be able to play future DRM'ed content. While DRM can be very frustrating, a system lacking it will be perceived by end users as having a bug, not a feature.

Now, a computer with CRACKED DRM support, so that it would play DRM'ed content would be interesting. Basically like an unlocked DVD player. But that's a different thing entirely.

The companies to get PO'ed at over DRM aren't the computer vendors, but the media companies. They'll need constant consumer pressure to keep the DRM rules they implement consumer friendly.

Why have a roundtable if you can ask John Dvorak?

[haaz]

Clearly, as has been the case for years now, Apple will be out of business in two weeks, if not a year. You can bet on it. If you're a damn fool...

While the pundits have been saying this for so long that people might think it's just got to come true some day, even the end of the world as we know it won't stop them. Recall the novel "War Day" by Whitley Streiber and James Kunetka. It's about a fictional journey around the U.S. after a limited nuclear war. California was somehow un-nuked, and apparently out of the paths of much of the fallout. And Apple Computer still exists, with their latest desktop computer appearing on someone's desk. If a fictitious limited nuclear war couldn't stop Apple, what will?

Consider carefully...

[sammy baby]

Think about this one for a minute.

Sun and Apple's development efforts seem to be luring them into the same general direction (towards high-end workstations), but coming from different value adds: Solaris has a firm footing in the high-end server market, one which Apple is just beginning to crack with its computing clusters. Meanwhile, Apple has the sexiest cachet of any technology company in the world, and has what most agree to be the best designed operating system for the end-user anywhere. Why aren't these companies merging?

Just think of it. Sun, and Apple, together at last.

We could call the resultant company, "Snapple."

You are academically retarded

[dangitman]

APPLE SHOULD invest in the Time Cube! Are you ignorant?

AppKit on Windows

[MobyTurbo]

Of course AppKit was ported to Windows (and other environments) back in the OpenStep days but likely the port hasn't been maintained much with the newer UI paradigm that Mac OS X has been using (sheets, etc)..

(I'm blowing away using mod points for this reply, but here goes anyway. :-) )

GNUstep is a mature project to clone openstep and some of the most important elements of the OS X API. It runs, not only on Linux and Unix, but also on Windows and even the Mac. (Though the windows version needs more beta testers.)

Re:AppKit on Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

The key words being "most important elements", for some definition of "important" and the fact it is an implementation of basically OpenStep of yesteryear.

It does not support a lot of what makes Cocoa ... well Cocoa, even more so as of Mac OS X 10.4.

Apple is dying...

[rthille]

It's true. Scientists have proven that Apple will no longer exist after the heat-death of the universe.

Record Labels summed up so well...

[Steve Cowan]

Here's a statement made by XML-guy Tim Bray on the first page of the roundtable discussion that is put succinctly I just had to mention it:

I think there's big money to be made in online music, but not until someone has the cojones to route around the the record labels. To disintermediate, to focus on the artists and the listeners instead of the extremely-fat cats currently addicted to selling 25-cent plastic disks for $20 and doling out a few pennies to the musicians, and trying to protect that franchise by suing their customers.

Well put, Tim. Unfortunately for iTunes to sell big-name artists today, disintermediating is not an option. But it sure is a nice ideal.