Slashdot Mirror
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."
Surely should be post-PPC, unless they've ditched Intel already.
I guess today is a passable day to die.
Somebody willpredict great success, somebody will predict total failure, and many slashdot assholes will bitch about the iPod throughout this thread.
Check out my foes list to see who is so retarded that they can't use the signature line!!!
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..
on the company's post-Intel future...
You mean they are already moving away from Intel again? Help, I can't keep up anymore!
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
using chips from the Atom Chip Corporation
http://atomchip.com/_wsn/page4.html
I am sure Dianetics is involved here somewhere.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
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.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
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.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Hey, you have something brown on your tongue.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
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.
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.
I'm too cool for a sig.
> 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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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
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.
Either my sarcasm detector is broke, or you're a moron with a dumb sig.
Will wank off Linus Torvalds for fame.
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.
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.)
"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 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.You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Sure, go off and boycott Apple. Then we, who want to hear about Apple, can do so in peace.
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
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.
Tell me what you've been smoking, I'd like to try some.
OTOH, I'd have said the same about switching to Intel.
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
>> 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.
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.
My sarcasm detector is flawless, so I vote for moron
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?
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.
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!
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? 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.You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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!
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
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
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
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".
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.
I've addressed it repeatedly.
I've addressed this repeatedly.
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.
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
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
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.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
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 NataelTrue science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Why not adjust your settings to hide articles about Apple instead of bitching about it?
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
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
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
And what a profitable 5% they are.
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.
Maybe, or the iPod would just become more expensive again.
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.
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.
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.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Let me say this again so you can understand:
Nott going to happen.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
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.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
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
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)
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?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Oh a sacrasm dectector; that's real useful!
English is easier said than done.
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.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
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.
I've been telling you for the last 20 years, Apple is about to go bankrupt and collapse.
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
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?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
"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.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
"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.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
HAHAHAHAHA!!
I don't suppose you've ever met Steve Jobs, have you? No?
It shows.
Post-Intel Fruedian Slip is most apt phrasing for the re-vived Apple.
.Mac svcs
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
10)theSteve:: CorpBusLogix service 2020
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.
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.
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.
Did anyone else wonder why a pizza chain was commenting on a computer company?
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)..
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.
My video compression blog
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.
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?
-- haaz.
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."
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?
... and then they built the supercollider.
APPLE SHOULD invest in the Time Cube! Are you ignorant?
... and then they built the supercollider.
(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.)
It's true. Scientists have proven that Apple will no longer exist after the heat-death of the universe.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/