Slashdot Mirror
Top Ten Apple Rumors of All Time
An anonymous reader writes "CNET have taken a look back at 30 years of Apple rumors during which we have witnessed Apple's 'rise, fall, and rise again, like a kind of technological Jesus Christ.' Some of the rumors are outrageous, and some came true. The list includes such treasures as the Apple-Nintendo merger, which the article calls 'utterly outlandish,' and the persistent rumor that Apple will release Mac OS X for PC — described as 'so counter-productive and financially damaging for Apple that we doubt the company has ever seriously considered it.' There is also mention of the iPhone, which CNET says is 'an elaborate hoax dreamed up by Steve Jobs to keep journalists busy.'"
Actually, the criticisms of this particular rumour were spot on. Apple would have to be insane to release Mac OS X for the PC.
The distinction people miss though, is that Apple didn't release Mac OS X for the PC. They just built new Macs around an Intel CPU. That's not the same thing as releasing Mac OS X for PCs.
"CNET have taken a look back at 30 years of Apple rumors during which we have witnessed Apple's 'rise, fall, and rise again, like a kind of technological Jesus Christ.'
Or, you know, like a yo-yo.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
He didn't play a lot of games either.
1. Apple to buy Nintendo 2. Mac OS for PC users 3. The return of Newton 4. Apple to buy BeOS 5. The secret OSX build 6. The Apple iPhone 7. iTunes as a record label 8. Widescreen Video iPod 9. 30TH anniversary Mac 10. Apple to buy Disney
Which reminds me of an ancient Minbari textfile I found once.
"We are Insanely Grey.
We stand between the candle and the flame.
The darkness and the light.
The marketroid and the engineer.
Between the Jobs and the Woz."
The iPhone meme is my favorite here. Despite the fact that Cisco owns the rights to iPhone and has for years even Slashdot has people who simply refuse to believe. I actually own an "iPhone" from and it ain't Apple folks. Never will be either. Its just a Skype phone.
Laborare Est Orare
1. Apple to buy Nintendo
2. Mac OS for PC users
3. The return of Newton
4. Apple to buy BeOS
5. The secret OSX build
6. The Apple iPhone
7. iTunes as a record label
8. Widescreen Video iPod
9. 30TH anniversary Mac
10. Apple to buy Disney
The focus of the rumor is not the name iPhone, that's just the popular name for the rumor because Apple prefixes everything with a lowercase I. The point of the rumor is the idea that Apple might make a cell phone. It'd be essentially the same rumor whether it's called the iCell, the MacPhone, the PhoneBook Pro, or even if the phone were going to be called the iChat and Apple's instant messaging client were going to just be renamed Bonjour AV or something.
I actually own an "iPhone" from and it ain't Apple folks.
Yes we all know Cisco owns the 'iPhone" trademark.
However it's just as obvious Apple CAN release a phone and name it something else. The name "iPhone" is simply symbolic of a phone from Apple that can also work with the same data an iPod works with and probably have a similar interface. You are being way to literal in claiming that just because Cisco has released a phone apple cannot because one name in the vast universe of possible names is now taken...
That said I'm only about 50% sure Apple will really release a phone, and it's not just a hoax as CNet is claiming. Personally I would like a more fully featured phone that could work on an MVNO network just as Virgin Mobile phones do today (no virgin mobile phone supports Bluetooth, for example), and also a phone that synchronized better with a computer and was more seamless to use as a data connection (something you cannot get with TMobile pay as you go plans even if the phone supports it). So there is a lot Apple could bring to a phone, I just don't know if they really want to enter that market.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I was shocked that after I forwarded a personal email from Steve Jobs to 100 of my closest friends, I did NOT receive a free iPod as promised.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
"Apple will be out of business in X years."
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
Oh wait, that's under the top ten rationalizations of Apple fanboys, my bad. Actually, back when iLife first came out, that was a very compelling package that did not exist by default with Windows, and it did help even the cost. Granted, over time, Windows has caught up very nicely, and the RC candidates of Vista Ultimate included pretty much the same things as the iLife suite. Some are not as nice (Windows Movie Maker still lags behind iMovie), but they are getting there.
Everyone makes excuses for what they buy, and a lot of people like to mock things they don't fully understand. People have their reasons, be it that's what they have allways used, to that's what their tech friend recommended. I myself use both platforms, and have tried linux before, but I'm not a linux guru and could not get a stable distro running on my laptop (nc6320). That model apparently has a lot of weird issues. Of course, even the release version of Vista Business edition failed to recognize most of the laptops hardware.
Fanbois aside, both machines have a place in the world, and both are good at what they were designed to do. Failure to realize this shows signs of ignorance or apathy. Which one is it? My guess is, fanbois don't know, and they don't care.
--nutz
Except that by crippling it, we'll be back to the bad old days of "Don't use MacOS, it's a baby's OS, it can't do everything."
Technological Jesus extracts confessions from Jack Bauer.
That was a big one for a while.
Seems now the rumors have flipped on that one.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Comparing Apple to Microsoft and stating that apple could be competitive in the generic PC OS world, is a little short sighted, and off the mark. One of the aspects that people like about Apple products is that they work, out of the box, 100% of the time. When you turn on a Macintosh, for example, and install the OS (assuming you wanted to install a different version than it came with) you don't have to go searching for drivers and you don't have to worry about hardware compatibility issues. This is because Macs only run on a small subset of possible hardware that has been tested to work with their software.
It would be foolish for Apple to release OS X for generic hardware. OS X has remained stable and secure over the years because of Apples complete control over the hardware. You just can't do that when it is expected to run on any hardware.
Now if they wanted to release an API that could be used to develope software that could then run on any OS that supports the API, that would be another story. Then those that like the stability that comes with a OS hardware package could continue with Mac, and someone else could create an OS for generic hardware that ran the same exact applications (without out the need for seperate and/or conditional compilation).
That'd be because Microsoft sells their operating system to every hardware vendor who wants to save a buck by not developing their own OS in-house. MS-DOS didn't have a heavily entrenched incumbent OS to compete against, whereas Mac OS X would have to wage the uphill battle against Windows to become a profitable generic-PC OS, meanwhile Apple's hardware sales would suffer.
Very true. However, just because the software and OS are what are driving Apple's sales, that doesn't mean that that's where they make their money. They make the bulk of their profits on hardware sales, the OS and software are what motivates people to buy said hardware.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
They wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming the dominant software supplier in a million years by supporting Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. They'd end up going through the same thing they went through 10—15 years ago, when they experimented with Mac clones: all the other companies (who wouldn't have to make up the cost of software R&D and support) would easily undercut the price of Apple's hardware, canniballizing their sales. Since hardware sales are Apple's bread-and-butter, they'd end up hemorrhaging money, and the only way to make up that with licensing fees would be to make those fees prohibitively expensive, making other hardware vendors reluctant to add Mac OS X to their offerings.
They're not being cowards, they're being smart. Apple's business model is completely, fundamentally different from Microsoft's. To have a chance at being profitable off OS and software sales, Apple would have to completely change their fundamental business model, only to face an uphill battle against the ultra-entrenched Windows OS.
The U.S. Constitution needs to be ammended with a "separation of business and state" clause.
They forgot the rumor that's been around since the Apple I:
Apple is going out of business.
So basically with all above in mind Apple WILL NOT go into cellphones since in this market they are not dictating the rules - the service provider are. Also the cellphone market is saturated so I don't really imagine what Apple can bring to it.
I agree with your basic premise (control). However, that is what makes the chances of them coming out with a phone 50/50 in my mind.
True they do not exactly control the networks, nor would they build thier own or rely only on WiMax or some other crazy scheme. However, as an MVNO they are basically paying the carriers for every minute a customer uses the network - apart from that they do not care. So apple has the ability to have more reasonable plans and better rates and charges that make sense. This is exactly why I went with Virgin Mobile for a phone.
Now the big mystery to me here is how carriers treat data traffic across in an MVNO arrangement. There's no way Apple would do an iPhone that could not do data across a network. Wuld that use simply count as minutes in an MVNO arrangement? Or would carriers even allow an MVNO such access? Virgin mobile does offer web surfing on some phones, so it might be possible.
They only thing Apple can't exactly control is quality of service, but even there if they would simply make a little better antenna that picked up signals better it would be a vast improvement over many phones today.
Obviously a Nokia or Motorola. I know you mac-heads just love your iPods and Macs but please keep in mind that there is like 1/4 of whole Earths population of cellphones out here and just a handfull of iPods and even less Macs.
Great googly moogly man, don't you realize that all of us iPod owners already have phones - including the ones you speak of?
In fact I own a RAZR. I am hard pressed to say I have had a phone I despise more - I dislike the signal reception, I dislike the interface, I really especially dislike the physical aspects of the phone as I find the buttons very hard to press correctly (preferring even much smaller buttons on other phones!) and the whole point of a clamsheel design is lost when you stupidly put buttons on the side of a phone.
I have used Nokias and they like before, but although the interface s better often again signal quality is low, the UI is not great and integration with a computer is primitive compared to what it could be if carriers were not so reluctant to allow networking outside thier own networks.
One thing alone that Apple could to do a phone is take that ear-destroying volume of the iPod and transfer it into a phone. I was trying to answer a call in the middle of Disney World recently - I might as well have been trying to listen for the oceon in a sea shell.
So please, do not talk to me about power and design and ease of use and then in the same breath bring up the maker of a phone I have almost taken a sledge hammer to and at least three seperate occasions. You may have low standards with phones, but I would like much more.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley