Slashdot Mirror
Apple to Rule the Digital Home by 2013?
Stony Stevenson writes to tell us that a new study from Forrester Research is taking a crack at what seems to have become a hobby for so many, predicting Apple's market strategy. Specifically, Forrester is predicting that Apple will become the 'hub of the digital home by 2013.' "Forrester predicts that Apple will offer eight key products and services to connect PCs and digital content to the TV-stereo infrastructure in consumers' homes. A 're-engineered' Apple Store will expand into in-home installation services to deliver what Forrester describes as a 'fully integrated digital experience.'"
It'll be either one of the console vendors Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony (Probably Microsoft if they can get their heads out their asses on the matter of DRM. The XBox 360/Windows Media stuff works pretty well already and is simple to set up) or a set-top box vendor (again if they can come up with a DRM strategy).
Apple doesn't make anything that hooks to a TV that has any critical mass.
How they get people to pay thousands of dollars for this "research" is amazing. Can anyone ever remember someone saying "Damn! Forrester totally called it!"
The 4 new products they predict are:
* AppleSound universal music controller
what, for the times when you are out of earshot of itunes, ipod or apple tv? or so you can sync them? I don't see the market here.
* Network-enabled gadgets
like a chumby? or an ambient orb?
* In-home installation services
apple geek squad? Ok, this may be true, but really... yawn...
* Apple home server product
This is the only one that MAY be interesting, but that's probably just because they don't say much about it. isn't this what the mini is? or mini+drobo?
Actually, I think everyone wants integration, if it works well. The problem so far has been most "integrated" devices have been overcomplicated crap. Sure hardcore geeks can use Windows Media Center PCs, and a few have been willing to shell out $1500 or whatever for one, but most folks want something easier and cheaper.
Enter Apple.
Integration can help ensure things "just work", if done correctly (Microsoft being the poster child for how not to do it correctly). The downside is, it's either Apple's way or the highway. But that's really already the case for any existing integrated solutions from every other consumer electronics vendor, from Bose to Nokia to, well, Microsoft.
Apple has successfully locked people into the iPod with the iPod's connector. They've leveraged their position as the #1 portable music player to build up a whole ecology of products that'll only work with their devices, a barrier to entry even Microsoft couldn't overcome. If they establish themselves as the lead integrator in the home, as I suspect is likely via the iPhone and future successors to the AppleTV, they're going to become virtually impossible to work around.
Their products aren't perfect, but I'm frankly glad it's gonna be them and not either Microsoft or Sony. Apple is at worst annoying - Sony and MS have already proven dangerous.
I dunno... isn't one of the major selling points of Apple products a sense of style that you are supposed to show off to other people? I know that's not their only selling point, but it sure seems like a big one. They do well by portable goodies (laptops, iPhone, iPod) that you can wave in front of someone and say "shiny", but are more average on other things. I suppose you can still show off your "digital hub" to people who come over to your house, but it doesn't feel the same.
;)
Quick, get a fanboi in here to show me the error of my ways!
One thing PC users can do that Mac users can't
Hasn't this Digital Home idea been in the making since the early 90's? Bluetooth was supposed to be key step to aid in this process but has altogether failed. I can probably see Sony coming out with a solution for this since they do have many products and the expertise. Plus do we really want everything to be controlled by software? The quote "If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization" comes to mind.
I give Forrester Research credit for finally waking up and smelling the coffee, but they're still in a groggy, early morning stupor.
AFAIK, this is the first article from a mainstream computer industry research report that acknowledges Apple may have a very serious and viable five year product plan, beyond their existing hit products.
But then, Forrester goes on to say Apple's "commitment to closed systems" poses a barrier to wide adoption. In the previous paragraph, Microsoft and HP are cited as tough competitors, without mention of how much more closed Windows is. Nor does the article mention that Apple's proprietary parts are superior interfaces to open protocols.
I would have been much more impressed if the article discussed how Apple's practice of continuously building and improving on past technical and product successes poses a serious challenge to Microsoft and HPs practice of quarterly product planning. I guess this degree of insightfulness is reserved for more independent sources, like Roughly Drafted.
What's the acronym for the opposite of FUD?
More than likely, this is just more nonsense from the standard Apple product cycle.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Who cares about everybody? Apple only cares about people with money. Preferably, those who are easily parted from it.
Remember those ads from the 1950s promising the easy life if you only buy their special new product, firmly targeting the (at the time) new middle class? That's Apple, today.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Their other big play between now an 2013 could be videogames. There's no reason why Apple can't release its own Xbox - I'm sure Intel would be happy to lend them a lot of engineering help in order to establish a presence in that market. Make the device function with iPhones and serve as a media hub, sell it for $300 or less and watch as it erodes the market for more expensive gaming devices from its rivals. The iPhone is already poised to become a successful portable gaming device in its own right.
Apple could also use their position to smash the high-priced game model that's dominated the market for the past two decades. Keep the price of games to $19.95 and win share away from more expensive rivals, who have been using their cut of game revenue to fund console development.
Since when has Apple - or anything to accessorize their products, such as the myriad of shareware 'solutions' which provide only the basest features - been 'cheap'? I saw software for OS X the other day which cost over $30, and all the software did was take screen/snapshots of the screen in a vaguely novel fashion. And that isn't the norm, from what I can tell.
No, if Apple were to produce a game system, it would cost 20%+ more than the competition, have only a limited number of games (with very generic names, like Street Fight and Ride Bike) which would have not only an up-front cost higher than the competition, but would also have a per-game for-pay subscription model.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers