PDA

View Full Version : Apple Shareholder Meeting Notes


arn
Apr 24, 2002, 06:19 PM
Rower_CPU provides this ThinkSecret link (http://www.thinksecret.com/features/shareholdersmeeting02.html) which details notes from Apple's shareholder meeting.

Among the notes are denials of OS X on Intel and a rotating iMac screen.

macstudent
Apr 24, 2002, 06:29 PM
IT is interesting the Jobs specifically said No in response to Os X on intel. Now we can rest the rumors of Os X being ported to intel.

mcrain
Apr 24, 2002, 06:30 PM
No one asked about all the stuff we've been waiting ever so patiently for??

Choppaface
Apr 24, 2002, 07:09 PM
course they can rotate the imac screen to portrait. my dad's lacie can, and he has a tibook

Billicus
Apr 24, 2002, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
No one asked about all the stuff we've been waiting ever so patiently for??

I'd like to know why, too.

Billicus
Apr 24, 2002, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by Choppaface
course they can rotate the imac screen to portrait. my dad's lacie can, and he has a tibook

care to elaborate?- your confusing me. Maybe it's an issue with the iMac video card.

Zaren
Apr 24, 2002, 08:36 PM
I'd think that the information posted wasn't a complete summary. I wasn't there (poor me, another meeting I get to miss out on because it's on the wrong coast), so I can't say with authority, but that didn't seem like a lot that was talked about.

-----
Is Darwin an evolutionary OS? (http://www.cafepress/com/darwinos)

AlphaTech
Apr 24, 2002, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by Choppaface
course they can rotate the imac screen to portrait. my dad's lacie can, and he has a tibook

Which of the THREE DIFFERENT screens can rotate (between landscape and portrait mode)?? I KNOW the TiBook cannot, suspect that the iMac cannot, but without knowing which LaCie you are talking about, won't say. One liners like that are worse then saying nothing at all.

Rower_CPU
Apr 24, 2002, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by Choppaface
course they can rotate the imac screen to portrait. my dad's lacie can, and he has a tibook

Is your Dad's Lacie the same display that's in the iMac? Is your Dad's video card the same as what's in the iMac?

I'm guessing that "No" will be your answer, so my response to you is:

course they can't.

Quark
Apr 24, 2002, 10:18 PM
I agree with Rower_CPU and Alphatech.

I have the iMac flat-panel and you cannot rotate the screen to portrait.

Perhaps if you attach a separate flat panel or crt that rotates, then you can rotate... get it.

It sounds like Choppaface's comment may have been taken out of context.

Clearly it needs some more detailed information.

Quark
:p

AlphaTech
Apr 24, 2002, 10:28 PM
Quark, if Choppaface's comment is taken out of context, it is his own doing. We quoted his entire post. Nothing was ommitted.

Some people like walking around with a large bullseye on themselves. Go figure. :D

G4scott
Apr 24, 2002, 10:54 PM
I believe that he means with an external monitor, he can rotate the 'external' screen to portrait. The monitor may just ask for a change in resolution, like a new monitor was plugged in...

Rower_CPU
Apr 24, 2002, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
I believe that he means with an external monitor, he can rotate the 'external' screen to portrait. The monitor may just ask for a change in resolution, like a new monitor was plugged in...

I know that's what he meant.

I was simply pointing out that there are other factors to consider, other than that it's possible.

The monitor (obviously) has to support it. The video card may have to as well (I'm not sure).

So he's trying to compare kumquats and mangos (apples and oranges is played out). :D

Geert
Apr 25, 2002, 01:21 AM
seems like indeed they did not talk about a lot.
Noticed that Steve said to practically any question "no"?
the no to Intel that was good though:p

If the iMacs' screen could rotate, would be nice.
And that is not a matter of rotating the screen, but more: 'does the graphic card support such feature?'
It should be able to project your screen view with a 90░ angle, and that will cost more!!

But let's talk about the things that weren't said?!?
The iMac no rotating screen, but nothing was said of pro-users' screens rotating.
... check the link and fish out things that were not said, ok, that's a lot of guessing of course, but leaves some space for other great things, no?

btw, on a shareholders meeting is nothing special debated, that would be more like after MW: " we impressed them once more, what will we think of now to impress them on the following MW?"
I'dd like to be attending one of those meetings

Xapplimatic
Apr 25, 2002, 01:42 AM
If the screen could be rotated on an iMac (assuming there was extra sensors for noticing and circuitry or programming for doing the rotation of the image), it would still be a mechanical nightmare and not one even Apple would want to deal with.. Think mechanics and ergonomics:

The screen is on a vertically adjustable neck. If you rotate the screen, suddenly it's higher and lower than the pivoting arm. This would mean that the arm would have to be restricted in height to only allow the pivoting at a certain height or the careful limits currently in place on the angle of lowering the screen would be invalid and the screen could therefore be lowered to block the CD drive or smash down on top of the keyboard. It looks like a mechanical mess.. And you couldnt' just limit the height to accomodate portrait mode because then the average user who would probably prefer landscape mode would be mad that the screen can't go as low as it does now (just perfectly above the CD drive tray!)... I remember a LONGgggg time ago a Radius screen (crt) which did this trick of rotating.. BUT it wasn't on top of a computer and it wasn't attached to a floating arm either...

alex_ant
Apr 25, 2002, 02:12 AM
Woohoo, 256 more pixels vertically and 256 pixels less horizontally! I've got one thing to say about a rotatable iMac screen: 'Ew the fook cares.

Rower_CPU
Apr 25, 2002, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant
Woohoo, 256 more pixels vertically and 256 pixels less horizontally! I've got one thing to say about a rotatable iMac screen: 'Ew the fook cares.

It's a semi-handy feature actually.
Landscape works better for layout and design work, while portrait is better for browsing the web or writing text documents.

But I agree that such technology has little place in the current iMac.

G4scott
Apr 25, 2002, 06:08 AM
I think that Jobs has plenty of reason to say no to oS X on intel. It would cannabalize Mac hardware sales. no one would buy a Mac, except for some professionals, because they could get the hardware for less than a thousand bucks with higher clock speeds than Apple's pro models. People in general are easialy bought out by these types of things, and it would be a nightmare for Apple...

mischief
Apr 25, 2002, 10:37 AM
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.cfm?id=4A867E50-54C8-11D5-97C60090278D3ED0

Tada...........rotating Lacie sans special video card.:p :cool: :eek: :confused: :mad: :rolleyes: ;)

Rower_CPU
Apr 25, 2002, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by mischief
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.cfm?id=4A867E50-54C8-11D5-97C60090278D3ED0

Tada...........rotating Lacie sans special video card.:p :cool: :eek: :confused: :mad: :rolleyes: ;)

Don't think we'll be seeing that one in the iMac anytime soon...it costs as much as the low-end model...:rolleyes:

mischief
Apr 25, 2002, 12:31 PM
But the point was that you don't need a new Video Card.:D

Rower_CPU
Apr 25, 2002, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by mischief
But the point was that you don't need a new Video Card.:D

Granted...that's why I said I wasn't sure if it was neccessary or not...

Once the technology becomes more affordable we might see it in the iMac. If Apple starts incorporating it into their standalone displays, we may see a sort of trickle down effect. But as Xapplimatic pointed out, there are other considerations to make.

iGav
Apr 25, 2002, 12:44 PM
My external sony lcd rotates.......

I have absolutely no use for this function......... as I don't really do 'print' design anymore......

And it looks quite cool in upright mode though........:cool:

AlphaTech
Apr 25, 2002, 12:50 PM
If I remember correctly, you need software to get the computer to know that you have changed the orientation of the display and to correct the image to correlate. I know there was an item for OS 8.x (didn't work reliably after OS 9.x) but is there any solution for OS X?

I also don't do layouts any longer, and like having the screen a little wider. Any good 17"+ monitor/display, set to 1024x768 or higher should give enough room for most people. I know that some set it higher and some need to set it lower, but MOST (not all) people would have the 17" at that resolution. 19" screens can easily go to 1280x1024 and provide a good display. Larger screens can go higher, but I have found that even a 21" looks good at 1280x1024. Not too small, not too large, just right for my use. :D

conceptDawg
Apr 25, 2002, 02:10 PM
Back in the good ole days of the early 90's I worked as a systems administrator at a site that had around 500 Macs. Some of the secretarial staff had what were then called "Portrait Displays" that rotated.

Of course, back then, you could only get the displays in greyscale and the cards came bundled with them. I'm pretty sure the company name was Portrait, but that could have just been the line of monitors.

They were quite useful to have around.....for about 1% of our user base. The fact is that it is a really cool feature, but it may not be cool enough to warrant spending millions emplementing it (by Apple) on current hardware. I personally would love to use it, but I do alot of web/poster/layout design that is in the standard portrait layout much of the time.

Now, if they had already been planning this from the start and just haven't told anyone, well...that's different. The planning and research would already be there and, presumably, they hardware/software combination would be ready to support it (no pun intended about the arm supporting it).

cD

CHess
Apr 25, 2002, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
I think that Jobs has plenty of reason to say no to oS X on intel. It would cannabalize Mac hardware sales. no one would buy a Mac, except for some professionals, because they could get the hardware for less than a thousand bucks with higher clock speeds than Apple's pro models. People in general are easialy bought out by these types of things, and it would be a nightmare for Apple...

That's partly true, but Mac people buy macs as much because Apple knows how to design hardware as well as the OS. I think the big problem with supporting OS X on an Intel platform is that people would have a very "less than Mac" experience when running Mac OS. You'd have to support technology like floppy drives, serial ports, parallel ports, and tons of non-standard junk. Plus general lack of firewire technology and all. Then when things aren't working right, they'd blame Apple for not supporting their non-standard configurations.

Billicus
Apr 25, 2002, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by CHess


That's partly true, but Mac people buy macs as much because Apple knows how to design hardware as well as the OS. I think the big problem with supporting OS X on an Intel platform is that people would have a very "less than Mac" experience when running Mac OS. You'd have to support technology like floppy drives, serial ports, parallel ports, and tons of non-standard junk. Plus general lack of firewire technology and all. Then when things aren't working right, they'd blame Apple for not supporting their non-standard configurations.

I couldn't have said it better. :)

agoldweber
Apr 25, 2002, 05:52 PM
ah, but I believe in the 'raise the bar' theory. that is, when there is something that needs to be jumped over, there will be tons of jumping.

to this point, Wintel box designers have a low bar to jump over--they're putting together boxes for a clunky, ugly system. the hardware matches the software.

if they were designing for a system that may run Mac (or another pretty OS), surely they'll up their output.

we may be Apple fans, but we'd be na´ve to think that the only good industrial designers working in the PC market have landed at the Infinite Loop.

(delinquent)

funkatron
Apr 25, 2002, 07:05 PM
Let's consider, though, the idea that Apple still manufactures the machines -- they just use x86 instead of PPC.

Right now, many would argue that Apple's commitment to the PPC architecture -- particularly Motorola's PPC -- is their Achille's heel. A switch to x86 would eliminate this weakness in Apple's current offerings .

That's obviously MUCH easier said than done from a technical standpoint, but there is something to be said for the idea, I think.

-Ed

alex_ant
Apr 25, 2002, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by funkatron
Let's consider, though, the idea that Apple still manufactures the machines -- they just use x86 instead of PPC.

Right now, many would argue that Apple's commitment to the PPC architecture -- particularly Motorola's PPC -- is their Achille's heel. A switch to x86 would eliminate this weakness in Apple's current offerings .

That's obviously MUCH easier said than done from a technical standpoint, but there is something to be said for the idea, I think.
This has all been beaten to death elsewhere on the forums. Let's not go there again...

Alex