PDA

View Full Version : Will Apple Keep the Lead?


MacRumors
Jan 4, 2004, 04:59 AM
The New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/business/4915.htm) writes about how Apple is the best position its been in for some time with the success of its most recent line of Macs, the iPod and the iTunes Music Store. As one analyst notes, "If you look at where Apple was a few short years ago and where they are today, it's nothing short of phenomenal."

The paper even cites the rumored Mini iPods (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/12/20031229032549.shtml) as a way to defend its current leadership role. According to the post "the question is whether history will repeat itself."

Of course, this refers to Apple's loss of computer marketshare to Windows and PC clones over the years in an industry that Apple helped create. Apple currently enjoys the #1 spot (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/12/20031230121842.shtml) amongst portable digital music player sales, despite the relatively high cost of their current iPods -- as compared to the other contenders.

We will find out more on at the Keynote (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/12/20031218113912.shtml).

desdomg
Jan 4, 2004, 05:04 AM
This time round make sure they keep SJ around. Then it will be OK.

Awimoway
Jan 4, 2004, 05:07 AM
I personally know of converts to the computers line that the iPod is making. Even so much as 10-15% marketshare seems to me like an impossible mirage, anymore. Maybe I'm just too jaded from desperately hoping. But surely OS marketshare has got to improve as a result of the iPod.

Daveman Deluxe
Jan 4, 2004, 05:13 AM
Originally posted by desdomg
This time round make sure they keep SJ around. Then it will be OK.

That's really only part of the equation. I think that Apple needs to get serious about corporate governance. Apple could use two or three independent board members (pretty much everybody on the board right now is a friend of Steve), the kind that won't give SJ lucrative stock options regardless of the company's performance. Jobs' compensation agreement is a joke. He gets what he gets regardless of how Apple does that year. Not only that, Jobs only owns two shares of Apple's stock. That's not exactly a quality I'd be looking for in a CEO.

alset
Jan 4, 2004, 05:13 AM
Originally posted by desdomg
This time round make sure they keep SJ around. Then it will be OK.

Steve was destroying Apple. He may have saved them from certain doom, but his ousting wasn't the cause of turmoil. If that were the case, we would expect that every company he touched would come out ahead. As we saw with NeXT, Steve was not then prepared to lead a corporation.

I have these terrible bouts of anxiety, sometimes, considering Apple's future. I think of a world controlled by the Dells and the M$s of the world and how it would take all (or much) the fun out of my computing. Other times I am overjoyed and supremely optimistic. I'm looking for that feeling in two days.

Dan

alset
Jan 4, 2004, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
Not only that, Jobs only owns two shares of Apple's stock. That's not exactly a quality I'd be looking for in a CEO.
When Steve worked with only one share (when did it become two?) it was supposed be a sign that he had returned because of passion, not money. We now see that Steve has lots of cash coming in, as you mentioned, but why is this an issue? Sure, the scale is a little too full, for many of our tastes, but Apple is doing fantastically.

I've gotta tell you, their stock doesn't really have a lot farther to go, unless it works it's way back into the $100s just to split (we all want that, yes). Apple is often undervalued (IMO) because they are a huge risk (fact). They are niche. They always will be. This is Apple at it's best in ten years, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Dan

Awimoway
Jan 4, 2004, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by alset
I have these terrible bouts of anxiety, sometimes, considering Apple's future. I think of a world controlled by the Dells and the M$s of the world and how it would take all (or much) the fun out of my computing. Other times I am overjoyed and supremely optimistic. I'm looking for that feeling in two days.

Dan

I firmly believe Apple will survive. Jobs seems to content with being a boutique computer maker, comparing the line to BMWs: high performance, high style, high markup (not necessarily the qualities Steve himself has listed ;) ). I believe that's a winning model no matter what the Dells and Microsofts of the world do.

Maybe I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek. Apple's not entirely a boutique dealer. They're trying hard to make inroads into the server market and enterprise in general. The iPod is ubiquitous. But by and large Apple seems to be happy with its marginal status.

desdomg
Jan 4, 2004, 05:25 AM
As an outsider to all this all I see is that Apple with Steve are a success and without him they are not.

If Pixar can be a success and not own 95% of the film industry then why can't Apple's current success be equally respected?

Scottgfx
Jan 4, 2004, 05:41 AM
Originally posted by Awimoway
I firmly believe Apple will survive. Jobs seems to content with being a boutique computer maker, comparing the line to BMWs: high performance, high style, high markup

Look at all the software Apple owns. It's all at the high-end, and don't think for a moment that Apple won't leverage it to get people to migrate to their hardware. Ahhh, that's the other half of the equation. Workstation class hardware to complement the professional level applications. Turn-key systems two steps ahead of either Avid or Adobe.

This also raises the question of Apple getting away from the consumer. I don't see that happening, as evidenced by the success of the iPod. Look at Sony and Panasonic. They both make tons of consumer level appliances and such, but they also make professional level stuff like Videotape recorders costing tens of thousands of dollars.

inkswamp
Jan 4, 2004, 05:43 AM
This is only barely on-topic, but since most MR posts lately are about 2004 and what to expect next week, this seems appropriate.

I just finished looking over the iBox discussion from an earlier post and I'm amazed at what nobody has yet noticed. Jobs has been asked if Apple plans to offer a download service for movies like iTunes. His response has been along the lines of how nobody wants to watch movies on their computer and it takes forever to download. But it seems like a natural progression to go from iTunes to a movie download service. I wonder if the iBox (if it's for real) will prove to be the missing link in the rumors of an online movie service a la iTunes. The iBox would be to a movie download service what the iPod would be to iTMS... the hardware component designed to work with the service.

Maybe it's farfetched, but if such a box could be done including all the features it is rumored to have already, it would be a killer piece of equipment.

foniks2020
Jan 4, 2004, 06:08 AM
Originally posted by inkswamp

Maybe it's farfetched, but if such a box could be done including all the features it is rumored to have already, it would be a killer piece of equipment.


The one thing that makes me think this is possible is the acquisition and implementation of the Pixelet Codec.... bring it.

Phobophobia
Jan 4, 2004, 06:24 AM
Downloading movies would be possible, just make it broadband-only and stream a bunch of it.

dstorey
Jan 4, 2004, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by inkswamp
TI just finished looking over the iBox discussion from an earlier post and I'm amazed at what nobody has yet noticed. Jobs has been asked if Apple plans to offer a download service for movies like iTunes. His response has been along the lines of how nobody wants to watch movies on their computer and it takes forever to download. But it seems like a natural progression to go from iTunes to a movie download service. .

I've already mentioned this in the iBox thread. if Jobs think people don't want to watch movies on the computer, them make something for the tv instead to make it smarter, like they did for songs with the iPod.

X86BSD
Jan 4, 2004, 07:12 AM
As mentioned already, ill just say two words: Apple, Pixar.

Both are doing amazing and fantastic things, *at a profit*. What's the common denominator ? Jobs. I think it's arrogant to ignore that fact. The guys a modern day equivalent of King Midas. He doesn't make the movies at Pixar but he sure does implement the drive, the vision, and the means to get them done. Same at apple. He hires good people, smart people, and creative people that do "think outside the box." Anyone denying SJ's benefit to these two companies and writing it off as mere coincidence is off in never never land IMO. :)

rdowns
Jan 4, 2004, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by X86BSD
As mentioned already, ill just say two words: Apple, Pixar.

Both are doing amazing and fantastic things, *at a profit*. What's the common denominator ? Jobs. I think it's arrogant to ignore that fact. The guys a modern day equivalent of King Midas. He doesn't make the movies at Pixar but he sure does implement the drive, the vision, and the means to get them done. Same at apple. He hires good people, smart people, and creative people that do "think outside the box." Anyone denying SJ's benefit to these two companies and writing it off as mere coincidence is off in never never land IMO. :)

I'm a big Jobs fan, but to call him King Midas is a bit much IMO. Had he not been replaced at Apple the first time, Apple would probably have died. He was not ready to run a company. Same thing at NeXT, had Apple not bought it, it too would have died.

His return to Apple has been pretty amazing product wise but they still are not too profitable (remember, a lot of their income is from their huge cash reserves and investments) and their market share continues to suck, iPod not included.

I do like the position Apple is in now (hey, I own just under 750 shares) but I can't shake the feeling of deja vu; Apple has been here before and not capitalized. Just look at all the things Apple invented that others adopted (stole) and went on to bigger success.

As for Pixar, everything I've read is that he is pretty hands off there. You could argue much of Pixar's success is due to their Disney deal. Will they be able to duplicate the success when that deal expires? Will they re-up with Disney or forge a new partnership or go it alone? Stay iTuned

Rod Rod
Jan 4, 2004, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by foniks2020
The one thing that makes me think this is possible is the acquisition and implementation of the Pixelet Codec.... bring it.

Pixlet wouldn't be of any help in a movie download service, or even an Apple branded PVR, unless a whole lot of people had T1 connections and 3 terabytes of hard drive space. Pixlet is not the answer. MPEG4 or something like it is. (I say "something like it" because AAC is like MP3 only better.)

dongmin
Jan 4, 2004, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by Awimoway
I personally know of converts to the computers line that the iPod is making. Even so much as 10-15% marketshare seems to me like an impossible mirage, anymore. Maybe I'm just too jaded from desperately hoping. But surely OS marketshare has got to improve as a result of the iPod. I'd be happy with 6-8% (double the current marketshare).

chabig
Jan 4, 2004, 09:23 AM
Not only that, Jobs only owns two shares of Apple's stock.

That may be true, but not many CEOs have their whole reputation on the line as Steve does. Steve "is" Apple. He "failed" there once. He has a huge ego. If he were to fail again, the personal loss would be incomparable.

He has plenty of money. Owning more shares of stock wouldn't make a difference to him, because Apple is not about money for him. It's his personal battle against the world.

Grimace
Jan 4, 2004, 10:18 AM
Apple doesn't want a 30% marketshare - to do that (just by volume of customers) - they might be forced away from doing what they do best. Apple has been happy to have a loyal (crazy-in-love) fan base.

Another thing that people ALWAYS misconstrue is the 3-5% marketshare figure.

By the % alone ----> Apple must have a small marketshare.

Not true!! Apple has a small marketshare compared to the combination of ALL PC manufacturers!! Apple takes on each individual company - AND their platform.

Remember that the rival companies are fragmented and only unite under the OS.

philoye
Jan 4, 2004, 11:42 AM
Six months ago, John Gruber, from Daring Fireball, wrote the most sensible thing (http://daringfireball.net/2003/07/market_share) I've ever read about Apple's market share.

Check it out.

Grimace
Jan 4, 2004, 11:55 AM
That's extremely well put.

Apple and Oranges I tell you!

copperpipe
Jan 4, 2004, 11:58 AM
I think it comes down to wether ol' Steve is gonna be as hardheaded as he's been in the past, or wether he has learned from his mistakes. It's quite a line to dance - between sticking to your guns, which Apple has done beautifully, and knowing when to bend and change. Apple needs to know when to produce something that has a low price tag to compete with the Dells of the world, and I think that time is now. Bring the affordable iPod, and bring the return of an original iMac computer. Not the exact same thing of course, but we need an Apple computer people can buy for $600 that has an adorable quality. The eMac ain't adorable - in my opinion it's the ugliest thing Apple has out there...

greenstork
Jan 4, 2004, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Awimoway
I firmly believe Apple will survive. Jobs seems to content with being a boutique computer maker, comparing the line to BMWs: high performance, high style, high markup (not necessarily the qualities Steve himself has listed ;) ). I believe that's a winning model no matter what the Dells and Microsofts of the world do.

Maybe I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek. Apple's not entirely a boutique dealer. They're trying hard to make inroads into the server market and enterprise in general. The iPod is ubiquitous. But by and large Apple seems to be happy with its marginal status.

I agree with you entirely but I think it's important to note that Apple is getting involved in multiple industries. I see iTMS/iTunes/iPods as a unique market, completely separate from computer sales.

edit: You can't compare the two markets in terms of market share, it's apples and oranges.

I think that Apple is keeping the "boutique" approach to computer sales but they are most definitely trying to dominate the online music business. Two entirely different marketing approaches, and I think they are both in the best interests of Apple in the long run. While the boutique approach works for them in computers, I don't think they should let a dominant market share opportunity like this pass them by. First mover/best product advantage rarely happens and should be seized.

Photorun
Jan 4, 2004, 12:17 PM
Still of "boutique" machines don't communicate with the rest of the world what's the point? With M$ dictating almost all standards across the industry (mind you, crappy standards, championing mediocrity) it'd be easy to make Mac part of it's own insular experience and thus a potential downward spiral.

I refute the BMW metaphor, at one time it was cute, now it's stupid to use and people should be flogged, it's like saying chocolate survives in the food world (if you said "huh" precisely). BMW doesn't regulate the rest of the auto industry with lackluster components (the analogy would be better if you used GM or Fiat, some crappy company as M$). BMW can't be driven out (pardon pun) Chevy decided to make some crappy roof deployed airbag standard (that wouldn't work during most crashes). It's a different industry and a lousy analogy.

Reality is Apple DOES need market share, it DOES need acceptance in major industries it DOES need acceptance in education and elsewhere. I had a meeting the other week and I expunged some vitues of Macs to a bunch of older idiots, some who thought Macs were only good for graphics, another who didn't know Macs were around anymore, it was nuts. Point is this mentality gets more and more pervasive (bet these people wouldn't have said such things about a BMW, which most covet and/or see as a icon that someone has money or style) and unless Apple does things to impress upon the industry, public, and world in general... nothing really matters long long term.

mgardner
Jan 4, 2004, 12:22 PM
Apple will not move away from consumers.. as one said the ipods are a big hit... and so is the music store.. One thing that really boosts sales of their products is the Retail stores.. I know of many people who would rather buy something and get it when they walk out the door than online and wait a week for it.. Apple will survive... the only question is how will they do it...

elgruga
Jan 4, 2004, 12:32 PM
Everyone is talking about market share for Apple and then coming up against the fact that there seems no way to break Windows dominance.

But things are changing and moving in subtle ways.

The music industry is in turmoil over the ability of consumers to swap music in various ways for free - but Apple came up with a way to persuade consumers to pay a small amount for their music.

Apple is heading down a strange road called 'innovation' and so far it hasnt translated into market share, BUT M$ is looking stale and old. Their model of licensing everything and owning everything will crumble - empires always do crumble.

So Apple is a niche company? As long as it continues to create healthy partnerships with others this will not matter.

Lets see: Apple dominates Art, Film, Graphics, Music. Best OS around, bar none.
Slowly being picked up by the tedious but necessary corporate server market.

OSX is the Unix that Linux could not become.

Like others here, I feel that computers would be a drag without Apple - I might really return to Pen and Paper if Apple didnt exist.

It wont happen, and there are only good signs and good trends for the future.

macnews
Jan 4, 2004, 12:35 PM
For me I could care less about a 2 percent market share or 20 percent. The only major concern I have is can I do what I want on a Mac? I would hate to see it be the day where I had to run VPC for 98% of the programs I need. IMHO, it isn't so much the programs as it is the web. Something that should be platform independant is starting to become much less so. I think this should be a federal crime and I am not kidding.

Anyway, I hope Apple does look at keeping market share in certain areas like the iPod. Steve is more mature now and able to run a company or two.

Sabenth
Jan 4, 2004, 12:45 PM
at present we have products that stand out that are usefull and that in some cases are free.....

We have all in one systems many say they dont like them ************ to that. The all in one systems yes may look a bit out of place but id rather have one of those over a pc with cables all over the place.


Diffrent Markets. iTunes/iPod/P2P/ RIAA

THINK WERE Apple has taken that little area now...


its like people have said bmw jaguar etc companys that have big names dont always have big market share at all. in most cases they dont need too.

In the end if the end product pleases you then you should be happy :)

alset
Jan 4, 2004, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by carletonmusic
Apple and Oranges I tell you!

Apple and Lemons.

greenstork
Jan 4, 2004, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Photorun
Still of "boutique" machines don't communicate with the rest of the world what's the point? With M$ dictating almost all standards across the industry (mind you, crappy standards, championing mediocrity) it'd be easy to make Mac part of it's own insular experience and thus a potential downward spiral.

I refute the BMW metaphor, at one time it was cute, now it's stupid to use and people should be flogged, it's like saying chocolate survives in the food world (if you said "huh" precisely). BMW doesn't regulate the rest of the auto industry with lackluster components (the analogy would be better if you used GM or Fiat, some crappy company as M$). BMW can't be driven out (pardon pun) Chevy decided to make some crappy roof deployed airbag standard (that wouldn't work during most crashes). It's a different industry and a lousy analogy.

Reality is Apple DOES need market share, it DOES need acceptance in major industries it DOES need acceptance in education and elsewhere. I had a meeting the other week and I expunged some vitues of Macs to a bunch of older idiots, some who thought Macs were only good for graphics, another who didn't know Macs were around anymore, it was nuts. Point is this mentality gets more and more pervasive (bet these people wouldn't have said such things about a BMW, which most covet and/or see as a icon that someone has money or style) and unless Apple does things to impress upon the industry, public, and world in general... nothing really matters long long term.

If Apple can be compatible with MS, then I don't see the beef with a boutique operation or a niche market for Apple computers.

The majority of programs work on both a Mac and a PC with the exception of games. There are obviously some notable standouts but *most* programs are already on a Mac and corss-platform compatible.

As for communication, I just don't follow, it's a myth. Agreed, it's a myth that makes widespread adoption of Macs a hurdle but I personally think that it's far easier to network a Mac than a PC. It was easier for me setup my Mac to talk over my corporate network with the PC's than it was to configure those PC's to talk with each other.

I guess I just don't understand what you're talking about in terms of lack of communication with the rest of the world. That sounds like PC propaganda to me. Someone please set me straight if I am wrong.

Earendil
Jan 4, 2004, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Awimoway
I personally know of converts to the computers line that the iPod is making. Even so much as 10-15% marketshare seems to me like an impossible mirage, anymore. Maybe I'm just too jaded from desperately hoping. But surely OS marketshare has got to improve as a result of the iPod.


10-15% may be pushing it for now.
(Note that nothing I say comes from anything I know, just what I guess at from my dark room within this windowless house).

Apples doesn't market to mass type writer style machines that sit in office buildings. they are more of the professional or home use style machine. and while this would only be a guess, I'm betting that a very LARGE % of the market resides in PCs that live their whole lives in sky scrapers (it scares me to think how many windows machines are in those buildings).

so while I don't know what % of computers are "dumb" computers used for bussiness, it is probably still above %50, and maybe a bit higher. But when Apple is only TRYING (currently) to sell to 10-30% of the market, it may be high hopes to think they will capture 10-15% (or 50%-100% of the market they are actually looking at) in the near future.

obviously things are changing, computers are becoming an "at home" macchine as well as something to use at work, so that percentage will start to flip flop.

Someone mentioned above that Apple needs a large market share so that they can control the market (or better yet, keep microsoft from controling the market). I think though that they wouldn't need a large market share, they would just need to be sitting inside 75% of every house hold. As long as the corporate heads come home and check their mail on a Mac, and have their kids asking for the latest Apple software, then it wouldn't matter if the average bussiness man has to go to work the next day and use a windose machine just because it's cheap and gets the job done.

anyone care to submit some numbers to either help me feel sane, or to completely disprove what I said?

-Tyler
-Earendil

Hawthorne
Jan 4, 2004, 01:55 PM
But I recently heard a quote from an Apple exec that i liked: "If you control all the niches, you control all the market." I can't remember who said it, but I love it. With the introduction of OS X, Apple has moved onto the radar of the most programmers as a viable, even desirable (when's the last time you heard of a Dell laptop as an object of techno-lust? Or a ThinkPd?) platform, and with the G5, the technical/scientific world is taking notice as well, especially since the rollout of Big Mac at Va. Tech.

What's lacking is a commodity box, where the real market share numbers are to be had. Churning out vanilla boxen for call centers and cube farms would kill the reputation for design and quality that Apple has strugggled to create over the last 6 years.

Apple sets the tune that the other companies dance to. Look at all the metal-colored WinTel laptops that have sprung up in the wake of the G4 Powerboook and the wannabe iPods and wannabe iTMS's (Anyone want to place bets on whether buymusic.com lasts through this year or not? :) ).

Apple *is* leading the pack, just not in terms of units sold. In terms of mindshare, brand awareness, and profit margins, they are way ahead of the rest of the field.

hbwill
Jan 4, 2004, 01:57 PM
Perhaps Apple originally had the wrong business model. Since personal computers were a new invention with great utility, the ability to satisfy market demand of the growth industry would require a model similar to Microsoft. Get the product to the people cheaply and fast.

Now, however, we are moving from a growth market for PCs to a more mature market. The model now focuses on upgrading. Companies and people have enough hardware power for most uses. The software is largely powerful enough.

In a more mature market, perhaps differentiation and quality hold greater force. The market becomes less focused on low cost and more focused on quality. (If your really hungry you will eat anything. If you eat often, you start to want to eat well.) Thus, as the industry moves into a more mature stage, the upgrade/quality model will be a stronger model. There will be strong markets for low cost products, but there will be greater demand for higher quality products as well.

Apples business model of designing great software to sell quality hardware may be a better model for a more mature industry.

flirp chair
Jan 4, 2004, 02:13 PM
Apple is ahead at the moment, in terms of techonology and popularity, but it is unlikelty that the next generation iPod's will support Benson Connectors, at least I haven't seen it reported.

All the newer portable media devices will be supporting this new socket type, and i think that if Apple do not support it, they will be left behind when it comes to FM tuners and other adapters. Unfortunately, by the time next-next-genertion ipods come out supporting Benson sockets, it will be too late :(

JGowan
Jan 4, 2004, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by alset
Steve was destroying Apple. He may have saved them from certain doom, but his ousting wasn't the cause of turmoil. If that were the case, we would expect that every company he touched would come out ahead. As we saw with NeXT, Steve was not then prepared to lead a corporation.DanI'm sorry but saying that a person who is CEO material will ALWAYS have the Midas touch, no matter what, is just ridiculous. I'm certain there are stories, time and time again, where a person takes many business ventures before hitting the right place, product and time for the people. There is a certain amount of luck involved, but you can't fault Jobs because NeXT didn't go over. It just wasn't right. There were people who took on Apple who had been very successful at other corporations but couldn't get Apple into the Black. Are you kicking them in the teeth?

Jobs has shown with Apple and Pixar that he certainly knows how to run a company or two. And not just "recently". Look at both of those companies and tell us that the companies did not do an immediate ABOUT FACE the moment Steve Jobs came on. Right... I didn't think so.

wdlove
Jan 4, 2004, 02:42 PM
I think that alset has it correct with "Apple and Lemons." It is about qualit vs. quanity. Apple and Steve are working very hard to build a very strong foundation on which to build for the future.

Ja Di ksw
Jan 4, 2004, 02:50 PM
You know, this comparison has always bugged me. "Apple has only x% of the market share compared to windows machines, look at how poorly they are doing!" Its as if all the windows companies work together and share money, as if they are just one company that uses lots of different names. I would like to see, instead of Apple's % vs Window's %, Apple's % vs Dell's % vs Gateway's % vs HP's % vs etc etc. This shouldn't just be done with sales from the previous year, either. Most people I know who buy an Apple keep it for longer than the Windows people I know keep their computers. Would need a gallop poll or something, asking people how many and what computers they have (not counting the ones in the basement collecting dust)

Just my .02

JGowan
Jan 4, 2004, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by chabig
...He has plenty of money. Owning more shares of stock wouldn't make a difference to him, because Apple is not about money for him. It's his personal battle against the world."... personal 'battle against the world'"? I must say DUH to this statement. How do you know what his motivations are? You don't know him. To hear you say it, it sounds like he has a personal mission to crush every other computer company in the world. THAT sounds more like Gates that it ever sounded like Jobs.

At MS, the deadline of the product is GOD. At Apple, it's the product. One is aimed at mass attack at swift and timed intervals. The other is just about trying to put out cool stuff no matter if it goes over deadline.

Sure, with the kind of money Jobs has, he no longer HAS to do it for the money. But what about having personal goals? Aspiring to be your very best regardless of money or other NEGATIVE reasons ("battle against all others")...

My father is 70 and in 2 years will hit 50 years of working for Union Pacific Railroad. Does he need the money? No. He could have retired a long time ago, but he wants to achieve this illusive goal. Not many people can say they've worked for a place for half a century. He's doing for his own personal satisfaction of achievement. I totally respect him for this.

Jobs has his own personal goals and they don't all seem to be being King of the World.

sosumi99
Jan 4, 2004, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by macnews
IMHO, it isn't so much the programs as it is the web. Something that should be platform independant is starting to become much less so. I think this should be a federal crime and I am not kidding.


No kidding. This is why it matters a great deal for Apple to get its market share up. I can't use lexisnexis for research because none of the Mac browsers can deal with the IE/Windows-specific features on the site, and calling them to complain about it is a waste of time ("We don't have many users who are on Macs. Right now we suggest that you buy a PC").

The same thing is now happening in other areas. DVDs that come with "PC-enhanced" features rely on that horrible "PCFriendly" thing from InterActual, which does not have a Mac version that will play all of the DVD-ROM content. (I'm not talking about some pathetic web pages linked from the DVD. I mean things like having the script running side by side with the movie so you can see how the directors and the actors changed things during the shoot, or like interactive storyboards.) I pay good money for these DVDs because of the extra features only to find out that I have to boot up my old Win98 PC to use them. Until Apple moves more machines this situation is only going to get worse.

wsdr
Jan 4, 2004, 02:56 PM
When I think about how much I love OS X, mainly because it's got Unix under the hood, I shudder to think about the days of defending the Mac OS pre-OS X. Back then, without products such as TOPS (anybody remember that one), DAVE, PCMACLAN and MS Office (oh wow), Mac would have been nowhere when it came to playing nice with Windows. But the products were there because of people like you and me-- people who liked the Mac better and made a market because of it.

Not playing nice with Windows, well, it just didn't matter. At least it didn't matter to those of us who saw superior productivity in our day-to-day lives, and could figure out ways around interoperating with Windows when we had to. We always found a way to make it work.

We could choose our platform without having to subordinate our own thinking to the mass opinion. Of course, we often had to fight the mass to do it-- and still have to fight them. But the point is that we did it because we found the Mac products to be superior. Sure, there are entire market segments where Apple just doesn't have a offering. But this has never been a deal-killer for those not in those markets.

So, will Apple keep the lead? What lead? With people out there willing to buy the product, who cares?

For me, as long as Apple makes a product that helps me do my job, and that product has been as well thought out as Apple tries to do, they've got my business. The second their product becomes a just like all the others, or worse, I'm gone.

Lastly, what does Apple have to say on this matter? Just check out their Mission Statement:

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=107357&p=irol-faq#corpinfo2

Quote: Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Apple is committed to bringing the best personal computing experience to students, educators, creative professionals and consumers around the world through its innovative hardware, software and Internet offerings.

Hmmm... doesn't say anything about chasing corporate market-share in there.

appleface
Jan 4, 2004, 03:18 PM
when will we see OLED displays in ipods (and in cinema displays)? i keep hearing about the technology, and it sounds wonderful. i have yet to see it. any thoughts?

JoeRadar
Jan 4, 2004, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by macnews
For me I could care less about a 2 percent market share or 20 percent. The only major concern I have is can I do what I want on a Mac?
The problem is that, unless you are a developer, virtually everything you do on your Mac involves applications created by other people, and developers might not be interested in developing, porting, and/or maintaining applications on a platform with 2% marketshare.

kenaustus
Jan 4, 2004, 03:23 PM
Apple has been moving to a new level since Steve returned. OS X, iPod, TMS, Keynote, etc. Now, with IBM performing, they are moving from the Moto drag on performance. I wouldn't be surprised that a year from now the PC mags will be having a hard time finding a benchmark where a PC is faster than a PM - which is going to change a lot more opinions on what will be the next computer purchased.

I think Apple is therefore in a very strong position for a solid, profitable future. Market share is going to improve, but companies like Packard Bell have proved that market share is not a guarantee of success.

Ever since the G5 was announced I have felt that Apple was going to have a hell of a year - or two - and things ARE going very well for them. Doubt if there are very many PC companies that are as happy as Apple these days - even the ones that are rushing to copy them.

It's also a sign of a good year when the message boards are full of speculation on what will be announced in Steve's next keynote speech. Is there another CEO keynote speech that gets as much attention on the boards AND news? Is there another company that has as much potential for announcing new innovative products?

JoeRadar
Jan 4, 2004, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Macrumors
The New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/business/4915.htm) writes ... "If you look at where Apple was a few short years ago and where they are today, it's nothing short of phenomenal."
Apple's Mac line has both a solid OS and hardware line simultaneously just as the economy is turning up and people and businesses are interested in upgrading their computers purchased before the stock bubble popped.

Countries around the world are setting policy that discourages them from buying Microsoft products. This should open the doors for Apple, create a greater diversity of applications, and promote documented and open standards for data formats.

The success of Linux is causing a lot of companies to consider something other than Microsoft. Mac OS X runs most Linux applications. And in the growing segment of compute farms, MacOS and Mac hardware are relatively well positioned (remember VaTech).

With Apple's success with iPod, iTunes, and iTMS, not to mention iPhoto, iMovie, and iDVD, Apple is attracting a lot of interest in the press. I doubt any company beats Apple's Press/Marketshare ratio.

Finally, Apple is reasserting its strength in the creative arts arena (e.g., Final Cut Pro), and Apple is broadening its revenue stream with the iPod, iTMS (which will eventually be profitable), and professional applications. Apple is no longer a one product company.

All in all, Apple is in its best position in years -- perhaps the best since 1995.

Ja Di ksw
Jan 4, 2004, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by appleface
when will we see OLED displays in ipods (and in cinema displays)? i keep hearing about the technology, and it sounds wonderful. i have yet to see it. any thoughts?

My guess would be not for awhile. Possibly a year or two, wouldn't be surprised at all if it was more. Don't expect them out soon, though.

Dstreelm
Jan 4, 2004, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by appleface
when will we see OLED displays in ipods (and in cinema displays)? i keep hearing about the technology, and it sounds wonderful. i have yet to see it. any thoughts?

last i heard, OLED's are expected to be included in several cell phones (only in japan probably) by early 2004, so we should expect them sometime maybe late summer in a couple of fhones and random other devices (video ipod??) but i doubt they will make their way into displays because the price and there idint a real need for them in a home display (yet)

Grimace
Jan 4, 2004, 04:28 PM
In one way, we're preaching to the converted here. WE know that macs are the best things *including* sliced bread.

Getting others to realized that general productivity software (Word,PPT, Excel) is available for both etc. will yield a larger consumer marketshare. I talk to people every day (stupid people mind you) that say, "Oh, i never liked macs, they never had any of my software like Word and stuff."

Word is available!!
Also, "and Stuff" is what Apple does best!!

New product release - iStuff!

mvc
Jan 4, 2004, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by appleface
when will we see OLED displays in ipods (and in cinema displays)? i keep hearing about the technology, and it sounds wonderful. i have yet to see it. any thoughts?

OLED's have a lifespan problem compared to LCD's. The techies are still trying to make them last the many thousands of hours needed for most consumer electronics.

But since cellphones have about the highest obsolescence rate of any consumer electronic item that needs a colour screen they WILL show up there soon.

rdowns
Jan 4, 2004, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by wsdr
When I think about how much I love OS X, mainly because it's got Unix under the hood, I shudder to think about the days of defending the Mac OS pre-OS X. Back then, without products such as TOPS (anybody remember that one), DAVE, PCMACLAN and MS Office (oh wow), Mac would have been nowhere when it came to playing nice with Windows. But the products were there because of people like you and me-- people who liked the Mac better and made a market because of it.

Not playing nice with Windows, well, it just didn't matter. At least it didn't matter to those of us who saw superior productivity in our day-to-day lives, and could figure out ways around interoperating with Windows when we had to. We always found a way to make it work.

We could choose our platform without having to subordinate our own thinking to the mass opinion. Of course, we often had to fight the mass to do it-- and still have to fight them. But the point is that we did it because we found the Mac products to be superior. Sure, there are entire market segments where Apple just doesn't have a offering. But this has never been a deal-killer for those not in those markets.

So, will Apple keep the lead? What lead? With people out there willing to buy the product, who cares?

For me, as long as Apple makes a product that helps me do my job, and that product has been as well thought out as Apple tries to do, they've got my business. The second their product becomes a just like all the others, or worse, I'm gone.

Lastly, what does Apple have to say on this matter? Just check out their Mission Statement:

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=107357&p=irol-faq#corpinfo2

Quote: Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Apple is committed to bringing the best personal computing experience to students, educators, creative professionals and consumers around the world through its innovative hardware, software and Internet offerings.

Hmmm... doesn't say anything about chasing corporate market-share in there.

To quote Apple's mission statement and use it to say their not interested in chasing corporate market share is naive.

Hell, MS says this at their site:
Microsoft's mission: To enable people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potential.

Nothing about dominating the market and standards there.

rdowns
Jan 4, 2004, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by JoeRadar
Apple's Mac line has both a solid OS and hardware line simultaneously just as the economy is turning up and people and businesses are interested in upgrading their computers purchased before the stock bubble popped.

You're preaching to the choir here. Sadly, the myths of Apple and the Mac are still very pervasive. Ask some non technical (hell, even some technical ) people about Apple and Macs. You'll likely get they're too expensive, they're going out of business, there is no software for Macs, they're for creative people only and all the other crap that is out there.

Apple can make all the great hardware and software they want. Until they begin to do something about this, market share will likely remain under 3 or 4%.

cubist
Jan 4, 2004, 06:15 PM
The Inquirer recently reported that, according to some analysts, the inflection point has been passed for the Windows to Linux migration. Microsoft is in decline.

I'm not sure whether I accept that the point has been passed yet; but it is clear to see that Microsoft has lost mindshare. Web servers, even those running Windows, are switching to Apache. Few people would consider .Net for a new application. Corporations are not adopting Windows XP or Office XP or Windows Server 2003.

The computer marketplace is headed into a new period of flux, similar to that of the early 1980s. Apple will likely benefit from its Unix-based OS. The only thing we can be certain of, however, is that Microsoft's position of dominance will be gone.

dguisinger
Jan 4, 2004, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by cubist
The Inquirer recently reported that, according to some analysts, the inflection point has been passed for the Windows to Linux migration. Microsoft is in decline.

I'm not sure whether I accept that the point has been passed yet; but it is clear to see that Microsoft has lost mindshare. Web servers, even those running Windows, are switching to Apache. Few people would consider .Net for a new application. Corporations are not adopting Windows XP or Office XP or Windows Server 2003.

The computer marketplace is headed into a new period of flux, similar to that of the early 1980s. Apple will likely benefit from its Unix-based OS. The only thing we can be certain of, however, is that Microsoft's position of dominance will be gone.

Few people consider .NET? I dont know about that. We use .NET exclusively, both for Windows applications, server apps, and linux server apps running under Mono. I know lots of other companies that do as well. .NET is much better in design than Java..not nessecarly giving MS a ton credit for that, its a lot easier to look at someone elses product and find the faults than creating a product for the first time.

uv23
Jan 4, 2004, 07:13 PM
Thank you, I was about to say the same thing. .Net is the best web development framework currently available by far and its addoption rate has been increasing steadily and constantly since its introduction.

lindmar
Jan 4, 2004, 07:39 PM
Ok So, what is the scoop with the keynote?
Is it going to be Quicktime streamed?
I am in Canada,, so when would I see this?

Thanks

Dippo
Jan 4, 2004, 07:55 PM
Apple will have the chance to steal some market share while Microsoft struggles to complete Longhorn. From what I heard, Longhorn won't be ready till 2006, and by that time Apple should be out with 10.5

Apple has a good chance to make so inroads as long as they don't screw up.

Their is going to always be room for cheaper computers, but somehow I don't think they will be running Microsoft. The open source community will come to dominate but not completely do away with Microsoft.

billyboy
Jan 4, 2004, 07:58 PM
Apple obviously have the products; they have an inbuilt need to innovate - with or without Jobs; they are now making alliances with mega companies. I think this shows that Steve Jobs has learnt plenty enough about business now to get a killer marketing policy in place that can grow Apple big time while maintaining his ideals for innovation and high standards. If he could get the Third World off on the right foot with bomb proof and fairly costed systems in govt settings and big corporations, he could do worse.

Grimace
Jan 4, 2004, 08:18 PM
I find .NET annoying - maybe because I don't know its full potential. It seems to always steer me toward buying something I don't want.

Personally, I don't want my Operating System to track me as much as it feels like .NET does on XP. Maybe I'm just too paranoid.

DGFan
Jan 4, 2004, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by elgruga

Apple is heading down a strange road called 'innovation' and so far it hasnt translated into market share,


If I remember the numbers correctly it has....at least for laptops.

alset
Jan 4, 2004, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by JGowan
I'm sorry but saying that a person who is CEO material will ALWAYS have the Midas touch, no matter what, is just ridiculous. I'm certain there are stories, time and time again, where a person takes many business ventures before hitting the right place, product and time for the people. There is a certain amount of luck involved, but you can't fault Jobs because NeXT didn't go over. It just wasn't right. There were people who took on Apple who had been very successful at other corporations but couldn't get Apple into the Black. Are you kicking them in the teeth?

Jobs has shown with Apple and Pixar that he certainly knows how to run a company or two. And not just "recently". Look at both of those companies and tell us that the companies did not do an immediate ABOUT FACE the moment Steve Jobs came on. Right... I didn't think so.

Right. Because we all know that the reason NeXT failed was because the timing was wrong and Steve was running into bad luck. It had nothing to do with marketing a machine for college students at $10K. No, it was timing and luck. Forget a great product turned rotten by mismanagement and lack of clairvoyant vision. It also had little or nothing to do with extreme egomaniacal behavior. He certainly didn't display such traits repeatedly during those days (and even today, sometimes).

Yes, I'm kicking them in the teeth. I didn't kick Steve in the teeth, I simply pointed out his inability to successfully run a company in his youth. But, since you ask, I am kicking Gil Amelio in the teeth. I'm kicking Spindler in the teeth. I'm kicking Scully in the teeth. Those three kicks are just for you.

I really love when someone turns my fact-based post, intended to inform those who haven't followed the story, into an attack on Steve. It was not an attack at all. To repeat: Steve's absence from Apple did not cause their downward spiral. Steve was equally (or more) destructive at NeXT as Scully, Spindler or Amelio were at Apple. This is fact, and can be discovered in a number of books at your local library.

Pixar did NOT do an immediate about face when Steve came on. Steve saw Pixar as a hardware company, not an animation firm. Steve picked up Pixar in 1986, I believe. Trying to sell $135K machines that required $35k Sun machines to run them cost Pixar over $10 million per year. Toy Story was release in 1995. This was the first time Pixar really had anything going for it. Huge turn-around, huh?

Don't take it from me... Said Pam Kerwin, "We were in debt from the start. That was no way to run a business. There were no business brains at Pixar."

Today, Steve's role in Pixar is mostly the silent-investor. This isn't because he isn't interested in Pixar, but because they don't need his input (a case made clear when he tried to interfere with their work in the past). He renegotiated a contract with Disney, following the success of Toy Story, but that's not hands-on leadership. That's watching that you don't get screwed by your partner. He took them public, but that's making a profit. Pixar is mostly self-contained, with Steve backing them financially. Actually, I'm sure they don't even need his money, now that they make a killing in theaters and on DVD.

Apple did, in fact, turn around right away. Hm, couldn't be that Steve was better able to run a company after spending some years being humbled, could it? Why, that was exactly my point in the original post! Who woulda thought?

BTW - Don't ever give me the "Right, I didn't think so," line concerning anything like this. I research before I post. I will come back and prove my point with details.

Dan

PS - I never used the term "Midas." That was in someone else's post. I'd appreciate if you don't attribute anyone else's words to my stated views when you quote me or respond to my posts.

elgruga
Jan 4, 2004, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by carletonmusic
I find .NET annoying - maybe because I don't know its full potential. It seems to always steer me toward buying something I don't want.

Personally, I don't want my Operating System to track me as much as it feels like .NET does on XP. Maybe I'm just too paranoid.

I dont like to even see the words '.net' on my macrumors screen.

Lets keep it clean , guys, I have just eaten, for cryin out loud!

.....oh, and you are not too paranoid. You cant be too paranoid where Gates is concerned.

elgruga
Jan 4, 2004, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by alset
Apple did, in fact, turn around right away. Hm, couldn't be that Steve was better able to run a company after spending some years being humbled, could it?

Well said.

Steve has learned as he has lived his life - its just like anything. put in the time and the effort, and eventually good things happen.

Lucky for us Apple users that Steve has the ability to overcome his past mistake, eh?

neutrino23
Jan 4, 2004, 11:56 PM
I think that Apple is in a great position to succeed in the long term. They are aggressively spending all they can on R&D. I think this is why their profitability is so low. They target to just about break even and while spending all the rest on R&D. Apple's future is to innovate as much as possible.

It is not just that Apple is diversifying into various businesses lately but they have been doing so profitably. The iPod is profitable. iTMS is break even. The brick and mortar stores are break even. The servers seem to be picking up mind share and will probably get a big boost when the G5 X-serves come out.

Five years ago Apple was pretty much just a computer company with some software products. Now they have built an international chain of successful retail stores, they have learned how to successfully sell digital content on-line. They sell a lot of hardware through the on-line Apple store, they have a successful consumer product (iPod) which has taken over as the standard bearer from the Sony Walkman, they main OS has migrated to industrial strength UNIX with a pretty face. Probably some things I missed.

I expect we'll see more of this kind of growth in the near future. The amazing success story of VT's supercomputer using PMs is not a fluke but is based on solid engineering. We'll see more of the same.

I don't know how it will happen but Apple has the potential to break out and become a much larger company in the next five years.

By the way, on the news tonight I heard that according to a new study illegal downloading of songs is down about 50% from a year ago. How is that for being able to change the world!

Awimoway
Jan 4, 2004, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by neutrino23
By the way, on the news tonight I heard that according to a new study illegal downloading of songs is down about 50% from a year ago. How is that for being able to change the world!

And of course the RIAA slapping lawsuits around has nothing to do with that.

neutrino23
Jan 5, 2004, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by Awimoway
And of course the RIAA slapping lawsuits around has nothing to do with that.

I agree with you to some extent, however, the lawsuits alone would probably not have been as effective if there were no legal alternative.

Actually, I was surprised by the magnitude of the drop. It is not a zero sum issue. More people stopped downloading than started purchasing. I wonder if it was a perception thing. Because there was a simple, legal alternative combined with the threats from the RIAA then people were discouraged from downloading though they weren't quite motivated to purchase music on line. Just a thought.

Scottgfx
Jan 5, 2004, 12:15 AM
What do you think the probability of the 3RU G5 X-Raids being some sort of "blade" server? I just don't know how you would keep the things cool. Hmmmm.

alset
Jan 5, 2004, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by elgruga
.....oh, and you are not too paranoid. You cant be too paranoid where Gates is concerned.

So true. I was just explaining to my mother (who is finally learning to use a computer) why her Hotmail account has become more complicated as a result of .Net and MSN. The more M$ tries to incorporate in their Internet "solution," the more they mangle ease-of-use.

Dan

jade
Jan 5, 2004, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by Scottgfx
What do you think the probability of the 3RU G5 X-Raids being some sort of "blade" server? I just don't know how you would keep the things cool. Hmmmm.


here's a start! (http://www.cooligy.com)

Apple has been listed as one of the early testers...and the time frame for shipment of product is the "end of this year" So sounds to me like we may have a solution for g5 xserves and powerbooks. Combines with the trade-in program expiring at the end of march...those powerbooks should be here soon.

splashman
Jan 5, 2004, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by rdowns
As for Pixar, everything I've read is that Steve is pretty hands off there. You could argue much of Pixar's success is due to their Disney deal. Will they be able to duplicate the success when that deal expires? Will they re-up with Disney or forge a new partnership or go it alone? Stay iTuned

Okay, you're making me gag here. Do you have any clue what you're talking about? I think you're the only person I've ever heard attribute Pixar's success to Disney. The reverse is in fact true: Pixar is Disney's cash cow at the moment. Disney excels only at marketing and producing plush toys; this is evident from the fact that most of Disney's self-produced movies are lackluster box-office performers. If the Pixar productions were as pedestrian as Disney's, all of Disney's marketing magic wouldn't make a bit of difference.

Regarding the partnership, you obviously aren't aware that Pixar (Steve) is currently in heated negotiations with Disney. The industry clamor is that Pixar will wangle a significantly better deal from Disney, since Pixar is batting .1000 and Disney is batting .016 on a good day.

Yes, Steve appears to be hands-off at Pixar. You apparently think that means Disney is running Pixar. Ever hear of John Lasseter? Andrew Stanton? Lee Unkrich? Pixar has the most awesome creative teams in the business, bar none, and Steve is smart enough to let them do what they do best. Disney's main function is to siphon Pixar's profits into such inspired projects as "Cinderella 2", "Peter Pan 2", "102 Dalmatians", "101 Dalmatians 2", and "Beauty and the Beast 2".

Pixar is the new Disney, and IMHO, are better than Disney ever was. Disney is Pixar's marketing department.

Scottgfx
Jan 5, 2004, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by splashman
Ever hear of John Lasseter? Andrew Stanton? Lee Unkrich? Pixar has the most awesome creative teams in the business, bar none...

You forgot Ed Catmul. :)

There is also talk of Pixar starting a 2D animation department, and Disney closing down their "classic" animation department. How about Pixar just take over Disney?

Awimoway
Jan 5, 2004, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by splashman
Yes, Steve appears to be hands-off at Pixar. You apparently think that means Disney is running Pixar. Ever hear of John Lasseter? Andrew Stanton? Lee Unkrich? Pixar has the most awesome creative teams in the business, bar none, and Steve is smart enough to let them do what they do best. Disney's main function is to siphon Pixar's profits into such inspired projects as "Cinderella 2", "Peter Pan 2", "102 Dalmatians", "101 Dalmatians 2", and "Beauty and the Beast 2".

Well maybe the Disney comment was a bit offsides, but ultimately you're helping him make his point--that Jobs' is not the one who is making Pixar a success. Is the fine point worth the harangue?

desdomg
Jan 5, 2004, 02:36 AM
What is it with the Steve trolls? And what is this big mistake he is said to have made?


As far as I can see he started Apple, oversaw the groundbreaking Macintosh and Apple were very successful. He was then forced out by the suits and Apple went into a long decline - a decline that it only started emerging from when steve came back and brought us iMac, iPod, PowerBook, etc. etc. etc. etc.


Clearly without Steve there is no Apple.

splashman
Jan 5, 2004, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by Awimoway
Well maybe the Disney comment was a bit offsides, but ultimately you're helping him make his point--that Jobs' is not the one who is making Pixar a success. Is the fine point worth the harangue?

Rdowns was responding to the "King Midas" post, and opining that Steve didn't qualify for that label. As examples, he said (a) Apple still isn't making much money, and (b) Steve isn't hands-on at Pixar. He insinuated that Disney was responsible for Pixar's success, which, if true, would definitely refute the King Midas label and support his argument.

First, (a) is ridiculous -- a logical fallacy at best. Regarding (b), I argued the Disney thing, but was also attempting to point out (apparently not very clearly) that Steve's current level of "hands-on" involvement at Pixar is not an indicator of whether or not he has the "Midas touch". King Midas touched something and it turned to gold. He didn't have to run the shipping department at Midas Gold, Inc., and neither does Steve have to sit in on creative reviews for "The Incredibles" to earn such a label.

Prior to his purchase of the company, Pixar was a failing proposition. Steve was instrumental in pulling together a tremendously talented team and re-directing them to viable projects. And less than ten years later, Pixar pulled off the impossible: a bona-fide blockbuster from an industry newcomer. Even if Steve hadn't darkened the doors at Pixar in the last five years, he'd still be a candidate for the King Midas label.

We're all just sharing our opinions, and I'm not claiming I'm right and Rdowns is wrong. I just didn't think his opinions were particularly well supported. If you think the same of mine, feel free to respond . . .

alset
Jan 5, 2004, 03:31 AM
Originally posted by desdomg
What is it with the Steve trolls? And what is this big mistake he is said to have made?

The story is far more complex. Read Apple Confidential (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/188641128X/qid=1073294403//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0366539-0505740?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) and The Second Coming of Steve Jobs (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0767904338/qid=1073294454//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0366539-0505740?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) .

Also, you can gleam a hint at Steve's ousting from the movie, Pirates of Silicon Valley (http://alt.tnt.tv/movies/tntoriginals/pirates/) .

You are correct that without Steve there would be no Apple, but there is far more to his role(s) throughout Apple's history.

This isn't Steve trolling --- this is getting the facts straight. Anyone who is passionate about Apple and the vital role Steve has played in it's development will likely enjoy learning the bad along with the good. To be clear: I love my parents, but that doesn't mean I can't see their shortcomings. I love what Steve does, but that doesn't mean I turn a blind eye to his failings. Recognizing these aspects of a person's personality grants deeper appreciation of the highlights.

Dan

iChan
Jan 5, 2004, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by Dstreelm
last i heard, OLED's are expected to be included in several cell phones (only in japan probably) by early 2004, so we should expect them sometime maybe late summer in a couple of fhones and random other devices (video ipod??) but i doubt they will make their way into displays because the price and there idint a real need for them in a home display (yet)

there is going to be a Sony Clie in 2004 with an OLED display.

iChan
Jan 5, 2004, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by mvc
OLED's have a lifespan problem compared to LCD's. The techies are still trying to make them last the many thousands of hours needed for most consumer electronics.

But since cellphones have about the highest obsolescence rate of any consumer electronic item that needs a colour screen they WILL show up there soon.

I read somewhere that Apple could use a B&W OLED screen that lasts as long as the current screen... just to test out the technology for future versions.

current colour OLED's last around the same amount of time as the iPod's battery life expectancy. So i propose, if the cell phone industry is going to be leaping on OLED's this year as predicted, then Apple can probably get these screens at a lower cost than what they are now...

regardless of life expectancy, which is said to be about one or two years, (just like the ipod battery) maybe Apple can replace the screen as well as the battery with Apple care.

iChan
Jan 5, 2004, 07:25 AM
I actually the longevity issues regarding OLED no longer exist.

sosumi
Jan 5, 2004, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by alset
This isn't Steve trolling --- this is getting the facts straight. Anyone who is passionate about Apple and the vital role Steve has played in it's development will likely enjoy learning the bad along with the good. To be clear: I love my parents, but that doesn't mean I can't see their shortcomings. I love what Steve does, but that doesn't mean I turn a blind eye to his failings. Recognizing these aspects of a person's personality grants deeper appreciation of the highlights.

Dan [/B]

Thanks for keeping this thread decent. I totally agree with you. "The second coming of Steve Jobs" is absolutly the best book I ever read about Steve Jobs. "Pirates Of Sillicon Valley" didn't say very much though, but can maybe be a good introduction.

Dstreelm
Jan 5, 2004, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by iChan
I read somewhere that Apple could use a B&W OLED screen that lasts as long as the current screen... just to test out the technology for future versions.

current colour OLED's last around the same amount of time as the iPod's battery life expectancy. So i propose, if the cell phone industry is going to be leaping on OLED's this year as predicted, then Apple can probably get these screens at a lower cost than what they are now...

regardless of life expectancy, which is said to be about one or two years, (just like the ipod battery) maybe Apple can replace the screen as well as the battery with Apple care.

why would they do that?? its just asking for a nother lawsuit like the people whining about the ipod or the ibook. seriously, what is wrong with this country, people would rasther sue than just get the problem fixed for $100.

apple wont use oleds until they think that they are a superior product, and they arent yet

jayscheuerle
Jan 5, 2004, 10:46 AM
Frankly, I think Apple's turnaround has more to do with Jonathan Ives designs than Steve's contributions. The best thing Steve has done is to let great designs actually make it to marketplace without too many compromises.

jayscheuerle
Jan 5, 2004, 10:54 AM
Pixar needed Disney to market and distribute their films before they had a reputation behind them. This was a great leap of faith on Disney's part and both companies have benefited because of the association. At this point, Pixar has a far better recent track record than Disney does and no longer needs Disney's name attached, but they may still benefit from Disney's marketing ability. From what I understand, Pixar is aching to break free once they complete their end of the contract.

Awimoway
Jan 5, 2004, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Frankly, I think Apple's turnaround has more to do with Jonathan Ives designs than Steve's contributions. The best thing Steve has done is to let great designs actually make it to marketplace without too many compromises.

That's a nice point. I hate the concept of the concept car. They always (well, not always) look so awesome, yet all we ever get is some lame trickle-down of "elements" from the concept car in lame watered-down versions. Let the artistry show through! Jobs does this at Apple and it turns a lot of heads.

splashman
Jan 5, 2004, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Pixar needed Disney to market and distribute their films before they had a reputation behind them. This was a great leap of faith on Disney's part and both companies have benefited because of the association.

"Great leap of faith"? While I constantly denigrate what Disney has become, their bean counters are not morons. They recognized a good thing and saw money to be made. If Disney hadn't, somebody else would have.

From what I understand, Pixar is aching to break free once they complete their end of the contract.

I think you're the only one who understands that. While it's well-known that Pixar is unhappy about the existing contract, Pixar execs have been quoted many times saying they would like to stay with Disney, if they can reach agreement on the percentages, and I believe them. Disney enjoys a unique position in the market, and Pixar recognizes that.

Seems to me that if Pixar wanted to break free, they wouldn't be continuing their heated and lengthy negotiations with Disney. Pixar needs somebody to market and distribute their films -- they have said repeatedly that they will focus on what they do best (make films) and leave the rest to somebody else.

One thing is for certain: whether Pixar re-signs with Disney or finds a new partner, they will get a much better deal this time around.