Apple to Eliminate Retail Box Software Inventory

[LethalWolfe]

"On the path?" You claimed that Apple could replace IBM in Jobs description of the ad now. Like I said, that's just silly. Of the two markets that you mentioned, 1) "mobile computing (phones, tablets, etc.,)," Apple has a share of 10% or so, and 2) "legal internet distribution of media," I couldn't imagine that Apple has a significant share that's much higher.

So you don't think Apple, in a rather short span of time, has become a disruptive force in the smartphone, tablet/netbook, mobile gaming, and online media distribution markets? Apple is bigger than Walmart when it comes to selling music and Walmart used to be the 800lb gorilla that no one could touch. When it comes to online media sales Apple is the 800lb gorilla.

Jobs talking about the 1984 commercial:

Dealers initially welcoming IBM with open arms now fear an IBM dominated and controlled future.

Kinda sounds like the music industry before they realized Apple had them by the balls. Which in turn led them to do things like give sweetheart deals to Amazon to help foster competition because they didn't want to be beholden to Apple. Why do you think NBC left (and eventually came back)? Why do you think the networks formed Hulu? Why do you think some networks stream content directly from their own sites? It's not because Apple is a minor player.

Sure, but differentiating between premium and non-premium content is pretty amusing amid claims of "Big Brother." Are you really scaring people with claims that Big Brother controls all information (except for the vast majority of information that is free and easily accessible?)

Big Brother isn't simply a large market share in some random market.

Go back to my post where I quoted Jobs about the 1984 commercial. The allusion to Big Brother is hyperbole and your very literal, very strict interpretation of the ad is leading you down a path that the creators of the ad never indented anyone to take.


Lethal

 

[BaldiMac]

So you don't think Apple, in a rather short span of time, has become a disruptive force in the smartphone, tablet/netbook, mobile gaming, and online media distribution markets? Apple is bigger than Walmart when it comes to selling music and Walmart used to be the 800lb gorilla that no one could touch. When it comes to online media sales Apple is the 800lb gorilla.

Jobs talking about the 1984 commercial:

Kinda sounds like the music industry before they realized Apple had them by the balls. Which in turn led them to do things like give sweetheart deals to Amazon to help foster competition because they didn't want to be beholden to Apple. Why do you think NBC left (and eventually came back)? Why do you think the networks formed Hulu? Why do you think some networks stream content directly from their own sites? It's not because Apple is a minor player.


Go back to my post where I quoted Jobs about the 1984 commercial. The allusion to Big Brother is hyperbole and your very literal, very strict interpretation of the ad is leading you down a path that the creators of the ad never indented anyone to take.


Lethal

"Disruptive" is the opposite of Big Brother!

Apple may dominate the selling of online music, but their overall share of music distribution is relatively low. You can't ignore the free stuff when you are making claims of Big Brother!

You're missing the significance of the end of Jobs' description. To him, it wasn't just about the dominance of a market by IBM. It was about "the entire information age."

 

[LagunaSol]

Big Brother is not Apple. Or IBM. Or Microsoft.

Big Brother is Google. And anyone who can't see that needs to open their eyes and look around.

 

[JAT]

Look at the "1984" SuperBowl advert again - proves that "you become what you mock".

You should be worried, then...
https://www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2005/11/big-reveal

 

[charlituna]

Methinks the 1984 ad wasn't about what you think it was about.

When Apple aired that ad, you didn't have choices. The consumer product market was IBM and Windows. Period. It was the same sort of monopoly by lack of other players that the iPad had for a good 10 months.

Unlike now where you have all sorts of choices. for all products.

Hell my roommates saw that Xoom had and both thought it was an ipad ad because the tablet looks almost identical. When I told them it was the Xoom and Motorola was trying to rift on the old ad both of them had the same comment "then they should have released their stuff sooner". They understood it. Apple isn't trying to do anything. THe other side just talked and talked about their thing and didn't ever produce. That's not Apple's fault. That's HP, Motorola etc.

I really need that purchase history option for the iOS store.

And you have it. go into iTunes, and then into your account (look for where your Apple ID appears and click it). Purchase history is one of your choices

 

[charlituna]

They still need iDVD and iWeb, and they aren't going to just remove these from iLife.

I wouldn't stake your life on that. iWeb is only so so, but iDVD is actually totally unneeded. They could meld all that function into the various apps just fine and not have a separate app. The newbie users that can't figure out iDVD anyway would love it.

 

[OllyW]

When Apple aired that ad, you didn't have choices. The consumer product market was IBM and Windows. Period. It was the same sort of monopoly by lack of other players that the iPad had for a good 10 months.

Windows 1.0 wasn't released until November 1985.

 

[LagunaSol]

Windows 1.0 wasn't released until November 1985.

Just another original idea. From Microsoft.

 

[cmaier]

When Apple aired that ad, you didn't have choices. The consumer product market was IBM and Windows. Period. It was the same sort of monopoly by lack of other players that the iPad had for a good 10 months.

Unlike now where you have all sorts of choices. for all products.

I also don't think it was about choice. I think it was about accessibility. The consumer computer market was an afterthought to the business computer market. Computers were designed in a way that "ease of use" meant "ease of use for someone with a bunch of training and either tolerance for annoyances or support staff to fix things." You had to work with command lines commands, figure out how to configure hardware add-ons (remember trying to get interrupts not to conflict?, etc.) Apple's point was (at least according to a recent interview of a guy who worked on the ad - I'm looking for a link) that the Mac brought computing, and all of its advantages, to "the masses."

 

[LethalWolfe]

"Disruptive" is the opposite of Big Brother!

Apple may dominate the selling of online music, but their overall share of music distribution is relatively low. You can't ignore the free stuff when you are making claims of Big Brother!

You're missing the significance of the end of Jobs' description. To him, it wasn't just about the dominance of a market by IBM. It was about "the entire information age."

I think you need to look up the definition of hyperbole and Apple has a much greater presence in people's lives now than IBM did in the early/mid 80's.

BTW, Apple controls about 70% of online music sales and 25% of overall music sales. I don't think either one of those numbers qualifies as 'relatively low' but that's more or less arguing about a single tree and ignoring the rest of the forest.


Lethal

 

[BaldiMac]

I think you need to look up the definition of hyperbole and Apple has a much greater presence in people's lives now than IBM did in the early/mid 80's.

I understand hyperbole. I don't understand your point.

BTW, Apple controls about 70% of online music sales and 25% of overall music sales. I don't think either one of those numbers qualifies as 'relatively low' but that's more or less arguing about a single tree and ignoring the rest of the forest.

Have you forgotten the point you are trying to make? We aren't talking about whether Apple has a big share of the paid music market. (Of course they do.) We are talking about your claim that Apple has become the Big Brother that Jobs described in the 1984 ad. They have not. It's not even close.

(And how did you miss that I wasn't only including paid downloads and CDs when I referred to Apple's share as releatively low. When you are talking about Big Brother like control, why would you ignore streamed music and radio and free downloads and satellite, let alone the massive amount of illegal downloads?)

 

[LagunaSol]

We are talking about your claim that Apple has become the Big Brother that Jobs described in the 1984 ad. They have not. It's not even close.

Per Wikipedia, describing Orwell's Big Brother:

In the society that Orwell describes, everyone is under complete surveillance by the authorities, mainly by telescreens.

Hmm. Doesn't that sound like Google to you? The tech world's very real Ministry of Information?

 

[LethalWolfe]

I understand hyperbole. I don't understand your point.

Jobs comparing IBM to Orwell's Big Brother in the ad was hyperbole. That's my point. IBM of that era was not literally like Big Brother and Apple today is not literally like Big Brother. Just like Nokia is not literally on a burning platform even though their CEO said they were. I've never said Apple was like Big Brother I've said Apple is like IBM of that era as portrayed in that commercial.

In these new markets I keep bring up, and you keep dismissing, Apple is not David fighting against the IBM/MS PC-Goliath. Apple *is* Goliath now. Apple now is what IBM was then. Jobs is the persona on stage radiating his RDF to all the faithful in attendance. Apple has moved from counter culture to pop culture. Apple is 'the man'. Apple is 'the machine'. They just do a better job of gilding their cage than most multinational corporations.


Lethal

 

[xbjllb]

Apple goes over cliff... iToymaker 10 BILLION POP!

Whether it's because of lack of Blu-ray capability, iPads not being able to handle flash, Steve Jobs leaving the company, refusing to make cutting edge computers for professionals, glossy screens, the pro app neglect, the latest asinine suicidal decision to quit selling physical software, or ALL THE ABOVE, the iToy bottom line BUBBLE has had its first of many to come POPS.

POP!

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/02/10/snapshot-of-an-apple-flash-crash/

And that's just the start of it too.

Apple? Start listening to your customers. Especially ones who dropped more than $10,000 into your coffers last year alone.

 

[cmaier]

Whether it's because of lack of Blu-ray capability, iPads not being able to handle flash, Steve Jobs leaving the company, refusing to make cutting edge computers for professionals, glossy screens, the pro app neglect, the latest asinine suicidal decision to quit selling physical software, or ALL THE ABOVE, the iToy bottom line BUBBLE has had its first of many to come POPS.

POP!

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/02/10/snapshot-of-an-apple-flash-crash/

And that's just the start of it too.

Apple? Start listening to your customers. Especially ones who dropped more than $10,000 into your coffers last year alone.

I can list 50 billion reasons you are wrong.

 

[BaldiMac]

Jobs comparing IBM to Orwell's Big Brother in the ad was hyperbole. That's my point. IBM of that era was not literally like Big Brother and Apple today is not literally like Big Brother. Just like Nokia is not literally on a burning platform even though their CEO said they were. I've never said Apple was like Big Brother I've said Apple is like IBM of that era as portrayed in that commercial.

In these new markets I keep bring up, and you keep dismissing, Apple is not David fighting against the IBM/MS PC-Goliath. Apple *is* Goliath now. Apple now is what IBM was then. Jobs is the persona on stage radiating his RDF to all the faithful in attendance. Apple has moved from counter culture to pop culture. Apple is 'the man'. Apple is 'the machine'. They just do a better job of gilding their cage than most multinational corporations.

I understand the point you are trying to make here. Apple has a big market share. Super.

That's not the same as the the quote that you provided of Jobs' description of IBM as Big Brother. He wasn't saying that IBM was the market leader in a random industry. He was saying that they were poised to dominate the computer industry which he saw as key to "the entire information age."

The only markets that Apple has a share that approaches 1984 IBM are digital music players and "media tablets." Neither of which are currently key markets to the future of the free world.

 

[LethalWolfe]

That's not the same as the the quote that you provided of Jobs' description of IBM as Big Brother. He wasn't saying that IBM was the market leader in a random industry. He was saying that they were poised to dominate the computer industry which he saw as key to "the entire information age."

And we come back to hyperbole again. It was rhetoric. I severely doubt Steve was so paranoid and delusional that he actually thought IBM was literally the real world incarnation of Wells' Big Brother.


Lethal

 

[BaldiMac]

And we come back to hyperbole again. It was rhetoric. I severely doubt Steve was so paranoid and delusional that he actually thought IBM was literally the real world incarnation of Wells' Big Brother.

I agree completely. But he also wasn't just making a comment about high market share. The potential domination of the computer industry by IBM in the 80s was much more significant than anything Apple is doing now.

Heck, it your only qualification is high market share than Microsoft or Google would far outweigh Apple for the Big Brother crown. Especially since the goal of both companies is control of information.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I agree completely. But he also wasn't just making a comment about high market share. The potential domination of the computer industry by IBM in the 80s was much more significant than anything Apple is doing now.

IMO it was all about marketing because if Steve Jobs ran a car company instead of a computer company the 1984 ad targeting IBM would never have been made even though the 'threat' of IBM would've still been there. If Steve was genuinely concerned why wasn't Apple offering 'big iron' machines to take on IBM instead of just desktop computers? Strip out the rhetoric and what you are basically left with is 'Buy Apple. Don't be a corporate drone mindlessly following Big Blue and the 'no one ever got fired for buying IBM' mantra'.

I'm still confused as to why the idea of IBM dominating the computer industry in the '80's was a cause for concern but Apple dominating the mobile computing industry (including the 'ecosystem' that interconnects everything from your phone to your web page to your computer to your TV) is not. To me it's the same basic idea but just the technology has changed (not to mention that the mobile computing ecosystem is much more pervasive than 1980's desktop computing). Desktop computing in the early/mid '80's was still in an infancy just as mobile computing now is still in it's infancy. It's not just about market share but about the wall garden approach as well. I'm not a fan of any company's attempt to lock-in consumers via unnecessary, proprietary means. Apple, MS, Sony, etc., have all done it to varying degrees at one time or another and it has always rubbed me the wrong way. I feel like what I'm seeing Apple doing today is reminiscent of what Apple fans used to b*tch about more dominant companies doing when Apple was just hanging on for deal life.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, if you know what I mean.

Heck, it your only qualification is high market share than Microsoft or Google would far outweigh Apple for the Big Brother crown. Especially since the goal of both companies is control of information.

It's not purely about market share and there are multiple companies that could share the crown but, AFAIK, Apple is the only one that made a commercial like the 1984 ad thus the irony. Apple is also the only one w/a charismatic front man known for a Reality Distortion Field that mesmerizes the masses in to letting him tell them what they want and how they want. Somewhat akin to the face on the big screen in 1984 only more personable and better dressed.


Lethal

 

[BaldiMac]

IMO it was all about marketing because if Steve Jobs ran a car company instead of a computer company the 1984 ad targeting IBM would never have been made even though the 'threat' of IBM would've still been there. If Steve was genuinely concerned why wasn't Apple offering 'big iron' machines to take on IBM instead of just desktop computers? Strip out the rhetoric and what you are basically left with is 'Buy Apple. Don't be a corporate drone mindlessly following Big Blue and the 'no one ever got fired for buying IBM' mantra'.

Of course it was marketing. What else would you consider an ad?

I'm still confused as to why the idea of IBM dominating the computer industry in the '80's was a cause for concern but Apple dominating the mobile computing industry (including the 'ecosystem' that interconnects everything from your phone to your web page to your computer to your TV) is not.

As I said in my first post in this conversation, it is because Apple isn't dominating the mobile computing industry. There are many major players in the mobile market.

It's not purely about market share and there are multiple companies that could share the crown but, AFAIK, Apple is the only one that made a commercial like the 1984 ad thus the irony.

Which is actually the only reason you made the comparison.

Apple is also the only one w/a charismatic front man known for a Reality Distortion Field that mesmerizes the masses in to letting him tell them what they want and how they want. Somewhat akin to the face on the big screen in 1984 only more personable and better dressed.

You do realize that the RDF doesn't actually exist, right? It's FUD.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Of course it was marketing. What else would you consider an ad?

From your serious interpretation of the ad I was getting the idea that some people saw it as a serious call to arms to stop IBM from taking over the world.

As I said in my first post in this conversation, it is because Apple isn't dominating the mobile computing industry. There are many major players in the mobile market.

How many other players have handset sales that compare to the iPhone, tablet sales that compare to the iPad, set-top-box sales that compare to TV, a media & software distribution service that rivals the iTunes store, and keeps all of their devices on tight lockdown via said distribution service? MobileMe probably belongs in there somewhere to and the increased integration of the Mac App store into Lion gets an honorable mention. Oh, and they sell computers as well.

Like I said before, we are expanding away from solitary devices into 'ecosystems' of devices and right now there is no one that can touch Apple in that regard.

Which is actually the only reason you made the comparison.

I didn't make the comparison but I do agree that if the commercial was remade for 2011 Apple could easily substitute for IBM. Apple isn't the only company that could but no one said that they were.

You do realize that the RDF doesn't actually exist, right? It's FUD.

Yes, I realize the RDF is just another example of hyperbole.



Lethal

 

[BaldiMac]

From your serious interpretation of the ad I was getting the idea that some people saw it as a serious call to arms to stop IBM from taking over the world.

I wasn't interpreting the ad at all. I was commenting on the description of the ad by Jobs that you posted.

How many other players have handset sales that compare to the iPhone, tablet sales that compare to the iPad, set-top-box sales that compare to TV, a media & software distribution service that rivals the iTunes store, and keeps all of their devices on tight lockdown via said distribution service? MobileMe probably belongs in there somewhere to and the increased integration of the Mac App store into Lion gets an honorable mention. Oh, and they sell computers as well.

Super. What does that have to do with Big Brother? It just means they are big.

Like I said before, we are expanding away from solitary devices into 'ecosystems' of devices and right now there is no one that can touch Apple in that regard.

Again, successful and integrated is not Big Brother.

I didn't make the comparison but I do agree that if the commercial was remade for 2011 Apple could easily substitute for IBM. Apple isn't the only company that could but no one said that they were.

No, you are confused as to what you said. You did say that IBM could be replaced with Apple in Jobs' description of the motivations behind the ad. But you ignored the last three sentences of the description that you posted. And they are the ones that I found significant. To Jobs, battling IBM wasn't about market share in a random industry. It was about "the entire information age." That's why the comparison to Big Brother.

And that's why Apple is nothing like 1984 IBM. The stakes are not the same. The companies that are trying to control information right now are Google and Microsoft and Adobe. Apple is still the antithesis of Big Brother.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I wasn't interpreting the ad at all. I was commenting on the description of the ad by Jobs that you posted.

I guess I'm slightly confused because at times you seem to be saying the ad was just an ad and at other times you seem to be saying the ad was literal and IBM circa 1984 really was like Big Brother and the "entire information age" really was at stake.

Super. What does that have to do with Big Brother? It just means they are big.

Besides being big what did IBM circa 1984 have to do with Big Brother?

Again, successful and integrated is not Big Brother.

But controlling is.

And, just to be clear about this once more, I'm not saying Apple is literally like Big Brother. I'm saying that w/in the context of the 1984 ad's rhetoric Apple (which is not literally like Big Brother) could replace IBM (which is also not literally like Big Brother) because Apple (in no small part to its strict, wall-garden approach) is in a very dominant position in emerging tech-based markets today in a similar way that IBM was in a very dominant position in emerging tech-based markets 25yrs ago.

Yes, Apple is more likely to get this ad thrown back in it's face because it made the ad. Other companies never made an incredibly memorable Super Bowl ad that claimed they were fighting the good fight. I'll give Google a runner up badge for it's "don't be evil" mantra though.

No, you are confused as to what you said. You did say that IBM could be replaced with Apple in Jobs' description of the motivations behind the ad.

Yer right. AidenShaw made the initial comparison and I thought I just agreed w/him but I did actually make the comparison directly as well. (guess I could've taken 30 seconds to reread my previous posts )

To Jobs, battling IBM wasn't about market share in a random industry. It was about "the entire information age." That's why the comparison to Big Brother.

H-Y-P-E-R-B-O-L-E. Unless, of course, you believe Jobs literally considered IBM to be a real life incarnation of Orwell's Big Brother and that the fate of the world hinged on people buying Apple branded personal computers instead of IBM branded personal computers. You are right that it wasn't market share in a random industry. It was market share in the desktop computer industry which just happened to be the industry Apple was competing against IBM in hence the painting of Big Blue as evil and and Apple as the little underdog that was humanity's only hope.

And that's why Apple is nothing like 1984 IBM. The stakes are not the same. The companies that are trying to control information right now are Google and Microsoft and Adobe. Apple is still the antithesis of Big Brother.

The stakes are higher now, IMO, because the converging technologies and services that companies are trying to stake their claims to these days go way beyond battling for desktop computer sales like Apple and IBM were doing 25yrs ago.

Just humor me, but how exactly are you lumping Adobe in with MS in Google w/regards to trying to control information?

On a somewhat related tangent to this soon to be epic nerd-battle we have going on here, Wired has an interesting article on how internet usage is changing (and not necessarily for the better in terms of keeping 'gatekeepers' out of the picture) The Web Is Dead. Long Live the Internet.


Lethal

 

[firewood]

Apple? Start listening to your customers. Especially ones who dropped more than $10,000 into your coffers last year alone.

Why listen to customers who produce such a tiny percentage of their current total revenue? It's a shrinking market demographic.

 

[xbjllb]

I can list 50 billion reasons you are wrong.

Start listing. ALL of them. I'll reply when you've finished.

Why listen to customers who produce such a tiny percentage of their current total revenue? It's a shrinking market demographic.

Ask Thomas, Lowrey, Wurlitzer, and Baldwin organ companies.

Oh wait you can't. They went out of business chasing Casio, Roland, and Yamaha.

While Rodgers and Allen Organ are still around today. Because of entry-level product starting at high five figures.