Many readers including thermopile wrote in about Apple withdrawing from Macworld Expo after this year. The other bad news for Apple fans is that Steve Jobs won't be delivering the keynote in 3 weeks — we may have seen his last "one more thing." Apple VP Phil Schiller will be doing the honors. He's "an Apple executive notably lacking in Jobs's showmanship and star power," according to the Fortune blogger. Apple's press release states that "trade shows have become a very minor part of how Apple reaches its customers." While this may be true, the keynote addresses have been a critical venue for major new product announcements. Apple's stock is taking a 6% hit in after-hours trading, possibly on concerns about Jobs's health. Reader Harry has gathered together YouTube clips from most of the Macworld keynotes Jobs given since 1997.
I have been following Apple for more than 20 years, including stints at MacWorld and today's headline is a repeat of the mini-drama that Apple has been having with the Expo for decades. But today is different.
Ignore the dispute about who controls MacWorld Expo's agenda. Apple feels like on top of the world (always has) and they want absolute control. But they also had found a great recipe for success. Two years ago, on the cab from the caltrain station to Moscone, the taxi driver asked us if we were there for this new "iPhone thing". The hype was just so big, the distortion field so powerful, the force was with Apple.
Somehow, no cab driver ever asked me about Android.
Think of the history: the iPod, the MacBook Air, the iPhone... By having someone else present the keynote this year, our collective expectations just sunk by an order of magnitude. I, for one, don't expect anything amazing this year. But on the other hand, it's only fair: even Apple can't pull off revolution after revolution, year after year. Give them a break, they are doing so much already by showing everyone how boring other products are.
I'm pretty sure the reason that Jobs won't be presenting at MacWorld is that "One More Thing" at the expo will be a Cyborg Steve Jobs. It will be the most astoundingly fantastic reveal ever, and, if we're really lucky, Apple will be cutting legal department costs by equipping Cyborg Jobs with weapons (gotta make up for that 1% drop in computer sales). Awww... just imagine the smell of crackling bacon as tech journalists fry.
More like, trade shows aren't cost-effective anymore, and Apple was also getting pretty tired of someone else's schedule driving the timing of their product introductions.
I for one, don't expect anything amazing this year.
I do. I just don't expect them to happen only at MacWorld or WWDC.
And there are no words for how much the MWSF schedule sucks. When I realize how many employees at Apple, Adobe, Canon, and hundreds of other vendors are forced to skip Christmas vacation every year to get products and show displays ready for that horribly timed conference, it makes me want to shove my foot up IDG CEO Bob Carrigan's you-know-what. If the conference were in February, those employees would almost certainly be happier, plus it would likely cost those vendors a lot less in extra compensation to make up for keeping those folks through the holidays. If the show were in February, they might not be watching their vendor list drop like flies....
Scheduling a trade show for the first full week in January is just plain abusive. Maybe this will get IDG to extricate their crania from their posteriors long enough to figure that out.... I won't hold my breath, though. I'd imagine they're getting a hefty discount from the Moscone Center for booking during a week that nobody in their right minds would touch with a ten meter pole.
Think of the history: the iPod, the MacBook Air, the iPhone... By having someone else present the keynote this year, our collective expectations just sunk by an order of magnitude. I, for one, don't expect anything amazing this year. But on the other hand, it's only fair: even Apple can't pull off revolution after revolution, year after year. Give them a break, they are doing so much already by showing everyone how boring other products are.
I think this was bound to happen when Apple made the switch to Intel. Apple traditionally releases product on these big events - MacWorld, WWDC (more to the things developers want), and other big conferences. New product appears on a regular schedule, and advances could be easily plotted. This was because Apple's source hardware (e.g., PowerPC) roadmaps were quite tightly sealed, and thus, Apple could gather up momentum leading up to the event on what the next big thing was.
But now, Intel and AMD have roadmaps known to the public way in advance. New chips, chipsets, graphics, etc., come out monthly, and there's no way Apple can wait 6 months to the next event to showcase their latest computers, using a CPU/chipset/GPU everyone else has been shipping the past 3 months. Apple can't wait for these big events to announce new product, because they happen at inconvenient times.
Apple is large enough that it can draw a huge crowd easily, which it does with these "spotlight" meetings/keynotes. The advantage is that Apple can release product around the same time everyone else releases product. A new chipset released by Intel? Well, hold a spotlight and release the new notebooks within a month or two from the first manufacturer releasing them, before it becomes "old news."
Apple has to release product, and they can't wait for the Next Big Expo to do it - to compete with all the other PC manufacturers now, they have to release in a timely fashion. (Think about how long it took for Apple to release Santa Rosa notebooks - everyone else had them for months!)
Once Apple went Intel, they have to follow Intel's schedule for product releases, which won't coincide with most of the Mac Expos. Or get left behind releasing old technology, with everyone annoyed waiting for the notebooks to use the latest and greatest. It's not practical for Apple to wait - they have to release. Holding a spotlight meeting is easier than holding a random Expo (scheduled months to years in advance) to release product in a timely manner.
the ipod, macbook and iphone do nothing other gadgets haven't before. indeed on many technical levels they are inferior, especially the ipod.
One thing Apple has done well, since its beginning, is to make technology exciting for the masses. Most of that is marketing, to be sure. But it always takes marketing to push technology into general use.
True, Apple entered the portable mp3 player market late, and with an, arguably, inferior product. But, through marketing and tight integration with the computer, managed to get 90% of people to trade in their Discmans for iPods. They were able to dominate a market which didn't even exist a few years before (and probably would not be nearly as large without Apple).
From the Apple II, to the iMac, to the iPod, and to the iPhone, Apple has managed to create mass markets where none existed before. I don't think that fact can be overlooked. Whenever Apple comes out with a product, they are trying to open up larger markets for technology, even when they fail (Newton).
The other thing Apple does well is make money. Lots and lots of money. Metric buttloads of money.
True, Apple entered the portable mp3 player market late, and with an, arguably, inferior product. But, through marketing and tight integration with the computer, managed to get 90% of people to trade in their Discmans for iPods. They were able to dominate a market which didn't even exist a few years before (and probably would not be nearly as large without Apple).
Actually, I'd argue that Apple entered the portable MP3 player market at the right time. Consider the market at the time - small flash-based players that could barely hold 1 album, maybe 2 if you compressed them below 128kbps, or humongous hard-drive based MP3 players that were larger than a discman (i.e., the Nomad), or when they weren't, were huge bricks.
Now, Apple releases an MP3 player that has most of the space of the large hard disk players, but is only maybe 1 1/2 to 2 times of the flash-based player. Oh yeah, and instead of syncing via painfully slow USB 1.1 (or parallel/serial!), it would work at firewire speeds. So copying lots of music to the hard disk takes minutes, not hours (1GB would take around 15-20 minutes via USB 1.1 versus 2-5 minutes via firewire...).
So what did Apple do? They released an MP3 player in a formfactor that's usable, and made filling it much less of an all-nighter thing and something that someone can do on their way out the door.
Oh yeah, they also marketed the heck out of the iPod, and made everyone who would normally carry CDs or listen to tapes... consider buying one and carrying their entire collection in a handheld device, rather than a huge stack of CDs. Instead of MP3 players being relegated to the realms of the techie, Apple made them wanted and usable to the masses.
And Apple did this a month after 9/11 - when no one was willing to spend $600 nor have they fully recovered. Apple won out because Jobs seized upon the concept just as it was beginning to take off, then when the huge growth happens, they were already on the 3rd generation iPod (total sales under 1 million units at the point, yet it was the #1 selling MP3 player). Boom, the market takes off, Apple has a refined 3rd generation iPod on sale, and people start wanting iPods and MP3 players, to the point where Apple sells millions per month.
Apple got really lucky with the iPod. They were at the right place at the right time.
Yes, they were. And they were very lucky with the MacBook. And once again with the iPhone. Lucky bastards, making stuff that people actually want to buy. Jeez, what were they thinking?
I don't know if it was luck or a really good understanding of where the industry was going, but the iPod popularity is significantly different than the MacBook or iPhone.
The MacBook took the existing Mac product line, improved it, and grew more popular for a number of reasons... the Intel switch, the improvements in OSX and the recent developments that have made the OS less and less critical are the first things that occur to me. While popular, it doesn't absolutely dominate the market. Its simply a healthy growth of one of Apple's oldest product lines.
The iPhone was a new move into an already well-established market. It has generated new interest in smartphones and helped to push other vendors to improve their products; however, it hasn't ridden the boom of a new market to complete dominance in the same way that the iPod has. iPhone is not (yet?) synonymous with smartphones, and despite strong sales doesn't have the absurdly high installed base.
However, the iPod came out when MP3 players were a niche product for techno-geeks, and rode the growth of the market to have a 70%(?) market share. I can't say whether it led to the growth of the market or simply rode a trend that would have occurred anyway, but needless to say, the iPod's place in the market is stronger than either the MacBook or the iPhone. They are synonymous with the market as a whole, have dozens of companies making accessories... iPod compatibility is even listed as a selling feature on cars.
The supposition of Apple getting lucky makes sense to me. If they're product hadn't been so well developed (at 3rd gen) by the time of the boom, or if some other companies had had better developed products at the time, with well-developed music stores, I can see the iPod being a 20%-30% market share product, that while still successful wouldn't be the cultural phenomenon it is now. And note that I type this on a Macbook Air with my iPhone beside me and my iPod in the car, so believe me when I say I have nothing against the company.
... iPhone brought in the first touch screen, and now everybody and I mean everybody is coming out with touch screens...
Are you serious? I have had nothing but touch screen phones since 2001.
VisorPhone
Samsung SPH-I300
Samsung SPH-I330
Treo 600
Treo 650p
The models I used actually started out as pure touch screen and then added keyboards (retaining the touch screen) because you can type faster with buttons (and the Xerox graffiti lawsuit). You can also touch-type with buttons.
The iPhone has nothing really new except that it was marketed to everyone and not just PDA users. Suddenly smartphones are "cool" because Apple makes one. That's fine.
I've been a Mac user for over 20 years. I'm typing this on a Mac. I'm glad Apple is doing well.
I'm also glad that people still make real smartphones like Treos, because I am a PDA user and I refuse to give up meaningful features for marketing fluff and looks. My four-year-old Treo model has many, many features that the iPhone lacks, including multimedia features like stereo bluetooth support and over a decade's worth of third-party software available directly from the people who developed it.
Consumer electronics are never seen for its technical merits. It is all about user interface, always has.
What good is having the latest tech where you have to dig it out a seven-level-deep menu structure to use it? Having a clean, simple interface is the key to succes.
Are you completely ignorant of the history of computing? Apple shaped the entire way we interact with computers - Windows, Linux are both heavily influenced by the original Mac OS. And yes, now you'll bitch about XEROX PARC and all that... again, missing the point. Apple did not invent the GUI, but put a lot of hard work and great ideas into refining it into a mainstream product. Even the mouse was shaped by Apple - no, they didn't invent the mouse, but again, refined it from being a technical curiosity into a workable, durable item. They put a lot of research into making it something that was smooth and didn't break easily. Go look it up some time.
Inventions are one thing, but turning inventions into real-world products is just as difficult and challenging.
By saying that you show that you completely misunderstand the mindset of the Apple customer.
People that buy Apple products are not concerned with motherboards, chipsets, memory speed, CPU or other technical details so much (except perhaps MacPro buyers, esp. if they come from PC background).
People that care about that build their own PCs (I have certainly).
People who buy Apple want their computer to be transparent, they don't want to tinker with it endlessly (like that guy fixing old cars in his garage and never having it actually working, he just enjoys tinkering - kind of like Linux people early on).
If you say macbook is just like any other laptop then you don't get it. Look at any other laptop and just look at the level of "noise" on the keyboard designs these days. Find me one keyboard that doesn't scream at you with 5 things written on each keyboard with different colored letters, keys non-standard width or position etc.
That's just one detail, and then look at the beauty of simplicity of classical Macbook keyboard. It just disappears, and doesn't scream at you.
Macbook aluminum case feels so solid and sturdy, better than any other laptop I have ever held. And it does not have things written on it all over the place (certainly not stupid metal labels like Intel Inside or built for Vista), or things glued to it at the bottom containing certain product key.
The computer is sophisticated and simple, understated like luxury European sedan (think BMW, a lot of people don't get that one either, that's why you see idiots that put chrome wheels, and fart exhausts on their BMW).
And then we get to other soft things like the OS. That one is a topic on its own, but the joy of using OS X would be worth it to me even without these other things.
the only revolution apple has ever pulled off is a marketing revolution. the ipod, macbook and iphone do nothing other gadgets haven't before. indeed on many technical levels they are inferior, especially the ipod.
A very wise person once pointed out to me that it doesn't matter how cool or great a product you have; if you can't convince someone to buy it it's useless.
Never underestimate the importance of marketing (and sales) to success. People buy something because it fills a perceived need; convincing them that they have that need is an important part of the sales process.
Having a good product helps; but being a better product than others is not enough, by itself, to ensure you win. Technical superiority is nice; but unless you can convince people it has value then it's just something the extreme fanboys will argue over (wether is a computer, car, camera, stereo, etc.)
I made the mistake of buying such a boring device. My iPod mini can't do any of the flashy stuff! It just plays mp3's. Granted, it does do this very well and with an easy navigable interface, but where's the fun in that?
Next time I'll buy a nice faeces-colored Zune and I'll be squirting with the jetset!
My guess about why you're so wrong is your comment sounds like a lot of other short sighted haters who look simply at feature list items one by one and assume that tells the whole story. It's the package as a whole, user interface, user experience, product design, etc. These are all intangibles that add up to far more than the feature list and tech specs.
Simply put. . . forest or trees? You're looking at the trees.
Which is why Ubuntu is dominating the desktop market while Apple is fading away into oblivion. Ubuntu offers everything anyone could dream of on the desktop while Apple is listening to nobody.
This is all because all anybody cares about when using their home desktop is whether or not they can view the source code to the applications they run and if they can recompile the kernel. Usability has nothing to do with it for the average Joe.
I promise not to bitch about the lack of firewire in the new Mac Minis, unlike my faithless ranting about the new MacBooks! Just come back.
If I don't get my regular of RDF rays I go all wonky and think about buying crap from Dell! Or running Darwin on a home built system as a back end media server!
This article about Job's not doing the keynote [time.com] says the worries this is generating about his health are hurting Apple stock. Is there any other company with it's perception of viability so closely linked to a single living individual? I'm unaware of any right now. It's makes this whole thing pretty interesting. He is a human and can't live forever, regardless of how his health is right now. It seems maybe they have seen that with the earlier rumors about his health and have realized they need to start building a transition while he is still around so the company wont take as big a hit when he is gone.
Or maybe it is all much more mundane than that - but I've never seen this type of announcement gain so much press before. It's on every MSM news outlet as well as all the tech sites.
Yes, Berkshire Hathaway [wikipedia.org] and Warren Buffet [wikipedia.org]. My hunch is the fact that so many people have held onto the stocks for so long, and they are such stable investors would be one of the very few counter balances to the stock freefalling. They are making public plans the contingency plans for when Buffet retires or dies.
I live in Omaha, and trust me, Berkshire Hathaway's meetings every year noticed by folks far and wide who have nothing to do with Warren Buffet. He's at least as strongly connected personally to his company as Jobs is to Apple. The problem is Warren has a strong "Reatily Clarity Field", and thus is far less of a rockstar then Jobs.
> "trade shows have become a very minor part of how Apple reaches its customers." While this may be true, the keynote addresses have been a critical venue for major new product announcements.
... checkout this presentation from OpenStep Day, 1995 [youtube.com] in which Jobs applies the famous reality distortion field not to iPods and Macs, but to Corba, OLE, Web Objects, and other Enterprisey Middleware.
And the "One More Thing" moment? Using Netscape 1.0 to demo Web Objects and Windows NT 3.1 interoperability.
Risk of a rickroll? Pansy. Kids these days... In my day, we risked seeing a man with his anus stretched to almost athletic proportions or something even worse.
You kids with your 80s love ballads are so freaking spoiled.
... don't be too hard on Phil. NO ONE has Steve's "showmanship and star power." At least he's kind of fun and entertaining. Should still be good. And as fun as it is to watch him Steve present, what will matter after the RDF wears off is what was announced. The only difference between Steve and Phil presenting is that with Phil, you'll notice the one secret sucky thing Apple builds into every product within 30-90 minutes instead of the customary 6-36 hours.
Just remember to buy on the rumor, sell on the announcement, and start the framework of your "This product is the BEST THING EVER except for the (crappy battery life/DRM/Apple lock-in/no wireless)" blog entry so you can just fill in the blanks and be the first one to share your oh-so-valuable opinion with the world. Be sure to talk about how Apple is going to be out of business in 3 months because they didn't listen to you.
In other words, just sit back and make the usual preparations and get ready to enjoy the Last Big Show.
I mean at this point, Jobs doing the keynote has been largely symbolic. Having Schiller doing it, I could see as a sign of a succession plan taking shape. If I was on the board I would be pestering them about it. Their product strategy in core areas is more or less set on autopilot for the next few years. New versions of OS X at intervals, revamp the existing product lines, and keep a few things in the pipeline.
So, if Jobs does take sick, and I don't think he is, it's just distributing the risk around a bit. I think people are fundamentally correct in asserting that Jobs doing unexpected anything tanks the stock for a while.
Furthermore, much like Gates took a backseat role I could see Jobs doing the same. At a certain point you have to let go of the baby or the baby gets taken away.
So, rather than an OMG moment, I see this as a hedging strategy against illness, significantly large drops in market share or price that would lead investors to call for Jobs' head. And really just a good idea all around.
Or Jobs could be screwing with everyone and make himself the surprise at the keynote. I mean Schiller did introduce iChat remotely. So why not pull something similar with Jobs in Cupertino and Schiller at the con?
Run with that idea and gets you some interesting places.
Unfortunately, ever since Jobs lost significant weight as a result of his surgery (an obligatory side effect for the type of surgery he had), MacWorld keynotes have become a "Steve Jobs Death Watch" for the press. Before, during and after the keynote, more ink is spent on speculations regarding his health than the product announcements.
I think one side benefit of Apple's abandoning MacWorld is the press can no longer turn it into a morbid event.
Apple doesn't need Macworld because Apple doesn't need fanboys any more.
The Apple fanboy crowd is totally irrelevant to the iPod/iPhone line - those are mass-market consumer products. The laptop product line is aimed more at the status-conscious crowd. Neither market is the Macworld demographic.
I'm going to guess that Apple is backing out of Macworld SF because it's so poorly run that no one wants to go. $20k for a table? sure. five 30" Cinema displays 'go missing' from the loading dock? sorry, not our fault, not our problem. Need a new outlet? You have to hire one of our electricians. How many hours do you want him for? oh, we don't know how long it'll take, you have to figure that out yourself.
The company that runs Macworld runs it half-assed, they don't care about attendees because they know they're the only game in town and people will pay regardless, and they don't care about vendors, because again, you need the exposure or your competitor is going to get it first.
If we're lucky, Macworld will die off and be replaced with something better.
When I was a vendor back in the Dark Ages of the 20th century, I had very mixed feelings about trade shows. It took a lot of people, time, and money to prepare for a show and then be present for the duration. Most of the people who came by our booth were tire-kickers at best, and we developed the theory that anyone who took our giveaway (candy, etc.) first wasn't really a prospect. On the plus side, we came away from almost every show with enough good leads to justify our expenses. Our marketing and sales guys would screen the leads and follow up with the best prospects. A few of our bigger customers would never have found us had we not shown up at these shows.
With so much information available online, and with the ability to purchase things with just a few mouse clicks, why would I go to such a trade show today? For me, that's easy.
It's a great way to discover new companies and products, often hiding in the corner of the show floor or as an adjunct to a larger vendor.
It's often valuable to get your hands on a product to see if it is well made and usable. I recently went through a lot of hassle with Dell when I bought and subsequently returned the Inspiron Mini 9 (Ubuntu version) because of the tiny and unusable keyboard.
If you expect that the product you are seeking will be critical to your business over time, it's valuable to build a relationship with the vendor. A major trade show is often the best chance to meet their senior people and decide if you want to invite them to make a sales call.
So I will once again show up at Macworld SF and will hope that IDC will find it profitable to continue running the show. That gives companies the chance to show their stuff rather than struggling to get their product stocked and displayed by the Apple retail store or other merchants (who show only a tiny percentage of what's available out there). I'm likely to show up at future Macworlds, too, since my purpose for attending isn't to see Apple's products, but to see everything else.
The 2009 keynote has happened. As expected, no revolutionary products revealed. Nothing of note. Just a refresh of the Mac Mini. Just as the mac faithful are just about to pour out of Macworld, downtrodden, a voice rings out of the microphone.
"Just one more thing."
Steve Jobs, healthy and fit and in his trademark turtleneck, stands with his hands clasped together at the podium. He smiles as the audience members fall silent, taking their seats. "We aren't quite done yet... Say 'hello' to the..."
New CEO of APPLE... (thunderous yet slightly confused applause dies down)
Jobs in a slightly coy flirtatious voice...."Come on out Steve"..
iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have been following Apple for more than 20 years, including stints at MacWorld and today's headline is a repeat of the mini-drama that Apple has been having with the Expo for decades. But today is different.
Ignore the dispute about who controls MacWorld Expo's agenda. Apple feels like on top of the world (always has) and they want absolute control. But they also had found a great recipe for success. Two years ago, on the cab from the caltrain station to Moscone, the taxi driver asked us if we were there for this new "iPhone thing". The hype was just so big, the distortion field so powerful, the force was with Apple.
Somehow, no cab driver ever asked me about Android.
Think of the history: the iPod, the MacBook Air, the iPhone... By having someone else present the keynote this year, our collective expectations just sunk by an order of magnitude. I, for one, don't expect anything amazing this year. But on the other hand, it's only fair: even Apple can't pull off revolution after revolution, year after year. Give them a break, they are doing so much already by showing everyone how boring other products are.
--
iPhone Apps review site [applicationiphone.com] looking for bilingual testers
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:5, Insightful)
they want absolute control
More like, trade shows aren't cost-effective anymore, and Apple was also getting pretty tired of someone else's schedule driving the timing of their product introductions.
I for one, don't expect anything amazing this year.
I do. I just don't expect them to happen only at MacWorld or WWDC.
-jcr
Parent
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:5, Interesting)
And there are no words for how much the MWSF schedule sucks. When I realize how many employees at Apple, Adobe, Canon, and hundreds of other vendors are forced to skip Christmas vacation every year to get products and show displays ready for that horribly timed conference, it makes me want to shove my foot up IDG CEO Bob Carrigan's you-know-what. If the conference were in February, those employees would almost certainly be happier, plus it would likely cost those vendors a lot less in extra compensation to make up for keeping those folks through the holidays. If the show were in February, they might not be watching their vendor list drop like flies....
Scheduling a trade show for the first full week in January is just plain abusive. Maybe this will get IDG to extricate their crania from their posteriors long enough to figure that out.... I won't hold my breath, though. I'd imagine they're getting a hefty discount from the Moscone Center for booking during a week that nobody in their right minds would touch with a ten meter pole.
Parent
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this was bound to happen when Apple made the switch to Intel. Apple traditionally releases product on these big events - MacWorld, WWDC (more to the things developers want), and other big conferences. New product appears on a regular schedule, and advances could be easily plotted. This was because Apple's source hardware (e.g., PowerPC) roadmaps were quite tightly sealed, and thus, Apple could gather up momentum leading up to the event on what the next big thing was.
But now, Intel and AMD have roadmaps known to the public way in advance. New chips, chipsets, graphics, etc., come out monthly, and there's no way Apple can wait 6 months to the next event to showcase their latest computers, using a CPU/chipset/GPU everyone else has been shipping the past 3 months. Apple can't wait for these big events to announce new product, because they happen at inconvenient times.
Apple is large enough that it can draw a huge crowd easily, which it does with these "spotlight" meetings/keynotes. The advantage is that Apple can release product around the same time everyone else releases product. A new chipset released by Intel? Well, hold a spotlight and release the new notebooks within a month or two from the first manufacturer releasing them, before it becomes "old news."
Apple has to release product, and they can't wait for the Next Big Expo to do it - to compete with all the other PC manufacturers now, they have to release in a timely fashion. (Think about how long it took for Apple to release Santa Rosa notebooks - everyone else had them for months!)
Once Apple went Intel, they have to follow Intel's schedule for product releases, which won't coincide with most of the Mac Expos. Or get left behind releasing old technology, with everyone annoyed waiting for the notebooks to use the latest and greatest. It's not practical for Apple to wait - they have to release. Holding a spotlight meeting is easier than holding a random Expo (scheduled months to years in advance) to release product in a timely manner.
Parent
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:5, Interesting)
the ipod, macbook and iphone do nothing other gadgets haven't before. indeed on many technical levels they are inferior, especially the ipod.
One thing Apple has done well, since its beginning, is to make technology exciting for the masses. Most of that is marketing, to be sure. But it always takes marketing to push technology into general use.
True, Apple entered the portable mp3 player market late, and with an, arguably, inferior product. But, through marketing and tight integration with the computer, managed to get 90% of people to trade in their Discmans for iPods. They were able to dominate a market which didn't even exist a few years before (and probably would not be nearly as large without Apple).
From the Apple II, to the iMac, to the iPod, and to the iPhone, Apple has managed to create mass markets where none existed before. I don't think that fact can be overlooked. Whenever Apple comes out with a product, they are trying to open up larger markets for technology, even when they fail (Newton).
The other thing Apple does well is make money. Lots and lots of money. Metric buttloads of money.
Parent
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, Steve Jobs is the guy who made all that possible.
We've seen what Apple is without him... bankrupt.
Parent
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:5, Informative)
That may be the worst pun I've read on Slashdot in years....
Parent
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I'd argue that Apple entered the portable MP3 player market at the right time. Consider the market at the time - small flash-based players that could barely hold 1 album, maybe 2 if you compressed them below 128kbps, or humongous hard-drive based MP3 players that were larger than a discman (i.e., the Nomad), or when they weren't, were huge bricks.
Now, Apple releases an MP3 player that has most of the space of the large hard disk players, but is only maybe 1 1/2 to 2 times of the flash-based player. Oh yeah, and instead of syncing via painfully slow USB 1.1 (or parallel/serial!), it would work at firewire speeds. So copying lots of music to the hard disk takes minutes, not hours (1GB would take around 15-20 minutes via USB 1.1 versus 2-5 minutes via firewire...).
So what did Apple do? They released an MP3 player in a formfactor that's usable, and made filling it much less of an all-nighter thing and something that someone can do on their way out the door.
Oh yeah, they also marketed the heck out of the iPod, and made everyone who would normally carry CDs or listen to tapes... consider buying one and carrying their entire collection in a handheld device, rather than a huge stack of CDs. Instead of MP3 players being relegated to the realms of the techie, Apple made them wanted and usable to the masses.
And Apple did this a month after 9/11 - when no one was willing to spend $600 nor have they fully recovered. Apple won out because Jobs seized upon the concept just as it was beginning to take off, then when the huge growth happens, they were already on the 3rd generation iPod (total sales under 1 million units at the point, yet it was the #1 selling MP3 player). Boom, the market takes off, Apple has a refined 3rd generation iPod on sale, and people start wanting iPods and MP3 players, to the point where Apple sells millions per month.
Apple got really lucky with the iPod. They were at the right place at the right time.
Parent
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, they were. And they were very lucky with the MacBook. And once again with the iPhone. Lucky bastards, making stuff that people actually want to buy. Jeez, what were they thinking?
Parent
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know if it was luck or a really good understanding of where the industry was going, but the iPod popularity is significantly different than the MacBook or iPhone.
The MacBook took the existing Mac product line, improved it, and grew more popular for a number of reasons... the Intel switch, the improvements in OSX and the recent developments that have made the OS less and less critical are the first things that occur to me. While popular, it doesn't absolutely dominate the market. Its simply a healthy growth of one of Apple's oldest product lines.
The iPhone was a new move into an already well-established market. It has generated new interest in smartphones and helped to push other vendors to improve their products; however, it hasn't ridden the boom of a new market to complete dominance in the same way that the iPod has. iPhone is not (yet?) synonymous with smartphones, and despite strong sales doesn't have the absurdly high installed base.
However, the iPod came out when MP3 players were a niche product for techno-geeks, and rode the growth of the market to have a 70%(?) market share. I can't say whether it led to the growth of the market or simply rode a trend that would have occurred anyway, but needless to say, the iPod's place in the market is stronger than either the MacBook or the iPhone. They are synonymous with the market as a whole, have dozens of companies making accessories... iPod compatibility is even listed as a selling feature on cars.
The supposition of Apple getting lucky makes sense to me. If they're product hadn't been so well developed (at 3rd gen) by the time of the boom, or if some other companies had had better developed products at the time, with well-developed music stores, I can see the iPod being a 20%-30% market share product, that while still successful wouldn't be the cultural phenomenon it is now. And note that I type this on a Macbook Air with my iPhone beside me and my iPod in the car, so believe me when I say I have nothing against the company.
Parent
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:5, Funny)
iPhone brought in the first touch screen
Right ...
No need to read further than that I guess ..
Parent
First touch screen? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you serious? I have had nothing but touch screen phones since 2001.
The models I used actually started out as pure touch screen and then added keyboards (retaining the touch screen) because you can type faster with buttons (and the Xerox graffiti lawsuit). You can also touch-type with buttons.
The iPhone has nothing really new except that it was marketed to everyone and not just PDA users. Suddenly smartphones are "cool" because Apple makes one. That's fine.
I've been a Mac user for over 20 years. I'm typing this on a Mac. I'm glad Apple is doing well.
I'm also glad that people still make real smartphones like Treos, because I am a PDA user and I refuse to give up meaningful features for marketing fluff and looks. My four-year-old Treo model has many, many features that the iPhone lacks, including multimedia features like stereo bluetooth support and over a decade's worth of third-party software available directly from the people who developed it.
Parent
You don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
What good is having the latest tech where you have to dig it out a seven-level-deep menu structure to use it? Having a clean, simple interface is the key to succes.
And I'm not a Machead by a long shot, either.
Parent
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:4, Informative)
Are you completely ignorant of the history of computing? Apple shaped the entire way we interact with computers - Windows, Linux are both heavily influenced by the original Mac OS. And yes, now you'll bitch about XEROX PARC and all that... again, missing the point. Apple did not invent the GUI, but put a lot of hard work and great ideas into refining it into a mainstream product. Even the mouse was shaped by Apple - no, they didn't invent the mouse, but again, refined it from being a technical curiosity into a workable, durable item. They put a lot of research into making it something that was smooth and didn't break easily. Go look it up some time.
Inventions are one thing, but turning inventions into real-world products is just as difficult and challenging.
Parent
I don't think you understand (Score:5, Insightful)
By saying that you show that you completely misunderstand the mindset of the Apple customer.
People that buy Apple products are not concerned with motherboards, chipsets, memory speed, CPU or other technical details so much (except perhaps MacPro buyers, esp. if they come from PC background).
People that care about that build their own PCs (I have certainly).
People who buy Apple want their computer to be transparent, they don't want to tinker with it endlessly (like that guy fixing old cars in his garage and never having it actually working, he just enjoys tinkering - kind of like Linux people early on).
If you say macbook is just like any other laptop then you don't get it. Look at any other laptop and just look at the level of "noise" on the keyboard designs these days. Find me one keyboard that doesn't scream at you with 5 things written on each keyboard with different colored letters, keys non-standard width or position etc.
That's just one detail, and then look at the beauty of simplicity of classical Macbook keyboard. It just disappears, and doesn't scream at you.
Macbook aluminum case feels so solid and sturdy, better than any other laptop I have ever held. And it does not have things written on it all over the place (certainly not stupid metal labels like Intel Inside or built for Vista), or things glued to it at the bottom containing certain product key.
The computer is sophisticated and simple, understated like luxury European sedan (think BMW, a lot of people don't get that one either, that's why you see idiots that put chrome wheels, and fart exhausts on their BMW).
And then we get to other soft things like the OS. That one is a topic on its own, but the joy of using OS X would be worth it to me even without these other things.
Parent
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:5, Insightful)
the only revolution apple has ever pulled off is a marketing revolution. the ipod, macbook and iphone do nothing other gadgets haven't before. indeed on many technical levels they are inferior, especially the ipod.
A very wise person once pointed out to me that it doesn't matter how cool or great a product you have; if you can't convince someone to buy it it's useless.
Never underestimate the importance of marketing (and sales) to success. People buy something because it fills a perceived need; convincing them that they have that need is an important part of the sales process.
Having a good product helps; but being a better product than others is not enough, by itself, to ensure you win. Technical superiority is nice; but unless you can convince people it has value then it's just something the extreme fanboys will argue over (wether is a computer, car, camera, stereo, etc.)
Parent
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:4, Funny)
Next time I'll buy a nice faeces-colored Zune and I'll be squirting with the jetset!
Parent
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:4, Funny)
Hmm. Most people would also want coffee to brew in it, but to each his own, I guess.
-jcr
Parent
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:5, Funny)
Which is why Ubuntu is dominating the desktop market while Apple is fading away into oblivion. Ubuntu offers everything anyone could dream of on the desktop while Apple is listening to nobody.
This is all because all anybody cares about when using their home desktop is whether or not they can view the source code to the applications they run and if they can recompile the kernel. Usability has nothing to do with it for the average Joe.
Parent
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:4, Funny)
Dang! That was a close one.
That joke was headed straight toward your head but luckily you ducked in time.
Parent
Let me be the first to say (Score:5, Funny)
Nooooooooo!!!
Fearless Leader, why have you forsaken us?
I promise not to bitch about the lack of firewire in the new Mac Minis, unlike my faithless ranting about the new MacBooks! Just come back.
If I don't get my regular of RDF rays I go all wonky and think about buying crap from Dell! Or running Darwin on a home built system as a back end media server!
Help us Steve Jobs, you're our only hope!
Time Article (Score:4, Interesting)
This article about Job's not doing the keynote [time.com] says the worries this is generating about his health are hurting Apple stock. Is there any other company with it's perception of viability so closely linked to a single living individual? I'm unaware of any right now. It's makes this whole thing pretty interesting. He is a human and can't live forever, regardless of how his health is right now. It seems maybe they have seen that with the earlier rumors about his health and have realized they need to start building a transition while he is still around so the company wont take as big a hit when he is gone.
Or maybe it is all much more mundane than that - but I've never seen this type of announcement gain so much press before. It's on every MSM news outlet as well as all the tech sites.
Re:Time Article (Score:5, Funny)
"Is there any other company with it's perception of viability so closely linked to a single living individual?"
I don't know, I think a lot of investors would be OK with Steve Ballmer keeling over.
Parent
Re:Time Article (Score:5, Funny)
I think a lot of investors would be OK with Steve Ballmer keeling over.
Remember how HP's shares jumped when they threw Carlie over the side?
If I could get a tip from Ballmer's cardiologist, I just might buy some MSFT calls.
-jcr
Parent
Re:Time Article (Score:5, Funny)
The Catholic Church(tm).
Parent
Re:Time Article (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Time Article (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Time Article (Score:5, Informative)
I live in Omaha, and trust me, Berkshire Hathaway's meetings every year noticed by folks far and wide who have nothing to do with Warren Buffet. He's at least as strongly connected personally to his company as Jobs is to Apple. The problem is Warren has a strong "Reatily Clarity Field", and thus is far less of a rockstar then Jobs.
Kirby
Parent
Quick (Score:4, Funny)
Somebody think up something that includes the term "beleaguered".
Re:Quick (Score:5, Funny)
iBeleaguered?
Parent
Don't worry (Score:5, Funny)
That's why the imagineers invented animatronics.
Hmm well (Score:5, Insightful)
> "trade shows have become a very minor part of how Apple reaches its customers." While this may be true, the keynote addresses have been a critical venue for major new product announcements.
Maybe they don't have anything.
If you want to see a real Steve Jobs Keynote... (Score:4, Interesting)
... checkout this presentation from OpenStep Day, 1995 [youtube.com] in which Jobs applies the famous reality distortion field not to iPods and Macs, but to Corba, OLE, Web Objects, and other Enterprisey Middleware.
And the "One More Thing" moment? Using Netscape 1.0 to demo Web Objects and Windows NT 3.1 interoperability.
Re:If you want to see a real Steve Jobs Keynote... (Score:5, Funny)
Risk of a rickroll? Pansy. Kids these days... In my day, we risked seeing a man with his anus stretched to almost athletic proportions or something even worse.
You kids with your 80s love ballads are so freaking spoiled.
Parent
Yeah, I'm bummed, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
... don't be too hard on Phil. NO ONE has Steve's "showmanship and star power." At least he's kind of fun and entertaining. Should still be good. And as fun as it is to watch him Steve present, what will matter after the RDF wears off is what was announced. The only difference between Steve and Phil presenting is that with Phil, you'll notice the one secret sucky thing Apple builds into every product within 30-90 minutes instead of the customary 6-36 hours.
Just remember to buy on the rumor, sell on the announcement, and start the framework of your "This product is the BEST THING EVER except for the (crappy battery life/DRM/Apple lock-in/no wireless)" blog entry so you can just fill in the blanks and be the first one to share your oh-so-valuable opinion with the world. Be sure to talk about how Apple is going to be out of business in 3 months because they didn't listen to you.
In other words, just sit back and make the usual preparations and get ready to enjoy the Last Big Show.
Bummer (Score:4, Insightful)
Resign, Retire or Succession (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean at this point, Jobs doing the keynote has been largely symbolic. Having Schiller doing it, I could see as a sign of a succession plan taking shape. If I was on the board I would be pestering them about it. Their product strategy in core areas is more or less set on autopilot for the next few years. New versions of OS X at intervals, revamp the existing product lines, and keep a few things in the pipeline.
So, if Jobs does take sick, and I don't think he is, it's just distributing the risk around a bit. I think people are fundamentally correct in asserting that Jobs doing unexpected anything tanks the stock for a while.
Furthermore, much like Gates took a backseat role I could see Jobs doing the same. At a certain point you have to let go of the baby or the baby gets taken away.
So, rather than an OMG moment, I see this as a hedging strategy against illness, significantly large drops in market share or price that would lead investors to call for Jobs' head. And really just a good idea all around.
Or Jobs could be screwing with everyone and make himself the surprise at the keynote. I mean Schiller did introduce iChat remotely. So why not pull something similar with Jobs in Cupertino and Schiller at the con?
Run with that idea and gets you some interesting places.
What year is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's 2008. Steve Jobs has already delivered the keynote at Macworld 2008 [slashdot.org].
Next year is 2009.
Cue the "Jobs is dying, Apple is doomed" stories.. (Score:5, Insightful)
...and watch the stock crater tomorrow.
Unfortunately, ever since Jobs lost significant weight as a result of his surgery (an obligatory side effect for the type of surgery he had), MacWorld keynotes have become a "Steve Jobs Death Watch" for the press. Before, during and after the keynote, more ink is spent on speculations regarding his health than the product announcements.
I think one side benefit of Apple's abandoning MacWorld is the press can no longer turn it into a morbid event.
It's true. (Score:5, Funny)
Steve Jobs doesn't care about Mac people.
The fanboys don't matter any more (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple doesn't need Macworld because Apple doesn't need fanboys any more.
The Apple fanboy crowd is totally irrelevant to the iPod/iPhone line - those are mass-market consumer products. The laptop product line is aimed more at the status-conscious crowd. Neither market is the Macworld demographic.
It's a gong show (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to guess that Apple is backing out of Macworld SF because it's so poorly run that no one wants to go. $20k for a table? sure. five 30" Cinema displays 'go missing' from the loading dock? sorry, not our fault, not our problem. Need a new outlet? You have to hire one of our electricians. How many hours do you want him for? oh, we don't know how long it'll take, you have to figure that out yourself.
The company that runs Macworld runs it half-assed, they don't care about attendees because they know they're the only game in town and people will pay regardless, and they don't care about vendors, because again, you need the exposure or your competitor is going to get it first.
If we're lucky, Macworld will die off and be replaced with something better.
Oh, what does some wuss Fortune blogger know? (Score:4, Funny)
He's "an Apple executive notably lacking in Jobs's showmanship and star power," according to the Fortune blogger.
Nonsense! Behold and rejoice! The era of Schillermania begins! Phil! Phil! Phil! Phil! Phil! Woooooooooot!
What's good about trade shows.... (Score:5, Interesting)
With so much information available online, and with the ability to purchase things with just a few mouse clicks, why would I go to such a trade show today? For me, that's easy.
So I will once again show up at Macworld SF and will hope that IDC will find it profitable to continue running the show. That gives companies the chance to show their stuff rather than struggling to get their product stocked and displayed by the Apple retail store or other merchants (who show only a tiny percentage of what's available out there). I'm likely to show up at future Macworlds, too, since my purpose for attending isn't to see Apple's products, but to see everything else.
Re:Look, really? (Score:5, Funny)
We know Steve is going to die, someday.
Why do you hate Apple? Hater.
Parent
Re:Look, really? (Score:5, Funny)
We know Steve is going to die, someday.
Even if it's only for three days.
Parent
Re:One More Thing (Score:4, Funny)
The 2009 keynote has happened. As expected, no revolutionary products revealed. Nothing of note. Just a refresh of the Mac Mini. Just as the mac faithful are just about to pour out of Macworld, downtrodden, a voice rings out of the microphone.
"Just one more thing."
Steve Jobs, healthy and fit and in his trademark turtleneck, stands with his hands clasped together at the podium. He smiles as the audience members fall silent, taking their seats. "We aren't quite done yet... Say 'hello' to the..."
New CEO of APPLE... (thunderous yet slightly confused applause dies down)
Jobs in a slightly coy flirtatious voice...."Come on out Steve"..
Parent