Jobs Not Giving This Year's Macworld Keynote 371
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.
Talk about senastionalism (Score:1, Insightful)
Why is his no-show a sign of anything other than Apple no longer being interesting in doing the expo, rather than another stupid rumor of his impending death?
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:2, 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.
You could not be more wrong.
Sour grapes.
Look, really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure they'll let you run anything you want on a MacBook, iMac or Mac Pro. In fact, I'm pretty sure they run ads advertising this fact.
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.
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ill tell you this. Planning your product schedule around trade show sucks. Why do it when your the big dog and you can easily host your own events. You plan your event when the product is close to being released.
Your right, if you can drum up the hype any time you need to, why let someone else set your schedule.
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.
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.
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.
Makes perfect sense (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure Steve -or one of his handpicked henchmen- will keynote at WWDC to make the fanbois happy. As to his retirement, if I was in his place I'd be thinking of the Gates strategy to ease myself out of the business. After all, he's as human as the rest of you.
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.
Re:Time Article (Score:4, Insightful)
She's Right (Score:0, Insightful)
She's right. Apple is the AOL of mp3 players and has dumbed down the interface and lowered expectations so much that people think gapless playback or album art is a major advance in the state of the art.
Specially the hacks who run Adword-funded Apple product review sites and diss anyone who threatens their revenue streams.
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:3, Insightful)
....on many technical levels they are inferior, especially the ipod....
That is why the technically superior Zune was such a hit! It was the one that let users "squirt" DRM infested songs to other Zunes. That is why they are selling like hotcakes and nobody has ever heard of these boring gadgets called iPods.
Re:Cue the "Jobs is dying, Apple is doomed" storie (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't say that I agree with you. The "large part" of the blame lies with sensationalist journalists and stock price manipulators.
Name one other company where people demand they to go on record regarding the health of the CEO when some band of journalists decides to perform an amateur medical diagnosis based on photographs and videos.
Senator Bill Frist was rightly admonished for performing a "video diagnosis" of Terri Schiavo...and he has a medical school degree. Why should Apple respond when a bunch of blowhards with no medical training whatsoever do the same thing with Steve Jobs?
The board is required to divulge information about his health if it affects his ability to do his job. They are under no obligation to respond to nutjobs and market makers.
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.
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.
Re:She's Right (Score:3, Insightful)
Want to know something... Gapless playback and album art is an advance. This is what gets me with geeks and programmers. Instead of focusing on what the client wants, they focus on what they *think* the client wants.
And guess what the client wants album art... This is why Apple is a rocket and Google with its android a dud...
The day of the techie and their ueber geek arrogance is gone, they need to start delivering products clients want...
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.
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmm, gotta disagree there.
You have to consider the package as a whole. Not just the raw technical specifications or feature list.
The iPod was simply far better at its core feature when it was launched than any other player. I would argue that by not losing sight of the vision of a small, portable, music player they didn't get caught up with vast featurelists like other players until they could do it the best way. Styling has, of course, helped greatly - but it's not Apple's fault their competitors wanted to sell bricks.
The iPhone's interface is simply still far better and smoother than any other competitor. The difference isn't as much as with the iPod when it was launched, and the competitors are catching up faster this time.
The MacBook has Mac OS X. That's a massive technical advantage for many people, from different viewpoints. I shouldn't need to go into this in detail.
You can market generation n+1/2/3 devices all you want, but if people weren't satisfied with generation n then people won't buy. Apple has such high satisfaction ratings that they surely are hitting people's needs pretty much spot on.
I must also point out that I think Apple peaked already, and quality appears to be going down. There's no excuse for not having a wider range of computers to actually compete in the market. The Mac Mini is so out of date that Dell have better looking and specced offerings!
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.
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.)
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Their marketing is done in the same way as marketing for other companies. In many ways it is technically inferior. Yet here you are saying how good it is?
Stating you dont own their products undermines the credibility of your assertion that their products are no better than the competition.
On the face of it it might seem that way. Sure, you can go to the Apple store and play with them, but its no comparison to owning and using on a daily basis.
I'm not suggesting their products are perfect, but their attention to detail is what sets them apart.
Clearly I am going to come across as a fanboy, but I can assure you thats not the case, i'm just recounting my personal experience.
The iPhone blew away every other other PDA/Smartphone I owned in terms of usability.
The new macBook Pro is a great peice of kit. I had doubts about the cost it did seem like a hell of a lot of money.
I'm starting to understand where that money went though. The amount of time saved not 'fixing' things (I'm looking at you linux/windows!) the battery life, the build quality (the 'unibody' is not a gimmick imho. makes for a very solid chassis) and all the little things (light up keys - now they have been fixed - are really useful. the fact the screen dims automatically in the dark) start to add up. Yes I know its not amazing tech, it doesnt have to be.
I'm ranting now. Maybe I am a fanboy after all. sorry. you can mod me to hell now ...
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:3, Insightful)
People keep bringing this up as if it matters. It doesn't. The iPod is, on a technical level, more than adequate for virtually everyone who uses it. More importantly, on a user interface level, it is pure simplicity to use. So, it's easy to use and does what the user wants. The fact that mp3PlayerX may do this better or oggPlayerY may do that better doesn't matter - the iPod does what the vast majority of people want it to do and it does it easily. That's all that matters.
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:She's Right (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why Apple is a rocket and Google with its android a dud...
Right, Apple and Google are the only two companies in this brand new-fangled market of mobile phone technology.
Re:She's Right (Score:4, Insightful)
Its not so much the "day of the techie" but shifting markets.
In some way this is similar to the way the Wii has dominated this generation of console development. It hasn't brought better graphics (barely improving on GameCube level), it bundled in a Gimmick of a controller, but what they DID was appeal to a much larger audience that normally wouldn't have even bothered buying a console.
Buy enlarging the market, and taking all of those new users as their own, they retook the console lead.
Likewise the market for handheld and smartphones is blossoming from "techies" and pure business users, to everyone. Techies and business users each have one set of requirements. A device that appeals to everyday users has another set. Ultimately what powers the iPhone's appeal is two things. The first is a simple and elegant interface design. When the first gen iPhone came out people were talking how it didn't have more features than other smartphones, but it made the features it had more accessible, so more people were using them. The second thing the iPhone has going for it is the App Store. The success of getting people to develop applications for the iPhone help transfor the generic device into something that can fit what each user needs. The fact that Apple acts as gatekeeper also tries to keep a consistent level of quality in the apps (even if you don't agree with their decisions about what Apps are allowed in the store).
For android to match that, they'll need to match both things. I haven't seen the interface live but the demos I've seen look functional but slightly less "polished". The thing they can't match though is the App Store. Until they develop enough of a critical mass of programs, they won't be able to, and without some central and easy way for micropayments to happen that developers buy into, its tougher to gain the momentum.
The other thing the iPhone has going for it is just what you said "Gapless playback and Album Art". Lots of people own an iPod. An iPhone integrates directly with their iTunes library which, for many people, is a big plus right there.
Re:First touch screen? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple was hardly the first to use a touch screen, any more than they were the first to use a mouse or a windows operating system.
They did the same thing in all three cases--figured out how to make it usable and consistent.
Look at all of the reviews of the iPhone wannabees. In the end, after pointing out all of the extra features, the reviewer ends up conceding, "nevertheless, the touch screen interface does not work as smoothly or as intuitively as the iPhone's."
Re:iPod, iPhone, then what? (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree with you. Apple is synonymous with smartphones. At least in the eyes of consumers.
Sorry, but if you really believe this, it's safe to say you've been buying into the marketing too much. Blackberry was synonymous with smartphones to the average user before the iPhone was even announced, and still is.