Game console: No. The market isn't big enough.
Tablet: No. the market isn't big enough. Unless Apple can
make a notebook computer that can also be a tablet. Without a
price increase.
iPhone Nano: No. The touch screen interface requires a product
with a certain set of dimensions dictated by the physics of
human physiology. Which is a fancy way of saying that when
you have to poke around with human fingers, things can only
be so small.
Netbook: It's called the MacBook Air.
Mac OSX on any machine: No. Because Apple can read
financials just as well as Microsoft. Market share ratio to MS,
10%; revenue ratio to MS, 30%.
If you want to find out what Apple's next product will be, find a
mature market where the user experience sucks.
The five products Apple must make
Summary
What ought to be Apple's next leap of faith? Here are a few ideas for where Apple should go next. What are your ideas?
Topics
Apple made its latest big move into new territories last year with the launch of the now ubiquitous iPhone, expanding beyond the desktop and into the choppy waters of mobile.What ought to be Apple's next leap of faith? Here are a few ideas for where Apple should go next.
Handheld gaming console
Now Apple's an established mobile phone brand, why not go the whole hog by taking the games-and-mobile functionality of the iPhone into the world of gaming proper with a dedicated Apple branded console, à la DS Lite or PSP with an N-Gage type device that people might actually buy?
While the iPhone SDK has opened up the possibility for developers to bring games to the Apple mobile, the offerings released for the iPhone to date haven't been the stuff of gamers' dreams. A dedicated device could persuade the gaming big boys to get on board and bring their users with them.
What better way to woo the big-spending gamer market than with a dedicated handheld gaming device?
Tablet
Rumors of the Apple tablet have been doing the rounds for some years, fanned by the occasional patent filing from Cupertino which seems to suggest such a device is on the way.
Surely it wouldn't be too much of a leap for Apple to consider bringing this rumor to reality. When Apple got into the touch screen game with the iPhone, it introduced a whole host of nice touch screen touches - the ability to zoom in on an image by moving your fingers to either corner of the screen, for example - making a full screen tablet is an appealing prospect for Mac users.
Apple's also proved that thin is in with the Mac Book Air - and dieting skills could rather cleverly be brought in to turn tablets into the lightweight devices users always hoped they'd be.
iPhone nano
The iPhone earned its cachet with geeks and the average Joe alike by following the Apple 'reassuringly expensive' model - it speaks volumes about the device that a developer created an application intended purely to show off the wealth of the iPhone user that downloaded it.
While the strategy has worked a treat so far - sales of the iPhone are reckoned to be in the five million ballpark - it's only a tiny fraction of the potential mobile market out there for Apple's picking.
Good sense would dictate that the iPhone's future development will follow the historical path of the iPod's. After the first geek-love inducing, big-storage packing model, Apple debuted the nano, a smaller, less flashy item for those not weighed down by a massive wallet.
An iPhone nano might even go down better as consumers trim back their electronics spending.
The device called for here is a smaller, less feature-heavy device, with less storage and a daintier screen size. Admittedly, that would almost necessitate a removal of the touchscreen element that makes the iPhone so appealing to its users, but by the time such a device would be brought to market, the iPhone brand should be strong enough to sweep up would-be buyers into the type of frenzy that could make them forget that nagging feeling of touchscreen jealousy.
Netbook
Who doesn't love a good netbook at the moment? HP, Lenovo, LG, Samsung - the list of vendors scrambling onto the bandwagon goes on.
Apple, however, has resisted so far - but for how much longer? With many of the netbooks on the market at the moment bearing a distinct resemblance to the white plastic of Apple's traditional design, it would seem an obvious step for Apple to take on its rivals at their own game.
Apple, after all, has indicated it's not scared of the portable PC - its Mac Minis have been part of its hardware line-up for years and the One Laptop Per Child project could have had its XO machines running on Mac OS X if it had opted to take the closed source route.
With the company reporting its best ever quarter for Mac sales, it's time for the company to take on the low-cost, ultra portable market or remain a hardware also-ran.
Mac OS X for any machine
The last time Apple thought about opening up its software, it came up with Boot Camp - a method of running Windows on a Mac, a move that prompted wags to praise a combination that brought together the affordability of Mac hardware with the reliability of Windows software.
Surely what Joe Public is craving is the opposite combo: Mac software without the associated ties of a Cupertino branded machine. Yet, Apple hardware and software remain as inseparable as Doctor Who and the Tardis.
A platform that's locked down is a strategy that's worked for Apple so far in brand building, but it's one that's confined the company to a niche. A fat and profitable niche but a niche nonetheless - by opening up the Mac OS X platform to other manufacturers, there's a huge growth bump to be had.
Just In
Re: Tablet and Netbook
How about an iPod Touch with a 10" screen? It would be both.
If you want to find out what Apple's next product will be, find a
mature market where the user experience sucks.
iBlog?
How about an iPod Touch with a 10" screen? It would be both.
If you want to find out what Apple's next product will be, find a
mature market where the user experience sucks.
iBlog?
10" iPod touch is the worst of both worlds. Too big as an iPod,
too limited as a laptop.
iBlog. Probably not. It will be a market involving hardware and
software. Maybe home servers in a few years if it becomes a big
enough market.
too limited as a laptop.
iBlog. Probably not. It will be a market involving hardware and
software. Maybe home servers in a few years if it becomes a big
enough market.
The five suggestions were ridiculous. It is time, I think, to start focusing on their stated ?forth? leg: The Apple TV.
(http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/corporatenews/2007-06-28-jobs-stephenson-qa_N.htm)
I would love to see an apple TV with a DVD (or blu ray) player.
More ambitious but also therefore correspondingly less likely; Apple may decide to make an actual TV with Front Row and dvd/blu ray/download service embedded.
(http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/corporatenews/2007-06-28-jobs-stephenson-qa_N.htm)
I would love to see an apple TV with a DVD (or blu ray) player.
More ambitious but also therefore correspondingly less likely; Apple may decide to make an actual TV with Front Row and dvd/blu ray/download service embedded.
It seems pretty clear to me that you're not a gamer:
if you were, you'd know how surprisingly big the
market really is. And even if it's not a huge at the
computer market, for example, just about every gamer
has money that they're willing to spend. Every single
person I know who has a game console spends at least
several hundred dollars a year on new games and
accessories. Which is saying something, given that the
people I know who have these games either work for
minimum wage or are poor college students... in any
case, a game console would definitely be worth Apple's
time: not only would it open the door for Apple to the
world of console gaming, it would also pave the way
for gamers to buy Apple computers; I'm sure that most
of the games for the Apple console would be easy to
port to the Mac OS. I know a lot of people (myself
included) who cite the lack of games as one of the
biggest reasons that they don't have an Apple
computer. Seriously, it something to consider. Gamers
are willing to pay out big bucks on a regular basis
for their games. It's an extremely lucrative industry.
if you were, you'd know how surprisingly big the
market really is. And even if it's not a huge at the
computer market, for example, just about every gamer
has money that they're willing to spend. Every single
person I know who has a game console spends at least
several hundred dollars a year on new games and
accessories. Which is saying something, given that the
people I know who have these games either work for
minimum wage or are poor college students... in any
case, a game console would definitely be worth Apple's
time: not only would it open the door for Apple to the
world of console gaming, it would also pave the way
for gamers to buy Apple computers; I'm sure that most
of the games for the Apple console would be easy to
port to the Mac OS. I know a lot of people (myself
included) who cite the lack of games as one of the
biggest reasons that they don't have an Apple
computer. Seriously, it something to consider. Gamers
are willing to pay out big bucks on a regular basis
for their games. It's an extremely lucrative industry.
Obviously, you guys didn't attend the last Apple shin dig. They already have a console, it's called the TOUCH.
Now all they need is games...
Now all they need is games...
Never say never, but I read that gaming consoles are a
razor and blades type of business model and Apple
doesn't seem interested in losing money on any part of
what it offers.
The console sales also depend, some what, on getting a
hit game, because, until there's a significant installed base,
existing games will not be ported. New titles will only be
ported if subsidized. How many games will have to be
greenlit and how many programming teams have to be
funded for how many months before that hit materializes?
It kinda looks like a money hole. Sega bailed. Microsoft has
paid and paid and I don't think they've broken even yet.
razor and blades type of business model and Apple
doesn't seem interested in losing money on any part of
what it offers.
The console sales also depend, some what, on getting a
hit game, because, until there's a significant installed base,
existing games will not be ported. New titles will only be
ported if subsidized. How many games will have to be
greenlit and how many programming teams have to be
funded for how many months before that hit materializes?
It kinda looks like a money hole. Sega bailed. Microsoft has
paid and paid and I don't think they've broken even yet.
I thought that was a great idea. And yes, a tablet that also has a keyboard. I certainly would like to see that.
I agree with the other must-make suggestions, but Apple releasing it's popular and user-friendly OSX to other platforms would play the death knell for its PC hardware business. Rememeber--Apple is a hardware company first and foremost. "Software just runs on hardware."
Yup, you are right my fren, Apple is a hardware company
NOT a software company, but people seem to forget that
they are a hardware company, such company is Psycrap!,
who says there is an OS X market....
NOT a software company, but people seem to forget that
they are a hardware company, such company is Psycrap!,
who says there is an OS X market....
Just because they release OSX into the wild doesn't mean they stop selling hardware. People will still and always buy apple hardware. What it means is they generate a massive amount of revenue just off software sales alone.
It doesn't have to be one or the other, it can be both.
It doesn't have to be one or the other, it can be both.
"Handheld gaming console"
You mean like their current iPod touch?
"Tablet"
I love tablets, but unfortunately, it seems to be a device looking for a target market. Tablet PCs are having troubles convincing consumers they want it. I don't think Apple would change that.
"iPhone nano"
Perhaps, but I still wouldn't buy it. Too much tied to AT&T, and MobileME flopped. I'll wait until they fix their current phone. Right now, I just consider the iPhone an expensive iPod Touch.
"Netbook"
I don't see this coming from Apple. Not their style. They already have the MacBook Air anyways - that's about as netbook as Apple is going to get.
"Mac OS X for any machine"
Not a chance. Never gonna happen. You should know better than to even suggest such a thing to Apple. They live on the fact that they don't have to worry about a gazillion PC configurations.
You mean like their current iPod touch?
"Tablet"
I love tablets, but unfortunately, it seems to be a device looking for a target market. Tablet PCs are having troubles convincing consumers they want it. I don't think Apple would change that.
"iPhone nano"
Perhaps, but I still wouldn't buy it. Too much tied to AT&T, and MobileME flopped. I'll wait until they fix their current phone. Right now, I just consider the iPhone an expensive iPod Touch.
"Netbook"
I don't see this coming from Apple. Not their style. They already have the MacBook Air anyways - that's about as netbook as Apple is going to get.
"Mac OS X for any machine"
Not a chance. Never gonna happen. You should know better than to even suggest such a thing to Apple. They live on the fact that they don't have to worry about a gazillion PC configurations.
The only one of thse five I'd like to see is "Mac OS X for any machine". I would be the first to run out and buy a copy if I could load it on my PC. And if Apple is that hell bent about not releasing it on any machine then make it available in a virtual machine. It wouldn't be hard for them to work with some of the vendors. The other option is to just make their own virtual machine to run OS X inside of so they still have control of the OS and the virtualized hardware. Then they can distribute that as a package. It would be additional income for them, they would be silly not to.
Your argument is bogus. The logically consistent answer is to
make your next computer purchase an Apple computer. You keep
Windows (since you already have a license), which will run on your
new hardware AND you get OS X, which is something you have
stated a desire for.
In addition, reviews consistently rate Apple computers as the best
performing Windows machines on the market, so it is also the
smartest decision to make from a value basis as well.
make your next computer purchase an Apple computer. You keep
Windows (since you already have a license), which will run on your
new hardware AND you get OS X, which is something you have
stated a desire for.
In addition, reviews consistently rate Apple computers as the best
performing Windows machines on the market, so it is also the
smartest decision to make from a value basis as well.
It would work perfectly. The sales of said VM would be in addition to the hardware and at no extra cost to the company. It'd just be additional income for them.
Might work, but it might also hurt their hardware sales as people go the virtual route and forgo buying a Mac.
At first I thought it was a good idea. But then I thought, why put OS X on a PC when a good Mac is more fun to use than a PC, and the price is becoming not too far apart.
Yes, it is probably possible for Apple to have OS X run on a PC/Intel but I agree with the guys... there may not be a financial gain for Apple to do that.
Yes, it is probably possible for Apple to have OS X run on a PC/Intel but I agree with the guys... there may not be a financial gain for Apple to do that.
Next Apple product ...
the iDiaper - a diaper that automatically changes itself when the infant pees/poops him/herself, with a shiny Apple logo on the front that turns blue whent he iDiaper is soiled.
Talking about "slick" packaging!
the iDiaper - a diaper that automatically changes itself when the infant pees/poops him/herself, with a shiny Apple logo on the front that turns blue whent he iDiaper is soiled.
Talking about "slick" packaging!
This is a pathetic, completely unresearched drivel.
Open up OS X?! Please, that ground has been trampled
and retrampled a million times and if you STILL don't
know why Apple doesn't open up OS X then you do NOT
deserve to be a tech writer. Gaming consoles? only
slightly less ridiculous. The rest I find debateable
but I'm pretty sure right now is not the right time
for Apple to even consider expanding it's product
range scope. Apple needs to reconsolidate it's current
range and look at how to perfect it and compete on
price, not wildly run in to new markets.
Cmon ZDnet, sharpen up.
Open up OS X?! Please, that ground has been trampled
and retrampled a million times and if you STILL don't
know why Apple doesn't open up OS X then you do NOT
deserve to be a tech writer. Gaming consoles? only
slightly less ridiculous. The rest I find debateable
but I'm pretty sure right now is not the right time
for Apple to even consider expanding it's product
range scope. Apple needs to reconsolidate it's current
range and look at how to perfect it and compete on
price, not wildly run in to new markets.
Cmon ZDnet, sharpen up.
I agree completely! This guy is a joke. He actually works for ZD? Cause that's sad if such a thing is true.
If Apple makes OS X for any machine, it'll be like Windows and struggle to ever work in harmony with the hardware. That's why people think Mac OS X is perfect: Apple controls the production of every piece of hardware, assuring that it will work with the operating system. With Windows, there are millions of configuration possibilities that are impossible for Microsoft to keep up with.
Biggest strides they have made...media!
iTunes - selling music & movies & tv
All their hardware is/can be connected to this revenue stream now - home computer, laptops, iPods, iPhones...Pixar?!
Look for apple to evolve into a stronger, broader, more competitive media delivery company - maybe develop a decent DVR and purchase a movie archive or take over Netflix and pump it through iTunes? DirecTV is just starting to do this through their DVRs.
Per the other poster - look for a mature market where the user experience sucks...cable boxes, DirecTV DVR, improved Tivo. It would have to be a box that connects to the home computer and links all TVs in a household. It irrites me that I have 2 DVRs on 2 TVs and I can't stream the content between the TVs easily.
I don't own an Apple since the switching cost is too high. I figure it would cost me an additional $700 in software I use regularly beyond the OS to get on to that platform and their computers are already expensive. I own and iPod and my user experience on XP pro has been fine.
iTunes - selling music & movies & tv
All their hardware is/can be connected to this revenue stream now - home computer, laptops, iPods, iPhones...Pixar?!
Look for apple to evolve into a stronger, broader, more competitive media delivery company - maybe develop a decent DVR and purchase a movie archive or take over Netflix and pump it through iTunes? DirecTV is just starting to do this through their DVRs.
Per the other poster - look for a mature market where the user experience sucks...cable boxes, DirecTV DVR, improved Tivo. It would have to be a box that connects to the home computer and links all TVs in a household. It irrites me that I have 2 DVRs on 2 TVs and I can't stream the content between the TVs easily.
I don't own an Apple since the switching cost is too high. I figure it would cost me an additional $700 in software I use regularly beyond the OS to get on to that platform and their computers are already expensive. I own and iPod and my user experience on XP pro has been fine.
Given the sheer mass of hardware available on the market today, and the extremely limited chunk of hardware the Mac supports, I'd have to agree...
Why must everyone feel compelled to define Apple's OS X
as a closed OS. Open it to everyone, cross platform. Run it
on the Ti99/4a. Snow Leopard for Playstation!!! SUPER
DEAL!!! Buy 3 eggroll, get free copy of OS X for any
platform --Today only!!!
There's more to Apple than profitability, though they seem
to have that figured out even without the help of the RDF.
If the sins afflicting other so-called "open" systems are to
be controlled (read "kept out"), every other aspect of the
system must be controlled as well. Garbage in, landfill out.
From my perspective, what most mac users seem to like
most is a system that works. The need for cramming $500
worth of $5 bargain programs into your computer is less
novel to someone who has a computer that works. That
was a lot to say to make this one point...
What would a typical PC user (read, Windows Fanboy) be
willing to pay for OSX on their X86 platform? Apple's
formula seems to have Edmonds constantly running their
copy machines.
as a closed OS. Open it to everyone, cross platform. Run it
on the Ti99/4a. Snow Leopard for Playstation!!! SUPER
DEAL!!! Buy 3 eggroll, get free copy of OS X for any
platform --Today only!!!
There's more to Apple than profitability, though they seem
to have that figured out even without the help of the RDF.
If the sins afflicting other so-called "open" systems are to
be controlled (read "kept out"), every other aspect of the
system must be controlled as well. Garbage in, landfill out.
From my perspective, what most mac users seem to like
most is a system that works. The need for cramming $500
worth of $5 bargain programs into your computer is less
novel to someone who has a computer that works. That
was a lot to say to make this one point...
What would a typical PC user (read, Windows Fanboy) be
willing to pay for OSX on their X86 platform? Apple's
formula seems to have Edmonds constantly running their
copy machines.
Since the late 70ies there has never been any serious game development for Apple machines. It's not just the lack of market share, it's Apple's known apathy towards any kind of game development. In any case they'll never catch up with Microsoft, who built a decent gaming API for their OS, bought half a dozen game developers and even started their own line of consoles. 10 bucks MS will have a handheld gaming device out years before Apple will ever do.
If Apple were ever do make a serious advance into the gaming market I see only one choice: team up with Nintendo! Think about it: Nintendo's strength is gaming and nothing else. Apple's strength is anything but gaming. Both have a strong brand with dedicated fans, a love for proprietary platforms and a reputation for innovation.
Now, imagine a device that an iPhone and a Nintendo DS in one box...
If Apple were ever do make a serious advance into the gaming market I see only one choice: team up with Nintendo! Think about it: Nintendo's strength is gaming and nothing else. Apple's strength is anything but gaming. Both have a strong brand with dedicated fans, a love for proprietary platforms and a reputation for innovation.
Now, imagine a device that an iPhone and a Nintendo DS in one box...
Apple and Nintendo working together would never happen. A few years ago, when the GC was getting kicked around, MS tried really, really hard to buy Nintendo. They laughed at MS. Literally.
Many other companies have tried to compete with Nintendo in portable gaming. Unlike other markets where Apple has had success, Nintendo doesn't have some exploitable weakness. What exactly could Apple offer over the DS now? Especially with the DSi having DSWare. The only thing an Apple device might net you is video playback, should ask Sony how much of a difference that made in the portable gaming scene.
Many other companies have tried to compete with Nintendo in portable gaming. Unlike other markets where Apple has had success, Nintendo doesn't have some exploitable weakness. What exactly could Apple offer over the DS now? Especially with the DSi having DSWare. The only thing an Apple device might net you is video playback, should ask Sony how much of a difference that made in the portable gaming scene.
Do you remember the Game Console / Home Media Controller
that Apple developed with Bandai in 1994 called Pippin? It as
years ahead of its time but never got off the ground.That was one
year after The Apple Newton PDA was released. A version of the
Pippin was produced by Banai for the Japanese market in 1997.
that Apple developed with Bandai in 1994 called Pippin? It as
years ahead of its time but never got off the ground.That was one
year after The Apple Newton PDA was released. A version of the
Pippin was produced by Banai for the Japanese market in 1997.
If you think Apple has a cult following, Nintendo fans in Japan are crazy. Nintendo owns its market, Apple although rising still has very little market share.
Nintendo does not want Apple.
Nintendo does not want Apple.
Boo!, thats the problem faced by MSoft! its because they
make their OS open to everyone and now they have
compatibility problem because when they create a new OS,
people assume their 4-5 years old PC would be able to run
the new OS.
Netbooks? Well I agree that there are a few people who
needs netbooks but for most of the people, netbooks is
just a hype product.
Tablet? Maybe but if its going to be like all the Tablet PCs
out there, then no way. I've known 2 friends who own
Tablet PC and they rarely use it, they still prefer the
conventional keyboard.
make their OS open to everyone and now they have
compatibility problem because when they create a new OS,
people assume their 4-5 years old PC would be able to run
the new OS.
Netbooks? Well I agree that there are a few people who
needs netbooks but for most of the people, netbooks is
just a hype product.
Tablet? Maybe but if its going to be like all the Tablet PCs
out there, then no way. I've known 2 friends who own
Tablet PC and they rarely use it, they still prefer the
conventional keyboard.
Though I would argue that the viability of Linux on the desktop (as argued by so many people on these forums) is argument enough that Windows isn't a monopoly, if Apple were to release Mac OS X as a standalone OS, there's no way that the monopoly status would stand. Then Microsoft can go back to all the business practices that are currently banned (the practices that Apple, Linux distributors, etc all currently do). Careful what you wish for...
This isn't about beating Windows. This isn't about dominating the market. This is about providing premium products - Apple should remain a niche, and not bother with the lower end of the market. Would an affordable Ferrari be as desirable? I think not! It would simply decrease the value of the brand, and I think that Apple realizes this and would never target mass market.
Would an affordable Ferrari be as desirable? I think not!
It depends on if the $20,000 supercar had 600 BHP and the car could do 220 MPH like the more expensive cousins.
It depends on if the $20,000 supercar had 600 BHP and the car could do 220 MPH like the more expensive cousins.
I think they should stop it all and concentrate on creating a time machine.
No way can or should apple offer OS X for non-Apple PCs. Too much incompatibility & bloat. WIndows is all screwed up because of interoperability & device drivers that conflict with each other. Furthermore, apple would have to dumb-down the operating system to support lowest common denominator. I *hate* having to chew up memory, disk, and precious interrupts and DMA locations to add hooks for hardware I don't have. Apple is successful because they control the hardware and minimize incompatibility risk.
I only agree with the last one. OS X for any machine.
All the rest are just stupid.
All the rest are just stupid.
...the only one that makes sense is OS X (or some later version) for "any" Intel-based machine.
Of course, it would _have_ to run Windows applications transparently and seamlessly, would it not? Lots of people want to run applications that aren't available for the Macintosh.
By the way, the character is "The Doctor", not "Doctor Who". ("Doctor Who" is a lame joke left over from the very first episode 45 years ago.) And if you want to get picky, "TARDIS" is an initialization (is that the right word?) of "time and relative dimenstions in space", and therefore should be all caps.
Of course, it would _have_ to run Windows applications transparently and seamlessly, would it not? Lots of people want to run applications that aren't available for the Macintosh.
By the way, the character is "The Doctor", not "Doctor Who". ("Doctor Who" is a lame joke left over from the very first episode 45 years ago.) And if you want to get picky, "TARDIS" is an initialization (is that the right word?) of "time and relative dimenstions in space", and therefore should be all caps.
That is the purpose of Bootcamp, and I for one would like the separation. as an owner of both mac's and PC's I would love the opportunity to create my own hardware to whatever specs apple required. I'd still come up with a cheaper machine, that runs OS X
Handheld gaming console:
-----------------------
The iPod platform is most likely as far as they will want to go here.
Attempting to compete against Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft in the gaming arena implies a completely new division of Apple dedicated entirely to gaming.
They are struggling with the staff they have to provide yearly releases of Mac OS X and other software applications (e.g., Aperture, iLife, Safari, iTunes), iPod upgrades, iPhone upgrades, Apple TV, Airport, MobileME, ...
So, it behooves Apple to convince the user base to move to the iPod/iPhone platform for "simple" games and also get other valuable things like the PDA, WiFi and a phone. Just think how many people want a phone on the PSP. Apple is already offering everything in one device. They will market the crap out of it and will add more gaming capabilities over time if they see the user base excited.
Tablet:
------
Common users don't care about this product. I see the value in doctors offices and some graphic designers, but I don't know a single person who has shown any interest for a Tablet.
iPhone nano:
-----------
This made me laugh. I started thinking of the SNL sketch of Will Ferrell with the tiny phone.
I don't see the value of having an iPhone line that mirrors the iPod line.
Although a small phone may be cute, it is useless if you want to also provide all the additional Smartphone capabilities. I can count with my fingers the number of phones in the market that are "just" phones.
Netbook:
-------
There are already rumors of a $800 laptop from Apple.
The Mac Book Air is already their low-cost product. I think they will continue exploring that option.
Mac OS X for any machine:
------------------------
You should check your history. This was already attempted and Apple pulled the plug.
Don't you remember the Apple clones in the 80s?
Apple decided to take complete ownership of its brand name and hardware and be the provider of software for the hardware they build.
Apple is the way it is now because of its niche status. Long-time Apple "lovers" buy the hardware because they like the "exclusivity". Although Apple wants to increase its user base, I am sure they do not want to lose the appeal. There has to be something cool about it for people to want it.
-----------------------
The iPod platform is most likely as far as they will want to go here.
Attempting to compete against Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft in the gaming arena implies a completely new division of Apple dedicated entirely to gaming.
They are struggling with the staff they have to provide yearly releases of Mac OS X and other software applications (e.g., Aperture, iLife, Safari, iTunes), iPod upgrades, iPhone upgrades, Apple TV, Airport, MobileME, ...
So, it behooves Apple to convince the user base to move to the iPod/iPhone platform for "simple" games and also get other valuable things like the PDA, WiFi and a phone. Just think how many people want a phone on the PSP. Apple is already offering everything in one device. They will market the crap out of it and will add more gaming capabilities over time if they see the user base excited.
Tablet:
------
Common users don't care about this product. I see the value in doctors offices and some graphic designers, but I don't know a single person who has shown any interest for a Tablet.
iPhone nano:
-----------
This made me laugh. I started thinking of the SNL sketch of Will Ferrell with the tiny phone.
I don't see the value of having an iPhone line that mirrors the iPod line.
Although a small phone may be cute, it is useless if you want to also provide all the additional Smartphone capabilities. I can count with my fingers the number of phones in the market that are "just" phones.
Netbook:
-------
There are already rumors of a $800 laptop from Apple.
The Mac Book Air is already their low-cost product. I think they will continue exploring that option.
Mac OS X for any machine:
------------------------
You should check your history. This was already attempted and Apple pulled the plug.
Don't you remember the Apple clones in the 80s?
Apple decided to take complete ownership of its brand name and hardware and be the provider of software for the hardware they build.
Apple is the way it is now because of its niche status. Long-time Apple "lovers" buy the hardware because they like the "exclusivity". Although Apple wants to increase its user base, I am sure they do not want to lose the appeal. There has to be something cool about it for people to want it.
The biggest issue I hear from people is that they are afraid of the Mac OS if they have only ever used Windows. By allowing me to load the Mac OS on a current machine and playing with it, I would become a true believer!
Of course, I already believe that Mac OS blows away Windows, but need help convincing others.
On the game console - work with Nintendo in partnership and make sure the unit will work with Wii. That would sell a lot of units. And who knows, if the partnership goes well, an Apple/Nintendo merger may be a good thing.
Of course, I already believe that Mac OS blows away Windows, but need help convincing others.
On the game console - work with Nintendo in partnership and make sure the unit will work with Wii. That would sell a lot of units. And who knows, if the partnership goes well, an Apple/Nintendo merger may be a good thing.
I'd like to see a handheld gaming console that can download games using wifi and also play multi-user games. Imagine sitting down with a friend and playing the same FPS or RPG game.
Let me add the 6th product apple must make. A frickin mid range tower!!! We've been asking for it forever. I don't need a monitor so an imac is out, but I need to have more upgrade options than a mini(video card). So a tower works great for me.
Apple dropped AppleTV, and that was the right decision as it was a very limited product. It did what it did very well with the polish and finish I expect from Apple, but it was too limited in it's scope.
But I think if Apple created a Media Center, with an HD Recorder, DVD Streaming, iTunes accessible, intigrated BlueRay (Apple doesn't have anything against Java unlike M$), Browser ... Well it would be a killer app and make HUGE inroads into the home.
I have MS Media center with Xbox extenders and at best it works okay. The interface is clumbsy, and the extender process is a joke. There is no way to get blue-ray on the extender either.
As apple is in complete control of their hardware, they could easily get cablecard certification. They could eaisly transcode recorded programming and copy it to your iphone. Or even stream it to the iphone over 3G!
Just seems to me that apple releases products that are complete. Windows is always a building block to me.
But I think if Apple created a Media Center, with an HD Recorder, DVD Streaming, iTunes accessible, intigrated BlueRay (Apple doesn't have anything against Java unlike M$), Browser ... Well it would be a killer app and make HUGE inroads into the home.
I have MS Media center with Xbox extenders and at best it works okay. The interface is clumbsy, and the extender process is a joke. There is no way to get blue-ray on the extender either.
As apple is in complete control of their hardware, they could easily get cablecard certification. They could eaisly transcode recorded programming and copy it to your iphone. Or even stream it to the iphone over 3G!
Just seems to me that apple releases products that are complete. Windows is always a building block to me.
How do you find AppleTV limiting? I have one, and I think it's very versatile and enjoy it tremendously. It's great for accessing web-based media, and I particularly think it's fantastic for viewing your own digital photos on an HDTV. And it has the internal hard drive, so it's a recorder. What's missing?
In my Microsoft Media Center I have 2 cablecard tuners that allow me to directly record from comcast all my HD channels and Digital cable. I can that stream that programing troughout my house to my Xbox 360's (I have 3)
From my understanding there was no way to record live tv with a AppleTV you could only purchase stuff off of iTunes to watch it. Granted my only experiece with AppleTV is my friends and the interface is beyond great. The slide show and music interfaces are awesome. Way beyond what I have available to me. But I can do more with my media center then he can with appletv.
If Apple developed a media center with appletv's as extenders. Well you could find my xbox's on ebay for sure!
From my understanding there was no way to record live tv with a AppleTV you could only purchase stuff off of iTunes to watch it. Granted my only experiece with AppleTV is my friends and the interface is beyond great. The slide show and music interfaces are awesome. Way beyond what I have available to me. But I can do more with my media center then he can with appletv.
If Apple developed a media center with appletv's as extenders. Well you could find my xbox's on ebay for sure!
I have a DVR supplied by the cable provider that's my primary recorder for cable content. I consider AppleTV as a purely web/computer-based device, so don't care if it can't record cable stuff. Different strokes...
Thanks for your response.
Thanks for your response.
I'd rather see Apple make a "media controller" rather than a
gaming console. The media controller could be 1) a universal
remote to control your Mac, TV, and theater system; 2) a
bluetooth device with accelerometer. This combo would allow
people to develop games for a living-room mac (upgraded
Mini or Apple TV with games capability) and leave Apple to
provide an iTunes store to sell games (or rent them).
gaming console. The media controller could be 1) a universal
remote to control your Mac, TV, and theater system; 2) a
bluetooth device with accelerometer. This combo would allow
people to develop games for a living-room mac (upgraded
Mini or Apple TV with games capability) and leave Apple to
provide an iTunes store to sell games (or rent them).
I see many problems with your list. First of all, Apple doesn't have much of a game platform on their desktop/laptop machines. I suppose you think that game software makers will see more value in yet another platform to program for? I doubt it seriously. Its about sales...and I just don't see it. Apparently Apple doesn't either.
Tablet Mac? Microsoft has struggled with this platform in sales even worse than Vista. Did you bother to check the market for these devices? Great idea...but not many people are buying. Again, Apple has toyed with the idea...and its a NO GO. Otherwise you would have seen it in production. Again, you second guess Apple in their market. I trust Apple knows better than you.
Cheap portable? Apple branding isn't going to the cheap side my friend. Apple enjoys a premium based upon its image. A cheap Apple product is NOT in apples best interest. Mac and cheap should never be coupled. Again, its not that Apple hasn't seen a market here...its just there is NO VALUE for them in it.
mac OS on any machine? Now your really getting under their skin. You ask for what Apple has NEVER given. and will not, for obvious reasons. I will not even bother to educate you on the reasons. If your bright...it is SELF evident what they are.
All in all, you are choosing your product list based upon what Apple has already looked at and declined to pursue. Wish away, but Apple has chosen NOT to waste their money in these markets for a DARNED good reason.
Tablet Mac? Microsoft has struggled with this platform in sales even worse than Vista. Did you bother to check the market for these devices? Great idea...but not many people are buying. Again, Apple has toyed with the idea...and its a NO GO. Otherwise you would have seen it in production. Again, you second guess Apple in their market. I trust Apple knows better than you.
Cheap portable? Apple branding isn't going to the cheap side my friend. Apple enjoys a premium based upon its image. A cheap Apple product is NOT in apples best interest. Mac and cheap should never be coupled. Again, its not that Apple hasn't seen a market here...its just there is NO VALUE for them in it.
mac OS on any machine? Now your really getting under their skin. You ask for what Apple has NEVER given. and will not, for obvious reasons. I will not even bother to educate you on the reasons. If your bright...it is SELF evident what they are.
All in all, you are choosing your product list based upon what Apple has already looked at and declined to pursue. Wish away, but Apple has chosen NOT to waste their money in these markets for a DARNED good reason.
...they should really make a mobile phone.
Because I own their latest attempt at one. It's like a computer with a 3G modem.
For the last 8 years, I've been able to initiate calls using my handsfree while driving, now I have to wait until traffic stops to do so.
I used to be able to forward SMSes; used to be able to invite someone into an SMS conversation; used to be able to send business cards; used to be able to reject calls; had predictive text.
It is a great computer, but Steve and his men need to incorporate user research and user feedback into this stuff. I know they love to innovate and lead the pack but you can't lead from behind.
I have been told that the Mac OS is amazing.
And was so tempted to try it after my amazing iPod.
Yet my last 2 experiences of it thus far (being iTunes and iPhone) leave me guessing it will be great at some things that Apple think are cool and missing others that have been around on other OSs for the last 72 years.
Can't be hard to write a stable OS if you don't allow any freedom in it.
Get a life dudes. This is your shot at gaining the market of not just gadgets, but corporate and personal PC use. I half love what you're doing and half feel like I'm stuck in the OS equivalent of Communism.
Because I own their latest attempt at one. It's like a computer with a 3G modem.
For the last 8 years, I've been able to initiate calls using my handsfree while driving, now I have to wait until traffic stops to do so.
I used to be able to forward SMSes; used to be able to invite someone into an SMS conversation; used to be able to send business cards; used to be able to reject calls; had predictive text.
It is a great computer, but Steve and his men need to incorporate user research and user feedback into this stuff. I know they love to innovate and lead the pack but you can't lead from behind.
I have been told that the Mac OS is amazing.
And was so tempted to try it after my amazing iPod.
Yet my last 2 experiences of it thus far (being iTunes and iPhone) leave me guessing it will be great at some things that Apple think are cool and missing others that have been around on other OSs for the last 72 years.
Can't be hard to write a stable OS if you don't allow any freedom in it.
Get a life dudes. This is your shot at gaining the market of not just gadgets, but corporate and personal PC use. I half love what you're doing and half feel like I'm stuck in the OS equivalent of Communism.
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
Facebook Activity
