03 Jan 2003 | andrew said...

Andy Ihnatko discusses this in the Feb. Macworld (coinky-dink?), and wonders if Apple giving it away is actually hurting the development of other "digital hub" type apps.

I'd have to wonder how much Apple can improve these apps to get users to pony up. I don't use iDVD or iMovie. Haven't tried iSync or iCal (much). I love iPhoto and iTunes. Enough to pay? Maybe, but I doubt it.

03 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

"People seem to forget that it costs money to develop this stuff, but I suspect that that will be overlooked by most."

And people that say that forget that Apple makes a shit-load of money off of the hardware it sells.

But, alas, business is business, and if people are willing to buy it, so be it.

I'm still pissed that 'pro' users don't get AppleWorks. ;(

03 Jan 2003 | shotwise said...

Typical business model; give something away, make people pay for better versions. I'm just glad the apps come free with a new computer--I'm buying an iBook next week!

Why would anyone ever purchase a .mac account, though?

03 Jan 2003 | JF said...

I have a .mac account. I find it very useful -- keeps my contacts and calendars in sync across my home and office machines. I also use the iDisk a lot to transfer files between home and office. Makes sense for me.

03 Jan 2003 | britt said...

Darrel, you can have my copy of AppleWorks.
I also have a .Mac account and use it often. I'm banking on Apple adding more stuff to it. Maybe they'll give .Mac members discounts on upgrades to the iApps. I didn't want to give up my @mac.com email address.

03 Jan 2003 | ek said...

I know that someone already makes an app by this name, but how about an iBlog app? The ease of use of Apple's iApps applied to blogging. Perfect tie-in with .Mac, the sort of thing that I think would get a lot of people to subscribe.

03 Jan 2003 | ~bc said...

I keep hearing "People aren't switching as fast as they've hoped" on site after site. I work part time at an Apple Store and at least half our customers are switching from Windows. How fast qualifies as "fast enough?"

04 Jan 2003 | Xavier said...

IMO, Apple would make a mistake if they begin charging for their iApps.

I'm a switcher from FreeBSD and Linux, I bought the new 1GHz PowerBook weeks ago and it's a terrific machine but why the hell should I have pay for a full-featured version of QuickTime (I can't play movies full screen, come on!) after I spent truckloads of bucks just to get my hands on the lovely computer? I mean when you buy such high-end machines, you expect a little gift from the vendor, it wouldn't hurt if TiBooks were bundled with (e.g.) a registered version of QuickTime or a free one-year .Mac account...

Since Apple started to charge for .Mac accounts, numerous community developped software are not available for download anymore as they were hosted on the .Mac web account of their developpers.

If Apple begins to charge for iApps, I'm quite sure they'll get a backlash from the UNIX-rooted Mac OS X users community who will soon start developping free of charge, open-source, iApps...

If OS X is the core of the digital hub, it should come with free, full featured versions of the iApps as they are part of the whole hub concept. Otherwise why not selling just the Mach kernel and charge for any individual system library and component?

04 Jan 2003 | hurley said...

Maybe Apple should make WIndows versions of its i-apps and sell THOSE. For OS X users, the i-apps should be free, bundled with OS X itself. When a new version of OS X comes out, you pay for the upgrade, which includes upgraded i-apps.

Microsoft doesn't charge users for upgrades to apps like the Media Player, Internet Explorer, etc., although it does have other ways of making revenue from those products.

As far as switching goes: it seems unrealistic to expect that many long-term Windows users are going to switch, especially businesses that have large investments in Windows machines, software, and expertise. The home computer market is a different matter, but a lot of people want to be able to use their home computer to do work they bring home from the office. Sure they can do that on a Mac because the Office apps are compatible, but it's hard to overcome the home users' perception that they'll be better off using Windows since they know everything will be compatible. Learning a new operating system and converting files takes work (even with help from "switcher" software), and I think people have to be either a) really frustrated with Windows or b) really taken with the Mac to overcome that barrier.

I used a Mac for years in a Windows-only corporate environment until I was finally forced to switch by a client who required me to use several programs that are available only for Windows. Now I use Windows for work and Mac for everything else. I can't switch back to the Mac for work because some of the programs I need are not available. All my archives, several gigs of old e-mail, etc. are now in Windows format and it would be tedious to switch all that stuff over to Mac.

04 Jan 2003 | Eric J. said...

I'm thinking of SWITCHING back to the PC. Just thinking mind you but Apple has really just continually pissed me off since I made the switch a year ago. There are still many things I love about them but it seems that something is terribly wrong at One Infinite Loop. I don't know what exactly but I have this feeling that something really bad is happening. Imagine Janie Porche having to pull out her credit card and pay $20 for the iPhoto upgrade before saving Christmas.

04 Jan 2003 | Neil said...

I don't know. I recognize that software development costs money, and from what I've heard new Mac buyers will continue to get all of the iApps presently available for free. An upgrade fee sounds reasonable, assuming that Apple can actually improve the applications to the point that the upgrades are worth paying for.

I agree, however: the business strategy doesn't make sense at all. Part of the attraction that Apple has been pushing for quite a while is all of that "digital hub" stuff, which made sense when the applications were free. If they start charging for them, I would have to wonder just how viable the digital hub strategy would be for them.

Don't forget that Microsoft doesn't make the hardware, it just sells the OS. Apple's costs are higher because they do all of the ID, development and assembly of their machines. Their machines are still too expensive, but that's another argument all together... :)

04 Jan 2003 | Todd Dominey said...

I was always under the impression that part of the reason why Apple developed the iApps in the first place was to help soften the premium price tag of their hardware. The profit margin on hardware is (historically) much higher than software, so software helps move the more profitable product. With Apple being forced into lowering their prices however, the business model may have to change accordingly.

04 Jan 2003 | ek said...

Just to be clear, the iApps will still come bundled for free on the machines or at least that's what all the sites reporting on this are saying. So anyone who buys a new Mac will get all of the various iApps. It's the upgrades that people will have to pay for.

04 Jan 2003 | Kev said...

This might not be as bad as it sounds. If you get the first version free and have to pay for upgrades Apple will have to compete on the basis of kick-ass software.

One of the major problems I see with Apple is that they don't often listen to users when developing their software. If they charged for Sherlock would you look at Watson? I sure would. Chances are Apple would have some interesting firsts with Sherlock but I'm sure Dan Wood would be much more responsive with bug fixes and possible features. And it never takes long for other software to copy the good new ideas.

As for iTunes, you can play with it and decide if you like it. When it comes time to upgrade you might look a little more closely at Audion. I'm sure Panic is much quicker on their feet and deserve the support.

I don't find myself getting much use out of anything other than iTunes and iPhoto and even that use is only marginal. My Canon digital camera came with software that is pretty good and if iPhoto had a price tag I'm sure we'd see some nice 3rd party software filling that gap pretty quickly. Possibly something from SimpleImage or iView Media.

And don't forget about opensource. Usually not the first or the best but once they arrive at the party they can provide some very nice software.

05 Jan 2003 | ry rivard said...

Let's get real. It's educators and studentry who use Apple, and none of thse people are going to chuck $30 to get iTunes so they can rank music with little stars and keep track of how many times they've played each song.

The iApps are great. And of course I don't want them to charge because I know I can't (hence I won't) pony up the money to upgrade. But, realistically the upgrades so far have been nominal vs. shareware products.

One of the big "gottcha's" Apple has is the mostly complete, mostly fluid integration of Apple software with Apple software. If they start to charge for that, why should anyone buy Apple?

05 Jan 2003 | Jin said...

The artical states that upgrade to iMovie and iDVD may cost money.

iMovie and iDVD upgrades already cost money. ($50 and $20 respectively)

They happen to be part of bundled "free" software just like Quicken, WorldBook and Appleworks. They were never free. Do you expect to get free upgrade to Quicken, Worldbook and Appleworks?

It's not like .Mac in the sense that your current iApps will stop working if you don't pay for the upgrades.

Also, those who think.. "now I'm going to switch back to Wintels!".. think... What app on Wintel side is comparable to iMovie and iDVD? How much do they cost? How much to upgrade them when new major versions are released? Do bundled apps on Wintel side come with life-time free upgrades?

Computer companies have been bundling all these "free" applications for many many many years now. And nobody compained when it required a fee to upgrade them. Frankly most of the stuff that comes "free" on the Wintel side are worthless.

With .Mac controversy and unfair slant on C|Net News.com, I can see how people could react in the way they have. But you already have the a version of applications for "free", those applications will continue to work, and it's not like Apple promised life-time free upgrades.

This is not a change in Apple's strategy. Even the comment on MS is change in MS's strategy is false as MS has always had single machine lincense. Only difference is MS is trying to enforce that license by product activation.

But frankly, I do wonder when people think that these applications are actually free to begin with.

05 Jan 2003 | JF said...

First off, Apple hasn't made the official announcement so let's see what happens.

Assuming it's true...

Secondly, what's the big deal if they charge for updates? Seems prefectly reasonable to me. Buy a new machine, you get the apps free. Want to get the latest version of a few new iApps? Pony up about $50 or so. That's how software works. This is not some revolutionary, sinisiter new software pricing model.

Jeez -- 3 years ago you couldn't even create your own DVD or professionally edit your own home movie. Now people are pissed because they may have to pay a few bucks to get a major update for a really amazing program? $50 amounts to a few extra cokes, beers, coffees a month.

People's sense of entitlement these days makes me sick.

One of the big "gottcha's" Apple has is the mostly complete, mostly fluid integration of Apple software with Apple software. If they start to charge for that, why should anyone buy Apple?

Why should you pay for fluid integration? Cause fluid integration costs money to develop. What's your point?

05 Jan 2003 | ek said...

People's sense of entitlement these days makes me sick.

Problem is, when you give people something for free to start, they get kind of pissed when, a couple of years later, you tell them that there's now going to be a fee.

Apple is the one that created this sense of entitlement by giving away the majority of the iApps for free and providing updates to most of them for free for the past few years. If Apple made it clear at the outset that there would be an upgrade fee then I don't think that people would be pissed off about it.

How can you blame people for wanting to continue to get something for free that they have been getting for free? To me this is more a matter of mismanaged expectations on Apple's part than a hyperactive sense of entitlement on consumers' part.

05 Jan 2003 | JF said...

Apple is the one that created this sense of entitlement by giving away the majority of the iApps for free and providing updates to most of them for free for the past few years.

The only iApp that has been free through all major upgrades has been iTunes. iMovie and iDVD always had upgrade fees and iPhoto has never had a major upgrade.

How can you blame people for wanting to continue to get something for free that they have been getting for free?

I can't blame anyone for wanting, but I can blame them for their reasons. "It was free when I got it so it should be free forever" is weak logic. "Apple's machines are more expensive so I thought they threw in free software to make up for the difference" doesn't work for me either because it doesn't factor in the cost of developing the software, advanced R&D, etc.

Things cost money. It's that simple. Someone has to pay. Apple's higher margins can't cover eternal free software development.

05 Jan 2003 | JF said...

I'm a switcher from FreeBSD and Linux, I bought the new 1GHz PowerBook weeks ago and it's a terrific machine but why the hell should I have pay for a full-featured version of QuickTime (I can't play movies full screen, come on!) after I spent truckloads of bucks just to get my hands on the lovely computer? I mean when you buy such high-end machines, you expect a little gift from the vendor...

See, this is what I'm talking about. This sense of entitlement. Just because you spent "truckloads of bucks" on a new computer doesn't entitle you to more free software. A little gift? Please. Apple doesn't owe you anything other than the great machine that you paid for.

05 Jan 2003 | ry rivard said...

Why should you pay for fluid integration? Cause fluid integration costs money to develop. What's your point?

This is a great point. But, when people buy an Apple they are paying more money for single-party hardware, less third and first party software and, overall, less options in the shelves of today's electronic stores.

There are two things Apple has going: Their hardware works fast, it works well, and it is usually a generation ahead of competitors (but most Joe's don't need this); and the software is becoming more and more integrated (which every Joe wants).

If Apple starts charging more (on top of their already higher prices) for one of those two aspects, it's not benifiting the consumer and, in the end, not helping Apple's dismal market share.

05 Jan 2003 | ek said...

Well, who knows. Maybe Apple will release something so cool on Tuesday that no one will even pay the iApp thing any mind. They could surely use another hit product.

05 Jan 2003 | pb said...

I'm OK with paying for iApps and .mac but I think Apple needs to hit price points that lead to wider usage. $99 per year for .mac seems a bit steep. Critical mass has always been very powerful for Apple (for example, being able to assume every user has HyperCard or AppleScript, for example).

06 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

There are two things Apple has going: Their hardware works fast, it works well, and it is usually a generation ahead of competitors (but most Joe's don't need this); and the software is becoming more and more integrated (which every Joe wants).
---
Apple is doing (and has done) a hell of a lot more than that. I see what youre saying but most people who buy macs dont buy them because of fluid integration. They buy them because they need a machine that delivers more all-around than the PC. It has mostly to do with the type of job theyre involved in. Advertising, music, imaging and film industries to name a few. In the case of the i-mac though, its cheap and can do everything a pc can (including running all pc office programs), without the hassels, crashes and viruses. theres no excuse to be buying pcs anymore :-)

If Im spending double the amount for a new mac (than I would for pc) Im not going to care if I have to throw in 100 bucks more or less. i-mac buyers may feel differently.

06 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

"Chances are Apple would have some interesting firsts with Sherlock but I'm sure Dan Wood would be much more responsive with bug fixes and possible features"

Note that, from what I understand, Sherlock uses licensed content from vendors, while Watson scrapes sites. Obviously, Apple can't be in the business of scraping content. That said, it would have been nice for Apple to just buy out Dan.

"When it comes time to upgrade you might look a little more closely at Audion. I'm sure Panic is much quicker on their feet and deserve the support."

I love Audion. Best mp3 player out there. And I love Panic. Alas, no real iPod support. Sorry. I love my iPod more.

"How can you blame people for wanting to continue to get something for free that they have been getting for free? "

Well, we haven't been getting it for free. We've been paying a premium for Apple hardware and software. I suppose if they knocked $100 of the price of all their hardware, then people would be less likely to complain about paying a bit more for specific apps.

"Apple doesn't owe you anything other than the great machine that you paid for."

They owe thier customers respect. We pay more for Apple products, we deserver a level more in customer service. Over the past few years it's become harder to deal with Apple.

I lost a week of billable time due to their incompetance in fixing a monitor (it took them FIVE times...as opposed to Dell's 'we'll just send you a new one' policy...)

I now have two power supplies for my TiBook that leak current.

OSX has been two years of patient tolerance as they get it up to speed.

They take their customers for granted sometimes. They owe us the consideration that without us, there's be no apple. (That goes for every company out there, BTW...)

Sadly, Apple still makes hardware and software at a level that I feel is still superior enough to warrant me continuing to use their products (though it's becoming easier and easier to use that PC over there when everything for it is half the price...)

"In the case of the i-mac though, its cheap and can do everything a pc can (including running all pc office programs), without the hassels, crashes and viruses. theres no excuse to be buying pcs anymore"

I talked my inlaws into getting an iMac 3 years ago. Well, last year, the nic card fried. $200 to fix. Ugh. Fixed it. Fried again.

This time, we went to Microcenter, found a $400, 1+ ghz XP box. Set up took about 3 minutes. Alas, I really can't recommend Macs anymore to the casual computer user.

06 Jan 2003 | ek said...

I hadn't seen this previously, but Wired News ran an article at the end of December saying that this may be the last MacWorld.

Here's the key snippet:

The rumor is that Apple is planning to organize its own, smaller, regional conferences. Instead of attending four big trade shows a year - San Francisco in January, Tokyo in March, New York in July and Paris in September -- Apple would rather host a series of smaller, local events.

Of course all of the other rumors about potential products cited in the article have been disavowed by all of the other rumor sites, but Apple's spat with IDG over MacWorld NY makes the "last MacWorld" rumor sound believable.

06 Jan 2003 | Derek said...

Wow, after reading all these comments, it makes me almost not want to buy a mac after using PC's all these years. But maybe you guys are just spoiled on the Mac, and are more likely to complain about little things that most PC users have come to expect from their machines and the companies that make them.

06 Jan 2003 | JF said...

Derek, Darrel has a problem with everything. Ignore him ;)

No, really, you'll love your Mac. OS 10.2 is solid, stable, powerful and beautiful. Don'tchya worry.

06 Jan 2003 | Derek said...

That's good to hear. :) Now I just have to decide between "Power" or "i" and I'll be all set.

06 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

Ya. I whine a lot.

Apple is great. They can be a bit arrogant, though...just as avid Mac users can be ;o)

The whole monitor episode I had with them was most likely an anomoly, but it was painful enough that it has stuck with me. I had a cube at work and a monitor, and the monitor was going bad. I was leaving on vacation so we sent the monitor in for repair. It came back.

Long story short, they ended up trying 4 different things before finally admitting that they never touched the monitor the first time it was sent back. Apparently, if you send Apple a product to fix, they plug it in, if it works on-the-spot, they consider it 'fixed' and just send it right back to you.

Like I said, OSX is still my favorite OS to live in. And my TiBook is still my favorite computer (leaking electricity aside).

I agree with Derek is that we seem to be more tolerant of the other OSes than we are with Mac's. With Linux, we know it's a pain to figure out the underpinnings and don't think twice about spending 2 hours online figuring it out. With MS's OSes, we know they are half-baked and have random bugs that we just live with. We expect MacOS to work flawlessly and when it doesn't, we get upset. To be fair, Apple does pitch that as the selling point, though... ;o)

06 Jan 2003 | Derek said...

Which system would you guys recommend for a web designer that uses Photoshop and Dreamweaver? I have a Pentium III 866mhz machine right now, so just about anything will be a big improvement. I'm not too worried about upgrading, because I've had this PC for 3 years and still haven't upgraded it at all. This would be my first Mac, and I'm on a pretty limited budget (work on my own, not for a big company with an expense account).

I would of course like a TiBook, since it's pretty much the ultimate it seems, but for the price of a decent Powerbook, I could get the high-end iMac and a low end iBook just to have a machine to carry around with me. Which is pretty appealing as well. But since I've never owned a Mac, I don't really know how to expect the different systems to perform when using Photoshop and Dreamweaver. Is there a huge performance difference between say the iMac and a G4 Tower for using Photoshop? I mean I know there will be some difference, but will I be sitting around drinking coffee while I wait for a gaussian blur to render or what?

I'm not planning on doing any video (other than iMovie type stuff) or 3d rendering, so raw horsepower isn't that important to me.

Would getting an iMac and iBook be a wise decision, or should I hold out for a pro model? Thanks for any advice you may have.

06 Jan 2003 | Bill Brown said...

I have had quite a bit of experience with Apple's customer support with my PowerBook (starting with the interminable wait when I ordered it eventually leading to overnighting it to me free of charge). They replaced my power supply twice at no charge even though it was months out of warranty and even overnighted it at no charge. The last power supply problem I had was way out of warranty so I ended up buying a new one, but I figured that the problem was largely my own (lesson: don't wrap your power cords around those nubs too tightly or you'll pull the wire out of its socket).

That said, I wouldn't mind paying for the iApps so long as they don't bundle them together (or at least make them available separately). My PowerBook doesn't have a DVD writer—and never will unfortunately—and I don't have a digital video camera either. To make me pay $50 for iMovie, iDVD, and iPhoto is unbearable. I'd rather pay $20 for just iPhoto. I'm going to the Apple Store for tomorrow's keynote and you better believe that I'll launch some feedback if they don't offer that option.

Call me crazy, but haven't any of you garnered more than $20 of value from any upgrade? It seems like a worthy trade if you have. I trust that no one's one of those "software was born to be free" socialists.

06 Jan 2003 | Britt said...

Derek,

I have a PIII/866 at work. I used to have a G4/450 at home. One day at work, I was trying to run a filter on a large Photoshop file. It would run for a while and crap out. I took it home, stuck the PC zip disk in my G4, fired up Photoshop, and ran the filter in a couple seconds. Both machines had 512 ram. Photoshop has been the main difference I've seen between my Mac (now an iMac) at home and PC at work. Dreamweaver has it's special quirks in each OS.

If you want a large monitor, I'd go with the G4. You can find good deals on used ones. Better expansion capabilities also. But portability is awful nice.

06 Jan 2003 | Derek said...

Britt, thanks for the input. Can you not hook-up an external monitor to the new iMac? I already have a nice 19" flat CRT that I could use if the 17" LCD wasn't big enough. And does anyone know if you can run a dual desktop on the iMac? Or does it just mirror the primary monitor?

06 Jan 2003 | ek said...

The iMac does have VGA out, but it only provides video mirroring.

Wouldn't the mid-level, 1Ghz G4 PowerBook be a better buy than a 17" iMac and an iBook? You get better processor performance than the iMac, much better video performance (a plus even if you're not doing 3d work), the ability to use two displays, DVI output, which gives you a lot more flexibility for future display purchases, and portability.

Plus, at $2,799 it costs less than the combo of a 17" iMac and an iBook.

06 Jan 2003 | Derek said...

That's a good point. I hadn't realized that the powerbook was even faster than the iMac. Plus all the other features you mentioned. That probably will be the best buy. I was kind of wanting a SuperDrive though so I could eventually do some home movie type stuff. Does iDVD work with any firewire dvd burners, or does it have to be a superdrive?

06 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

I was torn between a new TiBook vs. spending a bit more and getting a low-end pro machine and an iBook.

I ended up with the TiBook, though I still like sitting at my older, slower desktop just because of my dual monitor set up.

Granted, you can to that with a TiBook, too.

If you have the $$$, then I'd go with a low-end tower and an iBook.

The iBook will be fine for PS and DW but remember that it is only a G3...which pales next to the G4s. Especially the dualies.

06 Jan 2003 | Derek said...

I don't think I can/want to afford the tower... I'd have to get a new monitor and everything too.

I just read a review on a new VPR Matrix laptop that is very similar to the powerbook, and it is only $400 cheaper, but has half the video ram, 20 gigs less hard drive, etc. The powerbook actually doesn't look so expensive anymore. *sigh* so many choices. :)

VPR Matrix Review

06 Jan 2003 | ek said...

Hey Derek, I actually considered that VPR Matrix machine too, but I went and looked at one at a nearby BestBuy and it just looks and feels so cheap and flimsy. The screen was great and it seemed insanely fast (I currently have a 1.3Ghz PIII laptop), but I just couldn't bring myself to even want to buy it after seeing it.

Re: the superdrive and iDVD, the current version of iDVD does not work with any 3rd party DVD burners, but that may change once Apple starts charging for it (we'll find out tomorrow!).

06 Jan 2003 | Derek said...

My boss has an older VPR Matrix with a 14.1" screen, and it isn't too bad. Seems pretty fast and nice. And it supports dual monitors also. The screen is a little flimsy and it randomly shuts down and goes to sleep sometimes, even though the power settings in XP are not set to do it. Plus it has a built-in CD burner, but didn't come with any burner software, and even when I installed NERO, it still wouldn't recognize the burner. And I can't seem to find drivers for it. So that is a little disappointing. His was only $1,200 though.

Maybe apple will announce some price drops tomorrow and it will make my purchasing decision a little easier. :)

06 Jan 2003 | JF said...

BTW: OS Xs built-in CD-R burning is really sweet. So well integrated.

06 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

"BTW: OS Xs built-in CD-R burning is really sweet. So well integrated."

Great for a novice, but a bit of a pain for anyone that knows what they are doing. Nothing beats Toast for that.

06 Jan 2003 | Derek said...

Yeah, XP has built in CD burning as well. But it is slow and not very powerful. You can pretty much just drag and drop files onto the cd and that's it. I use NERO for burning on the PC. Will probably use Toast on the Mac. Unless iTunes is easy to burn stuff. (just music anyway)

07 Jan 2003 | Scott M. said...

All the iApps will be available in a boxed version for $49. iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto will be free downloads, but iDVD is "just too big."

Sounds reasonable to me.

07 Jan 2003 | Derek said...

Nevermind, I know which one I want now... 17" laptop... holy crap. :)

07 Jan 2003 | JF said...

Holy crap is right! That 12" Powerbook is going to fly off the shelves.

I think the big announcement of the day is Keynote. Huge. It's going to change business presentations in a big way. Talk about a competitive advantage too. People will need to keep up, but they'll need the tool (which is only available for Mac). Plus it's a nice revenue generator. Good move Apple.

07 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

Damn. I'm thinking of selling my 4 month old 667 TiBook to get some cash for the new mini-TiBook. Decisions...decisions...

I don't think Keynote will be that big of a deal. It may backfire in the long run. With Keynote, and Safari, Apple is slowly chipping away at MS Office, and the Mac STILL needs to keep MS Office available for the Mac.

Granted, OpenOffice is supposed to be released this week for OSX, so we'll see how that goes!

07 Jan 2003 | ek said...

I think it's kind of funny how after every Jobs keynote Mac people say something to the effect of "this is huge, this is going to really turn things around for Apple, etc., etc., etc."

They said it about Airport, the Ti PowerBook, iTunes, iPhoto, the iBooks, the new iMac and now the same things are being said about the various products announced today.

Yet over the course of the past few years Apple has steadily lost marketshare in the U.S. and around the world. Certainly marketshare is not the only important metric and the new products have been important in that they've helped Apple to stay in business, but they don't seem to be having the market growth effect that "huge" would indicate.

And for those who would poo-poo marketshare, for Apple it is critically important and is the primary reason that the company has spent milliions and millions of dollars opening a chain of retail stores.

So what is the definition of huge as pertains to Apple? Only losing .3% of share over a year vs. .4% or is it something more ambitious?

I don't mean to demean the things that Apple has done because without the company the computing space would be a dark and dull place. But I think that Apple people should ask themselves whether the existing strategy is actually working before, yet again, pronouncing Jobs' announcements as "huge."

07 Jan 2003 | JF said...

We'll see. So far they've been doing fine (in an industry that isn't doing too well). They continue to innovate, continue to stay in business, continue to get developers to develop (Quickbooks is back, ProTools is out for OS X), continue to press forward. Apple is fine.

EK, what do you think they are doing wrong? Where do you think they can improve?

07 Jan 2003 | JF said...

I also think Apple is doing a great job of diversifying a bit in this tough PC climate. iPod has been a big hit for them. World's #1 MP3 player, 42% market share in Japan, 600,000+ shipped. All in 14 months. That's big and it's going to get bigger. It's a great introduction to Apple for a lot of people. A great start.

I also like that they are moving more into software development. Keynote, iLife package, Final Cut Express. They know there are big margins in software and they are going after them. Good move. Nice way to generate revenue.

Big changes take time. It's tough to stop momentum, but I believe they are making the right moves.

07 Jan 2003 | Derek said...

I think Keynote is cool, but I don't have a use for it, and I would imagine a whole lot of other people don't either. I never make presentations or anything with the computer, and most home users of the mac probably won't either. Still it looks like a great app for the pro users out there.

07 Jan 2003 | JF said...

Keynote is a pro-level app. Powerpoint is a real pain and presentations that come out of it often look very tacky. You have to really work hard to make a nice Powerpoint presentation. Keynote appears to make it much easier with pro-level visual presentation details. The chart-editor is big too. I think Keynote will find a large following and at $99/copy, that's good news for Apple.

07 Jan 2003 | fajalar said...

Sure the new 12" is great, but my problem is that when I get done with the options page I am out $3500.

Being non-mobile will have to do for now. Though my iMac only weighs 35 pounds...

07 Jan 2003 | SU said...

Sure the new 12" is great, but my problem is that when I get done with the options page I am out $3500.

What options are you adding, for Pete's sake? The price starts out at $1799. I maxed out the memory, went for the biggest HD, added a Superdrive, and added Airport Extreme and got under $3000.

07 Jan 2003 | Derek said...

It seems odd to me that the 12" seems to be more popular of the two new models so far. I guess people that travel a lot like the small size while still having the power. For me, the thing that's been keeping me from getting a laptop (mac or PC) has been the small screens. I don't travel that much, so considering the machine will be sitting on a desk 98% of the time, I don't mind lugging around an extra pound of screen with me. :)

07 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

Derek:

Note that the TiBooks can easily use an external second monitor, which makes it a very fine desktop machine.

EK:

I really don't think Apple cares anything about Marketshare. I'd love it if they'd focus on it seriously, as the bigger the marketshare, in theory, the lower the individual unit prices.

But it's also silly to compare MacOS to Windows. Windows is an anomoly in any industry. Rarely does one product maintain such an incredibly large marketshare. It's not like 70% of all cars sold are Fords, or 80% of all resteraunts are all McDonalds, or 70% of all groceries are sold at Wal-Mart (wait...that last one may be true ;o). Apple maintains a 3-5% marketshare which is quite a decent share in terms of global desktop computers.

But yea, it'd be nice to grow that.

07 Jan 2003 | Derek said...

I think it's only fair to compare Apple's market share to a single computer manufacturer... like hp or gateway. Everyone always puts Apple, a single computer manufacturer, against the entire rest of the industry. Apple vs. HP would be a whole lot closer than Apple vs. everyone else in the world....

08 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

"Powerpoint is a real pain and presentations that come out of it often look very tacky. You have to really work hard to make a nice Powerpoint presentation."

I would be thrilled with a new presentation app - if its everything JF said it is. I havent checked into it yet, but will. Im so sick of Powerpoint. My problem is that the client expects me to drive them with my presentation - how good is the PowerPoint import and export (for pc)? Does anyone know?

08 Jan 2003 | fajalar said...

What options are you adding, for Pete's sake? The price starts out at $1799. I maxed out the memory, went for the biggest HD, added a Superdrive, and added Airport Extreme and got under $3000.

Added an iPod, apple care, extra battery. Basically selected something that cost more from each drop-down.:)

08 Jan 2003 | Jay said...

1)If they want to compete with Office, why don't they clean up Appleworks??? Am I the only one that is unable to use Appleworks' word processor on OS X? I can't bear to look at the screen. Maybe it's because I never used OS 9. When I turn antialiasing off, my cursor does all sorts of weird, buggy stuff. What's the scoop on the future of Appleworks? They should fix Appleworks, then move on....

2)Apple and HP isn't a good comparison because Apple sells more than just a computer. Perhaps more importantly, it sells an Operating System that, unlike with HP's Windows OS, will only run on Apple's own machines. It is completely useless to compare Apple with HP or Gateway. Apple has a whole new set of problems and challenges (and advantages).

08 Jan 2003 | JF said...

I think the new Appleworks is on the way. From what I hear it's fantastic.

Appleworks is such a nice suite of apps for the average person. Apple should really work on promoting it better. Maybe they will with the new Appleworks.

08 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

"If they want to compete with Office, why don't they clean up Appleworks???"

I think it's less about competition and more about Jobs and Gate's egos.

Jobs doesn't like MS, but at the same time, he knew that MS Office was integral to Apple's success as a business machine. Perhaps Jobs is giving up on Apple ever being a business machine, or perhaps he just doesn't care anymore.

I think Apple has never really polished Appleworks, because it DIDN'T want to compete directly with Office in the market. Maybe that will change if JF's info comes to light. I truly hate MS Office...on either OS. It's a horrendous piece of bloatware all around.

Also note that OpenOffice is due out shortly for OSX.

"It is completely useless to compare Apple with HP or Gateway."

Not in terms of the marketshare argument. Apple's OS isn't really the market share issue, it's the hardware, and, as such, comparing hardware sales to hardware sales is perfectly sensible.

If you want to make a point about the OS having a small market share when compared to windows, well fine, but the fact remains that Apple (or any company) can be highly succesful with a niche bite of the marketshare.

09 Jan 2003 | Jay said...

I agree, Darrel. Apple can certainly be successful with a niche bite of the marketshare.

But here's the difference that gets complicated: HP or Gateway can drop below a certain percentage of the marketshare and everything will be ok with the OS that they use; it will be just s strong as ever. Other companies will continue building machines that run Windows and users will abound. And they can come back, or figure out how to survive at the new percentage, or whatever.

But Apple's OS, which, I'd argue, is just as much of a selling point as it's hardware, depends on having a certain percentage of the OS market. *Nobody else supports the Apple operating system.* It needs users to survive, it needs lots of them, it needs an incentive for companies to write apps for it, etc. It's a totally different situation than with Gateway or HP.

Gateway could go out of business for a few years, come back, build a computer, and it would be able to run just like the HP's and IBM's.

Apple's share of the market has a different significance than that of Wintel computer manufacturers. Apple has a different threshold for survival.

09 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

Jay:

Your point is valid. You are right, without a stable group of Mac users, there is little incentive to develop software for it.

That said, OSX is clearly the right direction for them to go in. Now there are basically two major desktop OSes: *nix and Windows. MacOS happens to be the leading *nix desktop OS, which puts it in a decent position...arguably a better position than OS9.

Of course, even very niche OSes have had a continued supply of developers. Look at Amiga, OS2, BeOS, NeXT, etc...

09 Jan 2003 | Scott said...

Going back to Keynote for a second, At the advertising agency I used to work for I was the guy who did all the design all of our major new business presentations. For the last couple of years in order to gain that competitive edge I developed a custom built Flash presentation system that was miles ahead of what we could get out of PowerPoint.

Keynote is like light years past what I built. Plus, you don't have to freaking know flash to get dramaticly superior results. No ActionScript, no instance names, no $40/hour designer and without having to pay 500 bucks for the program.

Keynote simply blows the doors off of PowerPoint. There are plenty of industries, advertising being one of them, where how good you look to a client is everything.

This one program, all by it's lonesome, is going to sell an awful lot of PowerBooks.

10 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

Scott:

I'd love to hear more about your SWF presnetation app.

I always thought it would be great if Macromedia developed some sort of 'ppt GUI' layer to flash to allow designers to develop easily-editable flash templates for client presentations

16 Jan 2003 | Timo said...

I also developed a Flash based presentation tool in a previous job: both the presentation engine and the content/layout/slide organisation interface. All the content was stored on a remote server for company wide syncronisation of presentations, styles, templates and content.

Keynote does look like a very interesting standalone tool.

31 Aug 2003 | doc zaphod said...

Gist is not spelled w/a "j". C'mon, guys, kids are readin' this stuff.
thx. doc