Posted on 10/11/2005 12:39:33 PM PDT by Panerai
"as for Apple following Sony's footsteps, a good cautionary tale given how stagnant Sony marketing innovation has become after their originally brilliant walkman design"
So, you're saying that Apple has nearly 25 years, before they have to worry about being in the mess that Sony now finds itself in? LOL.
things happen much faster these days than they did back in 1982... my guess is they have two or three years max.
"things happen much faster these days than they did back in 1982"
Apple won't be sitting still, either. They own the successful market model, from content to distribution to end use. With only minor competition, as far as market percentage goes. I think they're in an enviable position of strength, myself. They haven't even begun to capitalize on the base that they're establishing, soon to be 50mm +.
"things happen much faster these days than they did back in 1982"
Apple won't be sitting still, either. They own the successful market model, from content to distribution to end use. With only minor competition, as far as market percentage goes. I think they're in an enviable position of strength, myself. They haven't even begun to capitalize on the base that they're establishing, soon to be 50mm +.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
A "fad" lasts about 3 to 6 months... the iPod has been a "fad" now for four years!
apple will face *huge* competition from...
The naysayers, like you, have been claiming this for four years... and Apple's iPod has only increased in popularity and market share. Where is this "huge" competition that Apple will be trembling in its boots in the face of?
<...looks like a saturated market to me....
How about Apple clearing the inventory stream in anticipation of newer and greater iPods... as well as the self-competition from the iPod Nano? In addition, economies of scale in production keep kicking in to lower costs and hence prices.
... the halo has all but disipated...
Let's see... Last year Apple increased its computer market share among non-internet buyers from 4.7% (which was an increase from 3.5% the previous year) to 6.6% this last quarter... "disipated"... right. sure. Remind me not to base any investment decisions on YOUR analysis.
...I'm Sorry."
Yup, you should be. More bad analysis... and bad history.
...Apple has three systems in the top 500 clusters.
AND a whole lot more that don't bother to play that game... including xClusters in government research labs, Education, Military applications, and others where a lot of bang for very few bucks is important.
unfortunately for Apple kool-aid drinkers, history is littered with Apple non-starters and so-so products, from the Lisa to the Newton to that overheating (but beautiful) cube, to the computer that looks like a lampshade, to the MAC-mini (and its pitiful 4200 RPM disk drive).
what is steve jobs NeXt trick i wonder?
It definitely has some fad aspects to it, but it is still the best player out there. It has been since it came out. Apple will continue to see iPod sales in the millions as long as they keep innovating, staying ahead of their competitors. The Nano is a perfect example. And the Nano is actually a good deal -- a good 4GB flash player with high-res color screen for $250.
OSX is an emperor with no clothes. while it is *fabulous* for laptops, it has serious performance problems
The latest OS X has a serious reworking of the kernel for that. OTOH, it's what you expect with a hybrid microkernel architecture, but that's the architecture that allowed an easy transition to Intel.
Apple has three systems in the top 500 clusters.
Actually, there are four, #s 14, 66, 162 and 166. The Army recently bought one larger than any of these for hypersonic testing, but hasn't submitted it to the Top500.
And according to the current list there's one Windows system, way down at #326.
Apple was quite a healthy company at the time of the iPod's introduction. The iPod was icing on the cake, although admittedly a whole lot of icing.
I just bought an iMac 20' G5. Amazing design and Tiger is a spectacular OS.
I know they're making boatloads of money on the I Pod Nano. Our son is trying to buy a black 4G, and they are NEVER in stock when we call! We thought we had one night before last and drove 45 mins. to the Mall at Chestnut Hill to the Apple Store and they'd just sold out. Our oldest son is going over to Cambridge (MA)to visit friends today, so he's going to the Galleria store to see if they have any there.
Four years equals a fad?
apple will face *huge* competition from Sony (remember them?
Yea they are the ones that dropped the ball on MP3 players and let apple create a product that people are very loyal to. When my wife's iPod goes we will be getting another one (hers is four years old)
look at what has happened to iPOD prices the past couple of weeks. they are starting to be discounted... looks like a saturated market to me...
Apple is setting up for the next gen of iPod which will probably do video so when Sony and the rest get their act together on mp3's they will still be a step behind apple.
if Apple depended on the halo effect from iPOD to segue into and sustain an upsurge in their computer sales, fat chance.
Its already started, the mini is a push to get PC iPod users to try a mac and the mini's have been moving quite well..
besides, steve jobs has frequent and repeated tendency to shoot himself in the foot, and i think both the G5 abandonment and the outrageous
Really you think apple should have stayed with a processor that was an afterthought for their supplier and could not be put into laptops?
OSX is a great OS and while its not as optimized as a vanilla BSD Unix the trade made for systems usability and integration has done very well for apple.
Complain all you want Apple has went from not just irrelevancy but from the verge of bankruptcy to the biggest profits they have ever had.. They did this with the iPod and OSX..
iPOD growth is starting to sputter - check here...
the classical line of iPODs is fading a little bit, and iPOD growth is in nano not due to a weak market but because Apple can't keep up with the demand. the problem is that Apple has ventured into the commodity electronics market and IMHO will have problems remaining both agile and able to manufacture huge numbers of units.
the problem will start when the other manufacturers start to come out with FLASH based players that are half the price of Apple.
as for their computer line, the iPOD has provided a nice segue into making people consider Apples on their desktop, which is fine by me if it breaks M$ deadlock.
none-the-less, Apple is not the saviour of the world and OSX is far from a cureall. the Intel/M$ numbers are just too huge. if Apple can break 10%, then maybe.
as i've stated, OSX has performance problems (see Anandtech :dual G5+OSX is 5 *TIMES * slower than a similar Opteron+Linux system in the benchmarks they ran, and only 2 times slower if same dual G5+Yellow_Dog_Linux and i find that everyone who bought into Apples' server offering has walked off the face of a cliff lead by steve jobs. just like everyone (like me) who fell for the NeXt and actually bought one. the magnesium case should have been the giveaway.
Apple is not really a huge company like IBM, (even if they would like to be), and their attention needs to be focused in order for it to be effective. it seems to me that Apple has shifted its focus away from servers since OSX is not very good performance wise on clusters, and what advantage it had disipates quickly without the Altivec.
Apple was able to compete in servers at ALL because, guess what, the IBM/G5 hardware is a (surprise,surprise) great platform for clusters... with Intel, unless they somehow port the Altivec to the new Intel line, their server offerings are very much a dead-end IMHO.
No it was not, nor was ragtime, nor were rock ballads
iPOD growth is in nano not due to a weak market but because Apple can't keep up with the demand.
So being unable to keep up with demand is a sign of a fad?
the problem will start when the other manufacturers start to come out with FLASH based players that are half the price of Apple.
Price does not always win, see Linux vs Microsoft..
Anandtech :dual G5+OSX is 5 *TIMES * slower than a similar Opteron+Linux system in the benchmarks they ran, and only 2 times slower if same dual G5+Yellow_Dog_Linux and i find that everyone who bought into Apples' server offering has walked off the face of a cliff lead by steve jobs.
And just what is yellow dog doing at the time... Look I am a Linux guy much more than a mac guy and I know I can tune a distro to be amazingly fast... it will also be far more difficult to use, and to desktop users sometimes usability is more important.
their conclusion was (as antiRepublicrat aluded to) the MACH kernel was getting in the way. the MACH kernel is also the reason it was easy to port OSX to Intel, so you live by the sword and die by the sword...
If you fell for NeXT and actually bought one then I'm sure you know that only the 'e' is lower case. The T should capitalized. Maybe both times were typos.
OS X was not ported to Intel. OS X has been capable of running on Intel throughout its entire life,
what really frosted me about the NeXt is was job's stupid requirement that each university (the only place you could buy one) had to hire a maintenance tech to handle the problems. that and the magnesium case...
I did "check here" and what I saw was an article that stated that the demand for iPods is so high that Apple can't make them fast enough. In fact, the demand is "staggering" according to an Apple exec.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.