Where Does Apple Go From Here?

Steve Jobs was undeniably a major force behind the product innovation and development at Apple Computer for more than three decades. His vision extended the boundaries of desktop and notebook computers, and blazed new trails in mobile phones and tablet computers. With his passing, however, Apple enters a new phase as it seeks to maintain its position as a technology pioneer and fend off increasing competition across multiple product areas. Do you think Apple will go through significant changes six months, a year, or five years from now? Will the absence of Steve Jobs have an impact on product design and innovation?

 

Personally, I think it has already impacted apple somewhat. It seems as though there have been no standout 'innovations' in the last 12 months or so. Apple is now arguably only just keeping up, if not behind in the smartphone market after the release of the iPhone 4s. With everyone expecting an iPhone 5, the people will only wait so long for Apple to begin releasing more of the products we are so used to before changing their loyalty to other manufacturers, as many already have.

In short, it would seem that Apple have already been brought back down to earth as far as technology goes, with the advancement of the tech by manufacturers like samsung and asus. If Apple don't release something new soon they will likely see a reduction of growth and slip back into the midst of other manufacturers. Perhaps soon their only selling point will be OSX and an aesthetic design.

 

I hate to say it, but I switched to the galaxy s II and I LOVE IT!!! I could see Siri on MBP or MACs being a big deal... She needs to be smarter, but siri would bring in a new wave of people to mac computing.

 

I haven't noticed any major changes to Apple over the last year. They weren't ever being constantly massively innovative. They had the iPhone in '07 and the iPad in '10. They released some interesting software in the meantime. It's '11 now. We've got an iOS style app store on Mac OS X. We've got some cloud computing going on. I'm not sure how much innovation you expect.

OS X and aesthetic design have been the primary selling points of Mac computers for years. They aren't usually cost competitive per component with their competitors, except sometimes right when they are released - if they line up with a new major hardware revision and everyone has premium prices. Pretty much the same situation today.

The 4S did take a lot of time to get out and was a pretty modest revision - but the spec bump was significant, it's still a very small smartphone for the amount of power it has. It has basically the fastest processor you can cram into a phone (similar to other high end dual core smartphones), and it has excellent graphics performance, even compared to other high end phones. The screen resolution is still high compared to the market. I think they may have held out a bit for lower power 4g chips that didn't pan out. Anyway, no major changes to Apple as of yet. iPad is still dominating the tablet market. I guess we'll see what happens with the iPad 3. If they find a way to get a hybrid IPS / e-ink display, they'll be 101% win in my book.

I think their next big thing will be to convince everyone to buy an apple TV. I can't imagine them dropping the price anymore, but it's possible. Even at $99 they might partner with content providers, or maybe add it as an iOS platform to the app store and it will become a game console. That might convince people. Or they might start selling premium TVs with Apple TV imbedded and call it something silly like iTV.

 

True to Apple culture, I don't believe we will see any changes that may or may not happen within Apple.

Though Steve Jobs is not there, his personality is part of Apple now, so some of it will always remain. But with a new head honcho, Apple will grow with new personality. We have to agree that Steve Jobs would not hand pick Tim Cook without deep understanding of what it would mean for Apple. And I believe it is for Apple to certainly change, but grow nonetheless, with a flavour of Steve Jobs.

The personality of Tim Cook and decisions already show, he kept Apple on track with the iPhone 4S. He wasn't afraid to tell us that he will be just as amazing a CEO.

So where will Apple be in the next 6 months? It will (I hope) keep steady on track.

In a year most products will go through another cycle. Apple designers and engineers will innovate and surprise us. iPhone 5 will change everything. Again. Again.

Five years is a long time and the world of technology can and might change drastically and this is where the challenge will be. How Apple copes and morphs with these changes will determine Tim Cook's performance and Apple's adherence to Steve Jobs' legacy of taking the self-assured lead and not the back seat.

We'll just wait and see. That's the exciting part!

 

I don't think there is going to be much change at Apple. It has been turned into a well oiled machine that will take a mighty force to push off of its current track. Apple has done a lot this year with the iPad 2 (which was an even bigger success than the first one), OS X Lion, spec bumps in their various Mac lines with newer Intel hardware, iOS 5, development and implementation of iCloud, and so on. The only disappointment for many people was with the iPhone 4S but that was because the phone didn't live up to their unbelievable expectations that didn't fit with what Apple had previously done (i.e. iPhone 3G -> iPhone 3GS -> iPhone 4 -> iPhone 4S -> iPhone 5).

With the iPhone 4S, many people are focusing on the specs and saying that Apple is playing catchup. Well, in the smartphone market, pretty much everyone is catching up to Google. Google took the MS approach with Android by allowing many different hardware manufacturers to install their software on their devices. Now Android is the dominant smartphone OS. That still doesn't change what Apple is going to do. As I said, everyone was focusing on the specs. "It's just now getting a dual-core processor?" "Meh, meh, meh, I needz meh quad-kores!" What they are forgetting is that Apple's processors have almost always performed above and beyond when compared against the competition (i.e. the A4 beat out other single-core processors in its field and the A5 in the iPhone 4S seems to be doing the same in early benchmarks) but that doesn't really matter. Apple has never been about having the latest and greatest hardware but, when it comes to iOS, they have always been about providing the best content.

The iPad and iPad 2 weren't successful because they had nice hardware in them. In fact, the iPad had less RAM than other Android tablets that were out at the time. Instead they have been very successful because they provided the best app and media consuming environments along with iOS being extremely easy to use.

I don't think that is going to change in the future as Apple's install base is way too high at this point so developers will continue to provide better app experiences (at least for the iPad line) on Apple's devices. As I said, it is going to take a lot to derail Apple from their current path and I don't think the untimely passing of Steve Jobs is going to change that. He set Apple up and now Cook is in the driver's seat to stay the course. Apple will continue to be Apple so long at Tim Cook and everyone else use the "Apple approach" started by Jobs long ago. People need to continue doing things Apple's way and everything will be fine. Apple will go downhill (much like in the 90's) if Tim Cook and others start following what other companies have done (which I don't think will happen).

 

One thing about the iPhone 4S launch felt so not very Steve Job's like. Launching Siri as a beta. Has Apple has ever released beta on its hardware before?

The iPhone 4S was a solid update, even without Siri on it. What it is really lacking for me at least is a larger display and I do not know if the majority of iPhone buyers really want a larger phone, so you cannot say that maintaining the current size puts it behind the curve or anything.

TIA

 

Yeah it's sort of silly when apple releases a handset that is on the small side for smartphones (which are getting annoyingly large), on the long side of battery life, and the best processor performance by a small margin, and best graphics performance by a larger margin, excellent camera (one of the best, certainly better than most competitors, with the likely exception of nokia) - and people think Apple is about to fall into oblivion because their hardware expectations were set so high.

I guess the main thing people were looking for was 4G. Then it could have been called the iphone 4GS. That one is coming next. Money on that. Also, the next number coming to the iPhone is 7!

iPhone -> iPhone 3G (3G for network, not generation) -> iPhone 3GS (S for speed, performance update) -> iPhone 4 (major revision, 4th generation) -> iPhone 4S (S for speed again, performance update) -> iPhone 4GS (4G network) -> iPhone 7?!?!! (major revision, 7th generation)

 

I think that Jobs has laid out the plans for apple for the next 3-4 years. So I am not worried for apple that much. If they stick to what their modo has been then they will be ok and always towards the top.
The way I see them failing is really in the hands of Cook. What kind of Leader will he be? Will he make all the decisions or will it be a team process?
Apple suffered when there was a team approach so I have a feeling Cook will need to be a Tyrant.....mainly what Jobs was to get things done. Now Nobody can step in a be a Legend like Jobs but Cook will need to take the bull by the Horns if not he will be out quickly.

I already thought that there were versions of the iphone4 out already that were 4g compatible. I think that the mentality of apple will never be to name anything after the "Norm" like the iphone4G...this would be cheesy in mac people's eye.
Apple since my experience getting an iphone in 2007 has always been setting the standards. Droids might be great speed and some performance enhancements but even with all the BIG Tech Specs its still not an iphone 3 or 4g...it doesn't matter. So for the future Apple will stick to what they always do and set the "bar" and other companies will ALWAYS follow.

 

They seem to have respected some type of naming convention so far. It's not really cheesy, it's just a name.

I think iPad is cheesy for a name. In fact iAnything is a little cheesy. Oh well.

 

lol I diddnt mean the "i" in the name I meant the "G" as in cell phone networks....the "i" is the apple standard not anyone elses.....and yes ipad is a little cheesy haha

 

No, there aren't. The iPhone 4S supports HSPA+ (or whatever it is called) so it can surf faster than standard 3G speeds but it still isn't "true" 4G. This is where the cellphone providers and manufacturers are playing a bit of a naming game. I think both T-Mobile and at&t are calling their HSPA+ networks "4G" and their real 4G networks are being called "4G LTE." I believe Sprint may have done the same thing when they first rolled out their 4G network but I could be wrong.

Almost everyone is playing this naming game except I think Verizon is doing it right. The only thing is that they add that little "LTE" moniker after their 4G network name and, although it might technically be correct, I think they do it so that their 4G network comes off as being better. Either way the main issue is that there isn't a solid 4G standard unlike 3G. So everyone is doing this or that instead of following a standard. A "4G" labeled phone from someone could very well just be HSPA+ while a 4G phone from someone else could be the real deal.

 

Jobs did a great job of instilling his vision and values into Apple's corporate culture, so I don't view his passing as a strategically pivotal point for the company. In terms of products, Apple is still in a strong competitive position. In terms of revenue, Apple has more money lying around than the US government.

However, Apple is spending large amounts of money in litigation against other, equally well-funded companies such as Google and Samsung. A strategy of litigation instead of competition is a financially costly method that doesn't achieve much in the long term, and Apple is increasingly turning to litigation as a means of preventing competition rather than allowing it to drive the company.

 

for the fact of the matter... LTE isn't even true 4G, even though its called that. LTE-Advanced is ratified as 4G, but normal LTE is not... even though everyone keeps thinking its the real 4G. Anyone could make anything and stick "4G" on it it seems and it wouldn't matter. Best to not fall into the trap of thinking bigger numbers means better... its just not true in technology.

 

I think apple will be fine for at least 2 years... after that - well hard to know how well they execute in the next 2 years will say everything... I don't think apple can afford long term to just refresh there next product (like a mac product), but possible iPad 3. They've been doing well. but there rivals are gain momentum... there getting close to and is some cares exceeding the bar apple set... time to set it higher.

 

I'm with you. You should look into the specifics of the technology (and especially field comparisons) if you're really interested. There's no point in getting caught up over the name "4G", especially since 4G isn't a rating or specification. It doesn't really tell you anything, except probably that it's better than 3G.

LTE is probably the best-bet high speed cell network, since Verizon and AT&T are behind it. People call it "real 4G" in large part because it has that market momentum behind it. I think it's also currently faster in practice than HSPA+, not sure about wimax. I also believe it's the newest standard of the three. In the long run, these standards are all subject to be updated, and their performance will depend highly on those updates, their ability to provide coverage, etc. - and less so on the standard

 

Sprint is also moving over the LTE.

Apple has at least 1-2 more good years... next year, the iPad 3 (if it has Retina Display) and the iPhone 5/4G/whatever (if it's released) will break sales records again.

By then Android should be more unified... BBX and even WinPhone may have gained more share and then we'll see.

 

Good luck with that lol. It's been on a path to furthered fragmentation from the day it was conceived all the way through today. It's further away from unified today than it was a year ago, and their goal a year ago was get things unified. The kindle fire is not helping android at large achieve that goal, although it might be good for amazon and kindle fire owners.

Android is really an OS platform, not an OS. It's up to hardware makers to add a bunch of OS level features and control to their phones. It would be better for everyone if they would cut it out, but they definitely don't seem to want to do that.

I didn't know sprint was moving to LTE. That's huge. That means 3 of the major 4 carriers will be behind LTE. Tmobile is gonna be in trouble.

 

Android fragmentation is not really caused by things like the Kindle Fire or customized Android operating systems. Too much is made about one phone running Android 2.1, another 2.2 and a third 2.3. Basically, third party software is compatible with all.

Android 3.0 (tablet only) did create two mobile operating systems.

The fragmentation issue is a hardware problem, mainly brought about by two things:

a) Different screen sizes and resolutions
b) Different GPU's.

Android 4.0 address the first one by integrating the phone and tablet UI back to one. Introducing scalable UI's and user adjustable widget sizes. Basically like our PC's.

Standardization also seems to be in the works. Instead of launching a vanilla OS to built on, Android 4.0 builds in a lot of features that before were added in UI like HTC's sense or third party apps.

While not directly related, this may give you an idea of what this is all about:

Mobile Raptor: Groups: Managing the influx of social information intelligently

The GPU issue, well that is left to the manufacturers.


As for Apple. It is getting harder to be the Apple of old. The main differentiation is now software. I mean MacBooks are now no longer run under their own designed processors but basically Mac OSX versions of Intel based laptops.

I think you will see them focus more on their software and services with their value of their devices being equivalent to the value of these services.

As for hardware, they will eventually loose out on a hardware arms race. And I do not think they want to get involved in a hardware arms race either.

 

Which is something Apple has pretty much done ever since the return of Jobs (and even before then when the Wintel crowd surfaced and took over). Back in the late 90's (1998 or 1999), I knew a family that purchased one of those colored iMac models. They paid more for it than my parents did for our Gateway desktop and it even had slower hardware. The Pentium (I think it was a Pentium II MMX or Pentium III, I don't remember) in our Gateway was outperforming the G3 (or whatever) that Apple was using in the iMac, our Gateway came with more RAM, a larger hard drive, a better AGP GPU, a larger display (17"), and so on. The family didn't care about the hardware but rather they purchased the iMac to run Mac OS. The ironic thing is that they also didn't want to have all sorts of cords running to and from the desktop but they ended up having almost just as many cords.

Anyway, they bought into the hardware+software combination despite the hardware performing below what was already out there for a lower cost. Apple is still doing the same thing today with their entire Mac line. I know I overpaid for my MBP and I could have purchased a Windows notebook with the same specs for about $500 less but I bought into the hardware+software combination. It doesn't really matter what platform Apple is using whether it is PPC or x86-64, that doesn't take away from the fact that OS X is still built for the hardware in each and every Mac that meets its minimum system requirements.

The only difference now is that Apple is starting to translate this model to their iOS devices. I still think the iPad is going to compete with other tablets with its hardware mainly because it is updated early in the year. iOS is lagging behind in terms of included features but Apple is relying on their software integration to provide a smoother experience while providing access to more apps. So now we are back to the whole hardware+software model previously used in Macs and it is translating over to their iOS devices. The iPhone 4S may not run the latest and greatest hardware (especially since quad-core smartphones are supposed to be out before year's end) but it is the only phone that provides access to iOS and the App Store (which contains more apps than the other stores).

I imagine some things will change next year when the iPhone 5 (or whatever) comes out as Apple will likely update that earlier in the year (summer) so that they can boost their revenues. That will likely compete with phones that are currently out on a hardware level until the end of the year when someone comes out with a 2GHz quad-core processor, decides to make a 6-core processor, or some other nonsense.

 

I don't expect to see quad core phones out this year. I really do not see any point to having those. Very little software, a handful of games take advantage of dual core processors.

The App store concept was a great draw, but the Steve Jobs never really wanted an app store for iOS. Over time I think you will see the mobile operating systems integrate more functions into the OS, and the app stores will be limited mainly to games and apps with proprietary content.

App development is a promised land about to burst. From something I wrote awhile back:

 

I agree about the screen resolution issues. They are about as varied as can be, in terms of physical size, aspect ratio, and resolution. Each of those variations presents a massive challenge to developers to present their applications and content in a thoughtful and usable way. There are also a variety of performance implications, with 2D/3D graphics, if you can design your software knowing the resolution it will run, in advance.

I'm also not convinced Android 4.0 will convince hardware makers to drop their nonsense, unless it's closed source and they have no choice.

The Kindle fire isn't generating a lot of issues with android phones right now, but it is an indicator that hardware makers in the future might not elect to go with up-to-date "Google" android in favor of "totally-custom *my version* android. More nonsense than it is now. If amazon can do it, other big companies may follow suit. It's not a certainty, but just pray that ship doesn't set sail.

As far as the hardware arms race, that's already going on, it has been for a while, and no one is gaining any separation. Most companies are using very similar processors. Apple does have a GPU edge at the moment, but it's not like other companies won't fill in that gap before apple releases a refresh.

 

I don't know where this misconception that manufacture customization results in fragmentation. Things like Sense, TouchWiz, Blur and the like, result in delaying updates since the manufacturer has to update the official verions with its customizations.

What this means that you have different phones running current and older versions of Android. This does not result in "fragmentation".

Look at it from a different standpoint. I opted no to upgrade to Lion from Snow Leopard. A friend on mine has a iPhone 3GS running iOS4.2 becuase he was not happy with performance under 4.3. It still works with App Store apps. Is that fragmentation?

The Kindle looks really different, but under the hood it still runs Android 2.3, and is compatible with Android 2.3 apps. If Amazon wants to update the Kindle to Android 4.0 well Amazon will have to build their customization into a Android 4.0 ROM.

Nothing is wrong with it if Amazon decides to complete fork Android and continue to develop their using their own updated Android 2.x device. This would result in fragmentation. So far, all we have are manufacturer customizations of the UI and no one if forking Android yet (well one Chinese company says it will have its own version of Android which will be called Baidu).

Basically, if that ship sails, the new vessels wont be called Android anymore. Than it is up to you whether you want to buy an Android device or something based on Android going by a different name.

The problem is we, and tech reviewers still view this devices as Windows type computers. Essentially, Android is Linux, where the desktop environment and the OS are two separate things. I run Ubuntu, but without the default Ubuntu UI. Instead I run it under a Gnome 3 environment.

Now if we have Fedora, Suse and Ubuntu running under Gnome 3.2 shell they will all look the same, but the OS under them is different and apps compatible with one have to be recompiled for the other.

Fragmentation is really a hardware issue. Look at WP7. To prevent fragmentation they set strictly provide specifications. The end result is that all WP7 devices are all the same with minor differences. Apple, basically, maintain 2-3 phones only at a time.

No fragmentation also means no real hardware choices. That is what Android is all about. It allows it to reach all sectors and allows for many choices.

Sell a device with a slow processor and some Android apps wont run. But those are the inexpensive smartphones that are very important to some markets. At the same time you will lose things like the Motorola RAZR and ATRIX and their lapdocks if you restrict customization too much.

Choice has it advantages and disadvantages. Android 4.0 will try to address those by at least taking screen resolution out of the issue. I do not think that will resolve all fragmentation issues.

Apple will continue as it has been catering to the higher end segment of the market. If it catered to all segments, than fragmentation issues would crop up too. But someone has to cater to the rest of it.

 

I think Apple will be fine in the short term but they will be under the microscope post Steve Jobs. Recently they missed the mark on revenue and stocks took a hit. That's what investors will be looking at and whether they can continue to pump out cutting edge products. I think they will as there is enough in the pipe line possibly for the next 4-5 years.

We'll see after that if they can continue to push the industry forward. Their problem is after the death of their CEO it has energized the competition as he was the equivalent to Formula One's car designer Adrian Newey.

 

Lower than projected iPhone and iPad sales resulted in lower than expected profits. The lower iPhone sales were because of the delayed release of the new iPhone. I think Apple will make up with stronger than projected iPhone 4S sale this quarter. As for the iPad projections, maybe the projections were too optimistic.

 

This is fragmentation. Both examples. If you are running 4.2, then developer's can't rely on features of 4.3 in their apps if they want you to run the app. There's no way to get everyone running the latest version of the software. Some people won't upgrade. But if 95% of iOS devices are running iOS 5 after the next 3 months, that really helps developers choose how to develop their apps. I don't have a pie chart to describe this, but generally Apple has a huge majority of it's users running the latest version of iOS, some people running one version prior, and then a small fraction running legacy versions older than that. Android has a wider distribution of devices running different versions of software. Developers can generally maintain compatibility by catering to the lowest common denominator, but that lowest common denominator isn't the same thing for iOS as it is android.

It's not that developers CANT leverage new features. They can throw money at the problem and have specific features activate for devices that support it. But developer time (cost) is the issue. They aren't going to invest the time to take advantage of new OS features if the majority of devices can't use them. It's just not worth it for them.

For example. iOS5 was just released. iCloud is a service that can be leveraged by 3rd party apps for data storage. All sorts of apps are going to start updating to be compatible with that service, because there is a sudden influx of a TON of iOS 5 devices, that people either upgraded or are buying now.

If a new version of android comes out with an OS level feature, how many people are going to be leverage it? How many people will be able to leverage it after 1 month? 2 months? 3 months? How many people are running the latest version of android (4.0) right now? In 3 months, what percentage of android users will have access to 4.0?

I don't have all the answers, but it's something to think about. This is how developers think and decide how to invest their time with their applications. Software is one piece of the fragmentation issue.

That ship has already sailed with amazon. They did fork android. It's built off of version 2.1, not 2.3. Luckily, amazon is not the be-all end-all android hardware maker at the moment. The kindle fire is brand new. If I had to guess, it's going to sell like hot cakes because they have content distribution down and Google does not, and they're probably going to be the only tablet manufacturer that has decent sales figures. I don't think they're quite ready for the handset market, but there's going to be a massive influx of devices that aren't compatible with 2.2+ OS features. That type of thing just doesn't exist in Apple's ecosystem.

Sure, that's the UI stuff. Those UI differences are similar to most manufacturer additions. The issue is that it's preventing them from being up to date with the current underlying version in an unpredictable way. It's not clear which handsets have which software version available, or if/when they will have it available.

Meanwhile, all iOS devices from mid 2009 and beyond have access to the latest software version the day it's released.

This is not an unfixable problem, it's just something they need to do better and resolve. They might need to get manufacturer support through incentives or something.

I agree that hardware differences are a major contributor to overall fragmentation. Basically developers only have to think about 2 device groups. You have all handheld iOS devices, and all iPads. With the handhelds, all of the UI interface stuff only needs to be done once, even though the resolutions are different, because Apple went out of their way to make dealing with that difference straightforward.

I pretty much agree, except there is no good way to handle the screen size issue. Android 4.0 gives developers some tools to deal with it, but it's still a mess. If there were a small number of screen sizes, you could deal with resolution changes. But it's really hard to make an interface that works well with 3.5" screens, 4" screens, 4.5" screens, 5" screens, 7" screens, 9" screens, etc. (not to mention that even for a certain diagonal size screen, some have different shapes - 4:3, 16:9, 3:2, 5:3 are all common android device aspect ratios)

 

Now exactly what Android app wont run on the Android 2.1 and what iPhone app wont run on 4.2? No need to answer that. I do not see my running Snow Leopard as a fragmentation issue. If I need a piece of software that requires Lion, I will upgrade than.

Sorry, but I really have to ask, do you even use an Android?

I have seven devices Android in use personally or issued to my staff. Here is an example of fragmentation:

Samsung Galaxy Y - Running Android 2.3. Some apps wont run on 240 x 320 screen resolutions, others that do do not display the full screen (in order word some elements are outside of the screen... I cannot describe it better).

Samsung Galaxy Ace - Running Android 2.2 (upgradeable to 2.3). 320 x 480 screen. All apps run well except games that require more resources.

HTC Desire HD - Running Android 2.3. 480 x 800 screen. All apps run well except games that require more resources.

Samsung Galaxy Tab - Running Android 2.3 (originally 2.2). 600 x 1024. All apps run well except games that require more resources. Some apps do not use the full screen.

Actually, it would make sense for Amazon to use Android 2.1. A bit of a lazy way to do it (better 2.3 and disable some features).

Android 2.2 added support for storing apps in the SD card.
Android 2.3 added support front camera and NFC.

The Kindle Fire does not have a SD Card slot and NFC. But Amazon has their own Android app store so they can fork their own system if they want too. In the end you are buying an Amazon product and should rely on Amazon for support.

Actually, it would be nice if that is the case. It really is an issue of manufacturer greed. XDA has place many updated ROM's on devices that manufacturers neglected to support.

If you buy an Android and want direct support from Google, get a Nexus phone. If you buy one from another manufacturer than count on support from them. I get HTC's because I like Sense. I used Sense over Windows Mobile 6.5 and now over Android 2.3. My next phone will probably also have Sense running on top of it.

Basically, if Apple built an Android device I am pretty sure you wont see the same problem of late updates on an Apple Android.

I buy Samsung for issue to the staff because they are cheap. HTC for myself since they have a better track record on support. Android 4.0 will cause more problems for HTC I think though.

Lets see how well it works in Android 4.0 before saying it wont work. One day Apple will offer iPhone's in different sizes too. I might buy one than.

Apple and Microsoft control fragmentation by limiting their devices to two basic configurations for Apple and one basic set of specs for Windows. Would it be better if Android did the same thing instead.

If Android's approach is a mess, eventually people will stop buying it and move to other platforms.

Would we all want only one size of MacBook's? OSX is not optimize for a 1440 x 900 screen. But I can live with it. And the 1440 x 900 has advantages in other situations.

Sorry, Masterchef but I really get peeved when some tries to enforce a one size is better policy. I am near sited and do wear glasses. If I put the screen to close to my face I need to remove my glasses to read it. So I need to keep it further from my face. Second I have fairly large hands. I like having a larger virtual keyboard.

I really am not comfortable with a smaller 3.5-inch screen whether it runs Android, iOS, Symbian or Windows.

---------

Going back to where Apple is headed next. One interesting issue is whether they will go more mass market or not.

Apple has high margins on iPhone, Mac's and Macbooks. It has more moderate margins on the iPod, iPad and MacBook Air.

iPhone the cost of manufacturer is about 30% of the selling price. So Apple makes as much money selling one iPhone as it does selling two MacBook Airs or iPads.

iPhone 4S (16GB) - BOM: US$170 --- Retail Price: US$649
iPad 2 (16GB WiFi) - BOM: US$320 --- Retail Price US$499
11.6" MacBook Air (64GB) - BOM: US$718 --- Retail Price US$999

Apple has two pricing policies in effect where some products are targeted at a wider economic market. Anyone see a credible Windows based MacBook Air killer despite Intel's US$300 million dollar commitment? Not all Apple products are premium priced.

The question is I guess, under Tim cook will you see Apple products go down one price point and try to catch a larger market.

 

There are a lot of creative minds but very few got budgets. Also very few companies got experience in creating something innovative and not making it look stupid in the process. Apple got both money and expertise so i clearly cant see why they shouldnt keep progressing.

Whether it will be something ground or not is another question. Quite frankly i think samsung and other brands were just copying apple for the last few years (not to say they did bad at it) so i dont have huge belief in competitors for sure.

 

Samsung actually spends more on R&D than Apple. So Apple did not just do well because they had a lot of money to throw into it. I think the loss of Steve Jobs is a big loss.

That being said, the iPhone is well entrench and Apple should be able to keep it current, same for the iPad and their MacBooks. I do not think we will know how much the loss of Steve Jobs affected apple for at least 3-4 years.

 

I'm not saying 1 size is better for everyone. I'm saying it's a big challenge to get developers to properly support variable resolutions on touch screen devices.

For the people who can work well with apple's screen size, they get the benefit that all apps are designed around that screen. If you need a larger screen, you aren't getting an iPhone. It's a challenge for developers to support arbitrary screen sizes (especially when the screen resolutions are small, and especially if it's a touch screen)

Laptop resolutions aren't as big of a deal, because those screens are all much larger, and the pointing mechanism is exactly one pixel in size regardless of the physical size of the screen. Our finger touch corresponds to a variable size relative to the screen. So if you have an 800x480 3.5" device, and I have an 800x480 4.3" device, then the buttons and other UI elements are either going to be too big and spaced out on mine, or too small on yours, or both, unless the developer has access to the physical size information of the screen AND put a ton of effort into handling all sorts of possible combinations of sizes and resolutions.

It's not that choice is bad for consumers. It presents an interesting challenge for developers. A good solution is still MIA, but it's not like your phone doesn't work in the meantime.

 

Just read this excerpt where Steve Jobs took a shot at Ballmer:

As far as I know, Tim Cook wasn't a salesperson so maybe that's why Steve Jobs picked him.

Although he's not as dynamic as Jobs, I think Cook may be just as driven. I find it interesting how his Auburn Commencement speech compares and contrasts to Jobs' speech at Stanford.

 

Tim Cook wasn't a salesperson but he has been educated in both industrial engineering (at least I think that is what branch of engineering he was in, it could have been mechanical engineering) and business as he received a BS and then an MBA (which is what I plan on doing after getting my MS next year). Cook brought Apple up to modern manufacturing processes by having everything contracted out through China. He also changed the way Apple ordered their products so that they didn't end up having warehouses full of unsold products that were outdated. He essentially took what he did at Compaq and applied it to Apple (and then some).

So I think he is more business driven while Jobs focused more on the products and the people designing them. The nice thing is that the main people at Apple responsible for the designs of their products and the software that runs on them are still there. I think the difference between Steve and Tim is that Tim is going to lean more heavily on these people and he might actually give them credit whereas Jobs was quick to shoot down ideas only to present them the next day as his own. Jobs also wasn't afraid to go into the design studios to leverage his vision. I don't think Cook as attained that level of vision just yet but he has surrounded himself by the people who do.

So even over the next 5-8 years, I don't think Apple is going to get thrown off of their current path. The longterm is currently unknown and that all depends on who stays at Apple and who leaves. I think Apple will do just fine if Cook stays the course along with keeping Apple's current employee lineup. Things will change if the guy who designs Apple products leaves, the guy who heads iOS development leaves, and so on. Cook will keep Apple profitable because he is a good business man and I see him leaving the rest of Apple up to other employees.

 

THats a very interesting perspective and it makes great sense. Salesmen know how to sell and usually nothing else. But dont forget Jobs started apple with the Woz who was the "real" brains behind the apple OS. Jobs is really like Larry Ellison of Oracle a great great techie salesmen. Jobs is again the rare legendary exception to the general salesmen rule. Maybe Cook will do good but it depends on how cook judges "what people want" Jobs was godlike in knowing what people wanted.....Cook will be challenged

 

Actually, not much of a problem between a 3.5-inch (320 x 480) and a 4.3-inch (480 x 800) with the same resolution does not cause a problem. Apps that work on one look fine on the other. No app I have used looks bad on a 4.3-inch screen. Apple apps would look fine on a 4.3-inch 640 x 940 iPhone too.

Now, 240 x 320, regardless of screen size does cause problems. Some Androdi apps wont scale down to that size.

It becomes an issue with 7-inch screens like out Samsung Galaxy Tab.


Laptops. With my MacBook Air I have an issue about not being able to adjust the sizes on fonts on tool bars. I can adjust font sizes in Finder, but not anywhere else. OSX at 13-inches is really best of at 1280 x 800.

Actually, if you want a smaller screen, you should be getting an iPhone 4S. You wont find any dual core Androids (from credible manufacturers) south of 4-inches.

Basically, the Android world had no direct competition for the iPhone 4S.

I hope you do not consider it in poor taste... but this is why I chose an Android.



If Apple did come out with a bigger one, I might get one. iCloud + iPhone + MacBook Air make a nice combo. The Linux box is just a leftover I cannot sell so I keep.

 

This is only partly true.

The question is do people buy iProducts:

1. Because they are good?
2. Because they have an Apple in the back?
3. Because they worship Steve Jobs.

I think it is number 1 and number 2. I mean, when we buy a Rolex watch we do know we are paying for the brand.

Steve Job's was a good showman. He knew how to change his mind without making it embarrassing. He did not know what the public wants. One example, Steve Jobs saw no need for an App Store.

From his bio:

“He didn’t want outsiders to create applications for the iPhone that could mess it up, infect it with viruses, or pollute its integrity.”

Apple board member Art Levinson and senior vice president of worldwide product marketing Phil Schiller were the ones who convince Jobs to change his mind.

Apple does have plenty good heads in that company. The reason why I think two or three years is a critical time. When you are successful, often times you get scared to innovate. Innovators like Nokia become naysayers. Microsoft got stuck on the desktop. So on...

 

It's the clarity, coherence and vision that Apple will lose with Jobs passing. No doubt they'll still make high quality desirable objects.

Personally I'd like to see them head off in new directions, the worst thing they can do is to try and ape Steve Jobs leadership through a committee.

 

short term future predictions: expanding icloud, bringing ios and mac OS X together.

they'll probably set up XCode to cross compile for OS X and iOS pretty soon here as they begin to share more and more APIs, and lock down the OS X app store further, to make it more like the iOS app store. OS X will still remain open in the sense that you can install apps from 3rd party sources if you choose to do so. One of the big magical things that iOS can do is delete applications cleanly. They'll have to lock down the OSX app store a bit more to get that type of functionality, but that'll come.

SSDs in all mobile devices (including notebooks) as iCloud expands and provides storage compensation for more data, and SSD prices drop. Heavy reliance on internet connections. 4g cell networking in all macbooks and iOS devices.

No more disc drives in notebooks. The 13" macbook pro and air are going to merge and become one device (basically they'll drop the 13" macbook pro). The 15" will get a redesign, look more like the macbook air, trade the space where the disc drive and 2.5" HDD used to be with a slightly thinner form factor and slightly bigger battery, SSD chip without housing ala macbook air, etc.

You're still going to see smallish SSDs for now, just because they are still expensive. With time, their prices will drop.

The iPad will adopt a hybrid IPS / e-ink (color e-ink?) display. It's possible the iPhone will also adopt such a screen... You'll certainly get a 4x res iPad 2048x1536 pretty soon, along with a 4g chip from Sprint / Verizon / ATT- possibly a hybrid (consolidated) 4G chip. As it stands now, with sprint on-board, you're looking at potentially 24 different iPad variants. I think they'll work hard to minimize some of those choices. (wifi only/sprint/verizon/att, white/black, 16GB/32GB/64GB). Again, I think they'll consolidate all the cell tech and bring the choices down to white/black and 16GB/32GB/64GB of storage space. If the hybrid chip is expensive (it may be) they may still offer a wifi only iPad.

Eventually apple will drop the wifi only iPads, as well as cell phone company variant iPads, and restore order to their lineup by adopting the aforementioned predictions. I'm not sure what they're going to do as far as securing networking deals with cell phone companies. Probably no imminent changes.

It's a little bit far to think about Apple buying one of the cell phone companies, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised. As their cloud operations expand, they're going to want more control of the networking infrastructure.

That's where apple is headed.