Macworld 2007 keynote

On Jan 11, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Charlton Wilbur wrote:

> I'm waiting for announcements about iLife/iWork '07 before buying a
> computer.

I would not be at all surprised to learn that iLife and iWork 07
require Leopard. I would be slightly more surprised to learn that
that isn't the case.

There are enough new things in Leopard which allow or greatly
simplify doing interesting things to justify tying the new packages
to Leopard (in preference to having a number of features which only
work in Leopard).

Compare with TextMate's roadmap.

   --John

On Jan 11, 2007, at 7:14 PM, Jeffrey McPheeters wrote:
> Besides, Adobe wasn't ready yet! ;-) Tune in next summer! In the mean
> time I expect there to be some 'special video-casts' with some new
> hardware arriving in the spring. Leopard will get its own special
> broadcast, I expect.

Just last week Adobe announced that it is releasing a Mac version of
its Production Studio:

<http://blog.digitalcontentproducer.com/briefingroom/2007/01/04/adobe-production-studio-to-be-available-for-both-mac-and-windows/>

This comes years after Adobe suspended Mac development for Premiere
(if I remember correctly, they never released an OS X-ified version,
but I could be wrong), only to see Final Cut Pro, and the development
of the Final Cut Studio products, drastically eat into its market
share over the years.

Though I have never used video/film editing software, everyone I know
who does swears up and down that Final Cut Pro, Shake, etc. are all
highly superior to Adobe's competitive products. But competition is
always good to drive improvements, so

BTW, was there any mention of the iPhone including a Flash Player in
its pre-installed software? Would pre-existing OS X Flash player work
on it?


[Flash seems to be up in the air, and JavaScript is there, but no Java. -Adam]


Marilyn

On Jan 12, 2007, at 1:13 PM, Marilyn Matty wrote:

> Apple announced it changed its name from Apple Computer to just plain
> Apple because it realizes that the personal computer market is, at
> best, a dead end. PCs are commodity products that the vast majority
> of buyers choose because of the lowest price; the profit margins are
> low and shrinking. The greatest area of growth is in consumer
> electronics products, especially mobile and home entertainment.

While I recognize the state of the market, I think there's room for
quality at the high end of the computer market, and I hope Apple
remains there, because I'm not in the vast majority of buyers. I
also recognize that there's a lot more marketing oomph to be gained
by spending two hours talking about a beautiful cell phone than by
talking about point updates to applications that not many people care
about all that much, but I'd like it if the things I care about the
Mac for, the Macintosh news I've been waiting to hear about
before I buy a new computer, were at least mentioned at the
Macworld keynote.


[It's the Macworld keynote, but it's IDG World Expo's show, not Apple's, so Apple has no reason to care about matching announcements to the show name. -Adam]


> My big question is that because iPhone is OS X based, will it mean
> that the system might become alluring to virus writers?

I think the system is already alluring to virus writers. Imagine the
status you could get for writing the first OS X virus to progress
beyond proof of concept and spread in the wild! The phone won't
really alter that much, and I don't think that there's any more of a
profit motive to write a phone virus than to write a Mac virus.

That said, the phone is likely to use ARM, not Intel processors, so
it's unlikely that a virus will be able to jump from one to the other
and unlikely that even intimate knowledge of the low-level
architecture of Mac OS X will help much with Phone OS X.

--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilburchromatico.net

On Jan 11, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>> Some people have also voiced concern about the name change from
>> "Apple
>> Computer, Inc." to "Apple, Inc." and Steve's "where the puck is
>> going"
>> quote. And personally, I don't have anything against Apple doing
>> "non-computer" gadget stuff, except that I probably won't be
>> needing and
>> buying such stuff. However, as long as Apple continues offering the
>> greatest computers with the greatest OS, I'm certainly still a
>> customer
>> in that area. Should they really ever - as some continue to
>> speculate -
>> become a "gadget-only" company, I'll have no problem getting the
>> computers and software I want somewhere else. Still, I don't see this
>> happening just now.
>
> I don't either, but I'm only in it for the computers. The absence of
> any mention of Leopard or iLife or iWork, or traditional computer
> hardware, at *MAC*world, combined with the name change, is not very
> reassuring. If Apple do become a gadget-only company, I'll have a
> significant problem getting the computers and software I want:
> there's a *reason* I'm not using Windows or Linux today, and I don't
> want to go back to "good enough."

I doubt if they will ever become a gadget oriented company; I think
they realize that the nature of computing, business processes, as
well as the consumption of entertainment, are all changing. iTV, if
it delivers as claimed, will move content between computers and
televisions (and maybe iPhones too). iPhone goes well beyond the
capabilities and ease of use of mobile phones, PDAs and other
handheld entertainment devices. Convergence, which we've been hearing
about for well over a decade, seems to finally be happening.

Microsoft has been moving in this direction too, and iPhone looks
like it has the potential to make Windows Mobile devices and
Blackberries about as exciting as Zunes - a keyboard only when you
need it (no stylus or pathetic keyboard buttons either), icons that
are clearly demonstrate functionality, visual voicemail (which would
be a great time saver for me), battery saving features, a big,
comparatively beautiful screen. And iPhone & iTV are computing
devices that tag on to OS X and promote the sales of Macs. IMHO, the
microtouch technology, if it works as described, is an exciting a
computing invention to me as when Apple first debuted its mouse and
icon based system.

Yes, the iPhone pricing that was announced is expensive, and the
storage space small. But this was the case with the first iPods; new
models with more features, better storage, etc. were introduced and
prices quickly went down.

I think of this move not just as a "gadetization" of Apple, but as a
move to expand a very exciting, unique, user friendly and ultimately
useful line of products that are all based on computing. And whether
or not I, or any of us, personally want an iPhone, think of the great
press it's gotten for Apple and how the stock market has responded. I
haven't seen anything that was debuted at CES create anything
resembling the excitment that the MacWorld keynote did.

Marilyn

Quoting Google Kreme <gkremegmail.com>:

> On 11-Jan-2007, at 11:58, Max.Manshel wrote:
>> You missed the other BIG Aannouncement, that the name of the
>> company is now Apple, Inc.
> [I think it's reflective of a fairly major shift in how the company
> views itself, and how it wants to be viewed by others. -Adam]

I wonder if the Beatles had to approve it? Apple Computer, Inc is
quite a bit different than Apple Music. Apple, Inc. is a bit less
distinguishable.


[But remember, there were four Beatles references in the keynote, which many took to mean that an agreement with the Beatles might be coming soon. -Adam]

Quoting Marilyn Matty <mmattynyc.rr.com>:

> it's another revolutionary product. And while I had my doubts that a
> phone could be innovative enough to shake the market, and a phone/
> iTunes combo would cannibalize iPod, this has more than enough added
> features that it is a revolutionary product.

The iPhone doesn't include iTunes, you can't buy music with the phone.
  It includes iPod player functionality.

> Apple announced it changed its name from Apple Computer to just plain
> Apple because it realizes that the personal computer market is, at
> best, a dead end.

I don't think Apple sees it this way at all. I think Apple sees
connectivity of devices at paramount and the better the devices that
can connect the better off Apple as a whole is. I also think they see
that users tend to upgrade peripherals faster than the centralization
device.

iPod, iPhone, Apple TV. All peripherals that require a computer to be
fully functional.

The fact that all three operate with Windows or Mac makes me think
Apple may be leaning away from the mandatory hardware purchase to get
OS X, but I think they'll be making an OS for quite sometime.

On Jan 12, 2007, at 10:13 AM, Google Kreme wrote:

> On 11-Jan-2007, at 11:58, Max.Manshel wrote:
>> You missed the other BIG Aannouncement, that the name of the
>> company is now Apple, Inc.
>
> Well, who would define that as BIG? It's a minor semantic change.
>
>
> [I think it's reflective of a fairly major shift in how the company
> views itself, and how it wants to be viewed by others. -Adam]

We are a self-selected group which is--for sure--interested in the
Macintosh. Some (many?) of us also care about iPod, and now the
phone (whatever its name is on a given day).

But the Macintosh user in each of us probably worries--some or a lot--
about the removal of "Computer" from the name, whereas the general
population either doesn't care or thinks it is good.

Here's my take:
Will Apple continue the Macintosh?
    The answer is pretty much the same as the answer to "Will
Microsoft continue Office for Mac?"

In both cases: they will continue as long as there is a respectable
profit in doing so, and not much longer.

By the way, the intrusion of so much "AT&T" into the Cingular guy's
script in the Keynote makes more sense in the context of the wireless
rebranding. I must admit I only think that in hindsight.

   --John (A Cingular by any other name smells like AT&T)

On 12-Jan-2007, at 11:13, Google Kreme wrote:
> On 11-Jan-2007, at 11:58, Max.Manshel wrote:
>> You missed the other BIG Aannouncement, that the name of the
>> company is now Apple, Inc.
>
> Well, who would define that as BIG? It's a minor semantic change.
>
>
> [I think it's reflective of a fairly major shift in how the company
> views itself, and how it wants to be viewed by others. -Adam]

Granted, but I would argue that THAT change happened 4 or 5 years ago.


[The iPod appeared only five years ago, and it wasn't until it was clearly going to become the monster product it has that such a change would have made sense. So perhaps it has been in the works for a year or two, but I would have been surprised to see Apple making such a change before that. -Adam]

On Jan 15, 2007, at 6:15 PM, kevinvanhaaren.net wrote:
> I wonder if the Beatles had to approve it? Apple Computer, Inc is
> quite a bit different than Apple Music. Apple, Inc. is a bit less
> distinguishable.
>
>
> [But remember, there were four Beatles references in the keynote,
> which many took to mean that an agreement with the Beatles might be
> coming soon. -Adam]

I heard or read on more than one occasion that Apple had agreed to
give them a payoff, rather like Microsoft gave to Apple a few years
ago to stop the lawsuits. I can't remember where, though.

Marilyn

On Jan 15, 2007, at 6:15 PM, kevinvanhaaren.net wrote:

> The iPhone doesn't include iTunes, you can't buy music with the phone.
> It includes iPod player functionality.

I have a feeling this is down the pike - I'll even bet on it - when
iPhone offers a truly high bandwidth connection that will allow for
efficient downloading.

> I don't think Apple sees it this way at all. I think Apple sees
> connectivity of devices at paramount and the better the devices that
> can connect the better off Apple as a whole is. I also think they see
> that users tend to upgrade peripherals faster than the centralization
> device.
>
> iPod, iPhone, Apple TV. All peripherals that require a computer to be
> fully functional.
>
> The fact that all three operate with Windows or Mac makes me think
> Apple may be leaning away from the mandatory hardware purchase to get
> OS X, but I think they'll be making an OS for quite sometime.

I don't doubt this at all; the point I was trying to make is that the
peripherals can help sell the OS. Mac computers gained a 1% market
share since the introduction of iPod for Windows.

Marilyn

On 1/15/07 17:15, "Charlton Wilbur" <cwilburchromatico.net> wrote:

>> My big question is that because iPhone is OS X based, will it mean
>> that the system might become alluring to virus writers?
>
> I think the system is already alluring to virus writers. Imagine the
> status you could get for writing the first OS X virus to progress
> beyond proof of concept and spread in the wild! The phone won't
> really alter that much, and I don't think that there's any more of a
> profit motive to write a phone virus than to write a Mac virus.

Viruses have changed, or more accurately malware has. It's big business now,
and it's all about botnets. Writing malware that kills a machine is for
chumps. Pwning a machine via PHP holes or the like so it becomes a spambot
is where it's at, and Mac OS X has ZERO extra protection against such
things.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

Many took Apple's use of "iPhone" as evidence they had come to an arrangement with Cisco on use of the name as well, and you see where that bet would have landed them. I never take anything for granted when it comes to our favorite fruit company.

On Jan 15, 2007, at 10:47 PM, EddieKaol.com wrote:

> Many took Apple's use of "iPhone" as evidence they had come to an
> arrangement with Cisco on use of the name as well, and you see
> where that bet would have landed them. I never take anything for
> granted when it comes to our favorite fruit company.

Apple has gotten better at this intellectual property thing since the
early days, when they named it "Apple" putting them in the sights of
the "Fab Four" and shipped "Breakout" with the Apple ][. It didn't
take long for the Breakout mistake to make an impression--"Little
Brick Out" was the result of learning the hard way.

It would be amusing to know whether Apple Legal let Jobs down, or
Jobs let Apple Legal down with respect to iPhone. I can see "Steve,
we'll have this agreement wrapped up in time for your announcement."
I can also see "Steve, here's what we've agreed to." "No, don't give
them that and that."

We might learn, if we watch for rolling heads from whichever niche
Legal occupies on Infinite Loop.

   --John

On 15-Jan-2007, at 23:47, EddieKaol.com wrote:
> Many took Apple's use of "iPhone" as evidence they had come to an
> arrangement with Cisco on use of the name as well, and you see
> where that bet would have landed them. I never take anything for
> granted when it comes to our favorite fruit company.

Well, it appears their lawyers said, "Hold up on signing that
agreement, Cisco abandoned their trademark and we can prove it."

Because, seriously? They did.

Cisco can sue until they are blue in the face, but their last-ditch
submission on a "iPhone" product to protect their trademark was
CLEARLY fraudulent. And Apple has the pockets to fight Cisco AND
owns the trademark worldwide.

On Jan 17, 2007, at 9:01 AM, Google Kreme wrote:

> Cisco can sue until they are blue in the face, but their last-ditch
> submission on a "iPhone" product to protect their trademark was
> CLEARLY fraudulent. And Apple has the pockets to fight Cisco AND
> owns the trademark worldwide.


Except in Canada, according to this article in a national newspaper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.
20070114.wcomwave0114/BNStory/Technology/home

Of course, a 20+ million population market is unlikely to derail
Apple's train...

Roger Henriques
rdh at rhen dot com

--On January 17, 2007 5:53:54 AM -0800 johnbaxterlistsmac.com wrote:

> On Jan 15, 2007, at 10:47 PM, EddieKaol.com wrote:
>
>> Many took Apple's use of "iPhone" as evidence they had come to an
>> arrangement with Cisco on use of the name as well, and you see
>> where that bet would have landed them. I never take anything for
>> granted when it comes to our favorite fruit company.
>
> It would be amusing to know whether Apple Legal let Jobs down, or
> Jobs let Apple Legal down with respect to iPhone. I can see "Steve,
> we'll have this agreement wrapped up in time for your announcement."
> I can also see "Steve, here's what we've agreed to." "No, don't give
> them that and that."

Robert X. Cringley speculates Apple did it on purpose for the extra
publicity it would give them.
<http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070111_001476.html>

Additionally Cisco may not own the trademark as firmly as they believed.
Apple may have decided they could get the trademark cheaper in court than
from Cisco directly.

<http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236>

>I wonder if the Beatles had to approve it? Apple Computer, Inc is
>quite a bit different than Apple Music. Apple, Inc. is a bit less
>distinguishable.
>
>
>[But remember, there were four Beatles references in the keynote,
>which many took to mean that an agreement with the Beatles might be
>coming soon. -Adam]

$11 billion in cash?

Why not just buy the name outright? End all the litigation.

Hell, just buy the Beatles catalogue and make iTunes the exclusive
outlet. No CDs. No movie soundtracks. No covers. Just ITMS.

I mean, I own the entire Beatles catalogue, but what if Apple REALLY
owned the entire Beatles catalogue?

--
=Alex Hoffman
Leadership Policy & Politics
Teachers College, Columbia University

At 9:45 AM -0800 1/19/07, Alexander Hoffman wrote:
>I mean, I own the entire Beatles catalogue, but what if Apple REALLY
>owned the entire Beatles catalogue?


This is why...

<http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2006/11/come-together.html>

;-)

KP

on 1/19/07 12:45 PM, Alexander Hoffman at ahoffmanAleDev.com wrote: > >I wonder if the Beatles had to approve it? Apple Computer, Inc is quite > >a bit different than Apple Music. Apple, Inc. is a bit less > >distinguishable. > > > > > >[But remember, there were four Beatles references in the keynote, which > >many took to mean that an agreement with the Beatles might be coming > >soon. -Adam] > > $11 billion in cash? > > Why not just buy the name outright? End all the litigation. > > Hell, just buy the Beatles catalogue and make iTunes the exclusive > outlet. No CDs. No movie soundtracks. No covers. Just ITMS. > > I mean, I own the entire Beatles catalogue, but what if Apple REALLY > owned the entire Beatles catalogue? The major part of the Beatles catalog is owned by Michael Jackson and Sony, primarily the Lennon-McCartney songs (plus Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, and others). The Beatles still own the recordings, which have been in the rumor mill as being remastered for digital release through iTunes. See today’s news item at: http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=336546 Regards, Jim [Actually, what Jackson and Sony own are the *publishing rights*. Michael Jackson and Sony are equal partners in Sony/ATV Music, which was formed by the merger of Jackson's ATV (the holding company for the Lennon-McCartney publishing rights) and Sony Music. Jackson has heavily mortgaged his remaining shares. -Andrew ]