Posted at 09:51 AM in Apple | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Technorati Tags: Apple, Cult of Mac, Jason Snell, Lonnie Lazar, Macworld
There is, unsurprisingly, a lot of talk about Steve Jobs’ illness. It’s understandable: Jobs is a person who thousands of Mac fans around the world think of more as a friend than just the CEO of the company whose computers they like.
This devotion and concern often manifests itself in a simple idea: Jobs’ health is his own business, and anyone suggesting that Apple should release information about it should be ashamed of themselves. My friend Joe Wilcox is getting a lot of stick at the moment for suggesting that Apple has handled things badly, and needs to start being honest with its shareholders about the state of Jobs’ health.
I can understand both sides in this argument. Anyone who has had a friend or family member be seriously ill knows what an intense and terrible experience it is, and the natural inclination of anyone is to want to keep as much private as possible. This is doubly-true if the illness is life-threatening.
But, Steve Jobs is also a senior executive of a publicly-traded company, and with that role comes certain responsibilities. Steve has responsibilities to his shareholders – and, importantly, so do Apple’s board of directors.
The illness of a senior executive is a classic area where boards need to be strong, and work for the shareholders. It’s a tough time for everyone, but the role of the board, as I’ll explain, means they have to look at things in a way which is impersonal – and which some might find insensitive.
Continue reading "Steve Jobs' health: How much should Apple reveal?" »
Posted at 03:03 PM in Apple | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Given that Giles found it interesting enough to want to write a post about, it's probably worth delving a little deeper into why I believe that Apple will end up producing an online store for the Mac similar to the App Store for iPhone.
It comes down, as you might expect, to the same two reasons it works for the iPhone: convenience, and security.
A single online repository for all software is undoubtedly convenient for users. You only have to look at the number of applications on the average iPhone to see that having one place to find software makes it easier to buy. You don't have to worry about putting your credit card in, it's one click to purchase, and – importantly – you're notified of any updates automatically.
Would you want that level of convenience for the Mac? I would. In fact, one of the strengths of using Ubuntu is the repository system, which means that the majority of applications can be found under one menu item – Add/Remote Applications – and updates are pushed out whenever they're ready. It makes finding and installing software easy, and that's something most users will always go for.
The second reason why Apple will have a Mac App Store is security. “But wait,” I hear you say, “the Mac is secure. There's no malware for it. So why would you need a store to fix a problem which doesn't exist?”
The problem is that, sooner or later, the problem will exist. As “Perry the cynic” put it in a comment over at Under the Microscope:
“In a sense, the Mac is living on borrowed time - viruses and worms and other nasty bit-critters will surely come our way”
Now I can almost hear you shouting “FUD!” at the screen. This guy is obviously some fired-up Microsoft FUDster, right?
Wrong. “ Perry the cynic” is, in fact, a senior Apple engineer, who designed and implemented the code signing system in Leopard. Although – like many Apple employees – he tends to hide behind a nom de plume when posting to mailing lists and the like, I believe he is probably Perry Kiehtreibert, one of two Apple employees credited as inventors of Apple's patented method for incremental code signing.
If an Apple engineer like Perry is saying that “the Mac is living on borrowed time” when it comes to security, I tend to believe him.
In fact, the discussion over code signing was one of the things which prompted me to believe that Apple will have a Mac App Store sooner or later. Code signing isn't really much use for security unless you can use it to totally lock down a device – i.e. only applications signed by Apple (or a trusted third party) are allowed to run. And that requires, as part of its infrastructure, a central, trusted point of distribution – a store.
I'm not really going to get into whether such a store would be obligatory (it depends – but it wouldn't matter, because most people wouldn't buy from anywhere else) or whether it's a good thing overall. It's not something I would ever use, but you may find that the convenience factor and knowing that you can buy something that's 100% guaranteed malware-free is valuable to you. Personally, I value having an open platform not dominated by a single huge corporation more than buying able to buy the latest version of Worms with one click. But your mileage may vary.
Posted at 07:52 PM in Apple | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)
Technorati Tags: Apple, Apple App Store, Linux, Mac OS X, Ubuntu
Jan. 1984: How critics reviewed the Mac - Apple 2.0:
It's a little bit unfair picking on John, as I'm sure that everyone who's ever written about technology has got at least one thing equally badly wrong. But hey, it's fun - and John's made an excellent career out of pulling no punches and hedging no bets in his writing.
Posted at 03:25 PM in Apple | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
You might have gathered from some of my more recent posts that I've switched platform. My main machine is now a Dell laptop, running Ubuntu 8.10.
I've been using Macs since 1986, and have owned one more or less continuously since 1989. Machines that have been through the mill of my day-to-day keyboard bashing include the Mac Plus, LC 475, PowerBook Duo, iBook and MacBook Pro. I've earned a living writing about Macs and attended more Macworld Expos than I can count.
But unless Apple has a change of direction and creates some very different machines, I think that I've probably bought my last one.
Posted at 09:00 PM in Apple, Linux, Macs | Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBack (0)
Posted at 10:59 AM in Apple | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Joe Wilcox is right: Apple used a standard move from the PR playbook to push the really bad stuff down the agenda. In announcing that Apple would no longer be attending Macworld Expo and - almost as an side - that Steve Jobs would not be doing January's keynote speech, was trying to push "Death of Macworld Expo" up the news agenda at the expense of inevitable speculation as to the state of Jobs' health.
I know no more about how well Jobs is than anyone else outside his family and inner-circle of friends and colleagues, but I do know this: the kind of illness and surgery that Jobs had means reduced energy levels for anyone, and for someone as actively involved as Jobs is in his business, that means tough choices have to be made about priorities.
Jobs' keynotes are so brilliant as to appear effortless. I've been lucky enough to see Jobs on stage ten or so times, and at no point do they feel staged. As anyone who's good at presentations will tell you, that degree of casualness takes vast amounts of time in preparation and rehearsal to perfect. In fact, it's worth reading former Apple product manager Mike Evangelist's excellent account of preparing for a Jobs keynote for an idea just how much hard work is involved.
My guess is that each keynote speech takes two or three weeks of high attention from Jobs, with days of writing, editing, honing and actual rehearsal. From my own experience of big, important presentations I know that the energy levels required are huge.
If I was an Apple stockholder, I'd look at it this way: do I want a Steve Jobs who needs to take it a little easier than before spending weeks-worth of energy on a presentation, or on honing and developing the products and marketing strategies which have made the company billions?
If Apple needs to see less of Steve, then that decision is a no-brainer.
Posted at 09:17 AM in Apple | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Jason O'Grady has a good post summing up the theory (first espoused by American Technology Research analyst Shaw Wu) that Apple is "recession proof". In fact, I think there's good reason to think that the opposite it true, but also that the bright points for Apple outweigh the bad ones.
Where the iPhone sits
The first thing to think about is to break down Apple's product lines, because the economy will affect each in different ways. Perhaps surprisingly, I think iPhone is probably the least vulnerable of the product lines. The upfront cost of the iPhone is heavily subsidised by phone companies, and that will make it a tempting upgrade when someone's phone contract runs out. In tough times, a luxury product with a low upfront cost is likely to be quite attractive.
How will the iPod perform?
For iPod, there are good and bad points. People who already own one will probably put off buying a new version, and as the market for music players reaches saturation point the upgrade market will be the most important one. However, the speed of development of technology means that someone replacing what was a top of the range iPod from two years ago can get a much lower cost replacement - and low-cost luxuries do well in downturns. So, while iPod sales will head down, they won't get hammered too hard.
Mac: from market share hero to market share loser?
The big question mark is over the Mac. Over the past couple of years, Mac sales have been nothing less than stellar, with an overall market share increase compared to the rest of the computer industry. The reasons for this have been partly due to an exceptionally well though-out product line, the failure of Windows Vista to impress virtually anyone, and improved mind-share for Apple in general thanks to the iPod and, more recently, iPhone.
But Apple's pricing remains on the high side. That's not to say that they aren't close to the prices of equivalent Windows-running hardware (sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't). If you want to spend £1000 on a laptop, Apple offers good options - and even better ones if you want to spend £1700.
In tough times, though, the number of people prepared to pay that much shrinks, and the number of people prepared only to stretch to, say, £500 increases. Even people who have money are more inclined to be careful with it. And for those people, Apple presently is not an option. Some customers might defer buying anything until they can afford a Mac, but if you have a four year old PC which barely runs Windows, or a child heading off to university, you're going to be buying something very soon.
So the question isn't "will Apple sales be hit by the recession?" - they clearly will - but whether Apple will be hit harder than the rest of the PC industry. The bare-bones analysis of pricing suggests it will, but you also have to take into account the momentum that its increasing market and mind-shares have given it. I'd expect Apple's Mac share growth to continue over the next couple of quarters, but decline after that if the recession continues. At some point, if the recession continues long enough, they will start to decline if Apple doesn't change its product line mix - but that decline could be a year away, and depends on a whole host of macroeconomic factors.
The management factor
The other factor which needs to be taken into account is the incredibly well-managed nature of today's Apple. The company, probably more than any other in Silicon Valley, has exceptional aggressive control over costs - it doesn't waste money. This, plus its supply-line management, will help it ride out the worst of the recession. When the recession is all over, the shareholders should give Tim Cook a big bonus, because as COO he's turned Apple from a management joke into one of the best-run businesses in the world.
The product mix: time for a "value" segment?
Given that the biggest potential weakness seems to be the lack of lower-cost products, should Apple introduce a new "value" section into its product matrix? Some would argue that this would be counterproductive: that part of the allure of the Mac is that it's firmly in the high price/high value segment. There's something to be said for this, and whether sticking with the strategy makes sense depends almost entirely on how long you think the recession will last. Apple could easily ride out six months to a year of slowing sales in the high-price segment, thanks to its vast cash reserves and excellent cost management.
The danger would be that if Apple starts to under-perform the rest of the market, it could lose a lot of the impetus it has gained over the past year or two. There's also the possibility that, if the recession last long enough, consumer confidence will erode to the point where its Mac sales will fall off the metaphorical cliff.
These risks are, undoubtedly, the ones which Jobs and his team have been weighing up for a while. Given the company's cash and income situation, I don't expect any rush to introduce "recession-buster" low cost products. But I'd be very surprised if Apple wasn't working on them, as a hedge against the downturn lasting.
Could Apple create low-cost products? Of course: in fact, it already has done. Both the Mac mini and the iPod demonstrate that, if it wants to, it can produce exceptional, high-value low-cost products. The mini is a bit of an unsung hero in Apple's current product line, and its easy to imagine that it could produce a laptop which fulfill the same purpose in the portable range.
So overall, it's fair to say that Apple isn't recession proof. No company is. But it's not in a disastrous position, and it's incredibly well-managed. This buys it the time to either ride out a shorter recession or readjust its product strategy if the downturn is likely to be a long-term thing. It's revenues and market share aren't going to fall off a cliff any time soon.
Posted at 11:08 AM in Apple | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)
Technorati Tags: Apple, finances, iPhone, iPod, Mac, recession
Posted at 08:21 PM in Apple | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
I bought a new computer. It's not a Mac.
It's a Dell. It runs Linux. It didn't cost me £1400.
And I love it. I'll write some more about why I decided to switch later, but so far I've had it a week, and the only reason I've picked up the Mac again is to get copies of some files which aren't supported by anything other than Mac apps and save them into something sane.
