Jump to content

AAPL - Apple Inc.


indirect

Recommended Posts

IMO one mistake Apple has done in the last 10-15 years is that they did not push Mac OS into enterprise. Of course, this probably would have been anti-Steve thing to do, but IMO there was a time where Mac OS could have displaced Linux in the Linux'y enterprise ecosystem and this in turn could have made Mac OS make bigger inroads into desktop OS market and displace Windows. It could have made Apple more software company.

 

Microsoft is now firing on all cylinders as enterprise/cloud company. Apple owns a huge chunk of mobile and a sliver of desktop, but it would be hard for them to push into desktops/enterprise now. Win/Lin duopoly is now much stronger in enterprise/cloud than it was 10 years ago notwithstanding BYOD and some Mac inroads.

 

Just random musings.

 

This would have taken a completely different strategy to pull off.  Linux machines/servers come in all shapes and sizes.  Many big companies build their own, but even those who don't are constantly upgrading them.  Apple's "buy a beautiful box from us that you can't open or upgrade" philosophy just wouldn't work in the markets where Linux dominates.  To have really taken over those markets they would have to have allowed MacOS be installed on any custom hardware the way Linux can be.  This would have disrupted their entire Mac product line and philosophy.  In the late 90s early 2000s I would build myself a new machine at home every 1.5 - 2 years and install Linux on it.  I know that if I could have installed MacOS at any point I would have switched to that, and a lot of others would have as well I'm sure.  Even for people who don't build their own hardware, it would be cheaper to buy a cheap Windows machine and install MacOS on it than it would be to buy a Mac from Apple, so many Windows users would probably buy the OS without the Mac hardware as well.  Their OS would have dominated, but they would have lost their hardware market completely.  I don't think Apple was willing to become a software company, Jobs was always about  tight integration between software and specific Apple controlled hardware.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

IMO one mistake Apple has done in the last 10-15 years is that they did not push Mac OS into enterprise. Of course, this probably would have been anti-Steve thing to do, but IMO there was a time where Mac OS could have displaced Linux in the Linux'y enterprise ecosystem and this in turn could have made Mac OS make bigger inroads into desktop OS market and displace Windows. It could have made Apple more software company.

 

Microsoft is now firing on all cylinders as enterprise/cloud company. Apple owns a huge chunk of mobile and a sliver of desktop, but it would be hard for them to push into desktops/enterprise now. Win/Lin duopoly is now much stronger in enterprise/cloud than it was 10 years ago notwithstanding BYOD and some Mac inroads.

 

Just random musings.

 

This would have taken a completely different strategy to pull off.  Linux machines/servers come in all shapes and sizes.  Many big companies build their own, but even those who don't are constantly upgrading them.  Apple's "buy a beautiful box from us that you can't open or upgrade" philosophy just wouldn't work in the markets where Linux dominates.  To have really taken over those markets they would have to have allowed MacOS be installed on any custom hardware the way Linux can be.  This would have disrupted their entire Mac product line and philosophy.  In the late 90s early 2000s I would build myself a new machine at home every 1.5 - 2 years and install Linux on it.  I know that if I could have installed MacOS at any point I would have switched to that, and a lot of others would have as well I'm sure.  Even for people who don't build their own hardware, it would be cheaper to buy a cheap Windows machine and install MacOS on it than it would be to buy a Mac from Apple, so many Windows users would probably buy the OS without the Mac hardware as well.  Their OS would have dominated, but they would have lost their hardware market completely.  I don't think Apple was willing to become a software company, Jobs was always about  tight integration between software and specific Apple controlled hardware.

 

Yep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing how successful the App store has been for Apple. To put it in perspective, it generates about the same amount of revenue at the same growth and margin as FB (valued at $360bn).

 

What's really interesting is that the iPhone from a hardware perspective actually pales in comparison to some of the newer samsung phones that have come out recently, yet people still continue to buy them for the OS. At what point does / should Apple pivot to a Microsoft Windows like model where they license iOS to other hardware co.'s, expand the reach of the app store, and take on a greater % of the smartphone market. This would likely commoditize the iPhone, but would increase Apple's higher margin revenue, and potentially allow them to create their own standalone iOS series of apps that come by default on each phone and generate incremental revenue and network effects (similar to microsoft office). Esp. given Apple's seemingly lack of ability to innovate with the iPhone further, now could be an opportune time to do so.

 

Apple has to be kicking themselves slightly over the fact that they generate 0 revenue from a lot of the massive companies that have been formed thanks to the App Store. Yes they help lock in, but at the same time those users can pivot to Android and still get those same apps now that apple helped to popularize and distribute them. Technically Apple is allowed to rip off any single app on the App store and has done so in the past -- what's to keep them from creating their own snapchat and having it come standard on every iOS phone. Just some things to think about here as Apple potentially transitions to more of a software / services company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's really interesting is that the iPhone from a hardware perspective actually pales in comparison to some of the newer samsung phones that have come out recently, yet people still continue to buy them for the OS.

 

They certainly haven't been able to innovate like Samsung on the explosion front, that's for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's really interesting is that the iPhone from a hardware perspective actually pales in comparison to some of the newer samsung phones that have come out recently, yet people still continue to buy them for the OS.

 

They certainly haven't been able to innovate like Samsung on the explosion front, that's for sure.

 

I do find it interesting that Apple has decided to stay out of the incendiary device market.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's really interesting is that the iPhone from a hardware perspective actually pales in comparison to some of the newer samsung phones that have come out recently, yet people still continue to buy them for the OS.

 

They certainly haven't been able to innovate like Samsung on the explosion front, that's for sure.

:-) Thumbs up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's really interesting is that the iPhone from a hardware perspective actually pales in comparison to some of the newer samsung phones that have come out recently, yet people still continue to buy them for the OS.

 

They certainly haven't been able to innovate like Samsung on the explosion front, that's for sure.

:-) Thumbs up!

 

I am an iphone user and shareholder but Apple cannot rest on its laurels forever. Samsung is more diversified than Apple. Samsung is doing just fine.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-05/samsung-profit-beats-estimates-as-chips-shake-off-note-7-woes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The head of Swift is bouncing for Tesla. I think it is probably pretty clear to most people that this is pretty huge and, yet again, not the most positive sign for Apple.

 

Since Apple launched Swift at WWDC 2014, the Swift team has worked closely with our developer community.  When we made Swift open source and launched Swift.org we put a lot of effort into defining a strong community structure.  This structure has enabled Apple and the amazingly vibrant Swift community to work together to evolve Swift into a powerful, mature language powering software used by hundreds of millions of people.

 

I’m happy to announce that Ted Kremenek will be taking over for me as “Project Lead” for the Swift project, managing the administrative and leadership responsibility for Swift.org.  This recognizes the incredible effort he has already been putting into the project, and reflects a decision I’ve made to leave Apple later this month to pursue an opportunity in another space.  This decision wasn't made lightly, and I want you all to know that I’m still completely committed to Swift.  I plan to remain an active member of the Swift Core Team, as well as a contributor to the swift-evolution mailing list.

 

Working with many phenomenal teams at Apple to launch Swift has been a unique life experience.  Apple is a truly amazing place to be able to assemble the skills, imagination, and discipline to pull something like this off.  Swift is in great shape today, and Swift 4 will be a really strong release with Ted as the Project Lead.

 

Note that this isn’t a change to the structure - just to who sits in which role - so we don’t expect it to impact day-to-day operations in the Swift Core Team in any significant way.  Ted and I wanted to let you know what is happening as a part of our commitment to keeping the structure of Swift.org transparent to our community.

 

-Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I highly doubt Apple is going to do an iGlass in the same vein as Glass.

 

I highly doubt they won't.  Even if they are not the first to come to market (as they weren't with smartphones) they will be the company which makes these things fashionable and easy to use.  My prediction is that Google Glass will be limited to tech-geek types and and will be popular in certain circles.  A few years after Apple releases it your kids, your co-workers, (and maybe even your grandmother) will have a pair or three (there isn't any reason why the active circuitry couldn't be put into a module which could be swapped between multiple pairs of cheep frames).

 

I know this is a reply to an old post (c. 2013) and valueInv is no longer here, but there are rumors that Apple Glasses maybe in the works for this year. I still like the name iGlass, but it looks like Apple has abandoned the i<Product> naming style.

 

Is Apple Inc. (AAPL) Developing AR Glasses with Carl Zeiss?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I highly doubt Apple is going to do an iGlass in the same vein as Glass.

 

I highly doubt they won't.  Even if they are not the first to come to market (as they weren't with smartphones) they will be the company which makes these things fashionable and easy to use.  My prediction is that Google Glass will be limited to tech-geek types and and will be popular in certain circles.  A few years after Apple releases it your kids, your co-workers, (and maybe even your grandmother) will have a pair or three (there isn't any reason why the active circuitry couldn't be put into a module which could be swapped between multiple pairs of cheep frames).

 

I know this is a reply to an old post (c. 2013) and valueInv is no longer here, but there are rumors that Apple Glasses maybe in the works for this year. I still like the name iGlass, but it looks like Apple has abandoned the i<Product> naming style.

 

Is Apple Inc. (AAPL) Developing AR Glasses with Carl Zeiss?

 

I wonder if the "unnamed employee" in the Zeiss booth was dressed down when they returned to Germany?

 

Zeiss appears to be a privately owned holding company & the consumer optics sub is private too (any info to the contrary would be appreciated...)

 

Med tech is public & looks interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is a reply to an old post (c. 2013) and valueInv is no longer here, but there are rumors that Apple Glasses maybe in the works for this year. I still like the name iGlass, but it looks like Apple has abandoned the i<Product> naming style.

 

Is Apple Inc. (AAPL) Developing AR Glasses with Carl Zeiss?

 

What does Carl Zeiss bring to the table in such a project?  ???

 

Don't say the glasses as Google Glass has no glasses. And won't be the lens as Apple doesn't need CZ for the camera in iPhone, why now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is a reply to an old post (c. 2013) and valueInv is no longer here, but there are rumors that Apple Glasses maybe in the works for this year. I still like the name iGlass, but it looks like Apple has abandoned the i<Product> naming style.

 

Is Apple Inc. (AAPL) Developing AR Glasses with Carl Zeiss?

 

What does Carl Zeiss bring to the table in such a project?  ???

 

Don't say the glasses as Google Glass has no glasses. And won't be the lens as Apple doesn't need CZ for the camera in iPhone, why now?

 

The following is a Zeiss VR product (AR seems to have wider possibilities but...)

 

http://zeissvrone.tumblr.com

 

-----

 

This seems interesting too:

 

https://www.zeiss.com/simulation-projection-solutions/home.html

 

-----

 

Also this:

 

https://www.zeiss.com/meditec/us/home.html

 

-----

 

I'm obviously long on optimism & short on facts (like nearly everyone trying to guess Apple's future...)

 

Zeiss appears to have a lot of knowledge in visual technology all the way to the biological level (and if Zeiss Meditec's financial reports are any indication; they're fairly successful...)

 

Maybe they can apply their expertise to AR?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is a reply to an old post (c. 2013) and valueInv is no longer here, but there are rumors that Apple Glasses maybe in the works for this year. I still like the name iGlass, but it looks like Apple has abandoned the i<Product> naming style.

 

Is Apple Inc. (AAPL) Developing AR Glasses with Carl Zeiss?

 

What does Carl Zeiss bring to the table in such a project?  ???

 

Don't say the glasses as Google Glass has no glasses. And won't be the lens as Apple doesn't need CZ for the camera in iPhone, why now?

 

The following is a Zeiss VR product (AR seems to have wider possibilities but...)

 

http://zeissvrone.tumblr.com

 

-----

 

This seems interesting too:

 

https://www.zeiss.com/simulation-projection-solutions/home.html

 

-----

 

Also this:

 

https://www.zeiss.com/meditec/us/home.html

 

-----

 

I'm obviously long on optimism & short on facts (like nearly everyone trying to guess Apple's future...)

 

Zeiss appears to have a lot of knowledge in visual technology all the way to the biological level (and if Zeiss Meditec's financial reports are any indication; they're fairly successful...)

 

Maybe they can apply their expertise to AR?

 

CZ's core competence is in optics, manufacturing high-precision lenses. Every single product mentioned in the links above has lenses in them. Can't see what they bring to the table unless Apple wants to use their lenses/glasses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CZ's core competence is in optics, manufacturing high-precision lenses. Every single product mentioned in the links above has lenses in them. Can't see what they bring to the table unless Apple wants to use their lenses/glasses.

 

That's what I would assume.  If Apple wants to do Augmented reality right then good lenses will be a must.  They should have UV coatings, anti-glare coatings, maybe transitions lenses, and the ability to get them made with your prescription as well for people who already wear glasses.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...