Home
About
Apple
Career
Experiences
General
Graphics
Hardware
History
Humor
Interface
Networking
OS
Opinion
Politics
Programming
Quotes
Reviews
Security
Software
Sound
Thought
Web
Cheap International
Airfare Online
Wachovia online banking
Get Free Coupons Online
Finding the perfect
discount hot tub
Payday Loans
Stock Trading Online
Stuffed Animals
Smart Investing Online
|
|
Keynote and Safari
What was said, that wasn't said.
By: David K. Every
|
Kind:
Created:
Size: |
Article
2003-1-15
12 KB |
|
|
 |
 pple just released a few new software packages. One of the most interesting to me was Keynote. Not because of what it is, but because of what it might mean.
Keynote is a PowerPoint-like presentation package for doing various demonstrations, presentations and reports. It has a lot of nice features that make it both simpler and more powerful than PowerPoint. Basically it is a way to empower Aqua and Mac OS X's capabilities. It not only wisely reads and writes PowerPoint file formats, so it allows people that must use and share with "Office" users; but it also is more open and can generate QuickTime and PDF presentations. So people can create presentations for any platform.
Now many will think, "great, just what the world needs, another presentation package". And they will have a significant point. It will be a little nicer than PowerPoint, but PowerPoint was basically meeting the needs of most people. However, look at the benefits, one is that Apple raised the bar on features and simplicity; Microsoft must either react to that and make a better product, or concede the market. And Microsoft never concedes. This is good for the industry, and demonstrates why we need competition. But this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Apple also released Safari; their web browser. Again, it is nicer, simpler and faster than Explorer. Again, it uses the power of the Aqua interface, and better interface to make a better to use product. It is also more open and plays better with others, Again it raises the bar, on products on the Mac platform, and the industry in general. Innovate or be replaced with something better. Good message. And again, people will say "great, just what the world needs, another web browser" - but they do need competition; whether they realize it or not.
            
Now not only are these positioning products, and they raise the bar. Microsoft had little or no motivation to really waste a lot of time tuning Explorer for the Mac. Who cares if it is slower? They were the only game in town. In fact, there was a negative incentive to tune the Mac version; many PC magazines were benchmarking Windows Internet Explorer to Mac version and concluding that Windows and PC's were better and faster. Apple releasing a product that is easier, lighter, and much faster demonstrates that the problems aren't with the Mac, but with Microsoft. Apple couldn't convince Microsoft to do what they wanted them to do directly, "Please Microsoft, make Explorer work better on the Mac". Begging doesn't' have nearly the impact of the message; "look what someone who is focused on making the best browser can do on the Mac". That isn't groveling to get someone else to do what you want them to do, that's putting your money where your mouth is. The same goes for Keynote and PowerPoint. The message is clear; beat us or we'll beat you.
One thing these products are doing is allowing Apple to control their own destiny. Microsoft right now controls the office/productivity software, the Macs browser, and many other things. Microsoft has demonstrated too many times in the past that they are willing to cripple Mac versions of products, or abuse that power to manipulate Apple and the market. That's not a good place to be as a company; beholden to another company for their gratis and table-scraps.
Lately, Microsoft has been very good at making reasonable products, and not abusing their power, too much. And it is good that Apple and Microsoft have made nice. But that is no guarantee that Microsoft has changed their ways completely, or that the ugly side of Microsoft won't rear it's head again. Apple needs products in each category, so that while Microsoft has influence over Mac users, they don't have complete control. So these products are critical to Apple in that they start giving Apple more control over the Macs future, and not cede that control entirely to Microsoft.
I wouldn't want to see the opposite, and Apple having complete control, and there not being Microsoft Apps on the platform either; competition is good, and they keep each other honest. So I have no delusions that Apple would be significantly better if they were in Microsoft's shoes. But I'd rather see two bullies fighting with each other, than just one super-bully lording over everyone else.
   
If we extrapolate where Apple is going, and take this to the next level, we can guess what some of the next products could/should be. Can you say Office? Word and Excel?
If I was running Apple, I would be taking ClarisWorks / AppleWorks, and reworking it to be some productivity iApps like Keynote and Safari are to their categories. Now actually, the new Apple has shown a bit of a bias against old Apple (and Claris), so more likely, there is a separate team that are using something like the Open-Office source code, or starting from scratch, to create a new more powerful word processor and spreadsheet that can fill in the holes in office productivity for OS X. Either way, we get the same result; Apple trying to have products in all these categories to control their own destiny and raise the bar for Microsoft and others. This is a good thing for Apple and the industry in general. Competition is good.
Of course, if I was Apple I wouldn't have thrown out FileMaker; one of the best productivity databases. I'd be doing the same thing with it, and getting ready to position that as the Microsoft Access Killer as well. Though the goal isn't really to kill; just to be better than and compete. But I get the feeling that the new Apple's hubris will result in them remaking something that they already have, or deem it as unneeded, when it could have helped them. I'm left with the feeling that the New Apple replaced the old Apple's hubris with a new hubris of their own; which ignores that a lot of the problem was the hubris itself, and not whose hubris. But even with this hubris, they just waste a little money and time, and are still kicking out good apps. And sometimes starting over gives you a purer design and more ability to innovate; so it isn't all bad.
Still, the goal seems to be control over their own destiny, and the way to do that is have many products in many categories; so that Microsoft can't do their usual game of using one product or segment to drive you out of another.
 
I'm not a rumors monger. If I knew anything, and was NDA'd on it, I wouldn't talk about it. But I'm not NDA'd on anything, and new Apple doesn't believe in communicating with developers, IT people or advocates, so I'm much more free to speculate.
These solutions not only position Apple to have control over their platform, they also give them control in general and over the PC platform.
Imagine Apple were to release OS X for x86 / PC's? Microsoft would throw a fit, and not only not develop Office for OSX-PC, but probably yank office or start crippling it on the Mac version of OS X. That's a very bad place for Apple to be.
OSX-PC can't survive if it doesn't have critical mass; the productivity/office tools, the Internet tools, development tools, and some other killer apps. I think BeOS and OS/2 demonstrated the pitfalls of trying to crack that nut. People need to run office Apps, and as important, they need to run Internet Apps like mail, contact management and Browsers. Apple almost has all that in place. Apple now has their own development tools; so people can't buy that, and strangle or cripple development. They only need a few killer apps, and they're ready to go.
Apple probably feels that their "killer" app is the new iLife Applications; iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, and iDVD. That's a new segment and new productivity suite that Microsoft doesn't control, which means big inroads for Apple, not only on the Mac platform, but after a name was made, it could mean inroads into the PC platform as well.
There are also a few vertical applications, like serving solutions, and Apple almost single-handedly has control over their own destiny, and has generated their own critical mass. That means that when they go into the PC platform, and start selling OSX-PC, they bring with it Applications that can allow them to transparently work and interact with all the other PC users. Viola; they start off more viable than BeOS or even OS/2 ever was.
If I was Apple, there'd be a few more things I'd try to do. I'd probably secretly create (or buy) Connectix / VirtualPC, or get the Win32 layers from IBM or create my own; so that I could run Windows Apps on this platform. Then you not only have a best of breed solution, but make transitions for PC users much easier. And it wouldn't be bad to have that on the PowerPC either. OS/2, Lindows, and a few others have tried this unsuccessfully, but they didn't succeed (much) because they didn't have their own ducks in a row, and didn't have the compelling native apps to justify their existence; Apple is closer.
Apple still has some issues with their hardware before they should make the jump. They're moving more towards laptops; where the PowerPC is superior to x86, so that OSX-86 won't pirate their own sales too much. But Apple is getting closer to ready to go there too. And Apple will likely have IBM helping them to make much better processors and maybe systems to help shore up that market as well.
I'd probably say this move should be in 6 months to a year. One more major maturing revision of OS X, along with a few more Apps and polish. Apple needs some hardware boosts, a few critical partners, and they'll be ready to shock the market. I would do a massive tie in if I was them, and release everything in one "uber" package, with OS X, .Mac and its features, their office packages, and their new media packages and developer tools, all for one low price, and one low yearly licensing fee for support and upgrades. That would cut Microsoft off at the knees; and since this is all new revenue, probably wouldn't hurt Apple's hardware sales too much. More than that, because of the coolness of the Apple laptops and other brands, they would probably get more hardware converts after a year or three, as many PC users discovered and converted to OS X. Apple probably won't be that aggressive, thus they might flounder a bit more, but I still think they are preparing for the opportunity to push, whether they take it or not.
I think Apple should go the licensing path with OSX-PC, and just become an OS and software company like Microsoft is, on the PC side of the fence. PC's are too commoditized for Apple to compete well there; so don't fight for those scraps. All the PC makers are looking for some alternatives to get out from under the thumb; so this is a good time to make friends and let them fight the fight for you.
The thing UNIX has needed for about 20 years, is a better user interface, a way to deliver high quality binaries application to people (not source code that they have to compile themselves), and a lot of good commercial level apps for users (not just vertical apps for sys-admins and programmers). OS X offers all those things - and could be serious competition for all the other PC UNIX variants, if it also played on the PC (and was cheap enough).
Apple needs to make their own freedom, and create many future directions they can go. Even if they don't follow those choices, just having them as options gives them leverage and bargaining power. Microsoft will know that if they screw with Apple, then Apple can screw with them. Either way, this competition would be great for the industry, and for all consumers. Choice is good. Competition is good. Let's root for more choice, and hope Apple pulls this off.
The point of all this, is not that this is how Apple will go, it is a way Apple could go. And they can only go this way if they have enough control of enough software packages, to take on Microsoft head-on. So that's what this seems to be about; options and opportunities. There are many paths in the future; and you can succeed following many of them. But Apple is giving themselves options to choose more paths, and have more control over whatever path they take. And that's what this may all be about; it isn't about the race that's already been run. This is about training and preparing for the race that is about to be run.
 Format for Printing  Mail
|
|
|
|
