Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.ipad > #28038 > unrolled thread

Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out?

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.ipad

Contents

  Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-05 09:21 -0700
    Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-10-05 15:46 -0400
      Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-06 09:35 +1300
        Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-05 16:40 -0400
      Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-06 08:02 +1100
        Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> - 2013-10-05 20:45 -0400
          Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-10-05 23:04 -0400
          Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-06 14:05 +1100
    Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-06 08:04 +1100
      Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-10-05 18:48 -0400
        Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-06 10:18 +1100
          Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> - 2013-10-05 23:12 -0400
            Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-06 17:16 +1300
              Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-06 17:09 +1100
              Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-10-06 02:10 -0400
                Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-06 19:51 +1300
                Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-06 19:35 +1100
                Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-06 08:11 -0700
            Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-06 17:00 +1100
              Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-06 09:30 -0700
                Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-07 04:00 +1100
                  Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-06 15:32 -0700
                    Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-07 10:05 +1100
                      Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-10-06 19:01 -0500
                        Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-07 12:00 +1100
                    Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-10-06 18:48 -0500
                      Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Neil Ellwood <cral.elllwood2@btopenworld.com> - 2013-10-08 06:40 -0500
                        Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-09 09:05 +1300
                    Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> - 2013-10-06 21:00 -0400
                      Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-06 19:55 -0700
                        Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> - 2013-10-07 08:28 -0400
              Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> - 2013-10-06 14:26 -0400
                Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-07 07:57 +1100
            Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-10-06 02:47 -0400
    Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> - 2013-10-06 12:07 +0000
      Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-06 08:19 -0700
    Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Jon <jon@no-email.org> - 2013-10-06 17:34 +0100
      Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-07 04:05 +1100
      Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Prancer <prancer@prancer.commatose> - 2013-10-06 10:22 -0700
      Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-07 09:10 +1300

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#28038 — Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out?

His answer might surprise you.

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/05/tim_cook_and_apple_two_years_after_
steve_jobs_death/>

-- 
All usenet users are quirky, but some are more quirky than others.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#28039

On 13-10-05 12:21, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/05/tim_cook_and_apple_two_years_after_
> steve_jobs_death/

It should be noted that at either the June or September keynote, Cook
mentioned the great collaboration within the teams. Not so subtle hint
that things had changed since the corporate re-org.

The article does make one mistake though. When comparing gaps between
the totally new products, he mentions it has only been 2 years since
death or Mr Jobs.

But his death was not a new product. The last new product was the iPad
(and it can be argued that the last totally new product is really the
iPhone since the iPad is just a bigger iPhone without voice support).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28040

In article <52506c9e$0$10761$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 13-10-05 12:21, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/05/tim_cook_and_apple_two_years_after_
> > steve_jobs_death/
> 
> It should be noted that at either the June or September keynote, Cook
> mentioned the great collaboration within the teams. Not so subtle hint
> that things had changed since the corporate re-org.
> 
> The article does make one mistake though. When comparing gaps between
> the totally new products, he mentions it has only been 2 years since
> death or Mr Jobs.
> 
> But his death was not a new product. The last new product was the iPad
> (and it can be argued that the last totally new product is really the
> iPhone since the iPad is just a bigger iPhone without voice support).

If you really want to get silly, it could be argued that the iPhone /
iPad is really just a Newton running Mac OS X, and since OS X was
bought from NExT, the "last new product" from Apple was actually the
Newton.   ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28041

In article <061020130935042382%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> If you really want to get silly, it could be argued that the iPhone /
> iPad is really just a Newton running Mac OS X, and since OS X was
> bought from NExT, the "last new product" from Apple was actually the
> Newton.   ;-)

no, it can't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28042

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
> Michelle Steiner wrote

>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/05/tim_cook_and_apple_two_years_after_steve_jobs_death/

> It should be noted that at either the June or September keynote,
> Cook mentioned the great collaboration within the teams. Not
> so subtle hint that things had changed since the corporate re-org.

> The article does make one mistake though. When comparing
> gaps between the totally new products, he mentions it has
> only been 2 years since death or Mr Jobs.

> But his death was not a new product.

Yes, but it is the time during which Cook was driving the bus.

> The last new product was the iPad

Yes.

> (and it can be argued that the last totally new product is really the
> iPhone since the iPad is just a bigger iPhone without voice support).

Nope, tablets are just as different to phones as say the iphone is to the
ipod touch. You can claim that the iphone is just an ipod touch with voice
support and that would be accurate. It is very different for that reason 
tho.

Although you can certainly claim that the ipod touch is just the iphone
with some capability missing. Its much close to that than the ipad is. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28046

In article <bbbd3aFir1oU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
>
> > (and it can be argued that the last totally new product is really the
> > iPhone since the iPad is just a bigger iPhone without voice support).
> 
> Nope, tablets are just as different to phones as say the iphone is to the
> ipod touch. You can claim that the iphone is just an ipod touch with voice
> support and that would be accurate. It is very different for that reason 
> tho.
> 
> Although you can certainly claim that the ipod touch is just the iphone
> with some capability missing. Its much close to that than the ipad is. 
> 
The Touch came after the iPhone, and is indeed just the iPhone with the
phone part removed. I consider them the same product, where as the iPad
is different.

-- 
Chris Mack       "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan'             - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28047

On 13-10-05 20:45, Invid Fan wrote:

> The Touch came after the iPhone, and is indeed just the iPhone with the
> phone part removed. I consider them the same product, where as the iPad
> is different.

I consider the iPod Touch far closer to iPad than to iPhone.

However, the iPad does have the option of cellular support (with voice
disabled) which the iPod Touch doesn't have.

The main difference is that it uses apps tailored for iphone instead of
those tailpred for larger screens of iPad.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28048

Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> wrote
> Rod Speed<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote

>>> (and it can be argued that the last totally new product is really the
>>> iPhone since the iPad is just a bigger iPhone without voice support).

>> Nope, tablets are just as different to phones as say the iphone is to the
>> ipod touch. You can claim that the iphone is just an ipod touch with 
>> voice
>> support and that would be accurate. It is very different for that reason 
>> tho.

>> Although you can certainly claim that the ipod touch is just the iphone
>> with some capability missing. Its much close to that than the ipad is.

> The Touch came after the iPhone, and is indeed
> just the iPhone with the phone part removed.

Yes, but clearly not a TOTALLY NEW PRODUCT.

> I consider them the same product, where as the iPad is different.

Only in the sense that the screen is different.
Still not anything like a TOTALLY NEW PRODUCT.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28043

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote

> His answer might surprise you.

Nope.

> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/05/tim_cook_and_apple_two_years_after_steve_jobs_death/>

You can certainly make a case that Apple needs someone like
Cook driving the entire bus rather than someone like Jobs who
did a relatively lousy job of organising the manufacturing side. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28044

The vertiginous rise to $700 was likely due to hopes by speculators of
the next-best-iToy-since-sliced-bread  and they were fueling this by
predicting AAPL would rise above $1000 within weeks, and predicting
Apple's irish leprechauns would have problems handling all that cash
flowing into the pot-of-gold.

The iPhone 5 was used as a report card for Tim Cook as it was "his"
first iPhone. People had expected a revolution, both because of the
speculators, and because after the 4s, people were expecting a radical
change as had happened between 3Gs and 4.

Wall Street Casino Analysts were quick to declare doom, short the stock
and then issue a constant stream of bad news and disapointements
(remember how Apple broke sales records for the first weekend of 5, yet
these analysts declared it a disapointement and predicted Apple's doom)

As the speculators left AAPL, they shorted the stock for one last quick
buck and then continued to issue bad predictions to drive AAPL down.
This made Tim Cook look bad because it happened under his tenure. But
was it really his fault ?

Looking back, where Apple erred is in the summer before the 5 came out.
It should have moderated expectations to cool down the wild speculators.
But doing so at the same time Jobs was leaving and handing over to Cook
would have been seen as admission that the era of success at Apple was
over with departure of Jobs.


What is significant about the change from Jobs to Cook is the
transformation of Apple Inc. into a more mature company with less cowboy
"gut feeling" leadership. That this happened at the same time as the
smartphone also became mature is more of a bad timing/coincidence than
cause/effect, but it may turn out to be good in the long term because
under Cook, Apple is likely better managed and you need that when your
products enter a maturing phase.

I think Michelle or someone else did bring a good argument about delay
between major new products.  While under Cook, Apple appears better
managed with fewer conflucts etc, Cook has yet to demostrate Apple's
continued ability to come ouit with something totatlly new. And thios is
where timing becomes importrant. It may be too soon to judge him on
that, but give a year or two, and then it becomes fair game to judge him
on ability to innovate.

The one HUGE difference I see between Jobs and Cook is that Jobs might
have been able to convince Hollywood to play ball with Apple's TV
ambitions, whereas Cook might not.

Building a 60" iphone you hang on a wall is easy. Everyone does it, and
guess what, I am not sure anyone is actually making money selling large
TVs. Sharp almost went belly up, Sony not making money, and I think LG
and Samsung have gotten together to reduce costs.

If Apple is to make any money on TV, it will be because it will have
negotiated access to content. And that requires a Reality Distortion
Field to convince legacy managers in Hollywood to take the leap of
faith, abandon legacy TV distribution and jump in bed with Apple. Not
sure anyone within Apple has what it takes to do that.

My guess is that Apple realised this isn't close and is working on
something else. (I had speculated on the iBriefs underwear, but it could
also be the iDishwasher. the iToaster etc.

Perhsonally, I think the iStereo is where Apple should go. Besically a
glorified Apple TV with high quality surround amplifier and plenty of
plugs to support all the AV equipment one has as well as perhaps the
iTuner inside to listen to FM and AM radio.  User interface could be on
a front panel or any iDevice via W-Fi.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28045

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote 

> The vertiginous rise to $700 was likely due to hopes by speculators of
> the next-best-iToy-since-sliced-bread  and they were fueling this by
> predicting AAPL would rise above $1000 within weeks, and predicting
> Apple's irish leprechauns would have problems handling all that cash
> flowing into the pot-of-gold.
 
> The iPhone 5 was used as a report card for Tim Cook as it was "his"
> first iPhone. People had expected a revolution, both because of the
> speculators, and because after the 4s, people were expecting a 
> radical change as had happened between 3Gs and 4.

Wasn't going to happen, and wouldn't have even if Jobs had not died. 
 
> Wall Street Casino Analysts were quick to declare doom, short the stock
> and then issue a constant stream of bad news and disapointements
> (remember how Apple broke sales records for the first weekend of 5, yet
> these analysts declared it a disapointement and predicted Apple's doom)
 
> As the speculators left AAPL, they shorted the stock for one last quick
> buck and then continued to issue bad predictions to drive AAPL down.
> This made Tim Cook look bad because it happened under his tenure. 
> But was it really his fault ?
 
> Looking back, where Apple erred is in the summer before the 5 came out.
> It should have moderated expectations to cool down the wild speculators.
> But doing so at the same time Jobs was leaving and handing over to Cook
> would have been seen as admission that the era of success at Apple was
> over with departure of Jobs.

> What is significant about the change from Jobs to Cook is the
> transformation of Apple Inc. into a more mature company with less cowboy
> "gut feeling" leadership. That this happened at the same time as the
> smartphone also became mature is more of a bad timing/coincidence than
> cause/effect, but it may turn out to be good in the long term because
> under Cook, Apple is likely better managed and you need that when your
> products enter a maturing phase.

But it remains to be seen what has happened as far as that other
crucial thing for Apple, both recruiting enough of those who do
produce the radical new products and allowing them to get Apple
to do them successfully. Its far from clear how important Job's 
approach to dealing with people like that mattered yet. 
 
> I think Michelle or someone else did bring a good argument about 
> delay between major new products.  While under Cook, Apple appears 
> better managed with fewer conflucts etc, Cook has yet to demostrate 
> Apple's continued ability to come ouit with something totatlly new. 

Because there isnt anything totally new that even Jobs could manage. 

It was easy to do that with the iphone because that is clearly a very
important consumer product that Apple was not involved with, and
that's true a lesser extent with the ipad and even the ipod. 

BUT there isnt anything else left like that now even if the sun did
shine out of Cook's arse. 

> And thios is where timing becomes importrant. It may be too 
> soon to judge him on that, but give a year or two, and then it 
> becomes fair game to judge him on ability to innovate.

No, because like I said, there is no revolutionary new product
area that is even possible for Apple now. 

The watch just doesn't cut it because of its radical limitations on size 
alone unless someone can work out how to make to put images into
your head etc. And even if they could, you still have a problem with
getting what the user wants to tell the system to do into the watch too. 

And even if both those problems are fixed, its still better 
as a phone with a radically better user interface because 
it's a lot less vulnerable in your pocket than on your wrist. 

And even allowing you to control your TV with the 
iphone or ipod or ipad isnt a radically new product. 
 
> The one HUGE difference I see between Jobs and Cook is 
> that Jobs might have been able to convince Hollywood to 
> play ball with Apple's TV ambitions, whereas Cook might not.

True. 
 
> Building a 60" iphone you hang on a wall is easy. 
> Everyone does it, and guess what, I am not sure 
> anyone is actually making money selling large TVs. 

Bet Samsung does. 

> Sharp almost went belly up, Sony not making money, and I 
> think LG and Samsung have gotten together to reduce costs.

Doesn't mean they arent making money tho. 
 
> If Apple is to make any money on TV, it will be because it will have
> negotiated access to content. And that requires a Reality Distortion
> Field to convince legacy managers in Hollywood to take the leap of
> faith, abandon legacy TV distribution and jump in bed with Apple. 
> Not sure anyone within Apple has what it takes to do that.

Not convinced that anyone anywhere does either. 
 
> My guess is that Apple realised this isn't 
> close and is working on something else. 

Or realises that it's a mature market now and isnt 
even trying to find a radical new product anymore. 

> (I had speculated on the iBriefs underwear, but 
> it could also be the iDishwasher. the iToaster etc.

Cant see it myself. None of those would benefit from
a radically new approach to the UI and that's all the
iphone ever was. 
 
> Perhsonally, I think the iStereo is where Apple should go. 

I don't. That's all available now from lots of people just
like it is with TVs. Nothing Apple can do is that radical now. 

> Besically a glorified Apple TV with high quality surround amplifier 
> and plenty of plugs to support all the AV equipment one has as 
> well as perhaps the iTuner inside to listen to FM and AM radio.  

Those are all buyable now. 

> User interface could be on a front panel or any iDevice via W-Fi.

All buyable right now.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28049

In article <bbbl3lFke18U1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> Or realises that it's a mature market now and isnt 
> even trying to find a radical new product anymore. 
> 
Oh, I'm sure they're working on SOMETHING, some product that might not
be ready for another decade. You say "mature market" as if there is
only one market Apple is dealing with. Somewhere in Apple, a team is
coming up with new products others haven't tried yet. Somewhere else in
Apple, they're looking at products that have flopped in the past and
seeing if they can finally get them good enough to be a success. They
have the money, and tradition, to take the long view of development. To
not, for example, release an unready Newton, but instead keep products
in development until they actually are consumer ready.

-- 
Chris Mack       "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan'             - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28050

In article <051020132312255407%invid@loclanet.com>, Invid Fan
<invid@loclanet.com> wrote:

> In article <bbbl3lFke18U1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Or realises that it's a mature market now and isnt 
> > even trying to find a radical new product anymore. 
> > 
> Oh, I'm sure they're working on SOMETHING, some product that might not
> be ready for another decade. You say "mature market" as if there is
> only one market Apple is dealing with. Somewhere in Apple, a team is
> coming up with new products others haven't tried yet. Somewhere else in
> Apple, they're looking at products that have flopped in the past and
> seeing if they can finally get them good enough to be a success. They
> have the money, and tradition, to take the long view of development. To
> not, for example, release an unready Newton, but instead keep products
> in development until they actually are consumer ready.

iWatch, iTV, ... or maybe iGlasses.  ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28052

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote 
> Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>> Or realises that it's a mature market now and isnt 
>>> even trying to find a radical new product anymore. 

>> Oh, I'm sure they're working on SOMETHING, some product that might 
>> not be ready for another decade. You say "mature market" as if there is
>> only one market Apple is dealing with. Somewhere in Apple, a team is
>> coming up with new products others haven't tried yet. Somewhere else 
>> in Apple, they're looking at products that have flopped in the past and
>> seeing if they can finally get them good enough to be a success. They
>> have the money, and tradition, to take the long view of development. 
>> To not, for example, release an unready Newton, but instead keep 
>> products in development until they actually are consumer ready.
 
> iWatch, iTV, ... or maybe iGlasses.  ;-)

None of those are anything like that even if Apple 
does eventually have a product with one of those. 

They'd actually be much close to the iphone and ipod and ipad. 

I can't see an iWatch being that unless they can work out 
how to use it as the only sensor for all the biometrics that 
matter or the most important ones anyway. Because for
anything else the format is just too limited. 

I cant see iTV being any better than Samsung TV unless
Apple can work out how to get the industry to let them
flog content like they do with the iTunes store etc and
that doesn't look that likely IMO. 

iGlasses would certainly be a very useful and marketable
product if they can make it work, particularly for those
who already wear prescription glasses. But it remains
to be seen if anyone can work out how to allow the
user to specify what they want done with that format. 

I guess some combination of blinking and where you
are looking might be viable, but that's been researched
for a hell of a long time now for the profoundly disabled
and nothing much has shown up there yet, and so its 
a tad unlikely that Apple will leave the rest of the world
for dead there now.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28053

On 13-10-06 00:16, Your Name wrote:

> iWatch, iTV, ... or maybe iGlasses.  ;-)

Nobody has mentioned iBelt. Think about it. Good location to put in
stuff, and if the belt is well designed, you can hang your phone on it too.

(The buckle would of course have the lighted Apple logo on it)

Of course, Apple would have to work hard to make belts "cool" to wear
for the young generation who wears pants halfway down to the knees.


Another possibility:

iWallet.  A real wallet, but with battery and electronics in it.  So
your wallet also has an iPhone in it as well as your credit cards, ID
and actual money.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28055

In article <5250fec5$0$59839$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 13-10-06 00:16, Your Name wrote:
> 
> > iWatch, iTV, ... or maybe iGlasses.  ;-)
> 
> Nobody has mentioned iBelt. Think about it. Good location to put in
> stuff, and if the belt is well designed, you can hang your phone on it too.
> 
> (The buckle would of course have the lighted Apple logo on it)
> 
> Of course, Apple would have to work hard to make belts "cool" to wear
> for the young generation who wears pants halfway down to the knees.

Been there, done that ...

<http://www.wechselwild.com/sites/default/files/styles/detailseite/publi
c/product-images/motif_with_baer_black/142/14281--ibelt2_0.jpg>

and

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3MCoQwTLKU>

:-)



> Another possibility:
> 
> iWallet.  A real wallet, but with battery and electronics in it.  So
> your wallet also has an iPhone in it as well as your credit cards, ID
> and actual money.

Been there, done that ...

<http://www.iwalletusa.com/>

See, nothing's new any more.  ;-)



Maybe the iCar is next. Steve Jobs is said to have been interested in
making a car.

These ones aren't too bad (if too Audi-like for the first one) ...
<http://dl.maclife.com/1126_icar_profile_credit_1200.jpg>
<http://cdn.cultofmac.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/icar.jpg>

and this one is just awful ...
<http://realitypod.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Apple-iMove-Concept-St
udy-7-jpg_051815.jpg>

but this one is probably the winner (as long as it's not raining) ...
<http://s3images.coroflot.com/user_files/individual_files/original_32453
5_qyti96fAgvzxLAo1n8JayH5rk.jpg>

;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28056

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote 
> Your Name wrote

>> iWatch, iTV, ... or maybe iGlasses.  ;-)
 
> Nobody has mentioned iBelt. 

Because it ain't gunna fly for the average consumer. 

> Think about it. 

No thanks, that just makes my head hurt. 

> Good location to put in stuff, and if the belt is well 
> designed, you can hang your phone on it too.

Most of us have stopped doing that now. 
 
> (The buckle would of course have the lighted Apple logo on it)

How 60s...
 
> Of course, Apple would have to work hard to make belts "cool" to wear
> for the young generation who wears pants halfway down to the knees.

Yeah, that is a bit of a problem. 

> Another possibility:
 
> iWallet.  A real wallet, but with battery and electronics in it.  
> So your wallet also has an iPhone in it as well as your credit 
> cards, ID and actual money.

Makes a lot more sense to have the iphone do all that stuff instead.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28058

In article <5250fec5$0$59839$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > iWatch, iTV, ... or maybe iGlasses.  ;-)
> 
> Nobody has mentioned iBelt. Think about it. Good location to put in 
> stuff, and if the belt is well designed, you can hang your phone on it 
> too.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw2nkoGLhrE>

-- 
All usenet users are quirky, but some are more quirky than others.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28051

Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>> Or realises that it's a mature market now and isnt
>> even trying to find a radical new product anymore.

> Oh, I'm sure they're working on SOMETHING,

Sure, but not a radical new product. They have never had
one of those since the original computer and then the Mac.

Everything since then has just been doing much better what
is already a buyable product and very late with the iphone too.

> some product that might not be ready for another decade.

I don't think that is at all likely. They have never done that before.

Even the original computer wasn't that either.

> You say "mature market" as if there is
> only one market Apple is dealing with.

No, I was talking about all the markets that Apple is involved in and
others that are likely markets that Apple might be interested in.

> Somewhere in Apple, a team is coming up
> with new products others haven't tried yet.

I don't believe that given that they never have done anything like that.

> Somewhere else in Apple, they're looking at products that have flopped in
> the past and seeing if they can finally get them good enough to be a 
> success.

Sure, but there isnt any real evidence that Apple
has ever come up with a viable product that way.

Even Siri isn't anything like that.

The original Mac GUI wasn't either.

> They have the money, and tradition, to take the long view of development.

Sure, but that hasn't produced anything radically new.

> To not, for example, release an unready Newton, but instead keep
> products in development until they actually are consumer ready.

They didn't even do that with the ipod or iphone or ipad or Mac. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28060

In article <bbcclsFol1dU1@mid.individual.net>,
 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> 
> >> Or realises that it's a mature market now and isnt
> >> even trying to find a radical new product anymore.
> 
> > Oh, I'm sure they're working on SOMETHING,
> 
> Sure, but not a radical new product.

Like you know.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.ipad

csiph-web