Published on March 24, 2005 By geekinthecity In
While Apple Computer's market share has been minuscule their role in the technology industry is not. It was Apple who brought computing power from the mainframe systems to the desktop. It was two guys named Steve who saw that there was a need and a desire for computers in homes, schools and small businesses. Computers were no longer limited to Governments, large corporations, and the military. Although the established manufacturers of mainframe systems such as IBM, Hewlett Packard, and Digital Equipment Corporation made huge shifts in the ways they did business to focus on desktop computers it wouldn't have happened the way it did if it wasn't for Apple.

Once desktop computers became mainstream due mostly to IBM and the thousands of startup companies producing clones of IBM's PC's, Apple set about making computers easy enough to use and bought forth the Macintosh. Even though the Macintosh was the first mass marketed graphical user interface, it was Microsoft who copied the idea and sold millions of copies of Windows that dominated desktop computers.

Towards the mid 1990's Apple brought forth another device that may not have dominated the market but definitely showed the way. In 1994 Apple introduced the Newton PDA. Even though the Newton could only find a small core of users the Newton PDA paved the way for other PDA's such as Palm that did go on to reach mass acceptance.

As the 1990's drew to an end, it was Apple computer who changed what computers looked like. Before Apple released the iMac, computers were almost always beige boxes that didn't offer much in the area of design. Now more than seven years after the original iMac hit the market even the most conservatively designed PC's are definitely not beige boxes.

After the iMac came Apple's first successful entry into consumer electronics, the iPod digital music player. At the time that the iPod was introduced there were portable MP3 players available on the market for several years but since then the iPod has become the digital music player that every other digital music player tries to emulate. Due mostly to Apple's own iTunes online music store. The songs purchased from iTunes will only play on the iPod which will not play songs purchased from other online music services.

While Apple Computer has really only reached a small niche of customers and has never even come close to market domination Apple computer has always been the trendsetter in the technology industry. Technology always seems to be about the 'The Next Big Thing' and many people look to Apple for some clue into what that next big thing is. It would be logical for Apple to continue down the path from computing into consumer electronics. It is rumored that the company that revolutionized how people record TV shows, TiVo is a possible merger target and that Apple would be a perfect suitor. A large screen G5 powered Mac with built in TiVo recorder with a CableCard slot would most certainly be the most formidable competition to PC's running Windows XP Media Center edition.

The Video on Demand offerings from cable companies are growing steadily, most VOD only offers the same movies that currently appear on Pay Per View. Apple has most certainly been successful with their iTunes Music Store. The next step in the path is video programming for sale available at any time to anyone with a broadband connection. An Apple online video store could start with Movies and recently aired TV shows and then offer everything right down to smallest independant feature and short films and even educational and instructional videos. One has to admit there's a lot of potential here.

As Apple as come up with new technological concepts which others have emulated with various degrees of success they have always played their hand close to their chest. It's always fun to speculate what Apple comes up with and amazing what they come up with.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Mar 24, 2005
This being said, I wonder why so many people think Apple sucks. Maybe because it takes more than just good ideas to make something WORK? I dunno, I think Apple has a lot of good points. But for some reason for the last decade or so they just CAN'T get it done (marketwise).
on Mar 24, 2005
Apple has allready take a great powerhouse (FreeBSD) and put it under the hood of OS X.
So what is next? Who knows?
on Sep 21, 2005
I think price holds them back time and time again. The Mini IMO was an attempt on one level to address the issue but it just wasn't enough. I feel that Apple could do so much better bringing out a fast machine with great sound and graphics but going easy on other components, basically making a machine that most young PC system builders try to make every day. A budget gaming box but with the added ability to slot in the whole range of ipods, something built into the PC case itself to allow that, rather than messing with cables or external docks.

Make a cool looking machine that appeals to the ipod crowd and the gaming crowd and keep the price low, even losing money on it to start to gain some real market share, I think that would be a great way to boost mac sales. There are a lot of people who wont buy a computer that would buy a console and ipod. Huge market for that and Apple have the street credibility now to do something like this and lets be honest, they are in dire need of gaining better support for the latest games.

So why not build a machine that does just this, what better way to assure game developers that Apple is serious about their market. I'm not a very big gamer at all but that would be my next big thing If I was Apple
on Sep 21, 2005
I wonder why so many people think Apple sucks.


I wonder that too. The problem is, it's impossible to find out.

If you ask these people, you'll usually find out that they have never actually used a Mac, or at least not in the last ten years.

Many also believe in urban legends like Macintoshs don't have network adapters (I have seen Windows PCs sold now that don't) or Macintoshs are completely closed (whatever that means).

I think what triggers the "sucks" moment is that many new Mac users find themselves in an environment where they cannot easily copy games and applications any more and will have to buy them.
on Sep 21, 2005
I feel that Apple could do so much better bringing out a fast machine with great sound and graphics but going easy on other components, basically making a machine that most young PC system builders try to make every day.


Hm... PC system builders already make them every day. So that product already exists and there are established vendors who can beat Apple on price. So what would Apple gain?

A budget gaming box


A gaming box without games? Who would buy a budget gaming box with an OS that doesn't run most games?
on Sep 21, 2005

But will games become more available on Mac's after they move to intel.  I have read some articles suggesting that might be the case.

on Sep 21, 2005
"Hm... PC system builders already make them every day. So that product already exists and there are established vendors who can beat Apple on price. So what would Apple gain?"

That they do and I really only made that point to illustrate how popular that is, people will jump through hoops to learn how to build their own pc's on a budget but many more will never get that far. An Apple computer targetted at this audience, ready to go out of the box would be attractive to a large non computer crowd if marketted well.

"A gaming box without games? Who would buy a budget gaming box with an OS that doesn't run most games?"

Not strictly a gaming box, more a cross between a music/media box for your ipod and a gaming box. Your right there are no games but then before a console comes out there aren't any games for that either. It's up to Apple to attract the game developers and have enough out at launch to tempt buyers. It would seem to me to help beat the catch22 they have right now with their whole range of computers. They can't attract enough game developers because not enough gamers are out there to make it worthwhile and you won't attract gamers when there aren't enough games.

I'm sure my idea is flawed somewhere but it sounded good while I was writing it
on Sep 21, 2005
Apple wants to get the gaming crowd...they would have to allow computers to be built by just parts. Most hardcore gamers, like me, build their PCs. If you could actually build an Apple with something more than Apple parts, like a DFi or MSI MoBo or using a Modular Power Supply, than they might win over more users. Make the OS more important than the hardware.

Let them make the computer but don't restrict their OS to only their hardware...after all a bigger, faster, stronger PC is usually built not pre-fabricated.

That is where Windows is winning. They moved to doing just strictly the OS allowing the end user his/her freedom of choice to using whatever computer they want for their OS. Also PCs can be used for Nix, etc.

You can doll up a computer all you want...but I will still build it because I have the freedom of choice to do so. With Apple...well you know.

- X
on Sep 21, 2005
Hear is a thought: Mac went to Intel because a year or 2 from now, they will actually make budget PC's. It a great move, but it has some problems, like alienating your core Apple elite user (Macs, in some ways, are considered the Lexus of the Nissan world of computers).

This is what I think:

I like the TiVo idea. That would be a great move.
The Intel move was so that games can be made for Macs easier... right? No more 'Macs suck' because I can't play my games or run my software on it.
iPod will play videos: You like the new Madonna video? Buy it from iTunes and play it. Rent it along with other videos with a monthly fee. Its like a prayer!
iPod WiFi: Now that it can play songs and video, why not share playlists and even songs?
Mac Mini gets a monitor and a keyboard... at the same price or 50 dollars lower (at a loss to Macintosh) to get people to say, lets get this thing.
SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE. That can be a plus and a minus, but by doing so makes the overall use of the machine lower.
on Sep 21, 2005
I'm hoping they create an "iShirt" so i don't have to look at Jobs wearing yet another black mock turtleneck.
on Sep 21, 2005
(Macs, in some ways, are considered the Lexus of the Nissan world of computers).


Shoulde have read "Toyota", Nissan makes the Infinity.
on Sep 21, 2005
I'm hoping they create an "iShirt" so i don't have to look at Jobs wearing yet another black mock turtleneck.


The ishirt could be a black mock turtleneck though and then you'd have an army of turtle neckers *shivers*

Seriously though, If I wasn't such a fatty, I could see myself in that black sweater, it sure beats what Bill Gates usually has on
on Sep 21, 2005
it was Microsoft who copied the idea and sold millions of copies of Windows that dominated desktop computers.

Check your history, it was Bell Labs that Gates copied from, not Apple and it was Bell Labs that FIRST developed it. For such an advanced group it still took them almost a quarter century to add a third button to the mouse.
on Sep 22, 2005
umm sorry apple didnt make desktop pc's bill gates did when he got a mouse from zerox and no company wanted it even apple. you need a mouse for desktop pc's plus most hard ware and soft ware dont suport apple. apple was a lame company and still is bill gates just needed some money to get windows. wich apple had.
after that apple wasnt famous any more.
on Sep 22, 2005
Macs are like Porsche's and Ferrari's while PC's are like Chevy's. Ya can get a Chevy for 10 Grand or you can buy a Vette, they are both Chevy's. Ya can't buy a new Porsche for 10 G's. Don't bring up the mini Mac cause by the time ya bring it up to snuff ya gotta over a grand into it. I bought this PC for $450, spent another $60 on an extra stick of RAM = I'm happy. No, it is not the best but so far I'm running everything I want from Stardock with NO PROBLEMS. Personally I can only afford the Chevy then later on I go to Pep Boys for add ons. That's what I gotta do. I can't afford a G5!!! I use Macs 8 hrs. a day at work. I love OSX. I love XP. I can pretty much do what I want on either. I will say that Customizing XP seems a lot easier than OSX. Actually I don't know squat about customizing OSX. Anybody out there know anything about customizing OSX? Can you do as much as you can with XP?
2 Pages1 2