I want a bigger iPod Touch

[ElDiabloConCaca]

Originally Posted by lbj

I personally don't feel they entered any of your examples when the market was mature. Developed? Yes. Proven? Yes. But not mature. And that is precisely why they were so successful on these fronts. No one had yet gotten them quite right...until Apple put the final tweaks in place. And nothing is "first" about a netbook so this doesn't break your paradigm.

I wholeheartedly think that the MP3 player market was "mature." The Rio was doing very well, Creative Labs seemed like they couldn't make enough MP3 players, and competition was rampant. A large segment of the population knew about, owned, or planned to buy an MP3 player.

That's "mature" all the way. Developed and proven over time... what's more "mature" than that?

There wasn't anything wrong with the MP3 players on the market at all -- Apple just revolutionized and simplified them with great success.

I'm confused. Why would the MacNet not be marketed to a large population? I don't think Apple could build enough $650 MacNets <<provided>> they get the keyboard right. And notice I'm starting the MacNet at double the price of the "competition".

What I'm saying is that I don't think there's a market for the netbook -- at least, not as large a market as the iPhone, iPod, laptops and desktops. It's a "niche" product in the sense that a small segment of the population knows about or uses one, not that it comes from a "niche" brand like Apple (but Apple is slowly turning that "niche" image around with mainstream products with broad appeal).

I don't think that "large population" exists to market the netbook to.

Who wants less than a laptop? I just want a smaller one.

Again, I think that a netbook is a poor replacement for a laptop. A netbook isn't a "smaller laptop." It's a laptop with less power and less features. Uses far less powerful processors. Typically has less memory than other, full-size laptops. Does not include powerful graphics. Uses a lot of embedded (and slower) technology.

It's a technology that is stuck between a smartphone and a full-sized laptop. I have no doubt that Apple will come along and redefine what a netbook is -- just not by Christmas.

Huh? Who brought up marketing share??

I don't know what "marketing share" is, but you brought up market share. I made the initial point that Apple doesn't market (read: create products for and advertise to) to small segments of the population, and you replied with statistics about how much market share Apple, BMW and VW hold.

My point was that it matters not how big a slice of the market Apple currently holds -- my point was that they advertise their products to a large segment of the population. Even if we wanted to talk "market share," we could talk about the fact that Apple holds much more than 6.5% of the smartphone market and damn near all of the digital music market.

As a stockholder, I don't care about marketING share, I care about market share. Who is doing the mixing here? Apple didn't squirrel away 15 billion dollars cash by marketing. They did it by selling.

Apple's stock price fluctuates up and down independent of their market share. Their stock price was higher when they had less market share, and it's lower now that they have more market share. Having a bigger slice of the market has nothing to do with stock price. Look at Microsoft... IBM... Google...

Apple didn't squirrel away 15 billion dollars by selling -- that's a gross misunderstanding of how Apple was able to eliminate all their debt and put away billions in cash. It had to do with refining the pipeline that exists between the different channels involved in creating a computer -- the manufacturing of it, the shipping of it and how to eliminate stagnant stock sitting in warehouses (hint: it wasn't by selling the stagnant stock), etc.

Apple got rid of their debt long before their computers were flying off the shelves, and it had little-to-nothing to do with the volume of computers they sold.

Why do you have the idea that I think Apple should only market the MacNet to a very narrow spectrum?

I don't think you think that. I think that you think that the percentage of the population that is interested in a netbook is much higher than it is actually.

I think they should market it to the masses. And this may be a source of underlying disagreement; I feel the potential MacNet market is huge and growing...and you may not.

I think it's growing -- I just don't think it's as large as some think, nor do I think it has the money-making potential that the iPod market or iPhone market has.

I'm not saying it'll never be that way, I'm just saying we're not there yet. The market is small -- 18 million or not -- that's still small. Not to mention that the market needs to carry that growth -- you can't just have an 18-million-sales-year then have sales slump off... it has to be an ever-growing market (again, the iPod and iPhone). I think the netbook surge (if one can call it that) is a fad at this point. Soccer moms and grandmothers know damn well what an iPod and an iPhone are, and know that they're in demand. Try saying "netbook" to them, though, and more often than not, they won't know what it is nor will they have seen one.

How many regular Joes do you know with netbooks? I know none. I know a few nerds that have them -- perhaps a few geeks, too, and maybe even a dork or two. I think I saw some dude on campus with one once. The geeks of the world are a niche market, much like pregnant women -- there will always be some, but they'll never be the majority (which is what Apple designs and markets their consumer-level products for).

You missed my point entirely or I did a poor job of communicating. I'm not calling any of the companies a niche brand.

I am. BMW and Apple are currently niche brands with broad appeal. Apple is turning that around, but BMW will always be a niche brand as long as the poor outnumber the rich.

And I don't feel any of their products are aimed squarely at a niche market.

Neither do I, that's why I think the time is not right for an Apple netbook -- the netbook market is a niche market. Not a "market that is served by a niche brand," rather, a market that does not have the population to justify the broad, wide-range appeal of an Apple product.

And I feel the netbook market has slipped outside the confines of niche.

I don't feel that way. Netbooks are niche right now in my mind. Will they become mainstream someday? I think so. Right now? Nope.

Um...ok...Let me try this another way: A netbook is a portable computer and Apple is in the business of portable computing. I'm not seeing the stretch you're implying...

That's over-simplification. Apple has transformed a few times over the years, and they could better be described as being in the business of the "digital lifestyle" -- with products that interconnect and make sharing data and media amongst them easy. Some of that includes portable computing. A large part does not.

I don't think I ever used the word "cool". Yes, iPods and iPhone are popular in a way that netbooks have yet to achieve. Maybe that's because Apple has yet to introduce one?

My point exactly. Netbooks are "cool" -- I said that. They are. You can't deny it. My point was that just because something appears "cool" and appeals to a certain small segment of the population does not mean it has wide-range appeal.

I am positive that when Apple does some form of netbook, it will be both "cool" and have the broad appeal that the rest of their consumer-level products have.

I'm a huge fanboy. Have been since 1991. But I don't agree. Nothing revolutionary about the PowerMac, iMac, or MacBooks.

The PowerMac was the first computer to use a phenomenally more powerful processor (and a new type of processor). Pretty revolutionary for the time. All at a time when companies were touting "megahertz!" -- Apple came along and crushed that myth with a processor that was more efficient and faster than an Intel processor at a higher speed.

Revolutionary: when people were stuck thinking that speed was everything, Apple came along and taught them different.

The iMac revolutionized a lot of things: the all-in-one computer, the first computer geared toward getting you on the internet quickly, and the proliferation of the USB standard. Without the iMac, arguably, USB would not be where it is today.

Nothing revolutionary about the iPod.

Well, all except for that little thing about being able to manage a huge library of music in a decent fashion, as well as the input method that was copied again and again (the scrollwheel).

But until the iPhone, nothing else changed the entire playing field in a way that <<I>> would define as "revolutionary". (Ok, I will also grant iTunes Music Store and OSX as huge game changers). But the hardware?

You and I see Apple's products in different lights.

I see "evolutionary" as the natural progression of things -- if Apple doesn't do it, someone else eventually will.

I see "revolutionary" as someone/thing approaching an existing thing and improving on it in a way that no one else can -- I hope we can agree that the scrollwheel was genius, and it wasn't like there were a bunch of companies racing to get their scrollwheel out first. Apple did it and blindsided the industry, and everyone rushed to copy it because they were upset to know that it was something they would have never though of.

I think Apple is "revolutionary" with many of their products, and "evolutionary" as well. As a company, you'd have to be.

You just described the entire iPod line. I'm not asking for a brand spanking new concept, just a smaller version of what they already have. Mini, iMac, PowerMac. Shuffle, Nano, Classic, Touch. MacNet, MacBook, MacBook Pro.

I know you're asking for it... the question is, is everyone else asking for it as well? They are not. A small percentage of the population is, but not a market big enough for Apple to enter into at this point.

Why does it have to be so exotic? Yes, I get punch drunk looking at Apple's current products. And I love the way each of them look, feel, and operate. But past the rose colored glasses, all their products (again, iPhone is a rule breaker) have similar form factors to their competition.

Apple is not just hardware. Not just software. It's the integration of the two. The iPhone is a beautiful piece of equipment where the software and hardware blend together perfectly. So is the range of iPods.

Go use a Zune for a day. Or a Sony walkman MP3 player. Tell me that the hardware is the "same" as an iPod. Tell me the software works as well as the iPod software. Sure, the hardware is all metal, plastic and glass, just like any other, and the software is all bits and bytes not unlike any other software, but it goes beyond that.

It's not that they use exotic materials, or funky shapes, or even software that is proprietary. It's the way they can integrate it all with elegance and intelligence, and bring what was once cumbersome and clunky to an elegant level that the majority of the population can understand, use, and be productive with.

Agreed. And I think that lesson is sooner versus later and feel it will be more evolutionary and revolutionary. Especially to keep it in line with the current global economic climate. The time is right in more ways than one.

Then we disagree. I think you're wishing for the moon if you want to see a $650 Apple-branded "netbook" before the end of the year. The current iPhone costs close to that. The Mac mini costs close to that.

We all know damn well that Apple's netbook will not be priced at $650 -- not at this point in time.

[lbj]

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

I wholeheartedly think that the MP3 player market was "mature." The Rio was doing very well, Creative Labs seemed like they couldn't make enough MP3 players, and competition was rampant. A large segment of the population knew about, owned, or planned to buy an MP3 player.

I disagree. Just like what you argue now, at the time of the initial iPod introduction I had a total of 1 friend with an mp3 player. I did not, and did not want one. And my mom, grandma, sister, and pregnant neighbor were pretty much clueless.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Apple just revolutionized and simplified them with great success.

Concur wholeheartedly.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Again, I think that a netbook is a poor replacement for a laptop. A netbook isn't a "smaller laptop." It's a laptop with less power and less features. Uses far less powerful processors. Typically has less memory than other, full-size laptops. Does not include powerful graphics. Uses a lot of embedded (and slower) technology.

And for huge swaths of the population, that is all that is needed. Browser, email, ability to do "Office" like work. No one admits it, but that is all that most need. And actually, it's all that most use. So while the geeks, nerds, and techs will all bash performance, the masses (me included) will be very satisfied with what the MacNet does and how it does it.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Apple's stock price fluctuates up and down independent of their market share.

Short term, sure. Long term, nope. Provided share allocation isn't thrown in the thrasher, stock price is based on perceived value of the company in aggregate divided by the number of shares. If you keep your margin fixed or improving, the more you sell, the more you make. And the more you make, the more you are worth. And the more you are worth will increase the value of your stock. Short term speculation, under-realization of potential, overly optimistic future projection, calamity, lawsuits, etc will all affect this perceived value in the short term. But long term will always tell the truth. Bubbles don't last, ever. Not in sectors. Not in companies. Not in products. And not in soap suds.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Their stock price was higher when they had less market share, and it's lower now that they have more market share.

You are looking short term. Perception of value always skews the short term. It overinflated the price before and it is undervaluing it now.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Having a bigger slice of the market has nothing to do with stock price. Look at Microsoft... IBM... Google...

I will let you plot out at your convenience each of those companies stock price in relation to market share over the years (again, LONG TERM). Be sure to adjust for stock splits. No need to report back, I know what you will find.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Apple didn't squirrel away 15 billion dollars by selling -- that's a gross misunderstanding of how Apple was able to eliminate all their debt and put away billions in cash.

No it's not. It's a gross misunderstanding to think Apple payed back debt without cash flow.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

It had to do with refining the pipeline that exists between the different channels involved in creating a computer -- the manufacturing of it, the shipping of it and how to eliminate stagnant stock sitting in warehouses (hint: it wasn't by selling the stagnant stock), etc.

You can have the most efficient product pipeline in the world. Let's say one that involved zero costs. Resources were free, energy free, workers free, R&D free...you get the idea. You will still not make one penny if you can't/don't sell what comes out the other end. And without making that penny, you cannot pay down your debt let alone build up cash. Efficiency is awesome, but meaningless without sales.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Apple got rid of their debt long before their computers were flying off the shelves, and it had little-to-nothing to do with the volume of computers they sold.

It had everything to do with the number of computers sold times the profit margin built into each unit. Period. Dot.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

I don't think you think that. I think that you think that the percentage of the population that is interested in a netbook is much higher than it is actually.

And that truly is the core of our disagreement.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Soccer moms and grandmothers know damn well what an iPod and an iPhone are, and know that they're in demand. Try saying "netbook" to them, though, and more often than not, they won't know what it is nor will they have seen one.

But I can tell you from personal experience, when they do see mine, I get non-stop questions and admiration. And as a personal aside, two friends, both recently delivered first child, both immediately got netbooks to replace older, clunkier laptops to carry about in the stroller. Sure, n=2, statistically worthless but I bring it up just the same. And as mentioned, when the iPod first came out I was surrounded in a sea of ignorance and/or indifference.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

I am positive that when Apple does some form of netbook, it will be both "cool" and have the broad appeal that the rest of their consumer-level products have.

Agree wholeheartedly. Why can't that be now?

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

The PowerMac was the first computer to use a phenomenally more powerful processor (and a new type of processor). Pretty revolutionary for the time. All at a time when companies were touting "megahertz!" -- Apple came along and crushed that myth with a processor that was more efficient and faster than an Intel processor at a higher speed.

Revolutionary: when people were stuck thinking that speed was everything, Apple came along and taught them different.

Crushed that myth amongst the nerds. The masses still think hertz rules. And megapixels--but that’s a different story for a different day.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

The iMac revolutionized a lot of things: the all-in-one computer, the first computer geared toward getting you on the internet quickly, and the proliferation of the USB standard.

No all in one before the iMac? From anyone, not even Apple? No revolution, sorry. The first "cute" computer? Yes. They won that hands down. And I don't mean that derisively, it caused the masses to take notice and take a closer look.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

I see "revolutionary" as someone/thing approaching an existing thing and improving on it in a way that no one else can -- I hope we can agree that the scrollwheel was genius, and it wasn't like there were a bunch of companies racing to get their scrollwheel out first. Apple did it and blindsided the industry, and everyone rushed to copy it because they were upset to know that it was something they would have never though of.

Yes. I hand that one to you. The scrollwheel was huge--I was wrong to neglect it.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Apple is not just hardware. Not just software. It's the integration of the two. The iPhone is a beautiful piece of equipment where the software and hardware blend together perfectly. So is the range of iPods.

Agree. Agree. Agree. A slick MacNet with the same OS we know and love would hold the same beauty currently felt/experienced in the MacBook or Pro.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Go use a Zune for a day. Or a Sony walkman MP3 player. Tell me that the hardware is the "same" as an iPod. Tell me the software works as well as the iPod software. Sure, the hardware is all metal, plastic and glass, just like any other, and the software is all bits and bytes not unlike any other software, but it goes beyond that.

It's not that they use exotic materials, or funky shapes, or even software that is proprietary. It's the way they can integrate it all with elegance and intelligence, and bring what was once cumbersome and clunky to an elegant level that the majority of the population can understand, use, and be productive with.

Believe it or not, I concur. The overall experience (hardware AND software integration) is revolutionary. The physical product, while seemingly always beautiful, is generally not revolutionary in the physical sense.

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Then we disagree. I think you're wishing for the moon if you want to see a $650 Apple-branded "netbook" before the end of the year. The current iPhone costs close to that. The Mac mini costs close to that.

Yes. This is where my desire/argument will fail. Not that there isn't a netbook coming by year's end, but that it will be so expensive (ala Cube or Air) that folks will shrug and walk away.

[ElDiabloConCaca]

If we keep quoting each other, no one else will read this. I'll reply more selectively now, but concur that over the long term, stock price tends to go up as a company gains market share -- but will not concur that market share is the main influence in a stock price's upward movement... a company can both gain market share while stock prices go down. They are not "linked at the hip."

And I do think that MP3 players were more common than netbooks are now, comparatively. MP3 players were a natural transition from tape players and CD players (tapes -> CDs -> MP3 CDs -> MP3 players), and the market had matured enough and very well-known outside of the "geek" circle. So much so that they were encroaching on "mainstream."

I will let you plot out at your convenience each of those companies stock price in relation to market share over the years (again, LONG TERM). Be sure to adjust for stock splits. No need to report back, I know what you will find.

I found that each of these companies' stock increased as the level of carbon monoxide in our atmosphere increased. Coincidence?

I also found Microsoft's stock increased in price steadily, as did Apple's, much of the time coinciding. Does that mean that both were gaining market share at the same time, somehow pushing the maximum past 100%?

I'll agree that market share does good for a company's stock, but that's how it happens and is not a set-in-stone rule. Downsizing, specializing and segmenting also can drive the perceived stock value up. Just because a company's stock goes up does not mean that the company must be gaining market share -- and, just because a company is gaining market share does not mean that the stock price will magically go up.

I'll concur that perceived value can drive stock worth skyward, but there are many ways that a company can perform in order to increase that perceived value... one of which is expanding.

No it's not. It's a gross misunderstanding to think Apple payed back debt without cash flow. You can have the most efficient product pipeline in the world. Let's say one that involved zero costs. Resources were free, energy free, workers free, R&D free...you get the idea. You will still not make one penny if you can't/don't sell what comes out the other end. And without making that penny, you cannot pay down your debt let alone build up cash. Efficiency is awesome, but meaningless without sales.

You don't have to have magnificent sales in order to pay down debt. Apple didn't have magnificent sales until their debt was already being paid down -- from $1 billion in the mid-90s to under $300 million in 2004.

Yes, sales are required, but not exponential growth. If Apple would have continued with Gil Amelio's convoluted computer lineup and the excess of stock in the warehouses, only an unachievable amount of sales would have saved Apple.

Answering, "How did Apple become debt-free?" with, "They sold more computers," is looking only at the tip of the iceberg. The sales were the end result of everything before it. Apple could have kept their sales exactly constant, while doing everything else (making the assembly/delivery/sales pipeline much, much, much more efficient, in turn reducing the backlog of stock) and still paid off their debt. Efficient pipelines make for more profit, and more profit allows you to pay off debt. Again, I think it's a stretch to entangle the concept of higher numbers of sales with paying off debt.

But I can tell you from personal experience, when they do see mine, I get non-stop questions and admiration. And as a personal aside, two friends, both recently delivered first child, both immediately got netbooks to replace older, clunkier laptops to carry about in the stroller. Sure, n=2, statistically worthless but I bring it up just the same.

I'll give you that, but not everything that everyone is interested in is going to sell. Interest drums up publicity, but publicity does not correlate to sales. It has to be a product that appeals to people not only for the "ooh, look, what's that? Interesting! Tell me about it!" factor, but for the, "wow, I need one of those," factor. I don't see that with netbooks. I see the "golly, gee, that's cool! What is it?" but I don't see the, "wow, I should totally get a smaller laptop because it is a better fit for my needs," a whole lot.

And as mentioned, when the iPod first came out I was surrounded in a sea of ignorance and/or indifference.

It didn't take long for it to catch on -- as soon as word got out, it was a hit. Everyone likes music. If you ask 100 people, "What is your favorite kind of music?" you will probably get 0 responses of, "I don't like music." The iPod just reinforced people's love of music and made it easy to take tons of it on the go.

I don't see that kind of thing happening with netbooks -- what do people need on-the-go that a laptop or an iPhone don't already satisfy? Would it be possible to simply improve on the iPhone or laptop instead of adding another category to the product lineup that does exactly what the iPhone and the laptop already do?

Agree wholeheartedly. Why can't that be now?

I thought we went over this... market's not right... hehe...

Crushed that myth amongst the nerds. The masses still think hertz rules. And megapixels--but that’s a different story for a different day.

...but Apple got them to question the myth, and people's minds opened up to that "computer they were always interested in but too scared to make the leap." The Intel-burning commercials, remember? It was revolutionary technology that tackled a myth head-on, with some degree of success. If anything, it made people more critical of the megahertz myth.

No all in one before the iMac? From anyone, not even Apple?

Huh? I never said, nor did I ever even imply that the iMac was the very first all-in-one computer. Please don't put words in my mouth. I said that the iMac revolutionized the all-in-one concept. I said, "first computer designed to get you on the internet quickly." And my entire argument from the onset of this was that Apple is rarely, if ever, the "first" to market with a new product -- they're all about entering an already mature market and improving on what they see as shortcomings of existing products, and a lot of the time, revolutionizing the way people view and what they expect out of those products.

Agree. Agree. Agree. A slick MacNet with the same OS we know and love would hold the same beauty currently felt/experienced in the MacBook or Pro.

...so if it delivers nothing more than a MacBook or MacBook Pro, it's just smaller, where does that fit in with the current product lineup?

Again, hey, that would be cool and I'd love to have one. Obviously, you would too. I just don't think there are enough people like us to justify that kind of endeavor for Apple within the next 6 months. Sure, we can find thousands of people in tech forums and Apple fan-boy sites to think that there are enough out there, but that's a skewed representation of the actual population and whom Apple markets to.

Believe it or not, I concur. The overall experience (hardware AND software integration) is revolutionary. The physical product, while seemingly always beautiful, is generally not revolutionary in the physical sense.

Agreed -- the use of plastic and/or metal is what computer cases are built from, both from cheap-o knock off computer companies and Apple themselves. It's how they use it that is revolutionary. A pencil can be used by a grade-schooler and it can also be used by Michelangelo.

Yes. This is where my desire/argument will fail. Not that there isn't a netbook coming by year's end, but that it will be so expensive (ala Cube or Air) that folks will shrug and walk away.

Well, you know that whatever the price is, it will probably be worth it, and both you and I will go into severe debt and/or put ourselves in harm's way to get our hands on one.

[lbj]

I think you win because you have me now going on the defense.

As for anyone else reading this, I hope to God they have better things to do right now. Go hug your sig other. Play with your kids. Enjoy the sunset. Trap a firefly. Anything but keep up with this endless tripe.

I will follow your lead and skip with the quotes. My comments will roughly follow the flow of yours so it should be easy to follow along for anyone who is crazy enough to keep up.

I never said "market share is the main influence in a stock price's upward movement". Why do you keep saying that I said that? It is a factor. An important factor. Not the only factor. Never said otherwise.
Once again, number of units sold by margin per unit. Period. You can tweak that equation on either side, volume or margin, or both, but both sides (volume and margin) will determine profitability. You can't ignore either factor. Well...I guess you could...but as a Company you would be stupid to ignore either volume or margin.

I never said "linked at the hip".

I never implied, again, that it is just market share (and market share alone) causing stock price to go up. In fact, I went out of my way to mention margin per unit plus perception. Please don't oversimplify my comments.

I never said "set-in-stone" rule

I never said that increasing stock price means the company must be gaining market share

Also never implied that gaining market share means stock price will magically go up. And never used the word "magically".

I never said "magnificent sales" were needed to drive down debt.

I never said exponential growth is required either.

And what the heck is up with this line: "Answering, "How did Apple become debt-free?" with, "They sold more computers," is looking only at the tip of the iceberg."
That was never my argument OR my statement. I never brought debt into this. Although I'm not afraid to talk debt, this line is a classic example on how my admittedly simplified points are exaggerated, out of proportion, in an attempt to aid your arguments. I never argued about debt originally and never said volume was the sole road to financial Nirvana. You can sell all you want, but if your cost per unit outstrips your income per unit, you are screwed.

And actually, the scenario you lay out...basically, same volume sales, but with drastically increased margins (via increased efficiencies) is precisely how they paid down their 80's and 90's debt. Why are we arguing what we both believe to be true??

What do people need that is already not satisfied? A bigger iPhone or smaller laptop is the overly simple answer.

Can you improve either sufficiently? Well, you don't want the iPhone bigger (for a "real" keyboard and larger screen) and if you make the laptop smaller.....well damn, you are doing exactly what I want and expect.

Nice try but neither existing product fills the in-between step--unless you shrink the size of the MacBook. And while you are at it, shrink the overall processing power and energy consumption for longer battery life. Bonus points if it will fit in my wife's purse or in my zippered portfolio. Extra bonus points if it will run more or less a full day on a single charge. You know, so we don't have to carry around an extra computer bag or oversize "back pack" in our business attire. Something with full "Office" like capability and full mail and internet but able to toss into whatever hand held "article" we are carrying (purse, briefcase, portfolio) or wearing? Cargo pocket anyone?

How did they "revolutionize" the all in one concept? They had one, actually several, well before the iMac. So did Compac and I'm sure others. How did they revolutionize it other than make it "cute" and add colored plastic?
No. I'm serious. Answer the question. How was it revolutionary?

Don't get me wrong. It was a brilliant, bold concept. But not a revolution. Unless you consider orange a revolution.

Here we are again, you talking "first to market". Nothing first about a netbook. Every other player has them. I don't use that as justification why Apple should be in the fray, just to remind you they wouldn't be first.

You don't see the market? I sure hope Apple does.

The market is right. Now more than ever.

[ElDiabloConCaca]

Originally Posted by lbj

How did they "revolutionize" the all in one concept? They had one, actually several, well before the iMac. So did Compac and I'm sure others. How did they revolutionize it other than make it "cute" and add colored plastic?

They brought with it the proliferation of USB, which, in turn, caused a surge of USB-based devices to market (external USB Zip drives, card readers, external storage devices, headsets, microphones, etc.) -- arguably, without the iMac, USB would not be where it is today. Remember when every damn piece of USB equipment on the market came in a bondi-blue color, or was offered with a matching bondi-blue accent piece meant solely to match the design of the original iMac? I sure do. It was an ugly, ugly time... but revolutionary, nonetheless.

It wasn't revolutionary in terms of hardware, but in terms of mass appeal and ease of use (remember the commercial about the PC vs. the new iMac, and the steps needed to get each on the internet? Little Billy, age 7, won that hands down -- not to mention the "There is no step 3" ad campaign).

It also used the G3 processor (not the first to use it, but the most well-known to use it) -- a relatively new RISC-based processor that was faster than Pentium counterparts clocked at higher speeds.

It also was the beginning of the end of the floppy drive (again, not the first to ditch it, but the most important to ditch it). Apple was chastised for this, but people soon saw the light that it was a dying technology. The iMac was revolutionary in helping people to understand that a floppy drive wasn't needed anymore. A new era of removable media was in: the CD-ROM, and solely the CD-ROM. The iMac wasn't the first with a CD-ROM by a long shot, but the first with only a CD-ROM.

In my opinion, the first bondi-blue iMac was, indeed, revolutionary. It redefined what people expected out of their personal computers. Not to mention it was "cute," and it could be argued that it's the first time people starting caring not only about the performance of their computers, but their aesthetics as well. In a sea of beige blocks, the iMac stood firmly out front and grabbed attention -- enough attention that some people credit it with starting the turn-around of Apple at the time.

Revolutionary doesn't have to mean "futuristic" or "uses some exotic material" or "operates in a way unbeknownst to mankind before this time." (Quotes are mine for emphasis -- not implying you said any of that)

You don't see the market? I sure hope Apple does.

The market is right. Now more than ever.

Then let's agree to disagree since we can't find much common ground to debate upon, yes?

Perhaps we can end this with a handshake, pat on the back, and a simple gentlemen's bet: you say "Apple netbook" before the end of the year, and I say "no Apple netbook" before the end of the year. Deal?

[Satcomer]

Well to pipe into this argument I feel Apple is positioning itself to reintroduce a 12 inch (or smaller) Mac Book Mini or something along that line.

[fryke]

I think they rather extend the iPhone platform. So: A larger iPod touch, yes. Apple doesn't think much of small notebooks. I mean: They've _never_ done a real subnotebook after the Duo line - and certainly never under Steve Jobs. Listen to the introduction of the MacBook Air once more, and about how proud they were that its keyboard is full-size and the screen is 13.3". But a larger iPod touch, I can see that. If it has 3G networking, just imagine the ease of use of Mobile Safari on the iPhone now, but with much better readability. (Of course it'll also tackle E-Books much better.)

(Satcomer: Your current signature makes your MacBook Pro look incredibly slow..., 2.16 MHz??)

[ElDiabloConCaca]

Originally Posted by fryke

(Of course it'll also tackle E-Books much better.)

But Apple doesn't want us to read -- they want us to listen to someone else read -- ahem -- audiobooks and podcasts.

Reading is so 2000.