[macchef]

I'm reading The Second Coming of Steve Jobs at the moment.

here,here! i listened to it thru audible, and it really gives a 'good' picture of mrJ. i agree - he's unpredictable!

[MJCP]

One more thing will need to be pretty big. But he didn't do one at MacWorld so why would he do one here?

He didn't do it at Macworld because the really big news -- the MacBook Air -- had been thoroughly broken by the rumour sites and even some in the mainstream press in advance of the keynote. It would have seemed like an anti-climax.

For WWDC everyone knows we're going to see the 3G iPhone. Everyone knows we'll have the release of iPhone 2.0. Everyone knows we're going to see a parade of iPhone developers showing their wares. All very well and good.

I can't help thinking that while Steve, ever the showman, has everyone looking at what iPhone stuff is going to come out, there's an interesting development in Mac that no-one's even thinking of. In vaudeville they call it "misdirection" -- making you watch the hand with the deck of cards in it while the other hand reaches under the table for the rabbit.

That said, I do think it's too early to be showing off Mac OS X 10.6. It's not due out until at least mid-2009 so why show it off this far in advance?

The Montevina delay is interesting for the industry, but remember that the delay is with the integrated graphics and wireless network components of the chipset. Apple doesn't use Intel's wireless chipset and only uses its integrated graphics on a couple of models. Montevina-based iMacs and MacBook Pros could still come out before those components are ready. (Small element of wishful thinking on my part there, obviously.)

Apple's current displays don't support HDCP, so they're unsuitable for Blu-ray Disc playback even if the Macs you connect them to did support it. Now that the HD war is over, maybe it's a good time to talk about Blu-ray support for Macs in hardware and software?

Ah, who needs sleep -- speculation is too exciting!

[pmoeser]

Montevina-based iMacs and MacBook Pros could still come out before those components are ready. (Small element of wishful thinking on my part there, obviously.)

What is the current state of play hardware style MJCP? Is the trusty ol' Ti still pumping out Aust MacWorld?

[mickdevlin]

That said, I do think it's too early to be showing off Mac OS X 10.6. It's not due out until at least mid-2009 so why show it off this far in advance?

Leopard first was previewed in August 2006. Some of the features were missing (but Apple mnetioned that it wasn't yet complete). Tiger was also announced well in advance of its release.

The Montevina delay is interesting for the industry, but remember that the delay is with the integrated graphics and wireless network components of the chipset. Apple doesn't use Intel's wireless chipset and only uses its integrated graphics on a couple of models. Montevina-based iMacs and MacBook Pros could still come out before those components are ready.

Hence the reason I spefified MacBooks not to be announced.

[pmoeser]

Leopard first was previewed in August 2006. Some of the features were missing (but Apple mnetioned that it wasn't yet complete). Tiger was also announced well in advance of its release.

Steve wouldn't be silly enough to feel forced to show off 10.6 as a counter to Windows 7 touch screen demos at a MacWorld conference, but he might at a WWDC.

Still, I would have thought all software efforts were going to SDK 2, but as that includes touch support also...

[MJCP]

What is the current state of play hardware style MJCP? Is the trusty ol' Ti still pumping out Aust MacWorld?

For a lot of it, yes. The podcasts, I have to admit, are largely beyond the reach of the old warhorse's capabilities, so they're done on a borrowed MacBook Pro. I'm also using the borrowed MBP to get acquainted with Leopard, and testing anything that requires Leopard (my TiBook so cannot run Leopard).

[MJCP]

Here is another intriguing possibility for what we might see at WWDC. As long as it's more than just rebranding, I'll be pretty happy. The current .Mac strategy seems very dated, and out of step with players like Google.

[mickdevlin]

I'd forgotten about that article and I agree that it's a strong possibility to be announced.

[pmoeser]

Here is another intriguing possibility for what we might see at WWDC. As long as it's more than just rebranding, I'll be pretty happy. The current .Mac strategy seems very dated, and out of step with players like Google.

I read that as well as some of the comments posted.
Seems fairly obvious that a change is in the wind, so the speculation there is about the new name.
Apparently they own mobileme.com (or at least a trade mark of mobileme) They also apparently (through a very tenuous chain of circumstances) own me.com
As speculated, they could then have mobileme for iPhone users and xxxxxme for the desktops and use this as a way of synching mail/chat/files/media in a central portal type thingy
Lots of the comments are pretty far fetched.
I also struggle with the criticism of .Mac
As an average user, I find it's ability to extend my mac experience fantastic! Web gallery, iWeb hosting, .mac mail, all seamlessly and easily integrated into my computing life.
I realise there are other services with better email and others, but not part of a seamless experience

[Some Random Bloke]

I also struggle with the criticism of .Mac
As an average user, I find it's ability to extend my mac experience fantastic! Web gallery, iWeb hosting, .mac mail, all seamlessly and easily integrated into my computing life.
I realise there are other services with better email and others, but not part of a seamless experience

My biggest beef with .mac is the cost. It should be no more than $50 for what it is, esp. considering the free services on the web that, in some cases, do things better. That said, I'm seriously considering cleaning out our Windoze boxes at home and buying another Mac of some description. The .mac service would then start to seem more justifiable, if still overpriced.

[gazza]

My biggest beef with .mac is the cost. It should be no more than $50 for what it is, esp. considering the free services on the web that, in some cases, do things better. That said, I'm seriously considering cleaning out our Windoze boxes at home and buying another Mac of some description. The .mac service would then start to seem more justifiable, if still overpriced.

Totally agree on cost alone - already paying heaps to be on the 'net, and even then with poor speed in rural setting (download allocation is OK though.)

gazza

[MJCP]

I also struggle with the criticism of .Mac
As an average user, I find it's ability to extend my mac experience fantastic! Web gallery, iWeb hosting, .mac mail, all seamlessly and easily integrated into my computing life.
I realise there are other services with better email and others, but not part of a seamless experience

Absolutely. Make no mistake, what .Mac does is brilliant, and especially now that it can (theoretically) be used as a conduit for Back to my Mac in Leopard, it's even better. But the reasoning Apple gave in 2002 when iTools became .Mac was that the free e-mail and web hosting services of the time were all going belly-up, that model clearly didn't work and Apple felt it would be better value to have a service that would survive rather than one that would drain precious resources.

Since then Google at the very least has demonstrated how a cheap-to-free service can survive and thrive and offer users a quite comprehensive package. Apple should at least re-think what it's charging.

[Gillymaru]

My biggest beef with .mac is the cost. It should be no more than $50 for what it is, esp. considering the free services on the web that, in some cases, do things better. That said, I'm seriously considering cleaning out our Windoze boxes at home and buying another Mac of some description. The .mac service would then start to seem more justifiable, if still overpriced.

I have a .Mac family account and it works brilliantly for us all. I buy my membership from international sellers on ebay and it costs about $100 per year, if you get a single membership they can be had for about $70 US, not too far off that $50 you want to pay!
I'm with MJCP in agreeing that some upgrades would be nice.

[pmoeser]

Since then Google at the very least has demonstrated how a cheap-to-free service can survive and thrive and offer users a quite comprehensive package. Apple should at least re-think what it's charging.

Point taken.
I know the ads are relatively unobtrusive, but I still prefer not to have ads throughout my emails.
The privacy thing is moot as I'm sure Apple are probably scanning for content to establish their own ad supported model down the track

[Ken Gracey]

.mac users where supposed to get fancy widgets not available to non .mac users , free anti virus, free this free that, etc etc, along with a bunch of other stuff to separate it from the rest of the mac community. WHAT happened NOTHING... Thats my main grip with it, if they come good with there promises at WWC, i may re subscribe, but they shouldn't hold there breath


TL

[gazza]

With only 9 days to go to the WWDC (what does your widget tell us today pmoeser??) rumours abound on the net about all sorts of things and the iPhone in particular. One interesting one today is that Apple may "introduce(?)" a cheaper iPhone to go along with the "all bells and whistles" 3G model. The suggestion is that Version 1 of iPhone (i.e. 2G) will be marketed alongside Version 2 at a very much reduced price to satisfy those who wish to have the kudos/touch screen/ease of use/OSX/bragging rights, etc, etc, without the advanced "surfing" of the 3G upmarket model.
I think that there would definitely be a market for such a model, particularly with Australia's restrictive mobile broadband plans at the moment, and the current lack of competition for Australia-wide 3g coverage. This may change over the next couple of years as more carriers come on line.

Whaddya reckon??

gazza

[Ken Gracey]

there would be a market for people chasing a pre paid version for sure, I am not sure about the business user ? But for every body else its a great idea indeed.


Tl

[Some Random Bloke]

With only 9 days to go to the WWDC (what does your widget tell us today pmoeser??) rumours abound on the net about all sorts of things and the iPhone in particular. One interesting one today is that Apple may "introduce(?)" a cheaper iPhone to go along with the "all bells and whistles" 3G model. The suggestion is that Version 1 of iPhone (i.e. 2G) will be marketed alongside Version 2 at a very much reduced price to satisfy those who wish to have the kudos/touch screen/ease of use/OSX/bragging rights, etc, etc, without the advanced "surfing" of the 3G upmarket model.
I think that there would definitely be a market for such a model, particularly with Australia's restrictive mobile broadband plans at the moment, and the current lack of competition for Australia-wide 3g coverage. This may change over the next couple of years as more carriers come on line.

Whaddya reckon??

gazza

Nup. Apart from the iPod Shuffle, Apple only sells premium products. Even their 'cheap' mac, the Mini, isn't that cheap. But I'd be happy to eat my words.

[gazza]

Nup. Apart from the iPod Shuffle, Apple only sells premium products. Even their 'cheap' mac, the Mini, isn't that cheap. But I'd be happy to eat my words.

I agree that Apple only sells premium products AND the current iPhone (VER 1) is a premium product. So to be able to sell an iPhone 1 when iPhone 2 is released (if that's what they want to do) it would have to be seriously discounted. That discounting however doesn't make it any less a premium product, just one which doesn't have all the features, but may suit some of the market admirably. I see it as no different to say, Nokia, which has various "levels" of phone to suit different needs. It will be interesting to see if this speculation pans out.

gazza

[Some Random Bloke]

I agree that Apple only sells premium products AND the current iPhone (VER 1) is a premium product. So to be able to sell an iPhone 1 when iPhone 2 is released (if that's what they want to do) it would have to be seriously discounted. That discounting however doesn't make it any less a premium product, just one which doesn't have all the features, but may suit some of the market admirably. I see it as no different to say, Nokia, which has various "levels" of phone to suit different needs. It will be interesting to see if this speculation pans out.

gazza

If you're right, I doubt they'd re/launch them together. The iPhone 1 would steal customers from the more profitable v.2, when they've clearly been running down stocks and building demand/hype for v.2.

Still not convinced about v.1, though. The Mac Mini has never been a huge success, by all accounts - I wonder if it's lured new users into the Mac fold? Given that most Apple users are happy to pay a premium for the quality, I just don't see Apple chasing a budget market (by comparison). That said, the iPod/iPhone are different products to the Mac.

Be interesting to see what unfolds.