My life: London, LA, Stanford, Phi Psi, Apple, New York City, Posterous, San Francisco, Kate.
I love good food, good drinks, fast cars, photography and New York City. I've been an Apple fanboy my entire life and worked on Final Cut Pro for 6 years.
A few years ago I was chatting with some folks at Apple and I told them I wanted iPhoto to sync with a website, my online photo gallery. I didn't like publishing my photos online manually.
It's 2009 and this still isn't possible. I still have to do some set of curation/export/attach/send steps to get my photos online. It's a pain. How cool would it be if my iPhoto/Aperture was always online? Anytime I make changes on the desktop (add/remove photos, add captions, etc), it would just sync with the web.
At least that's how it works on my iPhone now. Step 1, create albums. Step 2, add and remove photos and videos to albums. There is no step 3. My photos and videos are just always online, instantly. I don't have to consciously think about "posting" them.
This goes right along with our belief in making web publishing easy, natural, and built into the tools we already use. Reducing friction is always the way to go.
Cramer said if Apple is allowed to recognize all of its true earnings, those earnings will skyrocket from an estimated $9 a share in 2011 to $12 a share. Given these new earnings, Cramer said his new price target for the company is now $264 a share.
But wait a minute, doesn't everyone on Wall Street know about these changes? Cramer said surprisingly, no. He said most money managers simply look at the "first call" estimates, and have not taken the time to dissect what this rule means for Apple's earnings. He said FASB is expected to revise these rules in the next few weeks.
When you buy an iPhone, Apple defers the revenue from that sale over 8 quarters. They do this because given current accounting practices and rules, it's the only way they can give you free updates in the future. They don't defer revenue from iPod Touch sales, which is why upgrades cost $5 or $10.
Apple does this to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley ruling, which was instituted after the Enron scandal. Regulators want to make sure companies aren't booking revenue for producs and services that have not been delivered to the customer yet. (Although I think Apple takes this a bit too seriously since these are just software upgrades to a shipped device).
I have always felt that Apple's stock price didn't accurately reflect the fact that iPhone sales aren't being fully realized. I've blogged about this before. So I always hoped people would eventually understand Apple's accounting and the stock would go up appropriately.
That day may have come, sorta. The Financial Services Accounting Board is changing some accounting rules, such that Apple will be allowed to realize all iPhone revenue immediately.
Whenever people ask me for advice on investing in the stock market, I always give the same answer: don't. Why do you think you can beat the market? How can you do better than people who trade as their full time job? Every bit of public information and speculation about a company is already priced in.
But somehow, this deferred revenue slipped through the cracks and wasn't priced into Apple's stock. Maybe investors aren't as smart as I thought.
It's still too early to know what will happen, but I'm hoping Apple is adjusted up once these accounting rules are changed. They saw a nice bump today just on the news.
My friend, Al, is responsible for the Remote app [iTunes link] on the iPhone. It's a great tool that allows you to control the music on your Mac or Apple TV using your iPhone.
The latest version added some really great features that aren't advertised very well. First of all, you can control your Apple TV using your iPhone using swipes and gestures. It's pretty neat, but the Apple TV hasn't gained enough traction for this feature to get noticed.
But one feature that deserves a lot of attention is iTunes DJ.
Lets say you are having a party. Just select a song in iTunes and choose "iTunes DJ". This will create a new playlist around that song automatically
Anyone at your party with an iPhone can launch Remote, connect to your iTunes, and see what's being played
Your friends can click "Request song" to browse *your* music selection and add songs to the playlist
They can also vote on songs in the list. The song with the most vote gets played next
The AppleTV doesn't support Pandora. But, you can use Airfoil to send any audio signal from your computer to an Airport Express or AppleTV.
One of the new features in iTunes is genius playlists. It works quite well to generate a playlist of similar music. But, it only gives you *your* music. Why doesn't apple use this same technology to give you songs you don't own, just like Pandora? They could then have links straight to iTunes to purchase the song or album.
You could do this on the AppleTV too. How cool would that be? Let the AppleTV play a random selection songs based on your mood, even some you don't own. Then in two clicks you can purchase anything you like.
Is Pandora profitable? If Pandora can survive with this business model, I think Apple would do even better. Super tight integration with Genius/AppleTV/iTunes/iPod could be incredible. Just put recommended songs I don't own on my iPhone, and then let me buy them with 1 click.
Everyone wants new music, and there are services out there trying to solve this problem... But it won't be "solved" until Apple does it right and it's simply built in to the products we already use.
When I was at Apple yesterday, I was describing Posterous and our upcoming iPhone app to many people. Everyone asked me, "How much does Posterous cost?" It's free. I think people at Apple don't have an expectation for free software like people on the web do. At a traditional software company, you build something, then you charge for it.
But people have a hard time paying for software these days. Google has definitely led the way in providing great free alternatives to desktop software, that have become the de facto tools for most users. That's great, but makes it harder for new companies to charge money. Users aren't willing to pull out their credit cards on the web (unless it's at Amazon.com). And I never hear about people purchasing traditional desktop software, other than creatives who need Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, or other professional tools. This is partially because most machines these days come with great software (iLife, iWork). The exception to all this is the iPhone. The distribution model is magnificent. Every iPhone owner has an iTunes account, and every iTunes account has a credit card on file. Most iPhone owners probably already had one for buying music at the iTunes music store. So now these same people have an iPhone and can buy $0.99 applications with one click. Zero friction, it just appears on your iTunes statement. Even my mom does it. (This, btw, is the same on the Apple TV and it's brilliant) I wonder how many people are buying software for the first time ever, now that Apple has made it so easy.
Yesterday Steve Jobs announced his illness is worse than he originally thought, and he's taking a six month leave of absence from Apple. Whether or not he will be back in six months is questionable, but this is no doubt the beginning of the transition away from the iCeo.
Steve Jobs created the personal computer industry and made computing what it is today. Beautiful hardware, the best software in the world, digital songs on your iPod, HD movies on your Apple TV. None of this would exist without Steve Jobs. He has been able to push new standards, make deals with the media companies, and take risks on new products that no one else would touch. He runs Apple like a dictator, and he's usually right.
Without Steve Jobs, we would all have Dell computers running Windows. Windows would be even worse than it is today. The scariest part is we wouldn't even think to expect more. Google would still exist, but if Microsoft is an American car, Google is like a Toyota. It's definitely better, and gets the job done. But how boring. I want a BMW.
Without Steve Jobs, I wouldn't be who I am today. I got my first computer in 1992 at the age of 12. It was a Macintosh LC II. I have never owned a PC in my life and I hope I never will. It's because of Steve's Apple that I became passionate about computers and went into Computer Science. It's because of Steve that I became passionate about *good* software, usability, and design. It's because of him that I am as picky and snobby as I am, and I think that's a good thing. I demand the very best, and I think everyone should.
Without Steve Jobs, there would be no Posterous. We probably wouldn't have decided to create another web publishing tool. But if we did, it wouldn't have the elegance and simplicity that it does. It would probably be some obtuse geeky thing that no one can understand, but they put up with. We always say we are doing Posterous "the Apple way" but I wonder if it's really "the Steve way."
I've had an amazing run with Apple. It's definitely going to be different now. I interned with Apple in the summer of 2001, and then worked for them full time for 6 years. It was incredible to be on the inside of that company, especially during that period when Steve Jobs turned the company around.
At the end of 2001 I waited in line for 21 hours to be the first person to enter the Palo Alto Apple Store. Yes, it was crazy. But I met every Apple executive of the time, and I had a real one on one conversation with Steve Jobs himself.
Also in 2001, I attended the introduction of the very first iPod. I was in the audience in Town Hall, surrounded by the media, Steve Jobs just a few feet from me, for the first time unveiling this device that changed everything. A $400 mp3 player? "It will never fly." Well, the rest is history. You can actually see me in the audience in this Youtube video, at 5 minutes, 30 seconds.
Get well, Steve! I hope you're back at Apple soon.
Sachin: It's so sad. But at least he's getting better Sachin: Poor Steve Kate: You should send him a hug-o-gram Sachin: What's that? Kate: Someone goes and hugs him, usually dressed up as something Sachin: Why would I send someone else? I want to hug him myself
Apple has been affected by the economic collapse along with everyone else. Sentiments are low. Expectations are being lowered. Rumors of Steve Jobs being sick are plenty. But what is missing in all this is any real data on how much Apple sales have been affected by all this.
I'm not going to argue that Apple isn't being affected. Of course it is. Apple sells high end products for a lot of money. People are cutting back. But Apple has also been growing 30% year over a year. And selling a ton of iphones that are all deferred revenue.
Apple is high on the Amazon best selling lists. But the key here is the Apple's sell for *way* more money than the pcs.
Except for the MacBooks and one $599 Toshiba, every computer on that list sells for less than $500. The seven MacBooks, by contrast, sell for three times as much: an average of $1,473.41, after rebates. It’s almost as if Macintosh buyers were insensitive to price, even in a recession. In fact, the best-selling Apple on that list isn’t the cheapest; it’s a $1,299 unibody MacBook marked down to $1,218.98. The cheapest Apple — a $999 white MacBook, marked down to $929.99 — is No. 22. Over on Amazon’s desktop bestseller list, Apple did even better this Christmas morning: 4 of the top 5 are Macs.
I love reading stuff like this. People are willing to pay for quality. People aren't going to stop buying cheap PCs, of course. But it's great to see Apple has finally broken through as a luxury brand. They might cost more up front, but total cost of ownership is lower.
Speaking of total cost of ownership, this is a great article in the WSJ about someone's bad experiences with a PC. They just aren't worth the time (or the hair you will pull out).
One week until Macworld. About 3 weeks until earnings season. Cross your fingers.
A few months ago, Garry blogged about the gorgeous 30" displays we have the privilege of working on. In the comment thread, there was a discussion about the benefits of a 30" screen over 2 24" monitors, which is a common setup since people can get cheap Dell monitors (yuck).
A single large screen is nice because you don't have to deal with window management, which SUCKS. All your windows are on one screen, clean and simple.
I always used my 30" as a second screen to my 15" Macbook Pro. A couple weeks ago I was working over at Garry's and he suggested leaving my laptop closed and just using the 30" as the primary screen. Wow. I will never go back to the two screen setup.
Even though I'm basically leaving a 15" screen unused on my desk, I find myself being way more productive with this setup (I've been running with it for 2 weeks now). Not having to move windows between screens or shift my view around actually helps me work faster. I love it.
Comments [9]