The 2006 MacWorld Keynote: Viewing Between the Frames
01/10/2006 16:45 Filed in: Technology
If you seek hidden meaning in someone's words by "reading between the lines," what would you call it when watching streamed Quicktime video? "Viewing between the frames?" Maybe that's dumb, but we'll go with it for now.
I wasn't one of the fortunate ones able to sit in San Francisco to see and hear Steve live. I was one of the losers going back and forth between MacCentral and MacNN, constantly refreshing my screen for the updates. The video is now released in streaming Quicktime format, but too many people are hitting it and it's an exercise in frustration right now. Therefore, I'll write a few initial thoughts about today's revelations.
There was a lot of new information that Steve gave us, but as I read the updates, I felt like there was a lot we weren't hearing. This blog entry serves to "view between the frames" by giving you my speculation and hunches about some of what really was going on. I'm not trying to give an exhaustive examination of everything covered in the keynotes. There will be quite a few other sites doing that today. Here are just three three or so items that jumped out at me. If you agree or disagree, you're welcome to speculate with me in the comments below.
Revelation #1: Intel Macs Ahead of Schedule. Wow. After shocking the world with the announcement of a switch from PowerPC to Intel processors, what do you know--Apple has computers up and ready to go six months ahead of time! Since when is anything done in the technology world ahead of schedule? Are we really supposed to believe that Apple was planning all along to release new Intel-based Macs in June, but in a surprising feat of serendipity, they were able to pull off a six-month lead? Somehow I doubt it. I think this is a classic case of under-promise and over-delivery. Granted, such a long-range projection would buy Apple time in case the developers had come across some horrid unknown with their Intel-inside Mac Tower kits. However, if what Steve said was true back at the initial Intel announcement--that a variant of OS X had been secretly running on Intel processors in a secret Cupertino lab the last five years--then why would they need a year anyway? I admit I'm no programmer, but the promise of easily universal binaries was trumpeted fairly loudly back at the 2005 Developer's Conference. My hunch is that the plan was there all along to release new Intel Macs about this time. I'm sure MacWorld SF 2006 was the target goal. If nothing else, beating their deadlines by months at a time sure makes them look superior to Microsoft. How many years behind is Windows Vista?
Revelation #2: New iMacs and PowerBooks MacBook Pros. Boy the rumor sites got this one wrong, didn't they? What happened to the Intel-based Mac Minis and iBooks that everyone was whispering about? And 40-50" plasma screens? Come on! I'm not the first to speculate that Steve may have started to fight back against the rumor mills by spreading misinformation. It certainly wouldn't surprise me.
Second, anyone notice that the old comparisons between PowerPC processors and Intel processors are now officially a thing of the past. I mean the initial switch announcement surprised us anyway after we were told so many years that Macs with their PowerPC's were supposed to be so superior to Intel processors. And all those speed tests that made it look like Apple produced the fastest computers in the world! Now we're being told that the new iMacs are two to three times faster and the MacBook Pros are FOUR TIMES FASTER than the latest PowerBook revs. And if you go to Apple's site and look at the specs, these aren't even the fastest processors that Intel makes. Of course, the truth of it is that most currently manufactured processors are fast enough for the average application provided you have enough RAM and you aren't being slowed down by spyware and the Windows virus of the week. I'll be very interested to see what kind of specs are on whatever they call the replacements for the PowerMacs later this year. But now that the playing field has been leveled processor-wise between Apple and it's Windows cousins, processor speed comparisons will strictly be a thing of the past. But don't all of us Apple faithful feel like chumps now for believing what must've been a speed myth now that the new Macs are TWO TO THREE TIMES FASTER!
Third, is it just me, or does "MacBook Pro" seem like a clunky name? Is this just a bad take-off of the old WinBooks which was a take-off of PowerBook to begin with? How ironic. And will the iBook replacement merely be "MacBook" without the "Pro"? Like a friend of mine said, you'd think that with all of Apple's million dollar marketing geniuses, they could've come up with a better name than MacBook Pro.
Revelation #3: A New Technology Partnership with Microsoft. I was extremely surprised when the new version of iWork didn't include a spreadsheet application, the elusive, so-called "Numbers." In fact, it kinda blew my mind for a minute. I have iWork '05 and I admit that I don't use it much, but I have an interest in its development. But once the new technology partnership with Microsoft was announced--that Microsoft commits to Mac Office and other software for the next five years and Apple shares it's technology in a timely fashion with Redmond--it all seemed to make sense. Who do you think contacted who first? Did Bill call Steve and ask him to back off a bit on iWork or was iWork simply a bluff on Apple's part all along? I'd really be interested in knowing. I've looked at the screenshots of Pages 2 and Keynote 3. New photo-editing tools? So what. Is there really anything new in this software?
What are your thoughts? Am I too suspicious or do you think there were a few corporate conspiracies in place, even if they were created just for the hype. Feel free to share your questions, thoughts, comments, and rebuttals.
I wasn't one of the fortunate ones able to sit in San Francisco to see and hear Steve live. I was one of the losers going back and forth between MacCentral and MacNN, constantly refreshing my screen for the updates. The video is now released in streaming Quicktime format, but too many people are hitting it and it's an exercise in frustration right now. Therefore, I'll write a few initial thoughts about today's revelations.
There was a lot of new information that Steve gave us, but as I read the updates, I felt like there was a lot we weren't hearing. This blog entry serves to "view between the frames" by giving you my speculation and hunches about some of what really was going on. I'm not trying to give an exhaustive examination of everything covered in the keynotes. There will be quite a few other sites doing that today. Here are just three three or so items that jumped out at me. If you agree or disagree, you're welcome to speculate with me in the comments below.
Second, anyone notice that the old comparisons between PowerPC processors and Intel processors are now officially a thing of the past. I mean the initial switch announcement surprised us anyway after we were told so many years that Macs with their PowerPC's were supposed to be so superior to Intel processors. And all those speed tests that made it look like Apple produced the fastest computers in the world! Now we're being told that the new iMacs are two to three times faster and the MacBook Pros are FOUR TIMES FASTER than the latest PowerBook revs. And if you go to Apple's site and look at the specs, these aren't even the fastest processors that Intel makes. Of course, the truth of it is that most currently manufactured processors are fast enough for the average application provided you have enough RAM and you aren't being slowed down by spyware and the Windows virus of the week. I'll be very interested to see what kind of specs are on whatever they call the replacements for the PowerMacs later this year. But now that the playing field has been leveled processor-wise between Apple and it's Windows cousins, processor speed comparisons will strictly be a thing of the past. But don't all of us Apple faithful feel like chumps now for believing what must've been a speed myth now that the new Macs are TWO TO THREE TIMES FASTER!
Third, is it just me, or does "MacBook Pro" seem like a clunky name? Is this just a bad take-off of the old WinBooks which was a take-off of PowerBook to begin with? How ironic. And will the iBook replacement merely be "MacBook" without the "Pro"? Like a friend of mine said, you'd think that with all of Apple's million dollar marketing geniuses, they could've come up with a better name than MacBook Pro.
What are your thoughts? Am I too suspicious or do you think there were a few corporate conspiracies in place, even if they were created just for the hype. Feel free to share your questions, thoughts, comments, and rebuttals.