Today saw the release of an updated line of iMacs from Apple. This update expands the iMac line in both directions, going both toward the low end as well as the high end.

In releasing the new 24″ iMac Apple has filled the space between the iMac line and the Mac Pro line. What puzzles me, however, is what the expansion toward the low end (in the form of the $1000 17″ iMac) does for Apple, as the new iMac encroaches on the Mac mini line. Specifically, only $200 separate the high-end mini from the low-end iMac, and while it’s true that the iMac actually has weaker stats in some areas than the mini (specifically in the optical drive), you get a nice wide-screen 17″ display, faster and larger HDD, keyboard and mouse, iSight camera and significantly more powerful Inter Core 2 Duo (as opposed to Core Duo in the mini) processor in the iMac.

So what this is resulting in, for me, is a little confusion about what Apple is intending to do with their mini. It seems that the current price of the computer makes it unattractive in relation to the iMac. If Apple doesn’t come out with a significant price reduction or feature increase for the mini, Apple will have itself to blame for turning the mini into a dog.

This confusion about product specs and led me to reflect back on my thoughts on creating a new hardware paradigm/platform (ref. Utopian View (of Hardware)). I’d like to think that, under a sufficiently elevated model, products could be intelligently designed and promoted in such a way as to make understanding them simple and free of drama. Maybe that’s naive.

Continuing the series.

Point 4 - Platform uniformity unlocks developer creativity
Apple seems to have a disproportionally large percentage of truly creative development taking place on its Mac platform. Consider Textmate, X-plane, Coverflow, Delicious Library and iAlertU as a few of the numerous examples of third-party wonders that exist within the Apple community. Feel free to show me applications that show similar levels of innovation in the Windows/PC realm, if you can find them.

Why does Apple seem to have this lock on developer mind share/imagination? There are several factors at play, but I think the following are the most significant:

• Apple’s image as a platform for creative developers draws in creative developers. In this case perception actually does create the reality. Where other platforms trumpet that they are “ready for business” or some other mundane idea, Apple encourages it’s community to be rebels, innovators, outside-the-box types. This message/mantra is adhered to by the Apple community.
• A high quality API makes a big difference. I won’t assert that Apple’s API is better than Microsoft’s but I will assert that it is far better than anything on Linux. Instead of wasting cycles in trying to invent wheels, Apple developers are free to invent sleek enclosures for their 100mpg automobiles. Maybe that’s a bad metaphor, but the point should be clear.
• Hardware consistency further reduces developer headaches and extends creativity into new dimensions. This is the biggest point of the three, in my opinion. When development isn’t hamstrung by having to consider the lowest common denominator, truly interesting steps can be taken in development. Consider as an example Delicious Library, linked above. Now that most Apple computers being sold include a built in iSight camera, the developers at Delicious Monster could be free to think of innovative uses for those cameras. The result is software that enables a bar-code scanner through the camera that then allows users to catalogue their books, music, movies and more, simply by holding things up to the camera. iAlertU is another example of an interesting application that is only possible with a cohesive hardware platform.

Taking variables out of any equation makes the equation easier to solve. When you remove hardware variations, API variations, environment variations, etc., the problem of how to make things “Just Work” becomes a lot easier.

With fewer hurdles and roadblocks in place, Apple developers are free to explore creative ideas and options, options that aren’t necessarily out of reach on other platforms but are prohibitively complex or would reach a statistically insignificant portion of a diverse user base. Consider that point - even though by most measures Apple only controls 4-5% of the consumer computer market, the remaining ~90% of Windows based PCs are composed of such diverse components, in such innumerably complex configurations, that the ability to reach large portions of the market requires that developers for that platform not push any technological boundaries. The incredible diversity of the PC, a strength on one hand, becomes a liability with regard to innovation.

I’m trying to figure out the Apple formula. And of course I’m going to succeed where so many other have failed because I’m brilliant.

This is part one of I don’t know how many entries. We’ll see how many interesting things I can think of to write about. Without further ado:

Point 1 - Apple makes big, dramatic moves, not small ones.
Apple has regularly scheduled events where it can unveil and show off new hardware and software to its community. In doing so Apple might skip an incremental step or two in the hardware delivery schedule, but in return Apple gets to trumpet dramatic gains in power and capability on a regular basis. Steve Jobs gets to stand in front of the thongs and declare that the “deltas” clearly show 4.2x the performance of the previous generation! to which there is, of course, delirious cheering. Contrast this with muted press releases from other manufactures informing the public that they have indeed adopted the latest chip or technology from brand X. Yawn, the public comes to expect such things from commodity manufacturers.

It was interesting to note that Apple compared the new Mac Pro to a machine that Dell was already shipping when the Mac Pro was introduced at WWDC 2006 - configured almost exactly the same. This means that Dell had beaten Apple to market with a machine that was the equivalent of the Apple state-of-the-art. But who was paying attention to Dell? Nobody. I think this is a significant point, and shows how a steady incremental release cycle can cause speculation and enthusiasm about products, speculation and enthusiasm that is somewhat blind to reality. Well, let me caveat that previous sentence by acknowledging that the speculation builds only in the environment of secrecy that Apple is so famous for, which brings us to:

Point 2 - Apple develops its products in secret
Speculation is fun. We all guessed (or took more active measures) about what we were getting for Christmas because there’s something thrilling/aggravating about not knowing. Speculation allows us to scratch the itch of not knowing.

Combine the desire to speculate about what Apple is going to do next with a world/Internet that is rife with (wasted) talent and you have some pretty amazing results. These three videos are a good example of what enthusiasts can do to help a brand be even more hip than it already is.

So Apple encourages speculation by developing in long cycles and in secret. Of course, if Apple were making shoddy products that lacked any sort of sex appeal they wouldn’t have any amateur/enthusiast mind share anyway, which brings us to:

Point 3 - Longer cycles lead to better design.
Given a longer period between updates of hardware, more thought and care can be devoted to the design and presentation of the hardware - ie the form and function. I think this is underestimated by other manufacturers. If you’ve got to be one of the first out the door with a PC that integrates a new chip or device, how much time can you spend “tuning” the enclosures and other elements of your product to specifically suit the components? I’d say not much.

This is evidenced by the clunky huge boxes that are being shipped by most manufacturers - these boxes are being built to handle contingencies - and not Build-to-Order contingencies, but the type of contingency that shows uncertainty about what sort of thermal footprint a processor will leave or uncertainty about the task the product will perform. Given these uncertainties manufacturers simply allow for pretty much anything in the case. Vanilla, one-size-fits-all products are okay for some, but they don’t build excitement and they certainly don’t make an experience.

Apple can go in another direction entirely. By designing for purposes/markets/demographics they can make machines whose form is tied to function very tightly. In not trying to be everything to everybody Apple gets to design different and better hardware. They get to spend more time understanding their target audience given their long release cycles and then they get to spend more time making products suited to their audience. The iMac and the mini are perfect examples of this.

So there’s three observations down. I have a few more that I’ll share later, and then I’ll deliver my conclusion that reveals what my Utopian view of hardware actually is.

I’m going to take a big turn away from police monkeys for a little bit and share with you some of my serious thinkings.

Apple Computer occupies a fair portion of my computer related day dreaming. There’s a lot about Apple to like. One of the things that fascinates me most about Apple is how a company that’s so large and… corporate, can brand itself as such a stylish maverick in spite of itself. It’s all a marketing ploy, and it’s perfectly demonstrated by the Get a Mac campaign.

Whatever - it works is the point that I’m making here. Steve Jobs has his famous reality distortion field that extends out weeks ahead of any of the Mac World or WWDC events and, instead of people becoming conscious of the spin and resisting it, throngs have made the choice - in the face of clever phrases - to buy into the Apple experience. The experience factor is key here.

You see, nobody else sells an experience. Dell doesn’t sell an “experience”. The closest Dell ever got to having a corporate experience was the awful, “Dude, you’re getting a Dell,” campaign. HP does sell an experience, but the children must leave the room in order for us to speak of it. We don’t use such language around tender ears.

(Based on zero science, let alone research, I present to you the websites of the top PC manufacturers, plus Apple. This begins the survey of how the experience differs between retailers. Apple Dell HP eMachines Gateway)

Anyway, I want to believe that a satisfying computer owning experience can exist, in a mainstream manufacturer, outside of Apple. I’m not saying that I want Apple to be replaced by anybody - I just don’t want Apple to be the only company that makes a quality product that demands attention and desire in consumers.

(Note that I discount Alienware and FalconNW and the other “boutique” manufacturers here - sorry guys, but you’ll have to admit you’ve positioned yourself out of the mainstream)

So what makes the Apple experience so Apple? I don’t know for sure, but I have some thoughts. I’m going to share those thoughts over a few posts, after which I shall build to the big climax of it all - My Utopian View (Of Hardware).

I’m one of those people that have become an Apple enthusiast through the sweet bait that is the Mac mini. Prior to picking up my G4 mini in February of 2005, I had only used Windows, DOS, Be and Linux on PCs my whole computing life.

The Mac platform is amazing. Virus worries and spy ware are history, the system is rock solid (no crashing), the hardware looks sexy, I’m able to make killer movies and photo albums - everything “Just Works” - all while only sacrificing the ability to run most of the applications being written today. I say it’s worth it.

Yet I’m worried about Apple and harbor some reservations about the company and it was WWDC that has reinforced those reservations. In particular, several observers noted that Steve Jobs appeared gaunt and unwell, raising speculation that the cancer he fought in 2004 had returned. So many rumors were flying around that Apple was forced to issue a statement regarding Jobs’ health. Apparently he’s doing just fine.

Still, apart from being concerned for the man himself, I was concerned for Apple. What could an illness, or simply a departure, mean for a company that so obviously relies on the leadership and charisma of their chief executive icon?