On Apr 29, 2010, at 6:43 AM, Ray Barber <[email protected]> wrote:
> Which kinda makes me think of Macworld. I think it was bad for Apple > to > bail from participation. I can understand them wanting to make more of > WWDC, but AFAIK going to both wouldn't have hurt their bottom line - > only > improved it. Macworld used to be Apple's time to make big announcements, once a year. That sucked from Apple's perspective, because they didn't get to decide when it happened. That effectively gave undue influence over product and marketing schedules to IDG, a publishing company! Post-iPod, the mainstream press pays more attention to Apple. Post- WWW, the average person has easier access to tech news. Apple can host special press events when it wants to announce something. It doesn't need Macworld like it used to. So what's the reason to go to Macworld? Keep in mind if they show up and don't announce anything, there will be critical headlines. So for the cost of materials, and the cost of people's time to attend---which are both real considerations even for a big company---what do they get? I'm writing all this because you say you could only see an upside in Apple being at Macworld. Even if you think it's a bad call, you have to admit their are trade-offs. To do a good job with something you usually need to focus and eliminate distractions. That's a vital part of design, which we should all be able to appreciate. Apple would rather do a good conference focused on iPhone OS than a mediocre conference divided in two. Don't take it personally. -- Ben
