It may be a relatively boring announcement for Mac users, but Safari on Windows is a big step toward Apple platformizing their web browser. The more people who use it the more web developers will write for it (which is a good thing for everyone, considering Web Kit, which Safari is based on, is the most standards-compliant of the major rendering engines). And the more sites that work in Safari, the more sites will work on the iPhone. Unlike a Mac, where I can run both Safari and Firefox, I won’t be able to switch to another browser on the iPhone (and probably any other web-enabled Apple device that’s not a Mac), so it’s important for Apple’s long-term device viability that Web Kit gets as broad support as possible.

I can’t decide if this is part of the plan, or a side-effect of Apple trying to control the iPhone experience. If it’s the latter, then they’d better produce mobile versions of iWork and iLife right quick, lest many a loyal Mac user jumps ship to web-based products. If it’s the former, well, I’m wondering exactly if iLife/iWork ‘07 might mean .Mac finally grows up into the Web 2.0 service it wants to be, offering read/write web access to all your media from any Mac or iPhone.

I just have to throw out some last-minute predictions before Steve Jobs’ keynote tomorrow morning. Even though I suspect not all of this will happen tomorrow, I already missed going on record with my thoughts on Apple & Akamai before Cringely read the tea leaves the same way I did (more on that in a minute).

I’m not sure if we’ll see a phone from Apple tomorrow, or if what we’ve all been waiting for will ever be identifiable as a “phone” at all, other than that it can place phone calls. It may or may not show up in the keynote (though my 2-year-old-Treo-toting-self really hopes it does), but at the moment I’m more interested in the phone (for lack of a better word) as a platform. I’ve been told by someone in the know that it doesn’t just do one or two things differently, such as being a good music phone or video chatting to Macs, which is expected at this point, but does more like five or six things differently, and that, unlike the iPod, it will be open to developers. In fact, we were instructed to get versed in the platform quickly, as Apple’s banking on it carrying their brand to ever corner of the globe in the next five years, just as the iPod did in the last five years. So what could those other features be, exactly, that are going to set the pace for mobile development in the next few years?

The one feature I’m speculating on, which, if it does show up, will likely be misunderstood at first, is Dashboard widgets. Ever since Dashcode was leaked months ago, I was suspicious – why did we need a dev tool to build what were, essentially, tiny web pages? If anything, iWeb should hold that functionality, no? Then Leopard was announced to be including Dashboard sync, a feature that no one really cared about. But together it points to Apple putting further emphasis on widgets, which, really, are a kind of silly thing to invest so much effort in. Yeah, they’re fun, but on a desktop they’re mostly little RSS toys, and don’t accomplish much you couldn’t do pretty easily some other way.

But we’ve never seen good implementation of web data on mobile devices. At best, you have Opera Mini, which is a decent web browser. But what if I just need movie times? It’s usually easier and faster to just call. But a widget-ized phone could provide such data quickly and easily. Add in a screensaver function, which updates news tickers and such when your phone is in your pocket, and we might finally have a good reason to use mobile data, all in a very seamless, Apple-y kind of way. I maintain that widgets were really always about mobile and (wait for it…) television, and introducing them in Tiger was a way to jumpstart development. Now, Apple can launch a phone platform that already has thousands of applications that work with it, and, because widgets use web technologies, Dashcode will make it super-easy for even amateur programmers to develop awesome software for the new platform.

And the new platform isn’t limited to the phone. Wouldn’t widgets on your TV be nice? The Wii Weather Channel is really much more fun that tuning in to The Weather Channel, and why wait for CNN to scroll headlines when you can scroll through them yourself? So, yes, I think the iTV (or whatever it ends up being called) will also be widgetized. I think the iTV will shape up to be much more than people predicted, as well, and will definitely integrate tightly with the phone and the 2007 iPods. (That’s part of why I’m not sold on the phone showing up tomorrow – touchscreen wireless iPods that can act as remote controls and mobile screens would be a nice complement to the iTV, whereas a phone may be too much newness.) And with all that Airport X2/X4 being pumped into our homes through the iTV, I bet the new phones will support VOIP. Maybe the new iPods, too? Maybe they’re actually the same product? I’m almost sure that 2007 will see the extension of OS X into other types of products, until the UIs of all the devices are one and the same, just task-optimized, and most of them probably syncing up through the iTV, which will act as a lightweight server, but we’ll think of it more like a media hub. There. That’s my all-encompassing theory for Apple’s 2007, which is probably not correct.

Okay, enough with the hardware speculation. And I’ll skip the rather-obvious rumors about OS X getting an Illuminous redesign (it will be gorgeous and resolution-independent, and will look identical across all the new products, with lots of optimizations for tiny screens and giant screens). The other thing that I think will happen in 2007 is that Apple will ditch Akamai and move iTunes to a Google-built delivery network. So, yes, Cringely said it, too, but here’s my take:

While everyone was bitching about Apple not being prepared for the obvious onslaught of those who were gifted iPods and iTunes gift cards for the holidays, some of us were thinking “oh, they knew, but it wasn’t their fault, it was Akamai.” After dealing with Akamai while I was at CBS, I can say first-hand that it’s awful – slow to update, unpredictable ping times, and lending you a feeling that you’re not actually in control of your own website. They’re almost certainly to blame for iTunes’ bad behavior on Christmas Day, and you can bet that Apple won’t let that happen again. Eric Schmidt is sitting on Apple’s board, and Google is probably the only company that owns the fiber and servers to support such a network. With their dark fiber purchases and shipping containers full of servers, they can and will be able to provide the fastest response times. This may lead to Google providing the same service for other companies, though probably not in 2007, as everyone waits to see how an HD iTunes on Google survives the next holiday season.

Cringely has this speil about why the new iTunes movies are “near-DVD quality” (but not DVD quality…yet), and why the HDTV-supporting iTV isn’t coming out until next year. Basically, Apple needs to keep Wal-Mart and Target and Best Buy happy, because they sell lots of iPods. They also sell lots of DVDs, so, for now, they can say “well, our movies don’t have extras, and are lower quality”. They’ll figure out that’s bunk when Disney starts making a lot of profits from iTunes sales, and other studios will be coming on board, which will increase sales even more. Apple is banking on that happening early next year, when the iTV is ready (with a better name and official 802.11n specs – which are necessary for pushing HD video around), and right after Blu-Ray and HD-DVD turn in a poor showing for the Christmas season (because consumers are confused about formats, and they’re over-priced, and no one cares in the first place). Also, the widescreen iPod will show up at the same time, to maximize the portable HD video.

Now, here’s the trickery: remember, Apple will still be selling SD video until this point. But, when the stars of 802.11n, iTV, and widescreen iPods align with sagging next-gen DVD sales, Apple will swoop in to “save” the retailers by installing servers in their stores that allow customers to download HD movies directly to their iPods in the store. That’s what the new ability to transfer purchased content *from* an iPod *to* a computer is really about – retail sales. This has two advantages: one, HD movies will take a *long* time for most people to download at home. It will be an option, sure, but you’ll be waiting at least an hour. Second, it placates the retailers, because they’ll get a cut of the movie sales, and, hence, still maintain a good relationship with Apple for selling iPods. Eventually, when bandwidth is high enough, Apple will kill off the retail distribution (which will probably happen at Apple stores, too), and all of the middle men will have been eliminated – content will flow straight from TV and movie studios to your iPod, and from your iPod to your home network to your HDTV.

Okay, I just summarized a lot of it, but go read it anyway, there’s some other interesting stuff in there.

Also, I’d like to officially state that I think the Apple phone will probably be one-and-the-same as the touchscreen iPod. It would be very Apple to make a device that changes form to fit its function, and they hold patents that would support something like that. Of course, they might need to get the widescreen iPod out in the market (to support those HD videos) before they’re ready for a phone that’s so incredibly fancy. But it really would be the ultimate convergence device, and I’m sure that if Apple does make phones, when they merge completely with iPods, they’ll just have touchscreens.

I wonder if that ad was part of the original Think Different campaign, or if they revived it just for her. Either way, it makes Apple more personal. They’ve been skewing toward the secretive and corporate lately, and it’s nice to see the human side peek out and recognize the importance of what we’ve all just lost.

And now the iPod lets you watch television (and podcasts!) anywhere you go, in glorious 2.5″ color.

Just sayin’. The iPod is nice, but will take a year or so to penetrate the market enough to have a significant impact. What it represents – the mainstreaming of portable video and, more importantly, of TV over IP – is far more significant.

Cringley thinks Apple wants the ABC shows to sell well, and that (along with better-implementations of video hardware) will convince Hollywood to open their vaults to Cupertino. Stephen Speicher thinks Apple wants the ABC shows to bomb (in the short term), so Hollywood will let Steve set the pricing. (That theory echoes similar thinking in an article about the ROKR which I can’t locate at the moment – the idea being that the ROKR will largely fail because of it’s implementation, and the cell industry will bow to Apple’s will to make mobile music distribution work.) Honestly, I don’t think it much matters how well they do – if they do well, Cringley’s route will likely be taken, and we’ll end up with $2 videos permanently. If they don’t sell, Apple will likely be able to negotiate lower prices for a second go ’round, and that will spur sales, and Speicher will have called it. Most likely, it will be somewhere in between, prices won’t change much, and the release of Pixar’s first film in iTunes will dictate feature-length pricing in the near future. (My bet for features is $10, but that’s pricing that would drive most studios insane. They’ll demand proof that it will sell well, which Steve will likely deliver with Cars next fall, says I.) Importantly, Apple has taken the first big step in getting mainstream consumers used to obtaining and consuming video via the internet, a big step which will take years to play out.

All of this will take some time to play out, though, and 2006 will likely be a volatile year for video distribution/consumption and Apple. The more significant thing in the immediate future, though, is for vloggers, who now seem destined to be called “video podcasters”. (This is probably a good thing for branding, since we’re still getting most people to understand the idea of a podcast.) As is widely discussed, a recent confluence of events (most notably reality TV and the popularity of particular no-budget films and documentaries) has been training audiences to accept and embrace lower-quality video, camera work, and production values. Note that the TV shows on iTunes are 320 x 240, a resolution lower than some cameraphones take today. Of course, these aren’t shot on cameraphones, and have lots of money involved in producing them, but the fact that any vlog can sit next to Lost at (technically) the same quality is significant. With the right concept and people, anyone can produce something equally (if not more) compelling with off-the-shelf hardware. I think it’s only a matter of months before Apple helps mint a video podcast star with a hundred thousands viewers. Rocketboom stands a good chance, or maybe someone completely new. (I’m still searching for compelling narrative storytelling in online video.) And within the year I fully expect an indie “network” (really just a brand umbrella for a number of shows, all that ABC becomes in this post-broadcast world) to draw together a bunch of compelling content under one advertising banner, like all the new blog networks. This will be even more viable as Apple begins pushing video in the living room, which is now the (even more) obvious move, either with an 802.11n Airport Express or a media center Mac mini. Or both!

I’m quietly working on a venture (privately, not with CBS) related to all of this, and the new push for video in iTunes is good news for that. I only wish I was ready to launch at this point, but it’s looking like I’ll still squeeze in before the end of 2005, which seems early enough, while maybe lending me perspective on what else I’ll be up against.

With the recent introduction of more budget conscious items (I’m looking at you, Mac mini and iPod shuffle), it’s easy to wonder if Apple is about to loose some of it’s luxurious sheen. As both the shuffle and the mini are likely to quickly become the best selling iPod and Mac, simply because of their price, is the Apple brand about to become a commodity? Don’t bet on it.

For one thing, AppleInsider is reporting that Apple will launch their most extravagant retail store yet, right on New York’s upscale Fifth Avenue:

sources say Apple will turn the 21,000-square-foot space into a retail store that will ‘rival anything seen so far’ from the company’s retail division.

Specifics are lacking, but one source claims Apple will give the exterior of the store a look similar to the glass Pyramid found in the Louvre’s cour Napoléon, only in cube form.

Such a store would be a departure from traditionally stylish-yet-functional Apple retail stores, and the even more economically expedient mini stores, popping up in malls and airports.

Rather, I think Apple’s release of truly low-end iPods and Macs is the completion of a long-standing plan to verticalize their brand. If you look hard, all major Apple products come in three flavors: budget/consumer, midprice/prosumer, and luxe/professional. This is now true for Macs (Mac mini, iMac/iBook, Power Mac/Power Book), iPods (shuffle, mini/white iPod, white iPod/photo), as well as software (iLife, “Express” products, “Pro” products), and now even retail stores (mini store, Retail, Fifth Avenue).

Making such clear delineations, and providing three levels of products across the board gives Apple several advantages over more complex product schemes. First of all, it makes it incredibly simple to choose a product. Just getting started with video editing? Use iMovie. Need a graphics workstation? Buy a Power Mac. In addition, it can make upgrading just as simple. Love your iPod mini but need more storage space? How about a 20GB white iPod? Did your band just book a tour? Maybe it’s time for Logic Express.

Most importantly, this vertical market, encompassing everything from a music player you’d give a ten-year-old to the boxes that power some of the fastest supercomputers in the world, allows even those of us without trust funds to feel like we’re playing in the same league as Paris Hilton. Sure, my iPod may not have Swarovski crystals on it, but it does all the same things as any celebrity’s. In recent years, there’s been a huge surge in semi-luxe products – things which don’t cost that much more than the standard fare, but make you feel like you’re buying something fancy and elitist. This stems from the huge growth in single-digit millionaires in the last decade; these are people who certainly are wealthy, but not insanely so. Their purchasing habits have trickled down to the rest of us, and now you can’t walk into a drugstore without encountering “luxury” shampoo.

Ever since the return of Jobs, Apple has done a good job of making its customers feel like they’re flying first class. Now that there really are iPods and Macs “for the rest of us,” it’s also enabling the most budget-conscious computer users to feel like they’ve bought into something special. This is an important part of the Steve Jobs “reality distortion field” – buying Apple products makes us feel good, and powerful, and important. Now that even grandma can afford the BMW of computers, and people like me can afford to have two in the garage, it makes it that much harder for your run-of-the mill Wintel computer to compete.

An unsubstantiated end-note:
At the moment the iPod line seems the most confused. You could easily argue that the iPod mini constitutes a more luxe product than the white iPod (based on gigabytes per dollar), and the white iPod seems to inhabit a space between the mid- and high-end. Based on this, I’d predict that all 5G white iPods will likely be photos, pushing them to the high-end category, planting the mini in the mid-range, and keeping the shuffle at the bottom. This makes the most sense to me, and fits squarely with Apple’s pricing for other products.