I just watched this and Phil did a pretty respectable job, and not an enviable one.
iLife and and iWork and he new MBP are all solid updates.
Im pretty sure I want to get the new ilife for the new iMovie.
Also they had Tony Benet singing a couple of songs at the end!
Wow, that was so cool and sweet of Apple to present that to the audience.
A class act.
mi
The keynote went well enough. Wasn't much to present in reality but what there was was solid. Phil will do fine but he was obviously nervous.
The actuality of Apple's keynotes though is that it doesn't matter who does the physical presenting. The presentation is polished, the setting is polished, the staging, timing, etc, etc are all polished. Sure some (Steve Jobs) will do it better than others but compare just about anyone doing and "Apple Keynote" to even the best speaker in the world doing just about any other company's presentation and it's night and day.
I watched the Microsoft CES keynote and just had to shake my head. Aside from the technology, the presenters just don't get how to capture the audience. The presentations don't really look like they are prepared by truly inspired people and the delivery just can't kick it up. I can't quite place my finger on the specifics but it just looks like amateur hour on stage.
Watching a presentation given by someone who truly understands their technology and has some passion is incredible. Even if they make mistakes and there are minor mess ups, you still get it. They make you see it. For these people a script might be helpful, but it isn't even necessary because they know it and it shows.
__________________
“Maybe some day somebody will call me "Sir" without adding "You're making a scene"!!”
-Homer Simpson
Being in the room at Macworld, I was very impressed with the job that Phil Schiller did. It was my first 'in person' Keynote, but I've watched all of the previous Steve Jobs Keynotes online.
Phil did fine. He's not inspiring the way Jobs is, but he's passionate and competent, which still makes him WAY better than most slideshow-based speakers.
Actually, it matters a great deal hence the sturm und drang over Jobs not giving it this year.
It mattered from a corporate perspective but not from a "sitting-in-the-audience" perspective. The same information was dished out as would have been had Steve been the presenter. The presentation was marginally less interesting than a Stevenote but was still better than a Ballmernote for example. Where it did matter was in questions relating to Steve's health, the health of the company, looking forward, etc.
__________________
“Maybe some day somebody will call me "Sir" without adding "You're making a scene"!!”
-Homer Simpson
It mattered from a corporate perspective but not from a "sitting-in-the-audience" perspective.
I would disagree. If you asked people sitting in the audience who they'd rather listen to, no one would pick Schiller.
Quote:
The same information was dished out as would have been had Steve been the presenter.
You have no evidence or knowledge that that is true. As a matter of fact, "someone at Apple" told me that they *did* have product ready for a Jobs Keynote but that it was held back.
Quote:
The presentation was marginally less interesting than a Stevenote but was still better than a Ballmernote for example.
I would disagree. If you asked people sitting in the audience who they'd rather listen to, no one would pick Schiller.
You have no evidence or knowledge that that is true. As a matter of fact, "someone at Apple" told me that they *did* have product ready for a Jobs Keynote but that it was held back.
*I* could give a better Keynote than Balmer.
Of course they would rather see Steve Jobs on stage. We all have preferences. That's not my point. Given a fixed set of data, a fixed set of slides, a fixed stage setup, etc you can drop just about anyone in as presenter. With the Apple notes I find it's the whole package (minimal and elegant). With other companies there always seems to be a lack of polish on the slides, lack of polish on staging, poorly conceptualized data, bad choices of focus.
If, as you indicate, there actually were products to be introduced but held back, then Steve Jobs is probably going to be facing lawsuits by the shareholders. It would indeed show some level of obfuscation with the presenter change, the open letter regarding Steve's health and now, Steve's stepping aside temporarily. If there really is something new that was ready to go and it sits for any material length of time the shareholders will be furious. If the product truly wasn't ready to go, the shareholders can rest happy but then my argument stands - same data regardless of presenter.
I am not in disagreement that Steve Jobs is a great presenter. It's referred to as the "Stevenote" for a reason. The team can still do a good job if they follow the tried and true formula though.
__________________
“Maybe some day somebody will call me "Sir" without adding "You're making a scene"!!”
-Homer Simpson
Of course they would rather see Steve Jobs on stage. We all have preferences. That's not my point.
Sorry. That seemed to be exactly your point - that it doesn't matter who gives the presentation.
Quote:
Given a fixed set of data, a fixed set of slides, a fixed stage setup, etc you can drop just about anyone in as presenter.
And, as I said, that's not true at all. Given the above, you seem to be saying Balmer would do as good as Jobs. We know that's not the case.
Quote:
If, as you indicate, there actually were products to be introduced but held back, then Steve Jobs is probably going to be facing lawsuits by the shareholders.
Why? Apple didn't promise anyone they would announce new products at Macworld Expo.
Quote:
If there really is something new that was ready to go and it sits for any material length of time the shareholders will be furious.
How so? Everyone knows that, at any given time, Apple has product ready to be shown off. Apple chooses when they do so.
Linear Mode
