Slashdot Mirror
iPod for Windows (again)
beckett writes "Yahoo is reporting that TrentSoft has released EphPod, software that allows Windows users to use all the features of the iPod. I'm suprised that it took a third party to provide support." Also note the previous story on the XPlay, a similar software package.
Is Apple simply not on the ball with this?
I have been pwned because my
about the lack of Windoze support.
iPod is Apples Killer app....
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
They are just testing the waters for now. An Apple representative has reportedly told the press that in the next Mac Show Apple should have something to this effect.
Rapid Nirvana
Apple wants as many people as possible to buy their computers. They have a larger margin on iMacs than on iPods. If you were in their shoes, would you pay programmers to develop windows drivers?
Trollem mirabilem hanc subnotationis exigiutas non caperet
Ephemeral? Ephesians? Ephedrine? Dophpe spelled backwards?
:CueCat...
And what's with the colon in front, shades of
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
considering the fact that they make a buttload of money on Mouse Hardware, it surprises me trmendously that they haven't jumped the mp3 bandwagon yet...
Then again, the XBox hardware adventure hangover still got them knocked down I guess
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
Will apple never learn? In my opionion apple has always been great innovators but they seem to alway limit their product to their market share. Today with such a low market share it seem pretty obvious that their products should be more compatable with the rest of the world. Mac, Windows, Linux.... who cares everyone likes music. Make a great player that does not discriminate by OS and watch the money roll in!
Now, of course, I am not saying that an iPod is going to make the standard typical PC using geek/nerd/gamer/etc want to rush out and buy a Mac, but combine it w/ MacOS X, competitively priced notebooks (not to mention sexy), and some of the other nice details that come w/ owning a Mac (iMovie, Office on *nix, etc), and some people just might be swayed to buy one.
So, why do you think Apple should cause one of their "hot products" to be supported by default on a competitor's hardware? If a PC user wants to use this hardware, then they can do the extra work required to get it to work w/ their hardware...or they can get a Mac.
IMHO, it is not Apple's problem.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
I'm suprised that it took a third party to provide support.
Yeah, that's weird. You'd certainly expect Apple to be eager to give people one less reason to buy their computers and OS.
[/sarcasm]
--saint
I thought Firewire transfered much, much faster than that (like ~30MB/s). If this is slower, is it just because it's such a hassle to deal with the iPod on a PC?
our written thoughts are gifts to our future selves
hardware limitation
2 more words
cheapest bidder
2 more
breaks easily
2 more
battery hungry
As I said in another comment, they probably don't want to. Apple wants as many people as possible to buy their computers. They have a larger margin on iMacs than on iPods. If you were in their shoes, would you pay programmers to develop windows drivers?
Now, they've apparently supported these developers by giving them access to the iPod's specifications. Why? I know many Windows users who would love to get an iPod; however I don't think many of them would buy an iMac because the iPod only works with iTunes.
If Apple's margins on the iPod are larger than I thought, Apple clearly benefits from this software. Windows people start buying iPods, increasing the sales, and Apple does not have to support them, redirecting them to Mediafour or TrentSoft.
What do you think?
Trollem mirabilem hanc subnotationis exigiutas non caperet
a big chunk of apple is owned by our friends at MS
Stupidest post ever.
Okay, not the stupidest but still not even remotely true.
If the answer to both of these is "yes", then I'm off to buy one ...!
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Microsoft today has no hold on shares or interests in Apple, except for perhaps selling software...
I big chunk of Apple IS NOT owned by MS. I don't know where people get this notion. MS made a 25 million dollar investment in Apple back in 97 to end a bunch of lawsuits Apple had against them. The investment gave then 25 million dollars in NON VOTING shares. It was all a beautifully crafted move by Steve Jobs to get a new cash influx into the company. So, Apple got the money they needed from Microsoft, without giving them one ounce of control.
And now the Apple-Microsoft partnership is over. Notice the UNIX ads with Netscape in the Dock, instead of IE? How about the fact that Apple now uses Chimera at presentations? The fact that iChat talks with AIM instead of MSN? Microsoft really has no control of Apple, and never did.
I'm sure Apple is worth a heck of lot more than 25 million dollars these days.
"A big chunk of Apple is owned by our friends at MS"
Don't you read? 150 million dollars of non-voting stock five years ago is not "big chunk". It has been a nice little earner for Mr Gates as it is currently worth 8-10 times what he paid for it. But it's non-voting...geddit...
Biggest reason for Apple not to include iPod or ##### for Windows is that they do want you to buy a Mac. When ##### comes outyou'll want one more. Going to buy more third party software just to get it to work?
BUY A MAC!
sorry i couldnt help my self. but seriously i cannot believe that there is no strong windows based competiton. i mean in terms of OS-software-hardware combo, like the Mac OS(X)-iTunes-iPod combo. its not like Micro$0ft cannot afford it or develop it. and if they hire a good designer it might just work.
I want 2D games back.
Why is it that if Apple releases a product that only works with their systems without a third party application, everyone says "Oh, well of course. They sell Macs, so why shoot themselves in the foot by making it work with PC's running Windows?"
Now let's flip the situation. Someone makes an MP-3 player, printer, external hard drive, whatever, that only runs under Windows. Now everyone cries "Why don't they port it to Linux, Mac OS X, Solaris, Joe's OS 0.001?"
I just want to know why it's fine for Apple to only make their hardware work with their OS, but everyone else should port to everything else?
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
"EphPod is named after my alma mater, Williams College. Our mascot is the Eph, pronounced EEF, after the school's founder, Ephraim Williams."
~Source
As with the sun's light
My mom was magnificent
Unquestionable
subjects says it all
I'll tell you where Bill is. Out in the cold. MS doesn't "own a big chunk of Apple". I wish people would quit believing this. MS bought $150 million of NON-VOTING stock 5 years ago. Most if not all of it was sold when Apple's stock price was very high. MS even made a profit out of it. MS has no voice on Apple hardware/software development.
So what if you have to have 3rd party support to use i-Pod on Windows? I bet you use 3rd party apps to make your MP3s. You should be glad Apple isn't preventing 3rd parties from making compatibility software. Apple's usual course is to just sue people who use their products in ways they don't like.
Rumors are Apple itself will come out with Windows compatible software or hardware. But since it's Apple there's no way to know for sure.
Be thankful you have the money to burn. Why anybody would buy a Mac just so they can use their i-Pod is beyond me. I own a Mac and simply can't afford to buy anything beyond food and rent. So please, quit your complaining about having to get a 3rd party app to run your 1st class hardware and how you no longer need to buy a Mac.
Yes, I'm frustrated ATM. Nothing personal.
pudge: i-thought-everyone-alredy-switched-to-mac
i-thot-evry-1-new-how-to-spel-already
Is that properly licensed, I thought Apple's controls everything....
The richest terrorist on the lam must own some shares of Apple. After all, plastic is a petroleum-based product and Apple puts out lots of plastic. Heck, the iPod is a brick of plastic! If you support Apple, you are supporting the terrorists.
You hear me pudge??
I have been pwned because my
... Windows for iPod!
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-934901.html
Yahoo! News just republishes stories, it doesn't write them.
There are plenty of high capacity MP3 players out there (Nomad, Terapin etc.) and a few medium capacity ones too (e.g. NEX II which is IBM Microdrive compatible).
Sure, it looks nice enough but when you can get a player with 20Gb of storage for less money, I can't see the attraction.
All things in moderation; including moderation
Here is a (probably stupid) thought: if this software somehow damages the iPod (OK, I don't see how that is possible, but in the off chance it screws w/ the iPod's builtin software), is it still covered by Apple's warranty? Do you think it would be a good move for Apple to not cover it? I mean, they don't cover damage of unsupported use of their computers (such as using non-CDs in the optical drive), so should they cover unsupported use of the iPod?
am I making any sense? or is this completely unfeasible?
P.S. the graphics on apple.slashdot.org look uber-sweet. :)
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
hrmmm...I wonder what the discrepancy is...
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Q: What do I need to use an iPod with my PC?
:)
A: You need a firewire port on your PC, and some software to allow you to add song files to your iPod.
Since you're reading the EphPod help file, you should know that the best software solution is EphPod plus MacOpener.
They even mention several compatible firewire cards and answer the question as to why you need a powered firewire cable.
www.ephpod.com/faq.html
I'm sure the web site could answer even more questions should you have them.
T
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
please do not post Yahoo links for situations where the story is available elsewhere (eg associated press, reuters, etc), in this case CNet: http://news.com.com/2100-1040-934901.html
[[campaign against Yahoo pop-under advertising]]
According the Open Group (owner of the UNIX trademark), MacOS X is UNIX and not a Unix-like operating system (like Linux and BSDi). MacOS X follows the Single UNIX® Specification as set by the Open Group allowing Apple and its users to call MacOS X UNIX and not *nix. So feel free to call MacOS X for what it is, pure, certified UNIX -- just a real fruity version of it.
Oh yea, I LOVE my iPod. The best MP3 ever made for the UNIX platform.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Ephpod rocks my world.
Have you ever wished Apples design for the OS and the Apps would trickle down to "other" osses?
I have.
Well Ephpod just did it. Its software is beautifull, and simple to use, as is the marvelous iPod.
It installed in 5 minutes, windows2k has build in IEEE 1394 (firewire) support, so plug in your el-cheapo Firewire PCI card, reboot, install Eph and bobsyourunlce.
Some feats on the iPod:
- Best formfactor for HD mp3 players, it actually fits in a breast pocket.
- Stores 10GIG
- Transfers at firewire blazing speed
The only drawback is the godawful high price
I take no care in comments that apple _should_ release for other OSses, their apps, their hardware their choice.
A different "stink" is the lack of Macdrive support for other OSses. Whereas Apps and special hardware are their own deal, the lack of support for mac disk formats is another. In the best interest of Apple buyers, and people sharing data with them, it is _needed_ to buy third party stuff like MacOpener for windows from dataviz.
Now THATS reason number one for oldschool MacFreaks to eventually switch;their customers run windows, and are tired of converting files and disks. This is the stupidist thing from Apple since quicktime.
When are we getting linux mp3 players that are cheap and dont suck?
Gr Richard
Should have been:
The best MP3 player ever made for the UNIX platform
Haven't had my coffee yet...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
The whole "it only works with the mac" is, to be honest, just silly.
The ipod is a firewire hard drive. The songs are stored in a hidden directory. That's it. You don't need complicated products to do this shit for you or anything. The whole itunes library-sync thing is convenience.
all you need to use your ipod with linux is a patch that lets you mount hfs+ hard drives and view invisible folders, and cp.
linux can do hfs+ right?
- super ugly ultraman
Rumors are Apple itself will come out with Windows compatible software or hardware. But since it's Apple there's no way to know for sure.
e rs/mp3-players company?
;)
Yeah, really...after all, look what happens when Jobs says he has something that will change the world.
I bet you use 3rd party apps to make your MP3s. You should be glad Apple isn't preventing 3rd parties from making compatibility software.
Good point. My entire desktop is mainly "third party" stuff. Even if Apple included something, I'd probably end up seeking out another company who's sole purpose was to build something better...I never got the point of having one company do everything. Would you rather buy MP3 software from an MP3 software company, or a hardware/software/servers/office/home/lamps/scoot
Yes, I'm frustrated ATM. Nothing personal.
Great, first Sentient ATM now a frustrated one. I'll look forward to oh-so-clever stories of eating cigarettes in the future.
I mean think about it. Apple released a tightly integrated device that works quite automagically. Most things in iTunes, even when connected with USB or Firewire, happen automagically, or require only single button drag and drop use. Even though Windows has almost this level of simplicity, Windows is also controlled by Microsoft. Microsoft actively tries to screw every other vendow(and honestly, to some extents, so does Apple), which means no one knows if the software is going to work with the next patch.
By releasing a minimal, yet compelling version, and allowing other to expand it, Apple is harnessing the third party market in a perfectly reasonable way. I feel it made the same decision when it did not build in windows networking, another moving target, into MacOS 9. Thursby Software had an inexpensive working method, and handled all problems with Windows, including clueless users that do not wish to pay software.
Now some would say that Apple should be nice and create a better value for Windows users. Of course, Apple does not exist to make Windows more valuable, does it.
To predict the critics, Internet stuff is a bit different. Products like realplayer promote the brand. It is also safer because it does not deal with the low level system and hardware layer that Microsoft likes to mess with on a regular basis. Again, so does Apple.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
sounds like we need a poll for whether the /. news posters should edit the stupidity out of the news comments that readers submit.
There would be a lot less flames.....
that's because there's a difference between
having `proprietary, integrated functionality'
(whatever `proprietary functionality' is, are you
suggesting that others can't copy apple?) and
guarding it jealously (which apple isn't given
the fact that there's
more iPod apps for windows than mac os).
foad kthx.
Apple does not do the same things m$ does. With Apple, you can still choose to use another mp3 player, web browser, etc. Where is this with m$? They do not allow it, because the software is integrated, and removing it would "jeopardize the OS", complete bullshit, but it what they would have you believe.
If I am not mistaken, Apple is primarily a computer hardware company, right? Which means that they want to sell their own computers, right? Which means that if other cool products they release work only with their computers by default, then their computers just might look a little more attractive to the potential computer buyer, right?
... all it is doing is costing them sales they would have otherwise had in other market segments.
Bzzt! Thank you for playing.
Apple isn't just shooting themselves in the foot anymore with their proprietary hardware nonsense, they've now moved on to taking a fully loaded automatic and emptying the clip into both of their feet, lathering, rinsing, and repeating the procedure until nothing is left below the knees other than a vaguely red mass of shredded flesh and shattered bone.
Case in point:
I recently purchased a large and very expensive monitor. Apple's marketing of their 22" 1600x1024 monitor was what initially sparked my interest in such a monitor, but having used SGI's 17" 1600x1024 offering, I found the notion of simply having bigger pixels at the same resolution vaguely disatisfying. So I looked around and was delighted to see Apple's 23", 1920x1200 HD capable monitor.
Only to discover that the idiots had decided to use a proprietary, nonstandard interace to their monitor, such that it will only work with an Apple computer (unless you buy an external, likely trouble-prone dongle remeniscent of what SGI's 1600SW required, and which has a reputation for adding noise to the digital (!!) signal because power is transmitted on the same cord). I called the Apple store and was informed that they wouldn't guarantee it would work with a standard DVI interface, and that if it didn't I would be left wearing the $3600 door stop.
I was ready to buy the monitor then and there. Apple lost a $3600 sale as a direct result of their proprietary mindset. And no, there was never a remote chance of my spending another $4k on an Apple G4 system just for the privelege of spending $3.6k on an expensive monitor. Bill Gates is far more likely to learn a modicum of business ethics than I am to spend $8k on Apple equipment when, for $4500, I was able to go out and buy an excellent Samsung 24" LCD monitor that does the same 1920x1200 resolution and will not only work with standard PC DVI interfaces, but will also work with analog cards, and has two video inputs as well (composit and s-video). Had there been no such monitor available I would have opted to wait, knowing that a PC capable device would only have been a question of time. I would not, ever, in a million years, have gone out and spent $6k - $8k for the privelege of having a working 23" LCD with Apple's logo (and ugly frame).
Had Apple's 23" monitor used a standard DVI interace, they would have made an immediate $3600 on a non-apple, PC user (despite the ugly frame). Instead they made $0.
The same is true of the iPod. I'm not about to go out and spend a thousand or more bucks on a platform I have no interest in simply in order to be able to use a several-hundred dollar iPod. So instead of making a few hundred bucks on a non-Apple user, they make $0, yet again.
People will only opt to use Apple computers because they like Apple, or prefer the applications available on Apple, or have a specific reason to use Apple. No one in their right mind would choose a particular platform because this or that peripheral (iPod, big LCD monitor) has been crippled to only to work with that hardware, particularly in an age where you can wait for 6 months (maximum) and have it availabel for whatever platform you prefer.
In other words, Apple's obsolete proprietary mindset isn't making them any more sales, and thus any more money
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
That would be because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and Apple only has 5% of the market. Apple can't abuse a monopoly they don't hold.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Okay, Apple builds a cool but expensive MP3 player. They write the software for it to run on the mac, which helps to sell macs. Sounds good so far, right?
Now, they are helping other companies write software so the player runs on other systems. The other companies pick up the marketing costs, support costs, and add a small "windows tax" in the form of the price of the software, which sill helps the mac to look more attractive.
And apple makes more money by selling the iPod to a larger market.
I think this is a brilliant move by Apple. They open up a larger market with little effort, and eliminate the supports costs.
--T
http://www.theMediaBunker.com
HFS volume support for free on Win32 and Linux: http://gamma.nic.fi/~lpesonen/HFVExplorer/. I've even been able to burn Mac CD's from the disk images it creates on my PC! Neat!
You don't want to sell me deathsticks. You want to Mod me informative.
The party's over
PortalPlayer, the chipmaker for the iPods just got fourth round funding of $42 million. Amongst the investors are J.P. Morgan Partners, Investcorp International and Shamrock Capital Advisors. Though the company has no announced customers for it's chips, it's relationship to the iPod has already been documented here on /. . According to representatives from PortalPlayer, this is the last round of financing before IPO (though they have no timetable at this point). Read more at news.com.
Simple business. Apple wants to make this a very sought after product. If they only make it available for their computers then it means people will buy THEIR computers so that they can have an IPOD. It's very simple. Yes, you would think that if they made this one product available to a wider customer base that they would improve their profits, but then you have to remember that they also don't offer their operating system for x86 (and it's also written into the MacOS license agreement that it is illegal to use the operating system on a non-apple branded computer) architecture. If Mac would offer support for the operating system and have an x86 version of the operating system as well as a powerpc version (g3, g4, 680xx) as well as sell both types of hardware I think they could become more dominant in the industry, but they are very tied to their hardware.
The bottom line? Apple doesn't want non-mac support for the IPOD because their profits are so heavily tied to people buying THEIR computers. It wouldn't surprise me if somewhere in the IPOD license agreement it says you can only use it with a computer using the Macintosh Operating System.
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
One of the iPod ability is that it can be a bootleg machine. Now comes with Windows compability? More MP3 yay!
Okay, not the stupidest but still not even remotely true.
MS owns 15% non-voting stake in Apple. I'd say that 15% is a pretty big stake in a rival.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
But can you install Linux on this mother??
"The two most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity." -Harlan Ellison
First off.... For the past 10 years or so I've been Windows/Intel-type bound. But now I own the flat-panel iMac and you'll have to pry it from my cold dead fingers many times over before I'll let you take it away. I love the OS and the machine looks neat to boot.
One thing that I find rather annoying is when people complain that Apple products don't work with their PC's such as there being no Windows iPod software and Apple using non-standard connections for things like their flat screens.
First, the iPod. If Apple released software for the iPod to connect to the PC then they'd have to support it. The people in their building are Mac coders and know Mac stuff inside and out. Do they know Windows? I dunno. But probably not all that well. It costs to support an additional operating system. With the internet being as it is they probably could have released the iPod with no software and software would have arisen to use it on the Mac and the PC. Of course that would've been dumb so why not support your own platform. Let the other guys worry about their platform or let somebody else do it for free. They may lose some money because nobody will buy their non-existent $19.95 program that let's you use the iPod on the PC but Joe Schmoe just made it for them and they're selling $400-$500 iPods like hotcakes.
Now this is a little off-topic but I've seen a few people complain about it in this newspost. People are ill at Apple because the flat screens that Apple sells for it's hardware won't plug into most PC's without a dongle or something. Well so what? My TV doesn't plug into my iMac without a dongle and a little piece of hardware. My old PC monitor won't work with my iMac either unless I put Bob's string of dongles between my iMac and the monitor. My toaster won't plug into my iMac either and probably never will (although I'm sure somebody will do it soon so they can link me to it to irk me!). Apple sells hardware and makes software for Apple computers. It's their deal. That's what they do. If Radio Shack Bob want's to back some special inbetween hardware to let people use apple hardware with pc hardware then let 'em at it. If that programmer wants to create the software interface to use the hardware on the PC then yippee for them. Don't rag on Apple because their toast fits in their toaster and nobody elses without some modifications.
Yeah... it was probably a bad rant. I'm sure I'll be shown the errors of my ways in less than 30 minutes or my money back...
"MS doesn't "own a big chunk of Apple". I wish people would quit believing this. MS bought $150 million of NON-VOTING stock 5 years ago"
$150 is a big chunk. And M$ owns it. One sentence contradicts the other.
The reason M$ invests in Apple is that Apple cannot survive on its own. M$ wants Apple to survive so the "M$ monopoly" claim is weaker. Apple is basically Microsoft's beard.
To my knowledge, Microsoft didn't write a bit of code for PocketPC to synch on Mac OS X or Linux. Microsoft (software company) made something that would only work with their software. Apple (hardware/software company) made something that would only work with their hardware/software. No difference.
"With Apple, you can still choose to use another mp3 player, web browser, etc. Where is this with m$?"
I can use many times more media players and browsers on Windows than I can on Mac OS.
"Where is this with m$? They do not allow it, because the software is integrated, and removing it would "jeopardize the OS", complete bullshit, but it what they would have you believe"
They do allow it (use of alternative programs). And the alternative programs far outnumber the ones for Mac. Removing the M$ parts? why bother. Just use something else and leave the M$ stuff on there. It does not take up that much room.
Now, try to use non-M$ OS on a PC. Try the same on a Mac. A lot harder.
I saw the "Eph" part and had to look - I went to college with that guy (Williams College - the sports teams are the "Ephs").
hot damn - he made it to slashdot.
another fellow on here - Ross Hammond was in a few of my classes too (he was on here for work on simulating ethics via a prisoner's dilemma sort of thing)
damn, I feel so inadequate
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
"Would you rather buy MP3 software from an MP3 software company, or a hardware/software/servers/office/home/lamps/scoote rs/mp3-players company?"
I'd rather not buy MP3 software in the first place. If a company is selling it, I'd just bypass them for the companies giving out software (like Winamp) for free.
its ajoke but seriously..
..ie in this case with MS..proejct woudl get no where due to MS wanting to contorl every possible portion of market..
Apple's strategy was formed years ago when they first wanted to port windows 32 api to OpenStep so that you coudl run both acOSx and windwos winNT on PowerPC hardware..
THey foudn if they did a driect approach
Thus the strategy of unoffically supporting crossplatform development fo supposedly mac centric products such as iPod..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Microsoft chooses to use their own product (IE) in its own software. Where's the problem with that?
If I were to implement my Help system as HTML and wanted to use a browser for it, why not require the usage of one that guarantees that your help files are renderred as expected? I know that I, for one, would prefer to avoid the tech support nightmare of supporting every browser on the planet for my help files (just one instance..).
Of course, I actually use business reasoning instead of religion to dictate my decision making.
T
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
It is just about making money. Epson and HP don't make Mac drivers for the sake of fairness; they do it to sell printers to the Mac market. Apple would sell more iPods if they offered PC support, true, but having the iPod be Mac only (at least officially) is a selling point for their computers. The iPod is a nice piece of hardware, but it is more importantly a major marketing tool for Apple.
At the time the iPod was introduced, I think Steve Jobs said that Apple could make the iPod work with Windows, but the experience would probably not be as good (as with Apple computers).
I have used Windows 2000 but not Windows XP. I wonder if people are generally happy with XP these days.
Having been through *loads* of portable music devices from the original Sony Walkman, portable CD players, portbale DATs, Minidisc (still my favourite), and various MP3 style devices, I find that I cant decide about the iPod. Part of the charm of the iPod is its looks. People who buy overpriced Apple products are not purely about its functionality. The look, styling and subsequent "pose" value are part of it. The idea of having portable music is that you can slip the device into a pocket or bag and forget about it. Having to pull it out, fiddle and return it is a hassle. It is also a security risk, pulling out a $300 device in a public place is just asking for trouble. I, for one, would never purchase one unless it had a remote control on the earphone cord. I cannot seem to find any photos or information about the device which says that it comes with such a feature. No point in having a player that you *must* dig out and show the World......or is that partly what its all about with the iPod? Can anyone help me out with this one? Po
Non-voting means it doesn't matter. Apple can talk smack about MS all they want, and even decide to not do buisness with them, and all MS can do is sell the stock.
Before you babble nonsense, why don't you try Quicktime. Download Quicktime 6, click on WGBH Boston's Mango Blue link, and tell me with a straight face that Network TV should not be very afraid. Not to mention QTSS, Broadcaster, VR, etc.
Do you even know the history of Quicktime and how instrumental it was to multimedia?
Lies about crimes
The Single UNIX Specification is supported by the X/Open UNIX brand, which in turn is supported by a verification program. The X/Open brand provides the guarantee that products adhere to the relevant X/Open specification. Systems that provide the Single UNIX Specification interfaces can be X/Open UNIX branded as proof to the marketplace. The Single UNIX Specification is the programmer's reference to the portability environment provided on X/Open UNIX branded systems.
Apple is listed as a Single UNIX® Specification vendor therefor allowed to use the trademark of UNIX®. Might not be the cold, inhuman UNIX® you are used to but the Open Group allows Apple to call its lickable OS, UNIX® by being a vendor of a Single UNIX® Spec.
This is a really old debate...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Oh. Thought they still did. They guy who said that MS owned no Apple said that MS owned $150 million.
obviously you've never researched market reactionism, trendfollowing etc. If 15% of a company were to be sold the value of the stock would likely go down way more than that simple transaction would indicate.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
And I say they own zero percent of Apple.
Do you have a source for your assertion?
Whatever the problems wiht M$, Apple is even worse:
" This big brother mentality that Microsoft has often leads them to not just make things that only work with windows, but to actually encourage companies...."
Companies, like Dell, Compaq, etc? At least there are multiple companies allowed to run the M$ OS.
Look at the number of PC's running M$. Compare it to the number of Macs running Mac OS.
Now, start to list the companies that make hardware to run the Mac OS. Pretty easy: just one. Oh. Apple makes hardware too. How many alternative OS's can you think of that run on Apple Mac platforms?
Compared to Apple, Microsoft seems downright "open".
Never seen one of those. One button or two (Microsoft mouse for Mac?)
Microsoft's mouse division is a cut above the competition: especially considering Logitech's bizarre unusable non-symetric offerings (worse being that one where the roller ball is one one side instead of the center of the top where at least you can reach it.)
At least Yahoo is fast. C-Net always has this annoying pause while the page loads. Sure, it is something like 1 second compared to 6 seconds, but it is annoying :)
Every time I download Quicktime 6 for Windows, it splatters itself all over the system, even messing up media launch settings when I tell it not to, as a result, every time the browser finds a web page with a wav in it, there is a long wait while the bloated QT program loads and it pops up that evil "want to upgrade?" message which lacks a "never ask me ever" option (or better yet "get out of my face, I already told you not to mess with my media settings"). Then I uninstall it; all I wanted to use it for was to play a .mov file anyway.
The problems are 100% Apple, not Windows. Hell of a way for Apple to "market itself" to the Windows world. Sure makes me wonder if the rest of Apple's software is this nasty.
And for that attitude toward the PC market they can keep their WinXP/IIS/Access/IE6/Visual Studio/etc and 89% marketshare. :)
Bill Gates, or whoever else is in charge there can continue to peddle his "1 degree of seperation" and continue to be marginalized by the minority of home and business users.
I for one won't by WinXP if Microsoft is unwilling to support Mac users... You ask why should they? Because 8% or more uses MS and that should be reason enough...
The only positive thing is now that there are Apple ports out there, guess which side will be having more "innovations" without the Microsoft price tag..
So in the long run... Thanks Microsoft... and go screw yourself...
"Your OS of choice doesn't support the Mac filesystem."
Yes it does. The "Transmac" free utility has been out there for the PC for years.
"Especially when Macs haven't had a built-in floppy since Jobs came back."
and PCs costing hundreds less than Macs still have this. Same with standard parallel and serial ports, still on most PCs...again pay extra for their lack on mac. Jobs would get rid of the keyboard and charge $130 more if he could get away with it.
And obviously you've not done a lot of research
yourself. Microsoft quietly dumped that stock a
while back. Your point's pretty much moot.
Check this out before posting more
stuff on MS owning Apple...
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
Apple wants as many people as possible to buy their computers.
No, they don't. They want "enough" people to buy their machines. However, they are not interested in "as many people as possible".
If they were, they would allow Macs to be sold in a lot more places than just few dealers.
If it were, they would knock a few hundred dollars off of Macintosh prices, which are right now way above that of comparable PC's.
MS owns 15% non-voting stake in Apple. I'd say that 15% is a pretty big stake in a rival.
WRONG! They did for a short while, then sold it off. Microsoft own nothing in Apple. NOTHING.
sin(6cos(r)+5A)
"First, the iPod. If Apple released software for the iPod to connect to the PC then they'd have to support it."
No. Nothing would stop them from putting "unsupported" with the drivers, and refusing calls from PC owners.
"People are ill at Apple because the flat screens that Apple sells for it's hardware won't plug into most PC's without a dongle or something."
Why not mention this? It is a clear example of Apple making something non-standard just to be perverse. No other good reason. It is actually one area where the PC world far outshines Apple: you get standard plugs/etc so there are many companies that offer products.
Typical mac and PC mice are symmetrical and can be used either left or right handed. The logitec devices can only be used by left- or right-. The worst application I saw of this was a mall with a public information kiosk with "one side only" logitech mice that were bolted to the table on wrong side; they could not be moved to a usable position let alone be used in the first place (with the thumb ball where the pinky is).
"[Now, start to list the companies that make hardware to run the Mac OS. Pretty easy: just one.] I don't know about that. I have attached to my iBook [peripherals]"
How many companies do you have that build iBooks or clones?
"Now some would say that Apple should be nice and create a better value for Windows users. Of course, Apple does not exist to make Windows more valuable, does it."
Selling to Windows users goes beyond "being nice". It opening up a market 9 times as large as the one they play to right now. A 900% increase in your market could possibly increase your profits, yes?
Imagine if they sold way-cool mice, keyboards, pods, or even "gooseneck lamp" monitors to the PC world, saying "if you think these things are cool, why not come and check our our microcomputers?" They could cash in on the Apple cache and even gain new Apple computer users.
Apple wants to make this a very sought after product. If they only make it available for their computers then it means people will buy THEIR computers so that they can have an IPOD
How many will be taken in by the "you've got to have a $900 peripheral attached to your iPod in order to use it" argument? Maybe a few.
Ephpod....Sounds like a brother or cousin of Zaphod Beeblebrox (maybe the guy who is the black sheep of the family because he has only one head).
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
You get these great companies making products all the time and only writing an interface for Winblows. Hell even on the net, all the IM software is Windows crap. So Apple makes some awesome hardware, what do they care if it runs under Windows? It's not like Microsoft is making Sidewinder gamepad drivers for OSX. I'd like to see MORE and MORE hardware out there that's NOT supported under Windows. Just so the general population would get a clue about computers and know that Windows does NOT define what a computer can do. By the way, I'm aware of market share and why most wussy hardware companies like Logitec only support Windows. I just think it good to see a company with balls enough to fight the brainless norm. How about a hardware company that makes a keyboard that's specifically designed for X Windows?
As I recall, MS has already sold the bulk of that stock when Apple's stock was at it's peak for about 3x of what they paid for it. Reason that it didn't make a big confidence-killing splash was that they had already announced working on the next versions of Office and had committed to OS X support in the (then) future.
+1, Insightful, for telling us all what the hell the name means :)
[heard often on cheers: "Norm!!!"]
"I just think it good to see a company with balls enough to fight the brainless norm. How about a hardware company that makes a keyboard that's specifically designed for X Windows?"
What would be considered "brainless" from the point of view of a company:
- to make a keyboard that works with X-Windows only, or to make one that works with MS-Windows, DOS PC's, Mac OS, X-Windows, and other Linux/etc GUI's?
or, simply:
- to sell a few keyboards just to those who have a certain program, or to sell many keyboards to work for everyone regardless of OS or GUI?
-------
I can't imagine any keyboard (or other peripheral maker) with brains making the first choice. Unless perhaps it was a company with a lot to gain by X-Windows sales, and they hope that this incredible great keyboard will boost X-Windows sales since you have to get X to get the keyboard. Not likely.
I think users would be a little more "Brainless" to buy the "X-Windows Only" keyboard as well. There are people who dual-boot different OS's, or perhaps even run different GUI on their Linux systems. They'd have to own two keyboards: one for X-Windows, one for everything else!!!
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I had a look at the Ephpod site, it wasn't too clear on this - does it allow your ipod to double as a portable HDD that makes no distinction between mp3 files and others? (ie, no copy-control crap, no dumbing-down of the display to make it "easier" for people who don't understand file systems to arrange their music, etc etc.
My guess is Yes, it does it all fine, but does anyone know?
its ajoke but seriously..
..ie in this case with MS..proejct woudl get no where due to MS wanting to contorl every possible portion of market..
Apple's strategy was formed years ago when they first wanted to port windows 32 api to OpenStep so that you coudl run both acOSx and windwos winNT on PowerPC hardware..
THey foudn if they did a driect approach
Thus the strategy of unoffically supporting crossplatform development fo supposedly mac centric products such as iPod..
Apple could care less. They are in the hardware business and have been for 25 years. The function of proprietary software, like OSX, is to sell hardware.
:)
iPod is not a big ticket item for them. It's part of the digital hug. The basic philosophy is simple, they want people to buy a Macintosh. If a Windows user wants an iPod they can buy a Mac.
You can agree or disagree with Apple's marketing philosophy but they are concentrating their efforts on designing and selling good hardware and that means computers. They long since got out of the external hard drive, printer, et al business.
A company has to allocate their resources. A lot of changes are going on and they have a huge stake in OSX, getting it to work as well as possible.
When an opportunity comes along to do something to fit into the digital hub, *their digital hub* not that sick thing Dells pushes with Windows, in this case the iPod, they do it. If they come out with a digital camera, for example, it will be designed to work with the Mac digital hub. It *may* as most cameras do, work with all platforms.
But why? Lots of people sell good cameras? No one sells the quality and versatility of the iPod. If and when they get around to it, since it obviously is down the priority list a bit, then they *may* do it. They've said that since Day 1.
It's not ridiculous like the idea of porting OSX to x86, something in which they have no interest because they sell hardware not software. But the two are related. They're committed to a proprietary software base with, hopefully, close interaction with the open source/free software/GNU/Linux community so that both will benefit from such a relationship.
And they're not that interested in selling an iPod and Windows software until the unfortunate soul decides to purchase a Macintosh.
Wow.....what a rant. And I didn't really say much either....such is life.
If Apple released software for the iPod to connect to the PC then they'd have to support it. The people in their building are Mac coders and know Mac stuff inside and out. Do they know Windows? I dunno.
Except Apple does write Windows software, for example Quicktime. I bet there are more Quicktime users own Windows PCs than Macs..
cpeterso
Let's see. Apple has a product that everyone wants but you need an iMac to use it. And there are quite a few tech-heads that will in fact do this.
It's obvious they're trying to use the (in my opinion) overpriced iPod to drum up Mac sales. Apple has no intention of supporting Windows boxes here, so we must rely on 3rd party software that doesn't quite work right due to the fact that they donj't have access to the iPod's design specs or anything else important.
I bought an IBM cardbus 1394 and try to connect either an iPod, a Firewire disk to it, under win2K or XP, the card shows in the network interfaces but not as a media device controller. Can someone tell me what's going on?
Thanks in advance,
PPA, the girl next door.
-- I feel better now. Thanks for asking.
Do you take your multi-thousand dollar laptop into public places? Many people do. And at much more risk than a ipod. Hit the gym. If you are calling yourself MisterPo from the blind kung-fu master in the great (and hard to find these days) Kung-fu show of the seventies you should not fear the public or change your nickname :)
For those of you who didn't bother to follow through the link:
;-)
Williams College mascot: Purple Cow
Williams College students: one Eph, two Ephs...
Want more of an explanation? Ask an alum. There are "hordes" of us.
Grandma is going to be lost because Apple chose to make things more difficult by not labeling the jacks "phone line", power button "power", etc. Sure, most manufacturers have this problem. But Apple was the first with this unfortunate trend away from clearly labelled buttons and ports.
What do you expect from a company that thinks it is easier to eject media by bending a paperclip and shoving it in a hole (that is, if you can't get past the unintuitive GUI: drop it in the trash can to eject).
"So simplifing setup is now "perverse"? Let me think about this."
Rather have easy than simple. Apples are simpler than PC's the way a rock is a simpler tool than a Leatherman.
"Since when has removing the floppy put any money in Steve Jobs' pocket"
:).
This is a standard feature on desktop microcomputers. How much do they cost, something like $7 per unit now? He's saved the cost. Not passed it on to anyone, however for sure!
The vast majority of desktop and notebook machines sold have 3.5" drives. If there was no point, all these companies would drop them.
"If people like you had their way, computers would still ship with 5.25" floppy drives, cassette tape drives, VESA local bus slots, and EGA video connectors."
I'd rather still have these if it meant the machine cost a lot less to have these old things along with the latest and greatest
"OS support would be if Microsoft built the ability right into Windows. The Mac can transparently read and write PC-formatted disks
The reason reason is probably because it is not worth the bother. I used Transmac for free 8 years ago (not pirated either). I have not had a need for it since.
Besides, if Microsoft built Mac-reading into its OS, you'd have a bunch of frivolous lawsuits from companies ranging from Apple to Transmac demanding that they "un-bundle" it. How dare the monopoly add features to Windows! Look at what happened when they dared to bundle a browser, for crissakes.
If Apple was faced with frivolous lawsuits to micro-manage its OS content, they'd probably not support PC format disks either.
...even if the gander is sexier, lower total cost of ownership, more tamper resistant, doesn't take maternity leave, and tastes better.
Well, at least when I'm at my desk. Otherwise you set up the playlist in advance.
There's a lot of talk about possibilities of a bluetooth/firewire device, IR/firewire, or maybe airport/firewire plug ins to do all sorts of interesting things. That's one of the cool bits - there's a CLEAR way to add some needed feature... if the market is there.
MS on the otherhand, changed the file format for MSWord _6_ times on one year in an effort to screw Novel's WordPerfect (which claimed 'opens MSWord files'). NTFS is also documented... but have you READ the license you agree to to get access? I seem to remember it getting 'nudged' a little a couple of times too to interfere with people who claimed that their OS reads NTFS.
Openly available standard v. "OPEN" (with small-print first-born son tax). Unchanged in 5 years v. tweaked anytime someone pisses us off. Heh. You make the choice. 'Exactly the same'. Sigh.
Sure, there was nominally 'nothing' preventing you from installing anything you pleased. But... here comes another MS Service Pack duJour that protects from NastyVirusX. Install? Or wait for NastyVirusX?It's a no-brainer -> install the Service Pack! Oops. Unmentioned by MS, these things will be 'accidentally' broken: WordPerfect, QuickTime, Netscape, NCSA Mosaic and any other competitor of the day.
This isn't wild speculation or random conspiracy theories - this is part of what MS has been convicted of doing! Memos saying 'make sure to do xyz to break QT' and such... Sure, you can install them all _now_, but Netscape was _dominant_, and WMP was code that Apple alleged was stolen from QuickTime (suit dropped for $150 mill). When WMP & IE work fine through a slew of 'must install' service packs, and QT & Netscape are _deliberately_ broken through those same service packs - which ones are you going to use? Even if they were less than half of the features? Even if you are subsidizing a loss leader $50,000,000.00/year to do so when another works better? Search for the 'Findings of Fact' document, and actually wade through it. Note that there were a very large number of other aledged infractions that were bought off or otherwise ignored by people without the clout to face off with MS.
Circa 1997 there were a large number of anti-competitive things going on is MS land. Clearly a strong disincentive to compete with IE when the OS can break your app with every new service pack.
Yeah right. With ANY PC's you buy, if you want to move a small file from one machine to another, copy it to a disk and move it to the other machine. Takes less than a minute; made even speedier by the disk eject buttons PC's have.
On the Mac? You have to log into a modem-based ISP OR connect to a network (extra hardware/etc $$$) OR burn a CD. (you can do all of these on the PC too, but you don't have to).
Things are simpler on a Mac? Yeah right.
Quicktime 6 is indeed one of the worst programs; bloated, slow, unfriendly, and ugly-looking besides. 90% of the programs I use on a PC are much better; few are as bad as Quicktime which fill me with hatred.
Put the pricing on the web page.
I don't even have an iPod yet. Buying one will depend on the total cost.
Microsoft bought $150 million of non-voting Apple stock in 1998 in exchange for the end of the look and feel lawsuit.
They also signed an agreement for IE to be the default Mac OS browser, and that Microsoft would port Office to the Mac OS. For the record, this agreement expires in August this year, however both companies intend to continue with the agreement even without signing anything as it's in both their interests.
Where did you pull 15% from? The first two digits in 150?
Oh, and I forgot to note, MS bought it when AAPL was very cheap, and has since sold it. Quite the profit really...
You hit the karma cap, and still didn't learn to use the "No Score +1 Bonus" checkbox.
Nobody is buying a Mac just to get an iPod. There are things like the Archos that although not as sexy provide the same functionality to Winblows and Linux users.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Considering Apple's penchant for developing warm and fuzzy and cutesy type products I actually didn't realize this was a typo at first.