HP Licenses Apple's iPod & iTMS

grouchomarxist writes "According to the press release here and this article at Forbes HP is licensing Apple's iPod technology for its own MP3 player and use the iTunes Music Store. 'HP and Apple today announced a strategic alliance to deliver an HP-branded digital music player based on Apple's iPod, the number one digital music player in the world, and Apple's award-winning iTunes digital music jukebox and pioneering online music store to HP's customers.'"

Comments

Dear Apple: why?

[mandalayx]

From Apple's point of view, I'm not sure what they gain.

Sure, you get a desktop audience of new HP computers. And that's significant, because many newbies will only get to what's pre-installed and use that (cough*IE*cough). But is that really enough to justify diluting your brand? I can forsee the HP version of the iPod sucking.

But hey, I could be wrong, and we could all be getting $99 hPods next December. And we'll all be happy, right?

PS - Did anyone notice that HPShopping.com's CEO is named Appl? No joke.

Re:Dear Apple: why?

[frodo from middle ea]

Also don't forget that HP is a much bigger international company than Apple will ever be.

HP printers, desktops etc. are already popular in asian countries and apple, has a better chance of tapping in to these markets, using HP's help than on its own.

Of course this goes only for the iPod or hPod , as itunes currently works only for US customers.

Re:Dear Apple: why?

[ceejayoz]

In addition, HP will start preinstalling Apple's iTunes on its consumer PCs and desktops. HP previously said it planned to enter the digital music player and music store business, though sources familiar with the company's plans said partners would likely be involved.

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5137473.html?tag= zdfd.newsfeed

Re:Dear Apple: why?

[noewun]

But the fact remains that Apple is trying to make up for some of the costs of iTunes via the sales of iPods... tsk tsk what a mess!

Huh?

Apple has been upfront all along -- the iTMS is either a loss leader or barely breaks even and exists largely to move iPods and Macs. Your statement makes no sense.

Re:Dear Apple: why?

[Llywelyn]

>Of course this goes only for the iPod or hPod , as itunes
>currently works only for US customers.

Minor correction, the iTunes MUSIC STORE only works for US customers. The software (the ripper/burner/player) works fine outside of the US.

Re:Dear Apple: why?

[Golias]

Really? I thought HP's model was "buy Compaq and form as many press-grabbing strategic partnerships as possible, so Carly Fiorina and her friends can pump & dump the stock."

Re:Dear Apple: why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I asked the question of when iTunes was being introduced at a careers talk by Universal Music here at Uni, and the guy heading the talk said that it was being planned to be rolled out towards March/April time here in the UK, and I am assuming Europe. Just thought ppl here would be interested.

Re:Dear Apple: why?

[JonathanBoyd]

the result was that companies like powercomputing and umax gunned for the fat-margin at the top end and beat apple at their own game. apple nearly went bankrupt, yanked the deal with os 8, changed ceo's and had to kow tow to msft for a $150mil in emergency cash to avoid the chapter-11 reaper.

The clones were causing problems, but were far from being the sole reason for the cries of 'Apple is dying!' They were quite a while away from bankruptcy as well. The $150 million certainly didn't save them. It was a token gesture that was totally unnecessary for financial health. They still had billions in the bank.

Re:Dear Apple: why?

[Selecter]

The article I read directly said that the device would be made by Apple in reb-badged form which will be a *actual* iPod that simply has a HP logo on it. In other words, it *is* a real iPod.

Re:Dear Apple: why?

[Spyky]

No, not *all* of the money is handed over to the record companies, it is not *profitable*, which is different. That means that their hosting/development/advertising costs eat up more than the remaining share, after the record companies get theirs.

As apple sells more and more music, they are approaching profitability, because the cost of development is spread out more. Whether that will ever be enough to actually be truly profitable is another question all together

-Spyky

Re:Dear Apple: why?

[John Newman]

[nitpick]
I think your axes are mixed up.

Apple is the vertical monopoly, since it controls a music store, a music application, a music player, and a computer that links them all. Microsoft is the horizontal monopoly, since they control all of Windows, but not any store (below) or any players (above).

Horizontal monopolies are usually illegal, since the company completely controls one market and can easily abuse that power. Vertical monopolies are not, since the company doesn't control any particular market and thus has no power over them.
[/nitpick]

Re:Dear Apple: why?

[overunderunderdone]

as well as an agreement that would allow MS to buy future Apple developments. (This has a lot to do with why XP looks so much like a Macintosh OS in some ways.)

The money, and the promise to continue developing the Mac versions of Office, was part of a settlement in a patent dispute over technology MS had allegedly stolen from Apple. The agreement ended up being a patent cross-licensing deal which would settle the patent dispute and let M$ save face and not admit any wrong since they were *officially* just paying that large undisclosed sum to make up for the fact that Applehad significantly more patents than MS (at that time). In reality of course they were paying the large sum because Apple had caught them red handed but didn't want to stake their future on a long drawn out lawsuit.

However, the whole deal has now expired and presumably Microsoft has purged their technology so that they aren't using any of Apple's patents. If XP DOES still have Apple patented stuff in it it's either the result of another deal or they are potentially looking at another lawsuit. Also, MS is now free to drop development of Office.

A better article

[destructo666]

Internet News

Re:Just in time for the Superbowl ad

[Phrogz]

From the first paragraphs at zdnet:

Apple will manufacture the player, which will not have the iPod name but will have the same design and features as Apple's third-generation iPod players, Phil Schiller, senior vice president at Apple, said in an interview. Also, the HP music player will come in "HP Blue," he said.

"The way we look at it, HP will be reselling an iPod device," said Schiller, who noted that the device will display the Apple logo at start-up and will work with all of the accessories made for the white-hued Apple varieties.

So it sounds like it'll be blue, but other than that be the normal iPod, running the same OS.

Not sure how it could suck...

[justMichael]

Apple will manufacture the player, which will not have the iPod name but will have the same design and features as Apple's third-generation iPod players, Phil Schiller, senior vice president at Apple, said in an interview. Also, the HP music player will come in "HP Blue," he said.

Found here, props go out to guet for posting the link over on macslash

They will be "HP Blue"

[amichalo]

According to ZD NET's Article and reported by Mac Rumors, the devices will come in an exclusive "HP Blue" color and be compatible will all 3rd generation iPod accessories.

If you don't know what color "HP Blue" is, look at the /. icon for this story.

What's next?

[Anonymous Coward]

More proof that HP stopped innovating a long time ago. They buy more and more technology and develop less and less. The "invent" in their logo is only there for show.

I can't wait to see the HP rebranded Mac.

Re:Attack of the Clones, Part II

[Llywelyn]

Before you get moderated too far up by people who want a Mac clone and have wanted it despite that it would kill Apple, let's look at what this deal actually entails.

The HP_iPod will be the same as a 3rd gen iPod in terms of hardware. That is, AFAIK, the extent of the hardware side of this "cloning." Apple probably gets a percentage of the profit from this (I don't see them as the type to go for a one-time fee).

This either doesn't undercut Apple at all or barely does so. If HP produces them on top of that (haven't read the article yet) it just provides additional iPods when Apple already has trouble meeting demand.

As a plus, HP is also going to install iTunes all HP systems. That's of tremendous value to Apple, since then nobody will need to download them.

This is not cloning, is not vaguely related to cloning (more like Apple licenses the right to produce a specific model of Apple computer with rebranding), and Apple is not going to be undercut or suffer cannibalization of sales as a result of this.

Consider yourself corrected

[eroyce]

No, this will be Apple Design, Apple Tech, HP Name.

This is not the same at all

[amichalo]

The mac clones were not produced by Apple for the cloners, they were licensed the OS and the chips they needed to run them and were responsible for the components and specs of the devices themselves.

Not comparing apples to Apples

Re:Attack of the Clones, Part II

[Llywelyn]

> so that it's not just an iPod with an HP logo on it instead
>of an Apple.

That's *exactly* what it is.

A blue iPod that says "HP" on it.

Apple even manufactures it.

In the terms of Phil Schiller: ""The way we look at it, HP will be reselling an iPod device,"

(From the CNet article on the topic).

Re:licensing Apple's design, not technology ?????

[Archangel Michael]

Apple's license for the Firewire name doesn't cost any money. It is free to use as long as you follow licensing requirements. The change was made as a direct or indirect response to Sony's iLink trade name for the same device.

The result is Sony now uses "Firewire", and iLink is gone.

Re:Hooray Carly!

[muckdog]

Tell Carly what you think of her and HP

Re:Doing things right this time

[tgd]

For the 10,000th time, Apple has been and always will be a hardware company, not a software company. They write innovative software so people buy their hardware. Period.

Given that fact, why exactly is not licensing MacOS obviously one of the major causes of Apple nearly falling off the face of the planet?

Seems to be based on their very successful business model (you start a company and be profitable for 30 years!), not licensing MacOS is exactly the right thing for them to have done.

Re:HP & OS X?

[amichalo]

Apple Doesn't make money off the OS, they make money off the hardware. There is no reason to port OS X to the x86 platform. Especially when the G5 is a faster chip and their new architecture is butter than Intel's.

Apple made the decision, probably before OS X 10.0 was released, not to switch to the x86. With people switching to Apple in a slow by steady fassion and all those who haven't switched drooling for a Mac to run OS X, there is no reason why they should.

Re:licensing Apple's design, not technology ?????

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect, as management in Belkin (former job - two months ago) - Belkin paid 32/100 of a cent for every instance on a package or product that we used "firewire" and another 32/100th of a cent for the Mac OSX logo. We laso had to pay for logo licensing kits and for a number of our employees to be developers. Membership there is $3K per person!!!

HP-Invent... my ass

[netsavior]

I heard from a slightly credable insider HP as a company is trying to compete in all things dell has (like a personal vendeta type thing?) in this light, it makes sense that they would just brand an iPod to compete with the (way cheaper) dell DJ This article makes me laugh because HP's slogan is "Invent" not "License and private label"

Re:HP & OS X?

[laird]

"It's long been speculated that Apple may some day bring OS X to the x86 platform."

Remember, Apple shipped "Rhapsody" for x86 to developers. And, um, it's been credibly "rumored" that Apple is maintaining the MacOS X code based on x86.

Re:Real supports iPods

[suchire]

Sorry, but Real's music store won't support iPods. Read the article: "For example, both RealNetworks and iTunes will distribute songs encoded in the AAC format, but Apple's iPod will not be able to play Helix-wrapped songs unless Apple licenses that technology."

Real does NOT support iPods

[wembley]

Real's AACs will be protected with their own proprietary "Helix" DRM, which is not readable by iPods.

Tunes from Real's store will NOT work on iPods.

Tunes from Apple's store WILL work in the new RealPlayer b/c it is calling out to QuickTime/iTunes to do the DRM work.

HP 19% Apple 3% in Q3-2003

[AHumbleOpinion]

According to the chart at http://www6.tomshardware.com/mobile/20031202/index .html HP has around 19% marketshare to Apple's 3%.

Re:HP 19% Apple 3% in Q3-2003

[Anonymous Coward]

>> However, the service life for a Mac is, on average, thrice that of a PC

From where did you get this data man? at the very least, people would use a PC for another 5 years(YMMV). Now, do you use 15 (3 X 5) year old mac ? I mean what software you run on top of these 15 year old ALMIGHTY PPC ? Dont be an idiot to make such erronous statments(I know mac fanboys will mod you up , but that doesnt mean its not BULLSHIT)

Compaq did this years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Compaq's research labs created one of the best large capacity MP3 players around (Personal Jukebox - www.pjbox.com) which they then licensed to HanGo in Korea to build and sell. This was, oh, 4 or 5 years ago now (I've had mine since 2000), so they were a mile ahead of Apple. Shame HP seems to have missed that technology at merger time.....

Re:Strike "credibly" in the above post..

[laird]

While I agree that it's unlikely that Apple will _ship_ MacOS X for x86's, I'm fairly certain that they've been making sure that it compiles and runs on the x86. I certainly can't identify my source (they have rules, you know) so let's keep it as a speculation -- if you had an OS that was extremely portable and ran across a wide range of processors, you'd probably make sure that it kept running on all of those processors, even if you only shipped on one, in order to make sure that you kept your options open, right?

that better?

Re:licensing Apple's design, not technology ?????

[vicparedes]

The iPod OS is very slick and even though there are close to similar copies - none are as easy - no other player has the games that I'm aware of either

Actually, Apple licenses the iPod's OS from another company, PortalPlayer.

Re:ENOUGH WITH THE OGG VORBIS

[tgibbs]

Isn't that what Apple's business plan is?

When it comes to music players and music downloads, Apple is the big boy.

Re:HP-Invent... my ass

[hirschma]

They did invent it. Look at this patent.

As one of the inventors mentioned on the Yahoo groups PJ-100 list, it seems that HP is actually going to pay Apple to use their own patented technology.

I really think that HP is just at the beginning of a long decline with this brilliant move.

Re:licensing Apple's design, not technology ?????

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they don't, Pixo - designed the OS specifically for the iPod - Apple contracted it out and does not pay per iPod for the OS (as licensing would indicate) That said, I do think they pay per calendar year or per run of units. For instance the 40GB has a slightly different OS than the others (only works with OSX) the iPod mini also has a different variation. Apple owns the rights and helped co design the UI for the iPod and will be licensing it out to HP

Re:licensing Apple's design, not technology ?????

[Archangel Michael]

Here is the quote from the FireWire TradeGroup concerning Licensing the Logo and Trademarked Name.

"Subject to Licensee's compliance with the term of this Agreement, Licensor Grants Licensee a limited, not-exclusive, no-transferable, royalty-free, worldwideright and license to use, and let others use, the FireWire Marks, incliding the FireWire logo,....."

Download the PDF from here, and see for yourself:

http://www.1394ta.org/license/FireWire_License-G ui des_v6.pdf

Re:Logical Next Step...

[TVC15]

> to enter a deal where SGI ports Maya(and whatever other highend apps they have) to the mac...

Maya is already ported to OS X. Has been for a long time. Or am I mixing something up?