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?

[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?

[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]

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.

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.

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: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: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."