Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Unhappy With HP's iTunes Decision
rbrandis writes "The general manager of Microsoft's Windows digital media division David Fester has suggested that iTunes' emerging dominance would be bad for consumers, because it would limit them to the iPod, as opposed to limiting them to Microsoft based products. In a moment of what must have been an attempt at ironic humor he said, 'Windows is about choice - you can mix and match software and music player stuff. We believe you should have the same choice when it comes to music services.'"
and i choose to not use your "enabling" products
vodka, straight up, thank you!
I think what he really meant is that is would be bad for Microsoft.
Apple's iTunes just works... it's that simple.
will work for Karma
Dell says this:
"According to the New York Times, Dell also suggests HP is making a mistake. A Dell spokesman said: "We expect competition and it's good for customers. Over time, however, customers will want industry standard choices.''"
I am no English expert, but it sure sounds like they are tryin to say that WMA should be the only game in town, and are at the same time trying to play it off that they 'want' competition.
This is the same 'No American has a God given right to a job' Carly that said that EVERY HP product coming out after Q2 2004 will have DRM built in. Hell, she even wants to make recording like a VCR on your HP impossible unless the copyright holder agrees.
She is no ones friend save for herself and her fellow exec. She thinks nothing of the employers/users/shareholder of HP.
but can't all these players play mp3's? I've got an iPod and other than the slowness of using iTunes I've had no problem putting MP3's on it. Isn't that a free choice that I have, or are they trying to push people into using WMA or AAC only, in portable music players? And (as the article suggests) if they are working on playing wma on iPods, is there even a problem here?
AppleTurns site translated it this way:
Check it out, this was the best a company spokesperson could muster to undercut the announcement: "Windows is all about choice... we believe you should have the same choice when it comes to music services." Translation: "Use any service you want as long as it sells Windows Media, buy any player out there as long as it plays Windows Media-- but for heaven's sake, don't buy one of those wretched iPod thingies or we'll be completely boned with our whole plan to monopolize digital media commerce and then we might actually have to start innovating for our paychecks for a change." Or, to put it a little more succinctly, "you can have any color you want, as long as it's black."
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
The bottom line is that the iPod and iTunes provides a better user experience.
I had a 5gb 1st Gen iPod, and I now have a Dell DJ (Dell gave me the credit, Apple wouldn't).
I prefer the iPod.
The DJ works ok, but the user experience isn't as good.
There's no way to stop a playing song. Only pause it.
Syncing music is not intutitive.
Navigating through the tracks on the DJ takes FOREVER.
It's just not as well thought out as iTunes and the iPod are.
I'm thinking of selling my Dell DJ on eBay, and buying an iPod or an iPod mini.
Windows is not about choice - it is about having developers and service providers further entrench the Windows hegonomy, with little to no effort on the part of MS.
HP made a choice, as the market seems to be doing as well.
Let's see how well Microsoft lives with this.
Oh, and to all of you who say "Watch how high the price of Windows goes for HP", Microsoft won't dare do anything of the sort. Having both IBM and HP actively looking to kill Windows is not something Microsoft shareholders would appreciate.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Then why does it do everything possible to destroy it? Lotus 1-2-3 for Dos, WordPerfect (countless times), DR-DOS, OS/2, OpenDoc, Go/pen computing, Netscape, Java - and those are only the examples I can think of off the top of my head.
In fact, there has never been a more monopolistic, closed technology advocate than Microsoft. If someone comes up with something original, or something that's superior to anything Microsoft can engineer, then they'll be driven into the ground by the full force of the Microsoft machine.
I use Microsoft products (eg, Windows 2000, Office) and I also use non-Microsoft products that compete directly with the company's offerings (eg, Opera, Winamp). I'm not pro- or anti-Microsoft. What I am is pro-choice. And, frankly, that's one thing Microsoft can accurately never claim to be.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
There're two basic methods of Innovation at work here, Apple's brand and Microsoft's. Microsoft wants to leverage the choice of software tools made by third-party developers (that they haven't driven under by co-opting technology from) to promote a "choice" among applications on the Windows platform.
Apple wants to provide the "choice" of a Non-Windows platform and non-Microsoft technology. And Apple, for all their ills as far as co-opting technology in ways distressingly similar to Microsoft, has never been known to utterly decimate the competition or actively belittle or disparage them. What Apple does when they add new features to the OS is to simply set the bar higher for 3rd party developers.
Apple bothers me in some things, but when it comes right down to it, I don't see Apple trying dirty tricks in the background to drive anyone away from creating music services for the Mac platform. Microsoft would just -love- to push vendors into a MS Music Store lock in.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can only listen to iTunes content on an iPod.
.DOC of the media world.
You can play DRM-encoded AAC iTunes content on iPods, other iTunes equipped Macs and PCs, burn the content to CD, and stream your AAC library to other Macs/PCs on the local network.
However, it doesn't matter. You could turn your argument on it's head and state that you can only listen to DRM-WMA content on DRM-WMA devices (and exactly how many WMA devices currently support DRM-locked WMA files?), whereas you can listen to DRM-encoded AAC files on any iPod/HP Music Player/Mini iPod or iTunes equipped Mac or PC.
Both would still pale in comparison to the number of devices that can support MP3s. Microsoft is pissed because the choices that HP is offering doesn't include their brand of proprietary lock, weakening the chances that WMA will become the new
HP believes that it is better positioned than any other company to bridge the gap between Apple and Windows. Fiorina told the Times: "The next big thing isn't the next gizmo or killer app or hot box. Customers want all this to work together and they want a seamless approach. We're very much going to make sure that the Microsoft and Apple worlds work together. That's part of the power we bring to this thing."
This is probably the only remotely interesting initiative HP has embarked on since Carly took over.
Let's hope it's more successful than most of them have been.
As you can see in this document, iTunes supports quite a lot of different third-party players, including Nomads, Rios, and others.
What these other players do NOT support is AAC-DRM files like those sold by the iTMS. I'm sure Apple would be happy to license their DRM scheme to a third-party mp3 player if they wanted to do so and the price were right. Money talks.
- Vincit qui patitur.
You can play protected AAC on exactly ONE player right now, the iPod. In a couple of months you can play them on two: The iPod, and the HP Digital Music Player. When iTunes remains the dominant online music store throughout this year, other MP3 players will jump off of cliffs to get AAC compatibility so they have a prayer of even maintaining their meager market share.
The completely static "X doesn't exist NOW, so it never will" reality you live in must be tremendously boring.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
How many times must people say this, you can easily convert from AAC, AAC is not Apple owned and is an MPEG standard (any company could add AAC to their player if they care to). iTunes music store is the most stress-free and has the best selection of music, therefore the "lock-in" you experience is what you trade in for not wanting to kick someone in the groin for the inconsistent licensing agreements.
It's completely moronic when people blame a company that's doing something that other companies never tried (a better codec, less restricting DRM, seamless integration) all while people are rooting against them. If you're going to blame someone, blame the other companies for not supporting AAC in their players, Apple is already working on Windows Media for iPod.
Except that you aren't REQUIRED to use AAC. There's this other format that iPod will use. Maybe you've heard of it.
It's called MP3.
So much for vendor lock-in. 'Course, if you really want to use AAC, you could use iPod or this from Nokia and while we're talking about Nokia, what about that cool new N-Gage . Then again there's this new model from O2. And of course, it won't be long before you can buy HP's iPod clone.
Apple and HP aren't forcing anyone to buy an iPod, or use the iTunes music store. Yes those things are interdependent, but if you don't like that, show them by buying a different mp3 player, and using whatever software and online music service you want.
Oh yeah, but Apple prevents you from doing that by abusing their overwhelming monopoly in order to get you to do what they want.
No, wait, that's MS...
Except in this case Apple is forcing users to use their superior mp3 player to interface with their superior online music store. And if you don't agree with that appraisal, fine, but then why do you care? Just use something else. If there was any real competition to the Apple/iTMS combination nobody would be whining about this.
'Windows is about choice - you can mix and match software and music player stuff. We believe you should have the same choice when it comes to music services.'
The fact that HP chooses to clone the iPod, or include a music player designed for a certain format doesn't limit anyones choice. These HP boxes are still windows machines, and will support all of the MS 'standards'.
As I see it; this doesn't harm consumers, and only angers MS because HP is not promoting the windows format.
~ You may speak freely, If you have enough cash ~
Microsoft wants everyone to use their WMA technology, obviously developed by Microsoft.
Apple wants us to use AAC, developed by Dolby.
Last time I looked my stereo, TV, DVD player, Car Stereo, etc etc etc all carry the Dolby logo, not the Microsoft logo.
It's a simple choice.
Microsoft shipped Internet Explorer 4.0 with Windows 98. Consumers had a choice then on whether or not to use IE... but they used IE.
Now iTunes is shipping with Windows on HP machines. Consumers have a choice on whether or not to use iTunes.
Sounds like the same "choice" as before--so what could Microsoft possibly be worried about? What reason do they have to worry?
You get three guesses, and the first two don't count.
The coolest voice ever.
I think the bigger issue is with Microsoft bundling technologies with the OS that are impossible to remove from the OS.
If you buy Mac OS X and don't want iTunes, simple. Drag the iTunes app to the trash and it is gone. No registry mess, just a clean simple removal. Try that with Internet Explorer. I'm betting you can't.
There is nothing wrong with bundling, per se. It is when you use illegal tactics to force people/manufacturers to use your solution instead of an alternative.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
iTunes was and is a very bold move to find a way to reach some sort of compromise between the record companies (and RIAA) and the consumers. The manner in which people obtain, manage and listen to their music has changed drastically over the past 5 years and no amount of trying to re-close Pandora's box is going to make things return to what the labels would like to think of as "the good old days". The paradigm shift has started. It takes a great deal of vision, big cajones and some luck to successfully ride the tsunami of a paradigm shift. Needless to say, attempting to do so will gain you a large number of critics, as Apple has witnessed. The whole codec/DRM/player saga is just starting and there are going to be a number of less-than-perfect solutions at first. At least there are some companies willing to stick their necks out to try and find a good answer.
here's the deal. You buy a AAC you can play it on exactly (1) player
Ok, here's the deal. You buy a WMA you can play it on exactly (1) OS.
You buy a WMA you are LOCKED into Windows. So when you want to play that WMA music you bought on your new computer and it'll have to be money sent to Microsoft. That's vendor lock-in.
You buy a AAC you can play it on Windows or OS X.
So AAC is about choice. You see?
MSSpeak - We give you CHOICE in the PDA market
Real World - We charge all vendors equally and make all our money off of the applications you have to buy to interact with these devices. MS Office, Exchange, and we make it next to impossible for someone to convert Lotus Notes into your Windoows CE, er Pocket Windows, er Pocket Windows 2002, er 2003, er hey you need a new PDA every year from our 'choice'
While my Palm 3.0 OS still works and I can still load what's latest and greatest on it.
MSSPeak - iTunes is a closed format, they don't offer choice.
Apple makes a player. It uses FairPlay's DRM. Apple doesn't own fairplay, and there is nothing stopping anyone from releasing players and/or portables to support this. Though people haven't, except one major one... HP.
However here's another handy dandy pocket windows media os that you ahve to buy all new items for in six months or so that should do everything but support AAC from Apple, but that's OK we have WMA and it even has a true lossless CODEC for you audiophiles - Apple Doesn't! Their software is lossless! BTW our Pocket Media OS will let you play a widescreen movie on a 2" LCD and you'll like it because we said so. Apple is insane saying that no one wants that because we make it and you buy it because we said it's there!
Whatever. Granted other than AAC that iTunes using being a bit to tight on the compression for my taste *I* like it and I've bought a few hundred songs. Would I care if it died tomorrow and some other vendor came out with a killer app? Heck no, but then again iTMS is the only one in the 10s of millions of songs sold. If 5% of the computer population can do that....
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
a) wtf? iTunes doesn't require an iPod, I shop iTunes on occasion don't have an iPod, and I burn CDS. b) How does the HP deal reduce consumer choice, XP has Media Player built in, there's no removing it. So now if you buy an HP you get both. I see no reduction in choice there.
"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
Otherwise Microsoft is right... Oh wait you can just Burn a CD in iTunes and rip the CD into mp3 right in iTunes. Nevermind cary on nothing to see here.
Microsoft wants to create a platform that is used by every man, woman and child, from the day they are born, in every facet of their life.
By platform I don't just mean Windows desktop PC's... the XBox is one small step for Microsoft, one giant leap for world domination. Consider that Bill Gates' house is one of the most technology-driven pieces of real estate in the world. Imagine if 10 years from now, it was like that everywhere; running all MS software.
Choices MS wants to give you:
What wallpaper do you want?
Will you use XP Home at Home, or be a rebel and use XP Pro?
Will you buy a Dell, Compaq or HP computer to run Windows on?
Which charity would you like to see Bill Gates donate to this year?
The Microsoft Way isn't about eliminating choices; it's about controlling all available choices.
Microsoft has never written software that forces a customer to use specific hardware.
Ah, quite the contrary. Microsoft forces specific hardware manufacturers to only use Microsoft software.
If Microsoft could get WMA to catch on bigtime, here's what would happen:
The licensing cost for WMA technology would become so high that it would only be affordable when purchased at "OEM volume." Part of the discount would include requiremnents that players supporing WMA can't support other competing codecs like AAC or Real or (dare I say it... I dare!) Ogg Vorbis.
In other words, we would be limited to Microsoft-based file formats, Limited compatibility with non-Windows OS, DRM, and so on. You're trying to tell me that the bright side is that we could get a player from any number of manufacturers, and I'm telling you you're wearing glasses so rosy this Apple Lisa looks like a strawberry iMac.
This, my anonymous coward, is Microsoft's business strategy. It is called "embrace and extend."
They've "embraced" the mp3 player and are now trying to "extend" their Windows monopoly to include that piece of the hardware market. For this nut to turn, the demand for their entry at the pony show, the WMA format, has to be a hell of a lot stronger than it is now.
I will not speculate on how Microsoft might pull that off, however if anyone from Microsoft is listening I'm willing to demonstrate for a mere six figures.
This tactic made is a little bit tough to 'choose' BeOS or OS2 before that.
In this case it serves another bussiness strategy. Windows Computers are commodities, and among brands with a rep for quality the only distinguishing feature is low price. Dell or HP: buy the cheaper. The only way to beat this game is the way apple does it: differentiate yourself. If you buy dell then you are buying WMA. if you are buying HP you are buying into AAC. One presumes that the computer will come with software that makes it work slightly better with its native player.
Finally it looks like AAC is about to win. Nokia, panasonic, amybe even RealPlayer are all going to support AAC.
so HPs move is good for HP. They get room to develop their own. they are in the market early with no R&D costs and differnetiate themselves from dell.
consumers of course benefit too. HP and others will eventually be making players to compete with ipods. That will bring down prices.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
AAC isn't a proprietary Apple technology, and there are other AAC players available.
I am sick and tired of this Red Herring of an argument.
It doesn't matter if Apple used the "ultra supreme, open standard, endorsed by RMS, JWZ, and YHWH file format", the second they encrypt it using proprietary DRM, it becomes proprietary. Period. Can I play it on my standards-based AAC player? No, therefore it is not an open standard. It is embraced and extended.
Second, it is irrelevent that iTunes the software can rip, and play strait AAC and burn m4p to CD. MusicMatch's software can rip, and play straid mp3 and burn DRM'ed WMA to CD. Does that make the WMA good? Then why does Apple doing it make m4p good?
Please stop using this argument. It is a half-truth and you will end up decieving some poor dude into thinking that he can play iTMS music on something other than iTunes and iPod.
AFAIC, only iPod can support the m4p file format. There were rumors that one of the Nokia phones could, but I think that that ended up being tracked down to a typo. I know that none of the Panasonic players can support it.
If you think about, it since iTMS is being subsidized by iPod sales, if Apple were to allow others to make m4p players they would have people buying stuff off of iTMS (which costs Apple money) and playing it on less expensive third party players (which earns Apple nothing). Coupled with Apples past behavior, it is my opinion that they will avoid iPod clones for as long as possible.
If I am incorrect it would be good to know. I really like Apple's work, but am always wary of them because Jobs has a history of being just as agressive as Gates, and even more reluctant to standardize.
Apple supports a very small select group of software and hardware.
Truly, you've got it backward. Apple supports plenty of players. The manufacturers of some of those players and many others, on the other hand, don't support Apple. The upshot is that you can't do as much with those players as you can with a player that supports AAC and FairPlay.
You can still use iTunes with your Rio or whatever, to play MP3's that you've ripped from your own CD collection. You just can't use it to play music you've purchased from the iTunes Music Store.
This is all pretty understandable, as those manufacturers had to take a guess at which way the online music market would go. It looks like they might have got it wrong this time, but as soon as it's clear that that's the case, they'll jump to build AAC/FairPlay compatible devices. You can be sure that Creative Labs and the rest are not going to stand around looking stupid for too long while Apple and HP eat their lunch.
If you want to play an aac file an 'mp3 player' (term used genericly) that isn't an ipod - this is what you do:
In fact -- you can use these same steps to convert any format that iTunes reads into an mp3 or your non ipod mp3 player. Anyhow, the only problem is when the DRM battle has escalated to the point where there are no longer mp3 players on the market, then you will have to make a choice between camps.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
You wanna talk drinks? Okay, let's talk drinks.
Let's say 95% of the population were hopelessly hooked to Coke because of unknown addictive agents within it. It tastes like crap - but everybody uses it cause they're hooked. Pepsi tastes way better, but it's not a substitute because you can't get the same fix that you can from the unique taste of Coke. Also, Coke users become extremely hyper and start babbling in a language (Coke-speak) that only other Coke users can understand. Workplaces decide to standardize on Coke-speak, so you must drink Coke if you want a job and be able to communicate.
Because Coca-Cola controls 95% of the drink market, they can raise their prices sky high and get massive profits. Let's say McDonalds objects - they are making crap margins on their "dollar ninety nine" meals already, but what can they do? Even though Coca-Cola is gouging them, McDonalds has no choice. If McDonalds doesn't sell Coke, they will lose 95% of their customers who will go to Burger King (or some other crappy fast food joint) for their Coke fix. So what does McDonalds do? They comply, of course. And other fast food joints, faced with the same dilemma, are also forced to comply to stay in business.
Now initially, McDonalds sold Coke plus a variety of different drinks from some other companies. It did this because to provide variety and because other drinks were cheaper than Coke to resell. Coca-Cola then politely asks McDonalds to include (bundle) its entire family of drinks, such as Vanilla Coke (Office) and to exclude the other companies' drinks. "And if not?" "We will raise your price of Coke", Coca-Cola replies. "What?!" "So don't buy from us then", mocks Coca-Cola. Faced with razor thin margins now (but still manageable) vs. losing 95% of their customers, McDonalds agrees to an "offer it can't refuse".
So then a new company comes along and creates a revolutionary new business based on designer cups (so sue me, I couldn't think of an internet browser analogy in the soft drink world). The new designer cups become really hot and take off all over the world. The new company (let's call it Netscup) becomes really successful.
Coca-Cola sees this new industry and gets jealous. They want a piece of the action. Why not use our addictive drink to force Netscup out of business so that we can monopolize the lucrative designer cup business as well? Coca-Cola has no idea how to make cups, but they try anyway. They are a poor imitation of Netscup's products, but Coke doesn't care, as they are making billions off Coke and can afford to give away the cups for free. Even though the cups are free, people still prefer Netscups because of their superior quality and the originality factor (they were 1st).
Coca-Cola decides it's time to get down and dirty. It contacts all the restaurants and fast food joints and offers them an ultimatum: Coke must be sold (or bundled) in Coca-Cola cups. Furthermore, Coca-Cola decides to "choke Netscup's air supply" by offering incentives (such as a cheaper price of Coke) if Netscup products are *not* sold at the locale. Pretty soon Netscup finds their revenues drying up because all the restaurants turn their backs on them. They are forced to cut prices, and are losing increasing amounts of money every day because Coca-Cola just happens to have Coke. In the meantime, Coca-Cola throws a billion dollars into developing their line of cups, and eventually the cups improve to that state where their quality and their cost (free) are more worthwhile than Netscup's still slightly superior, but more costly (not free) cups. Coca-Cola then goes for the jugular by engineering Coke and their cups so that Coke is only effective when it is served in Coca-Cola cups. Serving Coke in other cups proves to be toxic to the drinker. Coca-Cola then claims in court that Coke and the Coca-Cup are actually one product,