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.'"
I think what he really meant is that is would be bad for Microsoft.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
This tactic made is a little bit tough to 'choose' BeOS or OS2 before that.
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,