Slashdot Mirror
Jobs' Invitation To Microsoft a Trap?
An anonymous reader writes "Chris Seibold over at Apple Matters, has written up an interesting analysis on Steve Jobs' suggestion that Microsoft make their own mp3 player. He argues that it is more bait than business plan, a deft move by Steve Jobs to lure Microsoft into a can't-win war. The key, according to the article, is the licensing of FairPlay." From the article: "The folks who stick with Microsoft get to fight over, roughly, twenty percent of the market. The folks that go with Apple would be aligning themselves with what has become the industry standard. The players that license FairPlay would have access to the iTunes store, backwards compatibility with the songs consumers have already purchased, and a chance to compete on a perfectly level playing field with the iPod. It doesn't take a Stanford MBA to deduce that the potential rewards of opting to use FairPlay far outstrip the rewards of going with PlaysForSure."
In the immortal words of Bruce Cambell (Ash):
Its a trick. Get an Axe!
More
Admiral Ackbar: It's a trap!!!!
Good karma sticks to me like velcro on a piece of plexiglass.
Move along, citizen.
It's a trap to get Microsoft to create a MicroPod, so Apple can sue.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
or a consumer could just stick with their own music sources that require no DRM at all. That's what I'll be doing, no thanks Apple/MS/anyone else.
... a monopoly? Wow. Slashdot actually endorsing monopolies now.
otherwise, how would it BSOD?
http://xkcd.com/313/
From the article:
"Jobs reasons that since iTunes and the iPod use the vertical integration model that Microsoft could use the same tactic to finally relegate the iPod to the technical trash bin. In theory, the system would work as follows: Microsoft would bundle a music playing program with every PC that, of course, pointed to an iTunes like music store. The model would be completed when people buy a Microsoft produced digital audio player. Consumers, being the lazy slugs they are, would take the path of least resistance. Inevitably, iPod marginalization would ensue."
Did Microsoft get in trouble for this sort of anti-competitive bundling before? If so, are they really stupid enough to try it again on such a large scale?
In soviet russia, You ask not what country do for you, but what you do for country!
Oh wait...
Jobs gets back at Bill!
activestudios web design
M$ should continue to focus on software. Maybe an itunes-killer; let everyone else worry about an ipod-killer. There is still money in selling music.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
For some reason, FairPlay and PlaysForSure both remind me of products in dystopian science fiction novels by the likes of William Gibson and Neal Stephenson...
I guess that the truth is stranger than fiction.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Does Apple even have any plans on licensing FairPlay, or is this another blogger speculating about the mighty Apple?
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
"[Jobs] reasons that since iTunes and the iPod ..."
Just for the sake of accuracy ...
In soviet russia, You ask not what country do for you, but what you do for country!
Oh wait...
This looks more like Apple leveraging on their near monopoly on digital audio players in order to bring their competitors down on their knees.
You know... like Microsoft leveraging on their near monopoly to force down your throat Internet Explorer, MSN, Media Player, Anti-vírus, personal accounting, etc...
Even though it's a sweet irony, it's just as bad. By the way, I know very few in Portugal who have an iPod versus other brands, is this monopoly only in the USA?
Uh oh, the chairs will be flying at Microsoft over this..
Whatever happened to the days of throwing a hammer at big blue (the "80%" market share at the time) or "thinking different"? Seems that Jobs is quick to flip when he finds himself in a position of power instead of the small-time player (pun not intended).
To the consumer, the underlying problem is still there. Whether it's iDRM or M$DRM, I still have to jump through hoops to get anything approaching fair use out of the music I buy.
Give a man a beer and he wastes an hour. Teach a man to brew and he wastes a lifetime.
Should read "PaysForSure".
Thx.
but wouldn't Ballmer doing gorilla dance while stomping on iPod make him a 'Microsoft iPod killer'?
If you play mp3's, that should be good enough. The rest is just a bunch of confusion.
No Sigs!
Be vewy vewy quiet... I'm hunting Micwosowfts!
But would Jobs really expect to trick MS into the losing battle of creating their own MP3 player? Of course not! He's secretly hinting that they...erm... buy the other companies making them!
That would sound a little bit more like the MS I know and love.
Mark my words... if your favorite MP3 player is one other than the iPod, and MS buys the company, I told you so!
...when deciding to write software for Windows or Mac OS...
Oh wait, that's clever...
You mean like how developer developers are better off targeting the dominant platform to maximize the return on their development effort by creating software for the largest audience possible with the least work possible?
"It doesn't take a Stanford MBA to deduce that the potential rewards of opting to use FairPlay far outstrip the rewards of going with PlaysForSure"
That assumes that FairPlay continues to be the standard. Microsoft could do something really radical such as embrace a DRM model that is more consumer friendly than FairPlay while keeping the record companies happy. If that happens, it doesn't matter how much mindshare Apple has. They're screwed and they're the ones who will be throwing chairs.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Call me crazy, but I read a bunch of false assumptions into the summary.
1. "make their own player" e.g. hardware
No, they wouldn't make their own. They would license an OEM product at relatively little cost to Microsoft. The DRM/WMP (big-money investment) is done, the actual "player" is commodity hardware. Connecting it to WMP can't be so much work.
2. "make their own player" e.g. market strategy
I don't follow it so closely but I imagine there are quite a few Microsoft MP3 DRM licensees. That doesn't stop Microsoft from actually marketing a player, but I have a feeling they are trying to out-commoditize Apple. Commoditizing is what Microsoft knows how to do.
3. Apple's "Fair Play"
Is it available to anyone who wants to make an mp3 player? Last time I checked HP got the whole package from Apple. Apple's style tends to include everything, not just the DRM part. Different platforms is definitely a different case (cell phones) but for an "mp3 player" I doubt Apple is dying to play the compete against fellow licensees who offer their device at a lower price game. It's *never* worked for them.
I'm sure Microsoft will try to compete more effectively with Apple, as someone with some OEM experience, I don't see it happening quite the way the article tries to make it seem.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Apple isn't goingto open FairPlay anytime soon. It's not in Apple's best intrest. Apple doesn't give a rat's behind about the iTunes music store on it's own. They (currently) have little motivation to license fairplay, and the ability to use itunes to other non-apple mp3 players.
iTunes music store is what helps support and drive iPod sales. That's it's current purpose, and it's working rather well.
I can foresee a time when apple may license fairplay, but I think that's a while off. The introduction of videos have given existing iPod owners an excellent reason to upgrade to a new iPod.
My oppinion is the iPod gravy train is too important for apple to risk by licensing fairplay to other vendors until the market significantly changes.
(Disclaimer - I'm a happy nano 4gb owner)
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
For Christ's sake, can we put Jobs up on a yet higher pedestal? Ok, he's Jesus, he's God, he's BETTER than God, WHERE ELSE CAN WE GO. Steve Jobs is bending time, space and reality so tightly around the iPod, MacBook and whatever else that not even the truth can escape. We'll all soon be sucked into his singularity, where 1=-1 and 2^2=5.
Eerybody will have an mp3 player built into their cell phone in a dfew years and nobody will need an iPod. So unless Apple starts getting into the cell phone business they will lose to Motorola, Nokia, etc.
Vote for Pedro
I'd be tempted to get a MS-licensed audio player since it'll work with Yahoo Music Unlimited, so long as i plug it into my pc every 30 days and license my subscription.
As long as Yahoo music is $5/month for unlimted streaming and copying to PlaysForSure devices then i really cant see me going back to itms.
Apple still appear to be missing an "unlimited" option, which will probably hurt them in the long term.
It reminds me of the movie The Princess Bride...
Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
who would win the wrestling match?
Push Button, Receive Bacon
so what would THAT be called? i-Micro? or mini-me?
RIAA does'nt know how badly they screwed themselves by not cutting MS in to their buisness (letting Gates make money selling music).
If they had MS would have had an incentive to make DRM work for music.
As it sits DRM for music only makes their Microsoft's OS less usefull. Even with their complete and enthuseastic cooperation I put the chances of any incumbered format taking over the music space at The music industry has'nt yet figured out that for DRM to have any chance the CD format must end. Do you think MS will tell them enough times for them to listen? Are their enough times?
I for one am happy the leading OS vendor owns little content. Gates should continue to ignore Jobs. MP3 players are commodity items. Within a short period even apple fanboys and the public will stop paying a premium for Ipods.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
20% of the MUSIC BUYING market? I highly doubt that PlaysForSure is 20% of the music market. I hardly belive that iTunes even makes a 20% dent in the music buying market.
The facts are that iTunes might be 80% of the online market but it doesn't matter. That is a tiny segment of the market. Most people who are buying MP3 players are ripping music from their new CD's, their old CD's, and their friend's CD's. Backwards compatible doesn't mean crap with apple. They break it every other year anyway. So will MS's DRM.
The market doesn't have any clear winner YET for a DRM for music. Until it does it is pretty lame of anybody to say that FairPlay is the standard (it isn't. not even close)
As of today, the standard and vast majority of music which is being played on mp3 players (including ipods) are DRM free ripped music from CD's. Period.
Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
Jobs was burned in the past and is not immune to that again. Obviously he is doing great things, but in a world where technology changes fast and companies fall even faster, it would be wise to shutup and focus. I do find it amusing though to see Jobs sticking it to MS though.
http://religiousfreaks.com/Listening to an ipod in my one pocket. In my other pocket I have a phone with PalmOs on it. I really like the simplicity of Palm apps and Palm looked pretty good five years ago when *it* had the market sewn up. But of course today M$ owns the PDA market.
M$ however has so much cash they can afford to wait out just about any contest, waiting for the other guys to stumble just once.
Interesting take on the ploy by Jobs, but the real question is whether Apple will really license FairPlay. I thought there had been some articles written on some companies that wanted to possibly license FairPlay for their portable music players but Apple had turned them down. Is Apple really ready to do license deals now?
Dear Those Of Us With A Brain (TOUWAB), there is no "winning" format. That's a dumb notion.
Whatever we like best is what we'll use. And free formats such as FLAC and OGG are widely used and will not disappear -- especially when they are ~better~ formats than MP3 and hard disks have so much storage space that even FLAC can become the audiophile's preference.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
That cooperation will not be forthcoming unless Bill is getting richer from music.
How many ITunes songs have been sold per Ipod again? (about 3 ?)
Think of it like the old pay per view disks (DIVX). I let myself get sold a player with this feature as it had no extra cost. I then NEVER even took the five free disks much less hooked the player to the phone line. This helped kill the format (in retrospect I should have taken the disks and shitcanned them). So whatever you do don't buy encumbered music.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
iTunes started April, 2003. The first iPod was released Oct, 2001. Being the first to the market helps but that's usually not enough to secure it. Apple dominates that space today and who knows what will happen in the future. Hopefully M$ stays clear of screwing up what seems to be a perfectly cool thing for Apple and I wouldn't be so quick to test M$.
Gates might stand a chance then, since he dropped out:) And wasn't Balmer in Delta House along with John 'Bluto' Blutarsky? Smashing guitars & throwing chairs?
Yeah. I'm willing to burn some karma today...
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
One of the things that most people don't understand is that there are many times that when you sell more, your profits go down.
To explain it in economics terms: demand for a product rises as the price falls. So, if you lower the price, you will sell more units. Let's say that you can sell 1,000 units at $100 profit per unit. Let's say that you can sell 10,000 units at $50 profit per unit. It is better to sell 10,000 units at $50 profit per unit ($500,000) than 1,000 units at $100 profit per unit ($100,000). Of course, the reverse can happen. Let's say that you can sell 1,000 units for $100 profit per unit ($100,000) or 1,500 units for $50 profit per unit ($75,000). Selling those additional units looses you money. It is desireable for the business to produce and sell fewer units.
So, if Apple allows other devices to be more iPod-like and therefore gets revenue from more unit sales (both iPod and FairPlay units), it wouldn't necesserally increase their profits since they might have to lower the price of the iPod or loose iPod sales to sales of FairPlay devices which people are more likely to substitute and give Apple lower profit.
It might be good for Apple. It might not. Only a very through economic analysis of Apple and the market (as well as a ton of speculation) could tell us whether it is actually a good move. Being biggest doesn't mean being most profitable.
Setting a trap for Bill Gates is exactly like baiting a shark net with your face.
Even if he falls for it, you're screwed - but he'll never fall for it.
(Especially after he reads this message - right, Bill?)
Chicks Have All The Fun
Lets all sing together... "Apple is in the Hardware Business"
Apple/iTunes/iPod -- call it what you will. It's DRM, and Apple is just the beginning. Once the average Joe thinks it's okay to give up his rights for his precious iPod, the RIAA wins.
...just my 2 gil.
They would end up screwing themselves. I think the only reason Jobs would like to see Gates build an MP3 player is in hopes of getting a cross licensing deal on DRM.
Here is what happens if fairplay gets licensed:
Significant marketing advantage for all iPods competitors. They can play Fairplay and Playforsure.
That would place apple in the unenviable position of having to get a Playforsure license from Microsoft for all its iPods to negate that advantage.
Before Fairplay licensing: Ipod competetive advantage, no DRM royalties.
After Fairply licensing: No Ipod competetive advantage, DRM royalties on each player to Microsoft.
To put it bluntly. Licensing Fairplay would be an incredible boneheaded move on Apples part.
They got a slap on the wrist and a stern warning not to do it again. They didn't do anything to change their practices, and continued with business as usual.
A few million in legal fees is chump change for Microsoft, and they have no reason to believe any future administration will attempt to crack down on them again. Even if someone did try to crack down on them, a new administration would likely be in office long before the case came to a conclusion.
Even the last anti trust scandal took years to wind it's way into court, and there's no sign of the public pressure necessary to make such a thing happen again.
Microsoft is simply too big and powerful for anyone to do more than shake some legal sabers at them and say "boo!"
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
and might this not lure them into another monopoly?
I'm wondering why no one's made the connection that an mp3 player is hardware. Why would a software company, namely M$, put out a piece of hardware? Anything more complicated than a mouse or a keyboard isn't exactly M$'s market.
Apple, however, makes hardware. iMacs, iBooks, iPods, iCantremembertheotherstuff, however they don't even write their own software, they use Unix. I say we let the software company continue producing software, and the hardware company continue to produce hardware.
Evil Walrus >83=
Interestingly, I think the only way out of this for Microsoft is to advocate truly open standards for DRM and for a full podcasting/music-buying API. This is very hard for Microsoft to conceptualize, as they have all built their careers around owning standards. However, here Microsoft is in IBM's role: they want to sell ancillary products and services.
An open standard lets the manufacturers in on the party early, with the explicit knowledge that they'll be competing in a commodity market. In other words, it advances the time when *Pods become commidities. Given Microsoft's existing relationship with embedded hardware manufacturers, they would be well positioned to offer WINCE on these devices. It's also pretty key from driving sales of Media Center type devices - incompatibility with the iPod would really be a blow to the whole Media Center concept. It would also give the record companies their leverage back, because they would have more pricing control with multiple stores than if there's only a single road to digital music sales. The record companies will also have a very hard time understanding this, because they too want a standard they control lock stock and barrel.
As long as Microsoft's DRM is a "competing version" owned by Microsoft, hardware manufacturers know that they're vulnerable to a squeeze from Apple or Microsoft or both. With an open standard, they have at least a modicum of control.
For Microsoft, I think the hardest question will be organizing "up-stack" versus "down-stack" pieces - they've always sold more along a "buy the whole experience model" rather than an explicity value-add. This will be a very interesting fight.
I think Microsoft should do it. They're good at copying someone else' ideas, why not this one? Just do it. Come on, throw some resources at it.
everything MS does they soon become #1 in, does apple really want to bait MS into Apple's domain? I think Jobs is mistaken if his true intentions are to lure MS into making MP3 players. It wouldnt be long till they would dominate it just like everything else they do...
And this is why, even as an honest consumer, DRM is a major pain in the ass. I have no assurance, when I buy a song from iTunes, that I'll be able to use it on anything but an iPod and iTunes itself. What if I prefer another jukebox program? What if Apple stops selling iPods, or I want to buy another player that, in terms of technological ability, should be able to play AACs without a problem.
What if, god forbid, I want to shop at multiple online stores, each with a different DRM technology? I need multiple devices to play my music? That's crap.
Chewbacca, is that you?
The iPod is the thing that (most) people think when they think of an MP3 player...and the iTunes/iPod combo makes Apple great money. /> />
<br
<br
But when the iPod eventually flops (when Apple makes a mistake), ITMS will probably go with it.
Its like the old days where apple and microsoft was going at it. Feels great. Hopefully apple comes out on top this time though...or both get around 50 percent of the market each.
Three people who were looking for Jobs, were involved in a car accident, after getting an Invitation to Microsoft. The police thinks it was a Trap set by a terrorist group.
Kaetemi
I am puzzled, I have been using my Microsoft smartphone to play mp3 and mpeg4 for nearly 3 years now. I can even get my phone to sync with windows media when I dock it, or copy mp3's via bluetooth. If I really feel in the mood my mobile can download music and video directly. Its simple and works very well. Why do Microsoft have to build yet another mp3 player?
I call Bullshit.
How is anything an industry standard when only one company sells it? Even Motorola has dropped it from their ROKR phones. Something becomes an industry standard when an entire industry adopts it, and not just because the largest current player in that market uses it.
Even the claim in this article that MS should make their own MP3 player is bogus. By definition an MP3 player doesn't user FairPlay. It plays MP3 files. A FairPlay player uses FairPlay.
This is just badly written all around.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I think Steve just wants a competitor to push the bar one up for Apple. Right now Apple is monopolizing digital music and that's making them stagnate around the same designs. There's no reason to go above and beyond right now, competition can be healthy. I'm sure Jobs realizes there's not a single other company in the world that could give them a run for their money right now in this particular market.
Which reminds me of that article about Bill Gates trying to fumigate his fortunes like the robber barons of old. Unfortunately, Microsoft is a sleeping giant right now, it doesn't have the stomach for competition like it once did. It lacks that carnivorous drive to kill that made it such a juggernaut. Jobs' is kicking the dragon trying to get it to wake up. It must be frustrating for him.
Personally, I prefer Microsoft products. On one hand I feel a bit better that MS is no longer the three headed beast it once was. It redeems them a little in my eyes that they're flesh and bone like everyone else. But, I miss the energy and innovation, they pushed themselves and their competitors once. They could again, but it doesn't look like they will.
I just speculate that Steve feels the same way.
It's the end of a golden era.
Are you saying that a CEO of a large company suggested that his chief competitor do something that might not be in their best interst?
I feel faint!
Certainly not, everyone knows that Steve Jobs is a genuinely caring guy, even to his competitors. he was simply offering a little help to Microsoft, because he's such a great guy and just loves business and real competition. Way to be Steve, you've made Jesus smile.
It seems to me that the name PlaysForSure is an attempt to apply the old Windows monopolist playbook to a field where they don't have a monopoly. To say that a song 'plays for sure' on a particular box is to say everyone has this kind of box, so you know the software to play the song is there.
;-)
Unfortunately for Microsoft, everyone does *not* have this kind of box, and PlaysForSure files won't play on the boxes most people have. It's a complete sham.
We're not talking about playing WMA's on your desktop computer any more. Everyone that has an iPod has AAC support on their iPod and their desktop machine. In fact PlaysForSure files won't play on an iPod, and won't play on a PlaysForSure player owner's Macintosh if they happen to have one.
None of this is to say that Microsoft's market share isn't large enough to lure away some users that don't even want to have to load iTunes on their desktops - though the OEM's have started installing iTunes, so that approach may not work either. Still, iPods can't talk to Outlook or display Word docs, so someday if the PocketPC model wins out as the portable device of choice, then Apple's in trouble. MS's monopoly magic would then take over.
The only *real* lock-in Apple has is all the FairPlay songs that iPodders have paid to download. That's a pretty big incentive for an iPod owner to make their next mp3 player an iPod too - if they've been paying for iTunes downloads. So whoever mentioned MS converting FairPlay songs may have a point. Good thing there's the DMCA
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
... just Jobs thumbing his nose at MS? Why would Apple try to help MS, and, for that matter, why would MS take advice from a competitor? I didn't hear the original invitation, but it doesn't seem like it was meant to be taken seriously.
If you can read this sig, you're too close.
I remember iTunes before iPod, it was decent enough. Today, from my experiences, iTunes is the best digital jukebox. At a friends party, they were using WMP, I quickly whipped out my trusty RunDisk and installed iTunes. I very quickly managed to get all their music going through iTunes, and the party was that much better because of it. My friends of course, asked "what the hell is that", and claimed they prefered WMP! I guess you cant help everyone! Of course, I live in New Zealand, where WE DONT HAVE iTMS yet, so I understand if I do get flamed to hell from commenting. Why would you want to use other Music Stores, because they are cheaper? Do some have exclusives? Subscription model? If so, why not stay with THAT store? I recently read that Sony had joined the party with the Australian store, they had been sulking for a while, but iTMS Australia was going fine (from what I know) without any Sony pop artists! I heard rumours (again) that NZ would get iTMS before the end of this month. I can only dream its true this time.
---
MS won't make a Windows-Pod yet because it's too soon. They like to stay behind the times.
Can I bum a sig?
When you use iTunes software to rip your CD collection to MP3 or M4A for use with your iPod player, the ripped files do not have any form of digital restrictions management. It's extremely common in the United States and Canada for somebody to own 28 hours worth of CDs, which is enough to fill a 2 GB player at 160 kbps.
"The players that license FairPlay would have access to the iTunes store, backwards compatibility with the songs consumers have already purchased, and a chance to compete on a perfectly level playing field with the iPod"
Is this guy that big of a fanboy that he thinks that being locked into the Apple only DRM and Hardware with no hope of using anything else is a good thing? At least with MS you could choose the stores and the hardware you want, from dozens of different sources.
What could apple possibly gain from MS jumping into the MP3 player market other then modest bragging rights? Its not like MS doesn't have the cash to burn... and MS has a MUCH better business model. Provide the architecture and let the hundreds of hardware makers out there fight apple with hardware designs. Job's was clearly just trying to get some headlines. Actually Job's reminds me of a small hyperactive kid that annoys everyone hiding behind is Dad (a.k.a the media) sticking out his tongue at the other kids knowing he is safe because Dad will protect him (for example the media doesn't ask him any difficult questions).
This guy is blinded by his homo-erotic love of Steve Jobs and Apple. The real question to ask is how this article made it to the front page?
there's allowing your customers to play the music they purchase from you on the device of their choice, whether a competitor to one of your own or one in a market you don't support - for example a network media player (e.g. Mac Mini once Front Row is finished) or a car-based player (e.g. iPod Nano Car Kit).
Fixed for the win.
i don't think the iPod would exist if somebody else made a half decent music player that integrated well with the Mac OS. there were (and are) other brands that support drag and drop on the Mac OS, but none seemed to really work as cleanly. same can be said for the iPod's interface. the iPod was far from the first MP3 player, but they simplified it, and more importantly, let Mac users play along. remember the iPod was a hit before the MS Windows support was anywhere near what it is today.
the same thinking could possibly also say:
iTMS would not exist if the other music stores were iPod friendly, and had relatively lenient DRM (like Apple was eventually able to wrangle). iTMS was not created to be a huge financial hit, it HAD to exist because Apple could not let their iPods have no access to legal digital music sales. Apple never intended it to make much money, and flat out said so in their quarterly earnings reports and in interviews.
People seem to have an emotional attachment with Apple that extends far beyond reason. They seem to believe that Apple can bully Microsoft around on its "home turf".
The fact of the matter is that Microsoft is so much larger than Apple that they could easily gobble them up if they saw the need to do it. They could give a deal that Apple's shareholders couldn't refuse.
The only thing that prevents them from doing that is the US Government. Microsoft isn't really in competition with Apple in the Mp3 market and sees no need to crush them in it. Hell, if all bets were off and Microsoft had to defeat Apple in the Mp3 market, Microsoft could afford to either A) Buy Apple entirely , or B) subsidize the cost of a comparable Mp3 player so much that they'd basically give them away to starve Apple.
Firstly there's allowing your customers to play the music they purchase from you on the device of their choice, whether a competitor to one of your own or one in a market you don't support - for example a network media player (e.g. Squeezebox or Sonos) or a car-based player (e.g. Phatbox).
In theory that's what licensing FairPlay would give us.
In reality what would happen is that each song would be $5 (for the ones you could buy, new songs no being purchasable for about a year or so). So you'd be feeding a lot less music into those nice boxes, the market share for shich would be smaller because online sales would ever remain a tiny niche.
Apple has enough leverage to keep online music sales resonably priced and therefore interesting. Licensing the format would simply mean no power to any online music store and a music industry that decided what you could and could not do.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Nothing lasts forever, certainly some day the iPod/iTunes duo will be challenged and soundly defeated."
Yes, Microsoft will soon deal with Apple's little rebellion, and when they do, Apple will be defeated. Soundly!
LUKE: "Your overconfidence is your weakness."
EMPEROR: "Your faith in your friends is yours."
VADER "It is pointless to resist, my son."
See?
Am I the only one who read the title and thought "Wow, Microsoft wants to hire Steve Jobs? AND Steve Jobs is might become the largest stock holder of Disney? Good day for him..." - Toby
Microsoft is undeniably the king of Desktop OSes and Office suites. But whenever they use their huge cash stockpiles to venture into other markets, they are not as successful. For instance, the Xbox isn't going to dethrone Sony's Playstation. EA is pretty much king of the hill in PC gaming. I also choose Logitech for my keyboards and mice. Google has wiped the floor with them in search portal and internet service market. When it comes to mp3 players, they are not going to wipe out the iPod/iTunes juggernaut. They may have the money but they don't have the talent. I just don't see Microsoft as a being player because they can't bring out a really novel product. In some markets, it takes more than just being able to outlast your competitor to become a dominate player.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
That's a really great idea there Steve-o. Except for the fact that MS almost has more money lying around IN CASH than Apple's market cap. They could afford to make a $1,000 mp3 player that they sell at a loss for years just to drive Apple into the ground. Likely, I would suspect, just for fun. Keep in mind that should MS manage to capture the entirity of Apple's market share (iPods, iTunes, even the Mac platform), this would boost MS's revenue by approximately 10%. Incidentally, this growth rate is no better than MS's existing revenue growth rate.
The iPod may be a big deal for Apple, but compared to the revenue (or revenue potential) of, say, the xbox/xbox360, Office, Windows, etc, it's small potatoes.
If I had mod points, I'd give them to you. People seem to be under the mistaken notion that iTunes/FairPlay is somehow less evil than other DRM systems.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
1. Burn an Audio disk.
2. Convert disk to MP3.
3. There is no three. Your done.
That's Apple DRM. OK, good for them for building something that looks like DRM so they could drag the dinosaurs in the music industry kicking and screaming into the digital age. I'm sure there were a lot of meetings where the presence of Fair Play was vital to not getting tossed out on the street in front of a moving bus. But do we really have to pretend along with them that they have a real DRM? If you have ever given Apple DRM a minute of worry, you should ask for that minute back.
San Francisco Photographers
If you are using a Mac running OSX 10.3 or higher, get a copy of Audio HiJack Pro, and re-rip any Fairplay enabled iTunes that you own into ALL-Play MP3 files -- works for me, and plays on all of my machines.
Ripping is done in the digital realm, no D/A-A/D crap going on. Resultant MP3 sounds as good as the Fairplay source file.
Blitzen
Honestly, it wouldn't be all that hard for MS to create some good competition for the iPod. They just need to follow in Rio's footsteps. If MS would do about 30 seconds of research on what's keeping Audiophiles from actually buying an iPod they could whoops some arse.
What we want:
Tons of supported media - such as ogg, flac, and others that are constantly missing from today's DAPs, on top of what's already supported.
For the video portion - we're not stupid, just lazy. Give us DIVX, XVID, and other supported media.
Gapless playback...need I say more? Apparently I do since manufacturers keep leaving it out. If an older technology such as a CD player can play gaplessly between songs why the hell can't an MP3 player? Oh it can? Then why isn't it in there?
Also, keep in mind that we don't like being forced to use software that rivals what we already use and are comfortable with, add support for other programs out there instead of creating your own and then let us choose what to use after purchasing it.
I'm sure there's much more that others could add to my list but this is all I'm really looking for in a DAP.
You hear that MS?!? Ok...now get to work.
[ Microsoft is undeniably the king of Desktop OSes ]
Are you high?
You can do this without any software on a Windoze machine. Just set the audio to record the 'Stereo Mix' or on Creative sound cards 'What you hear'. On M-Audio sound cards it's a slightly more difficult process, but works all the same. You just record the digital signals that are being sent to your speakers. Just make sure to turn off any other program that could produce noises during the recording process. Oh, and of course use Audacity (although you could use the crappy Sound Recorder--just to make the "not needing any additional program" thing true--although everybody should have Audacity anyway) for the recording because that way you can also edit out any machine noise. Nice and easy.
Read my blog posts on usability.
Seriously, the iTMS has served me ONE function only - to search for music I like and to preview 30 second clips for me to decide whether or not I want to buy the CD at BestBuy for $12.99.
I admit, I am a diehard Macintosh, pro-PowerPC/anti-Intel archtecture zealot who downloads the FREE iTunes Music Store download of the week, but I will NEVER EVER purchase music online. First, with DRM, you never really own the music, wipe the license from your hard drive and you'll see what I mean - you can't play your music any/everywhere you want. Second, the quality of Apple's online downloads is pretty bad, for a audiophile. C'mon, 128-bit ACC/MP4 is what? Like no comparison to AIFF or the '--alt-preset insane' setting in 'iTunes LAME' plug-in, LAME for iTunes. With the '--alt-preset insane' setting in 'iTunes LAME' I can make the best-sounding MP3's available, and for listening through little tiny earbuds on my 4th generation 40 GB iPod, that's good enough. Forget Napster, LimeWire, and other P2P clients, hell, when and if I need to, I'll just loan-out to/borrow from a friend/associate a portable FireWire hard drive for copying an entire MP3 library - non DRM'd music to mine and determine what I want, the rest gets deleted; MB/GB are still expensive you know. Seriously though, iTMS is great for locating music that I want to PURCHASE, and preferentially, I'd like to purchase a CD at low cost from BestBuy or somewhere else which allows me to import into MP3 format in iTunes for portability. DRM is just too messy and inconvenient. The music industry should have had an online index of ALL available music a decade ago when music was being swapped P2P via Napster/LimeWire. Now the RIAA is at the mercy of Apple (at least it's NOT Micro$soft and the rest of the remaining BORG collective).
And, like a recent article I read on Slashdot, I do try to purchase and support the ARTISTS (not the RIAA) for the music written and appreciated.
The /. crowd is easily the most tech-savvy bunch out there and why is is that when discussing the PFS vs. Fairplay no one seems to get ( or has said so far) that Fairplay is DRM that seems to be the best solution? Fairplay allows you to use the music in SO many ways, and it is quite easily (by design) worked around. Last time I checked, PFS was not so liberal or easily worked around. Fairplay admittidly for me, DRM that is liveable for both.
One easy way around: You can burn and then rip Fairplay DRM'd songs. All done. I think that DRM is not going away, so lets be happy that we have something that is a decent balance.
It's simple. They moved into the subscription service business with MTV because they could not let their business model be seen to fail (stranded subscribers when one goes out of business). They will have to do that for the hardware business too as it becomes clear that no one can gain economies of scale to challenge Apple. http://homepage.mac.com/bagelturf
Error on line 50: variable 'CowboyNeal' has no definition in the current context.
As a side note, that code suffers from a multiple return structure (i.e. one entry and many exits).
Now Mr Jobs is going after content with the Pixar Disney deal http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/20/ 1951204&from=rss
That is a triple whammy. Top software, top hardware, quality content. Move over Sony.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
... The folks who stick with Microsoft get to fight over, roughly, twenty percent of the market. The folks that go with Apple would be aligning themselves with what has become the industry standard. The players that license FairPlay would have access to the iTunes store, backwards compatibility with the songs consumers have already purchased, and a chance to compete on a perfectly level playing field with the iPod. It doesn't take a Stanford MBA to deduce that the potential rewards of opting to use FairPlay far outstrip the rewards of going with PlaysForSure ...
... Apple enjoyed a hardware lead and an application software lead when they mocked IBM's entry into the personal computer maketplace. Apple's computer lead then, and their digital audio lean now, may be more similar than many people around here realize. Basically, digital audio is only in it's infancy, as personal computer ownership was in the early 80s. As personal computer ownership became "mainstream" Apple became marginalized. The same could happen with digital audio, the bulk of the population is still not committed to any player/format. Microsoft could, I'm not saying will - only could, be the choice for the bulk of the population for a variety of reasons. One of which is that it is not going to be portable players that decide the digital music issue, it is going to be car stereos, home stereos, etc. Whoever get's their digital media appliance in the living room is probably going to be the ultimate winner. It might be Apple, it might be Microsoft, it will be years before the issue is really decided.
I own an iPod, I'd be perfectly happy to see Apple win. But declaring the issue already decided, that's just Apple's spin, and the wishful thinking of fans. This could turn out like Apple's mocking welcome of IBM to the personal computer business in the early 1980s.
Apple is not "really" the industry leader for digital audio in any real sense, only in a transitory early adopter phase sense. Calm down, hang on for a few lines
iPod's popularity may be transitory, we don't know how many owners are truly locked in by a large library of DRM'd iTunes Music Store (iTMS) purchases. Whatever people rip themselves with iTunes is not DRM'd and my understanding is that the vast bulk of digital audio is ripped, not from iTMS. Even if a person has DRM'd files that are not portable, the fact that they paid for the music lowers the barrier to their getting replacement files via file sharing, they are not really "stealing" in their own minds, they already "own" the song. It's much like people who in the napster days felt OK downloading a song they owned on vinyl or cassette rather than CD.
Well I paid wayyy too much for a 256MB iRiver a couple of years ago. Nice little player, with FM stereo, voice (and FM) recorder, etc. But capacity is kinda small, eh? Now I've bought a 5GB Virgin Electronics Player (still with FM) for $129 Canadian. It works well enough and sounds great. No -- it's not as simple or elegant as an iPod. My player has ten -- yes TEN! -- buttons to deal with. It must have taken me a whole or hour or two to get used to the funky interface. On the other hand try searching Google for "broken iPod", "frozen iPod" or "lost iPod" and you'll feel better if you are a Cheap Philistine like me. Actually i did have a problem with the Virgin Player in the first few days -- the song indexes got corrupted, so i ran CHKDSK and all was well. Just for the hell of it i formatted the drive, re-flashed the ROM, copied the system file back and re-synched it. No problems since. But then again, that iPod wheel is pretty nice -- if i had had money to burn i woulda given my money to Jobs.
Is this sig nificant?
Gates has already dismissed mp3 players and ipods as a passing fad.
I have to agree with him on this... I play mp3's through my Imate SP3 phone which has a 1 gig Mini-SD ram card. It's smaller and more light weight than an ipod, the sound quality is fantastic, plus it also acts as my organiser and mobile phone... all for about the same price as the cheapest ipod. Pretty much all new mobile phones will offer this same functionality, where does this leave the ipod ? Nowhere is the answer.
I really can't see the value in buying an ipod today. From what I've seen personally people buying these things today are doing it as a prententious fashion statement more than anything else. Which by definition would make gates absolutely right on this one.
Since when is MicroSoft afraid of monopolies?
For what it's worth, I've already not bought an iPod because soon I will be buying such a phone. Sure it won't be as good as iPod for playing music, but it will be good enough for me and I don't want to carry around 2 devices on me.
PDAs may have never been a huge market in the first place, but they were utterly crushed once cellphones reached critical mass.
i cant really picture it...oh wait here it is... half the drive is ur OS and then the other half can be used for windows authorized only music and video.... also the blue screen of death pops in mind
(yes i know i suck at spelling fell free to correct my grammar and/or spellin i dont care, im still not going to change
yes an mp3 layers plays mp3s, so the ipod is an mp3 player. a mp3 player might also be able to play other formats as long as it can still play mp3s.
By definition an mp3 player is an mp3 player as long as it plays mp3s. There is nothing in the definitoin that prevents an mp3 player from paying something else. If you have a boom box that plays cds and tapes it is both a cd and a tape player, not just a tape player. You define things by what they do, not additional functionality. A swiss army knife is a freaking knife not a pair of scissors even though the vast majority of them also include scissors.
I call double bullshit on your comment
Motorola ROKR with iTunes. They have licensed it to Motorola. It just didn't work out that well.
All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
What would happen if MS tried to do it under the Reverse Engineering exception? (Sect. 1201 (f))
Ok, that wouldn't most likely happen, but still?
Gates has always said the Microsoft always has been and always will be a software company. You know except for the x-box. And what the hell is MSNBC?
I would say isn't it time for an antitrust lawsuit? Maybe microsoft and all the other mp3 player&software manufacturers should go after apple! Cause technically they have a monopoly on the software market! I am waiting for someone to reply it is not the same yet it is! Cause i believe that the largest over 80 percent i would guess get there legal mp3's through itunes! This is a monopoly in my opinion. If microsoft had a monopoly in Operating systems and browsers then apple has one in apple based computer systems, osx, and mp3 market.
but that is my opinion
okay mod me down for being a ms fanboy
I am giving away 2000 premium accounts on my new dating website myfantasyromance.com check it out!
...it's a TRAP!!!! ;P
Of course you all know exactly what I mean.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Technically they claim digital music is not the same as my records i own. Kinda funny that lets say the new bon jovi album is first analog(same as my record) then turned into a digital format then my player converts it from digital back to analog! hrmmmmm.... sounds to me like nobody has taken these clowns to the wall yet! I bet no one ever used this defense. Guess what in all reality you can't here digital music cause it is 10101010001001010 all 1's and 0's are human ear cannot hear that so in all actuallity it makes me downloading a song i own on vinyl technically legal since i own and analog copy! does this make sense?
I am giving away 2000 premium accounts on my new dating website myfantasyromance.com check it out!
to OWN their own tunes.
If Apple and the iTMS die tomorrow the iPods will still play and there are plenty of other sources for MP3s.
With Microsoft's approach, if you're late with the credit card payment, there's just wind blowing between in your ears.
While that approach might work for someone who just plays elevator music, in elevators, it truely bites the big one for any music fans.
Gates doesn't understand the first thing about what Apple has done and why its meshed in so well with Joe Sixpack, his wife, his sons and daughters, and what they want from a portable music player.
He'd probably try to shove Windows in it and tell them they should WANT to edit a Word document.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Once data is in a DRM system, you have no guarantees of what any future implementation will allow you to do with it. If iTunes 8 tightens the restrictions(by say, removing local streaming), and earlier versions no longer work with the Music Store or the latest OS, then what choice do you have?
Actually, there's an interesting legal question here. When you buy a song on the iTunes store, what exactly are you buying? A license of course, but a license to do what?
Anybody know what the size distribution of those IPods is? (by that I mean to ask what the average IPod in the field will hold).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The music industry will sell exactly zero four dollar tracks. Whatever the market structure.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Granted I have'nt yet seen the hard drive player I want for the trunk, but it's only a matter of time (or I'll alter an obsolete laptop).
In the mean time DVDs full of MP3s work great, I change disks maybe once a month.
I simply don't buy into the portable collection theory. Portable is for throw-away copies of the master collection.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I'd rather see a three way Ultimate Fighting style match myself-"OS WARS 06-Bill VS Linus VS Steve in a No-Holds-Barred Winner Take All Showdown!"
In that fight I'd put my money on Linus.Bill and Steve know each others moves to well and Linus would be this big X-Factor throwing them off.Of course they may both double team poor Linus just to get him outta there before turning on each other,But I can't see Old Steve and Billy playing nice long enough for that to work.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I don't know about monopolies, but I own a 60 GB iPod, and
have never bought _any_ music online, from iTunes or anywhere
else (I don't like DRM, I'm afraid it will "wear out" as I
swap out computers - so I buy CDs and rip on Linux using a
command-line bulk-ripper tool I wrote that runs cdparanoia and
lame - it encodes at top qualilty and avoids rootkit problems.
And yes, I keep my CDs, selling them after ripping is stealing,
and I want the option to re-rip to wavelet-ogg or whatever later).
I bought an iPod (as opposed to another brand) because
believe it or not, it's the cheapest per GByte, plus I think
it was the only 60 GByte player on the market when I bought it.
Being able to put _everything_ on it, not having to waste my
time choosing and downloading, was the attraction. The time
I save is easily worth the extra $200 to get the biggest thing
I can find - and for now, that's the iPod (though I think there
might be some other 60's out now - but I think they cost more).
Of course, I'm a working engineer, I might think differently
if I were a starving student.
When I run out of space, hopefully there'll be a nice
200 GB unit out for $400. I'd actually prefer a non-Apple
player, something with very high audio quality, DSP options, and
a little less dumbed-down user interface, and would pay extra for
that too. But storage is king; I'm not gonna waste time choosing
and downloading.
--Tristan
The iPod is an AAC player that also happens to play mp3s as an added bonus. I cringe every time people call the iPod an mp3 player. The irony is that the very people who probably call their iPod an mp3 player are filling them up with AACs off iTMS (which doesn't even offer mp3s, btw).
Fuck MP3s, there's no reason for them to exist anymore. And if you haven't noticed, since the popularity of the iTMS, AACs (MP4s) are spreading like wildfire. Okay, I've seen the stats, and yes, Ogg SLIGHTLY beats out AAC for quality/size, but they are also exteremely processor intensive, and thus reduce battery life on portables. Ya know, I wouldn't mind if my iPod could play Oggs, but if it did, I'd probably end up converting all my Oggs to AAC anyway. I don't remember if iRivers can play AAC, but no AAC would kill it for me.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
I've had a changer in my living room for years, and I've NEVER stuck more than one disc in at a time. I've used changers in cars, and more often then not, every time I finish a disc, I end up putting in another that I didn't remember to load into the changer. Unlike you, I don't plan my listening experience 5 hours in advance. The beauty of an iPod or any digital music player is that you can listen to any track of any album you have whenver you want. I no longer have to spend time organizing my CDs before I go on a car trip. I don't even make playlists for my iPod. I have thousands of tracks on it, and I don't know which one I'm going to want to listen to until probably 30 seconds before I put it on.
The only good things that came out of changers are the changer ports on factory installed car CD players. I'm ordering a BlitzSafe adaptor for my iPod to my Camry (Toyota is in the process of tieing the knot with apple at the moment, but my car's still a '99, so it's not supported). That is the ONLY good thing that ever came out of the changer, the ability to NOT use one and use an iPod instead!
-- EricMultiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
The finger pyramid of evil contemplation.
... and then they built the supercollider.
If that's the case, than Apple already has one home run, and Microsoft already has one major strike against them. Many car stereo companies have already signed onto iPod integration. Just look at how many manufacturers are touting in advertisements that you can play an iPod in their car? It's a huge selling point, and it seems to be only beginning to take off. Meanwhile, all the biggest third party vendours (Pioneer, Alpine, etc.) are going OUT OF THEIR WAY to create iPod integration products for their aftermarket systems.
The home theatre department has yet to be decided, as there hasn't been such a vigorous attempt to integrate the iPod into the home as the car. But also remember who controls a huge plurality of the home theatre system market: Sony. Now, Sony may not give a damn about Apple, but they'd rather be damned to hell than throw in with Microsoft, a company in which they're battling fiercely on many fronts (namely game consoles and HD Media). I also heard, somewhere, that they're switching over some of their computers to Linux (I'm not sure about this, though). In any case, they currently have little competition with Apple and would probably gladly throw in with them if not simply to try and stick it to MS, the way MS threw in with Toshiba to stick it to Sony in the HD Media wars. You can be sure, if MS ever tried to concure the home theatre market, Sony would make sure that Apple came out on top. Now, sure, Sony wants to make an iPod killer too, but I'm saying that they'd rather lose that battle with Apple on top than lose that battle with M$ on top. In fact, if Microsoft really went after the iPod with some gadget, I bet you'd see Sony drop the mp3 Walkman faster than a gay cowboy and get behind the iPod.
The bottom line is that whoever wins these battles is always the company that is the most successfull at getting 3rd party support to the point that everyone in the industry NEEDS for that company to stay on top. The reason Apple didn't succeed in beating out IBM in the PC wars was because they worked completely unalatorally, they closed off so many doors to 3rd party support that every other company had to throw in with IBM. This is the opposite. Everyone has been throwing in with Apple to the point that Wallstreet declared, a few months back, a new "iPod Ecconomy" (reffering to the exploding 3rd party market). I would say that the iPod's future is quite possibly more solid than Microsoft's future in OSs. Even if Windows is 80% of the market (with iPod only 74%), they have competitors with well established 3rd party supporters. I've not seen a single car stereo that tries to integrate with the iRiver, Rio, or any other digital music player.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Man... I remember having this conversation about 8 years ago, when EVERYBODY had a Newton, and there was no way Windows CE would *ever* make a dent in the palmtop computing market...
Times change.
46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
You know Orwell's doublethink has arrived when someone talks about the iTunes/Fairplay/iPod lock-in as a "level playing field". Let me see ... Apple owns the standard, sets the rules (and can change them at any time), makes the hardware and the software, runs the store. It's a proprietary platform; for sure you can make money from it, but it's shifting sand. Plus, it locks me out, because I'll never purchase anything with FairPlay protection on it.
Apple is not "really" the industry leader for digital audio in any real sense, only in a transitory early adopter phase sense.
That was Diamond.
iPod's popularity may be transitory
A lot of things "may be". But the iPod's popularity probably isn't transitory (in the short-term. In the long term, it could be argued that even Windows' dominance is "transitory").
Or put another way: You have $50 to bet on whether the iPod will be the dominant music player in January, 2009, or will not. You must place your bet, or you forfeit the $50, and you must bet the entire amount either yea or nay. Which way do you bet?
Thought so.
The living room is obsolete. people don't tend to live in nuclear families anymore. They have smaller houses and apartments. it's more about replacing the living room with something more flexible. For example, I'm amazed at the success of iPod "boomboxes" - basically computer-style integrated mini-speakers that your iPod plugs in to. "Cute," I thought, but I didn't think many people would buy them. After all, who would want to listen to such crappy speakers? But sure enough, iPod boomboxes started turning up everywhere. It felt like the 80s all over again.
When you think about it, living room stereos have been on the decline since the 80s. Only audiophiles or home theatre enthusiasts care. Most people seem to want a portable device, or a bookshelf stereo - or they are happy just using their computer speakers.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design. Your friends out there on the Redmond Campus are walking into a trap, as is your Rebel OS. It was I who allowed the Microsofties to know the location of the DRM. It is quite safe from their pitiful little band. An entire legion of my best zealots awaits them. I'm afraid the monopoly will be quite operational when your friends arrive.
:) )
(Bastardized from Emperor Palpatine, SW6, in case you missed it
Actually, Microsoft has a decent history of busting monopolies with their own monopoly. I wouldn't be so cavalier, but then, Jobs always did have a blind spot the size of his foot in the general vicinity of his mouth.
You know... like Microsoft leveraging on their near monopoly to force down your throat Internet Explorer, MSN, Media Player, Anti-vírus, personal accounting, etc... Even though it's a sweet irony, it's just as bad.
Uh, no, it's not, the issue with Microsoft was that they leveraged their monopoly to unfairly control distribution channels, tie products, and block competitors' access to markets. Apple has done none of these things, so don't oversimplify and misrepresent the situation.
I agree with your comments except for the comment about smaller houses and apartments. At least here in the States, houses are monsters! Portble and small is the key. That's why the nano was THE hot item this past XMas season.
This is Slashdot... you must be new here.
There is a Universal Life Value Check it
If that's the case, than Apple already has one home run, and Microsoft already has one major strike against them. Many car stereo companies have already signed onto iPod integration.
...
It's a $500 upgrade to get the integration kit installed in my car. It integrates into the stereo's on steering wheel controls and dashboard text display. I'm sure there are cheaper alternatives.
However I don't think iPod integration kits matter, they are temporary kludges. I believe that car stereo companies will build digital players directly into their stereos. Upload files, or play digital audio files from a data CD-R, Apple's DRM might bite back here if they refuse to license decoders. They may hand Microsoft an advantage in this respect.
The bottom line is that whoever wins these battles is always the company that is the most successfull at getting 3rd party support to the point that everyone in the industry NEEDS for that company to stay on top
I agree, but Apple's refusal to license decoders argues against their being the one on top.
The reason Apple didn't succeed in beating out IBM in the PC wars was because they worked completely unalatorally, they closed off so many doors to 3rd party support that every other company had to throw in with IBM...
I think you are thinking Mac, but the Apple/IBM war was actually decided with the Apple II. The Apple II was open.
Or put another way: You have $50 to bet on whether the iPod will be the dominant music player in January, 2009, or will not. You must place your bet, or you forfeit the $50, and you must bet the entire amount either yea or nay. Which way do you bet?
;-)
If my rev B iPod died today I'd buy a new iPod without concern a few hours later, however I'd bet against iPod dominance in a three year window for digital audio players. Note that I am not restricting myself to portables. I've been writing with reference to how people listen to digital audio in general, arguing that home and car will decide the mass market not portable players. The three year Window is iffy for portable players, I expect it will be five or so for a different portable player. All bets off if Apple changes it's DRM licensing stance.
Thought so.
To use a phrase you are probably familiar with: Think different.
The living room is obsolete.
That was more of a metaphor. I did refer to a home appliance by Apple or Microsoft, that appliance may be portable or it may be wireless, but there will probably be a central device with the archive. Whether it is in the living room or a closet is irrelevant. My argument still stands.
No, it doesn't. It's strange that you would think that. I imagine you have not used the software for many years?
The "DRM by default" option (a configured checkbox that was on by default in WMP7 - released five years ago) was changed as of the next release 8 months later (four years ago).
Whoever get's their digital media appliance in the living room is probably going to be the ultimate winner.
Which is why M$ has tried that unsuccessfully for years, and Apple will probably succeed within the year with the new Mac Mini.
M$ took too long to realize that it's not about the software. Living room customers want to buy a box that just works. And that's what Apple has and M$ doesn't.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
So little time. 1. Apple could not have opened the iTunes Music Store without the consent of the music labels, which Jobs had the ability to cajole into releasing their music in digital form to begin with -- and that wouldn't have happened without DRM. Don't like it, but that's true. The alternative business model was Napster, which the courts had just driven out of business. 2. All the other players have to do is license FairPlay. No, whines Real, Apple has to sit still while its DRM gets cracked. How long would that piddling little company last if they did that to Microsoft, I wonder? Two minutes? 3. If you go to an anti-Mac site like the various pay-for-play video download sites, you can't do it with a Mac. In the Help sections, they always have the same message. "Until Apple sharies its DRM," and then, paradoxically, "Windows DRM has not been cracked." 4. I'd love it if all DRM was abolished, and the Apple Store sold most tracks for about a quarter. Music would return as a cultural, not just a business, force. But the people who determine that are the music labels, not Apple.
To the poster who said that online sales don't matter, don't talk so fast. A recent study said the iTunes Music Store is the number 7 retailer of music in the United States, right behind Best Buy. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/22/itunes_us_ retail_top_ten/
It's approaching a billion tunes sold, the library is growing every day.
And this was before the 14 million new iPods in this first quarter got factored into it.
Online sales definitely matter now, and in five years, who knows?
The iTunes DRM is practically honor-system. It's got an analog hole the size of the Grand Canyon. And Apple tells you how to use it, almost. Just move one word in the slogan and turn "RIP, MIX, BURN" into "MIX, BURN, RIP".
If I were to get a non-iPod music player, I'd burn my iTMS purchaes to audio CD and re-rip them as MP3 or OGG (which happens to be legal), rather than looking for online versions of dubious quality and provenance. You can even use a CDRW as your analog disk and Applescript the whole task... don't have to touch a thing...
Just look at how many manufacturers are touting in advertisements that you can play an iPod in their car...
But have you looked at what that means?
It doesn't mean they have an iPod dock and any real iPod integration, in most cases.
What it usually means is they have a line-in jack that you can plug any MP3 player into. Something that should have become standard in all cars 25 years ago, when "music player" was spelled "Walkman", given it probably increases the parts cost of the stereo by 15c.
My experience with integrated devices is this: If putting an MP3 player in your cellphone works for you, you can save money by just getting an MP3 player, because you sure as hell aren't making any calls on the cellphone.
It's the batteries, stupid.
Cellphones already push the limits of battery life as it is. Add a music player that drains the battery continuously while it's in use, and you end up with a cellphone that's dead when you need to use it.
Been there, done that, got the spare battery that's ALSO dead because I forgot which one was charged...
You talk as if Apple becoming marginalized happened by magic. That does IBM and Microsoft an injustice, because there are some very good reasons why the IBM clone became ubiquitous and the Mac became marginalized.
IBM opened its inferior platform so that others could make it better, and made a deal with MS to bundle DOS on every system. DOS became the de facto standard. This put MS in an outstanding position to market Windows, which won because it was cheap and had application support.
Meanwhile, under Sculley's leadership, Apple was making bazillions of different product lines like the Quadra, Centris and Performa, with negligable differences between them. Retail confusion ensues, and since most people bought their computers from big retailers, not small shops, most people end up with PCs.
Even before the PC Clones, they didn't have that big a market share. Certainly not the majority.
Anyway, I don't really think the same thing is going to happen again. IBM and co. won because of a series of smart decisions. The music player vendors only seem capable of stupid, shortsighted decisions. A lot of people already have big collections of music on iTunes. The non-Apple music vendors are fragmented, and they're all encumbered with some kind of mutually incompatible DRM. And it's all HIGHLY political. I mean, Sony pratically told the Japanese people they shouldn't buy iPods for the sake of their country. This doesn't seem to be working, not too surprisingly. Like the trenches in WWI, this is going to make sure that the market doesn't move too much.
The only thing that could potentially hurt iPod sales is the Cell Phone effect - it's hard to get somebody to buy a cell phone when they already have one. Not to mention most cell phones suck. Conversely, Apple seems to be able to churn out cool upgrades at a fairly regular rate. I mean, I just bought my girlfriend a black 5G iPod, and god damnit if I didn't want one myself, even though I have a 60GB one that's not 5 month's old
A lot of people already have big collections of music on iTunes.
//gs. They heavy iTMS users will be quickly be dwarfed when the bulk of the population decides to go digital. The bulk, not the early adopters, are going to decide Apple's fate.
My understanding is that the bulk of digital audio in use today is ripped, not purchased. I'm sorry but I don't recall where I read that analysis. Again, I believe the iTMS fans that have such large collections today are early adopters like the Apple II users of the early 80s. People had hundreds of dollars of Apple II software when they decided their next computer will be an IBM PC clone rather than a
Even before the PC Clones, they didn't have that big a market share. Certainly not the majority.
Among business and power users the Apple II did dominate. The Ataris and Commodores were used more like game consoles. The dev tools, the business app, were quite poor. Unlike on the Apple II where they were quite mature, the spreadsheet was really introduced to the mass business market on the Apple II, not the IBM PC. Lots of small businesses bought Apple IIs for no other reason. There were successful 3rd party vendors selling Z80 CP/M coprocessors for Apple IIs so business customers could also get at CP/M based business packages.
I think SJ said in the keynote last fall that the average number of purchased songs per ITMS customer is ~70. I could hardly believe it, until I look at my purchased song list and realized I had 66. It's so damn easy! Of course that's why it's successful ...
(And it's a godsend for me living in Taiwan - I have a U.S. credit card so it lets me in to the U.S. store, and it's the only way to get a lot of music short of insane shipping fees)
I think SJ said in the keynote last fall that the average number of purchased songs per ITMS customer is ~70.
Well then the lock-in notion is disproven, a $70 investment will not prevent migration.
"Interfaces are going to become more refined and they'll be standardized accross players."
Just like TV's, VCR's, DVD players and cell-phones have standardized interfaces across manufacturers?
Now seriously, if you look at the consumer electronic industry, you'll see that the tendency is not toward standardization of interface elements like menus and button layouts on the device or its remote control.
It seems that the standard model in consumer electronics is to experiment many things and try to see what sticks. The result is that the public is often used as guinea pigs. These companies constantly have to switch to new buttons, menu layouts and case designs to try to lure people into thinking that these are an improvement over the older models. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, most of these companies don't care much about because it's the way the industry works.
Many people (that also don't like Apple) are arguing that "choice is better", and that's what consumer want, a great variety of interfaces and form-factors so they can choose the one that better suit their need.
The reality is that the majority of people doesn't even want to have a choice when it comes to these kind of devices, few people have the time to research and compare products, and for many, having to chose in that jungle of products is an annoying experience.
At this point, many people buy iPods because it's what other people use, not only in a "trendy" kind of way, but because they can share tips and tricks about the iPod interface and iTunes, and because there is a lot more accessories for it that people can buy and discuss about. Consumers have choice even after buying the iPod to change the look of it and add uniqueness to it using cases, while keeping the same interface "everyone uses".
This is also one of the main reasons why people use Windows, but computers are different beasts. They are highly configurable multi-purpose devices that now have deep implications in modern societies, so it can't be left in the hands of a single company. But for portable music and video players, so what if %80 of consumers use the same brand of portable music player? As long as it's not Microsoft, since it would enable them to tie it to Windows.
People imagining brainwashed masses all using the same bland device forget about one thing, the main experience of the iPod is listening to YOUR music. iPods are "unique like you" where it counts, in their content.
As for FairPlay and the iTunes/iPod lock-in, I don't think that Apple thinks it can go on forever, but they will hold on to it as long as they have to, because as time passes they get more leverage for when they'll have to open it.
I read many comments saying "But isn't it what MS was accused of doing with the OS?". First, as previously said, the computer market is a different beast. Secondly, MS wasn't de-mantled by the DOJ, so it still exists and could easily impose DRMed WMA as an audio standard because it dominates the OS market. They would have got away with this because MS and the RIAA would have pleaded in front of the DOJ that this use of their monopoly is the only way to stop the "evil" piracy, and that's only if the DOJ actually reacted...
It's very possible that a few years ago, MS, the RIAA (and possibly Sony) planned to phase out standard audio CD's by 2004 or something, replacing all them with DRMed WMA (no need for root-kits etc since there wouldn't be any raw audio to hide). The plan was that by that time, MS would have dominated the portable and living-room digital audio device market trough WMA licensees. I guess that Sony's part in this plan was to stay with ATRAC for a few years, then they would have made a big fanfare when they would switch to WMA, to make it look more like an industry standard than a MS-only affair, and to show the way to other asian manufacturers. And by that time also, MS would have probably dropped MP3 support on their players
Now this plan failed, because of the iPod and FairPlay
You can't stop the signal.