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."
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 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!
"Last time I was in the store, there were quite a few other mp3 players on the store shelves. I cannot, for example, choose another cable company if I can't install a dish. Now -thats- a monopoly."
Last time I was reading Statute Law, uncited definitions didn't mean shit. For that matter, dictionaries only come into play when a law's wording is seen as unclear, and even then, judical policy is to use the Oxford dictionary of the year the law was passed.
Monopolies are declared under law, not under your quotation marks.