Slashdot Mirror
Why Microsoft Can't Compete With iTunes
A reader submitted "Why Microsoft Can't Compete With iTunes which is an interesting op-ed piece about the differences between the two companies, but also the intersection with a different type of business like that of television. I've read some of the same arguements before, but this piece ties it up nicely together."
Microsoft can't compete with iTunes because they are dead set on keeping their WMA DRM PlaysForSure-Maybe technology.
If anyone hopes to one day defeat iTunes, they'll have to do it by making music more convenient to listen to, not at least as hard.
Oh You POS
Except from what I've heard, Zune isn't going to use PlaysForSure, it's going to use some other DRM system that won't be compatible with existing (Sandisk, etc.) PFS players.
So they've basically written PlaysForSure off as a failure, it would seem -- or at least it looks like it. I don't know what you call a DRM system that you refuse to use on your own products, if not a failure.
But if you read TFA, the reasons for Microsoft's predicted failure are not just that it's hawking a more restrictive DRM system than Apple is (which I'm not sure most people care about) but because their experience just doesn't translate over into the new market. With the exception of the xBox, Microsoft really doesn't know anything about consumer electronics, and their major product is maintained through aggressive marketing agreements that don't allow for any consumer choice. In short, they're crappy at actually getting people to buy their stuff, when they have a choice. Apple, on the other hand, has been fighting an uphill battle for years and knows how to woo people, both via their brains and wallets.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
How about a better product?
1) Microsoft could have easily designed the Zune to be a better MP3 player; build in a microphone for active noise cancelation and automatic volume adjustment, and provided an API for games, applications, and synchronization, and accessories.
How about an easier to use product?
1) Microsoft could have easily had the Zune do wireless sync; bring it near your host computer and everything gets synched. No plugging necessary!
Apple CONTINUOUSLY creates incentives for people to upgrade and replace their iPods by releasing better iPods:
1) Better battery life
2) Smaller
3) More features
4) Cheaper
Marketing only goes as far as product quality; a poor product won't last more than one generation. Apple is on seven now.
GPL Deconstructed
it demonstrated that the U.S. government didn't have the political cojones to actually do anything meaningful.
Not quite. The US Government could do something quite meaningful if it chose to. This administration, however, chose not to do anything meaningful.
The fact that the market is saturated alredy with people who can use iTunes and who own iPods? What is the insentive to switch?
Apple's footprint is extended by the aftermarket, where Zune won't even have one for months or years. I was in CostCo a week ago and was stunned how many portable stereos there are with an iPod cradle. Must have been a dozen, all different manufacturers. While shopping for a new car radio I find lots of them offer an option to hook up your iPod.
Well. Looks like Apple doesn't just have a market, but a solid market. Apple's worst enemy at this point could only be themselves by changing something and screwing these aftermarket partners who provide them with greater value.
Microsoft could only achieve this quickly with some very large incentives ($$$$$$$$) given to manufacturers to adopt their platform and I don't see that happening soon enough for the holiday shopping season (which has already begun, dontcherknow.)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Hey! Some people happen to like brown.
Why? No one knows...
Blog -
"Doesn't this go against the terms of the antitrust settlement with the DOJ?"
So.. what.. Microsoft can't sell anything anymore?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
To that end you should probably stop referring to yourself as a consumer. Also, Apple is just trying to sell more stuff by taking advantage of people who use iPods as statements. Some idiot waving their red music player around like it is a fashion statement doesn't make me feel like an idiot for having the same player (in white) discreetly stashed in my pocket.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
"So you are hypothesizing that Microsoft can only succeed if they can impose a product on people by means of it's monopoly"
I'm not hypothesing this, I am quoting from the article. But I do agree with its sentiments. Do you believe otherwise, that 80% of revenues don't come from volume licensing and OEM licenses and that a large part of Microsofts' current and past sucess is derived from this. This looks to any disinterested observer as factual rather then hypothesis.
was Re:Hypothesizing...
davecb5620@gmail.com
I know it's stereotypically fashionable to be an asshole where MS is concerned, but Windows has actually improved in each generation.
1.x and 2.x were text or low-resolution graphics. They never took off.
3.0 brought the graphical UI and some applications to take advantage of that.
3.1 brought a 32-bit harddrive driver, which improved performance. It also took better advantage of protected mode for memory access.
95 brought pre-emptive multi-tasking and better memory protection. It also brought DirectX and 32-bit hardware drivers across the board. It also came with a TCP/IP stack and brought SMB over TCP. That was a big deal for Windows shops and a big improvement over the netbeui protocol used since DOS 3.3.
NT brought a real security model and none of the backwards compatibility hacks for 16-bit mode that was present in 95.
Win2k improved the stability of NT.
XP brought the stability of NT to home users, and is more compatibile with typical home applications (like games) than 2000 was.
Vista sounds like it's a step backwards, but I haven't seen it myself yet.
Why is it on ./ that we have articles like this once a week or so, yet I've never seen a headline like "Why Apple can't complete with Microsoft for Operating System", or "Why Apple will never amount to anything in the corporate environment"?
./ crowd still thinks Apple matters in Operating Systems. In the corporate market, Apple has basically 0% market share... so by the iPod "logic" used in this article, why should it even bother to compete.
Apple has less OS market share than the "minor" ipod-wannabes, yet the
Also, the market share for "other" in the portable music play market varies considerably depending on what you count as portable music players.... the biggest share is still CD/radio players if you include the auto market.
They can't compete with iTunes because 90% of people get iPods and iTunes is the only thing that works with it.
I think the confusion here is the difference between iTunes the application and iTunes the music store.
Everyone who owns and iPod uses iTunes to transfer music to it (well you can work around this but its a pain and pointless unless you a techie)
But not everyone who owns an iPod uses iTunes to purchase their music nor everyone who purcashed songs from iTunes have an iPod (albeit they can only listen to it on iTunes and rip it to cds).
In fact for someone to fill a 60gb iPod with music from iTunes, they would need to spend over $10,000 to do so which make this fact unlikley.
Personally, I rip CDs into MP3s and put them on my iPod, wheras I have a hunch that perhaps many people get their Mp3s from houses of ill repute... *coughs* Pirate bay *coughs*
However, Apple's goal was not to make money off iTunes the music store or force people to be able to only use music on iPods that they've purchased from them.
It is a nice benefit to them that people purchase songs, but their real and true goal was to use the iTunes music service to sell iPods.
I have a feeling though that Micrsoft has this goal in reverse. In which they intend to sell Zunes at a loss to get people to buy music from their service and somehow fail horribly in this process.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I would say yes, because within that 5% is 95% of the innovation in desktops.
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
You are using it the way few others use it. See the Apple ad campaign that compared Macs to PCs (not to "other" PCs). Check all the software that has been sold in different versions: mac version vs pc version. "Personal computer" has not been a generic term since the early 1980s when, for better or worse, IBM hijacked it. You are right, though, about the new i386 machines that do Bootcamp....which pretty much means that Apple has stepped into the PC market for the first time after all these years.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Active noise cancellation does not work when the microphone is three feet away from the speaker. (As it would be when the Zune is on your hip and the earbuds are in your ears.)
Automatic volume adjustment would not only be difficult depending on where you wear your Zune, but potentially dangerous. Unless you are using a known set of headphones the Zune could very easily increase the volume to damaging levels. Increased volume is not a safe response to increased ambient noise. Even with a known set of headphones, wearing style and fit can create variations in sound levels at the eardrum which differ by an order of magnitude.
because they have deep, DEEP pockets.
It doesn't matter if it's an absolute failure the first time, the second time or even the third time.
Remember windows didn't even catch on until 3.11
By that time, they had learned, bought or stolen enough tech expertise to score a win.
Then they leveraged their position to strong-arm sellers (not buyers) into carrying it.
But this time, I am not sure that they can win because of their prior 'success.'
The battle for the desktop was won but it has turned out to be a stright jacket for M$.
They're on the desktop of too many offices to ever break out of the perception that they belong there.
And its taken them way too long to even come up with something better than IE. They have made the internet a morass and a minefield for web surfing. And that is not helping them.
In strong-arming tech and forcing Apple from having any competive position, they forced Apple's image out of the office and into the retail space. (And guess where the money is?)
M$ = Eerie-Bucyrus; winners in their 'space' of huge earth-movers, but unable to make the transition to any other space, like back-hoes.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
In Nintendo's case, however, they do not sell their consoles at a loss. So they make a profit, however small, on each machine and get the licensing from the games. Sony makes money because the PS and PS2 are such big sellers. The Xbox tried to copy Sony's model but didn't do as well.
I'd look for a 3rd candidate that doesn't need training when moving to a functionally equivalent push n' click program. These other two, tied to a specific OS, don't sound economical in the long run if they need training for every small little thing.