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."
what airline I can fly to have an iPod built into my headrest, and a Ballmer-Zune hybrid for a flight attendant?
I left my wallet in El Sigundo!
The U.S. DOJ settlement against Microsoft did very little. I would argue it basically did nothing of any relevance, certainly nothing that fundamentally changed Microsoft's business practices. If anything, it probably emboldened them, since the end of the settlement made it harder for a new one to be brought against them in the future -- it demonstrated that the U.S. government didn't have the political cojones to actually do anything meaningful.
Here's the DOJ's lame info site on the settlement:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The Power of Monopoly
Interestingly, while Microsoft's monopoly power dominates the PC industry, it didn't achieve that position in the same manner as Apple found success with the iPod. This is very important to understanding why Microsoft can't compete with iTunes.
It has everything to do with choice.
More than 80% of Microsoft's revenues for Windows come from corporate volume licensing and OEM copies of Windows bundled with new PCs. That means the company doesn't have to compete to sell a product at retail.
davecb5620@gmail.com
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
* applying Windows stickers to all PCs sold, and using a keyboard with a prominent Windows key.
Hah. One of the first things I did, after building my first PC 4 years ago, was lever off the Windows keys, which flew behind my desk and haven't been seen since. Annoying pieces of shit. Everytime I accidently hit one for Ctrl or Alt fed the need to remove these unwelcome interlopers of QWERTY keyboards.
More than 80% of Microsoft's revenues for Windows come from corporate volume licensing and OEM copies of Windows bundled with new PCs. That means the company doesn't have to compete to sell a product at retail.
Which I've always said, Microsoft are lucky and they have never learned anything.
How was it that the scrappy Apple beat Microsoft in online music and movies? How was Microsoft's omnipotent empire defeated, and is there some chance that Microsoft will still have the opportunity to beat Apple at its own game with Zune, the company's solo effort at developing an iPod killer?
Simply put, without knowledge of how to build a business, Microsoft has been playing Follow-The-Leader for years. Throwing their massive profits from Windows and Office sales into subsidising these disasterous forays. It's kind of like watching the Soviets try to compete with the rest of the world with their Lada cars.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Enough said.
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
...designs an MP3-player that actually does what it's supposed to, that's when I'll buy it.
:=)
What I don't want is an MP3-player that's DRM-infested, but doesn't even play their own, much advertised DRM format, an MP3-player with WiFi that can ONLY communicate with other MP3-players or an MP3-player with a navigational wheel that doesn't spin.
Congratulations Microsoft, at least you reinvented the wheel!
Blog -
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
"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
Microsoft's DRM is fascist. If they could force you to pay a separate license for each ear for listening to music in stero rather than mono, they would. Even average customers are beginning to grow wise to Microsoft, and when Vista is released and they find to run Aero they have to add RAM AND a video card, and then later upgrade their hard drive (and reinstall because they won't have ghost or dd or partimage) and oops, sorry, they just used up their last activation, time to buy again per the EULA. . . or in the case of music specifically, they just bought a new MP3 player? It won't sync, too bad, so sad, Microsoft will tell you to buy it again.
Apple has discovered a balance between hindering blatent "piracy" and fair use which most people find tolerable, almost downright customer-friendly. If they were to offer iTunes for Linux, I just might buy music from Apple.
However, they (Apple) still have to realize that when I buy it, I OWN it, and I have the right by law to transfer ownership of what I purchased to someone else if I damn well desire to, just as I can sell or give away a used CD I no longer want.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
The article called Apple a minor player in the PC industry. Yes, I'll say 0% (Apple has yet to market a PC) is a rather small share.
Where were you when the voynix came?
To that end you should probably stop referring to yourself as a consumer.
I still consume, I just don't go in for every toy which everyone else has to have to part of some clique.
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.
And they're smart, because it keeps their product in front of everyone's nose as the fashionable trend. Microsoft shouldn't even be associating themselves with Zune, they should have set up a separate company and kept the association quiet. There's nothing trendy about them or their name and all the advertising dollars in the world won't change it.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"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
Well that is a big difference. If you notice when Apple gets some competition they improve their product. vs. Others who try to kill the competitor by other means.
For example the iPod Mini (Now the Nano and Shuffle), was designed and sold to Compete with the cheaper flash based MP3 Players that their cometitors were producing and were getting a foot hold in. Vs. Microsoft with Windows who makes sure that every PC is sold has windows on it and all advertising saying that it's recommended.
The Differance is Apple is asking the Consumers to choose what MP3 Player they want. Vs. Microsoft Telling all the venders to put their product in (to get the discount) and really giving most consumers little choice on what to use.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
With marketing prowess like this, it's very unlikely that they will be able to compete with Apple.
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
To me, Apple seems to be applying DRM, but not really in a way that's meant to be terribly intrusive. Yes, the songs from ITMS contain DR, but you can always just burn them in a play list and rip them back as you desire (a feature that Apple is fully aware of, but it hasn't seemed to cause any problems with ITMS sales), which I'm sure won't be an option with the Zune Marketplace (or whatever it's called).
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
Though the article is interesting and enlightening, I could not help but notice that Firefox (1.5.0.7) did not render the page well. Some of the text from the article was underneath other text. It made the reading real annoying. On the other hand, the web page rendered well with IE.
It's like Bizarro world... A great article exposing Microsoft limitations and/or weaknesses, but it will not render well in Firefox. Because of that, I have to rate the article a 6.5 to 7 (on a scale of one to ten). Fix the rendering so that Firefox renders the text well and then it would probably rate as a 8.5 to 9.
It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
I read your article about the "Microsoft fallacy", but you seem to have totally ignored the corporate market. If a Fortune 500 company really wanted to buy machines without Windows licenses they could easily cut a deal with Dell. Dell already sells machines without OS's (see the workstation/server pages) and can special price & configure machines--in fact, they'll even preload any OS/software you want on a machine (minimum quantities apply). However, big corporations really want Windows--it's easily remotely administered, works well with other applications (especially Exchange) and there is a large ecosystem to support it. From secretary training (how to log in, use word) all the way up to advance internals experts. From a corporate point of view, Windows just works.
Because the big corporation use Windows, all of the smaller firms that buy or sell to the big corporations frequently need to use windows. Sure I could deliver a presentation myself using keynote, but the first time I send it to a corporate client will be the last time with that client. Same thing with sending a document in a "weird" apple font (sure they can open it, but it will look strange--the question will come back "can't you just put it on a PC?".)
The iSeries (iTunes, iMove, iGarageBand) is essentially meaningless in the corporate environment. Apple has pretty much given up any hope of getting more than a pip of share in companies with more than 500 employees. The same thing is somewhat (although not completely) true in the educational market.
The training cost of a new hire who doesn't know how to use Windows/Office is higher than one who does--two identically candidate--one who is ready to go and the other who "gee I've only used a Mac, but boy can I operate GarageBand" which would you hire?
Apple are cool, shiny objects--just keep them at home.
Well, and I think that studies show that...the majority of people's majority of music on their iPods is not bought from online services, but, mostly are ripped from their own CD's they own (or possibly 'borrow' from friends). An iPod works great for that....and iTunes now is nice enough to give you album covers for these songs too.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
Microsoft's ideal position would be to create a ZuneOS that comes pre-installed on mp3 players and locks you into WMP and the Marketplace. That way they don't have to spend any money on hardware -- just licensing the ZuneOS.
But they can't do that, so they're forced to create an entire product themselves -- something they're historically not all that good at. Compared to Apple, who historically has to make sure everything works together smoothly, and succeeds due to its hardware control. It can say "yes, iPods work via USB and triggers iTunes, and will update and function accordingly" because they control the hardware and the software.
That doesn't make them a monolithic, big-brother company, just one that makes sure its product functions well and as intended. You can still choose another mp3 player. Look at the bad rap Microsoft gets due to bad hardware and faulty drivers, where people blame the OS when they're buying shitty hardware!
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.
Conversely, Excel runs just fine on OS X -- no reason someone can't use it. And the majority of companies who use singular tools like the grandparent mentions have their spreadsheets and tables and forms heavily configured, so it takes MORE time figuring out where everything should go and what everything means than it does to actually use the application.
Really, most people who end up working in, essentially, thin-client corporate environments are OS agnostic. They use Windows because that's what the IT dept. bought because it uses the 2 or 3 pieces of software, and it's cheaper if they spend the money on a bare-bones machine with stuff semi-preconfigured. But that only gives Microsoft a competitive advantage due to convenience. The only thing really stopping another company from coming out with a "SpreadsheetOS" that essentially does what an entire, say, billing department would need is that they have no distribution, as that's monopolized by Windows. Doesn't matter if it's a better product, because Microsoft essentially controls the supply chain.
To me, this is no more evident than in the fact Microsoft puts a great amount of emphasis on its corporate/enterprise software, neglecting its "home user" consumers. Apple, who realizes that people buy a computer to do all these different things on them, realizes that it can make people very happy by simply including it themselves. They're not focusing on enterprise level word processing applications that can track changes across multiple users -- they're making Pages, something that can incorporate media easily and layout changes quickly. It's practically a "scrapbooking" app.
Anyway, enough of a tangent. Your point is excellent because the reason Microsoft has such control is directly opposed to their continued success. If Excel just works and it's customized to work in a network, why should they upgrade? That's just more training and support expenses all around. The only way they can actually make money is to force companies to sell computers with their latest OS pre-installed. Otherwise, companies would simply install whatever version of Windows they own. I've got a friend whose office is entirely Win98, because their software is equally old. It still works, though, so they have no reason to update. To them, they don't care that they're using Windows. They could use an all-in-one computer/OS system that does just the 3 or 4 things needed in the job and be fine. And that doesn't help Microsoft at all.
You really think so?
Gen 1: iPod vs Creative Nomad, iPod uses 1.8" HDD Nomad uses 3.5" HDD
Gen 2: iPod vs Creative Sleek, iPod uses 1.8" HDD and Nomad uses 2.5" HDD
Gen 3: iPod mini vs Creative Zen micro, iPod uses 1" HDD and Zen uses 1" HDD (8 months later)
Gen 4: iPod vs Creative Vision:M, iPod uses 80gb 1.8" HDD and Zen uses 60gb 1.8" HDD and is nearly twice as thick
Gen 5: iPod shuffle vs Creative Muvo, iPod eschews screen for size
Gen 6: iPod nano vs Creative Zen V, iPod uses flash and Zen uses flash (several months later)
Gen 7: iPod shuffle vs Creative Muvo, iPod eschews USB hardware for size
Every generation of iPod has been smaller until several months later when a competitor steps up to the plate and copies them.
Every generation of iPod has been competitively priced, and when competitors try to match prices they suffer quarterly losses (See Creative, iRiver, new Zune, etc)
Can you name another 30gb MP3 player as small as the iPod for significantly less than $249, Apple's price? Creative's Zen Vision:M costs the same and is bigger in volume.
GPL Deconstructed
One thing they could do to sell more ipods is to make their ipods work more independently of itunes. I use my ipod not to play itunes purchased music but to play back mp3s created from my CD collection. I do not care for itunes at all. A couple of things. I can't just copy a picture onto my ipod. I have to sync a folder. I can't just delete a song from the player I want I have to delete it from itunes and then sync the player. I can't just delete a picture either right from the ipod. In fact, I can't do any sort of file management at all from the player. If I copy a song on there and I don't want to keep it any longer I should just be able to click a button or two and have it deleted, period.
In that regard iPods suck. If they want to sell more ipods then they can simply give me control over my songs so I don't have to play their stupid itunes game. I have a collection of my music on an external sata drive and I don't want to copy my music from their to the itunes library just to get them onto my ipod.
Don't get me started on videos. This stuff should just be as simple as dragging a file onto my ipod and having it classify the item and allow me to play it back at will, but no...it isn't even easy to figure out.
I am currently using anapod explorer but those guys too have some real problems. What's with these apple-style developers not understanding development of software on the PC. I'm not saying all of them are this way but some are.
The anapod explorer software can mess up the hardware settings in windows if you pull the cable before it says you are allowed to pull the cable. No software program should do that to an OS driver. I know it is the anapod explorer causing it because I have had to uninstall it, get the ipod back, and then reinstall anapod explorer.
The system tray icons for anapod explorer suck. You right click on them and it brings up the sys tray icon for their program but it also brings up the sys tray menu as well. That's cooky and shows how poorly written their software is. Even with their software I can't explore photo's on the ipod but at least I can copy individual photos over without much heartache. I can also edit tags while the song is on the player and I can rename and manipulate the files in other ways.
iTunes just sucks all over unless you want to purchase apple DRM based songs which you can't transfer to any other sort of player. You are committed to Apple when you buy their DRM based songs.
I would pay more for a better player if one came out that wasn't Microsoft. I am eager to get this DRM crap out of my computer (current and future computers) forever. I don't want to give MS or any of the others license to make any further inroads into locking me out of my own content.
What the iPod has a neat little package. For their nifty user interface they recently paid $100 million to Creative to continue to use. Point being it is nice and small, well integrated into their store, but it sucks that they have such crappy file management, for tasks as simple as just delete a song you don't like and don't want. Syncing on a 30gig iPod takes a long time and getting things done on it are confusing. I can only imagine how my elderly retired friend feels trying to get her basic tasks done. She doesn't even want to hear the argument about DRM and IP rights and Apple's attempt to secure store sales. She just wants to listen to her music.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Actually, he really isn't on the fringe, what he is asking for is DRM-less music, and there's a lot more of that on the iPods of the world than there is music purchased from the iTunes Music Store.
huge difference:
wmp= Critical system component, painful to remove; iTunes= Drag to trash, click delete.
IE=Critical OS Component; Safari=Easily removeable web browser
those are the 2 that immediately come to mind.
"Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"