Slashdot Mirror
Jobs Unfazed by Zune
twofish writes "In an interview
at Newsweek marking the approaching 5th anniversary of the launch of the
iPod, Apple CEO Steve Jobs seems unconcerned by Microsoft's wannabe iPod killer
Zune. Earphone sharing will prove a more potent force for social networking
than the iPod rival's wireless song-sharing feature, he reckons. 'I've seen the demonstrations on the internet about how you can find another
person using a Zune and give them a song they can play three times. It takes
forever,' he says in the article. 'By the time you've gone through
all that, the girl's got up and left! You're much better off to take one of
your earbuds out and put it in her ear. Then you're connected with about two
feet of headphone cable.'"
I know a lot of Slashdotters hate iTunes for "DRM", "not HD(TV) quality", "too expensive", or whatever other B.S. excuse they can come up with, but...
You won't find that sort of business done at Microsoft. Their strategy is:
1. Announce a competing product with limitless fanfare. Doesn't matter if it sucks.
2. Slowly improve it until the market finds it semi-acceptable.
3. Leverage the Windows monopoly to CRUSH the competition.
Didn't you hear? You can only use iPods with a Mac. With Zuma, you can be compatible with the millions of Microsoft Vista machines, out of the box! Plus, you know you're getting Microsoft Quality(TM) and Support(TM) when you purchase a Zuma. Those other digital music companies could fold tomorrow, leaving you with no music and no refund. Only Microsoft products can provide you with a guaranteed safety net! </standard-Microsoft-bull>
You know, he's got a point. It might seem very impressive in a geeky way to Zuma a file across the room to the pretty girl (if you don't mind that I just used "Zuma" as a verb), but she is definitely not going to be impressed unless she's also a geek. You've also got the matter of the song being played in a vacuum, where your own thoughts and feelings on the tune are missing. Thus it holds no meaning. Besides, pod-jacking gives you a much better chance of being able to talk to that pretty girl.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Of course he's 'unfazed' by the Zune. He sits atop a company that currently has massive (and, more importantly, very loyal) fanbase in both computers and portable media players.
Microsoft is new to this market and I doubt jobs will be afraid of anybody (even Microsoft) in this market. Hell, I'll bet Jobs isn't even concerned about iRiver's or Sony's products even though they seem to have been in the market longer.
What was he supposed to do? Halt all production and support of iPods at the sight of the Zune and declare that he's beaten? Is he supposed to assume the fetal position and cower and cry when he hears the word 'Zune?' Retreat to the northern woods where he trains night and day so that one day he might come back and beat Microsoft in some other fashion?
I would be shocked if Jobs said anything otherwise. What's our next headline for Slashdot? Is it going to be "Steve Ballmer's Kids Love Zune"? What about "Jobs Says New Mac Models Are Good"? You gotta keep up those hard hitting headlines.
The questions in this article are laughable! Interviewer: "Jobs, I've pitched you so many softball questions but in an effort to pitch you another, how can the iPod lose its popularity with Dick Cheney and Queen Elizabeth owning one?" Jobs: "It can't, but let me attempt to be modest as you pop a woody for me." Interviewer: "I know you've only sold millions of iPods so let me attempt to further illustrate how great it is, will it always be about the music?" Jobs: "It's about whatever makes it sell the most."
Stop humping his leg!
I think the only way you could worry Jobs is if you made a media device that physically pleasures the user (with nods to Stanislaw Lem). Although Jobs could just fire back that the video playing iPod requires some effort but can meet the same needs.
My work here is dung.
Apples Strength is that they tend to only add features that people really need and can use. Microsoft just takes whatever people complain about not having and shove it in there doesn't matter if it is really useful or not. Apple knows that people wants wireless access to their iPod but apple won't put it in there until they can find a way to make it right, so it is actually a benefit vs. an expensive feature that people won't use, more then just past the for 1/2 hour for the ohhs and ahhs.
Lets take a look at virtual screens. OS X is just releasing this as a new feature in its OS next year, Unix/Linux has had this feature for decades. Why now did apple finally release it. Well because there is enough CPU/GPU power to make it so people can understand it and not call and complain about there windows being missing. Or not seeing where they put what. It is about not releasing a feature until it can be made useful. Not just putting in a feature half hazardly jest because people who like buzzwords say they want it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Wasn't there a time when Apple was unfazed by IBM-PCs? :>
Your ad here.
Just as geeky as the 90's version of uncool, tragically unhip, business dudes and engineers beaming business cards to each other. The novelty will wear off after 2 tries. The only people who will do it are going to be geeks... Oh wait, the geeks are going to buy an Ogg Vorbis player made by a Taiwanese company that nobody's heard off....
The only people who will use this feature are going to be the dorks working in Microsoft's Zune division who came up with this non-feature... well, at least until they get laid off....
Jobs conveniently ignores that people also have two headphones with the Zune.
To the contrary, he panders to some cliche of the socially inept nerd who _will in situations where iPod users share an earplug, instead insist on Zuning the song across_. I don't really like that.
The functionality is in addition to that the iPod has. In addition to the (often girl-involving) set of situations where sharing an earplug is nice, you get the entirely different set of situations where someone might appreciate having one of your songs. And to be fair I think the first set is bigger than the second, but all features are appreciated.
Wireless sharing for the Zune is not about sharing songs with a girl in a bar. It is entirely about giving Starbucks a means for sending you commercials disguised as "zune-casts" when you walk into their shop.
-----
Pretty Bad Privacy (PBP) Public Key
6
There's nothing cool about handing out business cards whether it's physical paper or digital data. Cool isn't even on the screen.
Beaming cards was mainstream... I had a wrecker driver wave a palm at me when he was towing my car in 2000... until the iPaq finally got a fast enough processor in the ARM to make Microsoft's handheld OS usable, and Palm lost the plot and tried to turn the Palm into the same kind of "laptop replacement" device Microsoft was pushing. Pocket PCs wrecked beaming.
Why?
The Pocket PC makes beaming business cards a cumbersome trial that only the geeky can handle. You had to navigate multiple menus, switch modes in the receiving device, and wait, and wait. The Palm made it simple and automatic... just hold one button down and it Just Works, and works *quickly*.
So the question is... will the Zune make beaming music "a cumbersome trial" or "simple and automatic"? How long will it take?
I think Steve Job has intentionally missed the point. Yes, the whole sharing thing is pointless and won't be used. But Wi-Fi will be the future (hopefully for iPods too) for uploading music to the device and playing back to speakers.
For example, I play music from my MacBook wirelessly to my speakers through my AirPort Express (yes, I'm an Apple fanboy) a lot. I really wish I could do the same, but from my iPod, so I don't have to power up the MacBook. If iPod had Wi-Fi - ta da! Problem solved.
I think Steve knows this is the future but is spreading a little FUD about the Zune. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation of video iPod has wi-fi - carefully timed to arrive with the iTV - so it can play video wirelessly too. It's the next logical step.
He's right that, by and large, customers aren't asking for compatibility. Nerds on Slashdot are asking for compatibility. The millions upon millions of laymen who bought the lion's share of iPods barely even realize it's an issue.
Basically, there are very few reasons to buy a Zune. One of the things Microsoft has touted is the ability to share a song in a limited fashion via wireless.
Jobs is saying that process is cumbersome. Rather than transfer the song from device-to-device, users are much more likely to physically pass their device over to their friend, let them listen, feel happy, and go about their day.
Yes, the Zune can also do this. But, that isn't a *reason* to buy a Zune over an iPod.
He's simply stating that the marketing hype behind the Zune is misplaced on features that kinda suck from the get-go. And that's why he's not worried about the Zune. Nor should he be.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Because for them (and for me, honestly) it isn't something to "barely even realize" -- it really isn't an issue.
On the other hand he can't say "we can't adopt Microsoft's proprietary DRM instead of our own proprietary DRM because: (A) Microsoft will crush us, and (B) Microsoft's DRM is too effective for customers to put up with... the main reason we can get away with what we're doing in the iTunes Store is because everyone knows our DRM is little more than 'honor system'."
Maybe it's actually (C) Microsoft fucked everybody over who went with their PlaysForSure DRM, but we saw it coming, and developed our own system (probably not the reason, but it would be perfectly valid).
I think Apple knows it's DRM is really a joke, but it's enough to appease the RIAA. Much as Jobs might want to throw that into the RIAAs face, I think he knows the RIAA would be too stupid to agree, and there's no way they'd let Apple strip the DRM from the iTunes store.
It takes forever,' he says in the article. 'By the time you've gone through all that, the girl's got up and left! You're much better off to take one of your earbuds out and put it in her ear. Then you're connected with about two feet of headphone cable.'"
This kind of common sense thinking demonstrates why Apple are still so far ahead of their competitors - even when equivalent music players offer more, on paper, than the iPod equivalent at a similar price point.
The technology is always hidden behind the usability and is only included if it's absolutely necessary. That's a good enough reason for me to continue buying iPods.
Does anybody really not think wireless will soon be a mandatory feature for all portable media players?
;-) ). So you can
still share a bud with a bud, if so desired (or somewhat more
hygienic - ick, sharing earbuds, how nasty - use a 2-way headphone
splitter and jack in the second set at the same time).
Well, yes, but functional wireless - MS screwed the pooch with the Zune, by not letting it show up directly on your WLAN as a CIFS share (possibly even with some device-side browsing ability so you can pull music down rather than needing to push it from your fileserver or a third machine), instead limiting it to the all-but-useless "share for three listens" feature.
Now, as for Steverino's comment - The Zune's wireless, useful or not, exists in addition to a headphone jack. Not "instead of" (I'd like to see how that would work
But for the REALLY interesting question - I slammed both MS and Apple here... Will the fanboys' heads explode before they can mod this into obvlivion?
I've been making this point repeatedly since 1996. This simple fact... that Jobs chose to view piracy as competition, is the single most important reason for iTunes Store's, and consequently Apple's, success.
In a sense, the song is free. The user is paying for convenience (robust UI), fidelity (AAC vs. MP3) and selection that the P2P services cannot provide. Whether you want to call this a form of RDF-ing the features/benefits, the fact is that people do pay for design, convenience and selection.
For this reason, tracing back to Jobs' philosophy of Piracy-IS-Competition (as opposed to the "Throw Tons of Lawsuits to the Wall and See What Sticks" approach), Apple distributes more volume than all P2P services combined... even though their product is free.
Because of the product-software integration Apple has, they have a degree of quality control Microsoft cannot touch. Microsoft does not understand hardware the way Apple does. They see hardware as a repository for their bloatware. Whereas Apple sees software as a means to enable hardware to do things related to productivity and entertainment, but the hardware itself must be built to appeal to the consumer's needs, not the shareholder's.
Ease of use and style. Unfortunately, these things mean very little to some of Slashdot's technocentric readership, so they are constantly overlooked as unimportant, or, at times, it is implied that anyone who chooses ease of use and style over maximum features and geek cred is stupid.
The iPod succeeds because it tackles a very narrow set of problems very well. It makes managing and listening to large music (and now video) libraries very, very easy. It doesn't try to pack in a lot of the bells and whistles which would detract from its primary purpose. Because of this, the people who designed the hardware and software were able to focus their efforts on a very few tasks instead of trying to tie together several separate and disparate functions on one machine. Why is this important?
Because most consumers want a device which is 1) easy to understand and 2) easy to use. The technofetishism which attracts a lot of the serious geek crowd is of no value to them. So, while the iPod wasn't the first mp3 player, and it lacks features found on some other players, the combination of the iPod, iTunes and good industrial design makes for a killer combo. My technologically clueless brother can use his iPod with no problems and no confusion. He doesn't have to read much of a m anual to use one, or pop through a lot of mensnus in a creaky interface. He can simply copy all his playlists from iTunes to the iPod and listen. The reason for the iPod's success us that the Nomad is a device. The iPod is a well thought out product.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
Your entire post is absolutely correct. However, the reason this is so is because the millions upon millions do not understand what's happening when these problems crop up. If all of these people understood how DRM is being used to: A) lock them into one device, and B) restrict their freedom, they would definitely start asking for compatability.
When the middle class knows they've been duped with their spending money, change happens.
I also support iTunes. I think 99 cents is a fair price to pay for a song (although I do wish more of the money went to artists as opposed to the studios, but that's a whole seperate issue--and something pirating only makes worse). I do have an issue with the DRM being unable to play on my Samsung MP3 player, but there are many, many ways around that (burning to CD and ripping to MP3; using QTFairUse6--technically illegal, but not tracable like downloading from p2p is; or recording the output from a song being played and saving it as an MP3--sloppy and technically illegal, but works "well enough"). Sure the sound quality will suffer a little bit, but its not noticable enough--especially since I mostly just listen to my MP3 player while either working or driving (so the sound is more background music and thus I'm not paying attention to every nuance of it). I've tried other services, but most of them lack the library of iTunes and others just aren't as streamlined (plus, I think iTunes FairPlay DRM is friendlier then Microsoft's PlayForSure).
Read my blog posts on usability.
Come on. The buy-burn-rip option is offensively inelegant and wasteful. The DRM workaround I had in mind was JHymn, which is geeky enough that I wouldn't want to talk my Mum through it.
A stack of audio CDRs is not a sensible backup: they take up too much space, you lose your metadata, you lose some quality (not a massive deal, but galling nonetheless), and re-ripping any significant volume of music is a huge chore -- especially if your backups don't match anything in CDDB.
You might have the energy for that. I'll be backing up by copying files to a removable HDD.
"How can you get less hassle then buying a song from iTunes and backing it up?" : buy it, rip it, own it forever, play it anywhere.
You're saying "but now you have no backup". If you just treat music files as files, they get covered by your existing backup strategy (although admittedly, a digital music collection will push up the size of backup you need).
So, basically he's saying that the MP3 player market will be divided between those who:
Make money
and
Have sex
Emacs: for people who just never know when to
Oh and that little copyright thing. The RIAA doesn't want us to believe (and it's possibly not) that copying songs to our friends is legal.
Even more disturbing is that it was posted by the Pope :-/