Apple could always just buy SGI or hire it's engineers.
My question to you: When was the last time Apple took an idea from SGI? I can't recall any online music stores, UI elements, hard drive mp3 players, or laptop computers coming out of SGI...
You mean companies like iTunes and CD-Baby, at least here in the US?
But of course, neither one of those companies qualifies, by your description, because they are two operating companies that aren't copyright holding companies.
The freelance EE that invented the iPod did invent the current form factor: Handheld, small, light, hard drive based, and usable with one hand (with the help of Apple, as all the other manufacturers turned this guy down). Diamond had a good thing going, but lacked a hard drive. Creative had the hard drive, but modeled their device after a CD player with 11 buttons.
Give props where props are due; Apple recognized that the market could stand an improved mousetrap, funded it, developed it, and now rule the market. We're just waiting for someone else (or Apple) to create something even better now, and unfortunately that has to include the software too.
Sorry, I wasn't too clear that I was only talking about mp3 players.
Of course I was pretty specific in only mentioning the iPod, iPod mini, and iPod shuffle, and the article talks about iPods...
So if we narrow the conversation to only mp3 players, yes, Apple is taking their sweet time (complacent). I expect another revision of the iPod with the new ARM core powering the mini, giving them a good battery life improvement without changing anything else.
Then if we don't see some real 'improvement' there is the real chance that an alternative competing mp3 player will finally catch up with software and hardware.
So the longer you wait, the more affordable it will get; however, it will get to the point, as it is more affordable, that you can't go walking without seeing 20 people with it.
iPod minis are only $149 from the Apple sale store (these are the older last year models, with 8 hour battery, instead of the new 16 hour battery).
Agreed. They've mostly been doing software stuff; AAC, iTMS, photos, library sharing, shuffle, etc. The only thing of note they've released is the iPod Shuffle in the last year; of course Apple is milking their products for as much as they can, so it's not all bad.
Last year was the iPod mini, this year is the iPod shuffle, so it's not as if there's a drought. If they don't release a new 'high end' model next year, then Apple will be forced by market economics to play the volume game, because prices can only drop.
There are zillions of low-end computers running Win98/2000 that people are waiting to replace, and that people still haven't figured out how to run Linux on.
When it is time to replace, then, their choices are:
Spend $99 to run Longhorn, and unacceptably on 8 year old hardware Spend $400 to buy a new PC that will still have all the viruses and exploits and headaches their current PC has Spend $500 to buy a new Mac that will run all their current software but will be (relatively) immune to spyware and viruses Spend $99 to run Linux (from a box) and spend hours figuring things out that work OOTB on a Mac or Windows, ie, unacceptably for most people
Yes, some of those people will go to Linux; but some of those people who might have gone to Linux will buy new computers, and instead of buying one with Linux or buying one with Windows, there is now a new choice, hereto unworkable because of software incompatibility but now 'backwards compatible' with their old Windows software:
Mac OS X.
Of course it will compete with Linux, the exact same way Longhorn competes with Linux.
Don't forget Apple's Mac Mini, a $499 Mac that is already price competitive without being x86 compatible.
When it switches to x86, you will now have a $499 Mac that can run Windows, Mac, and Linux.
You also target a different market if you build instead of buy. You say 'small quiet Shuttle' box for $500, when the Shuttle is louder and larger. Tack on an additional extra because people who can't build buy pre-assembled. If Apple build a Shuttle sized system, don't you think it would have a much nicer build quality? If they took the Mini and placed it in a Shuttle sized case, they could design it to be totally fanless (like the Cube!)
For the extra 10% you get a system that can run both Windows and Mac, simultaneously or dual boot. If you spend that extra 10% (or whatever premium Apple decides it has to charge to make a reasonable profit), you can say goodbye (for the foreseeable future) to viruses and spyware (not trojans though).
So for the market that: Buys a computer every 6 years Can't, won't, or doesn't know how to deal with Linux Doesn't know or can't be bothered to deal with viruses and spyware Still has an investment in Windows software
They can choose to buy a Mac instead of a PC, keep all the benefits of their PC, AND get all the benefits (usability and security) of the Mac.
In the market of people who buy, not build, computers, who buy every 5-6 years, who don't know how to deal with viruses or spyware, or don't want to deal with viruses or spyware, and don't want or can't spend the time learning how Linux works.
You talk about the Mac Mini as all but useless, but I don't know why you think it is. From my standpoint the Mini, at $499, is a full fledged computer and perfectly useful. It's an extra $100 for the form factor and another $100 for the usability OS X imparts it (you can charge for performance, you can charge for usability, you can charge for anything a person may value really).
The Mac Mini seems to be a perfect business class desktop, to me, with the $1299 iMac much more of a 'casual workstation' type machine.
But the whole point is when switching, Apple will introduce x86 parts in the machines. 2GHz Pentium Ms in the Mac Minis and dual core Pentium Ms in the iMacs, for example.
How would that not make them performance, as well as price competitive (in the markets I have delineated?)
Apple computers are already price competitive; $999 for an iBook, $1299 for an iMac...
You would be right to assume that Apple doesn't compete for the bottom dollars, but for a classy, capable, usable system (plus charging for ease of use as a feature), Apple does fine. Not the greatest deal but also not the worst deal.
Switching to Intel now makes Macs performance competitive. Before it was already price and feature competitive, offering reasonable prices, reasonable features, and reasonable usability, but now it brings performance on the table.
So the issue isn't that OS X will be available for 'common' computers as much as Macs WILL be 'common' computers.
I think to really make money, DivX needs to start focusing exclusively on Macs, too. They can't just wait six months to release the Mac version.
They need to start working with the QuickTime framework, they need to be able to plug into Final Cut Pro and Final Cut Express, they need to be able to work with DVD Studio Pro and they need to enable professionals (people who make DVDs for a living) to use DivX to make movies smaller or higher quality in the same size.
Otherwise it will remain a non starter, stuck in homebrew mode. They have a small window of opportunity before Apple cements h.264 as the next gen codec, before hardware manufacturers decide what they will support and before movie houses decide what they will support.
Here's a pretty good definition: a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like"
So what is a monopolistic behavior, if that is what a monopoly is?
iTunes tracks works on four specific music players right now: 1) iPods (all three types) 2) PCs running iTunes (all 95% of the market) 3) Macs running iTunes (all 3% of the market) 4) HP Media Centers running HPTunes (all ???% of the market)
I think you are being over general with the term 'monopoly'. Perhaps a better term would be 'proprietary'. Apple does not (yet) allow iTunes tracks to be played on non Apple sanctioned devices.
Do you rant and rail against the monopolistic tactics of Sony and it's PS1/PS2? Or Nintendo with it's Gamecube and Gameboy? Or Microsoft with their XBox? iTunes tracks are proprietary to Apple, and only people Apple has sanctioned can play Fairplay DRMed AAC files.
As a point, there are more ways to play iTunes tracks than there are ways of playing PS1, PS2, Gamecube, Gameboy, and XBox games, respectively. If it is not okay for Apple, why is it okay for anyone else to keep proprietary formats? This isn't even talking about Microsoft and Office, or Microsoft and WMA, or Microsoft and IE-HTML.
So the real question is, would an indie-only music store generate enough income to justify the cost of setting up an iTMS in other territories?
And I can't disagree about the used CD bits; I buy used CDs routinely as well.
However the idea of throwing out or repurposing a computer after five years is stupid. Really stupid. Spend $3k on a PC in 1995, and then in 2000 buy a new computer for $2.5k. In 2005 spend $1k on a new computer.
Cumulative, in 15 years, is $6.5k or $433 a year.
I think it's stupid, and I did that too, but now when I buy a computer I plan to think towards the future. Instead of buying a new computer every 5 years, I'm trying to push it to every 10 years (it's possible in Mac-land, and in Linux-land), where OSes get faster as they get more optimized, instead of slower as they get more bloated.
$433 a year is the equivalent of an iPod every year. I've an iPod last me three years. With a new battery that means it'll last me six years.
So a song bought at the iTMS, with my iPod, will last me six years and $1 (assuming the iPod is a separate cost). By buying a $30 battery every three yars, my music will last as long as the HD will.
You think Apple doesn't want to sell everywhere? Apple is limited by the various country specific music organization (cartels, really). If Apple could, Apple would (more profit with a bigger market, after all), but Apple can't, and it's incorrect of you to think it is Apple's fault.
You also talk about 'gratification in the long term'
There is no such thing. There is only 'gratification now'. You just have to wait for a period of time into the future, where and figure out gratification 'now'.
If you worry about the long term, that's fine, but you can't talk about 'gratification in the long term'. What you are talking about is 'return on investment', and that's where the 'cheaply' kicks in. Your music will last as long as your iPod will, as long as your computer does.
Before iTMS, your music lasted as long as your medium. In this case, the medium is an iPod or computer, instead of a CD or vinyl.
What, more handsomely than consumers have already rewarded Apple and iTunes?
People want, in the most basic sense: gratification gratification cheaply gratification easily
If ownership satisfies those wants, then yes, ownership will be rewarded. However, iTunes does not give you ownership, in the strict sense, but it does give you: gratification (hear the music) gratification cheaply (only $1) gratification easily (point and click)
The only way Microsoft can beat that? Make it cheaper, make it easier, or make the music better.
Ownership is a false issue, really. People want to hear their music.
But come this time next year, perhaps Intel can claim Athlons are 'snail like'.
Now they don't need to claim the P4 is a snail because they'll be using Intel's latest and greatest. And if AMD is better, well, they always have the option of selling those too.
And... where do you get that Apple claims that OS X never crashes? Can you link? Because I can't find it.
Funny, that doesn't seem to hamper Google, nor bother people who use Google.
Centralization is a tool that allows for better search. It's how Google does it, with it's 'index of the web'. All iTunes does is create an 'index of the music'. The difference, of course, is that with Google the download is free, where with iTunes the download is not.
$300,000 a month, $3.6 million a year, 91% goes to the artist.
So $273,000 a month goes to the artists. Or, if you believe DownhillBattle, $0.65 of every $0.99 goes to CDBaby, and if 91% goes to the artist, then each artist gets $0.59 a track.
Your value of $0.10 to $0.25 is bogus, and applies to non indie, RIAA affiliated musicians. So if you really do want to support artists, find some indies on iTunes and buy away; look for CDBaby artists, and you'll be giving more than 50% directly to the artist. Doing anything else (p2p, RIAA CDs, used RIAA CDs, etc) is really just talk.
That's not what you said before. You said something about fair use.
If you want a CD, buy a CD. If you want only a single track, buy a single. If you want that single cheap, use iTunes. That's all there really is to it.
What are you talking about? Wasn't it only in the last month that KHTML was successfully able to integrate half the changes/patches provided from Apple into their trunk?
Getting half the patches in sounds like an advantage, especially compared to none, which is what would be the case if Apple had not adopted KHTML, right? So in the end, prior to this advance, KHTML gained lots of work, and Apple gained lots of work, and thus both had already benefited.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple could always just buy SGI or hire it's engineers.
My question to you: When was the last time Apple took an idea from SGI? I can't recall any online music stores, UI elements, hard drive mp3 players, or laptop computers coming out of SGI...
You mean companies like iTunes and CD-Baby, at least here in the US?
But of course, neither one of those companies qualifies, by your description, because they are two operating companies that aren't copyright holding companies.
Probably because those dozens of great audio players aren't as innovative or cool as the iPod (and it's next four generations of kin)
Two points:
The freelance EE that invented the iPod did invent the current form factor: Handheld, small, light, hard drive based, and usable with one hand (with the help of Apple, as all the other manufacturers turned this guy down). Diamond had a good thing going, but lacked a hard drive. Creative had the hard drive, but modeled their device after a CD player with 11 buttons.
Give props where props are due; Apple recognized that the market could stand an improved mousetrap, funded it, developed it, and now rule the market. We're just waiting for someone else (or Apple) to create something even better now, and unfortunately that has to include the software too.
Sorry, I wasn't too clear that I was only talking about mp3 players.
Of course I was pretty specific in only mentioning the iPod, iPod mini, and iPod shuffle, and the article talks about iPods...
So if we narrow the conversation to only mp3 players, yes, Apple is taking their sweet time (complacent). I expect another revision of the iPod with the new ARM core powering the mini, giving them a good battery life improvement without changing anything else.
Then if we don't see some real 'improvement' there is the real chance that an alternative competing mp3 player will finally catch up with software and hardware.
See, here's the logic:
Good product -> Popularity.
Popularity -> Volume
Volume -> Affordability
Affordability -> Popularity
So the longer you wait, the more affordable it will get; however, it will get to the point, as it is more affordable, that you can't go walking without seeing 20 people with it.
iPod minis are only $149 from the Apple sale store (these are the older last year models, with 8 hour battery, instead of the new 16 hour battery).
Agreed. They've mostly been doing software stuff; AAC, iTMS, photos, library sharing, shuffle, etc. The only thing of note they've released is the iPod Shuffle in the last year; of course Apple is milking their products for as much as they can, so it's not all bad.
Last year was the iPod mini, this year is the iPod shuffle, so it's not as if there's a drought. If they don't release a new 'high end' model next year, then Apple will be forced by market economics to play the volume game, because prices can only drop.
You got it wrong.
There are zillions of low-end computers running Win98/2000 that people are waiting to replace, and that people still haven't figured out how to run Linux on.
When it is time to replace, then, their choices are:
Spend $99 to run Longhorn, and unacceptably on 8 year old hardware
Spend $400 to buy a new PC that will still have all the viruses and exploits and headaches their current PC has
Spend $500 to buy a new Mac that will run all their current software but will be (relatively) immune to spyware and viruses
Spend $99 to run Linux (from a box) and spend hours figuring things out that work OOTB on a Mac or Windows, ie, unacceptably for most people
Yes, some of those people will go to Linux; but some of those people who might have gone to Linux will buy new computers, and instead of buying one with Linux or buying one with Windows, there is now a new choice, hereto unworkable because of software incompatibility but now 'backwards compatible' with their old Windows software:
Mac OS X.
Of course it will compete with Linux, the exact same way Longhorn competes with Linux.
Don't forget Apple's Mac Mini, a $499 Mac that is already price competitive without being x86 compatible.
When it switches to x86, you will now have a $499 Mac that can run Windows, Mac, and Linux.
You also target a different market if you build instead of buy. You say 'small quiet Shuttle' box for $500, when the Shuttle is louder and larger. Tack on an additional extra because people who can't build buy pre-assembled. If Apple build a Shuttle sized system, don't you think it would have a much nicer build quality? If they took the Mini and placed it in a Shuttle sized case, they could design it to be totally fanless (like the Cube!)
Three reasons why Macs might become 'common'
For the extra 10% you get a system that can run both Windows and Mac, simultaneously or dual boot. If you spend that extra 10% (or whatever premium Apple decides it has to charge to make a reasonable profit), you can say goodbye (for the foreseeable future) to viruses and spyware (not trojans though).
So for the market that:
Buys a computer every 6 years
Can't, won't, or doesn't know how to deal with Linux
Doesn't know or can't be bothered to deal with viruses and spyware
Still has an investment in Windows software
They can choose to buy a Mac instead of a PC, keep all the benefits of their PC, AND get all the benefits (usability and security) of the Mac.
Hmm.
In the market of people who buy, not build, computers, who buy every 5-6 years, who don't know how to deal with viruses or spyware, or don't want to deal with viruses or spyware, and don't want or can't spend the time learning how Linux works.
You talk about the Mac Mini as all but useless, but I don't know why you think it is. From my standpoint the Mini, at $499, is a full fledged computer and perfectly useful. It's an extra $100 for the form factor and another $100 for the usability OS X imparts it (you can charge for performance, you can charge for usability, you can charge for anything a person may value really).
The Mac Mini seems to be a perfect business class desktop, to me, with the $1299 iMac much more of a 'casual workstation' type machine.
But the whole point is when switching, Apple will introduce x86 parts in the machines. 2GHz Pentium Ms in the Mac Minis and dual core Pentium Ms in the iMacs, for example.
How would that not make them performance, as well as price competitive (in the markets I have delineated?)
Apple computers are already price competitive; $999 for an iBook, $1299 for an iMac...
You would be right to assume that Apple doesn't compete for the bottom dollars, but for a classy, capable, usable system (plus charging for ease of use as a feature), Apple does fine. Not the greatest deal but also not the worst deal.
Switching to Intel now makes Macs performance competitive. Before it was already price and feature competitive, offering reasonable prices, reasonable features, and reasonable usability, but now it brings performance on the table.
So the issue isn't that OS X will be available for 'common' computers as much as Macs WILL be 'common' computers.
I think to really make money, DivX needs to start focusing exclusively on Macs, too. They can't just wait six months to release the Mac version.
They need to start working with the QuickTime framework, they need to be able to plug into Final Cut Pro and Final Cut Express, they need to be able to work with DVD Studio Pro and they need to enable professionals (people who make DVDs for a living) to use DivX to make movies smaller or higher quality in the same size.
Otherwise it will remain a non starter, stuck in homebrew mode. They have a small window of opportunity before Apple cements h.264 as the next gen codec, before hardware manufacturers decide what they will support and before movie houses decide what they will support.
Here's a pretty good definition:
a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like"
So what is a monopolistic behavior, if that is what a monopoly is?
iTunes tracks works on four specific music players right now:
1) iPods (all three types)
2) PCs running iTunes (all 95% of the market)
3) Macs running iTunes (all 3% of the market)
4) HP Media Centers running HPTunes (all ???% of the market)
I think you are being over general with the term 'monopoly'. Perhaps a better term would be 'proprietary'. Apple does not (yet) allow iTunes tracks to be played on non Apple sanctioned devices.
Do you rant and rail against the monopolistic tactics of Sony and it's PS1/PS2? Or Nintendo with it's Gamecube and Gameboy? Or Microsoft with their XBox? iTunes tracks are proprietary to Apple, and only people Apple has sanctioned can play Fairplay DRMed AAC files.
As a point, there are more ways to play iTunes tracks than there are ways of playing PS1, PS2, Gamecube, Gameboy, and XBox games, respectively. If it is not okay for Apple, why is it okay for anyone else to keep proprietary formats? This isn't even talking about Microsoft and Office, or Microsoft and WMA, or Microsoft and IE-HTML.
So the real question is, would an indie-only music store generate enough income to justify the cost of setting up an iTMS in other territories?
And I can't disagree about the used CD bits; I buy used CDs routinely as well.
However the idea of throwing out or repurposing a computer after five years is stupid. Really stupid. Spend $3k on a PC in 1995, and then in 2000 buy a new computer for $2.5k. In 2005 spend $1k on a new computer.
Cumulative, in 15 years, is $6.5k or $433 a year.
I think it's stupid, and I did that too, but now when I buy a computer I plan to think towards the future. Instead of buying a new computer every 5 years, I'm trying to push it to every 10 years (it's possible in Mac-land, and in Linux-land), where OSes get faster as they get more optimized, instead of slower as they get more bloated.
$433 a year is the equivalent of an iPod every year. I've an iPod last me three years. With a new battery that means it'll last me six years.
So a song bought at the iTMS, with my iPod, will last me six years and $1 (assuming the iPod is a separate cost). By buying a $30 battery every three yars, my music will last as long as the HD will.
You think Apple doesn't want to sell everywhere? Apple is limited by the various country specific music organization (cartels, really). If Apple could, Apple would (more profit with a bigger market, after all), but Apple can't, and it's incorrect of you to think it is Apple's fault.
You also talk about 'gratification in the long term'
There is no such thing. There is only 'gratification now'. You just have to wait for a period of time into the future, where and figure out gratification 'now'.
If you worry about the long term, that's fine, but you can't talk about 'gratification in the long term'. What you are talking about is 'return on investment', and that's where the 'cheaply' kicks in. Your music will last as long as your iPod will, as long as your computer does.
Before iTMS, your music lasted as long as your medium. In this case, the medium is an iPod or computer, instead of a CD or vinyl.
What, more handsomely than consumers have already rewarded Apple and iTunes?
People want, in the most basic sense:
gratification
gratification cheaply
gratification easily
If ownership satisfies those wants, then yes, ownership will be rewarded. However, iTunes does not give you ownership, in the strict sense, but it does give you:
gratification (hear the music)
gratification cheaply (only $1)
gratification easily (point and click)
The only way Microsoft can beat that? Make it cheaper, make it easier, or make the music better.
Ownership is a false issue, really. People want to hear their music.
Why do you think Spotlight/searches can't do everything you want?
With folders you are limited to categorization by location on the harddrive.
With search you can categorize by, in addition to location, names, values, dates, comments, etc.
Also, how can you lose a document you can find via search?
"Find all documents not contained in other searches" would be possible, for example.
CPUs advanced.
At the time the Pentium was a snail.
Just like AMD can claim the P4 is a snail.
But come this time next year, perhaps Intel can claim Athlons are 'snail like'.
Now they don't need to claim the P4 is a snail because they'll be using Intel's latest and greatest. And if AMD is better, well, they always have the option of selling those too.
And... where do you get that Apple claims that OS X never crashes? Can you link? Because I can't find it.
Funny, that doesn't seem to hamper Google, nor bother people who use Google.
Centralization is a tool that allows for better search. It's how Google does it, with it's 'index of the web'. All iTunes does is create an 'index of the music'. The difference, of course, is that with Google the download is free, where with iTunes the download is not.
Did you not read the post by the CDBaby dude?
$300,000 a month, $3.6 million a year, 91% goes to the artist.
So $273,000 a month goes to the artists. Or, if you believe DownhillBattle, $0.65 of every $0.99 goes to CDBaby, and if 91% goes to the artist, then each artist gets $0.59 a track.
Your value of $0.10 to $0.25 is bogus, and applies to non indie, RIAA affiliated musicians. So if you really do want to support artists, find some indies on iTunes and buy away; look for CDBaby artists, and you'll be giving more than 50% directly to the artist. Doing anything else (p2p, RIAA CDs, used RIAA CDs, etc) is really just talk.
Why do you think it's Apple, and not your local music industry, that's setting the prices? Take a look at Napster's prices, for example.
Oh, and from a quick Google it looks like the standard rated VAT for music is 17.5%.
That's not what you said before. You said something about fair use.
If you want a CD, buy a CD. If you want only a single track, buy a single. If you want that single cheap, use iTunes. That's all there really is to it.
That's why people use iTunes DRM.
If you want one for your MP3 player and two CDs, then burn two CDs and upload to your (iPod) MP3 player.
In addition you can also store it on 4 additional computers. Or is it 6 now? I forget.
What are you talking about? Wasn't it only in the last month that KHTML was successfully able to integrate half the changes/patches provided from Apple into their trunk?
Getting half the patches in sounds like an advantage, especially compared to none, which is what would be the case if Apple had not adopted KHTML, right? So in the end, prior to this advance, KHTML gained lots of work, and Apple gained lots of work, and thus both had already benefited.