That is a truly nonsensical quote--although I'm sure its a great bit of intellectual farting. There are far more comprehensible ways to say the same thing.
Good idea, why deal with a mega-corporation that doesn't give a rat's ass about their 3rd-party developers (MS) when you can deal with a small corporation that doesn't give a rat's ass about their 3rd-party developers (Apple). Bravo!
In contrast to the Dreamcast, a substantial number of people use the Xbox 360's online features.
Oh, and that is also the (most compelling) selling point for the console.
You make a good point. The current situation is that a rental service that downloaded movies to your iPod will not work for the reasons you describe: the iPod wipes out all data when synching with a device that is different from the previous sync.
I do not think you fully appreciate the fact that Apple controls the whole iPod process. Apple owns the hardware, the software, the DRM, everything. There has not yet been a compelling legal reason why someone would want to fill their iPod with copyrighted songs and videos from two sources (move your laptop's music to your desktop and then sync with your desktop), but plenty of reasons involving piracy. So--surprise!--Apple has not developed this feature.
On the other hand, this Blockbuster rental idea is just such a compelling and legal reason to add this feature. If Apple actually wants to proceed with this plan, there is nothing aside from the software in the current DRM, iPod firmware and iTunes synchronization solutions preventing this from happening. Updating the software would be trivial, perhaps aside from providing backwards compatibility, which Apple has never been terribly concerned with anyway. You are just one quick iTunes and iPod update away from having Apple invalidate your currently valid points.
This is not to say that I believe that a joint-venture with Blockbuster is the direction Apple is heading. Like you, I also feel that Jobs has a penchant for owning over renting something (is he fighting for Bush's 'ownership society'?). While Apple does seem to value the brick and mortar aspects of business, that does not mean Apple and Blockbuster are terribly compatible companies. I personally think that Blockbuster is in such poor shape that they would salivate all over the terms of any sort of deal with Apple's red-hot iPod, but if you are right that Blockbuster and Apple could never reach a the rental and revenue sharing agreement, then this whole idea is an exercise in whimsical fancy.
A small quibble: your point 1 is wrong. Cringely's idea is that you would be renting the movies. You would not need to return it though. The DRM license would just expire after a determined amount of time.
Oh, and that invalidates your second point too. You don't buy songs at Virgin or Tower because there is no mechanism for uploading songs from your iPod to your computer (according to Apple anyway). However when renting, Apple does not need to provide a way to keep it on your computer. You will want it to be deleted after the license expires.
I can see the headline now:
"Apple partners with Blockbuster to target growing market of Dial-up users who don't have a modem in their new Mac Book Pro"
First of all, P/E ratios are generally far lower in bull markets. When people rush to sell, the P/E falls. When people rush to buy, the P/E rises. A P/E of 46 during a market panic would probably turn into a P/E of 65 during normal times.
Now, a P/E of 46 is high, and Apple is certainly a mature company in the Power PPC computer running Mac OS X market. The digital audio player market has room for growth and the digital audio distribution market is just beginning to bloom. Apple is the clear leader in these markets and any growth of them will translate directly into an increase in Apple's bottom line. The digital audio/video distribution market is but in its infancy. Apple has the potential to become a strong (if not dominant) player in this huge growth market.
With the switch to Intel, Apple computers have the ability to run Windows simultaneously. This removes (or strongly diminishes) one of the main barriers to moving to Mac OS X. There are few people who think Mac OS X is an inferior product. Most still won't buy an Apple though for one of two factors: it is too expensive; and I have already invested so much into windows (aka, I need to play HL2). Being able to dual-boot (if not just out right run-time switch) to Windows removes much of the latter complaint. It is therefore very reasonable to assume this will translate into huge gains in Apple's market share.
Apple's market capitalization is high due to many factors. I have no doubt that a subset of these factors include people who "believe" in Apple and want to see it succeed and buy their stock to help out the company. However, there are also many substantive economic factors which would make investing in the company a sound business risk.
Note to incompetent: Clearly, "huge gains" does not mean Apple is going to start competing with Dell. Huge gains means going from 4% to 6% with their same profit margins. It would be the same if Dell increased their market share by 50%. But, do you think it is more likely that Apple will go from 4% to 6%, or Dell from 50% to 75%? Hence the speculation about future revenue growth reflected in their respective stock prices.
You do not understand Apple's nitche. Apple computers will not become cheaper than they have been. Apple is in a luxury market with high profit margins. They will continue to keep those high profit margins after moving to Intel because their entire business model relies on huge markups. They market themselves out of the commodity market with product differentiation and superior design.
For an example, imagine what would to Mercedes and BMW happen if, year after year, Hyundai came out with engines that were at once more powerful and got better gas milage. Mercedes and BMW would have a hard time selling their products at such high profit margins... or Hyundai would become more expensive. This latter scenario is exactly what has happened with Honda.
Apple moved to Intel because IBM was unable to keep up with AMD and Intel on performance. Apple was trying to sell 2nd or 3rd generation processor and motherboard technology with huge markups. Their claims of being faster kept becoming more and more unreasonable to their customers until they eventually stopped being willing to pay huge markups for second-rate technology designed really well. Where Apple users were once confident that they had the best possible implementation of the best technology, they suddenly had to content themselves with the thought that design trumps the importance of technology. It became a case of amazing design using "good-enough" technology.
Now that they have switched to Intel, they have ensured themselves that Apple will have access to the latest and greatest processor technology. They will no longer get left behind the performance pack when Intel and AMD duke it out over who can make the best processors. Apple now feels far more secure that now and going in to the future they can safely say that when you spend that extra 20% to buy an Apple, you will be getting the best of the best. The best software design running on the best available hardware.
Or install any other application. Like say iChat for instance. What crap! I thought I would restart less after installing applications, not more by moving to MacOS
Slashdot Mirror
Simple: Do you have myspace? If yes, age verification fails.
That is a truly nonsensical quote--although I'm sure its a great bit of intellectual farting. There are far more comprehensible ways to say the same thing.
I stand (partially) corrected.
You need to change your sig. Infinity and Infinity+1 are the same thing.
Thanks for letting us know that Denmark is an EU country.
Good idea, why deal with a mega-corporation that doesn't give a rat's ass about their 3rd-party developers (MS) when you can deal with a small corporation that doesn't give a rat's ass about their 3rd-party developers (Apple). Bravo!
Get used to it.
In contrast to the Dreamcast, a substantial number of people use the Xbox 360's online features. Oh, and that is also the (most compelling) selling point for the console.
Gee...perhaps because a deal with Apple might save Blockbuster's stock from its ongoing descent into the deepest depths of hell.
You make a good point. The current situation is that a rental service that downloaded movies to your iPod will not work for the reasons you describe: the iPod wipes out all data when synching with a device that is different from the previous sync.
I do not think you fully appreciate the fact that Apple controls the whole iPod process. Apple owns the hardware, the software, the DRM, everything. There has not yet been a compelling legal reason why someone would want to fill their iPod with copyrighted songs and videos from two sources (move your laptop's music to your desktop and then sync with your desktop), but plenty of reasons involving piracy. So--surprise!--Apple has not developed this feature.
On the other hand, this Blockbuster rental idea is just such a compelling and legal reason to add this feature. If Apple actually wants to proceed with this plan, there is nothing aside from the software in the current DRM, iPod firmware and iTunes synchronization solutions preventing this from happening. Updating the software would be trivial, perhaps aside from providing backwards compatibility, which Apple has never been terribly concerned with anyway. You are just one quick iTunes and iPod update away from having Apple invalidate your currently valid points.
This is not to say that I believe that a joint-venture with Blockbuster is the direction Apple is heading. Like you, I also feel that Jobs has a penchant for owning over renting something (is he fighting for Bush's 'ownership society'?). While Apple does seem to value the brick and mortar aspects of business, that does not mean Apple and Blockbuster are terribly compatible companies. I personally think that Blockbuster is in such poor shape that they would salivate all over the terms of any sort of deal with Apple's red-hot iPod, but if you are right that Blockbuster and Apple could never reach a the rental and revenue sharing agreement, then this whole idea is an exercise in whimsical fancy.
A small quibble: your point 1 is wrong. Cringely's idea is that you would be renting the movies. You would not need to return it though. The DRM license would just expire after a determined amount of time.
Oh, and that invalidates your second point too. You don't buy songs at Virgin or Tower because there is no mechanism for uploading songs from your iPod to your computer (according to Apple anyway). However when renting, Apple does not need to provide a way to keep it on your computer. You will want it to be deleted after the license expires.
I can see the headline now: "Apple partners with Blockbuster to target growing market of Dial-up users who don't have a modem in their new Mac Book Pro"
First of all, P/E ratios are generally far lower in bull markets. When people rush to sell, the P/E falls. When people rush to buy, the P/E rises. A P/E of 46 during a market panic would probably turn into a P/E of 65 during normal times.
Now, a P/E of 46 is high, and Apple is certainly a mature company in the Power PPC computer running Mac OS X market. The digital audio player market has room for growth and the digital audio distribution market is just beginning to bloom. Apple is the clear leader in these markets and any growth of them will translate directly into an increase in Apple's bottom line. The digital audio/video distribution market is but in its infancy. Apple has the potential to become a strong (if not dominant) player in this huge growth market.
With the switch to Intel, Apple computers have the ability to run Windows simultaneously. This removes (or strongly diminishes) one of the main barriers to moving to Mac OS X. There are few people who think Mac OS X is an inferior product. Most still won't buy an Apple though for one of two factors: it is too expensive; and I have already invested so much into windows (aka, I need to play HL2). Being able to dual-boot (if not just out right run-time switch) to Windows removes much of the latter complaint. It is therefore very reasonable to assume this will translate into huge gains in Apple's market share.
Apple's market capitalization is high due to many factors. I have no doubt that a subset of these factors include people who "believe" in Apple and want to see it succeed and buy their stock to help out the company. However, there are also many substantive economic factors which would make investing in the company a sound business risk.
Note to incompetent: Clearly, "huge gains" does not mean Apple is going to start competing with Dell. Huge gains means going from 4% to 6% with their same profit margins. It would be the same if Dell increased their market share by 50%. But, do you think it is more likely that Apple will go from 4% to 6%, or Dell from 50% to 75%? Hence the speculation about future revenue growth reflected in their respective stock prices.
You do not understand Apple's nitche. Apple computers will not become cheaper than they have been. Apple is in a luxury market with high profit margins. They will continue to keep those high profit margins after moving to Intel because their entire business model relies on huge markups. They market themselves out of the commodity market with product differentiation and superior design.
For an example, imagine what would to Mercedes and BMW happen if, year after year, Hyundai came out with engines that were at once more powerful and got better gas milage. Mercedes and BMW would have a hard time selling their products at such high profit margins... or Hyundai would become more expensive. This latter scenario is exactly what has happened with Honda.
Apple moved to Intel because IBM was unable to keep up with AMD and Intel on performance. Apple was trying to sell 2nd or 3rd generation processor and motherboard technology with huge markups. Their claims of being faster kept becoming more and more unreasonable to their customers until they eventually stopped being willing to pay huge markups for second-rate technology designed really well. Where Apple users were once confident that they had the best possible implementation of the best technology, they suddenly had to content themselves with the thought that design trumps the importance of technology. It became a case of amazing design using "good-enough" technology.
Now that they have switched to Intel, they have ensured themselves that Apple will have access to the latest and greatest processor technology. They will no longer get left behind the performance pack when Intel and AMD duke it out over who can make the best processors. Apple now feels far more secure that now and going in to the future they can safely say that when you spend that extra 20% to buy an Apple, you will be getting the best of the best. The best software design running on the best available hardware.
Or install any other application. Like say iChat for instance. What crap! I thought I would restart less after installing applications, not more by moving to MacOS
Way to copy, search/replace and paste the abstract text!