Drop all the featureware that's in your OS and concentrate on simplifying, standardizing, and securing the 600 layers beneath what the users see.
And how are they going to sell that to mom&dad? "Hey, buy our new operating system. You won't be able to tell the difference, but it's better, I swear!" So after several years without a major update, they're supposed to take Windows back, retool, and drop more planned features? That's sort of what they've been trying to do with Vista (including the "dropping more planned features"), they still can't get it out the door, and they'll still have a hard time selling it.
iTunes provides ownership, which I think is a cause of it's popularity...
Also the idea that I don't need to pay $60 a month on top of that $99 to get cable service in the first place. I don't have cable, you see, so to me, the usefulness of iTunes TV shows will be when they start offering Comedy Central, SciFi channel, and HBO shows for $1.99 per episode. I can pick the couple of shows I like, and spend $100-$150 a year to view them rather than $60-$100 a month for a whole cable package with a bunch of crap I don't want.
Oh, but I loved the Sierra games. One of the things I loved about them was the fact that there weren't a defined set of things you could do. It's not like there was a "use" button and a "pick up" button. You couldn't just click all over the screen and hoped something happened. It wasn't like you click on the key and click on a door, and the game figured out what you wanted to do. You might have to unlock the door with the key, or you might want to slide the key under the door. Really, it could be anything.
Of course, what you could actually do in the game was limited, but when you entered a new screen, there was no way of telling what you might be able to do there. It made for some frustration sometimes, but that just made it sweeter when you figured the thing out. I miss it.
I wish someone would really put some work into a CLI to see if it could be made more open ended and interpretive, giving the user more options and fewer non-descript "you can't do that" messages. With all the advances in language interpretation and AI, it'd be neat to see what could be done toward a system that would actually interpret what you were saying, see if it made sense, and give you some sort of a sensible response. Even if it still guided you towards the "correct solution", it be nice if the responses maybe gave you more hints about what's going on. Not that anyone would actually throw enough money at such a thing...
Anyway, I'm rambling... but Kings Quest and Space Quest were both terrific series IMHO, and Quest for Glory I and II were some of the most enjoyable games I've every played.
Seriously, to me it seems like Microsoft sat around a table brainstorming for potential negative aspects of OS that they could market to suitably gullible people.
Does that surprise you? And here I've been assuming all along that this is what marketing people usually do-- sit around tables, brainstorming every potentially positive aspect of their product and every potentially negative aspect of their competition, in order to rope in whoever they can with whatever they can.
I say most people don't really want to buy a computer without an OS, and you say a Mom & Pop store might install it for them. Well, of course people don't care *when* the OS is pre-installed, as long as it's pre-installed and does what they want.
As for whether most people wouldn't have a problem installing an OS, there are lots of people who are afraid to install normal applications. If you're talking about an install that asks them a single question about their hardware, asks them about partitioning their hard drive, or really one that asks them anything, there are going to be loads of people who won't like the process. Even if they can handle it, and it's not that hard, people will still be afraid, or at least uncomfortable.
I would say that the majority of people will be willing to spend at least $50 extra so that they won't have to worry about it.
Also, many people are willing to spend some extra money to get a decent machine rather than a hunk of junk.
This is one instance where I totally agree with the use of a EULA. When someone signs up for a MMORPG, there should be a little agreement that, among whatever else is appropriate, says, "I agree that I cannot hold anyone responsible for virtual damage to my virtual life". Something air-tight to keep the lawyers out.
This is the actual (non-drug induced) reason why we'll see Intel-based PowerBooks before we see Intel-based PowerMacs.
Also, how about the fact that a large part of the reason for the switch was the failure of IBM to bring a G5 laptop chip with low power requirements? Or the fact that the laptops haven't gotten much of a speed bump in, what, 2 years?
I think it'd be amazing if the first Intel Mac released wasn't a laptop.
But if you have a simple phone, then how will the cell phone companies charge you for "extras"?
I'd consider TV on my mobile phone... if it were free. That's the whole problem for me right there. No, I don't want to spend $10/kb, or whatever the silly price is, for data transfers over your cell phone network. Nothing I'm doing online is quite that important.
So I'm not so much anti-bloat here as I am against phone companies trying to push me into outrageously-priced services that I don't need.
No, they aren't as much a software company as they are a hardware company. Yes, they make software. Yes, the software is good. However, last I heard, their most profitable products (by far) were their computers (hardware) and iPods (hardware). I doubt the OSX sales come close to covering what they spend producing it. As far as Apple's marketing goes, the OS and hardware are all one unit, and selling OSX along with their computers is like when they sell the ease of the iPod interface to go with the iPod. Yes, it's the reason people buy their hardware, but they make the money off of selling the hardware, not off of selling the ease.
So, Apple will have all the people they have now (group 1), some new folks (group 2) and some additional hardware sales to people who are going to install Linux or Windows or BSD or something on the box (group 3).
There's also group 4: people who have already installed Linux or BSD to their Macs. The additional hardware sales from switching to x86 will only come from the small number of individuals who want Apple hardware and want to run Windows without running Virtual PC (and that's assuming x86 Macs are supported by Microsoft). Anyone who wants Apple hardware and Linux have had that freedom for an awfully long time now.
You don't mean that they don't care, right? You mean they aren't going to go out of their way to allow it. I'm sure they don't want you modding it to run Linux, because then, not only have you bought a $700 computer from them for $400 (or whatever the numbers are), but they've lost out on a potential sale of Windows.
Re:Will it cost more than a Dell running Windows?
on
Intel PowerBook Rumor Mill
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Why does Apple still want to control the hardware? Why don't they just port to Intel and let vendors sell Intel machinces with licensed versions of Mac OS. It'll be cheaper.
Because they're largely a hardware company? I mean, why does Dell still want control over their hardware? Why don't they just package their Dell restore CD to work on other vendor's machines? It'll be cheaper, right?
Only cheaper != more profit. In order to sell their OS as their primary business, they'd need to make it support an ungodly number of weird hardware configurations, and probably raise the price of OSX a whole lot just to stay profitable. Plus, then they'd need to worry much more about piracy. When you're a hardware company, you don't need to worry too much about people downloading your product.
I personally don't like OSX, but LOVE the Apple hardware. I would be interested in purchasing a Titanium (x86) and putting Windows and Linux on it.
Blasphemer!...
Ok, sort of kidding, but also wondering if you've really given it a chance. Beyond that, you know... hey, whatever floats your boat.
First glance you may say, good for apple, they still get the money. However, what that starts to do is move mindshare for apple to a premium hardware supplier, not a platform supplier.
I believe there are many people that will consider doing this, and I think this could hurt OSX. This move could put Apple (overtime) going Head to Head with Dell not MS.
Somehow I doubt Apple is too worried about this. They're not trying to compete with Microsoft. I think Apple's business model is already aimed more at being a premium hardware supplier, competing with Dell, than being an OS vendor.
The scarier prospect for them is probably the threat of people hacking OSX to work on their Dells. OSX availability is typically one of the big selling points for Apple hardware.
A single control panel which could control at least the common elements of the most popular desktops would be a wonderful idea. I hope someone reads your suggestion and makes a serious go at it - really, this would go a huge way towards achieving the "unified Linux desktop" in the eyes of the end user.
A control panel might possibly be good, but it also might be needlessly complicated. Wouldn't it be easier to standardize between KDE and Gnome where they store some font/color settings or something? Of course none of this addresses the fact that the programs will still look different.
Personally, I'm inclined to say we should get over it. If you want true consistency, keep to a single DE. If you want to try to tweak your Gnome/KDE settings to make them look the same, feel free to do so. Maybe it'd be nice if a given distro found ways to integrate Gnome and KDE better, but ultimately, the current situation isn't that bad.
I see lots of technical people who want Apple to sell for whiteboxes but I have yet to see a business case for it.
I question why this keeps coming up. Geeks want Apple to sell OSX alone, so they can install it on anything. Why? Apple puts together good quality hardware. It isn't that expensive. You can dual-boot with Linux. Pretty soon, it'll even be on x86, meaning you might even be able to dual-boot with Windows. So what's the big appeal?
Now, it might be just that they want choice. I, myself, don't like feeling forced into things. But is this enough to keep you from buying a good machine with the features you want? I've thought before that perhaps it's geeks who enjoy building their own machine. I can understand that, but getting a machine pre-built-- it seems like a small price to pay, again, for getting the OS you want.
The cynical theory that keeps popping into my head is, it's an image thing. They have a certain idea of what "mac people" are like, and they don't want to be one. They don't want their geek friends laughing at them. If that's what it is, then I say grow up.
I'm with you there. Yes, the cheapest Mac is $500, without keyboard, mouse, or monitor. Can you buy a cheaper Dell? Yes. Can you buy a comparable Dell for cheaper? eh... no. Spec out their ultra-small form factor Optiplex (Dell's smallest model) and a Mac mini to be as close as possible, and then compare.
That aside, apparently Apple doesn't care that some people can't afford their computers just like BMW doesn't care that some people can't afford their cars.
I don't think that's true. Obviously, Apple wants you to buy their product. They've gone through some trouble to segment the market enough that they have low-end models (iPod shuffle and Mac mini). They just seem unwilling to make crappy ultra-cheap products, which I think is connected to Job's ego. He doesn't want to sell get the huge market share selling crappy machines. If Apple could match the quality of the Mac mini, sell it for $100, keep his price margins, and capture the whole market, I'm sure they would. But how do you make a $100 Mac mini without cutting too many corners?
It may sound arrogant, but it's entirely possible that Mr. Dell really had it right -- Apple's making 9.6% profit margins today, but certainly hasn't for that entire eight years. The real question isn't "how well is Apple doing right now?", but "would the stockholders be better off if they'd invested elsewhere?"
Why is that the question? I thought the question was whether the best thing to do with Apple 8 years ago was to shut it down. Now, hypothetically, there was probably a better way to invest your money than Dell stocks, as well. That doesn't mean that the only viable course of action for Dell would be to shut it down.
in the end it only does one thing -- play music (and videos now -- poorly).
Uhhh... what should it do? I mean, besides play music, video, store contact info, calendars, photos, play games, work as a stopwatch, and work as an external hard drive, what is the iPod supposed to do?
The cost of entry to use a *nice* Apple is just too damned high
$500? Geeze...
There will be an iPod killer at some point -- when the iPod isn't as 'cool' as it is now.
Sure, *eventually* people won't be buying iPods, but when is that going to happen? Who's to say Apple won't be prepared? And what product won't become old and obsolete at some point? I'm sure Apple is shaking in their boots that the iPod won't be so trendy in 20 years.
The day Apple decides to put OS X onto a DVD and let you install it on your whitebox built computer is the day the grave is dug for Microsoft.
Maybe, but it's also the day their current business model is ruined. Apple is basically a hardware company that also makes the software to run their hardware. That's kind of how they work-- selling the whole package. I'm not saying being a software company, selling OSX, couldn't be a profitable business, but it would damage their hardware sales, which is, right now, their bread and butter.
Good post. Conventional wisdom isn't always correct, and huge success and innovation usually comes from someone ignoring something that "everyone knows". (I guess that just restates, and your post is better for having real examples)
While I agree that thoughtlessly throwing computers at kids doesn't provide much value, I wouldn't say they're necessarily useless. First of all, it seems to me that there may be value in electronic text books. Kids would have less to carry (laptops are heavy, but not as bad as a couple text books), text books could provide multimedia, interactive activities, and tests, and they might be cheaper, all things considered (especially so if we get some decent open-source text books. Does anyone know if there are gratis electronic text-books?)
Beyond that, the fact is computers are becoming a part of our daily lives, and a certain level of computer knowledge is, more and more, becoming a job requirement. They also allow for free expression (more easily), and allow people to connect from around the world. Kids who can't get access to computers and the internet will find themselves at a disadvantage when trying to survive in relation to 1st and 2nd world countries.
No, not every activity needs to be pushed onto computers. Computers aren't replacements for teachers. Computers shouldn't even be top-priority. However, if used properly, they are a great tool. As with most of the cases of technology misuse in the '80s and '90s, the whole problem comes when people who don't understand how these computer-things work start deciding that they'll be a cure-all for every situation. Of course, this problem persists today, but we can hope that as computers become more common, more people will understand that computers are tools to create solutions, and not solutions in themselves.
Yeah, well, mostly I just meant, "OSX isn't a pretty interface on top of FreeBSD, it's a pretty interface on top of Darwin, which is based largely on FreeBSD." That much, afaik, is correct and undisputed. It's my understanding that there's a lot shared with FreeBSD, but also many changes, and some things borrowed from other BSDs perhaps. So, updates to FreeBSD don't automatically mean updates to OSX-- there's still work to be done.
No intention of slighting the FreeBSD developers and the extent to which OSX users benefit from their work.
Well, it's not directly based on FreeBSD. OSX runs on top of Darwin (a different open source project), which was originally based on FreeBSD, but with a different kernel, and other changes. The people maintaining Darwin may choose to bring some of the new things over, but there's no direct connection (afaik) between an improvement being released for FreeBSD and seeing that improvement show up in OSX.
Of course, this would probably all be highly compressed, DRMed to hell video files, too.
And when talking about "what's a reasonable price", that's what it comes down to. Are these files DRM encumbered? what can I do with them? Burn them to DVD?
If, for example, someone offered movies of sufficient quality (say a full-res mp4 encoded at a high bitrate?) that I could turn around and burn it to a DVD and have it look ok, than $10 would be fine. Because $10+$1 (for a blank DVD) $20, and the download might not be that bad. However, a movie that looks crappy and is DRMed so I can only watch on a Windows machine is utterly useless to me. It's not worth 50 cents.
if by convenient, you mean free, then I guess you're right.
my experience has been that downloading has two major upsides: EVERYTHING is available, and everything is free.
True, but the iTMS has been doing fairly well. To me, that's an indicator that people are willing to pay for convenience (which is obvious anyway). Given the choice between figuring out "what's the p2p network du jour?", hunting down the right software and torrent links, being unsure of the quality you'll receive, etc., vs. connecting to a quick, supported network where everything's laid out and all you have to do is a simple search and click "buy", I'm sure lots of people will choose the latter. Not everyone, but lots.
And by pouring their money into bribes for politicians and lawsuits against their customers, rather than providing a decent online store, they're throwing away customers.
Slashdot Mirror
And how are they going to sell that to mom&dad? "Hey, buy our new operating system. You won't be able to tell the difference, but it's better, I swear!" So after several years without a major update, they're supposed to take Windows back, retool, and drop more planned features? That's sort of what they've been trying to do with Vista (including the "dropping more planned features"), they still can't get it out the door, and they'll still have a hard time selling it.
Also the idea that I don't need to pay $60 a month on top of that $99 to get cable service in the first place. I don't have cable, you see, so to me, the usefulness of iTunes TV shows will be when they start offering Comedy Central, SciFi channel, and HBO shows for $1.99 per episode. I can pick the couple of shows I like, and spend $100-$150 a year to view them rather than $60-$100 a month for a whole cable package with a bunch of crap I don't want.
Of course, what you could actually do in the game was limited, but when you entered a new screen, there was no way of telling what you might be able to do there. It made for some frustration sometimes, but that just made it sweeter when you figured the thing out. I miss it.
I wish someone would really put some work into a CLI to see if it could be made more open ended and interpretive, giving the user more options and fewer non-descript "you can't do that" messages. With all the advances in language interpretation and AI, it'd be neat to see what could be done toward a system that would actually interpret what you were saying, see if it made sense, and give you some sort of a sensible response. Even if it still guided you towards the "correct solution", it be nice if the responses maybe gave you more hints about what's going on. Not that anyone would actually throw enough money at such a thing...
Anyway, I'm rambling... but Kings Quest and Space Quest were both terrific series IMHO, and Quest for Glory I and II were some of the most enjoyable games I've every played.
Does that surprise you? And here I've been assuming all along that this is what marketing people usually do-- sit around tables, brainstorming every potentially positive aspect of their product and every potentially negative aspect of their competition, in order to rope in whoever they can with whatever they can.
I say most people don't really want to buy a computer without an OS, and you say a Mom & Pop store might install it for them. Well, of course people don't care *when* the OS is pre-installed, as long as it's pre-installed and does what they want.
As for whether most people wouldn't have a problem installing an OS, there are lots of people who are afraid to install normal applications. If you're talking about an install that asks them a single question about their hardware, asks them about partitioning their hard drive, or really one that asks them anything, there are going to be loads of people who won't like the process. Even if they can handle it, and it's not that hard, people will still be afraid, or at least uncomfortable.
I would say that the majority of people will be willing to spend at least $50 extra so that they won't have to worry about it.
Also, many people are willing to spend some extra money to get a decent machine rather than a hunk of junk.
This is one instance where I totally agree with the use of a EULA. When someone signs up for a MMORPG, there should be a little agreement that, among whatever else is appropriate, says, "I agree that I cannot hold anyone responsible for virtual damage to my virtual life". Something air-tight to keep the lawyers out.
Also, how about the fact that a large part of the reason for the switch was the failure of IBM to bring a G5 laptop chip with low power requirements? Or the fact that the laptops haven't gotten much of a speed bump in, what, 2 years?
I think it'd be amazing if the first Intel Mac released wasn't a laptop.
So I'm not so much anti-bloat here as I am against phone companies trying to push me into outrageously-priced services that I don't need.
No, they aren't as much a software company as they are a hardware company. Yes, they make software. Yes, the software is good. However, last I heard, their most profitable products (by far) were their computers (hardware) and iPods (hardware). I doubt the OSX sales come close to covering what they spend producing it. As far as Apple's marketing goes, the OS and hardware are all one unit, and selling OSX along with their computers is like when they sell the ease of the iPod interface to go with the iPod. Yes, it's the reason people buy their hardware, but they make the money off of selling the hardware, not off of selling the ease.
There's also group 4: people who have already installed Linux or BSD to their Macs. The additional hardware sales from switching to x86 will only come from the small number of individuals who want Apple hardware and want to run Windows without running Virtual PC (and that's assuming x86 Macs are supported by Microsoft). Anyone who wants Apple hardware and Linux have had that freedom for an awfully long time now.
You don't mean that they don't care, right? You mean they aren't going to go out of their way to allow it. I'm sure they don't want you modding it to run Linux, because then, not only have you bought a $700 computer from them for $400 (or whatever the numbers are), but they've lost out on a potential sale of Windows.
Because they're largely a hardware company? I mean, why does Dell still want control over their hardware? Why don't they just package their Dell restore CD to work on other vendor's machines? It'll be cheaper, right?
Only cheaper != more profit. In order to sell their OS as their primary business, they'd need to make it support an ungodly number of weird hardware configurations, and probably raise the price of OSX a whole lot just to stay profitable. Plus, then they'd need to worry much more about piracy. When you're a hardware company, you don't need to worry too much about people downloading your product.
I personally don't like OSX, but LOVE the Apple hardware. I would be interested in purchasing a Titanium (x86) and putting Windows and Linux on it.
Blasphemer!...
Ok, sort of kidding, but also wondering if you've really given it a chance. Beyond that, you know... hey, whatever floats your boat.
First glance you may say, good for apple, they still get the money. However, what that starts to do is move mindshare for apple to a premium hardware supplier, not a platform supplier.
I believe there are many people that will consider doing this, and I think this could hurt OSX. This move could put Apple (overtime) going Head to Head with Dell not MS.
Somehow I doubt Apple is too worried about this. They're not trying to compete with Microsoft. I think Apple's business model is already aimed more at being a premium hardware supplier, competing with Dell, than being an OS vendor.
The scarier prospect for them is probably the threat of people hacking OSX to work on their Dells. OSX availability is typically one of the big selling points for Apple hardware.
A control panel might possibly be good, but it also might be needlessly complicated. Wouldn't it be easier to standardize between KDE and Gnome where they store some font/color settings or something? Of course none of this addresses the fact that the programs will still look different.
Personally, I'm inclined to say we should get over it. If you want true consistency, keep to a single DE. If you want to try to tweak your Gnome/KDE settings to make them look the same, feel free to do so. Maybe it'd be nice if a given distro found ways to integrate Gnome and KDE better, but ultimately, the current situation isn't that bad.
I question why this keeps coming up. Geeks want Apple to sell OSX alone, so they can install it on anything. Why? Apple puts together good quality hardware. It isn't that expensive. You can dual-boot with Linux. Pretty soon, it'll even be on x86, meaning you might even be able to dual-boot with Windows. So what's the big appeal?
Now, it might be just that they want choice. I, myself, don't like feeling forced into things. But is this enough to keep you from buying a good machine with the features you want? I've thought before that perhaps it's geeks who enjoy building their own machine. I can understand that, but getting a machine pre-built-- it seems like a small price to pay, again, for getting the OS you want.
The cynical theory that keeps popping into my head is, it's an image thing. They have a certain idea of what "mac people" are like, and they don't want to be one. They don't want their geek friends laughing at them. If that's what it is, then I say grow up.
I'm with you there. Yes, the cheapest Mac is $500, without keyboard, mouse, or monitor. Can you buy a cheaper Dell? Yes. Can you buy a comparable Dell for cheaper? eh... no. Spec out their ultra-small form factor Optiplex (Dell's smallest model) and a Mac mini to be as close as possible, and then compare.
That aside, apparently Apple doesn't care that some people can't afford their computers just like BMW doesn't care that some people can't afford their cars.
I don't think that's true. Obviously, Apple wants you to buy their product. They've gone through some trouble to segment the market enough that they have low-end models (iPod shuffle and Mac mini). They just seem unwilling to make crappy ultra-cheap products, which I think is connected to Job's ego. He doesn't want to sell get the huge market share selling crappy machines. If Apple could match the quality of the Mac mini, sell it for $100, keep his price margins, and capture the whole market, I'm sure they would. But how do you make a $100 Mac mini without cutting too many corners?
Why is that the question? I thought the question was whether the best thing to do with Apple 8 years ago was to shut it down. Now, hypothetically, there was probably a better way to invest your money than Dell stocks, as well. That doesn't mean that the only viable course of action for Dell would be to shut it down.
in the end it only does one thing -- play music (and videos now -- poorly).
Uhhh... what should it do? I mean, besides play music, video, store contact info, calendars, photos, play games, work as a stopwatch, and work as an external hard drive, what is the iPod supposed to do?
The cost of entry to use a *nice* Apple is just too damned high
$500? Geeze...
There will be an iPod killer at some point -- when the iPod isn't as 'cool' as it is now.
Sure, *eventually* people won't be buying iPods, but when is that going to happen? Who's to say Apple won't be prepared? And what product won't become old and obsolete at some point? I'm sure Apple is shaking in their boots that the iPod won't be so trendy in 20 years.
The day Apple decides to put OS X onto a DVD and let you install it on your whitebox built computer is the day the grave is dug for Microsoft.
Maybe, but it's also the day their current business model is ruined. Apple is basically a hardware company that also makes the software to run their hardware. That's kind of how they work-- selling the whole package. I'm not saying being a software company, selling OSX, couldn't be a profitable business, but it would damage their hardware sales, which is, right now, their bread and butter.
Good post. Conventional wisdom isn't always correct, and huge success and innovation usually comes from someone ignoring something that "everyone knows". (I guess that just restates, and your post is better for having real examples)
Beyond that, the fact is computers are becoming a part of our daily lives, and a certain level of computer knowledge is, more and more, becoming a job requirement. They also allow for free expression (more easily), and allow people to connect from around the world. Kids who can't get access to computers and the internet will find themselves at a disadvantage when trying to survive in relation to 1st and 2nd world countries.
No, not every activity needs to be pushed onto computers. Computers aren't replacements for teachers. Computers shouldn't even be top-priority. However, if used properly, they are a great tool. As with most of the cases of technology misuse in the '80s and '90s, the whole problem comes when people who don't understand how these computer-things work start deciding that they'll be a cure-all for every situation. Of course, this problem persists today, but we can hope that as computers become more common, more people will understand that computers are tools to create solutions, and not solutions in themselves.
No intention of slighting the FreeBSD developers and the extent to which OSX users benefit from their work.
Well, it's not directly based on FreeBSD. OSX runs on top of Darwin (a different open source project), which was originally based on FreeBSD, but with a different kernel, and other changes. The people maintaining Darwin may choose to bring some of the new things over, but there's no direct connection (afaik) between an improvement being released for FreeBSD and seeing that improvement show up in OSX.
I'd just like to see a single-DVD iso. Ah, well, the FTP install aint so bad.
And when talking about "what's a reasonable price", that's what it comes down to. Are these files DRM encumbered? what can I do with them? Burn them to DVD?
If, for example, someone offered movies of sufficient quality (say a full-res mp4 encoded at a high bitrate?) that I could turn around and burn it to a DVD and have it look ok, than $10 would be fine. Because $10+$1 (for a blank DVD) $20, and the download might not be that bad. However, a movie that looks crappy and is DRMed so I can only watch on a Windows machine is utterly useless to me. It's not worth 50 cents.
my experience has been that downloading has two major upsides: EVERYTHING is available, and everything is free.
True, but the iTMS has been doing fairly well. To me, that's an indicator that people are willing to pay for convenience (which is obvious anyway). Given the choice between figuring out "what's the p2p network du jour?", hunting down the right software and torrent links, being unsure of the quality you'll receive, etc., vs. connecting to a quick, supported network where everything's laid out and all you have to do is a simple search and click "buy", I'm sure lots of people will choose the latter. Not everyone, but lots.
And by pouring their money into bribes for politicians and lawsuits against their customers, rather than providing a decent online store, they're throwing away customers.