In Germany, traffic fines are based on income. It's a social balancing mechanism that gives the rich the same incentive as the poor to obey traffic laws. In America, if a rich person gets a speeding ticket, it's a fine that is pocket-change to them, but a to a poor person it could mean they have to go without food for a day, or something to that effect.
It's the same principle with corporations. Fines exist as a deterrent, and if they are not deterring crime, they need to either be raised or eliminated in favor of a more effective method. What is a $50,000 fine to a multi-billion dollar corporation? It's pocket change. A lot of businesses just eat the cost of fines because it's actually CHEAPER for them to just pay than changing their whole business to be in compliance. So what good is the fine if it's not going to change anything?
2.5 Million dollars a day is a big deal even to a company like Microsoft. Sure, they could weather the storm and still survive paying the daily fine (I'm sure their daily operating costs are waaaay more than that) without going out of business, but they are a publicly traded company, and having a needless expense like that doesn't sit too well with shareholders. So in addition to the fine is the loss of stock value, which can add up quickly.
I actually think bundling is good, too, but here's why:
Netscape was selling their browser
Microsoft said, "we are going to F**** KILL NETSCAPE!!!!" and bundled a free browser with Windows
The Netscape browser dies and the company goes a different direction, eventually becoming a cheap dial-up ISP
Any company that charges for a browser now is out of their mind
IE stagnates, updates are infrequent, security holes many, Microsoft is indifferent
Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox rises from the ashes of Netscape/Mozilla, providing consumers a free, relatively secure, and simple browser packed with features
Microsoft wakes from it's slumber and vastly improves IE
If Microsoft hadn't have killed Netscape with IE, we'd all:
Still actually be PAYING for our web browsers
Wouldn't have Firefox
In actuality, Microsoft has helped to promote Free and Open Source Software
MS can keep letting their customers down because they're a monopoly. They don't HAVE to keep their customers happy, in fact most problems with their products they blame on the customer. A mass exodus to Mac is not likely because of the hardware cost, and the fact that the Apple brand is geared more toward artistic people and not the low-price-hungry typical consumers of Wal-Mart/Best Buy. People are willing to sacrifice service and quality for a lower price, and when you're one of these types of consumers looking at two computers for the same price, but the PC has much more powerful specs, then you're going to go for the PC and deal with the Windows headache every time. Lower prices win, and they will always win. Until Apple becomes more price-competitive for the specifications they're offering, they'll always be relegated to a small niche of users.
Because if the iPod costs less than what they're charging for it then Apple is an evil mega-corporation bent on destroying our souls. A business that profits from sales of it's product? How unconscionable!
Apple already is chiefly a consumer electronics company. It's weird the article separates computer hardware and consumer electronics, when the Macintosh (and PC's for that matter) fall into the definition of it quite nicely, and have for quite some time.
Although it's true that Apple was a diffferent company several years ago (I'm assuming they're referring to the mid-90's with no Steve Jobs at the helm), they also were a much suckier company back then too. They fell to the verge of bankruptcy as their products lost their sex-appeal. Apple is thriving again because of sex appeal. Sex Appeal sells, sells, sells. I worked for an electronics retailer and I can't count how many women picked PC's based solely on how they looked.
If I were head of Apple, I would focus even more on consumer electronics. How sexy would an Apple DVD player look? Or a PDA (like a new Newton)? A video game console? Sound System? They're not taking over the Home PC market, not for a very long time outside of a freak natural disaster in Redmond.
Then again, general-purpose home computers are more and more taking over these roles. We now have Media Center and FrontRow. Why buy a component system, dvd player, dvr recorder and music player? This one machine can do it all. Besides, Apple has always marketed their PCs more as appliances than PCs, a computer the "rest of us" can use. Anyways, I'm way sidetracked here, so rant over.
Terrorism is "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Paul Revere, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and John Adams were all terrorists or involved in terrorism according to this. Their revolution was "unlawful use of force or violence" according to British law. Their actions were against "individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments" in order to gain independence, definently a "political" and "ideological" objective.
Right. Basically, SCO is submitting source code with no reference to anything. Heck, they probably are taking random lines of code in LINUX and CLAIMING that they are also in Unix. What a feeble attempt at defrauding the court. If this were a legitimate case, all the evidence would be available now. At this point, SCO is getting closer and closer to the borderline of being nothing more than a patent troll.
I'm going to assume you completely missed the last 5 years of PowerPC development which ended up with a G4 chip that could barely run a calculator, and a G5 that would initiate nuclear fusion if placed into a laptop. They switched because they had basically no choice if the wanted to remain in the computer business.
This response makes no sense. I said hardware, as in, overall machine specifications, not just the CPU. Compare the specs for a Dell or Toshiba laptop with a similarly priced MacBook. For $2000, you can get something way more powerful. You can compare it because the components are relatively the same (read: relatively) now.
So now it's not that PowerPC is more powerful - it's just that they can't dupe consumers into thinking it is? How about just make good computers and let the public decide instead of lying to them? And if you're still trying to suggest that the new dual core Intel chips are slower than a G4, you're nuts. Talk to anyone who's used both.
Again with putting words in my mouth, what's with that? They DIDNT HAVE core duo chips back when the G3/G4's were around. Apple's chip offering was more efficient than what Intel was offering AT THE TIME. When a customer said "I can get a 1 GHz PC for the same price as a 500 MHz Apple," one could answer that the 500 MHz Apple performed on par with the "faster" PC. It was an Apples to Oranges comparison, different processors, different architectures. Now that those architectures are the same, you can compare Ghz to Ghz, that's all I'm saying.
Apple makes its money through an OS that many people feel is far superior to Windows, and by creating well-designed machines that are very functional and visually striking. This has not changed with the Intel switch. And like most makers of functional, pretty machines, something comes up lacking and sometimes that's component testing (kind of like a European sports car). But the thing is, that is NOT new.
So when you say that an Apple is like a high-maintenance European sports car, are you saying that Apple owners have small penises?
They used to be the best. It looks like the move to Intel has been a lot more than just a processor move. These new Macbooks are plagued with problems that PC laptops have had for years, and some issues are even never-before-seen. I don't know if Apple just decided to disguise the cheapening of their laptop line with the chip move, but if they did, it's a big mistake. In fact, IMO moving to Intel was a huge mistake. The public is still being charged a premium price for comparitively less powerful hardware. The move to standard hardware now provides consumers with a basis for comparison. Before, you couldn't compare megahertz to megahertz because the G3/G4/G5 processors were more efficient than standard desktop Intels. Now you can because Apple is using the same hardware, and they can't hide behind motorolla/ibm anymore. Software and software alone is what's driving Macintosh sales, since quality and performance are no longer viable selling points.
The purpose of Geek Squad is not to fix computers, since they do not offer any services that the average semi-literate computer user can't do. Probably the hardest thing a "Geek (TM)" has to do is set up a home network. Overall, they really are a terrible tech service, just read the horror stories at bestbuysux.org, even though there are a few shining stars here and there.
In this country, the buying public has demanded cheap, cheap, cheap. Lower prices over all else is the rule of the day. It's sad, but most people would rather be herded like cattle and thought of as only a revenue source to save $20 on that digital camera. Well, buying public, you are reaping what you have sown. You have voted with your dollars for places like Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc to stay open over smaller stores with better service. As a result, no one has any right to complain about poor customer service IMO. Don't like it? Vote with your dollar and shop elsewhere.
Anywho, the REAL purpose of Geek Squad is to provide the store with more "credible" salesmen. A Geek's job is to sell, sell, sell services and confirm what the salesperson said. Best Buy sales staff is some of the most poorly-trained in the world. Instead of improving training modules (which do NOT teach you many important sales techniques, most importantly overcoming objections), the company has decided to hype their tech services, and turn their techs into stealth salesmen. If a salesperson tells you something you don't like, it's a lot easier to assume they're wrong and go on your way. If a tech, a person that supposedly does this for a living, confirms what the salesmen said, then you are more likely to believe the tech. Plus, you might think twice about doubting a Best Buy salesman in the future.
I think it may also have to do with the attitude of the new, large mega-corporations. No one is interested in long-term stability anymore. Everyone just asks "how can we make more money TODAY," even though oftentimes the temporary savings is overshadowed in orders of magnitude by the additional costs these "savings" bring with them. It's a classic spend-10-dollars-to-save-50-cents syndrome. IMHO, companies today choose to be 'cheap' as opposed to frugal, and often forget that in order to make money, you HAVE to spend money.
Plus, day traders NEVER make money in the long run. If you look at any given stock in a one-year period, it will end up lower 90% of the time. If you look at the same stock in a five year period, that percentage is reduced. Finally, if you look at it in a TEN year period, it will almost always end up higher.
It's a shame that so many people treat Wall Street like Las Vegas.
"Manager Emily Pranger says about the man she ended up calling 911 about."
Calling 911 because some guy is using your PUBLIC wireless access. I see the beef about it because it's provided for customers, but getting the police involved over something this trivial only proves that Ms. Pranger is a b**ch. Maybe someone should tell her that 911 is for EMERGENCIES and some dude using your wireless from the back of your building does NOT qualify.
And the more this happens, the more pressure the underlings like Vincent will be under to stop people from switching. Really this is nothing new.
I think the BEST way to cancel AOL is to catch them totally off-guard. I got AOL a few years ago because i HAD to have internet access and the cd just happened to by lying there. When I got a REAL isp, I called to cancel and when through this same rigormoroll and kept repeating "just cancel it." Finally, I snapped and told them the real reason I was cancelling: I am not an internet n00b and hate having to use a proprietary dialer/browser. I think the AOL browser is an assault on the eyes and is a bloated piece of crap.
Give them some nice, techy reasons. Turn it into a philosophical debate, then we'll see how hard it is to cancel.
Wouldn't this scheme hurt the artist though? Raising the price of a song download will naturally slow sales and people will wait until the price is lower.
Using dynamic pricing like this opens up a whole can of worms. Music is not gasoline, and people will be pissed that they have to pay more than their buddy down the street, simply because he got it yesterday. Also, raising prices based on demand only works for a physical product. Supply and demand works on the premise that you need to raise the price on something with a finite supply to stop it from being sold out. The more expensive it is, the more rare and one-of-a-kind. In the case of music downloads, the supply is infinite since they are merely electronic copies. Raising the price of something for no other reason than it is popular does not sit well with consumers. To draw on my original illustration, look how up-in-arms people get over gas prices, and that's even with a FINITE supply! Imagine if we had an infinite supply of oil, and the OPEC countries inflated prices simply because more people are using it, even though the supply is infinite and there is no danger of running out. This is exactly what the **AA is trying to do with entertainment!
I tried to convert my parents to Firefox for the longest time. They wouldn't hear of it. They weren't going to let me "screw up the computer" by installing "viruses and spywares" on it. I explained to them how much better Firefox was than IE till I was blue in the face. It took a malware attack that make IE unusable for them to hear me out. I installed Firefox and they've been happily using it ever sice. Getting people to switch from default Windows has to be a grass-roots effort. You catch someone at the right time sick of Windows, and you can dazzle them with how much better it can be.
Napster and Rhapsody are two I can think of. Sure they let you buy songs, but you also have to pay a monthly fee. Show me a subscription service that has as much available content as iTunes and doesn't double-dip their customers by charging them twice for music.
It's the same thing with the Xbox. the PS2 wiped the floor with it in market share and sales because of the lack of software and that fact that it was FREAKING huge. Also, PS2 came out first and almost nobody buys two current consoles (a lot of times, they are bought separately and when they're getting close to becoming last-gen hardware, i.e. when they get cheap) so everyone figured "I got my PS2, there's a ton more games for it, the graphics are fine for me, so why buy ANOTHER console and have to buy ANOTHER copy of a game I already have for PS2?"
BUT, Xbox 360 is now out. The Xbox was eventually established and now the major selling point for the 360 is the same used for the PS2, backwards-compatibility. PS3 is arriving late, and although it will be more powerful, no one will have a good reason to blow $500-$600 when they JUST bought another console that has more content available to it. Nintendo is smart not to directly compete with the 360 because it would lose. You have the Wii for the simple, social, have-your-friends-over games and the Xbox 360 for the hard-hitting immersive action games.
Anyway, Microsoft is not competing with today's iPod. They're going to be competing with tomorrow's iPod, the one you haven't bought yet. I wouldn't be surprised if this product ends up being a loss-leader. Face it, no one is going to throw away their iPods for another service, no matter how much better it is. But they might consider it when the battery dies yet again, the screen is scratched, they're tired of the music they have, etc. and they're ready for something new. Microsoft will still be there, and by then it will be refined, offering more flexibility and giving you the choice of several different devices. Now if only they can make them look sexy and not like a tape recorder from 1986.
I don't understand why developers even BOTHER coming up with new software for Windows. Don't they realize that this will just serve as a huge beacon that screams "LOOK MICROSOFT!!! ANOTHER FRESH NEW NICHE MARKET THAT WE PIONEERED FOR YOU TO TAKE OVER AND FORCE US INTO BANKRUPTCY!!!!"
Slashdot Mirror
In Germany, traffic fines are based on income. It's a social balancing mechanism that gives the rich the same incentive as the poor to obey traffic laws. In America, if a rich person gets a speeding ticket, it's a fine that is pocket-change to them, but a to a poor person it could mean they have to go without food for a day, or something to that effect.
It's the same principle with corporations. Fines exist as a deterrent, and if they are not deterring crime, they need to either be raised or eliminated in favor of a more effective method. What is a $50,000 fine to a multi-billion dollar corporation? It's pocket change. A lot of businesses just eat the cost of fines because it's actually CHEAPER for them to just pay than changing their whole business to be in compliance. So what good is the fine if it's not going to change anything?
2.5 Million dollars a day is a big deal even to a company like Microsoft. Sure, they could weather the storm and still survive paying the daily fine (I'm sure their daily operating costs are waaaay more than that) without going out of business, but they are a publicly traded company, and having a needless expense like that doesn't sit too well with shareholders. So in addition to the fine is the loss of stock value, which can add up quickly.
I actually think bundling is good, too, but here's why:
Netscape was selling their browser
Microsoft said, "we are going to F**** KILL NETSCAPE!!!!" and bundled a free browser with Windows
The Netscape browser dies and the company goes a different direction, eventually becoming a cheap dial-up ISP
Any company that charges for a browser now is out of their mind
IE stagnates, updates are infrequent, security holes many, Microsoft is indifferent
Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox rises from the ashes of Netscape/Mozilla, providing consumers a free, relatively secure, and simple browser packed with features
Microsoft wakes from it's slumber and vastly improves IE
If Microsoft hadn't have killed Netscape with IE, we'd all:
Still actually be PAYING for our web browsers
Wouldn't have Firefox
In actuality, Microsoft has helped to promote Free and Open Source Software
"SAN JOSE, Calif.--A federal judge in California"
This reason and this reason alone is why this rediculous case is being heard by the courts.
MS can keep letting their customers down because they're a monopoly. They don't HAVE to keep their customers happy, in fact most problems with their products they blame on the customer. A mass exodus to Mac is not likely because of the hardware cost, and the fact that the Apple brand is geared more toward artistic people and not the low-price-hungry typical consumers of Wal-Mart/Best Buy. People are willing to sacrifice service and quality for a lower price, and when you're one of these types of consumers looking at two computers for the same price, but the PC has much more powerful specs, then you're going to go for the PC and deal with the Windows headache every time. Lower prices win, and they will always win. Until Apple becomes more price-competitive for the specifications they're offering, they'll always be relegated to a small niche of users.
Because if the iPod costs less than what they're charging for it then Apple is an evil mega-corporation bent on destroying our souls. A business that profits from sales of it's product? How unconscionable!
Apple already is chiefly a consumer electronics company. It's weird the article separates computer hardware and consumer electronics, when the Macintosh (and PC's for that matter) fall into the definition of it quite nicely, and have for quite some time.
Although it's true that Apple was a diffferent company several years ago (I'm assuming they're referring to the mid-90's with no Steve Jobs at the helm), they also were a much suckier company back then too. They fell to the verge of bankruptcy as their products lost their sex-appeal. Apple is thriving again because of sex appeal. Sex Appeal sells, sells, sells. I worked for an electronics retailer and I can't count how many women picked PC's based solely on how they looked.
If I were head of Apple, I would focus even more on consumer electronics. How sexy would an Apple DVD player look? Or a PDA (like a new Newton)? A video game console? Sound System? They're not taking over the Home PC market, not for a very long time outside of a freak natural disaster in Redmond.
Then again, general-purpose home computers are more and more taking over these roles. We now have Media Center and FrontRow. Why buy a component system, dvd player, dvr recorder and music player? This one machine can do it all. Besides, Apple has always marketed their PCs more as appliances than PCs, a computer the "rest of us" can use. Anyways, I'm way sidetracked here, so rant over.
and we let people this ignorant about technology regulate it.
Terrorism is "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Paul Revere, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and John Adams were all terrorists or involved in terrorism according to this. Their revolution was "unlawful use of force or violence" according to British law. Their actions were against "individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments" in order to gain independence, definently a "political" and "ideological" objective.
Right. Basically, SCO is submitting source code with no reference to anything. Heck, they probably are taking random lines of code in LINUX and CLAIMING that they are also in Unix. What a feeble attempt at defrauding the court. If this were a legitimate case, all the evidence would be available now. At this point, SCO is getting closer and closer to the borderline of being nothing more than a patent troll.
I think you missed my whole point.
I'm going to assume you completely missed the last 5 years of PowerPC development which ended up with a G4 chip that could barely run a calculator, and a G5 that would initiate nuclear fusion if placed into a laptop. They switched because they had basically no choice if the wanted to remain in the computer business.
This response makes no sense. I said hardware, as in, overall machine specifications, not just the CPU. Compare the specs for a Dell or Toshiba laptop with a similarly priced MacBook. For $2000, you can get something way more powerful. You can compare it because the components are relatively the same (read: relatively) now.
So now it's not that PowerPC is more powerful - it's just that they can't dupe consumers into thinking it is? How about just make good computers and let the public decide instead of lying to them? And if you're still trying to suggest that the new dual core Intel chips are slower than a G4, you're nuts. Talk to anyone who's used both.
Again with putting words in my mouth, what's with that? They DIDNT HAVE core duo chips back when the G3/G4's were around. Apple's chip offering was more efficient than what Intel was offering AT THE TIME. When a customer said "I can get a 1 GHz PC for the same price as a 500 MHz Apple," one could answer that the 500 MHz Apple performed on par with the "faster" PC. It was an Apples to Oranges comparison, different processors, different architectures. Now that those architectures are the same, you can compare Ghz to Ghz, that's all I'm saying.
Apple makes its money through an OS that many people feel is far superior to Windows, and by creating well-designed machines that are very functional and visually striking. This has not changed with the Intel switch. And like most makers of functional, pretty machines, something comes up lacking and sometimes that's component testing (kind of like a European sports car). But the thing is, that is NOT new.
So when you say that an Apple is like a high-maintenance European sports car, are you saying that Apple owners have small penises?
They used to be the best. It looks like the move to Intel has been a lot more than just a processor move. These new Macbooks are plagued with problems that PC laptops have had for years, and some issues are even never-before-seen. I don't know if Apple just decided to disguise the cheapening of their laptop line with the chip move, but if they did, it's a big mistake. In fact, IMO moving to Intel was a huge mistake. The public is still being charged a premium price for comparitively less powerful hardware. The move to standard hardware now provides consumers with a basis for comparison. Before, you couldn't compare megahertz to megahertz because the G3/G4/G5 processors were more efficient than standard desktop Intels. Now you can because Apple is using the same hardware, and they can't hide behind motorolla/ibm anymore. Software and software alone is what's driving Macintosh sales, since quality and performance are no longer viable selling points.
The purpose of Geek Squad is not to fix computers, since they do not offer any services that the average semi-literate computer user can't do. Probably the hardest thing a "Geek (TM)" has to do is set up a home network. Overall, they really are a terrible tech service, just read the horror stories at bestbuysux.org, even though there are a few shining stars here and there.
In this country, the buying public has demanded cheap, cheap, cheap. Lower prices over all else is the rule of the day. It's sad, but most people would rather be herded like cattle and thought of as only a revenue source to save $20 on that digital camera. Well, buying public, you are reaping what you have sown. You have voted with your dollars for places like Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc to stay open over smaller stores with better service. As a result, no one has any right to complain about poor customer service IMO. Don't like it? Vote with your dollar and shop elsewhere.
Anywho, the REAL purpose of Geek Squad is to provide the store with more "credible" salesmen. A Geek's job is to sell, sell, sell services and confirm what the salesperson said. Best Buy sales staff is some of the most poorly-trained in the world. Instead of improving training modules (which do NOT teach you many important sales techniques, most importantly overcoming objections), the company has decided to hype their tech services, and turn their techs into stealth salesmen. If a salesperson tells you something you don't like, it's a lot easier to assume they're wrong and go on your way. If a tech, a person that supposedly does this for a living, confirms what the salesmen said, then you are more likely to believe the tech. Plus, you might think twice about doubting a Best Buy salesman in the future.
I think it may also have to do with the attitude of the new, large mega-corporations. No one is interested in long-term stability anymore. Everyone just asks "how can we make more money TODAY," even though oftentimes the temporary savings is overshadowed in orders of magnitude by the additional costs these "savings" bring with them. It's a classic spend-10-dollars-to-save-50-cents syndrome. IMHO, companies today choose to be 'cheap' as opposed to frugal, and often forget that in order to make money, you HAVE to spend money.
Plus, day traders NEVER make money in the long run. If you look at any given stock in a one-year period, it will end up lower 90% of the time. If you look at the same stock in a five year period, that percentage is reduced. Finally, if you look at it in a TEN year period, it will almost always end up higher.
It's a shame that so many people treat Wall Street like Las Vegas.
"Manager Emily Pranger says about the man she ended up calling 911 about."
Calling 911 because some guy is using your PUBLIC wireless access. I see the beef about it because it's provided for customers, but getting the police involved over something this trivial only proves that Ms. Pranger is a b**ch. Maybe someone should tell her that 911 is for EMERGENCIES and some dude using your wireless from the back of your building does NOT qualify.
And the more this happens, the more pressure the underlings like Vincent will be under to stop people from switching. Really this is nothing new.
I think the BEST way to cancel AOL is to catch them totally off-guard. I got AOL a few years ago because i HAD to have internet access and the cd just happened to by lying there. When I got a REAL isp, I called to cancel and when through this same rigormoroll and kept repeating "just cancel it." Finally, I snapped and told them the real reason I was cancelling: I am not an internet n00b and hate having to use a proprietary dialer/browser. I think the AOL browser is an assault on the eyes and is a bloated piece of crap.
Give them some nice, techy reasons. Turn it into a philosophical debate, then we'll see how hard it is to cancel.
5) Profit!!!
Wouldn't this scheme hurt the artist though? Raising the price of a song download will naturally slow sales and people will wait until the price is lower.
Using dynamic pricing like this opens up a whole can of worms. Music is not gasoline, and people will be pissed that they have to pay more than their buddy down the street, simply because he got it yesterday. Also, raising prices based on demand only works for a physical product. Supply and demand works on the premise that you need to raise the price on something with a finite supply to stop it from being sold out. The more expensive it is, the more rare and one-of-a-kind. In the case of music downloads, the supply is infinite since they are merely electronic copies. Raising the price of something for no other reason than it is popular does not sit well with consumers. To draw on my original illustration, look how up-in-arms people get over gas prices, and that's even with a FINITE supply! Imagine if we had an infinite supply of oil, and the OPEC countries inflated prices simply because more people are using it, even though the supply is infinite and there is no danger of running out. This is exactly what the **AA is trying to do with entertainment!
could be true. last time i checked the service you had to subscribe to do anything. It could have changed since then.
I tried to convert my parents to Firefox for the longest time. They wouldn't hear of it. They weren't going to let me "screw up the computer" by installing "viruses and spywares" on it. I explained to them how much better Firefox was than IE till I was blue in the face. It took a malware attack that make IE unusable for them to hear me out. I installed Firefox and they've been happily using it ever sice. Getting people to switch from default Windows has to be a grass-roots effort. You catch someone at the right time sick of Windows, and you can dazzle them with how much better it can be.
Napster and Rhapsody are two I can think of. Sure they let you buy songs, but you also have to pay a monthly fee. Show me a subscription service that has as much available content as iTunes and doesn't double-dip their customers by charging them twice for music.
That's if and only if Apple decides (or is forced) to liscence fairplay.
It's the same thing with the Xbox. the PS2 wiped the floor with it in market share and sales because of the lack of software and that fact that it was FREAKING huge. Also, PS2 came out first and almost nobody buys two current consoles (a lot of times, they are bought separately and when they're getting close to becoming last-gen hardware, i.e. when they get cheap) so everyone figured "I got my PS2, there's a ton more games for it, the graphics are fine for me, so why buy ANOTHER console and have to buy ANOTHER copy of a game I already have for PS2?"
BUT, Xbox 360 is now out. The Xbox was eventually established and now the major selling point for the 360 is the same used for the PS2, backwards-compatibility. PS3 is arriving late, and although it will be more powerful, no one will have a good reason to blow $500-$600 when they JUST bought another console that has more content available to it. Nintendo is smart not to directly compete with the 360 because it would lose. You have the Wii for the simple, social, have-your-friends-over games and the Xbox 360 for the hard-hitting immersive action games.
Anyway, Microsoft is not competing with today's iPod. They're going to be competing with tomorrow's iPod, the one you haven't bought yet. I wouldn't be surprised if this product ends up being a loss-leader. Face it, no one is going to throw away their iPods for another service, no matter how much better it is. But they might consider it when the battery dies yet again, the screen is scratched, they're tired of the music they have, etc. and they're ready for something new. Microsoft will still be there, and by then it will be refined, offering more flexibility and giving you the choice of several different devices. Now if only they can make them look sexy and not like a tape recorder from 1986.
Heck, they can't even master making a good operating system, their core business.
I don't understand why developers even BOTHER coming up with new software for Windows. Don't they realize that this will just serve as a huge beacon that screams "LOOK MICROSOFT!!! ANOTHER FRESH NEW NICHE MARKET THAT WE PIONEERED FOR YOU TO TAKE OVER AND FORCE US INTO BANKRUPTCY!!!!"