Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Businesses Microsoft Apple

Gates v. Jobs, continued... 343

Posted by CmdrTaco from the rematch-of-the-decade dept.
FJCsar writes "The New York Times has an interesting story about the continuing battle between Microsoft's Windows Media Player and Apple's iTunes from the perspectives of both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gates v. Jobs, continued... More

Gates v. Jobs, continued...

Comments Filter:

  • Gates & Latifah (Score:4, Funny)

    by stevejsmith ( 614145 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @09:17AM (#10812641) Homepage
    That picture of Bill Gates and Queen Latifah is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

  • 1984 was broadcast twice (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Trurl's Machine ( 651488 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @09:27AM (#10812666) Journal
    There was, of course, the commercial that introduced the Macintosh. It was broadcast exactly once, during the 1984 Super Bowl

    Ummm, it's not exactly true. Super Bowl commercials are often broadcast the year before in obscure local stations to be eligible for the same year awards. The "1984" commercial was aired on 1 AM in Twin Falls, Idaho on December 15, 1983. Of course the question is - can you actually BROADcast anything in Idaho...

  • Iconic stature (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chia_monkey ( 593501 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @09:34AM (#10812688) Journal
    What a difference the two companies (Apple and Microsoft) have in terms of public perception. Microsoft is seen as a necessary evil. Apple has always been seen as "pretty" and "innovative". The one fact that really drives that (and a few other things) home though in this article was this beautiful quote:

    Speaking just after the event, Bono, U2's lead singer, said the band was not charging Apple a penny to be in the ad. (The band says it had turned down as much as $23 million to use its music in other commercials.) In its three-year life, the iPod has achieved such "iconic value," Bono said, that U2 gets as much value as Apple does from the commercial, by promoting its music and the new Red and Black U2 edition of the iPod, for which the band gets royalties.

    It's just another example of how Jobs has his pulse on the entertainment industry (ie, Pixar, iTunes being THE music service to break through, etc). Microsoft on the other hand is relying on OS marketshare dominance to try to get into the game.

    • Re:Iconic stature (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mordors9 ( 665662 )
      But M$ has a huge hammer to rely upon. They will start making Itunes break everytime there is a MS Update run. While making the Windows Media Player more similar to Itunes. Pretty soon it won't be worth the hassle to keep Itunes running right.

      • Re:Iconic stature (Score:5, Interesting)

        by chia_monkey ( 593501 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @09:47AM (#10812740) Journal
        But M$ has a huge hammer to rely upon. They will start making Itunes break everytime there is a MS Update run. While making the Windows Media Player more similar to Itunes. Pretty soon it won't be worth the hassle to keep Itunes running right.

        I have two thoughts on this. First, MS updates will break a lot of things, not just iTunes. I constantly hear horror stories of how each update breaks some program or another. Granted, it may break iTunes a bit "harder", but that's a price to pay. I also wonder if Apple could say "look, these guys are acting very uncompetitively and intentionally breaking our software".

        Second...the reason many people don't switch from PCs to Macs is because of all the software they have for their PCs and they don't feel like buying all new software, etc. The same argument could hold true for the iPod. With dominance of the market and their own format, iPod owners may not make the switch to other players and formats for the same reason as PC users sticking with that platform.
        • I would agree with your second point except the Itunes store isn't that big yet. Sure, its big as selling music on the net goes for right now, but nothing compared to say, Kazaa. out of all the people I know who own an ipod(about 7) only one uses the Itunes store at all. This can be really bad for Apple when people begin shopping for a new MP3 player. Maybe that expensive Ipod doesn't look so good when you can get something that does all the same things for 100 dollars cheaper.

          When the Music stores get

          • Re:Iconic stature (Score:3, Insightful)

            by plog ( 816386 )
            Maybe that expensive Ipod doesn't look so good when you can get something that does all the same things for 100 dollars cheaper.

            People on /. often make this nerdly assumption: spec sheet = function.

            In a device like this, aimed at non-nerds, function is largely about the gestalt package, especially its interface. Does the user interface work well, and get out of my way? Does using it feel good? Does the social interface work well, and boost my status by getting noticed? These things represent function a

          • Re:Iconic stature (Score:5, Insightful)

            by BasilBrush ( 643681 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @01:33PM (#10813783)
            iTMS is bigger than all the other music stores put together. You say "When" other music stores get big, but really that's an "If". And there's no sign yet of it happening. Nor any sign that being $100 cheaper than iPod is good enough to outweigh the attraction of the cool brand.

        • Re:Iconic stature (Score:4, Insightful)

          by CaptainPinko ( 753849 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @01:52PM (#10813867)
          actually one of the biggest concerns is that they don't want to pirate all their software again. They already have a cracked OfficeXP but do any of their friends have a copyof Office for OSX? Nope. They might have to buy it. Now if they need some Windows only apps they now need VirtualPC (they don't need XP of course thanks to DevilsOwnz or various other crackers).

        • Re:Iconic stature (Score:3, Informative)

          by mrchaotica ( 681592 )
          Second...the reason many people don't switch from PCs to Macs is because of all the software they have for their PCs and they don't feel like buying all new software, etc.
          I bought a Mac, and I haven't spent a single cent on software for it. Between Fink and VersionTracker, let alone all the stuff that comes with it to begin with (Xcode, AppleWorks, etc.), I didn't need to!

        • Re:Iconic stature (Score:3, Informative)

          by Ilgaz ( 86384 )
          They did it before. Stated in "Helloween" memo, years ago.

          They purposely broke Quicktime with a OS update. Not that plugin thing, much before!

          Its not a rumor , it was told at court:

          http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/windows/0,3902039 6,2069820,00.htm [zdnet.co.uk]
      • MSFT isn't able to due this as often though. Everytime they do people yell at MSFT for breaking things. Look at SP2 i would say the majority of XP machines still haven't upgraded to it, because of the apps it breaks.

        MSFT is begining to be outflanked. What's funny is that they are outflanking themselves, as often as anyone else is.

        The Matrix 2 did have one good point, People need choice, even if they don't accept it they still need it. Gates doesn't like choice.
        • MSFT isn't able to due this as often though. Everytime they do people yell at MSFT for breaking things. Look at SP2 i would say the majority of XP machines still haven't upgraded to it, because of the apps it breaks.

          Again, I see two things here that confuse me/make me wonder. First, with all the security flaws, udates, and apps breaking, I wonder why people don't make the switch to something better. Flaw...fear of breaking apps so no updates...messed up computers...install patch...messed up computers.
          • Switching to something 'better' would mean that that 'better' option would have to run all their existing apps. Can't switch to Mac as a result, and WINE isn't quite there yet (plus Linux is still a little tough for the average user)..

            Microsoft has one big advantage here in that everyone has invested so heavily into the applications they're running. Switching platforms is truly expensive in terms of relearning and in terms of application cost (either time in the case of FINDING free alternatives, or money

      • Re:Iconic stature (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BeerCat ( 685972 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @10:26AM (#10812900) Homepage
        In other words, to quote Bill Gates in TFA:

        I think Apple will do things the Apple way, and Microsoft will do things the Microsoft way. I'd say the long-term factors all favor our approach

        Anti-competitive practices still seem to be far more of the Microsoft way
    • So for allowing Apple to sell their music together with a black iPod they agree to let them use their music for commercials. How is this anything other than a normal business deal.

      I don't see any reason to start seeing 'beauty' in this deal.

      I have no iPod and I don't like U2 either. They're both to messianic to my atheist tastes.

      X.
      • Just out of interest, has anyone seen the Black iPod?

        Its an abomination compared to the others, with its silly red central dial. I would have bought the black one if the dial fitted in with the black theme, or even if it was the same white as the other iPod dials.

    • Re:Iconic stature (Score:2, Insightful)

      by hhawk ( 26580 )
      They (U2) might not have charged for the Ad, but they are certainly getting there money's worth. But it's a bit like someone signing a programmer to a 500k a year contract and then the programmer decides to help that person by spending a hour or two helping them fix a spreadsheet FOR FREE...

  • More of a battle of distribution formats (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Vandil X ( 636030 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @09:36AM (#10812696)
    The Microsoft vs. Apple battle in music players is bigger than the two computer software giants.

    The last half of the 1990s demonstrated two things:
    1. People want to listen to music in a digital format
    2. The Internet is a viable digital music distribution "medium".

    Until the online purchase/subscription model battle is won, the battle over music players isn't going to be over anytime soon.

    Although I think the subscription model might win out in the end, there's something to be said about owning the music you purchase.

    Personally, I don't want another monthly bill. I have enough of those, plus student loans. I want to buy a song online like I buy a CD in a store and be done with it and not be worried about subscription fees.

    Whether or not you use Windows Media's DRM or FairPlay, it's clear that you'll eventually need to upgrade (purchase) newer versions of the OS to continue to play your music, whether if it's subscribed (borrowed) or owned outright (iTMS).

    Maybe I'll just stick with transcoding everything to MP3s that play just fine everywhere, including my iPod.

    • Re:More of a battle of distribution formats (Score:5, Insightful)

      by johnpaul191 ( 240105 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @10:01AM (#10812796) Homepage
      well in a way the iTMS works on a mac or pc...... it will always play on that ipod, as long as the ipod is alive. if you own a mac or pc now and switch to the other in a few years there will still be free iTunes software to play your songs.

      if you are buying the other types of music and want to switch to a Mac.... i think you are screwed? none of those stores support Mac OS except Apple itself. you can throw around numbers of how many PCs and how many Macs ship per year, but a lot of those PCs end up in business enviroments. Macs are way more common in homes, plus they live longer, add the fact that some houses have both machines and would want to play the same songs (iTunes allows multiple computers to play a DRM'd song).

      looking at it fromt hat standpoint... if you own or ever might own a Mac or live with someone that may own a Mac.... then you can only shop at Apple's store. as for Linux/BSD users.... well i don't know.

      • Re:More of a battle of distribution formats (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Vandil X ( 636030 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @10:34AM (#10812934)
        if you own a mac or pc now and switch to the other in a few years there will still be free iTunes software to play your songs.
        My point is, Operating System license fees are the hidden cost in DRM'd online music store purchases.

        iTunes currently requires version 4.2 as a minimum to play any DRM'd songs you have purchased from the store. This means you have to be running Windows 2000, XP, Mac OS 10.2.x, 10.3.x to play your music.

        2 years from now, those restrictions could change to requiring a theoretical iTunes 5.0 which would theoretically require Windows XP & Longhorn and Mac OS 10.4.x & 10.5.x.

        Even if iTunes remains free, I'll eventually have to pay $199 for the next version of Windows or $129 for the next version of Mac OS X (and possibly a new Mac supportable by the OS X version) to continue to play music I purchased from the iTMS this year and can play this year.

        MP3 files, however, will play on any playback app that supports them, regardless of the OS or the age of the hardware, long after my iPod dies.
        • No, you won't have to buy an OS upgrade to keep using your old music.

          iTunes 4.2 can and will still play FairPlay v1 protected tracks. So all you'll ever need to play your v1 encoded music is iTunes 4.2. Period. Of course, once FairPlay v2 was devised, they started selling songs using that instead of v1, but your v1 songs haven't changed at all.

          As a matter of fact, there's no way to update songs from v1 to v2 without repurchasing them.

          Thus, your FairPlay v1 songs purchased before the store updated to v2 will always work on any platform that can play v1. Your v2 songs will always work on any iTunes that supports that encoding, which (as far as I know) is 4.5 and now 4.7.

          I don't think iTunes 4.2 supports FairPlay v2, but it might. Anyone know for sure?
        • iTunes currently requires version 4.2 as a minimum to play any DRM'd songs you have purchased from the store....2 years from now, those restrictions could change to requiring a theoretical iTunes 5.0 which would theoretically require Windows XP & Longhorn and Mac OS 10.4.x & 10.5.x.

          The only reason you can't play iTunes DRM music on older versions of iTunes is that the DRM scheme wasn't in use yet, and of course software created before the creation of a standard won't support that standard. However

      • as for Linux/BSD users.... well i don't know.

        Linux/BSD users can use PlayFair/Hymn to remove the DRM and then play their purchased music on anything that supports AAC (e.g. XMMS). I don't believe the same thing is possible with WMA DRM'd music.

    • Years ago, I bought some CDs at BestBuy for $1.99 each. They were made by Pilz, a German company, with classic music played by Eastern European orchestras. Which shows the true cost of producing music when the RIAA is left out and the copyright for the author has expired. Why pay $1 for a Mariah Carey song when you can pay $0.12 for a J.S.Bach song?
      • The price is low because the demand for classical music is low, and the demand for classical music from lesser known orchestras is even lower. Price is driven by demand, and the profit to the company is determined by the cost to them.

  • Choice quotation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr Smidge ( 668120 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @09:42AM (#10812715) Homepage
    "Over time, proprietary standards always lose because industry standards always win because you get more for less," said Michael A. George, the general manager of Dell's consumer business. Dell has just introduced a 5-gigabyte music player, using the Windows standard...

    I wonder if any of the general public will realise what contradictory behaviour this is?

    "Proprietary standards always lose, so that's why our media player uses a proprietary standard (WMA) and the iPod uses an open format (AAC)".

    (Mp3 has delibarately been left out of the above sarcastic statement, due to its obvious ubiquity).

    • Re:Choice quotation (Score:3, Informative)

      by dannywoodz ( 618593 )
      AAC may be an open standard, but the DRM Apple wraps it up with isn't. An open standard that can't be openly inspected is no better than a proprietary solution.

      • Re:Choice quotation (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Mr Smidge ( 668120 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @10:34AM (#10812932) Homepage
        But if I, as the tech-savvy computer user, wish to rip some of my CDs (or vinyls, whatever) to a digital format for playback on my portable device, I'd appreciate being able to use an open format.

        I can't do that with WMA.

        Of course, the masses won't care, since WMP will rip to WMA by default, which will work (we hope) on all the MS-supporting media devices.

  • The trouble with DRM (Score:4, Interesting)

    by acomj ( 20611 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @09:45AM (#10812729) Homepage
    I bought songs with itunes music store..I have an ipod, I butned ausio cds, life was good..

    Then I got a car with a cd mp3 player... And thats where things started to crumble. I coulldn't burn mp3 cds with songs I had bought , only songs I had ripped. I could convert them to mp3s, but its time consuming. If I was using real/microsoft I would have the same problem. So all my purchased itunes songs are on regular cds.

    While I understand apples need to include DRM to keep music b iz people happy, unless the DRM is ubiqitous its not going to work well, Even MS is going to have trouble doing this.

    DRM free is the way to go..

    • Re:The trouble with DRM (Score:5, Informative)

      by Trurl's Machine ( 651488 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @09:57AM (#10812773) Journal
      May I humbly suggest connecting your iPod either directly to the car player (if it has mp3 support, it might have also line-in jack) or indirectly beaming music via devices such as Griffin iTrip [griffintechnology.com] and similar [belkin.com]? That's what I do.

      • FM sucks. Cassette sucks (Score:5, Informative)

        by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @10:24AM (#10812894) Homepage Journal
        Neither FM transmitters nor cassette adapters are a good solution - both greatly reduce the quality of the signal provided to the stereo.

        I have an MP3 player in my car, and was using a cassette adapter to interface to it until I could get the head-end adapter (that fooled the stereo into thinking it had a CD jukebox attached) for the car. The difference between the two was not merely night and day - it was night and nova. The cassette adapter had no bass, no treble, and poor stereo seperation.

        FM transmitters are just as bad - the maximum frequency is limited to 15 kHz, and the stereo seperation is poor due to the multiplexing of the L-R signal onto the 38kHz pilot tone.

        If his stereo has a CDR MP3 player function, it likely has support for a CD jukebox - go to Precision Interface Electronics [pie.net] and order the appropriate adapter, it will be much better.
        • You know, you really don't even need something that complicated to get really good sound. I'd be happy if I could find a car stereo that just had a phono jack in the front - then I can use ANY player.
          • I'd be even happier with an Apple head unit with built-in AirPort Extreme or long-range Bluetooth so I could wirelessly sync the hard drive to my iTunes connection from my driveway.

            Even better would be a docking port for an iPod instead of a fixed-mount HDD...

        • Re:FM sucks. Cassette sucks (Score:4, Informative)

          by phillymjs ( 234426 ) <slashdot.stango@org> on Sunday November 14, 2004 @11:31AM (#10813183) Homepage Journal
          If his stereo has a CDR MP3 player function, it likely has support for a CD jukebox - go to Precision Interface Electronics and order the appropriate adapter, it will be much better.

          Or go to DensionUSA [densionusa.com] and see if their ICElink product is supported on your car's stereo-- then you can keep the iPod out of sight and control it (to a degree) with your head unit's controls.

          I was using a PIE cable for a while along with a RemoteRemote [engineeredaudio.com] RF remote, but the remote would often miss keypresses and/or I couldn't tell if I had pushed the mushy buttons sufficiently for the command to be sent. It was a distraction I didn't want to deal with while driving-- I want to hit a button, know I hit it, and have the command register, all without thinking about it or looking away from the road.

          ~Philly
        • Neither FM transmitters nor cassette adapters are a good solution - both greatly reduce the quality of the signal provided to the stereo.

          Greatly is quite a stretch, but you can have it. I appreciate the quality of music, but if you are looking for very high quality playbackk, get out of your car and into a studio.

        • Re:FM sucks. Cassette sucks (Score:4, Interesting)

          by GrahamCox ( 741991 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @06:11PM (#10815533) Homepage
          FM transmitters are just as bad - the maximum frequency is limited to 15 kHz, and the stereo seperation is poor due to the multiplexing of the L-R signal onto the 38kHz pilot tone.
          Yes, these things are vitally important when you're inside a thin metal box full of bits of odd furniture and strange surfaces, with speakers wedged into odd corners wherever they can be fitted, the whole thing being moved by a powerplant putting out many dBs of noise and vibration, with other similar ones going past every few seconds, plus the variable levels of white noise caused by the airflow. Hmmm, I'm sure you can pick out the difference between 40 and 50 dB of stereo separation, or the fact that the high frequencies are rolling off a few kHz early.
          Personally, I find the iTrip more than adequate for car use. The quality isn't bad at all once you get the right levels and an appropriate equalizer setting dialled in (I found it needed quite a bit of treble boost for my car). Yes, on my home hifi the iTrip's drawbacks are fairly obvious, but in the car it's fine.
      • I have a cassete adapter.. New radio doesn't have tape player..Don't have a radio one. I have been thinking about that option. I like the mp3 player because the controls are local and the mpe player has a big old display..

        The fm option does look better.

    • Re:The trouble with DRM (Score:2, Informative)

      by Whalou ( 721698 )
      DRM free is the way to go..

      I agree. However since that's not likely to happen anytime time soon, possible solutions are to not burn CDs but use the iPod itself to play the songs using:
    • I dunno. Many newer car mp3/cd players support WMA. I'm not sure if that includes DRMed WMA files from online music stores. My first generation Pioneer MP3/CD player (7400) doesn't support them, so I've never tried.

      But also, Alpine makes an iPod adapter for their decks that let you control the iPod using the deck controls and stash the iPod in the glovebox, similar to the system BMW has be touting. Most newer Alpine decks support mp3 cds too, so you get the best of both worlds.

  • Based on the pictures in the article (Score:5, Funny)

    by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @09:45AM (#10812732) Homepage Journal
    I think a much more interesting matchup would be Bono versus Queen Latifa in a steel cage deathmatch. I wonder what the Vegas odds would be on that fight?

  • These programs certainly epitomize these guys.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by overbyj ( 696078 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @09:47AM (#10812739)
    Just the very nature of the programs are the technological embodiment of Jobs and Gates.

    iTunes: Steve Jobs is overall a very straightforward guy who values simplicity over all else. Things should just work without a lot of hassle. We can argue all day if iTunes is the best jukebox or not but at least it represents what Jobs wants out of software. Something that does the job well without a whole lot of fuss.

    Windows Media Player: Gates has always played catch-up to Steve Jobs. You know deep down he is envious of Jobs. Gates seems like that kid at school who didn't fit in but tried really, really hard by trying to impress everybody with his gadgets and his knowledge. But overall nobody cares.

    Gates wants to desperately wave his hand and say "This IS the media player you are looking for! Why, you ask. One, because I said so! Two, because it does everything you could ever want on a computer. It plays music, movies, it slices, it dices, it makes mounds of juliene potatoes. And three, because I said so bitch! (apologies to Rick James)"

    It just always comes across that Gates introduces stuff to try impress people by throwing a lot of stuff into products. Unfortunately, more is not necessarily better. Keep trying Bill.
    • i agree with your sentiment. the problem with microsoft is that they are playing catch up. so what happens is, they look at competitor's products and basically figure that by taking what others have and putting in pretty colors/more functions/more options, their product becomes superior.

      such isn't so. there's something called overall design philosophy. some times, simpler is better. adding functions for the sake of adding them distracts them from the original design and makes the product worse, even thoug

  • Nice going Microsoft... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Darren Winsper ( 136155 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @09:50AM (#10812752)
    Now, when I think MSN music store, I'll think "annoying, loud-mouth fat bird."

  • Good quick read ariticle (Score:5, Insightful)

    by amichalo ( 132545 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @10:01AM (#10812792)
    If you didn't RTFA, please do so. It's worth it.

    I found many quotes interesting including this:

    Mr. Jobs rejects the comparison between the music players and computers. The Macintosh had an uphill battle, Apple says, because so many corporate customers already had applications based on Microsoft's operating system that they didn't want to abandon. By contrast, Apple's iTunes Music Store sells pretty much the same songs that the others do, but they cannot be moved onto non-Apple portable devices.

    This is the glory of the iPod/iTunes combo.

    Basic marketing speaks of product differentiation and competitive advantage as keys to sales growth. In all the on-line music stores, the differentiations are:
    (1) price for which there is either a .99/9.99 model or the subscription ideas which (some) people either love or (mostly) hate
    (2) catalog which is by and large the same (at least for mainstream current music the labels want to sell) with some larger stores securing exclusives and international market access.
    (3) format of encoding which directly dictates which devices the store works with.

    Apple is so damn smart because they set (1) so low there is no margin in it for companies that just sell music only to compete, (2) is so big and robust that at best a competitor has the same catalog and at worst, a smaller one, and (3) locks all the Windows Media Format people into a "push" for product differentiation. This forces them to look at (1) or (2) and since their small market share will prevent (2) from getting exclusives that really means (1) is the only way to go. But as mentioned before, margins are too darn low so no matter how you slice it, they can't compete on price alone.

    Which brings us back to that quote by Jobs above. If you start buying from iTMS, which 70% of the market has, it costs MORE to switch because you have comitted yourself to (3), the format, and you have to giveup all your music, and all those 0.99 that added up, to move.

    Brilliant he is, just brilliant.

    • Re:Good quick read ariticle (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      good reasoning, but there are two facts that bring your argument down.

      a) your argument of continued success is predicated on the continued dominance of ipod sales over other digital audio players. indeed, ipod sales and NOT music track sales are where apple makes its profits in this whole venture. however, pricing pressure WILL do the ipod in. it is only a matter of WHEN everyone notices that other players cost less, have more capacity, and have more battery life. this is the wal-mart model, and it WIL
      • a) iTMS sales are boosted by iPods success and iPod sales are boosted by iTMS. It works both ways. And the "iPod can't compete with cheaper players" argument is dead in the water. People have been saying that for a couple of years, and as these new players have come out, iPod has continued to GAIN marketshare. It's not that people haven't noticed that there are cheaper iPods out there, it's that you haven't realised why people want an iPod and not a cheap MP3 player.

        b) It certainly started out that the

  • Why Queen Latifah? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Writer ( 746272 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @10:03AM (#10812807)
    A U2 iPod containing all the music the band has ever produced is a great idea, because it's like releasing an album, but using a much more advanced media storage medium. But what's the point of having Queen Latifah at the Microsoft launch?

  • The key to Apple's success - lately (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lysol ( 11150 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @10:43AM (#10812979)
    As much as u may deny the Jobs mind-warp marketing slogans, he is dead on the money when he says (compared to the rest of the market) they make "insanely great" products. And what makes them great is not just the hardware design, but software design.

    For years and years, years back, I enjoyed the x86 cuz of the way the Mac hid everything. If you wanted to upgrade, well, good luck with the OS and the parts were an arm and a leg. But that was then. Now, it's all about portability for me and that only means one thing: a laptop. For the past 4 years the laptop has been king with me and thusly, since I usually get them maxed out, there is no upgrades. Coupled with an OS that, while not perfect and sometimes a bit more sluggish than Linux, I have a machine that just runs. I do my development exclusively on that and it goes with me everywhere. My 1st gen iPod still works great too (when does 1st gen anything work anymore???). True, many people have had probs with the battery, but I still have the stock everything on it and it's still very useful. Much more so than my previous MD players. As for Apple'ss DRM, it's easily circumvented and Apple's service of 'get out of my face and gimmie my song' does just that. Period.

    In a world where it seems the only way for corps to go is to try to own everything (which is not sustainable in the long run, but of course, corps are never really concerned with the long run), Apple was marginalized (somewhat) and forced to do things differently than the Dells and M$s of the world - of which there are only a few now.

    Look back at the last 5 or so years and you'll see the PC industry's knee-jerk reaction to quite a bit of Apple 'innovations' (I think that term is pretty silly and over used, but whatever):

    - 17" laptops
    - Wi-fi for the home/soho (and recently, AirTunes)
    - Lcd desktop displays
    - dvd-burners on desktop as well as laptop
    - iMac colored cases (yes, pc manufacturers tried to jump on this)
    - iPod
    - iTunes
    - Encrypted home dir on the fly (heh!)
    - Rendezvous
    - Firewire
    - Gigabit ethernet in laptops
    - backlit laptop kbds & screens that adjust to room brightness automatically

    Now when has any of the above come out of M$ or Dell or Hp/Compaq?

    Like so many other aspects of life, I feel that the diluted, lesser quality - not in terms of design or manufacturing, but in terms also of idea conception - cannot be sustained at critical mass levels. So you get a Dell plastic laptop that is 'good enough' but feels like, well, the cheap plastic it is. Or you get a M$ XP OS riddled with security holes throught the core of the OS, but has the widest appeal and ubiquity.

    Big organizations are a slow moving giant. They like to put on a pretty face to attract cutting-edge talent, but in the end, they pound that talent into the ground and the result is sorta like the Apple 1984 commerical. Sure, there are definitely smart and creative people at big companies, but I have to say most of the creative people I've met and worked with don't survive long in the corporate environment. And most of the time the creative folks take a back seat to the suits. I say this cuz when you look at the Queen Latifa & Billy G pic, you can just see that moment where she rattles off somethin, throws in a little slang, and then Billy pops in afterword with some canned Windows-media-can-do-everything-u-want-and-more-in -your-cab-and-home remark (chuckle from the audience). The suit. Jobs, on the other hand, while I don't think he's some perfect guy, has much more 'entertainment finesse' than Bill or Ballmer. When you have these fundamental elements of getting it at the highest levels of an org, then it makes it much easier to those lower creative types on the pole to gel with those above. Why? Cuz like minds think alike.

    So, when you take all of Apple's successes over the past we can say they've been possible because some creative and smart people had some wiggle room to take c

  • When the iPod and iTMS might fail (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zpok ( 604055 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @10:47AM (#10812994) Homepage
    If for instance we see the emergence of speciality shops, like everything Jazz, everything Classical, stuff like that, if the collection is not matched by iTMS and if the format sold is WMA.

    Then I could imagine being pissed off by using an iPod. Now we have like ten shops selling the same stuff, and the Apple store is both the biggest and the nicest one around.

    At the moment I'd be pissed off by using anything but iPod.

    Disclaimer: I don't use any mp3 player, I do use iTunes, it's really nice in everything it does, imo. Which incidentally makes it an almost 100% certainty that if I buy an mp3 player, it'll be an iPod.

  • Monopily activity? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nordicfrost ( 118437 ) * on Sunday November 14, 2004 @10:55AM (#10813030)
    "Microsoft made it worth our while to get them into our box," said Hugh Cooney, the president of Rio, a unit of D&M Holdings of Japan. Rio had been using software from RealNetworks. "They bring a whole suite of service to us, marketing, help with testing and engineering support," he said.



    You know, it's not an illegal monopoly until one use said monopoly to gain in other product areas. The quote is typical "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" politics, and while Rio are happy now, I know that they have a bad feeling about this. Microsoft does not help anyone unless they think they have huge profits to gain from it. AIDS victims included.

  • Not the Same Battle. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Spencerian ( 465343 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @11:11AM (#10813091) Homepage Journal
    Gates predicts his company will dominate music as his company dominates in the operating system arena.

    But this is an entirely new battlefield, and he is making predictions based on what he has done in a separate area, one that he, as the computer wars begun, could not have foreseen at all, and can only preach of in retrospect.

    Microsoft is not in full control of what he sells--the music. Nor does Jobs. However, Apple sells music in a manner that both music companies feel exhibits some level of control to minimize easy copying and tracking of sold music as well as getting them a cut. (Having a large marketshare in selling music players that access said music store is good for business, too.) People feel more in control of what they buy in the iTunes music store.

    Microsoft and other companies have a more draconian DRM than Apple's that greatly restricts how to receive music and where it can be placed. There's also the matter of several, different, and confusing music stores that all use different music players and, as a result, lead to a confusing buying purchase. Place Windows at the center of this morass of players and stores and you have Too Many Cooks Looking for Profit, Inc.

    Gates, like Jobs, knows what has happened in the past. But Jobs learns from his lessons and has shown a certain business shrewness of late that Gates and others have yet to truly match today. It's this fact, and not old computer history, that will determine which is the stronger businessman of tomorrow. Want some prediction? Look at Apple's stock price over the last 3 years and compare it to the same earning trend to Microsoft. Or Dell. Or HP. Or Adobe. Or Oracle. Or IBM.

    I feel that Gates in the past was in the right place, pulling the right strings at the right time. Jobs, historically, has been in the right place at the right time while creating ideas or greatly tweaking old ones to generate a new product at a time when no one else was thinking of such things.

  • I wrote an open letter to Steve Jobs: Movie Store (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MarkWatson ( 189759 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @11:22AM (#10813142) Homepage
    On my blog the other day, I wrote an open letter to Steve Jobs asking for an online movie rental store that:
    • Would works with Macs!
    • Would have DRM that allows watching a downloaded movie for a whole week
    • Would support two pricing structures: 99 cents for a low resolution movie (perhaps 450x250 pixels) and $2.50 for a higher resolution movie (perhaps 800x500 pixels). Support full screen mode with interpolation.
    I really enjoy Apple's music store. The current online movie rental (via download with DRM) stores look fairly lame - I bet that Apple could create someting that I would enjoy using.

    -Mark

    • One more thing:

      I think that there could be a lot of variability in pricing for download with DRM movies: obviously new releases would cost more and may not be available for a while in a higher resolution. Perhaps deals could be made for much lower costs for older movies (like Turner Classics).

      Sometimes old movies come up in conversation and it would be great to have an online library of 10s of thousands of movies.

      My older brother owns about 1200 movie DVDs (to keep this anonymous I won't mention Ron's na
      • Until a sizeable minority or perhaps majority of households have BROAD broadband -- in the neighborhood of 1+MB/sec -- I don't see this idea happening. Until there is an easy way of transferring that movie to the TV, where someone might actually want to watch said movie, I don't see it happening.

        Besides, cable companies are already moving into this market with video on demand. I think it's going to be at least two years before something like the iMovie video store becomes even feasible.

  • proprietary? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 14, 2004 @11:49AM (#10813255)
    Is anyone else annoyed that the NYTimes lets the Dell guy get away with calling it a battle against proprietary software. Let's face it, both Apple and Microsofts DRM is proprietary.

  • iPod/iTunes will stay in the lead for a while. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MtViewGuy ( 197597 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @11:51AM (#10813260)
    For a number of reasons:

    1. Apple got there first and successfully staked out the market for such a device on both the hardware and software level.

    2. The iPod is a technically superior device with excellent user controls and the ability to have no loss of sound quality when manipulating the controls on the iPod.

    3. Apple smartly knew that if they really wanted market share for the iPod they have to be Windows compatible, hence the fact newer iPods have USB 2.0 connections in addition to IEEE-1394 connections.

    Mind you, I think Apple should seriously consider developing future-generation iPods with user-changeable batteries and possibly an AM/FM tuner.

  • I'm sorry, but there's no battle (Score:3, Insightful)

    by melted ( 227442 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @01:58PM (#10813893) Homepage
    Steve Jobs can wipe the floor with Gates if he wants to. It's not even funny to compare them. If Apple had half the money Microsoft has, they would kick MS out of the market easily.

  • The difference between Apple and Microsoft... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wvitXpert ( 769356 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @03:15PM (#10814268)
    Apple and Microsoft seem to have two distinct stratagies. Microsoft uses thier brute force to buy competitors out, or force them out of buisness. Apple relies more on making inovative products. Of course there are exeptions on both sides. But personally I think that Apple's approach is better for the consumer, and better morally (if there is such a thing in modern buisness).

  • What can be read between the lines in this piece (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zhe Mappel ( 607548 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @03:51PM (#10814499)
    It's a fairly good article, with the real goods to be found on page 3 where Microsoft's strategy is outlined: "As the underdog in audio technology, Microsoft has marshaled its formidable resources to get others behind its standard."

    Translation: pay off every bastard and his brother until you have made the hardware and distribution ends of the music business your vassals.

    The president of Rio explains how the hardware sector is being colonized: "Microsoft made it worth our while to get them into our box...They bring a whole suite of service to us, marketing, help with testing and engineering support."

    And at the distribution end, there is more bliss: "I never would have believed I would say this, but Microsoft has been easy to work with," said Ted Cohen, a senior vice president at EMI Recorded Music.

    That stuff will scare Apple, which has had to cajole and bug the music biz to get what it wants. Because this is the key: the battle between Microsoft and Apple won't be fought at the consumer level--that's merely where the proles await the outcome. The real battle is being fought by the Microsoft treasury as it gradually puts everyone on the payroll. As with so much else to which it has applied its monopoly power and wealth, Microsoft will buy this market, too. Once it has blocked and barred and obfuscated and outspent Apple, the good free market ideologues will be along to lecture us again on how consumer "choice" has tamed yet another frontier.

    • Re:What can be read between the lines in this piec (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And at the distribution end, there is more bliss: "I never would have believed I would say this, but Microsoft has been easy to work with," said Ted Cohen, a senior vice president at EMI Recorded Music.

      Big surprise, the record company guys are ignorant and/or blinded by greed. Microsoft is always nice and easy to work with, until they have what they need from you. Then they yank down your pants and bend you over.

      The list of companies Microsoft has "partnered" with and then screwed is a long one. Expect m

  • Purchase Model vs. Subscription Model (Score:4, Interesting)

    by calstraycat ( 320736 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @04:10PM (#10814642)
    I think Apple got it right with iTunes when they decided against the subscription model. I think people do want to own their media rather than pay a monthly fee for access to media.

    It is the content-owning corporations and distributers with no hardware to sell who would love to see the subscription model succeed, not the consumers.

    The reason is simple: the subscription model is the holy grail for corporations because it affords them a predictable, guaranteed revenue stream. In business, you can't beat that model.

    It is the way cable television is sold. Given that I watch little television, I would prefer to pay only for the programs I watch. But, I'm not given that choice. I have to sign up for a monthly subscription for a ton of channels I never watch.

    So, I hope that long term Apple is right and Microsoft is wrong regarding subscription services. When they begin to distribute movies on line, I would rather see an iTunes-like model as rather than another another monthly bill. Some months I buy music, some months I don't. Ditto for movies. On-line distribution should allow for this choice.

  • Not Deja Vu (Score:4, Insightful)

    by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @05:51PM (#10815367)
    Much is made of this battle between the two companies. Last time, Apple didn't see MS as a threat until too late. They focused too much on IBM. There are differenes:

    1) This time around Apple is the market leader. Apple was always behind IBM and the PC market share. 2) Apple has allies this time. It's not IBM and MS vs Apple. Its Apple and HP and the music companies vs MS and Dell and the music companies.

    On a side note, the one thing that bothered me about the article which shows how unresearched it was is how it portrays Apple as not willing to play with others when that isn't the case.

    1) For the last time, AAC is not proprietary but Fairplay is. Meaning the music you buy from iTunes may be locked, but anything a consumer rips and encodes is not locked.
    2) Windows Media formats are just as proprietary. Real player formata are also proprietary. MS and Real have no justifiable argument here. I don't see them opening their format to allow Mac/Linux owners onto their sites, yet they complain that iPods and iTunes shut them out.
    3) Almost all portable media players play MP3s.

  • So many differences (Score:4, Insightful)

    by inkswamp ( 233692 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @05:56AM (#10818551)
    I agree that the writer shouldn't have tried to draw a parallel between what happened with the Mac and what's happening with the iPod.

    First of all--and this is the most important--Apple partnered with MS back then. That's how MS did its famous reverse-engineering to steal a lot of the Mac "look and feel" (which Apple hadn't protected in any substantial way--i.e., patents, etc.) There is no partnership this time around. It's quite telling to see who is begging for the partnership (MS) and who is wisely refusing it (Apple.) You don't make a deal with the devil, especially if you already did it once before.

    Second, Apple isn't just sitting around this time, hoping that the brilliance and beauty of their products will win the day. It's clear they've learned to keep pushing the boundaries. The iPod has only been around for --what?--two years now and look how many revisions and product variations Apple has produced. Look how many promotions Apple has done. Look how they've built iTunes into the best cross-platform music player and store. Look how they've partnered with Pepsi, HP and a wide range of retailers I just spotted the iPod Mini in a Costco ad. They're not treating the iPod like an exclusive island resort like they did with the Mac. It's come one, come all.

    Third, they are reshaping the culture and technology of the Mac to support the iPod (and vice-versa), music and the whole "digital lifestyle" thing. OS X, QuickTime, Core Audio, GarageBand. It's totally embedded into what they're doing. Remember that the Mac was, for a surprisingly long time during and after its conception, treated like an aberration and wasn't fully supported by Apple at first.

    Fourth, it's NOT PROPRIETARY. The iPod doesn't just play iTunes downloads. The Mac was bogged down for the first half of its existence with too many proprietary aspects.

    Fifth, incompatible software. Remember how the Mac's big "weakness" was that it wasn't DOS-compatible and later Windows-compatible? Extend the analogy. The "software" in this situation is music and the iPod is fully compatible with the rest of the world here. There is no software gap to close.

    I appreciate that the writer is trying to get a sense of the current situation, but I think comparing it to the Mac's rough history is shortsighted.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close