Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


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

Jobs' Invitation To Microsoft a Trap? 369

Posted by Zonk from the crafty-steve-jobs dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Chris Seibold over at Apple Matters, has written up an interesting analysis on Steve Jobs' suggestion that Microsoft make their own mp3 player. He argues that it is more bait than business plan, a deft move by Steve Jobs to lure Microsoft into a can't-win war. The key, according to the article, is the licensing of FairPlay." From the article: "The folks who stick with Microsoft get to fight over, roughly, twenty percent of the market. The folks that go with Apple would be aligning themselves with what has become the industry standard. The players that license FairPlay would have access to the iTunes store, backwards compatibility with the songs consumers have already purchased, and a chance to compete on a perfectly level playing field with the iPod. It doesn't take a Stanford MBA to deduce that the potential rewards of opting to use FairPlay far outstrip the rewards of going with PlaysForSure."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jobs' Invitation To Microsoft a Trap? More

Jobs' Invitation To Microsoft a Trap?

Comments Filter:

  • Immortal Words... (Score:5, Funny)

    by dsginter ( 104154 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @04:48PM (#14522355)
    In the immortal words of Bruce Cambell (Ash):

    Its a trick. Get an Axe!

  • Sorry couldn't resist. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Premo_Maggot ( 864012 ) <nessnoop@gmail.com> on Friday January 20, 2006 @04:48PM (#14522359) Homepage
    Admiral Ackbar: It's a trap!!!!

  • no DRM, thanks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by _Shorty-dammit ( 555739 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @04:48PM (#14522364)
    or a consumer could just stick with their own music sources that require no DRM at all. That's what I'll be doing, no thanks Apple/MS/anyone else.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @04:50PM (#14522373)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • well, it'd have to be a colour-screen unit (Score:3, Funny)

    by nowhere.elysium ( 924845 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @04:50PM (#14522377)
    otherwise, how would it BSOD?

  • Anti-Trust (Score:5, Interesting)

    by oostevo ( 736441 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @04:51PM (#14522388) Homepage
    I'm not up on my Antitrust/competiton laws at all, so this is more a question than a comment.

    From the article:
    "Jobs reasons that since iTunes and the iPod use the vertical integration model that Microsoft could use the same tactic to finally relegate the iPod to the technical trash bin. In theory, the system would work as follows: Microsoft would bundle a music playing program with every PC that, of course, pointed to an iTunes like music store. The model would be completed when people buy a Microsoft produced digital audio player. Consumers, being the lazy slugs they are, would take the path of least resistance. Inevitably, iPod marginalization would ensue."

    Did Microsoft get in trouble for this sort of anti-competitive bundling before? If so, are they really stupid enough to try it again on such a large scale?

    • Re:Anti-Trust (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20, 2006 @04:53PM (#14522410)
      They got in "trouble," but its quite likely that the benefits of doing this and killing the iPod would far outweigh any consequences.
    • Sorry, I misquoted. That should be:

      "[Jobs] reasons that since iTunes and the iPod ..."

      Just for the sake of accuracy ...

    • Re:Anti-Trust (Score:5, Informative)

      by jacksonj04 ( 800021 ) <nick@nickjackson.me> on Friday January 20, 2006 @05:28PM (#14522711) Homepage
      It does. WPM 10 has native music store support, backed with PlaysForSure and the Janus DRM system.

      Luckily, the interface seems like it was designed by monkeys on crack and nobody in their right mind wants to use it.
    • They got a slap on the wrist and a stern warning not to do it again. They didn't do anything to change their practices, and continued with business as usual.

      A few million in legal fees is chump change for Microsoft, and they have no reason to believe any future administration will attempt to crack down on them again. Even if someone did try to crack down on them, a new administration would likely be in office long before the case came to a conclusion.

      Even the last anti trust scandal took years to wind it'

  • itunes-killer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dirvish ( 574948 ) <dirvish&foundnews,com> on Friday January 20, 2006 @04:52PM (#14522395) Homepage Journal
    M$ should continue to focus on software. Maybe an itunes-killer; let everyone else worry about an ipod-killer. There is still money in selling music.

  • Words... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TWX ( 665546 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @04:52PM (#14522397)
    For some reason, FairPlay and PlaysForSure both remind me of products in dystopian science fiction novels by the likes of William Gibson and Neal Stephenson...

    I guess that the truth is stranger than fiction.

    • Re:Words... (Score:5, Funny)

      by BearRanger ( 945122 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @05:11PM (#14522557)
      DoublePlusUngood...

    • Re:Words... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Daniel_Staal ( 609844 ) <DStaal@usa.net> on Friday January 20, 2006 @05:11PM (#14522568)
      To me, they are more reminiscent of Orwellian DoubleSpeak.

    • Re:Words... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by podperson ( 592944 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @05:52PM (#14522901) Homepage
      FairPlay -- you can burn up to 10 CDs containing the files without changing the track setup (but assuming you permute or modify the tracklist you can burn as many as you like); you can authorize up to three different computers to play the track simultaneously; you can copy and backup the files as you like; you own the files...

      OK -- that sounds fair to me.

      PlaysForSure -- doesn't play AT ALL on the most popular music player on the market.

      Now, that sounds Orwellian to me.

      • Re:Words... (Score:3, Informative)

        by MojoStan ( 776183 )

        FairPlay -- you can burn up to 10 CDs containing the files without changing the track setup

        MSN Music [msn.com] (using PlaysForSure) -- you can burn [msn.com] up to 7 CDs [msn.com] without changing the track setup

        you can authorize up to three different computers to play the track simultaneously

        Others have pointed out it's actually five. MSN Music also allows five authorized computers [msn.com].

        you can copy and backup the files as you like; you own the files...

        And this is different from MSN Music - how? The point of this reply is that

    • It seems to me that the name PlaysForSure is an attempt to apply the old Windows monopolist playbook to a field where they don't have a monopoly. To say that a song 'plays for sure' on a particular box is to say everyone has this kind of box, so you know the software to play the song is there.

      Unfortunately for Microsoft, everyone does *not* have this kind of box, and PlaysForSure files won't play on the boxes most people have. It's a complete sham.

      We're not talking about playing WMA's on your desktop comp

  • FairPlay Licensing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tibor the Hun ( 143056 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @04:53PM (#14522403)
    Does Apple even have any plans on licensing FairPlay, or is this another blogger speculating about the mighty Apple?

    • Re:FairPlay Licensing? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by drhamad ( 868567 )
      Yeah, this is exactly what I was going to post - since when has Apple said anything about licensing FairPlay? While I think they should at least license it for music stores at least - they don't make much on iTMS anyway, and having more stores out there selling music for iPod's would only increase the reasons to buy an iPod, they haven't said anything, as far as I know. And they certainly haven't showed any interest in giving up their hardware monopoly in favor of licensing.
    • That's really the billion-dollar question. In fact, Microsoft would probably be willing to produce a player destined for failure, if the result was to force the opening up of FairPlay. I haven't seen anything, though, that says that Apple is even considering this.

    • Re:FairPlay Licensing? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by timster ( 32400 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @05:10PM (#14522550)
      There is no reason whatsoever to license FairPlay, but the reason for this is not obvious.

      The truth is that there cannot be meaningful competition in the field of online RIAA music stores because all the music comes from the same handful of sources. There is no way for the different stores to have a meaningfully different collection or meaningfully different price structure. Apple could license FairPlay as Microsoft licenses PlaysForSure, but that merely obscures the fact that the music industry is still in control of the entire process.

      Given a lack of competition in the music industry, Apple opening up the iTMS would not actually create more customer choice; rather, it reduces Apple's leverage on the industry and we can assume that the music industry will keep the extra power for itself. Without control over the iPod, Apple has nothing and the music industry will force everyone toward things like subscription services, whole-album downloads, and probably higher prices.

      • Re:FairPlay Licensing? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by radish ( 98371 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @05:30PM (#14522735) Homepage
        There is no reason whatsoever to license FairPlay

        Of course there's a reason to license FairPlay - actually quite a few.

        Firstly there's allowing your customers to play the music they purchase from you on the device of their choice, whether a competitor to one of your own or one in a market you don't support - for example a network media player (e.g. Squeezebox or Sonos) or a car-based player (e.g. Phatbox). Secondly there's bringing new customers to your music store by attracting those who, for whatever reason, don't choose to buy your players (say goodbye to Rhapsody, Napster, et al). I'm sure there are more I can't think of right now (income from licensing fees? Could be quite substantial in itself).

        However, of course, these are not good reasons (well, not good for Apple's accountants) because as we all know iTMS (and therefore FairPlay) exists for one reason and one reason alone - to sell iPods. Anything which dilutes the iTMS/iPod coupling is bad for Apple, hence they will never license FairPlay. Don't kid yourself that Apple are keeping FairPlay locked up for your benefit, they're a corporation just like any other - their only driver is the bottom line.
        • I own an iPod (3G, starting to get a bit long in the tooth now). I bought some music from iTMS, and the DRM didn't affect me. Then I got a new (Nokia) 'phone which plays AACs and has an RS-MMC slot. I can play all of my music on my iPod, but sometimes I only take my 'phone with me, and then I can only play the music that I ripped from CD (until [J]Hymn works again, at least). I therefore don't buy any more music from iTMS.

          I wonder how many consumers will find themselves in my position. Many, I suspe

        • Anything which dilutes the iTMS/iPod coupling is bad for Apple, hence they will never license FairPlay. Don't kid yourself that Apple are keeping FairPlay locked up for your benefit, they're a corporation just like any other - their only driver is the bottom line.

          iTMS/iPod is Apple's Office/Windows. The perfect Lock-in. I don't see them giving that up without license fees so high that the offer would be meaningless. Or a court order, but that's highly unlikely (at least the next few years, never say never

    • They would end up screwing themselves. I think the only reason Jobs would like to see Gates build an MP3 player is in hopes of getting a cross licensing deal on DRM.

      Here is what happens if fairplay gets licensed:

      Significant marketing advantage for all iPods competitors. They can play Fairplay and Playforsure.

      That would place apple in the unenviable position of having to get a Playforsure license from Microsoft for all its iPods to negate that advantage.

      Before Fairplay licensing: Ipod competetive advantage,
    • I think the idea is that, if M$ entered the space, Apple would license FairPlay to undermine M$'s efforts, thus flooding the market with cheap devices but even more firmly establishing the huge revenue stream that is iTunes. If that happened, M$ could license FairPlay (Apple might as well, since there will be no shortage of companies to churn out the devices M$ would put on the market). Other companies would be willing to sell well below Apple's margins and that would cut into revenue as Apple lowers pric

    • If they have, it's a remarkable backpedal. Real tried to license it from them a while back, and were told 'no'. They developed Harmony, which stripped FairPlay encryption and substituted it for Real's own, but only after their attempts to license FairPlay legally had failed.

      Personally, I think it's shite. Apple likes its vertical monopoly, and has absolutely nothing to gain by licensing FairPlay.

  • HA HA! See, we can play Monopolsoft too! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Cyclops ( 1852 ) <rms@140[ ]rg ['7.o' in gap]> on Friday January 20, 2006 @04:55PM (#14522420) Homepage
    This looks more like Apple leveraging on their near monopoly on digital audio players in order to bring their competitors down on their knees.

    You know... like Microsoft leveraging on their near monopoly to force down your throat Internet Explorer, MSN, Media Player, Anti-vírus, personal accounting, etc...

    Even though it's a sweet irony, it's just as bad. By the way, I know very few in Portugal who have an iPod versus other brands, is this monopoly only in the USA?

    • Re:HA HA! See, we can play Monopolsoft too! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kannibal_klown ( 531544 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @05:17PM (#14522615)
      I wouldn't call any of their products monopolies here. They're just currently "hip".

      Apple does not have a near-monopoly on the mp3 player market. There are tons of mp3 players out there that sell well. Unfortunately, no company has gone the extra mile to try to set up an online store that integrates so well. iRiver does pretty well and makes sweet mp3 players. There are a bunch of other major brands and a great many cheap mp3 players available. The iPod is just very successful.

      iTunes isn't the only business in town, it's just apparently the most successful. This is partly due to its seemless integration with iPod and the iTunes. A killer combination.

      I know a bunch of people with iPods, but I also know a bunch of people that have various other brands. Personally, I have a small flash-based player made by iRiver, and before that I had a Rio Karma.
      • iTunes isn't the only business in town, it's just apparently the most successful.

        The same point could be made about Windows. It was never the only business in town. Ever.

        I really am beginning to think that MS was never a monopoly. Are they a monopoly now? The government didn't exactly break them up.. they should still be a monopoly if they ever were one. Is OSX not a viable competitor to Windows?
      • i don't think the iPod would exist if somebody else made a half decent music player that integrated well with the Mac OS. there were (and are) other brands that support drag and drop on the Mac OS, but none seemed to really work as cleanly. same can be said for the iPod's interface. the iPod was far from the first MP3 player, but they simplified it, and more importantly, let Mac users play along. remember the iPod was a hit before the MS Windows support was anywhere near what it is today.

        the same thinking c
    • true.
      but at the same time, apples level of evil exploitation of its quasi monopoly is far less than M$'s.
      I prefer the massive corporation who's going to fuck me more gently.

    • Re:HA HA! See, we can play Monopolsoft too! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Overly Critical Guy ( 663429 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @06:47PM (#14523315)
      How is one company's CEO suggesting another company can't win unless they adopt their approach a "bad" thing? What is monopolistic about it? In fact, isn't suggesting someone else offer a product kinda, well, anti-monopolistic?

      You can freely buy a competing MP3 player. If Apple was, say, strong-arming retail stores into only selling iPods the way Microsoft forced Windows onto OEMs, THEN get back to me with the "evil monopoly" talk. Until then, whatevah.

  • Uh oh (Score:5, Funny)

    by Andrewkov ( 140579 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @04:55PM (#14522424)
    Uh oh, the chairs will be flying at Microsoft over this..
  • Whatever happened to the days of throwing a hammer at big blue (the "80%" market share at the time) or "thinking different"? Seems that Jobs is quick to flip when he finds himself in a position of power instead of the small-time player (pun not intended).

    To the consumer, the underlying problem is still there. Whether it's iDRM or M$DRM, I still have to jump through hoops to get anything approaching fair use out of the music I buy.
    • I guess that's the problem with Capitalism isn't it? The almighty dollar is more important than ethics when you are a publicly traded company. Of course, the alternatives are worse.

      I do think that Microsoft's monopoly was a good thing for a while though. Before Win95, developers had too many platforms to support. Thank Jebus for Linux though, now all that's needed is some better standards between the distros.
    • Apple/iTunes/iPod -- call it what you will. It's DRM, and Apple is just the beginning. Once the average Joe thinks it's okay to give up his rights for his precious iPod, the RIAA wins.

  • Microsoft iPod killer? (Score:5, Funny)

    by porky_pig_jr ( 129948 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @04:56PM (#14522445)
    but wouldn't Ballmer doing gorilla dance while stomping on iPod make him a 'Microsoft iPod killer'?
  • If you play mp3's, that should be good enough. The rest is just a bunch of confusion.

  • Shh! (Score:2, Funny)

    by 42Penguins ( 861511 )
    Be vewy vewy quiet... I'm hunting Micwosowfts!

    But would Jobs really expect to trick MS into the losing battle of creating their own MP3 player? Of course not! He's secretly hinting that they...erm... buy the other companies making them!
    That would sound a little bit more like the MS I know and love.
    Mark my words... if your favorite MP3 player is one other than the iPod, and MS buys the company, I told you so!
  • ...when deciding to write software for Windows or Mac OS...

    Oh wait, that's clever...

  • Sounds Familiar (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ThinkFr33ly ( 902481 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @05:00PM (#14522474)
    You mean like how developer developers are better off targeting the dominant platform to maximize the return on their development effort by creating software for the largest audience possible with the least work possible?
  • "It doesn't take a Stanford MBA to deduce that the potential rewards of opting to use FairPlay far outstrip the rewards of going with PlaysForSure"

    That assumes that FairPlay continues to be the standard. Microsoft could do something really radical such as embrace a DRM model that is more consumer friendly than FairPlay while keeping the record companies happy. If that happens, it doesn't matter how much mindshare Apple has. They're screwed and they're the ones who will be throwing chairs.
    • I'd be tempted to get a MS-licensed audio player since it'll work with Yahoo Music Unlimited, so long as i plug it into my pc every 30 days and license my subscription.

      As long as Yahoo music is $5/month for unlimted streaming and copying to PlaysForSure devices then i really cant see me going back to itms.

      Apple still appear to be missing an "unlimited" option, which will probably hurt them in the long term.

  • Let's Clear Somethings Up (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mpapet ( 761907 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @05:01PM (#14522482) Homepage
    Call me crazy, but I read a bunch of false assumptions into the summary.

    1. "make their own player" e.g. hardware
    No, they wouldn't make their own. They would license an OEM product at relatively little cost to Microsoft. The DRM/WMP (big-money investment) is done, the actual "player" is commodity hardware. Connecting it to WMP can't be so much work.

    2. "make their own player" e.g. market strategy
    I don't follow it so closely but I imagine there are quite a few Microsoft MP3 DRM licensees. That doesn't stop Microsoft from actually marketing a player, but I have a feeling they are trying to out-commoditize Apple. Commoditizing is what Microsoft knows how to do.

    3. Apple's "Fair Play"
    Is it available to anyone who wants to make an mp3 player? Last time I checked HP got the whole package from Apple. Apple's style tends to include everything, not just the DRM part. Different platforms is definitely a different case (cell phones) but for an "mp3 player" I doubt Apple is dying to play the compete against fellow licensees who offer their device at a lower price game. It's *never* worked for them.

    I'm sure Microsoft will try to compete more effectively with Apple, as someone with some OEM experience, I don't see it happening quite the way the article tries to make it seem.
  • Apple isn't goingto open FairPlay anytime soon. It's not in Apple's best intrest. Apple doesn't give a rat's behind about the iTunes music store on it's own. They (currently) have little motivation to license fairplay, and the ability to use itunes to other non-apple mp3 players.

    iTunes music store is what helps support and drive iPod sales. That's it's current purpose, and it's working rather well.

    I can foresee a time when apple may license fairplay, but I think that's a while off. The introduction of

  • Apple will lose if not careful (Score:3, Funny)

    by geekee ( 591277 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @05:05PM (#14522515)
    Eerybody will have an mp3 player built into their cell phone in a dfew years and nobody will need an iPod. So unless Apple starts getting into the cell phone business they will lose to Motorola, Nokia, etc.
    • I have an iPod. I have a Nokia mobile 'phone. There are two formats that both will play:
      1. Unencumbered MP3.
      2. Unencumbered AAC.

      Oddly enough, there is no major music store offering me music in either of these formats. I don't think people who own both devices is a particularly small market segment; iPods are currently the most popular music players, and I doubt many people own an iPod and not a mobile 'phone. Currently, I can buy music on CD and rip it into one of these formats, but the RIAA is trying to

    • No-one needs an iPod now. It's wanting one. It's the fashion.
      There's MP3-player phones now and the iPod still sells like cold beer on a hot day - why? Marketing. Hype. Fashion.

      If Apple can keep that up, they can keep up the iPod sales for years provided they keep coming out with new ideas to put on them so people will keep buying the latest and greatest - for every person who's happy with their Gen-1 original iPod there'll be 2 more who are going to be shelling out £100-£250 every 18 months o
      • There's MP3-player phones now and the iPod still sells like cold beer on a hot day - why?

        Maybe because there's sufficient market share of people (like me) who want their phone to be JUST A FSCKING PHONE! I don't want it to be a camera, I don't want it to be an MP3 player, I don't want it to be a GPS, just a goddam phone.

    • You (and everyone else I've read) missed one big thing that the iPod has on all of the other digital music players - accessories.

      I'm not talking about the speakers, cases, and fm transmitters. I'm talking about Audi, BMW, and Ferrari. I'm also talking about Pioneer, Monster, Alpine, and Kenwood.

      These companies know where the market is and where it is moving. While GM and Ford are not on the list that Apple haves of iPod-compatible cars, I would not expect them to wait much longer. The fact that your _ca

    • Been there, done that. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by argent ( 18001 )
      My experience with integrated devices is this: If putting an MP3 player in your cellphone works for you, you can save money by just getting an MP3 player, because you sure as hell aren't making any calls on the cellphone.

      It's the batteries, stupid.

      Cellphones already push the limits of battery life as it is. Add a music player that drains the battery continuously while it's in use, and you end up with a cellphone that's dead when you need to use it.

      Been there, done that, got the spare battery that's ALSO dea

  • A psych out attempt? :P (Score:5, Funny)

    by fortinbras47 ( 457756 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @05:08PM (#14522532)
    Maybe Jobs wants Microsoft to think its a trap because it's actually a good idea!

    It reminds me of the movie The Princess Bride...

    Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

  • 20% of what market? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mp3phish ( 747341 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @05:12PM (#14522573)
    20% of the MUSIC BUYING market? I highly doubt that PlaysForSure is 20% of the music market. I hardly belive that iTunes even makes a 20% dent in the music buying market.

    The facts are that iTunes might be 80% of the online market but it doesn't matter. That is a tiny segment of the market. Most people who are buying MP3 players are ripping music from their new CD's, their old CD's, and their friend's CD's. Backwards compatible doesn't mean crap with apple. They break it every other year anyway. So will MS's DRM.

    The market doesn't have any clear winner YET for a DRM for music. Until it does it is pretty lame of anybody to say that FairPlay is the standard (it isn't. not even close)

    As of today, the standard and vast majority of music which is being played on mp3 players (including ipods) are DRM free ripped music from CD's. Period.

    • The facts are that iTunes might be 80% of the online market but it doesn't matter.

      Of course. Having 80% of the market you're competing in is completely insignificant.

      That is a tiny segment of the market. Most people who are buying MP3 players are ripping music from their new CD's, their old CD's, and their friend's CD's. Backwards compatible doesn't mean crap with apple. They break it every other year anyway. So will MS's DRM.

      I don't recall Apple breaking any compatibility. New songs work with old

  • Jobs was burned in the past and is not immune to that again. Obviously he is doing great things, but in a world where technology changes fast and companies fall even faster, it would be wise to shutup and focus. I do find it amusing though to see Jobs sticking it to MS though.

    http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]
  • Listening to an ipod in my one pocket. In my other pocket I have a phone with PalmOs on it. I really like the simplicity of Palm apps and Palm looked pretty good five years ago when *it* had the market sewn up. But of course today M$ owns the PDA market.

    M$ however has so much cash they can afford to wait out just about any contest, waiting for the other guys to stumble just once.
  • iTunes started April, 2003. The first iPod was released Oct, 2001. Being the first to the market helps but that's usually not enough to secure it. Apple dominates that space today and who knows what will happen in the future. Hopefully M$ stays clear of screwing up what seems to be a perfectly cool thing for Apple and I wouldn't be so quick to test M$.
    • Ah, but the iPod wasn't exactly "first to market". It's risen to dominance thanks to a combination of ease of use, functionality, appearance, and so forth; it was, and remains, a damn desirable MP3 player, and once it had risen to dominance in that market, Apple launched the iTMS to lend it even more weight - why faff about with multiple stores and players when you can do it all Apple's way much easier?

      What Microsoft and the other companies selling music online and producing players have let to achieve is

  • It doesn't take a Stanford MBA to deduce that the potential rewards of opting to use FairPlay far outstrip the rewards of going with PlaysForSure


    Gates might stand a chance then, since he dropped out:) And wasn't Balmer in Delta House along with John 'Bluto' Blutarsky? Smashing guitars & throwing chairs?


    Yeah. I'm willing to burn some karma today...

    • That's actually a hilarious mental image. BALLMER: (sits at table) See if you can guess what I am now. (stuffs mouth full of blue jello and punches cheeks together, spraying jello over the other students seated at the table) I'm a blue screen of death! Get it?

  • When selling more earns you less profit (Score:3, Informative)

    by saterdaies ( 842986 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @05:27PM (#14522704)
    One of the things that most people don't understand is that there are many times that when you sell more, your profits go down.

    To explain it in economics terms: demand for a product rises as the price falls. So, if you lower the price, you will sell more units. Let's say that you can sell 1,000 units at $100 profit per unit. Let's say that you can sell 10,000 units at $50 profit per unit. It is better to sell 10,000 units at $50 profit per unit ($500,000) than 1,000 units at $100 profit per unit ($100,000). Of course, the reverse can happen. Let's say that you can sell 1,000 units for $100 profit per unit ($100,000) or 1,500 units for $50 profit per unit ($75,000). Selling those additional units looses you money. It is desireable for the business to produce and sell fewer units.

    So, if Apple allows other devices to be more iPod-like and therefore gets revenue from more unit sales (both iPod and FairPlay units), it wouldn't necesserally increase their profits since they might have to lower the price of the iPod or loose iPod sales to sales of FairPlay devices which people are more likely to substitute and give Apple lower profit.

    It might be good for Apple. It might not. Only a very through economic analysis of Apple and the market (as well as a ton of speculation) could tell us whether it is actually a good move. Being biggest doesn't mean being most profitable.
  • Lets all sing together... "Apple is in the Hardware Business"
    • Apple's not in the hardware business, nor are they in the software business. Apple's in the business of selling Macs.

      If you can't understand at least this much, I submit that you haven't the proper attitude or aesthetic taste to understand anything else about Apple, its customers, or its market.

      • Re:Turn to page 42 of the Slashdot hymnal (Score:4, Insightful)

        by damiam ( 409504 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @09:24PM (#14524000)
        Apple makes its profit on hardware. Their primary concern is selling hardware. With the possible exception of the pro apps, which presumably make some profit on their own, the software they produce exists primarily to help them sell their hardware.

        If you can't understand at least this much, I submit that you haven't the proper attitude or aesthetic taste to understand anything else about Apple, its customers, or its market.

  • And this is why, even as an honest consumer, DRM is a major pain in the ass. I have no assurance, when I buy a song from iTunes, that I'll be able to use it on anything but an iPod and iTunes itself. What if I prefer another jukebox program? What if Apple stops selling iPods, or I want to buy another player that, in terms of technological ability, should be able to play AACs without a problem.

    What if, god forbid, I want to shop at multiple online stores, each with a different DRM technology? I need multiple

  • An Industry What ??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @06:19PM (#14523093)
    would be aligning themselves with what has become the industry standard.

    I call Bullshit.

    How is anything an industry standard when only one company sells it? Even Motorola has dropped it from their ROKR phones. Something becomes an industry standard when an entire industry adopts it, and not just because the largest current player in that market uses it.

    Even the claim in this article that MS should make their own MP3 player is bogus. By definition an MP3 player doesn't user FairPlay. It plays MP3 files. A FairPlay player uses FairPlay.

    This is just badly written all around.

  • Are you saying that a CEO of a large company suggested that his chief competitor do something that might not be in their best interst?

    I feel faint!

  • It's too soon for MS (Score:3, Funny)

    by aplusjimages ( 939458 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @06:37PM (#14523249) Journal
    MS won't make a Windows-Pod yet because it's too soon. They like to stay behind the times.

  • tempest in a tea cup. (Score:3, Informative)

    by alex_guy_CA ( 748887 ) <alex@NoSPAm.schoenfeldt.com> on Friday January 20, 2006 @07:26PM (#14523517) Homepage
    I can't believe how much attention Apple DRM gets. Lets review the complicated process that only advanced computer users have the necessary skills to perform.

    1. Burn an Audio disk.

    2. Convert disk to MP3.

    3. There is no three. Your done.

    That's Apple DRM. OK, good for them for building something that looks like DRM so they could drag the dinosaurs in the music industry kicking and screaming into the digital age. I'm sure there were a lot of meetings where the presence of Fair Play was vital to not getting tossed out on the street in front of a moving bus. But do we really have to pretend along with them that they have a real DRM? If you have ever given Apple DRM a minute of worry, you should ask for that minute back.

  • DRM is so passé (Score:3, Interesting)

    by alchemist68 ( 550641 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @08:09PM (#14523709)
    Seriously, the iTMS has served me ONE function only - to search for music I like and to preview 30 second clips for me to decide whether or not I want to buy the CD at BestBuy for $12.99.

    I admit, I am a diehard Macintosh, pro-PowerPC/anti-Intel archtecture zealot who downloads the FREE iTunes Music Store download of the week, but I will NEVER EVER purchase music online. First, with DRM, you never really own the music, wipe the license from your hard drive and you'll see what I mean - you can't play your music any/everywhere you want. Second, the quality of Apple's online downloads is pretty bad, for a audiophile. C'mon, 128-bit ACC/MP4 is what? Like no comparison to AIFF or the '--alt-preset insane' setting in 'iTunes LAME' plug-in, LAME for iTunes. With the '--alt-preset insane' setting in 'iTunes LAME' I can make the best-sounding MP3's available, and for listening through little tiny earbuds on my 4th generation 40 GB iPod, that's good enough. Forget Napster, LimeWire, and other P2P clients, hell, when and if I need to, I'll just loan-out to/borrow from a friend/associate a portable FireWire hard drive for copying an entire MP3 library - non DRM'd music to mine and determine what I want, the rest gets deleted; MB/GB are still expensive you know. Seriously though, iTMS is great for locating music that I want to PURCHASE, and preferentially, I'd like to purchase a CD at low cost from BestBuy or somewhere else which allows me to import into MP3 format in iTunes for portability. DRM is just too messy and inconvenient. The music industry should have had an online index of ALL available music a decade ago when music was being swapped P2P via Napster/LimeWire. Now the RIAA is at the mercy of Apple (at least it's NOT Micro$soft and the rest of the remaining BORG collective).

    And, like a recent article I read on Slashdot, I do try to purchase and support the ARTISTS (not the RIAA) for the music written and appreciated.

  • Apple not "really" digital audio industry leader (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AHumbleOpinion ( 546848 ) on Friday January 20, 2006 @08:46PM (#14523860) Homepage
    ... The folks who stick with Microsoft get to fight over, roughly, twenty percent of the market. The folks that go with Apple would be aligning themselves with what has become the industry standard. The players that license FairPlay would have access to the iTunes store, backwards compatibility with the songs consumers have already purchased, and a chance to compete on a perfectly level playing field with the iPod. It doesn't take a Stanford MBA to deduce that the potential rewards of opting to use FairPlay far outstrip the rewards of going with PlaysForSure ...

    I own an iPod, I'd be perfectly happy to see Apple win. But declaring the issue already decided, that's just Apple's spin, and the wishful thinking of fans. This could turn out like Apple's mocking welcome of IBM to the personal computer business in the early 1980s.

    Apple is not "really" the industry leader for digital audio in any real sense, only in a transitory early adopter phase sense. Calm down, hang on for a few lines ... Apple enjoyed a hardware lead and an application software lead when they mocked IBM's entry into the personal computer maketplace. Apple's computer lead then, and their digital audio lean now, may be more similar than many people around here realize. Basically, digital audio is only in it's infancy, as personal computer ownership was in the early 80s. As personal computer ownership became "mainstream" Apple became marginalized. The same could happen with digital audio, the bulk of the population is still not committed to any player/format. Microsoft could, I'm not saying will - only could, be the choice for the bulk of the population for a variety of reasons. One of which is that it is not going to be portable players that decide the digital music issue, it is going to be car stereos, home stereos, etc. Whoever get's their digital media appliance in the living room is probably going to be the ultimate winner. It might be Apple, it might be Microsoft, it will be years before the issue is really decided.

    iPod's popularity may be transitory, we don't know how many owners are truly locked in by a large library of DRM'd iTunes Music Store (iTMS) purchases. Whatever people rip themselves with iTunes is not DRM'd and my understanding is that the vast bulk of digital audio is ripped, not from iTMS. Even if a person has DRM'd files that are not portable, the fact that they paid for the music lowers the barrier to their getting replacement files via file sharing, they are not really "stealing" in their own minds, they already "own" the song. It's much like people who in the napster days felt OK downloading a song they owned on vinyl or cassette rather than CD.

Slashdot Top Deals

Time is the most valuable thing a man can spend. -- Theophrastus

Close