Behind the Motorola ROKR iTunes Phone

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Wired offers (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.11/phone.html) an detailed history behind the create of the ROKR iTunes phone and the dynamics between Apple, Motorola and the cellular phone companies.

When Jobs and Ed Zander, CEO of Motorola, announced 15 months ago that the two companies were going to partner on a new phone, people imagined a hybrid of two of the coolest products in existence: Apple's iPod and Moto's RAZR. For months the new gizmo glimmered mirage-like on gadget sites - ever promised, never delivered. When it finally did show up, it bore the unmistakable hump of a committee camel.

The article describes the creation of the ROKR being at odds between the interests of Motorola, Apple and the cellular phone companies... all struggling for the larger piece of the pie.

While this was happening in the U.S., Wired reports that a new wave of music phones and services have already been in place internationally, and these services will start making their way into the U.S. Also mentioned is Apple's refusal to broadly license their copy-protection format ("Fairplay") to all comers. Motorola is the only 3rd party company that has had access to Fairplay, thus allowing their product to play purchased iTunes music.

[fowler.]

who's the second company?

[bretm]

who's the second company?

You're kidding, right? 3rd party company means other company. As in "3rd party." In other words, they're the ONLY company other than Apple that has the right to play iTunes music.

[Lynxpro]

I'd like to see Apple license FairPlay. In the longterm, it is in the Company's best interest to do so.

*License FairPlay to TiVo. Anything that's bad for Windows Media Center is ultimately good for Apple.

*Take J. Allard up on his public offer and license FairPlay for use on the Xbox360. Porting iTunes to the Xbox360 probably wouldn't be too difficult. And doing this would drive Sony into a tissy and back to the negotiation table on that co-ownership deal Jobs originally offered to Sony two years ago.

*License FairPlay to Palm. Gives a leg up to the Palm platform to spite PocketPC (statement not meant to convey keeping it off the Windows powered Treos).

*License FairPlay to the RIAA companies for inclusion on their copy protected CDs. Do this in exchange for more leeway in terms of the iTunes Music Store. The arrangement requires Edgar Bronfman to shut his mouth publically on pricing.

*Choose one or two other MP3 player companies to license FairPlay to in order to defeat any "monopoly" charges and destroy the "Plays for Sure" marketing campaign. There might be some form of trade-off that could be negotiated on with Toshiba and Samsung that might be beneficial to Apple in some other way.

[mainstreetmark]

Yeah. Not Me(apple), not You(consumer) but Them(Motorolla).

I don't think Apple EVER needs to license Fairplay. It's their creation. If they choose to make a vertically integrated product and it becomes successful, no one says they HAVE to give away their stuff.

Of course, it would ultimately be better for consumers if they could use iTMS on non-iPods, but they have no innate obligation to do so (that I know of). If the iPod is truly better than all others, then it should hold up well to an open MP3 market.

[swingerofbirch]

In theory combining the two is not a bad idea. I was walking around my campus today and most students either have a cell phone glued to their head or are listening to an iPod.

I think the direction was wrong though. They should put cell phone capabilities into an iPod...not the other way around.

[fowler.]

You're kidding, right? 3rd party company means other company. As in "3rd party." In other words, they're the ONLY company other than Apple that has the right to play iTunes music.

ha ha, maybe if I read it correctly I wouldn't have looked like an ass.

switch "only" and "the", and my question makes a little more sense.

[bigandy]

we all know it was a bad thing. we all know it was completely upstaged by the nano. and we probably all think that it's going to be introduced in the 3G razr that's being developed right now (shown to me by a friend in Vodafone, who're working closely with them)...

can't we just forget this as it's a crap subject really. who wants an iTunes phone until it's done right? let's just ignore it until someone brings up a rumour of a kick ass phone.

[sishaw]

Yeah. Not Me(apple), not You(consumer) but Them(Motorolla).

I don't think Apple EVER needs to license Fairplay. It's their creation. If they choose to make a vertically integrated product and it becomes successful, no one says they HAVE to give away their stuff.


I don't think anyone is suggesting they give it away. They could license it for a fee and subject to compliance with certain design parameters. And no, they don't "have to," of course. However, closed proprietary systems don't seem to fare well in the marketplace. I wouldn't want to see Apple AAC become the next ATRAC.

[ryanw]

I regretfully got the ROKR. The phone has been super buggy and lacks normal features I used all the time on my two year old cell phone. I used to record converstations while driving so I wouldn't have talk on the phone, drive, and write down phone numbers. Can't happen on this phone.

The other issues with it seem small, but have caused me a lot of problems.

1. Can't record conversations while talking on the phone
2. Can't see WHAT TIME IT IS while talking on the phone or in any other menu other than the main screen.
3. To this day I still can't find where to see today's 'date' on the phone. I have to look it up on my computer if I forget what today's date is.
4. The phone has crashed on me several times where I have to take the battery out (which is hard to do) to reboot it.
5. At one point the phone was screwing up where it would drop my call after 30 or so seconds of talking, and then start ringing as if someone was calling UNABLE To stop it until the guy called me back, to then get dropped 30 seconds later again ringing again... I had to take the battery out to fix it ..
6. THe ROKR can only hold 100 songs no matter how much memory is in it. Apple pisses me off with this one. It's just the straw that says F-YOU!! Seriously, why do they have to lock you out... what happened to 'think different'. Apple's slogan these days is 'Think like Apple.'.
Apple's lack of ability to theme apps or change the look/feel is very 'Think like Apple' instead of 'think different'. At least microsoft puts in the bells and wistles and lets you change them around.

[Lertie32]

Eh... I haven't been impressed with any aspect of the ROKR. It's just a fad fluff piece of technology.
:rolleyes:

I do miss Motorola phones. I'd still have my trusty StarTac if they'd kept updating the darn thing. The Vader phone never hit the mass market in any practical sense. Motorola completely left the SprintPCS marketshare.
Also - why is the ROKR only available on Singular? (if that's still the case) It seems like Verizon or Sprint would have been a better choice there.

[MacFan782040]

ha ha, maybe if I read it correctly I wouldn't have looked like an ass.

switch "only" and "the", and my question makes a little more sense.

haha i read it the exact way you did.. I was liek hmm maybe the 2nd is HP?

[morespce54]

I don't think Apple EVER needs to license Fairplay. It's their creation. If they choose to make a vertically integrated product and it becomes successful, no one says they HAVE to give away their stuff.

I don't agree on this one... because:

If the iPod is truly better than all others, then it should hold up well to an open MP3 market.

...in this world, it just can't be this way forever.

[Stella]

I look forward to the day when Apple license out Fairplay.

If they were looking to dominate the music arena more, this is a way to go:

Not everyone likes iPods, license out to other mp3 player manufacturers - and give them access to iTunes.

Give access to other cell phone manufacturers.. Apple could increase their iTunes coverage - upping the 80% they already have.

Fairplay could take over microsoft's DRM... also of course, allow music CDs to have DRM that is compatible with Apple ( ok, this may not be such a good idea, for some people!).

Apple have tried the "controlling" method before... now they have the 4% computer market share... eventually this will happen with iPod / iTunes.. unless they are proactive. Up till now their strategy has worked, but for how much longer?

iTMS / iPod won't be always dominant.

[aswitcher]

The ROKR is so cheap here I was tempted to get it, but now I am very glad I didn't. Wonder if the next iTunes phone will be out by Christmas...

[nagromme]

I think Apple might be VERY smart to widely license Fairplay. Someday.

But WHEN and IF that day comes is up to Apple to decide. They know their strategy, and opening up Fairplay too soon would also be a mistake.

[oskar]

I think Apple shouldn't license Fairplay to other companies. The whole music experience already has had one major change to allow more people to buy music from Apple. They made iPod and iTunes PC-compatible, but without licensing their music protection to third parties.

Mac + iPod + iTunes + iTMS at first was enough. And then Apple changed "Mac" to "Mac + PC".
Licensing fairplay would mean removing iPod for the chain and adding dozens of different players. I don't think Apple would want to exclude the iPod from the music experience they created.

[ijimk]

i want to see apple design their own cell phone and go with verizon, then i will be there... that rokr is sorta odd looking...

[jelloshotsrule]

ha ha, maybe if I read it correctly I wouldn't have looked like an ass.

switch "only" and "the", and my question makes a little more sense.

i read it the same way you did the first time.

[ioinc]

Yeah. Not Me(apple), not You(consumer) but Them(Motorolla).

I don't think Apple EVER needs to license Fairplay. It's their creation. If they choose to make a vertically integrated product and it becomes successful, no one says they HAVE to give away their stuff.

Of course, it would ultimately be better for consumers if they could use iTMS on non-iPods, but they have no innate obligation to do so (that I know of). If the iPod is truly better than all others, then it should hold up well to an open MP3 market.

Yeah... not licensing their OS in the early days really worked for them.
That windows thing is a fad. :rolleyes:

[hayesk]

6. THe ROKR can only hold 100 songs no matter how much memory is in it. Apple pisses me off with this one. It's just the straw that says F-YOU!! Seriously, why do they have to lock you out... what happened to 'think different'. Apple's slogan these days is 'Think like Apple.'.

Are you sure this was Apple's decision? What reason would they have for this? It's not like this would canibalize iPod sales.

[maxterpiece]

licensing fairplay brings up issues for apple because they lose control of perfect integration between iTunes and the iPod. I don't see it happening.

The whole cell phone thing is a big mess. What kind of cut does apple get, if any, from sales of the ROKR? I agree with the fact that eventually people aren't going to carry around both and ipod and a cell phone, but that's a little ways down the road. There needs to be both the technology and the innovation to put out a phone that does EVERYTHING an iPod can do, and still makes phone calls. The two need to be elegant integrated so that making a phone call on this phone is as easy as making a phone call on a regular cell phone, and playing music is as easy as playing music on an iPod.

Don't forget that there have been lots of alternatives to the iPod that offer similar or better features/price, but the iPod remained dominant because it's easy to use. Technology is fine, but until an average consumer feels that they can use a technology without tearing their hair out in frustration, the tech is not gonna sell.

[VanNess]

Apple won't license it's "fairplay" until someone comes along with an idea that adds value to the iTunes music store and doesn't compete with iPods. Until that happens, Apple has no incentive whatsoever to license it. Every other so-called music store on the net has been a miserable failure compared to iTunes, and none offer anything much different song-wise than what iTunes has. So there's no reason to essentially give fairplay away to your competitors that basically amounts to a charitable gesture.

CD DRM is another area I suspect Apple would just assume steer clear of. First of all, Apple's vision is that CDs will go the way of the dodo and the internet will become the central distribution channel for music, something that iTunes is perfectly positioned for, so far. Second, there's little to zero added value for Apple for CD sales (record companies will scorch that earth long before anyone else gets a meaningful cut) and it deviates from the central goal of iTunes, where Apple would rather you purchase your music. Obviously, iTunes isn't the lion's share of music sales today, but, say five years from now? At the rate things are going with the record companies these days, who knows...

The Wired article was interesting on two points: One was the "barbarians at the gate" description of the wireless carriers, cell-phone manufacturers and the record companies all trying to jam their hands into the consumer's pocket like it's open season on their wallet. Sure, consumer's will be absolutely delighted, lol.

Second, and somewhat more ominous, is the sad shape this country is in regarding it's internet infrastructure. With the ISP's doing nothing except trying to milk more money over existing access technologies for years, we're beginning to look more and more like the third world of the internet. That's a major reason why movie downloads aren't ready for primetime, at least not in this country. That should have sunk in with Apple's iPod video introduction, which is just pretty much a tepid, meek entry into the video business. Largely because it has to be. The infrastructure just isn't there to support anything much beyond what Apple is presently doing with video, and barely that. The way some pundits put it, to download movies all you have to do is get the studios to go along, then someone presses a magic button, and it's done. Those folks are in for a rude awakening, but they got a preview of it from Apple if they kept their eyes open.

[~Shard~]

I think the ROKR is simply a starting point, and although I'm not that impressed with it, I think it is the beginning and will pave the way for future devices which will improve on it.

[hayesk]

Yeah... not licensing their OS in the early days really worked for them.
That windows thing is a fad. :rolleyes:

It'd be rather simplistic to believe that not licensing is what made windows popular. Platform bigotry and Apple's previous pricing models contributed a great deal more to Windows' success than a lack of Mac clones.

Besides, had Apple licensed MacOS early on and went for lowest common denominator design, you probably wouldn't want to use a Mac today.

[akhomerun]

people badger apple about licensing their software/intellectual property, but the reality is that apple's experiences with licensing is bad enough to justify never licensing anything. whenever apple licenses anything, the companies they license to screw it up. the early mac clones of the 90s, the motorola rokr phone, and so many others are great examples of how apple has had such bad luck with licensing in the past that it just makes no sense to even bother.

for apple, not licensing is more profitable and, somehow, increases their quantities sold. apple is just different like that.

[manu chao]

BTW, a number of European stores are down (Germany, Switzerland, France).

who's the second company?

You.

(Apple is selling stuff. To you (among others). That is already two parties. If you buy iPod stuff from other companies, that is a third party.)

[solvs]

Yeah... not licensing their OS in the early days really worked for them.
That windows thing is a fad. :rolleyes:
That argument doesn't exactly work, as Apple was never the market leader in computers. And the reasons they didn't become more popular had a lot more to do with price and businesses. This is entertainment, and people can use them on their PCs just like they would anything else. No need to worry about not being compatible with work and everyone else, or price being much more than competitors. DaringFireball.net had a story about this, and he explained that pretty well.

I do wish they'd open it up to other devices, like Tivo, and I'm sure there will be more cell phones. But you'll probably see iPods playing WMA before you see another MP3 player using protected AAC. Can't say I blame them for that.

[Lanbrown]

Eh... I haven't been impressed with any aspect of the ROKR. It's just a fad fluff piece of technology.
:rolleyes:

I do miss Motorola phones. I'd still have my trusty StarTac if they'd kept updating the darn thing. The Vader phone never hit the mass market in any practical sense. Motorola completely left the SprintPCS marketshare.
Also - why is the ROKR only available on Singular? (if that's still the case) It seems like Verizon or Sprint would have been a better choice there.

Why Apple decided on Motorola I will never know. They bashed them every chance they got because of the G4 was not progressing at any pace. The killed the sucessor off and that forced Apple to got to IBM.

That would be because Sprint and Verizon Wireless don't offer GSM, but CDMA. There are more GSM users in the world, over 1 billion of them.

[VanNess]

I look forward to the day when Apple license out Fairplay.

If they were looking to dominate the music arena more, this is a way to go:

Not everyone likes iPods, license out to other mp3 player manufacturers - and give them access to iTunes.

Give access to other cell phone manufacturers.. Apple could increase their iTunes coverage - upping the 80% they already have.

Fairplay could take over microsoft's DRM... also of course, allow music CDs to have DRM that is compatible with Apple ( ok, this may not be such a good idea, for some people!).

This would be fine if it weren't for one little thing: Apple already sells more songs at iTunes then just about all of it's competitors combined, but iTunes still barely turns a profit. Most of the money Apple gets selling songs is handed over to the record labels. Apple could double its song downloads and it's still going to turn over most of what iTunes makes over to the record labels. It makes it's money on iPod sales, which are more or less married to the music store. Other online stores struggle to make money on subscriptions, not downloads, and don't offer anything more than Apple's iTunes. If someone comes up with a better idea than Apple has, lets see it.

Apple have tried the "controlling" method before... now they have the 4% computer market share... eventually this will happen with iPod / iTunes.. unless they are proactive. Up till now their strategy has worked, but for how much longer?

iTMS / iPod won't be always dominant.

Everyone who makes this comparison seems to forget that when Apple introduced the Mac, IBM was already far and away the dominant corporate desktop provider, which is where most desktop installations lived back then. Apple was marketing a computer "for the rest of us" with a price tag "for the senior management of us" but they were arguably too late by then. Once the IBM clones appeared, IBM somewhat unwittingly transfered the "nobody got fired for choosing IBM" golden rule over to Microsoft, and with the clones came price competition. Exit a few clone manufactures that couldn't keep up, and prices dropped considerably. When prices became low enough for some folks to consider buying their own PC, they got the cue for what to buy from the machine that sat on their desktop for 8 hours a day.

In hindsight, had Apple licensed it's OS to other hardware manufacturers, the net effect would have been Apple going out of business and right into obscurity. They were in no position to compete with IBM or Microsoft and the clones which ruled the corporate desktop and gave birth to the consumer desktop mass-market. Apple's only card to play was it's uniqueness, which would never play in the conservative corporate world that eschewed "thinking different" or anything resembling risk. The only market for Apple was a market it would have to carve out on it's own, separate from the corporate market.

[VanMac]

Eh... I haven't been impressed with any aspect of the ROKR. It's just a fad fluff piece of technology.
:rolleyes:


Ditto. That thing is a piece of blaaagggh. Looking forward to Apple actualy making the phone.

[puuukeey]

apple's achilles heel will always be its inability to open up to oppritunity. everything is proprietary. its just greed. I think we'll see this with itunes in general. once someone undercuts them, they'll have nothing to cling to.

[Stella]

Apple should have never chosen Moto - their phones are utter crap - they should have gone with market leaders... namely, Nokia or even SonyEricsson - their designs are excellent.

Apple's fault, they sleep in the bed they made.

The iTunes phone is an absolute laughing stock.

[Stella]

If you actually read my quote, Apple dominatance isn't going to last for ever... Apple need to be pro-active, they need to license out Fairplay to get a lead on DRM and to allow other companies to use iTMS.

Apple must not rest on today, they must think about 'tomorrow' - and please don't take 'tomorrow' as literal...

Apple could have been the IBM - instead they chose Control. History will tell you that controlling a platform *rarely* works...



This would be fine if it weren't for one little thing: Apple already sells more songs at iTunes then just about all of it's competitors combined, but iTunes still barely turns a profit. Most of the money Apple gets selling songs is handed over to the record labels. Apple could double its song downloads and it's still going to turn over most of what iTunes makes over to the record labels. It makes it's money on iPod sales, which are more or less married to the music store. Other online stores struggle to make money on subscriptions, not downloads, and don't offer anything more than Apple's iTunes. If someone comes up with a better idea than Apple has, lets see it.



Everyone who makes this comparison seems to forget that when Apple introduced the Mac, IBM was already far and away the dominant corporate desktop provider, which is where most desktop installations lived back then. Apple was marketing a computer "for the rest of us" with a price tag "for the senior management of us" but they were arguably too late by then. Once the IBM clones appeared, IBM somewhat unwittingly transfered the "nobody got fired for choosing IBM" golden rule over to Microsoft, and with the clones came price competition. Exit a few clone manufactures that couldn't keep up, and prices dropped considerably. When prices became low enough for some folks to consider buying their own PC, they got the cue for what to buy from the machine that sat on their desktop for 8 hours a day.

In hindsight, had Apple licensed it's OS to other hardware manufacturers, the net effect would have been Apple going out of business and right into obscurity. They were in no position to compete with IBM or Microsoft and the clones which ruled the corporate desktop and gave birth to the consumer desktop mass-market. Apple's only card to play was it's uniqueness, which would never play in the conservative corporate world that eschewed "thinking different" or anything resembling risk. The only market for Apple was a market it would have to carve out on it's own, separate from the corporate market.

[maxterpiece]

people badger apple about licensing their software/intellectual property, but the reality is that apple's experiences with licensing is bad enough to justify never licensing anything. whenever apple licenses anything, the companies they license to screw it up. the early mac clones of the 90s, the motorola rokr phone, and so many others are great examples of how apple has had such bad luck with licensing in the past that it just makes no sense to even bother.

for apple, not licensing is more profitable and, somehow, increases their quantities sold. apple is just different like that.

The mac clones weren't a screw up. They clone companies, particularly power computing, were very innovative - more so than apple! I bought a power computing 120mhz ppc 601 for, I think it was $1300. The other machine I considered getting was a the performa 6200 - 75mhz power pc 603e (less powerful than 601), for something like $1700.

I may be remembering this wrong, but I think towards the end of cloning, power computing was the last company holding out on it's mac cloning license, and apple was pressuring its chipmaker to not allow power computing to use any of the latest chips - I think it was the new PPC 604e. So what did power computing do? They bought processor upgrade kits from a 3rd party and shipped them with computers and they were still able to sell their computers for a better value.

If anything the clones were an indication of how greedy and lazy apple had become.

As far as the ROKR goes, I think if you read up on it (see the wired article), you'll see that it was apple who, in the name of power and greed, forced moto to cripple the ROKR. That's not to say that Moto couldn't have made some aspects of it more appealing (it's pretty ugly), but the ROKRs mediocrity seems to be more a result of a power struggle between apple and cellular networks - it has nothing to do with motorola's unwillingness to put out a nice product.

Hopefully apple has learned that if they get too greedy, things are gonna fall apart.

[trentcanuck]

I really couldn't care less about cell phones, but I saw the blurb on the "news" page.
Where did they get that article?
Did anyone else notice the inept writing??
I can't believe someone actually thought it would be a good idea to post that online!

[kenzbud]

Apple should have never chosen Moto - their phones are utter crap - they should have gone with market leaders... namely, Nokia or even SonyEricsson - their designs are excellent.

Apple's fault, they sleep in the bed they made.

The iTunes phone is an absolute laughing stock.

What about a Treo with a mobile version of iTunes instead of the crappy Real Player the Treo comes with now.

[AidenShaw]

What about a Treo with a mobile version of iTunes instead of the crappy Real Player the Treo comes with now.
That would have to compete with the Treo with Windows Media Player 10....

[sishaw]

That would have to compete with the Treo with Windows Media Player 10....

Treo is leaving the Palm OS and going with Windows, but nonetheless, an "iTunes for Treo" would rock---IF they could either (1) bundle compatible headphones, or (2) add the correct-size jack for regular stereo cans, so you don't have to use that stupid dongle.

[Whistleway]

Why o Why, do steve never license anything out ?

[snowmoon]

apple's achilles heel will always be its inability to open up to oppritunity. everything is proprietary. its just greed. I think we'll see this with itunes in general. once someone undercuts them, they'll have nothing to cling to.

Your joking... right?

Every other music store I know of undercuts iTunes and the majority of music players are cheaper and/or have more features. Apple has continued to sell a high margin hardware and low margin music because of the integration and style. No other company has been able to acheive this synergy between hardware, software, and style so effectivly.

Apple owes no one fairplay technology and I doubt we will see them licensing it anytime soon. It's not about greed in any way, it's just good buisness sense. MS and SONY would sell devices at less than market value in a second if they could canabalize and kill Apple's success. Apple would be INSANE to risk killing one of it's most profitible lines in a market that is not looking for alteratives.

Honestly Apple needs every advantage it can get since buisnesses from every angle are working on stopping them from acheiving what no one mp3 play could on it's own... legitimacy and content. Nobody wants to admit that the world is changing... people dont want commercials... people want their media on their schedule.. and they want it to be easy and look good. I bought my first iPod a few weeks ago and I was up and running in an hour ( ~22gb of music ).

Apple is proof that profitibility and popularity do not mean bullying the market or consumers. The true "build it and they will come" story.

[Stella]

If iTMS increases in marketshare, Apple may be forced to license out Fairplay in some parts of the World - namely, Europe - which is *very* keen on competition...


( you may say the EU should mind its own business, but to trade in the EU, you must abide by local laws, or get out ).

Your joking... right?

Every other music store I know of undercuts iTunes and the majority of music players are cheaper and/or have more features. Apple has continued to sell a high margin hardware and low margin music because of the integration and style. No other company has been able to acheive this synergy between hardware, software, and style so effectivly.

Apple owes no one fairplay technology and I doubt we will see them licensing it anytime soon. It's not about greed in any way, it's just good buisness sense. MS and SONY would sell devices at less than market value in a second if they could canabalize and kill Apple's success. Apple would be INSANE to risk killing one of it's most profitible lines in a market that is not looking for alteratives.

Honestly Apple needs every advantage it can get since buisnesses from every angle are working on stopping them from acheiving what no one mp3 play could on it's own... legitimacy and content. Nobody wants to admit that the world is changing... people dont want commercials... people want their media on their schedule.. and they want it to be easy and look good. I bought my first iPod a few weeks ago and I was up and running in an hour ( ~22gb of music ).

Apple is proof that profitibility and popularity do not mean bullying the market or consumers. The true "build it and they will come" story.

[w00master]

I love Apple, but anyone who believes that they will remain the market leader forever is fooling themselves.

NOTHING LASTS FOREVER.

Perhaps it doesn't make business sense for Apple, but it certainly makes sense for the consumer. I want protection for the music that I have bought through the iTunes music store.

Again, if you truly think that Apple's lead in digital music will last forever, you are really fooling yourselves.

w00master

[Lynxpro]

CD DRM is another area I suspect Apple would just assume steer clear of. First of all, Apple's vision is that CDs will go the way of the dodo and the internet will become the central distribution channel for music, something that iTunes is perfectly positioned for, so far. Second, there's little to zero added value for Apple for CD sales (record companies will scorch that earth long before anyone else gets a meaningful cut) and it deviates from the central goal of iTunes, where Apple would rather you purchase your music. Obviously, iTunes isn't the lion's share of music sales today, but, say five years from now? At the rate things are going with the record companies these days, who knows...


If Apple is correct that the CD will go the way of the dodo then there's no good reason for Apple not to license FairPlay to the CD companies. In fact, it would probably get a lot of the music labels off their backs and allow Apple to continue the $0.99 "experiment".

And granting an access key to FairPlay to a couple of competitors should not be seen as a charity play...more along the lines of protection against the *monopoly* charge. If Apple licensed FairPlay to a couple of rival MP3 players, as well as to a couple of online competing stores, it would protect Apple from such charges.

[Lynxpro]

In hindsight, had Apple licensed it's OS to other hardware manufacturers, the net effect would have been Apple going out of business and right into obscurity.


Wrong. If Apple had licensed its OS back then, it would be sitting in the same place as Microsoft today. Except that the rest of computer owners throughout the world (96% of them) would have a better operating system than the one they currently use.

What's that cliche about people not being able to see the forest?

[Lynxpro]

Apple should have never chosen Moto - their phones are utter crap - they should have gone with market leaders... namely, Nokia or even SonyEricsson - their designs are excellent.


Nokia and Sony don't have a RAZR or a PEBL, so I beg to differ.

The iTunes Phone is a joke because its a rebranded 2 year old European mobile phone release with a 512 meg card slapped into it and iTunes compatibility in order to try to scam early adopters. Had it been the RAZR or the PEBL that were given iTunes compatibility, it would have been an extremely successful product. Probably more successful than the Nano.

[Lynxpro]

Honestly Apple needs every advantage it can get since buisnesses from every angle are working on stopping them from acheiving what no one mp3 play could on it's own... legitimacy and content. Nobody wants to admit that the world is changing... people dont want commercials... people want their media on their schedule.. and they want it to be easy and look good. I bought my first iPod a few weeks ago and I was up and running in an hour ( ~22gb of music ).


I disagree. Licensing iTunes Music Store/FairPlay access to the Sony PSP won't hurt iPod sales. However, it will strengthen the perception of the iTunes Store in the public's mind as the only place to go for digital music (and video?) downloads.

And unless Apple plans on bringing back the Newton, licensing FairPlay to Palm will also not hurt them in sales either, yet again, it will strengthen perception amongst the public.

[Lynxpro]

If iTMS increases in marketshare, Apple may be forced to license out Fairplay in some parts of the World - namely, Europe - which is *very* keen on competition...


*Europe* is only interested in competition when it is to the detriment of non-European multinational corporations. That's the problem with the EU. Its a hydra. The pro-competition leaders of the EU are mainly found in Britain (and other likeminded countries). They want a pure competitive market. And on the other side are countries like France and Germany who want to use the EU as a mechanism for creating "national champions" meaning dominant French or German companies capable of competing against American, Japanese, and Korean companies by tying them up with bureaucratic regulations.

Do you really think the EU would take on Microsoft if it were a French company? Certainly there would be no appeals to openness coming from Paris or Brussels. Look how much France fought against the internet by continuing to prop up their proprietary terminal system, because apparently the French language just isn't competitive for international business, international science, and international entertainment.

So please refrain from appealing to *Europe* as an envious model of promoting fairness. The French love of the CAP also keeps food imports from the third world from reaching European dinner tables at the expense of the poor third worlders who actually used to have markets to sell their wares too prior to the disasterous dismantling of the imperial systems.

[Lynxpro]

NOTHING LASTS FOREVER.


Try Cialis.

[hayesk]

Wrong. If Apple had licensed its OS back then, it would be sitting in the same place as Microsoft today. Except that the rest of computer owners throughout the world (96% of them) would have a better operating system than the one they currently use.

One of the reasons MacOS works so well is the limited number of computers it runs on. MacOS developers work on features, not trying to support millions of hardware combinations from various computer manufacturers. Had Apple licensed its OS back then, DOS/Windows would not have succeeded, there'd be no incentive for Apple to improve MacOS, and we'd probably still be running something like System 6 or 7, only more buggy.

[Stella]

The EU have, many times fined its own companies, for example, car manufacturers, it handed out a record fines to VW a few years ago. Just one example.

Another example:
http://www.eubusiness.com/Homepage_Other_News/050119120411.q7jhifbw

Another:
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1005/271737.html

Another: ( fining EU countries )
http://www.dairyreporter.com/news/ng.asp?id=63039-milk-quota-cap-dairy-sector




Its has also probed Cellphone carriers many times, Premiership football rights is being investigated...

> The French love of the CAP also keeps food imports
The States are just as bad for CAP too.... IMO, CAP is a disaster, it encourages waste - food mountains that just go to waste...

In fact today, related: Europe has offered to cut the tariffs it charges on farm goods by up to 60%.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4385156.stm



*Europe* is only interested in competition when it is to the detriment of non-European multinational corporations. That's the problem with the EU. Its a hydra. The pro-competition leaders of the EU are mainly found in Britain (and other likeminded countries). They want a pure competitive market. And on the other side are countries like France and Germany who want to use the EU as a mechanism for creating "national champions" meaning dominant French or German companies capable of competing against American, Japanese, and Korean companies by tying them up with bureaucratic regulations.

Do you really think the EU would take on Microsoft if it were a French company? Certainly there would be no appeals to openness coming from Paris or Brussels. Look how much France fought against the internet by continuing to prop up their proprietary terminal system, because apparently the French language just isn't competitive for international business, international science, and international entertainment.

So please refrain from appealing to *Europe* as an envious model of promoting fairness. The French love of the CAP also keeps food imports from the third world from reaching European dinner tables at the expense of the poor third worlders who actually used to have markets to sell their wares too prior to the disasterous dismantling of the imperial systems.

[mainstreetmark]

What about a Treo with a mobile version of iTunes instead of the crappy Real Player the Treo comes with now.

My God! Not the Treo!! That phone was the worst four phones I ever owned.

http://www.the-alley.net/mark/cellphone/treo.php

[sishaw]

Besides, had Apple licensed MacOS early on and went for lowest common denominator design, you probably wouldn't want to use a Mac today.

Right, I agree that licensing Apple AAC/Fairplay for competing music players would obviously NOT be a good idea--Apple would destroy its own market. I'm thinking more of devices, and I think that most people who are advocating licensing are thinking the same. If the cell phone companies won't play ball, there's TiVo (mentioned by many) and also home (non-portable) game consoles. Probably other creative ideas that I can't think of.

[snowmoon]

Right, I agree that licensing Apple AAC/Fairplay for competing music players would obviously NOT be a good idea--Apple would destroy its own market. I'm thinking more of devices, and I think that most people who are advocating licensing are thinking the same. If the cell phone companies won't play ball, there's TiVo (mentioned by many) and also home (non-portable) game consoles. Probably other creative ideas that I can't think of.

Porting iTunes or "AirPlay" ( think Airport Express ) to these devices maybe, but that would probably take far more time and energy that Apple would care to invest. No reason for them to license FairPlay since they would loose control of the iTunes interface and/or have to maintain two platforms for both iTunes and Quicktime applications and API's.

[rog]

I think Libby was behind the whole thing.;)

[Lynxpro]

One of the reasons MacOS works so well is the limited number of computers it runs on. MacOS developers work on features, not trying to support millions of hardware combinations from various computer manufacturers. Had Apple licensed its OS back then, DOS/Windows would not have succeeded, there'd be no incentive for Apple to improve MacOS, and we'd probably still be running something like System 6 or 7, only more buggy.


Apple could've licensed the actual architectural design of the Mac as well which would have prevented the problems you hint at. Like what IBM did with Microchannel except for the fact that IBM didn't license that off as they should have to a select few manufacturers.

[Lynxpro]

Its has also probed Cellphone carriers many times, Premiership football rights is being investigated...


And yet they've [the EU] done practically nothing about forcing member states to divest themselves of their telephone monopolies. You can't cite Britain in that because Britain under Thatcher spun off the bulk of state-owned corporations unlike France.


> The French love of the CAP also keeps food imports
The States are just as bad for CAP too.... IMO, CAP is a disaster, it encourages waste - food mountains that just go to waste...


If it weren't for CAP, the US probably would have already cut out what's left of our farming subsidies. Yet it would be rather stupid to do so when competing agricultural countries like France won't budge on the subject. Heck, if France and Germany would dump CAP, Britain would give up the BBQ rebate. But as always, France and Germany want Britain to surrender their little perk without an even exchange. Perhaps some political leaders should start looking back on Churchill's proposition of the reunification of the English speaking nations and take the suggestion seriously and let the other countries stagnate if that is their own democratically decided decision(s).

[Lynxpro]

Right, I agree that licensing Apple AAC/Fairplay for competing music players would obviously NOT be a good idea--Apple would destroy its own market.


How exactly do you figure? People buy iPods because they look cool and are trendy (not to mention most MP3 players just absolutely suck when it comes to looks - the Motorola ROKR is so ugly that Creative could have designed it). Its not because of the iTunes Music Store or the iTunes program itself. Those are side benefits. Nor is it because the iPod has extra features not found on the other players which we know is not true.

So when considering that, offering iTunes/iTunes Store compatibility to competing products will not dramatically increase their sales numbers in comparison to the still ultra hot iPod but it will protect Apple from government intervention from the EU's Commission as well as the Korean version of the FTC.

[Stella]

The US won't budge on Wood imports from Canada... despite losing a NAFTA trade dispute... so the usa isn't all perfect, as no country is.

I thought it was hilarious when Chirac suggested that Blair should show EU Solitary by dropping the UK EU Rebate.. whilst in return, France rejected a call for lower farming subsidies. France wanted it all without giving anything in return.. As you probably know, France pay next to not EU fees due to the insanely high Farm subsidies it receives from the EU.



And yet they've [the EU] done practically nothing about forcing member states to divest themselves of their telephone monopolies. You can't cite Britain in that because Britain under Thatcher spun off the bulk of state-owned corporations unlike France.





If it weren't for CAP, the US probably would have already cut out what's left of our farming subsidies. Yet it would be rather stupid to do so when competing agricultural countries like France won't budge on the subject. Heck, if France and Germany would dump CAP, Britain would give up the BBQ rebate. But as always, France and Germany want Britain to surrender their little perk without an even exchange. Perhaps some political leaders should start looking back on Churchill's proposition of the reunification of the English speaking nations and take the suggestion seriously and let the other countries stagnate if that is their own democratically decided decision(s).

[purell16]

I think the ROKR is simply a starting point, and although I'm not that impressed with it, I think it is the beginning and will pave the way for future devices which will improve on it.

Ya, just wait..I hope apple designs a phone instead of motorola. Even though I highly doubt it, it would be alot better than the current iTunes phone

[Lynxpro]

I thought it was hilarious when Chirac suggested that Blair should show EU Solitary by dropping the UK EU Rebate.. whilst in return, France rejected a call for lower farming subsidies. France wanted it all without giving anything in return.. As you probably know, France pay next to not EU fees due to the insanely high Farm subsidies it receives from the EU.


I really wish they'd change the name back to the EC. EC in its abbreviation sounds nicer than the EU. Maybe not in French. But then the name "European Community" also sounds so much nicer than "European Union", not to mention the fact that it really is not a union any more than the United Nations is united. Of course, that would anger the pie-in-the-sky European federalists...granted, most of them are Francophiles substituting the European continent for all the territory lost overseas when the French Empire collapsed. They just won't admit that.

[iQuit]

What will happen when everyone has an iPod? Or something better than the iPod comes out?

[themacman]

What will happen when everyone has an iPod? Or something better than the iPod comes out?
then im shure it would have to be prety incredible since apple is always syaing ahead of the market, and the market copies apple.

[scan]

now I know why the ROKR sucks so much. I love apple products but I hate motorola. In the end, this phone does not resemble any "apple". Apple products usually have a "cool" feel to them. ROKR is EXACTLY liek the motorola E398 with iTunes in it. Looks stupid.

I don't feel that Apple is really being threatened by music phones--not yet at least. but i have to admit, I was planning to purchase a Sony Ericsson W800i that did have consider getting rid of my nano. but in the end I kept it because its still the best mp3 player on the market and I don't want to drain my phone's battery by listening ot mp3's all day.

[dernhelm]

What will happen when everyone has an iPod? Or something better than the iPod comes out?

One day the iPod will go the way of the (original) walkman. Now that was a device that EVERYONE wanted and most eventually came to own one. But when its time was up, it was up. And that's OK because most people that owned one remember their walkman's quite fondly. That's about the best you can hope for in the gadget market.

[DakotaGuy]

now I know why the ROKR sucks so much. I love apple products but I hate motorola. In the end, this phone does not resemble any "apple". Apple products usually have a "cool" feel to them. ROKR is EXACTLY liek the motorola E398 with iTunes in it. Looks stupid.

I don't feel that Apple is really being threatened by music phones--not yet at least. but i have to admit, I was planning to purchase a Sony Ericsson W800i that did have consider getting rid of my nano. but in the end I kept it because its still the best mp3 player on the market and I don't want to drain my phone's battery by listening ot mp3's all day.

I still think that Apple wanted what they got in the ROKR for now. They wanted it to be crippled and they did not care if it's kind of ugly. Why? Because if it was too good to be true, think about all the lost iPod sales and all the increased Motorola phone sales. Take a RAZR and give it this capability along with iPod Nano sized memory and it is going to take a big chunk of Apple's sales and give them to Motorola. Apple is not dumb about this stuff. They did it more for generating buzz as far as the business news goes then making an attractive product. They don't want people in the media thinking they are getting behind when a new trend is starting to develop. The technology is there and if music on phones really takes off then they will go back to Moto and say..."Here is what we want..." Motorola is capable of a much better phone then the ROKR, but I don't think Apple wanted it just yet. Remember profit comes first to any large corporation and Apple is no different then the rest. Millions of iPod sales=lots of money for Apple. Millions of phone sales=lots of money for Motorola.

[sjo]

I still think that Apple wanted what they got in the ROKR for now. They wanted it to be crippled and they did not care if it's kind of ugly. Why? Because if it was too good to be true, think about all the lost iPod sales and all the increased Motorola phone sales. Take a RAZR and give it this capability along with iPod Nano sized memory and it is going to take a big chunk of Apple's sales and give them to Motorola. Apple is not dumb about this stuff. They did it more for generating buzz as far as the business news goes then making an attractive product. They don't want people in the media thinking they are getting behind when a new trend is starting to develop. The technology is there and if music on phones really takes off then they will go back to Moto and say..."Here is what we want..." Motorola is capable of a much better phone then the ROKR, but I don't think Apple wanted it just yet. Remember profit comes first to any large corporation and Apple is no different then the rest. Millions of iPod sales=lots of money for Apple. Millions of phone sales=lots of money for Motorola.

That'd be wierd strategy. You don't necessarily get second changes on gadget markets, if you develop and market a product that doesn't fulfill the customer expectations, they aren't going to forget the experience and give you more money to buy the second try.

And of course mobile phones development takes so long that you can't wait the music on phones to take off and then go to manufactures with specs of your phone. The rokr took 15months to develop and it's based on old model!

This time next year music on phone will be just like camera on phones is today, a standard feature, not a differentiator.

[Scottgfx]

I may be remembering this wrong... If anything the clones were an indication of how greedy and lazy apple had become.

It was the G3 chips. Power already had the PTP with the 604e.

What you are forgetting is that the machines that the clone makers were selling were all based on motherboard designs and tech developed by Apple. My PowerWave 604/120 was based on the same MB as the PowerMac 9500. It just never worked quite as well. Apple was hoping that the clones would boost market share. Instead, they just carved a hole in Apple's market share and thus Apple lost a lot of money on every clone sold.

When I say that my PowerWave didn't work as well I'm not kidding. I had bought PCI cards and processor upgrades that would never work in the PowerWave, but same hardware would work perfectly in Apple hardware. Timings on the motherboard can be tweaked to eek out a little more performance from a computer; it just had detrimental effects on hardware compatibility. (Something I know quite well from my Amiga days)

[jonhoffm]

In theory combining the two is not a bad idea. I was walking around my campus today and most students either have a cell phone glued to their head or are listening to an iPod.

You may be right, but I disagree completely. Integration of devices that do not create synergy seems bound for failure. A good example of integration that makes sense is the cell phone and PIM (ie, smartphones, blackberry). People were constantly fumbling with their cell phone and pda to set up appointments or look up a phone number. The next logical step was to bring them together.

Plus, now you are really limited with regard to a upgrade path. What if your carrier does not get the exclusive on the next ROKR? Then you are stuck or switch carriers which is unlikely.

It would seem to have been a much better plan for Apple to just add bluetooth to the ipod which could use DUN from a bluetooth phone. Then enable access to the itunes music store for mobile downloading (probably the only other synergy possibility which was blown with the ROKR) plus take the cell phone manufacturer out of the equation.

[Wince99]

*License FairPlay to TiVo. Anything that's bad for Windows Media Center is ultimately good for Apple.


Yeah right! Apple said that from IBM at first and stroke a deal with microsoft :rolleyes:

Wince99

[Rantipole]

Has anyone here ever heard of Betamax?

I think all of you people who are saying that Apple should not license Fairplay, because Apple dominates the market currently and therefore "don't have to", should look in their electronic-product history books under "B".

(What a sentence!)