iTunes for Windows... and AOL? [Archive]

MacRumors

Apr 28, 2003, 04:46 PM

Fortune Magazine (http://www.fortune.com/fortune/) was apparently given an exclusive on the new iPods and Music Service.

They published a series of articles on Apple's new offerings, and provides some details and industry opinions of the planning and execution of the new service.

Of particular interest mentioned in the article are the economics of the endeavour -- with Apple paying the record companies an average of 65cents per track... as well as Apple's expansion into Windows.

According to the article, Apple is planning on introducing a Windows version of iTunes -- not only that, but it's also trying to land a deal in which AOL would adopt iTunes as it's music management software... opening the doors to AOL's 26 million subscribers.

Freg3000

Apr 28, 2003, 04:50 PM

Wow. Expansion is good. But AOL? :)

Jaykay

Apr 28, 2003, 04:56 PM

This is great news for apple cos that will end up being a lot of money. I thought they would be paying more than 65c but when i think about it, i dont really knowor have any idea, so good for apple. Maybe they can increase Jonathon Ives salary...

mxpiazza

Apr 28, 2003, 05:03 PM

now i'm not a greedy little fanboy that dosen't want apple to expand to increase profit and and market share, and i would love to see apple just take a huge bite out of the 97% of said marketshare that windows controls. however, when i switched from PC to mac, it was because of all of those little "i" applications... iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, etc... if apple starts peddling these programs over to the windows world, i think it would really kill, or seriously disable, the whole idea of a "switcher". i mean, now i know how much more seamless macs are than PC... but to someone that is on a PC and dosen't want to switch over to a new OS, if they could stay on windows and get all of the apple i-apps that everyone covets... why would they switch? i think this deal, which would undoubtedly bring in huge profits short term could really damage the user base over the long term. any thoughts?

Grimace

Apr 28, 2003, 05:06 PM

If Apple stays true to innovative products and ideas, getting a larger marketshare (advertising) through AOL will only serve to boost their status.

This music revolution should get the idea of owning an iPod and a Mac at least in the heads of a lot more people. Whether they plunge is yet to be seen.

nagromme

Apr 28, 2003, 05:07 PM

I say go for it--at least the store portion of iTunes, maybe not the whole player.

iPod to show Apple hardware design to PC users wasn't a bad thing. A software app to show Apple's software skills wouldn't be either.

Put iTunes on Windows and let people think--"if Apple can do this right when nobody else can, I'm thinking OS X is worth a look too."

This adds legitimacy to Apple and name-recognition among the MANY people to whom Apple isn't even on their radar. They think they must buy Microsoft because there is no "real" alternative. Start showing them what Apple can do.

And let PC makers bundle the iTunes store with their boxes--great even if you DON'T have an iPod. You can still burn CDs. (And an incentive to then get an iPod too.) Likewise, let PC users download it without buying anything, just like Mac people can.

Plus, to be successful, the store part (at least) HAS to be for everyone.

Not to mention--big song revenue for Apple, and iPod sales through the roof.

Anyway, it's still Mac-FIRST even if not Mac-only. Still an incentive to buy a Mac right now. And maybe for many months to come.

makkystyle

Apr 28, 2003, 05:07 PM

I'm sure it was probably the same article that was mentioned on friday, but the Wall Street Journal Europe Weekend edition had a ful page article on the music service. They talked about AOL also, but more in terms of competition for apple. According to them, AOL already has plans to unveil a music service by the end of the year, so lets hope they are not too far along in development.

Also if you noticed on the iPod update page, it states that a windows iPod AAC software update will be released by early May so Apple is definitely planning on branching this music service out to the windows world. In fact I'm sure they probably already have all the software written, it's just a matter of showing the music companies that this is a successful business model before they will allow them to open the service up to that many more users. And i think it will be successful, they already have 99cents of my money :D

Hey JayKay, where are you in Ireland? I'm in Dublin at Trinity.

Sublime

Apr 28, 2003, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by mxpiazza
i switched from PC to mac, it was because of all of those little "i" applications... iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, etc... if apple starts peddling these programs over to the windows world, i think it would really kill, or seriously disable, the whole idea of a "switcher". i mean, now i know how much more seamless macs are than PC... but to someone that is on a PC and dosen't want to switch over to a new OS, if they could stay on windows and get all of the apple i-apps that everyone covets... why would they switch?

I think apple is using iTunes as a gateway drug. Before you know it you're doing "X"

:D

robotrenegade

Apr 28, 2003, 05:18 PM

Sounds like big money.

ariza910

Apr 28, 2003, 05:19 PM

Has anyonenoticed that the iPod in the Fortune article is BLACK?!? Where can I get one of those, or are they jusy trying to show a night shot with the black light and buttons lit up?

Well anyway, I really hope that a deal with AOL is struck, having apple software on PCs can only be a good thing. Apple needs exposure, once PC users notice apple and their excellent products they will make the switch.

arn

Apr 28, 2003, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by ariza910
[B]Has anyonenoticed that the iPod in the Fortune article is BLACK?!? Where can I get one of those, or are they jusy trying to show a night shot with the black light and buttons lit up?
/B]

yeah - I think it's just a dark shot - but wasn't labeled very well

arn

gwuMACaddict

Apr 28, 2003, 05:23 PM

doesnt putting iTunes on a PC defeat some of the main purposes of buying a mac anyway? awesome applications and an un-crashable machine. not only that- but AOL is a gaurenteed kernal panik on any mac i've ever used... and those arent that much fun...

andrewh

Apr 28, 2003, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by mxpiazza
now i'm not a greedy little fanboy that dosen't want apple to expand to increase profit and and market share, and i would love to see apple just take a huge bite out of the 97% of said marketshare that windows controls. however, when i switched from PC to mac, it was because of all of those little "i" applications... iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, etc... if apple starts peddling these programs over to the windows world, i think it would really kill, or seriously disable, the whole idea of a "switcher". i mean, now i know how much more seamless macs are than PC... but to someone that is on a PC and dosen't want to switch over to a new OS, if they could stay on windows and get all of the apple i-apps that everyone covets... why would they switch? i think this deal, which would undoubtedly bring in huge profits short term could really damage the user base over the long term. any thoughts?

Actually I think it could be a good thing. By introducing windows users to what makes apple computers and software great, some people might get interested enough to investigate and buy one. Most of the Windows users out there have never been exposed to a Mac at all and only know what they're comfortable with, windows. I convinced my dad to buy a flat panel iMac and when my brother saw it he was blown away and wants to buy one for home use.

If Apple could just show why OSX and the iApps are so great they would get a lot more switchers. I think the reason the "switch" campaign was a failure was because it just showed quirky people who seemed really stupid talking about how easy the mac is. Windows people need to see it in use. They will still be skeptical, but some will have the guts to give it a try.

But I agree, I do NOT want to see all those iApps on Windows. iTunes is fine because it will generate a lot of revenue.

Jaykay

Apr 28, 2003, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
doesnt putting iTunes on a PC defeat some of the main purposes of buying a mac anyway? awesome applications and an un-crashable machine. not only that- but AOL is a gaurenteed kernal panik on any mac i've ever used... and those arent that much fun...

I kind of agree with your point, one of apple's biggest little things is itunes, and if windoze people get their hands on it then we lose one of our major assets (in my opinion). But then again it'll get apple one step closer to taking over the world so why not.

copperpipe

Apr 28, 2003, 05:39 PM

This is not good news, it's GREAT news. This will help switchers, because it will break the barriers that so many windows people have about Apple. People are gonna start to realize that Apple really is the better way to go. Give them a taste of the Apple, and they will want more. And the fact that Apple is making .34 per song! Oh baby, this is gonna be HUGE. Just wait till they get all the indie labels on there. So what will this all mean to us? More money for Apple to innovate with=better products down the line. Buy the stock, and get a free new system in a year or two is what I'm thinking...or maybe I'm just caught up in it all right now. I just downloaded my first purchase, and the quality is incredible.

NavyIntel007

Apr 28, 2003, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
doesnt putting iTunes on a PC defeat some of the main purposes of buying a mac anyway? awesome applications and an un-crashable machine. not only that- but AOL is a gaurenteed kernal panik on any mac i've ever used... and those arent that much fun...

No one said it WON'T crash on windows. I hope Apple doesn't give windows iTunes. They should just do a very small basic AAC player and encoder that plugs into quicktime and has a basic browser for Apple's music services. Either that or Itunes visualizers need to flash subliminal messages... or have a pop-up that says "did you know that this works 200% better on a mac?"

QCassidy352

Apr 28, 2003, 05:45 PM

Seems that the valid question people are raising here is whether giving itunes to windoze folks would entice them to macs altogether, to get more of the same, or make them think they can stay on PCs and still get all the great software. Apple must think the former... but I don't know.
I tend to agree with those who have posted that it would make potential switchers think they can have their cake and eat it too. Apple makes most of it's money on hardware, if I'm not mistaken. So getting people using itunes is nice, but only if it draws them to bigger and better things.

tcmcam

Apr 28, 2003, 05:48 PM

The Windows version will most likely be a MusicMatch partnership. It's pretty obvious that the "Store" is just some HTML embedded into iTunes (rather nicely I might add).

I think Apple would rather have MusicMatch do most of the work. It cuts down on Apple's R&D and gets someone else to hire all the developers.

DeepDish

Apr 28, 2003, 05:52 PM

If AOL used iTunes for it's music service, then boom 26 million QT users.

If Apple releases iTunes for Windows, then boom, all those iTunes Windows users would have QT.

This is great news for QT.

tcmcam

Apr 28, 2003, 05:56 PM

I still have a major problem with the AAC strategy, here's why....

MP3 in iTunes let you use your Mac, an iPod, and ANY OTHER MP3 player to play your music. This enabled things like the TurtleBeach AudioTron (for your home stereo) or the PhatBox (for your car) to use all the MP3's you ripped in iTunes. So I buy a CD at Amazon, and rip it in iTunes (all legal) and can play it on multiple devices.

AAC complicates this. Yes, the store is great, but right now the only AAC players (with the logic for all the DRM) is the Mac platform, and the iPod (and most likely Windows/MusicMatch in the future).

Well, all the iPod enhancements for home stereo or car, well, basically, they STINK!

For my home stereo, Apple PLEASE make a mini (hard drive free) iPod that is BLACK, like my stereo, uses Airport, or 10/100 Ethernet to Rendevous with my iTunes 4 Mac so I can hook it up to my home stereo. It should have a DIGITAL OUT (S/PDIF or Coaxial) so that I can have a high-quality DAC playing back the music. The DAC in the iPod is great for headphones, but is pretty weak for a home stereo.

For my Car, Make a great "Docking Station" for the Car, it should plug into the lighter and have direct audio lines (no cassette or lame FM situation) so I get high-fidelity audio.

Right now, I can't see getting away from MP3 because AAC just isn't pervasive enough. So I won't use the store much because everything is AAC which means I can't play it on my home stereo (unless I burn a CD, eeeek, isn't that what iTunes was trying to get rid of?)

Hopefully some very cool company out there will ship these products.

Sublime

Apr 28, 2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by tcmcam
The Windows version will most likely be a MusicMatch partnership. It's pretty obvious that the "Store" is just some HTML embedded into iTunes (rather nicely I might add).

I think Apple would rather have MusicMatch do most of the work. It cuts down on Apple's R&D and gets someone else to hire all the developers.

What happened to the MusicMatch partnership? I had the mac client, It worked great. Then it stopped working and disappeared from the MusicMatch website...

Anyone got the scoop?

boobers

Apr 28, 2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by copperpipe
And the fact that Apple is making .34 per song! Oh baby, this is gonna be HUGE.

Hardly, they have to pay for bandwidth and staff support.
So far i can't find any Pavement or anything else i deem good.

iElvis

Apr 28, 2003, 06:11 PM

All i can say is that at first i was dissapointed that it was iTunes only, w/ no pc version, but after reading this, it makes sense that apple brings iTunes to PC.

3 reasons why Apple should bring iTunes to PC:
1 - complete combaiblity with the iPod (no more musicmatch jukebox)
2 - it will keep the download service within iTunes...no 3rd party software involved that could potentialy mess things up
3 - iTunes is an awsome program and there is nothing like in the PC world. If i could, i would be using iTunes right now.

Just my 2 cents.

Mr. MacPhisto

Apr 28, 2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by nagromme
I say go for it--at least the store portion of iTunes, maybe not the whole player.

iPod to show Apple hardware design to PC users wasn't a bad thing. A software app to show Apple's software skills wouldn't be either.

Put iTunes on Windows and let people think--"if Apple can do this right when nobody else can, I'm thinking OS X is worth a look too."

This adds legitimacy to Apple and name-recognition among the MANY people to whom Apple isn't even on their radar. They think they must buy Microsoft because there is no "real" alternative. Start showing them what Apple can do.

And let PC makers bundle the iTunes store with their boxes--great even if you DON'T have an iPod. You can still burn CDs. (And an incentive to then get an iPod too.) Likewise, let PC users download it without buying anything, just like Mac people can.

Plus, to be successful, the store part (at least) HAS to be for everyone.

Not to mention--big song revenue for Apple, and iPod sales through the roof.

Anyway, it's still Mac-FIRST even if not Mac-only. Still an incentive to buy a Mac right now. And maybe for many months to come.

And it's known that any new innovations will be Mac only or Mac first. I doubt Apple will release anything besides a "light" version of iTunes on the PC that can access the store and burn, etc. PC uses may be unable to put the songs on any other computers - only allowed to burn and ship to an iPod. They won't have iMovie, iDVD, or iPhoto to integrate with. They also won't get Rendezvous - no ability to share playlists over the network. I think having the iPod and iTunes on the PC will show the Windows world how much better Apple is than anybody in the PC world. I also think Apple will not release the Windows version until the 970 is firmly entrenched, giving Apple either equal or better footing on processors. If the 970 is released in July/August and an economic recovery occurs by the end of the year - Apple could have a lot to celebrate by years end. Maybe Apple laptops and desktops become the hot Christmas item. A boy can dream, can't he?

reyesmac

Apr 28, 2003, 06:12 PM

Apple would make more money by holding a monopoly on the online music business than it ever would by having a few people switch to mac because of itunes. When all iTunes was was a music player, giving it to windows was not a good idea. Now that iTunes is a money making product it has to be distributed to the most people so they can make all the money they can before competition comes around. iTunes is one application that is being ported, there are still many other apps that will always be Mac only.

If Apple can strike some good deals with other companies this could be one of the smartest moves Apple has made. Once you get them hooked on buying music, they can pull out their iTunes DJ music making program or something to get all those music lovers to buy Macs. Once they have a library of music to choose from, they just have to make a program that lets you use that music to make your own songs and there you have the next killer app thats mac only.

I think once this gets off the ground they will think up of more cool ways to get people to use macs and not just have it be because we have cool free apps.

Mr. MacPhisto

Apr 28, 2003, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by tcmcam
I still have a major problem with the AAC strategy, here's why....

MP3 in iTunes let you use your Mac, an iPod, and ANY OTHER MP3 player to play your music. This enabled things like the TurtleBeach AudioTron (for your home stereo) or the PhatBox (for your car) to use all the MP3's you ripped in iTunes. So I buy a CD at Amazon, and rip it in iTunes (all legal) and can play it on multiple devices.

AAC complicates this. Yes, the store is great, but right now the only AAC players (with the logic for all the DRM) is the Mac platform, and the iPod (and most likely Windows/MusicMatch in the future).

Well, all the iPod enhancements for home stereo or car, well, basically, they STINK!

For my home stereo, Apple PLEASE make a mini (hard drive free) iPod that is BLACK, like my stereo, uses Airport, or 10/100 Ethernet to Rendevous with my iTunes 4 Mac so I can hook it up to my home stereo. It should have a DIGITAL OUT (S/PDIF or Coaxial) so that I can have a high-quality DAC playing back the music. The DAC in the iPod is great for headphones, but is pretty weak for a home stereo.

For my Car, Make a great "Docking Station" for the Car, it should plug into the lighter and have direct audio lines (no cassette or lame FM situation) so I get high-fidelity audio.

Right now, I can't see getting away from MP3 because AAC just isn't pervasive enough. So I won't use the store much because everything is AAC which means I can't play it on my home stereo (unless I burn a CD, eeeek, isn't that what iTunes was trying to get rid of?)

Hopefully some very cool company out there will ship these products.

Except that AAC is a lot better than MP3 at the same size. This may expand to other players over time. I also believe you can downgrade songs to MP3, so there may be an option there. Fact is, the AAC format may make current MP3 players (other than iPod) obsolete. I never invested in an MP3 player because I didn't like MP3 quality at all - my CDs were much better. Now I'm glad I didn't invest.

copperpipe

Apr 28, 2003, 06:23 PM

Hardly, they have to pay for bandwidth and staff support.
So far i can't find any Pavement or anything else i deem good.

26 million people exposed by AOL. How many PC users exposed? Probably more than 26 million, let's say 52 million. How much music does the average person buy? I don't know but let's guess that it's say 3 cds a year, or around 36 tracks a year. Say only 25% of the people do this it comes to: 954 million dollars annually. I think they'll have the cash to cover the bandwidth. But hey I'm just hacking this whole thing mathmaticly anyway, but it's enough to get the point across I think.

copperpipe

Apr 28, 2003, 06:24 PM

238.5 million annually, sorry. what's 700 million anyway. hheheheh.

macosaurusrex

Apr 28, 2003, 06:44 PM

As a folk artist with self produced music, I'll take $0.65 per track. Wonder who I contact at Apple to get them to handle my tunes?

anthonymoody

Apr 28, 2003, 06:58 PM

"Wonder who I contact at Apple to get them to handle my tunes?"

Good luck. Not to single your music out particularly for poor quality, but if you saw the live broadcast, Jobs must've mentioned 'poor quality' and 'uncertain quality' and 'no quality control' in some form or other about a million times when saying what was wrong with all the free services. Translation: quality control here will likely be high, meaning the threshold for inclusion will likely be high.

Now we can debate what constitututes 'quality' music all we want, but that's not what I'm saying. After all, digustibus non disputandum est.

All I'm saying is that Apple will likely make it difficult to get indy stuff up there, which IMO is a shame. I hope I'm proven wrong.

TM

Awimoway

Apr 28, 2003, 07:07 PM

The Apple Music Store is going to be bigger than Amazon, much bigger: same hype but less overhead and a lot more substance--selling music online is better-suited for previewing than books or Segways or "Turducken"s and it provides instant satisfaction.

It is going to make Apple a bundle of money, and that is fine with me.

I don't care if Apple wants to port iTunes to Windows and AOL. In the end, this will only strengthen Apple. This will be the ONLY iApp they port, so this will only serve as a gateway drug. Heck, before I switched QuickTime alone exerted a lot of pull on me. And if Apple can position itself as THE source for online music, then it will become a stabler company and have more cash for R&D.

It's such a beautiful way to run a company--believe in your customers. If they are missing out on a product, go get it for them. And in the process, Apple has discovered a vast new ocean of profit for itself.

Jaykay

Apr 28, 2003, 07:09 PM

Awimoway

Apr 28, 2003, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by anthonymoody
All I'm saying is that Apple will likely make it difficult to get indy stuff up there, which IMO is a shame. I hope I'm proven wrong.

TM

That is the one major flaw in this new product (well, that and the exclusion of all foreign customers--I feel for my "barbarian" brethren). All other major concerns I heard voiced have been dealt with satisfactorily, IMO.

jettredmont

Apr 28, 2003, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by anthonymoody
"Wonder who I contact at Apple to get them to handle my tunes?"

Good luck. Not to single your music out particularly for poor quality, but if you saw the live broadcast, Jobs must've mentioned 'poor quality' and 'uncertain quality' and 'no quality control' in some form or other about a million times when saying what was wrong with all the free services. Translation: quality control here will likely be high, meaning the threshold for inclusion will likely be high.

Now we can debate what constitututes 'quality' music all we want, but that's not what I'm saying. After all, digustibus non disputandum est.

All I'm saying is that Apple will likely make it difficult to get indy stuff up there, which IMO is a shame. I hope I'm proven wrong.

TM

Maybe I was listening to a different broadcast than you, but the one I was listening to Jobs used the words "quality" and "quality control" synonymous with fidelity to the source (ie, quality of encryption/transmission), not the subjective quality of the music itself. I mean, Mariah Carey and Kelly Clarkson are on there ... :) (ducks)

You will likely not get yourself listed on the front page or anything, but I'd bet Apple will (eventually at least) sign up indie artists without any reservations.

yumpin yiminy

Apr 28, 2003, 07:22 PM

http://news.com.com/2100-1027-998590.html#

on the indy tip, look for the quote from the MTV news person.

From my meager understanding, indy and smaller labels are the only record companies who are seeing growth nowadays. All the while, the largest companies are imploding under the weight of their own missteps and stumbling for other reasons.
Apple would do well to set up some form of liason/ method of contacting. And, putting up an indy section would be a great big step for too many reasons. I mean lets face it, buying indy artists' music would really be supporting the music, now and in the future. Sure, there is a lot of crap that is indy, but, hey, someone might like it, so mo' power to everyone.
Heck, if there is an active push to exand the catalog greatly and quickly, I wouldn't complain so much about how narrow the service roll out is. It is certainly accessible to less than 3% of all the computer users. Mac OSX is minimum requirement? 4-5 million users of OSX...am I being generous or stingy with that number?

a9mike

Apr 28, 2003, 07:27 PM

is owned by UMG. Maybe a partnership between Apple & MP3.com? They aren't quite what they used to be but they have indie content. Maybe 1/3 of the best MP3.com stuff - audio quality must be the determining factor not "opinion".

Lot's of options down the road...

Stella

Apr 28, 2003, 07:29 PM

As far as i'm concerned, Apple have done nothing. Yes, nothing. No revolution, nothing.

Until they support the rest of the world, and offer music services to the rest of us, then I'm really not impressed.

Its useless to the majority of the world.

yumpin yiminy

Apr 28, 2003, 07:36 PM

amen. and i feel for ya.
perhaps when they roll it out to the rest of the world, they will also include XM radio with the iPod. That would truly take the cake if you could get XM radio, outside of the car/PC and take it with you anywhere. That. is the revolution I thought they'd include in this plan.
Don't know what the technical requirements are for accessing XM. but, having ability for the iPod, and as a part of the iTunes music store revenue stream would be great for Apple and for switchers. Sure XM is a subscription thing but, so is AOL...

xDANx

Apr 28, 2003, 07:46 PM

I'm not really going to be interested in this music service until indie labels are on board (and by indie i don't mean someone recording a bunch of **** on a tape recorder in their garage...i mean well established labels that are not owned by a major corporations and that cater to specific genres of music or have specific philosophies on putting out music). Oh, and I'm in Canada so there's that whole thing... But I'm fully aware the Apple never intended for people with similar musical tastes and habits to mine to get excited. They don't care that I'm not interested. I'm over it, moving on, water, bridges, all that stuff. But it would be nice if a few of the labels that I really like (Trustkill Records (http://www.trustkill.com), G7 Welcoming Committee Records (http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com), Revelation Records (http://www.revelationrecords.com), the list is too long...) could be included (assuming that they'd be interested). It would really make that catalog a whole bunch more exciting. Sheryl Crow? Ugh.

timdorr

Apr 28, 2003, 08:22 PM

AOL has Winamp (http://www.winamp.com) and pays good money for it. If *anything* involved AOL was to happen, it would involve Winamp. They pour money into that program and give it away for free, so they're not going to just put it on the side and not use it.

However, I don't see an AOL-exclusive as a likely future for PC users, to be honest.

unreg

Apr 28, 2003, 08:27 PM

QuickTime is also used for video streaming and playback.

dguisinger

Apr 28, 2003, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by unreg
QuickTime is also used for video streaming and playback.

Actually, I was looking at that as well. iTunes lets you organize your songs to listen to, iMovie lets you edit films.........Apple doesn't have a good, easy to use program to manage & organize video, and to play back....nothing like iTunes. Of course, most people don't have huge volumes of video either.

Also, notice Apple now has Music as a main tab on their site. They include iPod, iTunes, iTunes Store, and Emagic under it.

What if Apple was to remove the Quicktime tab, and replace it with Video? FinalCut Express/Pro, Shake, DVD Studio, iDVD, iMovie, QuickTime, and possibly a new video organization app & download service.

Has anyone else noticed the parallels?

Shinrah

Apr 28, 2003, 09:39 PM

You apple guys are funny as hell, c'mon guys...itunes and the iapps as a switcher bait? C'mon thats what they said about the ipod and lets not forget windows users still found a way to use an ipod on a PC. iTunes on pc is a good idea to really flesh out the whole deal. Personally I luv macs but the price of admission is what's keeping me out really...till then I'll chill back with my classic pod and hope that ipod update for pc includes playlists on the go ;)

sergeantmudd

Apr 28, 2003, 09:58 PM

If Apple and AOL have a partnership, the bandwidth costs are virtually non existant. The only cost would be a fiber optic line between Apple and AOL's servers. All that traffic that flows between's AOL's servers is free, (free as in only fixed costs) so if I view an AOL member website, and I am an AOL member, AOL didn't have to pay anyone for bandwidth, because it is their lines in between the server and the user. If Apple and AOL had a partnership, the Apple/AOL coalition would own everything between the server the song is stored on and the user's PC, and Apple/AOL would only be left with fixed costs.

Samo

Apr 28, 2003, 10:46 PM

The risk of offending the Mac user base buy porting iTunes to Windows seems neglible compared to the possibilities of driving revenue. It would encourage wider adoption of QuickTime, as noted above, it would sell more iPods (on each of which Apple makes as much profit as a Mac, according to the Fortune article), and of course it would expand the customer base for the iTunes Store. I think all that would be great for us Mac users.

It makes sense that AOL would want to use the store for its own customers. As part of the same company as one of the five big record companies, it would have had the same difficulty getting content from the other companies that each of their efforts have had.

By the way, I bought 5 songs from the iTunes store today, but I would like to see a lot more indie stuff on it.

XnavxeMiyyep

Apr 28, 2003, 10:58 PM

If this becomes a success to the Mac and the PC world, then Apple could give a discount to Mac users, causing maybe millions of switchers! And if each mac costs about $1000, a million switchers would make Apple $1 billion more. (not including expenses)

dermeister

Apr 28, 2003, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Sublime
I think apple is using iTunes as a gateway drug. Before you know it you're doing "X"

:D

Wow that was actually brilliant:D

nuckinfutz

Apr 29, 2003, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by Stella
As far as i'm concerned, Apple have done nothing. Yes, nothing. No revolution, nothing.

Until they support the rest of the world, and offer music services to the rest of us, then I'm really not impressed.

Its useless to the majority of the world.

The mere fact that you've taken your time to post this refutes that fact that you feel it's useless. In time it will be rolled out abroad. Laws are different in every country.

iTunes for PC is a natural choice. Partner with Musicmatch? Why? The key to maximizing profits is not to license another product when you have the technology. Apple's been working on this for a while. That's obvious. I have no doubts that a port of iTunes to PC is well under way.

Let's face it. A PC user is not going to switch to Mac because of an MP3 player. There are dozens of players available on the PC side. Apple needs to develop a robust PC iTunes. This app will directly reflect on the perceived quality of Apple. It needs to function correctly. The more profits Apple can make the more your chances of seeing Macintosh hardware at better pricing. Apple is trying to explore additional revenue areas and this looks to be a winner. Cheaper Mac prices mean more sales..which means more marketshare. That's important to us all.

AOL could be huge. Even if you only get 10% of them buying music regularly that's 2.6 Million people.

Apple should start courting the most successful Indies and move there way down. There is still much work to be done but eventually iTunes Musis Store will contain 5x the songs it does now. It's only a matter of time

u2mr2os2

Apr 29, 2003, 01:04 AM

If Apple makes iTunes for the PC, it will kill the other players assuming it is not crippled. If it is crippled to get you to switch to a Mac to get a non-crippled iTunes, then Windows users will not bite because it is asking too much, and other music players will move to fill the gap. If it is a full-function player and begins to dominate the others, Microsoft will not stand for a threat to Windows Media on their OS. Since, I assert that Apple will do this, then it will mean war.

If Apple wants to convince people other than the easy switchers (ones that have been looking for Windows alternatives) , they need to do more than make a great product and hope a crippled version for Windows will make them pull up roots and move to Mac. They have to know how good it can be on a Mac in a way that a competitor can't do by filling the gap of a crippled Windows iTunes. They also have to care about the reasons to switch.

Switching also has to be cheaper somehow. I mean the only reason most Windows users even looked at Linux is because it was free to try on their existing hardware. Plunking down at least as much as a good PC costs for a low-end Mac is looked at as a total risk. This is because people think that switching to a Mac is an all-or-nothing affair - that you change your total computing system over.

The real switcher campaign should be an ultra-cheap Mac that is an information appliance that is used as an audio/video appliance rather than the primary machine. This way there's no scary conversion of your computer life to the Mac, but you get to try one out. The "appliance" just happens to be a full-up OS X box that people can play around with without needing to immediately find replacemens for all their PC things. The problem as always is price. I'm thinking that this unit has to cost less than $1000. Maybe $999 for a superdrive capability, $599 for something with a CDRW/DVD-ROM (others can comment on what they would pay). Think an iMac derivative without the screen (and maybe even AppleWorks, but definitely keep the iLife stuff) designed to hook up to a VGA monitor that most switchers have or could get for $100. Give it a remote control and maybe a TV out that displays a video menu. The unit is not thought of as running "Mac stuff" or use "Mac formats" if it takes in industry standards (Firewire DV, Analog A/V, CD, DVD, etc) and puts out those same standards. Basically decouple it from the need for it to be compatible with your PC data like Windows media and Word files, but it will be compatible with standards like MP3 files.

In other words, it will not require a PC home to "convert" - it will just enable them to do the "iLife" stuff better. Like my TiVo - it didn't require I spend loads of time converting my VHS tapes to "TiVo format", nor did it need to play VHS tapes. It just slid in there and does what it does very well: record and playback TV the way I want. The VCR now does what it does very well: play my old VHS tapes and archive the occasional show. As the "appliance" Mac users discover it can do some of those "computing" tasks their Windows box does (convenient, pleasurable browsing with Safari, etc.), they can try them out at their leisure without uprooting their Windows world and having a jolting experience not being able to initially do what they used to. Then buying a full-on Mac to replace the PC later will be an easier decision, and the "appliance" Mac can still do its Role.

Apple's fallback plan can always be to just be a vendor of very good PC software at least as long as Microsoft allows them to be.

cb911

Apr 29, 2003, 01:14 AM

this move should be good for Apple. there is (probably) no way that they will make the other iApps available to Windows users as this is a main selling point of Apples.

get Windows users a taste of Apple, then get them doing 'X'. ;) :D :D

trebblekicked

Apr 29, 2003, 01:35 AM

there's more call for indie stuff on these boards then i thought there would be...to that issue, all i could find was the usual suspects (liz phair, spoon, built to spill) nothing from the biggest of the indies, though (pavement, belle & sebastian), and i have all that anyway. when merge, matador and thrill jockey are signed up, i'll take another look.:)

the notion of itunes on/and apple revenue from PC's sounds fantastic. i say port the whole kittencaboodle, all the bells and whistles, and encourage them to pay, pay, pay for their music. the imac may have been the last great hardware cash cow. from here on out, it's how you get people to spend once they have their computer (ie: software, peripherals, content).

Lets see. software? check. peripherals? check. content? check. Apple has just positioned themselves to remain competitive in the tech market.

Cecret

Apr 29, 2003, 01:42 AM

I didn't say it,
but it's true;
This is when it all changed.

Vanilla

Apr 29, 2003, 02:32 AM

As a UK resident I for one am absolutely livid that iTunes musicstore is only available to the US.

Its bad enough having to STILL suffer a crippled iPhoto system (no means of building a book) but now we get yet another cool feature that we in the UK are not allowed to use.

Now to add insult to injury it appears that PC users will get to use this system FIRST!!

Can Apple not understand how insulted/slighted and frankly ignored international Mac users feel?

And please, no rubbish about infrastructure. We know what credit cards are, we have Electronic Fund transfer systems in place, the majority of us use online banks and we even get our salaries paid directly into our bank accounts (woohoo).

No, this smacks either of a myopic US centric vision of the World or its Music companies wanting to screw every last penny out of us by forcing us Brits to pay premium prices on CD's before they allow us to enjoy the new paradigm.

I would like to think its the latter, sad as it is.
Vanilla
PS: Apologies for the rant, but I had to release the anger I felt when I read the reports last night. I've sent a similar email to Apple, for all the good it will do.:mad:

dguisinger

Apr 29, 2003, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by Vanilla
As a UK resident I for one am absolutely livid that iTunes musicstore is only available to the US.

Its bad enough having to STILL suffer a crippled iPhoto system (no means of building a book) but now we get yet another cool feature that we in the UK are not allowed to use.

Now to add insult to injury it appears that PC users will get to use this system FIRST!!

Can Apple not understand how insulted/slighted and frankly ignored international Mac users feel?

And please, no rubbish about infrastructure. We know what credit cards are, we have Electronic Fund transfer systems in place, the majority of us use online banks and we even get our salaries paid directly into our bank accounts (woohoo).

No, this smacks either of a myopic US centric vision of the World or its Music companies wanting to screw every last penny out of us by forcing us Brits to pay premium prices on CD's before they allow us to enjoy the new paradigm.

I would like to think its the latter, sad as it is.
Vanilla
PS: Apologies for the rant, but I had to release the anger I felt when I read the reports last night. I've sent a similar email to Apple, for all the good it will do.:mad:

Have you bothered to consider that iPhoto's printing service uses Kodak's services? Have you looked into whether or not Kodak does online photo printing outside of the US? Apple is HEAVILY reliant on partners...iPhoto - Kodak, iTunes - The music industry......even .Mac is dependant on companies for things such as anti-virus scanning. Steve Jobs mentioned "for now" it is US only. I am sure it will change, but licensing restrictions, and existing exclusive channel distribution agreements are in place for different regions of the world. Apple either has to wait for them to expire, or negotiate with the distribution partner for that region. Remember, the last thing Apple wants to do is get sued

Vanilla

Apr 29, 2003, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by dguisinger
Have you bothered to consider that iPhoto's printing service uses Kodak's services? Have you looked into whether or not Kodak does online photo printing outside of the US? Apple is HEAVILY reliant on partners...iPhoto - Kodak, iTunes - The music industry......even .Mac is dependant on companies for things such as anti-virus scanning. Steve Jobs mentioned "for now" it is US only. I am sure it will change, but licensing restrictions, and existing exclusive channel distribution agreements are in place for different regions of the world. Apple either has to wait for them to expire, or negotiate with the distribution partner for that region. Remember, the last thing Apple wants to do is get sued

With regards to iPhoto.....

http://wwwuk.kodak.com/UK/en/nav/digital.jhtml
http://www.photobox.co.uk/
http://www.fotoview.co.uk/main.asp

And there are others. Naturally to this day not a word has been heard from Apple concerning future intentions.

Look, the issue is Apple are choosing to serve the US first - and then PC users for Gods sake - BEFORE serving their own international users.

To me that isnt exactly good customer service. Not wanting to get sued is admirable, but at the expense of ignoring their own customer base outside of the US of A? Why on earth couldnt they have negotiated global deals FIRST before releasing the system?

Bottom line, what I am most angry about is the decision to serve PC users before International Mac users. That really sticks in my throat.
Vanilla

Bengt77

Apr 29, 2003, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Vanilla
No, this smacks either of a myopic US centric vision of the World or its Music companies wanting to screw every last penny out of us by forcing us Brits to pay premium prices on CD's before they allow us to enjoy the new paradigm.

Yeah, luckily the rest of Europe is able to use the iTunes Shop. NOT! Why are you only thinking about yourself? Are you so ego-centric and chauvenistic? Heck, the whole world is left out from iTunes Shop; only people in the US get to use it. Indeed, a bummer. Or were you sympathizing too much with Blair, Bush' playdoll? In that case I can see why you, as a Brit, are especially disappointed that the 52nd state is being ignored!

Yeah, I'm really, really sorry for you that the UK is being left out. Too bad the Netherlands is being left out too. And France, Germany, Japan, China, Brazil, Australia, Burundi; those countries too. Heck, even Iraq is being left out. Isn't that a shame?!...

Just my opinion; shut up and wait. I'll do the same. I'm just extremely thrilled Apple has done this all; it's amazing, and it WILL reflect in Mac sales, as I'm sure. I, as a Mac user, can only welcome that, can't you? Or are you a Brit first, Mac user second? I thought 'we' were such a nice, warm family, wherever 'we' lived. I guess I'm wrong, and that would be a shame. Has the Mac community failed? Is it the world against itself now? (Or better: each country against the others?) I sure hope that's not it.

Oh well, whatever. At least I'm pretty happy here in Europe. If you're not, just move to the mothership (since the UK really is beginning to be shaped as being the 52nd state).

Sorry for all this utter crap, but crap shoots crap. Just like cops shoot cops, and thiefs catch thiefs. (Heck, and even like eyes 'do' eyes and tooths 'do' tooths, isn't it?!... :-)

*GONE*

[EDIT: Besides, if you had just taken the time to go out and read the full stories on MacNN and MacCentral, you might have gotten a clue as to why the service isn't there for 'us' foreign users yet. Guess what? It's not Apple's fault? Who's it is, then? The music industry's, of course! The Big 5 wanted to wait and see what happened with it, before going out and let Apple 'do' it for the whole world.]

Vanilla

Apr 29, 2003, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by Bengt77
Yeah, luckily the rest of Europe is able to use the iTunes Shop. NOT! Why are you only thinking about yourself? Are you so ego-centric and chauvenistic? Heck, the whole world is left out from iTunes Shop; only people in the US get to use it. Indeed, a bummer. Or were you sympathizing too much with Blair, Bush' playdoll? In that case I can see why you, as a Brit, are especially disappointed that the 52nd state is being ignored!

Yeah, I'm really, really sorry for you that the UK is being left out. Too bad the Netherlands is being left out too. And France, Germany, Japan, China, Brazil, Australia, Burundi; those countries too. Heck, even Iraq is being left out. Isn't that a shame?!...

Just my opinion; shut up and wait. I'll do the same. I'm just extremely thrilled Apple has done this all; it's amazing, and it WILL reflect in Mac sales, as I'm sure. I, as a Mac user, can only welcome that, can't you? Or are you a Brit first, Mac user second? I thought 'we' were such a nice, warm family, wherever 'we' lived. I guess I'm wrong, and that would be a shame. Has the Mac community failed? Is it the world against itself now? (Or better: each country against the others?) I sure hope that's not it.

Oh well, whatever. At least I'm pretty happy here in Europe. If you're not, just move to the mothership (since the UK really is beginning to be shaped as being the 52nd state).

Sorry for all this utter crap, but crap shoots crap. Just like cops shoot cops, and thiefs catch thiefs. (Heck, and even like eyes 'do' eyes and tooths 'do' tooths, isn't it?!... :-)

*GONE*

[EDIT: Besides, if you had just taken the time to go out and read the full stories on MacNN and MacCentral, you might have gotten a clue as to why the service isn't there for 'us' foreign users yet. Guess what? It's not Apple's fault? Who's it is, then? The music industry's, of course! The Big 5 wanted to wait and see what happened with it, before going out and let Apple 'do' it for the whole world.]

I am a UK resident hence my anger was naturally directed at the inability to receive this in the UK. However I of course recognise that this includes ALL non-US users.

If you actually read my two posts you will see the term "International users", as by way of example: "Look, the issue is Apple are choosing to serve the US first - and then PC users for Gods sake - BEFORE serving their own international users."

I am pissed for all NON US mac users. There is a petition doing the rounds as well, which you may like to sign.

Finally with regard to MacNN/Maccentral, the maccentral note came out today, whereas I reacted to yesterdays news. Secondly, Apples comment: "It has to do with the way the record industry is structured and our contracts with the record companies -- we have every intension of expanding the service internationally." simply highlights my point.

Why did they not work out their contracts with the record companies to allow at least a limited service to International users before releasing the service?

Why also do they not at the very least offer an estimated timeline?

Would you REALLY be happy to find yourself still waiting 12 months down the line, as all International users are with iPhoto??

Dont you feel even a little aggrieved that Windows users have a clear timeframe for their chance to use this service BEFORE you even know when you will get the opportunity?

I say again, this was a real kick in the teeth to all International users of Mac software/hardware and shows that, after all, Apple is no different to many other US companies in their US centric view of the world. After the debacle of Sherlock 3 and iPhoto, this is one kick too many imo.
Vanilla

Bengt77

Apr 29, 2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Vanilla
I say again, this was a real kick in the teeth to all International users of Mac software/hardware and shows that, after all, Apple is no different to many other US companies in their US centric view of the world. After the debacle of Sherlock 3 and iPhoto, this is one kick too many imo.

Yeah, you have a point there. I like the path Apple has chosen to walk, but they should at least take their international friends with them. It's a shame they have chosen not to. Yet. Our time will come. And I rather hope sooner than later (of course).

But yes, you're right. I hate it too. What they HAVEN'T done, I mean. But that's not to say I don't like what they HAVE done. Come on, this whole new software/service thing they're (only starting to be) doing now is awesome! Way beyond anything Microsoft has done as of late, if you ask me.

(Well, that deal with some US cinema chain that made sure MS would provide the movies digitally in Windows Media format was quite big too, really.)

Don't you just love international users?! What's the equation now? Are there even more international than US ones? I'd like to know that...

sparks9

Apr 29, 2003, 07:39 AM

Vanilla

Apr 29, 2003, 08:27 AM

Bengt77:

"But yes, you're right. I hate it too. What they HAVEN'T done, I mean. But that's not to say I don't like what they HAVE done. Come on, this whole new software/service thing they're (only starting to be) doing now is awesome! Way beyond anything Microsoft has done as of late, if you ask me."

I fully agree that what Apple has done here is brilliant. Assuming that ever greater copy protection on CD's is inevitable and that P2P sites will face increasing pressure from the authorities, an elegant, fast, fair (to both artist and user), relatively cheap and above all legal service has to be applauded.

All the more reason why I am so mad that they added this service to the others that everyone who hasnt sworn allegiance to the flag is denied from. Anyway, I'm all diatribed out for now.

When I get my breath back I'll return to emailing Apple, media sites, BB's etc. in an attempt to generate some interest in forcing Apple to realise that people in the rest of the World are sick and tired of being ignored, are fed up waiting for a comment on when we can enjoy the cool stuff they are so proud of and would rather like a full complement of functionality for their money for a change.

ciao for now
Vanilla

dongmin

Apr 29, 2003, 09:13 AM

newbies, regulars,

this move is all about the bejamins. If there is any side effect of bringing in more switchers, or turning them off, it'll be peanuts compared to what they could make if this music service really caught on in the PC world.

Apple is definitely on the road to diversifying their revenue streams and making itself a media/tech company for a broad base. Look, why would they give people the option of usb2 on the new iPods? It's cuz they want to make an aggressive push for PC users. Macs vs PC issues are secondary. They've sold something like 700,000 iPods--that's close to $300 mil. With usb2 and making an aggressive push for PC users, I'm sure they can easily double the rate.

JJTiger1

Apr 29, 2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
doesnt putting iTunes on a PC defeat some of the main purposes of buying a mac anyway? awesome applications and an un-crashable machine. not only that- but AOL is a gaurenteed kernal panik on any mac i've ever used... and those arent that much fun...

Apparently the AOL installation baffles the user. :confused:

I have been a long time AOL user, and I have never had a panic attack caused by AOL. I have had a few unexpected quits, but no panic attacks.

AOL 10.3 and Safari 73 seem more stable with Java 1.4.1 and OS 10.2.5. The user should upgrade.

I'm all for Apple seeding iTunes and iPods on the wintel game boxes. (pun intended).

What Apple needs to do now is to have iGames.
-
JJ

bokdol

Apr 29, 2003, 09:37 AM

65 cent to record companies. hook into aol get more subscribers. i hit song bought at 1.00 a million times. how many kids out there wants a song for a dollar a not a whole album for 15.00. so from one acc file the record company gets 650,000 dollars from one song if downloaded 1 million copies. not hard since cd sales for hit sone average in the millions. 650,000 but take 100,000 for the artist. and record comapnies are making a killer. and apple does well itself. nice deal.

and to the international comunity. i feel for you but apple has to take a step of caution. before commiting to a service that has a large possibilty to fail. they have to test out as much of the service as possible. but in due time it well.. i am sure apple well address you guys.

Vanilla

Apr 29, 2003, 11:38 AM

Bokdol:

"and to the international comunity. i feel for you but apple has to take a step of caution. before commiting to a service that has a large possibilty to fail. they have to test out as much of the service as possible. but in due time it well.. i am sure apple well address you guys."

Hi Bokdol. I hear what you are saying but please note, as an example, we in the UK (and I gather the International community as a whole) are STILL waiting to be able to build photo-albums through iPhoto (and I wont even mention Sherlock 3 here)....how long does one have to wait for a "step of caution" to complete?

This is why I find it hard to nod my head sagely when people suggest being patient when I rail against the US Centric iTunes service.

Vanilla

dguisinger

Apr 29, 2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Vanilla
Bokdol:

"and to the international comunity. i feel for you but apple has to take a step of caution. before commiting to a service that has a large possibilty to fail. they have to test out as much of the service as possible. but in due time it well.. i am sure apple well address you guys."

Hi Bokdol. I hear what you are saying but please note, as an example, we in the UK (and I gather the International community as a whole) are STILL waiting to be able to build photo-albums through iPhoto (and I wont even mention Sherlock 3 here)....how long does one have to wait for a "step of caution" to complete?

This is why I find it hard to nod my head sagely when people suggest being patient when I rail against the US Centric iTunes service.

Vanilla

I hate going through this over and over, but here it goes. Apple relies on partners. Look at Sherlock. The only portion Apple provides is the Apple Care searches......thats it! The US is a LARGE territory.....is there a moviefone replacement or yellow page site that covers all of europe? What you need to realize is, sure, maybe you have equivilent services available to you..........but some parts of europe may not. Apple doesn't build these services, they partner. Do you think they will spend the time to partner, custom build a program, and distribute it for EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY?? So, if you want Sherlock...Go build a service that provides the services Apple needs, for every country in Europe, then ask them to partner with you for a european release. Otherwise too freaking bad, the problem is when moving to independant countries of that size, you are consistantly customizing a FREE APPLICATION for each country. Do you want to bankrupt Apple??? So anyways, morral of my post.......stop your b*tchin, find an alternative, or help provide apple with an economical means of providing solutions.

CrackedButter

Apr 29, 2003, 12:17 PM

@Vanilla, I agree but i will wait, besides when the international users can get this, most of the bugs will hopefully be ironed out after the beta test... sorry US users are finished with it.

Btw, the UK is the 51st State not the 52nd, the US only has 50 states as it is, the conquest of iraq does not make it number 51.

Joking of course

Stella

Apr 29, 2003, 12:39 PM

[B]I hate going through this over and over, but here it goes. Apple relies on partners. Look at Sherlock. The only portion Apple provides is the Apple Care searches......thats it! [/QUOTE]

Lame excuse.

Have you seen Watson? That has better international content. If they can do it, then so can Apple.

Apple consistantly f??ks the rest of the world.

With around 50% of their business from outside the US, they can't afford to treat us like that.

Oh, I saw over on macnn - "panther has lots of new user functionality" (words to that effect). No doubt this also means, "US catered for only".

scarletmac

Apr 29, 2003, 12:41 PM

To the chap who keeps talking about partners I see your point but have a problem or two with some of your hyperbole.

All that about European users being unreasonable in expecting Apple to provide regional services for each country is fankly nonsense. Apple sees fit to sell their products in each of these countries and should therefore be ready to make such partnerships in those areas to provide a full service to their extremely loyal users. As unpopular as this might be, Microsoft have managed to do just this in their international versions of Windows XP, with partner services for digital photo printing etc. so why can't Apple.

Please don't start telling me about free applications because as I am sure you are well aware, the margins for these free services are well covered by the increased cost of Apple hardware (over equivalent PC alternatives) in order to use these apps.

I have to agree with Vanilla that some of us international users do get a tad fed up with being treated like the poor relations by American companies.

dguisinger

Apr 29, 2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by scarletmac
To the chap who keeps talking about partners I see your point but have a problem or two with some of your hyperbole.

All that about European users being unreasonable in expecting Apple to provide regional services for each country is fankly nonsense. Apple sees fit to sell their products in each of these countries and should therefore be ready to make such partnerships in those areas to provide a full service to their extremely loyal users. As unpopular as this might be, Microsoft have managed to do just this in their international versions of Windows XP, with partner services for digital photo printing etc. so why can't Apple.

Please don't start telling me about free applications because as I am sure you are well aware, the margins for these free services are well covered by the increased cost of Apple hardware (over equivalent PC alternatives) in order to use these apps.

I have to agree with Vanilla that some of us international users do get a tad fed up with being treated like the poor relations by American companies.

First of all, we are both assuming that Apple has not made an effort to do so. Maybe it is in the works, they never talk about anything, so you never know.

Second point: If Apple doesn't provide the software with their machines there, they obviously didn't tell you you would receive it. Apple doesn't owe you a thing. They don't owe me a thing. It is Apple's choice what to release, where to release, and when to release, based on Apple's self interest, not yours or mine.

Third Point: I dont know about you, but I have looked into licensing similar services. Many of the mapping services ask $10,000 - $20,000 per year, plus $0.05 or so per map. Thats not so bad, if you deal with that many customers, but if you take x number of customers, divide it up into 30 regions, and each region has to have its own licesning fees paid, then it gets messy. Apple is providing a free service, which means they operate it at a loss. It is their choice at how much of a loss to operate it at. Again, if they never said it was available in the UK, they never promised it to you. It doesn't mean that they can't, but it doesn't mean its a good business decision in their eyes.

Think about it this way, Microsoft has 95% of the market. They have more users to use their services. Paying annual commitments for services like photos and other items is no problem, as they expect to make it back. With Apple, in many smaller countries, the best they could expect is maybe break even. Again, Apple consistantly has 3-5% market share........so when you look at the UK, and the number of localized service partners they need for all of their free services, plus some of their paid services.......the costs become huge. Many of you probably wont understand this until you run an online business and attempt to license content or services.

Doctor Q

Apr 29, 2003, 02:30 PM

When the announcement was first made, I was surprised that it was called The iTunes Music Store and not The Apple Music Store, since I had expected they'd make a deal with a third party for the Windows client software. With a plan to port iTunes (or iTunes Lite) to Windows, the name of the service makes more sense.

After the Windows port, how 'bout iTunes for Linux or iTunes for Tivo?

dguisinger

Apr 29, 2003, 02:39 PM

Did anyone else type the wrong password in, and get the iForgot button flashing in your face? I almost broke up laughing, Apple does have a sense of humor.

xDANx

Apr 29, 2003, 03:19 PM

i'm not sure if anyone noticed this...but if you look at the bottom of the ipod page at the apple store there's some interesting information about USB 2.0. i've attached a screen shot taken from the canadian apple store. it looks like windows users, at least those who haven't installed a firewire card, won't get to use their ipods until june when apple makes available some sort of necessary USB 2.0 download. i though it was interesting, maybe someone else will too.

switchedback

Apr 29, 2003, 03:33 PM

Thank God!

As a "switcher" who recently switched back (to PC), one of the few things I miss about the Mac is iTunes. It sounds as though I picked just the right time to move back to the Windows world.

JJTiger1

Apr 30, 2003, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by switchedback
Thank God!

As a "switcher" who recently switched back (to PC), one of the few things I miss about the Mac is iTunes. It sounds as though I picked just the right time to move back to the Windows world.

Thank you. May I have your Mac now?:D
-
JJ

switchedback

Apr 30, 2003, 10:17 AM

To JJTiger1:

It's a 15" PowerBook. Look for it on eBay in the next few weeks.

tirreldm

May 19, 2003, 11:38 PM

I made it here looking to find info on whether or not iTunes was going to make it to PC format or not. For those of you who say it shouldn't happen, Apple would miss a huge audience if they didn't. It's a PC world and probably will be for a long time. Take it from a guy who started on Mac and switched to PC. Now I'm not knocking Mac, I like it, and of course it will be stable when Mac only makes it's own hardware for the most part. Less third party, less problems. One thing to consider about the great Mac, though: As I am a PC repair tech, we tried to score some parts for a Mac Power book that was only three years old at the time directly from Apple. The part was not available from them and we were directed to a doistributor. They stopped carrying that part a while back as well. It's simply BS that after three years a machine should become useless by not being able to access parts from the manufacturer. This doesn't happen with PCs nearly as much. I don't care if the software is more stable, if you don't have hardware to run the software then you are in trouble. Just something to think about...

toughboy

May 21, 2003, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by iElvis
All i can say is that at first i was dissapointed that it was iTunes only, w/ no pc version, but after reading this, it makes sense that apple brings iTunes to PC.

3 reasons why Apple should bring iTunes to PC:
1 - complete combaiblity with the iPod (no more musicmatch jukebox)
2 - it will keep the download service within iTunes...no 3rd party software involved that could potentialy mess things up
3 - iTunes is an awsome program and there is nothing like in the PC world. If i could, i would be using iTunes right now.

Just my 2 cents.

Apple should NOT bring all of its "i" programs to Windows platform, but they should release iTunes.. the 3 reasons are the ones above, and the 4th is that Apple will sell more songs and earn profit by releasing it to Windows users..
This is kind of investment.. For example, if someday people will carry photos around with their iPods and Apple will begin to use iPhoto to sell photos, then they should release iPhoto for Windows too.. this is just a way to make money, and in my opinion, it wouldnt damage the "switching" issue..