Mac OS X on Intel? Convergance? iPod and iTunes. [Archive]

MacRumors

Nov 5, 2003, 08:10 PM

Steve Jobs made some (http://news.com.com/2100-1045_3-5103279.html?tag=nefd_top) interesting comments at today's financial analyst meeting... addressing some questions about the future direction of Apple.

One long-standing topic, Mac OS X on Intel, was addressed, with Jobs stating that while Panther could run on any processor, Apple is happy with IBM at the moment:

"Right now we don't see a compelling need to switch processor families. We have all the options in the world, but the PowerPC road map looks very strong," said Jobs

When questioned about Microsoft's Media Center initiative (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/10/20031001041036.shtml), Jobs echoed previous sentiments against convergence (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/01/20020108201904.shtml) and stated "We're not going to go that direction." Jobs was also critical that some services (such as recording television shows) should remain on dedicated devices.

Finally, Jobs addressed the interoperability of iTunes and the iPod with other services/players. According to CNet:

"Jobs rebuffed the idea that the iTunes music store should work with MP3 players other than the iPod, or conversely, that Apple's iPod should work with other music download services."

MacCoaster

Nov 5, 2003, 08:17 PM

Any processor? Even the Itanium? the SPARC? the Alpha?

:p

the_dalex

Nov 5, 2003, 08:17 PM

It's good to see Steve sticking to his guns.

From the first day I bought my tuner card for my PC and realized it was not the way to go, I've pushed for having dedicated devices for media. Keep the iPod as a music player, the Tivo as a TV recorder, an so on, then let me use my digital hub to work with what they produce. That's the only way to get consistent quality output.

Why would I want to set my PC up to record television? Usually I want to be USING my PC during that time, and recording television requires the system's full attention. Let the Tivo do it, and then let me grab the video files to work with if I want them on my computer...

voicegy

Nov 5, 2003, 08:17 PM

"Jobs rebuffed the idea that the iTunes music store should work with MP3 players other than the iPod, or conversely, that Apple's iPod should work with other music download services."

At first, I dig that statement. Keep it clean, keep it simple, keep it the best...keep it Apple.:D

Then, 2 seconds later, I remembered another device that was able to record with outstanding quality, in a closed format, that was the first and the best, and was an innovator in design, form, function, and abilities....

Sony's Betamax.

I'm torn....

the_dalex

Nov 5, 2003, 08:18 PM

Panther could be written to run on any modern processor, even those you mentioned. He's not saying it would be an easy port...

DeusOmnis

Nov 5, 2003, 08:18 PM

Make iTunes kick ass and force people to use the ipod!

sethypoo

Nov 5, 2003, 08:20 PM

Lol, intel+Apple, what next?

Dippo

Nov 5, 2003, 08:22 PM

At least Jobs isn't buying into the whole Media PC craze. I am sure everyone wants a $3000 Tivo :)

the_dalex

Nov 5, 2003, 08:23 PM

Good point, but Beta was never the number one brand among young people and never had this much marketshare (to my knowledge).

The iPod is guaranteed to lose ground in the market, but if the only reason your product isn't in everyone's hands is price, you're actually sitting pretty. If your price is the lowest and you have poor marketshare, then you're in a real nasty spot, because it means people don't want your product.

There's more than one market within the music player market, just like the car market isn't all mid-sized sedans.

Dippo

Nov 5, 2003, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by voicegy
"Jobs rebuffed the idea that the iTunes music store should work with MP3 players other than the iPod, or conversely, that Apple's iPod should work with other music download services."

At first, I dig that statement. Keep it clean, keep it simple, keep it the best...keep it Apple.:D

Then, 2 seconds later, I remembered another device that was able to record with outstanding quality, in a closed format, that was the first and the best, and was an innovator in design, form, function, and abilities....

Sony's Betamax.

I'm torn....

I do think that Jobs might be heading in the wrong direction with this one. I am not saying let the iPod play WMA files, but it would be nice to have a cheap Flash Memory MP3/AAC Player that worked with iTunes. Not everyone can afford a $300 iPod.

Booga

Nov 5, 2003, 08:37 PM

Argh! I feel like we're going on 1984 instead of 2004, and we're facing the question of whether to license to the world and become the de facto standard, or keep everything closed and integrated and go our own path. With MacOS, it led to a <5% market share. Let's hope they don't similarly hobble the iPod.

mproud

Nov 5, 2003, 08:40 PM

The press seems to be making such a big deal and providing their own reasons to why Apple should switch over. But from a technological perspective, Steve is right. What's wrong with the IBM PowerPC? The G5s seem to be a hit and IBM seems dedicated to providing newer versions.

I don't see why a lot of journalists and various editors understand this?

sethypoo

Nov 5, 2003, 08:40 PM

Frankly, I hate the WMA format. It just takes too much space and has iffy sound quality. I am very impressed with Apple's AAC format. However, it would be smart of Apple to make the next generation of the iPod compatable with WMA. Think of it, the iPod could then tap into iTunes, Napster, Wal*Mart music store, and so on and so forth. It would get Apple's name even more out there. Apple could, say, bundle the iTunes software with each iPod and include a gift certificate for $10 to lure people in that direction.

Genius, I should work for Apple, lol.:rolleyes:

xtekdiver

Nov 5, 2003, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by the_dalex
It's good to see Steve sticking to his guns.

From the first day I bought my tuner card for my PC and realized it was not the way to go, I've pushed for having dedicated devices for media. Keep the iPod as a music player, the Tivo as a TV recorder, an so on, then let me use my digital hub to work with what they produce. That's the only way to get consistent quality output.

Why would I want to set my PC up to record television? Usually I want to be USING my PC during that time, and recording television requires the system's full attention. Let the Tivo do it, and then let me grab the video files to work with if I want them on my computer...

I agree, my tuner card experiance left a lot to be desired. It's cool if your media center is your computer and you watch it in your office, but for most home senarios it just isn't a workable solution; I for one believe the whole idea of recording TV will be replaced with viewing on demand. But even if it isn't, imagine trying to control your computer while sitting in on your sofa. I know people kinda do it with WebTV, but that really blows. It just doesn't work. I can imagine something more like recording a show with my remote control and Tivo like unit, and then going over to my computer later and editing it with Final Cut Pro or some such application, and then storing it on my Xserver Raid to be streamed back over to my TV when I want to watch something, and all of these devices conected with my Airport. Oh ya! Gotta have an Xserver. I think Jobs is right about convergance, it just isn't the right way to go.

And that brings up another issue with the iPod. Like the previous thread about Sony, they are going to go for the convergance device as an iPod killer. I think it will not work too well. The issue is do people really want a digital music player that can do video and games? Maybe, but I am not so sure. I think the iPod will continue to change and adapt, but it will be more along the lines of adding functionality that adds to your music enjoyment. In other words, making it possible to plug it into your car audio system without all the wires, or into your home stereo system and controlling it like a component, ect. You will use your computer to arrange and control all your music and the iPod will be the device that lets you listen to it in any environment. Video is a completly different situation and requires a completly different type of device.

Powerbook G5

Nov 5, 2003, 08:53 PM

Steve sticks by his decisions, I really admire that. I love how he will just flat out say what he thinks about any given question, comment, or statement and doesn't care what other analysts may think of his vision.

Sun Baked

Nov 5, 2003, 09:14 PM

Don't worry the recent efforts by the Fed will put a crimp in people's watching/trading of tv on their computers.F.C.C. Acts Against Pirating of TV Broadcasts
By STEPHEN LABATON

Published: November 5, 2003

WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 - Federal regulators approved rules on Tuesday meant to prevent people from copying broadcasts of television shows and movies and widely distributing them on the Internet.

The decision, by the Federal Communications Commission, was widely hailed by Hollywood and the networks, which had lobbied hard for it. They have argued that at the dawn of digital television, they need regulatory and technological protection to avoid the experiences of the recording industry, which has been forced to cut prices and has filed hundreds of lawsuits to try to stop swapping of music on the Internet.

The movie studios and networks, as well as top regulators including Michael K. Powell, the chairman of the F.C.C., have said the rules are essential to accelerating the transition to digital television. Earlier this year, the commission reported that more than 1,000 broadcast television stations were transmitting digital programming, and every major market is now served by at least one digital station.

more... @ NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/05/business/media/05flag.html)

Snlhobo

Nov 5, 2003, 09:25 PM

I hope that by shutting out the WMA format, apple isnt making a mistake, granted WMA sucks. I just dont want to see apple's trojan horse go down the drain.

HashPipeK

Nov 5, 2003, 09:45 PM

We actually have a pretty sweet media box set up now running Windows XP. ow I'm the last person to run winblows, but for a minimal cost we have got a pretty sweet media box. Took some work but it works very well now. if anyone cares to hear more I'll post the specs and how everything works.

itsbetteronamac

Nov 5, 2003, 10:18 PM

I am happy that apple is getting extra popular latley with the ipod+iTMS. But, I am afraid if everyone gets an iPod it's just gonna loose it's cool factor. I mean all us Apple users, won't be able to show off our asome apps, and shiny new iPods anymore.

I like being superior to pc users even if they don't know it.

Sol

Nov 5, 2003, 10:24 PM

With the iBooks moving to the G4 and with the arrival of the G5 for PowerMacs there is no longer an incentive to consider Intel CPUs for the Mac. Even Microsoft is jumping on the PPC bandwagon so why would Apple take steps backwards toward the x86 processors? The only people who would benefit from such a move are the technology analysts who have been predicting such a move for the last five years.

As for iTunes not working with other media players, this is not exactly true. iTunes can encode MP3s and this makes its files compatible with most players, even if you have to use the Finder to copy those files to the devices. Dell, Creative etc have backed Microsoft's format, making any talk about better iTunes compatibility redundant.

The iTunes Music Store does not make money without the iPod sales that it encourages but maybe iTunes for Windows will change this. If the iTunes Music Store can become profitable on its own then Apple could make other players compatible provided they support the AAC format.

flyfish29

Nov 5, 2003, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by the_dalex
Good point, but Beta was never the number one brand among young people and never had this much marketshare (to my knowledge).

Great point. I read/saw something someplace about the Betamax fiasco and why it really didn't fly...the report said that sony would not license Beta for use on porn. Back in the early 80's or whenever Beta was struggling and VHS was taking off the report said that this ability to show porn made VHS what it is today. Does anyone else have knowledge of this report or if porn was ever available on Beta other than dubbing?

I totally agree that Apple should make it all themselves...but they may have to coform to "standards" that are more broadly used/accepted. The market will tell Apple this as long as they are paying attention...they just have to make a decision earlier rather than later if a change is made.

Just wondering.

Sol

Nov 5, 2003, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by flyfish29
I totally agree that Apple should make it all themselves...but they may have to coform to "standards" that are more broadly used/accepted. The market will tell Apple this as long as they are paying attention...they just have to make a decision earlier rather than later if a change is made.

I disagree that Apple has to conform to the WMA 'standard'. The iTunes Music Store has been more succesful in selling music online than any of these services that have backed WMA. AAC has proven itself to be the superior technology not only by sounding better than WMA but also by being purchased a lot more often.

In short, Apple can make whatever format it chooses to back the standard for online music sales. Lack of compatible players is not only due to Apple wanting to sell iPods but also the competition's backing of the WMA format instead of AAC.

By the way, Panasonic are the only other company that I can think of who support AAC in their players.

Tulse

Nov 5, 2003, 10:44 PM

I understand why Apple doesn't want iTMS to carry WMA music, since that would be playable on other digital music players. But I'm not nearly as clear on why Apple resists letting the iPod interoperate with other online music stores by supporting WMA. Is Apple actually anticipating that, with iTMS for Windows, music sales might actually make a profit directly? If not, why not let the iPod become more versatile, and therefore more universally desireable?

singletrack

Nov 5, 2003, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Sol
I disagree that Apple has to conform to the WMA 'standard'. The iTunes Music Store has been more succesful in selling music online than any of these services that have backed WMA. AAC has proven itself to be the superior technology not only by sounding better than WMA but also by being purchased a lot more often.

Only in the US. In Europe it's entirely MP3 and WMA. No AAC at all. It'll get more difficult when the WMA based services pick up speed - Apple had a head start which has now all but gone and they are way behind in Europe.

bigdog

Nov 5, 2003, 11:14 PM

Don't count out WMA support in iTunes yet.

Check iTunes.app > Contents > Resource > iTunes-wma.icns

http://www.lickable.net/img/itunes_wma.jpg

Mr. G4

Nov 5, 2003, 11:40 PM

That's because may be Apple doesn't want to pay Microsoft like other mp3 player makers that support WMA don't want to pay extra money to support AAC.

Originally posted by Tulse
I understand why Apple doesn't want iTMS to carry WMA music, since that would be playable on other digital music players. But I'm not nearly as clear on why Apple resists letting the iPod interoperate with other online music stores by supporting WMA. Is Apple actually anticipating that, with iTMS for Windows, music sales might actually make a profit directly? If not, why not let the iPod become more versatile, and therefore more universally desireable?

Sabenth

Nov 6, 2003, 12:15 AM

What benfits do you get from using another big name product i dont see the point either ibm seem fine to me the iPod is doing fine as well. iTunes both formats seems to be doing well in fact to well lol

But all in all seems to me Apple dose what it wants mucht the same as what M$ do as well take into acount they domanate 90 +% of the worlds computers all those users are forced to use things they dont want and hence why i now use Macs

but this is not a PC VS PPC THREAD THANK TAZO FOR THAT ONE LOL!!!

macnews

Nov 6, 2003, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by Booga
Argh! I feel like we're going on 1984 instead of 2004, and we're facing the question of whether to license to the world and become the de facto standard, or keep everything closed and integrated and go our own path. With MacOS, it led to a <5% market share. Let's hope they don't similarly hobble the iPod.

Ummm, isn't ACC actually MP4 just with Apple's own little name on it? I think there are some other tweaks in it but I thought the MP4 formats should play on any mp4 player. I am no expert in this area and would love to hear from some one who does know more about this. If I am right or somewhat close, then ACC won't "hobble" the iPod. If I'm way off base then I think Booga has a good point. I like to cma.

Rower_CPU

Nov 6, 2003, 01:25 AM

AAC is a Dolby format (http://www.dolby.com/company/is.ot.0011.TechOverview.03.html).

Apple's not doing some weird proprietary thing here folks - it's a standard audio format.

tychay

Nov 6, 2003, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by sethypoo
Frankly, I hate the WMA format. It just takes too much space and has iffy sound quality. I am very impressed with Apple's AAC format. However, it would be smart of Apple to make the next generation of the iPod compatable with WMA. Think of it, the iPod could then tap into iTunes, Napster, Wal*Mart music store, and so on and so forth.

No that would be stupid.

What should be done in your example is for Napster, WalMart and others to license FairPlay from Apple and use AAC. Instead, they use WMA which is neither free, nor open, nor standard. (AAC is open and standard, Fairplay is tacked onto AAC). For the record: AAC is to MPEG-4 as MP3 is to MPEG-2 (i.e. AAC == mp4 but they chose AAC because "mpeg2-layer3". This created a confusion that is why there is no MPEG-3 and it was decided to avoid such confusion in the future).

This is not a case of BetaMax vs. VHS simply because the "VHS" in this case isn't open and the owner of it is a monopolist (in the legal and economic sense, but obviously not in the FUD, revisionist history sense). Honestly, if something like 80% of the purchased music is encoded on AAC/Fairplay in which a license fee was paid to a consortium of industry developers and experts (like Apple, Dolby, and others), why should Apple pay a licensing fee to Microsoft which is pushing their own format as "standard" in an attempt to co-opt everyone else and extract another monopoly position?

Also, I can't play WMA files on my mac (well I can, barely) because Microsoft's media player support is crap on the Mac, why should Windows users get preferential treatment (we are talking parity here, not preferential). Sure, I can handle other media players on iTunes for the Mac, but that's because Apple made money from me because I bought a Mac and Mac OS X (obviously both from them). In fact, if Apple didn't support them in iTunes, developers would balk. (Note, contrary to the 1500 some odd people on the MVP (http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/) payroll, this example is not a monopoly in the legal or economic sense--this is free market at work. If Apple didn't support 3rd party players in iTunes for the Mac, developers would leave the platform hurting Apple's sales.)

Finally, look at how iTunes is structured. They went and ported everything down to using QuickTime for playback and OpenGL to render the GUI widgets. Supporting Windows Media isn't in the cards because it means building a dependency against Windows Media in addition to QuickTime. When QuickTime and iTunes on the Mac support WMA license-free, then maybe you'll see iTunes for Windows support it.

Until other players license FairPlay, it doesn't make sense for iTunes for Windows (a free software package) to support any other player either. After all, what's in it for Apple? They pay a licensing fee for the MP3 encoder and what do they get in return: no sales of music (these players either don't support anything other than MP3 or support the Microsoft proprietary WMA), no sales of iPods (obviously), and no revenue licensing fees through the MPEG-4 consortium and directly via FairPlay (because it's WMA).

Really, let's translate the two questions: ``the iTunes music store should work with MP3 players other than the iPod'' == ``You should make a piece of software that you don't make a penny on drive sales toward your competitors who'd rather user a proprietary, closed standard than one you help create.'' and ``Apple's iPod should work with other music download services'' == ``You should pay to license the a proprietary, closed standard that represents a small market share* deliberately weakening a competitive advantage (vertical integration, patents on synchronization) in your products.''

I hope as consumers, it is important that we try to be educated about what the issues really are--and educate others. Let's not let lies about "AAC is not standard" or "WMA is standard" continue. Because there is a company out there who pays 1500+ people who are not even employees of the company to continue those lies.

Obviously, my post is from Apple's perspective. Now if you argue that then Apple will lose because Microsoft will use their monopoly position and extract rents on the OS to muscle into a new market (i.e. bribe OEMs to include Windows Media or claim that the OS and Windows Media can't be separated, or deliberately break APIs in an update in order to weaken a competitor--all of which they've done and been convicted of doing illegally before), then I understand. But Apple can't do anything about this--they're a company, not the government and they're out to make money, not to produce iTunes for Windows as pro bono.

While Apple cannot do anything. Perhaps, as individuals, we can.

* AAC marketshare + WMA marketshare != 100%. There is a hefty amount of sales of MP3, believe it or not.

manitoubalck

Nov 6, 2003, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by sethypoo
Lol, intel+Apple, what next?

If I said IBM+Apple 6/7 years ago I would have been called idiot. I still hear people talk about IBM compatables.

manitoubalck

Nov 6, 2003, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by macnews
Ummm, isn't ACC actually MP4 just with Apple's own little name on it? I think there are some other tweaks in it but I thought the MP4 formats should play on any mp4 player. I am no expert in this area and would love to hear from some one who does know more about this. If I am right or somewhat close, then ACC won't "hobble" the iPod. If I'm way off base then I think Booga has a good point. I like to cma.

Ever heard the term MPEG1-layer 3. Thats the common MP3.
MPEG1 is VCD
MPEG2 is DVD
I'm not aware of a MPEG3
MP4 however is a compressed video codec also known as Div-X, MPEG4.

This is how I understand it, also I believe Rower is correct when he comments that "AAC is a dolby format," it may even be the audio codec used on DVD's?
If I have it wrong could someone please correct me. However I'm still a fan of PCM audio on the 12" LaserDisc.:)

hulugu

Nov 6, 2003, 03:03 AM

Bakey

Nov 6, 2003, 04:11 AM

(AAC is open and standard, Fairplay is tacked onto AAC). For the record: AAC is to MPEG-4 as MP3 is to MPEG-2 (i.e. AAC == mp4 but they chose AAC because "mpeg2-layer3". This created a confusion that is why there is no MPEG-3 and it was decided to avoid such confusion in the future).

Sorry to be picky, but... MP3 is not related to MPEG2! The format derived its name from it being part of the MPEG1 specification ie, "MPEG1 layer 3" aka MP3.

TTFN...

Bengt77

Nov 6, 2003, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by bigdog
Don't count out WMA support in iTunes yet.

Check iTunes.app > Contents > Resource > iTunes-wma.icns

Wow; you pointed to something I hadn't seen yet. As a matter of fact, I have looked in that place once, but totally overlooked that icon-file. Pretty cool, if you ask me.

I tried to load a WMA-file into iTunes, but it wouldn't accept it. Anyone knows when the real support is coming? (And not just support for the icon... :-)

jocknerd

Nov 6, 2003, 07:35 AM

The whole idea of iTMS was to sell more ipods. What could be better? Have other music stores sell music that is compatible with the ipod as well. License Fairplay to these other music stores. But don't license it to hardware mfrs. But I think Steve is letting a few million sales in the iTMS cloud the big picture. He may risk losing millions of sales from iPods by concentrating on sales in iTMS.

And then, once again, Apple will have this one little corner of the market for themselves.

Malic

Nov 6, 2003, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Any processor? Even the Itanium? the SPARC? the Alpha?

:p

6502 on original Apple II hardware? :D

Malic

Nov 6, 2003, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Bengt77
Wow; you pointed to something I hadn't seen yet. As a matter of fact, I have looked in that place once, but totally overlooked that icon-file. Pretty cool, if you ask me.

I tried to load a WMA-file into iTunes, but it wouldn't accept it. Anyone knows when the real support is coming? (And not just support for the icon... :-)

Maybe they are waiting on Microsoft? There is suppose to be a WMP update for X "someday". Perhaps it's CODEC's are what Apple is waiting for?

jayscheuerle

Nov 6, 2003, 08:31 AM

Whatever Steve.

Does anybody actually take this hyperbole addict with less than a half-bag of road salt? I don't even think he believes himself anymore.

I'm sure there are idiots who just scanned the article and are all psyched to buy the iToast...

kcmac

Nov 6, 2003, 08:41 AM

by tychay
When QuickTime and iTunes on the Mac support WMA license-free, then maybe you'll see iTunes for Windows support it.

That will be the key and will also indicate that Apple has won.

Apple is in the drivers seat. Why should they cower or bend to anything right now.
Nearly everyone considers them the Gold Standard or at least the one they compare the next best thing to.

If the McDonald's deal goes thru, this will further solidify their market. (McDonalds supposedly to buy 1 billion songs ala Pepsi.)

The others should quickly start figuring out how they can play with Apple or they will be swept off the bow of the boat.

eric_n_dfw

Nov 6, 2003, 08:55 AM

I often thought a Media center PC would be great, but when I got my DirecTV DVR Tivo in June I see why those Media PC's will never take off.

For $150 I got a box that I just plugged in and started using. 2 DSS tuners and direct recording of the MPEG-2 stream from the satelite to the hard drive. (Including Dolby Digital 5.1 on movies!)

edit: Oh - there is a $5 per month fee for the service - but it's worth it to me.

jayscheuerle

Nov 6, 2003, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
I often thought a Media center PC would be great, but when I got my DirecTV DVR Tivo in June I see why those Media PC's will never take off.

Let's not even mention that your movies and music, all your "entertainment" is shot to hell if your system goes down. I've already run into that problem since all my CDs are converted to mp3s and my standalone CD player is broken...

eric_n_dfw

Nov 6, 2003, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Let's not even mention that your movies and music, all your "entertainment" is shot to hell if your system goes down. I've already run into that problem since all my CDs are converted to mp3s and my standalone CD player is broken... To be fair, that's true of all my Pay-Per-View movies and other shows on the Tivo if the HD crashes or something too. But the Tivo OS is a lot simpler and only doing one thing -- being a Tivo!

MorganX

Nov 6, 2003, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by tychay
No that would be stupid.

What should be done in your example is for Napster, WalMart and others to license FairPlay from Apple and use AAC. Instead, they use WMA which is neither free, nor open, nor standard.

What is kind of stupid is thinking consumers give a darn about whether or not something is an open standard. Competitors, who want to compete without investing in R&D, who don't want the cost of providing support, etc. care about open standards.

Consumers care about buying what they want, and they don't care who gives it to them and to hell with competitors who dont' give me what I want. In the end, in a capitalist society that's what creates monopolies. Supply and demand. If you are the only one supplying the overwhelming majority with what they want, you are a monopoloy. And just as we have the bankruptcy laws to appease losers because we are a caring society, we have monopoly laws to help keep the wealth distributed (except on the Mac platform where Apple gets it all).

WMA is a defacto standard, and is cheap enough. Microsoft does not compete with those who use it's media services. Apple does. That's Apple's choice and has little or nothing to do with Microsoft.

Steve doesn't endorse convergence at this time. Well what do you think a digital hub is? A convergence point. Steve does support convergence, but he doesn't want to invest in a living room PC right now because that's not Apple's business model. I don't think they want to take the R&D loss at this time. Neither do many others.

Microsoft was declared a monopoly and what has changed? Who is providing meaningful alternatives to IE, Windows, Office? The competitors who have led that charge have done what since getting what they want? ..........

The fact is they love the market Microsoft has created, and are more than happy to let Microsoft deal with the complexities of support, security, hardware conflicts, and trying to create and enforce defacto standards. What they want, is for the governement to force Microsoft to let them piggyback on Microsoft's OS and get rich without the work. That's my take.

Apple makes business decisions based on how it wants to make money. Those decisions tend to leave any market they are in, wide open, in a capitalist society, others will fill those gaps.

The iPod is great, but it's not for everyone. Some people actually don't like the design. Some don't need that much storage, so you think they're going to buy one just because Apple shareholders like money just like the rest of us. No, they're going to buy from someone who is selling them what "they" want. If that's someone building a product on Microsoft tools, what's it to you?

Some people really take this too serious. It's only personal for you. For Apple and Microsoft, and Sony, it's business.

Open source. If I buy a cake, I don't care where you got the flour. If you grew your own, or bought it from the farmer down the street. Because if the cake sucks, I'm not going to take the cake back to some farmer who gave you free flour. I'm bringing it back to you, and I'm going to go buy the cake that meets my needs from someone else. Open source is the dumbest buzzword B#@#@#t this industry has ever seen. It means absolutely nothing to the consumer. If you want to build off a free template, go right ahead. It's not going to affect the rules of supply and demand one iota.

arn

Nov 6, 2003, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by bigdog
Don't count out WMA support in iTunes yet.

Check iTunes.app > Contents > Resource > iTunes-wma.icns

WMA icons have been in iTunes since the early versions.

arn

kristianm

Nov 6, 2003, 09:39 AM

jayscheuerle

Nov 6, 2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by kristianm
But iTunes is there just to sell iPods. The real question is why shouldn't iPods work with everything else.

E G O (again)

It worked so well in the '80's...:rolleyes:

kristianm

Nov 6, 2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by tychay
No that would be stupid.

What should be done in your example is for Napster, WalMart and others to license FairPlay from Apple and use AAC.

Could, would, should. Monopolist, schmonopolist.

If I had some songs in WMA format I would not buy and iPod. It is as simple as that.

Luckily I got my iPod first.

billyboy

Nov 6, 2003, 09:58 AM

The business model of iTMS and iPod in its current state is the game plan now. There is no need to change as the market stands now. With 70% revenue share in players and 80% share of downloads you dont go changing too much.

However there would also be no reason not to make the iPod compatible with competitors´stores in the future - if the market signs were pointing that out as the way to go. Apple have the money and the balls now to be as tough as necessary to make iTunes and iPod the best deal out there. Its just there is nothing out there right now to go the WMA route or whatever, so relax with the current programme and let the marketing terriers at Apple take all the stress pills.

agreenster

Nov 6, 2003, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by the_dalex
Panther could be written to run on any modern processor, even those you mentioned. He's not saying it would be an easy port...

There have been countless articles about this, and its pretty certain that Apple keeps Marklar (an internal x86 build of OSX) up-to-date as a fall-back plan in case any radical changes need to be made to their hardware. Howeverm its obviously a safe bet that Apple and IBM will be using PPC for a nice long time, but the x86 software is pretty much always being developed alongside the PPC version.

Apple did consider switching to x86 chips (most likely AMD) before committing to IBM.

primalman

Nov 6, 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by bigdog
Don't count out WMA support in iTunes yet.

Check iTunes.app > Contents > Resource > iTunes-wma.icns

Hmmmmm...interesting. If history is any lesson, having this already in the software is fairly good proof that it is coming...someday a least.

primalman

Nov 6, 2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by manitoubalck
If I said IBM+Apple 6/7 years ago I would have been called idiot. I still hear people talk about IBM compatables.

"IBM compatible" is vernacular left over from the past.

In fact .you should have been saying IBM+Apple 6-7 years ago since Apple, IBM and Motorola are the alliance that created the PowerPC spec off of the POWER chip series of IBM's design.

More IBM + Apple = A Good Thing[ tm]

the_mole1314

Nov 6, 2003, 11:05 AM

What SJ said about iTunes and iPod is in direct contradiction to what I've heard.

Spagolli94

Nov 6, 2003, 11:53 AM

jayscheuerle

Nov 6, 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Spagolli94
Not everyone can afford a BMW, either. But you don't see them dumbing down there products to compete with Hyundai, do you? It's called niche marketing and Apple happens to be quite good at it.

That wouldn't necessarily mean "dumbing" anything down. Even 5gigs can be overkill for daily use. They could make a killer, overpriced flash memory player if they wanted to, but that market's already pretty established. Apple's getting their first taste of competition for the iPod and that's good for everybody!

Rower_CPU

Nov 6, 2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by manitoubalck
...
MP4 however is a compressed video codec also known as Div-X, MPEG4.

IIRC, DivX is a completely different format that hijacked the MPEG4 moniker while the MPEG group was working out the actual MPEG4 standard and now supports the format.

DivX has no relationship with the MPEG group, unless something's changed recently.

TomSmithMacEd

Nov 6, 2003, 12:26 PM

To someone's comment saying "Apple did consider switching to x86 chips (most likely AMD) before committing to IBM."

How sweet would've that been? AMD is the best chip maker out there. If I could have my eMac with a 2000xp instead of a 1ghz g4 it would be wonderful! Plus I could probably get it for cheaper.

allpar

Nov 6, 2003, 12:28 PM

To quickly get back to the guy who said "MS was declared a monopoly and nothing happened" (paraphrased), the reason for that is that MS gave lots and lots of money to the Bush campaign.

As soon as he took over, the Department of Justice settled for a slap on the wrist - well, not even that!

Then there was the massive Windows buy by the Department of Homeland Security... I noticed they didn't get anything CLOSE to the deal offered to Munich. Then again, I doubt whether they bargained at all.

If you break federal laws against fair trade practices and break perjury laws, why wouldn't you "legally" bribe an entire political party, too?

primalman

Nov 6, 2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by TomSmithMacEd
AMD is the best chip maker out there.

This is why AMD rarely - if ever - posts profits, cause they are the best?

arn

Nov 6, 2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
DivX has no relationship with the MPEG group, unless something's changed recently.

The "official" Divx is now MPEG4 compliant.

http://www.divx.com

arn

allpar

Nov 6, 2003, 12:51 PM

You can be the best chip maker and lose money because antitrust laws are not enforced, or because the public is gullible or ignorant. Or are you really saying that when it was the best selling car in America, that the Ford Escort was also the best car? Or that because Ford is profitable now and DaimlerChrysler is not, that Fords are better than Dodges and Jeeps?

Profitability and quality are separate entities. You can make the best of something and the best price and not have good sales or profits.

kristianm

Nov 6, 2003, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by TomSmithMacEd
To someone's comment saying "Apple did consider switching to x86 chips (most likely AMD) before committing to IBM."

How sweet would've that been? AMD is the best chip maker out there. If I could have my eMac with a 2000xp instead of a 1ghz g4 it would be wonderful! Plus I could probably get it for cheaper.

I have had a few computers with AMD chips, and they have all been quite loud. Maybe they are getting better, but you would never see an iMac with that fan inside.

kristianm

Nov 6, 2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by allpar
You can be the best chip maker and lose money because antitrust laws are not enforced, or because the public is gullible or ignorant. Or are you really saying that when it was the best selling car in America, that the Ford Escort was also the best car? Or that because Ford is profitable now and DaimlerChrysler is not, that Fords are better than Dodges and Jeeps?

Profitability and quality are separate entities. You can make the best of something and the best price and not have good sales or profits.

Marked theory says that the best product should win and be the bestseller. Best product includes such things as price, marketing and security.

The escort is easily better than more expansive cars since it is affordable for most people.

Noone is getting fired for buying a wintel computer, so companies buy a lot of them.

Rower_CPU

Nov 6, 2003, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by arn
The "official" Divx is now MPEG4 compliant.

http://www.divx.com

arn

I was just looking at that. They're complaint now, but saying MPEG4 is synonymous with or based on DivX is misleading.

allpar

Nov 6, 2003, 01:54 PM

You mean market theory I assume. Market theory says the best product shoudl win GIVEN rational customers with full information. Market theory as properly taught notes that this ideal situation NEVEr exists. If it did, why would we have marketing?

The Ford Escrot was never, never the best car for the money. Not even when it was the best seller.

Nobody is fired for buying a Wintel is NOT the same as "a Wintel provides a better price-performance package" which your AMD statement would seem to assume.

As for AMDs being noisy, well, my PC was very noisy...for $20 I bought a slot-style fan which both does a better job of cooling and reduces the noise considerably. The Mac is still quieter most of the time...

Originally posted by kristianm
Marked theory says that the best product should win and be the bestseller. Best product includes such things as price, marketing and security.

The escort is easily better than more expansive cars since it is affordable for most people.

Noone is getting fired for buying a wintel computer, so companies buy a lot of them.

manitoubalck

Nov 6, 2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by arn
The "official" Divx is now MPEG4 compliant.

http://www.divx.com

arn

Cheers arn

kristianm

Nov 6, 2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by allpar
You mean market theory I assume. Market theory says the best product shoudl win GIVEN rational customers with full information. Market theory as properly taught notes that this ideal situation NEVEr exists. If it did, why would we have marketing?

I mentioned marketing, and with security I included all the other factors which make people choose the current market leader.

The Ford Escrot was never, never the best car for the money. Not even when it was the best seller.

I am not very good with cars, but there are other factors than price/performance. Marketing, security, comfort, image, etc. Obviously a lot of people thought it was the best car for them.

Nobody is fired for buying a Wintel is NOT the same as "a Wintel provides a better price-performance package" which your AMD statement would seem to assume.

I agree, all I said about AMDs was that they tend to produce a lot of heat.

As for AMDs being noisy, well, my PC was very noisy...for $20 I bought a slot-style fan which both does a better job of cooling and reduces the noise considerably. The Mac is still quieter most of the time...

I tried this as well, but it was an compaq where it was very difficult to replace parts.

To sum it up: you can define the best seller as the best product, just include enough factors of your choosing. It will rarely be price/performance or what "experts" see as the best product that is most selling.

[edit: a quote came out wrong]

allpar

Nov 6, 2003, 02:51 PM

Most people who bought Escorts probably never looked at anything else...or looked at one or two others. Lots of people buy wtihout test drives!

How can marketing be included as part of a product's quality? Well, I guess if AMD has lousy marketing, they make lousy chips.

The factors which make a product leader should include illegal activities such as collusion, kickbacks, and bribes if you want to examine the Wintel dominance.

A lot of people think Windows is the best thign for them, too. Because they don't test drive a Mac. Or because they have boneheaded ideas about them.

AMDs produce roughly the same amount of heat as similar Intel chips.

"To sum it up: you can define the best seller as the best product, just include enough factors of your choosing. It will rarely be price/performance or what "experts" see as the best product that is most selling."

In other words, you can explain anything by putting in enough noise. Well, yes. I was refuting someone else's nonsensical logic that AMD must be somehow inferior because the company is losing money. The company loses money because it's up against a monopolistic competitor, a FUD campaign, and ignorant buyers. And yet it manages to stay alive and with a tiny fraction of Intel's budget, produces better (in terms of price and performance, with energy consumption, heat, and quality roughly equal to Intel) chips.

And by the way, Ford lost money on each Escort they sold!

machinehien

Nov 6, 2003, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by flyfish29
Great point. I read/saw something someplace about the Betamax fiasco and why it really didn't fly...the report said that sony would not license Beta for use on porn. Back in the early 80's or whenever Beta was struggling and VHS was taking off the report said that this ability to show porn made VHS what it is today. Does anyone else have knowledge of this report or if porn was ever available on Beta other than dubbing?

Yep it was, I remembering stumbling across my dad's stash back when I was in second grade. Luckily for me he had all the classics of the late seventies and early eighties. Yay me.

tychay

Nov 6, 2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Bakey
Sorry to be picky, but... MP3 is not related to MPEG2! The format derived its name from it being part of the MPEG1 specification ie, "MPEG1 layer 3" aka MP3.

Well if we're going to be picky about it. MP3 is slang for "ISO-MPEG Audio Layer 3" and it covers both MPEG-1 (IS 11172-3) and MPEG-2 (IS 13818-3) (reference (http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/amm/techinf/layer3/)). So we're both wrong.

However, I stand by my statement that the confusion caused by MP3 is why the MPEG group skipped MPEG-3 and called it MPEG-4 and why the audio layer is called AAC instead of MP4.

Phil Of Mac

Nov 6, 2003, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Dippo
I do think that Jobs might be heading in the wrong direction with this one. I am not saying let the iPod play WMA files, but it would be nice to have a cheap Flash Memory MP3/AAC Player that worked with iTunes. Not everyone can afford a $300 iPod.

Why don't you just burn a CD?

SonicBlue Rio (128 MB/128 Minutes): $107 (http://www.dealtime.com/xPO-Sonic_Blue_Rio_S50_128MB)

CD Player: $20 (http://www.dealtime.com/xPO-Coby_CX_CD101)

Pack of Blank CD-R's: $6 (http://www.nextag.com/Imation_CD_R_Media~4207066z0znzzz1zzcd_r_mediazmainz2-htm)

Conclusion: Compared to CD players and CD-R's, cheap flash memory MP3 players are a ripoff. It's only worth it once you get an iPod.

Originally posted by Booga
Argh! I feel like we're going on 1984 instead of 2004, and we're facing the question of whether to license to the world and become the de facto standard, or keep everything closed and integrated and go our own path. With MacOS, it led to a <5% market share. Let's hope they don't similarly hobble the iPod.

Apple's ultimate failure was caused by all sorts of factors other than not licensing. So it's reasonable to say that licensing isn't the whole deal.

Originally posted by flyfish29
Great point. I read/saw something someplace about the Betamax fiasco and why it really didn't fly...the report said that sony would not license Beta for use on porn.

I don't know about that, but what most people fail to see is that Betamax cassettes couldn't hold an entire movie on one cassette.

Originally posted by manitoubalck
Ever heard the term MPEG1-layer 3. Thats the common MP3.
MPEG1 is VCD
MPEG2 is DVD
I'm not aware of a MPEG3
MP4 however is a compressed video codec also known as Div-X, MPEG4.

MPEG4 is largely based on QuickTime. It's the new compressed video standard. MPEG3 was a flop. MPEG2 is indeed used for DVD's. MPEG1 is what most .mpg files you see are.

Originally posted by kristianm
Marked theory says that the best product should win and be the bestseller. Best product includes such things as price, marketing and security.

Problem is, there is no one "best product". Everyone has their own needs and priorities, leading to a diverse marketplace.

tychay

Nov 6, 2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by MorganX
What is kind of stupid is thinking consumers give a darn about whether or not something is an open standard. Competitors, who want to compete without investing in R&D, who don't want the cost of providing support, etc. care about open standards.

More revisionism. Open standards win because the industry realizes that it is better to go at it together instead of alone. Some things are better left as commodities. BTW: open standards are not necessarily free and often aren't--examples: IEEE-1394, mp3, MPEG-4, AAC, CD Audio, DVD, etc.

Supply and demand. If you are the only one supplying the overwhelming majority with what they want, you are a monopoloy. And just as we have the bankruptcy laws to appease losers because we are a caring society, we have monopoly laws to help keep the wealth distributed (except on the Mac platform where Apple gets it all).

More equivocation (http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/equivoqu.html). You need to take a basic course in economics and study the definition. Monopolies have a very straight economic definition, and legal ones are stricter to allow for some monopolies to exist. They are market defects and can be shown to exist naturally in some cases without bringing welfare economics into the picture.

Perhaps you've been reading too much Ayn Rand?

WMA is a defacto standard, and is cheap enough. Microsoft does not compete with those who use it's media services. Apple does.

Actually the evidence is stacked against you. First of all your premise is false: the "defacto" standard is clearly MP3, after that the standard for pay-for-download music is clearly AAC/Fairplay (consistently outselling WMA by a better than 4 to 1 ratio).

Second, Apple does not move to compete with the standard by bundling MP3 encoding/decoding with iTunes. Apple does not move to compete with the defacto operating system standard by offering a Windows version.

On the other hand, Microsoft moves to compete with those standards by unbundling encoding support into Windows Media, by bundling Windows Media with the OS, by putting up a competing, lesser-quality WMA standard when the AAC standard is open to all, by strong-arming suppliers into adding DRM controls into their chips and cards, and by paying people like you to spread these lies.

I noticed you conveniently ignore whole swaths of my post. My premise is that Apple was acting in their business interest by not supporting WMA and that there is no business case to be made to support WMA and a number of cases against it. Yet you somehow take this as anti-Microsoft and somehow anti-capitalist. Hrmm....

Steve doesn't endorse convergence at this time...
This has nothing to do with my post. Apples official position has been rather consistent. They see convergence in the sense of a digital hub strategy (a synergy between peripherals and the PC), they do not see convergence as meaning those devices will be replaced by the PC (i.e. Media Center and TabletPC). I have my own personal views, but the truth is the jury is still out on which is right...

Microsoft was declared a monopoly and what has changed? Who is providing meaningful alternatives to IE, Windows, Office? The competitors who have led that charge have done what since getting what they want?

Wow! You're like a talking tutorial in logical fallacies--talk about begging the question! Who says the competitors have gotten what they want? I guess in the bizzaro world you live in everyone is happy with the settlement. In the real world, Microsoft is a monopoly and has in the past abused such a position. That's life and nothing to cry over. Laws and agreements are in place to hopefully keep that from continuing while people like you are paid to ensure Microsoft a three-peat. :)

The fact is they love the market Microsoft has created, and are more than happy to let Microsoft deal with the complexities of support, security, hardware conflicts, and trying to create and enforce defacto standards. What they want, is for the governement to force Microsoft to let them piggyback on Microsoft's OS and get rich without the work. That's my take.

Be sure to collect your MVP dollars from Microsoft for this post because it's a winner--after that, look in the mirror because you're the one piggybacking on Microsoft's coattails, not them. I won't bite on the rest of this because we're off topic.

No, they're going to buy from someone who is selling them what "they" want. If that's someone building a product on Microsoft tools, what's it to you?

Obviously nothing in fact in my previous posts encouraged it as well as my last post encouraged these players to approach Apple about licensing Fairplay (perhaps Sony will be the first if I read the spec sheet correctly). But if Microsoft is bundling then it is a clear violation of their agreement with the justice department. If Microsoft introduces a player and a service of their own and puts an icon on the desktop then it is arguably a violation also. If Microsoft continues to lose money on such a strategy in order to gain market share, then it is a obvious and classic case of using "rents". Look it up.

Oh, but I know you know this already because I triggerred this response by linking the MVP program. So I caused scum sucking bottom dwellers to come out of the woodwork in hope of making a buck. How fun!

Open source...
For those keeping score "open standard" != "open source". I love the faulty analogy, but I'm not going to bite.