Apple Analyst Meeting Conference Call

[MacRumors]

Apple posted a quicktime stream (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/analystmeeting03/) of their 2003 Analyst Meeting.

A recap from yesterday (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031105211003.shtml) provided interesting quotes and comments from Apple and Steve Jobs.

Relevant quotes from the Q&A Session:

Q: "Any plans to support or license WMA going forward?"
Jobs: "We decided to support an open audio codec standard rather than a proprietary one." (AAC) .... "That's our plan and we're sticking to it. We're feeling real good about it too".

Q: "Are you going to allow the iTunes to work with other devices and conversely are you going to allow the iPod to work with other online Music Services?"
Jobs: "We don't know. Right now, there is really little reason to. The iPod is the #1 MP3 player in the world .... The iTunes music store works with the most popular music player around and that's working really well for us. Conversely the iPod is working with the #1 music store. Soundscan just released data today and alst week the itms had over an 80% market share for all legally downloaded music. Why should we work with another music store when we're working with the "Microsoft" of music stores. So, right now we've got an 80%+ share in our music store and we're #1 in units and of course revenue in the iPod. We're investing a lot in that. Got some great stuff coming out over the next... uh... timeframes. And so, right now there's really not reason to spend that engineering on working with #2 or #3 or #4. I'd rather spend our engineering dollars on enhancing the iPod and enhancing the iTunes Music Store. .... Maybe there'll be a reason someday and we're flexible, but right now I think we're spending our money on the path of least resistance to do the right thing."

Q: Question regarding PowerPC/Intel and Mac OS X
Jobs: "Right now we don't see a compelling need to switch processor families and the stuff that's in the PowerPC roadmap -- which you might have heard about already -- is really good, I can't talk about it, but it's really good what's coming."

Q: Can you talk about iPod Pricing, Competitors, Plans for iPod and iTunes pricing.
Jobs: "Apple is as good or better a manufacturer than Dell" .... "We don't worry about anyone beating us on manufacturing or logistical efficiency. And one of the things to remember is that Dell does not sell through channels. Well, When you get down to a consumer product like an iPod, how do most people buy those things? They go to a store, they plunk down their credit card, and they walk away with the product. Most people do not call an 800 number and expect to get it a week later." ...."Cash and carry distribution becomes very important, and you have to pay for that." .... "You'll see some differentials in pricing from companies who only sell through the web and through a catalog vs companies that make the product available to the customer where they want to buy it." .... "But we think we've got the strategic advantage" .... "We're not concerned about pricing at all. We can be as aggressive as the next guy can and more aggressive than most. And we're not concerned about engineering" Goes on the say the other products aren't as good as the iPod.

Re iTunes: "Most of the money goes to the music companies. We are the largest by far" .... "We would like to break even/make a little bit of money but it's not a money maker. That's why when I look at Roxio with Napster and MusicMatch, These guys can never make money. They've started money losing businesses and I'm perplexed as to why." ... "They don't make iPods, so they don't have a related business where they do..."

Q: TVs and Computers?
Jobs: "This is not a new thing. People have been working on this for years. Apple was the first company to ever do this. And there is a small audience that likes this. It is not a large audience" .... "People want 42" and above plasma screens on their wall and they want to view them from far away with their friends or family" "And generally, what they want to view on their television has to do with turning their minds off" .... "Now how do I want to work on my computer? Do I want to work on it 6 feet, 8 feet, 10 feet away with my buddies? No, I want to work on it a few inches away by myself. It's a very very very different experience. We've always believed that this convergence between the computer and the television wasn't going to work. We do believe that there's room for people watching some television on a computer now and then. And we do believe there's a vast opportunity to make televisions more intelligent and home entertainment systems more intelligent and easier to use. But that does not mean that computers and televisions are coming together. And, um, the media center -- basically every young person already has their stereo on your computer - that has come together." .... "but television's another animal. And we don't see it happening in a mass way"

Q: Re: Digital Lifestyle applications. The competition is starting to make some inroads. So, how do you stay ahead? And what is the next big wave?
Jobs: "The way we stay ahead is we stay really close to the customer and keep doing what we do well. For example, digital photo apps. iPhoto is the king of that but even iPhotos have limitations that people are running up against - some major ones - those need to be solved." .... "And there are new categories of applications that people don't even think of yet, that we're working on. So, believe me, we have a lot of innovation up our sleeve when it comes the digital lifestyle/digital hub class of applications - a LOT. And, um, you'll be seeing some of it next year. Very strong stuff."

[DanUk2003]

I've just listened to the Call, and some interesting comments from Steve Jobs about their "digital hub" apps.

He was saying that they're going to move into new areas in the very near future. But for the life of me, I cannot think what else Apple could create digital-lifestyle Apps for:

They've already got music, photos, movies and DVD's covered, what else is there?!?!?!?!?!

Any ideas?!?!

[jxyama]

i wonder if they will do an even better integration of phone/pda than isync alone. i don't think apple will make a phone/pda themselves but perhaps a closer partnership with a phone/pda maker to provide even better integration?

another area i thought they could improve is desktop publishing. i think webpage authoring is fairly specialized and for people who want to do it easily, there's .Mac. but for desktop, maybe there is a market to enable quick and easy publication that's better than MS Office but not as sophisticated as Quark - integrating iPhoto and some kind of a drawing software?

[x86isslow]

did he just compare itms with micro$uck? omg he did:
Why should we work with another music store when we're working with the "Microsoft" of music stores
now thats negative association. why does steve-o keep saying dumb things like that.. anyone else read the newsweek interview? he sounded like he was high.

[MrMacMan]

Let me tell you 'it' is great, 'it' kicks ass, but I can't tell you what 'it' is... sorry


arrrggggg.

Since the question is about Mac X on x86 I suppose he means project Star Trek... but you never know...

:confused:

[strider42]

Originally posted by DanUk2003

They've already got music, photos, movies and DVD's covered, what else is there?!?!?!?!?!

Any ideas?!?!

They could probably do some create things with simple pieces of home control hardware that could be controlled wirelessly, integrating other appliances more seamlessly with the computer (TV, etc). I'm sure there's lots more out there too.

[jxyama]

well, jobs just used Microsoft to mean a dominating figure in a market. hate M$ all you want, but when you got 95% share of a market (deserved or not, "properly gained" or not), that's dominance. and iTMS is dominating (if 80% figure is to be believed) the online music downloading market...

[Macco]

That whole Microsoft comment is sort of counterproductive. If Apple is unwilling to develop iTunes so that it will work with other players, just because the iPod is the most popular player, what reason is there for companies to develop software for the Mac when the overwhelming majority of PCs run Windows?

Yes, I know that Apple is only integrating the iPod to encourage sales and so on, but I'm just making the point that some people could take this comment the wrong way.

[jxyama]

Originally posted by MrMacman
Let me tell you 'it' is great, 'it' kicks ass, but I can't tell you what 'it' is... sorry


arrrggggg.

Since the question is about Mac X on x86 I suppose he means project Star Trek... but you never know...

:confused:

i think the quote was just generally about PowerPC, Intel, etc. not specifically about porting OS X to x86. (Which, i believe, is a point that's been argued quite well that it won't happen and will do nothing but harm to apple.) i think he was more referring to the future of PowerPC chips... what's next..? a low power consumption G5-mod chip for PB? hmm... (ok, i've been here for quite a while now and know that the G5 chip itself seems to do fine in the power consumption and probably could be fitted into a PB as is. but the fact remains that more than once apple stated how G5 PB is not yet ready and apple will have to work on it...)

[Computer_Phreak]

Personally, I think Job's reasons for not adopting better compatibility with ITMS and with the iPod towards competitors, is pure BS.

How much would it cost to implement WMA playback, or OggVorbis playback, into the iPod? Practically nothing! It wouldn't take much more to integrate other music players into the ITMS either, or playback of other formats in iTunes, either!

Of course, they don't need to support them now, but then again, no one needs to support the mac platform at all. Sure, WMA might not be great, but why not support it? To try and lock people into using proprietary software and hardware (ITMS and iPod)? Seems like Microsoft-esque tactics to me.

"We're the best, so screw the rest" is the attitude that I'm seeing here.

[jxyama]

Originally posted by Macco
That whole Microsoft comment is sort of counterproductive. If Apple is unwilling to develop iTunes so that it will work with other players, just because the iPod is the most popular player, what reason is there for companies to develop software for the Mac when the overwhelming majority of PCs run Windows?

Yes, I know that Apple is only integrating the iPod to encourage sales and so on, but I'm just making the point that some people could take this comment the wrong way.

i can sort of see your point, but i don't think you got it quite right... the fact is, for creative professionals, apple commands a lot better marketshare. so adobe, maya, etc. make creative professional applications for apple because there's a viable market. they aren't doing apple a "favor" and porting those applications. they do so pretty much on their own term to take advantage of a market.

i'm glad apple will be spending its money to better its services instead of playing nice to its competitors. this is pretty much a "fair" competition.

if apple, after achieving hypothetically 95% share in the mp3/online music industry, suddenly decided to squash any competitors by countering any new entrants with discounted ipod giveaways and exclusive tie-ins with majority ISPs, then that would be a monopoly.

[Ja Di ksw]

too bad there wasn't a slip up :) "coming out over the next . . . uh . . timeframes" Whenever I get a computer (I'm about as close to buying a powerbook as I can be without having called them up) I always get really worried that I'm going to buy something, and 2 weeks later something fantastically different or better is going to come out, much larger than the leap between what I buy and what came before it.

[Le Big Mac]

Originally posted by strider42
They could probably do some create things with simple pieces of home control hardware that could be controlled wirelessly, integrating other appliances more seamlessly with the computer (TV, etc). I'm sure there's lots more out there too.
Yep, a wireless (or wired) media device, so I could have my computer in one room and hook this up to tv/stereo, and stream itunes, or iphoto pics, or imovie. Basically like Tivo home media option, without hte payment to tivo and with better apple integration

[jxyama]

Originally posted by Computer_Phreak
"We're the best, so screw the rest" is the attitude that I'm seeing here.

while you put it a little more crudely than i'd like, this is the essence of a competitive market. "we are the best, now try to beat us."

what apple is offering and exploring is an emerging market of complete solution to portable music player and online music purchasing. i think this is one of the reasons wma and ogg vorbis aren't supported - they like to offer "complete" (and seamless) solution. it has always been apple's strength to offer a solution that's well integrated and complete at the expense of customizability. i don't think they will be changing their business model anytime soon. they cater more to people who just want things to work easily and completely. it's their believe that they don't want to confuse their market by offering too many choices. whether such an attitude is somewhat "elitist" or "dumbs down the customers" is debatable, but it seems apple is doing fairly good these days.

ipod/itms is a vertical market integration and does nothing to suppress the competition. what M$ got is a horizontal integration. if i make a new flavor of soda that takes off, i am not obligated to share my ingredients with any of my competitors. (it's "proprietary.") however, if i took advantage of my dominance by buying up all the glass/plastic/aluminum drink container factories, then there's a problem.

[FlamDrag]

I guess I take it this way; Apple isn't going to spend any $ to make the iPod work with Napster, but if Napster (or BuyMusic / WalMart etc) wanted to allow the iPod to work with their software, nothing's stopping them.

OK SOMETHING might be, but it's difficult to be shocked that Apple is going to make their stuff work with their stuff and that's about all. That's the way things have been for awhile and why should we expect things to change now?

Furthermore, I expect that it would actually cost money for iTunes or the iPod to support .wma Unless I'm mistaken, MS owns the wma format and Apple would have to pay MS to license the format and/or codecs.

I'm more interested in what's going to come out in the "...uh...timeframe..." than anything else which was said. It seems to me that if it were within the next 3 or so months, he would have said "soon" over 9 months, it seems like he'd just say "in development" or "next year". In short, I think we'll see something new and different in 4-6 months. I know, I know, that's pretty specific. :rolleyes:

Finally, his comments about the PPC roadmap are rather exciting. Hopefully we'll keep getting faster machines sooner. Less expensive - no - much much faster - let's hope.

[ITR 81]

I don't think Apple will ever support an MS std unless it has too..just like MS will never support an Apple std unless it has too.

The std that Apples using is the way to go and rest will soon follow.

[coopdog]

We decided to support an open audio codec standard rather than a proprietary one." .... "That's our plan and we're sticking to it. We're feelingrealgood about it too".

DO you think he is taling about Real media or Real Audio codec? I think it is kind of a strange choice of words. Isn't proper english "really good" not "real good." Whatever

[the_mole1314]

It sounds more like Steve was talking about doing AAC instead of WMA for iTunes, not what the iPod would support. But that's opinion.

[Stella]

Looking at those q /a above, SJ is incredibily arrogant.

Comparing iTMS to microsoft is soo wrong. Apple could see market share drop quickly - the music store arena is going to be very crowded soon with every man and his dog jumping on the boat - even Walmart now!
Apple cannot expect to sustain such a high market share.

Apple should be working towards making iPods work with other music stores - it will do iPods good - make them more attractive - iTMS is there to sell iPods - so make other music stores the same - from Apples view.

What did SJ mean by
"And we're not concerned about engineering".

I assume its apple saying "We've got the iPod right"??

I agree - if Apple can't make profit from music stores - how can companies who rely on the Music Store alone? Record companies have to be paid still, doesn't leave much left for the business...

[dongmin]

I thought his comments about MusicMatch and Napster were quite astute. How are they going to make any money? According to Steve, Apple is hoping to just break even. (Contrary to what people are saying, Apple doesn't make 33 cents a song; rather, that's their share per song; once you figure in the cost of marketing, server space, engineering, and whatever costs there are with managing the whole thing, Apple is lucky to break even.)

I can't talk about it, but it's really good what's coming.
even for Steve, this seems to be a bold statement. Maybe the 90nm 970 IS right around the corner. And the 980 in 2004!

[ITR 81]

No other Music Store has been able to really take on Apples Music Store. Napsters store has been buggy and folks have said it's not that easy to navigate as iTunes Music Store.

By yr end I bet Apple will have around 90% of the marketshare.

Now for folks saying it's getting crowded well isn't the OS business crowded as well?? Look at MS with over 80% of the market share and rest being UNIX, OSX, and Linux based. So to me if MS can do it then so can Apple just in the Music market instead of OS.

[Freg3000]

Very exciting. About 2 months to MWSF '04 right?

[macMaestro]

Originally posted by Freg3000
Very exciting. About 2 months to MWSF '04 right?

Yeah. Sounds like we might be seeing a lot of new stuff. Can't wait! ;)

[commandZ]

What a weird and contradictive interview. “Our music store is the ‘Microsoft’ of music stores”. Is this a good thing, Steve?

I think Steve-O needs to put down his joint, stop the interview, and go work on his OS!
;)

[MikeMo]

Originally posted by Computer_Phreak
Personally, I think Job's reasons for not adopting better compatibility with ITMS and with the iPod towards competitors, is pure BS.

The point of iTMS is to sell iPods. Making iTMS support other players would be absolutely stupid. Note the part where he points out that the other download services are money-losers from the start, since they can't make money just selling downloads.

Now, making the iPod support the other services might make sense. He'll probably do that when they start selling a lot of songs!

[JohnStrass]

Originally posted by DanUk2003
I've just listened to the Call, and some interesting comments from Steve Jobs about their "digital hub" apps.

He was saying that they're going to move into new areas in the very near future. But for the life of me, I cannot think what else Apple could create digital-lifestyle Apps for:

They've already got music, photos, movies and DVD's covered, what else is there?!?!?!?!?!

Any ideas?!?!
Maybe they could make iApps that actually are usefuel for something more than looking at a couple dozen photos or working on a couple minutes of movie. They are embarrasingly slow apps, and really should update them ASAP.

[mrsebastian]

i agree with steve that apple should not support wma and also not support other players. i think if other audio players want to take a stab at the mac marketshare they can produce their own plugin/software to work with itunes. why on earth would apple shoot itself in the foot by supporting other players.

[johnnowak]

I'm pretty sure 'contradictive' isn't a word.

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by Computer_Phreak
How much would it cost to implement WMA playback, or OggVorbis playback, into the iPod? Practically nothing! It wouldn't take much more to integrate other music players into the ITMS either, or playback of other formats in iTunes, either!

Irrelevant. Ogg Vorbis is so marginal as to be nonexistent except among the tiny population of computer-audiophiles. Why should Apple add support for a format that is used for less than 1/10 of 1% of the audio that is out there. Similarly regardless of what M$ would have you think, WMA isn't that popular either and you have to pay M$ to get their decoder or reverse engineer it yourself. Not to mention the DMA issues. AAC may not be any cheaper from the point of view of people outside of the MPEG-4 group, but it is open, as is the DRM associated with it.

Of course, they don't need to support them now, but then again, no one needs to support the mac platform at all. Sure, WMA might not be great, but why not support it? To try and lock people into using proprietary software and hardware (ITMS and iPod)? Seems like Microsoft-esque tactics to me.

As other's have said, this is the whole point of capitalism isn't it? M$ is trying to do the same thing with WMA audio - the fact that more (far less popular) players also work with WMA is irrelevant. As Steve said, iPod is #1 in the audio player market and ITMS is the #1 download site. Yes, either could change, but you can bet that if need be Apple will just drop prices on the iPod.

As for the iPod vs Mac issue, they are very different beasts. If you want to play an mp3 on your iPod or on some other MP3 player, you can. If you want to run Photoshop, you have to have a different binary.

[ALoLA]

I think the M$ analogy was to make it easy for the M$-biased press to understand. As far as the "arrogance" goes, if he can walk the walk, he can talk the talk. :cool:

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by mrsebastian
i agree with steve that apple should not support wma and also not support other players. i think if other audio players want to take a stab at the mac marketshare they can produce their own plugin/software to work with itunes. why on earth would apple shoot itself in the foot by supporting other players.

Actually, I'm pretty certain that iTunes supports other audio players (at least it has in the past) it's the question if ITMS supporting other than AAC audio. Truthfully this isn't practical. WMA is a non-option (proprietary and supporting a competing codec is not good from a business perspective) and without DRM they can't sell music. So AAC it is (and it's nice that it and it's DRM are open - yes, AAC's DRM is open) and if other players want to support ITMS, I suspect they just have to get a license for AAC.

[segastyle]

i think it would be a bad idea for apple to add wma support.

right now there is no "standard" compressed music format other than mp3. microsoft is pushing their wma format, which is proprietary. apple is pushing hte open aac format (with their proprietary drm attached). there's nothing stopping these other music services from using aac with their own form of drm, which would then work on the ipod or on itunes.

if apple were to add support for wma, then there'd be NO reason for anyone to make drm music available in any format other than wma.

what apple really needs to work on is getting other hardware manafacturers to support aac. sony claims to be doing this with their new psp device coming out next year. that is a GOOD thing.

[reyesmac]

If AAC is not proprietary why would you need a license to use it? Do you have to pay for the license? Is this how other free codecs have you do, like mp3? If anyone knows the answers to these questions I would appreciate it.

Sometimes it sounds like Apple is the only one out there that can play AAC songs. That just sucks if true.

[gwangung]

Originally posted by MikeMo
The point of iTMS is to sell iPods. Making iTMS support other players would be absolutely stupid. Note the part where he points out that the other download services are money-losers from the start, since they can't make money just selling downloads.

At last! SOMEBODY understands economics!

[Wonder Boy]

Originally posted by DanUk2003
I've just listened to the Call, and some interesting comments from Steve Jobs about their "digital hub" apps.

He was saying that they're going to move into new areas in the very near future. But for the life of me, I cannot think what else Apple could create digital-lifestyle Apps for:

They've already got music, photos, movies and DVD's covered, what else is there?!?!?!?!?!

Any ideas?!?!

i would like to see a iapp version of soundtrack.

[sethypoo]

Originally posted by x86isslow
did he just compare itms with micro$uck? omg he did:

now thats negative association. why does steve-o keep saying dumb things like that.. anyone else read the newsweek interview? he sounded like he was high.

I know, Jobs seems a little too cocky right now. Not that he has no reason to be, but he needs to watch his mouth.

[avus]

Originally posted by ALoLA
I think the M$ analogy was to make it easy for the M$-biased press to understand. As far as the "arrogance" goes, if he can walk the walk, he can talk the talk. :cool:

Indeed.

[sethypoo]

Originally posted by JohnStrass
Maybe they could make iApps that actually are usefuel for something more than looking at a couple dozen photos or working on a couple minutes of movie. They are embarrasingly slow apps, and really should update them ASAP.

Whoa, who said iMovie was "slow"? It's a great application! I've made some very, very nice movies on it.

However, iPhoto does need updating. I have a friend who is a professional photographer (digital), who uses iPhoto to organize his photos and Abobe Photoshop to edit. He'd love to use an Apple (i.e., iPhoto) application to organize and edit.

Otherwise, the iLife applications are great for what they are meant to do. Not everyone is a professional user.

[sethypoo]

Originally posted by Rincewind42
Actually, I'm pretty certain that iTunes supports other audio players (at least it has in the past) it's the question if ITMS supporting other than AAC audio. Truthfully this isn't practical. WMA is a non-option (proprietary and supporting a competing codec is not good from a business perspective) and without DRM they can't sell music. So AAC it is (and it's nice that it and it's DRM are open - yes, AAC's DRM is open) and if other players want to support ITMS, I suspect they just have to get a license for AAC.

Um, what's a DRM? I'm confused.:confused:

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by Stella
Looking at those q /a above, SJ is incredibily arrogant.


hehehe... ;) i hope that this wasn't news to you? i think it's great that apple is finally kicking some tail. and i dont mind him telling everyone about it either.

[Nicky G]

Yes people need to buy a license to use the MP3 format, at least for encoders (not sure about playback devices/programs).

Do a Google search for

+MP3 +AAC +player

or

+MP3 +AAC +cell

and you will see that there do indeed exist 3rd party devices that play back AAC files (not sure about M4P).

AAC strikes me as an up-and-coming standard -- a number of planned phones and such coming out in the next year will support it.

[tcmcam]

Glad to see Steve Jobs acknowledge that iPhoto "has some pretty serious limitations".

Hopefully iPhoto 3.0 will finally SCALE to a large size digital library. Honestly, Adobe has a better product on Windows right now. Might not be quite as easy as iPhoto, but it rocks in terms of scale and organization, as well as touch up features.

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by johnnowak
I'm pretty sure 'contradictive' isn't a word.

It is

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=contradictive&r=67

1. Steve may be arrogant but what great leader isn't? WMA support is superfluous at this point. Why help your competitors?
iTMS offers the least obtrusive DRM. Smart money is on avoiding Microsoft formats.

2. Equating something with being the "microsoft" of a genre is a simple metaphor people. Humans don't have skin that thin. Relax

3. Apple should be promoting Apple approved product. WMA, Ogg Vorbis etc are fringe codecs that aren't necessary from Apples current position. Competition always involves risk so there's no need in succumbing to pressure to conform to MS product while you're in the lead.

[tcmcam]

Originally posted by Rincewind42
AAC may not be any cheaper from the point of view of people outside of the MPEG-4 group, but it is open, as is the DRM associated with it.


Yes, AAC is an open standard. And there are several Windows-based AAC players now (as well as good encoders, Nero for example).

But are you sure that Fairplay (Apple's DRM) is OPEN?? That's not what I understand. Right now, Apple has refused to let 3rd parties use their DRM. So only iPod's (or iTunes) can play iTMS songs.

The AudioTron from TurtleBeach would be one product that would be great if it could play iTMS songs, but Fairplay isn't THAT open....

[GregA]

Originally posted by FlamDrag
I'm more interested in what's going to come out in the "...uh...timeframe..." than anything else which was said. <snipped analysis of wording> I think we'll see something new and different in 4-6 months. Interesting eh. I would agree - because he said "timeframes" (plural) it's more likely to be monthS than yearS. There's my linguistics training put to dubious uses.

And in yesterday's thread (is it okay to quote that?)
Originally posted by MorganX
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.Yes he does support convergence! Just not like the Media Centre does it.

Hmmm ... "centre" vs "hub" ... I would guess a hub connects lots of parts which also stand on their own. In contrast to a computer replacing your DVD/VCR/Radio. He explicitly says people generally don't want to watch TV on their computer (though I imagine a computer on a desk in a bedroom would be at a good TV distance from the bed).

Originally posted by DanUk2003
He was saying that they're going to move into new areas in the very near future. But for the life of me, I cannot think what else Apple could create digital-lifestyle Apps for:

They've already got music, photos, movies and DVD's covered, what else is there?!?!?!?!?!There's lots of things :). To start with there's room for a few things in the stereo rack. Someone mentioned Tivo, I agree totally. Or a DVD player that also streams iTunes and iPhoto would be nice (like this Divx/DVD hybrid (http://www.divx.com/hardware/detail.php?id=55)).

On the wilder side of "what else is there?" - How about the iPABX? (deliberately pathetic iNames continue!). An ad might read:
"Apple's iPABX is the new hub of your home phone system. Opening the box reveals the hub (a simple looking device with 2 incoming phone lines, a firewire port, and 4 handset extensions) and also 2 "iHandsets". The iHandset looks like a regular phone, with an iPod screen. Use your Address book to call friends, iChat buddies, or dial within your home (handsets & mac). Regular handsets can also be used for outside calls, iChat, & within-home calls.

The iPABX also gives you music on hold (via iTunes), and an answering service that integrates with your email - get your email, fax, and voicemail all in one place!. Phone in for your messages, or a subscription to .Mac allows you to check your voicemail from any web enabled computer.

Rumours of future functionality include wireless telephones integrated via the Airport base station or bluetooth, and video phones integrated with iChat."

There are many possibilities.

[DeusOmnis]

steve jobs is the man. he so artfully says every single line... lol


he's right about the money thing, how do they plan to stay in business? how are they making any money?

[ClimbingTheLog]

Originally posted by Wonder Boy
i would like to see a iapp version of soundtrack.

You could use iMovie in a pinch as an audio editor.

I just wonder - when pot is legalized, is Steve going to do keynotes completely baked?

I can see it now:
"Holy ****, this G8 completely spanks the Itanium 4!" (bends over laughing his ass off, then points at the PC -) "The G8's been done for two minutes and the ****in' PC is still going! What a piece of ****!" (completely cracks himself up; stumbles for the water bottle in order to compose himself).

edit: OMG, macrumors sensors dirty words. It' hard to do a pothead without dirty words.

[sethypoo]

Originally posted by ClimbingTheLog
You could use iMovie in a pinch as an audio editor.

I just wonder - when pot is legalized, is Steve going to do keynotes completely baked?

I can see it now:
"Holy ****, this G8 completely spanks the Itanium 4!" (bends over laughing his ass off, then points at the PC -) "The G8's been done for two minutes and the ****in' PC is still going! What a piece of ****!" (completely cracks himself up; stumbles for the water bottle in order to compose himself).

edit: OMG, macrumors sensors dirty words. It' hard to do a pothead without dirty words.

Lol, hahahahaha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

[sethypoo]

Originally posted by ClimbingTheLog
You could use iMovie in a pinch as an audio editor.

I just wonder - when pot is legalized, is Steve going to do keynotes completely baked?

I can see it now:
"Holy ****, this G8 completely spanks the Itanium 4!" (bends over laughing his ass off, then points at the PC -) "The G8's been done for two minutes and the ****in' PC is still going! What a piece of ****!" (completely cracks himself up; stumbles for the water bottle in order to compose himself).

edit: OMG, macrumors sensors dirty words. It' hard to do a pothead without dirty words.

But seriously, I don't think Steve Jobs would ever get high. He's not dumb. He's cocky, not dumb.

But that was hilarious, ClimbingTheLog! Hilarious.:D :D :D :D

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by ClimbingTheLog
You could use iMovie in a pinch as an audio editor.

I just wonder - when pot is legalized, is Steve going to do keynotes completely baked?

I can see it now:
"Holy ****, this G8 completely spanks the Itanium 4!" (bends over laughing his ass off, then points at the PC -) "The G8's been done for two minutes and the ****in' PC is still going! What a piece of ****!" (completely cracks himself up; stumbles for the water bottle in order to compose himself).

edit: OMG, macrumors sensors dirty words. It' hard to do a pothead without dirty words.

Soundtrack is not an audio editor. It's a loop based music creation/composition app.


Lethal

[centauratlas]

Originally posted by DanUk2003
They've already got music, photos, movies and DVD's covered, what else is there?!?!?!?!?!

Any ideas?!?!

I can think of a few, but whether Apple and Steve Jobs think the same is another question:
1. Streaming DVDs (e.g. like streaming iTunes music). This would be something like iVideo - your DVDs in your Video Library etc. Essentially iTunes for Video. Yes you need lots of disk space, but it is coming just like iMovie and iDVD were there first.
2. ReplayTV/TiVo recording functionality. But without the need for LOTS of big extra boxes (just a little client to stream to connected to your TV). This device would also allow Music stream too.
3. Improved iSync. Works great over Bluetooth now, but always room for improvement.
4. Streaming iTunes music over Airport/Airport Extreme to what would amount to a 'thin' iPod (e.g. iPod without much storage, but Airport Extreme, screen to pic tunes). It would essentially be a thin music (and later video?) playing client, iPod-like except built to stream from iTunes and then plugs into your regular stereo system.
5. I'd still like to see a thin PB. Essentially a portable display that allows you to access your desktop anywhere you have an Airport connection.
6. iPod streaming over Bluetooth for nearby devices.
7. [Had to add this:]Something I want, but doubt will be from Apple soon: combo phone, MP3/etc (e.g. on a 8GB xD memory card), good camera etc. Essentially iPod (with less storage), with phone and camera. Similar to the Nokia 6600.

Regarding the "next... timeframes". I am guessing he was going to say "few months." (or quarters at worst). Nothing else would make sense (e.g. "years"). And the comment means multiple things over time (obvious I think).

Regarding WMA. A *huge* point of iTunes is to get Quicktime installed (plus show off nice software). Supporting WMA right away would really hurt that (depending upon the implementation of course - they could just throw something in there to require it). The big issue is to get it to be the default, as high quality playback for audio now, then video. Likewise I think they'd fear that MSFT would change their *proprietary* specs out from under them. Yes, Apple's DRM isn't open yet, but I bet that is a contractual issue with the record companies for now.

[Sayhey]

Personally, I looking forward to the iPod being upgraded to a tricorder. Beam me up, Steve!:p

[daveL]

Steve: Well he better be cocky, he better be too full of himself, he better be a complete evangelist of the "Apple Way", and if he isn't, find someone else. You don't get to be a *successful* CEO of two different major corporations because you're a *****(cat). He has to believe, and he has to communicate that to EVERYONE. His whole goal is to make people believe that Apple is a winner. Capitulation is not the way to do that. Those of you that find Steve to be arrogant aren't going to be CEOs, sorry. And, if he can do that while he's doing a dobbie back stage, more power to him. Don't forget that W. Churchhill, by most accounts, was a functioning drunk (god, am I going to get flamed now), but he (and his ego) saved Europe.

MP3: Legally requires a license, just like MPEG4/ACC (ACC being the audio piece). VorbisOgg exists to implement MP3 sans license fees, i.e. a clean room re-implementation. The MP3 licensing is on the encoding side.

AAC: Several posts have referred to AAC as owned by Dolby, but I believe it is Dolby's contribution to the MPEG4 group. MPEG4 is a standard made up of a number of pieces of technology from a number of vendors that form the consortium, Apple being one of them. Yes, you have to license it, but it is simply a way for the various players to recoup their R&D investment. The goal is to have a multi-vendor supported standard that everyone can hang their hat on, instead of kissing MSs tush. Phillips has already rejected WMA for the simple reason that it is controlled by a single corporation. More will follow.

I guess I shouldn't post after my evening Martini :)

[Docrjm]

Originally posted by reyesmac
If AAC is not proprietary why would you need a license to use it? Do you have to pay for the license? Is this how other free codecs have you do, like mp3? If anyone knows the answers to these questions I would appreciate it.

Sometimes it sounds like Apple is the only one out there that can play AAC songs. That just sucks if true.
AAC is an open standard created by Dolby labs. The DRM is also I believe non Apple, created by fairplay. AAC is mp4 and fairplay can b licensed.
WMA just feeds the beast!

[Docrjm]

Originally posted by daveL
Steve: Well he better be cocky, he better be too full of himself, he better be a complete evangelist of the "Apple Way", and if he isn't, find someone else. You don't get to be a *successful* CEO of two different major corporations because you're a *****(cat). He has to believe, and he has to communicate that to EVERYONE. His whole goal is to make people believe that Apple is a winner. Capitulation is not the way to do that. Those of you that find Steve to be arrogant aren't going to be CEOs, sorry. And, if he can do that while he's doing a dobbie back stage, more power to him. Don't forget that W. Churchhill, by most accounts, was a functioning drunk (god, am I going to get flamed now), but he (and his ego) saved Europe.

MP3: Legally requires a license, just like MPEG4/ACC (ACC being the audio piece). VorbisOgg exists to implement MP3 sans license fees, i.e. a clean room re-implementation. The MP3 licensing is on the encoding side.

AAC: Several posts have referred to AAC as owned by Dolby, but I believe it is Dolby's contribution to the MPEG4 group. MPEG4 is a standard made up of a number of pieces of technology from a number of vendors that form the consortium, Apple being one of them. Yes, you have to license it, but it is simply a way for the various players to recoup their R&D investment. The goal is to have a multi-vendor supported standard that everyone can hang their hat on, instead of kissing MSs tush. Phillips has already rejected WMA for the simple reason that it is controlled by a single corporation. More will follow.

I guess I shouldn't post after my evening Martini :)
Vodka / Gin and how dry?

:cool:

[Docrjm]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Personally, I looking forward to the iPod being upgraded to a tricorder. Beam me up, Steve!:p
Unfortunately the tricorder was not a communications device. I believe that it was more of an assesssment device.
Most humble salutations if I am in error.
:p

[Dippo]

Originally posted by doc_mac
Unfortunately the tricorder was not a communications device. I believe that it was more of an assesssment device.
Most humble salutations if I am in error.
:p

I think he was referring to the communicator. The tricorder is just a scanning device used for everything.

[daveL]

Originally posted by doc_mac
Vodka / Gin and how dry?

:cool:
Gin, very dry, up with an olive (stuffed with blue cheese, on the weekend).

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Dippo
I think he was referring to the communicator. The tricorder is just a scanning device used for everything.

Actually, I was trying to make a wry comment on how the tricorder seemed to be able to do just about anything. Especially after Scott, Spock, or some other technical wizard applied a hairpin from a scantily clad yeoman. I always thought it as the Star Trek equivilant of Batman's utility belt. Do you think the iPod is a few generations away from that? ;)

[xtekdiver]

Originally posted by x86isslow
did he just compare itms with micro$uck? omg he did:

now thats negative association. why does steve-o keep saying dumb things like that.. anyone else read the newsweek interview? he sounded like he was high.

That's that good Cupertino bud! I'm waiting for my iBong.

[jouster]

Originally posted by coopdog
DO you think he is taling about Real media or Real Audio codec? I think it is kind of a strange choice of words. Isn't proper english "really good" not "real good." Whatever

Yes. You've hit on it. The CEO of one of the most secretive companies on Earth is secretly informing us of his plans by embedding clues in everyday speech.

I mean, what else could it be? After all no one ever says 'real good' instead of 'really good', especially in the US.:rolleyes:

[xtekdiver]

Originally posted by Macco
That whole Microsoft comment is sort of counterproductive. If Apple is unwilling to develop iTunes so that it will work with other players, just because the iPod is the most popular player, what reason is there for companies to develop software for the Mac when the overwhelming majority of PCs run Windows?

Yes, I know that Apple is only integrating the iPod to encourage sales and so on, but I'm just making the point that some people could take this comment the wrong way.

It's too early to make that call. Everyone seems to be jumping on the bandwagon and coming out with their music player or music download service. Apple can't be spending time and money trying to support everyone else's crap. A lot of these products and services are not going to be around for very long. Jobs did point out that money can not be easily made with these types of services. If one or two of them stay the course and are able to offer reasonable competition then Apple will work with it, but right now, for Apple to do this would actually give credibility to products and technology that doesn't deserve it. Apple is leading the pack. Let the competition learn to be compatible with AAC, iTunes, and the iPod, not the other way around! 80% percent market share, what are you people thinking?!!

[coolsoldier]

I see a possibility that the first online music store that folds could kill the entire market for online music stores. Think about this possibility:

ordinary (as in not computer) people begin to consider digital music distribution as a real possibility. About this time, we start to see who can cut it and who can't in the market. The ones that drop out of the market leave thousands of former customers with songs that they are unable to play because they can no longer connect to the now-defunct retailer's servers to authorize their music. When news of this hits headlines, the masses, who are just beginning to warm up to commercial digital music distribution dismiss it because their "purchases" are only useful as long as the retailer is around, and the entire market dies.

It's a worst-case-scenario, I know, but I see no reason why it couldn't happen.

[dmbream]

Portable digital device makers should support AAC.

In addition, other digital music download stores should offer songs in AAC.

Resistance is futile. The market has spoken.

The iPod commands 50% market share in the portable digital device market. I suspect this will only increase in the near future.

Thusly, digital music download stores should offer files that will play on the most popular---by a long shot---player.

iPod + iTunes.

Apple should stay the current course.

Customers don't care about AAC vs. WMA, or Apple vs. Microsft. They care about "how am I going to get my music, and where am I going to play it?"

Right now, Apple owns both positions.

If the others want a piece of the action, they better start rethinking their strategies. Licensing fees are licensing fees. Whether they go to Microsoft for WMA, or Apple for Fairplay (Digital Rights Management technology, or DRM for those who asked earlier) should be irrelevant.

However, as Steve said, I don't see much sense in entering the digital download market without a vertically integrated solution.

Walmart can afford to create a service and sell songs at a loss simply to drive traffic to their stores and/or site. Roxio, MusicMatch, BuyMusic (remember them? ;)) though, are no Walmarts.

Dell can sell a cheap player, but teaming it with an inferior download service is destructive from the start. If Dell really wanted to make a splash, they would support the iTMS and not MusicMatch, et al. Hit Apple in the gut. That would knock iPod prices down pretty quickly. (Most Mac users, of course, would still buy the iPod...because they have an innate concern for quality. I mean, they bought a Mac in the first place. Of course, there are a lot of users that would gladly pay less for an inferior player because it's "almost as good.")

Support AAC. Support the iPod. Survive.

[Edot]

At first thought it seems as though Steve's statement about not supporting other formats and stores is offending, and seems like a shot in the foot about Apple's own PC market-share. However, these are too very different issues and his statement seems to be justified and reasonable. Adobe and other companies develop software for the mac because they can sell enough to make money after the cost of porting the software. This is a different situation in that Apple would have to spend money on testing, coding, and licensing for WMA, but they would probably not sell more iPods because of this support. If you were going to buy an iPod then you can use iTMS. There is no reason for Apple to allow you to use another store when using iTMS is built in. Why would WMA make people buy an iPod? Apple would even potentially lose more money because people are purchasing songs from other stores. Apple wants others to support the iPod so the other companies spend money to make money, not Apple spending it for them. I don't think Adobe is really helping Apple sell computers that much, and even if they were it would be no reason to write the software if it didn't mean profit for Adobe. Apple is in a similar situation as Adobe when it comes to SMB, Office, and other Windows formats. They spend money to include these compatibilities to sell more Macs, not to help promote the sale of Windows. This is exactly what Apple is saying for competitors to do. Support iTMS and AAC so you can make money, not to support the sale of iPods.

Man, Steve was acting his part from Pirates of Silicon Valley nicely.:D I can't image what he was like then if people say he is more toned down now. And this was at an Analysts meeting!:eek:

[MacFan26]

Originally posted by x86isslow
did he just compare itms with micro$uck? omg he did:

now thats negative association. why does steve-o keep saying dumb things like that.. anyone else read the newsweek interview? he sounded like he was high.

I didn't read the newsweek article, but I wouldn't doubt that he sounded high, I think he's still stuck in the 60's, no matter how innovative his ideas are.

[JGowan]

Originally posted by ALoLA
As far as the "arrogance" goes, if he can walk the walk, he can talk the talk. :cool: Agreed. Every time I see a Jobs Keynote or hear an interview, it's "'we're leading the way' and 'no one is even close' and 'we're better than M$ or Dell'" ... I think "He's a bit over-selling this" -- but then I realize that he's crowing because Apple IS really doing some great innovating and too few people will notice unless they're informed.

I've heard many times "It ain't bragging if you can do it". Steve is just letting everyone else know what 4% of us already know.

[dwighteb]

Originally posted by reyesmac
If AAC is not proprietary why would you need a license to use it? Do you have to pay for the license? Is this how other free codecs have you do, like mp3? If anyone knows the answers to these questions I would appreciate it.

The MPEG Layer-3 audio (mp3) codec is not free - the algorithm is patented. The owners of said patent have allowed home users to use both encoders and decoders for free - as long as this is solely for home use. If you distribute, even for free, an encoder and or decoder, you're supposed to pay the patent holders. Last year, several Linux distributions removed several mp3 encoders/decoders due to potential patent violations - I don't know if Fraunhofer IIS and Thomson sent them a cease and desist, or if during licensing reviews they came across this potential land mine. Don't take my word for any of this though, as I am not a lawyer - check out http://www.mp3licensing.com/ for more information. Oh - and yes, Apple has definetely obtained a license for this - check the legal section of your iPod or about iTunes.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
I see a possibility that the first online music store that folds could kill the entire market for online music stores. Think about this possibility:

ordinary (as in not computer) people begin to consider digital music distribution as a real possibility. About this time, we start to see who can cut it and who can't in the market. The ones that drop out of the market leave thousands of former customers with songs that they are unable to play because they can no longer connect to the now-defunct retailer's servers to authorize their music. When news of this hits headlines, the masses, who are just beginning to warm up to commercial digital music distribution dismiss it because their "purchases" are only useful as long as the retailer is around, and the entire market dies.

It's a worst-case-scenario, I know, but I see no reason why it couldn't happen.

Well, just to put a little bit of ease into this idea, it'd only be if the whole company went under. Therefore, it would tend to turn more people away from companies like MusicMatch, Napster, et al. (MusicMatch might stick around, but Napster, etc, would likely be more frowned upon.) By contrast, Apple would be the golden child. While it's conceivable that Apple might one day close iTMS, I'd venture to guess that they'd still have authorization servers available to allow people to authorize their computers for listening to their music. Besides, if we're talking five to ten years from now, how many times over do you think that the DRM will have been cracked and revised? Wait a little longer, after the service has died, and even the final version of the DRM would be cracked, allowing you full access to all of your music. (Just imagine, a m4p to m4a converter... I wouldn't be at all surprized to learn that someone was working on just such a thing right now...)

[thebigo]

Originally posted by ITR 81
I don't think Apple will ever support an MS std unless it has too..just like MS will never support an Apple std unless it has too.

The std that Apples using is the way to go and rest will soon follow.

But they will add inline support for MICROSOFT WORD documents in TextEdit? They will follow standards that make sense, financially and rationally. Supporting an audio codec that (comparatively speaking) nobody uses isn't a wise business move.

[sethypoo]

Originally posted by thebigo
But they will add inline support for MICROSOFT WORD documents in TextEdit? They will follow standards that make sense, financially and rationally. Supporting an audio codec that (comparatively speaking) nobody uses isn't a wise business move.

Dang, I stayed off this thread for three hours, and bam, I am already lost. Silly me!

[bruceheavin]

I am supprised that no-one has picked up on Steve talking about the uses of 64 bit computing to the analyst. The features sounded astounding and promissing since some of the features are not current features that Apple offers within current apps. My favorite one on the list was the unblurring of blurry photos.

1) DVD compression can take 2 minutes to burn instead of 45 minutes.

2) iChat would be able to process 3-5 users.

3) Unblurring of photos. Mentioned as a ferrorcious process to the processor and is able to happen with 64 bit processor with a good algorithm since the photos contain all the needed information. This sounds amazing. My bad blurry photos may one day see the light of day.

[CoreForce]

Originally posted by x86isslow
did he just compare itms with micro$uck? omg he did:

now thats negative association. why does steve-o keep saying dumb things like that.. anyone else read the newsweek interview? he sounded like he was high.

Remember that this has been an analyst talk, not a developer briefing. MS has some good record of financial success and analysts like to hear that reference.

I encounter this tyoe of quote every now and then when companies try claiming to be successful that they measure themselfs up as to be the "new" MS. However, there's a difference in owning a maketshare for an OS with many software depending on it, or to own this number of marketshare from a retail shop. Since there is no dependency where music was bought from, the retialer will drop it's share much more quickly if he's not ahead of the crowd anymore.

[ITR 81]

They only use a std that makes them money which makes sense. Why support the enemy when you don't have too??
I bet right now Apple is working on iOffice suite that will be better then Mac Office and copies 98% of all it's features and improves upon them. Then 2-3 months later Apples iOffice goes Windows. Gates has heart attack due to huge migration of Office users to Apples iOffice suite.

I believe Jobs going to have something very big in Jan because the upcoming CES show is coming then and MS is suppose to be putting on big show. It would be like jobs to introduce something that would still the show away from MS and Gates.


The lines have been drawn. Now let the pouncing begin!!!!!

[LoopHoles]

right now they're working with AAC, which is an open standard. any company can use AAC (as long as they pay the licensing fees for it), while WMA is up to Microsoft to let you develop for it or not. so, why doesn't napster start supporting AAC, an open standard, instead of apple doing the hard work of implementing an MS codec?

[eric67]

Originally posted by FlamDrag
Furthermore, I expect that it would actually cost money for iTunes or the iPod to support .wma Unless I'm mistaken, MS owns the wma format and Apple would have to pay MS to license the format and/or codecs.

exactly, why should Apple at the moment i,plement a compatibility with WMA, except maybe is M$ agree to make it free of licencing charge....I doubt
concerning OggVorbis, I guess it can be implemented aby time, but I also do not understand some computer users.....
Apple decided to use an open audio codec, so no extra charge due to licencing,etc...so why are some people complaining about that??? I mean really I do not get it...
most of PC users complains against M$, they want open source stuff, they want to use Linux, but there are not much applications developped for Linux, complain about M$/Intel monopoly...and now because Apple decided to use an open codec, they complain because Apple does not use WMA format????
any why to use WMA format ??? AAC ratio audio quality/compression rate is better than WMA so why use WMA???
it is not because M$ try to push its format, that we have to use it...Philips decided NOT to support M$ audio and video media as a single format, so why Apple should??

[tychay]

Originally posted by reyesmac
If AAC is not proprietary why would you need a license to use it? Do you have to pay for the license? Is this how other free codecs have you do, like mp3? If anyone knows the answers to these questions I would appreciate it.

Sometimes it sounds like Apple is the only one out there that can play AAC songs. That just sucks if true.

This is true for a lot of open standards. The manufacturer has to pay Apple for every IEEE-1394 (FireWire) connector, there is a miniscule markup passed on to Sony & Phillips for every CD manufactured, ditty to the DVD consortium for DVDs...

All of these are open standards. Proprietary is not open is not free. Similarly you have to pay to license a MP3 codec*. Apple pays on your behalf, if you own a Mac, price is passed on to you... if you own a PC they hope you buy an iPod to cover the loss--they either pay some bulk rate based on every downloaded copy of iTunes or a flat yearly rate. You have to pay to license MPEG-4 and AAC. Again, Apple pays on your behalf, though they see some of that money come back to them (see below).

Phillips and Nokia have devices that supports AAC (not the AAC/Fairplay though to my knowledge) and so will Sony in their new pocketstation-whatever. I'm sure others will follow if they decide to license FairPlay or if a competing DRM standard comes out for AAC. In fact, I would think that such things are inevitable if Apple's dominance in the downloadable music market were to continue. Really Apple is singlehandedly marginalizing WMA which is quite impressive.

Note that AAC is not an Apple standard, it's an MPEG audio standard. The patents are owned by Dolby, not Apple. Apple's contribution was the container format for all MPEG-4 (QuickTime--a container format is like the "Ogg" in OggVorbis or OggFlac) and the Fairplay DRM which isn't part of the MPEG standard but works within the framework. MPEG-4 licensees (which include Apple for use in Quicktime) receive the benefits of each of the technologies/patents that went into MPEG-4 and pay a licensing fee which goes back to the license holders (which also includes Apple).

* IANAL! I'm not too sure the legal issues here. My guess is that free distributions of encoders such as LAME (http://lame.sourceforge.net/) are protected under free speech but the binaries are implementations which would fall under the Fraunhoffer & Thomson patents (they invented MP3, I believe). In other words, you need to license the Fraunhoffer codec or obtain a license to distribute a working copy of your codec in most countries (really, I mean the United States here because I'm one of those ugly American types). I base this on the fact that companies like Red Hat do not bundle a LAME RPM with any free distribution of Linux in the face of obvious demand for such. (Another example is the licensing fee is ostensibly the reason that Microsoft doesn't support MP3 encoding in Windows Media Player)

Hope this clears things up,

[arn]

Originally posted by tychay

Similarly you have to pay to license a MP3 codec*. Apple pays on your behalf, if you own a Mac, price is passed on to you... if you own a PC they hope you buy an iPod to cover the loss--they either pay some bulk rate based on every downloaded copy of iTunes or a flat yearly rate.


I think there's a yearly cap on MP3 licensing fees.... which I forget what it is... so Apple probably doesn't pay any more for the Windows iTunes distribution than it does with just the Mac one.

arn

[tychay]

Originally posted by arn
I think there's a yearly cap on MP3 licensing fees.... which I forget what it is... so Apple probably doesn't pay any more for the Windows iTunes distribution than it does with just the Mac one.

Arn, are you sure about this? I know Apple negotiated a cap for MPEG-4 licensing going as far as delaying the release the new Quicktime version until such a cap was negotiated. However, I didn't know this applied to MP3 licensing.

I remember reading that MP3 has a per unit royalty fee for any encoder much like MPEG-2, Sorensen, etc. Apple would have negotiated it as a royalty for every Mac sold that supports iTunes (OS 8+) instead of every copy (since you'd be double counting every OS upgrader). In the Windows world it either have to be for every installation of the latest QuickTime or download of the latest iTunes for Windows (which amounts the the same number).

They may have managed to get a flat yearly rate or some cap put on the number. Please tell me if you've heard differently.

[Analog Kid]

Originally posted by Stella
Looking at those q /a above, SJ is incredibily arrogant.

Comparing iTMS to microsoft is soo wrong. Apple could see market share drop quickly - the music store arena is going to be very crowded soon with every man and his dog jumping on the boat - even Walmart now!
Apple cannot expect to sustain such a high market share.

Apple should be working towards making iPods work with other music stores - it will do iPods good - make them more attractive - iTMS is there to sell iPods - so make other music stores the same - from Apples view.

What did SJ mean by
"And we're not concerned about engineering".

I assume its apple saying "We've got the iPod right"??

I agree - if Apple can't make profit from music stores - how can companies who rely on the Music Store alone? Record companies have to be paid still, doesn't leave much left for the business...

A lot is going to the record companies, and the credit card companies are loving this-- they take a piece of each transaction. I'm not surprised that there isn't much left for Apple either-- and probably not much left for anyone else to build a business on.

As far as the MS comment, what I think he's saying is that everyone looks at WMA as a standard because they have huge market share-- if it comes with Windows it's a standard. In this case, he's saying that AAC/Fairplay is equally legitimate-- it has the largest market share of legally downloaded music and of players both.

I don't see any reason to cede the game to MS yet. This is a brand new market that I'm sure even Apple doesn't understand fully. It's still growing (very rapidly) and it's very dynamic.

Keep the number of variables small at this point. They can always add WMA support later if they want to, but once they've let the cat out of the bag it would be extremely painful to "unsupport" it later.

It will be very interesting to see how Apple tries to hold onto the music market. iTMS can probably stand largely as it is as long as it grows in pace with the competition. It's the fact that users are locked into a hardware/store combination that's going to be stressful. I think Apple is going to have to broaden their hardware offerings significantly to make this work-- they'll need an iPod for everyone. Not just drive size but feature set and prices. There is no entry level iPod right now, and there's no "pro" iPod.

They need a matrix of products similar to their product matrix for computers-- say three different feature sets and three different drive sizes. One line below the current offering, and one above. Something in the $100 range to start, even if it's just a flash player.

Now I'm rambling...

[paulc]

I'd like to point out that for all the folks hoping/wishing for updates to these series of apps, if you have not bought 10.3, better be content with the versions you are currently using because unless you pay the yearly upgrade fee for the OS, you're NOT going to get any updates.

If you haven't bought 10.3, you're stuck with the current Safari 1.0. iChat update for 10.2 owners IS available for an extra $30. Guaranteed that any iPhoto 3.0 is ONLY going to work, be for 10.3.

We need to start figuring that owning a Mac and wanting to get bug fixes for Apple's software is going to involve a yearly fee of 130 dollars. It's funny that for the past year or so, our favorite evil empire keeps getting raked over the coals for the possibility of them "renting" software... meaning there may be a yearly fee to be able to use that software. Apple has gone and done the exact same thing. And it seems to me that way too many Mac users are meekly accepting this.

[tcmcam]

Actually, I have no problem paying $130 a year to "rent" my software.

I believe in supporting software companies. R&D does cost money after all.

If you buy a Mac, you get it for free, R&D is paid for by the hardware profit. What makes me laugh are Mac owners that bought a Mac 4 years ago and still expect free enhancements or "still support OS 9". P-L-E-A-S-E !!

Apple writes good software they should get paid a nominal fee for it.

I have no problem paying Adobe, Microsoft, shareware authors for GOOD software.

What is more laughable is people that expect all software to be free. That is a crazy belief given our market-driven economy.

proud 10.3 Panther owner :)

[CmdrLaForge]

Hi,

when discussing here pls don't forget that this was a meeting with stock analysts. Steve definitley wants the stocks go up. So the Microsoft statement should be seen in that context.

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
I see a possibility that the first online music store that folds could kill the entire market for online music stores...The ones that drop out of the market leave thousands of former customers with songs that they are unable to play Well, if I were in Apple's position, and the record companies were still being friendly, I'd buy out the lists of authorized music, and (after clearing any legal details with the RIAA's lawyers) resend those purchased songs.

In Fairplay'd AAC, of course.

That way, people could still listen to them on CD, or on their computers. But if they wanted to carry them around, they'd either have to rerip (messy) or, you guessed it, buy an iPod. Heck, for the customers with tons of purchased songs, it would make sense to offer free iPods -- assuming that iTunes was even slightly profitable -- and discounted ones to the other customers (making a slight profit from those who would otherwise stick with their current choices).

Which, when you think about it, would work well, since iTunes only exists to sell more iPods in the first place.

-Richard

[JohnStrass]

Originally posted by sethypoo
Whoa, who said iMovie was "slow"? It's a great application! I've made some very, very nice movies on it.

However, iPhoto does need updating. I have a friend who is a professional photographer (digital), who uses iPhoto to organize his photos and Abobe Photoshop to edit. He'd love to use an Apple (i.e., iPhoto) application to organize and edit.

Otherwise, the iLife applications are great for what they are meant to do. Not everyone is a professional user.

I'm no pro user , but iPhoto is a reall slug. A typical vacation for me results in about 600 photos. I need to look at them closely to trash the onese that are not good, so I take a lot of extras using different settings. On my iMac/800/1Gig RAM it is unusable. Maybe this makes me am one of those "prosumers", but thats why I bought my iMac 18 months ago.
As for iMovie, working with many clips and one hour of video is also VERY taxing. I dont care if it takes a few hours to drop it into iDVD, but just to work around it is very slow.
Your friend really needs to shell out $$$ for Pro apps; maybe Apple will make iPpps "lite" and "pro" versions at some point.

The iApps are really iCandy to bring in more converts.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by Stella
Looking at those q /a above, SJ is incredibily arrogant.



iPod is great, but after this interview, I believe it will not remain #1. I give it a year at the top unless there is a change in attitude. Steve actually thinks he can hypnotize people.

"Cheap" flash players that hold seven songs. What a joke. Flash players are actually more expensive on a per-megabyte basis. There really are no "cheap" portable mp3 players. Only a small percentage of the potential market have one. iTMS could maintain it's current sales and by the time this market reaches it's potential be at the bottom of the totem pole.

HTC the #1 maker of PDAs, PocketPCs, and Smartphones will see a 63% jump in sales this year. There's a big picture here and Steve has blinders on. Give an egomaniac a little true, actually well-deserved success and he just loses all touch with reality. I really do hope he isn't living for the moment.

His performance is unworthy of the technical merits of iPod+iTunes+iTMS. He should carry himself with as much class as his product.

I think soon Jobs will feel like Admiral Yamamoto.

[jocknerd]

Then where in the hell is Ogg Vorbis? I understand why you won't put WMA in there, but why no Ogg Vorbis? It's open. It's free. Are you afraid that Ogg Vorbis would be used more than AAC which you probably paid a bundle for the licensing?

[jxyama]

for iPhoto problems - go to versiontracker and get iphoto library manager. split your photo library up and iphoto works very well. if you take so many photos (at a very high res, i assume), you are a border line pro... however, i agree it has rooms for improvements. for one, iphoto would work better if it didn't try to cache all the pictures in the library into memory...

aac vs. ogg. as someone mentioned, aac was developed by a consortium of corporations and they recover R&D $$$ together by licensing. it's "open" in the sense anyone is entitled to using the license as long as the fee is paid. wma is not good because ONE corporation controls is licensing terms.

apple is part of the AAC consortium, why would they go to ogg? what's the incentive? to appeal to the minority computer-audiophiles? if those can be shown to be a viable market "worthy of support" in the eye of market analysts, i'm sure ogg will take off. but until then, i don't think apple is interested in doing basically a charity to appeal to the very small minority to whom aac codec is "trash" compared to the superior sound of ogg vorbis... :rolleyes:

[xtekdiver]

Originally posted by paulc
I'd like to point out that for all the folks hoping/wishing for updates to these series of apps, if you have not bought 10.3, better be content with the versions you are currently using because unless you pay the yearly upgrade fee for the OS, you're NOT going to get any updates.

If you haven't bought 10.3, you're stuck with the current Safari 1.0. iChat update for 10.2 owners IS available for an extra $30. Guaranteed that any iPhoto 3.0 is ONLY going to work, be for 10.3.

We need to start figuring that owning a Mac and wanting to get bug fixes for Apple's software is going to involve a yearly fee of 130 dollars. It's funny that for the past year or so, our favorite evil empire keeps getting raked over the coals for the possibility of them "renting" software... meaning there may be a yearly fee to be able to use that software. Apple has gone and done the exact same thing. And it seems to me that way too many Mac users are meekly accepting this.

A yearly update fee? You make a good observation, but it is like looking at the glass as half full or half empty. If this was some Microsoft crap windows dressing I might be a bit peeved to pony up over a hundred bucks for the privlige of being screwed, but this is Apple; I actually was glad to stand in line and "pay" for my new OS. I am so happy with this OS and the Mac experiance, that I will gladly pay another $129 next year and the year after that if that is the time table. It is worth it! Especially if my $129 bucks keeps Apple investing and inventing new technology that adds to my quality of life. Think about it.

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by tcmcam
Yes, AAC is an open standard. And there are several Windows-based AAC players now (as well as good encoders, Nero for example).

But are you sure that Fairplay (Apple's DRM) is OPEN?? That's not what I understand. Right now, Apple has refused to let 3rd parties use their DRM. So only iPod's (or iTunes) can play iTMS songs.

Fairplay is a product by VeriDisc that Apple licensed for iTMS. In theory anyone could license it for their product and play AAC files from iTMS. In practice they would probably at least have to get some more information from Apple about how they are using it, and if they are a music device probably get support from iTunes. There would be more to say about VeriDisc, but their website seems to be woefully out of date. However this information does put at odds my statement that it was Open :) . Win some, lose some...

[manu chao]

Originally posted by paulc
If you haven't bought 10.3, you're stuck with the current Safari 1.0. iChat update for 10.2 owners IS available for an extra $30.

That's life, if I remember correctly you had to pay for Acrobat 6, without buying the upgrade you are stuck with Acrobat 5.

We need to start figuring that owning a Mac and wanting to get bug fixes for Apple's software is going to involve a yearly fee of 130 dollars.

Was Win98, Win ME, W2k and Win XP free of charge? Or OS 8 or 9?
Since software needs maintenance like a car does this service has to be paid for. You can get an extended warranty for your car, but you can also get something similar for OS X.

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by jocknerd
Then where in the hell is Ogg Vorbis? I understand why you won't put WMA in there, but why no Ogg Vorbis? It's open. It's free. Are you afraid that Ogg Vorbis would be used more than AAC which you probably paid a bundle for the licensing? Actually, its far from free. There's a space burden for the decoder, an R&D burden, a testing burden, an increased support burden... none of which would matter if it had wide support. But it doesn't. I'm not saying that it shouldn't (or that it should, for that matter), but it doesn't. Financially, its not worth it for Apple to move in this direction at the moment.

If a large enough number of people would buy iPod+OGG who would not otherwise buy an iPod, they'll probably add it. Until that point ... why should the bother? Remember, as a public for-profit company, Apple has a legal responsibility to their stockholders to do whatever they can to maximize company value (and, accordingly, long-term profitablility).

For example, using AAC allowed them to use a "right-sized" DRM approach with FairPlay that gave them a lock-in from their music store to the iPod. Almost certainly that was money well spent (R&D, support, and licensing combined), on which they saw an ROI in the form of increased iPod sales, more than they would have done by adding OGG decoding (R&D and support).

-Richard

[arn]

Originally posted by tychay
Arn, are you sure about this? I know Apple negotiated a cap for MPEG-4 licensing going as far as delaying the release the new Quicktime version until such a cap was negotiated. However, I didn't know this applied to MP3 licensing.


http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html

There does appear to be a cap for the MP3 Decoder => $60,000

But they don't mention a cap for the encoder. However from the faq (http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/mp3-licensing-faq.html)


Q. I have developed my own software encoder to run MPEG Layer-3. Do I need a license?

........
For these "patent only" licenses we have also granted licenses for unlimited sales based on a fixed royalty per year.


In this statement (http://www.cdfreaks.com/news2.php?ID=4655) though, they don't charge license fees for freely distributable software decoders


To clarify, since the beginning of our mp3 licensing program in 1995, Thomson has never charged a per unit royalty for freely distributed software decoders. For commercially sold decoders -- primarily hardware mp3 players -- the per-unit royalty has always been in place since the beginning of the program. Therefore, there is no change in our licensing policy and we continue to believe that the royalty fees of .75 cents per mp3 player (on average selling over $200 dollars) has no measurable impact on the consumer experience.

Which explains why there are so many freely available decoders... but not very many freely available encoders. (except for itunes)

arn

[mhar4]

Check out The Register for a solid critique of Jobs's comments

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33850.html

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by mhar4
Check out The Register for a solid critique of Jobs's comments

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33850.html

I'm sorry, but that article is a far cry from what I'd consider to be a 'solid critique.' The article is laced with the author's opinion of where things should go, and anything else is wrong. That Apple is making no money (or very little) on iTMS doesn't mean that Apple is a slave to the RIAA. Indeed, Apple's play to the indies, I think, will tend to increase their prominence in the long run, thus taking some of the wind out of the sales of the RIAA. I, for one, am not that big a fan of taxes being the solution to everything. It rather smacks of communism. Please. Spare me....

:rolleyes:

[greenstork]

Originally posted by tcmcam
Actually, I have no problem paying $130 a year to "rent" my software.

I believe in supporting software companies. R&D does cost money after all.

If you buy a Mac, you get it for free, R&D is paid for by the hardware profit. What makes me laugh are Mac owners that bought a Mac 4 years ago and still expect free enhancements or "still support OS 9". P-L-E-A-S-E !!

Apple writes good software they should get paid a nominal fee for it.

I have no problem paying Adobe, Microsoft, shareware authors for GOOD software.

What is more laughable is people that expect all software to be free. That is a crazy belief given our market-driven economy.

proud 10.3 Panther owner :)

While I do agree with almost all of your points, we disgree on one big one. Apple should always continue to provide security updates for legacy software. I work at a nonprofit that can't afford to upgrade our first gen iMacs so we can't use Jaguar or Panther. I'm sure many schools are in the same predicament. So while I don't expect iApp upgrades, I do expect legacy security patches.

[greenstork]

Originally posted by jocknerd
Then where in the hell is Ogg Vorbis? I understand why you won't put WMA in there, but why no Ogg Vorbis? It's open. It's free. Are you afraid that Ogg Vorbis would be used more than AAC which you probably paid a bundle for the licensing?

Apple does not support Ogg Vorbis because it's all about their DRM.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by greenstork
While I do agree with almost all of your points, we disgree on one big one. Apple should always continue to provide security updates for legacy software. I work at a nonprofit that can't afford to upgrade our first gen iMacs so we can't use Jaguar or Panther. I'm sure many schools are in the same predicament. So while I don't expect iApp upgrades, I do expect legacy security patches.

And hasn't Apple publicly stated that it is planning on continuing to provide security patches to its legacy OSes for as long as it is possible/practical?

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by paulc
...It's funny that for the past year or so, our favorite evil empire keeps getting raked over the coals for the possibility of them "renting" software... meaning there may be a yearly fee to be able to use that software. Apple has gone and done the exact same thing. And it seems to me that way too many Mac users are meekly accepting this.

No. There's a really big difference. From what I've read, if you didn't pay your yearly rental fee to MS, your computer would stop working. Period. On the other hand, Apple is simply providing an annual update. If you don't pay for it, you can continue to use the previous version. Your computer will keep working, just like it did before. So, no, this is not a rental scheme. It is simply an update/upgrade cycle.

[GregA]

Originally posted by mhar4
Check out The Register for a solid critique of Jobs's comments
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33850.html Wow, I'm amazed at that article.
Originally posted by Snowy_River
I'm sorry, but that article is a far cry from what I'd consider to be a 'solid critique.' The article is laced with the author's opinion of where things should go, and anything else is wrong. That Apple is making no money (or very little) on iTMS doesn't mean that Apple is a slave to the RIAA. Indeed, Apple's play to the indies, I think, will tend to increase their prominence in the long run, thus taking some of the wind out of the sales of the RIAA. I, for one, am not that big a fan of taxes being the solution to everything. It rather smacks of communism. Please. Spare me....
:rolleyes: The article almost implies Steve Jobs has the power to setup a worldwide music tax system, and perform a sweeping change to every artist's contract.

Steve cut a deal. I agree with you Snowy_River that he opens the door for indies (or ANY new artist) to distribute in a new way. I have no idea if the existing big 5 are good or bad. But if even just one record company starts up, gives artists a deal they prefer, and (like the big 5) sells through multiple online music stores - a small company can have America-wide distribution very quickly (I was going to say world wide... glad I caught myself! Then again maybe new record companies could work with world wide music rights)

[Geetar]

Originally posted by mhar4
Check out The Register for a solid critique of Jobs's comments

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33850.html

Solid?

No, gaseous nonsense from someone who hasn't the least clue what he's on about. No facts, no observable connection to any aspect of the market that I'm aware of, and no notion of how this is all going to spin out....

Colour me unimpressed.

[daveL]

Originally posted by Geetar
Solid?

No, gaseous nonsense from someone who hasn't the least clue what he's on about. No facts, no observable connection to any aspect of the market that I'm aware of, and no notion of how this is all going to spin out....

Colour me unimpressed.
I agree; what a crock. This isn't about the labels and Apple, it's about the labels and the artists. As the digital distribution technology becomes the dominant way in which music is sold, then the artists have the very real possibility of bypassing the major labels altogether. Apple is a major facilitator is this transition, not a roadblock. Anyway, that's how I see it.

[Analog Kid]

Originally posted by mhar4
Check out The Register for a solid critique of Jobs's comments

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33850.html

If you follow Andrew's articles, he's against DRM at all costs. He'd really like to undercut iTMS in the hopes that the labels would collapse (or at least concede) without access to the new distribution channel.

He's got some good reasons for concern (not least of which is the obscene prices labels can charge when they control the distribution, as they continue to do through DRM), but this article tells me he's kinda gone over the edge. His proposed solution would cause more problems than it would solve, in my opinion.

I wouldn't call this one solid. Some of his earlier articles, maybe...

[yamabushi]

"We don't worry about anyone beating us on manufacturing or logistical efficiency." - Jobs
I found this comment rather disturbing. Greater efficiency in logistics and production usually leads to higher profits and greater customer satisfaction. This efficiency does not need to come at the cost of creativity of design or product quality; in fact both can be enhanced by an increased ability to make rapid design changes. Apple should worry about efficiency.


Adding ogg to the iPod might be useful from a marketing perspective. It could be a selling point for some consumers who would count up the number of formats supported when comparing products. Thus both novices and audiophiles would feel comfortable that the support is there even if they seldom or never use it.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by yamabushi
I found this comment rather disturbing. Greater efficiency in logistics and production usually leads to higher profits and greater customer satisfaction. This efficiency does not need to come at the cost of creativity of design or product quality; in fact both can be enhanced by an increased ability to make rapid design changes. Apple should worry about efficiency.


Adding ogg to the iPod might be useful from a marketing perspective. It could be a selling point for some consumers who would count up the number of formats supported when comparing products. Thus both novices and audiophiles would feel comfortable that the support is there even if they seldom or never use it.

The way I took Jobs comments was not that Apple was unconcerned about "manufacturing or logistical efficiency," far from it, but rather Jobs confidence that no one else could "beat" Apple in this regard. He's a cocky SOB, but he knows where the money and attention to detail must go.

[Doxxic]

I know! I know!

I smell it in Steve's words.

He's talking about digital hub stategies, new digital lifestyle developments and the limitations of iPhoto...

There's going to be photo album functionality in next year's iPods!

Maybe photos can be imported from cameras directly via USB 2.0.

Maybe there's even going to be iPhoto for Windows!