Behind the Motorola ROKR iTunes Phone

[akhomerun]

licensing

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

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

 

[manu chao]

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

who's the second company?

You.

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

 

[solvs]

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

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

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

 

[Lanbrown]

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

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

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

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

 

[VanNess]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iTMS / iPod won't be always dominant.

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

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

 

[VanMac]

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

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

 

[puuukeey]

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

 

[Stella]

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

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

The iTunes phone is an absolute laughing stock.

 

[Stella]

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

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

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

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



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

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

 

[maxterpiece]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[trentcanuck]

Who wrote this??

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

 

[kenzbud]

iTunes + Treo

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

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

The iTunes phone is an absolute laughing stock.

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

 

[AidenShaw]

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

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

 

[sishaw]

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

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

 

[Whistleway]

Why o Why, do steve never license anything out ?

 

[snowmoon]

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

Your joking... right?

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

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

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

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

 

[Stella]

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


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

Your joking... right?

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

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

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

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

 

[w00master]

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

NOTHING LASTS FOREVER.

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

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

w00master

 

[Lynxpro]

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

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

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

 

[Lynxpro]

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

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

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

 

[Lynxpro]

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

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

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

 

[Lynxpro]

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

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

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

 

[Lynxpro]

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

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

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

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

 

[Lynxpro]

NOTHING LASTS FOREVER.

Try Cialis.

 

[hayesk]

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

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