Jobs on 'open' iPod

[asim]

problem with licensing fairplay

fairplay requires a central computer to authorize a computer. if apple licensed this to real, would apple be in charge of taking care of real licenses or does real implement their own computer authorization service? i'm assuming real (or the licensee) takes care of it, because then they could offer their own terms (four computers maybe, different burning limits) based upon their negotiations with record companies.

 

[hulugu]

Steve needs to read...

Machiavelli, Von Clausewitz, Sun Tzu....

Real can be, if nothing else, a kind of client state to hold back Microsoft and WMA. The trouble is, if Apple tries to go it alone with no partners but HP, the others will, seeing Apple as the top dog, go after Apple. I don't think Apple can compete directly against Microsoft, Real, Sony, etc. at the same time.
Hey Jobs, you need allies! Glaser might not be the one, but Apple needs to find friends real fast. They are many PC-users who are nervous about the format war that is brewing and everyone is concerned, rightly or wrongly, about the possibility that Apple may be pushing Beta. And, after reading the history of both the Macintosh and the Beta tape, I believe Apple is heading down the same road. It will take time before Apple starts to see declining sales, but it will happen if there enough competitors.
Jobs seems to believe that once he has customers who have bought hundreds of dollars worth of AAC w/ Fairplay and iPods they will be forced to stick to that standard, hence the reason PlayFair is such a threat. But, I tend to believe that Apple will be marginalized, hemmed into its own ghetto of AAC that it will hurt the platform so much it will be rendered moot.
I'm worried Steve and I hope you have some tricks up your sleave, because it's not just Microsoft I'm worried about, they haven't been sucessful in a new market yet, but I'm worried about a Sony-Microsoft partnership.
Frankly, though I know they'll **** it up Janus scares me.

 

[rfenik]

Here is how I see it: The download link for iTunes is easy to find - a link is on the Apple homepage, they have the domain "itunes.com", all the features in iTunes are 100% free, and it doesn't require a registration to download.

The free realplayer is hidden behind a bunch of deceptive links and requires you to fill out a form before you can download it. It's not as user friendly as Apple, so I don't think the two belong together.

Funny how iTunes is the most user friendly piece of software out there but QuickTime still requires you to hit 'later' every time you start it.

 

[CrackedButter]

Here is how I see it: The download link for iTunes is easy to find - a link is on the Apple homepage, they have the domain "itunes.com", all the features in iTunes are 100% free, and it doesn't require a registration to download.

The free realplayer is hidden behind a bunch of deceptive links and requires you to fill out a form before you can download it. It's not as user friendly as Apple, so I don't think the two belong together.

Funny how iTunes is the most user friendly piece of software out there but QuickTime still requires you to hit 'later' every time you start it.

Change the date in QT to 1980, saves changes, reload it, click later and change it back, never bothers you again.

EDIT, this is for the windows version, silly me!

 

[crees!]

Realplayer sucks and it always has. I remember when I used Windows how it used to clutter the desktop with "join AOL" icons and take over all your file associations. Real was too big of an application and took too long to load.

Just when I thought it was safe you had to bring back the nightmares.

 

[ccuilla]

sony will soon be starting their own music store, which will presumably be non-iPod. Sony could pretty easily yank it's songs from iTMS, if they were competing for the same userbase.

There might be some anti-trust reasons that Sony cannot just "yank" their music from a direct comeptitor as you suggest. Besides, Sony wants to sell music. In the end they probably don't care how or where people buy it, as long as they buy. This seems like an unlikely scenario. What also seems unlikely is that the Sony music store will have any music except that which is offered by Sony music...only one of the "Big 5". Hardly a compelling competitor to iTMS.

 

[nure11]

Does it work with my new iPod?

I'm kinda back and forth on this, but when it comes down to it, I think Steve made the right decision. Like some said before, consumers are going to go buy their music player first, and whats the hip/cool one to get now? The iPod or iPod Mini of course. So they bring it home plug it into their computer and decide they want to try out this music downloading. So they go to BuyMusic, or Napster, or Real and see it doesn't work on their iPod! They way to stay ahead in the game is to keep the iPod the most wanted music( and maybe other media?? ) player out there. And if Steve and everyone else at Apple keeps up with what they are doing with the iPod, I don't think we have much to worry about. What Apple needs isn't a partnership where they are sharing formats/DRM, they need more like the HP deal. Get other companys to jump on the band wagon, in order to get the iPod out there even more. Just my two cents.

 

[rjwill246]

The untouchable iPod

Machiavelli, Von Clausewitz, Sun Tzu....

Real can be, if nothing else, a kind of client state to hold back Microsoft and WMA. The trouble is, if Apple tries to go it alone with no partners but HP, the others will, seeing Apple as the top dog, go after Apple. I don't think Apple can compete directly against Microsoft, Real, Sony, etc. at the same time.

This is valid, and worrisome for Apple, if two things happen. 1) The iPod loses market share because of competitors. This could happen if other products are perceived as better, but opening the iPod up to other services doesn't fix this issue. It is up to Apple to produce the best product possible and stay if front. 2) The iTMS has less to offer than the other services.
Wth either or both of these scenarios happening Apple would be in trouble, however there is no indication that those storm clouds are on the horizon.
As long as the iTMS is the best place to shop, why would anyone go anywhere else? This assumes that the store continues to offer value. Yes, it is only one choice but if the shirt you want is black, 16" collar and is identical in six stores all at the same price, why not just buy from your favorite out of the six. I see this as Apple's current position and clealry that could change for the worse. Then, Apple has to be prepared to morph and therein lies the greatest worry as they have NEVER done that with grace or ease. Hopefully, the Steve Jobs of today is older and wiser than the stubborn man he once was and would be able to adapt quickly if Apple were seriously threatened. Only time will tell.

 

[deepkid]

The reality some of us live in - FUD

It's sad to see how many of us Apple fans subconsciously submit to FUD.

Have you no faith in Apple after all of the wonderful accomplishments that it's made over the last 3 years? What will it take to convince you that they have a smart and solid business strategy?

Why must Apple jump all over the opportunity to partner with a company like Real, who's always made great differences between the windows and mac version of its products? Even if this wasn't the case, Real's online music store is the anti-thesis of the iTMS experience. Why would Apple want to drag itself down? If anything, it should align itself with a formidable partner, but who even comes close?

How soon we've forgotten how long it took Real to commit to OS X. Do you remember how long it took for them to release even a beta player? So would it be capable of making a serious contribution to a potential partnership with Apple? It doesn't look enticing.

How convenient of Mr. Glaser to preach about open standards when the only way to play his company's codecs was on their proprietary player. Where's Real's history of supporting open standards? Only out of fear and and and erosion of its perceived dominance did it panic to embrace AAC. Do not be fooled and believe that they've always had a love interest in open standards.

Apple does not have to jump at every offer to date. How could someone seriously write a report claiming that Apple needs to open up? iTMS is just barely a year old and Apple's already partnered with HP and AOL to strategically reach a broader audience. Although challenging it's delivered a windows version of iTunes which works on windows and is free.

Look, just because the mac os isn't in the dominant position, does not mean Apple has to say yes to every offer that comes along. THAT would truly be Mr. Jobs' undoing. It should continue to partner smartly and when it feels it's right.

Relax.

 

[Steve M]

Here is the CURRENT situation:

1. The iPod is, by FAR, the most successful personal digital music player on the market. It's a household word. Folks who aren't even all that technically savvy know what an iPod is, but they have no clue what an "MP3 player" is.

2. The iTunes Music Store is, by FAR, the most successful online music store available. It's the easiest to use, most convenient, has an exceptionally large library, lots of great exclusives, and is always adding new features and more & more music and books.

Currently, that is how things are. And given that current state of affairs, it makes NO SENSE for Apple to:
- Dilute iPod sales by opening up AAC/Fairplay to other MP3 players
- Dilute iTunes Music Store sales by allowing iPod to play .WMA files.

It makes zero sense to do this as things stand right now.

But it would be trivially easy to allow third party MP3 players to support Fairplay-DRM'd AAC files. Heck, you can play music purchased from iTMS on any MP3 player right now -- just burn, re-rip as MP3, and you're all set.

It would also be technologically easy to enable the iPod to play .WMA files.

It's MOSTLY a matter of licensing technologies.

Believe me -- if the situation changes where either or both of those maneuvers makes sense, Apple could make these changes VERY quickly.

But for now -- there is NO POINT in doing it.

Oh yeah, and as to the comment about iPod's supposed short lifespan due to the "battery" issue -- what a load of FUD that is. You can have Apple install a new battery, and there are several companies that will replace the iPod's battery for FAR less than the cost of buying a new iPod. This is NOT an issue. I fully expect to be able to use my iPod for an unlimited amount of time, even AFTER the original battery dies.

 

[J-Squire]

The iPod has a limited life span due to the battery issue. So an iPod purchased today will last say 1-3 years. At that point in time, folks will upgrade to a new iPod or something else. The key for Apple is to keep their customers returning for more. If having only one source (iTMS) for ACC content causes customers to look elsewhere, then Apple's current success in this arena will be short lived.

OK....According to general market place theory, your comments are backwards. By making iTunes only compatable with the iPod, then when a consumer goes to upgrade their iPod in 3 years, they look at the investment they've already made in that iPod (by buying all this music, or the time spent ripping their CD's to AAC) and realise that it is too costly to change to another player, so they get another iPod. Even if the competitor's player is cheaper, the true cost will involve repurchasing all the music they got from iTunes, and re-ripping their CDs to wma or mp3.
Theory states that if you want to hold customers, you need to increased the perceived cost (whether time, or money) of switching to a competitor.

In relation to all those saying that this 'closed format' is the '84 mac repeating itself, I would suggest the a personal music player and a personal computer a COMPLETELY different things. One person's music player has very little need to be compatable with another's. Having worked in an Apple store, I can say that windows users who come to buy iPods do not even ask about compatability other than if it runs on windows.

 

[gensor]

Itunes make not make a lot of money now but

Last quarter they said it made money. A bigger point is that it drives many Apple customers and Windows customers to the Apple site. You know that Apple sells other things on that site besides music.

 

[thatwendigo]

The only reason not to do this would be if the Music Store was making money, but various peeps from Apple have said time and again that the sole purpose of the music store is to drive iPod sales. Had they opened up to Real's service, then Real could also drive iPod sales. Not necessarily a bad thing. If Real's service fails down the road, then the customers could just switch to the iTunes Music Store and still use their iPod.

The store is turning a profit, as of this last quarter. Apple might not be making a lot of money, but it's anoter source of revenue at this point, and it will likely only get more lucrative as time goes on and the investment in backend matures.

Also, Apple has always been about controlling the user experience. Licensing out in the past has hammered then on that point, with the cloners running off in their own directions. One of the main reasons that the mac platform is so much easier and more appealing is that very control, and losing it would relegate Apple to the same cesspool that entraps Microsoft and Windows developers.

 

[ZildjianKX]

If the iPod's lifespan is only 1-3 years, there may not be much in long-term success for it. I didn't pay $500 for an iPod to have it die in such a short time.

Here Here , I've had my Rio 500 for 6 years and still use it. If my iPods dies, I'll never get another one. I'm already pissed off enough about it's battery life and tweaky software... battery meter and random recharging anyone?

 

[thatwendigo]

Here Here , I've had my Rio 500 for 6 years and still use it. If my iPods dies, I'll never get another one. I'm already pissed off enough about it's battery life and tweaky software... battery meter and random recharging anyone?

I have to wonder what happens to these units you guys have. I don't get the problems everyone talks about, and I've dropped my iPod down a half flight of stairs. My battery life is around what it was when the unit was new.

Funky.

 

[Frisco]

Can someone please explain to me how the ITMS helps sell iPods? I have the impression iPod or not most people still download through P2P.

Looking at my purchased music playlist I have downloaded 174 songs off of ITMS, but am I the exception?

In regards to Real, I can't possibly see how this would have hurt them. Open Source is the future!

The Mac is Steve's baby and every decision he makes revolves around her. He doesn't really care about ITMS, or Pixar. He cares about his baby--the Mac. Sometimes he can be too overprotective of her though, like most fathers.

Why is the Mac a she? Because the Mac is way to elegant to be a He

 

[Steve M]

iTMS helps sell iPods because iTunes and iPod are so intricately related. Both are advertised on the same Apple page, and in Apple TV ads. They're more after the mass market than the people who would probably get their music from P2P anyway.

 

[SiliconAddict]

The only reason Jobs didn't bite is the way Real came at him. The guy is the biggest most arrogant ***hole out there. From what I hear bigger then Gates and in most cases it sure has heck isn’t warranted. Short of Real crawling on their hands and knees to him he would have laughed them off.
Quite honestly I expect to see the iPod at a 10% market share in 5 years. Job's ego will guarantee that it will occur. Reality time you stubborn ***. You are going to be marginalized out of the market at some point if you don’t get some team members on board and sure as heck HP is NOT enough.
Enjoy the good times because when you are on top of the clouds the fall is a killer.

 

[Le Big Mac]

The only reason not to do this would be if the Music Store was making money, but various peeps from Apple have said time and again that the sole purpose of the music store is to drive iPod sales. Had they opened up to Real's service, then Real could also drive iPod sales. Not necessarily a bad thing. If Real's service fails down the road, then the customers could just switch to the iTunes Music Store and still use their iPod.

-- Ben

That's how I see it too. If iTMS were making money obviously it would be different, but this is like letting anyone sell your razor handles but only you sellthe blades.

 

[Le Big Mac]

There might be some anti-trust reasons that Sony cannot just "yank" their music from a direct comeptitor as you suggest. Besides, Sony wants to sell music. In the end they probably don't care how or where people buy it, as long as they buy. This seems like an unlikely scenario. What also seems unlikely is that the Sony music store will have any music except that which is offered by Sony music...only one of the "Big 5". Hardly a compelling competitor to iTMS.

Sony could end its deal with apple without antitrust concern. Whenever the contract is up, it's up.

But here's why Sony probably won't. Say they do, because they want to make their site the "exclusive" place to get Sony music. Well, at that point, all the other music cos. do the same thing. Then consumers are stuck with a bunch of different music stores that may or may not work with their devices. And sony has to start offering their music in all sorts of formats. The convenience of online music sales declines, and we're back to Napster, Limewire, KazAa, etc.

 

[J-Squire]

That's how I see it too. If iTMS were making money obviously it would be different, but this is like letting anyone sell your razor handles but only you sellthe blades.

ummm....would the razor handle perhaps be the iPod? How many others are selling their own iPod that is compatable with iTunes? Zero last time I checked.

 

[Pegano]

I think we all agree that the expansion of the iPod to new territory is a generally good thing, but with Real, I sing a different tune. Their format is garbage, they have annoying and poorly designed software, and they have a general reputation of harassing customers about updates, buying full version etc. That's not something I'd want to be associated with if I was Steve.

 

[J-Squire]

I think we all agree that the expansion of the iPod to new territory is a generally good thing, but with Real, I sing a different tune. Their format is garbage, they have annoying and poorly designed software, and they have a general reputation of harassing customers about updates, buying full version etc. That's not something I'd want to be associated with if I was Steve.

Well said. Many people seem to be saying how desperately Apple needs allies if it is going to continue its dominance of digital music. It is true that in the long run Apple will need partnerships, but in order to continue to truely dominate, it needs SMART partnerships. HP is a SMART partnership because it gets iTunes into the homes of millions of people. REAL is not a smart partnership because the company has crap products that do not align with Apple's brand perception in the market place.

Jobs and Co have said a few times now that they are constantly looking for partnerships to further expand iTunes and iPod, and we have seen a few already (HP, Pepsi, AOL) and will see more. They don't need to jump into bed with everyone in order to survive

 

[LoopHoles]

how can we know what Steve-o has in mind? The HP deal hasn't really kicked off yet and maybe there are other deals apple is up to.

Also, Real is not a company I'd associate with if I was in Apple's position. They have not given me a good impression with their customer service. Why? I subscribed to some premium soccer highlights online and when I went to cancel the subscription at Real Online, the site asked me to call a 1-800 number (with a long wait). When you subscribe to something online, you should be able to cancel it online, period.

 

[MrMacMan]

Still wish Apple would open up to formats like .ogg and FLAC.

Yes yes yes.


Thank you from preventing me from going on a 3-5 pharagraph rant about these wonderful formats.


FLAC, OGG --> Great Codecs the iPod needs to support... NOW.