Why did Apple create AirPlay when they could have used DLNA?

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by moonman239, Jul 23, 2015.

  1. moonman239 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    #1
    Could it be because they already had AirTunes and didn't want to spend developer time adapting it? Or maybe it's because they like being able to guarantee some consistency among devices that are connected to an Apple device. After all, not all DLNA devices are alike - some will play a file with a given format, some will not.

    Edit: Speculation is acceptable here, as long as the forum rules permit.
     
  2. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #2
    Because apple has a history of going their own way.
     
  3. Nightarchaon macrumors 65816

    Nightarchaon

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    #3
    because they want to create proprietary software to lock you into their ecosystem..

    Its stuff Microsoft tried back in the 90s and were dragged through the courts again and again due to monopoly issues, and now strangely is something Apple is happily doing and no one is blinking
     
  4. MarkCollette macrumors 68000

    MarkCollette

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #4
    AirPlay standardises the actual file format and codec used, so that hardware acceleration can be optimised, and devices can be guaranteed to work. DLNA is wonderful, if the playing device actually has file format and codec support for the file you're throwing at it...
     
  5. moonman239 thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    #5
    A valid point, but Apple could have decided to establish a "Made for Apple Devices program" where DLNA manufacturers would agree to install Apple's proprietary codecs on devices that will bear a "Made for Apple Devices" logo.

    I wonder how much money they'd rake in.
     
  6. MarkCollette, Jul 24, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2015

    MarkCollette macrumors 68000

    MarkCollette

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #6
    I'm not sure if there are licence fees for H.264, but they're not proprietary codecs, they're open standards.

    With every Apple hardware program, there's testing and verification, not just agreements to support features.

    iTunes movies still use DRM, including movie rentals. Possibly DLNA doesn't support this?
     
  7. tdale macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2013
    Location:
    Christchurch, N.Z.
    #7
    Cos Apple is small, MS is big.
     
  8. tdale macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2013
    Location:
    Christchurch, N.Z.
    #8
    That's it in one.
     
  9. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #9
    What would be the incentive for manufacturers to do that? I don't see any advantage to manufacturers to pay apple money for proprietary codecs when most people will be content with what's already there.

    Also I think as others stated Apple is not looking for another revenue stream, but rather lock people in.

    The same sort of argument can be made with OS X. People have been clamoring to have it licensed on non-apple hardware. That goes against the grain of apple and their approach of setting up an ecosystem.
     
  10. moonman239 thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    #10
    Are you saying that most of their customers don't have an Apple product and so won't care about compatibility with Apple devices? Are you saying that even Apple users won't care much about any ability to DLNA from their Apple devices?

    Edit: I can see the reasoning in both arguments.
     
  11. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #11
    What I'm saying is I don't see manufacturers being motivated to pay apple licensing for proprietary codecs (if apple embraced DLNA).

    Its a moot point because Apple chose to go the complete proprietary route which is consistent with their past behavior.
     
  12. YanniDepp macrumors 6502

    YanniDepp

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    #12
    HA HA HA HA HA HA!
     
  13. Nightarchaon macrumors 65816

    Nightarchaon

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    #13
    Glad you said that,

    Apple is pretty much, outside the Oil, dimond and arms industries, the biggest money maker in the world, Microsoft has not been "big" in that sense for a decade or more
     
  14. rhett7660 macrumors G4

    rhett7660

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Sunny, Southern California
    #14
    Just because they are big on the money side, doesn't equate to big on the percentage of market share. MS is still rather large, if not the largest when it comes to Desktop operating systems, hence the reason for the monopoly case.

    Apple not so much on the monopoly side when it comes to market share of any of there products. I would think the music side of their business is probably the closets thing they have at the moment.
     
  15. UKgaryb macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2013
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #15
    DLNA is crap; each manufacturer implements it differently and you have no guarantees of it working or not; I've had issues between Samsung / Sony TV's where once has a codec and another doesn't yet they don't advertise the fact between devices. Airplay has it's issues but it's 10000x better than DLNA. Also doesn't airplay encrypt the stream which was important in the days of DRM in iTunes purchased music.
     
  16. Nightarchaon macrumors 65816

    Nightarchaon

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    #16
    Apple is a monopoly, no one else makes Apple products but apple, Microsoft make PCs, but so do Dell, Lenovo and others, If Apple sold its OS separately, and it run on any PC hardware, i would agree, they are not a monopoly, but as it stands, they are using their position as the sole manufacturer of their components to lock out others, and if they move into a new area, like, oh lets say, headphones or fitness trackers, they suddenly exclude "competitors" from their own stores and either prevent, or make it hard to get their hardware or software to play well in the eco-system that they have created, and often stolen from .
     
  17. rhett7660 macrumors G4

    rhett7660

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Sunny, Southern California
    #17
    I would think you are forgetting the market share. Just because they are the sole manufacturer, does not make them a monopoly. There share is not large enough. They cannot by there power and money, force others out of business so that they are the only manufacture of personal computers. They are not suppressing any other companies. They are not forcing other companies to raise prices in order to compete.

    There are other choices and right now, they are number two and sometimes three in the areas they are developing and producing for. Apple is not the largest and or most powerful company when it comes to producing phones. They are not even close when it comes to PC's. What Apple does have is a small, percentage wise, eco-system of products that work together. They do not dominate the PC market, they can't price fix the PC market or mobile computing market, they are not putting other manufactures out of business. They are doing none of the above.

    Regarding the "stolen from", care to elaborate on that one? I am curious on where this came from.
     
  18. MarkCollette macrumors 68000

    MarkCollette

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #18
    Most companies are the sole manufacturers of their own components, so that's a fairly useless definition of monopoly.

    Apple makes computers that run Windows, via Bootcamp, so in that regard, they are not a monopoly, but yet another PC manufacturer. Yes, you can choose to run OS X (or Windows or Linux, etc.) on your Mac, and nowhere else. Just like how most PC manufacturers have their own proprietary crap-ware they add on to Windows, that you won't get on another brand of PC.

    And yes, if you have an OS X application, it will only run on OS X, and likely nowhere else, apart from any emulation environments I'm unaware of. But, one can also run a Java application equally on OS X as Windows or Linux or whatever other platform. And even Posix code, and many other types of programs will work on they same across platforms.

    So, other things are not locked out from running on Macs, there's only some limited lock in of some Mac stuff not running elsewhere. Which is fair, because that would cost them money to port that over and maintain it and test it.

    Again, with having their own stores, and not selling competitors' products, that's very typical. Sony stores sell Sony products, nothing else, just like thousands upon thousands of other stores. Sure, there are large chains like Walmart and Best Buy that sell many brands, but Apple isn't one of them, nor does it need to be. The Gap isn't some restrictive monopoly because it doesn't sell H&M clothing.

    Apple doesn't make things hard to inter-operate, the reality is that it's intrinsically hard to make things inter-operate, so they just don't bother in many ways. They don't care to make 20 configurations kind of work together, like other vendors, they just try to make 2-3 configurations work together as seamlessly as possible. If you think 2-3 or 20 ways is easy, then you just don't understand technology at a fundamental level.

    And where I've seen them actively block inter-operation, it was usually for necessary reasons. For example, contractual obligations for having access to media content, imposed by MPAA/RIAA, or stopping jailbrakes for security reasons. Even a lot of the blocking of other technologies in making iOS apps made sense later when they could quickly transition to 64 bit, other chip architectures, or go from Objective-C to Swift. Broadly supporting many configurations just would have kept them from being so nimble. Look at the decade or so transition from 32 bit to 64 bit in Windows, with no end in sight, as most apps are still 32 bit, iOS taking around 1 year to go from 32 to 32/64, and likely 64 only within the next 2 years. That couldn't have happened if half the apps were all in C++ using some random other toolkit that Apple doesn't control.

    How hard is it for fitness trackers to inter-operate? Use Bluetooth and HealthKit...
     
  19. 1madman1 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Location:
    Richmond, BC, Canada
    #19
    Because AirPlay (generally) works, and in my experience at least DLNA is a loosely defined barely compatible mess. In fact the only DLNA source I had much of any luck with was my last Nokia phone - Windows Media Player, Media Centre, PS3 Media Server not so much.
     
  20. Tech198, Aug 26, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2015

    Tech198 macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Location:
    Australia, Perth
    #20

    DLNA would make more sense. since more hardware devices support them, but ya onlu supported formats.. (not sure if DLNA is encrypted).

    Of course Airplay generally works, but the same can be said about any Apple hardware working together only, not third party stuff as well.

    (ie i have Mac hardware, but i have a third party router (I have no interest in the Airport Extreme since it doesn't have DSL port on it's own)

    and i can say i have nothing but problems making bonjour to properly work all the time between apple devices on the same network just because it goes though a third party router.


    Airplay is Apple standard and encrypted I would only guess AirTunes, "We must keep the Air..." portion because developers are already know what it is.

    So as u may have guessed. Apple also wants to control. which would be why they choose Airplay.
     
  21. Irishman macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    #21
    I very much agree about DLNA on the PS3. It's horrible. It doesn't hold a signal for more than a minute or two when using Plex, and that's when I can get it to see a file that I know is there!

    Compared to that flaky behavior, Airplay is a dream!
     
  22. JoEw macrumors 65816

    JoEw

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    #22
    I have yet to own a television that can play anywhere close to all the content on my Plex DLNA server, Airplay while not perfect works 99% of the time for me. I can guarantee if it plays on an iPad/iPhone I can get it to my TV pretty easily.
     
  23. Zirel Suspended

    Zirel

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    #23
    Because AirPlay has nothing to do with DLNA.

    AirPlay is used to broadcast a device screen to another device, or to pass a stream to another device.

    DLNA does not do any of those things.
     
  24. AFEPPL macrumors 68030

    AFEPPL

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Location:
    England
    #24
    DNLA works much better as a service and you don't get the sync issues with voice and pictures.
    Airplay is pretty poor, and you cant really do wifi to wifi for HD movies even if you are using all apple devices running over AC.
     
  25. roadbloc macrumors G3

    roadbloc

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #25
    Pfft.
     

Share This Page