Jobs talks iTunes pricing, Intel Macs at Apple Expo

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Apple chief executive Steve Jobs at a press conference on Tuesday talked about the company's upcoming Intel Macs and called the music industry "greedy" for considering a hike in the price of digital music downloads, warning such a move would drive users back to piracy.



Speaking to reporters before the opening of Apple Expo in Paris, Jobs acknowledged that some record companies were pushing him to raise the price of each song download beyond the current 99 cents rate.



"If they want to raise the prices, it means that they are getting greedy," Jobs said, according to the Associated Press. "If the price goes up, [consumers] will go back to piracy and everybody loses."



According to Macworld UK, Jobs also confirmed Apple?s switch to Intel processors remains on schedule, saying: ?We said we?d be shipping by next June and we are on track to have that be a true statement?.



Commenting on the illegal distribution and manipulation of early copies of Mac OS X for Intel to run on standard PC hard, Jobs said: "We don?t know how having OS X available for PCs would affect Macs?, and promised, ?we will have technology in OS X for Intel so that it cannot be installed in other PCs?.



Still, it appears that Apple will take no seat to software pirates and hackers alike. "Theft is bad?, Jobs said. ?You don?t want to burn in Hell. We choose to give away some software for free, we choose not to give away other software."



Meanwhile, Jon Rubinstein, senior vice president of the iPod division, told reporters the company was not planning to add radio features to its digital player because there was not enough demand for it.



Pascal Cagni, Apple's European Boss, was also present at the conference and gave an update on Apple's performance in the region. ?In Europe in the last quarter Apple saw the fastest ever growth - 6-7 per cent year-on-year [...] We have done very well in the UK, and fantastically with the iPod, and in Russia and Turkey too?.



Apple?s US market share now stands at 4.5%, with its world-wide market share at 3%.



Additional coverage of the press conference is available from Macworld UK.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 43
    Quote:

    ?We said we?d be shipping by next June and we are on track to have that be a true statement?.



    That's a very round about way of saying that they could release an Intel Mac anytime between now and then. Good to hear that the project is on track, in any case.
  • Reply 2 of 43
    LOL, if the past is anything to go by, it means Apple will start shipping the first Intel-based Macs at 11:59pm on May 31.
  • Reply 3 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AppleInsider

    ?You don?t want to burn in Hell."



    Job's said *THAT*?!?!?
  • Reply 4 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself

    Job's said *THAT*?!?!?



    Yeah. Isn't he a budhist?
  • Reply 5 of 43
    rhoqrhoq Posts: 190member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself

    Job's said *THAT*?!?!?



    I'm sure he was only kidding. I don't think he really cares about the few people that installed the cracked Tiger on their PCs. It's free publicity for Apple and OS-X.



    It's like the drug dealer that offers the first hit for free. When the Intel Macs are released, these PC-users running a cracked version OS-X will either have to deal with never being able to upgrade their OS via Software Update or make the switch and buy an Apple machine. I think it's safe to say that if these people are happy with the OS they are more than likely to invest in a Mac when the time comes for them to buy a new computer.
  • Reply 6 of 43
    banchobancho Posts: 1,517member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Unbeliever

    Yeah. Isn't he a budhist?



    Aw, c'mon, the monks would always scream stuff like that just before they went into battle...



  • Reply 7 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally posted by entmoots

    LOL, if the past is anything to go by, it means Apple will start shipping the first Intel-based Macs at 11:59pm on May 31.



    The release of TIger shows this not to be true, he quoted 1st half of 2005 last year and it turned out to be late April.



    There is all chance that an Intel Mac will be released a lot earlier, and I'd still place bets on Jan '06 for at least one machine. They already have OS X for Intel, and with a few modifications to make sure it only runs on Mac machines, it's ready to go. Likewise with the hardware. They are waiting on software developers to get their apps Intel compatible, once they are everything is ready to go.
  • Reply 8 of 43
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AppleInsider

    Meanwhile, Jon Rubinstein, senior vice president of the iPod division, told reporters the company was not planning to add radio features to its digital player because there was not enough demand for it.





    Which is something I have no problem with, although I would like better and broader voice recording capabilities.
  • Reply 9 of 43
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bancho

    Aw, c'mon, the monks would always scream stuff like that just before they went into battle...







    Why do I have this image of a thousand Samuel L. Jackson's, all in orange robes, cresting a hill at a dead run screaming "BURN IN HELL, MOFO!"



    Anyone else? Just me?



    Okay.
  • Reply 10 of 43
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Gandhi II



    He's back

    And this time

    He's mad



    Yeah I know: Not buddhist but close enough
  • Reply 11 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    Gandhi II



    Gandhi with jeans and an iPod nano in his pocket?



    You know.. now that the iPod is 'tiny' all those jokes like "Is that a U2 special edition iPod in your pocket or are you just happy to see me" will have to die. I liked those jokes...
  • Reply 12 of 43
    Our Dear Freind Steve,



    has told the truth and stood firm on the music pricing issue...



    GO STEVE GO!!!!!!!!! WERE PROUD OF YOU SON!
  • Reply 13 of 43
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:

    Jobs also confirmed Apple?s switch to Intel processors remains on schedule, saying: ?We said we?d be shipping by next June and we are on track to have that be a true statement?.



    I'm still pretty dubious about Apple joining the general Intel chip line.

    Look at how Jobs has run Apple.



    While Intel deeply segmented its processors into server, desktop, and lap top.



    In the same period Jobs did not segment Power PC into a different class of chips. Accross the G3 and G4 line the chips running in the desk tops and lap tops were basically the same chip. The desktop chip went into the lap top once its power consumption was low enough. The G5 was running the same pattern.



    There will be seven versions of Vista when it is released.



    With Mac there is only OS X and OS X Server.



    This is a deliberate pattern that I don't see being broken. I feel like there's more going on that we know.
  • Reply 14 of 43
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    If we think in those lines it would make sense to strip all from the Intel chip that relates to legacy code. That would make it much easier to make Mac OS X Macs only.



    But is it possible to do that without adding much extra cost to the chips? Is it at all possible or is it too integrated into the chips?
  • Reply 15 of 43
    Quote:



    Meanwhile, Jon Rubinstein, senior vice president of the iPod division, told reporters the company was not planning to add radio features to its digital player because there was not enough demand for it.



    Apple?s US market share now stands at 4.5%, with its world-wide market share at 3%.




    Apple doesn't want to grow out of its teenager market for the iPod. That's why Apple would never consider adding standard AM-FM radio features to the iPod so as to expand its market into the 25-60 year old demographics. God forbid that Apple gave its customers what they want or what they need for it might increase Apple's market share beyond the 3%.



    Microsoft has another 20 years to lead the market in giving customers what they want.
  • Reply 16 of 43
    I know that some think the mactels will be sooner but if i were Jobs i would wait to make sure that there is a large number of developers reader to go.
  • Reply 17 of 43
    banchobancho Posts: 1,517member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ouragan

    Apple doesn't want to grow out of its teenager market for the iPod. That's why Apple would never consider adding standard AM-FM radio features to the iPod so as to expand its market into the 25-60 year old demographics. God forbid that Apple gave its customers what they want or what they need for it might increase Apple's market share beyond the 3%.



    Microsoft has another 20 years to lead the market in giving customers what they want.




    I'm not so sure on your age breakdown for desiring radio on the iPod. In the US at least radio sucks *hard* with the exception of some talk radio that can be informative/entertaining.



    Steve said there were some that desired radio to be added to the iPod, it just wasn't enough demand to justify the time wasted doing it. For the (very) few who want it, there are devices out there already. The vast majority either don't care, or don't want the iPod cluttered with useless features (to them).



    I'm not buying a device like this to hear the radio. I've bought it to hear all the music I'll never hear on the radio on my own terms.



    By the way, I'm 37, and my wife and I each have an iPod (I'm also waiting for my 4GB Nano to ship).



    edit - of course this isn't meant to offend you in your desire for radio on the iPod, just my personal take on the situation
  • Reply 18 of 43
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:

    Apple doesn't want to grow out of its teenager market for the iPod. That's why Apple would never consider adding standard AM-FM radio features to the iPod so as to expand its market into the 25-60 year old demographics. God forbid that Apple gave its customers what they want or what they need for it might increase Apple's market share beyond the 3%.



    Microsoft has another 20 years to lead the market in giving customers what they want.



    25-60 is like four different demographics.



    I doubt all the people in that large a group consistantly listen to the radio.



    With an iPod you have a device that holds thousands of songs of your choosing. At that point you don't really need a radio.



    Many of the talk or news radio broadcasts are becoming podcasts, which you can listen to any where at any time you choose. Again you don't really need the radio.



    But the irony in the post is in comparing the iPod to Microsoft. They both dominate in areas that don't really have much relation to each other.



    The iPod which owns about 70% of its market. A market in which Microsoft's products struggle. The reason the iPod has this lead is because consumers made an active choice to buy an iPod and use iTunes.



    While Microsoft does currently dominate the operating system, office software, and internet browser. Most consumers have not made an active choice to buy a computer specifically running Microsoft software. But because they see little choice.
  • Reply 19 of 43
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:

    If we think in those lines it would make sense to strip all from the Intel chip that relates to legacy code. That would make it much easier to make Mac OS X Macs only.But is it possible to do that without adding much extra cost to the chips? Is it at all possible or is it too integrated into the chips?



    I'm not sure.



    But I do feel there are still some unanswered questions. That have not been answered with the obvious assumptions made about Apple/Intel's relationship.



    Microsoft and Intel seem to be growing apart in their respective future visions. Intel does not want to indefinitely support AMD64. What is Intel's next move?



    Why does Intel want Apple as a partner? Apple will not provide significant revnue to Intel's bottom line. Intel does not need Apple for brand recognition.



    From what I understand Intel has been courting Apple for the past five years. Seems that's around the time Apple was announcing OS X.



    Apple pushed IBM and Motorola to design Power PC in ways their other more profitable customers did not need. From what I hear these two are happy to see Apple go and bother someone else.



    Intel should know Apple would have demands of its chip designs.



    Why did they want the business and why did Apple accept?
  • Reply 20 of 43
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    It seems to me that SJ is steering the great technology boat here. Apple CREATES a market for products, 'kay? There was no real market for digital music before iPod. Period. The reason there's no market for a video iPod (which I agree with) is because Apple chooses for there not to be.



    Steve also said at the news conference that he doesn't think television and the computer will ever come together. That's RDF-speak for "I don't want that to happen." Knowing that, and knowing how convergent TVs and computers would be with a video iPod, I think Steve is intentionally trying to not steer the marketplace in those directions.



    I don't necessarily understand WHY he's of that opinion, but that seems to be the situation.
Sign In or Register to comment.