Well, who knows what they are up to. This article says, "... now that they won't be selling their handset division." But there are articles dated after this one that say they are trying to.
Apple has invested tremendous amounts of money into building and expanding the user experience. Anyone who thinks the iPod succeeded because of its hardware alone must be smoking something hallucinogenic. It succeeded because of the software, both on the computer (iTunes) and on the device itself (iPod OS), a philosophy that only a few people truly understood at the time (most of them were at Apple).
The iPod was not being praised as a revolutionary device. Analysts and experts and users were not wholly won-over. Here's what people had to say:
"For all Jobs' excitement, though, Apple users at Mac discussion sites seemed a bit crestfallen that the device wasn't as revolutionary as the company had promised last week. Indeed, many said it was over-priced and under-powered. 'Apple has introduced a product that's neither revolutionary nor breakthrough, and they've priced it so high that it's reminiscent of the Cube,' a post on MacSlash said."
"Apple hailed Tuesday's announcement as "the unveiling of a breakthrough digital device." However, there are plenty of other digital music players on the market, many of them for a fraction of the price. Creative's latest version of the Nomad Jukebox, called the 20GB, allows people to store 340 hours worth of music. It has a 20 GByte drive and also costs $399"
"Clearly Apple is following Sony's lead by integrating consumer electronics devices into its marketing strategy, but Apple lacks the richness of Sony's product offering. And introducing new consumer products right now is risky, especially if they cannot be priced attractively," Deal said. Stephen Baker, an analyst at NPD Intelect, said that the iPod will likely stand out for its large storage capacity but predicted that the device may have trouble digging out a niche in the market."
So what the h*** is the breakthrough? Having a FW port??
Jeez. I was hoping for Airport at least.
that's it??!!!!10/23, 01:53pm reply delete
what's so breakthrough about this?! So what if it's 5GB and has a huge buffer and a firewire port and a long battery life. That's just an improved version of current MP3 players. ARGGGHHH!!
"If Sony made a hard drive-based digital music player, it would look a lot like the iPod."
***********
So next month marks the 8th anniversary of the first iPod, and in that time, still no one has created anything that resembles Apple's integrated hardware/software experience. I think Jon Rubinstein is a smart enough guy to recognize that fact; after all, he came from Apple.
The integration of hardware and software is what makes Apple unique, and what gives it the competitive advantage it needs to succeed with new hardware (like the iPhone). Allowing third party devices to masquerade as iPods in iTunes is dangerous territory and in my opinion, Apple is justified in defending its turf. When you sync a Palm Pre to iTunes, the device clearly shows up as an "iPod" where the only identifier that it's anything else is the NAME of the device ("Palm Pre"). The images and device type are still iPod. That sounds like borderline trademark infringement to me.
Besides, that business model has already been tried and guess what, FAIL. Microsoft PlaysForSure, where any device manufacturer can create hardware that is compatible with WMP, allowing for seamless integration with your digital music. What a success that was...
So, now Palm... going to make your own software that can "sync" with iTunes?
I hope Palm eventually thrives, but the underdog should not have used an underhanded tactic like that. A company that can make a USB capable piece of hardware should know that spoofing someone else's USB IDs is at least frowned upon. I don't know if there are any penalties for doing it, but Palm should not expect the organization to bend its own rules and penalize someone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
This could open the complaint that Apple is unfairly profiteering from iTunes dominance in the market. That Apple should allow 3rd party competitors to have free access to non-DRM iTunes files.
Even if they don't care to read the XML file, any program can spider the file system for music files and such. The iTunes software can't prevent that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
They need to make iSync work better. That's not Apple's problem.
The fact that iSync isn't very good under nearly any circumstance is Apple's fault, they made it, they included it with their own OS. It seems like you have to be an übergeek to get it to work properly with any device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55
Cudos to the USB-IF for sticking it to Palm and siding with Apple.
They're just applying their own rules to the situation. You're not supposed to use someone else's ID key.
No one seems to remember why iSync exists in the first place. It was not to make it easy for manufacturers of portable devices; it was because those manufacturers could not provide decent sync software for Mac users. Apple did it for Mac users. Now, Apple creates devices in the mobile space. The other makers had a chance to advance in the space, but they did nothing and waited on Apple to make things work. Now Apple produces their own devices and provides world-class sync solutions. Apple does not need to improve iSync; other companies that want to be Mac compatible need to create better software.
This could open the complaint that Apple is unfairly profiteering from iTunes dominance in the market. That Apple should allow 3rd party competitors to have free access to non-DRM iTunes files.
No. The complaint has just been shot down at the top of the article. Apple profits from making a better product than the competition fair and square. Apple has not used its dominance to prevent anyone from putting their own hardware and software to the market. Its absolutely ludicrous to give access to your sub-par competitors, who dont have the brains to make a viable product, IN ANY INDUSTRY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig
In my opinion, in 2009, it is the software that Mac users utilise to manage their media. It comes with the operating system. It's system software.
Your opinion is wrong and that is a fact. By your definition, the adware and promo apps that Dell and MS put in my old PC was system software. Grand Central, the kernal, OpenCL are system softwares, not iTunes, Chess or Calculator. They are not in the systems folder.
No one seems to remember why iSync exists in the first place. It was not to make it easy for manufacturers of portable devices; it was because those manufacturers could not provide decent sync software for Mac users. Apple did it for Mac users. Now, Apple creates devices in the mobile space. The other makers had a chance to advance in the space, but they did nothing and waited on Apple to make things work. Now Apple produces their own devices and provides world-class sync solutions. Apple does not need to improve iSync; other companies that want to be Mac compatible need to create better software.
They still dont support OSX. Apple is still writing drivers for printers. SL just change the way the drivers are deliver.
If Pre aren't careful and persist with violating the USB IF regulations, they could actually wind up getting themselves kicked out and/or banned from referring to their compatibility with the USB standard.
It's reminiscent of when music distributers started to intentionally introduce flaws into the discs labelled "CDs" as a means of DRM. In the beginning they were still referring to them as CDs but eventually they were banned by the consortium from referring to such discs as CDs because they no longer adhered to the standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig
In my opinion, in 2009, it is the software that Mac users utilise to manage their media. It comes with the operating system. It's system software.
Windows Media Player does pretty much the same thing, however you are quite able to replace it with something else, including iTunes or WinAmp. You can also remove iTunes completely, manage your music in Finder alone, and use Quicktime to play your media. The OS itself has basic support which will work regardless of iTunes' existence.
The difference is that on a Mac, there are no real alternatives for an all-in-one solution. This is not because Apple have prevented anybody from making competing software by denying access to APIs (I'm looking at you, Microsoft), it is because nobody has been bothered to try. In fact, by giving you the developer tools and API documentation for nothing, they're making it even easier for somebody to go out there and create a competing product.
Apple cannot be blamed if nobody wants to fill the potential gap (a media player that supports more formats and more devices with more customisation), and they shouldn't be forced to accommodate vendors to lazy to even try to compete.
Actually Palm and Nokia both have what the other needs. Palm needs cash while it gets webOS widely adopted. Nokia doesn't have an OS or mobile development platform as sophisticated as webOS. It would likely cost Nokia less time and money to buy Palm than for Nokia to attempt to build an entirely new mobile OS and platform.
I wasn't commenting on the article. I was making a comment about another opinion for how Apple could market iTunes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightstriker
No. The complaint has just been shot down at the top of the article. Apple profits from making a better product than the competition fair and square. Apple has not used its dominance to prevent anyone from putting their own hardware and software to the market. Its absolutely ludicrous to give access to your sub-par competitors, who dont have the brains to make a viable product, IN ANY INDUSTRY.
Even if they don't care to read the XML file, any program can spider the file system for music files and such. The iTunes software can't prevent that.
Well yes that is the current situation, we were talking about another hypothetical situation.
Quote:
The fact that iSync isn't very good under nearly any circumstance is Apple's fault, they made it, they included it with their own OS. It seems like you have to be an übergeek to get it to work properly with any device.
Ok I misunderstood, I thought he was talking about a third party app. I've never used iSync.
No one seems to remember why iSync exists in the first place. It was not to make it easy for manufacturers of portable devices; it was because those manufacturers could not provide decent sync software for Mac users. Apple did it for Mac users. Now, Apple creates devices in the mobile space. The other makers had a chance to advance in the space, but they did nothing and waited on Apple to make things work. Now Apple produces their own devices and provides world-class sync solutions. Apple does not need to improve iSync; other companies that want to be Mac compatible need to create better software.
But then Apple went and created the "iSync Plugin Maker" so third parties could use it with their products. They are the ones that lose out if they don't improve it. Their phone only makes up 1% of all phones, it is great to miss out the other 99% of all devices.
But then Apple went and created the "iSync Plugin Maker" so third parties could use it with their products. They are the ones that lose out if they don't improve it. Their phone only makes up 1% of all phones, it is great to miss out the other 99% of all devices.
You are looking at it backwards. On the Windows platform, there is no universal sync system, or at least, that was the case, not sure about now. It was up to each manufacturer to come up with their own program for syncing data. I was a Windows user back in the day and had to put up with all manner of lame brain schemes that didn't work. It was even worse on the Mac as most devices would only come with Windows software. Almost nothing was Mac compatible.
Apple realized they couldn't wait on them to make their devices compatible, so they built a framework of compatibility themselves. It was revolutionary in the industry. But it was only done because no one would make Mac compatible sync software. They still don't. The difference now is that Apple makes their own music player and mobile devices. Had companies made their own syncing software for the Mac back in the day, there would never have been an iSync. For that matter, there probably would have never been an iPhone. When it first came out, all people wanted was a phone that synced content seamlessly with their Mac. Along came the world beating iTunes sync solution. The rest is history.
Now the same losers who waited on Apple to produce iSync, want to use iTunes. Guess what, we don't need their crappy products any more. They will have to at least give us the solutions they give to Windows users, or they can go straight to hell! They didn't want to sell to us when they had the chance. No way is Apple going to make it easy for them to compete with the iPhone using Apple's own secret sauce.
You are looking at it backwards. On the Windows platform, there is no universal sync system, or at least, that was the case, not sure about now. It was up to each manufacturer to come up with their own program for syncing data. I was a Windows user back in the day and had to put up with all manner of lame brain schemes that didn't work. It was even worse on the Mac as most devices would only come with Windows software. Almost nothing was Mac compatible.
I think the problem is that making software work on a second platform takes nearly as much work as it did on the first platform, and the incremental gains didn't justify that expense. If it costs you twice as much to gain 10% more users, would you do it?
I think the problem is that making software work on a second platform takes nearly as much work as it did on the first platform, and the incremental gains didn't justify that expense. If it costs you twice as much to gain 10% more users, would you do it?
If that is what they were thinking, they were pretty shortsighted, weren't they? The Mac market is looking pretty good to them now.
Even then, the math didn't add up quite the way you suggest. No one vender had all of the Windows market. There were numerous competitors vying for mindshare on a platform where people did not spend much money on high-end solutions. If even one of the manufacturers had made a decent solution for the Mac, they would have had 100% of a market that would have been happy to spend more money than the average PC user. There is no excuse for the disrespect we Mac users have received from the industry over the years. Now that Apple has shown their shortsighted foolishness for what it was and is, they want to steal Apple's innovation to hock their own crappy goods . Screw them all. If they want my business, they will have to work at least as hard as they do for a Windows user. In an iPhone/iPod world, nothing less will do.
If that is what they were thinking, they were pretty shortsighted, weren't they? The Mac market is looking pretty good to them now.
Even then, the math didn't add up quite the way you suggest. No one vender had all of the Windows market. There were numerous competitors vying for mindshare on a platform where people did not spend much money on high-end solutions. If even one of the manufacturers had made a decent solution for the Mac, they would have had 100% of a market that would have been happy to spend more money than the average PC user. There is no excuse for the disrespect we Mac users have received from the industry over the years.
Sorry, but no. This is a business decision, not one meant as a form of disrespect. You are reading malice where there likely is none.
Back in the day, if the same ratio of users are buyers, then they only lost at most, 5% of your prospective buyers. Even if a Mac user was twice as likely to buy a product as a PC in those days, that might be 10%. That's the way it falls. The same amount again to chase an additional 10% doesn't add up in any kind of business sense. Even if you can corner the market for Mac-connectable devices, I am skeptical that it would make sense. Besides, most PDAs and smart phones were marketed towards business users, which have an even lower percentage of Mac users, except the creative industry. I really don't see where it adds up if you're trying to work as a business.
I own an iphone, and a mac. I love the way it syncs with iTunes. I was also happy to see that the Pre was able to sync with iTunes, because it was essentially a hack. My iPhone is jailbroken and unlocked, and I've been an iPhone owner since the $499 days, so I've followed the modders v. apple tug-of-war very closely, waiting until there was a new hack before updating my firmware. I don't think Apple should make it any easier for Palm, though I also hope there is no legal action that takes away Palm's right to keep up the cat and mouse game. The fun is in the hacking. If it's banned legally, there could be a surge in the underground WebOS community, and I may need to pick up a pixi...
The problem is that Palm is profiting off of something they haven't invested a cent in (the development of the iTunes software).
While hacking software/devices for personal use is fine (and fun), it's the point where you are trying to profit from hacking others' work where I draw the line. I'd be pretty pissed off if I had spent millions of dollars developing a piece of software, only to have someone else come along and try to gain product sales from it without paying any compensation.
I might be able to understand these sorts of tactics if it were a small start-up company trying to gain a foothold in the market, but Palm is a large enough company that they can damn well develop their own syncing software for their phones. Though I agree that Apple should consider opening iTunes up for licensing to other companies (but that's their choice to make).
You are looking at it backwards. On the Windows platform, there is no universal sync system, or at least, that was the case, not sure about now. It was up to each manufacturer to come up with their own program for syncing data. I was a Windows user back in the day and had to put up with all manner of lame brain schemes that didn't work. It was even worse on the Mac as most devices would only come with Windows software. Almost nothing was Mac compatible.
No, I'm not looking at it backwards. Apple only only has a small market share for phones (around 1%), they can hold onto their secret sauce all they want to (which won't help them), or they can add features to iSync to allow others to access iTunes that way, and extend the appeal of OS X.
Apple developed a good tool with iSync, they should extend it to make things more seamless.
No, I'm not looking at it backwards. Apple only only has a small market share for phones (around 1%), they can hold onto their secret sauce all they want to (which won't help them), or they can add features to iSync to allow others to access iTunes that way, and extend the appeal of OS X.
Apple developed a good tool with iSync, they should extend it to make things more seamless.
So your brilliant plan to sell more Macs is to add complex functionality for 99% of all the other phones out there with varying HW and SW. Despite this not working too well with a simple app like iSync and despite Apple keeping iTunes on Windows and OS X looking and functioning as identical as one can get when using different SDKs. This, somehow will increase Mac sales to a point thy outweighs your 99% built in service for every other phone out there and keeps the customer happy despite the added complexity and program size for iTunes--only on Macs according to you--to support all these phones.
If Apple ever does what you want then I'll be selling my stock as it is a sign the company is going to fail miserably.
Comments
Because no one want to buy their handset division. Motorola handset division is in more trouble than Palm.
Well, who knows what they are up to. This article says, "... now that they won't be selling their handset division." But there are articles dated after this one that say they are trying to.
They need to make iSync work better. That's not Apple's problem.
Since iSync is an Apple product why isn't their problem to make it work better?
The iPod was not being praised as a revolutionary device. Analysts and experts and users were not wholly won-over. Here's what people had to say:
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscell.../2001/10/47805
"For all Jobs' excitement, though, Apple users at Mac discussion sites seemed a bit crestfallen that the device wasn't as revolutionary as the company had promised last week. Indeed, many said it was over-priced and under-powered. 'Apple has introduced a product that's neither revolutionary nor breakthrough, and they've priced it so high that it's reminiscent of the Cube,' a post on MacSlash said."
"Apple hailed Tuesday's announcement as "the unveiling of a breakthrough digital device." However, there are plenty of other digital music players on the market, many of them for a fraction of the price. Creative's latest version of the Nomad Jukebox, called the 20GB, allows people to store 340 hours worth of music. It has a 20 GByte drive and also costs $399"
http://news.cnet.com/Apples-iPod-spu..._3-274821.html
"Clearly Apple is following Sony's lead by integrating consumer electronics devices into its marketing strategy, but Apple lacks the richness of Sony's product offering. And introducing new consumer products right now is risky, especially if they cannot be priced attractively," Deal said. Stephen Baker, an analyst at NPD Intelect, said that the iPod will likely stand out for its large storage capacity but predicted that the device may have trouble digging out a niche in the market."
Some user comments from http://www.macnn.com/news/10182
That's IT???10/23, 01:52pm reply
So what the h*** is the breakthrough? Having a FW port??
Jeez. I was hoping for Airport at least.
that's it??!!!!10/23, 01:53pm reply delete
what's so breakthrough about this?! So what if it's 5GB and has a huge buffer and a firewire port and a long battery life. That's just an improved version of current MP3 players. ARGGGHHH!!
But this one takes the cake http://old.macedition.com/op/op_ipod_20011025.php
"If Sony made a hard drive-based digital music player, it would look a lot like the iPod."
***********
So next month marks the 8th anniversary of the first iPod, and in that time, still no one has created anything that resembles Apple's integrated hardware/software experience. I think Jon Rubinstein is a smart enough guy to recognize that fact; after all, he came from Apple.
The integration of hardware and software is what makes Apple unique, and what gives it the competitive advantage it needs to succeed with new hardware (like the iPhone). Allowing third party devices to masquerade as iPods in iTunes is dangerous territory and in my opinion, Apple is justified in defending its turf. When you sync a Palm Pre to iTunes, the device clearly shows up as an "iPod" where the only identifier that it's anything else is the NAME of the device ("Palm Pre"). The images and device type are still iPod. That sounds like borderline trademark infringement to me.
Besides, that business model has already been tried and guess what, FAIL. Microsoft PlaysForSure, where any device manufacturer can create hardware that is compatible with WMP, allowing for seamless integration with your digital music. What a success that was...
Oh well... I was hoping the underdog would win.
So, now Palm... going to make your own software that can "sync" with iTunes?
I hope Palm eventually thrives, but the underdog should not have used an underhanded tactic like that. A company that can make a USB capable piece of hardware should know that spoofing someone else's USB IDs is at least frowned upon. I don't know if there are any penalties for doing it, but Palm should not expect the organization to bend its own rules and penalize someone else.
This could open the complaint that Apple is unfairly profiteering from iTunes dominance in the market. That Apple should allow 3rd party competitors to have free access to non-DRM iTunes files.
Even if they don't care to read the XML file, any program can spider the file system for music files and such. The iTunes software can't prevent that.
They need to make iSync work better. That's not Apple's problem.
The fact that iSync isn't very good under nearly any circumstance is Apple's fault, they made it, they included it with their own OS. It seems like you have to be an übergeek to get it to work properly with any device.
Cudos to the USB-IF for sticking it to Palm and siding with Apple.
They're just applying their own rules to the situation. You're not supposed to use someone else's ID key.
This could open the complaint that Apple is unfairly profiteering from iTunes dominance in the market. That Apple should allow 3rd party competitors to have free access to non-DRM iTunes files.
No. The complaint has just been shot down at the top of the article. Apple profits from making a better product than the competition fair and square. Apple has not used its dominance to prevent anyone from putting their own hardware and software to the market. Its absolutely ludicrous to give access to your sub-par competitors, who dont have the brains to make a viable product, IN ANY INDUSTRY.
In my opinion, in 2009, it is the software that Mac users utilise to manage their media. It comes with the operating system. It's system software.
Your opinion is wrong and that is a fact. By your definition, the adware and promo apps that Dell and MS put in my old PC was system software. Grand Central, the kernal, OpenCL are system softwares, not iTunes, Chess or Calculator. They are not in the systems folder.
No one seems to remember why iSync exists in the first place. It was not to make it easy for manufacturers of portable devices; it was because those manufacturers could not provide decent sync software for Mac users. Apple did it for Mac users. Now, Apple creates devices in the mobile space. The other makers had a chance to advance in the space, but they did nothing and waited on Apple to make things work. Now Apple produces their own devices and provides world-class sync solutions. Apple does not need to improve iSync; other companies that want to be Mac compatible need to create better software.
They still dont support OSX. Apple is still writing drivers for printers. SL just change the way the drivers are deliver.
It's reminiscent of when music distributers started to intentionally introduce flaws into the discs labelled "CDs" as a means of DRM. In the beginning they were still referring to them as CDs but eventually they were banned by the consortium from referring to such discs as CDs because they no longer adhered to the standards.
In my opinion, in 2009, it is the software that Mac users utilise to manage their media. It comes with the operating system. It's system software.
Windows Media Player does pretty much the same thing, however you are quite able to replace it with something else, including iTunes or WinAmp. You can also remove iTunes completely, manage your music in Finder alone, and use Quicktime to play your media. The OS itself has basic support which will work regardless of iTunes' existence.
The difference is that on a Mac, there are no real alternatives for an all-in-one solution. This is not because Apple have prevented anybody from making competing software by denying access to APIs (I'm looking at you, Microsoft), it is because nobody has been bothered to try. In fact, by giving you the developer tools and API documentation for nothing, they're making it even easier for somebody to go out there and create a competing product.
Apple cannot be blamed if nobody wants to fill the potential gap (a media player that supports more formats and more devices with more customisation), and they shouldn't be forced to accommodate vendors to lazy to even try to compete.
Why would Nokia pay money for a headache?
No. The complaint has just been shot down at the top of the article. Apple profits from making a better product than the competition fair and square. Apple has not used its dominance to prevent anyone from putting their own hardware and software to the market. Its absolutely ludicrous to give access to your sub-par competitors, who dont have the brains to make a viable product, IN ANY INDUSTRY.
Even if they don't care to read the XML file, any program can spider the file system for music files and such. The iTunes software can't prevent that.
Well yes that is the current situation, we were talking about another hypothetical situation.
The fact that iSync isn't very good under nearly any circumstance is Apple's fault, they made it, they included it with their own OS. It seems like you have to be an übergeek to get it to work properly with any device.
Ok I misunderstood, I thought he was talking about a third party app. I've never used iSync.
No one seems to remember why iSync exists in the first place. It was not to make it easy for manufacturers of portable devices; it was because those manufacturers could not provide decent sync software for Mac users. Apple did it for Mac users. Now, Apple creates devices in the mobile space. The other makers had a chance to advance in the space, but they did nothing and waited on Apple to make things work. Now Apple produces their own devices and provides world-class sync solutions. Apple does not need to improve iSync; other companies that want to be Mac compatible need to create better software.
But then Apple went and created the "iSync Plugin Maker" so third parties could use it with their products. They are the ones that lose out if they don't improve it. Their phone only makes up 1% of all phones, it is great to miss out the other 99% of all devices.
But then Apple went and created the "iSync Plugin Maker" so third parties could use it with their products. They are the ones that lose out if they don't improve it. Their phone only makes up 1% of all phones, it is great to miss out the other 99% of all devices.
You are looking at it backwards. On the Windows platform, there is no universal sync system, or at least, that was the case, not sure about now. It was up to each manufacturer to come up with their own program for syncing data. I was a Windows user back in the day and had to put up with all manner of lame brain schemes that didn't work. It was even worse on the Mac as most devices would only come with Windows software. Almost nothing was Mac compatible.
Apple realized they couldn't wait on them to make their devices compatible, so they built a framework of compatibility themselves. It was revolutionary in the industry. But it was only done because no one would make Mac compatible sync software. They still don't. The difference now is that Apple makes their own music player and mobile devices. Had companies made their own syncing software for the Mac back in the day, there would never have been an iSync. For that matter, there probably would have never been an iPhone. When it first came out, all people wanted was a phone that synced content seamlessly with their Mac. Along came the world beating iTunes sync solution. The rest is history.
Now the same losers who waited on Apple to produce iSync, want to use iTunes. Guess what, we don't need their crappy products any more. They will have to at least give us the solutions they give to Windows users, or they can go straight to hell! They didn't want to sell to us when they had the chance. No way is Apple going to make it easy for them to compete with the iPhone using Apple's own secret sauce.
You are looking at it backwards. On the Windows platform, there is no universal sync system, or at least, that was the case, not sure about now. It was up to each manufacturer to come up with their own program for syncing data. I was a Windows user back in the day and had to put up with all manner of lame brain schemes that didn't work. It was even worse on the Mac as most devices would only come with Windows software. Almost nothing was Mac compatible.
I think the problem is that making software work on a second platform takes nearly as much work as it did on the first platform, and the incremental gains didn't justify that expense. If it costs you twice as much to gain 10% more users, would you do it?
I think the problem is that making software work on a second platform takes nearly as much work as it did on the first platform, and the incremental gains didn't justify that expense. If it costs you twice as much to gain 10% more users, would you do it?
If that is what they were thinking, they were pretty shortsighted, weren't they? The Mac market is looking pretty good to them now.
Even then, the math didn't add up quite the way you suggest. No one vender had all of the Windows market. There were numerous competitors vying for mindshare on a platform where people did not spend much money on high-end solutions. If even one of the manufacturers had made a decent solution for the Mac, they would have had 100% of a market that would have been happy to spend more money than the average PC user. There is no excuse for the disrespect we Mac users have received from the industry over the years. Now that Apple has shown their shortsighted foolishness for what it was and is, they want to steal Apple's innovation to hock their own crappy goods . Screw them all. If they want my business, they will have to work at least as hard as they do for a Windows user. In an iPhone/iPod world, nothing less will do.
If that is what they were thinking, they were pretty shortsighted, weren't they? The Mac market is looking pretty good to them now.
Even then, the math didn't add up quite the way you suggest. No one vender had all of the Windows market. There were numerous competitors vying for mindshare on a platform where people did not spend much money on high-end solutions. If even one of the manufacturers had made a decent solution for the Mac, they would have had 100% of a market that would have been happy to spend more money than the average PC user. There is no excuse for the disrespect we Mac users have received from the industry over the years.
Sorry, but no. This is a business decision, not one meant as a form of disrespect. You are reading malice where there likely is none.
Back in the day, if the same ratio of users are buyers, then they only lost at most, 5% of your prospective buyers. Even if a Mac user was twice as likely to buy a product as a PC in those days, that might be 10%. That's the way it falls. The same amount again to chase an additional 10% doesn't add up in any kind of business sense. Even if you can corner the market for Mac-connectable devices, I am skeptical that it would make sense. Besides, most PDAs and smart phones were marketed towards business users, which have an even lower percentage of Mac users, except the creative industry. I really don't see where it adds up if you're trying to work as a business.
I own an iphone, and a mac. I love the way it syncs with iTunes. I was also happy to see that the Pre was able to sync with iTunes, because it was essentially a hack. My iPhone is jailbroken and unlocked, and I've been an iPhone owner since the $499 days, so I've followed the modders v. apple tug-of-war very closely, waiting until there was a new hack before updating my firmware. I don't think Apple should make it any easier for Palm, though I also hope there is no legal action that takes away Palm's right to keep up the cat and mouse game. The fun is in the hacking. If it's banned legally, there could be a surge in the underground WebOS community, and I may need to pick up a pixi...
The problem is that Palm is profiting off of something they haven't invested a cent in (the development of the iTunes software).
While hacking software/devices for personal use is fine (and fun), it's the point where you are trying to profit from hacking others' work where I draw the line. I'd be pretty pissed off if I had spent millions of dollars developing a piece of software, only to have someone else come along and try to gain product sales from it without paying any compensation.
I might be able to understand these sorts of tactics if it were a small start-up company trying to gain a foothold in the market, but Palm is a large enough company that they can damn well develop their own syncing software for their phones. Though I agree that Apple should consider opening iTunes up for licensing to other companies (but that's their choice to make).
You are looking at it backwards. On the Windows platform, there is no universal sync system, or at least, that was the case, not sure about now. It was up to each manufacturer to come up with their own program for syncing data. I was a Windows user back in the day and had to put up with all manner of lame brain schemes that didn't work. It was even worse on the Mac as most devices would only come with Windows software. Almost nothing was Mac compatible.
No, I'm not looking at it backwards. Apple only only has a small market share for phones (around 1%), they can hold onto their secret sauce all they want to (which won't help them), or they can add features to iSync to allow others to access iTunes that way, and extend the appeal of OS X.
Apple developed a good tool with iSync, they should extend it to make things more seamless.
No, I'm not looking at it backwards. Apple only only has a small market share for phones (around 1%), they can hold onto their secret sauce all they want to (which won't help them), or they can add features to iSync to allow others to access iTunes that way, and extend the appeal of OS X.
Apple developed a good tool with iSync, they should extend it to make things more seamless.
So your brilliant plan to sell more Macs is to add complex functionality for 99% of all the other phones out there with varying HW and SW. Despite this not working too well with a simple app like iSync and despite Apple keeping iTunes on Windows and OS X looking and functioning as identical as one can get when using different SDKs. This, somehow will increase Mac sales to a point thy outweighs your 99% built in service for every other phone out there and keeps the customer happy despite the added complexity and program size for iTunes--only on Macs according to you--to support all these phones.
If Apple ever does what you want then I'll be selling my stock as it is a sign the company is going to fail miserably.