This is not a surprise or outrage. It simply reflects the reality that Apple defines the tech industry. Whatever Apple does or is rumored to do is what other companies see as essential.
Apple does an app store, smart phones are now defined by their developer platform and app store potential. Apple sells music. Everyone must try and sell music. Apple has a closed, vertical structure. MS makes Zune hardware with tight integration with software. Google rumored to be working on phone hardware. Apple tablet rumored and desired by fans. Everyone is now putting out tablet prototypes to show that they can do it to. MS has a multi-touch mouse in the works. They most likely saw an Apple patent and decided to announce some vapor ware so that they could be in the conversation.
Of course Google wants to sell music. Everyone does. Expect a Google branded MP3 player in the near future.
What all these companies miss, as they attack Apple is that Apple is the only company that knows how to effectively control both hardware and software.
MS is trying with Zune and its breed, but so far is way off mark. Google is more of a threat to Microsoft than to Apple.
This is not a surprise or outrage. It simply reflects the reality that Apple defines the tech industry. Whatever Apple does or is rumored to do is what other companies see as essential.
Apple does an app store, smart phones are now defined by their developer platform and app store potential. Apple sells music. Everyone must try and sell music. Apple has a closed, vertical structure. MS makes Zune hardware with tight integration with software. Google rumored to be working on phone hardware. Apple tablet rumored and desired by fans. Everyone is now putting out tablet prototypes to show that they can do it to. MS has a multi-touch mouse in the works. They most likely saw an Apple patent and decided to announce some vapor ware so that they could be in the conversation.
Of course Google wants to sell music. Everyone does. Expect a Google branded MP3 player in the near future.
Correct. But I would add that all the copycats come up with crapola. All the iphone clones are basura. Dell tried release an aluminum-bodied laptop. The humiliation list really is miles long. We all know all the tablet imitators are going to release garbage. This we KNOW even without ever seeing the Apple tablet. This in and of itself is pretty remarkable.
Just curious, are you and your friends Mac or PC users? I ask as iTunes is used for some many things on a Mac I couldn't live without it.
Mostly mac, but a mixture of both. Everyone still has iTunes for various reasons (mine for developing) , but listening to music for the vast majority of people I know is through Spotify, this happened pretty much overnight.
Why pay for music when you can get it 'free' and with a cleaner user interface! The choice was a simple one for everyone to make.
What all these companies miss, as they attack Apple is that Apple is the only company that knows how to effectively control both hardware and software.
MS is trying with Zune and its breed, but so far is way off mark. Google is more of a threat to Microsoft than to Apple.
The big difference is that Google's Audio tracks will (?) be turn up in regular google searches whereas track or artist in Itunes don't. Who knows how Google's advertising business model will blend with Audio. In the end it will be good or consumers even though we don't want to see Apple challenged, right?
Google doing a music service...so what? Why is everyone screaming that they are copying Apple?
Apple was not the first company with an online music store...just the most successful
From the article itself: "Unknown is whether the new service would provide purchase and download of content, like iTunes, or another format, like streaming."
Google is in the search business, so a service for searching for music sort of makes sense. It is one of the most commonly searched topics.
Don't underestimate the compeition, however weak they appear. M$ has some VERY deep pockets and Google has some VERY deep talent. They are both viable in challenging Apple in this industry.
I do think Apple will stay in front and continue to swipe market share from the PC market but they will have to stay on the tip of the sword if they want to charge such a premium for their computers. People are only going to pay 1000+ and 2000+ dollars for a product they can't get anywhere else. Something unique. I think Apple has been and can continue to do this.
Microsoft Stores = Massive $$ flop.
Zune + Market Place = Could be good, but currently flop
Windows 7 = They'll sell tons of copies on new hardware, but retail flop.
Don't underestimate the compeition, however weak they appear. M$ has some VERY deep pockets and Google has some VERY deep talent. They are both viable in challenging Apple in this industry.
I do think Apple will stay in front and continue to swipe market share from the PC market but they will have to stay on the tip of the sword if they want to charge such a premium for their computers. People are only going to pay 1000+ and 2000+ dollars for a product they can't get anywhere else. Something unique. I think Apple has been and can continue to do this.
Microsoft Stores = Massive $$ flop.
Zune + Market Place = Could be good, but currently flop
Windows 7 = They'll sell tons of copies on new hardware, but retail flop.
Apple's updated $999 MacBook, $1,199-and-up iMac and $599 Mac Mini models may look sharp, and some add such thoughtful features as a wireless mouse that includes the "multi-touch" technology first seen on the iPhone. But Windows-based computers can cost half as much -- even before you factor in Apple's inflated charges for memory and storage upgrades. Since there's a recession going on and we're all smart capitalists, buyers will undoubtedly switch to more affordable alternatives. Clearly, Apple is doomed.
Except it's not.
In its quarterly earnings announcement Monday, the Cupertino, Calif., company blew away Wall Street's expectations, shipping more Macs in a quarter than ever before -- 3.05 million -- for a $1.67 billion profit. The New York Times noted that "Macintosh sales have now grown faster than the rest of the PC market in 19 of the last 20 quarters." TechCrunch marveled at the firm's $34 billion cash reserves -- more than the entire market value of Dell or Yahoo.
These results suggest that Apple has been able to accomplish something that a functioning market should make nearly impossible -- rake in consistently higher profit margins for a product that could be replaced by cheaper alternatives from other suppliers.
If anything, that trade-off has only become easier in the last year. The same switch to Web-based applications that has freed Mac users from having to worry about finding a Mac equivalent to some Windows program can also free Windows users from putting up with the hassle of software installs and uninstalls, one of uglier aspects of life in Microsoft's operating systems.
My own computer-shopping advice points out this difference in cost before getting into the comparative advantages of Macs and PCs. When co-workers with tight budgets have asked me directly what laptop to buy, I've told them to go ahead and get a PC (after which I've counseled them on how to uninstall the bundled trialware junk on the average Windows machine).
And yet a year and a half ago, an NPD Group analyst calculated that Apple's sales amounted to one quarter of every dollar spent on computers in the United States.
How can Apple keep printing money as if it were silicon wafers?
It's unwise, not to mention insulting, to explain away Apple's success by calling its customers "fanboys" or describing them as members of a cult. (Though it may be tempting to trot out that theory when observing the Twitter chatter about a new Apple product or the reflexive coverage this company can draw in the traditional media -- things that never happen with PC manufacturers.)
The best explanation for it may be seen sitting in traffic right now: Apple has made a business out of selling a premium product, just like BMW, Cadillac or Lexus.
Analysts and critics can insist that Apple has to ship a netbook to stay competitive, and Mac shoppers can wish that the company would turn its considerable talent for design to that category of computer. But Apple doesn't have to do that any more than Cadillac owes the world an $18,000 subcompact.
As grotesque and incomprehensible as Apple's existence may seem to people content with an affordable PC, the company seems to have taken up residence at a spot in the market that other vendors seem unable to barge into.
Manufacturers of Windows-based PCs can craft higher-end models -- Hewlett-Packard's Voodoo line of desktops and laptops have offered as much style as many Macs. But they can't do much to differentiate the software on those deluxe models -- whether it's Windows Vista or the new Windows 7, shipping Thursday -- from what they ship on the $400 boxes lining mass-market retailers' shelves. Apple won't license Mac OS X to them, and most won't ship the free, open-source Linux operating system on anything bigger than a netbook.
This could be a self-reinforcing trend: As PC builders keep having their profit margins squeezed, they have fewer resources to devote to high-end consumer products, while Apple's focus on the most profitable end of the market leaves it with ever more money to dump into product design. Or buying small islands.
Don't underestimate the compeition, however weak they appear. M$ has some VERY deep pockets and Google has some VERY deep talent. They are both viable in challenging Apple in this industry.
I do think Apple will stay in front and continue to swipe market share from the PC market but they will have to stay on the tip of the sword if they want to charge such a premium for their computers. People are only going to pay 1000+ and 2000+ dollars for a product they can't get anywhere else. Something unique. I think Apple has been and can continue to do this.
Microsoft Stores = Massive $$ flop.
Zune + Market Place = Could be good, but currently flop
Windows 7 = They'll sell tons of copies on new hardware, but retail flop.
--LanPhantom
I got nothing personal against Microsoft, just the leadership there. They seriously need a change in regime, Ballmer's mentality is still heavily entrenched in the, "hook them on a proprietary solution and then lie about the competition so much people start believing it." Before you know it you're hooked on Microsoft with no hope of getting off. Microsoft is finally starting to make a few inroads to cross-platform but it's all forced & they are doing it begrudgingly. You can't cast a vision you don't believe in, that's Ballmer's issue right now.
Um... this will only find music and stream it (something I can do now by just going to youtube myself. iTunes actually lets you buy music, you know to own it and have it on your comp/touch. No threat to iTunes, but yea I can see a new map app coming to my touch soon.
That was walmart, a cruddy food store, they never had a hope in competing, this is google, slightly more qualified.
If they release something like Spotify, itunes could be in trouble, I think it's a better model, all my friends have dumped iTunes in favor of Spotify, including myself, and it's growing at a ridiculous rate.
OK Google will have kiss all a**** of the four music labels. Apple had a difficult time dealing with them. What is gonna be different with Google other than another format of audio that we not ready to migrate to? I'm going to LMAO if Zune is better than Google Audio which it may be the case.
Google is getting weak they see Apple dominance now wants to challenge them. This is will be their epic fail. You literally have to pry 100 Million plus iTunes customers of their iPhones and iPod Touches to Google? I don't think so. Apple don't have nothing to worry about the only way it be successful if everything is free then how can it be profitable? So if any of you love Eric Schmidt that much than all of you need to line up to kiss his a**.
they need to add themes to safari...like chromium has...
You know what? I got a better idea what Google can do is make a better games console than the Xbox 360 and PS3! Call it Google Box, where it can have its Chrome, OS, audio, movies and games!
You know what? I got a better idea what Google can do is make a better games console than the Xbox 360 and PS3! Call it Google Box, where it can have its Chrome, OS, audio, movies and games!
You know what? I got a better idea what Google can do is make a better games console than the Xbox 360 and PS3! Call it Google Box, where it can have its Chrome, OS, audio, movies and games!
That's another argument, but someone needs to get a grip and smack sony/MS together to stop the format war which is damaging game output.
Eric was on the board a bit too long in my opinion.
I think Apple should enter the search engine business.
Yeah, because Safari was so successful in the web browser business. The last thing the world needs is another unused ask.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
'Web's' dead anyway (he says controversially ) google need to diversify. Ha, I only say this because I have been using the traditional 'web' less and less since the iPhone.
It's all about the app's.
This has crossed my mind, web technologies are such a mess, why bother with html when you have interface builder and objective c?! (you dont need to give me reasons, i know)
If there was an Appleinsider app,I would rarely fire my browser up on my laptop.
Would Apple approve an Appleinsider app? They would probably say no out of spite!
Your whole post is ridiculous in so many ways...possibly a new world record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buceta
Just like Google Chrome is supposed to replace Safari
etc.
Hey Google: go back to the search engine business
What are you talking about? Chrome is already outranking Safari despite being, what, a decade younger?
Comparatively, Google as a company has a far better track record overall than Apple. Apple nearly went under. Google has control over the best of the world's marketing. It could remove apple.com from search rankings and lose them millions if it felt like it (ie made up a feasible excuse). Google has incredible power. Apple has a tiny share of an unstable market.
I've had plenty of problems with Gmail's reliability over the last year and so has my girlfriend.
YouTube is an exercise in annoyment now with pop up adds and now forced advertisements preceding the video.
I launch iWork when I need to do some document creation not Google apps. I don't use Blogger anymore and it just catches a bunch of spam.
Picasa looks horried and I didn't even want to install it on my Mac
Google Maps consistently sends me on poor routes I'm beginning to use Microsofts maps instead.
If I look at Google's performance as far as delivering outstanding applications that I really want to use I'd say the importance of Google in my daily life is diminishing. I have little desire to see what they could do to screw up my music.
Comments
the developer tools indicator in chromium is an exact ripoff of the ipod usage indicator
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/323...91021at113.jpg
keep stealing, google
It's a part of Webkit. Safari has the same one too.
Apple does an app store, smart phones are now defined by their developer platform and app store potential. Apple sells music. Everyone must try and sell music. Apple has a closed, vertical structure. MS makes Zune hardware with tight integration with software. Google rumored to be working on phone hardware. Apple tablet rumored and desired by fans. Everyone is now putting out tablet prototypes to show that they can do it to. MS has a multi-touch mouse in the works. They most likely saw an Apple patent and decided to announce some vapor ware so that they could be in the conversation.
Of course Google wants to sell music. Everyone does. Expect a Google branded MP3 player in the near future.
wow that really is identical.
Perhaps they just found which API calls were used to produce it, and used them...
It's a part of Webkit. Safari has the same one too.
really? ok
MS is trying with Zune and its breed, but so far is way off mark. Google is more of a threat to Microsoft than to Apple.
This is not a surprise or outrage. It simply reflects the reality that Apple defines the tech industry. Whatever Apple does or is rumored to do is what other companies see as essential.
Apple does an app store, smart phones are now defined by their developer platform and app store potential. Apple sells music. Everyone must try and sell music. Apple has a closed, vertical structure. MS makes Zune hardware with tight integration with software. Google rumored to be working on phone hardware. Apple tablet rumored and desired by fans. Everyone is now putting out tablet prototypes to show that they can do it to. MS has a multi-touch mouse in the works. They most likely saw an Apple patent and decided to announce some vapor ware so that they could be in the conversation.
Of course Google wants to sell music. Everyone does. Expect a Google branded MP3 player in the near future.
Correct. But I would add that all the copycats come up with crapola. All the iphone clones are basura. Dell tried release an aluminum-bodied laptop. The humiliation list really is miles long. We all know all the tablet imitators are going to release garbage. This we KNOW even without ever seeing the Apple tablet. This in and of itself is pretty remarkable.
Just curious, are you and your friends Mac or PC users? I ask as iTunes is used for some many things on a Mac I couldn't live without it.
Mostly mac, but a mixture of both. Everyone still has iTunes for various reasons (mine for developing) , but listening to music for the vast majority of people I know is through Spotify, this happened pretty much overnight.
Why pay for music when you can get it 'free' and with a cleaner user interface! The choice was a simple one for everyone to make.
What all these companies miss, as they attack Apple is that Apple is the only company that knows how to effectively control both hardware and software.
MS is trying with Zune and its breed, but so far is way off mark. Google is more of a threat to Microsoft than to Apple.
The big difference is that Google's Audio tracks will (?) be turn up in regular google searches whereas track or artist in Itunes don't. Who knows how Google's advertising business model will blend with Audio. In the end it will be good or consumers even though we don't want to see Apple challenged, right?
Perhaps they just found which API calls were used to produce it, and used them...
Ah right , fair enough, thought it must be something like that.
I do think Apple will stay in front and continue to swipe market share from the PC market but they will have to stay on the tip of the sword if they want to charge such a premium for their computers. People are only going to pay 1000+ and 2000+ dollars for a product they can't get anywhere else. Something unique. I think Apple has been and can continue to do this.
Microsoft Stores = Massive $$ flop.
Zune + Market Place = Could be good, but currently flop
Windows 7 = They'll sell tons of copies on new hardware, but retail flop.
--LanPhantom
Don't underestimate the compeition, however weak they appear. M$ has some VERY deep pockets and Google has some VERY deep talent. They are both viable in challenging Apple in this industry.
I do think Apple will stay in front and continue to swipe market share from the PC market but they will have to stay on the tip of the sword if they want to charge such a premium for their computers. People are only going to pay 1000+ and 2000+ dollars for a product they can't get anywhere else. Something unique. I think Apple has been and can continue to do this.
Microsoft Stores = Massive $$ flop.
Zune + Market Place = Could be good, but currently flop
Windows 7 = They'll sell tons of copies on new hardware, but retail flop.
--LanPhantom
Good points.
Here's something to add to that perspective.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102003573.html
Apple's updated $999 MacBook, $1,199-and-up iMac and $599 Mac Mini models may look sharp, and some add such thoughtful features as a wireless mouse that includes the "multi-touch" technology first seen on the iPhone. But Windows-based computers can cost half as much -- even before you factor in Apple's inflated charges for memory and storage upgrades. Since there's a recession going on and we're all smart capitalists, buyers will undoubtedly switch to more affordable alternatives. Clearly, Apple is doomed.
Except it's not.
In its quarterly earnings announcement Monday, the Cupertino, Calif., company blew away Wall Street's expectations, shipping more Macs in a quarter than ever before -- 3.05 million -- for a $1.67 billion profit. The New York Times noted that "Macintosh sales have now grown faster than the rest of the PC market in 19 of the last 20 quarters." TechCrunch marveled at the firm's $34 billion cash reserves -- more than the entire market value of Dell or Yahoo.
These results suggest that Apple has been able to accomplish something that a functioning market should make nearly impossible -- rake in consistently higher profit margins for a product that could be replaced by cheaper alternatives from other suppliers.
If anything, that trade-off has only become easier in the last year. The same switch to Web-based applications that has freed Mac users from having to worry about finding a Mac equivalent to some Windows program can also free Windows users from putting up with the hassle of software installs and uninstalls, one of uglier aspects of life in Microsoft's operating systems.
My own computer-shopping advice points out this difference in cost before getting into the comparative advantages of Macs and PCs. When co-workers with tight budgets have asked me directly what laptop to buy, I've told them to go ahead and get a PC (after which I've counseled them on how to uninstall the bundled trialware junk on the average Windows machine).
And yet a year and a half ago, an NPD Group analyst calculated that Apple's sales amounted to one quarter of every dollar spent on computers in the United States.
How can Apple keep printing money as if it were silicon wafers?
It's unwise, not to mention insulting, to explain away Apple's success by calling its customers "fanboys" or describing them as members of a cult. (Though it may be tempting to trot out that theory when observing the Twitter chatter about a new Apple product or the reflexive coverage this company can draw in the traditional media -- things that never happen with PC manufacturers.)
The best explanation for it may be seen sitting in traffic right now: Apple has made a business out of selling a premium product, just like BMW, Cadillac or Lexus.
Analysts and critics can insist that Apple has to ship a netbook to stay competitive, and Mac shoppers can wish that the company would turn its considerable talent for design to that category of computer. But Apple doesn't have to do that any more than Cadillac owes the world an $18,000 subcompact.
As grotesque and incomprehensible as Apple's existence may seem to people content with an affordable PC, the company seems to have taken up residence at a spot in the market that other vendors seem unable to barge into.
Manufacturers of Windows-based PCs can craft higher-end models -- Hewlett-Packard's Voodoo line of desktops and laptops have offered as much style as many Macs. But they can't do much to differentiate the software on those deluxe models -- whether it's Windows Vista or the new Windows 7, shipping Thursday -- from what they ship on the $400 boxes lining mass-market retailers' shelves. Apple won't license Mac OS X to them, and most won't ship the free, open-source Linux operating system on anything bigger than a netbook.
This could be a self-reinforcing trend: As PC builders keep having their profit margins squeezed, they have fewer resources to devote to high-end consumer products, while Apple's focus on the most profitable end of the market leaves it with ever more money to dump into product design. Or buying small islands.
Don't underestimate the compeition, however weak they appear. M$ has some VERY deep pockets and Google has some VERY deep talent. They are both viable in challenging Apple in this industry.
I do think Apple will stay in front and continue to swipe market share from the PC market but they will have to stay on the tip of the sword if they want to charge such a premium for their computers. People are only going to pay 1000+ and 2000+ dollars for a product they can't get anywhere else. Something unique. I think Apple has been and can continue to do this.
Microsoft Stores = Massive $$ flop.
Zune + Market Place = Could be good, but currently flop
Windows 7 = They'll sell tons of copies on new hardware, but retail flop.
--LanPhantom
I got nothing personal against Microsoft, just the leadership there. They seriously need a change in regime, Ballmer's mentality is still heavily entrenched in the, "hook them on a proprietary solution and then lie about the competition so much people start believing it." Before you know it you're hooked on Microsoft with no hope of getting off. Microsoft is finally starting to make a few inroads to cross-platform but it's all forced & they are doing it begrudgingly. You can't cast a vision you don't believe in, that's Ballmer's issue right now.
That was walmart, a cruddy food store, they never had a hope in competing, this is google, slightly more qualified.
If they release something like Spotify, itunes could be in trouble, I think it's a better model, all my friends have dumped iTunes in favor of Spotify, including myself, and it's growing at a ridiculous rate.
OK Google will have kiss all a**** of the four music labels. Apple had a difficult time dealing with them. What is gonna be different with Google other than another format of audio that we not ready to migrate to? I'm going to LMAO if Zune is better than Google Audio which it may be the case.
Google is getting weak they see Apple dominance now wants to challenge them. This is will be their epic fail. You literally have to pry 100 Million plus iTunes customers of their iPhones and iPod Touches to Google? I don't think so. Apple don't have nothing to worry about the only way it be successful if everything is free then how can it be profitable? So if any of you love Eric Schmidt that much than all of you need to line up to kiss his a**.
they need to add themes to safari...like chromium has...
You know what? I got a better idea what Google can do is make a better games console than the Xbox 360 and PS3! Call it Google Box, where it can have its Chrome, OS, audio, movies and games!
You know what? I got a better idea what Google can do is make a better games console than the Xbox 360 and PS3! Call it Google Box, where it can have its Chrome, OS, audio, movies and games!
Google Gee was the name you were looking for.
You know what? I got a better idea what Google can do is make a better games console than the Xbox 360 and PS3! Call it Google Box, where it can have its Chrome, OS, audio, movies and games!
That's another argument, but someone needs to get a grip and smack sony/MS together to stop the format war which is damaging game output.
Eric was on the board a bit too long in my opinion.
I think Apple should enter the search engine business.
Yeah, because Safari was so successful in the web browser business. The last thing the world needs is another unused ask.com
'Web's' dead anyway (he says controversially ) google need to diversify. Ha, I only say this because I have been using the traditional 'web' less and less since the iPhone.
It's all about the app's.
This has crossed my mind, web technologies are such a mess, why bother with html when you have interface builder and objective c?! (you dont need to give me reasons, i know)
If there was an Appleinsider app,I would rarely fire my browser up on my laptop.
Would Apple approve an Appleinsider app? They would probably say no out of spite!
Your whole post is ridiculous in so many ways...possibly a new world record.
Just like Google Chrome is supposed to replace Safari
etc.
Hey Google: go back to the search engine business
What are you talking about? Chrome is already outranking Safari despite being, what, a decade younger?
Comparatively, Google as a company has a far better track record overall than Apple. Apple nearly went under. Google has control over the best of the world's marketing. It could remove apple.com from search rankings and lose them millions if it felt like it (ie made up a feasible excuse). Google has incredible power. Apple has a tiny share of an unstable market.
I've had plenty of problems with Gmail's reliability over the last year and so has my girlfriend.
YouTube is an exercise in annoyment now with pop up adds and now forced advertisements preceding the video.
I launch iWork when I need to do some document creation not Google apps. I don't use Blogger anymore and it just catches a bunch of spam.
Picasa looks horried and I didn't even want to install it on my Mac
Google Maps consistently sends me on poor routes I'm beginning to use Microsofts maps instead.
If I look at Google's performance as far as delivering outstanding applications that I really want to use I'd say the importance of Google in my daily life is diminishing. I have little desire to see what they could do to screw up my music.