We really need the porn industry to jump in and set a direction like they have with so many other media formats. (only sort of kidding)
Oh yeah....almost 95% of streaming pay-per-view porn video on the web are heavily DRM'ed WMVs
You know? If I am really paying for something I always want to have an option to keep it even I am not going to watch it again. Those sites using those pay-per-view, non savable, streaming DRM'ed fu(kers won't get my money
They are a software vendor at heart. They've never really made a dent in hardware and that's where the money is.
All the more reason for Apple to go for the juggular and introduce a low cost iPod. Don't give people a reason to buy another branded player...and you know despite the coolness factor of the iPod, people shop with their wallets.
I'm getting educated. Thanks. Just to mention Sony again, the BetaMax was a hot seller at the time from what I hear, just as iPod is now. Sony did not license the Beta format and VHS came along to let competitors make VCRs too. The rest is history.
And the moral of the story is that when hardware formats are involved, compatibility is king. Nobody wants to find out that the show they taped on a Sony doesn't play in their friend's Panasonic.
You can convert a WMA to an MP3 to an AAC to an AIFF with software. Not without loss, but you can. However, no matter how hard you try, you cannot stuff a VHS tape into a BetaMax player. Hardware is inflexible, which is why any sort of hardware medium (vinyl, reels, cassettes, discs, flash media, etc.) is under immense pressure to become a commodity format.
The iPod uses digital media, decoded in software. It can be taught to play anything.
Quote:
I realize there is a big difference. Anyone can use the format for iPod, but they are not. Rather, everyone appears to choose Windows Media 9 format. If competitors would begin using the same open standard as Apple, it would make Apple future position more secure. So anything Apple can do to move things in this direction would benefit them. Yes? No?
They're already doing a lot. Utterly dominating the market helps, as MS will be happy to tell you. I think part of the reason that we're seeing this huge explosion of WMA compatible everything is because Microsoft is trying to dislodge AAC as a de facto standard. But neither iTMS nor iPod show any signs of yielding any ground whatsoever. If anything, the decisive command of the market that Steve demonstrated at the unveiling of iTunes for Windows will have turned into a complete rout of the field by MWSF, and frankly I don't see this changing any time soon. Microsoft's attempt to spur WMA adoption is rushed and clumsy - Apple must really have caught Gates off guard. Once the current crop of wannabes gives up and goes home, or settles into a sort of subsistence, there will be millions and millions and millions of people with iPods. With a substantial hardware investment in their hands, they'll balk at any software or services that don't work with it.
At that point, Apple can choose to let other people use FairPlay, and let other people be compatible with iTMS, or they can just let them settle for AAC licensing from MPEG-4 (and compatibility with songs ripped into iTunes). The former would necessarily drive QuickTime adoption, since FairPlay is uniquely built into QuickTime, and Apple might be interested in that. The real losers here (besides the consumers, who have to put up with all the various artificial obstacles between them and the song they just want to hear, dammit) are the people who bought into the whole music store thing, because that's the most expensive and inflexible part of the equation.
Ha! And I thought I was the only one sitting around waiting for Apple to make its next boneheaded decision.
OK I get the Apple makes money from iPods not music thing and so the MS thing at best beggars the question "Yes....and?"
But why couldn't the record companies themselves be a threat? Especially companies like say, Sony, that not only make consumer electronics but also own a big chunk o' music (the bit Apple doesn't control).
Well Chester, the reason the specific music companies themselves won't take over what Apple has done is the fact that they would only be able to offer their own music in their music stores. Universal is not going to let Sony sell their music in a digital store, letting Sony profit from music it has nothing to do with. And vice verse. Same for all the other record companies.
Third party vendors are always the way to go in these situations. Rival companies don't mind having their product sold along side each other, as the obvious increase in consumer choice makes it more likely for customers to come and shop. But they would never stand to let a rival profit off their product. This is the role that Apple is filling.
The labels already tried that, early on. It bombed.
The problem is that I don't know how many people even know what label, say, Alicia Keys is signed to. They just know they want Alicia Keys, or that "If I Ain't Got You" song they heard. If the labels offer stores, then music is primarily organized by a category that is irrelevant to the buying public, and that's a guaranteed recipe for disaster.
The labels proved unwilling to sell each others' stuff, and that's where services like iTMS come in: They can deal neutrally with all labels, and allow the consumer to browse for music by criteria that are relevant to them - artist, song title, genre, etc.
I know we all want AAC to succeed, and the ITMS to do really good, but you know come to think of it, if apple made the iPod play wmv files, don't you think that would spur some more iPod sales?
Perhaps. The question is, would it spur enough extra sales to justify giving WMA that crucial little "sneak in" that BRussell is (rightly) worried about? Enough to risk orphaning AAC? Enough to risk sidelining FairPlay in favor of MS' DRM?
MS is fond of trumpeting that support for their standards is the best route to consumer convenience, but that's just a way of spinning the fact that they're the company introducing the inconvenience. If they were so gung-ho about making sure that people didn't have to worry about what format they're in, they'd be flogging AAC.
well if the apple store only sold music as AAC still I was assuming and just let the iPod play WMV. Yes yes I'm concerned about Microsofts big push in media players, hell you even see dvd players and stuff that offer the ability to play it. Even some theaters are using it to play ads through a digital projector as well as I hear some movies but I can't confirm that ( I just sent an ad off in a wmv file ) its so strange to me. Oh well its just a file format, really if apple wants to compete, let microsoft do what they are doing, but what they really need to do is start marketing AAC as well for media players and such.
well if the apple store only sold music as AAC still I was assuming and just let the iPod play WMV. Yes yes I'm concerned about Microsofts big push in media players, hell you even see dvd players and stuff that offer the ability to play it. Even some theaters are using it to play ads through a digital projector as well as I hear some movies but I can't confirm that ( I just sent an ad off in a wmv file ) its so strange to me. Oh well its just a file format, really if apple wants to compete, let microsoft do what they are doing, but what they really need to do is start marketing AAC as well for media players and such.
But, you see, this is the reason the iTMS and Apple's strategy with the iPod is so brilliant. Right now, Apple's got the cards to play with. It's the market leader and can outright destroy the competition when it comes to portable audio players and online music distribution.
The iTMS is Apple's way of using its unique position as hardware and software vendor to its advantage. You want to buy music from the iTMS? You've got to have an iPod to play it on. Apple wins on both counts.
But, the real beauty is this: if Apple were to lose at the online music business, they will not sacrifice the iPod. They can make the change to the hardware and allow the iPod to play .wma files. They win one and lose one... But they win the more important one. I'm sure Apple wouldn't be too terribly upset if they couldn't continue selling music at a loss if the iPod continues to move. Let someone else hemorrhage the money.
Apple's made no bones about the real reason they're in the music business: to sell iPods. And if they've got to give up on the iTMS to do that, I have no doubt they will. Apple's not staking the iPod's future on the iTMS. They will adapt if they need to. But, at this point in time, why would they?
I have been trying to think about what Apple's next play in this whole game is.
They have rightly said that they have the #1 player, software and store in the market. However the competition is heating up. They need (as someone here already said) need to "go for the jugular". But what is that? Is that a $149 iPod Jr. that wipes out the low end of the market? Will it blow them away completely?
Then, what next? Apple has clearly stated the desire to make money on the hardware. So what's next? Perhaps Apple licenses Fairplay (as well as their MASSIVE AAC encoded archive) to alternate music stores? No, that can't work. No one can make money on the music store. But people want a "choice" of music store (which superficially rational, but practically speaking useless...the monopoly is in the record companies, not the stores.) The idea that anyone is going to be able to open a music store and sell for less than Apple is seems (currently) ridiculous. Maybe Apple just needs iPod Jr. and it becomes game over.
Some questions:
1. Why would you (or anyone) buy the Dell DJ? Cheaper? Can Apple address this?
2. Why do you care that you are buying your $0.99 song ($9.95 album) from Apple or from someone else? Price is all the same no matter what. So what's different (format)? Hardware choices. I think if Apples does iPod Jr. ($149) it covers this. Are people going to hassle over $50 or so on this digital music device? Doubtful. Then when you look and see it can do all of this other cool stuff (iCal, Address Book for Windows anyone?) Maybe it "pushes them over the top".
3. Does anyone (really) care about AAC vs. WMA? Doubtful anyone actually knows what they mean. Alphabet soup.
So maybe this boils down to how Apple handles the need(?)/desire for choices in the hardware part of this game. Maybe the iPod Jr. handles all of that for them.
Then...now here comes the world domination stuff...then...with all you can do now, and future (Home on iPod) with iPod...maybe Apple becomes the "center of your digital lifestyle" through iPod.
Chris, you make some good points. Yes, an iPod Jr. would make it game over. I have no doubt that if the iPod and Dell DJ were the same price, Dell would sell about 10 of 'em. But I think that Apple may be satisfied with fat-ass margins on the iPod (estimates are around $170 per iPod) and a smaller marketshare. I hope to god they don't get complacent and leave it at that. There's too much at stake. I'd LOVE for Apple to get aggressive and slaughter the competition while they can. Then they can sell more expensive iPods later to those who bought the small ones.
Case in point: my 5 gig iPod is still going strong. But I'm out of room. I'm absolutely addicted to my iPod and iTunes. I NEED MORE MUSIC ON IT NOW! But there's no room. When I can afford it, the 40 giger will be mine. Not yet, but some day, I hope.
I don't believe Apple needs iPod Jr. yet. The iPod is doing a fine job of lapping the field, and that includes the Dell DJ. As Steve has pointed out, Dell is at a real disadvantage in this game because MP3 players aren't commodities the way PC towers are. You want to see one and play with one first. The iPod is popping up in all kinds of retail establishments, and the DJ is not. Here in Iowa City, which is not a Mac stronghold, I'm seeing more telltale white cords every day.
They can release a $149 iPod when they can come up with a device with the iPod's raw lust factor for $149. We're not there yet, and that's OK because we don't need to be. If Apple can't do it, nobody else can either.
The only reason I'd consider getting a Dell DJ is because it has a 15 hours battery life! (advertised at least, though I heard it's actually much less...but still, that's A LOT more than the iPod)
but I have an iPod and it's awesome...hopefully apply will find a way to get a couple more hours of battery life in them in the future, because, currently it's kind of weak, 8 hours tops, that's barely an Cross-continental flight, when you include waiting around before the flight time.
Apple could certainly use a low-end model, to squash the competition on that front.
as far as .aac vs. .wma a lot of people don't know about them, they just know that they use windows media player, it works for them, and they have hundreds and thousands of .wma files that work fine, and whenever I send them a .aac, they say "WTF is that?" and they get annoyed that they can't play the file, so I tell them 'download iTunes'
so far, 3 people have got iTunes and instantly fallen in love with it, and now only use it, but about 6 other people have outright refused to because of either a misconception about apple, or because they are comfortable with what they already have and don't want to take the 10 minutes to switch. \
Chris, you make some good points. Yes, an iPod Jr. would make it game over. I have no doubt that if the iPod and Dell DJ were the same price, Dell would sell about 10 of 'em. But I think that Apple may be satisfied with fat-ass margins on the iPod (estimates are around $170 per iPod) and a smaller marketshare. I hope to god they don't get complacent and leave it at that. There's too much at stake. I'd LOVE for Apple to get aggressive and slaughter the competition while they can. Then they can sell more expensive iPods later to those who bought the small ones.
Case in point: my 5 gig iPod is still going strong. But I'm out of room. I'm absolutely addicted to my iPod and iTunes. I NEED MORE MUSIC ON IT NOW! But there's no room. When I can afford it, the 40 giger will be mine. Not yet, but some day, I hope.
This is a very important point, Once you start using an iPod, you'll never want something else, so, if apple has a low end iPod now that sells fairly cheap, with a low profit margin(not a loss-leader,but close) Then they will get a troves of new customers that either want a new mp3 player and like the iPod best, or, want to be part of the iPod image(yes the iPod has an image) then apple finds themselves with many more new customers that will all be upgrading to a more expensive model in a couple years likely
The iTunes Music Store is "doomed, eventually". Our star will eventually grow dim and swell to encompass the inner planets, leaving the Earth a dried out shell of a once-remarkable world.
John Dvorak's scorched skeleton will cackle with glee and croak "I told you guys that Apple was doomed. I told you!".
"The new Digital Music Store service from Loudeye and Microsoft will allow companies to quickly launch their own online music stores. Two early customers of the new service include AT&T Wireless and Gibson Guitar Corp."
I fail to see where it negotiates with the lawyers of music labels. These people are just selling technology. Worse still, whoever buys their stuff will have absolutely NO way to differentiate themselves from anyone else who buys their stuff. THAT is a lame business model!
Comments
Originally posted by BuonRotto
We really need the porn industry to jump in and set a direction like they have with so many other media formats.
Oh yeah....almost 95% of streaming pay-per-view porn video on the web are heavily DRM'ed WMVs
You know? If I am really paying for something I always want to have an option to keep it even I am not going to watch it again. Those sites using those pay-per-view, non savable, streaming DRM'ed fu(kers won't get my money
Originally posted by pensieve
They are a software vendor at heart. They've never really made a dent in hardware and that's where the money is.
All the more reason for Apple to go for the juggular and introduce a low cost iPod. Don't give people a reason to buy another branded player...and you know despite the coolness factor of the iPod, people shop with their wallets.
Originally posted by snoopy
I'm getting educated. Thanks. Just to mention Sony again, the BetaMax was a hot seller at the time from what I hear, just as iPod is now. Sony did not license the Beta format and VHS came along to let competitors make VCRs too. The rest is history.
And the moral of the story is that when hardware formats are involved, compatibility is king. Nobody wants to find out that the show they taped on a Sony doesn't play in their friend's Panasonic.
You can convert a WMA to an MP3 to an AAC to an AIFF with software. Not without loss, but you can. However, no matter how hard you try, you cannot stuff a VHS tape into a BetaMax player. Hardware is inflexible, which is why any sort of hardware medium (vinyl, reels, cassettes, discs, flash media, etc.) is under immense pressure to become a commodity format.
The iPod uses digital media, decoded in software. It can be taught to play anything.
I realize there is a big difference. Anyone can use the format for iPod, but they are not. Rather, everyone appears to choose Windows Media 9 format. If competitors would begin using the same open standard as Apple, it would make Apple future position more secure. So anything Apple can do to move things in this direction would benefit them. Yes? No?
They're already doing a lot. Utterly dominating the market helps, as MS will be happy to tell you. I think part of the reason that we're seeing this huge explosion of WMA compatible everything is because Microsoft is trying to dislodge AAC as a de facto standard. But neither iTMS nor iPod show any signs of yielding any ground whatsoever. If anything, the decisive command of the market that Steve demonstrated at the unveiling of iTunes for Windows will have turned into a complete rout of the field by MWSF, and frankly I don't see this changing any time soon. Microsoft's attempt to spur WMA adoption is rushed and clumsy - Apple must really have caught Gates off guard. Once the current crop of wannabes gives up and goes home, or settles into a sort of subsistence, there will be millions and millions and millions of people with iPods. With a substantial hardware investment in their hands, they'll balk at any software or services that don't work with it.
At that point, Apple can choose to let other people use FairPlay, and let other people be compatible with iTMS, or they can just let them settle for AAC licensing from MPEG-4 (and compatibility with songs ripped into iTunes). The former would necessarily drive QuickTime adoption, since FairPlay is uniquely built into QuickTime, and Apple might be interested in that. The real losers here (besides the consumers, who have to put up with all the various artificial obstacles between them and the song they just want to hear, dammit) are the people who bought into the whole music store thing, because that's the most expensive and inflexible part of the equation.
OK I get the Apple makes money from iPods not music thing and so the MS thing at best beggars the question "Yes....and?"
But why couldn't the record companies themselves be a threat? Especially companies like say, Sony, that not only make consumer electronics but also own a big chunk o' music (the bit Apple doesn't control).
Third party vendors are always the way to go in these situations. Rival companies don't mind having their product sold along side each other, as the obvious increase in consumer choice makes it more likely for customers to come and shop. But they would never stand to let a rival profit off their product. This is the role that Apple is filling.
The problem is that I don't know how many people even know what label, say, Alicia Keys is signed to. They just know they want Alicia Keys, or that "If I Ain't Got You" song they heard. If the labels offer stores, then music is primarily organized by a category that is irrelevant to the buying public, and that's a guaranteed recipe for disaster.
The labels proved unwilling to sell each others' stuff, and that's where services like iTMS come in: They can deal neutrally with all labels, and allow the consumer to browse for music by criteria that are relevant to them - artist, song title, genre, etc.
[edit: damn you, rageous!
MS is fond of trumpeting that support for their standards is the best route to consumer convenience, but that's just a way of spinning the fact that they're the company introducing the inconvenience. If they were so gung-ho about making sure that people didn't have to worry about what format they're in, they'd be flogging AAC.
Originally posted by kraig911
well if the apple store only sold music as AAC still I was assuming and just let the iPod play WMV. Yes yes I'm concerned about Microsofts big push in media players, hell you even see dvd players and stuff that offer the ability to play it. Even some theaters are using it to play ads through a digital projector as well as I hear some movies but I can't confirm that ( I just sent an ad off in a wmv file ) its so strange to me. Oh well its just a file format, really if apple wants to compete, let microsoft do what they are doing, but what they really need to do is start marketing AAC as well for media players and such.
But, you see, this is the reason the iTMS and Apple's strategy with the iPod is so brilliant. Right now, Apple's got the cards to play with. It's the market leader and can outright destroy the competition when it comes to portable audio players and online music distribution.
The iTMS is Apple's way of using its unique position as hardware and software vendor to its advantage. You want to buy music from the iTMS? You've got to have an iPod to play it on. Apple wins on both counts.
But, the real beauty is this: if Apple were to lose at the online music business, they will not sacrifice the iPod. They can make the change to the hardware and allow the iPod to play .wma files. They win one and lose one... But they win the more important one. I'm sure Apple wouldn't be too terribly upset if they couldn't continue selling music at a loss if the iPod continues to move. Let someone else hemorrhage the money.
Apple's made no bones about the real reason they're in the music business: to sell iPods. And if they've got to give up on the iTMS to do that, I have no doubt they will. Apple's not staking the iPod's future on the iTMS. They will adapt if they need to. But, at this point in time, why would they?
They have rightly said that they have the #1 player, software and store in the market. However the competition is heating up. They need (as someone here already said) need to "go for the jugular". But what is that? Is that a $149 iPod Jr. that wipes out the low end of the market? Will it blow them away completely?
Then, what next? Apple has clearly stated the desire to make money on the hardware. So what's next? Perhaps Apple licenses Fairplay (as well as their MASSIVE AAC encoded archive) to alternate music stores? No, that can't work. No one can make money on the music store. But people want a "choice" of music store (which superficially rational, but practically speaking useless...the monopoly is in the record companies, not the stores.) The idea that anyone is going to be able to open a music store and sell for less than Apple is seems (currently) ridiculous. Maybe Apple just needs iPod Jr. and it becomes game over.
Some questions:
1. Why would you (or anyone) buy the Dell DJ? Cheaper? Can Apple address this?
2. Why do you care that you are buying your $0.99 song ($9.95 album) from Apple or from someone else? Price is all the same no matter what. So what's different (format)? Hardware choices. I think if Apples does iPod Jr. ($149) it covers this. Are people going to hassle over $50 or so on this digital music device? Doubtful. Then when you look and see it can do all of this other cool stuff (iCal, Address Book for Windows anyone?) Maybe it "pushes them over the top".
3. Does anyone (really) care about AAC vs. WMA? Doubtful anyone actually knows what they mean. Alphabet soup.
So maybe this boils down to how Apple handles the need(?)/desire for choices in the hardware part of this game. Maybe the iPod Jr. handles all of that for them.
Then...now here comes the world domination stuff...then...with all you can do now, and future (Home on iPod) with iPod...maybe Apple becomes the "center of your digital lifestyle" through iPod.
Hmmm...
Case in point: my 5 gig iPod is still going strong. But I'm out of room. I'm absolutely addicted to my iPod and iTunes. I NEED MORE MUSIC ON IT NOW! But there's no room. When I can afford it, the 40 giger will be mine. Not yet, but some day, I hope.
They can release a $149 iPod when they can come up with a device with the iPod's raw lust factor for $149. We're not there yet, and that's OK because we don't need to be. If Apple can't do it, nobody else can either.
but I have an iPod and it's awesome...hopefully apply will find a way to get a couple more hours of battery life in them in the future, because, currently it's kind of weak, 8 hours tops, that's barely an Cross-continental flight, when you include waiting around before the flight time.
Apple could certainly use a low-end model, to squash the competition on that front.
as far as .aac vs. .wma a lot of people don't know about them, they just know that they use windows media player, it works for them, and they have hundreds and thousands of .wma files that work fine, and whenever I send them a .aac, they say "WTF is that?" and they get annoyed that they can't play the file, so I tell them 'download iTunes'
so far, 3 people have got iTunes and instantly fallen in love with it, and now only use it, but about 6 other people have outright refused to because of either a misconception about apple, or because they are comfortable with what they already have and don't want to take the 10 minutes to switch.
Originally posted by Thorfull
Chris, you make some good points. Yes, an iPod Jr. would make it game over. I have no doubt that if the iPod and Dell DJ were the same price, Dell would sell about 10 of 'em. But I think that Apple may be satisfied with fat-ass margins on the iPod (estimates are around $170 per iPod) and a smaller marketshare. I hope to god they don't get complacent and leave it at that. There's too much at stake. I'd LOVE for Apple to get aggressive and slaughter the competition while they can. Then they can sell more expensive iPods later to those who bought the small ones.
Case in point: my 5 gig iPod is still going strong. But I'm out of room. I'm absolutely addicted to my iPod and iTunes. I NEED MORE MUSIC ON IT NOW! But there's no room. When I can afford it, the 40 giger will be mine. Not yet, but some day, I hope.
This is a very important point, Once you start using an iPod, you'll never want something else, so, if apple has a low end iPod now that sells fairly cheap, with a low profit margin(not a loss-leader,but close) Then they will get a troves of new customers that either want a new mp3 player and like the iPod best, or, want to be part of the iPod image(yes the iPod has an image) then apple finds themselves with many more new customers that will all be upgrading to a more expensive model in a couple years likely
The iTunes Music Store is "doomed, eventually". Our star will eventually grow dim and swell to encompass the inner planets, leaving the Earth a dried out shell of a once-remarkable world.
John Dvorak's scorched skeleton will cackle with glee and croak "I told you guys that Apple was doomed. I told you!".
Originally posted by snoopy
"The new Digital Music Store service from Loudeye and Microsoft will allow companies to quickly launch their own online music stores. Two early customers of the new service include AT&T Wireless and Gibson Guitar Corp."
I fail to see where it negotiates with the lawyers of music labels. These people are just selling technology. Worse still, whoever buys their stuff will have absolutely NO way to differentiate themselves from anyone else who buys their stuff. THAT is a lame business model!