The hardware doesn't compliment anything, its the same hardware you can get in any system. You have an intel chip, intel supported motherboard, ati gpu and samsung ram, philps display on an iMac. There is nothing special about any of it. Your dreaming.
Apple computers do not run Windows "better" through boot camp. Apple computers run well because they run a Unix based OS one you go into windows you lose that. Windows runs like Windows anywhere. With boot camp you have to go and seek out the same drivers you would need on any system, Leopard is suppose to help that by including drivers.
Apple attempts to Bully people the iphone is a perfect example, that is why Verizon told them to get lost.
Apple makes nice products, I use them all the time, I just don't get carried away about what they are and aren't.
Again, you miss the point. You just want to say that Apple is bad. That is your whole point of being here.
The hardware is different. The components are mostly the same, yes. but the industrial design of the ... HARDWARE.. is not. MAcs are built better and look better. And yes, people like that. you're dreaming if you think otherwise.
Apple computers run windows "better", not because the software operates differently, but because the whole experience is so much better. Especially with how BootCamp loads the drivers for you instead of having to load 10 Dell CDs that require the user to know the exact configuration of the hardware. No more guessing.
Apple makes the iPod, iPhone, and iTunes. Of course they are going to want to steer you into their products, just like Nintendo Wii games only work on that console. Nintendo does not make all Wii games, but they are licensed to work on that console. It's pretty simple actually. the game makers are the vendors. In iTunes, the Music companies are the vendors. just like Nintendo has certain rules about how the games can be sold, so Apple does with Music.
the iPhone is not an attempt at bullying. It is an attempt at creating the worlds best smartphone and taking precautions to make sure it is an experience that is as well crafted as they can make it while being secure and profitable. Pretty smart actually. Actually, because Verizon didn't go with Apple, many people are telling Verizon to "get lost."
If you want to go after some bullying companies, go after Universal. Microsoft, Real (you know, the hacker company), and Vivendi Universal (who cannibalize their own developer studios).
Apple is succesful because they make awesome, secure products that are constantly updated, fashionable, and make doing things simple. Yes, they need to keep their business model they way it is because it is best for the consumer, themselves, and future development. Contrast that with universal and Microsoft, who are simply looking for creative ways to fool you into emtying your cash. With Apple, people get what they paid for - great products that give great experiences, again and again - at predictable prices.
Again, you miss the point. You just want to say that Apple is bad. That is your whole point of being here.
The hardware is different. The components are mostly the same, yes. but the industrial design of the ... HARDWARE.. is not. MAcs are built better and look better. And yes, people like that. you're dreaming if you think otherwise.
Apple computers run windows "better", not because the software operates differently, but because the whole experience is so much better. Especially with how BootCamp loads the drivers for you instead of having to load 10 Dell CDs that require the user to know the exact configuration of the hardware. No more guessing.
Apple isn't doing anything special that competitors haven't already done with respect to making a Windows installation easy. If you're going to compare Apple stuff to a competitor's crap, then yes, the Apple will run better. I don't buy junk, so I really don't have significant problems running Windows.
My Compaq notebook had two CDs, that's it. The user doesn't have to know the exact configuration of the hardware, it's already there on the CD.
I don't understand how you can argue that the software doesn't operate differently but somehow the experience is better. Obviously something is operating differently in your view.
yes, if there's one thing that can snuff out itunes, it would be the joined forces of the most respected music television network combined with the most incredible media player technology at realnetworks.
Quite frankly, I am pro Apple. Real had their chance and blew it... MTV comes out of the wood work and suddenly you think they will knock Apple off?.. not likely. Micro$oft tried that and failed and their pockets are the deepest.. Apple has a solid product and I am happy to be a customer - DRM or not.. Apple wins.
I think the current debate misses the point. Apple's iTunes is only as good as the content it has for sale. If the big four labels jump ship and partner or start their own download store, what does Apple have to sell? Ownership of the content is very important. Right now, Apple doesn't own anything. This is a big weakness that can be exploited by its rivals.
Fortunately the rivals haven't all "gone on strike at once" and, when they do try start a rival to iTunes, they weigh it down with DRM and subscription based models. The real threat comes when they go DRM-free and sales-based rather than with subscriptions. Only then will iTunes be tested. All it takes is for the other three big labels to do what Universal is doing and the iTunes world is in major trouble.
If the big labels were smart, this is what they would do and then, once they destroy the iTunes world, they could then bring back DRM, subscriptions, and a host of other evils to build back their empires. Apple would have to respond by starting their own label but that is not an easy task. Many top artists are stuck with their current label so they can't do much in this fight.
It is in Apple's interest to break the backs of the four big labels into many little ones so they can then become like Walmart who has thousands of suppliers. As a supplier, you don't want to be left off their shelves because the consumers wouldn't miss you. Walmart can easily find replacements. Right now Apple doesn't have this leverage.
I don't think there is anything so special about iTunes and the iTunes Store. It is good but not rocket science. There are no secrets required to make it work. Content is the big thing and that the labels already have. It shouldn't be too hard to create a free iTunes-clone app and an iTunes Store-clone.
I think the labels do not like the fact that Apple has been so successful. The iTunes world makes it easy for smaller labels to compete. In fact, it makes it possible for independent artists to dump the labels altogether, especially once they are successful and their initial contract runs out.
So while I think Real, MTV, and Universal are not a threat yet, they could be pretty darn quick. The big labels haven't found the right formula yet. Thank goodness. But I think they will soon enough. Then I really don't know what will happen.
Apple will still be able to sell iPods and make their existing money. But once people start using other music download stores, the next step to follow is people like MS and Samsung bundling in their own mp3 players. I think most PC users will just blindly buy a packaged deal if they "think" they are saving a few bucks.
Maybe iTunes has too much momentum - I hope it does because I really like Apple and want them to succeed. Personally I think Apple ought to do a secret deal with Apple Corp to buy them out in three to five years. In the meantime, Apple Corp should do everything it can to sign all the big acts, gobble up the small labels, and open the door for a zillion niche artists. Apple should fund this drain against the big four using this proxy and Apple should promote heavily Apple Corp's artists. Then Apple should publically purchase Apple Corp and then if the big four leave, they won't be missed.
Now Apple is a publically traded company so I don't know if something like this is legal. But Apple could do something along these lines to secure their content. They have a good relationship with Disney and Disney could buyout a label as their proxy. That way Apple is still thought as neutral.
Whatever, the big deal is owning the content. Apple doesn't so they are not invincible. I hope they stay on top but they need to do certain things to protect their progress. There are many jealous people out their eager to take their hard work away.
Apple is the third largest music retailer in the US. We're way past the point where the labels can just take their marbles and go home. They may chafe under Jobs' control of the channel, and they may try to empower alternatives, but they can't really walk away from the market share that the iTMS represents, or their shareholders will have something to say about it.
MTV/Real/Verizon is a joke. A badly designed store using a subscription scheme that has faired poorly in the market designed by an also ran in the digital media delivery business, with a little used, locked-down cell phone delivery system thrown in for good measure.
Universal and Walmart isn't much better-- since when has Walmart demonstrated its software prowess? Some people here are talking as if just throwing songs on a website and charging slightly less guarantees competitiveness, and nobody cares about the quality of the experience. That is manifestly untrue.
Guess what? Universal selling non-DRM music for slightly less at Walmart's online store equals.....Walmart's online store. Which, if you have been paying attention, hasn't exactly had Apple shaking in their boots.
iTMS, iTunes, iPod. That's the product. MTV/Real/Verizon is actually more like MTV/Real/Verizon/Microsoft/Dell/Creative, or some variation thereof. Ditto Universal and Walmart-- once you step out of the iPod ecosystem, you're dealing with multiple venders and hardware makers and software designers, and no matter how much money a given mob throws at the problem, they simply cannot achieve the level of integration of the entire experience of getting, organizing and playing music that Apple has.
That's why MS blew off its partners and made the Zune and the Zune Marketplace-- they can see that unless they pull the whole show in-house, there's no way to really even begin to rival what Apple is doing.
Trouble for MS is, their way of wooing content providers is to lay on the DRM just as thick as anyone wants, and for music, anyway, the tide seems to me moving in the other direction.
So how good would the Zune Marketplace have to be to get people actually using the Zune, if the non-DRM songs could just as easily be imported into iTunes and synced to an iPod?
With every day that goes by, more of the music that is sold is sold online, and a great deal of that music is sold through the iTMS. At some point, if that point already hasn't come and gone, it won't be the labels playing games with Apple-- it will be Apple explaining to the labels that if they want to sell their music, they will sell it as Apple sees fit-- and if not, they can always try to peddle their wares on street corners and the nearly empty Walmart web store.
The labels still think they're in the driver's seat. They haven't noticed that the car is falling about around them.
I have to say this about the joint MTV/Real Networks venture:
Unless Real and MTV create software that allows for true seamless integration with Creative and Sandisk players like Apple does with the iPod and iTunes, they're out of running trying to compete with the iPod.
We all agree that a crummy online store, product integration, etc is no threat to iTunes. But what if a label like Universal, or all the labels did their own stores and did a good job at it? It is not that hard to download a iTunes Store clone and start shopping.
First, making an iTunes Store clone and iTunes app clone is not rocket science. It can be done quickly and cheaply.
Secondly, having this clone ecosystem do 99 cent sales of DRM-free music is not a problem if the labels decide to do it.
Thirdly, Syncing with the iPod and other mp3 players is not that hard. There is no rocket science here either.
Next, all four big labels could do this at once and all jump to this new ecosystem that they own or co-own. If they then dropped their tracks from iTunes, they could just tell people to shop in their world. Customers may not like this but what tracks would iTunes have to offer? The labels are not worried about a temporary drop in revenue as people switch. The labels are in this battle for the long haul. The customers will move over; they have no choice.
If the labels want to bring iTunes down so they can grab the online business, this is a way to do it. Not that I want the labels to do this, but they could if they wanted to. This is why I think Apple needs to do something to keep this from happening. That is why I proposed a few steps they could take to counter this threat.
Real cannot even compete in the media player business, why take on apple?
Even windows users will not use real player, it acts like spyware.
No one wants a media player that runs at startup and tracks every single move you make on the web.
They aren't a credible force anymore, but they never required paying, at their worst, they only made it hard to find the free version. They have long dropped the spyware-like behavior.
Real cannot even compete in the media player business, why take on apple?
Even windows users will not use real player, it acts like spyware.
No one wants a media player that runs at startup and tracks every single move you make on the web.
I use Real Player to view streaming video at the BBC News site. The other choice is WMV, and given the appalling support Microsoft give for thier media format, I'll go with Real. I really wish they'd bring back QuickTime to the site though...
Comments
you would have to search more than one site, including itunes
and with all that effort you save 5cents, WOW to save enough to pay for 1 gallon of gas 60 downloads.....yuck
and the clutter on the desktop and cleanup.....you have to take it all into consumers perspective
what will 98% of mp3 players owners do???? itune/ipod is the complete answer
and if the new ipods have wifi, osx and itunes...... well that makes it even easier
The hardware doesn't compliment anything, its the same hardware you can get in any system. You have an intel chip, intel supported motherboard, ati gpu and samsung ram, philps display on an iMac. There is nothing special about any of it. Your dreaming.
Apple computers do not run Windows "better" through boot camp. Apple computers run well because they run a Unix based OS one you go into windows you lose that. Windows runs like Windows anywhere. With boot camp you have to go and seek out the same drivers you would need on any system, Leopard is suppose to help that by including drivers.
Apple attempts to Bully people the iphone is a perfect example, that is why Verizon told them to get lost.
Apple makes nice products, I use them all the time, I just don't get carried away about what they are and aren't.
Again, you miss the point. You just want to say that Apple is bad. That is your whole point of being here.
The hardware is different. The components are mostly the same, yes. but the industrial design of the ... HARDWARE.. is not. MAcs are built better and look better. And yes, people like that. you're dreaming if you think otherwise.
Apple computers run windows "better", not because the software operates differently, but because the whole experience is so much better. Especially with how BootCamp loads the drivers for you instead of having to load 10 Dell CDs that require the user to know the exact configuration of the hardware. No more guessing.
Apple makes the iPod, iPhone, and iTunes. Of course they are going to want to steer you into their products, just like Nintendo Wii games only work on that console. Nintendo does not make all Wii games, but they are licensed to work on that console. It's pretty simple actually. the game makers are the vendors. In iTunes, the Music companies are the vendors. just like Nintendo has certain rules about how the games can be sold, so Apple does with Music.
the iPhone is not an attempt at bullying. It is an attempt at creating the worlds best smartphone and taking precautions to make sure it is an experience that is as well crafted as they can make it while being secure and profitable. Pretty smart actually. Actually, because Verizon didn't go with Apple, many people are telling Verizon to "get lost."
If you want to go after some bullying companies, go after Universal. Microsoft, Real (you know, the hacker company), and Vivendi Universal (who cannibalize their own developer studios).
Apple is succesful because they make awesome, secure products that are constantly updated, fashionable, and make doing things simple. Yes, they need to keep their business model they way it is because it is best for the consumer, themselves, and future development. Contrast that with universal and Microsoft, who are simply looking for creative ways to fool you into emtying your cash. With Apple, people get what they paid for - great products that give great experiences, again and again - at predictable prices.
Again, you miss the point. You just want to say that Apple is bad. That is your whole point of being here.
The hardware is different. The components are mostly the same, yes. but the industrial design of the ... HARDWARE.. is not. MAcs are built better and look better. And yes, people like that. you're dreaming if you think otherwise.
Apple computers run windows "better", not because the software operates differently, but because the whole experience is so much better. Especially with how BootCamp loads the drivers for you instead of having to load 10 Dell CDs that require the user to know the exact configuration of the hardware. No more guessing.
Apple isn't doing anything special that competitors haven't already done with respect to making a Windows installation easy. If you're going to compare Apple stuff to a competitor's crap, then yes, the Apple will run better. I don't buy junk, so I really don't have significant problems running Windows.
My Compaq notebook had two CDs, that's it. The user doesn't have to know the exact configuration of the hardware, it's already there on the CD.
I don't understand how you can argue that the software doesn't operate differently but somehow the experience is better. Obviously something is operating differently in your view.
yes, if there's one thing that can snuff out itunes, it would be the joined forces of the most respected music television network combined with the most incredible media player technology at realnetworks.
Quite frankly, I am pro Apple. Real had their chance and blew it... MTV comes out of the wood work and suddenly you think they will knock Apple off?.. not likely. Micro$oft tried that and failed and their pockets are the deepest.. Apple has a solid product and I am happy to be a customer - DRM or not.. Apple wins.
Fortunately the rivals haven't all "gone on strike at once" and, when they do try start a rival to iTunes, they weigh it down with DRM and subscription based models. The real threat comes when they go DRM-free and sales-based rather than with subscriptions. Only then will iTunes be tested. All it takes is for the other three big labels to do what Universal is doing and the iTunes world is in major trouble.
If the big labels were smart, this is what they would do and then, once they destroy the iTunes world, they could then bring back DRM, subscriptions, and a host of other evils to build back their empires. Apple would have to respond by starting their own label but that is not an easy task. Many top artists are stuck with their current label so they can't do much in this fight.
It is in Apple's interest to break the backs of the four big labels into many little ones so they can then become like Walmart who has thousands of suppliers. As a supplier, you don't want to be left off their shelves because the consumers wouldn't miss you. Walmart can easily find replacements. Right now Apple doesn't have this leverage.
I don't think there is anything so special about iTunes and the iTunes Store. It is good but not rocket science. There are no secrets required to make it work. Content is the big thing and that the labels already have. It shouldn't be too hard to create a free iTunes-clone app and an iTunes Store-clone.
I think the labels do not like the fact that Apple has been so successful. The iTunes world makes it easy for smaller labels to compete. In fact, it makes it possible for independent artists to dump the labels altogether, especially once they are successful and their initial contract runs out.
So while I think Real, MTV, and Universal are not a threat yet, they could be pretty darn quick. The big labels haven't found the right formula yet. Thank goodness. But I think they will soon enough. Then I really don't know what will happen.
Apple will still be able to sell iPods and make their existing money. But once people start using other music download stores, the next step to follow is people like MS and Samsung bundling in their own mp3 players. I think most PC users will just blindly buy a packaged deal if they "think" they are saving a few bucks.
Maybe iTunes has too much momentum - I hope it does because I really like Apple and want them to succeed. Personally I think Apple ought to do a secret deal with Apple Corp to buy them out in three to five years. In the meantime, Apple Corp should do everything it can to sign all the big acts, gobble up the small labels, and open the door for a zillion niche artists. Apple should fund this drain against the big four using this proxy and Apple should promote heavily Apple Corp's artists. Then Apple should publically purchase Apple Corp and then if the big four leave, they won't be missed.
Now Apple is a publically traded company so I don't know if something like this is legal. But Apple could do something along these lines to secure their content. They have a good relationship with Disney and Disney could buyout a label as their proxy. That way Apple is still thought as neutral.
Whatever, the big deal is owning the content. Apple doesn't so they are not invincible. I hope they stay on top but they need to do certain things to protect their progress. There are many jealous people out their eager to take their hard work away.
MTV/Real/Verizon is a joke. A badly designed store using a subscription scheme that has faired poorly in the market designed by an also ran in the digital media delivery business, with a little used, locked-down cell phone delivery system thrown in for good measure.
Universal and Walmart isn't much better-- since when has Walmart demonstrated its software prowess? Some people here are talking as if just throwing songs on a website and charging slightly less guarantees competitiveness, and nobody cares about the quality of the experience. That is manifestly untrue.
Guess what? Universal selling non-DRM music for slightly less at Walmart's online store equals.....Walmart's online store. Which, if you have been paying attention, hasn't exactly had Apple shaking in their boots.
iTMS, iTunes, iPod. That's the product. MTV/Real/Verizon is actually more like MTV/Real/Verizon/Microsoft/Dell/Creative, or some variation thereof. Ditto Universal and Walmart-- once you step out of the iPod ecosystem, you're dealing with multiple venders and hardware makers and software designers, and no matter how much money a given mob throws at the problem, they simply cannot achieve the level of integration of the entire experience of getting, organizing and playing music that Apple has.
That's why MS blew off its partners and made the Zune and the Zune Marketplace-- they can see that unless they pull the whole show in-house, there's no way to really even begin to rival what Apple is doing.
Trouble for MS is, their way of wooing content providers is to lay on the DRM just as thick as anyone wants, and for music, anyway, the tide seems to me moving in the other direction.
So how good would the Zune Marketplace have to be to get people actually using the Zune, if the non-DRM songs could just as easily be imported into iTunes and synced to an iPod?
With every day that goes by, more of the music that is sold is sold online, and a great deal of that music is sold through the iTMS. At some point, if that point already hasn't come and gone, it won't be the labels playing games with Apple-- it will be Apple explaining to the labels that if they want to sell their music, they will sell it as Apple sees fit-- and if not, they can always try to peddle their wares on street corners and the nearly empty Walmart web store.
The labels still think they're in the driver's seat. They haven't noticed that the car is falling about around them.
Unless Real and MTV create software that allows for true seamless integration with Creative and Sandisk players like Apple does with the iPod and iTunes, they're out of running trying to compete with the iPod.
First, making an iTunes Store clone and iTunes app clone is not rocket science. It can be done quickly and cheaply.
Secondly, having this clone ecosystem do 99 cent sales of DRM-free music is not a problem if the labels decide to do it.
Thirdly, Syncing with the iPod and other mp3 players is not that hard. There is no rocket science here either.
Next, all four big labels could do this at once and all jump to this new ecosystem that they own or co-own. If they then dropped their tracks from iTunes, they could just tell people to shop in their world. Customers may not like this but what tracks would iTunes have to offer? The labels are not worried about a temporary drop in revenue as people switch. The labels are in this battle for the long haul. The customers will move over; they have no choice.
If the labels want to bring iTunes down so they can grab the online business, this is a way to do it. Not that I want the labels to do this, but they could if they wanted to. This is why I think Apple needs to do something to keep this from happening. That is why I proposed a few steps they could take to counter this threat.
why pay to use a media player?
Real cannot even compete in the media player business, why take on apple?
Even windows users will not use real player, it acts like spyware.
No one wants a media player that runs at startup and tracks every single move you make on the web.
Come on, does any mac user use real media player?
why pay to use a media player?
Real cannot even compete in the media player business, why take on apple?
Even windows users will not use real player, it acts like spyware.
No one wants a media player that runs at startup and tracks every single move you make on the web.
They aren't a credible force anymore, but they never required paying, at their worst, they only made it hard to find the free version. They have long dropped the spyware-like behavior.
Come on, does any mac user use real media player?
why pay to use a media player?
Real cannot even compete in the media player business, why take on apple?
Even windows users will not use real player, it acts like spyware.
No one wants a media player that runs at startup and tracks every single move you make on the web.
I use Real Player to view streaming video at the BBC News site. The other choice is WMV, and given the appalling support Microsoft give for thier media format, I'll go with Real. I really wish they'd bring back QuickTime to the site though...