No, it's a generalization but it does approximate to reality. The Android ecosystem is built around free - most of the apps are free, a lot of the key feature differential is around free stuff (playing "pirate" codecs, using Google free services, flash to play free games, etc.). Successful devs make much less on Android than on iOS (see the ATK dev story), partly due to scale but also due to the economic demographics. Apple's are unrelentingly high-end, Androids spans the spectrum from high to low with a predominance of cheap and BOGOF phone volumes. Android users may get as many apps but they spend less and expect more (high geek count).
It is not unreasonable to expect that a smaller proportion of the Android base will spend $s on music than in the iOS ecosystem.
Thing is, an app requires some consideration into whether or not its functions are worth the $X.XX price tag that goes with it. Music files, on the other hand, have no other function other than being played.
If I liked purchasing and listening to music, why would the device I'm running it on really matter in my decision to buy a song? I like [insert band/singer here] so I buy their music which is perfectly playable on any device (iOS, Android, Zune, Walkman, etc). Just because I get a non-iDevice doesn't mean I'll all of a sudden decide not to buy music anymore.
i paid for my android phone. i pay my monthly bill. i bought software from Android Market and i have a premium google account. why that and not 'mobileme' (god i hate that name)? because i don't like being caged up in the apple garden in some respects. <removed the harsh part>
One question - what is 'walled' about mobile me that is somehow not 'caged up' on google apps?
The new mail client is as good (if not better) than gmail, the new calendar is amazing, iDisk incredibly useful, as is back to my mac and the ability to sync bookmarks, contacts, favourites, even dock layout across and system preferences across multiple computers with a simple sign-in and sync. The photo albums are great, the iweb hosting space plentiful and feature loaded. It's £50ish a year - less than a fiver a month, it's a great service and I wouldn't be without it - but i'm wondering if I've missed something, because I don't feel 'trapped' by it in any way?
Didn't have time to read all the posts, but as I see it, there's nothing wrong with increased competition to keep everyone on their toes, but I can't really see how Google entering the market is going to help the record labels. The industry's problem with Apple is Apple's insistence on low prices. So if Google undersells Apple, the industry won't be happy (or they won't let it happen.) And if Google prices higher than Apple, than why would anyone use it? A subscription model won't work because the industry has been consistently opposed to letting Apple pursue that. And I don't think an advertising model would work either because it would create the perception that music is free and the record industry has spent the last five years trying to erase that perception.
If Google is willing to pay the industry more than Apple is, that would be a benefit, but then Google would have to be willing to lose money in the store for a long time to come.
The only positive thing is that if Google finds ways to innovate, it will force Apple to innovate faster. Apple probably knew this was coming which is why they added the socialization functions to iTunes, although I personally have absolutely no interest in that new functionality. My bet is that in the long run, the Google service is a cloud-based service, something which has been rumored for Apple. Personally, having to access the cloud to access my music doesn't make sense to me. Also, if the Google service doesn't work with Apple's hardware, it can't possibly succeed. And if it's something like you download from Google and then have iTunes "search" for those downloads, that's going to be too convoluted the average non-geek iDevice user.
Be interesting to see if Google could accomplish what even Amazon couldn't accomplish. Logic dictates that Amazon should have been successful selling digital downloads of music. Why weren't they?
Apple pretty much didn't invent squat, but what they have done is change several industries. Their MP3 players, phones, tablet computers, and music store have changed the way people do business, and their products are copied by just about everyone (especially Google, which has become the new Microsoft as far as this goes).
And the competition that comes after Apple doesn't try new things that Apple hasn't done yet with their products? Like how about Zune and the Zune pass for example. Apple doesn't invent squat, Apple is basically like Blizzard Entertainment, they take other people's ideas and refine so well they sell. Basically Apple takes other people's ideas and succeeds with them. Does the success of their products have a large impact on the industries in which they are successful absolutely but don't you think it is ironic in a sense to rip on companies that "copy" Apple products yet if it wasn't for the people/competition Apple copies off of in the first place they would have never entered market/industry. Like for example the ipod, Creative if I'm not mistaken created the first mp3 player, but if it wasn't for Apple basically copying Creative's mp3 player and then refining it they(Apple) would have never gotten into the music industry. Apple wasn't the first one to create a smart phone, yet they copied from the available market at the time and refined it, if it wasn't for them copying the smart phones that were already on the market, Apple would have never gotten into the smart phone industry.
I mean it is just so hypocritically of you and other people to bash Apple's competition as copiers when Apple's whole business model basically revolves around copying other companies products/ideas and then refining them before they sell the product.
And the competition that comes after Apple doesn't try new things that Apple hasn't done yet with their products?
He neither said nor implied anything like that.
The things that Apple does are not good or bad because of what somebody else may do.
The things that Apple does are good or bad based solely upon their own merits, or lack of merit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noliving
I mean it is just so hypocritically of you and other people to bash Apple's competition as copiers when Apple's whole business model basically revolves around copying other companies products
Are you sure that is hypocritical? It sounds like you agree with his premise.
Integrating the two in a nice package was all they did.
"all they did"?!? Yup, for "all they did" they have a market cap larger than Microsoft.
I love when people try to dismiss Apple for "just" tying stuff together.
If it was so easy to do, more companies would be doing the whole kit and caboodle like Apple does - and be doing it as well or better than they do. So far no one else has even come close and I'm not holding my breath since the myopia that seems to have infected you is appears to be pretty widespread.
Quote:
Competition is almost always good. Choice as a consumer is all I ask for. Its scary when one person or company has too much market share in a certain industry.
Choice is good, and competition is good. Right now the only one competing with Apple is... Apple! It's been that way since the iPod. The only new devices successful in supplanting the iPod were new iPods, and the same thing with the iPhone. As others have pointed out there isn't one "Android" but a mishmash of hardware and software - hardly a direct comparison to Apple's ecosystem.
Instead of criticizing Apple, people should be criticizing other manufacturers for sucking so bad.
I like Apple as much as anyone (typing this on my iPhone), but why wouldn't Google music work? They have millions of built in customers with Android phones
There may be millions of Android phones, but how many bought them to use as smartphones and how many were two for one specials or free promotions? Look at the Android web browsing stats...
Creative if I'm not mistaken created the first mp3 player
I don't know who created the first hard drive based MP3 player, but a small reserch group from what used to be Digital Equipment Corporation produced a design that a company called Hango/Remote Solutions licensed and produced as the Personal Juke Box (PJB). It was the first shipping hard drive based MP3 player. I still have mine and it still works - it was really ahead of its time. A full year before the creative player that was bigger, had worse battery life and a sucky user interface in comparison.
Quote:
Apple basically copying Creative's mp3 player and then refining it they(Apple) would have never gotten into the music industry.
See, you are making the common mistake. Apple didn't copy the Creative mp3 player, they took the concept of a hard drive based MP3 player (hardly unique to Creative) and bundled it with a management application at first and then a store later. The techie geeks derided it for not being able to just copy files back and forth from the file system but guess what - normal people don't care about that! They just want to listen to @^$#ing music - and Apple made that drop dead simple and intuitive. That's why Apple succeeded - not because they "just" copied someone else.
Apple invented the integrated digital music ecosystem. Yes, the individual components aren't unique, but the way they are all tied together - with the focus on the end user - certainly is.
Quote:
Apple wasn't the first one to create a smart phone, yet they copied from the available market at the time and refined it, if it wasn't for them copying the smart phones that were already on the market, Apple would have never gotten into the smart phone industry.
Huh? Who was there for them to copy for an integrated app store.
Who was there for them to copy for free phone OS updates?
Who was there for them to copy for an integrated music player tied to an awesome online music store?
Who was there for them to copy for a useable on screen keyboard?
Who was there for them to copy for multi-touch?
Quote:
I mean it is just so hypocritically of you and other people to bash Apple's competition as copiers when Apple's whole business model basically revolves around copying other companies products/ideas and then refining them before they sell the product.
Yup, Apple brings nothing unique to the table at all.
Comments
No, it's a generalization but it does approximate to reality. The Android ecosystem is built around free - most of the apps are free, a lot of the key feature differential is around free stuff (playing "pirate" codecs, using Google free services, flash to play free games, etc.). Successful devs make much less on Android than on iOS (see the ATK dev story), partly due to scale but also due to the economic demographics. Apple's are unrelentingly high-end, Androids spans the spectrum from high to low with a predominance of cheap and BOGOF phone volumes. Android users may get as many apps but they spend less and expect more (high geek count).
It is not unreasonable to expect that a smaller proportion of the Android base will spend $s on music than in the iOS ecosystem.
Thing is, an app requires some consideration into whether or not its functions are worth the $X.XX price tag that goes with it. Music files, on the other hand, have no other function other than being played.
If I liked purchasing and listening to music, why would the device I'm running it on really matter in my decision to buy a song? I like [insert band/singer here] so I buy their music which is perfectly playable on any device (iOS, Android, Zune, Walkman, etc). Just because I get a non-iDevice doesn't mean I'll all of a sudden decide not to buy music anymore.
i paid for my android phone. i pay my monthly bill. i bought software from Android Market and i have a premium google account. why that and not 'mobileme' (god i hate that name)? because i don't like being caged up in the apple garden in some respects. <removed the harsh part>
One question - what is 'walled' about mobile me that is somehow not 'caged up' on google apps?
The new mail client is as good (if not better) than gmail, the new calendar is amazing, iDisk incredibly useful, as is back to my mac and the ability to sync bookmarks, contacts, favourites, even dock layout across and system preferences across multiple computers with a simple sign-in and sync. The photo albums are great, the iweb hosting space plentiful and feature loaded. It's £50ish a year - less than a fiver a month, it's a great service and I wouldn't be without it - but i'm wondering if I've missed something, because I don't feel 'trapped' by it in any way?
If Google is willing to pay the industry more than Apple is, that would be a benefit, but then Google would have to be willing to lose money in the store for a long time to come.
The only positive thing is that if Google finds ways to innovate, it will force Apple to innovate faster. Apple probably knew this was coming which is why they added the socialization functions to iTunes, although I personally have absolutely no interest in that new functionality. My bet is that in the long run, the Google service is a cloud-based service, something which has been rumored for Apple. Personally, having to access the cloud to access my music doesn't make sense to me. Also, if the Google service doesn't work with Apple's hardware, it can't possibly succeed. And if it's something like you download from Google and then have iTunes "search" for those downloads, that's going to be too convoluted the average non-geek iDevice user.
Be interesting to see if Google could accomplish what even Amazon couldn't accomplish. Logic dictates that Amazon should have been successful selling digital downloads of music. Why weren't they?
Apple pretty much didn't invent squat, but what they have done is change several industries. Their MP3 players, phones, tablet computers, and music store have changed the way people do business, and their products are copied by just about everyone (especially Google, which has become the new Microsoft as far as this goes).
And the competition that comes after Apple doesn't try new things that Apple hasn't done yet with their products? Like how about Zune and the Zune pass for example. Apple doesn't invent squat, Apple is basically like Blizzard Entertainment, they take other people's ideas and refine so well they sell. Basically Apple takes other people's ideas and succeeds with them. Does the success of their products have a large impact on the industries in which they are successful absolutely but don't you think it is ironic in a sense to rip on companies that "copy" Apple products yet if it wasn't for the people/competition Apple copies off of in the first place they would have never entered market/industry. Like for example the ipod, Creative if I'm not mistaken created the first mp3 player, but if it wasn't for Apple basically copying Creative's mp3 player and then refining it they(Apple) would have never gotten into the music industry. Apple wasn't the first one to create a smart phone, yet they copied from the available market at the time and refined it, if it wasn't for them copying the smart phones that were already on the market, Apple would have never gotten into the smart phone industry.
I mean it is just so hypocritically of you and other people to bash Apple's competition as copiers when Apple's whole business model basically revolves around copying other companies products/ideas and then refining them before they sell the product.
And the competition that comes after Apple doesn't try new things that Apple hasn't done yet with their products?
He neither said nor implied anything like that.
The things that Apple does are not good or bad because of what somebody else may do.
The things that Apple does are good or bad based solely upon their own merits, or lack of merit.
I mean it is just so hypocritically of you and other people to bash Apple's competition as copiers when Apple's whole business model basically revolves around copying other companies products
Are you sure that is hypocritical? It sounds like you agree with his premise.
win win.
And exactly what did Apple "invent"?
Making it useful?
Integrating the two in a nice package was all they did.
"all they did"?!? Yup, for "all they did" they have a market cap larger than Microsoft.
I love when people try to dismiss Apple for "just" tying stuff together.
If it was so easy to do, more companies would be doing the whole kit and caboodle like Apple does - and be doing it as well or better than they do. So far no one else has even come close and I'm not holding my breath since the myopia that seems to have infected you is appears to be pretty widespread.
Competition is almost always good. Choice as a consumer is all I ask for. Its scary when one person or company has too much market share in a certain industry.
Choice is good, and competition is good. Right now the only one competing with Apple is... Apple! It's been that way since the iPod. The only new devices successful in supplanting the iPod were new iPods, and the same thing with the iPhone. As others have pointed out there isn't one "Android" but a mishmash of hardware and software - hardly a direct comparison to Apple's ecosystem.
Instead of criticizing Apple, people should be criticizing other manufacturers for sucking so bad.
I like Apple as much as anyone (typing this on my iPhone), but why wouldn't Google music work? They have millions of built in customers with Android phones
There may be millions of Android phones, but how many bought them to use as smartphones and how many were two for one specials or free promotions? Look at the Android web browsing stats...
Mere volume does not necessarily denote success.
Creative if I'm not mistaken created the first mp3 player
I don't know who created the first hard drive based MP3 player, but a small reserch group from what used to be Digital Equipment Corporation produced a design that a company called Hango/Remote Solutions licensed and produced as the Personal Juke Box (PJB). It was the first shipping hard drive based MP3 player. I still have mine and it still works - it was really ahead of its time. A full year before the creative player that was bigger, had worse battery life and a sucky user interface in comparison.
Apple basically copying Creative's mp3 player and then refining it they(Apple) would have never gotten into the music industry.
See, you are making the common mistake. Apple didn't copy the Creative mp3 player, they took the concept of a hard drive based MP3 player (hardly unique to Creative) and bundled it with a management application at first and then a store later. The techie geeks derided it for not being able to just copy files back and forth from the file system but guess what - normal people don't care about that! They just want to listen to @^$#ing music - and Apple made that drop dead simple and intuitive. That's why Apple succeeded - not because they "just" copied someone else.
Apple invented the integrated digital music ecosystem. Yes, the individual components aren't unique, but the way they are all tied together - with the focus on the end user - certainly is.
Apple wasn't the first one to create a smart phone, yet they copied from the available market at the time and refined it, if it wasn't for them copying the smart phones that were already on the market, Apple would have never gotten into the smart phone industry.
Huh? Who was there for them to copy for an integrated app store.
Who was there for them to copy for free phone OS updates?
Who was there for them to copy for an integrated music player tied to an awesome online music store?
Who was there for them to copy for a useable on screen keyboard?
Who was there for them to copy for multi-touch?
I mean it is just so hypocritically of you and other people to bash Apple's competition as copiers when Apple's whole business model basically revolves around copying other companies products/ideas and then refining them before they sell the product.
Yup, Apple brings nothing unique to the table at all.
Your so right