Microsoft's reasoning

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Has anyone seen microsft's tips for buying an mp3 player? I was laughing out loud the whole way through.



http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...ces/flash.aspx



Quote:

Have you ever been on the hunt for a particular song? Some obscure indie rock tune or rare jazz performance you heard on the radio? You might have to shop at more than one store before you find the song you're looking for. Having the flexibility to choose from over 1 million tracks of music from multiple online music stores such as MSN Music, Napster, MusicMatch, and Wal-Mart can be the key to getting the music you want. Several stores even offer subscription services so you can download all the songs you want for about the cost of a CD each month.



All those stores put together probably don't have a library that can match iTunes. I wonder if anyone has ever had that problem.
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 98
    They make a good point, and it's a lot cheaper to avoid iTunes.
  • Reply 2 of 98
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    You completely missed the humor in MS's own prose.





    Quote:

    Have you ever been on the hunt for a particular song? Some obscure indie rock tune or rare jazz performance you heard on the radio? You might have to shop at more than one store before you find the song you're looking for. Having the flexibility to choose from over 1 million tracks of music from multiple online music stores such as MSN Music, Napster, MusicMatch, and Wal-Mart can be the key to getting the music you want. Several stores even offer subscription services so you can download all the songs you want for about the cost of a CD each month.



    How is shopping in many stores better than shopping in many stores??? And that happens to be the price of one subscription per store per month, or about the cost of 4 CDs per month. In perpetuity. That's like buying 60 new songs per month off iTunes, and even more if you are getting many of them via albums. The economics of subscription that way just don't make sense if you want your music for more than a couple years.
  • Reply 3 of 98
    Wow, that was an interesting misinterpretation of what they wrote.
  • Reply 4 of 98
    I think they were saying its better to shop at multiple stores. Because you supposedly have more options. I wonder if this has ever proven to be the case though. And correct me if I'm wrong, but all those stores provide you with WMA. Right? And everybody knows Windows Media files are complete crap.
  • Reply 5 of 98
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    It's especially wrong if you have to shop at more stores to find less and pay more.
  • Reply 6 of 98
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tidelwav

    Wow, that was an interesting misinterpretation of what they wrote.



    No. I just call out stupidity at any opportunity. MS just seems to give me more opportunities. Especially when their marketing prose is written so poorly. Airtight sensible marketing was the reason they got on top in the first place, now that is rotting from within.
  • Reply 7 of 98
    No, what's stupid is alienating a huge chunk of the population by refusing to be compatible with other music sources, etc. Apple never seems to learn this lesson. They shot themselves in the foot (in the head would be a closer description) doing the same thing in the computer race in the 80s, and now they're going to kill themselves again by pissing off their customer base. Not everyone thinks that Apple is Jesus and will buy whatever they toss their way. I bought an iBook and iMac because they are truly better machines that what i had, but i can easily list a bunch of apple failures as well. I'm no apple fanatic who is going to buy anything that Jobs whips out of his pocket on a given day. I'll buy the best product, and if apple makes it, then i'll buy it. Otherwise, i'll buy the competition's better product.



    I sold my iPod and bought a player that will allow me to enjoy unlimited music access for $4.99 a month with over a million songs to choose from. For the same price, you get five songs (and a weird sort of religious experience, i guess).
  • Reply 8 of 98
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    You do realize the iPod plays basically every format *except* WMA, right? And that it will convert WMA to AAC under Windows?



    Yeah... really locking out choice there. :P
  • Reply 9 of 98
    boemaneboemane Posts: 311member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    You do realize the iPod plays basically every format *except* WMA, right? And that it will convert WMA to AAC under Windows?



    Yeah... really locking out choice there. :P




    It does not really matter what format the ipod plays or not. They could all play the same format, but still be incompatible. iPods will never be able to use MS's PlaysForSure DRM filed, and vice versa. It doesn't matter if you can convert WMA to AAC with iTunes. It can still _not_ convert DRM WMA files at all. And they wont play on the iPod either.



    What drives iPod sales though is



    1. Good marketing

    2. Very solid, both designed and manufactured

    3. The easy to use music store with innovative features that not all stores have

    4. Hype (word of mouth)



    Its not neccessarily in that order, but those are the main reasons. I expect Apple to open up their FairPlay DRM if they start to loose their 80% market share. Wiht the iPod Apple has come to see the joys of having a proprietary format (that's based on standards) when you are the market leader - it locks customers in to your product for the future.



    I still think the iPod would be the market leader if apple did open up FairPlay, but they might have 40-50% rather than 80%.



    Edit: I haven't though about it before now, but is it just me or does "PlaysForSure" seem like a cheap copy of "FairPlay"
  • Reply 10 of 98
    jedhajedha Posts: 24member
    "If you're ripping your own CDs, using a player with Windows Media Audio (WMA) support as well as MP3 support gives you the most music per megabyte."



    who ives a fuck about wma?
  • Reply 11 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tidelwav

    No, what's stupid is alienating a huge chunk of the population by refusing to be compatible with other music sources, etc. Apple never seems to learn this lesson. They shot themselves in the foot (in the head would be a closer description) doing the same thing in the computer race in the 80s, and now they're going to kill themselves again by pissing off their customer base. Not everyone thinks that Apple is Jesus and will buy whatever they toss their way. I bought an iBook and iMac because they are truly better machines that what i had, but i can easily list a bunch of apple failures as well. I'm no apple fanatic who is going to buy anything that Jobs whips out of his pocket on a given day. I'll buy the best product, and if apple makes it, then i'll buy it. Otherwise, i'll buy the competition's better product.



    I sold my iPod and bought a player that will allow me to enjoy unlimited music access for $4.99 a month with over a million songs to choose from. For the same price, you get five songs (and a weird sort of religious experience, i guess).




    I can't believe you sold your iPod so you could rent music.



    My thoughts on Apple alienating a huge chunk of the population by refusing to be compatible with other music sources, etc.:



    1. Most other music sources don't work with Mac (me), that's alienation too.

    2. Renting music is a stupid idea IMHO

    3. WMA is hands down the worst format I've ever used.

    4. Apple's "alienation" of a huge chunk of the population doesn't seem like that big of a deal when they have 80% of the market (or close to that). So they're only alienating the 20% that prefers to buy inferior players and use inferior file formats.

    5. Other players are ugly anyway.

    6. Apple is trying to lure people to the mac OS with iPod+iTunes and its working. That's good business. They don't care that you don't like that because you're not important enough. They're making money, that's a business' goal. I don't care, because I'm an Apple fanatic 8)

    7. Windows has made horrible business decisions, and I try not to support them whenever possible. Why are they trying to "fix" Windows with Vista? Why don't they just scrap it and start afresh like Apple did? My VW Westy Vanagon's engine just died. it'll cost me 4000+ dollars to put a new engine in it, after I just replaced the transmission for 1000 dollars. Am I going to do it? No, because there comes a time when it's not worth it to put more money into something that's broken, like Windows.



    Sorry for the slight tangent.
  • Reply 12 of 98
    Quote:

    1. Most other music sources don't work with Mac (me), that's alienation too.



    You can thank Apple for that one.



    Quote:

    I don't care, because I'm an Apple fanatic



    Which is why you're willing to spend far more money for an inferior product just because Jobs told you to.



    Oh well. To each his own.



    Apple makes great computers, which is why i bought two. They make mediocre, overpriced music players that look like a million bucks, which is why fashion-conscious people buy them. The Nano is a PR disaster and as usual Apple is telling the victims to go f--- themselves. It's going to take yet another class action lawsuit to force Apple to treat it customers properly.
  • Reply 13 of 98
    I believe Apple makes more money from not opening FairPlay to other companies. I think that is obviously their reason for what they do. I too would like to see Apple allow other players to play Fairplay files and other music companies sell files with the DRM. However, I think it makes perfect fiscal sense to not allow drm wmv files to play on the ipod or even work in itunes. They are offering a competing choice which they are pushing. Using the ipod to their advantage really is the only idea that would make sense for them.
  • Reply 14 of 98
    As for the Nano being a PR disaster, Apple responded. It replaced the bad screens that actually were a defect. Scratches are inevitable. Unless it can be proven that Apple lied and isn't using the same resin, or they knew about a defect and shipped anyway, what exactly did people expect. It's black. It is going to show scratches more readily. What did people think, is my question. And I find it almost humorous how much attention the press is giving to the nano lawsuit. I think its just a new angle on a company having only success recently. As for it or the other ipods being inferior products that just look damn good, well, I don't know if I can argue. Other players have better quality parts and may be cheaper. I really haven't compared recently. But, not being an audiophile and caring about the best sound possible, I can tell you that I find the ipod to be superior because they actually care what it looks like and how it functions. The click wheel is second to none imho. That feature alone is really what sells me every time.
  • Reply 15 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Rmh1572

    I believe Apple makes more money from not opening FairPlay to other companies. I think that is obviously their reason for what they do. I too would like to see Apple allow other players to play Fairplay files and other music companies sell files with the DRM. However, I think it makes perfect fiscal sense to not allow drm wmv files to play on the ipod or even work in itunes. They are offering a competing choice which they are pushing. Using the ipod to their advantage really is the only idea that would make sense for them.



    Yes, you're right, it does make business sense in the SHORT RUN. But what is happening now is a repeat of the computer race in the 80s. The rest of the field is ganging up on them and making their music players compatible with each other. Apple's market share is doomed to fall once people decide to buy the best music player rather than make some fashion statement.
  • Reply 16 of 98
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tidelwav

    Yes, you're right, it does make business sense in the SHORT RUN. But what is happening now is a repeat of the computer race in the 80s. The rest of the field is ganging up on them and making their music players compatible with each other. Apple's market share is doomed to fall once people decide to buy the best music player rather than make some fashion statement.



    Actually it's not. Apple never had a more than 25% market share in the 80's. They never dominated the market to the degree they do now with iPods. Apple with iPod is actually in much the same position as MS was in the 80's with DOS domination. Chew on that awhile, it changes the outlook substantially. iPod doesn't need fantastically better than it is today to consolidate for the long run, just not revert into immediate suckdom. Just as DOS never got great, MS added enough with Windows to not be seen as falling behind. Eventually all the small market players (like Apple) fell out as real competitors and retreated into their niches.



    After that it's ALL marketing.
  • Reply 17 of 98
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tidelwav

    But what is happening now is a repeat of the computer race in the 80s.



    Not quite. Apple's Macintosh never had a market share anywhere near 80%. In fact, I don't think it was ever over 25%.





    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tidelwav

    Apple's market share is doomed to fall once people decide to buy the best music player rather than make some fashion statement.



    I'm sure I'm not the only person who takes offence at being lumped together with people who buy stuff to make a fashion statement. I genuinely believe the iPod, excluding the shuffle, to be superior to the competition. I have a large music collection, and I like to be able to carry the whole of it around with me. At the time, a 40 gig iPod was the best solution. If I were buying now, it would be the 60 gig version.



    Show me a competing product with the same capacity that:



    Is as light as the iPod

    Is as small as the iPod

    Has a UI as good as the click wheel.

    Has at least as good a battery life.

    Has comparable sound quality.



    I also happen to prefer the AAC file format to WMA, and iTunes as a means of managing my music. I don't buy much from iTunes apart from one-hit wonders (as I prefer to buy albums on CD due to their superior sound quality when listening at home on a HiFi) so the issue of where I want to buy my music didn't really factor in my decision.
  • Reply 18 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tidelwav

    Yes, you're right, it does make business sense in the SHORT RUN. But what is happening now is a repeat of the computer race in the 80s. The rest of the field is ganging up on them and making their music players compatible with each other. Apple's market share is doomed to fall once people decide to buy the best music player rather than make some fashion statement.



    you dont know your history or what you are talking about.

    this is in no way a repeat of the computer race in the 80s. no way in comparision, you sound like John Dvorack. and while your opinion that the ipod is not the best and anyoen who gets one for fashion is your OWN opinion, others may thing it is the best and think has the best usability, but you obviously assume that anyone who disagree's wtih you on the ipod is wrong.. quite frankly the ipod is one of the best if not the best portable music player, not for its looks, but its INTERFACE. thats the key, and its ease of use. same reason itunes is better than those other music stores, interface. Also, not all of those other music players are all WMA compatible, not all of them will play wma protected either.
  • Reply 19 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tidelwav

    No, what's stupid is alienating a huge chunk of the population by refusing to be compatible with other music sources, etc.



    Huge? Last I heard Apple had 80% of both the legal music download business and 80% of the music player business. So huge to you is 20% of the market?



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tidelwav

    I'm no apple fanatic who is going to buy anything that Jobs whips out of his pocket on a given day. I'll buy the best product, and if apple makes it, then i'll buy it. Otherwise, i'll buy the competition's better product.



    Evidentally, 80% of the market believes that iPod and iTunes Music Store are the better option at this point.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tidelwav

    I sold my iPod and bought a player that will allow me to enjoy unlimited music access for $4.99 a month with over a million songs to choose from.



    So someone else offered you a different value proposition that met your needs. No need for "religious experiences" or what-not. Bottom line though is, 80% of the market is making a different choice than you have.
  • Reply 20 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tidelwav

    But what is happening now is a repeat of the computer race in the 80s.



    Your lack of accurate historical knowledge is blinding you.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tidelwav

    The rest of the field is ganging up on them and making their music players compatible with each other.



    This has been happening (almost) since day one. That was 4 years ago. (EDIT: Apple's market share has actually increased over this time.)



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tidelwav

    Apple's market share is doomed to fall once people decide to buy the best music player rather than make some fashion statement.



    This oft-repeated prediction may well come true. Time will certainly tell. But you'll get no where by making lame comparisons to the past that have tenuous (at best) connection to current events.
Sign In or Register to comment.