I can see MS thinking about an iLife competitor, but do they really have the resources to develop one at this time? Right now they should be pouring all programming resources into Vista, MBU (can you say VPC and Parallels together) and the Office Division. An iLife competitor is a luxury that MS cannot afford at this time, regardless of their pile of cash in the bank.
2. But Anders and others need to also live outside of Econ 101 crib notes. The real "free market" doesn't work that way.
3. MS entering a market usually reduces competition in the long run and is bad.
4. Competition is to get more people trying and viably trying OSX - that is good - not because I'm an Apple homie, but because currently there is still no real competition for the business installed base and the unwashed, uninitiated, "this is fine for me" masses.
5. Once Apple's market share is in double digits, then REAL competition can take place and MS v. Apple app wars would be great for everyone.
6. Right now it is just Mac-users on Masada looking down on the Legions of Redmond and living in a stalemate that (unlike the real Masada) is fine so far, since Apple is doing fine.
7. I would like MS to do it's own suite of iApps just like I'd like Apple to have its own Office suite and its own Photoshop/CS/Flash suite.
8. I just see the history books and they say MS entering any market, except game consoles ... so far ... tends to reduce competition and innovation in the long run.
So Anders and others, don't waste your time calling anyone who is anti-MS as being merely a MacZealot, they just might want to have REAL competition and they have history on their side.
8. I just see the history books and they say MS entering any market, except game consoles ... so far ... tends to reduce competition and innovation in the long run.
Notice that 'any market' is 'any market that runs on Windows'.
XBox? Has done well. Taken over the market? Nope.
TabletPC? Well, it's *cute*... for what, their fourth major attempt at this? Fifth?
PocketPC? Palm utterly shot themselves in the head, as far as I can tell, and again, if you consider a handheld to be an extension of the desktop, then this is just another part of the Windows ecosystem.
And then there's Bob...
MS entering a market == MS success is a huge fallacy. They've wildly succeeded exactly twice, as I see it: Office, and Windows. They've moderately succeeded (as in, haven't died out yet) on the consoles. Everything else has been pretty poor on the track record.
I´ll take any competition to the iApps. If its MS, then let it be. Even if they made a better product and suddenly got succes with it its better than the iApps evolving in vacuum. At least then it would have gone to the next level and MS hopeful would do a port (or nwe would have to use it through virtualization)
And I WILL continue to bash the iZealots, thankyouverymuch
I assume this will be packaged for free with the OS similar to iLife, but don't some hardware manufacturers like to package other trial software with machines (Dell does this I believe)? How are they going to respond to this? If this trial "crap" (as I've heard it referred to, repeatedly) is in place to reduce prices on bargain bin PCs, might a MSLife Suite force these vendors to take such software off their computers and raise prices? Or will they just remove MSlife instead? I think it's an either/or situation because it would be redundant to have two photo apps in the same machine, especially of Microsoft's is fully paid for.
I could be completely off the mark, but this wouldn't be the first time. I just wonder if it will be completely accepted as part of the OS or if MS will have to make it a separate suite and use their obvious hold on the OS to some how market this new set of apps.
2. But Anders and others need to also live outside of Econ 101 crib notes. The real "free market" doesn't work that way.
3. MS entering a market usually reduces competition in the long run and is bad.
4. Competition is to get more people trying and viably trying OSX - that is good - not because I'm an Apple homie, but because currently there is still no real competition for the business installed base and the unwashed, uninitiated, "this is fine for me" masses.
5. Once Apple's market share is in double digits, then REAL competition can take place and MS v. Apple app wars would be great for everyone.
6. Right now it is just Mac-users on Masada looking down on the Legions of Redmond and living in a stalemate that (unlike the real Masada) is fine so far, since Apple is doing fine.
7. I would like MS to do it's own suite of iApps just like I'd like Apple to have its own Office suite and its own Photoshop/CS/Flash suite.
8. I just see the history books and they say MS entering any market, except game consoles ... so far ... tends to reduce competition and innovation in the long run.
So Anders and others, don't waste your time calling anyone who is anti-MS as being merely a MacZealot, they just might want to have REAL competition and they have history on their side.
I agree but there are other points to consider here.
MS is considering an iLife suite that runs on Windows. It will not compete directly with iLife on Macs, but will offer some sort of parity with iLife that is lacking on the Windows side of the fence. If they chose to make a suite that ran on Macs (directly and not via VPC/Bootcamp) then this would be more direct competition.
They can, and probably will flood the Windows market with whatever they develop so direct competitors in the Windows market will feel the pain, not Apple. It'll probably ship free on all new PC's sold with Vista similar to how iLife ships on all new Macs.
Apple needs only ensure that they are continually improving iLife to help reinforce the perceived quality of the Mac platform. The suggestion by another poster that Apple should "pull an iTunes and release iLife for Windows" was not well thought out and I called him on it.
I'd like to see Apple flesh out iWork to be more of an Office replacement.
Lastly, it's possible to be anti-MS without the ignorant name twisting that makes such good foddder for Windows users looking to take a swing at us. That's why I dropped the "z" word in my post earlier. Honestly, compare your post to some of the other anti MS ones and note the (not so) subtle differences. You were able to make a point and sound intelligent all at the same time .
To me this brings up the idea of Corporate iTunes accounts or corporate iMixes. This may be how iTunes enters the business world and the realm of "subscriptions."
Think of this, if United or Starbucks or Sears wanted to have music services in their locations, they have deals with record labels or third parties to supply feeds or playlists to them. What if there were a corporate iTunes site and any company could pay with a usage fee to have their own customized iMixes sent to them or downloaded on coporate servers ... maybe via OSX Server! This actually has at least two possible implementations: on-demand streaming and traditional download-and-own.
1. Traditional iTunes: I don't know what the actual price structures are for this service now, but if they use the normal download-and-own model Apple would get their $1/song and that might be fine. This is how music in my local coffee shop works. The coffee shop owns the music and it is small enough and hands-on enough to be able to support the little Mac that runs the system. However this becomes a big hassle with 10,000 Starbucks who may require more central control, but may also want regional flexibility as to song lists.
enter...
2. Corporate iMixes: Starbucks decides it could use a different playlist of 10,000 songs in each of its two dozen or so market regions. It contracts to Apple to either design the playlist or get's its marketing depts to do so ... even to the level of store managers ... and then gives this list to Apple and Apple sets up via the internet a "feed" to the stores. This feed can be easily updated and edited and in a way acts like a Napster subscription. Apple can do this because it would not impact its consumer iTunes model and it gives business flexibility. One Starbucks goes out of business (I guess this must have happened once) and Starbucks just moves the account to another one or discontinues the account.
The corporate account model could give airlines, shopping malls and other public places a flexible, efficient way of providing music to large numbers of people in an intriguing way and has added benefits:
1. Increases iTunes beyond the iPod because this service is basically not directed to "portability" except on the macro-scale.
2. Increases Apple's revenues and abilities to further increase its servers and bandwidth needs as it gears up for more video.
3. Allows Apple to play around with the "subscription" model in a way that doesn't disrupt its current iTunes model.
4. Perhaps allows consumers the ability to hear music they like while in a public place and know that they could get to the iTMS and download the song that they heard at the coffee shop.
5. Apple could even sell audio systems that either store AAC files or acts as a "set box" for the "on-demand" streaming of a companies iTunes account.
I'm sure everyone hear could come up with tons of ideas for this model and it would get iTunes and Apple even farther into the corporate realm ... yes, IT you need to support Apple!
I agree but there are other points to consider here.
MS is considering an iLife suite that runs on Windows. It will not compete directly with iLife on Macs, but will offer some sort of parity with iLife that is lacking on the Windows side of the fence. If they chose to make a suite that ran on Macs (directly and not via VPC/Bootcamp) then this would be more direct competition.
They can, and probably will flood the Windows market with whatever they develop so direct competitors in the Windows market will feel the pain, not Apple. It'll probably ship free on all new PC's sold with Vista similar to how iLife ships on all new Macs.
Apple needs only ensure that they are continually improving iLife to help reinforce the perceived quality of the Mac platform. The suggestion by another poster that Apple should "pull an iTunes and release iLife for Windows" was not well thought out and I called him on it.
I'd like to see Apple flesh out iWork to be more of an Office replacement.
Lastly, it's possible to be anti-MS without the ignorant name twisting that makes such good foddder for Windows users looking to take a swing at us. That's why I dropped the "z" word in my post earlier. Honestly, compare your post to some of the other anti MS ones and note the (not so) subtle differences. You were able to make a point and sound intelligent all at the same time .
Thanks Bancho!
However I do see that any iLife suite from MS WILL directly compete with Apple. It is a direct defensive attack at the level of the OS, not the level of the App. As BootCamp and Parallel and virtualization makes hardware more OS agnostic, Apple and MS will be forced to compete head-to-head and not merely indirectly through Dell and HP.
MS obviously has the major tight rope of its developers to walk - "where do we compete with our partners and when do we not." MS has to redefine who is a vender and who is a customer and who is a competitor .... and especially if MS comes out with iApps or an iPod device - they risk further hurting their own huge ecosystem.
Apple has the opposite problem, though, I think it is smaller. How does Apple increase its own apps and hardware before it starts to significantly impact its own venders and customers and how far can it flirt with being a more significant monopoly. It needs to increase the Mac ecosystem the way it has the iPod ecosystem.
Anyway, I guess I see MS having to come to a decision that it needs to out-Apple Apple and that DOES put it in increasingly direct competition with it. And Apple needs more than merely improve the "perceived quality of the Mac platform" it needs to be substantially better than anything on Wintel and that means no even moderately okay iapps suite shipping free with Windows.
3. MS entering a market usually reduces competition in the long run and is bad.
I think this tends to be true of Apple too. Once the operating system developer produces a piece of software, most people just don't feel the need to get something else even if it is a little better.
MS entering a market == MS success is a huge fallacy. They've wildly succeeded exactly twice, as I see it: Office, and Windows. They've moderately succeeded (as in, haven't died out yet) on the consoles. Everything else has been pretty poor on the track record.
One major market you forgot - the Internet. Internet Explorer effectively killed off all competition and then they left it to stagnate once they'd got 90+ % of the market. It's only because they dropped the ball with IE that other people have managed to claw back into the market and they've largely done that from attacking niches.
If MS had continued developing IE we'd have a much different internet today. That'd of course depend on if they'd taken the standards based route or a proprietary Microsoft tech route so at least them not doing the latter could be seen as a bonus.
They've killed off Java pretty much on the browser end. Sun had to move the game to the server.
They've been moderately successful with MSN chat even.
Microsoft entering a market generally isn't a good thing. They don't really have to be successful even to cause lots of grief for other developers and set computing back a decade.
I think this tends to be true of Apple too. Once the operating system developer produces a piece of software, most people just don't feel the need to get something else even if it is a little better.
Too true. Although in Apple's case, it's usually quite good app software so most people don't mind.
I assume this will be packaged for free with the OS similar to iLife,
iLife isn't packaged with the OS for free, it's packaged with the hardware. Microsoft would be hauled over the coals by the EU at least if they start bundling more application software with the OS.
Hardware OEMs would have the option of bundling in an MS iLife package or not.
Notice that 'any market' is 'any market that runs on Windows'.
XBox? Has done well. Taken over the market? Nope.
TabletPC? Well, it's *cute*... for what, their fourth major attempt at this? Fifth?
PocketPC? Palm utterly shot themselves in the head, as far as I can tell, and again, if you consider a handheld to be an extension of the desktop, then this is just another part of the Windows ecosystem.
And then there's Bob...
MS entering a market == MS success is a huge fallacy. They've wildly succeeded exactly twice, as I see it: Office, and Windows. They've moderately succeeded (as in, haven't died out yet) on the consoles. Everything else has been pretty poor on the track record.
One of the problems with MS entering a market is that they can, and do, pour money into it that no one else can match. Netscape didn't so much as shoot themselves in the foot, as get buried under more than a half billion dollars of MS shoveling dirt over them.
The tablet isn't failing to succeed because MS has come out with the software (it's not the 4th iteration). The reason is that most people simply aren't interested in tablets. When the weight gets down further, the battery life is improved, and more specialty software comes out specifically for the tablet, this may change.
The same thing has happened in the PDA and cell phone markets. MS keeps plugging away, because they can afford it. Customers, unfortunately, want MS solutions.
While the XBox didn't take over the market, no other company could have propped up the system while it was consistently losing $1.2 billion a year. This has held Nintendo down, and was partly responsible for Sega's departure.
The other reason why I don't agree with you and Anders on this one, is because of a well known fact in the PC side of the industry, which you guys are either not aware of, or are overlooking.
That fact is that MS's products in version 1 are rarely very good. When they get to ver 2, they are better. By version 3, they are, as the expression goes regarding MS's products, *good enough*.
And that's all that it has taken for them. With that, they have taken over many areas.
They won't come out with a "great" solution, but it just might be enough to convince PC users who, remember, have never used Apple's versions to compare it to.
Ms will also do some good, expensive advertising, which Apple, it seems, will never do.
It's in the "minds eye" so to speak where success is made.
Since not switching is much easier than switching, people will see little reason to bother.
So, yes, this could hurt Apple, while doing nothing to improve any apps.
I'm not saying that it will be necessarily terrible, but it shouldn't be disregarded either.
They won't come out with a "great" solution, but it just might be enough to convince PC users who, remember, have never used Apple's versions to compare it to.
Exactly.
I've had arguments with Windows users who because they've not used iMovie seem to think MovieMaker is comparable, and it happens with Microsoft all the time. They'll produce some software that just manages to tick the comparable feature box and that's often enough for some users who don't even bother looking elsewhere.
That's also why we're lumbered with most people not complaining that IE6 is broken or that everybody else is using the wrong file format because Microsoft's is the 'industry standard'.
This one is interesting. Aircraft in-flight entertainment (IFE) system providers are reported to have held talks with Apple on the possibility of licensing its iTunes media download software for airlines' own systems.
As part of the overall initiative, passengers would be able to use frequent-flyer miles to download music and videos on to iPod MP3 players in-flight, according to a report on Flight Global.
For anyone flying a plane equipped with Connexion by Boeing, you already have full access to your existing iTunes. Why implement a half-baked solution like that mentioned, instead of just providing high-speed internet access and let the user do whatever they want?
One of the problems with MS entering a market is that they can, and do, pour money into it that no one else can match. Netscape didn't so much as shoot themselves in the foot, as get buried under more than a half billion dollars of MS shoveling dirt over them.
Wellllll, it was half and half. Read some of the insider histories on Netscape, they're quite telling. They managed to blow a huge lead quite successfully, and MS's deluge of FUD and $$ was the final nail. They kind of sidled up to the cliff edge, and MS shoved them over.
Quote:
The tablet isn't failing to succeed because MS has come out with the software (it's not the 4th iteration). The reason is that most people simply aren't interested in tablets. When the weight gets down further, the battery life is improved, and more specialty software comes out specifically for the tablet, this may change.
Windows for Pen Computing - 1990(1?)
Windows Pen Services - 1995
Windows XP Tablet Edition - 2002
You're right, not counting WinCE, MobilePC, PocketPC (another triad), this would be their third attempt at it. UMPC would be their fourth.
And I'm sorry, but I have to take exception to the idea that more 'tablet-specific software' is the answer. This is exactly the wrong thing to do, IMO, for a tablet to succeed, and it's the reason that the current TabletPC units suck ass... they try to be too much of "ooooh look! I'm a *TABLET*!" instead of just getting out of the way and letting work get done. Compare TabletPC's input method to Ink... Ink is just a lot more natural, and gets out of the way. ie, it works with the apps the user already has, it doesn't try and force them to buy all-new-and-sparkly apps that don't do squat to assist them. </rant>
Quote:
The same thing has happened in the PDA and cell phone markets. MS keeps plugging away, because they can afford it. Customers, unfortunately, want MS solutions.
I disagree. Customers want solutions. They think MS is the only game in town, so they'll go with it, but they don't necessarily seek it out. I can count on one hand the number of times I've heard someone say "Golly, if it's not MS, I won't buy it." Consumers have wizened up a bit.
Quote:
While the XBox didn't take over the market, no other company could have propped up the system while it was consistently losing $1.2 billion a year. This has held Nintendo down, and was partly responsible for Sega's departure.
True. However. The original comparison was MSLife to iLife, not MSLife to other Windows products, correct? So I'm not seeing how the money issue holds at this point. They're not taking on an OSS group, or a small developer, they're going to have to convince people who are considering purchasing a Mac, even to run Windows, that there's no reason to. That's a slightly different ballgame, IMO, because as you point out below, their v1 products generally stink. In a head-to-head comparison with iLife, they're not going to look good, is my guess.
Quote:
I'm not saying that it will be necessarily terrible, but it shouldn't be disregarded either.
I don't think it should be disregarded, but I don't think it's time to Chicken Little, either.
I've had arguments with Windows users who because they've not used iMovie seem to think MovieMaker is comparable, and it happens with Microsoft all the time. They'll produce some software that just manages to tick the comparable feature box and that's often enough for some users who don't even bother looking elsewhere.
That's also why we're lumbered with most people not complaining that IE6 is broken or that everybody else is using the wrong file format because Microsoft's is the 'industry standard'.
After I posted, I want downstairs for a late lunch. The mail had come in, and in the stack (I get a lot of stuff!), was my new weekly issue of ComputerWorld.
It's funny that it happened this way, but an article just proves what I was saying.:
"Microsoft Picking Up CRM Customers From Its Rivals"
The subhead to the article is this:
"Says Version 3.0 corrects earlier flaws, integrates better with Office, ERP apps."
The point to this is that the program is fine now, not better than the competition, but ok. Look at this.
"Stockdorf, Germany-based Global Comfort expects the cost of installing MS CRM to be about the same as it would be to upgrade its Siebel software, Fralick said."
So, it isn't going to be cheaper to impliment, just about the same. No advantage there, is there?
I'll give this last quote. The article is too long to go further.
A division of this company has been using the MS software for two years before. That's the background for this last quote.
"Fralick said Westbasto's sales did suffer through the defects of earlier versions of the MS CRM software. "The initial product wasn't a flop," he said. "It just didn't work as billed."
??? They used it for TWO years, even though it cost them business!
That's why it's a danger anytime MS decides to target an area that it wants to be in, or when IT sees danger from somewhere.
And, that's why we can't joke about it, if they decide to challange Apple in this VERY importand software familly.
Comments
Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
Agreed. Competition against Apples major consumer flagship, would be welcomed!
Ever heard of Ableton Live?
Originally posted by auxio
Ever heard of Ableton Live?
i dont think that really competes with anything from apple.
i mean garageband is for hobbyists and anyone just looking to get into music production on a computer.
as far as logic vs ableton
they are to two different monsters and ableton if anything, compliments logic.
maybe with ableton 6 then we can have a true one on one but not at this point.
microsoft is too obnoxious with their constant copying of ideas. seriously, enough is enough. do something on your own for god sakes.
that being said i thought apple's user interface could be patend?
how come microsoft can go implement a dock?
1. Competition is good.
2. But Anders and others need to also live outside of Econ 101 crib notes. The real "free market" doesn't work that way.
3. MS entering a market usually reduces competition in the long run and is bad.
4. Competition is to get more people trying and viably trying OSX - that is good - not because I'm an Apple homie, but because currently there is still no real competition for the business installed base and the unwashed, uninitiated, "this is fine for me" masses.
5. Once Apple's market share is in double digits, then REAL competition can take place and MS v. Apple app wars would be great for everyone.
6. Right now it is just Mac-users on Masada looking down on the Legions of Redmond and living in a stalemate that (unlike the real Masada) is fine so far, since Apple is doing fine.
7. I would like MS to do it's own suite of iApps just like I'd like Apple to have its own Office suite and its own Photoshop/CS/Flash suite.
8. I just see the history books and they say MS entering any market, except game consoles ... so far ... tends to reduce competition and innovation in the long run.
So Anders and others, don't waste your time calling anyone who is anti-MS as being merely a MacZealot, they just might want to have REAL competition and they have history on their side.
Originally posted by MacGregor
8. I just see the history books and they say MS entering any market, except game consoles ... so far ... tends to reduce competition and innovation in the long run.
Notice that 'any market' is 'any market that runs on Windows'.
XBox? Has done well. Taken over the market? Nope.
TabletPC? Well, it's *cute*... for what, their fourth major attempt at this? Fifth?
PocketPC? Palm utterly shot themselves in the head, as far as I can tell, and again, if you consider a handheld to be an extension of the desktop, then this is just another part of the Windows ecosystem.
And then there's Bob...
MS entering a market == MS success is a huge fallacy. They've wildly succeeded exactly twice, as I see it: Office, and Windows. They've moderately succeeded (as in, haven't died out yet) on the consoles. Everything else has been pretty poor on the track record.
And I WILL continue to bash the iZealots, thankyouverymuch
I could be completely off the mark, but this wouldn't be the first time. I just wonder if it will be completely accepted as part of the OS or if MS will have to make it a separate suite and use their obvious hold on the OS to some how market this new set of apps.
Originally posted by MacGregor
Regarding msApps:
1. Competition is good.
2. But Anders and others need to also live outside of Econ 101 crib notes. The real "free market" doesn't work that way.
3. MS entering a market usually reduces competition in the long run and is bad.
4. Competition is to get more people trying and viably trying OSX - that is good - not because I'm an Apple homie, but because currently there is still no real competition for the business installed base and the unwashed, uninitiated, "this is fine for me" masses.
5. Once Apple's market share is in double digits, then REAL competition can take place and MS v. Apple app wars would be great for everyone.
6. Right now it is just Mac-users on Masada looking down on the Legions of Redmond and living in a stalemate that (unlike the real Masada) is fine so far, since Apple is doing fine.
7. I would like MS to do it's own suite of iApps just like I'd like Apple to have its own Office suite and its own Photoshop/CS/Flash suite.
8. I just see the history books and they say MS entering any market, except game consoles ... so far ... tends to reduce competition and innovation in the long run.
So Anders and others, don't waste your time calling anyone who is anti-MS as being merely a MacZealot, they just might want to have REAL competition and they have history on their side.
I agree but there are other points to consider here.
MS is considering an iLife suite that runs on Windows. It will not compete directly with iLife on Macs, but will offer some sort of parity with iLife that is lacking on the Windows side of the fence. If they chose to make a suite that ran on Macs (directly and not via VPC/Bootcamp) then this would be more direct competition.
They can, and probably will flood the Windows market with whatever they develop so direct competitors in the Windows market will feel the pain, not Apple. It'll probably ship free on all new PC's sold with Vista similar to how iLife ships on all new Macs.
Apple needs only ensure that they are continually improving iLife to help reinforce the perceived quality of the Mac platform. The suggestion by another poster that Apple should "pull an iTunes and release iLife for Windows" was not well thought out and I called him on it.
I'd like to see Apple flesh out iWork to be more of an Office replacement.
Lastly, it's possible to be anti-MS without the ignorant name twisting that makes such good foddder for Windows users looking to take a swing at us. That's why I dropped the "z" word in my post earlier. Honestly, compare your post to some of the other anti MS ones and note the (not so) subtle differences. You were able to make a point and sound intelligent all at the same time
To me this brings up the idea of Corporate iTunes accounts or corporate iMixes. This may be how iTunes enters the business world and the realm of "subscriptions."
Think of this, if United or Starbucks or Sears wanted to have music services in their locations, they have deals with record labels or third parties to supply feeds or playlists to them. What if there were a corporate iTunes site and any company could pay with a usage fee to have their own customized iMixes sent to them or downloaded on coporate servers ... maybe via OSX Server! This actually has at least two possible implementations: on-demand streaming and traditional download-and-own.
1. Traditional iTunes: I don't know what the actual price structures are for this service now, but if they use the normal download-and-own model Apple would get their $1/song and that might be fine. This is how music in my local coffee shop works. The coffee shop owns the music and it is small enough and hands-on enough to be able to support the little Mac that runs the system. However this becomes a big hassle with 10,000 Starbucks who may require more central control, but may also want regional flexibility as to song lists.
enter...
2. Corporate iMixes: Starbucks decides it could use a different playlist of 10,000 songs in each of its two dozen or so market regions. It contracts to Apple to either design the playlist or get's its marketing depts to do so ... even to the level of store managers ... and then gives this list to Apple and Apple sets up via the internet a "feed" to the stores. This feed can be easily updated and edited and in a way acts like a Napster subscription. Apple can do this because it would not impact its consumer iTunes model and it gives business flexibility. One Starbucks goes out of business (I guess this must have happened once) and Starbucks just moves the account to another one or discontinues the account.
The corporate account model could give airlines, shopping malls and other public places a flexible, efficient way of providing music to large numbers of people in an intriguing way and has added benefits:
1. Increases iTunes beyond the iPod because this service is basically not directed to "portability" except on the macro-scale.
2. Increases Apple's revenues and abilities to further increase its servers and bandwidth needs as it gears up for more video.
3. Allows Apple to play around with the "subscription" model in a way that doesn't disrupt its current iTunes model.
4. Perhaps allows consumers the ability to hear music they like while in a public place and know that they could get to the iTMS and download the song that they heard at the coffee shop.
5. Apple could even sell audio systems that either store AAC files or acts as a "set box" for the "on-demand" streaming of a companies iTunes account.
I'm sure everyone hear could come up with tons of ideas for this model and it would get iTunes and Apple even farther into the corporate realm ... yes, IT you need to support Apple!
Originally posted by Bancho
I agree but there are other points to consider here.
MS is considering an iLife suite that runs on Windows. It will not compete directly with iLife on Macs, but will offer some sort of parity with iLife that is lacking on the Windows side of the fence. If they chose to make a suite that ran on Macs (directly and not via VPC/Bootcamp) then this would be more direct competition.
They can, and probably will flood the Windows market with whatever they develop so direct competitors in the Windows market will feel the pain, not Apple. It'll probably ship free on all new PC's sold with Vista similar to how iLife ships on all new Macs.
Apple needs only ensure that they are continually improving iLife to help reinforce the perceived quality of the Mac platform. The suggestion by another poster that Apple should "pull an iTunes and release iLife for Windows" was not well thought out and I called him on it.
I'd like to see Apple flesh out iWork to be more of an Office replacement.
Lastly, it's possible to be anti-MS without the ignorant name twisting that makes such good foddder for Windows users looking to take a swing at us. That's why I dropped the "z" word in my post earlier. Honestly, compare your post to some of the other anti MS ones and note the (not so) subtle differences. You were able to make a point and sound intelligent all at the same time
Thanks Bancho!
However I do see that any iLife suite from MS WILL directly compete with Apple. It is a direct defensive attack at the level of the OS, not the level of the App. As BootCamp and Parallel and virtualization makes hardware more OS agnostic, Apple and MS will be forced to compete head-to-head and not merely indirectly through Dell and HP.
MS obviously has the major tight rope of its developers to walk - "where do we compete with our partners and when do we not." MS has to redefine who is a vender and who is a customer and who is a competitor .... and especially if MS comes out with iApps or an iPod device - they risk further hurting their own huge ecosystem.
Apple has the opposite problem, though, I think it is smaller. How does Apple increase its own apps and hardware before it starts to significantly impact its own venders and customers and how far can it flirt with being a more significant monopoly. It needs to increase the Mac ecosystem the way it has the iPod ecosystem.
Anyway, I guess I see MS having to come to a decision that it needs to out-Apple Apple and that DOES put it in increasingly direct competition with it. And Apple needs more than merely improve the "perceived quality of the Mac platform" it needs to be substantially better than anything on Wintel and that means no even moderately okay iapps suite shipping free with Windows.
Originally posted by MacGregor
Regarding msApps:
3. MS entering a market usually reduces competition in the long run and is bad.
I think this tends to be true of Apple too. Once the operating system developer produces a piece of software, most people just don't feel the need to get something else even if it is a little better.
Originally posted by Kickaha
MS entering a market == MS success is a huge fallacy. They've wildly succeeded exactly twice, as I see it: Office, and Windows. They've moderately succeeded (as in, haven't died out yet) on the consoles. Everything else has been pretty poor on the track record.
One major market you forgot - the Internet. Internet Explorer effectively killed off all competition and then they left it to stagnate once they'd got 90+ % of the market. It's only because they dropped the ball with IE that other people have managed to claw back into the market and they've largely done that from attacking niches.
If MS had continued developing IE we'd have a much different internet today. That'd of course depend on if they'd taken the standards based route or a proprietary Microsoft tech route so at least them not doing the latter could be seen as a bonus.
They've killed off Java pretty much on the browser end. Sun had to move the game to the server.
They've been moderately successful with MSN chat even.
Microsoft entering a market generally isn't a good thing. They don't really have to be successful even to cause lots of grief for other developers and set computing back a decade.
Originally posted by rasnet
I think this tends to be true of Apple too. Once the operating system developer produces a piece of software, most people just don't feel the need to get something else even if it is a little better.
Too true. Although in Apple's case, it's usually quite good app software so most people don't mind.
Originally posted by Lupa
I assume this will be packaged for free with the OS similar to iLife,
iLife isn't packaged with the OS for free, it's packaged with the hardware. Microsoft would be hauled over the coals by the EU at least if they start bundling more application software with the OS.
Hardware OEMs would have the option of bundling in an MS iLife package or not.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Notice that 'any market' is 'any market that runs on Windows'.
XBox? Has done well. Taken over the market? Nope.
TabletPC? Well, it's *cute*... for what, their fourth major attempt at this? Fifth?
PocketPC? Palm utterly shot themselves in the head, as far as I can tell, and again, if you consider a handheld to be an extension of the desktop, then this is just another part of the Windows ecosystem.
And then there's Bob...
MS entering a market == MS success is a huge fallacy. They've wildly succeeded exactly twice, as I see it: Office, and Windows. They've moderately succeeded (as in, haven't died out yet) on the consoles. Everything else has been pretty poor on the track record.
One of the problems with MS entering a market is that they can, and do, pour money into it that no one else can match. Netscape didn't so much as shoot themselves in the foot, as get buried under more than a half billion dollars of MS shoveling dirt over them.
The tablet isn't failing to succeed because MS has come out with the software (it's not the 4th iteration). The reason is that most people simply aren't interested in tablets. When the weight gets down further, the battery life is improved, and more specialty software comes out specifically for the tablet, this may change.
The same thing has happened in the PDA and cell phone markets. MS keeps plugging away, because they can afford it. Customers, unfortunately, want MS solutions.
While the XBox didn't take over the market, no other company could have propped up the system while it was consistently losing $1.2 billion a year. This has held Nintendo down, and was partly responsible for Sega's departure.
The other reason why I don't agree with you and Anders on this one, is because of a well known fact in the PC side of the industry, which you guys are either not aware of, or are overlooking.
That fact is that MS's products in version 1 are rarely very good. When they get to ver 2, they are better. By version 3, they are, as the expression goes regarding MS's products, *good enough*.
And that's all that it has taken for them. With that, they have taken over many areas.
They won't come out with a "great" solution, but it just might be enough to convince PC users who, remember, have never used Apple's versions to compare it to.
Ms will also do some good, expensive advertising, which Apple, it seems, will never do.
It's in the "minds eye" so to speak where success is made.
Since not switching is much easier than switching, people will see little reason to bother.
So, yes, this could hurt Apple, while doing nothing to improve any apps.
I'm not saying that it will be necessarily terrible, but it shouldn't be disregarded either.
Originally posted by melgross
They won't come out with a "great" solution, but it just might be enough to convince PC users who, remember, have never used Apple's versions to compare it to.
Exactly.
I've had arguments with Windows users who because they've not used iMovie seem to think MovieMaker is comparable, and it happens with Microsoft all the time. They'll produce some software that just manages to tick the comparable feature box and that's often enough for some users who don't even bother looking elsewhere.
That's also why we're lumbered with most people not complaining that IE6 is broken or that everybody else is using the wrong file format because Microsoft's is the 'industry standard'.
Originally posted by AppleInsider
iTunes on airline seat-backs?
This one is interesting. Aircraft in-flight entertainment (IFE) system providers are reported to have held talks with Apple on the possibility of licensing its iTunes media download software for airlines' own systems.
As part of the overall initiative, passengers would be able to use frequent-flyer miles to download music and videos on to iPod MP3 players in-flight, according to a report on Flight Global.
For anyone flying a plane equipped with Connexion by Boeing, you already have full access to your existing iTunes. Why implement a half-baked solution like that mentioned, instead of just providing high-speed internet access and let the user do whatever they want?
Originally posted by melgross
One of the problems with MS entering a market is that they can, and do, pour money into it that no one else can match. Netscape didn't so much as shoot themselves in the foot, as get buried under more than a half billion dollars of MS shoveling dirt over them.
Wellllll, it was half and half. Read some of the insider histories on Netscape, they're quite telling. They managed to blow a huge lead quite successfully, and MS's deluge of FUD and $$ was the final nail. They kind of sidled up to the cliff edge, and MS shoved them over.
The tablet isn't failing to succeed because MS has come out with the software (it's not the 4th iteration). The reason is that most people simply aren't interested in tablets. When the weight gets down further, the battery life is improved, and more specialty software comes out specifically for the tablet, this may change.
Windows for Pen Computing - 1990(1?)
Windows Pen Services - 1995
Windows XP Tablet Edition - 2002
You're right, not counting WinCE, MobilePC, PocketPC (another triad), this would be their third attempt at it. UMPC would be their fourth.
And I'm sorry, but I have to take exception to the idea that more 'tablet-specific software' is the answer. This is exactly the wrong thing to do, IMO, for a tablet to succeed, and it's the reason that the current TabletPC units suck ass... they try to be too much of "ooooh look! I'm a *TABLET*!" instead of just getting out of the way and letting work get done. Compare TabletPC's input method to Ink... Ink is just a lot more natural, and gets out of the way. ie, it works with the apps the user already has, it doesn't try and force them to buy all-new-and-sparkly apps that don't do squat to assist them. </rant>
The same thing has happened in the PDA and cell phone markets. MS keeps plugging away, because they can afford it. Customers, unfortunately, want MS solutions.
I disagree. Customers want solutions. They think MS is the only game in town, so they'll go with it, but they don't necessarily seek it out. I can count on one hand the number of times I've heard someone say "Golly, if it's not MS, I won't buy it." Consumers have wizened up a bit.
While the XBox didn't take over the market, no other company could have propped up the system while it was consistently losing $1.2 billion a year. This has held Nintendo down, and was partly responsible for Sega's departure.
True. However. The original comparison was MSLife to iLife, not MSLife to other Windows products, correct? So I'm not seeing how the money issue holds at this point. They're not taking on an OSS group, or a small developer, they're going to have to convince people who are considering purchasing a Mac, even to run Windows, that there's no reason to. That's a slightly different ballgame, IMO, because as you point out below, their v1 products generally stink. In a head-to-head comparison with iLife, they're not going to look good, is my guess.
I'm not saying that it will be necessarily terrible, but it shouldn't be disregarded either.
I don't think it should be disregarded, but I don't think it's time to Chicken Little, either.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Exactly.
I've had arguments with Windows users who because they've not used iMovie seem to think MovieMaker is comparable, and it happens with Microsoft all the time. They'll produce some software that just manages to tick the comparable feature box and that's often enough for some users who don't even bother looking elsewhere.
That's also why we're lumbered with most people not complaining that IE6 is broken or that everybody else is using the wrong file format because Microsoft's is the 'industry standard'.
After I posted, I want downstairs for a late lunch. The mail had come in, and in the stack (I get a lot of stuff!), was my new weekly issue of ComputerWorld.
It's funny that it happened this way, but an article just proves what I was saying.:
"Microsoft Picking Up CRM Customers From Its Rivals"
The subhead to the article is this:
"Says Version 3.0 corrects earlier flaws, integrates better with Office, ERP apps."
The point to this is that the program is fine now, not better than the competition, but ok. Look at this.
"Stockdorf, Germany-based Global Comfort expects the cost of installing MS CRM to be about the same as it would be to upgrade its Siebel software, Fralick said."
So, it isn't going to be cheaper to impliment, just about the same. No advantage there, is there?
I'll give this last quote. The article is too long to go further.
A division of this company has been using the MS software for two years before. That's the background for this last quote.
"Fralick said Westbasto's sales did suffer through the defects of earlier versions of the MS CRM software. "The initial product wasn't a flop," he said. "It just didn't work as billed."
??? They used it for TWO years, even though it cost them business!
That's why it's a danger anytime MS decides to target an area that it wants to be in, or when IT sees danger from somewhere.
And, that's why we can't joke about it, if they decide to challange Apple in this VERY importand software familly.
People should understand this.