DISQUS

This sure makes Microsoft's $15 subscription plan look overpriced.

Agreed regarding over-the-air wifi. But at least for the US, we still need the labels to allow for buying songs over the cellular cloud. Hoping this arrives before Christmas, but recent label executives' comments tell me the labels still want to screw iTunes and Apple.

I see the history in the early part of this post a bit differently.

Apple touted web apps because
1. Apple does think that the cloud is the future,
2. web apps are a competitive advantage over other phones because of its Safari, and
3. the SDK was nowhere near ready.

And since the SDK was not ready, Apple did not want to give any promises to consumers, but also as important, it did not want to give any indication to its competitors of what was truly important.

Apple knows that its competitors are looking for clues on how to compete with iPhone. So Apple remains as secretive as it possibly can, so it can go zigging when the other guys think they're finally catching up by zagging.

So while the other guys are busily working on getting their browsers up to speed because of the supposed importance of web apps, Apple is busily working the SDK and App Store. And now as the other guys start turning toward improving SDKs and Stores, Apple will turn to the next thing whatever it is. This is how Apple can maintain the distance from its competitors.

Jobs didn't say you could only use VoIP with your home wifi. You could use it with wherever you can get wifi access, and that's way more than at home. Though it is not usable everywhere like cellular, it is still very useful.

Even on XP, I've had the same problem with startup on both Dell and ThinkPad laptops. Never had that problem with my Powerbook. Worse, the XP laptops don't always go to sleep, in which case, I'd have a very hot laptop, or a dead battery laptop, when I'd pull it out of the bag. So now I have to wait until it's actually asleep before I put it in the bag. Annoying.

The key is that this device needs to be both "revolutionary" and "mainstreamable", not just one or the other. By mainstreamable, it has to be easy enough to set up and use that even "grandma" can do it.

I just bought a Slingbox (which is revolutionary), but setting up the router was a nightmare, and now I'm 600 miles away, and I can't get into it, so the thing is going back when I get back home. (When I set it up, it said it was working, but as I now know, it really wasn't.) So it's not mainstreamable yet - I'm not blaming Slingbox as it needs to work with so many different types of routers and eventually it'll get there.

Making something mainstreamable is a lot harder than it looks. Windows Media Center connecting to the TV is still not mainstreamable.

One more thought based on what Paul said in #32: Altho I could qualify as a fanboy, I actually don't mind people complaining about some Apple policy, as long as they are consistent and fair, and also point out other mfrs who do the exact same thing. On the whole, if this improves the industry (whether computer or consumer electronics), and it gets Apple to lead, I'm all for it. Just don't say that Apple does this and NOT point out that it's most likely the industry norm.

My attitude isn't changing. With more customers and partners, it's getting harder and harder for Apple to keep up with expectations.

My last interaction: The Apple genius unexpectedly replaced my out-of-warranty laptop keyboard for free.

If you look at Tivo's annual report, you'll note that AppleTV (at 400K to 600K units)probably "sold" more than Tivo (new subscriptions - canceled subscriptions). Of course, AppleTV hasn't outsold all DVRs combined.

Isn't Total Music an assault on all digital download music stores? Isn't it simply the labels trying to kill off all distribution except their own (via DRM)? After all, the Universal DRM-free deal with Amazon is just a 6-month trial.

And what's the point of killing the iTunes Store (and Amazon and Ovi, etc) unless they also plan to put DRM on CDs, and kill off torrents? If not, won't Apple keep selling iPods by the bushel, and won't people keep putting on them the songs they copy from CDs and from torrents?

Where are they going to find great devices to use for Total Music, since it's really the players that drive the store and not the other way around? Not Apple (iTunes). Not Nokia (Ovi). And if it's another Microsoft DRM solution, how many of their PlaysforSure partners will come back for another backstabbing, uh, round? Is this how Zune and Sony plan to make a dent? Microsoft is already paying Universal $1 for each Zune; so what's another $89? Sony already tried DRM on CDs; what's another attempt; this time backed by all labels?

Anyway, it sounds like a great plan ... for the labels and the DRM-provider.

"Likewise, songs purchased on iTunes cannot be played on a Zune or iRiver MP3 player."

Not true. Only "songs with DRM purchased on iTunes" have that condition. There are more DRM-free songs at the iTunes Store than at AmazonMP3.

Mike, here are some examples:
Jobs released Xcode for free with Mac OS X.
Jobs reduced the price of WebObjects, then made it free. (Yeah, I know you'll say who cares?)
Jobs built up WWDC by killing off MacWorld Boston/New York. Even though the two are not targeted at the same audience, the lack of a summer event caused media and even consumer attention to switch to WWDC.

Jobs called the AppleTV a hobby because no one (he mentions TiVo and Microsoft) has yet been able to make it a business (i.e., profitable). And clearly Apple hasn't either. But Jobs said he's giving it at least another 18-24 months to grow into one. He raised download speed and quality as issues, and in time, there will be bigger pipes to homes and quality will go up.

As you say, Apple doesn't control the Internet video download ecosystem. It depends on content providers' willingness to make content available. Not providing a DVR (like TiVo and Microsoft) or DVD player/ripper clearly reduces Apple's ability to make content "available", but Apple seems committed to exploring this path, regardless of what we think is wise. Which makes for an interesting case study.

In any case, Apple had to enter at some point. AppleTV is just a toe in the water, YouTube is another toe, and other toes and feet could be placed in soon. I say "could" because it's also not clear what's preventing the broadcast/cable networks (especially Disney) from putting their online content through AppleTV in the same way as YouTube. Is Apple fighting advertising in the stream? Is Apple saying no due to user complexity, i.e., one version for streaming, another version for download for iPod? Are the networks asking for money (i.e., share of AppleTV sales)? Is Apple saying no as it would cut into iTunes download sales? Are the networks refusing for now while trying experiments with different models?

Clearly, the AppleTV is not as successful as Apple hoped. (It would be great to see Apple's forecasts.) Maybe Apple misjudged the willingness of content providers to partner, their own ability to develop AppleTV software features, or the demand in the market. Maybe Apple expected the slow uptake, as they did announce the rolling revenue accrual model pretty soon after release.

In any case, this will continue to be an interesting case study going forward.

If you'd read the letter, Jobs provides a distinction. People are used to ripping CDs and there's no going back altho Sony tried with MS' help leading to disastrous results. And there's no benefit to the labels to have sell protected music when the same, but higher quality, music is already being sold unprotected.

The cultural norm on standard CSS-encoded DVDs is protected, though ripping is fairly easy. However, it's still illegal unless a court case changes it soon. So there is a very slim benefit to the studios.

But with HD (HD-DVD or Blu-Ray), the cultural norm is protected, and not yet completely broken. So there is a very real benefit to the studios.

And there's another self-serving reason: Apple's negotiations with the labels are coming up.

He's just getting the market to be on his side when he confronts the labels with this, and thus reduce the cost he'll have to pay to get it. Remember that Universal's going in position is a few dollars per iPod sold, a la its Zune deal.

Of course there are self-serving reasons, but Rob, Nick, and Tony have got the wrong one. Go check out http://www.macworld.com/news/2002/03/04/jobs/ where it says: "If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own," said Jobs."

This is a year before the iTunes store opened up on 4/28/2003. I think Steve found the labels didn't agree with him, but his desire to open up the store led him to give in on it.

Note also that Apple bought Fairplay from Veridisc sometime around the end of 2002 (couldn't locate the exact date). There's good reason to believe that Apple was not working on DRM but had to get it in order to open up the store.

As for self-serving reasons: MS holds key DRM patents, which makes enhancing FairPlay for new innovative uses difficult unless Apple is willing to pay MS for licenses.

Zune's differentiated feature is the wifi sharing. The value of wifi sharing (a form of networking) is maximized when lots of people have wifi sharing. Therefore, you need to get this out to lots of people. How do you do that?

Be low-priced. So MS should've released Zune first in the $99-$199 flash players range, not in the rumored $299-$399 30GB hard drive range. Unless MS plans to take a loss on each, and sell the Zune at $99 or give them away for free with an Xbox 360 or Windows PC purchase, this thing is dead for this iteration.

MS is either marketing-inept, or it is so arrogant to believe people would pay just because it was Microsoft (and not an "also-ran" like Creative, Rio, iRiver, etc)

There are at least two reasons for non-HD quality:
1. For most people, it takes too long to download. Note that Apple does have some HD previews (short downloads), and it looks like HD content will work across the iTV. They're just not selling HD downloads at iTunes.
2. For the studios, they are about to sell HD quality on the new HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs for a $10-30 premium per sale and with a stronger DRM. They are not going to dilute that significant revenue/profit opportunity by selling HD downloads. Maybe two years from now they'll try to sell it again to you via download at a much cheaper price but not today.

Rohit, yes, your DVD movies will still work in the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players but only because the mfrs think it's important to jumpstart sales of the new players.

Rob's point (and I agree) was that a few years from now when the next great thing hits, the mfrs may not think it's that important and those DVDs will only work in your older equipment. Maybe the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray discs will work but not the DVD discs. Just like no mfr thinks VHS playback is important in selling DVD players today.

“Microsoft doesn’t have total control over the whole thing like Apple does.”

First, Microsoft created the concept and the software for the mfrs, and encouraged them to go ahead. But MS did not seem to recognize the actual cost that mfrs would have to sell it for in order to include a feature set that someone might actually want and oh, by the way, make a profit. Maybe Xbox has warped MS; since they take a loss for each one they sell, they must think other mfrs can afford to do the same.

Second, the software isn't ready for prime time - virtual keyboard, dialogs below the screen, etc.

If it wasn't ready or cost-effective for the market, MS could've kept it in the labs rather than push it out to the mfrs. But MS must've thought it was ready and doable for close-to-$500, which just shows how far out of touch MS must be. The result: once again, MS jumps the gun and attempts to deliver "technology" for technology sake. And gets panned for it. And then MS people complain about getting panned.

A while back, someone wrote about how this culture of MS is so different from Apple's based on a visit to the MS Mac BU. How very true. How very sad. When long will it take for MS to learn?

Under Jobs, Apple has been a hardware company, with software and peripherals added to make a core system that meets user needs. The original Mac shipped with MacWrite and MacPaint. Today's Macs ship with iLife. The iPod ships with iTunes, and the iTunes Music Store provides "software" for the iPod.

And now, Boot Camp is just a first step to get a former Windows user to try the Mac hardware but with the safety net and comfort of Windows as the base OS. Once people are comfortable with this, Apple will shift to virtualization, whereby the Mac OS becomes the base OS, with Windows apps running in windows. The benefit of this more seamless approach in virtualization (vs. reboot) could convince many Windows users using Mac hardware to shift over to the Mac OS and use Safari, Dashboard, and iLife instead of IE, etc.

For people who are already Mac users, Boot Camp will allow them to save hundreds of dollars - all they need is Windows, not a Windows PC, to run those few apps that others require of them for interoperability. And it expands the Mac users toolset since there are many developers who refuse to create Mac versions - Doc Searls brings up the Garmin GPS as an example. And as more Mac hardware users use these Windows-only tools, they may create a large enough pool to get those Windows-only developers to more seriously consider a Mac version, since those Mac users will prefer a Mac version if they could get it.