Darwin in Action: iPod Kills RIO, Microsoft Kills iPod
August 31st, 2005 | by Rob Enderle
This week, D&M holding killed the RIO line of MP3 players because they simply could not compete with the iPod. What makes this amazing is that a few years ago the RIO, then owned by S3, was competing with Creative Labs for this market and was largely believed to be the company to beat. Apple came out of nowhere as a failing PC company and not only took the market away from Creative Labs and RIO, but grew the market to be vastly larger than before.
Apple was successful because they created a product that was easier to use, had adequate capacity, was portable, and looked gorgeous. RIO and Creative Labs actually got a year's warning when the device initially launched on Apple only: The vast majority of Windows users returned the device the following January after the first Christmas buying season. But neither company could see the obvious approach of a massive new player and the result is now history.
This result should have also scared the other PC and CE companies; it showcased how powerful an Apple product could be in their collective segments if Apple stepped away from their Apple-centric nature and created a product that would appeal to more generic audience. Both segments are woefully undermarketed and vulnerable to a company with the skills Apple has demonstrated. Apple didn't just beat RIO, they obliterated it.
The CE Market Concerns
All eyes now shift to the future and what will be coming out of Apple. Speculation surrounds the Apple Phone and an Apple MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network Operator), which, with the right implementation, could take a significant portion of the mobile phone space with a subsidized iPod and a lock-in model few CE vendors could ever match.
In addition, an iPod-based home entertainment device like the Sonos is increasingly anticipated, as Apple moves away from the pocket and into the broad CE space. TVs could follow that move, as they expand from the monitors they now sell and start placing TVs in the Apple stores, which could eventually morph into showcases for Apple AV equipment. What may be slowing this down is the agreement years ago with the Beatles' Label (Apple Records) not to go into the music space, an agreement that is currently undergoing court review. But if Apple wins, remember that they just took out a CE vendor (D&M stands for Denon and Marantz and was at one time considered to be one of the stronger companies in the CE music space).
Once Apple gets over their legal issues, they could cut a broad swath through the CE space; this potential shouldn't be lost on anyone. What also should not be lost is that the winner executed well on hardware, software, user experience, and marketing, which now form the template for success in this segment.
The Microsoft Counterpoint
During the years after the iPod was launched, Microsoft has been working to build a better platform, one that would take the market away from Apple and give it to Microsoft's partners, much as they did the PC market over a decade ago. In 1984, Apple had 40% of the business PC market and IBM had the other 60% (Microsoft was a small company, providing the IBM PC OS and trying to sell the same thing to others with limited success). Now Apple has an insignificant percentage of the business PC market and IBM is out of the Microsoft-dominated PC business. What a difference a few years, and a couple of mistakes, can make. In effect, Microsoft did to Apple what Apple did to RIO and Creative Labs.
Currently, Microsoft has rolled a better music technology, demonstrated by technically superior Yahoo/SBC Music Service. Microsoft's DRM (Digital Rights Management) technology is being increasingly favored by content owners (some CDs currently will not legally rip to iPods). This apparently is happening because Apple is refusing to license their DRM. In addition, while Apple owns the portable music market, the vast majority of players are licensed from Microsoft, not Apple; in an interesting twist of fate, Microsoft appears to own some of the critical technology surrounding all of the music players, including the iPod.
The content owners are going even farther and pushing to a flexible pricing model for single track downloads. This would price popular tracks at a premium; Apple is rightly fighting this move, as it would probably all but kill iTunes and similar services while benefiting the all-you-can eat model that defines those based on Microsoft's technology (like Yahoo).
Apple's mistake over a decade ago was to not see the same opportunity and to fail to license the critical technology in an attempt to own it all; they ended up almost owning nothing. This mistake is in the process of being repeated; should the result end up the same way, Steve Jobs will likely be remembered as one of the dumbest executives of all time: One who gave up dominant positions twice as a result of his inabilities to see the broad market and to learn to share.
Post Your Comment...Comments
Ian Bell on Sep 1st, 2005 at 10:16 AM:
I think that if Apple was just willing to open the doors a little bit and work with the industry instead of trying to define it, they would have a thing called "longivity". The iPod has helped get Apple back on their feet again and introduce people to their other products. All it takes is a trend change and everything could go away as quickly as it started. Apple needs to add more depth to their products, and like Rob points out, adding more CE devices is a smart move.
Microsoft has always been good with their strategies. Their DRM technology might not be the best, but it doesn't matter if everyone is using it.
Andrew Standfield on Sep 1st, 2005 at 11:01 AM:
You say that Appl was a "failing PC company" when the introduced the iPod. How were they "failing?" Just because you're not as big as your competitors, it doesn't mean that you're failing. Apple had been making very good profits for several years prior to the iPod.
malick on Sep 1st, 2005 at 11:46 AM:
Microsoft Kills iPod?
when will that happend?
where is the next iPod killer?
where is the better music technology, demonstrated by technically superior Music Service?
James on Sep 1st, 2005 at 11:55 AM:
Andrew:
"You say that Appl was a "failing PC company" when the introduced the iPod. How were they "failing?" Just because you're not as big as your competitors, it doesn't mean that you're failing. Apple had been making very good profits for several years prior to the iPod. "
Show me some proof that Apple was showing profit before the iPod came along? This simply is not the case.
tom Barta on Sep 1st, 2005 at 12:20 PM:
"During the years after the iPod was launched, Microsoft has been working to build a better platform, one that would take the market away from Apple and give it to Microsoft's partners, much as they did the PC market over a decade ago"
This statement has so many errors I hardly know where to begin. 1) Microsoft succeeded in surpassing Apple in marketshare not because they built a "better platform"-- the idea is ludicrous-- but because they had seeded themselves in the business market with DOS. The business market grew MUCH faster than the "power user" market Apple caters too, and home users mostly went along with Windows because it enabled them to "borrow" software from work.
2)The "Softie-Pod" will use Windows media. This is a step down from AAC, so it is unclear what you mean by a "better platform"
3) Licensing is NOT a smart business strategy. Apple tried that for computers about 8 years ago and it nearly bankrupted them. Licensing worked for MSFT for the reasons stated above; because a) Msft captured the fasted growing market (business), and b) because of "network effects". If you still think licensing makes any logical sense, talk to Palm/Palmsoft.
4) Copy-protected CD's have been tried MANY times. They always fail. Who's going to buy them? Not me. I wouldn't touch one. If they magically succeeded in the market through some kind of collusion on the part of labels, I am confident there would be crackware out on the download sites within days.
jbelkin on Sep 1st, 2005 at 1:25 PM:
Rob thinks the history of the 1990's will repeat because that's the comuting industry he knows but it's not 1992 anymore. It's hard for Rob to grasp that Apple survived to this day because of its low market share in the 1990's - if Apple had even 25-30% of the market, who here does NOT think Apple would have been bought? HP? IBM? Intel? It was only because no one thought Apple's market share was worth anything that Apple survived to fight in the internet age. Pre internet, if you controled distribution and manufacturing as MS did legally & illegally - you could block out anyone. Now, it's another story - Netscape lost because MS bought up the desktop and blocked out everyone else ... unless you wanted to lose your Windows OEM license. How many "average" users could download and install a large app in the dial-up age?
But it's not the early 1990's anymore. MS tried to quash Mp3's in its infancy (WMA's so much better was the claim) — 50 BILLION tracks later, how's MS doing? There were at least 10 WMA stores selling a couple thousand tracks until Apple came in — what did consumers choose? When consumers actually have a choice, they seldom choose MS (tablet PC, pocket PC, home media PC, webTV, MSN ISP, MS Watches, itunes, ipod, etc ...)
MS is brilliant at selling to I.T. and bureacrats but when it comes to consumers, their last success is probably Windows 98 — a long time ago in the pre internet age (Xbox has yet to turn a profit after $6 BILLION spent and its third in market share out of three — hardly a success by most measures).
If anything, Rob Enderle should be worried that MS is the new GM. Big, bloated, coasting on past history and successes — talking a loud game but without being able to illegally control a market, what are they? A Watch Os company? A campany that after 6 years has a tiny sliver of the cell phone or set top market? Don't confused having a huge cash pile and being able to generate cash as meaning much when you have no idea how to move forward. WMA and WMA stores are only around because MS wants to be the DRM leader — otherwise, the could clearly see that consumers have had a look and decided there was something much better ... as with most of their products ... and when Apple moves to Intel and presumably soon after, everyone can choose between Mac Os or Windows Vista ... what will you choose, the BMW of Oses or the Buick of Oses ...
malick Youla on Sep 1st, 2005 at 1:37 PM:
Rob
You wrote:
"Steve Jobs will likely be remembered as one of the dumbest executives of all time: One who gave up dominant positions twice as a result of his inabilities to see the broad market and to learn to share."
Twice????....you are too generous, thank you!
In fact, Bill Gates' infamous memo imploring Apple to license the Mac OS was sent to Apple's CEO John Sculley and Chief Technology Officer Jean Louis Gassee, not Steve Jobs.
fungku on Sep 1st, 2005 at 3:00 PM:
not to get into an apple/ms flamewar, but I'd have to say before OS X comes out (and yes, I love OS X and yes I've had several macs, dating from an 8200 up to a mini) that when Mac OS 7.3, etc were out, Windows NT blew it away. Thats my humble opinion anyways.
With OS X vs XP, its obvious OS X is a much better OS.
Timothy on Sep 1st, 2005 at 3:05 PM:
Apple did not lose a dominant because it failed to license it's OS. It failed for at least three other reasons.
First, the Mac NEVER had 40% market share, that was the Apple II line. At most, the Mac OS had around 20% market share. The iPod, on the other hand is currently almost totally dominant at around 80% market share.
Second, in spite of a somewhat "dominant" position with the Apple II line, unfortunately was totally incompatible with Mac. Hence, the Apple II customer base simply did not migrate to Macs. Windows 1.0 might have been a hack OS, but it did allow customers to migrate from DOS. There is NO analogy to this problem for Apple with the iPod. Anyone can migrate their previous "software" (CDs) to an iPod.
Third, related to the second, is that the Mac had to have a whole new group of developers/software produced for it to be any value. Windows developers, on the other hand, could still run their DOS crap on Windows PCs for years. With the iPod, you don't need developers. The "software" (digital music) is "platform agnostic," i.e. any MP3 player can function with music from any CD and the online music stores all have the same catalog of music.
Fourth, the iPod/iTunes/iTMS combo is totally, completely and seamlessly cross-platform. None of the other online music options can make that claim. The original Mac was obviously not cross platform.
Finally, can you spell M-I-S-M-A-N-A-G-E-M-E-N-T. From about 1985 till Steve Jobs returned, Apple was probably one of the worst managed companies in the world. They had terrible inventory control for example. One product would be sold out with thousands of backorders and another would be piled up by the thousands in warehouses. Apple could have easily gone after higher market share by lowering their prices but their CEOs were enamored with the fat profit margins and didn't seem to notice that their 20% market share was being eroded every year.
Nowadays Apple is a very lean, mean company. Although iPods can be somewhat more expensive than their competitors, the difference is not like the difference used to be with Macs and PCs. Apple seems very ready, willing and eager to change strategy, pricing, features, etc. to remain the dominant player in digital music.
That's my take. For a much better, more detailed analysis, go to :
http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/2004_wont_be_lik...
RX8 on Sep 1st, 2005 at 3:37 PM:
To JBelkin:
"It's hard for Rob to grasp that Apple survived to this day because of its low market share in the 1990's - if Apple had even 25-30% of the market, who here does NOT think Apple would have been bought? HP? IBM? Intel? It was only because no one thought Apple's market share was worth anything that Apple survived to fight in the internet age."
No offense but you sound dumb. You act like its smart for Apple to have low market share. You are not helping us man!!
jbelkin on Sep 1st, 2005 at 5:05 PM:
I'm NOT stating it was a necessarily a good thing for Apple to have a low market share in the 1990's - that's merely a statement of fact - but because Apple was considered 'unimportant,' Apple was not much of a target but every mid-tier company at that time was swallowed up by someone else - you don't think IBM, Sony, Toshbia, etc, etc wouln't hve wanted to own an OS with 20-30% of the market share.
Part of the reason for Apple's market share was a) the commodization of the PC market - a market Apple was unwilling and unable to compete - while that seems like a "tragedy" then but perhaps in the long run, it's a good thing. Instead of Apple being part of the Sony/Toshiba company, Steve Jobs was allowed to come back abd finish his job. Like Michael Jordan being cut in JV basketball - it just ignited the fire in him to be better.
If you look at all the companies that have been #1 in the Pc marketplace, it's a graveyard of Tandy, IBM, Zenith, Packard-Bell, etc etc ... when your ONLY criteria is how cheap can you go ... In the Rob world of 1992, it was unhealthy to have a low market share because as a Pc maker, you depended on a thriving software market but the RULES are different now. Yes, it was a little touch and go for Apple but perhaps it's better to be a little ugly duckling and now the real competition heats up, right? In the internet age, what computer you use hardly matters - yes, it does matter some but not to any great degree - and unlike before, MS is under court orders to not interfere (as much) so while they will obviously fight tooth & nail to hold on - the rules are different - look at the Google toolbar - MS is powerless to stop them. Im not claiming that Apple will rule the universe - what I'm saying is that the past is the past - unlike nearly every competitor, Apple has survived 20+ years in the brutal, brutal Pc wars and that it was actually useful that the competition thought Apple was comatose but now that most of the competitors have knocked off each other, hey, who's that standing off in the distant - is it Apple? And there will be more bruising fights but Apple has now in its 20+ years invented at least four major technology touchstones - the Apple, the Mac, the LaserWriter and the iPod and perhaps even the iMac ... MS, what have you done for anyone lately?
Oh Boy on Sep 1st, 2005 at 5:58 PM:
"RIO and Creative Labs actually got a year's warning when the device initially launched on Apple only: The vast majority of Windows users returned the device the following January after the first Christmas buying season."
Oh please. Saying this makes you sound bitter and stupid. This did not happen. By the way, there was no year headstart; these companies were already behind... Apple selling 300,000 to 600,000 iPods a Quarter to Mac owners were similar if not better than what these guys were doing selling to the "whole" world.
"Apple didn't just beat RIO, they obliterated it."
No, RIO killed themselves, never delivering solid financials, getting bought up by three different companies with shifting and in reality NO focus. Apple didn't have to come on the scene for RIO to die.
"Speculation surrounds the Apple Phone and an Apple MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network Operator), which, with the right implementation, could take a significant portion of the mobile phone space with a subsidized iPod and a lock-in model few CE vendors could ever match."
What a joke: if you are going to make up your own rumors, let's have one's remotely likely to occur.
"In addition, an iPod-based home entertainment device like the Sonos is increasingly anticipated, as Apple moves away from the pocket and into the broad CE space."
Maybe...
"TVs could follow that move, as they expand from the monitors they now sell and start placing TVs in the Apple stores, which could eventually morph into showcases for Apple AV equipment."
Completely absurd. Where do you get these delusional dreams, Ron? Apple is much more focused and cunning than you, Gateway, and Dell. They have no reason to sell TVs unless they bring something new and unique to them. Not in a million years. Are you really an "analyst"?
"But if Apple wins, remember that they just took out a CE vendor (D&M stands for Denon and Marantz and was at one time considered to be one of the stronger companies in the CE music space)."
Umm, D&M is a comglomerate, a holding company... delivering all of its returns by buying up dying CE companies. When were they ever considered a player?
"Once Apple gets over their legal issues, they could cut a broad swath through the CE space; this potential shouldn't be lost on anyone."
Even in their heydey, when has Apple ever attempted to "cut a broad swath" through anything? Apple is not going to become a TV, AV, stereo, and who knows what else CE manufacturer. Really, where do you get these delusional fantasies? Such absurd dreams are just as bad as claiming Apple was dying when the iPod came out.
"What also should not be lost is that the winner executed well on hardware, software, user experience, and marketing, which now form the template for success in this segment."
It is the winning plan, but who's using it as a template. Templates are used and replicated, right? Who is doing killer hardware, software, user exp., and marketing in one package? Who? It's not a template if only one company is doing it.
"In 1984, Apple had 40% of the business PC market and IBM had the other 60% (Microsoft was a small company, providing the IBM PC OS and trying to sell the same thing to others with limited success)."
Shouldn't an analyst at least get numbers right? Apple never had 40% of the business market. They had ALMosT 40% of the total market at a time when the business market didn't exist; much of this total market percentage was academic Apples. Apple was never, ever that big in business. They never targeted business or the whole market. The claim to failure is absurd; you are imposing on them a goal they never had.
"In effect, Microsoft did to Apple what Apple did to RIO and Creative Labs."
Huh? Didn't you just say it was bringing an easier, better experience to a broader market. It wwas hardware, software, UI, experience, and marketing that Apple did? How is that the same thing as Gates making a smart business move and IBM making a bad one?
"Currently, Microsoft has rolled a better music technology,"
In who's mind? There's nothing clearly superior about WM.
"demonstrated by technically superior Yahoo/SBC Music Service."
Again, who's mind? This is absurd. Higher bit rate, yes, but that has nothing to do with the platform differences. What makes Yahoo technically superior to anything? Absurdities abound...
"Microsoft's DRM (Digital Rights Management) technology is being increasingly favored by content owners (some CDs currently will not legally rip to iPods)."
So what: the consumers hate it, and the studios and artists themselves are advising Mac and iPod owners to circumvent this useless DRM entirely. How does that help MS? Breeding consumer hatred is good now?
"in an interesting twist of fate, Microsoft appears to own some of the critical technology surrounding all of the music players, including the iPod."
Oh please, they all have patents. Anyone of these companies makes a move to sue anyone and everyone will be screwed. Microsoft is probably the least well off but has the most legal guns and money. Apple is in a very strong position in terms of time to market and innovation and money and lawyers. Creative may have a trump card but could be killed in weeks by Apple or Microsoft... There market capitalization is dwindling faster than Sim Won Hoo can spout nonsense.
"as it would probably all but kill iTunes and similar services while benefiting the all-you-can eat model that defines those based on Microsoft's technology (like Yahoo)."
Why is everyone ignoring the fight between ASCAP and the sub providers. THe subs haven't paid the publishers ANYTHING yet and are trying to lowball them with 6%... The publishers want 17 but will have to settle for 10-11%... Considering the subs bleed money, they will probably die... But no, everyone puts all the focus on Apple, pretends they're in trouble, when they will probably get exactly what they want in the contracts? Absurd. The studios think they can make money on subs. They won't make much. And the publishers and artists will be robbed blind. If the subscriptions do not grow astronomically soon, this will quickly be apparent.
"Apple's mistake over a decade ago was to not see the same opportunity and to fail to license the critical technology in an attempt to own it all; they ended up almost owning nothing."
It's not the same mistake. Apple didn't want to own the whole market, particularly business. They didn't want to license. So it was never a choice. Apple could easily change paths in the music market down the line and be hugely more powerful. There is also no similarility in a Operating System platform and a file format that can easily be converted, replicated, or changed.
"Steve Jobs will likely be remembered as one of the dumbest executives of all time: One who gave up dominant positions twice as a result of his inabilities to see the broad market and to learn to share."
He never gave up a dominant position: even your absurd 40% doesn't make him the dominant player, does it? We're nowhere near to seeing him give up the music market... Don't be the dumbest analyst of all time by getting way, way, way ahead of yourself. Jobs was out of Apple for its entire rocky period. He returned to turn a 5 billion dolalr company into a 30 billion dollar company while being the CEO of the most creative and successful movie studio in the biz. Yeah, dumbest CEO ever. It would be much easier to pin you the dumbest analyst ever, but there's so many of you fools.
Oh Boy on Sep 1st, 2005 at 6:03 PM:
I apologize, Rob, for calling you Ron. I wouldn't want to call you the dumbest "analyst" ever and get your name wrong. That's Rob Enderle, Dubest "Analyst" Ever.
Tantrum on Sep 1st, 2005 at 6:43 PM:
Sorry folks, "Oh Boy" doesn't represent the Apple fans like he should. I apologize for his attitude.
BTW an Apple phone is on the way...
http://news.digitaltrends.com/article8211.html
Rob got that right. And it IS likely that Apple will introduce more CE products so he isn't that far off.
And to jbelkin, you do sound dumb, you are not making any sense.
IMO with Apple owning 80% of the MP3 player market, they do get to call a lot of the shots. Its doesn't matter what Microsoft is working on if only they are the minority. It doesn't matter how many partners you have if people are not buying the products anyways.
fungku on Sep 1st, 2005 at 8:39 PM:
I think you all are missing the point.
From what I get reading the article, the point is that a new pricing scheme is in the works by the labels, and apple can either screw up and not follow the pricing scheme or adopt it and continue on kicking ass
Daniel Eran on Sep 1st, 2005 at 10:17 PM:
You Microsoft apologists all sound alike because, like Microsoft itself, you don't have any original ideas.
If "licensing their IP" was the way to gain and control markets, why didn't Microsoft license their MS-DOS, and later Windows, to third parties to sell?
And if simply selling software, rather than hardware, was the reason Microsoft was able to build a monopoly in PC operating systems, why didn't Microsoft's WMA take over as expected?
Instead, it was blown out of the water by Apple's hardware/software combination. Apple won on the merits of being easier to use, consistent, innovative, classier and better marketed.
Apple never owned 40% of the business market, and certainly not in 1984, when the Mac was initially introduced. Of course, 20 years ago there wasn't a business market in personal computers one could even approach comparing to today.
John Papola on Sep 1st, 2005 at 10:51 PM:
This is the same Rob Enderle that vehemently denied Microsoft would be using a powerpc in the the Xbox 360 and would instead use AMD chips manufactured by IBM, even while the actual IBM announcements clearly stated the contrary.
This guy has an axe to grind with Apple because they are successful despite having a business model Rob considers "doomed". Every year that Apple grows is another year Rob Enderle gets his BS thrown in his face.
It's just a shame he has to lie through his teeth on facts and history that is so easily exposed with a 5 minute google search.
You gotta love an "analyst" rooting for the CEO of last year's #3 S&P 500 growth champ to fail. This guy is bitter, blinded by ignorance, and a liar.
TechFreak on Sep 2nd, 2005 at 7:11 AM:
Wow look at all the Apple Zealots. You guys make me laugh. You will all go to your grave defending a commpany that screwed people with bad batteries, the same company that screwed the very retailers that were selling their software and hardware, the same company that sued Apple fan sites over leaked information. Talk about blind ignorance at its worst. I went and checked out the Daring Fireball site. This guy is off his rocker, a false prophet. I have no doubt in my mind that he works as a stock boy at a grocery store, because with the crap he is preaching, he sure as hell doesn't have the smarts for a real job.
Get OVER it people. You can't get mad and rally anytime someone farts in the direction of Apple.
P.S. the latest Apple OS sucks!
john sitea on Sep 2nd, 2005 at 8:06 AM:
Not sure how you can compare apple failing in the hardware business to their OS. Sure, it was partly due to their OS not getting a need technology upgrade before OS X came out, but the main reason Apple lost so much market sure:
drum roll......
because you could only run a mac on apple sold hardware.
You couldnt go buy a case, buy a processor, buy any motherboard you wanted and slap together a PC. Instead, you had to spend 2x what a normal PC running Windows costs.
Any business would take a look at the costs of buying 100 new Macs or 100 new PCs and have no problem making the decision on which to buy.
You would then look at the number of software that is out there for each, and again, not a tough decision.
Now a days, Apple hardware is still a bit over priced, and thus the main reason why it doesnt have a higher market share. The OS is finally up to par and actually better than Windows XP.
You can't compare the licensing of the DRM mistake apple is making with the failure in the PC sector way back when.
Right now, its pure opinion if you think Apple is making a mistake on not licensing their DRM, but you can still look at some facts:
1) Windows users still out number mac users
2) There are windows users that use other portable players than an iPod.
3) Those people are locked out of using iTunes Music Store because Apple's DRM is closed to third parties
4) Apple has never opened up the iPod APIs (the way to program for the iPod so that people can write programs to transfer songs to the iPod)
4) One day, there may be some serious competition to the iPod, and thats when Apple shoots itself in the foot again.
This is a serious issue, whether you refuse to see it or not (kinda like a parent refusing to believe their kid is on drugs or something.)
You can now compare Windows (or any OS for that matter) to the i{od in one statement: Open APIs. You can write software for Windows to do anything, because the hooks for the OS are open for anyone to use. The iPod runs its on OS, but since Apple doesnt publish the APIs, only Apple, and a very very few selected partners, can write for it.
I got a wrench to throw in all these people defending Apple blindly:
Do you think that you, as a consumer, should come first?
Do you think that you should have choices, or should those choices be made for you?
I ask this because the way Apple behaves with the iPod, you only have one choice for the software and secured music files you can put on your iPod, which you paid for. You can only use iTunes to transfer music to the iPod, and you can only use iTunes Music Store.
Sure, there are some hack jobs our there that allows some other apps to transfer, but as soon as Apple updates the firmware on the iPod, they are broken.
When the labels get pissed at Apple because they refuse to change their pricing model to benefit the user (Allowing cheaper downloads for less popular artists, etc.) then its very possible iTunes Music Store will lose their license to sell popular music.
What will you do then?
Oh Boy on Sep 2nd, 2005 at 10:13 AM:
John sitea:
"4) Apple has never opened up the iPod APIs (the way to program for the iPod so that people can write programs to transfer songs to the iPod)"
And yet there are more independent applications available for the iPod than any other DAP. Hell, plenty of people are running Linux on their iPods.
Also, there are SDKs for iTunes, and QT, for BOTH platforms. As for other devices, has iRiver, RIO, Creative or anyone else released an SDK for altering the way their devices perform?
"4) One day, there may be some serious competition to the iPod, and thats when Apple shoots itself in the foot again."
That's a fact? No, that's a dream. A sad one at that.
"The iPod runs its on OS, but since Apple doesnt publish the APIs, only Apple, and a very very few selected partners, can write for it."
This isn't true. App development for the iPod is easy without a well-documented API. There probably will be with time. There is a hardware API for some device connectivity. There are SDKs for iTunes and iTune Visuals. There are SDKs for QuickTime. I do not know of Microsoft having an Open API for devices it doesn't make, do you?
"I got a wrench to throw in all these people defending Apple blindly:
Do you think that you, as a consumer, should come first?
Do you think that you should have choices, or should those choices be made for you?"
Here's your answer: I don't think companies put me first. I think it's up to me to put me first. And I'm perfectly happy with an iPod. And I have tried other devices.
I think I do have choices and have made a choice.
What's so wrench-throwing about that?
"I ask this because the way Apple behaves with the iPod, you only have one choice for the software and secured music files you can put on your iPod"
Strange, I can run Linux on the iPod, I can use about 5 commerical apps to control the iPod: XPlay, ephPod, numerous others, I can downlaod about a hundred other apps to install on the iPod, there are plugins for MusicMatch and other jukeboxes to control the iPod... What are you talking about?
As for the other services, unfrotunately, for them, they are all virtually identical except on price: they only work with Windows, have poor selection, and their pricing is actually higher if you don't choose subs which I don't want.
"You can only use iTunes to transfer music to the iPod, and you can only use iTunes Music Store."
Somebody needs to do some research.
"Sure, there are some hack jobs our there that allows some other apps to transfer, but as soon as Apple updates the firmware on the iPod, they are broken."
No, Apple has only thwarted Real once: good business move that I appreciated. They have thwarted JHymn a couple of times (for legal reasons) but it works fine now. MusicMatch, XPod, ephPod and a ton of other apps have never been broken in any way.
"When the labels get pissed at Apple because they refuse to change their pricing model to benefit the user (Allowing cheaper downloads for less popular artists, etc.) then its very possible iTunes Music Store will lose their license to sell popular music."
Ha, ha, ha!!! All credibility out the window. You actually think the studios are more interested in the consumer than Apple? Ha, ha, ha!!!! No one will believe you now!!! Ha, ha, ha!!!
apple==nintendo on Sep 6th, 2005 at 2:29 PM:
Man, Apple fanatics have a nose for these kinds of articles. It's like a hornet's nest, except with keyboards and no-button mice. Y'all is crazy as hell.
tlbandito on Sep 12th, 2005 at 2:58 PM:
Wrong.
1. Apple never had 40% market-share with the Mac (20% tops) whereas the iPod has totally dominated the MP3 player market from the beginning (80 - 90%) in spite of the onslaught of a vast variety of "more open" iPod-killers.
2. Ditto for the iTunes Music Store. It has dominated the market from its inception in spite of the wonderful, "more open" policies of the wannabes like Walmart, Napster, Real, etc., etc., before and after it's introduction.
3. Sometimes "closed systems" do work, otherwise why is Microsoft so "closed" with the X-Box. We PS2 guys want to play Halo and MS won't let us. Boo hoo. (Also check out printers/ink, razors/blades, cable TV. All "closed systems."
4. iPods and computers are vastly different products! (duh?!?) Besides an operating system, a new computer needs an army of developers to continuously create and update new software all the time. In the case of the iPodâ—or any other MP3 playerâ—the software (the music) is already available for any MP3 player with very little "development." Anyone can rip their entire CD collection to any MP3 player.
5. Two words: iPod nano. This incredible piece of engineering shows why Apple is light years ahead of its competitors. Would Sony or Microsoft have canceled their best selling item at the peak of it's popularity? (the iPod mini.) Right now there is simply NO competition for this MP3 player. In fact, the other companies are furious that Samsung apparently sold Apple the memory chips so cheaply. It will probably be a year before anyone can match the nano's price/size/capacity ratio.
In some ways, Apple's strategy is "closed" but so is Microsoft's. Microsoft is trying to lock you into their software and Apple is trying to lock you into their hardware. You make your choice and live with it.
pavi Thomas on Sep 12th, 2005 at 6:07 PM:
Come on, Rob - you're just being plain silly.
Nobody Wants DRM on Sep 28th, 2005 at 3:43 AM:
The highly restrictive DRM in Microsoft's music technology makes it technically INFERIOR and very much not better.
The "higher," fancier technology involved is only more desirable to music companies - it actually makes it less desirable to the end-user. Too bad the restrictive DRM users don't seem to want to take notice of that.
Cb on Oct 5th, 2005 at 9:16 AM:
I call ********!
Scott Walter on Dec 17th, 2005 at 7:15 AM:
Most of what I had to say has been covered, but I'll summarize:
1) Rob Enderle is obviously not objective in his analysis.
2) Microsoft has not created a "better" platform. If history is any indicator, they won't do so in the future.
3) In the same vein as #2, Windows did not dominate in the mid-eighties because it was a better product. It was a blatant rip-off made possible by Apple's stupidity at the time. Apple had Microsoft "dead to rights" on stealing their OS. The screwed up the settlement by mandating only that Microsoft could not use Apple technology in Windows 1.0....no comment about future versions.
4) I'll echo the comments about the marketshare difference relative to the mid-eighties versus today (20% v. 80%).
5) Apple now has a more mainstream presence (retail stores) that it did years ago.
There was more, but it's been said.
Chi Guy on Jul 24th, 2008 at 1:28 PM:
For James.
4/18/01
"We had a lot to accomplish in the March quarter, and we're very pleased that our results exceeded expectations in a very challenging environment," Apple Chief Financial Officer Fred Anderson said on a conference call with analysts...
...David Bailey, an analyst at Gerard Klauer Mattison, said strong sales of Apple's corporate products, particularly the new PowerBook, helped the company to beat predictions.
http://news.com.com/Apple+back+in+black+but+trims+...
I will not kid myself by thinking that every quarter Apple was profitable, but to be honest around this period 1999-01 many hardware companies (and software for the matter) were having trouble. Apple during this period between 1999-2003 was really setting the stage for the strong growth they are now having. This is because they chose to innovate through the down period in the tech sector instead of waiting for the dust to settle and then working on new product.
For anyone to think that Apple could be classified as "failing" in the time period of 1999-2002 is not being objective. Apple COmputer for that time period was in excellent financial health during this period.
Comment on this article
Please keep your comments relevant to this article. Email addresses are not displayed, they are only required to verify you are human.
When you submit your comment, an email will be sent to your email address with a confirmation link. Once you have clicked on that confirmation link your comment will be posted.
HTML is not allowed.
RSS Feed
Howard J. on Sep 1st, 2005 at 10:06 AM:
I agree with you that Apple may fall victim to the same fate as before. That's the problem with having hardware and software. Sony has this problem with regards to having hardware and a music division. Music does need to be universal, and at some point the DRM needs to all work together. There is no way Apple will ever have 100% of the music sold in the world, so they need to find another way. Licencing Fairplay and creating the BEST hardware to go with it will work. Everybody needs to use Fairplay for it to survive. Maybe Apple should split in three: Apple hardware and Software, iPod Hardware, and Music Software.