When it comes to Apple’s iPod and iTunes symbiotic relationship, “It all sounds depressingly familiar to those who remember the mid-1980s, when Apple was the most powerful voice in the then new personal computer market. It refused to license its software to other manufacturers, which turned instead to Microsoft,” Nick Clayton writes for The Scotsman.
“No matter what Apple does, it cannot hold on to its current massive share of the world’s portable music player and download business,” Clayton writes. “What it can do is alienate its devoted users by preventing them having a choice. They would not buy a CD or DVD player that would only work with discs from one shop. And there is no reason why they should behave any differently on line, no matter how much Apple would like them to.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: As with the “Mac OS X security through obscurity myth” we endured awhile back, it looks like we’ll have to repeat the facts over and over until they sink in: the Macintosh platform required and still requires huge investments by developers to create compatible software. So, when faced with budgetary contraints, they chose and still sometimes choose to go with the most popular platforms. The iPod simply plays music that can be encoded, for very little cost, in any format the “developers” (musicians and labels) desire: AAC, MP3, WMA, etc. The music doesn’t need to be rewritten, recorded, and remastered. It’s like writing Photoshop once and then pressing a button to translate it for use on Mac, Windows, Linux, etc. To draw an analogy between Mac OS licensing and the iPod/iTunes symbiotic relationship simply highlights the writer’s ignorance of the vast differences between the two business situations.
Sounds to me that all these parrots sing the “choice” chorus are just bemoaning that fact that so many people have already chosen and that they were not the choice that the buying public made. Can anyone say sour grapes? I knew you could.
AMEN. Keep preaching the facts MDN.
MDN, you miss the point. The Mac became the less popular system because they stayed a closed system–and as a result of that, developers dropped them. Developers didn’t drop them when they were the dominant system.
With the developers it was about making money in the end.
A waiter is not going to stay at a ritzy restaurant just because it’s sleek and cool….his tips are okay. When he can go to a more hi-trafficked ritzy restaurant that is not so cool and sleek and get better tips for the night.
What I don’t understand is why people seem to think that the Mac was or is a closed system? Was there at anytime in it’s history that Apple didn’t allow software companies the ability to write software for the Mac? The only reason developers stopped writing for the Mac was when they believed that the market was too small for their needs. Not because it was closed.
I had a choice back when I decided to Buy my iPod. I could have purchased any one of several dozen music players. I had LOTS of choice. But I also had common sense, and I researched the alternatives to an iPod, and what I found was, the iPod gave me more choice, ease of use, iTunes integration (which simplified things) and a great Music store with an ever expanding music catalog. The choice was clear. None of the other music players even came close. So if these reporters continually bitch and moan about “choice”, I can’t help but think they’re experiencing Buyer’s Remorse for having gotten that Creative Rio or a Dell DJ…
OOOH, I smell bacon!
Do you smell bacon?
” It refused to license its software to other manufacturers, which turned instead to Microsoft “
But the big reason why MS found its way into most “personal computers” was IBM. At the time most IT departments had IBM mainframes. When the desktop computer made the scene into businesses, they naturally went with what they were already comfortable with. I remember the head of our “Systems” dept (all IBM) saying that a computer with a silly thing called a mouse was a toy that would never sit on any desk in our company. When the average joe decided to buy a computer for his home he also went with what he was comfortable with — regardless if there was better technology available or not.
Now… if Apple HAD licensed the MacOS to IBM (and IBM used a Moto chip instead of Intel), we would be living in a different world.
The danger for Apple is that should the iTMS lose its dominance and become a small time player could Apple get locked out of the market? Right now Apple has the ball and is running with it. MS knows what Apple is up to ( trying to switch PC users over to the Mac with the iTunes/iPod combo ). No doubt MS and friends (Apple’s music competitors/ enemies?) are organizing/plotting against Apple and we all know how much marketing $$$ MS can spend when it wants to win a market. Sounds like a Shakespearean tragedy in the making. I hope Apple is watching the numbers very carefully and I’m sure they are and make as many allies as possible, quickly. Go Apple!
PLEASE… Read this!
http://daringfireball.net/
…and stop with the “Apple made a mistake by not licensing” myth. That link says it all, and should be required reading before any “expert” opens their stupid mouth!
(Another URL for exact article.)
http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay
READ IT NOW!
1. The reason apple did not capture the buisness market has nothing to do with “closed” or “open” archecture. It has a lot to do with culture. Bill Gates mother was a long time IBM executive and his father a lawer. He copied IBM’s monopistic practices after he snookered them with only licencing the OS. I well remember looking for a job and 95% of them were some version of COBOL on IBM iron. ONLY IBM could have made the desktop computer acceptable to business. They owned computing at that time.
2. I do not know how the portable music business will pan out, but Apple seems to be doing well at this time. They seem to be very agressivly enhancing the iPod, 4 generations and broadening the scope (iPod mini).
One big thing that most of these “analysists” seem to overlook is that Apple has to carefully negotiate the terms of the sale with the content providors. They are not free to do anything they might want. I think it is a miricle that Jobs got those greedy fools to agree to any user friendly scheme. I can imaging the negotiations, in his office, with the appopiate Oscars and other awards on a shelf behind him. The content industry is as clubby as any other industry.
AND IT SUPOSE ‘WINDOWS’ IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM???
Apple are doing exactly what they should be – also remember that if this was Microsoft they would be 100 times worse!!
TOTALLY DRACONIAN!!
Thank fuck I use am MAC!!
If I rememeber correctly back in the heydays Apple was not so nice to developers about when Windows 3.0 came out I think. In fact I remember Apple being so snobby and elitist and only wanted the better developers but didn’t really offer not much help to them. They had no developing tools to give out like they do now. That I think spelled their own fate….I kept hearing PC people saying to me…BUT, but, but there is SO MUCH software on PC….when I was using Photoshop 2.0 and that was the main reason I was using a Mac due to my profession. Ah well…I think Apple is doing a fine job right now and market share is really not that big of a deal. And I still don’t think licensing was going to help them at all….and maintain an image they now have. No way. That is something none of us can predict, an outcome on the “what if” scenario.
And to make matters worse…Microsoft made sure that in order for you to sell IE in those early days…you CANNOT SELL any other competing browser (heard of Netscape Gold?). That was actually in the contract among other contract restrictions with other software. It was VERY VERY exclusive. That was the beginning of the monopoly (late 80’s, early 90’s).
Amazing, no one had a problem with that. Or even thought it was monopolistic back them. I was told it was called “free enterprise.” Oooooooooooookay!
[…Microsoft made sure that in order for you to sell IE in those early days…you CANNOT offer any other competing browser… That was actually in the OEM contracts, among other contract restrictions with other software. It was VERY VERY exclusive. That was the beginning of the monopoly (late 80’s, early 90’s). �� Amazing, no one had a problem with that. Or even thought it was monopolistic back them. I was told it was called “free enterprise.”]
Giofoto,
It’s ‘free enterprise’ when it favors M$, it’s ‘monopolistic’ when it favors Apple.
It’s ‘cheerleading’ when done by the Win crowd, it’s ‘zealotry’ when done from the Mac jihad.
It’s ‘innovation’ when M$ copies, it’s ‘stealing’ when Apple does something that LOOKS similar. (Konfab)
It’s the ‘Real Business Computer’ – a Windows/Intel PC – that has more games than the ‘toy’ Macintosh.
Closed is open, illegal monopoly is vigorous competitor, ignorance is strength, War is Peace…
… … …
Maybe Apple should go out of business. Then open the following Monday as NeXT!
iPod may be on top right now, but with a closed system, it’s destined to be usurped by something more compatible. Right now, there are several players out there that are on par with iPod but work with all the other stores. Not only that, but iTunes Music Store tends to be the most expensive out of all the stores and they offer the lowest quality music. All this on top of the absurd fact that iPod is CAPABLE of playing other formats, but Apple chooses not to allow it. This is all just more evidence that Apple is unable to compete on a level playing field.
Please keep in mind that the Macintosh never, NEVER, **N**E**V**E**R** was dominant. Perhaps the Apple I and II were, in the hobbyist market (essentially), but when IBM developed its PC with Microsoft, that machine became dominant, and for the first time businesses started to use “microcomputers” earnestly.
The IBM PC predated the Macintosh by two or three years. By the time Macs were available, IBM was long since dominant. Macs never had more than about 20% of the market — never.
BTW, the most dedicated Mac developer at the start remains its most dedicated developer today, that developer being Microsoft.
The reason apple couldn’t open there platform
is because their hardware was years ahead of
ibm and others technology at the time.The mac os
interface was to advanced to be run on anything
else.If they would have licensed,everyone would
of had that hardware and we would not have triple
A products like we have now.Just imagine;HPbook
iDell.Apple is doing great.Alone.
PS.I read that daring fireball article a while
ago from another MDN article.Very good read.
To RichS:
I’m not sure about that article. It second-guesses itself quite a bit. There might even be a couple of outright self-contradictions in there.
The article states:
“SURGEON GENERAL�S WARNING: Competing Directly Against Microsoft May Be Hazardous to Your Company”
But is that really good advice? The PS2 competes directly against the X-Box, and is winning for the moment. Also, Microsoft in the mid-eighties was not what Microsoft is today, so competing directly against Microsoft back then was not nearly as hazardous to your health as it is now.
The article itself admites that it was possible to “have licensed the entire platform to other hardware manufacturers” and that this was even considered. But then, the only argument the article has against that scheme is “Would it have worked? Maybe � but even in hindsight it can�t be deemed a sure thing.” Not a exactly compelling argument.
The article is also filled with blanket statements that either mislead, or do not stand up to scrutiny:
Examples:
“And so what �analysts� are really saying Apple should have done is not have made the Macintosh at all � but rather to have written a GUI-based operating system compatible with the existing PCs of 1984.”
“There is only room for one PC operating systems monopoly.”
“The real Mac was revolutionary; a hypothetical Mac based on the Apple II would have been evolutionary.”
The article also lists two of the most notable dumb decisions that Apple made throughout its history: Its transition from Apple ][ to the Mac, and its handling of Newton, then makes the excuse that is was because Apple was (is?) an idealistic company, as though that statement makes these decisions less dumb. Well, it doesn’t. Apple did not build on its previous successes with the Mac or Newton, not because these people were idealistic. There is nothing idealistic about lack of interoperability. Overall, the article is not exactly a ringing endorsement of Apple’s business practices.
Valis writes: “This is all just more evidence that Apple is unable to compete on a level playing field.”
Level playing field? Compete? Consumers can buy any portable music device they want to. Best Buy and Circuit City sell many of them. They’re available on the Internet. Every portable musical device has an equal chance to be bought by consumers. And consumers, faced with all that choice, buy iPods more than any other MP3-type device.
In what way is this so-called playing field not level? What prevents consumers from buying other devices? What has Apple done to the market that the other companies cannot do as well?
What, indeed, HAS Apple done?
1. Created an MP3-style player. Not the first, not the most storage, not the one with the longest battery, not the smallest or lightest. How is this playing field not level?
2. Created cross-platform software to support the iPod (called iTunes). There’s a glut of programmers on the market now. Why can’t the other manufacturers create their own software? (Many have.) How is this playing field not level?
3. Licensed digital music from the record companies, using its own DRM. Not the first, not the cheapest, not the best fidelity (Real at 192 kbs is better). Many other firms have licensed music with their own DRMs. Firms are free to try to get any kind of licensing deal they desire. How is this playing field not level?
Each one of these “fields” are as level as they can be. Apple has just done a better job than the others in EACH ONE of these areas so that the total Apple product is by far the most popular among.
What resources has Apple used to make the playing field not level? Apple is clearly not the dominant company. (Wal-Mart and Microsoft are the number 1 and 2 biggest corporations in America. Sony is a giant in the entertainment field.) Apple hasn’t excluded others from scarce hardware. Apple has done nothing to make it impossible for the others to compete in each one of these areas.
Sorry. This level playing field is, if anything, leveled against Apple with its tiny base and limited resources. Apple has just outperformed the others in its synthesis of the three fields and Apple wants to hold onto its lead by all legal means.
“There is only room for one PC operating systems monopoly.”
Good one
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
To RobertM:
I think you’ve misunderstood.
>> But is that really good advice? The PS2 competes directly against the X-Box, and is winning for the moment. <<
You’ve taken what he said out of context. If you read the preceding paragraph, what the author is talking about, is competing with Microsoft on the Intel platform. And in that respect, he’s 100% correct. If Apple had licensed the OS on Intel, they would have been crushed. Remember OS/2? That had IBM behind it, who INVENTED the PC platform; and even they were no match for Microsoft.
He is also correct when he states that Microsoft’s only real success is in leveraging one monopoly into another monopoly. Whenever they go out into a completely new field, they are much less successful.
The PS/2 is a platform in its own right. So is the GameCube; this is why MS has never been able to wipe them out; Redmond has no existing monopoly on those platforms to give themselves a leg up.
>> Also, Microsoft in the mid-eighties was not what Microsoft is today, so competing directly against Microsoft back then was not nearly as hazardous to your health as it is now. <<
As I said; if IBM couldn’t do it, then neither could Apple.
Uh, last I checked, Apple licensed the iPod and iTunes software to Hewlett Packard, so that HP could sell its own version of the iPod. They also entered into licensing with Motorola to play iTunes contents on Motorola cell phones. They’ve negotiated with audible.com to bring audiobooks to iTunes and the iPod.
So let’s not pretend Apple is keeping the iPod/iTunes system closed just because they’re not opening it to all comers for free.