| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Jobs offered to let Sony into iTunes, report says | |
|
||
| Time: 00:39 EST/05:39 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
To counter Microsoft's planned entry into the digital-music market, Apple Computer offered to sign a strategic agreement with Sony, according to a Sept. 2 report in Japanese daily Nikkei Sangyo Shimbun, which quotes sources from Sony. According to the sources, Apple CEO Steve Jobs made his offer to Nobuyuki Idei, head of Sony, in January during a golf tournament organized by the Japanese company in Hawaii. Apple, it seems, was ready to open up its iTunes Music Store and make the song downloads there compatible with Sony's digital-music players. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 322 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:49:13 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (66.228.91.60) at 9/8/2004 10:26:43 AM |
|
Wow. All I can say is that Apple must be run by idiots.
Apple LOSES money on iTunes. Simple as that. Kind of like how Microsoft loses money on the Xbox. It doesn't matter how many songs Apple sells, they are going to lose money by maintaining iTunes. The only reason they run iTunes is to sell iPods, which have a fairly decent profit margin. (Thanks to the fact Apple can overcharge for their player because people like pretty things more than they like functional things.) So the sole purpose of iTunes is to sell iPods. Doesn't it make sense that anything Apple could do to sell more iPods would be good for Apple, even if it hurt iTunes? Refusing to make iPods compatible with Windows Media is incredibly dumb. It shows Apple is using emotion, not reason, to make their business decisions. It's eventually going to catch up with them. |
| #2 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/8/2004 11:07:44 AM |
| I have to agree about Apple making a mistake by not making the iPods compatible with Windows Media, or apparently disabling the ability. The iPod has a very effective brand image and is a great (if perhaps overpriced) device. There's a large market they are missing out there (and if the Apple apologists are correct, a large potential market of very loyal customers), and it's their own fault. iTunes money is still money, but like you said, iPod is where the profit is. |
| #3 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 9/8/2004 12:32:21 PM |
|
"Apple LOSES money on iTunes. Simple as that. Kind of like how Microsoft loses money on the Xbox. It doesn't matter how many songs Apple sells, they are going to lose money by maintaining iTunes."
WRONG!! It has been profitable for 2 quarters now. "(Thanks to the fact Apple can overcharge for their player because people like pretty things more than they like functional things.)" Yes, yes, keep telling yourself this is why the iPod is so successful... "Doesn't it make sense that anything Apple could do to sell more iPods would be good for Apple, even if it hurt iTunes?" This story is about them attempting to make a major alliance with Sony... Such a move would help iTunes and sell more iPods. "Refusing to make iPods compatible with Windows Media is incredibly dumb. It shows Apple is using emotion, not reason, to make their business decisions. It's eventually going to catch up with them." Yes, conceding the media format wars just when you are at a point where you are actually "winning" makes a lot of sense... "There's a large market they are missing out there (and if the Apple apologists are correct, a large potential market of very loyal customers), and it's their own fault." 55+% of iPods sold are to Windows users. They have a huge lead over all other WMA compatible devices. They are selling all models as fast as Hitachi can make drives... What is this large market they are missing out on? |
| #4 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/8/2004 1:40:00 PM |
|
WRONG!! It has been profitable for 2 quarters now.
This is news to me. I certainly could be wrong, but I would like to see evidence to the contrary. As of September 1st, ZDnet was claiming that iTMS was still not profitable: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5339691.html Are you saying that Apple was profitable, or iTMS? Apple as a company made $61M in profit the last quarter. At 100M downloads (Apple just reached that on 7/11), iTunes could generate $99M in revenue. Considering how much Apple actually makes on the downloads (and how many it gave away for free), a hopeful estimate would be $20M that goes to Apple. How much of that goes to development and maintenance (both of the client apps and of the store), marketing, etc.? How much is required for the infrastructure, etc. to support the store? Profitable??? Even if that $20 was entirely profit, that's a miserly sum for over a year on the market for a company the size of Apple. What is this large market they are missing out on? The people that would buy them if they supported Windows Media format, widely used by other online music stores. Apple would be much better off not fighting a "media format war," because the consumer doesn't really care. Focus on a great device, which obviously they have, and that will win the market, regardless of the online store. As far as component availability, those issues are usually temporary (months), especially as other drive manufacturers produce competitors. |
| #5 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 9/8/2004 2:56:33 PM |
|
"Are you saying that Apple was profitable, or iTMS?"
I did say that iTunes has been profitable, didn't I? "As of September 1st, ZDnet was claiming that iTMS was still not profitable..." ZDNet is retarded. All of these so-called "journalists" keep repeating what they've heard before. They don't bother to read the financial results and listen in on stockholder conference calls. Apple is trying to keep it quiet and will only say "slight profit" during these investor calls. You can find a few stories that report it, but very few, and Apple is perfectly happy to keep it quiet. "At 100M downloads (Apple just reached that on 7/11..." They passed 125 million. This was announced on 9/1. http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/sep/01itunesaffiliate.html "...and how many it gave away for free..." If you are referring to the Pepsi promo, Pepsi had to purchase them. Apple has occasional free singles (but I wouldn't say these are in huge numbers--for example, the current free single does not rate in the Top 100 downloads of the week at all) and there is a great deal of downloads that are free to Apple as well (i.e. DNC, RNC, 9/11 Commission Report). However, Apple has not given away very many tracks. "How much of that goes to development and maintenance (both of the client apps and of the store), marketing, etc.?" Apple has separate line items for Marketing and R&D, but in general development and marketing costs are also spread across line items as operating expenses when specific to a particular product. "How much is required for the infrastructure, etc. to support the store?" Apple has had the same infrastructure for quite some time. They also own a fair share of Akamai. "Even if that $20 was entirely profit, that's a miserly sum for over a year on the market for a company the size of Apple." Profit is never "miserable". You are pointing out that margins are low. Dell makes "miserable" margins... are they a failure? The point is: it already makes money, and the profits should grow going forward. "Apple would be much better off not fighting a "media format war," because the consumer doesn't really care." Baloney. The consumer may not care, but they would not benefit if the entire industry abdicated the media world to Microsoft. Nor can you say that the consumer not caring and Apple giving up is beneficial to Apple... that makes no sense at all. "As far as component availability, those issues are usually temporary (months), especially as other drive manufacturers produce competitors." Not true at present. Hitachi can't keep up. As they have stated in the last 2 financial results meetings as well, iPod sales would have been higher if they could have met component demand. They've already gone to 2 manufacturers. Minis have just become highly available in the states but are still scarce around the world. Regular iPods are still selling in huge numbers. The point being: if Apple has 58% of the HD-based player market, are you criticizing that as unsuccessful? Do they need 75% of the market? Would that increase in marketshare be worth it if it meant surrendering the media market to Microsoft after developing QuickTime for 20 years? This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 at 15:02. |
| #6 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/8/2004 6:16:09 PM |
|
They passed 125 million. This was announced on 9/1.
That has nothing to do with my point. Even at 125M downloads, that's just under $124M in revenue, with $25M going to Apple if you're generous. And if you don't think a fair financial picture of iTMS considers how much they spend on marketing, development, and infrastructure, that's fine... it's still only $25M in profit. Twist the numbers however you want... but you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone that iTMS itself is doing well for Apple. Now you somehow confuse this argument with margin. Why??? The only number that matters is total profit... huge margin or sliver-thin margins, it doesn't matter. If it makes $1, is that a success? (And the word I used was "miserly," not "miserable," but no matter.) Baloney. In other words, you're saying Apple can win this "war." Maybe it can, but it doesn't appear that the trend is going that way in terms of what most online stores and other devices are supporting. I think Apple should wake up to the reality that it's never going to own the entire pie--both hardware and service. They have a great device, as well as what is becoming a commodity service. However, if they make the iPod compatible with the other services, it hardly invalidates their own service, it encourages repeat iPod buyers (some of which may buy new devices just for that compatibility), and it attracts new customers that look at their options and would otherwise say, "iPod--nice device, but it only works with one online store." And using Windows Media format doesn't mean anyone abdicates the media world to Microsoft any more than using mp3 abdicates the media world to Fraunhofer. If Apple is truly looking at it as a battle of formats, they can't see the forest before the trees. Not true at present. Right--those issues are usually temporary (months). If Apple's long-term plans for the iPod and iTMS don't go beyond a few months, that's not very smart. There are still plenty of iPods to go around--I see them at Best Buy and the local Apple store every time I've been there (and not just recently). And since when did I say iPods have been unsuccessful??? C'mon, sodajerk, you're better than this--that is a really silly argument to make: "Since they're having temporary supply issues, they're no longer concerned with market share." Incidentally reqarding one of your comments: if the mini is "highly available" in the US but not elsewhere, is that really a Hitachi problem, then? |
| #7 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 9/8/2004 6:31:26 PM |
|
"That has nothing to do with my point."
My only point was that they are profitable. For some reason it's okay for you to say: "Well, not very profitable..." And? Does that negate my point? No. "Twist the numbers however you want..." I didn't twist the numbers at all. I just told you they were profitable and how Apple breaks down their financials. "Why??? The only number that matters is total profit..." Not a single financial analyst would agree with you. "If it makes $1, is that a success?" If it's much, much larger profit (or better yet revenue since no one else has a profit) than 20 other competitors and they (the competition) are alllosing money, yes, it is. "And the word I used was "miserly," not "miserable," but no matter." I was using my own vocabulary, thank you very much.... Particularly since miserly doesn't make any sense. Miserly meaning of or related to the quality of meanness and grabbing, especially stingy with money... "In other words, you're saying Apple can win this "war."" No, not at all. I don't want a "winner." "Maybe it can, but it doesn't appear that the trend is going that way in terms of what most online stores and other devices are supporting." Ha. Let's see one of these stores or devices become a major success... By the way, Real passed Napster as #2, which means the 2 leading stores distribute AACs. I think it's funny that you think total profit is all that matters, but you don't consider total downloads and total devices sold (rather than suppliers and stores) versus Apple. You don't really know how to evaluate a competitive, financial landscape, do you? "I think Apple should wake up to the reality that it's never going to own the entire pie--both hardware and service." I think you should wake up to the fact that Apple has never wanted the entire pie but wants to make great integrated hardware and software. "If Apple is truly looking at it as a battle of formats, they can't see the forest before the trees." I think anyone with any real insight and vision on this topic would say you are the one who can't see the forest FOR the trees. "Right--those issues are usually temporary (months)." It's been over 2 years. "If Apple's long-term plans for the iPod and iTMS don't go beyond a few months, that's not very smart." If Apple's sales start dropping off and they are passed by someone, it's not smart. But you haven't come close to showing me that people have stopped buying iPods yet, have you? "C'mon, sodajerk, you're better than this--that is a really silly argument to make: "Since they're having temporary supply issues, they're no longer concerned with market share."" It's a silly argument because it's not mine, it's your's. You are claiming Apple is making bad business decisions while they are leading the market and aren't able to keep up with themselves. Therefore, you don't have an argument. You "want" Apple to support Microsoft... so you are constructing an argument that doesn't hold up around nonexistent evidence that it is hurting them. It is not... So why should they give Microsoft's format more power to kick ass slightly more? That is my argument. "if the mini is "highly available" in the US but not elsewhere, is that really a Hitachi problem, then?" Yes, it is a supply issue. You stock the best market first. Feed the next best markets next. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 at 19:16. |
| #8 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 9/8/2004 6:31:27 PM |
|
double post This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 at 18:32. |
| #9 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/8/2004 7:13:06 PM |
|
My only point was that they are profitable.
So the degree of profit is inconsequential? "Not a single financial analyst would agree with you." ;) And regarding that comment, you know very well what the context of my statement was. But even following your comment, if total profit isn’t the reason for Apple’s refusal to make the iPod compatible with Windows Media, what is? If it's much, much larger than 20 other competitors and they are actually losing money, yes. Maybe I should have clarified… $1 profit: is that a financial success? All in all, you’re saying that Apple would gladly sacrifice iPod sales in lieu of iTunes sales, even though the iPod has a much greater profit margin and a much greater likelihood of repeat buyers (particularly if they open it up)? |
| #10 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 9/8/2004 7:30:52 PM |
|
"So the degree of profit is inconsequential?"
I didn't say that... I said that was the only point I was making: that the iTMS has achieved profitability. How the hell does that mean the degree to which it has is meaningless? ""Not a single financial analyst would agree with you." ;) " I said that in regard to profit being of sole importance. I think there are many things that are far more important: creating a sustainable model... achieving profitability early and increasing it... having low margins (to attract customers) but having a quality product such that you can preserve higher margins than your competition (i.e. WalMart and Real), etc.... "But even following your comment, if total profit isn’t the reason for Apple’s refusal to make the iPod compatible with Windows Media, what is?" Well... for one, you are apparently confusing yourself. You are claiming Apple should license WMA for the iPod so they can sell more iPods (which they are doing just fine with, but thanks for the advice)... so how would that improve the profitability of the iTMS at all? It wouldn't at all... It would decrease the number of sales at the iTMS, wouldn't it? So... now we aren't talking about iTMS profitability but rather the iPod's profitability? I think the iPod is probably the most successful device of its kind on the market. But we had been discussing the iTMS and its profitability... One you fail to realize is that I am saying both are significant and relecant markets and BOTH should be preserved... their interoperation is the key. You think one should be thrown out for the other. As for Apple's rationale for not licensing WMA, isn't it fcking obvious? They would be saying: we think our competitor's product is superior to our's for one. Secondly, it would cost money... Literally, revenues generated by Apple would go directly to Microsoft. Thirdly, the argument that it would increase iPod sales is specious at best... The same users that are dedicated to WMA to their graves are not likely to choose an iPod. Fourthly, Apple is trying to get users to use AAC, iTunes, QuickTime, iMovie, FCP, etc... Not just sell iPods. Fifth, Apple is all about creating a simple and usable experience... supporting different formats and different stores that it cannot control diminishes their ability to achieve their goal. Etc.... There are many more reasons, most of them rather obvious. I would ask you: why doesn't Microsoft license QuickTime and/or mpeg-4 and include it in all of their products? "Maybe I should have clarified… $1 profit: is that a financial success?" Again, yes, it can be... If a business can grow overnight to hundreds of millions and has the potential of reaching the billions, but doesn't produce a loss, it can be a success. Add to that the possibility that the company has 20 competitors who are losing money and aren't growing revenues... That would be evaluated as a success. Financial successes are always relative to the rest of the market. "All in all, you’re saying that Apple would gladly sacrifice iPod sales in lieu of iTunes sales, even though the iPod has a much greater profit margin and a much greater likelihood of repeat buyers (particularly if they open it up)?" No, you've got to stop pretending you know what I am saying. I am saying Apple is succeeding both in iPod sales and with the iTMS in its current form. I am saying that the model you are advocating has not been successful for 20 other companies over the last two years. The greatest success has been the model you think is disadvantaged. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 at 19:37. |
| #11 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/8/2004 7:40:54 PM |
|
You know full well I'm not alone in this opinion, sodajerk. Even Forbes has a similar take on it:
"Hmmm. Falling prices, a penchant for proprietary design and a raft of new products from big rivals, with most of them running Microsoft software. Somehow, it all sounds awfully familiar." I think you should wake up to the fact that Apple has never wanted the entire pie but wants to make great integrated hardware and software. So what is the problem with including WMA support? I really don't see how you could argue that Apple couldn't support WMA in their software; the audio format is really a non-issue. According to many reports it's already there, anyhow. The only reason why Apple doesn't open it up is because it would take away from their pie, as you yourself admit: Yes, conceding the media format wars just when you are at a point where you are actually "winning" makes a lot of sense... Hey, I readily acknowledge the iPod is a great device, but Apple should know by now not to play the entirely proprietary game. We all know what happened to another great device of Apple's. It's a silly argument because it's not mine, it's your's. It was your words that argued that, not mine. They may be #1 now, but they should make decisions that help keep them in #1, not give reasons for the competition to gain ground. |
| #12 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/8/2004 7:58:02 PM |
|
How the hell does that mean the degree to which it has is meaningless?
I thought the $1 amount was enough to suggest that… I guess not. their interoperation is the key. Really? Is that why, as you pointed out, Real is now #2? The same users that are dedicated to WMA to their graves are not likely to choose an iPod. Do you really think that this is about the format??? When it comes to the stores, all that the vast, vast majority of people are going to care about is whether or not they can play it on their device. They could hardly care less what the format is, unless there is a very significant quality and/or size difference between AAC and WMA. There is not. Gotta cut this short… gotta run…. I am saying that the model you are advocating has not been successful for 20 other companies over the last two years. But it hasn’t really been successful for iTMS, either, except relative to the losses of the other companies (according to you—not factoring in expenses correctly, IMO). I'm not advocating that model for anyone! I don’t see the logic in "other companies doing the same thing are losing money, but we’re making $1, so therefore we are a financial success." If they really start raking in the money, I can see it… but I just don’t see that happening with Apple’s present course of action. |
| #13 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 9/8/2004 7:58:48 PM |
|
"You know full well I'm not alone in this opinion, sodajerk. Even Forbes has a similar take on it"
And you know full well that doesn't validate your opinion. As I pointed out earlier, these same writers keep repeating the same thing over (the iTMS doesn't make money) because they heard it once. I have heard that Apple is going out of business for 20 years. I have heard that Apple needs to switch to x86 and target Windows and business to defeat Microsoft even though that's entirely against what Apple does. So what? "So what is the problem with including WMA support?" Again, why doesn't Microsoft support QuickTime? Why isn't QT on every Media Center? "The only reason why Apple doesn't open it up is because it would take away from their pie, as you yourself admit." Yes, and what's wrong with that? Now even you are letting your false argument slip away and you are openly revealing that this would erode Apple's position and help Microsoft. Why, INDEED, would Apple do that? "Apple should know by now not to play the entirely proprietary game." Why it's working, isn't it? While Apple was proprietary didn't we see Digital, Compaq, and many others die? "We all know what happened to another great device of Apple's." Which one? I don't know... Apple I/IIs were dominant when everything was proprietary... The Mac has never had greater than16% market share... I don't know what failure you are tlkaing about... Apple is a 30 year old business worth 14 billion dollars that emplys 10,000 people that focuses on the products it wants to create... I have no clue what you are talking about... "It was your words that argued that, not mine." No, you have foolishly and incorrectly interpreted almost all of my statements. "They may be #1 now, but they should make decisions that help keep them in #1, not give reasons for the competition to gain ground." You should wait til they aren't #1 or until competition has gained ground or or have some evidence ... otherwise you look foolish while they preserve the #1 position. You sound like John Dvorak stating for the fiftieth time that Apple is going out of business... or like Parkker for that matter. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 at 20:00. |
| #14 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 9/8/2004 8:36:56 PM |
|
" thought the $1 amount was enough to suggest that… I guess not. "
I didn't say anything about $1 so why would that be my thought? What I said was " I have one point: the iTMS is already profitable." You then said some nonsense about one dollar and said that I didn't see any significance to the degree to which the iTMS is profitable. I then said, no, I said that I was just making that point, but that does not imply anything beyond that, particularly not "it doesn't matter how profitable." Get it? "Really? Is that why, as you pointed out, Real is now #2?" You do realize that #2 does not mean "right behind #1", right? Sure, Real pushed themselves into second by generating over 2 million in debt in a few short weeks. So what? Napster at #3 is far behind the iTMS, and Real too is far behind the iTMS at #1. "Do you really think that this is about the format???" Absolutely. "When it comes to the stores, all that the vast, vast majority of people are going to care about is whether or not they can play it on their device." And the vast majority of people have a device called the iPod. "They could hardly care less what the format is, unless there is a very significant quality and/or size difference between AAC and WMA." So what's the problem with not supporting WMA if they don't care? "But it hasn’t really been successful for iTMS" Yes, it has. They have achieved profitability and much sooner than they expected. Expenses diminish as they grow the operation and download rates aren't just being sustained but are growing. "except relative to the losses of the other companies" Isn't that a huge exception? In other words, if Apple is fcking up so bad, please show me someone doing it right. "according to you—not factoring in expenses correctly, IMO" No according to me they are accounting expenses as most operations do... They are doing it the same way they account for their other products. And I couldn't care less about your opinion. "I'm not advocating that model for anyone! " What model are you advocating? Point to a model that you think is working well and will be profitable. Please. "I don’t see the logic in "other companies doing the same thing are losing money, but we’re making $1, so therefore we are a financial success."" That's not the logic at all. The logic is: no other store is offering what we are and they are all failing while we are succeeding. The logic is Apple is selling large numbers of iPods. The logic is Apple is getting large numbers of people to use iTunes. The logic is that the iTMS and the iPod are becoming ubiquitous. The logic is that Apple is establishing its clout and has the most sway with the recording industry. The logic is they have already achieved profitability and a huge marketshare and the bulk of the mindshare in an industry that is still infantile at best. The logic is they are kicking everyone's ass and everyone wants to be in their position (while at the same time claiming Apple is doing it wrong and they're doing it right). Do you get that logic? This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 at 21:05. |
| #15 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/9/2004 8:45:01 AM |
|
And you know full well that doesn't validate your opinion.
So let's write off every opinion that doesn't match yours... I see. From a financial standpoint, I guess that Forbes really doesn't have a clue... not even worth reading. Again, why doesn't Microsoft support QuickTime? Why isn't QT on every Media Center? Why avoid the question by asking a different one? Where's the online store selling QT content? Now even you are letting your false argument slip away and you are openly revealing that this would erode Apple's position and help Microsoft. Uh, not quite. Erode iTMS a bit, yes, but enhance iPod sales, which I've pointed out several times already. And as discussed, the iPod is where the money is, not iTMS by any stretch of the imagination. Why it's working, isn't it? That's why the Mac once had 16% market share, and now has about 2% (argue if you want on that percentage, but few analysts point to a different figure... however you slice it, it's a fraction of what it once was)? didn't we see Digital, Compaq, and many others die? Consolidated, not died. And if you've ever worked on a Compaq server, you'd know that they know how to play the proprietary game pretty well themselves, but that's in a completely different vein. I don't know what failure you are tlkaing about... Again, "lalalalalala...." It's the one where the Mac lost--but should have won--to Windows, the fact every Mac nut loves to bemoan whenever given the chance. You know exactly what I'm talking about... Mac certainly may still be alive and have a dedicated base, but that's nowhere near the success that the Mac faithful think it deserved (and still think it deserves). The never-ending stories about how the superior technology did not prevail... yes, that is most definitely a failure. You do realize that #2 does not mean "right behind #1", right? Why the redirection? You said that interoperation between the iPod and iTMS is the key to the success of both. But it's obviously not key for the iPod, given the takeoff of Real's service. The iPod's success is not bound to iTMS, which is a good thing for Apple. Absolutely. Unbelievable. So what's the problem with not supporting WMA if they don't care? The problem is that the competition to iTMS is offering the same thing for less, but the customer is stuck with iTMS (or Real, but that's a whole other issue... and obviously it wasn't in Apple's plans). And other devices don't limit the customer in this way. (continued) |
| #16 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/9/2004 8:45:50 AM |
|
Isn't that a huge exception?
This is the same as asking, "if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?" No according to me they are accounting expenses as most operations do... So the cost of actually making the product isn't an expense? What model are you advocating? At this point, I'm not too keen on the whole idea in general. It's a great way to lose money, particularly as more and more vendors enter the market. Places like Walmart and Amazon have an advantage. If Apple was pushing well over 250M downloads each year and/or could increase its percentage cut, I would be more enthusiastic. no other store is offering what we are and they are all failing while we are succeeding. No, they're all failing at making a profit. Argue as you want, but it's a business, and a token profit doesn't cut it. Do you get that logic? Apple has plenty of worthy competition coming their way. The "mindshare" could easily shift from iTunes to online retailers in general. The delivery method is a commodity. The device is less so, especially when it comes to the iPod. And the music is definitely not a commodity; if iTMS started to score many exclusive contracts while other services did not, that would separate it from the crowd. |
| #17 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 9/9/2004 1:33:16 PM |
|
"So let's write off every opinion that doesn't match yours... "
No, let's right off every opinion that's wrong like Apple is dying, Apple was once dominant (when they weren't) and lost it, etc... "Why avoid the question by asking a different one?" It's not. It's the same question directed at Microsoft. "Where's the online store selling QT content?" iTMS. QuickTime is the framework of codecs. "Erode iTMS a bit, yes, but enhance iPod sales, which I've pointed out several times already. And as discussed, the iPod is where the money is, not iTMS by any stretch of the imagination." Which is why my initial point is significant: the iTMS is now profitable. By your same logic, Microsoft should stop producing XBoxes and should just produce games. "That's why the Mac once had 16% market share, and now has about 2% (argue if you want on that percentage, but few analysts point to a different figure... however you slice it, it's a fraction of what it once was)?" Aren't you the one avoiding the question? Is the iPod and iTMS a success? As I have said several times: Mac marketshare is not analogous to the iPod and iTMS which are cross platform and are quite successful even in the Windows world. "Consolidated, not died." Yes, dead. "they know how to play the proprietary game pretty well themselves, but that's in a completely different vein." Right, completely different vein. Proprietary is fine when you like it, not when it's Apple. "It's the one where the Mac lost--but should have won--to Windows" You're the one going "lalalalala". Apple never wanted to dominate the OS world. They never lost a war that you and fools are making up. They always wanted to sell integrated hardware and software. "You know exactly what I'm talking about... " No, I don't. |
| #18 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 9/9/2004 1:34:37 PM |
|
"The never-ending stories about how the superior technology did not prevail... yes, that is most definitely a failure."
As I have been saying, these stories are wrong. "Why the redirection? You said that interoperation between the iPod and iTMS is the key to the success of both." No, redirection at all. I said Real is way, way behind Apple... That doesn't mean that Real is hugely successful because it lacks integration. That means it's slightly better than other massive failures. As per today, Real sold 3 million tracks while Apple sold between 12-16 million in the same period at twice the price. And, yes, they are successful because of integration. The iPod with iTunes. The iTMS with the iPod. "But it's obviously not key for the iPod, given the takeoff of Real's service. The iPod's success is not bound to iTMS, which is a good thing for Apple. " Very faulty logic... What does Real havce to do with the iPod at all? The iPod's success is bound to iTunes. Which is a good thing for Apple. "The problem is that the competition to iTMS is offering the same thing for less, but the customer is stuck with iTMS (or Real, but that's a whole other issue... and obviously it wasn't in Apple's plans)." Stuck, or prefer? If you prefer cheap, buy something else... If you prefer integration, buy an iPod. Consumers are choosing the second option. "And other devices don't limit the customer in this way. " And they aren't doing very well. But why does Apple have to reproduce the products of others (particularly when they are failures). I have a pocketknife with a toenail clipper; should all pocketknifes have toenail clippers? "This is the same as asking, "if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?" " No, it isn't at all. I've asked you if Apple is doing so poorly, who is succeeding. In fact, you are saying: "Apple should jump off the bridge that other stores have already jumped off of (their model is a failure but you want Apple to duplicate it)." "So the cost of actually making the product isn't an expense?" No, I have said several times that Apple is accounting properly. You are the one making up this conspiracy theory that Apple is lying to the SEC in its filings despite the fact that you don't even know what they are telling their shareholders. "At this point, I'm not too keen on the whole idea in general." So why the fck are you having this conversation? No matter what you aren't going to think anyone is doing it right or successful. "It's a great way to lose money" Not for Apple, as I have said over and over. "Places like Walmart and Amazon have an advantage." No they don't. "If Apple was pushing well over 250M downloads each year and/or could increase its percentage cut, I would be more enthusiastic." They be there in a year. They are averaging 150 million a year today without the pan Europe store, without any Asian stores, without Australia and Canada. "No, they're all failing at making a profit." No, Apple is making a profit. "Argue as you want, but it's a business, and a token profit doesn't cut it. " Argue that a profit is not a profit all you want. See if you win that one. "Apple has plenty of worthy competition coming their way. " Who? "The "mindshare" could easily shift from iTunes to online retailers in general." who? "The delivery method is a commodity." No, it's not. Web stores have failed. THe greatest successes are jukebox/app based stores. "if iTMS started to score many exclusive contracts while other services did not, that would separate it from the crowd. " They already have more exclusive content and have separated themselves from the crowd. |
| #19 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 9/9/2004 3:14:32 PM |
|
"Janus will be the nail in iTMS's coffin."
So much so... Microsoft isn't even using it. Ha, ha, ha! "Even Macworld liked it." MacNewsWorld is not Macworld. |
| #20 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 9/9/2004 5:12:14 PM |
|
"Of course MSN Music doesn't use Janus. Janus is for subscription servers and MSN doesn't offer a subscription service ... yet. "
Right, even Microsoft doesn't use their own tech. That's what I said. Explaining what Janus is, when we all know what it is, doesn't explain the fact away that Microsoft doesn't use it. |
| #21 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/9/2004 6:03:18 PM |
|
Apple was once dominant (when they weren't)
Hmmm... in 1992, "In the U.S., IBM and Apple dominate the market with about 32% market share." That year, Apple outsold IBM in the US. Apple was once the 2nd largest computer manufacturer in the world, behind IBM. By any account, they were doing much better than they are now. "Where's the online store selling QT content?" iTMS. Can you direct me to the QT content? Are you claiming that AAC is a subset of QT? And there is no way that this is the same question--Apple isn't opening the keys to iTMS for support on Media Center PCs... how is that Microsoft's fault??? the iTMS is now profitable. But WHAT IS "profitable"? If they only make $1 on it, is it worth it? As more and more online stores enter the field and start to encroach on the territory of iTMS, will they be able to sustain the meager profits on iTMS? JOBS HIMSELF said iTMS was a loss leader designed to spur iPod sales. The whole point is, iTMS sales produce relatively little if anything (they did lose money on iTMS for quite awhile, too), many other stores are popping up, iPod sales produce a lot, and Apple could sell even more iPods if they opened them up to other stores. By your same logic, Microsoft should stop producing XBoxes and should just produce games. If someone else started producing commodity XBox hardware, then definitely. Yes, dead. In what way is Compaq dead? Proprietary is fine when you like it, not when it's Apple. Where is this coming from? I said: "Apple should know by now not to play the entirely proprietary game." And for that matter, I don't like it with Compaq, either. Apple never wanted to dominate the OS world. Maybe you never wanted them to dominate? Because certainly Apple has spent a lot of resources in the past trying to figure out how to increase market share. Even at the high points of their market share in the early 90s, they believed that they might be able to control 30 percent of the market within 3 years if they spun off a separate division tasked with porting the MacOS to Intel. And certainly every other Mac fan I've met whines endlessly about how the MacOS should have prevailed over Windows. As I have been saying, these stories are wrong. Why? Because it doesn't fit your opinion? Do you have some objective, factual reason to claim that? (continued) |
| #22 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/9/2004 6:03:41 PM |
|
The iPod's success is bound to iTunes.
Why do you think this is irrefutably true, exactly? If everyone got their music from Real's site and used it with their iPod--which is not impossible--the success of the iPod is independent of that of iTMS, isn't it? Is that not great news for Apple, since the real profit is in the sales of the iPods, even by their own admission? I have a pocketknife with a toenail clipper; should all pocketknifes have toenail clippers? More like, you have a pocketknife with a toenail clipper that is only "compatible" with your big toe, whereas other pocketknives with toenail clippers allow you to clip any toe. Wouldn't the pocketknife maker be wise to let the pocketknife clip any toe you like? I've asked you if Apple is doing so poorly, who is succeeding. Let’s get it straight—Apple is succeeding with the iPod, but iTMS lost money for them in the past, and is hardly making anything for them now. Even Jobs said it was a loss leader for iPod sales. If the iPod were open to other stores, they could drop the loss leader altogether. One other thing must be considered here—the opportunity cost. iTMS lost money, now it’s slightly profitable at best. But iPod sales can continue to thrive without iTMS (especially provided they open it up to other online stores), so why not utilize those resources for something that would actually profit? No matter what you aren't going to think anyone is doing it right or successful. Like I said, if they could push 250M downloads per year or renegotiate their cut, then it would be more exciting. But as it stands today, with every one of them losing money—except perhaps for Apple, which only recently made a profit, and we have no idea what that amount is, but by simple math it’s not much—I think Apple would be better off focusing on what makes them money: the iPod. No they don't. They do, if for no other reason than that they’re already paying the infrastructure costs. They be there in a year. If others don’t steal their sales. And if they reach it, can they sustain it? Argue that a profit is not a profit all you want. See if you win that one. Go into any company and argue that a $1 profit is still profit, and see if you keep your job. |
| #23 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 9/9/2004 7:55:40 PM |
|
"in 1992, "In the U.S., IBM and Apple dominate the market with about 32% market share." ... Apple was once the 2nd largest computer manufacturer in the world, behind IBM."
Just because someone uses the word "dominate" doesn't make it so. Do you think 32% (or a share of it) is dominant? Do you think second palce is dominant? "By any account, they were doing much better than they are now." No, they were a 6 billion dollar company with hundreds of millions in debt, had an inept CEO, and were about to face their biggest problems. Now they are a 14 billion dollar company with zero debt, 5 billion in cash, and are considered to be in their best position in over a decade. "Can you direct me to the QT content? Are you claiming that AAC is a subset of QT?" QT is the codec framework. All codecs loaded into QT are assessible and are used by iTunes, QT Player, iMovie, MacOS, etc... "And there is no way that this is the same question--Apple isn't opening the keys to iTMS for support on Media Center PCs... how is that Microsoft's fault???" Sure, it is the same question. It is a hypothetical one though. You think Apple should support WMA in its products. Do you think Microsoft should have to support QT or FairPlayed AACs? "But WHAT IS "profitable"?" Profitable is bringing in more money than goes out. "If they only make $1 on it, is it worth it?" Yes, that's one more dollar than zero and many more dollars than millions in the red. Are you claiming now that Microsoft should end the XBox business? "As more and more online stores enter the field and start to encroach on the territory of iTMS, will they be able to sustain the meager profits on iTMS?" Probably... As more and more stores have opened, Apples sales growth have growth faster and faster on the iTMS. "JOBS HIMSELF said iTMS was a loss leader designed to spur iPod sales." And? Everything else out of his mouth you think is a lie. And this was a year ago. And everyone understans that Jobs is trying to downplay his success to rivals and the studios (so they don't get afraid of Apple's power) while at the same time play it up to the studios so he can get more pull. It's called being a good CEO. Fred Anderson, the CFO, has said they have produced a profit for the fiftieth fcking time. "Apple could sell even more iPods if they opened them up to other stores." You still haven't demonstrated this. That the gain is substantial enough. Suppose I said, Microsoft would sell more Office if they opened up the .doc format, would you agree? Would you beleive that it would be in Microsoft's best interest? "In what way is Compaq dead?" In every meaningful way. "Because certainly Apple has spent a lot of resources in the past trying to figure out how to increase market share." Trying to increase marketshare is domination? "Even at the high points of their market share in the early 90s, they believed that they might be able to control 30 percent of the market..." 30% is domination? "And certainly every other Mac fan I've met whines endlessly about how the MacOS should have prevailed over Windows." Fans, not Apple. Fans always want success. Fans are frequently ignorant. "Do you have some objective, factual reason to claim that?" There's tons. Jobs never wanted his computer on every desk. Apple has never targeted business in a major way. Apple has never tried to appeal to every market sector. Apple has always produced integrated hardware and software which it knew could only appeal to a fraction of the computer using world. Do you have any evidecne that Apple wanted to dominate the PC world? |
| #24 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 9/10/2004 3:03:17 PM |
| Please post a link to the Microsoft made PMC. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 322 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:49:13 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
