| 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 |
 |
Microsoft Moves in on iTunes Music Store | |
|
||
| Time: 13:12 EST/18:12 GMT | News Source: TopTechTips | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim | ||
|
As has been widely expected, Microsoft has shown off an early version of its copycat Music download service similar to that which Apple launched over a month ago. The only part I didn't expect was that they will also intergrate it with the Xbox games console, what will probably turn out to be a good move on Microsoft's part. There is now little doubt that Microsoft are pushing to launch their online music store well before the end of the year, especially if the meetings between Microsoft and some of the big music companies have gone to plan. There is a high likelihood that Microsoft will also offer a more detailed service that Apple has done with iTunes, which is in my view, the one thing the service has been lacking...but then again, it is all about music isn't it, not reading about the artist or the latest music news.
| ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 171 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:24:10 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 37 (66.82.20.150) at 6/10/2003 2:24:11 PM |
|
Well, I for one like to see other companies outside of Microsoft stumble on something successful. This is yet another step that competition for Microsoft is alive and well.
I of course will be waiting to find out more about this new service from Microsoft. |
| #2 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 6/10/2003 3:24:27 PM |
|
I wouldn't say that the idea behind the iTunes music store is the brainchild of Jobs. This type of service--pay per tune, make your own playlist, then burn the CD--has been discussed long, long ago... I first heard about it in 1993-1994 (at that time, though, it wasn't considering the internet as the distribution method). A few years ago, this idea likely would have floundered against the likes of a dominant Napster. Even the legwork with the record labels was going on with both Microsoft and Apple concurrently. So, no, I don't think Microsoft could be classified as a copycat here, unless you're going to classify both Apple and Microsoft as copycats.
This kind of talk is what is frustrating when dealing with Apple discussions--they have this reputation for innovation, but it is often viewed rather as invention. Apple may have beat Microsoft to market, but that doesn't mean that Microsoft has been sleeping at the wheel the whole time and now wants a piece of the action. They've been working on the same problems at the same time. This is similar to the distortion that surrounds other Apple product discussions. When Mac OS 9 and before were around, the Apple faithful relentlessly attacked Windows for how unstable it is, how poorly it works, etc. Yet before OS X, so much of the MacOS was far behind in terms of a modern OS. Then OS X was released and was a huge leap forward in stability and otherwise; a jump into a modern OS... but the attacks remained the same. Windows changed rather dramatically, the MacOS changed drastically, and the changes occurred at different times, but the attacks remained constant throughout? It doesn't add up. Now we look back from OS X at the old MacOS and say, yes, it wasn't very reliable. But was anyone amongst the Apple faithful willing to accept that back then? Watch closely what happens later this month, when some expect that we'll see IBM chips in a new Mac. They'll glorify how great a leap ahead it is in terms of processing power. They'll compare it favorably against Pentium IVs. But wait, they've always compared favorably against Intel, right? Isn't that what the Apple faithful drone on about continuously, that it's not the size of the MHz, but how the MHz are used? They maintain that stance, even when nearly every benchmark--and by implication from Apple as they switch from to IBM chips in their desktops--says otherwise. When will they be able to see through the distortion and face reality in the present, rather than it taking a radical new product launch to point out how blind they've been for a long time? Sorry to stray from the topic, but the new IBM-powered Macs are expected this month... I wanted to bring attention to it so this curious phenomenon can be watched as it occurs--don't say no one warned you.... The forums have been a little dry lately anyhow, haven't they? :) |
| #3 By 2459 (69.22.78.116) at 6/10/2003 6:04:09 PM |
|
Actually, from some reports I've seen (and as usual for Apple Expo launches), the new Macs are only to be announced this month, but won't be available until sometime around September.
In terms of performance, they should be a heck of a lot better than current Macs, but I still think they'll fall behind Intel and AMD. If Intel stays on track, and IIRC, the P4 should be at 5 Ghz by the end of the year (10 Ghz next year, and possible low-cost 64-bit CPU to compete with AMD), and of course, AMD has the Opteron now and Athlon64 by September, and there's PCI Express motherboards in early 2004. It'll be a nice race to watch, starting with WWDC in about 2 weeks if the rumors hold true. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/10/2003 6:39:59 PM |
|
You mean the most recent update, sphbecker, that was announced Jan. 28th and were said to be available before the end of March and actually started shipping the first week of March? Yeah, I remember, what about them? (SHould have used the 17" PB if you wanted to appear credible.) When was Longhorn announced?
If you'd like a credible rumor: the 970s will be announced on June 23rd, will probably not be immediately available, but will be out well before September... late July at the latest. Panther will be released in September. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 at 18:46. |
| #5 By 2459 (69.22.78.116) at 6/10/2003 7:33:57 PM |
|
Longhorn hasn't been announced as a product that will be shipping anytime soon, MS has only acknowledged that they are working on it and given IHVs, OEMs, and developers notice and info to prepare for it.
WWDC will allegedly be the launch for the new Macs and probably Panther as well. Yet it's likely that the new systems won't ship for a few months as usual. When MS launches Windows 6.0, it and OEM systems with it preinstalled will be readily available for purchase (as usual). |
| #6 By 3465 (68.50.165.22) at 6/10/2003 8:26:21 PM |
| Give em hell apple. |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/10/2003 8:46:05 PM |
|
Please, enforcer, what claim are you making? MS has announced about ten dates for Longhorn. I can cite schedule slippages for almost every major product MS has produced in the last ten years. The only Apple example cited, Apple announced the product and the date they'd be available, and they BEAT the available date. I can think of only two products in a year that were late from Apple and we are talking about a time span of 2-3 weeks, and again, they contacted anyone who had made orders of the delay.
You are citing rumors, and poor ones at that.. Let me tell what has been said: Panther will be previewed and available as a developer release at WWDC... Are you suggesting they are going to miss this? It has been rumored that Panther will be released in September. Would you like to bet on whether or not this slips? (I'll even make it tougher on myself--I BET it specifically hits in the 3rd week.) As for rumor, the reliable rumor is that 970 prototypes will be available to developers at WWDC and will be on sale in July 6-8 weeks ahead of the Panther release. Again, would you like to wager on this? As for this claim that Apple announces but doesn't say when they are going to be available--they have 95% of the time provided a ship date which is usually within weeks of the announcement. They almost always make this ship date. "WWDC will allegedly be the launch for the new Macs and probably Panther as well." Again, enforcer, you are a pathetic source of Mac rumors. It has been stated by Apple that a Panther preview will be available at WWDC and they themselves have hinted at a September release -- you cannot claim a delay because you are deluding yourself with a baloney rumor. It is rumored, but I can confirm that some will have access to 970 prototypes at WWDC--they may even be displayed and announced. If so, they will also mention a projected availability date that will not be June 23rd. And will not be September. (If you knew anything, you'd know Smeagol is real and has a purpose -- i.e. theyneed a stopgap between July (availability of 970s) and September (the release of Panther).) "When MS launches Windows 6.0, it and OEM systems with it preinstalled will be readily available for purchase (as usual)." Ha, ha, ha!! You're freakin kidding, right! Sure, that's true... After changing the date 15 times! Apple has a clear policy of what an announcement is and when the product is available. If you don't read or attend those annoucnements to be aware of the release date, that's not chicanery on Apple's part. Whereas what the fck are you calling an MS "launch"? MS had stated release dates for the Windows Server 2003 about 15 times. Blackcomb was supposed to be a 2004 OS. Where's Yukon? Even it's beta has been pushed back 4 times! |
| #8 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 6/10/2003 9:46:46 PM |
| Guess what Byron... this isn't a copycat service. Do you really think that MSFT started coding this since apple launched their product? Of course not. Its been, what, 3 weeks? And MSFT is already showing demos? In other words, they've been working on it for a long time. Its just that they have to make it work on 90% of the world's computers... not a piddly/easy 2% like apple. |
| #9 By 7711 (68.45.57.126) at 6/10/2003 9:50:04 PM |
|
Jerk...you mean like the Windows updater for the Ipod that was announced for "mid-May", then "coming soon"?
MS may have release date slips, but when the date gets set, they usually come through. Apple gives this loose "mid-May" date, then miss that by a month already. Can't wait for the Ipod 2 USB 2 cables that are "promised" for late June.... |
| #10 By 2459 (69.22.78.116) at 6/11/2003 1:19:43 AM |
|
It's very simple sodajerk. When Microsoft has a product launch, that product is shipping and ready to buy. When Apple has a product launch, the product isn't yet available in most cases.
There's a difference between a launch and an announcement of a future product. And contrary to what you believe, MS has made no official announcements about Longhorn other than its existance as a project and a roadmap and whitepapers for developers. There have been no hard dates set. Windows Server (and all projects, including Longhorn) were set back due to the coding stoppage and security conferences/reviews, and to some point, legal problems. Before this, they were ahead of internal schedules. However, no product launch date (i.e., the official date set aside to debut the product and officially tell the public that the product is available for purchase) was set until the beta was near completion. It was set back a week or two due to some last-minute build issues. Again, to emphasize, I am talking about a product launch. IOW, the special event people attend in person or via webcast to see the new product, and the CEO or Chairman gives keynotes and demonstrations. When MS does this, the products are available. You can go to your nearest computer store and buy them or get them direct from MS' store or MSDN. When Apple does this (usually occurs at MacWorld, but this time WWDC), they act as if the products are available, but they're really only taking pre-orders at that point. This post was edited by n4cer on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 at 01:24. |
| #11 By 2459 (69.22.78.116) at 6/11/2003 1:30:24 AM |
| Another example is one Apple launch where they announced that they would be first to have Geforce 3s shipping. Yet because their systems weren't available at the launch, PC users and system builders were still the first to have the Geforce 3. |
| #12 By 3 (62.253.128.4) at 6/11/2003 1:47:29 AM |
| #11 - They are due out Monday along with the first Software update for the iPod. |
| #13 By 7711 (12.107.81.66) at 6/11/2003 7:00:03 AM |
| #14: Good news Byron...first rumor I've heard of a real date.....Thanks for the info. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/11/2003 12:27:47 PM |
|
enforcer, I'm just telling you that this is hypocrisy--Most computer companies annoucne their products before availability. Gateway announced its new line of computers, is it available yet? When they announced the Profile was it available? The new Sony Vaio's aren't in hand yet, but they were announced yesterday. Cellphone manufacturers announce their products before they are available.
What you are peeved at is that it's Apple. That their announcements are big events. Because they are big events, you have the expectation (unfounded) that they should have it available. I don't know who you are confusing them with because they usually do a very good job of delivering some and releasing others a few weeks later. I cannot say the same for most hardware tech companies. Of course, no one notices because their products releases are completely unspectacular and are just revs of commodity parts. As for Microsoft, they are a software company. However, I don't see how anyone can dismiss the similarity to MS talking about something that doesn't exist for three years with no promise of a release date or feature set... Why does MS get to have years of free press without delivering when on the other hand Apple will always annoucne an availability timefrime which is much more realistic than MS schedules. |
| #15 By 2459 (69.22.78.116) at 6/11/2003 1:28:01 PM |
|
Like Windows launches aren't big events -- please. You are stuck in the distortion field big time.
Do you understand what a product launch is? I explained it pretty well in the previous post. I'm not peeved at all. How do you even get that? I'm stating facts -- plain and simple. MS launches Windows (whatever version). Said Windows version is available for immediate purchase and use (not a pre-order). Apple launches new line of Macs. Said Macs are usually not immediately available. This is fact. Watch the keynotes sometime. Apple annouces Geforce 3 to be available first on the Mac. Mac users get exicited that they'll finally be able to get good framerates in Quake 3 and make a big deal of getting te Geforce 3 before PC users. PC users get Geforce 3 first (as usual) because Apple's systems aren't available. Again, fact, no more, no less. Apple doesn't just announce a product. They launch it even though it isn't yet available for non-pre-order purchase. While this may not happen with all of their products, it is far from uncommon. However, I don't see how anyone can dismiss the similarity to MS talking about something that doesn't exist for three years with no promise of a release date or feature set... There is no similarity. MS is readying developers for LH and working with their major ISVs, IHVs, and system builders to fles out new specs and build their hardware/software to support the requirements for the new OS. All of their LH announcements/presentations have been towards the developer community, not to the general public. WinHEC 2002/2003, TechEd, the upcomming PDC, are all developer conferences. CNET and others take what's said at these events and passes the info to the general public, and they like to set hard dates even when MS doesn't. I know, because I've been on several betas where no firm release has been set by MS, yet CNET et al like to print about how behind schedule MS is when they're often ahead or have no firm date. MacWorld is not a developer-only event. Apple uses it for public product launches. WWDC usually is a developer event, but Apple is using it as a public launch platform now because Steve Jobs is boycotting MacWorld Boston because he didn't want it moved from New York. MS has years of free press because of the press. The media feeds off of MS. Whether they bash them or praise them, it gets hits and sells magazines. Half the tech writers around don't know what they're even writing about, but they know to mention MS no matter how little they have to do with something because more people will read the article. MS doesn't even have to do anything most times to get press. All it takes is a private tester or OEM partner to leak info or even a build, and the press is all over it. This works both ways too. Apple suffers from this problem to some extent. I could use your confusion over press coverage and official public announcements and actual product launches to ask why Apple talked about OS X or Copland or whatever long before the product's release. |
| #16 By 2459 (69.22.78.116) at 6/11/2003 1:30:49 PM |
|
Of course, no one notices because their products releases are completely unspectacular and are just revs of commodity parts.
Right, because yet another mp3 player or slow, expensive, dual CPU computer is much more exciting than a TabletPC or MCE, or Smart Display, or Media2Go, etc. |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/11/2003 1:45:41 PM |
|
See, clearly you are upset because it's Apple. You fully know that all hardware manufacturers "announce" products before available. The Gateway line announced the other day, the new Viao's announced the other day, the T-Mobil device... I mentioned the Gateway Profile -- when it was announced it wasn't even built. At least Apple has a product to display, and any delay is caused because they control their own channels from manufacturer to retail (unlike most other hardware manufacturers).
So you latch onto my little diss to deflect the point that MS inflates its products much more through announcements (way, way, way in advance) and that all other hardware manufacturers will "announce" prior to availability. So what you are pissed about is that Apple can make a big event of something. Hell, most of the releases this year have been "quiet" releases only through PRs. "Right, because yet another mp3 player or slow, expensive, dual CPU computer is much more exciting than a TabletPC or MCE, or Smart Display, or Media2Go, etc." Come on, you aren't fooling anyone--the iPod isn't just "yet another mp3 palyer", and where the hell are those Media2Go devices? Hmmm. I thought products should only be announced when available? This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 at 14:01. |
| #18 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 6/11/2003 4:02:53 PM |
|
Sodajerk:
"Why does MS get to have years of free press without delivering when on the other hand Apple will always annoucne an availability timefrime which is much more realistic than MS schedules." Because MS is smart. Apple could easily do the same, but they don't. You--like many others, as n4cer pointed out--have mischaracterized MS as saying "available date" when they never said the product would be available. They might set a timetable for gold code and slip past that, but when they finally set a true release date, they are good at hitting it. And, like n4cer pointed out, the product is available. Of course, with software it's much easier to ensure availability. At the same time, announcing a product way ahead of time may make for unsurprising, rather unimpressive product launches, but it's better for the consumer and better for the industry. I'll take predictable, plan-able changes over a one-time thrill at product launches any day. It may serve to feed Steve's ego and stir up the crowd, but this secrecy does little for businesses that need to plan ahead. Perhaps that's another good reason why Apple isn't very big in the business world. |
| #19 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/11/2003 5:07:42 PM |
|
bluvg, I'm not even saying it's wrong. What I am saying is enforcer is being a hypocrite.
I pointed out that every other hardware manufacturer pre-announces. This he hasn't disputed. When I said these were underwhelming announcements I was just pointing out that enforcer is latching on to Apple events and expecting something (I don't know what since he's not a user and apparently doesn't pay attention to the availability dates.) He claims I'm confused but I've seen, read about, or attended most every Apple event and I was fully aware when product would be available. And I agree, MS is somewhat different because it is software... but I do think there is an analog here. MS creates expectations of product availability much further in advance than any hardware manufacturer. But the distinction of hitting their dates is ridiculous--they fall behind every timetable and schedule an event when it's finally ready. I do not see this as predictable and pre-planned at all. Many companies get caught in the expectations that MS creates about server products, exchange, SQL, etc... Apple makes an announcement when they have packaging and gear available, but it isn't in large quantities or in the channel. They say a date that it'll be available. So my question is what is Apple uniquely guilty of? And what is wrong with it? i.e. is enforcer suggesting that no hardware manufacturer should be able to except pre-orders? Should hardware companies not be allowed to make an annoucement until inventories have filtered throughout the channels? No one does this--so why is he only upset about Apple. This is my position, and my questions for enforcer. You on the other hand are flipping the coin--now Apple's at fault for being secretive and NOT annoucnign products til they're ready? Whatever. And please, the two of you have excused slight slippages and are taking note of availability dates... So please point to one example where Apple had an event and claimed something was available that wasn't. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 at 17:14. |
| #20 By 2459 (69.22.78.116) at 6/11/2003 9:07:44 PM |
|
Sodajerk, once again, I'm not upset, peeved, pissed, et al. I don't know why you have a need to believe I am. I guess it brings you comfort or something. Sorry, but you're way off about my emotional state much like you are about announcement/acknowledgement vs. launch. You just don't get the difference.
Thanks bluvg, for further clarification, but I don't think it helped. I'll end with this and maybe a lightbulb somewhere will turn on: :-) Apple is behind in performance, not to mention price/performance. If they want more buyers, one of the things they need to do is improve their system architecture and CPU performance. They are doing this, but here's the catch... Say Apple managed to come out with a system that outperformed Intel/AMD. They launch it at WWDC and show that it's the fatest system available (without the usual skewed benchmarks), and make a big deal about this, using it as one of the main selling points. Though Steve is playing around with the fastest system available during WWDC, actual users don't get the system in their hands for a few months. During these few months, Intel/AMD surpass Apple, possibly several times. Well, there goes the big selling point. PCs have once again surpassed Apple in performance and price/performance and the questions about why anyone should purchase a Mac over a PC when the PC is the better deal crops up again. This is just one scenario and one part of that scenario, but it should be pretty clear of the possible consequences of losing your window of opportunity when you're trying to regain marketshare because all of your claims of product superiority suddenly fade away before any systems are shipped. |
| #21 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/11/2003 9:33:07 PM |
|
enforcer, I interpreted your comments since I made the comment to becker as: you were insisting that Apple misleads through events because products aren't available. This I still dispute.
Now you are saying that that wasn't your argument (because EVERYONE pre-announces)--now you are saying Apple will always suffer because their products lag by a few months (name one product that came out 3 months after it was announced) at which time what they said during the event is no longer valid? Now its about selling points, not lying, not failing to deliver on promises.... Seriously, name one product which did not hit market until a full three months after its announcement. And now that I see your argument more clearly (if this in fact what it is), your point is that what? What does Apple do wrong? Their claims aren't invalidated as they exist in time--if its a comparison, its compared to a specific product. I don't think--"this moment in time its faster so from now on I can say it is always faster." Do you? Sorry, if so. I CONTINUE to think "x machine is faster than y machine." Is your argument that Apple's marketing is too elaborate for stupid people or something? Fine. But please tell me one product that was "announced" that was not "released" until 3 months later. Are you suggesting that every claim made by Apple is false because you are unable to situate it in time? That if taken out of time, Apple's claims are always false? If so, whatever, as I said, this is clearly provoked by your own FEELINGS about Apple than about how a rational consumer should treat a company or product. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 at 21:37. |
| #22 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 6/12/2003 1:05:20 AM |
|
Sodajerk, your argument is getting a little shaky. N4cer's viewpoint was quite clear, I think. To follow his scenario in your context--the problem is that no one will actually get to USE what might be claimed the "fastest desktop in the world." By the time they get their hands on it, it's not at the top of the heap anymore. The much greater problem is that the Apple faithful hear these claims product launch after product launch, and the myth is produced that, among available desktops, Apple is the performance king. When it comes to hardware performance, the situation in time is of paramount importance. Perhaps they don't claim that the product is available at the moment... but it's abundantly clear that the interpretation by the Mac community and the press (and by a great deal of the IT community as well, I think...) is that Apple is on top when it comes to hardware performance. On Apple's best day, this is only true when comparing an Apple system that has several months' hardware advantage on a PC system.
As for "...please point to one example where Apple had an event and claimed something was available that wasn't," I'll leave that up to n4cer, as I did not make that claim. I think my point above has little to do with that request. My earlier point can be summed up like this--Microsoft is quite eager to let people know when they are planning new technology introductions. The timetable may slip, but everyone knows it's coming. They produce documentation and educate people about the technology. It's not nearly as exciting as wowing everyone with an as-yet-unknown technology introduction, but people are prepared for it when it arrives--many fewer big surprises. Apple loves to play the "wait'll the world sees this!!" game. Hey, they can do it if they want, but it's an awful strategy for those that need to plan ahead. Don't confuse the issue talking about timetable slippage--no matter what way you slice it, it's a better strategy for planning, because there's extremely little doubt that the technology is coming. And, most people in the planning-ahead group would rather see the product ship when it's ready, rather than anytime before that (*cough* OS X *cough*). Sorry... had to keep this fun! :) For example--how long have we been hearing reports about the IBM chip powering the next Mac, but no confirmation? Where does that put me as a CIO or IT manager? Should we buy a database now, or wait because soon we'll be able to take advantage of a 64-bit processor? But wait, we can't be sure that there will be a 64-bit processor in the next Mac.... And the developer is left in the same closet, which just adds to the problem. Deep-down I like Apple and used to be a big fan, but it's the delusional user base (and some of the marketing tactics that foster the delusion) that compels me participate in these discussions. All the industry reports are saying already that the IBM 970 is a great step for Apple, but will still be behind AMD and Intel at the time of release. Try convincing anyone of that after the WWDC... World Wide Delusion Conference. |
| #23 By 2459 (69.22.78.116) at 6/12/2003 3:39:44 AM |
|
ditto, bluvg. Well said.
Sodajerk, I'll start over because of the confusion about my feelings towards Apple or about what's being discussed here in general. I hold no malice or ill will towards Apple. Of all of MS' competition, I welcome them most. I do think they make many mistakes, however, with regard to winning new customers, and that there's been a lot more talk about innovation/invention than what has actually been delivered. Forget this paragraph though. All you need remember is what follows. This whole thread ignighted due to my assertion that I believe that though the 970 will provide a significant boost for Mac users, it will not likely give them the performance crown (and in all likelihood, the price/performance crown) and talk of product availability at launch. I'm using reports on availability of the machines to users and Apple's past practice of launching new products at MacWorld, etc., but the products not being immediately available for some time after the expo. If the Spec numbers (and other benchmarks) prove to be representative of release 970s, the 970 already has a performance deficit versus top-end P4s and the Itaniums and Opteron/Athlon64 (all of which [including Itanium] can be used to build systems for less than or comperable to a Mac in price but better in performance), and keep in mind that these are moving targets and likely to improve at a faster rate than the 970 line. Couple this with the lack of a 64-bit OS for possible increased performance in some apps as well as allowing Apple to compete in the high-end workstation/server markets right away. My point in saying all of this is that time matters for Apple. The longer that 970-equipped Macs aren't on the market, the more they lessen the chance of being in parity or ahead of the game and attracting new customers. Sure, speed isn't everything for everyone, but value and price/performance, and "What can this do that I can't already do that justifies the added cost?", do matter to most. Even simpler.... New Mac CPU/architecture = good Should offer big boost versus current Macs Though the gains for Mac users is likely good, there'll likely be little/no gains over the performance of PCs to justify Apple's price premium. This leaves Apple in a better position than they are currently in as far as being able to entice new customers, but it still leaves them behind. How far behind they let themselves get depends on how often they update their product line. Time to market and driving the line forward are more important than ever. This is in no way a bash of Apple. It is simply an observation/perspective. We'll see how this plays out in less than 2 weeks. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 171 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:24:10 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
