This time around the consumer knows exactly what thet're getting into. Unlike in 1984 when computers were in their infancy and people didn't fully realize what computers could do, music is very different.

Music fans know exactly what an ipod can do and are choosing it hand over fist over everyone else doing the same.

Booganosefunk

This was a great editorial -- glad to see someone finally make mention of it! -- but it's really sort of a followup to his previous article, "The Art of the Parlay," in which he talks about the fact that Apple being a 'closed system' has just about nothing to do with its current market share. I highly recommend reading that one too.

Same old proprietary software/hardware lock-in concept. Jobs is attempting to create a monopoly for digital on-line music. Jobs is looking ahead when most music will only be available on-line, and iLemmings will have only one choice the overpriced iTunes music store. There are already concerts that are only available at iTunes at prices over $20.

Even Jobs has bragged about the lack of choice for iPod users proclaiming that iTunes is becoming the MS of the music business.

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
There are already concerts that are only available at iTunes at prices over $20.

LOL, that was stupid on the band's part. Don't blame iTMS or apple for that one if people get pissed. Go straight to the artist(s) that did that one. Ooops.

Gruber is right on the money on this one. With support for multiple media formats and platforms, anyone who argues that iTMS/iPod/AirPort Express is any sort of proprietary solution is just coming to a hasty, uninformed conclusion.

Of course there is the DRM issue, but don't go blaming Apple on this one. If anyone, blame the RIAA for insisting that music stores place DRM on digital content. Unfortunately, at this point, there are multiple brands of DRM out there, and nobody wants to play nice.

Quote

John F. Braun wrote:
Unfortunately, at this point, there are multiple brands of DRM out there, and nobody wants to play nice.

And Apple fan that I am, I can't deny that Apple isn't playing too nice on this one, either. But then again, why should they if no one else will?

Still don't understand.

When the Mac came out in 1984 the IBM PC was well established in business and waited for MS to copy the ease of the Mac. Only took 10 years, but even then it was full of problems. (Actually, still is, with XP SP 2 being the best they can do.)

Business was also held in the Intel/MS grasp with every new "advancement" being backward compatible - which is why you still have the x86 foundation in today's PCs. Probably gives you a sense of security knowing you are basically using 1980 technology.

Apple has survived when a lot larger companies failed because it has always been ahead of the PC world and there were enough people recognizing that fact to keep them afloat, even when Steve J wasn't there.

Today the difference in the iPod market is that the consumers, RC excepted, have adopted the iPod and Apple's software in huge numbers. Every other company, including MS, is trying to catch up, generally by coping Apple as much as possible. They are going to need to come up with something better than the iPod to beat Apple, except for those few MS diehards who will rush to buy their iWorm (using iVirus software) the day MS releases it. (RC will be the first to order?)

In the computer area MS appears to me to be at a crisis point. XP SP2 should have been a quality product. MS has the billions in cash and thousands of "talented programmers" and should have come up with a strong replacement to XP. What happened? Over 200 XP programs that won't work under SP2 (including MS programs), companies and universities telling people not do download it and the first flaw discovered within the first week. MS appears to be totally lost.

At the same time, Linux is moving forward at a fast clip and Macs are also getting a lot of attention. Problem is, they are better than Windows and a hell of a lot safer. VIrus problems? Worms? Windows is about as safe as having unprotected sex in a Calcutta whorehouse. And people are starting to understand this, except of course for RC and the folks at MS.

Today Apple's decisions to stay closed appears smarter than ever.

Quote

kenaustus wrote:
Windows is about as safe as having unprotected sex in a Calcutta whorehouse.

This should be your signature.

Just to be a bit of a counterpoint, I think that microsoft's problems are magnified simply by the number of users that they have and that so many virus writers and "evil"-doers are specifically writing against them and trying to find every hole in their OS and all their other jazz. Now, that's not to excuse them from releasing SP2 at the beginning of the school year for colleges, or doing any number of other things wrong, but if Apple were as big as MS, they'd probably be having a much tougher time than they are now. It all just comes with the territory of being a big boy.

Quote

spxyu02 wrote:
Just to be a bit of a counterpoint, I think that microsoft's problems are magnified simply by the number of users that they have and that so many virus writers and "evil"-doers are specifically writing against them and trying to find every hole in their OS and all their other jazz.

Actually, you ought to read more of Gruber's work... he's pretty thoroughly debunked your argument. See: Broken Windows and its sequel, So Witty.

what you dont seem to understand, RC, is that ALL music player play MP3s. that's all 99% of consumers care about because if you are buying an ipod you either:

1. love the itunes music store and dont care if your ipod only plays songs from it
2. have an existing library you plan to rip
3. plan to download music illegally

if you like choosing between crummy WMA music stores then you wont even bother buying an ipod in the first place. and that is the minority of music listeners, especially taking in consideration that out of the 30% of people who don't buy an ipod, most buy the other products because of all the other factors, like battery life, niche features like FM radio, and price. Not because they have the wonderful privillege of being able to pick between real's crap and napster's crap and oh boy how about sony connect!

Quote

Scott Reynolds wrote:
Actually, you ought to read more of Gruber's work... he's pretty thoroughly debunked your argument. See: Broken Windows and its sequel, So Witty.

Those were both pretty interesting, but the only thing he argues in Broken Windows is that you can't make a certain argument (not that that in itself isn't a good argument).

From broken windows: "The security disparity between the Mac and Windows isn’t so much about technical possibilities as it is about what people will tolerate." And I think that this does have something to do with market share, even though he argues that it doesn't. Mid way through the article he writes about the fact that if any software for mac did contain adware/spyware/virus action or whatever, it would be all over the mac web and there would be fixes and uninstall instructions etc. While as a new mac user I am extremely happy that this happens, and that part of it may be that mac users are more enthusiastic and driven to watch their computers than windows users, it also speaks to the ease of which information can reach an entire user group because they are smaller than the other guys.

However, I thought his most interesting point was making me see the light on the subject of motivation for writing viruses for either OS. I said that more windows users = more windows viruses, while he hypothesizes that it would be more desirable to write a virus for OS X and break it, thereby gaining "fame" and becoming notable for your accomplishment. While many may still only write viruses for Windows to infect a larger number of users (to obtain a larger amount of personal information on the whole, for example, if that was the purpose of the virus)his argument makes much more sense than mine now, and would seem to indicate that either a) most virus writers are lazy or b) OS X just is more secure. *hugs powerbook, kicks dell*

Microsoft today owes it's dominance to one "thing," and that thing is "IBM." First, Microsoft exists because it provided the label for AT&T, Bell, Compaq, Digital, ... "IBM Compatible" ("No manager ever got fired for buying IBM."). Then, IBM, in trying to break from Microsoft, went out and invented OS/2, a failure that strengthend Microsoft.

Apple never had an "IBM" mentality - the famous 1984 commercial is more than just a fantastic adverisement.

I think it can be argued that market share aside, Apple dominates Microsoft - MS is, by it's very nature condemned to a future of playing "catchup."

A book from the 80's proclaimed, "The Mac is not a typewriter." For the 00's, it would be "The iPod is not a PC."