Comments on: DOJ Screws Over iPod Competition

By: RoughlyDrafted

RoughlyDrafted — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:47:50 +0000

Market Share Myth: Nailed!…

In The Apple Market Share Myth, I demonstrated how overall market share numbers can be used to suggest ideas that have no basis in reality. Here, IÂ’ll look at the slippery aspect of numbers, prove that a quality share of the market can be better than….

By: RoughlyDrafted

RoughlyDrafted — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:43:06 +0000

The Apple Market Share Myth…

Market share is often used in spreading FUD. It has been used against Apple’s Macintosh since its introduction over twenty years ago. Professional nay-sayers have long insisted that the Mac’s limited market share would prevent it from benefiting from…

By: Hartmeister

Hartmeister — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:09:05 +0000

I agree that Windows will continue to loose market share to Apple unless they solve the iPod issue. I, too, think that unless Microsoft takes the DAP business in house they won't get it done. That saying how could they compete.
1) WMP should be designed to work on Linux, Apple and Windows. Make Apple look proprietary. Plus it will give you good points with DOJ. Make a long-term commitment to all the platforms. Tell them you will support those platforms for the next ten years.
2) Make your own DAP and adopt as many formats as you can including OGG, AAC, MP3, WMA STD and WMA Pro. Don't worry about pushing WMA. Remember the only reason you offer WMA is to boost Windows sales. The point is make DAPs that make Windows look good not DAPs that seem that you can only use WMA.
Also give it a catchy name that is slightl direvative of the iPod. I would suggest either wDAP (windows) , mDAP (microsoft) or XDAP (fits into XBox promos)
3) Make the DAP easy to use. Rio's DAPs were probably the second best interface out there and now that they are defunct it would be easy to pick that interface up for a song from either STMP or DNNA (whomever has those rights).
Or think about buying Creative out since they may have a copyright claim over Apple's interface. That should make some fear and loathing in Apple land.
4) Apple's weakness in the DAP market is their obsession with thin. Build around that by making your DAP infinitely expandable. For flash based make it have a replaceable memory (SD would be the only format to use to keep it price competitive with Apple), battery and display (Allow people to swap LCDs from B&W to high-end color). Do the same with a hard-drive unit with an upgradable hard drive unit, user replaceable batteries and display. The key is to keep it customizable. Make the Apple look like a fuddy-dud. You will know you have this battle won with when reviewers mention how someone at their office has modified their XDAP to have a 200GB hard-drive. 4200 mah battery and their own Battlestar Galatica skin.
5) Allow it to be programmable and for games to be easily added. This might also be something you could synchronize with the XBOX.
6) Allow other mfgs (Dell, Creative, etc) to do the same things you are doing but if they can't compete don't worry about it. The mission is to protect the Windows franchise.
7) Don't worry about making money off the DAP. Just try to make the best one possible that competes better than Apple at each price point. Apple doesn't make any money off iTunes. Apple is not making iPods to make money (though they are doing that right now). They realized that every satisfied iPod user has a good chance of becoming a future iMac purchaser.
8) Podcasting needs to be integrated easily Windows Media player. Many people are simply buying DAPs just to listen to podcasts.
So why am I advocating this. It's quite simple. Apple's obsession to base everything on the iMac/iPod idea creates units who are required to send their units into the mfg to have batteries replaced. Apple doesn't allow the memory to exchanged for their flash players. Only Microsoft can understand how they beat Apple the first time. The created the impression that the Mac was a good computer but had a limited number options (hardware as well as software) and that the Windows interface was 90% as good as a Mac.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 01:22:23 +0000

Chris, you should put some thoght in to what you say. I don't even want to list every politically incorrect thing you said. But this is your blog and you're allowed to have your own opinon, even if it's totally wrong.
And dude you say 'suck' too much, try to use some other word to make your comments seem more wise.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:01:57 +0000

Oh, how I long for the day when you Microsoft apologists are scratching their heads and wondering how the Empire managed to collapse, when Windows once ruled the roost! At this point, there are only Unix or Unix-based operating systems… and the crumbling mess that is Microsoft's half-dozen WIN offerings with all the bad coding, security holes and ultimate failure awaiting it.
Good Luck!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 23 Oct 2005 01:01:57 +0000

What a dumb article. As bad as the windows garbage the author seems to long for. What a waste of bandwith visiting this page.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 19:55:12 +0000

You've definitely misread what's happening with the DOJ and Microsoft, since I can't believe that you would be an advocate of what Microsoft is trying to do. Go back and read it again.
Microsoft can do at least three things to compete:
1. They can make a device that works with iTunes. Of course, it would have to be better than the iPod. (And this might be really difficult without Apple's cooperation…)
2. They can make a Microsoft device that works really well with a better version of WMP10. The new WMP10 has to be at least as good as iTunes (not too high a hurdle on the PC side), and the device would have to be better than the iPod. Not just technically or features-better, but better from the consumer's viewpoint.
3. They can work much more closely with each of the device makers so that a better version of WMP10 works incredibly smoothly with them. They need to provide software for the device, and use all that research that they've paid for to come up with a better device interface than that on the iPod. Then they need to help the device makers to market their devices. Playsforsure failed because it was playsalmostforsure, as you've noted, and they've reinforced their reputation for shoddy quality and forfeited some more credibility by this fiasco. They still have enough good will to try it again, but they better do it right. This whole process is labor intensive but that's what their cash horde is for.
But trying to strong-arm PC makers from loading software other than WMP10 is the wrong way. The DOJ is right.

By: jbravo

jbravo — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 03:46:53 +0000

I can't believe my f@##$$ eyes.
Are you suggesting that M$ is right to force hardware sellers who want to ship WMP with their hardware to not be able to ship anything else in conjunction with it?
Can't M$ ever compete on quality? As you say, Apple is not the cheapest solution in town and yet they're kicking everybody's a$$ with the iPod. Obviously, they're winning in the market because they're offering a much superior solution.
Is Apple stopping M$ from designing their own hardware player and creating an end to end solution the way Apple has?
Why are you advocating that M$ be allowed to use the same tactics they used to dominate the computer market? a market they dominate despite them not offering a superior solution! Do you remember why Be Inc. failed to really license their OS to any hardware seller?
M$ has prior experience in hardware. Before the iPod, Apple had no experience in audio players and they didn't even have any jukebox software. Yet, they succeeded in creating an end to end solution by designing the hardware and buying the software and customizing it to run with their new hardware.
Why isn't M$ expected to compete using its own skills, why must it be allowed to stop others from competing to begin with?
If I were a software developer, what kind of incentive would I have to attempt to write a jukebox software that could be superior to iTunes if I couldn't license it to hardware sellers?
Having a single software option to manage your music doesn't give any advantage to the wma based players. If WMP 10 is an obvious superior solution to all windows based jukebox software, then why the need to contractually exclude other software?
No matter how you turn it, M$ is back to its old sleazy tactics. The DOJ is doing what's right. I understand the need to root for the underdogs, but not when the underdogs use sleazy underhanded tactics to bully other software makers out of the market.

By: eD

eD — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 02:56:57 +0000

Hey Anonymous #1, please read the engadget article and take a look at what a Dell Axim actually is. There is no download on Apple's site for a version of iTunes that runs on a PocketPC. I am looking forward to the day that occurs. I would settle for a version of iTunes on a desktop machine that could produce something that would play (legally) in the Windows Media Player on my PocketPC. I don't like that I have to choose an online music service based on what hardware that I have. I also don't want to do a lot of burning and ripping or hacking and cracking to move my music files around. If it comes to that, then I will just go back to buying CDs and ripping those. Even though some in the music industry like the sound of that, in the end, it means I buy a lot less music.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 02:20:41 +0000

“Screws over…?”
You are really mischaracterizing the facts here. Are you really saying Microsoft *should* be allowed to prevent other software from being bundled with its own? This was at the core of the whole antitrust issue. As part of the settlement, they are PROHIBITED from such aggressive behavior. The speed with which Microsoft's own people backpedaled on this clear violation shows they are well aware of the issue.
I also believe you are off the mark with Apple “owning” the whole process, and that no other company can compete because it can't do this. Your antipathy for iPods probably means you don't know their history very well. In the early days, iTunes wasn't even available for Windows. Apple licensed the MusicMatch software and shipped it with iPods for Windows users. The experience was so-so relative to a Mac because the software was simply not as good. It became much better when iTunes itself was ported to Windows. Users moved to it.
However, to this day, MusicMatch still works with the iPod, as does another piece of Windows software, XPlay. The point is, there is nothing to stop a portable music player competitor from building a “better iTunes.”
Apple wrote a piece of software for another operating system (WITHOUT any control of the APIs whatsoever), users started using it because it was better, and the rest is history.
The only “control” they had was being able to come up with a better device, a better method of managing the music collection, and a better method of synching. As a result, they currently have a sizeable competitive lead, but if someone builds a better mousetrap, that could vanish very quickly.
There is no justification for Microsoft to resort their old (but not forgotten) antitrust tactics to destroy this market lead, just because people like you hate the Apple brand and want to see its prominence disappear.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:34:35 +0000

Umm...hello? iTunes runs on both Mac and Windows (this includes all Macs, most Dell PCs, and most any other x86 PC that runs Windows). Ironically, Microsoft has already taken what you refer to as an "Apple-like approach": Windows Media Player only runs on Windows, and does not work with the most popular players, namely iPods!!!

By: eD

eD — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:25:07 +0000

I am not in favor of Microsoft taking an Apple-like approach with Windows Mobile devices of "only our software runs on our devices". I for one really want to see iTunes running on my Dell Axim. Engadget: iTunes for Windows Mobile 5.0?

By: Larry Borsato

Larry Borsato — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 23:20:33 +0000

The problem is that Microsoft is a bunch of smart people trying to solve a technical problem. Unfortunately for them, it isn't a technical problem – it's a human problem.