Who wants an AppleTV? I sure don’t. It just doesn’t do what I want it to.
All in all, the AppleTV is a good step in the direction of what we really need for true television nirvana. I have always been of the mindset that personal computers are the perfect platforms to do what we want, how we want, where we want. I’m speaking of recording TV, viewing movies and DVDs, listening to music, viewing photos, and playing games. But unfortunately, there is one big thing standing in the way of this: ourselves.
What I mean by that is the idea that we are humans, and we write the programs that perform these tasks. And as humans, we make mistakes and also write software that is incompatible with other software. For instance, any decent PC gamer worth his salt would never allow his gaming PC to be used for any other purpose. No spreadsheets. No video playback. No DVD player software. No TV recording. So, the all-in-one solution is not really practical.
So, I think the best thing that can happen is to have inexpensive mini-devices that do a subset of what we need, where we need it. The AppleTV is a valiant effort to move in that direction. It’s almost affordable for what it is. It’s small. It’s dedicated to what it does: interface media with a television. Unfortunately, it doesn’t do it that well.
I won’t go into the AppleTV shortcomings here, as that is not what I am wanting to write about. What I’m here for is to talk briefly about the Archos TV Plus ( http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/14/archos-tv-announced/ ).
All I can say is it’s about time Archos figured it out. Their video players have always been able to operate as DVRs, but I thought that was the silliest thing ever. You had to have your player plugged into the unit to have it act as a DVR, which takes away the “portable” part of the portable media player. The whole idea of having a DVR is to be able to record the TV that you’re not home to watch. Well, if your player is with you, then how can it be recording TV?
I think you see my point. But the ArchosTV Plus is a DVR as well as a media player. It’s sort of a new Archos media player that’s not portable and doesn’t have it’s own small screen. And I love the idea. It’s the perfect companion to your Archos portable media player.
Here are some of the specs. It’s a standalone DVR. We already talked about that. It has WiFi and ethernet connections, ostensibly to be able to stream or sync media from a home networked PC or Mac. It has HDMI and RGB in and out, so it seemingly can play and record HD content. It will come in two sizes: 80GB and 250GB. And you will be able to plug your Archos portable media player right into it (or connect via WiFi) to sync content. Cool!
It does not have an optical media drive, but I think it could (and maybe should) have a DVD drive in it. Perhaps even the ability to rip DVDs (subject to copyright laws, of course). Perhaps burn them as well for archival and playing elsewhere. But that does make it start getting into the realm of do-it-all device, rather than a do-one-thing-very-well device.
Now, if it can play protected content and can also purchase and/or download online content, then it would be a perfect device.
I am excited about the Archos TV Plus and cannot wait for it to hit stores.
Oh, Archos also announced their generation 5 series or portable media players. They’re all WiFi, touchscreen, video players that look poised to revolutionize the industry.
Check it all out: http://forum.archosfans.com/viewtopic.php?p=22424
The point I am trying to make is Microsoft never has tried to add a cool factor to its products even before their antitrust woes started. That’s a good point though in why they wouldn’t try to do so today though. The rest of your post is also very good and you have made good points on the Microsoft antitrust issues and the comment of Ubuntu Linux is a good one.
Also Microsoft seems to favor DRM — even if the MPAA didn’t make requirements for DRM in High Definition video Microsoft might still support it. They say they are against the DRM in Blu Ray because its too restrictive for consumers (the format that sadly looks like it will prevail) and as HD DVD has less restrictions they chose that one however, they often make themselves appear as hypocrities. They oppose DRM in Blu Ray but would be willing to add DRM to Windows Vista!?? (hypothetical statement: Their still is some DRM there and technically they are not required to provide it they have the leverage in operating systems that Apple has in digital music to dictate terms to the music labels that music companies might not like hearing — in the video industry Apple has dictated all TV episodes sold as downloads via iTunes will go for $1.99 on US iTunes Store and international iTunes stores cannot be used by US iTunes shoppers.
NBC upset at the fixed pricing of iTunes and that Apple refused to negotiate higher pricing quit selling on iTunes which was still a mistake as iTunes was a huge revenue generator for them — if not the largest it was still huge — they say they didn’t want to replace the dollars they made in the analog world with pennies on the digital side well they may have a point but even then now their making nothing from iTunes and iTunes continues to be a successful store to sell on. Its better to make pennies than nothing and offer products on multiple platforms — insist that other stores upon signing a contract are obliged to let the content owner raise or lower prices at will.
Apple has not come out officially against DRM — except for the mention Steve Jobs made saying Apple opposes DRM in music sold on iTunes and wants to sell DRM free music before iTunes Plus launched. They have not spoken out against DRM in video. Microsoft except for saying it opposes Blu Ray has had a pro DRM policy. They wanted everyone locked into Windows and their Plays for Sure DRM (earlier called Janus and now Certified for Windows Vista) where consumers buying digital music or video from download to own stores like Napster 2 Go, RealNetwork’s Rhapsody, Yahoo Music!, AOL Music Downloads, CinemaNow.com, MovieLink.com and even Microsoft’s older MSN Music Store etc (some of these services have shut down) that used the proprietary Plays for sure DRM (which was only plays for sure with Windows OS) and sold music in copy protected windows media audio (WMA) format from any of these stores (video too in Windows Media Video — WMV file format) and then besides playing in Windows Media Player they could copy or transfer them to a non iPod based mp3 player (compatible with both music and/or video) that is Plays for Sure certified and designed to work with Plays for Sure content. Plays for Sure was a dud. It never really caught on that well and it is now dead, although Microsoft’s Plays for Sure partners would still like people to think it is working.
Napster which also offers subscription music uses Plays for Sure even now. Microsoft abandoned Plays for Sure for the even more proprietary Zune which was based on the iPod model. Integrated hardware/software. Whereas in Plays for Sure they let different companies they partnered with that wanted to sell content set up their own digital distribution systems and use their DRM (the Microsoft DRM) now Microsoft has set up the Zune device and software along with Zune Marketplace and for anyone foolish enough to buy lots of Plays for Sure music (some people did but not near as many people buying iPods and most people continued to shop iTunes or buy CD music, import to iTunes and copy to iPod) the whole worth of their collection is useless if they buy a Zune. Zunes have a totally different DRM system that Microsoft is keeping to itself like Apple guards FairPlay for iTunes and Zune players are the only portable music devices capable of playing copy protected Zune music — unless you buy a Zune track and then circumvent the DRM and put it on another player a Zune DRMed file will only work on a Zune or a Windows PC with Zune software.
Zune DRM has tougher restrictions than iTunes when it comes to audio CD burning by default I think they deny CD burning privileges. The WIFI access is not as good as that of iPhone/iPod Touch.
Zune in some ways is even worse than Plays for Sure. The music is still WMA most likely but a new DRM system is in place. It may have its pros but the cons for me are too great. Zune software is not as good as iTunes from what I heard Zune software has problems and the devices have not been selling as well since they were released — they are starting to try and improve yet to see that happening.
I would never buy a Zune — I don’t want to support any DRM system by Microsoft — at least Apple partially opposes DRM — more than Microsoft by the looks of it. The Zune’s WIFI access as I said is crippled compared to iPods with WIFI access.
Zune is eating up market share from Plays for Sure certified device makers but has not made much of a dent yet in iPod market share. iPod market share has stagnated somewhat recently but not because of Zune. Far from it. Concerns of an economic recession that sparked a short time back (just before U.S. 2008 State of the Union by President Bush) have led some consumers to withhold future purchases — they stop spending and are more interested in saving money, and so many iPods are already sold despite the fact there are still some people without them that without refreshing iPods regularly which Apple does do consumers would lose interest in them eventually.
I find Apple iWork 08 for Mac to be a better buy than Microsoft Mac Office 2008. Even the cheapest version of Mac Office is overpriced compared to iWork. iWork sells as low as $79 its $99 if you want the Family Pack. MS Office does not even have a Family Pack as far as I can tell you have to buy individual licenses of it. 1 MS Office license can entitle you to install 1 copy of the software on 1 Mac desktop and 1 Mac laptop only. You can’t do 2 Mac desktops or 2 Mac laptops.
Microsoft’s second market it has monopoly power in behind Windows and the one that matters most right now is Office. Since Office runs on Windows and Mac MS Office is cross platform — not entirely cross platform but somewhat cross platform and between both Mac and Windows it is the most used productivity suite of Mac users as well from what I have heard.
I have never trusted Microsoft — ever since the antitrust case in U.S. that started in 1997 I have been highly suspicious of their motives and I don’t want to hand over control of my computer or digital media to them. Even if Microsoft sold content DRM free (I might be a little more inclined to try it but would still have a few doubts before buying anything dunno if I even would) — I’ll never consider buying content from them till they go DRM free.
Also must build a better digital distribution system and provide more usage rights to consumers.
Wow, you are all over the map, and almost entirely incorrect.
First of all, Microsoft didn’t build DRM into Vista. Vista does have copy protection, which could be seen as a form of DRM, but it really isn’t. DRM is Digital Rights Management, which is used for media files. Copy protection in Vista is in the form of activation with a unique code, something that’s been in XP for years.
What you’re referring to is the fact that Vista has built-in SUPPORT for AACS.
Here is the landscape. The MPAA et al have determined that any hardware configuration that plays AACS video (which includes Blu-Ray and HD-DVD) must be 100% HDCP compatible from the disc all the way to the screen. Otherwise, the software is supposed to downgrade the content, and, in some cases, hiccup the system.
So, any hardware platform that you wish to play full high-def videos from Blu-Ray or HD-DVD must be 100% HDCP compatible from disc to screen. In a computer, the OS is part of this. So is the video card. So is the cable (HDMI). And so is the monitor. These things do not have DRM built-in, they merely support the standard.
As such, no Linux or OSX box can play this media in full HD. If they want to, then they too must become compliant.
See, here’s Microsoft’s dilemma. They can support the standard. Or they can deny the standard and then people can’t play AACS content on their Windows computers. Or they can go all pirate and allow the content to pass without being compliant, which opens them up to a huge lawsuit.
Microsoft chose, as I would expect them to, to make Vista compliant so that people wishing to play HD content on their computers would choose Vista. It’s a simple business decision.
Now, as to Apple, well they are way worse. They actually INVENTED their own DRM scheme: FairPlay. Microsoft did too, which they did build into Media Player (and other products such as the Zune). Yes, you can rip a CD in Media Player and add DRM to the tracks. And it’s turned on by default. That’s bad, IMO, but that’s MP, not Vista. MP in XP has this too.
But for all of Steve Jobs’ posturing about how they don’t like DRM and only include it because they’re forced to, well they INVENTED FairPlay. And they also continually update FairPlay to break the existing cracks.
I for one don’t mind a modicum of DRM. I think it’s necessary to help keep honest people honest. And there is an “analog hole” in music tracks: they can be burned to an audio CD and then ripped (and I don’t know if Zune Markeplace allows this). So your iTunes and Plays-For-Sure tracks aren’t completely imprisoned. It’s a less-than-desirable solution, yes, but it does exist.
Video encoded with FairPlay has no such hole, which is why I stay far away from videos on iTunes. I am not averse to renting, because those are ephemeral on my HDD anyway. I know I won’t be keeping the file forever, so I don’t mind it having certain restrictions.
So here we are, back to our old familiar battleground. You condemn Microsoft for allowing DRM, and for having it in their media content (Zune, Plays-For-Sure, etc.). But yet, Apple does the same thing, is far more proliferate with their DRM, but you do not condemn them. Sure, you are “boycotting” iTunes content because of the DRM, but you haven’t said, as you have for Microsoft, that you will never buy another Apple product until “they go DRM free”.
Let’s call things as they are. First of all, Steve Jobs’ plea about DRM was not about DRM at all. And I really don’t know why no one else saw this. Re-read his open letter. His main point is that Apple will never license FairPlay. France, at the time, was trying to force Apple to give up FairPlay because French laws stipulate that there must be more than one entity sowing such things. So they said that FairPlay was illegal, or else Apple had to license it to someone else. Jobs responded with a very well-crafted letter that said how much they are against DRM, but are forced to use it by the evil RIAA and MPAA. And just when everyone was lauding his words (the reality distortion field was on full power), he lays on the real premise of his words: Apple will never license FairPlay. But by then, everyone had stopped reading. They were too busy high-fiving each other that Jobs is against DRM.
But you are of the mindset that Microsoft can place large amounts of pressure on the content providers to eliminate DRM. Now THAT’s anticompetitive. You chide Microsoft repeatedly for pressuring other companies to their own will. But now you think that they are irresponsible for NOT applying pressure?
Well, what about Apple? They’ve made their stance. But yet, most iTunes offerings are still DRM’ed to the hilt. Why can’t they place pressure? Heck, Jobs is on the Pixar board, for God’s sake! Why is my copy of “Lifted” (the Pixar short that was on the Ratatouille DVD), which I purchased on iTunes, obscured behind FairPlay?
The truth of the matter is this: Apple and Microsoft have created conduits through which media and other content can be distributed. The rightful owners have stated that to distribute their wares, the files must have DRM on them. Neither Apple nor Microsoft has really gone toe-to-toe with anyone on this issue. In fact, they’ve both capitulated to a vast degree. As well they should, because it’s not their property. But they do wish their own OS to be used by the consumers of these media works.
So, once and for all, get it out of your head that “Microsoft has added DRM to Vista.” They have not. They have only added support for AACS in order to allow this type of media to be played on systems running their OS. No other OS has complied with this, and so no other OS can play this type of media (with some obscure exceptions, such as HD disc players that run a modified version of Linux). You may as well be angry with Dell for creating HDCP-compliant monitors, or NVIDIA for creating HDCP-compliant video cards. Or Intel, ATI, AMD, or a hundred other manufacturers of HDCP-compliant hardware and software. They’re all guilty of the same thing.
-Mike
Okay I get that Microsoft hasn’t added DRM to Vista now but I was speaking in hypotheticals if they truly had done so.
Next, there is the issue though that they have never clearly come out against DRM. Except for Bill Gates mentioning opposition to Blu Ray for being too restrictive he has never made a speech or written an essay as long as Jobs “Thoughts On Music” where he voiced opposition against DRM.
Microsoft is not compelled to add DRM to Vista — assuming it did even then it wouldn’t be the fault of MPAA and RIAA but Microsoft’s own decision. If MPAA insisted they actually add DRM to Vista itself (not counting the AACS stuff) Microsoft could refuse that Windows is their operating system and they have enough dominance to dictate to MPAA in some instances what can and cannot be done.
Microsoft does have DRM for Zune different than Plays for sure as mentioned and they don’t want to do away with DRM just Apple’s DRM. Apple’s DRM has more usage rights than the DRM systems by Microsoft. Also Microsoft as I just said only wants to replace FairPlay with their own Plays for sure or Zune. Now they have given up on Plays for Sure although their old partners are still trying to use it.
I don’t like the idea of Apple’s DRM but most other companies use the Microsoft DRM and a successful DRM by a company outside Microsoft is better than Microsoft DRM. The ideal world would be no DRM. Having to live in a DRM world I would prefer DRM from any other company than Microsoft or Sony that has the level of usage rights as FairPlay.
The fact FairPlay is successful for Apple is bad news for Microsoft. They don’t want to do away with DRM or provide a better DRM with more usage rights for consumers. They actually want to limit usage rights even more. Zune DRM is even more restrictive than iTunes FairPlay combo.
For Microsoft to ever get my money for digital media they would have 2 do two things:
1) until I have reason to trust them more dump DRM entirely
2) build a better digital distribution system and improve their platforms for digital media.
Another option for 1) would be to keep DRM but make the usage rights better than the ones Apple offers. If I have to live with DRM I would prefer to at least have as much rights as possible to the content as far as fair use concerns go — there will be restrictions but the least restrictions possible. Apple offers less than Microsoft. Microsoft would have to improve the usage rights to match those of iTunes. However, I think I would prefer the original option 1) to this one.
Also I don’t buy that line about DRM keeping honest people honest. DRM as a fact will lead to more people committing piracy. I read an article sometime back that the real winner in the HD DVD versus Blu Ray war will be Piracy TM. Consumers are willing to pay for the commercially produced content they acquire rather than stealing it or pirating it as it is also called but if the only legal way to buy something is to get it with DRM and the fact that pirated versions of that same content go without DRM — the only DRM free copies are pirated the consumer frustrated with DRM will pirate just to get a DRM free copy. DRM does not prevent people from pirating it encourages them to do so. In general more people will be inclined to not buy anything with DRM and get their content thanks to piracy DRM free.
What about Microsoft’s Trusted Computing initiative referred to by the anti-DRM world as Treacherous Computing? Microsoft could pressure companies to dump DRM possibly with the might of their OS monopoly — Microsoft does not have a monopoly on digital media so the pressure Apple applies for keeping iTunes prices fixed might be harder for Microsoft to do with content companies on Zune Marketplace or XBox Live Video Marketplace unless they get the same type of market share. Microsoft pressured Compaq in the 1990s to dump its plans to bundle QuickTime with their Windows PCs. That type of pressure was bad pressure. They exert a lot of influence enough to force other companies to their will through acts of blackmail but only by leveraging Windows.
They couldn’t use Windows to force Zune Marketplace prices to remain fixed if they wanted that. Zune would have to have enough customers and Microsoft enough power for Zune Marketplace to make such demands.
As for avoiding buying Apple products because of DRM — yes I have stated I plan to buy an Apple TV and intend on buying future iPods although I’m limiting my use of iTunes Store in future and your of the persuasion that it would make more sense for me to quit buying Apple products altogether until they give up DRM — well I’m hoping eventually they’ll either change their mind about not licensing FairPlay DRM and do so after getting enough market share from iTunes movie rentals even and sold enough rentals — and expanded iTunes movie sales more, expanded iTunes music sales, iTunes TV show sales, etc and enough new iPod Classics, iPod Touches, iPod Nanos with video and iPod Shuffles, enough Apple TVs and iPhones that while it will grow their market share even more it will also mean the market is growing overall much more — and other players (competitors) will eventually start making their products more innovative and user friendly enough that they’ll then challenge the iTunes movie rental, movie sale, TV show sale, music sale, iPod sale, iPhone sale, and Apple TV sale model by making better products and might start making some gains against Apple but while Apple innovates they can then share portions of the market more openly than at present.
The market is growing for mp3 players each time you buy a new iPod — Apple’s market share grows but so does the overall market and it encourages competition.
My theory support Apple to help the overall market and support Apple to stop Microsoft from getting control of digital media. Then buy products from Creative and others and let neither Apple nor Microsoft wield too much power.
I am still trying to figure out what you mean by adding DRM to Vista. What on earth does that mean? Do you mean that Microsoft might begin forcing people who are creating audio tracks from CDs to place rights management on them, regardless of what audio software they use? Or are you saying that they might add some sort of copy protection to the Vista DVDs that you install the OS from?
See, here’s the deal. DRM is the term for a set of schemes to protect content owners from their works getting copied willy-nilly by consumers. I don’t see what “adding DRM to Vista” would have to do with any of that.
Vista (and many other programs and software suites) does have copy protection, which is a similar concept to DRM, but a different animal altogether.
And DRM does indeed help keep honest people honest. If you owned a convertible, would you leave the top down and your laptop in the front seat? Of course not, that’s inviting people to steal your laptop. Even a casual observer might reason that you just don’t care about your laptop so they may just take it. But if you locked it up, then only determined thieves would go through the trouble of breaking the glass to get the laptop.
Back in the hey-day of Napster, I downloaded many gigs of music. Eventually, the RIAA underwent a campaign to educate the world that this was stealing. And their continued pursuit of pirates and also their continued desire to strengthen DRM only reinforces the idea to me that copying files in this nature is stealing. So now, I don’t use P2P software or sites.
Now, the issue I have with DRM is that it is so restrictive that it hinders legitimate users, but it doesn’t slow down pirates much at all.
In the end, I wouldn’t take your laptop from your unlocked car. But the very fact that you locked the laptop in the trunk and locked your car doors removes a lot of temptation. Leaving something open and easy to steal takes some people that wouldn’t otherwise steal and lets them believe that stealing is okay, because the rightful owners aren’t taking any effort to secure their property.
Let’s look at it this way. Envision a scale from 0 to 100. This number represents the percentage of people that will steal music based on how much DRM there is. With no DRM, that number is, IMO, in the 80s. If you add some light DRM, this will confound some users and will open others’ eyes. So the number will drop to, say, 50%. Add some more-restrictive DRM, and the number may drop some more to, say, 40%. But here’s the phenomenon that the RIAA and MPAA don’t get. As you add more and more-restrictive DRM, that number ceases to drop and actually starts to go back up. People get frustrated that their purchased content won’t work the way they want it to and they begin to seek the works elsewhere, from less-than-legitimate sources.
Another thing that the RIAA and the MPAA don’t get is that there is another scale, which represents how many people will consume their works. With no DRM, the piracy is high, but so is the consumption. With a small amount of DRM, the piracy reduces, but so does the purchasing. A little more DRM and the piracy reduces a small amount, but the purchasing reduces the same amount as before. And in the end, if you add far too much DRM, the piracy rate goes up, and the purchasing rate continues to drop.
So even if they find the sweet-spot of DRM to reduce piracy as far as they can, they’ve still shot themselves in the foot because they’ve lost too many purchasers. Many, like you and me, will opt to just not consume any of their product because we don’t want the hassle. I don’t own a Blu-Ray or an HD-DVD player or any discs (except for the one I bought to experiment with) because I don’t want to deal with the DRM, the format war, the limited availability, the cost, or the idea that I will have to spend a lot of money to upgrade hardware and ensure that everything is HDCP-compliant. That’s just too much and I can’t afford it all.
So this is the way I see it (these numbers are made-up but they illustrate my point). With no DRM, 100 units consumed, but 80% pirated, so I sold 20 units. With a little DRM, 90 units consumed, but 50% pirated, so I sold 45 units. With a little more DRM, 70 units consumed but 40% piracy, so I sold 42 units. Add more DRM, up to the AACS-type level, and it’s 50 units consumed, but 60% pirated, so I sold only 20 units.
If the RIAA were smart, they would see that with just a little DRM, their sales would be the highest. As well, their market penetration was very respectable, which can be parlayed into other avenues of income (concerts, paraphernalia sales, events, etc.).
As for Microsoft’s position on DRM… well, what’s their position on the infield fly rule?
Who cares? That’s not their business.
The truth is that Microsoft is not a content provider in this realm, so who cares what they think? The only reason Jobs even mentioned DRM in his letter was because he was really screaming about not licensing FairPlay. But he had to make his point about why FairPlay even exists to discuss the point.
If Microsoft really wanted to affect the music industry, they could just buy up the recording labels. That would be their easiest solution. But Microsoft is a software company, not a recording company, so they have no dog in that fight. They really couldn’t care less. They want you to use Windows to play your MP3s and they also want you to use Windows to play AACs, WMAs, and anything else. They simply don’t care what media you play or how much DRM is or isn’t on it; they are just going to do what they can to allow you to play it so that you keep using Windows.
I really think you need to examine your opinion and ideas about Microsoft. You seem to feel, as many do, that such a conglomerate owes stuff to the consumers. Like they “owe” us a bullet-proof OS. Or they “owe” us the right to break copy protection. Or the “owe” us the right to use Office files in other software applications. The truth is, they don’t owe us anything. They produce a product and we can consume it or not at our own whim. If they wish to be successful, they will take necessary steps to make the consumers happy with their products. But they have no obligation whatsoever to do so.
I am not saying that you SHOULD give up on Apple products. I am only saying that you have an obvious bias toward Apple and against Microsoft. You condemn all of Microsoft for a few ideas, but where I demonstrate that Apple is guilty of the same things, you only choose to boycott a small portion of Apple’s products.
For instance, you’ve stated openly and frequently that you will never buy another Microsoft product until they stop putting DRM into Vista. Well, guess what, DRM isn’t IN Vista. Support for AACS is, but the DRM itself is on the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD discs themselves. By the same token, FairPlay isn’t IN iTunes, but support for it is, so that protected iTunes content can be played.
So here we are, Vista does not have DRM in it, so your problems with Microsoft should wane. Are they?
Meanwhile, Apple is placing DRM (FairPlay) on iTunes tracks and movies. Why aren’t you boycotting all Apple products until they stop this practice? Either DRM is evil, or it isn’t.
Now, you make the valid point that FairPlay is less restrictive than Plays-For-Sure or Zune protection. I can’t speak to that since I only consume iTunes works, since I have an iPod, AppleTV, etc. (It wouldn’t make sense for me to purchase from Rhapsody or some other non-iPod-compatible point of sale.) But assuming you’re correct, you have a point. But you are still advocating the boycott of Apple’s DRM’ed works, so you must find their DRM to be restrictive enough to be bad. So why aren’t you also boycotting OSX, and Macs, and iPods, and Macbooks?
In the end, I just wish to be fair. Microsoft has done some wonderful things. If it weren’t for Microsoft, personal computers would still be in the dark ages. Too many people would not be able to share with their friends because they have different OSes. But the very dominance of Windows has brought everyone far closer. Even for OSes that aren’t Microsoft-written, they understand that they need to communicate with the 400 lb. gorilla. That’s why things like SMB and Samba exist. This is why many office suites besides Office itself can read and (in most cases) write Office-compatible files.
On the other end, it should also be noted that Microsoft does an amazing job of keeping millions and millions of PC users happy. There seems to be a lot of unhappiness with Microsoft products, but there’s a weight in numbers here. If a million Vista users are unhappy, then there are still 99 million Vista users who aren’t complaining. If there were a million unhappy Leopard users, then there would only be 5 or 10 million (I don’t know the installed base off the top of my head) satisfied Leopard users. Do you see how the math works?
Microsoft also goes to incredible lengths to keep new OSes at least somewhat compatible with previous versions. Sure it’s not 100% compatible, but OSes need to evolve. The only 100% XP-compatible OS is XP itself. But I recall Apple going from OS9 to OSX and saying, “too bad your stuff is all broken now… go spend more money and upgrade.” In the end, most people realized that the upgrade to OSX was worth it, even with the added expense. But where is that mindset with Windows?
I am not a Microsoft fan-boy (in fact, that term seems contrarian), but I do recognize the huge burdens they bear, and so I cut them some slack on some things. Vista may not be perfect, but it’s still a far better OS than you or I could write. Maybe we should stop being armchair Bill Gateses and let the professionals do their jobs.
-Mike
You may have a point on the DRM in Vista — I have already conceded that Vista has no DRM it just uses the AACS DRM and users are only affected by the DRM when using Vista they try to remove AACS DRM.
As for the iTunes/Zune/Plays for sure while I think all DRM is bad (from what I heard the Zune’s WIFI capabilities are not as good as the iPods), while iTunes is not completely cross platform (works with Mac and Windows with Mac being Apple’s own platform) at least its not one of those Windows only programs/stores. I have never used a Plays for Sure music download store and bought vast amounts of digital music (the way I have with iTunes) and to Microsoft Plays for sure is now dead. I did not want to invest in a Microsoft DRM that locks me to Windows exclusively. iTunes is the best cross platform solution so far. If it worked with Linux and/or Sun Solaris also it might be even better.
At least its Mac and Windows compatible. Not just a Windows compatible store/player/service and is the only major company in consumer electronics/music and video download stores/media player markets to offer an alternative to Microsoft DRM. They say RealNetworks Rhapsody has its own DRM from Microsoft but they were selling Rhapsody music in Windows Media Player 10 as a Plays for Sure partner of Microsoft.
If FairPlay is the only DRM system for digital content (that is downloadable — DVDs are digital too in a way) that is from a company outside Microsoft (or the only decent one with more usage rights than all others — frankly no DRM is best but I would rather have a successful FairPlay DRM than a Microsoft DRM) so rather than using Plays for sure or Zune I am contented with iTunes FairPlay system. It would be ideal if there was no DRM but at least supporting Apple iTunes is better than supporting Microsoft’s exclusive lock-in attempts through DRM to tie everything to Windows.
One sad thing in regard to Microsoft antitrust as Microsoft kills off competitors they make it harder to find alternative products to their overpriced products that work as good or even better than their own. When you do use alternative software you may find that you need to get several different products to replace 1 Microsoft product and that represents a flaw in Microsoft’s design strategy (although it serves them well) BY BUNDLING SO MANY FUNCTIONS INTO A SINGLE PACKAGE it BECOMES MORE DIFFICULT TO REPLACE THE MEDIOCRE ONES WITH BETTER ONES.
Microsoft is trying to create a single MONOLITHIC ALL MS SYSTEM which can be called Microsoft Internet Office Windows which they refer to as .NET in which everything works together but not with anything else.
You might need to get a couple dozen other programs to replace it all which is a little hassle but for those wanting to be free of Microsoft only products they can just think of the freedom it gives them. Pick out a stable operating system, a snazzy web browser, a secure e-mail program, an easy to use word processor etc and you would get to decide where to go not Microsoft.
iTunes movie rentals by the way are less restrictive than XBox rentals. iTunes lets you rent a movie for 30 days and once you start watching it have only 24 hours to finish (but if you have started watching the movie and paused it but kept it open supposedly it can run past the 24 hour clock. From what I heard XBox 360 Live Marketplace Video Download rentals give you like 16 days to watch and the same 24 hour restriction once you start watching but I don’t know if by pausing it in between and re-playing it just as the 24 hours are up will enable you to watch past the 24 hour clock.
Microsoft customer service for XBox is screwy just like Sony’s for the PS3. I heard one time someone who got a PS3 as a gift (did not have the sale receipt because it was a gift) opened it up a few days after receiving it and it wouldn’t work. He tried to send it to Sony but at first they would refuse service without the proof of purchase. He tried explaining that it was a gift and when they did take it he was told it had too much dust in it that Sony couldn’t service it. They said it had 3 years worth of dust but he got it shortly after it was released. There was no way it could be 3 years worth of dust. I don’t remember all the details but one person he spoke to was so rude saying that they would not service it and he had in fact asked another Sony rep who was polite about the dust issue and was told dust should not be an issue. Sony policy according to the other rep did not say service could be denied because of dust.
A few days back I heard that a XBox customer who downloaded some video content from Live Marketplace had to send his XBox for servicing to Microsoft because of power failure and they just sent him a replacement model — for the replacement model he had to buy all the content again. The info about his purchases and the content was linked to his XBox not his XBox Live username. He would only be able to play the content online but not store it to the hard drive without paying for it again. This got into a very difficult issue he contacted Microsoft again telling them about the content he had on his earlier XBox and how it is inaccessible from his new XBox. A recommendation would have been for Microsoft to refund his XBox Live points and let him use them to buy whatever he wanted. They didn’t do so though.
At least with iTunes for me I can make backups of all purchased content on to disc and if there is a OS reinstall instead of having to pay for everything again I can just copy it all back from disc.
The DRM FUD (hype) alone in Vista is/was not the only reason for me avoiding Vista. Even if it does not have DRM it is an overpriced upgrade.
The website http://microsoft.toddverbeek.com/ reports that Windows is not the best OS for personal computers but the best marketed. it’s just the best-marketed. Its inconsistent behavior and the interface that changes with every version are the main reasons people find computers difficult to use. Microsoft adds new bells and whistles in each release, and claims that this time they’ve solved the countless problems in the previous versions… but the hype is never really fulfilled. The upgrade prices are blatant, documented gouging, which serve primarily to keep the cash flowing to Microsoft to subsidize their efforts to take over other markets. A slew of intrusive “features” in the recent versions benefit Microsoft at the expensive of both your privacy and your freedom. Which is to say nothing of how poorly the Vista “upgrade” runs on even year-old machines that weren’t specificallly designed for it. So rather than switching to Windows Vista, consider switching to something better. There’s an exciting array of interesting operating systems out there, and the overall quality of them is stronger than ever.
The website also mentions THAT IF YOU CAN’T SAY NO TO WINDOWS which is understandable in many cases one can still SAY NO MORE. The simplest alternative to Windows Vista is a previously-installed version of Windows. Windows Vista isn’t a simple upgrade; it’s a drastically different operating system, which may not even run your existing software, or work properly on 2006-vintage hardware, so installing the Vista “upgrade” is a risk. Besides, most new software will still work on the earlier versions of Windows. Even if the software box brags “for Windows Vista”, that’s because Microsoft directs developers not to list earlier versions; it’ll almost certainly work on Windows XP, and maybe even earlier versions. The bottom line: if you already own Windows 98/2K/XP and it works for you, you don’t have to upgrade; you can continue using it without paying Microsoft another dime
The author of this site mentions that he uses the latest versions of Windows that come preinstalled on the new computers bought at his work but at home he still uses the old Windows 98 operating system.
This site’s last update was sometime in 2006. So some facts may have changed but the fact of Microsoft’s monopolization is still real.
This site presents a few choices: either buy what Microsoft tells you to buy or choose what you want to buy first — go around and look for alternatives that can be even better than Microsoft products — if you still choose to buy a Microsoft product later that’s fine but at least give other products a chance.
Usually when Microsoft products are purchased so often and in large numbers it causes other products to be removed from market and competitors to go out of business completely because Microsoft prevents them from competing and makes it harder for them to offer their products.
Their is a difference between a company going bankrupt on its own when people won’t buy their products and buy from other companies and the other companies have not done anything illegal and when the other company forcibly damages the business of another.
I WOULD NOW LIKE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE OUTCOME OF THE BLU RAY HD DVD FORMAT WAR’S ENDING.
I think it is sad Blu Ray won — HD DVD was a much more consumer friendly format. Sony strong armed Blu Ray into consumer’s homes. They struck exclusive deal with movie studios to sell content Blu Ray only and not let consumers choose between Blu Ray and HD DVD. Had Fox, Disney, Warner Brothers, and all other studios offered both HD DVD and Blu Ray during the format fight and enough content was available on both formats consumers could choose to buy either of the two — one problem was that Blu Ray had more content than HD DVD as many studios exclusively backed Blu Ray. A consumer wanting to buy an HD DVD player wouldn’t have been able to watch all the Blu Ray exclusive movies on their player and would have less movie selection to choose from.
I also think it was wrong how this format war played out. The movie studios decided the format for the consumer. I didn’t want to be an early adopter so I never bought either format. I didn’t want to make the mistake of investing in the wrong format. Even now when they improve Blu Ray players I am going to stick with DVDs as long as possible. So I can still use fair use to copy my DVDs.
It will be harder to crack Blu Ray although I heard once the original Blu Ray DRM (for AACS) before BD+ came along was cracked once. With newer technologies Blu Ray uses they can disable access to cracked movies and attempt to reinsert the DRM.
YOU SEEMED THOUGH NOT TO NOTICE THE LAST LINE OF MY LAST POST: “My theory support Apple to help the overall market and support Apple to stop Microsoft from getting control of digital media. Then buy products from Creative and others and let neither Apple nor Microsoft wield too much power.” Apple is really innovating with Mac OS X, iTunes, iPods, iPhones, Apple TVs etc while with Windows Microsoft is doing guesswork in copying what it can from the Mac.
One of my favorite features of OS X is Expose and Dashboard.
Vista has a feature similar to Dashboard (first introduced in Tiger) but where is the feature equivalent to Expose (released in OS X Panther)?
The first thing we are taught in Marketing 101 is that marketing is part of the product. The idea is that the success of a product can come from marketing as much as the quality of the product itself. Microsoft has definitely embodied this notion.
Earlier, you said that you agreed that no Linux distro is ready for wide-spread non-techie use. But now you say that there are plenty of OS choices. So what are they?
OSX? That’s not an OS choice. That comes with the choice of Apple hardware; PC users cannot choose OSX.
That pretty much leaves Windows and some versions of Unix. I assume you will agree that Unix is just as difficult to learn as Linux.
So that leaves Windows. There are several incarnations of Windows, but it’s still Windows. So where are these exciting OS choices?
Okay, complaining that Windows’ interface changes from version to version is just petty. So what? There are a lot of complaints over Leopard’s changes to the OSX interface. So much so that Apple has capitulated and turned some of the changes off or made them options.
But an OS’ interface NEEDS to grow and evolve. New technologies are coming along all the time. Complaining about an interface change is like saying, “hey, I didn’t need a mouse in DOS 5.0, so why should I need one in Windows?” That’s just silly.
And to be sure, the interface in Vista is not that much different than XP. There’s still a start button in the lower-left that gets you to your programs. Keyboard shortcuts still do the same things as they did in XP. And to be honest, anyone that wants to buy a new OS and have it exactly the same as their old OS and not want to learn anything new… well they should have their head examined. PEBKAC, to be sure.
I didn’t comment on your notion of how the public can “stick it” to Microsoft and anyone else who may wield “too much power” because I found it to be somewhat silly. Power is only bad if it’s misused. In my opinion, Apple holds and exhibits far more power than Microsoft. There are entire cadres of people who say, “I’ll take three!” before Jobs even finishes his presentation; sometimes before he even starts. I don’t know of anyone that blindly follows Microsoft that way.
As well, Microsoft seems always to be building in more and more features to their products (sometimes ad nauseum). Choice is good. But Apple is limiting choice more and more. Case in point: Macbook Air. Hey, can I get that with an optical drive? No? Okay, how about FireWire? Two USB ports? An ethernet port? Oh, so what I am buying is a small subset of functionality that exists in the paltriest of Windows laptops, and also paying 2-3 times as much.
But Sir Steve tells us what we need and we all just nod and moo and move along, credit cards proffered. That’s total abuse of that power.
Now, don’t get me wrong. This simplicity is good for some consumers who don’t crave power or choice, but want to be told what to do and how. The vast majority of personal computer users today are not tech-savvy. So sometimes lack of choice is handy.
So, to answer your point, I don’t think we need to slam Microsoft by buying Apple until Apple is too big and then slam them. There’s no point in that. It’s just hate-speak. I think the market should bear what it can, buy the products that work best and make the most sense and offer the most of what’s desired, and let that be the guide.
As I’ve stated, I have no problem with Microsoft being huge. Good for them. They’re successful. It’s the American dream and they’ve achieved it. I also applaud them for trying to stay on top. It would be so easy just to sit on high, make outrageous demands, and then retire stinking rich. But not Microsoft, baby! They keep on plugging. Sure, they miss the mark sometimes… heck, a lot of times… but they’re trying.
Some day, there will be no more Microsoft. I just hope whoever takes their place as the leader in software and OS proliferation does a good job.
-Mike
What about your thoughts on the outcome of the Blu Ray versus HD DVD format war? Also the issue of Plays for Sure/Zune/iTunes choices and which is more restrictive is an interesting one.
I have never owned a Plays for Sure certified device nor any Plays for Sure music and no Zune player or Zune music either. Plays for sure was less restrictive than Zune but in my opinion still bad because it came with Microsoft DRM. Zune is even worse as it can’t even play Plays for Sure DRMed files — not a lot of people bought Plays for sure music — more bought from iTunes and continue to do so but the majority of Plays for sure music unlike Zune and the iTunes/iPod combo can/could be played on a variety of Windows Media based hand-held devices with Plays for Sure certification — Microsoft licensed Plays for Sure DRM to device makers and music download stores to use but Zune is locked exclusively to Zune players like non iTunes Plus tracks sold via iTunes are only play-able on iPods.
Also what do you think of the new policy by Apple to offer 99 cent movie rentals each week? — this is a special 1 movie every Thursday on iTunes will be offered for rent for as low as 99 cents. This is part of Apple’s push to make downloadable iTunes movie rentals fun for the whole family.
Sorry, I did forget to comment on the imminent Blu-Ray victory.
I feel pretty much the same as you do. I don’t have any personal experience, since I’ve gone the Switzerland route in this war, but everything I have heard is that the HD-DVD format was a good deal superior to the Blu-Ray format. So, I agree with you that the better format is not winning (remind you of the Betamax war?).
Whereas I am somewhat glad that this war seems to be coming to an end, I also believe that competition is good for the consumer, so it would have been nice if they both started offering more and more (and less and less DRM restrictions) just to gain a favorable edge.
All in all, you said the same things that I believe. It’s a defeat for the consumer; soon, the only choice will be a bad choice.
I hadn’t heard about the 99-cent iTunes rentals. I think that’s a great idea. It gets more exposure for many films, and also gets more people heading to iTunes to see what’s on special. Of course, I hope they choose good movies to put on special and not just the bad-sellers. Otherwise, it’s the equivalent to the bargain bin at the video store.
Perhaps an even better idea would be that they allow any movie to be rented for 99 cents, but you have to rent 4 movies and then the 5th one is the reduced price. Heck, if they did that, I bet people would start dropping their Netflix accounts. At $3-5 per rental, I can get about 5-6 movies for the price of my Netflix subscription. If I could get 7-8 for the same price (and if the selection were as good as Netflix), then I would drop Netflix and only rent from iTunes in a heartbeat.
As long as I’m wishing, here’s what I wish Apple would do. First, allow iTunes movie purchases to be burned to a playable DVD (they can add CSS to it, I don’t care, but it would be better if they didn’t). Second, any movie purchase can be discounted if the movie is rented first. So, say I spend $3.99 renting Pirates of the Caribbean. Say I liked it so much that I want to buy it. Apple should discount my purchase of that movie by $3.99. And if they could “convert” the rental to a purchase, it would save having to download it again.
Obviously, this wouldn’t work too well with high-def rentals, since those can’t become DVDs without some downsampling, but renting the high-def version would provide more of a discount toward movie purchases.
Ah well, I can dream, can’t I?
I still haven’t watched my HD download rental of Transformers. I hope to watch it tonight. Once I do, then my AppleTV Take Two experience will be pretty much complete and I will write a review. But I don’t mind rental DRM at all, since it’s short-lived on my HDD anyway.
I agree 100% about your ideas about how DRM can lock you to a platform. Microsoft is the big guy, so they don’t have to make their stuff work on OSX or Linux because they already produce for over 90% of the market. Apple pretty much had to allow iTunes on the Windows platform if they wanted to own this space.
But you do have a point that iTunes-purchased content can be moved to platforms other than OSX, but Microsoft’s DRM’ed content cannot (that I know of). Although, they did license Plays-For-Sure to many other content providers, so maybe it’s possible to get it on the Mac.
But my fear isn’t that I would WANT to switch OSes and then can’t take my purchases with me. My fear is more that I HAVE to switch (for whatever reason) and then can’t take my stuff with me. If I can no longer play my iTunes content on Mac, then it’s probably because Apple is going bankrupt and has stopped producing not only iTunes, but Macs as well. iTunes would be the least of my worries if that ever happened.
I am not sure why Micsrosoft abandoned PFS for the Zune DRM. It’s a back-handed slap at their partners, for sure. But then maybe they are trying to lock in the use of Windows, exactly as you say. I really dislike that attitude. But maybe Microsoft is just trying to correct some mistake they made with PFS and we’ll see the logic and wisdom of their ways in the future. Somehow, I doubt it.
-Mike
Yeah Apple has even issued a new iTunes update with the launch of the 99 cent movie rentals — its mainly a bug fix (iTunes 7.6.1) from iTunes 7.6 there is now iTunes 7.6.1 which is as I said a minor fix that improves compatibility with Apple TVs with Apple TV update 2.0 installed.
The idea about getting 99 cent movie rentals for 1 movie when renting 3-4 others at standard pricing that you mentioned sounds like a great idea. I heard iTunes can even run on Linux although Apple doesn’t support it — supposedly using software like WINE will make it work in Linux. It will be like emulating iTunes for Windows though in the Linux environment.
It would be great though for Linux users with iPods if Apple actually provided support for Linux and made an iTunes version of Linux — not all Linux users will shop the iTunes Store and purchase or rent DRMed content although some might. I found a petition once for porting iTunes to Linux and half of all signers said they would use the iTunes Store and the other half said no but they just want the player.
The Blu Ray/HD DVD outcome is tragic for the consumer. Some are suggesting the PS3 helped Blu Ray win which was what Sony intended in putting a Blu Ray drive in the console but that is just wrong. In the video game console market the PS3 is in last place behind the Nintendo Wii and Microsoft XBox 360.
I liked that the XBox 360 had an external HD DVD drive you could buy separately they don’t mandate you to get HD DVD and the inclusion of Blu Ray in PS3 from the start made the PS3 way more expensive. Remember how they were selling PS3s for $600 and that doesn’t even factor in all the hidden costs for buying games and for those into Blu Ray the price of buying movies if you want PS3 to play movies.
Some are suggesting now that Blu Ray has won it will help Sony’s Play Station business. I certainly still won’t buy a PS3 for Blu Ray even if the format war is over. If I wanted a Blu Ray player I would get a standalone player. The thing is building a game console that can double as a media center is great and all but games should still come first.
Sony expected PS3 as soon as it arrived on the market to sell as well as PS1 and PS2 but that didn’t happen. They tried to advertise its Blu Ray capabilities and the majority of users still shied away from it. I don’t need Blu Ray even if it has won the format war. I need a games console for games. For movies I can get a separate disc player for the disc format I am using.
I have an existing Magnavox standard definition television which has a built-in VCR and DVD Player. It works just fine for me. Whenever I upgrade to an HD TV I can get a standalone VCR and DVD Player and/or Blu Ray player to plug into the HD TV in addition to my planned Apple TV that I intend to now buy asap. I’ll let you know when I do by the way!
For some people the convergence of having a media center and games console (think XBox 360 or PS3) or a mp3 player and a cellular phone (Apple iPhone) is great but as far as media centers and games consoles go I could buy a PS3 now but even then I want to have games for the system. The PS3 just has not had enough good games — well enough good exclusive games at that.
All PS3 has going for it is the Blu Ray drive (DRMed crap!) which I don’t need or want. Blu Ray made the original price of the PS3 too expensive. Sony started cutting the prices of PS3s when they found few people buying them and more people going for Nintendo Wii and XBox 360 — by the way the Wii also has some media functionality beyond gaming. Take the Nintendo Wii’s Internet Channel for instance which is powered by the Opera web browser, or the Wii Photo Channel, the Mii Channel and Check Mii Out Channel, the Everybody Votes Channel etc.
While there is a learning curve for other operating systems than Windows at least my transition to Mac was not that much of a challenge. While not completely flawless they make most of the experience as easy as possible. The first time I used Mac OS X (my first Mac was the 12′ PowerBook G4 which I got winter 2003 and came pre-installed with Mac OS X Jaguar the only problem with it I experienced was that it would not recognize the USB printer in my home the Windows computers could access and print from. When I upgraded to OS X Panther (10.3) suddenly I could over the home network gain access to that printer using my PowerBook. Otherwise no major problems ever experienced early on with my PowerBook G4.
Instead of the Start Menu for Windows OS X users just use the Dock Menu. System services by default are run through the Apple Menu toolbar which is un-customizable in OS X by default. However, earlier versions of Mac OS like OS 9 which didn’t have the Dock Menu did provide Apple Menu customization. There are tools in OS X like Fruit Menu which I mentioned that requires APE to restore customization of the Apple Menu. Unfortunately as I told you APE is not yet Leopard compatible.
For the OS 9 to OS X upgrade and products breaking — Apple did offer a Classic Environment in Mac OS X on the PowerPC based Macs to let users who upgrade to OS X continue to use their older apps for a while that were incompatible with OS X. Gradually the expectation was that the users would and should have to buy new peripherals if neccessary to work with OS X, new software etc but they would ease into it — use OS X somewhat each day and slowly make the transition. They didn’t force OS X upgrades in one night. OS X was on the market for a few years before they announced the switch to Intel processors the newer Intel based Macs are unable to run the Classic Environment and there should be no need to do so. By now most OS 9 users have upgraded their printers, scanners etc to work with OS X and Steve Jobs declared OS 9 dead long ago.
On the issue of the MacBook Air from your last previous post I responded to there is an external optical disc drive for it of course but as said earlier why should anyone have to buy other products to make their computer work. However, their are alternatives even for Mac users wanting a better laptop than MacBook Air you can always buy a MacBook or MacBook Pro and get the entire functionality MacBook Air misses.
Or go the Windows or Linux route and get a PC notebook. For the Plays for Sure debacle MS when they first created that DRM system made 2 promises to the music download stores that partnered with it to provide music with Plays for Sure and another promise to the device makers it partnered with to provide Plays for sure compatibility those 2 promises are:
1) that Microsoft would not make their own music download store — later they changed their mind as iTunes continued to dominate the market for music downloads and MS’s music download store partners using Plays for sure were unable to dent iTunes Store market share Microsoft launched the MSN Music Store.
2) Microsoft promised also to not enter the device market itself. They got tired of waiting for a Plays for sure certified device maker to make an iPod killer. They made the Zune. In addition they launched the Zune Marketplace and shuttered MSN Music Store.
The reason iPod has been so successful is because Apple has been able to design brilliant software with great ease of use compared to the Plays for sure crowd which was mainly dependent on Windows Media Player and the MS Plays for Sure DRM now named Certified for Windows Vista.
Even the Zune is a joke compared to iTunes. Apple is making well designed software, with great ease of use, easy navigation while Microsoft’s Zune software is poorly thought out and designed. The WIFI capabilities of the Zune have been crippled by Microsoft from what I’ve heard. The Zune’s ability to share music wirelessly only allows for wireless sharing with other Zune owners and without a lot of Zune owners out there it makes it a bit pointless. In my opinion Microsoft should have also offered Zune to Zune and Zune 2 iPod sharing if possible. Then music could be shared among more users. There aren’t enough Zunes sold for this feature to work well enough.
Also “What’s really nuts is that the restrictions even stomp on your own musical creations. Microsoft’s literature suggests that if you have a struggling rock band, you could “put your demo recordings on your Zune” and “when you’re out in public, you can send the songs to your friends.” What it doesn’t say: “And then three days later, just when buzz about your band is beginning to build, your songs disappear from everyone’s Zunes, making you look like an idiot.”” http://blogs.zdnet.com/social/?p=19
Also I heard Universal Music Group is preventing sharing of music via Zune for certain artists. http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/19/universal-and-sony-prohibit-zune-sharing-for-certain-artists/
See above link for details!
Defective By Design.org a website of the Free Software Foundation has a whole page about the Zune’s problems: http://defectivebydesign.org/zune
With PFS for MS was trying to lock in use of Windows (while attempting to lock Apple iTunes out of market — the iTunes and iPod as a platform for digital media playback and delivery of digital content scared them since iTunes was not dependent on Microsoft technology — they tried asking Apple at one point to license FairPlay to them or if iTunes Store could be added to Windows Media Player and Apple refused) and when they got tired of waiting for a PFS certified device maker to make an iPod killer and tired of low market share coming from Plays for Sure certified music download stores they changed gears and made Zune. They decided to copy Apple’s iPod/iTunes model with integrated hardware/software that seamlessly and flawlessly works together.
A single device, a single music program and a single download store all-in-one was what Microsoft decided to build and they called it Zune. Problem is for the people who bought PFS that decided to get Zunes is/was the fact that both DRMs are incompatible. PFS was open to all device makers and music download stores except Apple which used its own DRM anyways with FairPlay (most other device makers and download stores went the PFS route later to be cast aside by Microsoft — the poor fools they should have none better to not do business with Microsoft. They should have tried to make their own DRM systems (or even better sell without DRM) but using Microsoft’s was easier and they had a well established player WMP that is and it was easier and cheaper to use Microsoft technology which they thought would help them.
They didn’t expect Microsoft to back-stab them as I call it. Microsoft said that Apple’s iPod/iTunes combo at one point would never win real market share because it is closed. MS’s was closed too but it was a closed software model not a closed hardware model revolving around software.
Microsoft may have argued they have better partner relationships but they don’t care that much about their partners or they wouldn’t have abandoned PFS to make Zune and they certainly wouldn’t have made Zune incompatible with PFS.
MS saw PFS failing to stop iPod/iTunes from remaining dominant and growing its dominance and switched gears to make Zune — they once said Apple’s model would fail and now they are copying Apple’s model with Zune since their earlier model failed and Apple’s remained successful. Even Zune isn’t making much of a dent in iPod market share. The iPod is starting to show signs of saturation or that it is maturing — but no other player is overtaking it — the iPod on its own is just showing its age even as Apple upgrades the iPods — don’t forget about the economic conditions right now in the US most consumers are holding off such purchases as new iPods which are considered a luxury item — an overly priced commodity for some.
iPods are still selling but not as high as they were earlier for the time being and Apple is cutting orders for iPod production this year although they are raising production for new Macs which is encouraging. Apple TV is going to begin selling a lot better since iTunes movie rentals were added. Eventually, I plan to buy a new iPod I actually have plans for 2 iPods the Classic and the Touch.
Later this year or sometime next year I’ll get both. I want to wait out the economic conditions right now and in the meantime I still have a good iPod that works for me and I enjoy using it.
More news on iTunes movie rental 99 cent policy:
In what seems to be a concentrated effort to jump start its new movie rental business Apple will be offering 99 cent rentals on iTunes once per week on a new movie.
The rental will be available on Thursday and the special pricing will run until the next Monday. The first movie available is The Hours which is available now.
Apple also announced that there was a small update to the iTunes platform, in which there are several bugfixes including a fix to make the service more compatible with the Apple TV interface. This past week’s 99 cent movie rental was for The Hours. (That is the week ending after today!)
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/13022.cfm
Mike,
In your last post when you replied to my comments on the tragic Bku Ray victory (that’s tragic for consumers) you mentioned going the Switzerland route. Was just curious what that is? If you could explain the meaning implied in that statement what it is etc that would be great.
Also sorry for the triple post!
If I am not mistaken, with the release of Zune 2, they also updated the software for the original Zune and now the wi-fi sharing doesn’t add DRM to shared tracks. I am not certain about that, but I believe I read that somewhere. I’ll see about researching it.
In WWII, what side was Switzerland on?
-Mike
Dunno if they fixed those bugs in Zune 2 or not — Zune 2 did have some improvements but I’d still avoid the Zune.
As to what side Switzerland was on in WWII I’ll have to double check that.
Um, Switzerland was neutral during WWII.
Which Zune 2 bugs are you referring to? I hadn’t heard of any.
-Mike
I forgot to mention that Twentieth Century Fox and Lionsgate have now made deals with Apple for bringing DVD video to iTunes. Fox has made Fox Digital Copy for select Fox titles on DVD as a special feature in which an additional electronic copy of the movie on DVD is included with the file on DVD for DVD player to television and/or computer viewing.
Fox Digital Copy and Lionsgate Digital Copy are great initiatives for bringing DVD content to iTunes, iPods, iPhones, and Apple TVs including Macs and Windows PCs.
Also I dunno if there are specific bugs in Zune 2 but its still not great enough to challenge the iPod. Microsoft has no Zune product to rival the iPod Shuffle or iPod Nano. There is no Zune phone (although Microsoft makes Windows Mobile or Windows CE software for mobile phones and has been doing so before Apple’s iPhone was even made) nor is there a Zune touch device to compete with iPod Touch.
Am yet to actually see Zune games to compete with iPod Games. Zunes still don’t have any video playback either for watching episodes of TV shows and seeing movies on the go. Yes Microsoft has video on the XBox Live Video Marketplace but no portable player capable of playing video like most iPods now do.
I like how Apple is expanding the market for portable music players (mp3 players), portable video players, and hand-held game systems for casual hand-held games with its click-wheel based iPods and hard-core hand-held games/casual touch screen games on the go via iPod Touch and iPhone.
I like their expanding the desktop and notebook (laptop) computer market with iMac, Mac Mini, Mac Pro, MacBook, MacBook Pro, (MacBook Air etc although there are issues with the Air’s lack of features) and the markets for online downloadable movie rentals, the market for purchasing movies via download and TV shows etc. Apple’s digital distribution and delivery methods/services are great and even when Apple doesn’t gain a lot of dominance in a particular market that it is involved in the fact it is involved in those markets even which it can’t dominate but gets some market share is good for consumers.
Had Apple not come along with the iPod and iTunes most consumers wanting to legally purchase music and video would be locked into a Microsoft DRM system. Apple is the only major company to provide a solid and good alternative to Microsoft DRM solutions.
While Apple also used DRM it was a DRM independent of Microsoft with better usage rights in some respects — FairPlay is still more user friendly than Zune DRM.
Plays for sure in some ways was more user friendly than FairPlay in the sense it could work with more devices than just iPods and devices from other companies but it was Windows only. iTunes is not yet truly cross platform — it works with Mac but that’s Apple’s operating system platform anyways and if Apple didn’t have it their iTunes program would probably be Windows only also — however, they provide a great user interface and easy navigation etc.
Note: At least with Lionsgate Digital Copy dunno if Fox will do it too but I read that Lionsgate will make Lionsgate Digital Copy available with select Blu Ray titles as well.
Nintendo has now added a Wii TV Channel but only for Wii owners at Japan at the moment. Hopefully they’ll be able to bring it to Wii in North America and Europe so Wii owners in say the USA, Canada, and countries of Europe like the UK, France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, even Switzerland and Holland etc, Italy — any and all European countries Nintendo has a presence in can get the Wii TV Channel as well.
Mark,
I just wanted to add the following:
Were it not for my interest in Apple TV and had I not become interested in videos from iTunes (had I not invested my money in buying from iTunes Store) my # 2 choice for a media extender would be VUDU. Rather than using XBox 360 or PS3 for media I actually prefer a simple media extender box. XBox 360 and PS3 are video games consoles first and foremost with media capabilities second. In comparing Apple TV to other media extenders (sometimes it has been compared to XBox) but to be more fair to users interested in simple media extender to media extender comparisons there have been some comparisons of Apple TV directly to VUDU with no mention of XBox because it also doubles as a games console. In such comparisons XBox doesn’t count that is it is not covered in the comparison.
There have been some cases where Apple TV and XBox might be compared but others where it is only compared to media extenders (without gaming functionality).
Oops I made the same mistake here. Mike the last post I made above was for you. I accidentally typed Mark instead of Mike.
I did a little digging on the VUDU… I think it’s doomed.
From what I read, it uses a proprietary video codec, so you would have to re-encode (read: loss of quality and more HDD space used) your existing videos. Otherwise, it’s more expensive than AppleTV, the selection is bound to be less-extensive, and it really doesn’t do anything novel.
In the end, it really seems to go back to the old standard: what do you have and where do you watch it? The ArchosTV will play a variety of codecs, so if you’re looking to take your already-existent glut of DivX or Xvid movies to the living room, that’s a great option. But if you have everything in iTunes already, then AppleTV is probably the best, and least headache-inducing, option.
If you use Windows and have most of your stuff in Media Player, then if you also have an Xbox 360, then it would be a great option for a media extender.
Mac users pretty much should use the AppleTV if they want their content in the living room. They could branch out, but it’s probably easiest to just go AppleTV.
I use iTunes for nearly all of my entertainment, from movies to podcasts to TV shows (downloaded from TiVo or SnapStream). Therefore, the AppleTV is a perfect solution… the single-source-of-truth syncing is great, so I don’t wonder if I’ve watched that podcast or this TV show. Once I’m sync’ed up, all of my devices (Mac, AppleTV, iPhone, iPod) know exactly what’s been watched and what hasn’t.
The one glaring shortcoming in the AppleTV is the lack of DVD support. Apple just did that whole remote-disc thing for the Macbook Air, they should allow a DVD drive on a networked Mac to act as a DVD drive for the AppleTV, so that movies can be streamed to the living room TV via the AppleTV. They have the technology, why not make it happen?
Failing that, future AppleTVs should have a DVD drive built-in. Maybe a burner too, so that purchased content can be backed up without the use of a computer. Then the AppleTV will become a truly-standalone and viable appliance.
Speaking of which, there was a patch for AppleTV and for iTunes recently. If I read the upgrade correctly, I think that high-def content can now be purchased/rented on iTunes, or on the AppleTV, and sync’ed between iTunes and the AppleTV. I’m not 100% sure of that, but there was a comment in the new features that led me to believe that.
-Mike
One idea I recently came up with would be that Apple could offer a discount to iTunes Store customers who rent movies through their service if their customers later decide to purchase the movie through iTunes.
Here’s an example:
Let’s say I rented the Disney movie Meet The Robinsons through iTunes (I actually did in fact I rented it twice) and I like it enough that I decide to buy the movie. If I choose to then buy the movie via iTunes Apple could offer a discount to the purchaser for first renting the movie and not require the purchaser to pay full price. You just pay the difference of whatever amount left over needs to be paid.
If I paid $3.99 to rent the movie via iTunes and iTunes charges $14 to buy the movie instead of paying the full $14 (customers who rent first and then buy) can get let’s say $3 to $4 dollars off the purchase price. So instead of paying $14 for the movie I might end up paying $12 to purchase the movie. That and the 99 cent weekly movie rental option (in which 1 movie that is pre-selected by them each week costs 99 cents and the offered movie is available at that price from Thursday till Sunday or Thursday till Monday) would make the service even better.
Now if only Apple could deliver the full 1,000 movie rentals promised via iTunes that would work great.
As for VUDU wow I didn’t know it had so many problems. I’m definitely getting Apple TV asap I just need an HD TV to plug it into.
Oh also what do you think about the iTunes Digital Copy feature on DVDs? Twentieth Century Fox is making selected DVDs available with an iTunes compatible file — Lionsgate is also offering iTunes Digital Copy on select DVD and Blu Ray Disc titles. Perhaps you heard of Fox Digital Copy or Lionsgate Digital Copy? These initiatives were made to incorporate iTunes compatible versions of a video being distributed on DVD with the DVD version of the same video.
Imagine buying a DVD and as a bonus feature getting a second copy of the same movie for iTunes without having to buy and download from the iTunes Store.
I did hear somewhere that VUDU had more movies for rent though than Apple TV — however, if aside that the cons outweigh the pros then I guess VUDU wouldn’t be such a great media extender after all. Well I’ve decided on an Apple TV anyways!
I think we already discussed the idea of a discount. iTunes already does it for completing album purchases, I think this would be a great idea. And they could place restrictions, if they must, like you have to purchase within 30 days of renting, or something like that. But I definitely agree, the rentals should be utilized as incentive to purchase the movies.
I think the iTunes Digital Copy feature is stupid. As I understand it, you have to have an iTunes account, and then you type in a code, which then places DRM on the digital copy with your account’s information, just like you purchased it from iTunes. All it saves you is the purchase and the download. Well, to use this, you have to have an iTunes account and, thus, you also have to have an internet connection. So why not just place a purchase code (coupon) in the DVD box that allows free download of the movie in question from iTunes? Wouldn’t that be a lot easier?
Some will say, “but it allows people with a slow internet connection to get the movie without the slow download.” But let’s face it. People with slow internet connections are probably not the tech-elite that are using the internet to purchase movies or music. I would wager that well over 95% of all iTunes users have broadband.
So, I say it’s a silly thing. Just give us a coupon. Or else make the movie non-DRM (which would allow it to be used on platforms other than iTunes).
If all you use VUDU for is rentals, then it’s a fine thing, I’m sure. As I’ve indicated before, DRM and proprietary formats become far less of an issue when it comes to rentals. You know you’re only going to have the video for a short time anyway, so there’s no big deal in it. But for VUDU, which is $295, if all you want is movie rentals, why not just use the free iTunes? A 40GB AppleTV is $229. A 250GB Archos TV is only a little more than VUDU at $320, and it will record TV from your existing system, which can then be transferred, DRM-free, in a standard format (it uses either MP4 or divx, I forget which) to an Archos player or a PC.
So, the end question is, is $295 worth it to rent these movies online? Can you purchase them? Can they be played anywhere else other than the VUDU?
I don’t think it’s a worthless or useless product. I just believe that, for the money, there are products out there with far more functionality and usefulness.
-Mike
Yeah I forgot you did suggest that idea of a discount for first renting a movie and then buying it. In any case I thought it was such a good idea I sent Apple an email yesterday suggesting they implement that and keep up the 99 cent movie rental initiative they started back in February for new movie releases. If they could apply that 99 cent to any 1 movie per week whether new or old if its a good movie that would be great.
I also suggested they add a remote disc feature to Apple TV for streaming DVD Video content to an Apple TV which could then send the signal to an HD TV and make the DVD play (as an alternative to just plugging a DVD Player to the TV and putting the disc in the DVD Player). I also suggested to them to get iTunes Movie rentals to reach the promised 1,000 movies for rent as soon as possible. For me Apple TV is most likely the right way to go. I use Mac OS X and I use iTunes for video. Like you I’m looking forward to a future with the Apple TV but as I said before I just need an HD TV to plug it into.
As for your thoughts on iTunes Digital Copy that is interesting — you may have a point on why the current system is not such a good idea. Hopefully, they improve it to make it better by offering some of the incentives you mentioned.
I’m eagerly planning in the next 1-2 years to buy an iMac, an Apple TV with 160 GB hard drive, an iPod Classic and eventually an iPod Touch I just want to wait till the storage space on the Touch gets at least 80 GB of space. I’m enjoying using my Mac Mini with my existing iPod (a 5th generation video iPod) aside from the Apple TV the VUDU and Archos TV are the only media extenders I know of for the living room not acting as all-in-one convergence devices like XBox 360 and PS3.
I am eager to upgrade to Mac OS X Leopard by the way — still haven’t done so but really want to do so — am just concerned with application compatibility between APE and Leopard. Otherwise would be perfectly happy upgrading. I love the Cover Flow in Mac OS X Finder in 10.5 Leopard and found a great program that enhances the Cover Flow experience even further — which claims to add a feature Apple forgot to add to Cover Flow — flip browsing — the program is Cover Stream and is shareware but I think its worth it for Leopard users interested enough in adding its features to the Leopard OS.
Cover Stream requires Mac OS 10.5 Leopard or higher to work and is advertised as a program to bring Cover Flow to the Mac Desktop itself.
Getting back to Apple TV I’m just waiting like I said earlier to buy an HD TV to use with it. I also like Apple’s dot mac service somewhat — am disappointed with it lately — don’t think its worth paying $99 a year for service. With delays in upgrades and sometimes even a lack in upgrades, but think it could have a promising and potential future if Apple lets dot mac work better.
I’m not a dot mac member even though I’m a Mac user. Mac users are already considered a minority — even as Mac market share increases gradually each year (however, high they go up they are not going to completely surpass Microsoft’s Windows OS and won’t be able to have the chance unless they license OS X to other vendors which they won’t do) dot mac members are an even smaller minority than Mac users overall. I doubt most Mac users today use the dot mac service. Some certainly do but not all.
Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but perhaps the best way to ensure that Apple will NOT implement new features is to suggest them to them via email or other means. The last thing Apple wants is to implement a new feature and then get sued because someone claims to have had the idea first. They routinely delete emails containing suggestions without reading them. It’s unfortunate, because there are plenty of great ideas that people would dearly love to see implemented and they don’t care about the IP rights. They just want their favorite hardware platforms to do the things they would love to see.
I’m not a .Mac user either… I hate the idea of a recurring cost. And $99 per year doesn’t seem worth it to me, either. I run servers of my own, so I don’t want to pay for such services. But it would surely be nice if the .Mac-built-in parts of OSX could be allowed to point to a personal server. Kind of like running a tiny .Mac of your own. There are some cool features to .Mac, but they’re totally useless to people who don’t want to pay.
-Mike
Yeah if .Mac were free I would certainly use it. I find it wasteful though to pay $99 a year (and I have a limited income — if I lived in an apartment and had to pay rent, and had to pay gas for a car, and for auto insurance, pay for food, electricity, Internet, the television bill etc (my family pays for all these things) I wouldn’t even have enough left over to pay even for a new iPod, or buy lots of content from iTunes (DRM free or copy protected) by the way most of the music I have been buying online lately is from Amazon MP3 — I used to buy from iTunes — sometimes I still find it more convenient since its integrated with the iTunes player and I don’t have to fire up my web browser to access Amazon MP3 but then there are times where I like using Amazon MP3. I have bought a few iTunes Plus songs in the past (DRM free songs by Apple’s iTunes Store) but buy most of my DRM free music from Amazon MP3 which exclusively sells DRM free songs capable of playing on iPods, and rival mp3 players and iTunes, Windows Media Player etc.
I’m taking a break for a while from buying music downloads or video related downloads. It’s getting kind of expensive doing so regularly — and with the current economic situations (talk about a U.S. recession like most consumers I’m trying to save my money over the next several months and only spend when its absolutely necessary — I still plan of course to get an HD TV and Apple TV eventually but am saving most of my money for a rainy day.
I’ve seen 2 third party apps though that interface with Apple’s dot mac service and look like great apps — one is dot mac menu by Infinite Nexus and another is a widget called Dot Mac Button that works with the Mac OS X Dashboard in OS X Tiger (10.4) and later.
If Apple really wants dot mac to succeed they need it to branch out. Offer two types of accounts — like a dot mac basic account completely free and premium accounts for which a monthly fee has to be paid.
What they could do is just charge users for additional storage in their web-space, email, iDisk etc. They could offer a certain amount of free disk space and beyond that you would have to pay a monthly fee to have additional storage.
I’ve sent feedback to Apple before as I said earlier. Some of the feedback for new features they could easily implement without legal troubles. They have Remote Disc feature for MacBook Air I merely suggested they port that to Apple TV. I also suggested they acquire certain technologies — like CoverStream (www.snarb.tk) — if they bought it from its developer they wouldn’t have to worry about being sued over implementing such a feature in OS X if they owned it — also JewelCase a music visualizer for iTunes that is Mac OS X compatible only — it has Universal Binaries though (www.opticalalchemy.com) anyways these are great technologies that enhance Apple’s own products. CoverStream improves Mac OS X Leopard’s CoverFlow and JewelCase improves iTunes.
Anyways I doubt Apple would delete emails with product suggestions without even reading them (as you mention) because of concern of legal issues. Of course they wouldn’t want to get too much legal blowback though. I sent them an email once about improving the iPhone for consumers by enabling them to use the camera in iPhone to not just take pictures but also record video clips. I’ve also written them about supporting Linux the way they do Windows via Boot Camp.
Well its getting kind of late for me. It’s 10:30PM local time and am going to bed.
I love your idea about the tiered .Mac subscriptions. You’re right, they should do that.
For me, I would prefer even a step further: an a la carte-type offering. I don’t need a .Mac email address (Gmail is too awesome). The online storage would be nice. I don’t care about the web hosting, but the contact/calendar sync would be nice. And Back To My Mac (once I upgrade to Leopard) would be nice too (although I hear it doesn’t work all that well).
Basically, I think people will look at something like .Mac and ask themselves how much of it they will use. If it’s not a majority of the services, then they will pass. So it sure would be nice if Apple offered the .Mac pieces individually. Then they could, if they were enterprising enough, offer free trials of the other services to entice people to add onto their accounts.
-Mike
That’s also a good idea — however, there are some users who would be happy with all the features of dot mac but unwilling to have a paid membership. Yahoo gives access to all its services free of charge and just charges you at Geocities and Yahoo Mail for more storage etc. With Geocities they also charge you if you want your website at your own domain.com.
Besides, yes GMail is already awesome and Apple should in your case let you pick and choose — if GMail is good enough for you just don’t use Mac.com Mail but use the rest of the .Mac services. However, I think Apple should try to improve on the features of dot mac to make it a strong GMail alternative — if they don’t want to lose email users to Google GMail they should up their email storage to be in line with the free 1 GB at GMail and do more to make their service really compelling and stand out.
Offering the dot mac pieces individually could work for some people but others just want the whole experience with less storage space etc and not have to pay a monthly bill to Apple or any company for such a service. I have a Yahoo account for Geocities and I have the free website — I don’t need the paid hosting.
Some might need more space and have to settle for paying to get Yahoo to host their website. Also what do you think about the idea of Apple offering TV shows for rent through iTunes? Music rentals don’t make sense and Steve Jobs has even said so. The online music rental industry is falling apart — more and more companies are leaving the market. Only Napster 2 Go, Real Network’s Rhapsody and Microsoft’s Zune currently are available — Yahoo ditched its music rental business and a number of others have been doing so. Music fans want to own their music because they listen to their favorite music over and over again — several times but they only watch a movie three or four times at the most so buying all their movies makes less sense. They might buy a few movies but renting rather than owning makes more sense and is more commonplace.
In pay per view and television based video on demand systems — when you go to hotels which have special on demand services and even in homes with services like Dish On Demand for Dish Network customers and even on demand programming from DirecTV and cable companies you order an episode of a TV show and like pay per view it is available for up to 24 hours.
Oh, believe me, I agree that free is always better. I was just giving another alternative that Apple might do to get more .Mac subscribers. If it were me, I would offer stripped-down .Mac for free, and then allow upgraded services a la carte for a nominal fee.
BTW, Gmail’s storage is approaching 7GB! I only delete spam and save everything else, and I am consistently using 17% of my alotted space (that includes attachments too!). So, Gmail is growing just as fast as I am receiving email!
I think TV rentals make even more sense that movie rentals. I would love it if Apple did that! After all, watching downloaded TV shows on AppleTV or on iTunes would bloat your storage quickly. But rentals would take care of the deletions for you.
But the prices would have to be comparable. Buying an episode costs $1.99 now for most shows. So a rental would have to be in the $0.50 range to make it really viable. $1 at most. I would do that in a heartbeat!
(You’re right, music rentals make no sense, unless it’s an all-you-can-download subscription model)
Of course, to me, the real downfall of iTunes TV right now is the lack of complete content. NBC sux that they pulled their shows off of iTunes. If I could get all my shows on iTunes, I would do so today! And if I could simply rent each episode (or entire seasons), I wouldn’t hesitate even a second!
But to date, there are still a multitude of shows that, if I want to see them as they’re released, I have to have a TiVo or other such recording device, as well as satellite or cable. Among these shows are Battlestar Galactica and Two and a Half Men. Neither of these is on iTunes (BSG used to be), and to date, I haven’t found Two and a Half Men online anywhere. And the DVDs come out FAR later than they do for other series (I don’t know why, though).
Right now, there is still too much divisiveness between studios to make IPTV viable.
-Mike
Agreed. Although I don’t know if even all all you can eat music subscription is good enough. Some companies have even tried this and failed. Stores that have shuttered music services include Virgin Media, Yahoo Music, AOL Music Now, MTV’s URGE partnership with Microsoft — was ditched to provide URGE like service to Rhapsody users.
The only ones I know that are still operating counting the recently launched music subscription service by Microsoft for the Zune include:
1) Nokia Music Store (not yet in U.S.) is operating in international countries.
2) Zune
3) RealNetwork’s Rhapsody
4) Napster 2 Go
For music discovery I use radio (satellite radio, Internet radio or terrestrial radio broadcasts will do)
By the way I have read your updated article on Apple TV and commented on it (and I see you have replied to my comments there about BBC America joining the US iTunes Store to sell TV programming; and my thoughts about improvements in iTunes movie rentals and purchases)
I’ve heard Battlestar Galactica is a good show along with Lost but never really saw either of them. Didn’t start watching sci-fi TV dramas until Kyle XY. Yeah again TV rentals would also be great but your right they would individually have to be even cheaper than the $1.99 episodes cost for purchase and download.
NBC does suck for quitting iTunes and I now hear they are joining the Zune Marketplace which is beginning to sell TV programming as downloads. I used to buy NBC programming from iTunes and am not buying anymore as of now not on DVD or online in downloadable form from any other download store.
A few years ago I bought Law & Order SVU The Complete Fifth Season 2003-2004 on DVD and since then have not bought any DVDs of NBC or USA network shows — have never bought USA network shows or other seasons of Law & Order SVU on DVD or other NBC programs on DVD. I did buy Law & Order SVU Season 1 on iTunes once while it was available.
Now I am not buying anymore programming from NBC at all at least until they return to iTunes.
I may see live broadcasts of NBC programming on my television using Dish Network, or other satellite or digital cable services but am not paying to buy or rent them.
Perhaps an all you can eat music subscription service could work even though limited music subscription services don’t. Or no music subscriptions at all should be used. Steve Jobs has mentioned even when launching iTunes movie rentals that most people watch a movie 2-3 times but listen to their favorite music hundreds of times. They do not want to rent music they want to own their music but renting a movie is more understandable — they don’t want to own all their movies although they want to own all their music.
GMail moving up to 7 GB sounds great. That full 7 GB is completely free? I know sometimes some sites charge you monthly fees for more storage.
Of all the Mac/Windows applications I find most useful on Intel based Macs are:
1) Microsoft Office for Mac 2008 (I own Microsoft Office X for Mac — don’t own Mac Office 2004 or 2008 but still think its a good program)
2) Apple iWork 08 (for me I own the Family Pack version)
3) Microsoft Office for Windows (latest version 2007) — Windows versions of MS Office often have more features than the Mac version.
4) Media Four’s Mac Drive (see http://www.mediafour.com/macdrive and http://www.mediafour.com/bootcamp)
5) Parallel’s Desktop for Mac (virtualization software)
6) VMWare Fusion (virtualization software)
Although NBC left iTunes there’s plenty of other great content now out on iTunes from BBC America, ABC Family, Showtime, The History Channel, A&E, Warner Brothers, Discovery Channel, CBS, even PBS — a public broadcasting television group, and a host of other networks like MLB.com, NHL, NFL Network, NASCAR, MTV, CMT etc.
For kids there’s programming from Disney Channel, Disney’s Jetix, including Viacom’s Nickelodeon, Nick At Nite, there is even Cartoon Network and Hannah Barbera.
You should check out NeoOffice. It’s an OpenOffice.org port specifically for OSX. And it seems to do even the macros pretty well, except for the Windows-specific things that might be in your code. I am pretty impressed with it.
Why do you have Fusion AND Parallels? I have Parallels, but I don’t use it right now. Since I’m not traveling anymore, I don’t have to have Windows on my Macbook Pro, so I took it off. After all, I can get to all of my computers now
I couldn’t get into using iWork. It seemed kind of quirky to me.
As to your comments about music subscriptions… I agree; people want to own their music. But they don’t want to own music that they don’t want. So subscriptions are perfect. You can load up your MP3 player with whatever you want, and then buy the actual songs that you want to keep.
What I think they should do is have a tiered service. Instead of x dollars for all-you-can-eat, why not have different prices for different amounts of MP3s. After all, everyone most likely has part of their players taken up by their purchased tracks, which reduces the amount they can consume from all-you-can-eat-type subscriptions.
In any case, I think this type of subscription is a great substitute for the radio. People will download and listen to just about anything if they’re not paying anything additional for it. And it also allows things like shared playlists. Imagine if your friend had a playlist, but you didn’t own most of those songs. You’d have to purchase them to listen to them. But with a subscription, people can post their playlists and anyone else can just download the playlist as well as the tracks on it without having to worry about whether they’ll like all of the songs or not, and without having to pay extra. It would be a great way to take music more into the realm of social networking.
-Mike