Just spotted that a whole load of albums - TingTings, Duffy, etc are now all DRM-free on the UK iTunes store.
So, it looks like this one rumour is TRUE! Finally. I don't think the labels had much choice ultimately - it would have been severely anti-competitive to prevent Apple from having this option, when competitors had been given it.
Anyhow, I'm off on a spending spree. Oh, and the Ting Tings is just £3.95 and Duffy £4.99 - not bad prices either!
You heard it here FIRST!
Update: Albums from the Cure, Morrissey, Echo and the Bunnymen - all of which I'm sure previously were with DRM, now are iTunes plus. Labels include Sony BMG and Warner.
Tags: iTunes, DRM, Apple, iPod
Showing posts with label iPod. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iPod. Show all posts
06 January 2009
26 July 2007
Holding the Observer to account (again)
Back last year, the (Sunday) Observer newspaper - sister to the Guardian - ran a truly amazing full-page article entitled "Why the iPod is losing its cool" by David Smith, supposed technology correspondent.
In this article, Mr Smith, claimed that
This article was written as a factual piece not an opinion piece. I made mention of it in this blog post, but decided not to attack it then. After all, perhaps David knew something I didn't and that iPod sales WERE in freefall?
I further chose not to comment on it after Apple's first quarterly announcement post the Smith article when they demonstrated once again iPod sales had risen 35% over the previous year. I again avoided the urge to comment after the December quarter when sales rose an astonishing 50% over the previous year (a year when both the iPod video and iPod nano had been introduced to much acclaim). I chose not to comment on it after Apple's Q2 announcement in April, when sales were up 24%. But now, a full 4 quarters of reporting has passed, and really, I can't let it sit any longer.
In the quarter just gone, iPod sales were up again - 21% in fact over the same quarter last year. In that 12 months, Apple's iPod sales were 35% up on the previous year. In that last year, Apple has sold over 50million iPods which represent 47% of all iPods ever sold. In other words, Apple has in the last 12 months sold just about as many iPods as it did in the previous 5 years COMBINED. Furthermore, in the iPod's history, it has never suffered a sales decline on a year-over-year basis on any measurable financial quarter.
That doesn't sound like a product that is either "losing its cool" or suffering from "declining sales at an unprecedented rate". I haven't seen too many analysts dissing the iPod either (though there's always a few media boys).
What was the reason for Mr Smith's article? Was it to try to create a backlash? Was it influenced by another company about to launch a product? Was he hoping to be able to claim when a possible iPod decline came along that he was first? Or was it just absolute stupidity and ignorance?
Would Mr Smith or the Observer like to apologise and to admit they have been wildly wrong? Would they care to write a similar full page article gushing about the apparently unstoppable iPod phenomenon? Given how the Observer can not even bring itself to apologise about a life and death issue it has got blatantly wrong, I'm not holding my breath.
(I'd like to think there ISN'T a conspiracy here and that it is plain ignorance. I suspect Mr Smith used two sequential quarters of iPods sold to point to a decline. That's a pretty poor way to use statistics that surely anyone at school is taught about. It was also an "unprecedented rate of decline" because there had never been a decline (and there still hasn't unless you believe consumer products exhibit no seasonality).
How about owning up, David, and saying you were absolutely and completely wrong? Or are you going to try getting the same message out again in the hope that at SOME point in the future, you will actually be right?
Tags: Apple, iPod, Observer, Sales, Guardian
In this article, Mr Smith, claimed that
Sales are declining at an unprecedented rate. Industry experts talk of a 'backlash' and of the iPod 'wilting away before our eyes'
This article was written as a factual piece not an opinion piece. I made mention of it in this blog post, but decided not to attack it then. After all, perhaps David knew something I didn't and that iPod sales WERE in freefall?
I further chose not to comment on it after Apple's first quarterly announcement post the Smith article when they demonstrated once again iPod sales had risen 35% over the previous year. I again avoided the urge to comment after the December quarter when sales rose an astonishing 50% over the previous year (a year when both the iPod video and iPod nano had been introduced to much acclaim). I chose not to comment on it after Apple's Q2 announcement in April, when sales were up 24%. But now, a full 4 quarters of reporting has passed, and really, I can't let it sit any longer.
In the quarter just gone, iPod sales were up again - 21% in fact over the same quarter last year. In that 12 months, Apple's iPod sales were 35% up on the previous year. In that last year, Apple has sold over 50million iPods which represent 47% of all iPods ever sold. In other words, Apple has in the last 12 months sold just about as many iPods as it did in the previous 5 years COMBINED. Furthermore, in the iPod's history, it has never suffered a sales decline on a year-over-year basis on any measurable financial quarter.
That doesn't sound like a product that is either "losing its cool" or suffering from "declining sales at an unprecedented rate". I haven't seen too many analysts dissing the iPod either (though there's always a few media boys).
What was the reason for Mr Smith's article? Was it to try to create a backlash? Was it influenced by another company about to launch a product? Was he hoping to be able to claim when a possible iPod decline came along that he was first? Or was it just absolute stupidity and ignorance?
Would Mr Smith or the Observer like to apologise and to admit they have been wildly wrong? Would they care to write a similar full page article gushing about the apparently unstoppable iPod phenomenon? Given how the Observer can not even bring itself to apologise about a life and death issue it has got blatantly wrong, I'm not holding my breath.
(I'd like to think there ISN'T a conspiracy here and that it is plain ignorance. I suspect Mr Smith used two sequential quarters of iPods sold to point to a decline. That's a pretty poor way to use statistics that surely anyone at school is taught about. It was also an "unprecedented rate of decline" because there had never been a decline (and there still hasn't unless you believe consumer products exhibit no seasonality).
How about owning up, David, and saying you were absolutely and completely wrong? Or are you going to try getting the same message out again in the hope that at SOME point in the future, you will actually be right?
Tags: Apple, iPod, Observer, Sales, Guardian
03 April 2007
British press reaction to EMI/Apple
I've stuck by my pledge to steer clear of British newspapers' technology sections. And a slight decrease in blood pressure has ensued.
However, I couldn't help come across the Guardian Editorial's curmudgeonly and ignorant commentary on the EMI/Apple announcement I covered yesterday.
The public is the LARGEST beneficiary of this deal, although perhaps that is only strictly true if it is repeated by most/all of the other labels. The significance of this deal to the public is HUGE. The whole DRM edifice has had a key structural pillar removed and it will surely crumble. The key beneficiary from this has to be the law-abiding, music-lover. The secondary beneficiaries are those who innovate to make the most of this development. Apple and EMI may be two of those companies, and the bricks and mortar retailers may be the losers. But those outcomes are far from certain.
You owned it then as much as you owned it now. You could in theory (and legally) do the same with it then as you can now. Just now, it will be easier and potentially with a higher quality.
You have a choice. And if you buy an album, you pay no premium. If you buy a single you have both flexibility AND better quality. And you can move from lower quality to higher quality/noDRM by paying the difference (no additional penalty), just as you can move from buying one or two tracks to buying the whole album at no penalty (due to recent "Complete my album" feature). I am over the moon that both the restrictions are removed AND the quality is improved (the latter I did not expect).
Of course, Jobs' actions for Apple should be in Apple's interests as a business entity. But please name me someone/anyone in the entrenched music industry who has made this issue clearer? Do you ignore his claims that this is the way Apple wanted to do it from the start? The apparent DRM lock-in to iPod came only because of the runaway success of the iTunes/iPod phenomenon. Plenty of other companies could have made this happen then. And of course, it is not a lock-in. Jobs pointed out the futility of operating 2 business models - physical and download - in which the physical is unencumbered and the download has been loaded with restrictions.
Jobs IS a consumer champion in that he has done more for the music-loving public than any other CEO involved in the business. He has been rewarded for that by the public who have overwhelmingly chosen his products. He has been pilloried by a select group of press (concentrated somewhat in UK and Europe) who somehow resent this success. Please score Jobs next to Gates, Bronfman (Warner), Vivendi/Universal, Sony (home of Rootkit), etc. Please suggest an industry figure who should be added to that list ahead of Jobs?
I guarantee that Apple will increase its sales from iTunes as a result of this arrangement. This announcement is about levelling the playing field between physical and download. Apple's marketshare of downloads MAY decrease, but it's share of the overall music market will undoubtedly rise as barriers to buying download vs digital (or pirated of course) have been significantly changed. This one statement proves how little the Guardian understands the business it's writing about.
Furthermore, the move does NOTHING directly to help iPod sales. In fact, if anything it gives people a freedom to move away from iPod if they have (in rare cases) a substantial investment in music downloaded via iTunes. It will help iPod sales ONLY if the public perceive that the extra freedoms justify more iPod purchases either absolutely or at the expense of other players. Jobs is brave enough to see that anything that benefits the consumer CAN benefit his company if they can react well. Compare that to our Redmond-friends who take the view that the more they benefit the established oligopolies, the more they will benefit.
Again this is just bollocks. Here is what the premier Jupiter analyst Michael Garten berg had to say. My interpretation of Michael's views are far closer to what I've written here, than the Guardian have interpreted (and I see no mention of what they quote in Michael's post).Perhaps the Guardian were the "media outlet" referred to in Michael's later post - When reporters set agendas which is truly hilarious (if not frightening)? Michael of course was a (brief) Microsoft employee, and is considered the leading Jupiter analyst in this area.
The Guardian has also written in such a way that it implies Apple is the one that grants that license or (at the very least) that there are restrictive issues involved in getting that license. It confuses the issues of the format of the tracks, the restrictions involved and the technology of the players. From a player perspective, there are many players that support the MPEG-4 Advanced Audio Codec standard (note lack of word Apple there), that Apple has CHOSEN to support and LICENSED to offer. I do not know what the licensing terms are for AAC and how they compare for instance to either MP3 or WMA. But AFAIK, anyone can license AAC should they wish to. My last 2 Nokia phones do that, so does much Sony and Sony Ericsson equipment. Even the Microsoft Zune will play AAC! Companies that have chosen not to, have made that decision deliberately and they are the fools.
If Apple had chosen to use MP3, it would have been dropping the quality of material or increasing file size even further by using 16 year old technology. AAC is the logical and approved heir to MP3. It would be like Apple bringing back the 5 1/4" floppy drive to support the laggards.
If Apple had chosen to use WMA, it would have been choosing a proprietary (though licensable) format locking people into the business practices of that well-known and convicted monopolist that is Microsoft. WMA has also been shown in numerous tests to be inferior to MPEG-4 AAC (indeed only WMA Pro which is not used by most players comes close to AAC in quality). You can find links to this on Wikipedia as easily as I did and make your own mind up. Apple has successfully taken on the proprietary WMA standard and defeated it to our long term benefit. Not by imposing it's own proprietary standard but by choosing an open standard. Try to imagine the parallel universe that is WMA-dominated (Microsoft rights, viruses, incompatibilities, etc) and you will surely see this significance. Apple was ALONE in this fight. The competition authorities should be turning on the companies that insist on licensing a proprietary standard. Any music sold in WMA format for instance should be pounced on as anti-consumer whether DRM'd or not.
In 5 years time, people will all be using the open MPEG-4 AAC with just legacy use of MP3 and maybe WMA. We will all have benefitted from that. It will be because of Apple's choices that this is the result. No other company has done more to push that better, open standard than they have (watch the same happening for MPEG-4/AVC/H.264 video).
With this move (and assuming others follow), Apple has broken the tight linkage between the selling of music online and the iPod. They had earned that linkage through doing a great job, and they have not abused that position (yet). The opportunity is out there now for other companies to innovate and offer great download services. Or, for others to innovate and offer great players that allow people to use everything they'd already bought on iTunes or used on their iPod. Or for others to provide an even better service than iTunes/iPod. There are now far less restrictions at least as far as iPod/iTunes goes. I will be able to buy my music from anyone who supports MP3 or MPEG-4 AAC and use it on my iPod or other device that supports either MPEG-4 or MP3 (you should be easily able to downconvert from AAC to MP3 with imperceptible quality loss from a 256kbps AAC file, compared with from CD). I will also be able to enjoy my purchased music from anyone who provides a player which supports these (open) standards. Sorry about the WMA-retards. You got what you deserved.
Apple has offered others the opportunity to get into the iPod world. Sure you could do that through eMusic and a few others. But they were limited by the major labels insisting on DRM. Without DRM, anyone is free to offer iTunes OR iPod users material if the licensee agrees. And this is what it has always been about - the licensee. Apple has opened the download market to anyone and there are no restrictions for those people entering the market - at least any that are governed by Apple (contrast this with Microsoft/WMA). It has done that because it has its sights set on the music market as a whole. As I said in the previous post, this is about having 30% of the music market rather than 70% of the music download market which itself is only 10% of the overall music market.
It is up to the consumer to vote with their wallets. They can support EMI's choice - either with Apple or without, and send a message to the other major labels. If enough consumers withhold support from the other labels by refusing to purchase that material (remember to boycott the CD's too if you really want change!), then perhaps the others will get that message. I, for one, will support EMI's move by choosing some of their material to buy online (it's a pity that it's so difficult with this label's rather poor roster of artists!).
I applaud Jobs and Nicoli for their actions. Sure they are self-serving. But they are self-serving because they embrace change and innovation, not because they preserve the status quo. One (Apple) is done from strength, the other (EMI) from weakness, perhaps. But they are still bold moves. WE are the main beneficiaries. Let's seize that. And, to the Guardian, perhaps if you can't comment gracefully or accurately on news you seem to have no grasp of you should perhaps just keep quiet?
Tags: Apple, EMI, DRM, WMA, AAC, iPod, Guardian
However, I couldn't help come across the Guardian Editorial's curmudgeonly and ignorant commentary on the EMI/Apple announcement I covered yesterday.
Who gains from this deal? Well, the public does — a bit (my emphasis).
The public is the LARGEST beneficiary of this deal, although perhaps that is only strictly true if it is repeated by most/all of the other labels. The significance of this deal to the public is HUGE. The whole DRM edifice has had a key structural pillar removed and it will surely crumble. The key beneficiary from this has to be the law-abiding, music-lover. The secondary beneficiaries are those who innovate to make the most of this development. Apple and EMI may be two of those companies, and the bricks and mortar retailers may be the losers. But those outcomes are far from certain.
Until now, what are called digital-rights management (DRM) restrictions meant that you could buy an EMI track from Apple's music store — but you didn't really own it.
You owned it then as much as you owned it now. You could in theory (and legally) do the same with it then as you can now. Just now, it will be easier and potentially with a higher quality.
Some will not be happy at paying a premium for the privilege, especially as many smaller labels and online shops already sell music free of copy protection — and cheaper, too.
You have a choice. And if you buy an album, you pay no premium. If you buy a single you have both flexibility AND better quality. And you can move from lower quality to higher quality/noDRM by paying the difference (no additional penalty), just as you can move from buying one or two tracks to buying the whole album at no penalty (due to recent "Complete my album" feature). I am over the moon that both the restrictions are removed AND the quality is improved (the latter I did not expect).
Mr Jobs has only recently joined the chorus calling for DRM-free tracks, but this deal makes him look like a consumer champion.
Of course, Jobs' actions for Apple should be in Apple's interests as a business entity. But please name me someone/anyone in the entrenched music industry who has made this issue clearer? Do you ignore his claims that this is the way Apple wanted to do it from the start? The apparent DRM lock-in to iPod came only because of the runaway success of the iTunes/iPod phenomenon. Plenty of other companies could have made this happen then. And of course, it is not a lock-in. Jobs pointed out the futility of operating 2 business models - physical and download - in which the physical is unencumbered and the download has been loaded with restrictions.
Jobs IS a consumer champion in that he has done more for the music-loving public than any other CEO involved in the business. He has been rewarded for that by the public who have overwhelmingly chosen his products. He has been pilloried by a select group of press (concentrated somewhat in UK and Europe) who somehow resent this success. Please score Jobs next to Gates, Bronfman (Warner), Vivendi/Universal, Sony (home of Rootkit), etc. Please suggest an industry figure who should be added to that list ahead of Jobs?
Apple probably will lose some sales from iTunes, but its iPods are the real money-spinner.
I guarantee that Apple will increase its sales from iTunes as a result of this arrangement. This announcement is about levelling the playing field between physical and download. Apple's marketshare of downloads MAY decrease, but it's share of the overall music market will undoubtedly rise as barriers to buying download vs digital (or pirated of course) have been significantly changed. This one statement proves how little the Guardian understands the business it's writing about.
Furthermore, the move does NOTHING directly to help iPod sales. In fact, if anything it gives people a freedom to move away from iPod if they have (in rare cases) a substantial investment in music downloaded via iTunes. It will help iPod sales ONLY if the public perceive that the extra freedoms justify more iPod purchases either absolutely or at the expense of other players. Jobs is brave enough to see that anything that benefits the consumer CAN benefit his company if they can react well. Compare that to our Redmond-friends who take the view that the more they benefit the established oligopolies, the more they will benefit.
And, as Jupiter Research has pointed out, the format the unprotected tracks will be sold in is not supported by many digital-music players. Mr Jobs was very keen yesterday to point out that DRM-free music can be played on non-Apple machines. But that requires other manufacturers to license the technology first. So the iPod, which has already sold 90m worldwide, keeps its chokehold on the music industry for now.
Again this is just bollocks. Here is what the premier Jupiter analyst Michael Garten berg had to say. My interpretation of Michael's views are far closer to what I've written here, than the Guardian have interpreted (and I see no mention of what they quote in Michael's post).Perhaps the Guardian were the "media outlet" referred to in Michael's later post - When reporters set agendas which is truly hilarious (if not frightening)? Michael of course was a (brief) Microsoft employee, and is considered the leading Jupiter analyst in this area.
The Guardian has also written in such a way that it implies Apple is the one that grants that license or (at the very least) that there are restrictive issues involved in getting that license. It confuses the issues of the format of the tracks, the restrictions involved and the technology of the players. From a player perspective, there are many players that support the MPEG-4 Advanced Audio Codec standard (note lack of word Apple there), that Apple has CHOSEN to support and LICENSED to offer. I do not know what the licensing terms are for AAC and how they compare for instance to either MP3 or WMA. But AFAIK, anyone can license AAC should they wish to. My last 2 Nokia phones do that, so does much Sony and Sony Ericsson equipment. Even the Microsoft Zune will play AAC! Companies that have chosen not to, have made that decision deliberately and they are the fools.
If Apple had chosen to use MP3, it would have been dropping the quality of material or increasing file size even further by using 16 year old technology. AAC is the logical and approved heir to MP3. It would be like Apple bringing back the 5 1/4" floppy drive to support the laggards.
If Apple had chosen to use WMA, it would have been choosing a proprietary (though licensable) format locking people into the business practices of that well-known and convicted monopolist that is Microsoft. WMA has also been shown in numerous tests to be inferior to MPEG-4 AAC (indeed only WMA Pro which is not used by most players comes close to AAC in quality). You can find links to this on Wikipedia as easily as I did and make your own mind up. Apple has successfully taken on the proprietary WMA standard and defeated it to our long term benefit. Not by imposing it's own proprietary standard but by choosing an open standard. Try to imagine the parallel universe that is WMA-dominated (Microsoft rights, viruses, incompatibilities, etc) and you will surely see this significance. Apple was ALONE in this fight. The competition authorities should be turning on the companies that insist on licensing a proprietary standard. Any music sold in WMA format for instance should be pounced on as anti-consumer whether DRM'd or not.
In 5 years time, people will all be using the open MPEG-4 AAC with just legacy use of MP3 and maybe WMA. We will all have benefitted from that. It will be because of Apple's choices that this is the result. No other company has done more to push that better, open standard than they have (watch the same happening for MPEG-4/AVC/H.264 video).
With this move (and assuming others follow), Apple has broken the tight linkage between the selling of music online and the iPod. They had earned that linkage through doing a great job, and they have not abused that position (yet). The opportunity is out there now for other companies to innovate and offer great download services. Or, for others to innovate and offer great players that allow people to use everything they'd already bought on iTunes or used on their iPod. Or for others to provide an even better service than iTunes/iPod. There are now far less restrictions at least as far as iPod/iTunes goes. I will be able to buy my music from anyone who supports MP3 or MPEG-4 AAC and use it on my iPod or other device that supports either MPEG-4 or MP3 (you should be easily able to downconvert from AAC to MP3 with imperceptible quality loss from a 256kbps AAC file, compared with from CD). I will also be able to enjoy my purchased music from anyone who provides a player which supports these (open) standards. Sorry about the WMA-retards. You got what you deserved.
Apple has offered others the opportunity to get into the iPod world. Sure you could do that through eMusic and a few others. But they were limited by the major labels insisting on DRM. Without DRM, anyone is free to offer iTunes OR iPod users material if the licensee agrees. And this is what it has always been about - the licensee. Apple has opened the download market to anyone and there are no restrictions for those people entering the market - at least any that are governed by Apple (contrast this with Microsoft/WMA). It has done that because it has its sights set on the music market as a whole. As I said in the previous post, this is about having 30% of the music market rather than 70% of the music download market which itself is only 10% of the overall music market.
It is up to the consumer to vote with their wallets. They can support EMI's choice - either with Apple or without, and send a message to the other major labels. If enough consumers withhold support from the other labels by refusing to purchase that material (remember to boycott the CD's too if you really want change!), then perhaps the others will get that message. I, for one, will support EMI's move by choosing some of their material to buy online (it's a pity that it's so difficult with this label's rather poor roster of artists!).
I applaud Jobs and Nicoli for their actions. Sure they are self-serving. But they are self-serving because they embrace change and innovation, not because they preserve the status quo. One (Apple) is done from strength, the other (EMI) from weakness, perhaps. But they are still bold moves. WE are the main beneficiaries. Let's seize that. And, to the Guardian, perhaps if you can't comment gracefully or accurately on news you seem to have no grasp of you should perhaps just keep quiet?
Tags: Apple, EMI, DRM, WMA, AAC, iPod, Guardian
02 April 2007
WMA RIP
Well, not exactly RIP - Rest In Hell maybe more appropriate.
Today's announcement is a great demonstration that Steve Jobs' Apple has learned from its past mistakes about failing to open up key technologies at critical times.
For consumers, the great advantage of this announcement, beyond of course the obvious DRM and quality issue is that it will move the world towards an MPEG-4 world. That is an open world - not governed by any single company. Perhaps people (and journalists) will finally twig that neither of the A's in the synonym AAC stand for a computer company! For Apple, the victory is that the world did not end up with WMA and a comfy lock-in between the content providers and Microsoft dictating just about everything about how, when, where and for how long we could use the material we'd bought. Essentially global adoption of WMA would have squeezed Apple and indeed any other non-Microsoft device out of the equation. The significance of this cannot be underestimated, but I suspect it will never be seen that way as we have no insight into the parallel universe in which WMA took over. And, note to Norway, along the way, not a single consumer has been harmed in the making of this story!
Just as importantly, it should cement MPEG-4 as the standard rather than leaving the lowest common denominator (MP3 - a 16 year old format) as the "future" of sound. Most listening tests give AAC-coded material the best possible ratings of any lossy format with well-coded 128kbps AAC close to lossless. (If you don't believe me, check the Dolby site, some audiophile sites, and Wikipedia, who can point to these tests). Only the very highest levels of MP3 encoding and WMA Pro (which is not in common use in players) even come close to AAC at the same bitrates.
I've no doubt that Apple will continue to sell content ONLY in AAC format, and so any stragglers in the portable player market would be foolish not to support it. And furthermore, many music stores would be best advised to adopt it in order to maximise the music quality for the same bitrate (when compared with MP3). Those using WMA will be faced with the choice of using MP3 or AAC if they wish their music to be compatible with the dominant music player on the market today. Apple's choice of (and pushing of) the latest open MPEG standards has paid off this time and we are all beneficiaries.
There is of course the slightly inconvenient issue for such stores of having still to support DRM'd music until the other companies relent. That is an advantage that Apple has squeezed by this move. But this is great news for independent stores and labels who will make the most of this.
For Apple, apart from the defeat of WMA, they open up the digital download market for iPod users to many more companies, so on the one hand they would seem to be loosening their hold on the digital download market. But, as Steve pointed out in his "Thoughts on Music", it's more important for the digital market to be on a level playing field with CD. Apple have music retailers such as Walmart in its sights. It is not looking backwards at the download competition (it regularly compares itself to Amazon, Borders etc, rather than to Yahoo Music, and other download peers). It would rather have 30% of the music market (100%), than increasing its already massive share of the download-only market that would be permanently limited in scope to perhaps just 10-20% of the total market in a DRM world. Conveniently perhaps, it should also help to reduce concerns of the (misguided) competition authorities which had threatened to cause consumer confusion and waste a lot of Apple resources fighting.
Is it self-serving for Apple? Yes, of course - that's what they're about (as any company should be in commerce). But once again, Apple have shown that by moving in the direction that favours the consumer, they position themselves to benefit too. That is in stark contrast to its arch competitor.
With greater adoption of MPEG-4 this should also help Apple in the next battleground of video where WMV (and Microsoft IPTV) need to be neutralised. I'm sure that's where Apple has it's sights on. MPEG-4 AVC (or H.264) is the open way forward, is again better than any other existing technology out there, and needs to win out.
From a selfish perspective I have never found Apple's DRM to be limiting in any way, and I had no concerns that if they did abuse their position, there would be plenty of solutions from legal to not-so-legal that would come to the consumer's aid. In that regards, the bigger thing for me is the move forward in music quality. I still like to be able to listen to the best possible version of a song in certain situations while having the convenience of small size for others. With 256kbps AAC, I see really little downside compared with CD, (though I generally found it very hard to distinguish 128kbps AAC from real CD in a few listening tests).
Now, with the quality issue sorted (which I didn't necessarily expect), the convenience of online purchase/instant gratification has levelled the playing field if not tilted towards the future. With easier competition between music stores, we can look forward to greater innovations including such ideas as "Complete my album" introduced just last week by Apple which is a unique download-only differentiator (can't be done easily with physical media). Expect to see more variation in offerings including bundles of music, video, concert offers, and digital books that only the internet can provide. These are the sorts of initiatives that can breathe life into the music industry and hopefully signal an intent to grasp the future rather than defend the dead-end single/album status quo.
This is a great announcement for music loving consumers, for the music industry, for Apple and for any number of innovative small companies out there (eMusic, Bleep, etc). Well done to EMI for showing some nerve here. Hope the other 3 from the industry cartel will grasp the nettle!
Update: Added link to EMI press release for those not on Planet Earth.
Tags: Apple, EMI, DRM, WMA, AAC, iPod, iTunes, Microsoft
Today's announcement is a great demonstration that Steve Jobs' Apple has learned from its past mistakes about failing to open up key technologies at critical times.
For consumers, the great advantage of this announcement, beyond of course the obvious DRM and quality issue is that it will move the world towards an MPEG-4 world. That is an open world - not governed by any single company. Perhaps people (and journalists) will finally twig that neither of the A's in the synonym AAC stand for a computer company! For Apple, the victory is that the world did not end up with WMA and a comfy lock-in between the content providers and Microsoft dictating just about everything about how, when, where and for how long we could use the material we'd bought. Essentially global adoption of WMA would have squeezed Apple and indeed any other non-Microsoft device out of the equation. The significance of this cannot be underestimated, but I suspect it will never be seen that way as we have no insight into the parallel universe in which WMA took over. And, note to Norway, along the way, not a single consumer has been harmed in the making of this story!
Just as importantly, it should cement MPEG-4 as the standard rather than leaving the lowest common denominator (MP3 - a 16 year old format) as the "future" of sound. Most listening tests give AAC-coded material the best possible ratings of any lossy format with well-coded 128kbps AAC close to lossless. (If you don't believe me, check the Dolby site, some audiophile sites, and Wikipedia, who can point to these tests). Only the very highest levels of MP3 encoding and WMA Pro (which is not in common use in players) even come close to AAC at the same bitrates.
I've no doubt that Apple will continue to sell content ONLY in AAC format, and so any stragglers in the portable player market would be foolish not to support it. And furthermore, many music stores would be best advised to adopt it in order to maximise the music quality for the same bitrate (when compared with MP3). Those using WMA will be faced with the choice of using MP3 or AAC if they wish their music to be compatible with the dominant music player on the market today. Apple's choice of (and pushing of) the latest open MPEG standards has paid off this time and we are all beneficiaries.
There is of course the slightly inconvenient issue for such stores of having still to support DRM'd music until the other companies relent. That is an advantage that Apple has squeezed by this move. But this is great news for independent stores and labels who will make the most of this.
For Apple, apart from the defeat of WMA, they open up the digital download market for iPod users to many more companies, so on the one hand they would seem to be loosening their hold on the digital download market. But, as Steve pointed out in his "Thoughts on Music", it's more important for the digital market to be on a level playing field with CD. Apple have music retailers such as Walmart in its sights. It is not looking backwards at the download competition (it regularly compares itself to Amazon, Borders etc, rather than to Yahoo Music, and other download peers). It would rather have 30% of the music market (100%), than increasing its already massive share of the download-only market that would be permanently limited in scope to perhaps just 10-20% of the total market in a DRM world. Conveniently perhaps, it should also help to reduce concerns of the (misguided) competition authorities which had threatened to cause consumer confusion and waste a lot of Apple resources fighting.
Is it self-serving for Apple? Yes, of course - that's what they're about (as any company should be in commerce). But once again, Apple have shown that by moving in the direction that favours the consumer, they position themselves to benefit too. That is in stark contrast to its arch competitor.
With greater adoption of MPEG-4 this should also help Apple in the next battleground of video where WMV (and Microsoft IPTV) need to be neutralised. I'm sure that's where Apple has it's sights on. MPEG-4 AVC (or H.264) is the open way forward, is again better than any other existing technology out there, and needs to win out.
From a selfish perspective I have never found Apple's DRM to be limiting in any way, and I had no concerns that if they did abuse their position, there would be plenty of solutions from legal to not-so-legal that would come to the consumer's aid. In that regards, the bigger thing for me is the move forward in music quality. I still like to be able to listen to the best possible version of a song in certain situations while having the convenience of small size for others. With 256kbps AAC, I see really little downside compared with CD, (though I generally found it very hard to distinguish 128kbps AAC from real CD in a few listening tests).
Now, with the quality issue sorted (which I didn't necessarily expect), the convenience of online purchase/instant gratification has levelled the playing field if not tilted towards the future. With easier competition between music stores, we can look forward to greater innovations including such ideas as "Complete my album" introduced just last week by Apple which is a unique download-only differentiator (can't be done easily with physical media). Expect to see more variation in offerings including bundles of music, video, concert offers, and digital books that only the internet can provide. These are the sorts of initiatives that can breathe life into the music industry and hopefully signal an intent to grasp the future rather than defend the dead-end single/album status quo.
This is a great announcement for music loving consumers, for the music industry, for Apple and for any number of innovative small companies out there (eMusic, Bleep, etc). Well done to EMI for showing some nerve here. Hope the other 3 from the industry cartel will grasp the nettle!
Update: Added link to EMI press release for those not on Planet Earth.
Tags: Apple, EMI, DRM, WMA, AAC, iPod, iTunes, Microsoft
07 February 2007
Well, Well, Well...(or, Steve Jobs comes out)
So, Steve Jobs (or probably one of his minions) has written a 2000 word essay articulating why we have DRM (clue: it's not Apple's requirement), and why it would embrace DRM-free music. If you've read this blog (and of course countless other intelligent sites), or you're just a rational technology follower, you will understand exactly what he is saying. Here are a few of the articles I've posted on this subject:
Link to FT article on EU/Norway anti-Apple stance
Apple's French problem with Fairplay
A discussion about interoperable DRM
More on France and DRM
DRM and digital music sales
(sidenote: an article written about a report on digital music sales stalling, which was not true; interestingly the same story was repeated later in the year after Forrester came up with some bizarre stats that also were just not correct)
One of Apple's challenges for 2006
I list DRM as one of the top 5 things to watch for in 2006
(ok, well, it's just 2007, but it WAS a hot topic in 2006 as well)
I have generally argued that Apple has had its hands tied with DRM; that, in general, it does not cause major restrictions to its users (certainly better rights than other ecosystems), and that it needs to succeed much further if it is to threaten a world in which Microsoft will inevitably take control, leading to far worse consequences to the consumer. I have also argued that certain EU countries are completely misguided in taking action against Apple.
Where I have been wrong is that I have for the most part assumed DRM was here to stay. While some commentators have felt it might be on the way out, I could not see that. What Steve's essay does above all, is to show that this suddenly seems plausible.
Of course, there will be conspiracy theorists out there (I've already seen a few comments from them). "Jobs is lying"; "why doesn't he sell non-drm music from the indie labels"; "his stats are wrong because I've bought x number of songs" where x is a number from zero to much higher than Steve's average figure! We'll no doubt see some industry bigwigs come into the debate with some point about Apple being disingenuous, and it's not THEIR fault after all.
Some might argue that this essay is somewhat defensive by Apple at a time it is under threat. It is also possible to argue that EU action has caused Apple to do this, so that is a good thing. But those are cynical views. Apple has done this at a time when it is still in the ascendancy in digital music, not when it is on a slippery slope downwards (this also shows Steve has learned the lesson of the Mac). And, if the EU had instead gone after the monopolistic labels, they could have forced this solution more directly and quickly, without causing confusion in the consumer base.
However, while I welcome this essay, the clarity it provides on why DRM is here, what Apple's contractual obligations are and its suggested remedies, one part of me worries that while we may end up with DRM-free music, there are two questions unanswered. The first is whether as a result, we will get a choice of formats so that more efficient open formats are offered (such as AAC rather than just MP3). More importantly, to an audiophile at least, is whether the solution will encompass digital offerings that are at least if not better than CD-quality (eg lossless, or even enhanced lossless), and if so, that they do not cost ridiculous amounts of money. My worry is that the industry will settle on a lowest-common-denominator solution (or a number of solutions around that level). Given a choice between (fair) DRM'd music in true audiophile quality and DRM-free music in lower quality, I might be in a small minority, but I would prefer the former.
Finally, it should also be pointed out that the essay makes no mention about DRM and video material, and indeed some of the arguments made for making music DRM-free would not apply to movies or tv shows. But, make no mistake this is still a BIG story with far-reaching consequences.
Tags: Apple, DRM, EU, Steve Jobs, iTunes
Link to FT article on EU/Norway anti-Apple stance
Apple's French problem with Fairplay
A discussion about interoperable DRM
More on France and DRM
DRM and digital music sales
(sidenote: an article written about a report on digital music sales stalling, which was not true; interestingly the same story was repeated later in the year after Forrester came up with some bizarre stats that also were just not correct)
One of Apple's challenges for 2006
I list DRM as one of the top 5 things to watch for in 2006
(ok, well, it's just 2007, but it WAS a hot topic in 2006 as well)
I have generally argued that Apple has had its hands tied with DRM; that, in general, it does not cause major restrictions to its users (certainly better rights than other ecosystems), and that it needs to succeed much further if it is to threaten a world in which Microsoft will inevitably take control, leading to far worse consequences to the consumer. I have also argued that certain EU countries are completely misguided in taking action against Apple.
Where I have been wrong is that I have for the most part assumed DRM was here to stay. While some commentators have felt it might be on the way out, I could not see that. What Steve's essay does above all, is to show that this suddenly seems plausible.
Of course, there will be conspiracy theorists out there (I've already seen a few comments from them). "Jobs is lying"; "why doesn't he sell non-drm music from the indie labels"; "his stats are wrong because I've bought x number of songs" where x is a number from zero to much higher than Steve's average figure! We'll no doubt see some industry bigwigs come into the debate with some point about Apple being disingenuous, and it's not THEIR fault after all.
Some might argue that this essay is somewhat defensive by Apple at a time it is under threat. It is also possible to argue that EU action has caused Apple to do this, so that is a good thing. But those are cynical views. Apple has done this at a time when it is still in the ascendancy in digital music, not when it is on a slippery slope downwards (this also shows Steve has learned the lesson of the Mac). And, if the EU had instead gone after the monopolistic labels, they could have forced this solution more directly and quickly, without causing confusion in the consumer base.
However, while I welcome this essay, the clarity it provides on why DRM is here, what Apple's contractual obligations are and its suggested remedies, one part of me worries that while we may end up with DRM-free music, there are two questions unanswered. The first is whether as a result, we will get a choice of formats so that more efficient open formats are offered (such as AAC rather than just MP3). More importantly, to an audiophile at least, is whether the solution will encompass digital offerings that are at least if not better than CD-quality (eg lossless, or even enhanced lossless), and if so, that they do not cost ridiculous amounts of money. My worry is that the industry will settle on a lowest-common-denominator solution (or a number of solutions around that level). Given a choice between (fair) DRM'd music in true audiophile quality and DRM-free music in lower quality, I might be in a small minority, but I would prefer the former.
Finally, it should also be pointed out that the essay makes no mention about DRM and video material, and indeed some of the arguments made for making music DRM-free would not apply to movies or tv shows. But, make no mistake this is still a BIG story with far-reaching consequences.
Tags: Apple, DRM, EU, Steve Jobs, iTunes
17 January 2007
MacWorld Prediction Recap!
Well, at a stretch, I claim 4 out of 10 predictions right! This is probably a lot better than most commentators since most expected a slew of Mac hardware and software announcements.
However, before I get carried away with my foresightfulness, I should point out that I only get 4 out of 10 by counting my prediction of a widescreen video iPod (which is also the iPhone and which therefore accounts for 2 out of 10!). Other than that I predicted the AppleTV would be announced in more detail, and that there would be more movie studios on board (Paramount).
Another reason my stats look better is that I didn't count iLife07 and iWork07 in the 10 predictions taking these to be a given! So, really, it's 4 out of 12. Not so good!
Anyhow, it was a wildly different Macworld, and one to remember. Sure, Steve disappointed the Mac faithful with the paucity of Mac announcements, but he took the unprecedented opportunity offered by a coinciding CES, the iPhone, AND Apple's 30th birthday to steal the headlines around the world. My guess is that Apple garnered more column inches and certainly more eyeballs than the whole of CES put together, and almost all of it favourable. In the end, that's good for the Mac, and good for the Mac faithful.
I'll be visiting both AppleTV and iPhone over the next few days to see how groundbreaking these products are, looking back at what my predictions for each (and what I got wrong), and, shock, horror, why I won't be buying an AppleTV yet. We'll also be taking a look at the financials to be announced later on today and what that means to Mac users. Stay tuned....
Tags: Apple, iPod, iPod Phone, MacWorld, Mac, AppleTV
However, before I get carried away with my foresightfulness, I should point out that I only get 4 out of 10 by counting my prediction of a widescreen video iPod (which is also the iPhone and which therefore accounts for 2 out of 10!). Other than that I predicted the AppleTV would be announced in more detail, and that there would be more movie studios on board (Paramount).
Another reason my stats look better is that I didn't count iLife07 and iWork07 in the 10 predictions taking these to be a given! So, really, it's 4 out of 12. Not so good!
Anyhow, it was a wildly different Macworld, and one to remember. Sure, Steve disappointed the Mac faithful with the paucity of Mac announcements, but he took the unprecedented opportunity offered by a coinciding CES, the iPhone, AND Apple's 30th birthday to steal the headlines around the world. My guess is that Apple garnered more column inches and certainly more eyeballs than the whole of CES put together, and almost all of it favourable. In the end, that's good for the Mac, and good for the Mac faithful.
I'll be visiting both AppleTV and iPhone over the next few days to see how groundbreaking these products are, looking back at what my predictions for each (and what I got wrong), and, shock, horror, why I won't be buying an AppleTV yet. We'll also be taking a look at the financials to be announced later on today and what that means to Mac users. Stay tuned....
Tags: Apple, iPod, iPod Phone, MacWorld, Mac, AppleTV
06 January 2007
Outlandish Hobsblog MacWorld Predictions!
In the name of fun, I will postulate my top 10 interesting MacWorld announcements in order of their likelihood. Note, I am not saying they will all come to pass - indeed most will not as there isn't enough time for more than a few.
I'm not going to take the easy route of having a few slam-dunks either. We all know iLife07 will be out, and iWork07 too. And we all know Steve will talk about 10.5 a great deal. But 10.5 was never predicted by Apple to be ready by now, and I don't think they'll surprise people with it (and if they do, don't buy it, because it will not be ready for prime time).
So, here goes:
1. 8 core Mac Pros. This is a certainty within the next 2 months, if not at MacWorld. The Intel chips are ready, announced and should just plug in existing machines. Testing of such chips shows a 40% plus improvement over the existing four core versions on a price basis (the 4 core chips have lower clockspeeds at the same price point). Maybe not for all Mac Pro users, but those with lots of video processing and other tasks which thrive on multiple cores should be happy.
2. New displays with built-in iSight. This just makes sense given lack of iSight for sale and approach with all other Macs.
3. iTV. Steve will definitely say more on iTV - perhaps give us its final name? It may or may not be ready yet (I think it will use 802.11n and Apple will choose timing carefully when the near-standard is close enough to not cause them a bunch of lawsuits down the line).
4. iPod Phone. I'm still not sure this will be announced. See my previous posting for my views on this if and when it is announced. There have been some really well-written articles on this recently such as Steven Frank's thoughts and Aaron Adams' case for a VoIP phone rather than cell. (I think he's got a point, but I still think such a device would allow for mobile usage too). There's a good chance Steve will leave this topic until a later date as it's such a big announcement and complex that it may require an event of its own (and, remember, this is MACWorld)
5. Larger MacBook (a definite hole in the Apple product line up - a consumer laptop with a decent 15" screen)
6. Smaller MacBook Pro (also a hole in the lineup though not as severe as the MacBook)
7. True video iPod - ie a full widescreen model perhaps with 640x480 resolution.
8. iTunes 8. I'm basing this idea as much on the need to support the iPod Phone as anything else. iTunes 7 was quite recent and had many changes.
9. more movie studios on board; more iTS content.
10. International tv programming or perhaps first international movie availability with Disney.
One real longshot is the fabled xMac or grown-up Mac Mini (3.5" disk, higher end graphics, RAM, etc). However, there will not be a MacTablet for reasons that plenty of people have written about.
It should be great fun - and Apple is certainly stoking up the fires on this. But I wonder if the expectations are just too far ahead of what is really achievable right now, and that it'll be followed by a share price deflation and mediocre reviews. Remember it's the start of 2007 - there's still a lot more to come after this announcement.
Tags: Apple, iPod, iPod Phone, MacWorld, Mac, iTV
I'm not going to take the easy route of having a few slam-dunks either. We all know iLife07 will be out, and iWork07 too. And we all know Steve will talk about 10.5 a great deal. But 10.5 was never predicted by Apple to be ready by now, and I don't think they'll surprise people with it (and if they do, don't buy it, because it will not be ready for prime time).
So, here goes:
1. 8 core Mac Pros. This is a certainty within the next 2 months, if not at MacWorld. The Intel chips are ready, announced and should just plug in existing machines. Testing of such chips shows a 40% plus improvement over the existing four core versions on a price basis (the 4 core chips have lower clockspeeds at the same price point). Maybe not for all Mac Pro users, but those with lots of video processing and other tasks which thrive on multiple cores should be happy.
2. New displays with built-in iSight. This just makes sense given lack of iSight for sale and approach with all other Macs.
3. iTV. Steve will definitely say more on iTV - perhaps give us its final name? It may or may not be ready yet (I think it will use 802.11n and Apple will choose timing carefully when the near-standard is close enough to not cause them a bunch of lawsuits down the line).
4. iPod Phone. I'm still not sure this will be announced. See my previous posting for my views on this if and when it is announced. There have been some really well-written articles on this recently such as Steven Frank's thoughts and Aaron Adams' case for a VoIP phone rather than cell. (I think he's got a point, but I still think such a device would allow for mobile usage too). There's a good chance Steve will leave this topic until a later date as it's such a big announcement and complex that it may require an event of its own (and, remember, this is MACWorld)
5. Larger MacBook (a definite hole in the Apple product line up - a consumer laptop with a decent 15" screen)
6. Smaller MacBook Pro (also a hole in the lineup though not as severe as the MacBook)
7. True video iPod - ie a full widescreen model perhaps with 640x480 resolution.
8. iTunes 8. I'm basing this idea as much on the need to support the iPod Phone as anything else. iTunes 7 was quite recent and had many changes.
9. more movie studios on board; more iTS content.
10. International tv programming or perhaps first international movie availability with Disney.
One real longshot is the fabled xMac or grown-up Mac Mini (3.5" disk, higher end graphics, RAM, etc). However, there will not be a MacTablet for reasons that plenty of people have written about.
It should be great fun - and Apple is certainly stoking up the fires on this. But I wonder if the expectations are just too far ahead of what is really achievable right now, and that it'll be followed by a share price deflation and mediocre reviews. Remember it's the start of 2007 - there's still a lot more to come after this announcement.
Tags: Apple, iPod, iPod Phone, MacWorld, Mac, iTV
04 January 2007
Appletease
The astute among you may be wondering about the lack of Apple postings here lately. After all, Apple is usually involved in up to half of the posts!
First up, I've been biding my time a bit. The last major post I did on Apple was an outright criticism of many of the articles written in the Guardian around the time of the last iPod release and iTV announcement. While I did draft a riposte to comments left here by some of the Guardian writers, it was frankly becoming even more complicated. So, I decided to let actions speak louder than words. We'll revisit the Guardian's criticisms when the next financials are out, and the product strategy is a bit clearer.
However, today we're going to have a bit of fun looking into the Apple Phone, iPod Phone, or whatever it will be called (but definitely not iPhone which it has been clear for many many months it was not going to be called).
We've had some incredible postings about why the Apple Phone will fail before its been announced, let alone released. I was pleased to nominate Michael Kanellos of CNet to DaringFireball for a Jackass of the week award which he duly won for his prepostorous predictions. We've had articles at other sites such as the Register about the certainty of it's failure. The Register article was at least generally coherent about the challenges facing Apple entering into a mature industry which is massively distorted via handset subsidies from service providers to consumers and how the relationship between handset maker and service provider works (badly actually for BOTH of them). But it failed to think differently. Apple does not intend to become the number one, two or three handset maker tomorrow. Its target market is first of all restricted to the richer countries - to some extent as the Mac and the iPod are. You won't be seeing too many Apple phones in China or India which today account for a high percentage of the handset market. Apple will want to achieve strong reviews and good sales in the markets it considers it is already strong in.
But how can Apple make the iPod Phone a strong proposition that people will want to buy - even if the subsidies aren't there? Well, how about studying past form with the iPod itself? Too few commentators seem to have done this. My first prediction for the iPod Phone is that it will be small. Not unusably small, but it will compare well even with some of the slimmest, sexiest phones today. Many manufacturers have lost sight of this (Nokia - where is the successor to the cute 6100?). The problem with many of these good-looking phones today is that the UI sucks, and indeed Motorola have never figured this out, and even Nokia seem to have taken steps backward in this area. To send a text message with my Nokia "smartphone" now takes me up to 15 presses just to enter text mode and select the recipient's mobile number. I used to be able to resend the same message easily. That option does not exist now (at least not obviously). In fact my Smartphone is hobbled by a combination of service provider and manufacturer stupidity giving me a phone which needs a firmware update but by doing this voids the warranty offered by the service provider! Nokia can fix the bugs in it, but Orange won't let me!
Apple's phone will not be free of bugs out of the box, but it will employ an excellent UI that makes it a combination great music player AND a great phone. I'm not expecting it will be a smartphone crammed with features. But most people I know don't really want one of those anyway. Instead, Apple's phone will be another piece in the jigsaw of the Apple experience. Mac users may be expecting the Apple phone to work wonderfully with their Mac, but that is still too niche of a market. Instead, Apple's phone will add another dimension to the iPod ecosystem and to Apple's own broad media everywhere strategy. It will deliver its key functionality equally whether to a Windows user or a Mac user. It will do this by leveraging iTunes - the third strand in how Apple will differentiate the iPod Phone from others. Note how synchronisation and updates moved into iTunes itself with version 7. This is key for the phone strategy - where contacts, notes, photos etc arguably have more importance. It stands in sharp contrast to the mixed bag of applications in the Nokia suite for instance. Apple's phone will embrace the third party iPod add-on market to allow people to add functionality they need that is not part of the basic phone.
But these alone are not enough to make the iPod Phone a success. And, for that, Apple still has a few tricks up its sleeve. It will not just have great synchronisation features, it will bring something new. It will do this by making one assumption most phone manufacturers don't make - that the user will have a PC (the iPod does this obviously). One of the applications I love and have written about before is Salling Clicker - an application which turns many phones into a remote control. A year ago, Clicker v3 added support for PCs and also could be used over wi-fi networks (extending range compared with Bluetooth, and allowing control of multiple machines). I am going to go out on a limb and predict that the Apple phone will include remote control software built-in allowing control of a set of PC and Mac applications (obviously including iTunes but also applications such as Powerpoint, and iPhoto), and probably also working with iTV and a FrontRow style interface. It is a long shot but I wonder even if Apple have hired Jonas Salling or bought the company for while Jonas continues to support the product well via forums, fixes etc. it's been pretty quiet since the last release a year ago! In any event, expect the iPod Phone to do things with your PC and Mac that no phone has done before (at least not without a lot of add-ons and tweaking).
Imagine a phone that when you walk in the door, switches your iTunes on, or tells you how many email messages you have? Or, a step further, downloads your new podcasts to the phone? Synchronisation and control are two areas where the iPod Phone will make a leap over any other device today.
If I'm wrong about this direction, then the other direction Apple will take the phone will be in data. I'm not sure in the first version of the phone we'll see a lot here because of the need to support multiple network types and to work out arrangements with service providers. But it may well have a few things up its sleeve - perhaps in limited markets. Safari's underpinnings are already the basis for Nokia's latest browser. One obvious area is mobile iTunes - especially for instance for almost realtime podcast downloads. But I'm not convinced Apple will jump into this area immediately (partly because many of the data features being talked about would require 3G speeds, and potentially expensive contracts). Apple could build some mobile features into its .mac service, but again I believe this is too mac-platform centric. Instead, Apple might leverage it's burgeoning relationship with Google to come out with optimised pages for accessing mobile services - GoogleMaps, search etc. I've mentioned the possibility of location-based services before, and I think this is area of great potential (perhaps with an add-in GPS receiver). Another area Apple could build on brilliantly would be in bridging the gap between SMS and IM. A mobile version of iChat could be excellent here - especially if it also has wi-fi capabilities. As far as I'm concerned even just text features here would be valuable. Obviously, it would need to make sure this was interoperable with the AIM network, and ideally with others (GTalk?). If Apple can introduce data features that people will use, then it will start to win the support of mobile service providers. Maybe not the dominant ones who believe (wrongly) they will be the source of content, but those who realise that the best thing they can do is to get the masses using data. SMS took off in spite of the service providers - and certainly because it was not controlled by them. It could well be a company such as Apple who shows the service providers the way for data by giving users features that they want and - most importantly - find easy to use.
If Apple can demonstrate a game-changing device, then it has the potential to cause a sea-change in the relationship between handset maker and service provider. The ludicrous subsidy system which ends up hiding the true cost of calls, and results in massive environmental waste due to 12 month phone replacement cycles, could come to an end. Handset makers could once again compete on features and appeal directly to end users, and service providers could compete on the actual services they offer.
I think the biggest challenge Apple has is that with one or even two models, it will not be able to please even a majority of critics out there whose ideal phone ranges from ultimate Blackberry/Treo down through 3G smartphones, through music/camera-oriented devices, down to the slimmest and sexiest small devices. Apple's success - in the same way it initially targeted only hard disk MP3 players, ignoring the larger flash market will need to be judged at least initially on how it does next to similar types of devices.
To recap, I believe that while Apple has some significant challenges to enter this market and its success is by no means assured, it will bring a device that is sufficiently differentiated from the competition to offer the discerning user a proposition worth paying for. It will do this through design, UI, synchronisation and control, and perhaps new applications. If the first device is priced reasonably (therefore it will not likely be a high-end, feature-laden device), it can become popular, and lead to a family of devices which service providers will warmly embrace, or risk losing customers. It can also become the catalyst for the widespread adoption of data services that the service providers actually crave but have been unable to kick-start. How will we judge it's success? Microsoft has said it will be happy to sell 1m Zune's by June. I think if Apple can sell 1m iPod Phones in a similar period, it should be considered a success. What do you think?
Look out for a few more Apple articles over the next week or two covering MacWorld, financials and the challenges ahead.
Tags: Apple, iPod, iPod Phone, Macworld, Phone, iTunes, Salling Clicker, Salling
First up, I've been biding my time a bit. The last major post I did on Apple was an outright criticism of many of the articles written in the Guardian around the time of the last iPod release and iTV announcement. While I did draft a riposte to comments left here by some of the Guardian writers, it was frankly becoming even more complicated. So, I decided to let actions speak louder than words. We'll revisit the Guardian's criticisms when the next financials are out, and the product strategy is a bit clearer.
However, today we're going to have a bit of fun looking into the Apple Phone, iPod Phone, or whatever it will be called (but definitely not iPhone which it has been clear for many many months it was not going to be called).
We've had some incredible postings about why the Apple Phone will fail before its been announced, let alone released. I was pleased to nominate Michael Kanellos of CNet to DaringFireball for a Jackass of the week award which he duly won for his prepostorous predictions. We've had articles at other sites such as the Register about the certainty of it's failure. The Register article was at least generally coherent about the challenges facing Apple entering into a mature industry which is massively distorted via handset subsidies from service providers to consumers and how the relationship between handset maker and service provider works (badly actually for BOTH of them). But it failed to think differently. Apple does not intend to become the number one, two or three handset maker tomorrow. Its target market is first of all restricted to the richer countries - to some extent as the Mac and the iPod are. You won't be seeing too many Apple phones in China or India which today account for a high percentage of the handset market. Apple will want to achieve strong reviews and good sales in the markets it considers it is already strong in.
But how can Apple make the iPod Phone a strong proposition that people will want to buy - even if the subsidies aren't there? Well, how about studying past form with the iPod itself? Too few commentators seem to have done this. My first prediction for the iPod Phone is that it will be small. Not unusably small, but it will compare well even with some of the slimmest, sexiest phones today. Many manufacturers have lost sight of this (Nokia - where is the successor to the cute 6100?). The problem with many of these good-looking phones today is that the UI sucks, and indeed Motorola have never figured this out, and even Nokia seem to have taken steps backward in this area. To send a text message with my Nokia "smartphone" now takes me up to 15 presses just to enter text mode and select the recipient's mobile number. I used to be able to resend the same message easily. That option does not exist now (at least not obviously). In fact my Smartphone is hobbled by a combination of service provider and manufacturer stupidity giving me a phone which needs a firmware update but by doing this voids the warranty offered by the service provider! Nokia can fix the bugs in it, but Orange won't let me!
Apple's phone will not be free of bugs out of the box, but it will employ an excellent UI that makes it a combination great music player AND a great phone. I'm not expecting it will be a smartphone crammed with features. But most people I know don't really want one of those anyway. Instead, Apple's phone will be another piece in the jigsaw of the Apple experience. Mac users may be expecting the Apple phone to work wonderfully with their Mac, but that is still too niche of a market. Instead, Apple's phone will add another dimension to the iPod ecosystem and to Apple's own broad media everywhere strategy. It will deliver its key functionality equally whether to a Windows user or a Mac user. It will do this by leveraging iTunes - the third strand in how Apple will differentiate the iPod Phone from others. Note how synchronisation and updates moved into iTunes itself with version 7. This is key for the phone strategy - where contacts, notes, photos etc arguably have more importance. It stands in sharp contrast to the mixed bag of applications in the Nokia suite for instance. Apple's phone will embrace the third party iPod add-on market to allow people to add functionality they need that is not part of the basic phone.
But these alone are not enough to make the iPod Phone a success. And, for that, Apple still has a few tricks up its sleeve. It will not just have great synchronisation features, it will bring something new. It will do this by making one assumption most phone manufacturers don't make - that the user will have a PC (the iPod does this obviously). One of the applications I love and have written about before is Salling Clicker - an application which turns many phones into a remote control. A year ago, Clicker v3 added support for PCs and also could be used over wi-fi networks (extending range compared with Bluetooth, and allowing control of multiple machines). I am going to go out on a limb and predict that the Apple phone will include remote control software built-in allowing control of a set of PC and Mac applications (obviously including iTunes but also applications such as Powerpoint, and iPhoto), and probably also working with iTV and a FrontRow style interface. It is a long shot but I wonder even if Apple have hired Jonas Salling or bought the company for while Jonas continues to support the product well via forums, fixes etc. it's been pretty quiet since the last release a year ago! In any event, expect the iPod Phone to do things with your PC and Mac that no phone has done before (at least not without a lot of add-ons and tweaking).
Imagine a phone that when you walk in the door, switches your iTunes on, or tells you how many email messages you have? Or, a step further, downloads your new podcasts to the phone? Synchronisation and control are two areas where the iPod Phone will make a leap over any other device today.
If I'm wrong about this direction, then the other direction Apple will take the phone will be in data. I'm not sure in the first version of the phone we'll see a lot here because of the need to support multiple network types and to work out arrangements with service providers. But it may well have a few things up its sleeve - perhaps in limited markets. Safari's underpinnings are already the basis for Nokia's latest browser. One obvious area is mobile iTunes - especially for instance for almost realtime podcast downloads. But I'm not convinced Apple will jump into this area immediately (partly because many of the data features being talked about would require 3G speeds, and potentially expensive contracts). Apple could build some mobile features into its .mac service, but again I believe this is too mac-platform centric. Instead, Apple might leverage it's burgeoning relationship with Google to come out with optimised pages for accessing mobile services - GoogleMaps, search etc. I've mentioned the possibility of location-based services before, and I think this is area of great potential (perhaps with an add-in GPS receiver). Another area Apple could build on brilliantly would be in bridging the gap between SMS and IM. A mobile version of iChat could be excellent here - especially if it also has wi-fi capabilities. As far as I'm concerned even just text features here would be valuable. Obviously, it would need to make sure this was interoperable with the AIM network, and ideally with others (GTalk?). If Apple can introduce data features that people will use, then it will start to win the support of mobile service providers. Maybe not the dominant ones who believe (wrongly) they will be the source of content, but those who realise that the best thing they can do is to get the masses using data. SMS took off in spite of the service providers - and certainly because it was not controlled by them. It could well be a company such as Apple who shows the service providers the way for data by giving users features that they want and - most importantly - find easy to use.
If Apple can demonstrate a game-changing device, then it has the potential to cause a sea-change in the relationship between handset maker and service provider. The ludicrous subsidy system which ends up hiding the true cost of calls, and results in massive environmental waste due to 12 month phone replacement cycles, could come to an end. Handset makers could once again compete on features and appeal directly to end users, and service providers could compete on the actual services they offer.
I think the biggest challenge Apple has is that with one or even two models, it will not be able to please even a majority of critics out there whose ideal phone ranges from ultimate Blackberry/Treo down through 3G smartphones, through music/camera-oriented devices, down to the slimmest and sexiest small devices. Apple's success - in the same way it initially targeted only hard disk MP3 players, ignoring the larger flash market will need to be judged at least initially on how it does next to similar types of devices.
To recap, I believe that while Apple has some significant challenges to enter this market and its success is by no means assured, it will bring a device that is sufficiently differentiated from the competition to offer the discerning user a proposition worth paying for. It will do this through design, UI, synchronisation and control, and perhaps new applications. If the first device is priced reasonably (therefore it will not likely be a high-end, feature-laden device), it can become popular, and lead to a family of devices which service providers will warmly embrace, or risk losing customers. It can also become the catalyst for the widespread adoption of data services that the service providers actually crave but have been unable to kick-start. How will we judge it's success? Microsoft has said it will be happy to sell 1m Zune's by June. I think if Apple can sell 1m iPod Phones in a similar period, it should be considered a success. What do you think?
Look out for a few more Apple articles over the next week or two covering MacWorld, financials and the challenges ahead.
Tags: Apple, iPod, iPod Phone, Macworld, Phone, iTunes, Salling Clicker, Salling
14 November 2006
Cheeky Little Apple Announcement
On Zune launch day, Apple announced that six major world airlines would be providing direct iPod support into their entertainment systems over the next few years.
Once again, Apple moves out ahead, and makes it harder for other entrants. Openness in the consumer electronics world is something different than in the PC world. If I can play my music wherever I need it - in the home, on my computer(s), on my phone, in my car, on an aeroplane, is this worse than having a multitude of choice but needing a different device for each activity? If the price for having music everywhere is a £179/$249 iPod is that so bad? The resounding answer is "No". And such an announcement just makes the investment more compelling.
In the good old days you bought a multitude of playback devices for each purpose (each room you wanted music in, a portable for on-the-go; and a car player as well as one or more recording devices to convert to a different format). You also needed to carry your media around too. Now all you need is your computer and one (or more) iPods and you've got it all covered. Your music, your photos, your videos, your life, wherever and whenever you need it - at home, on the train, in the car, and even in the air.
This is a bigger announcement than it looks right now.
Tags: Apple, iPod, Airline
Once again, Apple moves out ahead, and makes it harder for other entrants. Openness in the consumer electronics world is something different than in the PC world. If I can play my music wherever I need it - in the home, on my computer(s), on my phone, in my car, on an aeroplane, is this worse than having a multitude of choice but needing a different device for each activity? If the price for having music everywhere is a £179/$249 iPod is that so bad? The resounding answer is "No". And such an announcement just makes the investment more compelling.
In the good old days you bought a multitude of playback devices for each purpose (each room you wanted music in, a portable for on-the-go; and a car player as well as one or more recording devices to convert to a different format). You also needed to carry your media around too. Now all you need is your computer and one (or more) iPods and you've got it all covered. Your music, your photos, your videos, your life, wherever and whenever you need it - at home, on the train, in the car, and even in the air.
This is a bigger announcement than it looks right now.
Tags: Apple, iPod, Airline
Microsoft, what were you thinking (3)?
Hilarious (though long) account of the Zune installation process over at Engadget.
Did they really think it would be so easy (to topple the iPod)? What's with these awful images on the install process? After all the fuss about WMP11, they don't even use it - preferring yet another flavour of jukebox software. I can see transitive versions of the verb Zune becoming quite a derogatory term, as in "My PC got zuned". Not a very good start.
Tags: Microsoft, Zune
Did they really think it would be so easy (to topple the iPod)? What's with these awful images on the install process? After all the fuss about WMP11, they don't even use it - preferring yet another flavour of jukebox software. I can see transitive versions of the verb Zune becoming quite a derogatory term, as in "My PC got zuned". Not a very good start.
Tags: Microsoft, Zune
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
