Apple Rejects RealNetwork's Pleas 659
TheJoKell writes "In a followup to a previous article, Apple has denied a meeting with Rob Glaser, Chief Executive of Real Networks, to discuss an alliance between the two companies. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Steve Jobs said, 'The iPod already works with the No. 1 music service in the world, and the iTunes Music Store works with the No. 1 digital-music player in the world. The No. 2s are so far behind already. Why would we want to work with No. 2?'"
Mod me down if you must, but... (Score:4, Funny)
It may be overused, but if there was ever a situation where the word PWNED was called for, this is it...
Jobs just PWNED Real!
Re:Mod me down if you must, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Buffering.....Buffering....PWNED....Buffering..
Re:Mod me down if you must, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Mod me down if you must, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Oh wait, nevermind. I forgot the rules on that.
If Jobs "iServes" Real then Real's "been iServed"
If Real "Serve One's" him back THEN "it's on".
Re:Mod me down if you must, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Mod me down if you must, but... (Score:4, Informative)
The fact that they are still prevelant on the Net (see: Amazon, Comedy Central) suggests to me that it is probably more the difficulty in migrating to a different content-delivery platform than excellence that keeps them around. (I should disclose, however, that I have not installed the latest version of RealOne. I am just too sick of the spyware, pop-ups and other intrusions that come along with it.)
This isn't arrogance on Apple's part. It is a sound business decision.
In other news, I am very impressed with your id #. I think 137 is the lowest I have seen here.
Re:Mod me down if you must, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Mod me down if you must, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Bill, show Steve how arrogance works...
Good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good... (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple probably figures that customers who are discerning enough to see the value of an iPod are also dis
Re:Good... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, I know of NO ONE who has bought anything off Real's service. It's either an iPod with iTunes or a Dell iPod clone and their service......
Re:Good... (Score:4, Insightful)
And don't forget the 95% who have gotten most of their collections from Napster!
Re:Good... (Score:5, Insightful)
To boot, the sales Real must have claimed were necessarily all Pro Forma so the value was probably dubious.
The only real argument would have been a counter-balance-of-power against Microsoft, but there are so many reasons why that would be too little benefit to justify the development/integration effort.
It was a seriously weak hand played by a company in a seriously weak position - not surprising Apple begged off.
When I worked for HP we had similar offers from potential partners. What most of the prosepctive partners never got was that HP's brand value was so strong and so much bigger than them that without a major kick in sales for HP, almost any other scenario (especially bad partnerships) would only damage the HP brand and would be giving the partner an enormous free ride by being able to use the HP name in their marketing with little in it for HP. Very very few deals were ever accepted - the partner application forms were frightenly intrusive (but had to be given the above), which probably acted like a good filter.
Apple is in a similar position compared to potential partners - especially Real.
Re:Good... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good... (Score:5, Funny)
funny, that's why we say when people ask us to port our software to MacOS.
Windows is number two (Score:3, Funny)
Mac OS is "second place in market share." Windows OS is number two [shitclub.net]. There's a difference.
Re:Good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good... (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple will never return to the 10% numbers until they get serious about the consumer market. Apple is pretty much gearing themselves to the prosumer and professional markets. Their consumer line of computers don't come close to the performance of entry level PC's.
Apple is selling a lot of iPods, but I think its got a short lifespan. Within the next couple of years, you will see flash-memory based players that hold about 5GB's of storage. And these will sell for under $100 at some point. By then, the price will win out over the glamour of the iPod. And once again Apple will be left behind. They just can't see that the DRM is the future and if they don't license theirs, Microsoft will win this market as well. And online music sites will continue to have only one option, WMA. And eventually it will win by sheer volume.
Re:Good... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that's a tactful way of saying that Apple is milking their installed base. (Similar things said about other 'dinosaur' platforms like VAX or Sun workstations.)
Not that far in the future, good PCs are going to cost $500 each, and the cognitive dissonance between that and a $1500 Mac is going to be too much for even the most loyal Mac Fan to swollow. I'm willing to bet that Steve Jobs understands this better than most of his customers do.
Re:Good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not even bowing down, its a partnership. Real is synonymous with poorly written software, nagware 'message centers' most people cant turn off, messing up file associations, hiding the free product on the website, etc. These guys are one step removed from penis pump spammers.
Apple's approach is user-centric and user friendly. Real hates the user and does *everything* it can to fool you buy their product when you just need the free one. They'll do anything to take over your system. They'll push 'message center' ads for a penny an ad.
In short: fuck Real. The sooner they go bankrupt the better off everyone is. There is room for a good company with a nice media player out there and Real has shown itself over the years that they are not this company.
Apple any better?! (Score:3, Insightful)
And no, I never used the iTunes stuff, and I'm not going to. It's outright funny that they want me to give them money for music which I cannot play on any player I like. It's an obvious scam - binding the music and the player togethe
humptf, jobs is getting wrong again :P (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:humptf, jobs is getting wrong again :P (Score:5, Funny)
Jobs? Humble?
"You must be new here"
Re:humptf, jobs is getting wrong again :P (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:humptf, jobs is getting wrong again :P (Score:5, Interesting)
Real is nobody. I don't know ANYONE that has half a clue about computers that is even ambililent about Real. They all dislike (up through hate) Real. Real doesn't have a large customer base. Real doesn't have lots of users who like them. Real doesn't have a good reputation.
To agree to this would be like Bank of America partnering up with a local loan-shark (who has, supposedly reformed and is no longer crooked and evil). It doesn't do anything for Bank of America except lower their reputation.
If someone worthy came to Apple, I think they would have been more likely to say yes. If Amazon had said "let us integrate iTMS into our website" that would help Apple. If Barns & Noble had done it, that would provide value. If Walmart, Blockbuster, or even Sam Goodey had asked, there would be value there. Those compares are at least respected by many people. They have many returning customers that they would provide.
As far as I'm concerned, Real is a company that is up to it's head in quicksand and covered in Ebola. They are reaching for ANYTHING to stay alive (MS settlements, partnering with Apple, who knows what tomarrow) but no reasonable company wants to help them because they would then be associated with them (catch Ebola in my example).
For Apple, Real would be more of a paracite than something that could provide a symbiotic relationship for Apple.
Shrugging off one of the companies I listed above would be one thing, and your argument would have legitimacy. But since it's Real, I can't believe your point.
Re:humptf, jobs is getting wrong again :P (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think this is true. I also think that Real should be cut some slack. Let's see for a moment, currently on my Linux box, I have QuickTime, Windows Media Player and RealPlayer. Of those three, only one is native, RealPlayer.
I like Real for their generous gift. I also like Apple for their support, don't get me wrong. This battle is sorta like two respectful companies going at each other.
But, when you say noone likes Real, well, maybe I don't "like" them, but I'm certainly grateful for being the first of the three to even consider my platform.
Re:humptf, jobs is getting wrong again :P (Score:5, Insightful)
This deal with Real, seems pretty obviously bad for Apple, so Steve turned them down, then went out and made more publicity out of it.
Just the fact that Real went to them has pushed Apples Music products up a notch.
Re:humptf, jobs is getting wrong again :P (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Microsoft makes loads of money on programs they sell for the Mac platform. It's not like they started on 1984 and decided to go on until today to make Apple a favour.
Because the PowerPC architecture was created by IBM and Motorola (I think). The fact that Apple uses PPC processors doesn't mean that such processors are only sold to Apple. Apple is just another customer filling IBM's pockets. Once again I doubt IBM is trying to do Apple a favour.
Is this just a guess or is this factual information? Anyway, the value of a product is not given by it's cost. It's a mixture of variables, most of which depend on the view the customer has of the product. Apparently some people give more value to Macs than to other computers. It's all a matter of personal choice.
Diego Rey
Re:humptf, jobs is getting wrong again :P (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft clearly makes money from "number 2" by making Mac office. Thus, they _can_ answer the question "what do we get?" with the words "cold, hard cash, and yet another spike in the coffin of potentially competing office products."
Think about it - were MS to stop shipping office for Mac, Apple would have to come up with an office suite of their own. They would probably fail, but MS really does not want to take that chance, given that Apple has enough cash to make it happen.
Why would IBM want to use a processor architecture other than Intel? Because they make oodles of cash on IBM servers, and they do not want to share with Intel.
Why do people want to buy Macs? Because they are better, and thus I make more money as a consultant. (You do not have to agree, but this is why I use it, and why my company buys them.)
In all three cases, the answer is "because we make money by doing so."
Contrast this with Real. They are known for dreadful software, spyware, and relatively poor quality. They have addressed some of these issues, but i know very few people who are fond of Real software. Thus - what would Apple get out of this partnership?
Real is a #2? (Score:5, Insightful)
jobs is stating the obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would anyone want to partner with Real (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple's approach is user-centric and user friendly. Real hates the user and does *everything* it can to fool you buy their product when you just need the free one. They'll do anything to take over your system. They'll push 'message center' ads for a penny an ad.
In short: fuck Real. The sooner they go bankrupt the better off everyone is. There is room for a good company with a nice media player out there and Real has shown itself over the years that they are not this company.
stereotypes, why stop there? (Score:3, Troll)
And MS users are stupid.
And Linux users are nerds.
BSD users are uber-nerds.
OS/2 users are old nerds.
Thanks for the productive comment.
Re:jobs is stating the obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:jobs is stating the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Hold an iPod, and then hold a Zen, and make your own decision. The iPod isn't winning awards because it's more expensive than the Zen, smaller capacity than the Zen, or uglier than the Zen, it's winning awards and accolades because it's user experience is better (weight, UI, size, integration, usability).
If those things don't matter to you... than they don't matter to you.
They just happen to matter to a lot of the population ^^
Re:jobs is stating the obvious (Score:4, Informative)
iPod: 2.4" x 4.1" x 0.62" [apple.com]
Zen Xtra: 3" x 4.4" x 0.86" [creative.com]
That's an increase of 25% x 7.3% x 38.7%, or 86.1% in volume. That's almost twice the volume, far more than you think.
And that percentual increase in volume is huge: the white iPod is only 69.5% bigger than the iPod Mini (2" x 3.6" x 0.5"), and clearly the Mini has been such a success due to it's size (not so much for it's colors).
Arrogance? (Score:5, Interesting)
They turned a profit. (Score:5, Informative)
Presumably, the more they can grow the user base of the store, the more money they can make on it. Allowing Real to set up shop in their turf with their tools would only likely decrease the user base of their store.
Real just wants a free ride, but Apple wisely won't give it to them.
Profits? Umm sorry but no.... (Score:4, Insightful)
WSJ
"Consider the economics of the iTunes store. Apple charges 99 cents per song that is downloaded by a consumer. Of that 99 cents, Apple pays the record label about 65 cents for licensing rights to the song, estimates Charlie Wolf, an analyst at brokerage firm Needham & Co. Other analysts come up with similar figures. In addition, Apple incurs costs such as credit-card fees, which typically amount to 25 cents a transaction (which can include several songs), plus 2% to 3% of the amount charged. The result: On average, Apple earns less than a dime for each song it sells from the store."
CNET
"Apple said it doesn't have any illusions that it can make great profits from selling songs over the Internet: Instead, Apple is counting on the store as a key part of an overall music business for the company that can produce substantial profits--mainly through sales of its iPod digital music player. 'The iPod makes money. The iTunes Music Store doesn't,' Apple Senior VP Phil Schiller told CNET News.com...Schiller said the music store is close to profitability but is still losing money. Apple doesn't see the business as having much long-term profit potential either."
Re:Profits? Umm sorry but no.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple announced earnings last Wednesday (4/14) after market close. In the conference call, Apple announced that iTMS made money. Apple's CFO announced that iTMS made money. Not some reporter - an Apple executive. Not 3 months ago in the Journal, 2 days ago in a conference call with analysts.
From MacNN:
"Responding to iTunes song pricing, Apple said that the higher-than expected pricing on some albums was due to the disparity in pricing from different labels, but the the "vast majority" of the albums remain at $9.99 and songs remain at $0.99. Apple said the iTunes Music store showed a small profit in the March quarter and looked promising for the company. The company said it expected to provide an update on the iTunes Music Sales and the Pepsi promotion closer to the First Anniversary of the iTunes Store (end of April). "
Why Not? (Score:4, Insightful)
A rotten apple in the barrel (Score:5, Insightful)
Real has been under a lot of scrutiny (especially here on
I think Jobs just didn't want to soil apples image.
Re:A rotten apple in the barrel (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, look at Apple's target market. They aim at the tech-savvy, trendy people, and those people are usually knowledgeable enough to know about Real. Why WOULD Steve want to associate his company with them?
The only thing I thought was bad was the way he worded it. Yeah I got a kick out of it, but he has to realize that while there is a huge gap between #1 and #2 NOW, if they pair up with M$, it is very possible that through sheer brute force they could become #1, or certainly much closer. I think Jobs' comment was a bit short-sighted I guess.
Not rejected yet (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, the headline here overstates it. Technically, Apple has not yet rejected Real's pleas.
Apple sent the following message to Rob Glaser:
"In response to your request of the 15th, Apple's categorical response is [BUFFERING]
Not Arrogance, Just Smart (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, teaming up with Real can only hurt Apple, or at least the perception of Apple.
Market Share (Score:5, Insightful)
Licensing to Real would have two negative effects that Apple should rightly be concerned about. First, this would at best steal sales that would otherwise have gone to the iTMS, and, while the bulk of the profits come from the iPod itself, the iTMS can only be helped by increased traffic. (In particular, economies of scale are probably rather important--certainly with respect to the infrastructure, possibly the underlying music licensing as well.) Secondly, Real has a long reputation as obnoxious crap that works poorly and pushes ads at the user all the time. Associating with them could taint Apple's image, which is a valuable commodity. If Real's store was anything other than flawless, it could damage the perception of how easy to use the iPod is, hurting long-term sales and brand image.
Didn't NEXT say this to Microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
Next platform? I'm paraphrasing here, but maybe someone can fill in the details.
Re:Didn't NEXT say this to Microsoft? (Score:3, Informative)
When the NeXT cube came out, the crowd I was hanging with didn't take it seriously. Even when the 'fire sale' occured and they got really cheap, everybody scoffed at it. I wouldn't mind having one now, but as a
Re:Didn't NEXT say this to Microsoft? (Score:3, Informative)
When the Sun Starfire came out, the crowd I was hanging with didn't take it seriously. Of course, I didn't know anything about it. I'm guessing the same is true here.
A 1994 NeXT is still sufficiently more advanced (speed aside) in many wa
Apple is as Apple does (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, Steve Jobs can decide what he wants. But it's bad PR to be that cocky. He might as well shout out, "I'm king of the hill, try to knock me off!" Here's a hint in PR, Steve: act contrite and humble even as you crush your opponents. They won't realize what you're doing until it's too late. But if you are unapologetically domineering, you'll find you get three responses:
Hmmm. I wonder which one is Microsoft? And which one is Real?
Re:Apple is as Apple does (Score:4, Insightful)
is it similarly bad PR to call a potential partner "afraid" and threaten to run to the competition?
Lessons from Diplomacy (Score:3, Interesting)
There was this one guy who was really good at it. The general rule was: If you allied with him, you'd (usually) be the last person he killed off... But he still killed you off.
Why work with #2??? Because they're that much less likely to string you up on a moment's notice, and you might have someplace to go when #1 decides that you're expendable.
Apple is just being polite... (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple only owns this market (Score:3, Insightful)
So what, there is no market for MS/RIAA DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
The iPod and iTunes also already play non-DRM files very well and it will be a long time before another company meets that standard. I think the pressure for Apple to license FairPlay or open up the iPod is far overestimated. They have the best product, will protect it, and it's what customers want now and for the foreseeable future. It's rare you get such a potent mix and such a great product this early.
Maybe it's because of QuickTime (Score:5, Interesting)
Think about it. How does iTunes work? By using QuickTime. QT has had very bad rep in the PC world (flaky player, etc.), and many Windows users don't install it before. But now, with the iPod and iTunes Music Store, people are starting to install QuickTime again. iTMS won't work without it! Now if Real comes in and offers the same service but bypassing QT, people would no longer be installing QuickTime.
-B
Re:Maybe it's because of QuickTime (Score:5, Interesting)
Hate to burst your bubble, but Quicktime has about as much of a chance of becoming ubiquitous as Real. In other words, not gonna happen. Sure, quicktime has gained a lot of ground in the movie trailer circles, but it's still a cpu-hog and memory whore. That alone makes it Real's partner in decline.
Sure Apple is making headway with the iPod, but when it boils down to it... the iPod is Apple's latest fad. Although the company has literally risen from the dead, they still appeas to subscribe to the philosophy that consumers want proprietary technology. They got it all wrong: consumers want innovation and Apple has a lot of that but Apple's products always lose in the long run because the company simply can't sustain its markets.
Both these guys are fools - Glaser should quit trying to save his real crap and Jobs isn't in any position to be cocky.
Re:Maybe it's because of QuickTime (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider what happens when movie downloads start becoming popular and Apple re-rolls iTunes as a movie store? People pay good money for movies... not this 99 cent thing... more like 3.99 for a few days of use. Apple
Never underestimate Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Threats don't go down well (Score:3, Insightful)
Real Networks acts like a child, and Apple happily refuses to grant them a piece of the pie. Maybe had Real asked Apple more nicely, as HP did, they might have had more inroads, although the deal still would probably fall through.
Real didn't so much make an offer as a threat (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple are full of themselves (Score:3, Insightful)
The real number 1 is the masses and their p2p file-sharing and as long as your music player plays mp3 who cares who made it? And given that all other DRM'd music formats can and always will be cracked or circumnavigated its like saying segway is number 1 against human legs!
I hate apple so much, but OSX rocks and so do their notebooks
They just don't want to dilute their brand. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gotta love apple (Score:5, Insightful)
This sounds to me as meaningless as the argument that if Macs of Linux boxes were more popular they would surely have more viruses.
The simple answer is: Apple is not a monopoly, period. If they were dominant, no-one knows what they would be doing. And so far I haven't seen any behaviour that would make me think they wouldn't play by the rules if they were dominant.
And seriously, what would Apple ever want from Real Networks? The guys at Real Networks are loosing a lot of customers for making their free player too hard to find, and by putting way too many ads around. Why would Apple want to have anything to do with them now?
Maybe the words were a bit harsh, but they did make sense.
Diego Rey
Re:They should really team up with the no 1 (Score:5, Insightful)
WMA? Sure, it's the "standard" for all the other services--whose combined sales pale in comparison to Apple's. It's also the "standard" for the other players, whose--again, combine--sales pale in comparison to the iPod.
What about Microsoft's own music download service? As yet, it's vaporware. When and if it does come out, you can bet it won't hold a candle to the ease of use and quality of service of the iTMS. It will also use WMA--see above. By the time MS is ready to launch it, though, it's likely that most non-iTMS music download services will be failing, and the remaining ones will be consolidating.
Sorry, but in this case Apple has out-Microsofted Microsoft.
Re:They should really team up with the no 1 (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't see how you can say that. The service doesn't even exist yet.
iTunes for windows is a me-too application that's not better than Media Player. The current iPods are surpassed easily by the Rio Karma. Why would I want to use a music store through an inferior application that only supports and inferior mp3 jukebox? Not that I have any interest in online music stores but there's no way I'm interested in the Apple one. It's
Re:They should really team up with the no 1 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They should really team up with the no 1 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:you're a moron - no, you are... (Score:3, Interesting)
Download.com. Sourceforge. Countless, countless other companies and web sites.
You can go to them and download files *much* larger then your average MP3, which is let's say about 4MB. Many of them live on advertising alone.
If you're trying to tell me that it's too expensive to provide a service where you make ten cents for every four MB downloaded, I don't buy it.
Re:I WAS thinking this was a good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I WAS thinking this was a good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I WAS thinking this was a good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I WAS thinking this was a good idea (Score:5, Informative)
Couldn't you have at least tried putting a different sig on it?
Re:I WAS thinking this was a good idea (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Um..that's how standards are made (Score:4, Insightful)
This has been bandied about so much that it's taken the place of real, critical thought.
Think about this: when Apple attempted to license its OS, it sales were immediately cannibalized by its licensees.
When Palm did the same thing, the same thing happened.
Name one company besides Microsoft that's succeeded financially in licensing its stuff to others. I can think of one, but they were already in a dominant market position and were/are licensing to stave off anti-trust issues.
Go ahead, find examples and post them.
Re:Um..that's how standards are made (Score:5, Insightful)
On a more serious note, HP licenses their handheld designs to a number of folks, Philips never would have gotten very far without licensing CD player designs, Fraunhofer and Unisys did quite well licensing their respective compression technologies, Samsung licensed the design of their laptops to Best Buy (to create the "VPR Matrix" line of machines), and one of the real reasons VHS beat out Beta was that Sony (like Apple) refused to license Beta widely (I think they did, but only in a very limited fashion).
It happens even more in the vertical markets.
Re:Um..that's how standards are made (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. Palm has money coming in, they just couldn't live up to the hype from their moonshot IPO. For Palm, retaining enough market share to avoid destruction at the hands of WinCE was everything. Below a certain share they will suffer the same fate as Netscape or Apple, as most developers currently writing to PalmOS shift to the one with the unit sales.
And where would Palm be had they continued as the sole maker of hardware? Sure, their hardwa
Re:Music publishers (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting to note, they don't have full control of their copyrights. Once sheet music and lyrics are published, anybody has a right to perform them in public on a recording for a price that is set by law. This is what's known as the "mechanical royalties" because there's no barganing in the mater, the songwriter (or holder of the songwriter's copyright) gets paid the price the law says they're owed and that's that.
Britney Spears's recording company, therefore, has the exclusive rights to her performance of Baby One More Time... but absolutely any artist can do a cover of the song at the mechanical rates, and there's nothing Britney's label can do about it.
Streaming radio's problem right now is that their mechanical payment process has too high a rate set, and far too detailed of a reporting requirement because they have to pay per actual person listening to the stream while the song is playing, while radio stations by comparision just have to pay by their average daily listeners according to the ratings. They're basically on a fixed playing field tilted against them, while songwriters seem to have a level one with the rest of the world.
If only there was a way to measure and collect mechanical royalties fairly for the unencumbered transfer of MP3s/ACCs/OGGs...
Re:Um..that's how standards are made (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Um..that's how standards are made (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why would we want to work with No. 2? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why would we want to work with No. 2? (Score:3, Interesting)
had they licensed, they would have died before 1992.
Re:Why would we want to work with No. 2? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple wouldn't be making the powerfull elegant machines they are today had they licensed their platform and had to compete with the lowest of the low cheap ass oems.
Things are fine with Apple, and they're going to stay that way for quite a while. Unless Jobs dies somehow.
Re:Why would we want to work with No. 2? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think that if he had been given absolute control over Apple in the 80s, things would probably have turned out better for Apple. I have no evidence to back that up obviously.
Re:Jobs's mood swings (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jobs's mood swings (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps Warren Buffet? I have read many of his letters to stockholders, and he seems like a pretty straight shooter.
Here is the latest [berkshirehathaway.com], unfortunately in PDF format. I'll cut out a few quotes, though.
If we fail, we will have no excuses. Charlie and I operate in an ideal environment. To begin with, we are supported by an incredible group of men and women who run our operating units.
Overall, we are certain Berkshire s performance in the future will
Re:Jobs's mood swings (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally....Apple has a competitive advantage in *something* and you get after him for being arrogant!?!
Oh pleez...
The real deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of people are comparing this to licensing the OS or not. Of course that's a flawed analogy because
1) the OS is a whole platform that needs developers, etc... All the iPod needs is songs
2) it ignores the real reasons for the failure of MacOS which had nothing to do with licensing
The bottom line is that Real has nothing to offer at the table. So Glaser tries to goad Jobs into cutting a deal by offering insults and threats. Jobs is not the type to fall for that.
Re:The real deal (Score:4, Insightful)
But isn't "remaining premium" exactly what the iTunes/iPod licensing debate is about? Apple is trying to sell a premium product into a market that is predestined to become completely commodity. Music players are going to be a gigantic market not very long from now -- far beyond Apple's capacity or willingness to meet demand.
It seems to be the exact same mistake as with PCs -- Apple is in love with the iPods huge margins, while Microsoft is looking to nick 1% off every media player sold.
Something to think about in 5 years when everything in the home electronics store has a little Windows logo, and the dotters will be fretting about the fall of MPEG4/AAC/iTunes.
Re:Jobs's mood swings (Score:3, Interesting)
WHAT are you talking about??? Maneuvered the then-CEO out of the company, threw out the board and replaced them with his friends... You call THAT humble???
For the record I think replacing the board was necessary to Apple's long-term survival and probably the single most important thing he did. And it was time for Amelio to go. But just because he was right sure as heck didn't make him humble!
Re:Can you say sucky? (Score:3, Informative)
http://mplayerosx.sourceforge.net/
Re:Its simple Math (Score:3, Insightful)
apple > #2 + #3 +
And in the case of music downloads it's
apple > (#2 + #3 +
Do you actually read marketshare numbers?
* based on revenue
Re:Work with #2? (Score:3, Funny)
How did this get modded up so high? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Apple puilled a Sony!"
Right--except that Apple already supports an open standard (AAC), as well as mp3, for their players. Since no one is insane enough to make a system that doesn't work with mp3s, there's little risk that Apple is going to end up "Betamaxed". Different dynamic.
Re:How did this get modded up so high? (Score:3, Interesting)
But Real is not VHS (Score:4, Insightful)
How many of you have bought SCO linux licenses?
Re:Real deal's a no-go and the reason is Quicktime (Score:4, Interesting)
And that is exactly what Apple meant way back when about a Trojan Horse. Not only is QuickTime installed, but QuickTime contains the entire QuickTime Media Layer (QTML), basically a subset of the original Mac Toolbox APIs. I've ported a number of native Mac apps to Windows with minimal changes by riding on QTML's coattails. This is definitely a major win for Apple. They don't need Real by a long shot.