Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media (Apple) Businesses Media Apple

iPod for Windows (again) 347

Posted by pudge from the i-thought-everyone-alredy-switched-to-mac dept.
beckett writes "Yahoo is reporting that TrentSoft has released EphPod, software that allows Windows users to use all the features of the iPod. I'm suprised that it took a third party to provide support." Also note the previous story on the XPlay, a similar software package.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

iPod for Windows (again) More

iPod for Windows (again)

Comments Filter:

  • Don't be surprised.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by eyegor ( 148503 )
    about the lack of Windoze support.

    iPod is Apples Killer app....

  • Where is Microsoft ? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by selderrr ( 523988 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @08:26AM (#3685535) Journal
    considering the fact that they make a buttload of money on Mouse Hardware, it surprises me trmendously that they haven't jumped the mp3 bandwagon yet...

    Then again, the XBox hardware adventure hangover still got them knocked down I guess
    • I believe MS would prefer that .mp3 go away so that they can sell .WMA supporting hardware... complete with DRM. That's the impression I get anyhow.
      • "I believe MS would prefer that .mp3 go away so that they can sell .WMA supporting hardware... complete with DRM. That's the impression I get anyhow."

        Funny. I prefer to upload wma to my Nomad II MG because I can download it again later. The software doesn't let you download mp3s. (Of course on my HDD I keep everything in ogg vorbis.)

  • Why are you surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by interactive_civilian ( 205158 ) <mamoru.gmail@com> on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @08:32AM (#3685576) Homepage Journal
    "I'm suprised that it took a third party to provide support."
    If I am not mistaken, Apple is primarily a computer hardware company, right? Which means that they want to sell their own computers, right? Which means that if other cool products they release work only with their computers by default, then their computers just might look a little more attractive to the potential computer buyer, right?

    Now, of course, I am not saying that an iPod is going to make the standard typical PC using geek/nerd/gamer/etc want to rush out and buy a Mac, but combine it w/ MacOS X, competitively priced notebooks (not to mention sexy), and some of the other nice details that come w/ owning a Mac (iMovie, Office on *nix, etc), and some people just might be swayed to buy one.

    So, why do you think Apple should cause one of their "hot products" to be supported by default on a competitor's hardware? If a PC user wants to use this hardware, then they can do the extra work required to get it to work w/ their hardware...or they can get a Mac.

    IMHO, it is not Apple's problem.

    • So, the real question is what will make them more money? Selling more Ibooks and Imacs to those who chose to buy one in order to have an Ipod or, selling many Ipods to those who own PCs.
      • The answer is pretty obvious - the computers and the software that goes with them.

        The HD in the iPod alone cosst more than the iPod. Obviously they get them in bulk, but probably the margins are as thin as consoles.
        • Unless you have some inside information from Apple, about their profit margins and sales numbers and, the ability to interpret them I don't think the answer is at all obvious.
          • Nope, pretty easy. Even assuming a 100% profit margin from the iPod, the iPod is a one-off sale whereas the sale of a computer leads to software, and other hardware (such as the airport, iPod, etc.)

            Pretty easy to see it makes more sense to keep the iPod mac exclusive and try and drive a few more hardware sales, than increase the market slightly by creating Windows software - besides, the way it works now, they have the best of both worlds. Other people are paying to develop software to drive the Windows iPod sales, and Apple just gets to collect the money with no support hassels.
            • You may be write but it's not that easy. If keeping the Ipod Mac OS only reaps 1000 new Imac sales will that make more money than selling 10,000 Ipods to Windows users?
              • If I recall correctly from other places that I've read, Apple turns something like 15-20% profit on every machine sold.

                So that's $209.85 per every low end iMac at 15% profit. At the same profit margin, that's 59.85 per lowend iPod. So lets do numbers

                $209.85 * 1,000= $209,850

                $59.85 * 10,000= $598,500

                So yes assuming these numbers, Apple would have made more profit. But take other factors into consideration. The iPod is a one time purchace. The iMac is a purchase, then any additional hardware, plus the possibility of an iPod purchase. And also another loyal customer (once you go mac, it's hard to go back). In all, Apple probably would be better off selling their hardware everywhere they can. They're doing that currently. Think about it, now they've sold those 1000 iMacs + iPods, plus with the new drivers (which cost them nothing to produce, and they have to devote no support to, they've just sold the other 9000 iPods. Grand total 10,000 ipods and 1000 iMacs. Apple wins
        • The HD in the iPod alone cosst more than the iPod.

          That's not true at all. It would cost you more, maybe, but not Apple. They have an OEM agreement. Based on other OEM agreements that I've participated in, I'd guess that Apple is getting the drives for about 70% less than retail prices. (Standard retail markup is between 20% and 30%, and OEM discounts can be a much as half of wholesale prices.)

          Profit margins on the iPod hardware itself are probably around 50%. Just educated guessing, of course, and I'm not bothering with costs like distribution, marketing, and software. I'm just talking pure hardware.
    • Well, I own a PC. And I wanted an IPod. So I bought an Archos Jukebox.

      Apple could've sold me hardware, but wasn't compatible with the hardware I already invested in, so I went elsewhere.

    • some of the other nice details that come w/ owning a Mac (iMovie, Office on *nix, etc)

      According the Open Group [opengroup.org] (owner of the UNIX trademark), MacOS X is UNIX and not a Unix-like operating system (like Linux and BSDi). MacOS X follows the Single UNIX® Specification as set by the Open Group allowing Apple and its users to call MacOS X UNIX and not *nix. So feel free to call MacOS X for what it is, pure, certified UNIX -- just a real fruity version of it.

      Oh yea, I LOVE my iPod [apple.com]. The best MP3 ever made for the UNIX platform.

      • The best MP3 ever made for the UNIX platform

        Should have been:
        The best MP3 player ever made for the UNIX platform

        Haven't had my coffee yet...

      • Re:Correction: MacOS X is UNIX not *nix (Score:5, Informative)

        by Jordy ( 440 ) <jordan@NOSPam.snocap.com> on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @10:41AM (#3686577) Homepage
        Once upon a time, AT&T was UNIX®. They shifted the trademark inside the company to a dozen different subsidiaries (Unix Support Group, Unix System Laboratories, etc.) AT&T then sold UNIX® to Novell who donated it to X/Open. X/Open then became The Open Group.

        Simply following the Single UNIX® Specification doesn't not entitle you to use the UNIX® trademark, you must be certified or have been granted a license to use the trademark from one of the AT&T companies.

        As it stands, Darwin doesn't follow the Single UNIX® Specification. It is missing a number of commands in the specifcation (fuser, gencat, hash, etc.), several missing API calls (poll, pthread_rw*, etc.) and even some headers (utmpx.h, wchar.h, strops.h, etc.)
        • From the Open Group [unix-systems.org] Website:

          The Single UNIX Specification is supported by the X/Open UNIX brand, which in turn is supported by a verification program. The X/Open brand provides the guarantee that products adhere to the relevant X/Open specification. Systems that provide the Single UNIX Specification interfaces can be X/Open UNIX branded as proof to the marketplace. The Single UNIX Specification is the programmer's reference to the portability environment provided on X/Open UNIX branded systems.

          Apple is listed as a Single UNIX® Specification vendor therefor allowed to use the trademark of UNIX®. Might not be the cold, inhuman UNIX® you are used to but the Open Group allows Apple to call its lickable OS, UNIX® by being a vendor of a Single UNIX® Spec.

          This is a really old debate [osopinion.com]...

          • Before Darwin, Apple had a true UNIX® variant known as A/UX [faqs.org] A/UX or 'Apple UNIX' is a derivative of AT&T Unix System V.2.2 with some newer code thrown in to make it modern.

            A/UX was developed when the Single UNIX® Specification was still being written whereas Darwin was created a couple years after the last revision was completed, so it may very well be that Apple's name is there with respects to A/UX, not Darwin.
            • Good thought but incorrect. Apple was not listed as a Single UNIX® Specification vendor until after the Open Group was notified that Apple was calling MacOS X UNIX® not A/UX (which I have used on a SE/30).
          • This is a really old debate [osopinion.com]...

            From the article:

            So it's official. Apple's OS X is without a doubt
            not an officially sanctioned, UNIX operating system. ...
            • From the article:

              UPDATE
              Since osOpinion's publishing of this piece, the Open Group has updated their web site to include Apple into its list of vendors that support the single Unix specification. This appears likely as a direct result to osOpinion's publishing of the report.

              Got to read the entire article! :P

    • If I am not mistaken, Apple is primarily a computer hardware company, right? Which means that they want to sell their own computers, right? Which means that if other cool products they release work only with their computers by default, then their computers just might look a little more attractive to the potential computer buyer, right?

      Bzzt! Thank you for playing.

      Apple isn't just shooting themselves in the foot anymore with their proprietary hardware nonsense, they've now moved on to taking a fully loaded automatic and emptying the clip into both of their feet, lathering, rinsing, and repeating the procedure until nothing is left below the knees other than a vaguely red mass of shredded flesh and shattered bone.

      Case in point:

      I recently purchased a large and very expensive monitor. Apple's marketing of their 22" 1600x1024 monitor was what initially sparked my interest in such a monitor, but having used SGI's 17" 1600x1024 offering, I found the notion of simply having bigger pixels at the same resolution vaguely disatisfying. So I looked around and was delighted to see Apple's 23", 1920x1200 HD capable monitor.

      Only to discover that the idiots had decided to use a proprietary, nonstandard interace to their monitor, such that it will only work with an Apple computer (unless you buy an external, likely trouble-prone dongle remeniscent of what SGI's 1600SW required, and which has a reputation for adding noise to the digital (!!) signal because power is transmitted on the same cord). I called the Apple store and was informed that they wouldn't guarantee it would work with a standard DVI interface, and that if it didn't I would be left wearing the $3600 door stop.

      I was ready to buy the monitor then and there. Apple lost a $3600 sale as a direct result of their proprietary mindset. And no, there was never a remote chance of my spending another $4k on an Apple G4 system just for the privelege of spending $3.6k on an expensive monitor. Bill Gates is far more likely to learn a modicum of business ethics than I am to spend $8k on Apple equipment when, for $4500, I was able to go out and buy an excellent Samsung 24" LCD monitor that does the same 1920x1200 resolution and will not only work with standard PC DVI interfaces, but will also work with analog cards, and has two video inputs as well (composit and s-video). Had there been no such monitor available I would have opted to wait, knowing that a PC capable device would only have been a question of time. I would not, ever, in a million years, have gone out and spent $6k - $8k for the privelege of having a working 23" LCD with Apple's logo (and ugly frame).

      Had Apple's 23" monitor used a standard DVI interace, they would have made an immediate $3600 on a non-apple, PC user (despite the ugly frame). Instead they made $0.

      The same is true of the iPod. I'm not about to go out and spend a thousand or more bucks on a platform I have no interest in simply in order to be able to use a several-hundred dollar iPod. So instead of making a few hundred bucks on a non-Apple user, they make $0, yet again.

      People will only opt to use Apple computers because they like Apple, or prefer the applications available on Apple, or have a specific reason to use Apple. No one in their right mind would choose a particular platform because this or that peripheral (iPod, big LCD monitor) has been crippled to only to work with that hardware, particularly in an age where you can wait for 6 months (maximum) and have it availabel for whatever platform you prefer.

      In other words, Apple's obsolete proprietary mindset isn't making them any more sales, and thus any more money ... all it is doing is costing them sales they would have otherwise had in other market segments.
      • No one in their right mind would choose a particular platform because this or that peripheral (iPod, big LCD monitor) has been crippled to only to work with that hardware, particularly in an age where you can wait for 6 months (maximum) and have it availabel for whatever platform you prefer.

        Actually, I'm suprised that nobody has come out with something comparable (fits in a standard pocket, uses FireWire or USB 2.0) for Windows already. Judging from the latest Rio and Archos offerings, it looks like they've decided to compete on storage capacity rather than convenient form factor.

      • The Apple digital monitors are designed to work exceptionally well in tandem with the company's PowerMac G4 offerings. In no way has Apple ever tried to sell them to PC users.

        If you were never part of Apple's target market, they didn't really "lose" a sale, did they?
      • Only if you believe Apple is selling to the PC market. In my opinion, Apple is selling to their own market. The mac users. If your a PC user and you want to test the Apple waters, you have the iMac, the eMac and the iBooks, all cheap, all powerful and all useable machines. Everything else, all the real perks go to the Apple users. Nothing is cooler than having a computer which seemlesly runs with all it's components. Should SUN have made their rather impressive 21 inch monitors (back when the Sparc 10s were big) compatible with macs and PCs? Maybe they would have had more sales, if they had. But they didn't. They were interested in a product that would run exactly the way they wanted it. Same with Apple. You may not like it, but hey, I don't like the way M$ does business. Oh well.

    • Re:Why are you surprised? (Score:5, Funny)

      by OpenMind(tm) ( 129095 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @10:51AM (#3686690)
      competitively priced notebooks (not to mention sexy)

      Brrr... I'm sorry, but I think that Apple, with its "sexy" machines is a major threat to human life on this planet. Apple wants us to redirect all our sexual energy into playing with computers, thus trimming the population growth rate, and making us weak. That way, we will be vulnerable when their teal-plastic-bubble robots move in to take control of the planet.

      Sure, it would be a benevolent dictatorship, with easy-to-use interfaces and open standards, but consider the horror when a person's largest muscle is his right index finger, from clicking that one button thousands of times a minute.

      Seriously, though, this is not a new tactic from Apple. The lack of a version of Final Cut Pro for Intel platforms has seriously annoyed me for a while. I can see this as a viable way to push their hardware, but I'm not sure they end up making more money by doing so. Limiting one of the best video editing packages to ~10% of the possible market is missing a big oppurtunity.

      When it comes down to it, I think Apple's software is what distinguishes it. The interesting form factors they put through are neat, but could be done as well with Intel hardware. Really Apple hardware doesn't do anything Intel hardware can't, except run MacOS. They would sell much more hardware, I think, if it was x86 based. But then they'd have nothing to push their operating system.

      So in the end, I have to wonder, is Apple using its software to push the hardware, or its hardware to push the OS platform.

  • Third party. (Score:5, Funny)

    by saintlupus ( 227599 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @08:39AM (#3685613)
    I'm suprised that it took a third party to provide support.

    Yeah, that's weird. You'd certainly expect Apple to be eager to give people one less reason to buy their computers and OS.

    [/sarcasm]

    --saint
    • He's probably also wondering when Apple is going to port OS X to Intel hardware.

      mark
      • He's probably also wondering when Apple is going to port OS X to Intel hardware.

        Heh. After last week's micro-war on apple.slashdot.org about that, this comment holds a special place in my heart. I wish I'd seen it before I posted to this story, so I could mod it up.

  • File Transfer speed over firewire? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by laxian ( 174575 ) <digitalstruggle@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @08:40AM (#3685624)
    In the FAQ [ephpod.com] ... right above "Part 5" it says that the highest transfer speed is 6MB/s.

    I thought Firewire transfered much, much faster than that (like ~30MB/s). If this is slower, is it just because it's such a hassle to deal with the iPod on a PC?

  • I'm suprised that it took a third party to provide support

    As I said in another comment, they probably don't want to. Apple wants as many people as possible to buy their computers. They have a larger margin on iMacs than on iPods. If you were in their shoes, would you pay programmers to develop windows drivers?

    Now, they've apparently supported these developers by giving them access to the iPod's specifications. Why? I know many Windows users who would love to get an iPod; however I don't think many of them would buy an iMac because the iPod only works with iTunes.

    If Apple's margins on the iPod are larger than I thought, Apple clearly benefits from this software. Windows people start buying iPods, increasing the sales, and Apple does not have to support them, redirecting them to Mediafour or TrentSoft.

    What do you think?

    • If Apple's margins on the iPod are larger than I thought, Apple clearly benefits from this software. Windows people start buying iPods, increasing the sales, and Apple does not have to support them, redirecting them to Mediafour or TrentSoft.

      What do you think?

      Exactly. Apple sells the hardware and makes a profit, and also saves money on the support costs at the same time. Granted it isn't quite the profit margin of selling a new iMac or iBook or other to go along with the iPod, but in the end, it doesn't seem like a bad deal.

      Here is a (probably stupid) thought: if this software somehow damages the iPod (OK, I don't see how that is possible, but in the off chance it screws w/ the iPod's builtin software), is it still covered by Apple's warranty? Do you think it would be a good move for Apple to not cover it? I mean, they don't cover damage of unsupported use of their computers (such as using non-CDs in the optical drive), so should they cover unsupported use of the iPod?

      am I making any sense? or is this completely unfeasible?

      P.S. the graphics on apple.slashdot.org look uber-sweet. :)

      • Here is a (probably stupid) thought: if this software somehow damages the iPod (OK, I don't see how that is possible, but in the off chance it screws w/ the iPod's builtin software), is it still covered by Apple's warranty? Do you think it would be a good move for Apple to not cover it? I mean, they don't cover damage of unsupported use of their computers (such as using non-CDs in the optical drive), so should they cover unsupported use of the iPod?

        My guess is "No"... Apple only "supports" the use of an iPod on a Macintosh with iTunes. Of course, I guess if your iPod was somehow damaged by third party software on a Windows (or other OS) machine... you could lie about it... but that opens up a whole other can of worms.

        There have been rumors that they would officially add Windows support, but so far that has not surfaced.
    1. Can you get hold of a Firewire to USB convertor and use that with EphPod/iPod? I can suffer slower download speeds if I don't have to install yet another card (this also would be a bonus for the next question). If so, where can I get one in the UK?
    2. Can I copy songs to and from the iPod with EphPod? That would mean I can put songs on and get them off the iPod (essentially using it for transporting provided you don't need a firewire card in both pc's) - I'm fully aware that iTunes doesn't allow this but I'm also aware that it is possible to circumvent (copyright restrictions acknowledged)

    If the answer to both of these is "yes", then I'm off to buy one ...!

    • From the FAQ (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Lysander Luddite ( 64349 )
      Q: What do I need to use an iPod with my PC?

      A: You need a firewire port on your PC, and some software to allow you to add song files to your iPod.

      Since you're reading the EphPod help file, you should know that the best software solution is EphPod plus MacOpener. :)

      They even mention several compatible firewire cards and answer the question as to why you need a powered firewire cable.

      www.ephpod.com/faq.html

      I'm sure the web site could answer even more questions should you have them.
    • 1. I don't know if such a converter exists, but in any case it would probably be cheaper to simply buy 2 firewire cards (1 home, 1 work) or one firewire PCMCIA card.

      2. There are about half a dozen utilities and scripts that will copy the songs back. Check the iPod sites like www.ipoding.com or www.ipodhacks.com for details.

      And by the way: I absolutely don't understand why copying the files back to your computer should be a copyright issue. There a several legitime circumstances under which there is an absolute legal need to be able to copy the files back:
      I recently "upgraded" from a Nomad Jukebox to an iPod, so copying the files back from the Jukebox to be able to transfer them to the iPod was a very real and legitimate requirement.
      The iTunes approach of having a "mirror image" of the iPod on HD is just not realistic for people with older Macs that only have 6 GB of HD when their iPod has 10 GB.
      And what about someone upgrading their Mac (and switching from OS 9 to OS X) but keeping their iPod?

      After all, if one just wants to copy songs from someone else (illegally), there is always the option of mounting the pod as HD, plain copy the files, copy them to the HD at home and then adding them again via iTunes.
      So this is no copy prevention at all, just a big inconvenience and Apple should get rid of it IMHO.

      • Re:Questions (Score:2, Informative)

        by aedan ( 196243 )
        You don't need to have the iPod mirror iTunes, that's just the default position. You can set it to manually select the tunes you want to transfer and it would be quite possible to have more storage space on the iPod than on your computer. You can also use the tunes on your iPod from within iTunes if you leave it connected.

        aedan

  • What's good for the goose... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mhesseltine ( 541806 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @08:51AM (#3685701) Homepage Journal

    Why is it that if Apple releases a product that only works with their systems without a third party application, everyone says "Oh, well of course. They sell Macs, so why shoot themselves in the foot by making it work with PC's running Windows?"

    Now let's flip the situation. Someone makes an MP-3 player, printer, external hard drive, whatever, that only runs under Windows. Now everyone cries "Why don't they port it to Linux, Mac OS X, Solaris, Joe's OS 0.001?"

    I just want to know why it's fine for Apple to only make their hardware work with their OS, but everyone else should port to everything else?

    • If MS made an MP3 player I wouldn't expect it to run on anyting but the latest Windows. Apple releases an MP3 player and can at least be hacked to run on Windows.

      If a 3rd party makes an MP3 player and it only runs on Windows then I think there's more reason to raise a stink. It's not a product from the OS manufacturer.

      Nevertheless, I'm not surprised that I can't watch World Cup videos on my Mac. Why should I be surprised when somebody in Taiwan makes an MP3 player that only works with Windows?
    • Why is it that if Apple releases a product that only works with their systems without a third party application, everyone says "Oh, well of course. They sell Macs, so why shoot themselves in the foot by making it work with PC's running Windows?"

      ...I just want to know why it's fine for Apple to only make their hardware work with their OS, but everyone else should port to everything else?

      Because the makers of those other products you mentioned don't sell Windows. Apple make money from selling MacOS/OSX/Mac hardware. The Rio Volt doesn't make any money from the Windows copy it requires to run.

      Cheers,
      Ian

    • Someone makes an MP-3 player, printer, external hard drive, whatever, that only runs under Windows.

      If Microsoft did it, they'd be leveraging their monopoly. If a 3rd party did it, they'd be cutting themselves off from some of the market. Not yet that big a segment, but when competition is as cutthroat as it is on the PC side, every bit can count if you can make back the extra R&D and support costs for supporting other platforms.

      It's obviously a good enough segment that Microsoft itself has a highly profitable Mac business unit, including some of their peripherals to Mac users (this is typed on a PowerMac G4 800 with MS Natural Pro keyboard and Intellimouse Explorer optical mouse).
  • ... Windows for iPod!

  • Shameless plug (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SlashDread ( 38969 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @09:19AM (#3685905)
    Ephpod rocks my world.

    Have you ever wished Apples design for the OS and the Apps would trickle down to "other" osses?

    I have.

    Well Ephpod just did it. Its software is beautifull, and simple to use, as is the marvelous iPod.

    It installed in 5 minutes, windows2k has build in IEEE 1394 (firewire) support, so plug in your el-cheapo Firewire PCI card, reboot, install Eph and bobsyourunlce.

    Some feats on the iPod:
    - Best formfactor for HD mp3 players, it actually fits in a breast pocket.
    - Stores 10GIG
    - Transfers at firewire blazing speed

    The only drawback is the godawful high price

    I take no care in comments that apple _should_ release for other OSses, their apps, their hardware their choice.

    A different "stink" is the lack of Macdrive support for other OSses. Whereas Apps and special hardware are their own deal, the lack of support for mac disk formats is another. In the best interest of Apple buyers, and people sharing data with them, it is _needed_ to buy third party stuff like MacOpener for windows from dataviz.
    Now THATS reason number one for oldschool MacFreaks to eventually switch;their customers run windows, and are tired of converting files and disks. This is the stupidist thing from Apple since quicktime.

    When are we getting linux mp3 players that are cheap and dont suck?

    Gr Richard

    • Re:Shameless plug (Score:3, Informative)

      by Zoop ( 59907 )
      A different "stink" is the lack of Macdrive support for other OSses.

      Huh? Macs have supported Windows file formats for YEARS, like since at least '92. The Mac CD Burner supports different formats, even. This is just Windoze FUD.

      A favorite trick of mine was to recover files for people when their Windows machine could no longer read the disk, but pop it into my Mac and it would open it beautifully. It's the Windows world that cuts itself off from anything but Windows formats. In the Mac world it comes standard with the OS.

      This oldschool MacFreak is helping transition his office and customers back to Macs.

    • Quicktime 6 (Score:3, Informative)

      by hotsauce ( 514237 )

      Before you babble nonsense, why don't you try Quicktime. Download Quicktime 6, click on WGBH Boston's Mango Blue [apple.com] link, and tell me with a straight face that Network TV should not be very afraid. Not to mention QTSS, Broadcaster, VR, etc [apple.com].

      Do you even know the history of Quicktime and how instrumental it was to multimedia?

    • Re:Shameless plug (Score:4, Insightful)

      by phillymjs ( 234426 ) <slashdot&stango,org> on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @11:50AM (#3687186) Homepage Journal
      A different "stink" is the lack of Macdrive support for other OSses. Whereas Apps and special hardware are their own deal, the lack of support for mac disk formats is another. In the best interest of Apple buyers, and people sharing data with them, it is _needed_ to buy third party stuff like MacOpener for windows from dataviz.

      Awwww, poor baby. Cry me a river.

      Your OS of choice doesn't support the Mac filesystem. That is Apple's fault how, exactly? Macs have been able to read and write PC disks (floppy, Zip, CD, etc-- even HDs, in some cases) for YEARS, out of the box. Apple saw it was an important capability to have, so they added it into the OS. Microsoft wants to lock your ass into their platform for life to serve their own interests, whereas Apple needs to be somewhat compatible with the Windows world to make things easier on their users.

      The iPod is an *Apple* device designed for use with *Apple* computers. If you're using some third party hack to make it work with Windows, tough shit if you don't like something about it. If you want to use it in the most hassle-free way possible, buy a Mac. Otherwise, shut up and pick from the tens of MP3 players that are Windows-only or fully cross-platform. Nobody put a gun to your head and made you buy the iPod.

      And by the way, how does it feel to want/have a cool device that is better supported on some other OS than your OS of choice? Mac users have been on the outside looking in for as long as Windows has ruled the market. Now the shoe is on the other foot and some of you Windows people can see what we've endured for so long. It's not nice when a company tells you that your money is not worth their time or effort, is it?

      ~Philly

    • Re:Shameless plug (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sentry21 ( 8183 )
      Whereas Apps and special hardware are their own deal, the lack of support for mac disk formats is another.

      So you're complaining about Apple because no one else supports their filesystems?

      Regardless, OS X is one of the most interoperable OSen out there (Linux wins easily, but OS X is right up there). Plus, if it doesn't support your filesystem, learn IOKit, and write a driver. Then Mac users can burn/write to disk/format hard drives/fileshare in whatever filesystem you like (ISO9660, FAT32, WevDAV, SMB, Appletalk, etc. just to name a few).

      Just a thought.

      --Dan

  • Apple should not release Windows software (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fermion ( 181285 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @09:22AM (#3685926) Homepage Journal
    This is actually a brilliant tactic on Apples part. It was almost certain that someone would come out with link software. By letting someone else do this, Apple reduces its customer service nightmare.

    I mean think about it. Apple released a tightly integrated device that works quite automagically. Most things in iTunes, even when connected with USB or Firewire, happen automagically, or require only single button drag and drop use. Even though Windows has almost this level of simplicity, Windows is also controlled by Microsoft. Microsoft actively tries to screw every other vendow(and honestly, to some extents, so does Apple), which means no one knows if the software is going to work with the next patch.

    By releasing a minimal, yet compelling version, and allowing other to expand it, Apple is harnessing the third party market in a perfectly reasonable way. I feel it made the same decision when it did not build in windows networking, another moving target, into MacOS 9. Thursby Software had an inexpensive working method, and handled all problems with Windows, including clueless users that do not wish to pay software.

    Now some would say that Apple should be nice and create a better value for Windows users. Of course, Apple does not exist to make Windows more valuable, does it.

    To predict the critics, Internet stuff is a bit different. Products like realplayer promote the brand. It is also safer because it does not deal with the low level system and hardware layer that Microsoft likes to mess with on a regular basis. Again, so does Apple.

  • Let me get this strait... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SaturnTim ( 445813 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @09:48AM (#3686127) Homepage

    Okay, Apple builds a cool but expensive MP3 player. They write the software for it to run on the mac, which helps to sell macs. Sounds good so far, right?

    Now, they are helping other companies write software so the player runs on other systems. The other companies pick up the marketing costs, support costs, and add a small "windows tax" in the form of the price of the software, which sill helps the mac to look more attractive.

    And apple makes more money by selling the iPod to a larger market.

    I think this is a brilliant move by Apple. They open up a larger market with little effort, and eliminate the supports costs.

    --T

  • Chipmaker for iPods get's $42 million (Score:3, Interesting)

    by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06@nospAm.email.com> on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @09:52AM (#3686162)
    PortalPlayer, the chipmaker for the iPods just got fourth round funding of $42 million. Amongst the investors are J.P. Morgan Partners, Investcorp International and Shamrock Capital Advisors. Though the company has no announced customers for it's chips, it's relationship to the iPod has already been documented here on /. [slashdot.org] . According to representatives from PortalPlayer, this is the last round of financing before IPO (though they have no timetable at this point). Read more at news.com [com.com].

  • Why apple doesn't offer third support... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Traicovn ( 226034 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @09:53AM (#3686175) Homepage
    Simple business. Apple wants to make this a very sought after product. If they only make it available for their computers then it means people will buy THEIR computers so that they can have an IPOD. It's very simple. Yes, you would think that if they made this one product available to a wider customer base that they would improve their profits, but then you have to remember that they also don't offer their operating system for x86 (and it's also written into the MacOS license agreement that it is illegal to use the operating system on a non-apple branded computer) architecture. If Mac would offer support for the operating system and have an x86 version of the operating system as well as a powerpc version (g3, g4, 680xx) as well as sell both types of hardware I think they could become more dominant in the industry, but they are very tied to their hardware.

    The bottom line? Apple doesn't want non-mac support for the IPOD because their profits are so heavily tied to people buying THEIR computers. It wouldn't surprise me if somewhere in the IPOD license agreement it says you can only use it with a computer using the Macintosh Operating System.

  • My take on Apple's hardware/software (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BMonger ( 68213 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @10:17AM (#3686343)
    First off.... For the past 10 years or so I've been Windows/Intel-type bound. But now I own the flat-panel iMac and you'll have to pry it from my cold dead fingers many times over before I'll let you take it away. I love the OS and the machine looks neat to boot.

    One thing that I find rather annoying is when people complain that Apple products don't work with their PC's such as there being no Windows iPod software and Apple using non-standard connections for things like their flat screens.

    First, the iPod. If Apple released software for the iPod to connect to the PC then they'd have to support it. The people in their building are Mac coders and know Mac stuff inside and out. Do they know Windows? I dunno. But probably not all that well. It costs to support an additional operating system. With the internet being as it is they probably could have released the iPod with no software and software would have arisen to use it on the Mac and the PC. Of course that would've been dumb so why not support your own platform. Let the other guys worry about their platform or let somebody else do it for free. They may lose some money because nobody will buy their non-existent $19.95 program that let's you use the iPod on the PC but Joe Schmoe just made it for them and they're selling $400-$500 iPods like hotcakes.

    Now this is a little off-topic but I've seen a few people complain about it in this newspost. People are ill at Apple because the flat screens that Apple sells for it's hardware won't plug into most PC's without a dongle or something. Well so what? My TV doesn't plug into my iMac without a dongle and a little piece of hardware. My old PC monitor won't work with my iMac either unless I put Bob's string of dongles between my iMac and the monitor. My toaster won't plug into my iMac either and probably never will (although I'm sure somebody will do it soon so they can link me to it to irk me!). Apple sells hardware and makes software for Apple computers. It's their deal. That's what they do. If Radio Shack Bob want's to back some special inbetween hardware to let people use apple hardware with pc hardware then let 'em at it. If that programmer wants to create the software interface to use the hardware on the PC then yippee for them. Don't rag on Apple because their toast fits in their toaster and nobody elses without some modifications.

    Yeah... it was probably a bad rant. I'm sure I'll be shown the errors of my ways in less than 30 minutes or my money back...

    • If Apple released software for the iPod to connect to the PC then they'd have to support it. The people in their building are Mac coders and know Mac stuff inside and out. Do they know Windows? I dunno.

      Except Apple does write Windows software, for example Quicktime. I bet there are more Quicktime users own Windows PCs than Macs..

    • I'm more ill at Apple because their flat panel displays basically don't work with anything except brand new Macs.

      My dad has a G3 that is about a year old. He decided to buy an LCD monitor for it (his old CRT died) and, to be safe (or so he thought), decided on the Apple 17" display. The display arrives and he tries to plug it into his G3 and, lo and behold, it now requires a DV plug. No problem, he's told, just get a DVIator for $100 and you're all set. DVIator arrives, plug the monitor into it and plug it into the G3. Power the thing up and there's no video signal. What's the problem now? Oh...the 17" flat panel display is only supported under OS X...classic 9 won't work. OS X is $100 more. But now Photoshop 5.5, through the OS 9 emulation layer, is too slow to use (it was perfectly accepable under OS 9). So now he has to buy a copy of Photoshop 7 to get acceptable performance.

      So he's basically out $400 in extra costs that wouldn't have been necessary had Apple decided to support their older computers properly (even Microsoft waits 3 years to declare a product unsupported). He also is now being forced to run an OS that is still going through some growing pains. Sure, the UNIXy features are nice for us geeks, but for your average Mac user, OS 9 was much more thoroughly tested and tweaked.

      Would it have been that hard for Apple's new flat panels to support a G3/OS9 system?
  • I had a look at the Ephpod site, it wasn't too clear on this - does it allow your ipod to double as a portable HDD that makes no distinction between mp3 files and others? (ie, no copy-control crap, no dumbing-down of the display to make it "easier" for people who don't understand file systems to arrange their music, etc etc.

    My guess is Yes, it does it all fine, but does anyone know?

Slashdot Top Deals

It is better to travel hopefully than to fly Continental.

Close