HP Licenses Apple's iPod & iTMS 563
grouchomarxist writes "According to the press release here and this article at Forbes HP is licensing Apple's iPod technology for its own MP3 player and use the iTunes Music Store. 'HP and Apple today announced a strategic alliance to deliver an HP-branded digital music player based on Apple's iPod, the number one digital music player in the world, and Apple's award-winning iTunes digital music jukebox and pioneering online music store to HP's customers.'"
Dear Apple: why? (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, you get a desktop audience of new HP computers. And that's significant, because many newbies will only get to what's pre-installed and use that (cough*IE*cough). But is that really enough to justify diluting your brand? I can forsee the HP version of the iPod sucking.
But hey, I could be wrong, and we could all be getting $99 hPods next December. And we'll all be happy, right?
PS - Did anyone notice that HPShopping.com's CEO is named Appl? No joke [slashdot.org].
Re:Dear Apple: why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dear Apple: why? (Score:5, Informative)
HP printers, desktops etc. are already popular in asian countries and apple, has a better chance of tapping in to these markets, using HP's help than on its own.
Of course this goes only for the iPod or hPod , as itunes currently works only for US customers.
Re:Dear Apple: why? (Score:5, Informative)
>currently works only for US customers.
Minor correction, the iTunes MUSIC STORE only works for US customers. The software (the ripper/burner/player) works fine outside of the US.
Re:Dear Apple: why? (Score:3, Insightful)
the ipod/itunes combination is the horizontal monopoly apple attempting to cut the legs out from underneath the vertical monopoly microsoft with an intellectual attack . the kind of choice apple offers is, "do what you will with your hardware, but do it legitimately and legally." microsoft's model of a free-for-all as long as you
Re:Dear Apple: why? (Score:3, Informative)
I think your axes are mixed up.
Apple is the vertical monopoly, since it controls a music store, a music application, a music player, and a computer that links them all. Microsoft is the horizontal monopoly, since they control all of Windows, but not any store (below) or any players (above).
Horizontal monopolies are usually illegal, since the company completely controls one market and can easily abuse that power. Vertical monopolies are not, since the company doesn't control any particular market
Re:Dear Apple: why? (Score:5, Informative)
As apple sells more and more music, they are approaching profitability, because the cost of development is spread out more. Whether that will ever be enough to actually be truly profitable is another question all together
-Spyky
HP 19% Apple 3% in Q3-2003 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:HP 19% Apple 3% in Q3-2003 (Score:3, Insightful)
It's almost impossible to determine marketshare accurately. However, the service life for a Mac is, on average, thrice that of a PC - making attempts at calculating marketshare based on pure sales numbers a joke at best, and fraudulent at worst.
Re:Dear Apple: why? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems obvious that part of the licensing deal would stipulate that HP cannot undercut Apple's pricing. I would be shocked to see any HP models with anything but the same capacities as Apple's at the same prices. And if anything, they'll be physically bigger, or won't look as nice. Apple's going to keep the high ground somehow.
Re:Dear Apple: why? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not obvious at all. Remember HP and Apple have radically different business models. HP is all about commodity and volume and price competition. Apple's model is "if it's cool enough, we can charge what we like, even if it means our volume is lower".
And if anything, they'll be physically bigger, or won't look as nice. Apple's going to keep the high ground somehow.
Indeed. This is potentially a
Re:Dear Apple: why? (Score:3, Informative)
The clones were causing problems, but were far from being the sole reason for the cries of 'Apple is dying!' They were quite a while away from bankruptcy as well. The $150 million certainly didn't save them. It was
Re:Dear Apple: why? (Score:5, Insightful)
The part that almost never gets reported was that part of the deal was an "undisclosed" money transfer as an informal settlement for all the technologies that MS stole from Apple over the years, as well as an agreement that would allow MS to buy future Apple developments. (This has a lot to do with why XP looks so much like a Macintosh OS in some ways.)
What MS got out of it was an end to their legal wranglings with Apple, a weakening of the case that MS held a monopoly on computer operating systems, and the ability to legally use Apple as a sort of out-sourced R&D department.
The real winners in the deal were us. As consumers, we got to see systems from both Apple and the PC world get much, much better over the last three years.
Re:Dear Apple: why? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Dear Apple: why? (Score:3, Informative)
Huh?
Apple has been upfront all along -- the iTMS is either a loss leader or barely breaks even and exists largely to move iPods and Macs. Your statement makes no sense.
Re:Dear Apple: why? (Score:5, Insightful)
the iTMS is either a loss leader or barely breaks even
That's only true at the current economy of scale; if they crank up the units (songs) sold, the capacity for profit is much, much greater. Making deals with other companies will increase the number of iTunes customers.
~jeff
Re:Dear Apple: why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardware-wise maybe HPiPods will introduce a little competition and make Apple rethink the pricing on the mini iPods
Re:Dear Apple: why? (Score:3, Informative)
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5137473.html?tag
Re:Dear Apple: why? (Score:5, Interesting)
holy run-on batman. did any of that make sense? what i think i'm trying to say is that Apple expects the price of iPods to go down sometime soon. While they are a hot commodity, they license the technology at a very good price for themselves. the competing products will both be less expensive, and sales matter less to Apple now, since they get a peice of the competitions pie anyway.
Re:Dear Apple: why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dear Apple: why? (Score:4, Insightful)
I find it funny that capitalism has progressed far enough that people always talk about brand recognition and publicity and things like that as the end goals. It seems to me that when a company is directly receiving cash they're skipping the middlemen.
We'll all be happy with $99 iPods (Score:5, Insightful)
"HP is fscking over American IT employees because we let them. Our government won't even.... Ooooh, iPods!"
Re:We'll all be happy with $99 iPods (Score:3, Interesting)
Just like Ford fscked over the buggy whip industry, the horse and carriage industry, and decimated the "we clean horse shit off of the street" service industry.
Joe Slashdot: just like everyone else "Keep the gov't off my back, man... but put it on HPs because they've found someone that can do my job for half the price. Fuck progress, I have a mountain of credit card debt to pay off."
Evolve or die,
Re:Social Darwinism at its worst (Score:3, Insightful)
When I was forced into bankruptcy by the dot-com implosion, and couldn't find decent steady work for over a year, only to eventually find a job that required me to do more work for about a third of the money that I used to make, even a $99 iPod would have bee
Not sure how it could suck... (Score:5, Informative)
Found here [com.com], props go out to guet for posting the link over on macslash
Volume clout, plus guaranteed sales? (Score:5, Interesting)
Look for Apple to either make more per iPod on the ones that they sell, plus the revenue on units that they wholesale to HP. Also, I'd expect the recent shortages of iPods to be a thing of the past once manufacturing is ramped up. This is great news for 3rd party equipment manufacturers (like Belkin, and th replacement battery sellers) as they get to sell more product, at possibly lower prices.
Plus, Apple gets more clout with record distributors when negotiating future rates (or trying to get hard-to-license songs) since the available pool of iTunes/iPod users will grow.
This is win-win-win, for Apple, Apple partners, and iPod/iTunes buyers/users. The only people this would be bad news for are Microsoft and the other WMA player folks.
Re: Don't forget about. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dear Apple: why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mindshare and marketshare, not to mention money. If you want clout with component manufacturers on the hardware side and the Big 5 (soon to be Big 4) on the content side you have to be a volume leader. So lets see what happens if Apple told HP to go fly a kite.
HP comes up with their own player and service (or, more likely license someone else's) that would be
Instead, cut a deal with HP (since they seem to love the iPod and iTunes) and you may lose some money on a per-unit basis, but you are further cementing the AAC format, increasing the volume of the iTunes store, and increasing the volume of equipment that you're buying from hardware suppliers, the latter two allowing you further leverage to bring down costs and/or increase profit margins.
Apple needs to continue to hold a large share of the music d/l market. Let, ahem, others grab too controling a share of the codec pie and they'll use that leverage to lock everyone else out.
Doing things right this time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doing things right this time (Score:4, Informative)
Given that fact, why exactly is not licensing MacOS obviously one of the major causes of Apple nearly falling off the face of the planet?
Seems to be based on their very successful business model (you start a company and be profitable for 30 years!), not licensing MacOS is exactly the right thing for them to have done.
Re:Doing things right this time (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Doing things right this time (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine Apple opened up their OS, let people build Mac compatibles, and ported their OS to x86.
Given this scenario, what is different about Apple that would let them survive, face to face against Microsoft on Microsoft's home turf, where every other company that tried this failed? OS/2 died, the DOS clones died, NeXT couldn't do it, Be couldn't do it, etc.
The thing you do not want to do is sell a product that directly competes with MS-DOS or Windows.
Re:Doing things right this time (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is about a total computing environment.
this, I think will help solidify APples control (Score:3, Interesting)
apparently, the only thing that will be different about these devices is that they will be HP blue and have HP on the case. the rest of it is unmodified. the iPod firmware will be the same as the firmware that the rest of the product line uses.
A better article (Score:4, Informative)
Brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
Hooray Carly! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hooray Carly! (Score:3, Funny)
Printer woes, now iPod? (Score:5, Funny)
QuickTime on 20% of the PCs sold in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Together (Score:5, Insightful)
HP also gains by getting a neat bit of kit which they can brand, allowing them to compete against Dell's new musical offering. Seeing as almost everyone is getting in on the act these days, it would seem foolish for HP not too; and why not do it with the best thing that there currently is on the market? Who knows, they might even intergrate it better with the PC? They might even bring the price down a bit. Who know- whatever happens, i'm sure it will be good for music lovers.
Prediction of HP product - true Media PC (Score:3, Interesting)
It sounds stupid at first to build a printer into a device like that but I really think it would attract a lot of users that wanted a simple solution. It would gain a lot of mindshare for HP which currently has very little in the PC space (among consumers)...
As precident I'll note that Epson is releasing TV's with built in printers and card readers, where you can browse you images o
PC world clout (Score:5, Interesting)
Beter still, HP is preloading apple software on their systems. This will be a boon to Apple as it makes it even easier to access the music store.
With AOL, HP, and Pepsi all endorsing iTMS and the iPod, 2004 is shaping up to be a big year for Apple and On-line Music.
One Year (Score:3, Interesting)
HP will, in all likelyhood, make a "cheaper iPod," and cut into one of Apple's darling moneymakers. Remember, Apple makes no money off of iTunes MS, but uses it as a way of promoting the iPod.
I give this one year, max.
Re:One Year (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not the same at all (Score:4, Informative)
Not comparing apples to Apples
Re:One Year (Score:3, Insightful)
Out of curiosity, how long did you give the original iPod to survive? The one that came out two years ago amongst other mp3 players, mp3 players that worked with PCs, cheaper mp3 players, players that are not "those damn Apple products"? Did you plan on them becoming the dominant player or did you plan on them dying? I'll be honest...I wasn't that excited when they came out two years ago. But then I saw this as something big. When I finally saw the dominant numbers that the iPo
1GB (Score:3, Interesting)
Meanwhile... (Score:5, Funny)
licensing Apple's design, not technology (Score:4, Insightful)
What technology is there to license? It's a portable harddrive. I'm pretty sure HP can build one fo those without needing to license anything from Apple.
It's the design of the iPod that makes it unique, not the technology. That's what HP is licensing.
Re:licensing Apple's design, not technology ????? (Score:4, Interesting)
There are several things to license:
Why do you think we don't see lots and lots of 20 30 and 40 GB hard drive players? Apple co creates/researches with Toshiba and apparently now with Hitachi.
The iPod OS is very slick and even though there are close to similar copies - none are as easy - no other player has the games that I'm aware of either
Lastly, they license the implementation of Quicktime AAC - while AAC is open itself - the secure component of it Apple owns.
+ Apple licenses out the firewire name
Re:licensing Apple's design, not technology ????? (Score:3, Informative)
The result is Sony now uses "Firewire", and iLink is gone.
Re:licensing Apple's design, not technology ????? (Score:3, Insightful)
I presently work for a company that makes data projectors. We don't make the lamps that go into them - we buy that part from someone else. Does that mean we don't have people who have the kind of engineering talent to design and engineer
This will be a big bonus for ITMS and QT (Score:5, Insightful)
not only will this add to the QT base but will ad potential customers to the iTunes music store..
I think this is a really good move for Apple.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Carly and post-feudalism (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet thanks to Bush's recent immigration policy shift, pure labor jobs will be handed over to a 'temporary workforce' culled from nearby foreign lands willing to do jobs 'Americans don't want' which should be read as 'Jobs that don't pay a living wage.'
Ugh. Corporate America gets bolder by the day.
-j
So if you're Microsoft.... (Score:5, Interesting)
So Apple, who has already made great inroads to the PC market, is going to make it in even deeper. I think this bodes well for Apple, and I don't know how even MS could fight this off, at least not without doing something that would violate the rulings or what not from the monopoly trial.
Of course, if they did do something that might violate it, and it wouldn't surprise me if they did and it went unnoticed, this time Apple might get into it...
Anyways, the only bad thing I can see coming out of this for Apple is the fact that it might stop people from switching to Apple computers, since, unless the marketing is done well, newbies might not realize this is an Apple product, not an HP product.
BTW, I didn't RTFA so feel free to flame me, but how will Apple keep the supply up? Is HP going to help manufacturing etc.?
Blake
It's all about aac (Score:3, Insightful)
But will it run OpenVMS? (Score:3, Funny)
Ogg Vorbis? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if the contract from Apple would even allow this.
Perhaps, for the PC market, HP would want to support Windows Media Audio files... and if as they are doing that, they might as well add Ogg Vorbis support.
I also wonder if HP will put FireWire on all their computers now, or whether they will just depend on the USB 2.0 support Apple already has for the Windows version of the iPod.
steveha
ENOUGH WITH THE OGG VORBIS (Score:5, Insightful)
As hard as it is to swallow, Apple has decided AGAINST supporting Ogg Vorbis in current devices. So have all but ONE music device manufacturer. The market isn't there because as bad as you want Ogg, you will settle for AAC and buy an iPod because it is a more complete package. And if you won't, then you are a market minority so small that Apple doesn't have the time and money to spend reaching you.
Re:ENOUGH WITH THE OGG VORBIS (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, if your products can't compete with the big boys, the other strategy is to go after a niche market that is so so small that the big players don't care about it.
Re:ENOUGH WITH THE OGG VORBIS (Score:3, Informative)
When it comes to music players and music downloads, Apple is the big boy.
Behold... the thread of HP iPod naming suggestions (Score:5, Funny)
hiPod - Comes with a free dime-bag, too.
Where's yours?
Re:Behold... the thread of HP iPod naming suggesti (Score:4, Funny)
Or is that too Risque?
They will be "HP Blue" (Score:4, Informative)
If you don't know what color "HP Blue" is, look at the
This is aimed squarely at Windows Media (Score:5, Interesting)
With the iPod, iTMS, and now HP-branded iPods, Apple is working hard to keep WMA from controlling online music. That also makes it more difficult for MS to dominate in the video playback market as well, because one of the supposed advantages of WMP is that it acts as a playback mechanism for a wide variety of media, all delivered in Windows Media formats.
HP & OS X? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:HP & OS X? (Score:3, Informative)
Apple made the decision, probably before OS X 10.0 was released, not to switch to the x86. With people switching to Apple in a slow by steady fassion and all those who haven't switched drooling for a Mac to run OS X, there is no reason why they should.
Re:HP & OS X? (Score:3, Informative)
Remember, Apple shipped "Rhapsody" for x86 to developers. And, um, it's been credibly "rumored" that Apple is maintaining the MacOS X code based on x86.
Re:Strike "credibly" in the above post.. (Score:3, Informative)
No, not better. (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you say costly, pain in the ass, and serves no purpose?
I thought you could.
There's a ton of shit that had to be moved into the NeXT base from OS 9. No one would bother making all that code work on x86.
Re:No, not better. (Score:4, Interesting)
When I said that Rhapsody ran on x86, I was _not_ referring to Darwin; I was referring to the complete "Rhapsody" operating system, which I used to run on off-the-shelf PC's. Rhapsody was the code name for MacOS X before it shipped to end users. The whole thing ran, all the way up to the Display Postscript rendered UI, except for "yellow box". So you could (and I did) compile any Cocoa app as a "far binary" and it ran fine on either PPC or x86. What's what I'm saying Apple is still making sure runs on the x86, in order to keep their options open.
Re:HP & OS X? (Score:3, Insightful)
Licensing OS X for x86, god, that just rekes of a bad idea. One of the first things Jobs did when he returned: killed the mac clones.
*Apple is a hardware company*, they make kickass software to sell kickass hardware (iLife sells iMacs, iTMS sells iPods...) They don't want to get rid of their BIGGEST MONEY MAKER by letting HP sell all the hardware on lowend boxes, and slapping macos on their... You can't keep the 'it just works' ideals of the mac that way, and Steve J
Did HP really have a choice? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are already
(1) fighting off loosing market share to Dell
(2) managing a HUGE merger with Compaq (these things take years to work themselves out)
(3) spending tons in R&D with the iPaq
When HP sat down, they had a few options
The WMA way:
(1) Go with the WMA music store everyone else has and try to differentiate, knowing that at $0.99, the service is basically break even
(2) Build a player in house - a huge R&D expense (and risk) should the solution not work out when they launch head to head with Dell that isn't going through restructuring, has a huge market share, and doesn't have the iPaq taking R&D dollars.
The Apple way:
(1) recognize no one is teamed up with the market leader and WHY THE HECK SHOULDN'T WE!
(2) instead of trying to improve on what 31% of the entire MP3 market has already said they wanted by purchasing an iPod, just rebrand the damn thing like IBM did with the Palm III and be done with it.
The Apple way is less risk (and less money in HP's pocket) but if it turns out to be a fad, then haven't spend tens of millions in R&D and they can walk away. If it works out great, then five years from now, they can build their own in-house if they think they can do it better than Apple.
This is a HUGE win for HP and I bet it has Michael Dell slappin' his head sayin "I could'a had a V8!"
Real supports iPods (Score:3, Interesting)
This is big for Apple. First of iTMS is a loss leader so competitors aren't that big a deal unless the recording industry gets their heads out of their asses, promotes downloads, and standardizes on a few outlets. (No sign of that happening) Anyway, Real will end up selling more iPods for Apple.
Of course this all makes sense. Real is getting hit from Microsoft's player as well as the success of iTunes/iTMS. Unless they get something going, even at a loss, they may disappear in a few years. So they've got to come up with an iTunes/iTMS competior -- likely supporting video unlike iTunes. Will it work? It's hard to say. The old RealJukebox from a few years back was my favorite player but became dated quickly and then was killed in favor of a subscription based RealOne. Plus most other iTMS competitors haven't done well. And there are more coming including one from Sony. Meanwhile Apple's system is garnering the best reviews, despite heavy marketing from companies like Napster. With the new Pepsi ad compaign I don't see anyone toppling them.
But perhaps they can manage to be the Pepse to Apple's Coke. (Yea, ironic, isn't it?) Right now iTMS and others may not make money. But three or four years from now the market may shift such that this becomes the standard distribution channel and bandwidth becomes such that you can make more money at it. Look at Amazon. How long did they lose money?
Re:Real supports iPods (Score:3, Informative)
Real does NOT support iPods (Score:3, Informative)
Tunes from Real's store will NOT work on iPods.
Tunes from Apple's store WILL work in the new RealPlayer b/c it is calling out to QuickTime/iTunes to do the DRM work.
Patenty goodness buried in the press release (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Patenty goodness buried in the press release (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps Amazon will be interested in licensing "Allowances".
Apple's going to control a layer! Yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
The foundation of this article was the position that control of a lower layer in the stack allowed you to extract significnatly more revenue higher up in the stack. Microsoft by controlling the OS could extract revenue for applications; Intel by controlling the processor could extract revenue for support chips and logic boards.
This has turned out to be a "law" and has worked to the advantage of both these companies.
It now looks like Apple is working to grab the "Music Sales and Distribution" layer, and it looks like this will allow them to extract revenues they previously were not able to get.
Interesting...gives hope for Apple down the road...
Yours,
Jordan
PS. Love my iPod!
Re:Apple's going to control a layer! Yes! (Score:3, Insightful)
I would be interested to read that article. Because, they way you described it, it doesn't describe why NeXT, Be, and even Apple have (relatively) failed in the marketplace, although they are all OS creators, too. The fact that you need Apple's OS to use Apple applications (such as Final Cut Pro) sure doesn't guarantee anything, if you prefer to use another application on another OS at the end of the da.
In fact, history proves this wrong: Apple had the OS, and MSFT had the Office suite for the Mac even
Re:Apple's going to control a layer! Yes! (Score:3, Interesting)
There were rumors for apple to buy one of the major record labels(vivendi, was it), this would give them a cheap access to the many thousands of artists it would now control(taking a bigger cut of that 99 cent deal than they normally
Compaq invented, HP destroyed (Score:3, Interesting)
I have one of the first sold, almost 6 years ago. Back then, it featured 10 hour battery life, gapless play (albums were ripped as one large mp3 with pointers), and open sourced PC client and drivers. It is still the golden standard for audio quality from such a device. No player out there has all of its technical features, still.
People were so excited when it first came out, delayed over a year (yes, this thing was ready to be sold in '96/'97), that the first units were bid as high as $2000 on mp3.com. My girlfriend, flush with dot.com bucks, bought me one.
So, what happened given the HP acquisition? What happened when a shipping product was so accutely sought after, people where paying 4x what Compaq originally sought to price it at? It was abandoned, licensed to a Korean company called Hango that had no marketing or R&D budget, and forgotten. The engineers on the project were sacked. Even the case was ugly, but the unit was (and still is) great. Given the time frame, the orginal is the size of two iPods wide.
HP could have had a platform and something like iTunes a long time ago. This is apparently the new HP.
The nice thing about this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Dilution? Nope: iPods for NASCAR dads (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite the real gains it has made in OS improvements, Apple's cachet remains largely in its sexy, elite image. The schizophrenia that's marked its retail relationship with Target and other vendors - iPods for sale one day, then not, then back on again - points to the problems of dealing with the unexpected success of having a mass consumer hit on its hands.
And when is it ever a problem to dominate a mass consumer market? Well, it's a problem when you need to protect the refined sensibilities of your loyal base when at the same time you want to get a little, uh, action with consumers on the other side of the tracks. Put another way: how do you retain the people who don't shrink in horror at declarations that your product is "lickable" while reaching out to guys who dwell at Wal-Mart? They're mutually exclusive markets. You can't exactly make the ickyPod, now, can you? (Or can you? Look at the colors on those miniPods, jeezus!)
So this is Apple's challenge, then: continue selling iPods as avatars of youthful upmarket hipness, while growing the business by shifting product to another market segment via a ho-hum go-between. Enter HP with plenty of succesful experience in being ho-hum...
Another reason this might make sense for Apple? (Score:3, Interesting)
(Apple currently offers only second-rate Windows support for the iPod as it stands, anyway. You can't boot a DOS/Windows type OS over firewire to a PC - although you CAN do this on a Mac system. iPods formatted in Apple's HFS+ format won't synchronize to iTunes on a Windows PC unless you run Apple's utility to reformat the iPod in FAT32, erasing anything already on it. That or you buy a 3rd. party PC product that can read Mac filesystems, like "MacOpener".)
Re:Another reason this might make sense for Apple? (Score:3, Funny)
Your key phrase: "second-rate Windows"
Re:Just in time for the Superbowl ad (Score:5, Informative)
From the first paragraphs at zdnet [com.com]:
So it sounds like it'll be blue, but other than that be the normal iPod, running the same OS.
Re:Just in time for the Superbowl ad (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Funny)
It still is. Have you read about iPod battery replacement costs?
Battery replacement costs (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, I've heard that it can amount to an outrageous 15 cents per day!
Re:I am never buying HP again. (Score:4, Insightful)
So yes, you have a God given right to buy from whom you like. So I will assume that you only buy "American made" products from companies in the United States?
Do you drive a car or truck? Was it made in America? That's a loaded question since there really is no such thing anymore, I can't think of an automobile company that doesn't assemble vehicles from parts made or assembled in another country. Your vehicle may indeed have been put together here in the U.S. but a large portion of the parts are assembled or manufactured in other countries, essentially "outsourced".
Don't get me wrong, I hate outsourcing as much as the next guy, I work in tech and worry about the job prospects, but this is natural market evolution. It happened in manufacturing a couple (a few?) decades ago. Now it's happening to tech. The country adjusted back then, it will adjust now. Will the process be painful? I think it already is. But I have hope that the outcome will be positive.
So while I applaud your sentiment, I think we need to be realistic and consistent.
Re:I am never buying HP again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me be the first one to tell you that vegetarians don't eat meat for variety of reasons, which does not necessarily involve ethical ideology. Vegetarians in most part, avoid animal foods for health concerns, and you would find many, who often consume eggs and milk. Humane animal treatment comes in distant second.
The group you're trying to lump her into is called veganism [webster.com]. They don't eat meat, and at the same time avoid (to most extent) purchasing products derived from animals (i.e. leather, oil, fur, etc). Vegans rank animal rights, environmentalism, and ethics ahead of health.
Re:Apple will never forget (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait and watch how iMacs and such won't be licensed out. Jobs is probably taking medication to avoid exploding while HP makes stuff based on Apple technology.
Licensing makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Licensing out the technology for iPods and iTMS makes a tremendous amount of sense because they are dangerously close to being commodity products. There already are competing and very similar products for both services, many of which are of at least acceptable quality. Apple probably has the better products right now (hence their price premium) but there is little reason to believe that their current technology advantage is sustainable. They are the first movers, but our good friends at Microsoft have proven time and again how little that really means. Apples computers are different enough to avoid much of the direct competition but I would propose that the iPod and iTMS do not share this advantage.
So what can Apple do to combat this inevitable erosion of marketshare due to competition? Either they have to keep some form of value advantage (such as features not available elsewhere), have network effects which make switching other services less attractive or they have to scale the business to gain cost efficiencies from economies of scale/scope.
Apple appears to be doing a little of all three. They keep improving the iPod and iTMS which gives them a technology advantage for now. I do not believe this is sustainable in the long run (lots of other smart engineers out there) but it gives them good margins and a big head start. They've got a better mousetrap but that is only useful to a point.
By producing a Windows iPod, making it work with iTMS and licensing it to HP they are trying to build up network effects that make them the platform of choice. It's the same reason everyone chooses Microsoft Office; not because it is great, but because everyone else has it. Again I'm not conviced that the network effects here are the strongest, but if "everyone" buys iPods, that will make iTMS more attractive and vice versa. HP will undoubtable sell more so we might see people buying iPods and using iTMS because their family and friends use them. Not clear, but possible.
The other advantage of licensing to HP is they gain some economies of scale/scope. HP will sell more, making Apple's per-unit costs better, meaning they can fight low cost competition more effectively. The scariest opponent for Apple here is Microsoft because they can bundle with Windows and gain instant economies of scale and they have a much bigger war chest than Apple. If apple can sign up a few of the major OEMs (Dell, Toshiba, IBM, etc) to the same deal as HP, then Apple will be less vulnerable to Microsoft, though it would still be a problem.
In short, licensing iPods and iTMS makes a lot of sense. They don't need/want to do it for their computers because they are not easily duplicated and have significant strategic protection beyond simply the hardware and software. iPods and iTMS are much more vulnerable to competition and need to be treated as the different business it is.
Re:Apple will never forget (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean like how they were letting a few company build Mac-compatible machines in the mid 90's, only to screw them all over royally when it came to renewing ? I remember a few people I knew buying them, but certainly neither Apples nor clones weren't flying out of the stores.
Re:Attack of the Clones, Part II (Score:5, Informative)
The HP_iPod will be the same as a 3rd gen iPod in terms of hardware. That is, AFAIK, the extent of the hardware side of this "cloning." Apple probably gets a percentage of the profit from this (I don't see them as the type to go for a one-time fee).
This either doesn't undercut Apple at all or barely does so. If HP produces them on top of that (haven't read the article yet) it just provides additional iPods when Apple already has trouble meeting demand.
As a plus, HP is also going to install iTunes all HP systems. That's of tremendous value to Apple, since then nobody will need to download them.
This is not cloning, is not vaguely related to cloning (more like Apple licenses the right to produce a specific model of Apple computer with rebranding), and Apple is not going to be undercut or suffer cannibalization of sales as a result of this.
Re:Attack of the Clones, Part II (Score:4, Informative)
>of an Apple.
That's *exactly* what it is.
A blue iPod that says "HP" on it.
Apple even manufactures it.
In the terms of Phil Schiller: ""The way we look at it, HP will be reselling an iPod device,"
(From the CNet article on the topic).
Re:HP-Invent... my ass (Score:3, Informative)
As one of the inventors mentioned on the Yahoo groups PJ-100 list, it seems that HP is actually going to pay Apple to use their own patented technology.
I really think that HP is just at the beginning of a long decline with this brilliant move.