Apple offers up evolutionary iPod updates, Jobs at music event

Today’s 9/9/9 Apple event was surprisingly light on surprises. Steve Jobs returned to the stage after almost a year’s absence and got a nice standing ovation. But Apple’s announcements were mostly lukewarm, and had been telegraphed weeks in advance. Among the key announcements are:

Big numbers. Apple highlighted why the company is desperately in need of antirust oversight. It has sold over 30 million iPhones in two years. It’s users have downloaded 1.8 billion apps from the iPhone Apps Store. It’s iTunes Store is the number one music retailer in the world. Apple has sold over 8.5 billion songs. It has over 100,000,000 users who have provided the company with their credit card numbers. Apple has sold over 225 million iPods (including over 20 million iPod touches and 100 million iPod nanos) and has 74 percent market share. This is all simply amazing stuff.

iPhone 3.1 firmware. A free incremental update for all iPhone models (and, I believe, all iPod Touch models), iPhone 3.1 appears to deliver some nice features across the board. I’m surprised Apple didn’t call it “iPhone’s Snow Leopard.” The addition of 30,000 ringtones at $1.29 a pop doesn’t do much for me, but could be a big deal for many.

iTunes 9 for PC/Mac. Anyone hoping for a sweeping overhaul of the bloated and slow iTunes application will be disappointed, but iTunes 9 does have some interesting new features, including an improved Genius, much better content syncing (a huge weakness previously), and a neat visual way to sync the layout of app icons on the iPhone screen using iTunes. Best of all, though is a new PC-to-PC content sharing feature that appears to be modeled on Windows 7’s HomeGroup functionality (albeit with old-school-style logons). I’m eager to see that in action. And the iTunes Store has gotten a much needed makeover, with some interesting Zune-like Artists and content pages. An iTunes LP feature combines a digital album with other rich content, but I’m not sure how valuable this really is: Who listens to music while staring at the iTunes PC app?

iPod touch. The late 2009 iPod touch devices are mostly simple upgrades of last year’s models, with the same form factor and underlying hardware (except for the 32 and 64 GB units, apparently, which have the faster, 3GS-style underpinnings). (Apple made an interesting point about iPod touch gaming, though it’s unrelated to new models: It already has far more games than do the Nintendo DS or Sony PSP, and those games are far less expensive. This makes the iPod touch/iPhone platform far more valuable.) Prices are down and capacities are up, as you expect: $199 for 8 GB, $229 for 16 GB, $299 for 32 GB, 64 GB for $399. (Note again that the 32 & 64 GB models have the faster processor and OpenGL|ES capabilities.) Note: Originally, I had written that only the 64 GB version had the more advanced hardware.

iPod classic. Curiously, Apple is keeping the iPod classic but not providing any notable updates. It still costs $249 but the HDD goes from 120 GB to 160 GB.

iPod shuffle. The ridiculous iPod shuffle continues forward, but Apple has finally done the obvious: They’re making an adapter so you can use any headphones you want. Duh. Prices are down, capacities are up: $59 for 2 GB, $79 for 4 GB, and $99 for 4GB “Special Edition.” There are new colors.

iPod nano. As we’ve known for weeks, the iPod nano picks up a video camera, microphone, and speaker. It’s also getting CoverFlow and, like the Zune from three years ago, an FM radio. Pricing: $149 for 8 GB and $179 for 16 GB.

What wasn’t discussed. Apple completely ignored the Apple TV, again. There was no discussion of a much-rumored Apple tablet. No Beatles catalog on iTunes. No truly new hardware or software.

I’ll need to watch the streaming version of the event, but for now, I don’t see anything hugely dramatic. I’ll provide write-ups for iTunes 9, the iPod touch, and iPod nano next week.

Discuss this Article 107

winlonghorn
on Sep 9, 2009
@robertsjoe Desperation by Microsoft and its fans!?! Hardly! I am usually very pleased with Apple and any of their products, but I will say that this conference hasn't shown me anything! How does that show desperation? I still own my Ipod and happily use it! The same goes for my Zune! lol. I for one hardly consider this the end of the world for either side, but Apple should definitely consider a better showing next time. OLED would be a great investment! :)
winlonghorn
on Sep 9, 2009
@RunTimeError No arguments there! Ipod does have very entertaining games! They are only getting better as well!
runner7775
on Sep 9, 2009
All the arguing in the comments reminds me of this: http://xkcd.com/386/ This generation of iPods definitely is evolutionary; how much more can you really add to an mp3 player?
whiplash55
on Sep 9, 2009
Huge win for consumers. MS has a great new device Apple responds. What more could gadget hounds want? The new Touch looks amazing as does the Zune HD. Why didn't MS put a camera in it? They had to know what Apple was doing, still the new Zunes are great and I just a got flash 8gig for 89 bucks.
subzerohitman721
on Sep 9, 2009
I am somewhat disappointed by all this. While I am definitely happy to see Steve Jobs front and center for Apple, its sad to see him so thin. I hope that in the coming months and years, he gets some healthy weight on him. However, I am very pleased that Steve seems to be doing better and he'll be with us for awhile. While I'm also glad that the iTunes store gets a much needed revamp, the iTunes software is getting bigger and bigger. When I finished downloading the software, imagine my shock that the completed file took up 89.8 MB! Zune is also huge with 133 MB! Wow! Winamp by comparison is a very tiny 13 MB for its free editions and 13.5 for its paid for professional edition. Can we please get both Microsoft and Apple to cut down on the bloat here? I'm also grateful for the modest performance improvement. The 64 bit version of iTunes for Windows seems to be somewhat faster than any of the iTunes 8 series. I'm glad Apple addressed that. I'm also glad I was able to update to 3.1.1 software very painlessly. However, no video camera or still camera for the touch. While 64 bit touch is nice, I wish they would have done this earlier in the year. Before I bought my 32 GB. While I know they're clearing out the 8 GB model, honestly Apple might have to go lower to clear them out. Anyways, it would have also been nice if the iPod Touch was given an SD card or MicroSD reader. The Nano's are cool. Love the colors and features. But honestly, who listens to FM radio anymore? With the exception of NPR and ESPN Radio, all of my music is from my iPod's and custom CD's from iTunes. Now if it was HD-Radio, they might have had something. Also, video camera but no still shots? Very disappointing and sloppy. People still want to do still photography. That should have been a no brainer. I just think Apple could have done better and brought the must have factor. I honestly could skip this. While it certainly doesn't hinder or help the Zune HD in anyway, I think the status quo will remain. Zune HD doesn't go far enough to make a compelling argument against this ecosystem However, it does make room for some PMP designer who is ambitious to trump both Apple and Microsoft here, in my opinion.
PeyloW
on Sep 9, 2009
@yoshipod: Apple have this unfair tactic of producing quality products that focuses on features that benefit the users, instead of creating longer bullet points. Very unfair, and hard to compete with, not even bought reviewers can counter it in the long run. And short of actually doing their job, the competitors have nothing to counter with. This Apple gets this "monopoly", with their usability "lock-ins".
robertsjoe
on Sep 9, 2009
@whiplash55: "Why didn't MS put a camera in it? " If the Zune is still around by then, I'm sure they will. Microsoft will do things that Apple does first. It's called copying.
robertsjoe
on Sep 9, 2009
"Nice assumption, but umm no Paul is not waiting for guidance from Microsoft to post a review lol!" Correct assumption. When he makes his living (indirectly) from Microsoft, you can be sure this blog is extremely biased. Why else do you think he's so obsessed with Apple with the enormous amounts of trashy posts, trashing Apple? It's generally referred to as "not biting the hand that feeds you".
Mark KB
on Sep 9, 2009
"why do you want a zuneHD, planetarian? It has no cost advantage now..." $289 vs $299 - it's still cheaper. "...has no app store..." Except for the one in the Zune Marketplace. "...has no native mail client..." Touché, but I can use Web mail. And... oh, wait, there's an app store. "...has no 3rd party accessories..." http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Zune+third-party+accessories So, want to try again? And this time, with feeling.
ibarskiy
on Sep 9, 2009
Too the Apple faithful (lobotomized zombies) let me point out something from a completely unbiased user's perspective: I am thoroughly disappointed by the announcements and that will affect my purchasing decision. Here's why: I was considering getting a Touch, subject to new features. I use iPod as an alternative media for music vs. flipping numerous CDs, as well as for Nike+ integration during workouts. Now, it is integrated into my alarm clock, my surround sound system, and my Nike+ stuff. Those are the only factors that keep me from switching - the ecosystem. The Zune HD is a superior piece of hardware, at least for me. It has everything I need: plenty of storage, nice interface, good management software, radio. But it doesn't have the expansive ecosystem of the Touch. And in terms of Apps and all that - WHO GIVES A CRAP?! Not normal users. They make sense on iPhone, but a for Touch - they are kind of a useless slap on. Now, what happened to radio on the Touch?! That would have been a highly welcome useful addition. As it stands now, I am stuck with the new Nano, when I need a new Touch wit nano's features. When Nano can outfeature a high end device (and no, I don't need the camera) - we're in trouble.
tayme
on Sep 10, 2009
@robertsjoe - "Microsoft will do things that Apple does first. It's called copying." You mean like the fm radio that allows you to pause and tag songs? Not too long ago, Apple and its followers said that nobody needed an fm radio. Now we are hearing the opposite. Explain that one, please. --tayme
panache1023
on Sep 10, 2009
Waethorn, Your "anti-competitive" examples are not only off base, but are hardly anti-competitive. I think you are just stung by the fact the MS has been proven to be an anti-competitive monopolist (at least in the past), and you want the same treatment for Apple... So weird. "To make the point clear, if Apple prevented songs bought from Amazon to be played on an iPod, you would have a very real point." My point stands...preventing another store's tracks to be played would be anti-competitive. If you can't understand why, I think you are the one that needs to figure out what "anti-competitive" means, instead of just throwing the word around because you don't like Apple's success. In addition, it appears that 100% of tracks on the iTunes Music Store are now DRM-free. The "iTunes Plus" no longer exists, because it is now the default and only option. Your "points" are really getting weaker and weaker. If you are referring to what goes on in Canada.......maybe your government should take action if it's really unfair. Or maybe there are legal issues as to why Apple can't offer the same thing to Canada as they to do the US. Now maybe you should bash the US some more, and the companies that are founded here, and then go pray to MS (which is ironic since they too are from the US)
gfryesc1
on Sep 10, 2009
Mark KB: Specious. Is $10 really a cost advantage when talking $300?? The Zune Marketplace is a joke, it's an embarrassment that you even mentioned it. Likewise the accessories. Why don't you try hooking up your zune to your new BMW or Mercedes or Volkswagen [Paul drives one]. the first time you need a dock connector, you'll realize how everyone has an iPod. You can even get iPod connectors at truck stops! And webmail? Really? You'd spend $289 to read gmail in IE6 on an HD? Really? Why don't you try again with feeling... instead of telling me that Facebook in IE6 on your $289 HD is great.
sttevo
on Sep 10, 2009
I can't believe the press this event had. What a joke. Although it's fun to watch the fanboys revel around new Apple releases and waste their money.. Oh well keep that economy pumping fellas.
yoshipod
on Sep 10, 2009
Waethorn, Your examples do not show ANY kind of anti-competive behavior. There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly. There are literally HUNDREDS of portable music players on the market. There are DOZENS of ways to get music onto those players. If Apple was anti-competitve they would be using that monopoly to PREVENT competition, like Microsoft has done in the past with their OEM license agreement. Apple in no way prevents other companies from entering the marketplace with either hardware or software. They do not undercut the competition by selling their products below cost to force out others (like IE vs. Netscape) Apple does not hold the type of control over the Music Labels where they can force better deals for themselves or prevent other stores from starting up. The fact that Apple's offerings are the dominant ones are because consumers have chosen them. Not because Apple is anti-competitive.
EricoF3
on Sep 10, 2009
@All: This is really incredible to see how many Apple lover come here in this *low credibility* blog... If Paul is so *low in credibility*, Why they all come here in mass to read its articles... This is a mystery for me... Has a Windows user, I never lost my times going in Apple blogs... Apple lovers really have time to lose... Apple is really like a religion, like Raeliens, They try interfere in all around us... Duh!!
shark47
on Sep 10, 2009
"There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly. " No, but the rules change when you do have a monopoly, as Microsoft realized. The same behavior which got you the monopoly in the first place cannot continue once you've achieved it. Of course, Apple can choose to redefine the market if and when the Justice Department does go after them, as they've done on so many occasions in the past.
whiplash55
on Sep 10, 2009
The Zune marketplace is a joke? Unlike iTunes it loads quickly even on my netbook. ITunes is the 2004 Symantec Internet Security of 2009, its a worthless bloated piece of crap. I can get unlimited songs for 5 bucks a month after I download 10 I can keep. The new IE on the Zune and Win mobile is not IE6. It's a hybrid that uses code that's compatible with sites needing 6 through 8.
panache1023
on Sep 10, 2009
Shark, What do you mean, "The same behavior which got you the monopoly in the first place cannot continue once you've achieved it" That is the biggest load of crap. If you aren't doing anything illegal (abusing your monopoly to hinder competition), then a monopoly can continue with business as usual. They may be under more scrutiny, but that doesn't mean they must all of a sudden change how they do business. Just because MS abused their monopoly position repeatedly, as was proven in court, doesn't mean *ALL* monopolies do so. "If and when the Justice Department does go after them..." Really? What exactly is the Justice Department going after Apple for? "...as they've done on so many occasions in the past." I'm curious as to which "many occasions" you are referring to?
TomSmeagol2
on Sep 10, 2009
Wow, the petty and juvenile infighting between the Apple and Mac camps is well and truly alive on this blog. Anyone remember the days when Paul could actually review apple products/events without such an obvious bias? What happened, Paul? Maybe you should go back to your journalistic roots and not make your opinion so obvious, that is if you actually want to be considered a journalist. As for myself, I own both Apple and Microsoft products. Both have their merits, both have their shortcomings. I think Apple makes better MP3 players, I think MS makes better Oses. I love my iPhone, but I think Blackberrys are good too, and I'm sure the new MS OS based Smart Phones will be fine, too. For me, the iPhone is the best choice, but that doesn't mean it is for everyone. Just because someone uses a different product than you doesn't make them any less intelligent or you any more superior. A LOT of people on this blog could stand to remember that. Finally, Grannyville, I didn't see anyone respond directly to your question, so I will: as far as I know the Sony Walkmans with radio can also pause, rewind, ff, and tag live FM.
Waethorn
on Sep 10, 2009
"Go buy an iPod. Sync it with your PC. Buy a track from the iTunes Store. Go buy a Zune. Sync it WITH THE SAME PC. Buy a track from the Marketplace." Again, Apple is the monopolist, so the law applies to them, not Microsoft here. If you want the law to apply to Microsoft here, then the same law should apply to Apple for bundling iLife, Safari, and Quicktime with their operating system, as well as bundling their operating system with their hardware and preventing others (ie. Psystar) from including it with theirs. "maybe there are legal issues as to why Apple can't offer the same thing to Canada as they to do the US." There are no "legal" reasons because it doesn't stop any other companies from offering DRM free music in Canada.
Waethorn
on Sep 10, 2009
" Really? What exactly is the Justice Department going after Apple for?" Ask what the EU is threatening to go after Apple for.
TomSmeagol2
on Sep 10, 2009
Oops, My first line was supposed to read, "...infighting between Mac and PC camps." That's what I get for staying up too late. LOL. :-) Also, having said that Apple makes good MP3 players, I feel the need to also say that iTunes is a piece of crap, and if I could use something else to sync my iPod and iPhone, I would in a second. :-) Maybe v. 9 will be an improvement?
shark47
on Sep 10, 2009
"That is the biggest load of crap. If you aren't doing anything illegal (abusing your monopoly to hinder competition), then a monopoly can continue with business as usual." Sorry, but that is not true. Apple can bundle Safari with OS X because it doesn't have a monopoly in that space. Microsoft cannot bundle any software it wishes with Windows because it has a monopoly. A different set of rules applies to monopolies. Apple is no longer the snarky upstart that you guys cheered on 5 years ago. The same goes for Google. They're big enough to start behaving in a more mature manner. Paul was right when he said Apple is the new Microsoft.
panache1023
on Sep 10, 2009
Waethorn, You keep referring to "the law" and how it applies to Apple, but you aren't ever specifying WHAT LAW?! What law should we be applying to Apple here and not MS? What law has been broken, or violated? You haven't specified anything. There could be "legal" reasons if Apple doesn't have permission from the record labels to offer the same deals that other companies are offering. Are you familiar with the contracts between Apple and the record labels, or are you just angry? How does the difference between MS OS licensing and Apple licensing rules have anything to do with bundling applications? You are REALLY REALLY stretching here. Are you saying because MS chooses to license their OS to anyone, that Apple must? Why? Why does Apple have to follow that same business model?
Waethorn
on Sep 10, 2009
"I feel the need to also say that iTunes is a piece of crap, and if I could use something else to sync my iPod and iPhone, I would in a second" There are other programs, but if you have DRM'd content, you need iTunes to sync it. Also, I'd like to point out to all that say that iTunes+ doesn't exist, that Apple still charges $0.30 to convert your media to DRM free, and (this is important): EVEN IF THE NEW VERSION OF THE SONG COSTS LESS THAN THE ORIGINAL $0.99. That's called price gouging.
panache1023
on Sep 10, 2009
Shark, What do you mean "you guys cheered for"...WTF is with that commentary. You have no idea what I thought about Apple 5 years ago (not much) Maybe the reason that MS has been haggled by the EU for bundling IE is because of the way it was proven that MS included IE to begin with in order to destroy Netscape which at the time was selling a browser. So my point held true...MS went out with a mission to destroy Netscape and take over the browser space, which they did. THAT is why it was a problem. They abused their monopoly position to dominate that area. How is Apple doing this? You keep writing, but you aren't making any points. It's weird that you compare one company's predatory business practices to another company that SO FAR has not been predatory in trying to shut out competition....or at least not tried/nor convicted of doing so. Paul was right when he said Apple is the new MS? Really? How so? What companies is Apple targeting for destruction? What anti-competitive actions is Apple taking that would make you say that?
panache1023
on Sep 10, 2009
Waethorn, I can't find anything about the EU going after Apple...can you send me a link?
panache1023
on Sep 10, 2009
Waethorn, Why can't the user just buy the new, DRM-Free version then? how is it price gouging? I don't get it....let's say for example that Apple charges $0.30 as a service fee to remove the DRM...should they be forced to provide a service for free?
de Silentio
on Sep 10, 2009
@robertsjoe: "If the Zune is still around by then, I'm sure they will. Microsoft will do things that Apple does first. It's called copying." Shame on Apple for coping Microsoft and putting an FM radio on the iPod. There is nothing wrong with copying when it is something simple, like a feature. Copying becomes a problem when unique procedures or interfaces are copied.
gfryesc1
on Sep 10, 2009
yes, whiplash55, the zune marketplace for apps, is a joke. The subscription model for music is nice, not really for me, but I can see how people would like it. If itunes is so bad, and the ipod so inferior, why is Paul calling for antitrust investigations? Competitors only call on the sherman act when they cannot compete... and microsoft has such deep pockets that they could give away a HD with every copy of windows if they wanted. They've bundled before, but they're out of their depth in the hardware sphere. Apple is just the superior hardware maker [and retailer].. Manufacturing is not simple. And yes, the zunehd browser is based on IE6. It is what it is. But hey, everyone that thinks the HD is the superior product, good luck with that. I think it'll continue to limp along with <2% of the share until microsoft cancels it in 2 yrs.
yoshipod
on Sep 10, 2009
"Also, I'd like to point out to all that say that iTunes+ doesn't exist, that Apple still charges $0.30 to convert your media to DRM free, and (this is important): EVEN IF THE NEW VERSION OF THE SONG COSTS LESS THAN THE ORIGINAL $0.99. That's called price gouging." Thats the Music Labels gouging, not Apple. I bet Apples cut of that $.30 just covers the cost of running the store and the bandwidth to send the file.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Sep 10, 2009
gfryesc1 "If itunes is so bad, and the ipod so inferior, why is Paul calling for antitrust investigations? " Wow is that backwards. That's precisely WHY there's a need for antitrust investigation. That people have to buy inferior products because of vendor lock-in is a classic case of abuse. Some possible resolutions: Apple has to open the iTunes Store APIs so 3rd party apps could compete with iTunes Apple has to open the iTunes APIs so that users could choose different or multiple stores for shopping Apple has to open the iTunes APIs so that users could use iTunes with other media devices Apple has to open the iPod APIs so that iPods could sync with 3rd party software Apple has to open the iPod APIs so that iPods could shop at 3rd party stores Apple has to freely license the iPod hardware interfaces so that 3rd parties could produce add-ons without Apple permission Apple has to remove hardware/software that detects and blocks 3rd party hardware Get the idea? It's the fact that iPod owners have no choice in integrated sync/shopping ecosystems that means they're locked into using the clearly awful iTunes software. While none of that would be required for a vendor without monopoly power, these are typical solutions expected of monopolies. And there's no question that Apple has monopoly power in the music sales and distribution markets.
Waethorn
on Sep 10, 2009
"You keep referring to "the law" and how it applies to Apple, but you aren't ever specifying WHAT LAW?! " "Are you saying because MS chooses to license their OS to anyone, that Apple must? Why? Why does Apple have to follow that same business model?" They don't because they aren't a monopoly in the computer industry. I was just saying that if you want to apply the rule of tying iTunes to iPod and offering an incentive for consumers to stay within the Apple ecosystem, just as the Zune did, even though Zune isn't a monopoly, then the same rules should apply to Apple in the computer industry with tying their operating system to their computer systems and not allowing other computer builders to offer OS X, just as Microsoft offered OEM deals, as you like to point out. You can't give Apple a pass in the MP3 player market when they're doing the same thing that Microsoft did with OEM's in the past. The law in question (at least in the US) is the Sherman Antitrust Act. In the EU, anticompetitive acts are challenged by the Commissioner for Competition, presently Neelie Kroes, and yes, they are still actively investigating Apple's iTunes monopoly, and how they charge different prices in different nations (within the EU). This has far-reaching ramifications of charging different prices for the same content internationally though, and directly applies to what I'm talking about with DRM-free music.
shark47
on Sep 10, 2009
Here's the thing, panache: How many rival media player applications does the iPod connect to? How many other Media players can sync with iTunes? Apple's decision to lock down iPod/iTunes hurts competition. Just like the convenience of having a browser bundled with Windows prevented any rival browser from achieving a significant marketshare (until Firefox), the convenience of buying music from the iTunes store has and will ensure that no other digital music service will do well. In fact, the iPod/iTunes lock in is worse than Microsoft's bundling. At least people are able to download alternate browsers and change defaults. There is no way to select an alternate store in iTunes or to select an alternate media player software to sync media with iPods. Add to that all the accessories that one of the commenters on this site was bragging about earlier. Apple and its fans suffer from the worst case of RDF and Peter Pan complex.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Sep 10, 2009
Here's just one example of what could be done by a competitive market with Apple forced to remove their anti-competitive tying: A 3rd party could produce their own sync/shopping app to replace iTunes that would look at multiple vendors sites for the songs you want, find the cheapest price for each song and let you buy those songs from whatever sites are cheapest. (And, no, doing that manually with multiple Internet searches for each song is NOT equivalent)
Waethorn
on Sep 10, 2009
"And yes, the zunehd browser is based on IE6." It is based on "Internet Explorer 6 for Windows Mobile", NOT the desktop version of IE6, which is completely different. IE6 for Windows Mobile has a rendering engine that is closer to IE7 on the desktop (it was released before IE8 was out), but has some limitations (no desktop ActiveX plugin support for instance) and tweaks to make it work for a mobile platform, since IE7 could never be expected to run well on such a limited hardware platform. It's compiled for a completely different platform, so there are many differences still, but the rendering engine is more 7 than 6. 6 was just the next browser version number for Windows Mobile. Comparing it to the desktop version of IE6 is not one bit accurate. @mike: You forget another possible outcome: Apple has to be split up into separate hardware and service businesses and their service off-shoot must offer compatibility with competitors hardware on the market. Let's not forget that Palm is also making an argument against Apple for breaking the webOS connection to iTunes. iTunes 9 disabled the option again too.
Waethorn
on Sep 10, 2009
"A 3rd party could produce their own sync/shopping app to replace iTunes that would look at multiple vendors sites for the songs you want, find the cheapest price for each song and let you buy those songs from whatever sites are cheapest." Likewise, a 3rd-party could build a software product with: a) an international IP anonymizer b) connections to all iTunes international stores c) connections to realtime currency convertors That way, you could find the cheapest music on any iTunes store internationally, calculated by the conversion rate to your local currency, so that you don't get hosed by your local iTunes store.
panache1023
on Sep 10, 2009
MikeGalos and Waethorn, Your points are moot. (also Waethorn, I am aware of the Sherman Anti-Trust laws, but you have not yet pointed out how they apply) First of all, do you really think that Apple will be broken up? Was MS broken up into multiple companies? It may have been suggested at one time, but never became a mandate. Second of all, there is no "vendor lock in". Just because you don't like that there is no alternate "synch/shopping app" that replaces iTunes, there are plenty of alternate ways to get music onto your iPod, and there ways to buy music through iTunes for alternate players. This "lock in" you are talking about is actually made up in your own minds. What's weird is that for some reason you feel that Apple has to open the doors to their device, when there are multiple other devices that exist, where they manufacturer can do as they please, and Apple isn't using licensing restrictions to try to force them out of business (ala MS) What you are asking for is a way for other developers to write their own apps in order to synch with the iPod, yet you aren't pointing out how any of this would help competition, which you are claiming is damaged by this iPod / iTunes monopoly.
panache1023
on Sep 10, 2009
You guys go on about software that can help find the cheapest price. Then claim doing it yourself doesn't count, and because of that, Apple is running an abusive monopoly. Charging more for something when there are cheaper alternatives is not illegal, nor abusive, since those choices are freely for all to use. Waethorn, Regarding iTunes+ and that $0.30 charge.....let's say i NEVER bought a track from iTunes (which is true), so I don't have to pay anything extra. Is there something now preventing me from buying a track from iTunes and using it on Zune, or Sansa, or any other player? I'm just trying to see how you can keep claiming that there is incentive to stay with "Apple music" or whatever you called it.
gfryesc1
on Sep 10, 2009
mikegalos, free market monopolies are a myth. Only government sponsored monopolies naturally occur. Microsoft's OS market share is the same as Apple's music market share... more people just like the products. It's as ridiculous as bringing suit against Sony in the 1980s for their walkman product. Just build a better mousetrap or a new one! If Microsoft cannot do that, then their product deserves to languish, no matter how much derision you and Paul put on Apple products. The market is spoken... and when the market gets it wrong or is altered by new economics/products/services, it always self corrects. Having Microsoft induce the power of government is like Goliath whimpering to God to kick out David's legs.
gfryesc1
on Sep 10, 2009
hmm, isn't the Xbox ecosystem completely closed? you can only buy approved games to work on the console, with Microsoft taking profit off of that. Why don't they open up their xbox live APIs so anyone can use any console or game with it? It's a completely closed architecture and xbox live is the dominant online system... denoting a monopoly if we're using that loose definition. And the zuneHD will tie into xbox and live? I'm sure they'll open those APIs up to everyone to hook whatever they want in there. no? We need the government to intervene then!
shark47
on Sep 10, 2009
"hmm, isn't the Xbox ecosystem completely closed?" And what is its marketshare? If Microsoft had a monopoly in the gaming market, what they're doing now would be illegal.
shark47
on Sep 10, 2009
" Just because you don't like that there is no alternate "synch/shopping app" that replaces iTunes, there are plenty of alternate ways to get music onto your iPod, and there ways to buy music through iTunes for alternate players. " Sure, just like there are ways to jailbreak the iPhone to get rejected apps onto it. I wonder why the FCC is even investigating Apple.
gadfly10
on Sep 10, 2009
Paul Thurrot writes: "Apple highlighted why the company is desperately in need of antirust [sic] oversight." Gee Thurrott, where was your concern when Microsoft was desperately in need of antitrust oversight? Friggin hypocrite.
gfryesc1
on Sep 10, 2009
panache1023
on Sep 10, 2009
Shark, You have evidence that the FCC is investigating Apple....for what? Can you send a link please? I haven't heard of the FCC investigating Apple for not allowing users to circumvent their security systems. Or maybe your point of that post was to say that there are no ways to put music purchased through iTunes onto a non-iPod PMP? Or maybe you are suggesting there are no applications that can synch with the iPod without having to circumvent the devices design? I don't understand the point of your comment.... But your pointless posts are becoming more and more common.
shark47
on Sep 10, 2009
"Gee Thurrott, where was your concern when Microsoft was desperately in need of antitrust oversight?" Can you prove that he wasn't concerned before calling him names, gadfly? panache and gfryesc, your arguments could very well have been used to defend Microsoft's bundling practices. Yes, Microsoft wanted to take over the browser space and destroy competiton. I doubt that Apple's lock in when it comes to iPod/iTunes is actually an attempt to foster competition in the digital music space. If it is, it's a very lame attempt at it. In fact, Apple controls the market to such an extent that the company can afford to price music based on the CEO's whims and fancies, rather than market conditions and competitor action.
shark47
on Sep 10, 2009
"shark47, Microsoft has a monopoly in online gaming..." Sure, just like it has a monopoluy in the Zune music subscription space. Oh, that should be investigated too.
gfryesc1
on Sep 10, 2009
shark, I defend Microsoft's bundling policies... whether it's with media player, antivirus, browsers, xbox/xbox live, or lollipops. I also defend Apple's. That's business and when one company calls for the government to intervene, it means they're not the right competitor to topple the market leader. That's why Paul is off his rocker... he wants the government to regulate the 'coolness' factor that makes people want ipods and not zunes. I suggest you guys get your zune tattoos and buy a bunch of HDs to give away at christmas to spread the word of the technological advantage of the zune/zune software. Just stop complaining that Microsoft can't compete... they couldn't against citrix, google search, or quicken, it just goes that way sometimes.

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use