# Strategy: porting iTunes for Windows to impose QuickTime



## macosXrumors (Jul 18, 2003)

I've just posted an article revealing another rather unknown reason why Apple wants to port iTunes for Windows.

HERE


----------



## Randman (Jul 18, 2003)

Interesting supposition and totally logical. Thanks.


----------



## MisterMe (Jul 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by macosXrumors _
> *I've just posted an article revealing another rather unknown reason why Apple wants to port iTunes for Windows.
> 
> HERE *


You confuse two concepts. QuickTime is Apple's APIs devoted to multimedia. The QuickTime Player is an application that is written to those APIs.


----------



## macosXrumors (Jul 18, 2003)

The fact is that Apple will want to make iTunes require QuickTime anyway.


----------



## BBenve (Jul 18, 2003)

They could just embed the engine in iTunes... no real need for full QT.... they only need the engine.. since it is a complete revrite of the app... cause there is no itunes for win.. they could just go on and embed it.... just a thought


----------



## voice- (Jul 18, 2003)

The question is wether or not Apple *wants* to make QuickTime Player needed. The article says they want it...

Of course Apple *could* make iTunes stand-alone, but this would not benefit them as much...


----------



## Lycander (Jul 18, 2003)

I don't see the need for Apple to make Quick Time Player a requirement because users can still use other media players to view video files and associate those files to their prefered players. iTunes the app itself is needed for decoding AAC audio format. If the codec is handled in a simliar way as QT codecs that they can just port that bit of code.


----------



## dlloyd (Jul 18, 2003)

Isn't promoting sites against the site rules? (Just wondering)


----------



## macosXrumors (Jul 18, 2003)

Lycander, Apple needs to impose QuickTime, no matter which player is used the most often. They'll probably force PC users to install it, even if it's easy to just put some part of QuickTime in iTunes for Windows. What they matter is that the containers and codecs they support can be played on most of the computers of the world. I don't totally disagree with what you're saying though because I also think that at the moment, the competition is better than Apple on the media players market as you can see on the end of my posting, I'm quite disappointed with Apple's free player.

Dlloyd, I think a lot of threads here link to other sites, my site is non-profit, but, ok, it's me, mentioning my own site, let's call it advertising then. So if you really think it's not revelant to the forum, not interesting and that it's just for having free advertising and making money, then you should alert the administrators so that they judge by themselves if they drop the thread.


----------



## dlloyd (Jul 18, 2003)

> _From the site rules_
> No ads for other websites unless authorized - Don't register an account          and expect to promote your new Mac site on this site. Permission may be          granted and has in the past. Ask before doing so.


I was just wondering  I won't rat on you though.


----------



## ksv (Jul 19, 2003)

Who said iTunes _will_ be ported to Windows?


----------



## macosXrumors (Jul 19, 2003)

Apple first told only about iTMS, then later confirmed iTunes will ported to Windows. Sources added it will probably have the same features as the Mac version, though not confirmed.


----------



## fryke (Jul 19, 2003)

It's a nice thought, but actually, Apple has many QuickTime Windows downloads, while iTunes for Windows will be new and have no customers at all at the zero-point. So it's going to be rather the other way 'round. Probably, QT downloads (which happen many times a day because of movie trailers etc.) will contain a link to the iTunes for Windows download.

Sure, after some time, iTunes downloads might turn on, and they can be used for advertising QuickTime (or invoking a download, if the user hasn't got it already).

But that means nothing but that software A) from Apple will be an advertisment for software B) from Apple.

It's called using synergies. And it happens all the time (and doesn't start with iTunes for Windows...).


----------



## macosXrumors (Jul 19, 2003)

I'm sure that iTunes will meet a big success on Windows even the first day it will be released. At worst it will just be popular, at best, it will simply replace WinAmp. If it has at least 1/4 of the success of Winamp, then it's going to boost QuickTime downloads. The oposite will happen too of course, as you say, those who are downloading QuickTime will also notice the existence of iTunes and will get it too.

Time will tell. If Apple wants QuickTime to be downloaded but also used, they definitely have to improve it and make a less limited free player.


----------



## fryke (Jul 19, 2003)

I'm personally quite negative about Windows people's interest in the iTunes Music Store. Not that they won't like the technology, but they tend to want their music for free...


----------



## tsizKEIK (Jul 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ksv _
> *Who said iTunes will be ported to Windows?  *



from: http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/07/20030716180641.shtml 



> - PowerMac G5 shipping still expected to begin in August.
> - Windows iTunes still on track for release by end-of-year




from: http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/07/16/q3live/



> Expects iTunes on Windows to be "trojan horse" when it comes to selling iPod to Windows users. Apple hopes that they will then consider buying a Mac when shopping for new computers.


----------



## macosXrumors (Jul 19, 2003)

Sure fryke, but it doesn't mean they won't use iTunes for listening their music. And anyway among those PC users, there will certainly be some of them that will want to buy music, and as PC market is big, even this little portion of people who will want to be legal, will represent more revenues than current Mac iTMS users.


----------



## Ripcord (Jul 19, 2003)

If they want to expand adoption of Quicktime in the Windows space, why not build a decent Quicktime Player/associated technologies?

{rant}I have no experience with Quicktime servers or production, or details of the Quicktime format(s), but Quicktime Player for Windows just stinks.  From a usability and features standpoint, it's the same player I had installed in 1998.  Except now I have annoying adware pop up every time I start it.

I know, I know, there's support for "Instant-On" and some new codecs, but otherwise I don't see any innovation happening, or reason to use it versus other formats/players.  Still no full-screen mode?  Come on, guys...

I don't want a feature bloat like Real Player for Win or Win Media Player 9, but there's just NOTHING about it that appeals to me.  Even stripped-down Media Player 6 _loads fast_...{/rant}


----------



## Ripcord (Jul 19, 2003)

Just because I know people will say "if it stinks so bad on Windows, then stop using it on Windows", but the situation on the Mac isn't any better...  It just happens to be a smidge better than the lacking WMP and Real Player ports...


----------



## fryke (Jul 19, 2003)

Erhm... Just buy QuickTime Pro. There's your fullscreen mode. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everything should be free.


----------



## dave17lax (Jul 19, 2003)

I think it's a mistake to generalize PC users' music obtaining strategy into "they tend to want their music for free". Yes the vast majority of illegal swapping happens on PCs, but that's because they are the vast majority of users. I think in each group there are people who dabble in illegal sharing - and still buy music the normal way, and people who specialize in illegal sharing.


----------



## Ripcord (Jul 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everything should be free.  *



Yes, when my using Quicktime enables Apple to make a fortune selling QT servers, licensing QT technology to other companies to build authoring tools, etc. etc., and the competition *IS* free (and still superior), then yes, I'd expect it to be free.

Great attitude, Mr. Mod.


----------



## Ripcord (Jul 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dave17lax _
> *I think it's a mistake to generalize PC users' music obtaining strategy into "they tend to want their music for free". Yes the vast majority of illegal swapping happens on PCs, but that's because they are the vast majority of users. I think in each group there are people who dabble in illegal sharing - and still buy music the normal way, and people who specialize in illegal sharing. *



Yes, just look at the number of posts just on these boards where people have asked about Kazaa clients for OS X, "backing up" music, tools for distributing music with iTunes' streaming features, etc.  Now consider the number of posts talking about obtaining software from Hotline, Carracho, etc.  We, as a community, aren't all saints by any means...

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of Windows users that pirate music is *slightly* higher than the percentage of Mac users.  I haven't seen any studies, but I'd imagine that Mac users tend to have a bit more spending cash available than PC users do.


----------



## wiz (Jul 19, 2003)

hey Quicktime is a standard.. it's not something optional now-a-days.


----------



## Cat (Jul 20, 2003)

Back to the Trojan discussion:

Doesn't the iTMS work with the same HTML-engine as Safari on the Mac? Couldn't this mean Safari will be ported too? Since IE won't be available as separate download, couldn't this be a way to make inroads into MS territory?
Could this be a foreboding of iLife for Windows?


----------



## ApeintheShell (Jul 20, 2003)

Look at KAZAA's drop in users downloading from their server's and you'll see that there is opportunity for a ITMS for Windows. 

More advanced Windows users use newsgroups and pay a monthly fee for their video and music. 

Quicktime needs to improve as an application on Windows. It has a horrible user interface. Win AMP and Win Media player lead the way. 
Win Media:
A windows appears around the player to close it??
The playlists are confusing.

Win Amp:
 controls are nonsensical. They are lucky windows users don't notice the lack of detail.

Competition: Remember the advertising for Safari vs. IE and the other browsers. Now microsoft has pulled out! ha!

Maybe iTunes will force the Windows standards to step up another level and pc users will appreciate what we have had since Mac OS 9.


----------



## TommyWillB (Jul 20, 2003)

> deal allowing DELL to sell Apple's iPod on its online stores earlier this year. The result of the release of iTunes for Windows could be a complete media content "buy-mix-burn" solution that any Windows PC maker would love to be able to offer to its customers.


Seems to me that it would only take 15 minutes for the new (post-Justice Dept monopoly suit) Microsoft to simply say that any PC maker doing this is FORBIDDEN from also installing WMP.

Obvioulsy the Justice Dept is too bruised to sue them again, so they'll get away with this. This thread alone would be enough to make PeeCee makers back away from Apple/QuickTime.


----------



## TommyWillB (Jul 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by wiz _
> *hey Quicktime is a standard.. it's not something optional now-a-days. *


On Windows I'd say it is purely optional. 

Fact is almost all sites with QuickTime content also have Windoze Media or Real content. So there is almost 0 reason for PeeCee users to "need" QuickTime.

Sure some of them quickely realize the content looks better on QuickTime, but that's a bonus not a must have.


----------



## TommyWillB (Jul 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *Back to the Trojan discussion:
> 
> Doesn't the iTMS work with the same HTML-engine as Safari on the Mac? Couldn't this mean Safari will be ported too? Since IE won't be available as separate download, couldn't this be a way to make inroads into MS territory?
> Could this be a foreboding of iLife for Windows? *


Safari is based on the Linux KDE Konquoror browsers. As far as I know there is not Windows binaries for that, but I'm not sure if that means it is impossible.

IE will always be available as an embedable component on WinDoze, so I'm not sure what the benefit of porting Konquoror to Windows would be. 

Why not simply piggy back on top of the existing IE engine?

Why port the entire iLife to Windows? If they did that then you would not need to by Apple hardware to enjoy the Digital Lifestyle.

(Repeat 100 times: "Apple is a _hardware_ company!")


----------



## macosXrumors (Jul 20, 2003)

For Safari, my sources haven't heard anything like this at the moment. If there are news from confirmed sources, be sure that there will ba a dedicated posting .


----------



## Cat (Jul 20, 2003)

> Why port the entire iLife to Windows?


Because Apple is not in the buisnbess of making hardware but in the buisness of making proftis. It can sell the iLife packege to Mac users, but not to windows users. If they port it, they can sell it to a lot more people. Why does M$ port IE or Office to Mac otherwise?
If Safari results to be more enjoyable, faster, better than IE, then more attention will be give to code pages to be viewed with Safari. IE is the standard now because a lot of people use it. The more poeple use a browser, the more influence that engine has. Ideally you would want as much potential customers as possible.
Moreover, there are rendering differences between engines behind IE and Safari. What will Apple do? Recode the entire iTMS 'site' or port the browser engine?


----------



## macosXrumors (Jul 20, 2003)

For Safari, according to me, Apple will simply try to remain in the W3C rules more or less while following Microsoft moves by adding compatibility with "M$ML". What they care is that all the sites work with Safari.

As for the Windows port, I don't think it's a priority at the moment.


----------



## TommyWillB (Jul 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *Because Apple is not in the buisnbess of making hardware but in the buisness of making proftis. It can sell the iLife packege to Mac users, but not to windows users. If they port it, they can sell it to a lot more people. Why does M$ port IE or Office to Mac otherwise?
> If Safari results to be more enjoyable, faster, better than IE, then more attention will be give to code pages to be viewed with Safari. IE is the standard now because a lot of people use it. The more poeple use a browser, the more influence that engine has. Ideally you would want as much potential customers as possible.
> Moreover, there are rendering differences between engines behind IE and Safari. What will Apple do? Recode the entire iTMS 'site' or port the browser engine? *


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

In my mind the only reason to make a Windows iTunes (no-proffit $ free) is to sell more iPods (high $ proffit margin hardware).

Same with Safari... That too has no proffit margin, so it is irellevant how many "customers" use it unless it leads to sales (hardware or software).

IMHO software sales on PeeCee's is not a high proffit margin game. Too much competition. That's why I think Apple IS a HARDWARE company... That's where they have the biggest margin.

> Moreover, there are rendering differences between engines behind IE and Safari. 

I'm sure they can tweak their HTML/JavaScript code to function... This ain't rocket science and is a lot less effort than porting the Safri/Konquoror engine.

Also, leveraging either Safari or IE as an embedded browser they have the ability to extend the functionality. If there is somthing crucial the engine can't do, they'll just add the functionality to the Tunes wrapper code.


----------



## Ripcord (Jul 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by TommyWillB _
> *In my mind the only reason to make a Windows iTunes (no-proffit $ free) is to sell more iPods (high $ proffit margin hardware).
> *



Perhaps Apple could also give Windows users access to the Apple Music Store through iTunes for Windows?  That might also be a good reason!

(We should suggest this to Apple)


----------



## TommyWillB (Jul 20, 2003)

Yeah... That goes without saying...

But what does Safari on Windows $do for Apple?


----------



## Cat (Jul 21, 2003)

Well, I agree to disagree then!  IMHO porting software to another platform can give you something that maybe is more valuable than simple $ profits: influence. influence on program desing, on customer experience, on digital lifestyle trends. All these are closely connected to profits again: interest in Apple software and hardware, exposure, trendsetting, etc.

On porting the engine vs. tweaking the code, I think it's a quality/quantity problem: porting the engine might be more difficult, but tweaking the code of the entire iTMS might require more time because of the sheer bulk of the thing. However, IMHO porting the engine has several advantages above tweaking the code, because it will enable Apple to easily port Safari to windows, which I deem a good strategical move for the reasons above.
Giving windows users free apps to play with (iTunes, Safari), might in the future result in interest in the iLife package, if and when it will be ported to windows. I do not exclude that iLife might be made only commercially available to windows users at first (not as a 3/4 free download).

It is true that Apple in  acertain sense is a hardware company, because they make most profits there, but still, they do nevertheless need exposure, publicity, influence, etc. Moreover, they do have a software side, wich is not entirely irrelevant, because many Mac users advocate the quality of the OS and software as main points for choosing the Mac. Making inroads in windows territory with software, helps generate more hardware sales.


----------



## macosXrumors (Jul 21, 2003)

For iTMS, I actually also wonder if they'll port Safari's Web Core to Windows to make it work or if they'll just include some parts of it to iTunes for Windows or even use Microsoft's Internet Explorer core. My sources claim the second option (including parts of the web core to iTunes), but this couldn't be verified yet, that's why not mentioned on my posting.


----------



## poondoggle (Jul 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *I'm personally quite negative about Windows people's interest in the iTunes Music Store. Not that they won't like the technology, but they tend to want their music for free... *



Isn't that a bit prejudiced?  Do you speak for Windows users and what their wants are?  I recently purchased a PowerMac G5 and look forward to my first Mac, but I've been a PC and yes Windows user for a long time and I can tell you based on my time spent in forums like these there is an overwhelming amount of disdain toward anything to do with "WinTel" whether it be Microsoft or their userbase.

I do believe Apple could increase marketshare a little by having voices in these forums that were a little more objective and a little less judgmental.


----------



## macosXrumors (Jul 23, 2003)

I think there are a lot of PC users that would be ok to get their music legally from the net. Actually, buymusic.com results will tell but I think it's not as attractive as iTMS, so it will partially tell.

I really don't think next year they'll be able to say that they sold 300 million songs but I'm maybe wrong.

The good news with buymusic.com is that it's the first real competitor to iTMS and any competition is good for the end user.


----------



## koim (Jul 23, 2003)

Well, I see absolutly no reason for Apple to port Safari to Windows. First off, Microsoft has been developing IE for some years now, that said, their browser *should* be more optimized for the OS. Rumors also say that Explorer and Internet Explorer will be merged in the next release of windows (Longhorn or whatever). There goes Apples browser market...


----------

