Strategy: porting iTunes for Windows to impose QuickTime

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.
 
Originally posted by fryke
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everything should be free. :p
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Originally posted by wiz
hey Quicktime is a standard.. it's not something optional now-a-days.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...
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!")
 
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 ;).
 
Why port the entire iLife to Windows?
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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).
Click to expand...

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)

;) :D :rolleyes:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top