Dan Hamilton's shared items

Showing posts with label Apple. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Apple. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Someone Please Save Universal Music From Itself!

Seth Mnookin (who also wrote an excellent book on the Red Sox) has an interview in Wired with Doug Morris, CEO of Universal Music.  The interview is a must read.  Its clear that Morris absolutely hates his customers:

Morris goes on to rail against criminal-minded college students and
low-life punks who steal the music that his artists work so hard to
create. He admits to being fairly ignorant about technology and insists
that his job is to nurture the creative side of the business — work
that's being threatened by all of this other nonsense.
...
He wants to wring every dollar he can out of anyone who goes anywhere
near his catalog. Morris has never accepted the digital world's ruling
ethos that it's better to follow the smartest long-term strategy, even
if it means near-term losses. As far as he's concerned, do that and
someone, somewhere, is taking advantage of you. Morris wants to be paid
now, not in some nebulous future. And if there's one thing he knows how
to do, it's use the size of his company to get his way.
 and despises Steve Jobs and Apple:

"We were just grateful that someone was selling online. The problem is,
he became a gatekeeper. We make a lot of money from him, and suddenly
you're wearing golden handcuffs. We would hate to give up that income." 
And Morris is still deluding himself about music subscriptions:

Total Music subscription would come pre-installed on devices like
the Zune, the Sony PlayStation, or a mobile phone. Universal is well
aware of the difficulty of convincing consumers to pay for music
subscriptions, so Morris wants the device makers to pony up the cash
themselves, either by shelling out for a six-month introductory offer
or by assuming the cost forever. This would be money well spent, Morris
argues, because it would help the Microsofts of the world eat into the
iPod's market share. He has already hammered out preliminary agreements
with Warner and Sony BMG and has met with executives at Microsoft and
several wireless carriers. If Morris is able to make Total Music a
reality, he will once again have succeeded in bending the industry to
his will — in this case, by using the combined catalogs of the major
labels to help establish a true competitor to the iPod. After all, why
buy an iPod if a Zune will give you songs for free?

Unfortunately, Total Music will almost certainly require some form
of DRM, which in the end will perpetuate the interoperability problem.
Morris likely doesn't care. He is more committed to Total Music — or
any other plan that allows protection — than he is to a future where
music can truly be played across any platform, at any time. "Our
strategy is to have the people who create great music be paid
properly," he says. "We need to protect the music. I know that."

I guess this is why Rick Rubin (Morris' cohead of Columbia Records) has drunk the cool-aid on music subscriptions.  The problem is that people do not want to subscribe to music - they want to own it.

I mean doesn't anybody at Universal get it?  Where are the stockholders?  Is this guy so powerful that he can run his company into the ground? I think Mnookin concludes that yes, Morris is that powerful and implies that if  the "Total Music" initiative fails and/or iTunes climbs the last hurdle:

This year, 22 percent of all music sold in the US will move
through iTunes. "If iTunes gets up to 40 or 50 percent, they'll have
too much power for anyone else to enter the business," says James
McQuivey, who analyzes the digital music industry for Forrester
Research.

that he very well may ruin Universal. 

Now, trying to unseat the iPod is not a bad business strategy but I think that everything known about consumers and how they want to purchase music says subscriptions are a dead end.  Every subscription service has failed or is failing.  What that tells me is that the wrong guy is running Universal:

"He wasn't prepared for a business that was going to be so totally
disrupted by technology," says a longtime industry insider who has
worked with Morris. "He just doesn't have that kind of mind."


Universal needs someone who recognizes that technology has transformed the music business and is willing to embrace this.  Someone who can take the world's largest music label and get it on the path to the future and not down some dead end to protect short term profits.  Someone with a lot of money on hand to take over Universal - say 15 or so billion dollars.  

Until that happens, all I can say is ugh! - Will someone please save the music business from itself?

Charles Starrett at iLounge has written an excellent editorial on the growing "War on iTunes" being initiated by Universal.  I urge everyone to read it.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Black Friday Deals

Tomorrow being Thanksgiving, I probably won't be posting until Friday.  But, I'm keeping track of the Black Friday Deals.  I'll update this entry as new deals become available.  

Microsoft Office Deal
If you need Microsoft Office for Mac, then Friday is the day to buy.  Here's the deal: Buy any copy of Office 2004 (including the student and teacher edition) and get a $100 rebate.  Then:

For $6.99, when Office 2008 is released, Microsoft will send you Office 2008 Special Media Edition."
Microsoft already offers the Special Media Edition upgrade. The $100 rebate is new and available for only the one day.
What makes the deal sweet and cheap is its applicability to Office 2004 Student and Teacher Edition. According to NPD, the Office student version accounts for most copies of the productivity suite sold at retail. However, there is no upgrade option to other Office versions. For 2008, the Student version's Entourage—the Mac equivalent to Outlook—will not support Exchange Server. The offer creates a cheap upgrade path for Mac users looking at getting Office now and don't want to spend big bucks.

Apple Store Deals

No specific info yet, but from past Black Fridays you can expect some really tempting discounts on software, dot mac (I think they sold it for $20 bucks one year), iPods and accessories and Macs.   As soon as I hear, I'll post it.

Apple Online Deals



Apple Online Store


Apple Online Store





Amazon Deals

Amazon's got their own special section of Amazon.com for Black Friday Deals. 

Other

TBD...


The iPhone Killer

It seems every day there is talk of "the iPhone killer" coming soon.  Today's entry in the iPhone Killer sweepstakes is the Verizon Voyager. The Voyager, made by LG, sells for $299 and has a touch screen and a flip open keyboard and tries to copy the iPhone's UI.  Here's a review (conclusion: not an iPhone Killer), and another (conclusion: best Verizon phone).  There's also talk that the RIM 9000 series, coming next year (pic?), is out to kill the iPhone.  And of course, there was the much rumored Google Phone that then failed to live up to the hype.  The supposed iPhone killer list goes on:  there's a linux contender, handset maker HTC's entry, samsung's entry, Nokia's got one too.  But nobody seems to be asking the right questions - if the iPhone can be "killed" how can it be done? 

It seems strange to me that there even needs to be an "iPhone Killer".  I mean, my guesstimate based on Apple's latest iPhone sales numbers is that there have been about 2 to 2.5 million iPhones sold to date (based on Apple's released numbers and a guess factoring in approximate daily sales and the European release of the iPhone).  That's a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of cell phones sold (38 million in the U.S. last quarter alone) since the iPhone was released.  Even if you only compare the iPhone to other high end "smart" phones, the iPhone has 27% of the smart phone market but its not yet in a dominant position based on sales.  So why would you need to  have an iPhone killer?  two words: mind share.  The iPhone has simply come in and transformed the consumer mind share about what a smart phone should be.

Now, without disclosing details regarding my "day job", I get to spend a lot of time playing with many models of smart phones - including some of the "iPhone Killers" mentioned above, some that are not even available in the U.S., and a few that are not available anywhere yet.  Some are very cool.  But when you compare them to the iPhone in my pocket, they pretty much all suck.  Most are like small bricks - they are heavy, boxy and clunky - nothing with the sleek lines and minimalist feel of the iPhone.  Even if they have a nice design, they are generally running an operating system that just kills the user experience - Linux, Symbian, RIM or Microsoft (Microsoft is the worst of the bunch.  It takes several "clicks" to get even the most basic things done. Don't even get me started about RIM - an OS only a network administrator could love).

That is the first, most basic, reason there will not be an iPhone Killer anytime soon.  The other Mobile OS and UI designs are just not ready to compete.  Apple's OS X base is several light years ahead of everything else and the IPhone "noun" UI is just perfect for the touch interface.  Of course, the iPhone has its flaws too - it desperately needs voice dialing and/or a better way for hands free use on the phone side, the iPod "scrubber" needs a better UI, it needs "disc mode" like all the other iPods have - just to mention a few of my pet peeves.  But here's the thing - all of those things can be fixed with a software update when Apple works them out or by 3rd party developers when they get the SDK in February 2008.   If you have a crappy OS, then no amount of tinkering is going to be able to fix that.

That's the beauty of the OS X base - Apple has its own experience on the desktop side to draw from as well as all of its 3rd party developers.  The iPhone is just an extension of the Mac ecosystem - a reservoir that Symbian or RIM can't tap into.  Microsoft can't, to a large extent, make this claim either, given its specialized - and sometimes incompatible - flavor of windows for smart phones and PDAs.  Linux, well, is Linux - theoretically I suppose its part of the "Linux ecosystem" - if one even exists - but Linux is just not a player yet as there are very few Linux smart phones right now.  Despite my dismissal of Android, Google has the right idea to go after the mobile OS market instead of releasing an actual phone because that's the key advantage the iPhone has.

The other major advantage Apple has is that it is "Apple, the brand" and all that entails.   If Motorola introduced a phone with the exact same feature set as the iPhone a year ago, they would not have gotten the same amount and quality of attention that Apple did.  I don't see how the maker of any "iPhone Killer" can get around that anytime soon.

The final major advantage is the iPod.  There's no doubt that Apple is a monopoly in the digital music business and is not going to be caught there anytime soon.  Apple's video business is also up and coming.  Until someone can kills iTunes, they are probably not going to "kill" the iPhone.  That's why I have to laugh every time a supposed "iPhone killer" comes up with a phone tied to some minor "music store" or to the cell carriers ridiculously expensive "media store".  Please stop (and I am looking at you Verizon) the madness - iTunes has won.

Everything else is just features - screen size, touch screen, wifi, bluetooth, the webkit based safari web browser (and don't underestimate the iPhone's advantage here even though other manufactures can and do use webkit.  The web browsing experience on the iPhone is better that everything, and I mean everything, else right now).  The iPhone killers keep focusing on features and fail to realize that to "kill" the iPhone, features are the least important thing to concentrate on.  To paraphrase James Carville - its the OS stupid.  Until somebody can come up with an OS that rivals OS X, there will not be an iPhone killer anytime soon.

The iPhone Killer

It seems every day there is talk of "the iPhone killer" coming soon.  Today's entry in the iPhone Killer sweepstakes is the Verizon Voyager. The Voyager, made by LG, sells for $299 and has a touch screen and a flip open keyboard and tries to copy the iPhone's UI.  Here's a review (conclusion: not an iPhone Killer), and another (conclusion: best Verizon phone).  There's also talk that the RIM 9000 series, coming next year (pic?), is out to kill the iPhone.  And of course, there was the much rumored Google Phone that then failed to live up to the hype.  The supposed iPhone killer list goes on:  there's a linux contender, handset maker HTC's entry, samsung's entry, Nokia's got one too.  But nobody seems to be asking the right questions - if the iPhone can be "killed" how can it be done? 

It seems strange to me that there even needs to be an "iPhone Killer".  I mean, my guesstimate based on Apple's latest iPhone sales numbers is that there have been about 2 to 2.5 million iPhones sold to date (based on Apple's released numbers and a guess factoring in approximate daily sales and the European release of the iPhone).  That's a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of cell phones sold (38 million in the U.S. last quarter alone) since the iPhone was released.  Even if you only compare the iPhone to other high end "smart" phones, the iPhone has 27% of the smart phone market but its not yet in a dominant position based on sales.  So why would you need to  have an iPhone killer?  two words: mind share.  The iPhone has simply come in and transformed the consumer mind share about what a smart phone should be.

Now, without disclosing details regarding my "day job", I get to spend a lot of time playing with many models of smart phones - including some of the "iPhone Killers" mentioned above, some that are not even available in the U.S., and a few that are not available anywhere yet.  Some are very cool.  But when you compare them to the iPhone in my pocket, they pretty much all suck.  Most are like small bricks - they are heavy, boxy and clunky - nothing with the sleek lines and minimalist feel of the iPhone.  Even if they have a nice design, they are generally running an operating system that just kills the user experience - Linux, Symbian, RIM or Microsoft (Microsoft is the worst of the bunch.  It takes several "clicks" to get even the most basic things done. Don't even get me started about RIM - an OS only a network administrator could love).

That is the first, most basic, reason there will not be an iPhone Killer anytime soon.  The other Mobile OS and UI designs are just not ready to compete.  Apple's OS X base is several light years ahead of everything else and the IPhone "noun" UI is just perfect for the touch interface.  Of course, the iPhone has its flaws too - it desperately needs voice dialing and/or a better way for hands free use on the phone side, the iPod "scrubber" needs a better UI, it needs "disc mode" like all the other iPods have - just to mention a few of my pet peeves.  But here's the thing - all of those things can be fixed with a software update when Apple works them out or by 3rd party developers when they get the SDK in February 2008.   If you have a crappy OS, then no amount of tinkering is going to be able to fix that.

That's the beauty of the OS X base - Apple has its own experience on the desktop side to draw from as well as all of its 3rd party developers.  The iPhone is just an extension of the Mac ecosystem - a reservoir that Symbian or RIM can't tap into.  Microsoft can't, to a large extent, make this claim either, given its specialized - and sometimes incompatible - flavor of windows for smart phones and PDAs.  Linux, well, is Linux - theoretically I suppose its part of the "Linux ecosystem" - if one even exists - but Linux is just not a player yet as there are very few Linux smart phones right now.  Despite my dismissal of Android, Google has the right idea to go after the mobile OS market instead of releasing an actual phone because that's the key advantage the iPhone has.

The other major advantage Apple has is that it is "Apple, the brand" and all that entails.   If Motorola introduced a phone with the exact same feature set as the iPhone a year ago, they would not have gotten the same amount and quality of attention that Apple did.  I don't see how the maker of any "iPhone Killer" can get around that anytime soon.

The final major advantage is the iPod.  There's no doubt that Apple is a monopoly in the digital music business and is not going to be caught there anytime soon.  Apple's video business is also up and coming.  Until someone can kills iTunes, they are probably not going to "kill" the iPhone.  That's why I have to laugh every time a supposed "iPhone killer" comes up with a phone tied to some minor "music store" or to the cell carriers ridiculously expensive "media store".  Please stop (and I am looking at you Verizon) the madness - iTunes has won.

Everything else is just features - screen size, touch screen, wifi, bluetooth, the webkit based safari web browser (and don't underestimate the iPhone's advantage here even though other manufactures can and do use webkit.  The web browsing experience on the iPhone is better that everything, and I mean everything, else right now).  The iPhone killers keep focusing on features and fail to realize that to "kill" the iPhone, features are the least important thing to concentrate on.  To paraphrase James Carville - its the OS stupid.  Until somebody can come up with an OS that rivals OS X, there will not be an iPhone killer anytime soon.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Are First Run Films iTunes Next Act?

If you've been reading this blog with any regularity, you know that I am a major advocate of iTunes movie rentals.  While we'll have to wait for movie rentals, there is an interesting experiment going on in the movie section of the iTunes Store.  Apple has started to go after the short films market and, beginning tomorrow, will offer the first-run full-length feature film, Purple Violets, for download. 

Purple Violets is a film by Ed Burns, who's first film, The Brothers McMullen, went from indie acclaim to commercial success (you may often catch it running on the various cable movie channels).  Purple Violets has been called Burns' best film since The Brothers McMullen,  so it is kind of surprising that Burns is willing to take an unorthodox route in releasing first on iTunes (exclusively for 1 month) instead of going through a major studio for distribution in theaters.  According to Burns, the iTunes release experiment is worth the gamble:

we were talking with several distributors and had an offer from a company that I had worked at before and it was the same model--the platform release, New York, LA, let’s wait for the reviews [and] our per-screen averages that first weekend, and we’ll go to the next eight markets, the next 12 markets and we’ll roll out that way. That has been my career for 12 years, but I would say for the last seven years that hasn’t worked for my films...So myself and my two producers, Aaron Lubin and Pam Murphy, were brainstorming and the idea came up, ‘What about approaching iTunes?’ They had never premiered a film before… We thought this is where it seems to be going, so why not be on the cutting-edge of this technology-- and we can’t do any worse than the last three films of mine have done theatrically, so maybe we can do better.


The strange thing is, at least up until now, Apple does not seem to be hyping this up too much.  There's no prominent mention of the film on the iTunes store yet (although that may change tomorrow), just a buried entry for it in the "coming soon" section of the movie store.  What makes Apple's lack of hype even more puzzling is the fact that Hollywood seems to be looking at how successful Apple, the de facto only game in town, can make Purple Violets

"They're obviously the leader, by a long way," says Jamie Chvotkin, president at CD Baby and Film Baby, two services that help musicians and filmmakers offer their work in digital form. "Their share in movies is probably similar to what it is in music, somewhere in the 80% range."
...

"Purple Violets," which stars director Ed Burns, Debra Messing, and Selma Blair and was made on a $4 million budget, will be a crucial test for iTunes, the first movie it'll have before it is available anywhere else.


Properly marketed, "Purple Violets" or another indie exclusive could turn into the kind of breakout hit that could nudge digital downloading into the mainstream -- something that hasn't happened yet.

It is no secret that the movie studios have been reluctant to deal with Apple on movie downloads:

Privately, studio execs have expressed hope that iTunes won't turn into the single dominant retailer of digital movies -- with all the accompanying negotiating leverage -- that it has become for music. They don't want to be in business with a partner that dictates terms to them, rather than the other way around..."It's not that those studios don't want more distribution, it's that they're not willing to sell movies at a price lower (than the DVD wholesale price) to Apple," says CinemaNow's Marvis. "Someone is going to have to blink."

Given the fact that the major studios have, until now, been reluctant to deal with Apple on downloads (rentals may be another story), you would thing Apple would be going all out on this release.  So far, besides the promotion Burns is doing himself, Apple has not made a big splash - even though Purple Violets could jump start the stalemate between Apple and the studios:

"Properly marketed, 'Purple Violets' or another indie exclusive could turn into the kind of breakout hit that could nudge digital downloading into the mainstream -- something that hasn't happened yet."

So, keep an eye on iTunes over the next couple of weeks to see how successful Purple Violets is.  You can order the film (I believe for $12.99 today and then I think for $14.99 tomorrow) on iTunes.  Here's the link (which will open in iTunes): 




Purple Violets

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Eisner says Blame Apple. He's Wrong.

Leave it to Michael Eisner to prove exactly what's wrong with the studio mindset regarding video digital distribution:

The studios "make deals with Steve Jobs, who takes them to the cleaners.
They make all these kinds of things, and who's making money? Apple!
They should get a piece of Apple. If I was a union, I'd be striking up
wherever he is."
Ugh.  As I have noted before the mindset that Apple is to blame for the supposed lack of profits on video digital distribution is simply hog wash. 

First of all, the studios haven't seriously taken a shot yet at digital distribution.  Apple's only got around 1000 videos for sale on the iTunes store.  Moreover, I am convinced that video sales of films are just not what people want - rentals are where the volume (and money) is (and I am not the only one who thinks this).

More importantly, the movie and TV studios are just irrationally wedded to an advertising model.  They think that ads will make them money, the same way it makes them money on TV.  But it will not work in the digital world.  They have to offer their products digitally in a manner that is convenient, simple to use and, can be accessed anywhere.  For many reasons, an ad based model doesn't fit that bill (not to mention the fact that it is very easy to eliminate ads in digital distribution - and that absolutely drives the studios nuts).  And they have to offer the content at a price that is reasonable ($9.99 for a movie download - without the DVD extras - and $1.99 a TV episode is pushing the upper limits here.  And yet, they want higher prices!).  And of course, they continue to insist on restrictive DRM

Not only is Eisner an idiot for his Apple comment, he's just plain wrong on the writer's strike:


For a writer to give up today's money for a nonexistent piece of
the future -- they should do it in three years, shouldn't be doing
it now -- they are misguided they should not have gone on the
strike. I've seen stupid strikes, I've seen less stupid strikes,
and this strike is just a stupid strike.
Now, I admit I don't know all the details about the writer's strike, but I do know that the whole reason there is a strike is because the writer's forgot to deal for DVD's the last time.  Seems reasonable to me that the writers don't want to let several years of digital revenue pass without them having a deal to getting a share of it.

So, after all this BS, where does Eisner think the of video distribution future is?   Yup, you got it - the internet.  Thats where is putting his own money.  What a clown. 

Odds & Ends: Today's Interesting Reads

Around the Mac Web for November 7, 2007, superior technology edition:

Computer World: Leopard Beats Vista

Macs Cheaper than PC's

OS X 10.5.1 Nearing Release

Apple Better than Microsoft to Make Tablet



Monday, November 5, 2007

Google Phone no iPhone Killer (yet)

Google announced the Open Handset Alliance today:

"Building a better mobile phone would enrich the lives of countless
people across the globe. The Open Handset Alliance™ is a group of
mobile and technology leaders who share this vision for changing the
mobile experience for consumers."
The Alliance is a collection of Mobile Operators, Handset makers, Semiconductor Companies  and Software Companies.  Obviously Google is part of the Alliance.  The other big names include Sprint, T-Mobile, NTT DoCoMo, Telefónica, HTC, Motorola, LG, Samsung,  Intel, Qualcomm.  There are several others. Here's the list.

The alliance has developed Android:

"the first complete, open, and free mobile platform. We are committed to
commercially deploy handsets and services using the Android Platform in
the second half of 2008."
Google will provide the first look at Android on November 12 when the Android Software Development Kit (SDK) will be released.

Some details about Android:

  • Android is built on the open Linux Kernel.
  • Uses a
    custom virtual machine in order to optimize memory and
    hardware resources.
  • Open
    source.
My Quick Take: 

Well, clearly not the iPhone killer.  At least not yet anyway. 

There are very few actual details at the Android web site (although there is a video of the Android engineers.  how sweet).  Until we actually see something this is nothing more than some high minded statement of what the perfect open source phone OS is.

Additionally,  many of these industry alliances have a difficult time producing a usable product.  Assuming this is really Google's baby and they are driving it, the likelihood of actually producing something increases.

So until November 12 when we'll get a look at the SDK, there's not much here.  After that, there has to be an actual phone developed with this platform. 


Odds & Ends: Today's Interesting Reads

Around the Mac Web for November 5, 2007:

Mac Sales becoming big for Apple

Google Phone Platform: Announcement 11 am Today

[Update...]

Google has an Andriod (After all the hype Google announces the Open Handset Alliance)



iPhone Software Update Imminent (and Beyond...)

T3 magazine has gotten a look at the uk edition of the iPhone and there are a couple of interesting items as a result. 


The big news out of the UK preview is that we can expect an iPhone firmware update on November 9 to support the launch. U.S. iPhone users will probably not see anything more than some security and minor bug fixes. One thing not yet known is whether Apple will brick iPhones that have been hacked. My money is on yes (and that's a completely different post).


Another interesting tidbit can be found in Apples responses to T3's questions. With regard to MMS messages Apple had an interesting response - essentially said they are not going to support anything but high definition picture sharing. Sounds like a new iPhone feature coming soon.


Apple also addressed the fact that you can not SMS with multiple people. Apple's response was that they don't comment on future enhancements. This is, of course, Apple's position on just about everything speculative. However, recently, I've noticed that Apple only drags out this old chestnut only when there is something coming down the pike that will address the issue. What this means is probably the rumored version of iChat for the iphone will be released soon.


As I see it, it looks like there's going to be at least one software update for the iPhone before the holidays. That would make sense. I suspect the priority at Apple for the remained of 2007 is to (1) Roll out Mac OS X Leopard (check); (2) Get the worldwide iPhone rollout done (in progress) with as little hassle as possible (i.e. one maybe 2 minor iPhone software updates; (3) Focus on a bang-up holiday season with Leopard, iPhone and the revamped iPod line (don't forget the Mac!) and finally, (4) Prepare for Macworld in January.


Obviously its Apple's annual Christmas in January is coming soon. So what can we expect come MWSF. I am sure that this will become THE hot topic on the Mac web in a few weeks so let me just kick off some speculation, directed at iPhone.


I think we will see three types of iPhone updates at MWSF. The first will be those that folks have been clamoring for and I classify as items that are needed to flush out the iPhone as a platform. These include things like the landscape keypad available in all applications, copy and past or some facsimile therof and other such UI niceties.


The next group of features are those I classify as new applications. In this category I put the much rumored iChat mobile and perhaps some other small widget like applications. I am sure we will see one or two of these at MWSF (an easy call given my last item below...).


Finally I think Apple will introduce something completely unexpected for the iPhone and tied into a larger Apple effort - video. I suspect that Apple is going to make a push in video next year (I would not be surprised if Steve works the phrase "year of Video into the Macworld Keynote). Its probably no big surprise that I, like many others, suspect that push is going to come in the form of movie rentals for iTunes and Apple TV (and an enhanced Apple TV at that). The iPhone will be a part of those plans. At a minimum you'll be able to watch your rentals on the iPhone after you download them in iTunes (duh. no brainer there). But even more exciting would be the ability to stream the rentals on the iPhone. If Apple goes in this direction it would be an iTunes WiFi-type enhancement (i.e. you can only stream with a WiFi connection).


Finally, I expect Apple will release the iPhone SDK, is some form, to developers at MWSF. Although it has not been promised until February, MWSF would be the logical time to get a preview the SDK release and get something into developers hands. That's why I think Apple will give out a couple of new apps to the iPhone at MWSF - to show the developers what can be done with the SDK. I expect Apple will follow up training days for developers in select cities like they did with the webkit iPhone development "kit".

Friday, November 2, 2007

Music Subscriptions...DOA (Again)

Well, Well, Well. Seems that Napster has figured out that there is no business in music subscriptions



Might want to let Rick Rubin know about that:


"You would subscribe to music," Rubin explained, as he settled on the velvet couch in his library. "You'd pay, say, $19.95 a month, and the music will come anywhere you'd like. In this new world, there will be a virtual library that will be accessible from your car, from your cellphone, from your computer, from your television. Anywhere. The iPod will be obsolete, but there would be a Walkman-like device you could plug into speakers at home. You'll say, 'Today I want to listen to ... Simon and Garfunkel,' and there they are. The service can have demos, bootlegs, concerts, whatever context the artist wants to put out. And once that model is put into place, the industry will grow 10 times the size it is now."

I'm not sure if Rubin is deluding himself or if he's just spouting off the Columbia Records corporate fantasy. Either way, like it or not, people want to own their music. Gee wonder where I heard that before....

Odds & Ends: Today's Interesting Reads

Around the Mac Web, Greatest Invention of the Year (TM) Edition:

Time: Invention of the Year

Invention of Year Embarrassment

Big UK iPhone Sales Expected

Apple's Having Problems with Dot Mac 

EEK! A Virus!

Mossberg Hates Gateway (Surprise! Not!) 

Must Read: Apple Needs a Nikon


Thursday, November 1, 2007

Odds & Ends: Today's Interesting Reads

Around the Mac web for November 1, 2007, Intel GMA X3100 graphics edition,



MacBook Stealth Update
Time Invention of the Year: iPhone
iPhone already has a Legacy
Leopard's Quality
Leopard Demolishes Vista
Someone Else noticed Apple's Cash Nest Egg
Strike!
Last, but certainly not least, iLounge has released the iLounge 2008 iPod & iPhone buyers guide. Really good stuff. I recommend it highly (and it comes in a really cool iPhone format too!).


The Java Controversy - Much Ado About Nothing

It seems like every day there's a new controversy on the Mac web. Today its Java (well, to be fair this controversy has been brewing for some time as we shall see). Specifically, Apple's support (or lack there of) for Java 6. 

Now, in order to understand this controversy, you have to know a little bit about Java.

Java 6 is Sun's (the creators of Java) most recent release of the Java platform (and Java is alot more than just a programming language. A fact that adds to the confusion. A couple of years ago Sun, in an effort to capitalize on all the good buzz the Java programming language was getting, decided it would be good marketing to name just about anything Java or base just about anything released by Sun on Java. And don't even get me started on Javascript).  

Java 6 was proceeded by Java 5, which makes sense but, Java 5 was proceeded by...Java 1.4. Oh, yes - Java 5 is alternatively known as Java 1.5 (and among the Java community you will sometimes hear Java 6 called Java 1.6, but I digress).

The Java on OS X Timeline spells out the details but, essentially, when Mac OS X added Java 1.4 support, Java developers sat up and took notice. By the time support for Java 1.5 came about, many Java developers were downright in love with Macs. Its not hard to see why, they could have their Java development environment with Unix tools and still be a good corporate citizen with Microsoft Office on the Mac. Plus, it was a Mac so things tended to just work (at the same time Java on Windows had issues). 

But, then things started to go wrong. I'll let the Java developers speak for themselves first:


Gosling Dumps OS X

Time for Java developers to Leave OS X


To summarize the controversy, Apple is very far behind porting Java 6 to Mac OS X. The Java Developers also have some gripes with some of the more advanced features of Java 5 on the Mac - specifically anything that has to to with Graphical User Interfaces (GUI's). 

Of course, there are two sides to this story- first, Porting Java on OS X is hard and, Java 5 on OS X is Pretty Good.

So that's the issue and there is an all out revolt from all those Java developers who traded in their Windows boxes a few years ago for Macs. 


My day job deals with Java so I might be considered to have a horse in this race - I'd love to see Apple support J2ME which is Java for smart phones and other small devices. But I don't think its ever going to happen as I'll explain below. 

All of this "controversy" is much ado about nothing.

First, I think that this controversy over Java 6 is bogus since most companies don't run Java 6. In the corporate world folks tend to lag about one version behind. Consequently, nearly all of the (money making) Java programing being done is on Java 5 (nee, 1.5). Related to this is the fact that nearly all of this Java work is server side Java and so all the Java GUI madness does not apply. 


But more importantly, I think Apple could care less. Java support by Apple is just not a priority anymore.

I think Apple will be happy to say goodbye to all these complaining Java developers. Why? I think they have (maybe rightly) assumed that Java is a technology that has reached middle age and grown about as much as its going to grow. As a result, just doesn't make sense to support Java with all of Apple's weight anymore. A few years ago it looked like Java would become an important technology on the desktop. It has not. It is important on servers, but how many desktop applications are written in Java? I can think of maybe two that are worth anything (that comment will generate a ton of hate mail I'm sure). 


More over, the imporant technology for Apple is Objective-C with Cocoa on the desktop (and soon to be on the iPhone & iPod) and a WebKit, JavaScript, Ajax and Quicktime H.264 on the internet. Consequently, Java (and Adobe's Flash) is a direct threat to Apple.

I think Apple is more than happy to support open standards (e.g. Ruby, Python) that compliment its technology stack. But I think that Apple has made the decision not to support its competitors or technology it does not see as complementary to Apple technology. Java is both a threat (J2ME) and is not complimentary (J2SE - i.e. desktop java). 

Will I be surprised if Apple finally releases support for Java 6? No. But I just don't think Apple is going to go out of its way to support Java nor have Java support drive its timelines or strategy. Apple has clearly decided that it can loose several thousand Java developers when it is picking up several thousand consumers every day.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Odds & Ends: Today's Interesting Reads

Vampires, Ghosts, Unicorns and other mythical things (a.k.a. Google Phone edition):



The gPhone is Coming!
Verizon Google Phone
Google Boogyman
Unlocking is price of success
WWGD



Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Odds & Ends: Today's Interesting Reads

Here are today's interesting reads, mac and non-mac:

2 Million Cats on the Loose

Leopard is Apple if His Eye

Why it was Called the Manhattan Project

What is a Hulu anyway?

Apple needs an actual TV

How to Save Apple TV



Monday, October 29, 2007

Apple-NBC War Continues

Jeff Zucker, head of NBC Universal, wanted a piece of Apple's iPod sales in return for a deal to sell NBC's programming on iTunes: 


"Apple sold millions of dollars worth of hardware off the back of our content and made a lot of money,” Zucker said. “They did not want to share in what they were making off the hardware or allow us to adjust pricing."

“We don’t want to replace the dollars we were making in the analog world with pennies on the digital side,” he said.


So, let me get this straight Jeff.

You want Apple to pay you a percentage of each iPod sale for the right to sell, for $1.99, an episode of the Office on iTunes.

Now, this is the same content that you give away for free every week. 

The same stuff that anybody with a TiVo can record and then skip all those commercials when they watch it later.  

Are you the dumbest guy on the planet? 

Good luck with hoho or whatever you call it. HoHo is not exactly burning with buzz but I'm sure it's just what everyone wants - the ability to watch streaming TV and movies with commercials on their PC. 

Oh yeah, and another thing Jeff. Apple didn't sell iPods off the back of your content (which you already give away for free). Apple sold iPods off the back of the Big 5 music label's content (LOL). 

Seriously, Zucker's thinking is the problem here. He believes that his viewers will just watch where and when and how he says they will. It is a pre-digital mindset. The problem is that as DVD's, TiVo and iPods and iPhones have become common place, viewers have realized that they like the ability to choose the time and place and medium to watch TV shows and movies. That's why the movie theaters are slowly dying. Its why TV ratings are steadily declining. Its why DVD, iPods and TiVo sales are increasing.

Zuckers mindset conveniently forgets that iTunes sales saved his bacon:



"I'm not sure that we'd still have the show on the air" without the iTunes boost, says Angela Bromstead, president of NBC Universal Television Studio, which owns and produces "The Office." "The network had only ordered so many episodes, but when it went on iTunes and really started taking off, that gave us another way to see the true potential other than just Nielsen. It just kind of happened at a great time."


I think Apple should do one of two things - either seriously look into buying NBC Universal from General Electric or, drop the H-Bomb and release a version of iTunes that will rip DVDs in the "it just works" Apple way. I'm sure either move would get the movie studios and networks to play ball.

Apple's No Cash For iPhone is Legal

Although, this guy doesn't think so, Apple's No Cash allowed policy is probably legal


Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues...There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. "


Oddly enough, I am a licensed attorney so here's my thoughts for what its worth (and that's not much I'm afraid). 


Since there is no Federal Law that mandates private merchants accept cash for transactions, private merchants are free to not accept cash. The point here is two fold, first, the Federal Government can only enforce Federal Laws that exist and second, the regulation of private merchants is generally left to the States. While State Law may require private merchants to accept cash, I don't know of (and have not heard of) any States that require private merchants to accept cash. 


There are also freedom of contract issues here. Parties are generally free to set the terms of their own contracts. A consumer purchase is just a form of contract. Apple agrees to sell you and iPhone and you agree to pay for it. Apple is now setting the term that the only way you can pay is via credit card. You are certainly free to reject that term and, of course, Apple can refuse to sell to you since you rejected its terms. 

The commerce clause argument (i.e. that the iPhone is a device regulated by the Federal Government and is often used in interstate commerce) is interesting. The problem is that who is going to foot the legal bills to challenge it - especially given current interpretations of the commerce clause (i.e. due to the conservative nature of the federal courts they have tried to limit the scope of the commerce clause. I think it is safe to assume that commerce clause challenges will generally fail - especially in this case where the challenge is not to any federal or state law but to the policy of a private merchant).

That being said, it is still interesting to consider. 

The FCC has no regulatory powers over the sale of the device (i.e. it can't influence the price apple sells it for or who apple sells it to) so the argument that the iPhone is subject to federal government regulation based on FCC requirements is peripheral at best. 


The more interesting argument is that the iPhone is often used in interstate commerce. The problem here is that the current view of the commerce clause, outlined in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 528 (2000) has set the limits of the commerce clause to (1) the channels of interstate commerce; (2) the instrumentalities of interstate commerce and; (3) actions that affect interstate commerce. Now these limits apply to Federal Law. Since there is no Federal law that requires private merchants to accept cash, I suspect that courts would find no commerce clause argument can apply based on Lopez and Morrison. Additionally, Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) held that the commerce clause does not give the federal government the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states. Thus, since States have the power to regulate private merchants, a commerce clause challenge to the policy of a private merchant will fail. 

Anyway, that's my 15 minute legal analysis and its probably not very good. I think the U.S. Treasury statement is much more authoritative.

**Note: Although I am an attorney, I am not your attorney. Nothing in this post or on this website should be taken as legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact your state's legal services association or bar association who can refer you to an attorney.

Odd's & End's: Today's Interesting Reads

Who'd have thought that someday we would live in a world where the Red Sox are not just World Series Champions, but have won the World Series twice in the last four years?

When your iPod shouldn't be close to your heart

iPhone: No Cash and only 2 per person

No gift cards either

$831

Windows as the iPhone Limiter

Leopard stalking Microsoft

NBC tells Apple: we can Destroy ourselves, thank you




Sunday, October 28, 2007

Odds & Ends: Today's Interesting Reads

Here's today's interesting reads, smug OS X Leopard user bashing Vista edition (oh, we kid, microsoft!):

Anderson's Razor

Lifehacker's 20 Useful OS X downloads

Visa Sales Down