Reverse Halo... iPod kills Mac?

[gkroeger]

I certainly understand Apple's broadening product line and the importance that the iPod has had in Apple's recent strength, but I am concerned about the attendant "my way or the highway" attitude that this has had on Apple and the fallout for the Mac.

In suggesting to several friends and relatives that they consider the Mac (and it would be perfect for their computing expertise) a major stumbling block has been the inability of the Mac to live and play well with video on the web. For worse or worse, MS has cornered the current market with their DRM strategy. Go to Vongo or Netflix with a Mac and one is greeted immediately with a warning stating that your operating system is incompatible, get XP or Vista. Same with TNT.tv. With Amazon's Unbox it takes a bit more mousing to find out you need XP or Vista.

Now if Apple intends to supply all of the same content via iTunes, fine and dandy. But lately, they appear to be content to piss off any media suppliers that want some control over the cost and packaging of their content. That doesn't bode well for increasing availability of media from Apple.

Other issues that could easily be fixed remain impediments. Intuit won't make Mac products feature equivalent to Windows products or even file equivalent so a small 3 person office based on QuickBooks can't switch easily. Even Apple won't make a Keynote player for Windows so that we can show Keynote presentations at conferences... we still have to convert them to PowerPoint losing much of the Keynote advantage. It wouldn't take much of Apple's cash pile to address some of these issues.

Of course BootCamp, Fusion and Parallels solve these problems, but if one is going to have to live with Windows, one can do it for a lot less money on someone else's hardware... and for the person seeking the Mac for simplicity, this just adds more complexity than they were trying to avoid. Does Apple not see these as significant issues, or do they just not care so long as they can sell as many Macs as they produce?

 

[ravenvii]

Other issues that could easily be fixed remain impediments. Intuit won't make Mac products feature equivalent to Windows products or even file equivalent so a small 3 person office based on QuickBooks can't switch easily. Even Apple won't make a Keynote player for Windows so that we can show Keynote presentations at conferences... we still have to convert them to PowerPoint losing much of the Keynote advantage. It wouldn't take much of Apple's cash pile to address some of these issues.

You can convert your keynote presentation to QuickTime. With the latest QuickTime, you can play movies fullscreen. I think Apple already answered your Keynote issue.

Intuit is an even worse company than Microsoft I think. They suck, through and through.

 

[jczubach]

they probably don't give a squirrels' fart what you or I think. Go figure...

 

[MikeTheC]

There are definitely some issues to be solved out there, but sadly it's a grey area where the merging point of Steve's ego, Apple's arrogance, the equal arrogance, posturing and ego of other companies, and the general wanton, willful ignorance of those in charge of these other companies (Intuit, various web companies, etc.) actually lies.

Let's also not forget that Microsoft is not in the business of "reaching across the aisle", but rather to make their solutions the de-facto standard. It's a parallel reach for their business strategy to not just have companies and organizations of all sizes running Windows as their "platform of choice" but to also have these various entities utilize Microsoft's content delivery mechanisms and "standards" to distribute their products. It's called a hegemony, and it's called that for a very, very good reason.

Intuit needs a serious competitor. And frankly, right now, there isn't one. So as a consequence, they'll do whatever they're allowed to get away with, and producing for the Mac simply isn't that much of a priority for them, since the lion's share of their customer base is using -- surprise -- Windows.

I understand the in-built tendency to try and get "friends and relatives" to switch to a Mac. I've personally gotten to the point where I'm more of a "ask me for my opinion and I'll give it to you, along with all the supporting evidence" but ultimately I no longer give a **** what the other person does. It's not my life, and it's certainly not my problem.

I mean, technically, the most ethical choice isn't even Mac OS X at this point, though for many people (including myself) it represents the best compromise of ethics and practicality.

 

[synth3tik]

video content on the internets has nothing to do with the iPod or Apple "forgetting" the Mac. If you want to go to a website and watch a video, but you need XP, then email them and tell them. I myself have no problems with streaming video off the internets, yeah Netflix instant thing-a-ma-do won't work with a Mac, but you can still get your DVDs and thats funner anyway.

 

[aristobrat]

Google silverlight, as it appears to be Microsoft's answer to streaming DRM for Macs and Linux.

 

[CalBoy]

Netflix doesn't let you watch movies online if you have a Mac? That's a bold statement, seeing as how they're in a fight to the death with Blockbuster. I wouldn't have forseen this (and I even thought about using that online service).

Ok, moving on to your main point, no, I don't think that Apple is the aggressor in the situations you're refering to (NBC mostly right?). It seems, from what we saw on this very site, that NBC was determined to dictate tougher terms to Apple, and Apple simply said, "Goodbye." I supported Apple in that decision, because the goal was to keep prices low. NBC claims that their prices weren't going to change, but how much do you believe that?

Your other points about certain things one can't do on a Mac are valid, and so is the Bootcamp argument. However, I don't think that the vast majority of average computer users (this includes your regular 9 to 5 lineman, your retired grandmother, your computer illiterate uncle, etc), a Mac does just fine. Even with the vast potential of Apple TV and the internet to deliver media content, most people just watch movies the old fashioned way: by renting it(whether it be via Netflix, or a brick and mortar store), and never even think about using their computer to make the process faster and more organized. I think that for this market, the Mac line makes perfect sense, and the iPod continues to be a "gateway drug" for this process.

 

[bigandy]

Google silverlight, as it appears to be Microsoft's answer to streaming DRM for Macs and Linux.

Silverlight's main aim is not cross platform DRM, it's designed to kill Flash. DRM just happens to have been included to help with that goal.

 

[yadmonkey]

video content on the internets has nothing to do with the iPod or Apple "forgetting" the Mac.

Actually, it's Apple's refusal to license their own DRM management to Vongo and Netflix (or anyone else) which prevents Apple users from using these services.

If you want to go to a website and watch a video, but you need XP, then email them and tell them.

Emailing them won't do squat. Their hands are tied, short of inventing their own Mac-compatible DRM system.

I myself have no problems with streaming video off the internets, yeah Netflix instant thing-a-ma-do won't work with a Mac, but you can still get your DVDs and thats funner anyway.

Nobody's talking about streaming video in general - it's about the lack of DRM available to third parties for the Mac platform and thus the lack of certain services for Mac users. I like my DVDs too, but I want to use that instant service of Netflix in a big way. The instant service adds a lot of value to my subscription.

 

[GimmeSlack12]

I think the OP has a point, but his problem is one with quite a limited scope. NetFlix and Renting movies on the internet? How many people do that?

There are a ton of things that people whine about with Apple, but the fact is, is that Apple is a small company that makes itself seem much much larger than it is. It is growing very quickly at the moment, but they can't grow too fast or else big problems will can arise with long wait times before solutions can appear.

Things will get better, but the speed that the iPod has rocketed Apple into the mainstream is too fast for the entire company to follow with. These are the growing pains of Apple that we are all experiencing.

The Mac is doing just fine and without the Mac OS and Macs, the iPod will never survive.

 

[yadmonkey]

Apple is a small company???

 

[twoodcc]

I think the OP has a point, but his problem is one with quite a limited scope. NetFlix and Renting movies on the internet? How many people do that?

There are a ton of things that people whine about with Apple, but the fact is, is that Apple is a small company that makes itself seem much much larger than it is. It is growing very quickly at the moment, but they can't grow too fast or else big problems will can arise with long wait times before solutions can appear.

Things will get better, but the speed that the iPod has rocketed Apple into the mainstream is too fast for the entire company to follow with. These are the growing pains of Apple that we are all experiencing.

The Mac is doing just fine and without the Mac OS and Macs, the iPod will never survive.

the OP does have a point.

but Apple a small company? there might be some growing pains, but not like you tend to describe.

 

[yadmonkey]

I've never heard of a multi-billion dollar small company which dominates two industries (portable MP3 players and online music distribution), and is third in the world for manufacturing computers, meanwhile having the resources to attack new markets with products like the iPhone and iTV. I've never heard of a small company which has the advertising capitol to place TV ads during any television event, major or minor. Or a small company with Apple's market cap.

It's funny how perceptions like this persist - many people still think of Nintendo as a small company.

 

[Queso]

....and is third in the world for manufacturing computers....

3rd in the US maybe, but despite what the American media would like us to believe, the USA is not the entire world

 

[yadmonkey]

But what about that song "We Are the World"? We're NOT?!

Ahem, correction noted - thanks.

 

[aristobrat]

I've never heard of a multi-billion dollar small company which dominates two industries (portable MP3 players and online music distribution), and is third in the world for manufacturing computers, meanwhile having the resources to attack new markets with products like the iPhone and iTV. I've never heard of a small company which has the advertising capitol to place TV ads during any television event, major or minor. Or a small company with Apple's market cap.

But (playing the devils advocate here) can't the size of a company also be qualified by things that aren't financial or market-sized related?

For example, some could say that Apple's "small" in the sense that they weren't able to release the iPhone without having to delay the release of Leopard?

 

[CashGap]

"For example, some could say that Apple's "small" in the sense that they weren't able to release the iPhone without having to delay the release of Leopard?"

Hmm, Microsoft is "big" and they weren't able to release much of anything and still dramatically delayed the release of Vista.

 

[yadmonkey]

According to the Wikipedia, Apple has over 20,000 employees and does almost $20 billion on annual sales. If that qualifies as a small company, I don't know what my 1-man operation would be... a nano-company?

 

[PlaceofDis]

According to the Wikipedia, Apple has over 20,000 employees and does almost $20 billion on annual sales. If that qualifies as a small company, I don't know what my 1-man operation would be... a nano-company?

put it in perspective:

Dell: 83,000/55 billion
HP: 156,000/ 91 billion
Microsoft: 79,000/51 billion

so in comparison to its competitors, yes apple is quite small.

 

[aristobrat]

Hmm, Microsoft is "big" and they weren't able to release much of anything and still dramatically delayed the release of Vista.

Vista wasn't late because the Vista guys were also doing Windows Mobile.

 

[swampfox]

put it in perspective:

Dell: 83,000/55 billion
HP: 156,000/ 91 billion
Microsoft: 79,000/51 billion

so in comparison to its competitors, yes apple is quite small.

Even if it is small, placing third in computer sales is pretty darn good

 

[Ugg]

put it in perspective:

Dell: 83,000/55 billion
HP: 156,000/ 91 billion
Microsoft: 79,000/51 billion

so in comparison to its competitors, yes apple is quite small.

Perhaps efficient would be a better word?

Apple has 25% the amount of employees that ms has yet does 39% as much business.

Apple/HP 13%/22%