tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post5422064849777341852..comments2024-03-25T21:41:06.801-07:00Comments on Mobile Opportunity: Is Apple too powerful?Michael Macehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966107280587843091noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-74810964995720678002009-11-25T21:22:35.911-08:002009-11-25T21:22:35.911-08:00"That's hard to do technologically (becau..."That's hard to do technologically (because you can't interrupt a voice conversation during the handover for more than a fraction of a second). Besides, it doesn't solve a significant customer problem -- the voice network isn't the thing that's overloaded."<br /><br />I read your post after it was included in a Tweet from someone I follow. (As a fellow blogger, I thought you might find this insight helpful.)<br /><br />I wanted to address the extracted quote above. I worked at T-Mobile where I managed a product team which supported mobile phones that used UMA for seamless handover from wifi to cell and vice versa. The technical part was actually not hard. The problem was converging business agendas of wireline phone, cellular and cable providers. And simplifying the consumer's ability to connect the dots across the various providers they might wish for different services or electronics.<br /><br />Fixed mobile convergence is not a technology problem. It's a bundling problem. And, yes, it's a business problem. A la carte choices for consumers are hard to support across service providers. Integration for a seamless service experience across multiple vendors is costly - for companies and for consumers. However, without a seamless service experience across hardware, software and network, the effort to convergea consumer's brand or product choices is aggravating and difficult for most average families. Everything's a piece of cake for the consumer if there is an installer, or if you buy all your products from one manufacturer. But even with UPnP, DLNA, UMA, wifi as standards, there are consumer experience hurdles to connect the dots that have prevented convergence from accelerating. <br /><br />For a while, 3 screen service bundles have made fixed mobile convergence a challenge. Those providers need to mobilize. <br /><br />With Cisco's help we launched several low cost wifi routers to facilitate the convergence with UMA and home wifi for low cost VOIP and seamless handovers between home and mobile usage. As much as everyone slams carriers for being walled gardens, the home has been a business fortress protected by soft bundles and non-integrated consumer services. Routers came back, because the wireline providers made the unbundled service price without voice calling too costly for consumers to break.Leslie Grandyhttp://gearheadgal.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-77921592894162203062009-10-06T20:39:09.333-07:002009-10-06T20:39:09.333-07:00@Cheese Lover Bob: Apple is running a business. &q...@Cheese Lover Bob: Apple is running a business. "Being great" is quite useless if it doesn't fit the vision and purpose of Apple, and doesn't bring in enough revenue to further grow the company.<br /><br />@Michael Mace: The Blackberry sync app for Mac/PC does a fine job of syncing iTunes media, replicating the look and feel of iTunes (at least on the Mac). It uses the Apple provided API, namely, the XML Library file. That's what a real company does. Palm comes off as a bunch of amateurs and talkers.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05365597019511460816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-87541361867808814512009-09-25T18:33:26.496-07:002009-09-25T18:33:26.496-07:00Nice article. I think the iTunes team would want t...Nice article. I think the iTunes team would want to be able to let any device sync with iTunes. Think about it—their team would be working on the standard music player for the world. How great would that be?funnymoose321https://www.blogger.com/profile/16275291933853847113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-31010129243961585592009-09-24T06:29:15.681-07:002009-09-24T06:29:15.681-07:00Well now, just look who bought shares in Palm thin...Well now, just look who bought shares in Palm thinking the Pre was a good bet....F1remannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-3564677263573044392009-09-22T18:20:52.797-07:002009-09-22T18:20:52.797-07:00Hardly a headline anywhere:
Palm Smacked Down In ...Hardly a headline anywhere:<br /><br />Palm Smacked Down In USB Dispute With Apple<br /><br />Posted by: Arik Hesseldahl on September 22<br /><br />http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/2009/09/palm_smacked_do.html<br /><br />Writing for the USB-IF, Traci Donnell, the organization’s executive director, wrote that “Palm’s allegation (if true) does not establish that Apple is using its Vendor ID contrary to USB-IF’s policies.” In short, Apple, by limiting access to iTunes to Apple-made devices only, isn’t doing anything wrong, at least not according to USB-IF policies.<br /><br />However, Palm’s July 22 complaint letter also contained this: “Palm will shortly issue an update of its WebOS operating system that uses Apple’s Vendor ID number for the sole purpose of restoring Palm media sync functionality.” Here Palm is saying it plans to issue software to the Pre that allows it to masquerade as an Apple iPod when talking to iTunes.<br /><br />Under USB-IF’s policy, “Palm may only use the single Vendor ID issued to Palm for Palm’s usage….Usage of another company’s Vendor ID is specifically precluded.” She then gives Palm seven days to “clarify its intent.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-1091027338509085992009-09-18T03:57:17.806-07:002009-09-18T03:57:17.806-07:00Bravo !Bravo !Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-81610475197825499842009-09-17T04:38:31.494-07:002009-09-17T04:38:31.494-07:00Random selection of copied comments from discussio...Random selection of copied comments from discussion at another site: "Palm - who is blatantly breaking their USB Vendor Agreement by spoofing Apple's Vendor ID on the Pre - has filed a complaint against Apple for improper use of their Vendor ID."<br /><br />http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/94c4h/palm_who_is_blatantly_breaking_their_usb_vendor/?sort=top<br /><br /><br />+++<br />It doesn't lock out competitor devices. In fact, it exposes the entire library as an XML file so third party device software can interact with the library. It also offers a rich API. There are also other tools Palm could have licensed if they didn't care to write their own.<br /><br />+++<br /><br />As the hardware vendor, you would create a driver that listened for your USB product ID and vendor ID on the USB bus, and when detected, spin up and sync the playlists you want. To the end user, the only difference would be not having the prefs pane in iTunes but in, say, Control Panels on Windows or System Preferences on Mac.<br /><br />+++<br /><br />Apple's not stopping you. The library is in an open directory structure on your drive you can drag and drop files from, and uses a documented XML data file to list the library files' metadata and point at track paths, giving access to any software that wants it.<br /><br />+++<br /><br />Apple does provide exactly that.<br />They provide an XML data file listing all files with metadata and track location on your drive, so any software can read that XML, easily expose the library to you any way they choose, and then copy/delete files on that third party's storage.<br />The whole point is that Palm did not have to falsify the vendor ID, break USB conventions, etc., and confuse the mom and pop crowd.<br /><br />+++<br /><br />I'm baffled -- should Canon be mad at HP that HP's document management tools only look for HP printers? Should Nikon Capture accept Panasonic cameras as being Nikons?<br />What Apple is doing is checking, in the software, that it's talking to a device it's designed for. Software verifying USB device support is okay.<br />What Canon, HP, Nikon, etc., do with USB, is check that it's talking to a device it's designed for. Software verifying USB device support is okay.<br />What Palm is doing, is lying: claiming to be an Apple device. Hardware spoofing the USB vendor ID is not okay.<br /><br />+++<br /><br />Yeah, how dare Apple spend millions of dollars developing and marketing iTunes and the iPod platform, and then just not allow their competitors to profit off that work. It's almost like they're some type of "business" attempting to "make money."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-68202656569425481212009-09-17T04:37:03.276-07:002009-09-17T04:37:03.276-07:00Here is all you need:
What are the iTunes library...Here is all you need:<br /><br />What are the iTunes library files?<br />http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1660<br />"iTunes Music Library.xml<br /><br />This file contains some (but not all) of the same information stored in the iTunes Library file. The purpose of the iTunes Music Library.xml file is to make your music and playlists available to other applications on your computer. In Mac OS X other iLife applications (like iPhoto, iDVD, and iMovie) use this file to make it easier for you to add music from your iTunes library to your projects."<br /><br /><br />How to re-create your iTunes library and playlists<br />http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1451<br /><br /><br />OS X USB Device Overview<br />http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/DeviceDrivers/Conceptual/USBBook/USBOverview/USBOverview.html<br />"This chapter provides a summary of USB device architecture and describes how USB devices are represented in Mac OS X. It also presents a few specific guidelines for working with USB devices in an application. For details on the USB specification, see http://www.usb.org."<br /><br />Start writing your sync application! It doesn't have to use Objective-C. AppleScript would even do something here. :-) I worked with my neighbours 40,000+ collection of Greek songs and the library files to sort out her duplicates once. I used Terminal and VI editor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-67017184200911814892009-09-16T00:51:30.690-07:002009-09-16T00:51:30.690-07:00@ Michael Mace
Thanks for responding to my commen...@ Michael Mace<br /><br />Thanks for responding to my comments, and for the further elaboration on your own article.ken1wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-47211969260842651202009-09-15T21:56:30.617-07:002009-09-15T21:56:30.617-07:00Anonymous wrote:
>>you need to get out more...<b>Anonymous wrote:</b><br /><br /><i>>>you need to get out more...to Japan.</i><br /><br />Yeah, I haven't been there more than a couple dozen times. <br /><br />That's why I put the comment about Japan in the first paragraph of the post.<br /><br /><br /><i>>> Chill competition? I think not; that's a quitter attitude. </i><br /><br />Tell the government, not me. They're the ones who (in my opinion) Apple is at risk from.<br /><br /><br /><i>>>So limiting access to a company service to that company's devices is somehow an unfair barrier to entry? On what planet? </i><br /><br />Planet DC and Planet Brussels. If the government decides that the service is in effect a standalone business that dominates the market, they could decide that tying other products to it is illegal -- especially when you are using those products to take over new markets. Keep in mind that Steve himself described the video camera market as a separate market that Apple wanted a cut of. Not a wise turn of phrase, in my opinion.<br /><br /><br /><b>Anonymous wrote:</b><br /><br /><i>>>Taligent and Kaleida were not acquired. </i><br /><br />I know. I was reacting to the line about "the biggest failure." Hard to say what was Apple's single biggest failure ever, but I'd put Taligent/Kaleida right up there.<br /><br /><br /><i>>>design by committee is often a failure. Sort of like politics? </i><br /><br />Amen.<br /><br /><br /><b>Anonymous wrote:</b><br /><br /><i>>>they have to build their own sync application to do that. </i><br /><br />Thank you. That's how I thought it worked in the first place.<br /><br />It's a significant competitive barrier, IMO.<br /><br />I'm not saying it's illegal, but it is significant.<br /><br /><br /><i>>>It is first rate engineering steadily building on previous work to improve its earlier work. Management recognizes that and is not taking the short term approach in that regard. How refreshing.</i><br /><br />Agreed. Apple's product planning and execution is superb. That's why it can safely ease up a bit on the iTunes connections without taking on a great competitive risk.Michael Macehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966107280587843091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-61464011184150430152009-09-15T07:34:09.001-07:002009-09-15T07:34:09.001-07:00A simplification for Michael: third party devices ...A simplification for Michael: third party devices using the USB standard need to locate and take the information in the iTunes XML plist files (known to reside in certain folders under certain names but changing as iTunes goes through its historical versions), sort through them as needed to files of songs or playlists, and then take an instruction from the user to copy them or do something with them. In other words, they have to build their own sync application to do that. The files and lists are there.<br /><br />Finally, I borrow the appreciative words of a commentator on an article revealing some of the very new iTunes LP and iTunes Extras coding details at roughlydrafted.com as it expresses what I could not: <br /><br />"The most interesting thing about this to me is how terrific Apple’s long game is and the lack of cynicism. They have a strategy on how to execute that they manage in conjunction with their ability to successfully execute the pieces over time along with their various commitments. They aren’t just hurrying out a bunch of garbage in fear that other companies will beat them to it. They get to it when they can do it right. It reminds me of the Japanese car companies and the philosophy of “constant improvement” which can only be executed over time on a sturdy high quality base."<br /><br />It is first rate engineering steadily building on previous work to improve its earlier work. Management recognizes that and is not taking the short term approach in that regard. How refreshing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-12287077051478971942009-09-15T07:32:45.571-07:002009-09-15T07:32:45.571-07:00Anti trust case
Judge Thomas Jackson had a two par...Anti trust case<br />Judge Thomas Jackson had a two part finding in the US vs Microsoft case. The first part was the finding of fact (Microsoft was a monopoly and had abused its power) and that was not changed by the Appeals Court. It stands for the rest of history, legal or political.<br /><br />The second part, the remedy, was changed by the Appeals Court judge and in the process the DOJ and 20+ states proposed a settlement that the court endorsed.<br /><br />The EU has continued with the punitive fines because its Commissioner Kross has found that Microsoft has not changed its abusive type behaviour that violates its competition laws. It did not open access to nor document its APIs to developers/programmers and it as "tied in" the IE browser to the OS with the exclusion of other browsers when some PC manufacturers could not ship the other other browser without violating the terms Microsoft laid down to them for them to get Windows at OEM prices. <br /><br />Commissioner Kross at least has the back bone to effect change unlike the US Appeals Court judge, 20+ States Attorney Generals and the DOJ. There has been no need for a political remedy as the law as it stands is enforced (vs having a law and even a court finding of fact and then choosing an ineffective remedy decided by political appointed Attorney Generals) Ii is interesting that she still has the will to enforce the rules of the EU competition laws as a head of an authority while at the same time we see several "failures" or diminishing of enforcement standards in the US enforcement agencies; i.e. this DOJ backdown with Microsoft, the SEC failure with banks and finance scandals, the sheriff's department of Antioch with a child molester/kidnapper,...<br /><br />It was a political remedy effected in the US under the Bush Administration pulling off the DOJ but,... it is a legally authorized authority enforcing its existing rules and finding in the EU. Now that says something about the US recently. Money talks in some circles.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-83586348546181256812009-09-15T07:32:05.811-07:002009-09-15T07:32:05.811-07:00Michael wrote:
How quickly we all forget Taligent ...Michael wrote:<br /><i>How quickly we all forget Taligent and Kaleida (or anyway some of us would like to forget). But maybe that doesn't count since it was while Steve was away</i><br /><br />Let not play too loose here.<br /><br />Taligent and Kaleida were not acquired. They were joint ventures between Apple and IBM. They spent and wasted money on it but there was no acquisition or pre-acquisition valuation process of assets and products.<br /><br />They were "done" before Steve Jobs returned. And so there have been acquisitions on the magnitude of the Pure Digital purchase by Cisco.<br /><br />They was again prove design by committee is often a failure. Sort of like politics?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-86928864852100158092009-09-15T02:47:07.247-07:002009-09-15T02:47:07.247-07:00mmmm I don't believe that add a camera to the ...mmmm I don't believe that add a camera to the ipod was a good idea.<br /><br />Here I explain why http://www.andreadenaro.com/why-apple-is-making-wrong-choices-with-the-neUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00748940845682202274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-92215102949311571502009-09-14T23:30:50.266-07:002009-09-14T23:30:50.266-07:00First of all, you need to get out more...to Japan....First of all, you need to get out more...to Japan. Apple products are low-tech and low-density in comparison. But then, it isn't about how many gates you can cram into a given volume; it's about user experience.<br /><br />That point aside, your worry about Apple as some sort of overwhelming competitor with a magic freeze powers is short-sighted thinking. Taking the long view, one sees that stiff competition generally benefits the consumer. Chill competition? I think not; that's a quitter attitude. <br /><br />Does Apple set a high standard? Sure, but artificially low standards due to fear of failure are what gave us our dismal public schools. Translating this backwards and broken thinking to industry is a bad idea unless your goal is to put the last remaining US industries on the GM path to success.<br /><br />So limiting access to a company service to that company's devices is somehow an unfair barrier to entry? On what planet? <br /><br />I applaud Palm's efforts to re-enact the IM wars for the entertainment value of the battle and, IMO, Palm's intelligence in trying to use Apple's power against itself. I certainly do not begrudge Apple for fighting back. If this approach gives Palm time to build its own service, great. If they intend to try to mooch off of iTunes forever, that's fine too. The competition of the developers leads to innovation and the market will decide if it is a good idea.<br /><br />The legality of Apple's actions isn't being questioned by any law professors I know (and they do like to raise such questions.) What have you heard?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-52772168301944001452009-09-14T23:01:36.402-07:002009-09-14T23:01:36.402-07:00Anonymous wrote:
>>The basis of this blog i...<b>Anonymous wrote:</b><br /><br /><i>>>The basis of this blog is really saying that iTunes is a monopoly and that as such something should be done about it. </i><br /><br />Not correct. My point is that Apple is doing things that <i>look like</i> anticompetitive behavior, and that's creating unnecessary political risks for the company.<br /><br /><br /><b>Anonymous wrote:</b><br /><br /><i>>> I can't remember Apple ever acquiring a company for more than the $400 million it acquired for NeXT. Most of their acquisition in the last decade have been in single tens of millions. The biggest failure was the $60 million for school related database company. </i> <br /><br />How quickly we all forget Taligent and Kaleida (or anyway some of us would like to forget). But maybe that doesn't count since it was while Steve was away.<br /><br /><br /><b>Avi wrote:</b><br /><br /><i>>> I was waiting for your comments on how app developers will take the diverging hardware requirements between the iPhone and iPod touch now that some have cameras/GPS/compass/OpenGL 2.0 support, and some don't. </i><br /><br />Yeah, that is a troubling one and it deserves some thinking. But my off-the-cuff reaction when I saw it was that I'm not sure Apple really cares about inconveniencing developers in that way, at least not until they have more serious competition in mobile app platforms. <br /><br /><br /><b>jseliger wrote:</b> <br /><br /><i>>>Take a look at Frost's text for Mending Wall: there's a strong implication that the "fence" of the title keeps the separation between people that's necessary for harmonious social functioning. Under that scheme, Apple's walled-in approach is better for the company and consumers</i><br /><br />Nice one, Jake!<br /><br />But then who is moving in darkness, Apple or Palm?<br /><br />And does that make me an elf?Michael Macehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966107280587843091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-63985887069137915982009-09-14T23:01:01.564-07:002009-09-14T23:01:01.564-07:00ken1w wrote:
>>Way before Apple released iP...<b>ken1w wrote:</b><br /><br /><i>>>Way before Apple released iPhone, there were many mobile phones with still cameras built in. This probably hurt the pocket camera makers. They could not compete by adding phones to their cameras, because they lacked the expertise and resources to build and sell mobile phones.</i><br /><br />Not a great analogy, in my opinion, because the issue isn't only expense. There's an established distribution channel for music, controlled by Apple, that most people are accustomed to using. Apple limits access to that channel. Here's an analogy that I think fits the situation more closely. Say that a big movie studio also owned most of the movie theatres in the country, and refused to run other companies' movies. But the other studios could always build their own chains of theaters, so is that captive chain of theaters an unfair barrier by the big studio?<br /><br />Look up US vs. Paramount Pictures if you want to know the answer.<br /><br /><br /><i>>> If it was smooth sailing for Apple through the 90's (because Microsoft and PC-making partners never grew to dominate), there is no return of Steve Jobs (and no Mac OS X, iMac, iPod, or iPhone); Apple would still be making Newtons and beige Performas running Mac OS 9.9. </i><br /><br />Ouch! I worked in the Performa team for a while.<br /><br />But I think you're right.<br /><br /><br /><i>>> Great companies are not created by feeling sorry for them and giving them charity. </i><br /><br />I actually agree with you about that, but remember my point was not that Apple was necessarily breaking the law, but that its behavior was likely to invite government attention. The two things are very separate, at least when it comes to antitrust.<br /><br /><br /><b>Tim wrote:</b><br /><br /><i>>> Microsoft is still under US court supervision and been fined in Europe</i><br /><br />Actually, if we really want to get picky, I think the score card looked something like this: Microsoft and the US federal government settled their case, Microsoft beat the US states' antitrust case on almost every count, and Europe forced some fairly substantial fines, although Microsoft could and did pay them easily. Even if you call all of those losses for Microsoft, the penalties against them were minor enough that in my opinion you'd call it all a win for Microsoft. That's also the perspective I heard from every lawyer I talked to at Apple and Palm.<br /><br /> <br /><i>>>"Apple is ... already under a lot of legal scrutiny for the way it manages the iPhone App Store." It isn't, because the FCC lacks any legal authority in this area. </i><br /><br />You make an interesting point about the FCC's authority, Tim, but again my point is the politics of the case. Besides, the FTC is the authority that Apple should really be worrying about, and they don't usually preannounce the things they plan to investigate.<br /><br /><br /><i>>>there is no good reason for Apple to give up billions in annual revenue. </i><br /><br />You honestly think Apple would lose billions in revenue by opening up access to iTunes? I doubt they'd lose a cent.Michael Macehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966107280587843091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-64824865838239521372009-09-14T22:59:34.159-07:002009-09-14T22:59:34.159-07:00Thanks for all the comments! It's an interest...Thanks for all the comments! It's an interesting discussion.<br /><br /><br />I think we haven't yet completely clarified what parts of the iTunes experience you do and don't get when you use a non-Apple device. I'm an iTunes user, but unfortunately don't have a non-Apple device to test it with. Here are the questions that I'd love to see answered. If you use a non-Apple device to sync iTunes content:<br /><br />--Can you see that device within iTunes? In other words, when you plug the device into USB, does it show up automatically on the left-hand side of the screen in the iTunes window, where an iPod would appear?<br /><br />--Can you specify from within iTunes which playlists get synced onto that device?<br /><br />--Will the sync happen automatically when you plug in the device and iTunes is running, without the need to write a separate sync app?<br /><br />Thanks in advance.<br /><br /><br />The other general point I want to make is that we all need to differentiate between the political process of competitive regulation and the legal process. Most of you are arguing points of fact and law about whether Apple's behavior is in fact illegal. The thing you need to understand is, <i>it doesn't matter.</i> The antitrust laws in the US and Europe are so vague that, within very broad limits, enforcement depends far more on politics than it does on the actual behavior of companies. That's why the US can swing from aggressive antitrust under Clinton to almost no antitrust under Bush to (apparently) more aggressive antitrust under Obama, without any change in the laws.<br /><br />To a certain extent this happens in all areas of the law, but in competitive regulation the swings are especially big.<br /><br />Regional politics also plays a growing role, as we're seeing in the Oracle/Sun case. Not too many years ago, European authorities would never have questioned a merger being conducted in the US (and vice-versa). That gentleman's agreement has broken down, with the result that both parties are now periodically trying to regulate the other's domestic market.<br /><br />I am not saying that I approve of any of the above, and in fact I think it's a hideous mess. But it's the real world, and the result is that when a company reaches a certain size and visibility, the competitive regulations on it are driven as much by politics as they are driven by the law. A big successful company has to keep itself not just in compliance with the law, but above the appearance of any wrongdoing. That's where I believe Apple is failing, and in my opinion it is a big risk to Apple's future.Michael Macehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966107280587843091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-6877514882744380122009-09-14T22:17:14.745-07:002009-09-14T22:17:14.745-07:00in a way Apple may be right...put yourself in a si...in a way Apple may be right...put yourself in a situation that you created something and someone else is using it without even bothering to tell you that they want to use it or are using it.SDhttp://qtp.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-62789098801218189812009-09-14T21:58:25.409-07:002009-09-14T21:58:25.409-07:00Good fences make good neighbors
Take a look at Fr...<i>Good fences make good neighbors</i><br /><br />Take a look at Frost's text for <a href="http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/frost-mending.html" rel="nofollow">Mending Wall</a>: there's a strong implication that the "fence" of the title keeps the separation between people that's necessary for harmonious social functioning. Under that scheme, Apple's walled-in approach is better for the company and consumers, which seems to be the opposite of what's otherwise implied in your post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-57877744986325214782009-09-14T12:19:35.371-07:002009-09-14T12:19:35.371-07:00Apple still has to wake up to the fact that iTunes...Apple still has to wake up to the fact that iTunes should be a platform. They'd make more money that way, have fewer headaches, and it'd really make the world a better place for everyone:<br /><br /><a href="http://mikecane.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/should-apple-turn-itunes-into-a-platform/" rel="nofollow">Should Apple Turn iTunes Into A Platform?</a><br /><br />Apple would make more from server sales, iTunes platform software sales, and consulting than they could on their current course.Mike Canehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12396654716615965650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-86566099940480144012009-09-14T11:09:53.934-07:002009-09-14T11:09:53.934-07:00Mike, nice thought-provoking stuff. You left out t...Mike, nice thought-provoking stuff. You left out that iTunes isn't just the dominant music management app, but that ITMS is the leading music retailer.<br /><br />While I agree that a camcorder in the nano will impact Cisco's business, I was waiting for your comments on how app developers will take the diverging hardware requirements between the iPhone and iPod touch now that some have cameras/GPS/compass/OpenGL 2.0 support, and some don't.Avi Greengarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14267040237664555562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-39810526785897803172009-09-14T07:52:10.770-07:002009-09-14T07:52:10.770-07:00one thing to note about webkit is that it was base...one thing to note about webkit is that it was based of khtml, a gpl licensed web engine developed for the kde desktop.turn.self.offnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-13498200276984710412009-09-14T07:11:44.186-07:002009-09-14T07:11:44.186-07:00In comparison, I can't remember Apple ever acq...In comparison, I can't remember Apple ever acquiring a company for more than the $400 million it acquired for NeXT. Most of their acquisition in the last decade have been in single tens of millions. The biggest failure was the $60 million for school related database company. It was only in the last year with the PA Semiconductor acquisition that Apple spent more. There are a few more but nobody can remember the names nor the amount as they were too small. But as a result we have Final Cut, Logic Pro, iTunes, iMovie, Motion, Color, Final Cut Server and more and the acquisition record looks decent enough. The Salinas based Cassady & Greene's assets and engineers were for very little money and they re-worked their SoundJam application software into iTunes as Apple engineers. (After all it was located in my birth place of Salinas.) And Apple has never charged for iTunes the software application, including the PC version.<br /><br />Steven Levy documents the roles of Jon Rubinstein, Tony Fadell and Phil Schiller in working three teams to come up with the various aspects of the initial iPod and perhaps it is something for Cisco to follow. I liked it when he revealed the embarrassment of Jobs and Apple they were the last to even have a CD burning capability in their product back in the 1990s as music in MP3 formats exploded on the scene.<br /><br />The Appeals Court documents the role and awful behavior of Microsoft has it has upheld the conviction of Microsoft as an illegal monopoly. It is a decision the Supreme Court declined to hear as an appeal. It is a fact of history.<br /><br />Perhaps Cisco could pay too much to buy the Zune division from Microsoft and add a video camera, phone pedometer, app store, frameworks to develop the apps,...? I heard Skype was on the block and that was last sold for billions.<br /><br />The software frameworks of OS X that the iPhone and iPod Touch must utilize and build on go back to investments and human endeavor made back as far as the 1980s. Pre-Cisco? Dunno.<br /><br />I give Apple management full marks for having the sense and some leadership ability not to go out and spend huge sums of investment money foolishly on businesses they really should not be getting involved with unless they have a more thorough inspection and road plan on how to proceed. Flip cameras were hot sellers when Cisco negotiated the deal without a gun to their head but maybe not so hot when you can get a pretty darn good camera in your cell phone, music player, toaster, garage door opener, lawn mower, noodle bowl and left chopstick (as compared to the right chopstick). Going back and reading some of the Cisco and Pure Digital management interviews at acquisition time provide some light relief. And that was just six months ago before the ground shifted a bit. <br /><br />On a technical note, I am reading the new iTunes 9 application is less a traditional style "application" than ever before as it acts with the WebKit opensource framework through XML instructions (with a few Apple tags) to format for the iTunes store display one sees and someone got the display to work in a WebKit browser.<br /><br />And that raises something else, Apple giving away WebKit to open source. It is used by how many other companies as their cell phone browser of choice over the other browsers available. Being open source, Flip could make use of it somehow. I guess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-81240480969586226952009-09-14T07:11:19.304-07:002009-09-14T07:11:19.304-07:00Maybe you are just looking at this the wrong way.
...Maybe you are just looking at this the wrong way.<br /><br />There are no barriers to Cisco, having even MORE CASH than Apple until possibly this quarter, (or as you put it "unlimited resources") from spending a great amount of that free cash on developing a free cross platform software application for PC and Macs, developing a music, movie and other content store selling the content with and without DRM, negotiating and cutting deals with the egomaniacs running movie studios, TV networks and recording labels, buying the data center space and bandwidth to deliver the content and ensure the DRM works with the appropriate security and privacy and making the Flip work seamless with that content in how many countries other than the USA, home of the free. <br /><br />The same way nothing stopped Cisco from assessing that it was getting value for money when paying $590 million for Pure Digital just last March. Get on with it. <br /><br />They might want to re-think that kind of investment when funds run low in the future. Or even if they don't run low.<br /><br />In effect they were acting in a similar vein as a venture capitalist and hoping that one in twenty of their acquisition hits big time covering up for the other 19. They just did not get in on the first day as a start-up VC and had to pay more. Maybe they shouldn't have.<br /><br />Thankfully it is not a bail-out decision and they are not to big too fail (whatever that means).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com