Tim Coughlin's Blog

Musings on the iTunes Movie Store

Looking at recent developments I believe I can guess at where Apple will go with the iTunes Movie Store. I’m not an insider however and this is all purely speculation, but it would make sense from many viewpoints.

This week we heard that Apple upgraded the bandwidth on .Mac accounts to 1Tb. 1Tb, thats huge! So the question to ask would be what could possibly need that kind of bandwidth? The natural answer is that in the near future Apple will be pushing video streams through broadband into peoples’ homes. This is the natural conclusion which everyone is coming to, but it leaves one significant question. How will this link in with the iPod. One assumes that because the video is streamed it will not be stored locally on a users computer thereby leaving the iPod out of the loop.

At the same time however, it does answer the critics questions about the quality of the video Apple is offering. With a streaming service in place, using h.264, Apple could significantly up the quality of the video to the extent it would look great on large wide screen TVs. This is critical in my view, as quite frankly the downloads available currently are fine for the iPod, but thats about it.

This leads me to believe Apple will offer a dual video service.

The first element will indeed be a high quality video streaming subscription service coupled with an upgraded Mac mini unit, or more likely an Airport express : video. I believe that both of these products will appear, but I think an upgraded Airport will be first. The main reason for this is that it will be a hard sell if people have to buy a computer to gain access to the videos. I see more opportunity for Apple if they give away a small unit to plug into the TV with every subscription, using their computer as the main control point. The Mac was always meant to be the digital hub after all.

The second element will be a download service implemented as it is currently in the US, providing the iPod link. This will probably not encompass feature length movies, but will instead be a vehicle for TV shows and music videos. I believe that the movie studios are reluctant to allow users to download movies onto local storage because of their fear of piracy. It also explains the relatively poor battery life for video playback on the current iPod. The 30Gb would barely show a whole movie. It does however comfortably play back a few music videos and a TV show or two, with some battery spare for music.

Between these two services Apple would have all the bases covered. People will watch movies, TV shows and music videos on their TVs, wirelessly streamed from their computer. Then, should they want to purchase TVs shows or music videos they could transfer them to the iPod and run.

The only question remaining is, will the streaming video service include the TV shows and music videos currently available to buy individually? My guess is that TV shows will be available to buy or stream, movies only to stream, and music videos only to buy. We shall see. Anyways, those are my thoughts, let me know what you think.

[UPDATE]
As pointed out by xavier below (thanks!) it has recently been stated that the .Mac bandwidth upgrade was a mistake. ( http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20060103085453163 ). It could be that Apple is trying to build up hype for Macworld with a stunt to spark speculation in the media. Any ideas?

Feature Request for iPod Shuffle

This is just a short blog today, I'm tired and looking forward to Christmas! I was playing with one of the new iMac remotes recently and I thought it was pretty cool. I hope that in the coming months it will be compatible with all the desktop and laptop lineup. I also got a gift from a drug rep today, an integrated laser pointer and powerpoint controller which works a treat. These two things got the thinking.

I noticed that the Shuffle bears more than a passing resemblance to the remote packed with the iMac. And here is the idea. Why not make the shuffle a combined remote along with all the stuff it does now?

There would be a number of benefits to this, not least of which would be that Apple could market the iMac (and possibly other hardware) as coming with a free iPod. This could only serve to emphasize the halo effect. As a byproduct of this the shuffle could be used for many things. Controlling Frontrow is a given but there are many potential uses for a remote. It would be awesome if I could control my Keynote/Powerpoint presentations in the hospital using the same piece of hardware I listen to music with, plus be able to use it at home or elsewhere to control my (Mac controlled) TV set.

Naturally this would push up the price of the Shuffle as a stand alone item, given this idea would require it to integrate Bluetooth/IR (preferably the former). But as I see it the nano has rained on its parade, something which is only going to get more significant if they release a 1Gb nano as has been mentioned on the Web recently. Why not stop selling the Shuffle as a standalone iPod but supply it as a bundle with all Macs?

Anyway, just a thought. Have a good Christmas everyone!

Review of the Etymotic ER 6is (and comparison to Shure E2cs and standard iPod buds)

I bought these headphones about two weeks now because my standard iPod headphones broke (again) and I decided I did not like my Shure E2cs anymore. My main complaint with the Shures was that they did not stay inside my ears and quite frankly they look like hearing aids! Anyway, after extensive research the Etymotics seemed like the best value for money so I went for them. Anyone thinking of buying these phones should look on Amazon where you can get them shipped for £79 rather then the £99 being asked on Apple’s website.

In this review I will comment on the Etymotics performance in a number of areas and will compare their performance with that of the Shures and the standard iPod buds.

Looks and Design
The Etymotics look pretty slick on first impression. They are specifically designed for the iPod and so naturally come in white. The jack is a ‘straight up’ design rather than the more common ‘L’ shape as employed by Shure which ensures they are compatible with all the current crop of iPod cases. As standard they come with innocuous white flanged tips, which when worn are buried into the ear leaving only the small clear plastic driver units on show. If anything they are less intrusive than the standard iPod earbuds and significantly better looking than Shure’s design.

The cable is very similar in thickness to the standard iPod buds and significantly thinner than the Shures. Some reviewers have described it as fragile but this is not my impression and I have friends who have had these buds for quite some time experiencing no problems related to this. The cable is about 1ft longer than the iPod buds, something which I find fairly irritating but this is because I exclusively carry my iPod in my trouser pocket. I can see this length being useful for those who carry their iPod in their bag or use it for snowboarding etc.

Comfort
In this area reviews have very conflicting opinions. I have found that the Etymotics are comfortable when properly inserted. They do sit deep in your ear canal and I can see how this would be uncomfortable for some, but with all canal phones the design must be to accommodate the largest number of people and some will always be left out in the cold. After about two hours of use I did find my right ear canal ached a bit but I do not find this a major issue and after a few minutes rest I am good to go again.

Just a quick note on correct insertion of the ER 6is: The technique I have found most successful is to hold the phones between forefinger and thumb, moisten the ends and place them into the ear canal. Then pulling backwards on the ear canal with the index and middle finger gently push the ear phones into the canals with your thumb. I find this is easiest if the wire coming out of the bottom of the bud is angled about 30 degree forwards. It is important not to push in too far, just to the point where a seal is obtained.

Some reviews say that these headphones sound tinny and very poor quality. I can categorically state that these people are not inserting the buds properly. I experimented by placing them into my ears without creating a proper seal and in these circumstances I was able to reproduce the sound they are experiencing. Of course it could be that these people have very abnormal ear canals preventing a proper seal, or they just have damaged hearing requiring an abnormally high level of bass, and I must stress the word ABNORMAL.

In my experience the comfort afforded by the standard iPod buds was very good provided the included foam covers was used. If they are left off then the buds quickly become painful in the ear. The Shures were of similar comfort in the ear canal to the Etymotics but the design requires that the cord passes over the top of the ear and this I found to be annoying from the inevitable tugging in the cord when walking.

Accessories
The Etymotics ship in a plastic sealed pack containing the phones themselves, a black carrying case with velcro fastener (nice) and a packet containing two orange foam replacement buds, two filters for the buds and a nice metal filter changing tool. It is worth mentioning that if you are not happy with the buds supplied alternative designs can be requested from Etymotic at no extra cost, though if you want a few replacements you will have to pay for them.

The Shures again come in a plastic pack which contains small, medium and large orange foam buds and a hard round carrying case which is also a nice extra. The standard iPod buds come only with two sets of the foam bud covers.

Sound
Finally, the most important section, the sounds. In this area the Etymotics really lived up to their rave reviews. I decided to burn the phones in by playing music through them for 15 hours before trying them. It is questionable if this is necessary and Etymotic do not state that it is, but I think its sensible so its up to you.

My first impressions was that the sound quality was excellent. When the phones are correctly inserted with a good seal the bass is very good, but it does not overpower the rest of the audible spectrum. Overall the sound is very crisp and clean with no areas over or under represented. You really appreciate the difference for acoustic, classical and jazz music, doubly so if it is encoded with ALC (lossless).

If you are coming to these from the standard iPod phones you will notice the difference immediately. They articulate each note as if you were standing in front of the band/orchestra itself. You will be able to pick out instruments playing the parts whereas before all you could identify was the note itself. Low notes come over warm and rich, the midtone instruments hum melodically and the high pitched notes come over crisp but without the irritating sibilance than can plague cheaper earphones. Overall the soundstage is very impressive and will open your eyes to elements of the music you simply did not know were there before.

The Etymotics give some other sound improvements over other comparable phones such as the Shure E2cs, which are worth noting. When I was using my Shures one of the most annoying things was the transmission of tapping and brushing on the cable up into the earphones. This was one my main dislikes of these phones and in the end caused me to sell them. This problem is vastly reduced in the Etymotics, so much so that I barely notice it anymore (note that this is recognised in all ‘canal’ phones to a greater or lesser degree).
Secondly, the sound isolation is fantastic with the Etymotics. They block out most of the external noise around you though probably not significantly more than the Shures. They make it easy to enjoy most music when walking about a city without interruption, a godsend for commuting though it could also prove dangerous if you do not keep your wits about you.

Conclusion
Overall I am very happy with my new Etymotic ER 6is and would recommend them unreservedly to anyone on the market for some phones for their iPod. They offer very significant improvements over the standard iPod buds in almost all areas and they give significant enough improvements in other areas for me to recommend them over the Shure E2cs despite their price premium. Etymotic are onto a winner with this one.

If you are thinking of buying these phones I would be very grateful if you used my amazon link on this page, or one of the links on the left side. I’m running a bit short of cash at the moment and have lots of medical books to buy before finals next year! Thanks.

Why Its Legal to Rip DVDs and Download Movies ... Well Sometimes.

I’m not a lawyer so please forgive me of any of these comments are off the mark. Feel free to correct me at the bottom of the page.

Anyway, the basis of this argument is that as it stands it remains legal to record any TV show onto VHS, DVD or DVR. This was contested back in the days of betamax (Sony’s losing technology in the race with VHS), where it was ruled legal to record provided the recording was only for personal use.

Taking this a little further, we can understand how the latest TivoToGo offering can come about. This service allows you to record shows you want from the TV, transfer them to your computer and finally re-encode them so they are suitable to be played on the iPod or PSP. At no point along this chain is the premise that the recordings could be for personal use only broken.

This is where I start to get into deep and rather murky waters. If we then take another look at what is allowed here, it seems that after a show or film has been broadcast on network television it has become a part of the public domain. This would have been less true in the days of VHS where you had to remember to set the timer or you wouldn’t have the program recorded. But now with products like Tivo, it even records shows that you didn’t ask it to. And with very quick few clicks you can have it record all your favorite shows without missing a beat. So under these circumstances are we not allowed to own a digital copy of any show or film which has been broadcast, provided it is for personal use?

The natural progression of this argument is to say then, why can’t i rent a DVD and rip it, or download TV shows from the internet provided it has been shown on network television. I mean I could have recorded it when it was shown and so owned a legal digital copy of the show on my iPod. How does it make any difference how those bits of data appeared on my device? Provided I do not share the files with others I am not breaking my original agreement.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not naive. I do realise that the MPAA et al have made other steps in my process illegal, for example the act of decoding the content of a DVD itself. I can’t think of any measures yet in place which criminalizes the downloading of this content from p2p networks however though with movies from DVD, at some point someone has broken the law.

This is a very superficial look based on my limited understanding of the legalities in the area. It is food for thought though ...

Review of the New 5G iPod ‘video’.

I have owned the new iPod ‘video’ for the last few weeks and I thought I would share my experiences of the product. I won’t pretend I can compete with the excellent review at ilounge.com, but nonetheless I am going to push on with my feelings about the newest addition to the iPod family.

First and foremost the iPod remains a product dedicated to the listening and enjoyment of music. In this respect it differentiates itself little over its predecessors, gaining a few relatively small advantages. The first of these is that with the increase in screen size, the album art can be viewed better than before. Secondly there are reports that this latest update to the iPod ushers in a new gold standard for iPod audio quality only matched by the shuffle. Having owned a 3G, 4G, nano, shuffle and 5G I can say that subjectively there is very little difference to be heard between all these iPods. This is especially true if using the supplied (and as usual disappointing) ear buds. Worth mentioning is that this iPod does seem to get rid of the problem of hard drive ‘static’ noise when skipping between tracks. I never really found this to be an issue but I know it was to some, so its a good thing it has finally been banished.

Another area in which this iPod picks up the baton of its predecessor is in that of photo functionality. In this area the iPod has picked up a couple of improvements. The most obvious of these is that a series of transitions have been added that were not previously available, including the popular ‘page flip’ and ‘cube’. Admittedly this is just eye candy, but it is pretty cool especially when outputted to a TV. The second improvement again relates to the increased screen size and quality. The pictures on the built in screen look excellent as do the transitions, making the experience of sharing pictures on the iPod much more viable than in the previous model.

Obviously there is one significant feature which I have not mentioned as yet. This new iPod is capable of playing video, both on its built in screen and on a connected TV. This is big news, and I think a lot more of this will be made in both future versions of the iPod and iTunes. As it stands this feature is an adjunct to the iPod as a music player, and is not intended to make the iPod a true multimedia platform .... not yet anyway.
The first experience I had with video was with downloading the music video ‘Nelly - Ride Wit Me’ from the iTMS for the princely sum of £1.89. Before I go on I will register my irritation that the UK is paying more than any other country for the services on the iTMS. Indeed the gap has widened with video content, and I dread to think what we will be charged when TV shows make it onto out store. That aside, the download was painless enough and the video transferred to my iPod with no problems.
The first thing I noticed when I played the video was that it was in a widescreen format, not the native 320x240 resolution of the iPod screen. Because of this, the display size was effectively halved making the video look quite tiny. Here we have the first problem that the iPod is going to face in the future. All TVs and almost all Macs now ship with a widescreen display. If Apple is going to make a serious play for multimedia distribution it is going to have to supply all of its video in widescreen, but in doing so it is going to create a problem for iPod users. It attempts to rectify the issue by making a widescreen on/off option available in the ‘video settings’ screen. This is not ideal however, because you of course loose a block of video from either side of the original. I don’t see an easy resolution to this presenting itself, but its not my problem to solve! Ignoring this the quality of this first video purchase was not bad at all. It was smooth and the colors were good. There was evidence in the picture that it was heavily compressed however, and so in truth I was a little disappointed.
The story does not end there however. The iPod does not only support content from the iTMS, but can play any file provided it is converted to the correct format using Quicktime (painfully slow) or any other appropriate software. The iPod is commonly quoted as supporting video up to a resolution of 320x240 for h.264 and 480x480 for Mpeg4, but this is not actually true, at least not regarding Mpeg4. Using Handbrake I ripped a copy of Love Actually I had on DVD to a resolution of 704x304 . This played smoothly on the iPod, and more importantly when outputted to a TV screen it looked excellent. From a relatively near sofa I could not tell the difference between it and the dvd (using a 30” widescreen).
When taking this into account the iPod becomes a more attractive product from a video perspective. It will indeed be a pain converting content to put on the device, but it is important that it can be done to a quality which by all accounts is rather good. I would also speculate that this could be the beginning of a new format to sweep the Bittorrent and Kazza networks, iPod ready, high quality files. If this comes to pass, Apple’s addition of TV shows to the iTMS could be significantly undermined, something I am not bothered about personally given the excessive pricing (I rather suspect the blame for this lies with the content providers rather than Apple).

The new iPod carries a few more surprises and features which deserve a mention. This the the first large iPod the come in plain black (the U2 iPod had a red clickwheel), and I think this is a welcome addition to the line up. I myself opted for the black because in my opinion video looks better on the screen with a dark surround.
Sadly the iPod no longer supports firewire. I believe this decision was taken because the removal of firewire allows hardware to be taken out of the iPod making it both smaller and cheaper. However, it is a pain the backside for users who do not have USB 2.0 on their computers, as i don’t on my first generation 12” powerbook. I would say that using USB 1.0 is not as dire as some people make out and unless you extensively use the iPod as an external drive there should not be a problem. I have found it an irritation, nothing more.
A few extras have been made to the software, which are nice though none of them are groundbreaking. They are the addition of multiple time-zone clocks, a stopwatch and a screen lock. I can’t say that I have made use of any of them but it is possible that they will be useful to other people, and their inclusion is certainly no cause for complaint.
A couple of other irritations have crept in to this update to the iPod. The first, one which could be quite significant to some people, is the omission of the peripheral port on the top of the device. I am not sure why Apple would drop this, but it kills support for quite a number of devices including the iTrip. Second is that on many of units the battery indicator is very inaccurate. I have found that despite a full charge the iPod can show my remaining battery to be in the red. On using the device however, the battery DOES perform to specifications and I typically get over 14 hours of playback from the 30Gb model. This software glitch will hopefully be remedied in a future firmware update but no further information on the issue has been forthcoming.
I will end by commenting on the recent ‘screen scratching’ stories. In my experience this iPod is equally susceptible to scratching as previous models and I would recommend using the included pouch to protect the device.

Overall I am very happy with the new iPod and I think it offers a worthwhile upgrade to users of the 4G iPod including the photo version. The main benefits are the great quality screen, the larger capacity for the same price and the inclusion of embryonic video support. The cons are the removal of firewire support and peripheral connector, and the dodgy battery indicator.

The Mac is Not Apple's Past, its as Important as the iPod to the Future. (Response to Jon Stokes at Ars Technica).

I’m going to make this one relatively short and sweet, I just felt the need to say something about the ‘interesting’ ideas coming from Jon "Hannibal" Stokes over at Ars Technica. He has been exploring the break up between Apple and IBM, and discussing the future of Apple. In these musings he comes to the conclusion that the Mac is the past and the “post-PC gadget (as exemplified by the iPod)” is the future. And yes, I did read the cute disclaimer the the bottom about how his prediction is not a death knell, merely a statement that the iPod and its yet to be released brethren is the future. But this is just an escape clause to prevent a load of Mac ‘zealots’ flaming him and filling up his inbox.

But here is the thing. The iPod and the Mac are totally and utterly separate devices, with no overlap at all. None. Nope, not even a teensy bit. So unless the argument is that the iPod will some day replace the Mac, or even if it is that the iPod will become a more important part of Apple in the future, the argument is wrong.

I have no doubt that Steve Jobs wants to own all digital media distribution, music, video, hell even maybe literature as e-books some day. The iPod has given him the foot in the door and he is not going to let go easily. Especially not if, as could reasonably assumed, Microsoft would take the market without Apple’s ongoing presence. And I see that this could lead to an argument which assumes that the Mac will stay fairly static, while the iPod and its brethren financially dwarf the Mac.

But here’s the thing, the Mac is Steve Jobs baby. It has been the core of Apple for almost its entire life. It seems to me that SJ is planning a full out assault on the media production world, and will use the success to carry the Mac along with it. The iPod halo effect is well documented, and I believe its evidence can be seen in the latest quarterly earnings. I also believe that iPod sales will have to start to plateau. In fact it really is inevitable the the demand for the iPod will slow, as there can only be a finite number of people who actually want one, no matter how good the iPod is.

Which brings me onto my point really. The market for the Mac is potentially infinitesimally larger than the iPod and probably any successor that could follow. And Apple is applying and equal amount of strategic import to the Mac, though they may be keeping rather quieter about it than with iPod/iTMS. The recent announcement of a shift to Intel is a big an indication as there could be to say; Microsoft, we’re coming after you. If SJ and the Apple team have their way, in 20 years time they will hold a significant portion of both the PC world, and the online media distribution networks. But neither will significantly outweigh the other, and it is foolish to say that the Mac as a chapter in Apple’s history is coming to and end.

As they say, only time will tell.

iPod. The Radio of The Future?

After the latest update to iTunes, it can’t have escaped anyone that Podcasting has now become mainstream. I must admit that I am fairly new to the world of Podcasting myself, having only started using iPodderX about 4 months ago. The big question that Apple’s move poses is, will the iPod become the radio of the 21st century? Since its inception many would argue that the iPod was in fact just that, a radio where the songs were a collection of your own personal greatest hits, without the inconvenience of adverts and moronic DJs interrupting with banal irrelevant conversation. But the flaw in this argument was that the iPod could not easily cater for spoken word content, audiobooks excepted of course. Now, this final barrier has been lifted.

So what is out there at the moment? Well, I would have to say that it is a fairly hit and miss rag bag of around 7000 amateur and some more professional offerings. As it stands, I think traditional radio probably has some mileage left in it.

Before I go on, I would like to mention what is by far my favorite podcast at the moment. If anyone reading this is interested in wine, I would strongly recommend they give ‘Grape Radio’ a try. I have been a listener since their first show, and they present a great 30 minute each week, in which they interview some very interesting people in the trade, and talk about some of their favorite wines. They can be found by going to www.graperadio.com or searching for ‘Grape Radio’ in iTunes podcast directory.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. One of the interesting things I noticed at the podcast directory is that some of the larger news corporations and broadcasters are starting to get in on the action, not least of which is the BBC. I remember, quite some time ago now, I sent an e-mail to someone at the Beeb imploring them to make their shows available for download, rather then just streams on the website. Maybe someone over there listened. Anyway, looking forward a few months it would not surprise me if we started seeing more content from big sources being made available.

One of the best things about podcasting in its current state is that it is free. I fear that as more mainstream broadcasters get in on the action, we will start to see charges being made for the downloads. It is clear that this could be implemented at the flick of a switch on iTunes, as the whole Podcast directory is integrated into the current infrastructure of the iTunes Music Store. Quite what effect this would have I am not sure. One thing I do know is that if someone gets greedy, it will kill the momentum in growth we are seeing at the moment. At the same time however, it may mean we start to see some real top quality programs being made available.

If we assume that at some point we will start paying for certain podcasts, the question is then; will this be an a la carte payment scheme as we see currently in the iTMS, or will the long fabled feature of a subscription model rear its head? It opens up an intriguing series of possibilities.

First, it could be that there will be a variety of models employed. Maybe there will be a podcast only subscription fee, leaving the music side of things as they are today. Maybe, there will be a tiered subscription model, with an option to include an all you can eat music service as well as a podcast only model. Or it could be that the podcasters will be free to set their own pricing, some remaining free, some charging varying amounts, probably depending on the quality of the content.

There is one possibility which i find much more interesting that all of these however. We might see a hybrid version of ‘music radio’ and an all you can eat subscription model of music downloads. One of the greatest arguments against subscription models is that there is just no point in having that much choice. You know what you like, but it would take forever to soft through the million or so songs to actually find good songs, and most people do not have that kind of time. But what if you have BBC Radio 1 DJs running a daily or weekly show, where they essentially build a playlist which then becomes their radio show? You subscribe to it as a podcast, but the twist is as you are listening, you find a song you like and you then pay for the permanent download. Many people used to find what music they liked by listening to the radio, this way it is made very easy to then obtain the music you like, while someone else does the hard work finding the gems in the million song online catalogues.

Now it may be that some kind of system already exists in the subscription stores, which is similar to this concept. I wouldn’t know. I have never used one because none are Mac compatible. I also remember hearing rumors that people were thinking of implementing a system like this into digital radio. But you can bet that Apple’s implementation would be so elegant it would put any other to shame. Plus it would all be iPod compatible, and quite frankly if its not, what’s the point in it existing?

I see an interesting future in podcasting, and I see no reason why in time it could not eventually supplant radio. It won’t be for a while yet however. All this can only serve to increase the foothold iPod has in the market, making it an ever more compelling product.

Does Apple Need To License Fairplay?

I don’t mean this question in the context of, ‘if Apple doesn’t license then they will die’. I mean, does Apple need to license Fairplay, or is there another way? The argument goes that, if Apple keeps itself in a corner refusing to play with other vendors, with time they will inevitably shed market share until they are a bit player just as happened with the iPod’s big brother the Mac.

But the idea that came to me is, why can’t they repeat the process they went through with the ‘Apple iPod from HP’, but include their own software as well. The idea here is to allow companies like Dixons, Tesco etc to have their own storefront which open in iTunes, and then pay them the amount they pay out to affiliates for each song sold through ‘their’ store. The companies could also have their own brand iPods for sale, giving them a complete digital music solution with almost no financial risk.

How this could be implemented is an interesting question. One possibility is to allow the already web based iTMS run from within the relevant companies websites, rather than tie it to iTunes. Some might say this is a bad idea because it would reduce the number of iTunes downloads (and therefore Quicktime). This is not the case however, because as soon as someone bought a song they would have to download it anyway, and to take the song with them again, they would need iTunes for their iPod.

A second option is to have the iTMS remain within iTunes itself, but allow a certain amount of branding to occur on the software itself. For example when you click on iTMS you could get a cover screen saying the “iTunes Music Store from xxxxxx”. Then click through into to store. You could even cede some of the design process of the store itself to the managing company.

A third option is the give complete control of the store to the company running it, with the exception that the links to the music being downloaded are to Apple’s server farms. I guess this is very similar to how many of the stores popping up today are being built on Loudeye, or OD2 or whatever its called.

I don’t really see a downside for Apple in any of these circumstances, especially the latter one. If someone comes up with a naff looking design from within iTunes it could reflect badly on the slick image built by Apple. But if they are running a store which has no brand association with Apple (apart from the iPod, which Apple would remain control of), then surely this could only be good for Apple.

I would ramble for a bit, but it was just announced that London just won the Olympic bid, so I’m going to go and celebrate now. And I would like to give a big Churchill style V sign to Chirac, and let him know that the best country won. The French are an ignorant country who lost the bid because of their own arrogance. Commiserations to all the other countries who lost, especially the NY bid.

Apple Dropping Hardware? No. (A response to Allan Warner @ Geek.com)

I’m feeling very relaxed today. I just got back from a weeks holiday which I have to say was very much needed, plus I got a killer tan which is always nice. Anyway, I was just scanning through today’s news and noticed an article by Allan Warner over at Geek.com. I’m not going to attack this like I did those two comments in my last piece. But I am going to have to say that I think Allan is wrong. No bones about it, just flat out wrong. I’m sure he doesn’t think that he is. I’m sure he thinks that I’m just another mac zealot, two bit blogger who thinks he knows more than he really does. But this is one of those topics that crops up again and again, and those who make the ‘software’ claims seem to be missing the big picture.

The first question Allan asks is, “Should you purchase a Macintosh with a PowerPC microprocessor between now and when the switchover is final?”. His answer is yes, and I quite agree with him on this. The next generation of OSX, Leopard, will be released at the end of 2006 and will be compatible with both PPC and x86 offerings. I expect the next iteration of OSX after that to present itself mid to late 2008, though this is pure speculation. This too will almost certainly support both architectures given the last PPC offering will roll off the production lines in 2007. So I would expect full current software support from Apple, and therefore other developers, until well into 2010. Most people buying macs will be on an upgrade cycle of around 3 years, and those that aren’t will probably never know there was a transition in the first place. Given this, there is no rational reason not to recommend people buy a Mac whenever they want. Most likely, they will see the transition as seamless, just like Apple wants. They will never really know anything changed anyway.

The second question is where it all goes wrong however. Allan asks, “Will Apple still be selling Macs in, say, 2008?”. His answer is that he doubts it. Hmmm. First he says that Apple will pull out of the desktop business, and possibly even the laptop business. Is this seriously likely to happen in the next 3 years? Especially given that Apple’s dominant market share are in areas where the power and screen sizes afforded by desktops are critical. Is video editing going to be done on Powerbooks in future, I think not. Well unless Apple releases a 30” Powerbook in the future. Plus, I can’t see Apple transitioning to Intel hardware, then dumping it within the year. Seems like a waste of R&D money to me!

Next Allan says that OSX will run on any off the shelf Intel hardware, irrespective of any efforts Apple makes to stop this, and they most certainly will. I have no doubt that some ‘Geek’ in his basement will be able to crack any preventative measures that Apple employs. But are his parents going to be able to? And are businesses likely to use a ‘crack’ in order that they can change their PCs to OSX? The answer is no. Even if it is possible, the majority of people will never know how, nor will they even know its possible in the first place. Anyone who thinks otherwise, is naïve.

To become a software only company is also a very unattractive economic proposal. Apple makes its money off hardware sales. Its hardware often has high margins, hovering around the 20% mark on average. On some items it makes more and on some less. Nonetheless this is much more than most, if not all, of the commodity hardware makers. While it is true that Apple also makes a lot of high margin software for specialist industries, it sells very little of this to the consumer market. If Apple wants to grow as a company, its the consumer market it knows it needs to go after. This is proved by the release of the Mac mini. So an argument based on the fact that Apple can ditch hardware and keep going on sales of its pro software is clearly wrong. iLife sales are not going to carry the company, I can assure you.

Allan’s next paragraph is amusing, because it states, “Apple will sell computers as long as it can earn a very good return.” Why is it that this situation, which currently exists, is going to change because of a move to Intel processors? Assuming that the move is as smooth as I expect it will be, no CONSUMER is ever going to know a switch was made in the first place. The same people as before are going to be coming through the doors, because they love Apple’s hardware design and the strength and stability of OSX on top of this. The only conceivable effect on an Intel shift ,is that some more people might be coming through the door buying Macs, because now they can install Linux and/or Windows on the machines as well. Oh look, now Apple is making even more cash on hardware sales, irrespective of any potential for future software sales.

Then Allan makes one of the commonest mistakes I see written. He says, “However, soon it [Apple] will compete with the Dells, Gateways, and Lenovos of the world, which sell commodity computers.” A change to Intel chips IN NO WAY means that Apple is now in competition with the commodity PC makers any more than it ever was. Its loyal customer base, though it may flux from time to time, will remain as it is today. Where the game becomes interesting, is when consumers realise they can buy a Mac, run Windows and/or its applications on it, and enjoy the stability that OSX affords on top of all this. The consequence of this is that Apple gobbles up the executive PC market, today held by companies such as Sony, and probably takes some of the business away from the commodity makers too, when consumers realise the value of owning the Mac over any other computer.

I could go on and on about this, but I have only one more comment to make, which could possibly be the most important factor at play. Apple is Steve Jobs’ company. Steve Jobs is a hardware guy, and always has been. As long as he is in control it is almost inconceivable that Apple would ever transition into a software only company. Who would want them to anyway? I love the hardware I buy from Apple. Without it, I would struggle to find anything I even wanted to buy at all, whether I could install OSX on it or not.

Two of the Stupidest Comments About the Apple - Intel Deal, Ever.

I was surfing the forums over at www.macdailynews.com and while browsing away I read a couple of comments responding to the MacIntel deal, one of which shows a total lack of knowledge and the other is so irritatingly incorrect it’s keeping me awake. No seriously, I read it at 23:00 and its now 2:00 in the morning, and unless I write this now, I’m not going to sleep tonight. I hope that the authors themselves, or anyone who agrees with them reads this, so that they can stop spreading total crap on forum message boards.

The first comment reads like this,
“Customers don´t want to have to buy new software and hardware every two years...”,
courtesy of a character called ‘Handsdown’. OK. So what is this meant to mean exactly, that because Apple is shifting to Intel processors we are all going to have to chuck our current hardware? Im going to help you out here: No, it doesn’t. First, lets assume that you have just bought a brand new Mac today (lucky hypothetical bugger that you are). I assume what our friend here thinks, is that because Apple’s shift to Intel will be completed by 2007, this computer will be obsolete by then and that any software coming out after that date will then require an Intel Mac, hence “every two years”. The obvious shootdown to this stupid logic would be to point out that software is going to be written in universal binaries that support both the PPC and x86 platforms for years to come. Why wouldn’t it, its a checkbox option in XCode for Gods sake. But ignoring this point for a second, did ‘Handsdown’ seriously think that overnight, software developers would drop support for 99% of their market? Most of the Macs in use in 2007 are going to be PPC, and will prbably be the majority for a long time to come. Is it likely that software developers are going refuse to sell their software to these people? Well if they do, it’s their funeral.

The second comment, and it pains me to read it again now, is in fact a response to the first comment above. The little gem reads,
“Agreed, especially now that it'll be the same chips as in a Dell. Apple will put commodity hardware in a fancy case and charge a premium for it. Wintel users will continue to scoff as they will still have to buy in to proprietary Apple hardware to run OS X. This is going nowhere”.
We have someone called ‘Macintels’ to thank for this one. I’m going to break this one down in stages to analyse the stupidity step by step.
First, yes Intel do make chips for Dell, that is correct. Does anyone care? No. Firstly, we have no confirmation on what chip the first Macs will be shipping with anyway. It may be one of Intel’s new processors which will appear in the Mac first as a showcase. It may even be specifically designed for the Mac, (allowing Intel to trash all the useless CISC relics its forced to tac onto its chips, and create something much more slick) with Dell and the Intel crowd wishing they could join the party. Secondly, its only a processor, and whatever computer it is in, its what it processes that matters (ie Dells process Windows, Macs process OSX).
The next ‘point’ is that somehow this is going to lead to Apple putting out “commodity hardware”. How is this so? I find it hard to believe that Apple is going to stop designing its own boards, but even if it does, provided the new MacIntels works like the Powerbook I’m writing this on, what do I care what’s inside? And yes this Powerbook does have a “fancy case” which I probably paid a “premium” for. But why would I mind this, because its clear for all to see that my Aluminium case with immaculate build quality and fantastic durability (it looks like the day I bought it) COST MORE to manufacture in the first place, than Dells oh so fetching black plastic (which is cracked or broken within a year of purchase). And the fact my Powerbook is so well built, etc precludes it from being commodity hardware in the first place. (I’m ignoring of course that this joker is wrong about Apple’s hardware costing more than a comparative Dell in the first place anyway).
Next, apparently us Mac users are the butt of some joke that only Windows users get. When oh when will people learn that part of the reason the Mac is so superior, is that Apple control the whole widget. Its NOT a bad thing. And quite frankly given that Apple makes the BEST hardware in the industry anyway, why am I supposed to be upset about being ‘locked in’? Even if Apple hardware ran only Windows, and OSX never existed, I would still be buying their computers for the build quality. And the fact that they make OSX just makes the whole package doubly more appealing.
Finally we hear “its all going nowhere”. Right. Hmmmm. So Apple shifting to Intel because IBM couldn’t deliver faster or cooler chips (and tried to shaft Apple for more money) is standing still is it? This deal will result in faster Macs and much better Laptops with better battery life and cooler chips, not to mention that I’d guess we will be seeing some implementation of WiMAX sooner than most in the industry. Yep, its all going nowhere. There will be the potential for droves of switchers because for the first time Windows applications will run on Macs at full speed. Thats clearly not a step forward either. I could go on, but I’m too tired, but there are many many more reasons why this is a step forward, obviously all elusive to the joker who wrote the post.

Well, thats my rant over. To be honest this is probably an over reaction. But its so annoying when ignorant people post things to try and spread FUD. Gets right up my nose. Anyway, I’m going to bed now. I’ll have a more constructive post ready to put up soon.