Why Apple Should Reject Real
Apple is known for creating absolutely perfectly beautiful products. Stubbornly. Arrogantly. But beautifully. From the creation of the first Macintosh to the latest and greatest iPod mini every product has been imbued with a fantastic sense of design and technology. Yes, there have been mistakes, both in production and design. But sights are always set high at Apple. This is why we love Apple�s products. We Apple users may be in the minority. We may never get beyond five percent market share in the personal computing space. It doesn�t matter to me. If you go by music charts most people think Janet Jackson makes music.
Real Networks, on the other hand, has released bloatware and more bloatware. Ever since Real released their player for the Mac the product has been a disaster. Buggy, bizarrely unusable and free and then not free. Real is the antithesis of the Apple user experience. Now Real is getting a little desperate, realizing it is being blown away by Apple in the online music space and that it�s proprietary music format cannot compete against Microsoft�s WMA. Rob Glaser, Real�s CEO now want to cut a deal with Apple. In an act of hubris he whines that Apple is too proprietary as if Real�s format is open source.
I say let Real and Microsoft get together. They deserve each other. In the meantime consumers are letting their voice be heard. iPod sales are simply insane. The iTunes music store is doing great. It may end up that the iPod, in the long run, will only have 5 percent market share. But in the long run I�d rather have smaller market share than compromise the quality of Apple�s products.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
I’m inclined to agree with you and I’m sympathetic to your points, but lost in this whole equation is this idea of doing what’s best for the customer. Very seldom will that principle be at odds with a company’s bottom line anyway, so what does Apple have to fear?
The idea of “hardware lock-in” is anathema to most customers. Imagine if radio receivers sold by one company could pick up signals only from that company’s stations. Or imagine if land-line telephone hardware locked you in to only a specific carrier, and if you switched carriers, then all your phones would instantly become useless. Is THIS the model you advocate for Apple?
I think it’s best for the customer if the iPod supports multiple music formats from multiple sources. Yes, if you take a snapshot of the present, Apple cannot make the iPod fast enough. But what sound management philosophy is predicated on the assumption that market conditions will remain static?
The iTunes Music Store should prevail in the market NOT because of hardware lock-in but rather because Apple designs the most elegant and comprehensive music library available. It should win on the merits. The same goes for the iPod. Since you sing Apple’s praises in this regard, why not have a little faith? Do you fear that customers would either flee ITMS or abandon the iPod as soon as both were opened up? If not, how could IMPROVING a product (by making it more flexible) for Apple’s customers not but HELP Apple and give it that much more of a competitive edge?
Yes, Apple is number one—TODAY. But this isn’t only about a “football” game between companies—to see who will win. Somewhere in this equation is the customer—and let me suggest that what’s best for him (her) has been all but forgotten in this market calculus. (By the way, which product would YOU personally rather have—one which supported all the major audio formats and was compliant with a number of online vendors, or one which locked you in? Would you pay $25 more for the former over the latter?)
Jeff Mincey