Glaser turns wrath on Apple, Jobs

Cnet ^ | 12/05/2005 | Greg Sandoval

[Bush2000]

Have you guys seen SlingBox?

It supposedly allows you to view media from anywhere. I would expect that, as bandwidth becomes cheaper and more plentiful, many of these portable devices will become nothing but lightweight clients for remote content.

Cellular network providers have been building out their networks for video and other services for the past few years. The problem there is that cell providers tend to look at the AIR TIME/BANDWIDTH as the cash cow, rather than the distribution channel and marketing (ie. commercials). I also expect that this business model will eventually flip with a large number of providers in the market. This stuff may end up being driven by advertising. Time will tell.

[Swordmaker]

Microsoft is no more a monopoly than Apple is. You can not only still choose an alternative, but the leading alternative to Microsoft and Apple is FREE OF CHARGE. Yet million of users freely decide to pay extra for Windows or even more extra for OS X.

Let's see.

Microsoft XP Professional MSRP $299

Macintosh OSX MSRP $129

Now, would you care to repeat that comment about "even more extra for OS X"?

[durasell]

Yeah, have seen that. Thanks.

[1L]

How can it be tying? I have both an iPod and iTunes and have never used the service. I have well over 20 gig of music on my player and will soon get another iPod. I have no plans to ever use the iTunes service.

[Richard Kimball]

Pretty interesting. I agree with you about the cell providers, also. Do you get the impression that the current state of technology is reaching a point where they're having trouble thinking of something else to do?

[Barney59]

Steve Jobs is a nasty man.

Sigh... well yes... it's that damned CAPITALISM again...

All they think of is PROFITS PROFITS PROFITS!, Oh for a FRENCHMAN, someone SENSITIVE TO THE WORLD!!!

: )

[Knitebane]

To be fair, Microsoft is not a monopoly but has some monopoly-like powers.

No, Microsoft was found to be legally a monopoly by a US court.

[Knitebane]

Microsoft is no more a monopoly than Apple is.

Wrong. Microsoft is indeed a monopoly.

You can not only still choose an alternative, but the leading alternative to Microsoft and Apple is FREE OF CHARGE.

Yet, for the vast majority of purchases of a new computer, Microsoft still gets a cut of the price. I wonder why that is?

It's called "quality". get over it.

The only place I've ever heard "Microsoft" and "quality" in the same sentence is in a Microsoft marketing brief.

Begone, foul troll of Redmond.

[Question_Assumptions]

It was found to be a monopoly, by the courts, on the basis of monopoly-like power. But strictly speaking, Microsoft is not a pure monopoly because, as Microsoft fans will happily point out, you can still by a Macintosh, use Linux, etc. For that reason, I think the term "monopoly" only muddies the water. What Microsoft did was excert monopolistic power over certain competitors and markets before it reached true monopolistic status.

And what I like to point out on Free Republic is that conservatives are usually wary of government out of concern over the concentration of power. They should be equally concerned with the concentration of power in corporate or private hands because it's the concentration of power and elimination of choice that's the problem, not government or companies. Capitalism without competition starts to take on the features of socialism because it's competition and choice that drive capitalism to meet the demands of consumers. That's why you'll find Freepers who will complain about a town council banning the display flags on private property but not about a homeowners' association doing the same thing. They are so busy worrying about whether it's a government or private issue that they loose sight of the point that it's the power they exert that's the issue, not how they are organized.

[Bush2000]

Do you get the impression that the current state of technology is reaching a point where they're having trouble thinking of something else to do?

Yes and no. I think that engineers are hitting practical constraints, such as bandwidth limitations, which are hindering them from making big leaps.

[BlazingArizona]

Now, would you care to repeat that comment about "even more extra for OS X"?

I reiterate: a lot of users willingly pay more for OS X than for Windows. Almost nobody actually pays that $299 Windows list price. People ether get it free with a new machine, or pay a nominal amount for updated versions of the OS. You get OS X free with a new Apple also, but Mac fanatics rush right out and pay full price for each point upgrade. I know, because I'm one of them. I see enough added value in new OS X releases that I will go out and buy each one.

Windows users, on the other hand are a lot less likely to go for a major upgrade on an existing machine, even at the power price. PCs tend to be built for the version of Windows that comes 'free' on them; users know that upgrading Windows means a nightmare of missing drivers for the "obsolete" hardware, slow operation, and expanding bloat.

[Melas]

Glaser's been whining about lack of access to the iPod for a while now. It is getting old. By now you'd think they'd have invested in coming out with a decent iPod competitor.

Here's the problem. Ipod has too much market share for that to happen. Even if a better competing product were to come around, the Ipod users would stick with Ipod, because buying all that music again would be too expensive.

[BlazingArizona]

Begone, foul troll of Redmond.

Gee, tell that to my Apple user group!

For the average user, the fact that most of the software out there is written for Windows makes using the OS that comes with their new machine a perfectly rational alternative. It may be slow and bloated compared with the alternatives, but this is mainly because it has to run on all those snowflake-distinct configurations of PC out there. To technical cognoscenti, the 'better' choices may be OS X, which is optimized for proprietary hardware, or that ongoing science fair experiment we call Linux, but are those 'better' from Grandma's point of view?

[coconutt2000]

Glaser shouldn't be targeting the iPod/iTunes market. He should be working on creating his own service and product, and he should target new buyers who haven't made the investment in Apple's music store offerings.

Glaser wants to use the iPod's market penetration and cut out Apple's iTunes Music Store and replace it with their subscription service. In other words, all the benefit of Apple's superb product design and marketing, and none of the cost.

And in the end, the end user doesn't own the music, and if they cancel their Real Network's service, all the music they paid to listen to is locked out.

If you were Apple, would you want another company running that kind of service on your product? Imagine the tech support calls, the loss of business from the music store, and the fact that iPod will be linked to what a lot of people will call a scam.

[steve-b]

At the Digital Living Conference here on Monday, Glaser told a packed hotel ballroom that Jobs & Co.'s refusal to make the iPod compatible with music services other than Apple's iTunes was "pig-headedness."

Nonsense. The iPod is perfectly compatible with standard MP3 files.

[Swordmaker]

I reiterate:

OK... with those caveats you can say it again and again... be my guest!

[Knitebane]

To technical cognoscenti, the 'better' choices may be OS X, which is optimized for proprietary hardware, or that ongoing science fair experiment we call Linux, but are those 'better' from Grandma's point of view?

Or the strength and stability of BSD, without which the Mac OS would still be the joke that was System 7?

Linux for desktops, BSD for servers, Macs for graphics, Windows for comedy relief.

[Knitebane]

But strictly speaking, Microsoft is not a pure monopoly because, as Microsoft fans will happily point out, you can still by a Macintosh, use Linux, etc.

It is almost impossible to buy an x86-32 or x86-64 system without paying for Windows. Even when you buy a Dell server with Linux, you pay for a Windows license. This is the deal that the vast majority of OEM system builders have made with Microsoft.

That is more than enough to classify Microsoft as a monopoly, as it has an unnatural domination of the x86 OS market.

[Clemenza]

Couldn't of happened to a nicer guy. If there is one company I would like to see brought down, it is those homos at Apple.