CNET News Article: All Eyes On Apple

[Asher]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy
You can still download it for free, .

Yeah, I know your tricky debating tactics, Glonkie, so don't even go there.

I know you can still download it for free, so why is it an advertised feature of something you buy?

Is it to trick people into thinking it is no longer free in the store so they pick it up...?

[Asher]

http://news.com.com/2100-7354-5137408.html?tag=nefd_hed

Apple seeks dollars in former freebies
Last modified: January 8, 2004, 10:00 AM PST
By Ina Fried
Staff Writer, CNET News.com


SAN FRANCISCO--Apple's decision to stop offering free downloads of iMovie and iPhoto is part of a clear shift by the Mac maker to try to recoup more of the dollars it invests in creating software for the Mac.

Apple has been pouring resources into consumer software for years but initially the company gave away the fruits of its labor. The giveaways were justified as a means of differentiating the Mac from its Windows-based rivals. More recently, though, Apple has been making the case to its customers that it needs to bring in revenue from its software efforts in order to keep investing in new development.

"This is also a business for us. We want to develop these apps very actively," said Peter Lowe, Apple's director of marketing for applications and services.

The company started selling several of its titles last year as a $49 bundle called iLife. For a time Apple considered ending free downloads of iMovie and iPhoto, but the company eventually decided to continue free downloads of both programs. Now, though, that is changing. As earlier reported, iMovie and iPhoto will now be available only through the paid iLife suite, although the iTunes jukebox program will remain a free download for both Windows and Mac users.

The trend toward charging for once-free software began when Apple started charging for .Mac in 2002. A more basic set of services, dubbed iTools had been free.

"We recognized the need to move to a more rational business model," Lowe said in an interview at this week's Macworld Expo here. "Our customers seemed really happy in the end."

Indeed, despite an initial outcry, Apple managed to sign up more than 100,000 .Mac members. And this year, when the first of those subscriptions came up for renewal, more than 86 percent re-upped. (Apple's renewal rate does benefit from the fact that some customers have their accounts set to automatically re-subscribe each year.)

Apple is clearly not alone in shifting from free to paid services, a move that was precipitated for many companies by the collapse of the dot-com boom.

In an attempt to ease the shift, Apple is trying to offer more with the paid version of iLife than it did with the standalone iApps, in much the same way the company offered freebies and improvements when it started charging for .Mac, the company said. Over the past year Apple has better integrated the separate programs and it is now adding a fifth title, a music recording program called GarageBand, to the suite.

Along with adding GarageBand, Apple is upgrading iPhoto, iMovie and iDVD. The photo editing program is now faster, better able to index photos and has new editing effects. New themes have been added to iDVD, while iMovie boasts improved editing abilities as well as new titling options.

Still, some Mac users complain that Apple is asking too much of its owners. Paid upgrades to Mac OS X cost $129 and have been coming, on average, about once a year. The .Mac service, required to take full advantage of many of Apple's efforts, costs $99 a year and now there is the $49 fee for iLife. Apple CEO Steve Jobs, however, pointed out in Tuesday's keynote address that Windows users would pay several hundred dollars for a comparable collection of music, photo and video editing software.

Plus, iLife comes free with a new Mac, allowing the company to continue to tout the software as a selling point over Windows-based systems and as a good reason for existing users to upgrade their machines.

Kory White, a software programmer for Santa Rosa-based Tritechdivas, a Mac and PC support firm, said she balked at paying for .Mac when Apple started charging last year. However, White said she probably would pay for the iLife suite, especially considering the addition of GarageBand.

"For 49 bucks, yeah, I'd do that," said White, a music fan, who said she has played in a number of bands, but not recently.

God bless Apple.

[Asher]

And http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13484:

Brits get shafted by Apple over iPod

1.8 conversion means dollar doesn't equal pound

By INQUIRER staff: Wednesday 07 January 2004, 15:38

ONCE AGAIN the complaisant(sic) Brits are feeling their wallets creak, and this time its Apple that's making the moths fly.

Over at the online Apple store you can buy a 15GB iPod holding 3700 songs for $299.

But if you buy the same machine from the UK branch of the Apple store, it will set you back £248.99. That includes VAT of £37.08

According to the Financial Times currency converter today, using the exchange rate of $1.8 to £1, that means a British iPod user will be paying $453.63.

That's over 51 per cent more expensive here than there. Can there possibly be any justification for this disparity? Just in case Apple is confused, the £ is not the €uro... µ

* AND AS A reader in €uroland says: "Apple is well aware that the £ is not the €uro, and manage to conspire against those of us in Euroland as well. A 15GB on Apple's Irish site costs €349 (including €60, which is about $443. Very close to the US dollar equivalent of the UK iPod's price point, eh?"

[Gatekeeper]

YAH! DEATH TO APPLE! ALL POWER TO MS!

[Asher]

Nice diversion tactic.

I'm just trying to help you guys see just how much money Apple takes from you. Apparently being ripped off isn't a concern for Mac users?

[Gatekeeper]

**charges blindly into battle, frothing at mouth, spittle flying, Viking broadsword held high, ready to cleave some skulls**

[Gatekeeper]

Well, now I'm just having some fun, Asher.

[Agathon]

This is interesting. Is the online music game already over?

http://www.reuters.co.uk/printerFrie...toryID=4096278

[Asher]

What does HP rebadging the iPod have to do with the online music game?

And I hope for Apple's sake the online music game isn't over, as online music sales account for less than 0.1% of all music sales.

Apple prefers to mention it as they have 70% of the "online music market", but what he doesn't mention is how ridiculously small it is right now.

And with Apple's refusal to bring out a reasonably priced player, they're not going to win that game either.

They've got a grasp on the trendy fools and early-adopters who buy it for its purtyness, trendyness, and of course a high price plays into that. Most folk won't touch one until they're cheaper. And there are tons of cheaper players out there gaining popularity.

Hey, you know what this reminds me of? The original Mac versus PC. Apple, evidently, still hasn't learned its lesson.

[Agathon]

I couldn't give a stuff what you have to say Asshat.

I think I'll go off for a gloat now.

[Asher]

Apple users never change.

"Who cares what facts and logic say, Steve Jobs is making money off of fools like us, Imma go gloat!"

[Agathon]

[Asher]

I appreciate the bumps.

[Agathon]

For those interested:

More on HP's new ipod.

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/...=1073569933000

[Asher]

[Agathon]

And look at this latest Windows innovation!!!!

http://www.winexpose.com/



It will probably go the way of that Dock impersonator, but get it while you can.

[Asher]

I don't understand your point -- is it that the Windows API is obviously more flexible than you give it credit for, or is it that the much-heralded "features" of OS X are available on Windows as well?

[Richelieu]

ALEX!!! THEY'RE AT IT AGAIN!!! GET THE POPCORN!!!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Hp's Ipod. Big deal. Hp is a follower simply making sure Dell doesn't take the market. Hp apparently was flat footed and needed a product thus the marriage between Apple and Hp.

As the battle unfolds you can be guaranteed Hp will be placing pressure on Apple to lower the stinkin price.

Bah. Hp shoulda been better than this.

[Asher]

Expose lifted things that Windows has had for years (minimize all, restore all), and added a feature that shrinks all Windows so you can click on them.

That's somewhat nifty, but it's not nearly as useful in the Windows world. Windows users have the benefit of a taskbar with textual labels explaining the title of each Window, something that Apple has yet to do. That made Expose rather necessary on their platform, I don't know how long they did with it. It's still rather useless eyecandy in the face of the titles-on-the-taskbar system on Windows.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Richelieu
ALEX!!! THEY'RE AT IT AGAIN!!! GET THE POPCORN!!!

No they aren't. I have no idea of what A****t said since I can't read his posts although I can pretty much guess what they say.

I posted the stuff because other people might want to talk about it.

[Spiffor]

/me munches

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Hp's Ipod. Big deal. Hp is a follower simply making sure Dell doesn't take the market. Hp apparently was flat footed and needed a product thus the marriage between Apple and Hp.

As the battle unfolds you can be guaranteed Hp will be placing pressure on Apple to lower the stinkin price.

Bah. Hp shoulda been better than this.

Yup. HP and Dell are both going gung-ho on the "consumer electronics" market. Dell went to Creative and licensed the Nomad technology, and gave birth to the Dell Digital Jukebox.

HP was caught by surprise, and Apple was more than willing to make them iPods they could rebrand since it would expand the userbase for iTunes purchases...

At least Dell changed the design somewhat, rather than being literally the same thing.

This move speaks volumes about HP's stupidity and how desperate they are, the people who seem to think HP chose Apple because it's better are somewhat naive and don't understand the market very well.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
No they aren't. I have no idea of what A****t said since I can't read his posts although I can pretty much guess what they say.

I posted the stuff because other people might want to talk about it.

Another typical tactic by someone who supposedly knows how to debate -- rather than get your ass owned, ignore whoever says contrary things. Ignorance is bliss.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Hp's Ipod. Big deal. Hp is a follower simply making sure Dell doesn't take the market. Hp apparently was flat footed and needed a product thus the marriage between Apple and Hp.

Dell won't take the market. The ipod absolutely owns the HD player market. The rest combined only account for 19% of the market. As for selling downloads, the iTMS has a 70% market share.

HP is just running with the winner. They'll make money and won't have to do much.

As the battle unfolds you can be guaranteed Hp will be placing pressure on Apple to lower the stinkin price.

I certainly hope they do. The latest rumour is that a 2 Gig ipod is next. That will probably retail for about 200 bucks. The HD for these came out the other day.

Expect a price reduction of 50 bucks on all models after the initial buying rush. Once the HDs get cheaper it shouldn't be long.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Dell won't take the market. The ipod absolutely owns the HD player market. The rest combined only account for 19% of the market. As for selling downloads, the iTMS has a 70% market share.

You paint a tainted picture.
http://www.macnn.com/news/18776&startNumber=8

NPD Techworld reports that Apple is No. 5 in the MP3 player market in January 2003 with 6.1% of unit sales, behind RIO (18.8%), RCA (12.7%), Samsung (7.8%), and Creative Labs (6.9%), respectively.

HP is just running with the winner. They'll make money and won't have to do much.

HP was caught unprepared by Dell's move, and Apple was the only company willing to let them use their design wholesale. Creative's already got a contract with Dell.

I certainly hope they do. The latest rumour is that a 2 Gig ipod is next. That will probably retail for about 200 bucks. The HD for these came out the other day.

That's bullshit, and would be stupid of Apple to do. You can get a 1.5GB Flash-based player (solid state, no moving parts) for the same price right now. Siginificantly smaller than even the iPod Minis.

Expect a price reduction of 50 bucks on all models after the initial buying rush. Once the HDs get cheaper it shouldn't be long.

Nonsense, Apple's never done this before so I'd doubt they would now. And from the reaction I've heard, there won't be a buying rush for a $249 4GB player in gay colors.

[Zopperoni]

Originally posted by Agathon
Dell won't take the market. The ipod absolutely owns the HD player market. The rest combined only account for 19% of the market. As for selling downloads, the iTMS has a 70% market share.

Dell just started in October 2003 with their portable. There was no chance of penetrating the market that fast. This year's figures might tell a better story.

HP is just running with the winner. They'll make money and won't have to do much.

For their sake, they'd better. HP's been losing terrain on both the consumer and corporate market.

The latest rumour is that a 2 Gig ipod is next. That will probably retail for about 200 bucks.

Apple 2 GB player: US$200
Dell 15 GB player: US$224

Tough choice

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Zopperoni

Apple 2 GB player: US$200
Dell 15 GB player: US$224

Tough choice

The Dell DJ did OK in October and November. It was the next one down from the ipod.

The only problem is that it looks horrible and its software sucks.

[Asher]

Can somebody ask Agathon for links to these statistics he's pulling out of his oversized ass?

If you ask me, BTW, I think the new iPod Minis look far worse than the Dell DJs. And I don't think the software can such as much as iTunes...

[laurentius]

You know that mini ipod is a lot smaller than dells