The battle over digital music is just another verse in Apple’s sad song: This astonishingly imaginative company keeps getting muscled out of markets it creates. So what does Apple have to tell us about innovation?
Steve Jobs, Apple, and the Limits of Innovation
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Exactly how creative was the whole iTunes thing, considering that Presplay and MusicNet had already existed, AFAIK?
As for the whole online music thing, as far as I’m concerned, so long as I have to run their horrible iTunes app (hope the OSX version is better than the Windows version) to access it, I’ll probably never use it. If they had it set up so that you could access it with a standard web browser via a plug in or someting, I might be interested ….
“This astonishingly imaginative company keeps getting muscled out of markets it creates.”
This is so out of whack from reality. Apple has always been the middle sized company that is able to recognize a good idea but never really a true innovator. The little companies, like mp3.com and napster, are the innovative companies that create new markets, but do not get far because lack of muscle when dealing with other companies and financial hardships. Apple recognizes these good idea,(and due to it’s bigger war chest) slightly enhances their products, and eats up all the small company and claims itself the innovator. The only thing Apple really does is prove to the big companies that the ideas the smaller companies had are financially profitable. At this point, the big companies ( Microsoft, IBM, Sony, etc.) come in, create a similar product, and eat up Apple by selling their product cheaper. What Apple does to these smaller companies is no different from what the bigger companies do to Apple.
Don’t agree? What exactly has Apple innovated?
well, if you mean “music on line for money” then it has zero creativity.
If you mean “a usable protection system that allows purchasers to not pay a subscription and are able to own the file and by from the big names” then yes, they were creative.
as for iTunes on Windows, it looks exactly the same. I don’t see why you think it is horrible. because resizing of the window is slow? that is a lame reason to call it horrible.
the fact that you LIKE pressplay and Musicnet show that you are not interested in a real app, but rather a web based app. but feature for feature, iTunes is as good or better than all the other music apps out there on windows.
Almost everyone agrees that Apple’s products are not only trailblazers but also easier to use, often more powerful, and always more elegant than those of its rivals
Easier to use, probably. More powerful? That is up for debate.
Almost everyone agrees that Apple’s products are not only trailblazers but also easier to use, often more powerful, and always more elegant than those of its rivals. Yet those rivals have followed its creative leads and snatched for themselves the profits and scale that continually elude Apple’s grasp.
That’s cuz most PC users aren’t stupid. We know that whatever Apple comes up with, some PC company is going to copycat it and it’s going to run on our hardware in three months anyway
And if some PC company doesn’t copycat it, Apple will even port it for us (eg – iPod) .. how nice of them?
You mean to tell me that Apple has never done good buisness decisions? And that maybe Microsoft being a company super power now is not because of anything magical or any huge invention, but just because of very good buisness decisions?
Bill Gates isn’t a computer geek, he is (was?) an amazing buisnessman, that made some amazing buisness decisions. Apple on the other hand, compared to microsoft, is broke.
they still have something like 65% of the legal download market and 50% of MP3 players.
apple is hardly broke. they will be posting a profit for the year 2003, they did for the year 2002 and same in 2001 when all but dell were posting losses.
sure, they don’t have 40 billion, but MS is about the only company that does because they just kept ll that cash back rather than pay dividends.
re: iTUnes
as for iTunes on Windows, it looks exactly the same. I don’t see why you think it is horrible. because resizing of the window is slow? that is a lame reason to call it horrible.
Because like it’s evil cousins (MusicMatch Pukebox and the god-awful RealOne), it tries to be the jack of all trades, but is the master of none. I’ve got dedicated apps for doing everything that iTunes does, and each app is much better at their respective task than iTunes could ever hope to be.
The only thing I needed was to be able to buy music .. not any of the other crap that came with it. Perhaps an ‘all-in-one’ player isn’t such a bad idea, but I haven’t seen one that works yet – they need to be more modular and less bloated, so that you could ‘unload’ the parts you didn’t need.
the fact that you LIKE pressplay and Musicnet
I didn’t say I liked either of them .. just acknolwedging them as the first legal online music pay services.
show that you are not interested in a real app, but rather a web based app.
When it comes to simply purchasing music, how much ‘app’ do you really need?
but feature for feature, iTunes is as good or better than all the other music apps out there on windows.
As I’ve already mentioned, compared to the other ‘all-in-one’ solutions, that isn’t really saying much, is it? I’ll take a Winamp/Audiograbber/Nero combo over iTunes anyway. Power users don’t really desire this integrated crap.
uh they offer dividends now.. after they took off taxes off them.. i believe..not sure
…I have stopped subscribbing for a while now and this is the first article in a while that I have read from them and it is SO biased! “the iPod wotks wonly with the iTunes online service” uhmmm… no 🙂 It can also play MP3 as well as AACs found on the iTunes store. if Napster and MusicMatch provide MP3s you can just as easy put them on your iPod.
“Dell/Musicmatch and Napster offer consumers more choice.” –> choice in what? number of songs available? I have had friends use other services with WMA rights management (which I believe the aforementioned companies use) and when they cleaned off their HD and reinstalled everything clean and put their songs back on they had problems accessing them even though they paid for the fare-and-square.
Monthly flat-fees are also great, but $10 per month? Were I apple I would make a flat fee but I would do it the “streamload” way where you pay per MB that you download. Also what kinds of strings are attached for the 10USD per month?
Napster 2.0 *does not* support the mac, and neither does MusicMatch!
The samsung device mentioned playes WMAs and MP3s. I assume that MusicMatch and Napster use the WMA format, something that is a microsoft copyright and apple would have to extra pay money for the rights to use it. This seems like a no brainer to me. MusicMatch and Napster are the ones that veer away from standards and choose proprietary-closed formats. It is also worthwhile mentioning that the dell device also does not support AAC but supports WMA just like the samsung device.
Also, it being fast company, “innovate for cash not cachet” — I agree with this to a certain extent, but not endanger your user base. Were I steve jobs I would have released the iPod to PC users a bit prior to when they did so that they could get a greater foothold in the market, and push their iTunes service to the 80% of computer users that use windows.
As for being behind Acer…come on – please give me a break. This means *nothing* to me (except if I owned apple stock which I do not). Do I want my company to be filthy rich but get bad pieces of equipment or do I want my company to be making a profit and survive but be able to use my computer for a long time without any problems? I have had friends of mine getting no-name PCs in greece and here in the states and either getting stiffed, or getting a piece of junk that breaks down after 2 years of use where as my G3 is still kicking along.
I must say that this article is heavily biased, whoever wrote is needs to look closer at the “competition”, look at the modus operandi of apple and of other companies, go beyond the headlines, look beneath it all and then report.
AAC is a closed, proprietary format, as is MP3, mpeg, etc…
Just because something isn’t made by Microsoft does not automatically makeit an open standard.
I am aware that they are closed formats, but take a look at the plethora of MP3 players. for WMAs I need to wait for the crappy windows media player to come out 😉
http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/standard.html
Now it is an expensive, patent crippled standard, but it is still a standard. wma is also an expensive, pantent crippled standard. Based on sound quality I would choose aac over wma since wma sounds whistlely to me.
But when it comes down to it I am not going to pay for music in any format that is a pain to use. I use digital formats because they are easier to use. I can access them from any pc in the house. I can sent them to work. I can have 20 day long play lists.
What good ideas has Apple even come up with? All they do is steal some idea no one knows about, make it popular, then someone else comes along and does it better. That’s exactly what happened with the Apple I. There was already the ALTAIR, which you build from a kit. The Apple I was built from a kit. Then IBM came along and made a complete personal computer system ready-made. Same thing as iTunes, the music store was BOUGHT from another company then apple slapped their name on it and bam it was popular, then a bunch of people copied them. Apple doesn’t innovate, they just steal then complain when people steal from them, or at least the Apple apologists do
MPEG-3 (MP3) was standardized by the International Organization for Standardization as ISO-MPEG Audio Layer-3 (IS 11172-3 and IS 13818-3) – it doesn’t get much more open than that…
mp3 quality is way tooooo behind atrac-sony are leagues ahead of everyone.
I have sooooooo many rich friends that buy Apple computers! No one has more rich friends that buy Apple computers compared to me! No one!
So what if I still all my ideas from other companies and then package them in shiny white and matte metal… and make them cost enough so my richie friends will buy them!
Apple is the GAP of computers — products made in slave labor countries, fancy marketing, sells mostly to dumb yuppies.
But I’m so cooooool! And my airplane is sooooo fuuuuuunnn!
There was already the ALTAIR, which you build from a kit. The Apple I was built from a kit. Then IBM came along and made a complete personal computer system ready-made.
Many of the hobbyist computers back then were kits, and that’s how the Apple I started out. But soon after complete systems entered the market, among them the Apple II, and by the time IBM entered the market complete systems were already a given, and in fact it was the the IBM PC which was the me-too product.
That the IBM PC then set out to rule the computing world is one of the ironies of history.
All this people innovating at apple and they still have not come with a sub 999$ computer without a CRT.
I can’t believe it, they support the online store that doesn’t make any money and they just don’t simply build a non-crt eMac that would give them money, crazy!
The worst and least innovative platform won leaving Apple as a small player who make cool stuff. The market chose windows just like the market chose VHS.
The list of Apples ideas that have ended up in the bog standard PC is far too long to recount. So we all owe Apple a debt of gratitude even if we cant afford their kit.
Qute from article:
“He prowled the stage for two hours, exulting in the details of Apple’s numerous 2003 product launches. Chief among them were the new G5 desktop, the first 64-bit computer and the industry’s fastest ever; a new operating system called Panther…”
Please, how stupid can you get? And the whole bias against iPod. Yes, it’s expensive, and it only plays MP3, AAC, WMA and WAV (ok, and the audible books). But it does work with other online stores. Get your facts right people before you sweat that half-assed article about nothing. Jeez, thanks for ruining my christmas.
If you go the URL, and then click the Fast Company logo to go to the website’s home page, then you will see something interesting on the left: There is a “sponsored by” advert for the one and only Microsoft, and just below it, is a pic of magazine’s cover with Steve’s article… just thought it was funny
“As I’ve already mentioned, compared to the other ‘all-in-one’ solutions, that isn’t really saying much, is it? I’ll take a Winamp/Audiograbber/Nero combo over iTunes anyway. Power users don’t really desire this integrated crap.”
iTunes is not an all in one solution like RealOne or Jukebox, those add functionality that can be accomplished by other applications. iTunes offers only the features necessary to work with its file format. The iTunes store offers ACC files that users can download, play, and burn to cds. Microsoft is not supporting MPEG4 or ACC at all. There are no seperate tools for windows to support the burning, playing etc of apple’s m4ps or m4as currently. So unless they want to see windows users a neutered set of functions for the songs they just bought – they have to include a burning utility and a ripping utility in addition to just a player.
I swear, I expect this sort of OS Bashing at Yahoo because tehy are a bunch od no nothing morons, but here? please if you are an OS Enthusiast, you should Own at least one Mac.
and if you are a profecional, you should own a Mac along with your PC systems becasue you should be able to use th ebest tools out there for what eevr you do and some of those tools are on the Mac.
I own both and use both, and I get a lot more productivity from it becasue I can just use the app I need.
The fact that Jobs was thrown out of his party has nothing to do with snobism. Here we have the CEO of a respected company dressed like a bum and hoping to get into one of Paris finest place. What’s worse is that his own friends were dressed appropriately. Come on Steve, it’s time to grow up ! Even homeless people strive to be clean when they attend solemn occasions.
The problem with Jobs is that he acts like a rock star and expects everybody to treat him as such. In reality, he is no Bon Jovi or Axel (is it Axell ?) Rose. His task is to sell stuff related to computers.
Apple has always been pretty good at recognizing and forecasting future markets and tailoring already made innovations into mass market products. The only thing they have problems with is competition. They really don’t know how to fend off competitors and when all the smoke has cleared, the competition has the larger lump of market share.
They really need some better business planners.
it is snobbism and elitism.
you should wear what makes you feel comfy – period
If by “broke” you mean Apple has 10% of the cash Microsoft does…..then I would say you have a strange definition of broke. Very few companies have over $4 billion in cash.
Wow. The Altair. How about using an example from..oh…say…the last TWENTY YEARS!!!
lol
Most work builds upon other work. Other things, like Expose, are quite innovative.
but just to correct a point….
No, the music store was not bought from another company. The core player was purchased and modified. Then Apple wrote its own store.
FWIW: if it aint patented and it aint a trade secret it aint stealing
innovation? Like pronuncing Jaguar as Jag-WHY-ur? Sorry but I see nothing innovative in Apple’s products (or Microsoft’s for that matter).
go to http://www.magnatune.com
Just because MPEG Layer 3 or MPEG4 audio codec is developed by a group of media and electronics conglomerates, they don’t become standards. Standard is something like HTTP, FTP or TCP – something that anyone can use, without getting nod of approval from IP holder. MPEG qualifies only as “pocket specification of media conglomerates”.
And whoever talks about Apple machines lasting longer should open the case and count all the commodity PC hardware inside. Is there some distortion field within G3 that makes it last longer then a Duron?
The article was well written and very thoro. I enjoyed it, but certain implications are founded in sotck market styled grou-think, accepting certain “ideas” which originate in business school, and are then passed on in mamagement seminars and books, and then as truism.
>>Innovate for Cash, Not Cachet
If your cool new thing doesn’t generate enough money to cover costs and make a profit, it isn’t innovation. It’s art.<<
Creativity does not know what money is. It does not look over its shoulder to look who’s looking. It doesn’t care. It NEVER thinks about money, whether it’s coming out as “art or innovation”. It’s got no agenda other than itself. Attaching business school expectations to “innovation” is avaricous bullshit engendered by the sick mentality of the stock market and the inherent hypocrisy of arbitrage. Money comes, or not, after the fact of innovation (or “art”). The article, by the way, not I, presumes that money is anathema to art, tho not to “innovation”. Arbitrary distinction.
Jobs is every bit the shmuck Bill Gates is. I’m not crying for what Apple isn’t, or couldn’t become. Jobs decided his products, “affordable” or not, would not become commoditized. Apple was, and is still, the only viable competition to MS, but veered away from that unwholesome position.
I do not understand why Apple should even be criticized if thousands of people are earning a good living (especially Jobs), from the company, and the products are pleasing millions of customers. Expections that Apple should be “doing” something else, should be getting rewarded more and in different ways for its “innovation” are distortions of stock market thinking.
> Apple’s purist approach may well have made certain early innovations possible–networking, for example, which it introduced on the first Mac machines in 1984. Windows PCs didn’t have printer networking until the mid-1990s.
Innovation? Someone tell him / her about NCP and TCP/IP and all the OSes that had networking stacks long before 1984.
I think the poster meant EASY networking, which was a true inovation with apple talk back in the day when it was useful. but now we have easy networking in the form of Zeroconf.
Wasn’t it postmodernism that suggested that everything that will be invented *has* been invented?
I have to admit that I’m not an Apple supporter (after I switched to a PC) – though I think that they do innovate and are quite good at it. The problem is that, oftentimes, this company is portrayed as the *Single* innovator in the tech industry. As proof, they hold up patent numbers and create a ridiculous ratio of patent numbers vs. profits – guess what, the patent system is bogus! and do you know how many unprofitable companies hold patents?! What does that do to your brilliant ratio, huh?
Further, there’s confusion between being ‘innovative’ and having the ‘ability to set standards’. The two issues are separate. Apple (because of their relatively closed architecture and restrictive manufacturing licenses) is in the unique position of being able to *set* standards. PC’s on the other hand, must *follow* standards – that is their value.
atici, what on earth made you think that post was a valuable contribution to the discussion? Anyone can make a blanket assertion like that….but it serves no useful purpose.
This article was very interesting but, in the end, does not show any insight into Apple. And what’s with all the Apple bashing? What did they do to deserve such derision?
First of all, there is obvious confusion over the term “innovation”. “Innovation” is not an interchangable word with “invention”. Apple has innovated a lot over the years and invented a few things. But, so have other companies too. It is amusing because innovation is precisely taking already “invented” ideas or concepts and making them happen – the very thing some here are lambasting Apple for.
The author seems to know a good deal of Apple’s history, but doesn’t seem to grasp the crucial moment. When Amelio got the heave-ho and Jobs came back in, Apple was in really bad shape. The idea of licensing the OS the author refers to was the biggest disastor of all – Apple was bleeding to death.
The situation Jobs found himself and Apple in was not explored at all by the author. When Apple made the five year deal with Microsoft, Jobs told the world that the desktop wars were over – and Apple had lost. Using that very public admission as a starting point, it is obvious that Jobs was thinking of something else rather than somehow overtaking Microsoft or a white hot hardware company like Dell. I think he decided that Apple’s one chance was to be “special” or “different”. And so we had the first iMacs and iBooks and everything that has followed. Jobs has been successful. And, it is good there is an Apple in the computing world. I’m sure Jobs would like more market share, but I don’t think he has any illusions about it. He may never be satisfied, but he seems to be happy always trying to come up with something different.
A couple of notes: yes, those first Macs had *built-in* networking, which added to the cost. But, a PC networking card cost about $700.00 at the time.
The Apple II was the break-out personal computer and was a raging success – number one – before IBM came out with its PC.
“its operating profit margins have declined precipitously from 20% in 1981 to a meager 0.4% today, just one-tenth the industry average of 2%.”
0.4+0.4+0.4+0.4+0.4 == 2
so isn’t it one-fifth?
Some of the comments I’ve read up to this point makes me question how old some of you are! :
anyway, regardless if you like/use/worship/play with Apple products, how can it be denied that they don’t innovate? If you truly think they aren’t innovative, please prove your point. Since up until now, I hear a lot of bickering but no proof. Just ignorance. Which btw, is a VERY annoying habit, and you should correct it!
You use a computer to do what you need, the most efficiently. We all have preferences. If your preference is to cut down on the price, then use a PC (linux, windows, etc.), or if you like Windows, use Windows! If macs, use OSX, etc. etc.
About the iPod/iTunes Music Store …. would you rather use a relatively more standard [aac] music format? or MICROSOFT’s wma [much more proprietary] format?
:X
Without question, Apple has been the most innovative computer and technology company in the last 25 or so years. The fact of the matter is, however, that the reason they are not as commercially successful as, say, Dell or Microsoft, is that in order to succeed commercially you have to appeal to the lowest common denomenator. That is why Dell and Microsoft have done well, and it’s also why McDonald’s, Ford, Wal-mart, and other similar brands have done well: they appeal to the lowest common denomenator.
Note I used the phrase “succeed commercially” in the paragraph above. I believe there is a big difference between succeeding and succeeding commercially. Success is different to each person. I would say Apple’s surviving 25 plus years as a going concern represents some sort of success, just like Porsche is a success even thought the probably don’t sell 1/10 the number of cars that Ford does.
I for one am glad that Apple exists. I think they have done more for the computer industry than most people like to admit. They will never be the giant that Microsoft of Dell are. And, you know, sometimes that’s ok. It’s good to be different.
OT: We, humans, as social beings should behave according to the situation. It all comes down to respecting yourself and each other. Wearing sneakers and jeans when you know everybody else will be wearing suits proves elitism and snobbism indeed. It’s like, “I’m better than all these …, I’m different” etc.
OT: We, humans, as social beings should behave according to the situation. It all comes down to respecting yourself and each other. Wearing sneakers and jeans when you know everybody else will be wearing suits proves elitism and snobbism indeed. It’s like, “I’m better than all these …, I’m different” etc.
…. so if everyone jumped off a bridge we should too?
I don’t see how you can perceive that as elitism? That’s like saying anyone who doesn’t want to live in a white picket fenced house is being snobby.
Apple breaks away from the corporate stereotype. Nothing wrong with that. Again, it gives the tech industry some lightness. Why act/look/talk like Bill Gates?
First, it is understood that iTunes is a vehicle to sell more iPods. Now, regarding *true* innovations (vs the high level of refinement, typical for Apple), there are two.
First is using 1’8″ hard drive format in iPod. To the best of my knowledge, Apple was the first. The nice thing about 1’8″ format is that it is sufficiently small for the device that can easily fit into the pocket (with 2’5″ format, it is a bit harder), and yet the capacity is still fairly high (vs ‘Microdrive format’). Also smaller format means better resistance to shocks, and it needs less power too. Seems like the hard-drive audio players based on this format are quckly becoming the most popular on the market.
Second is using AAC which is an audio encoding standard for MP4. AAC is the most advanced audio encoding standard, surpassing MP3. In particular, at the same level of compression, you’ll encounter substantially lower number of artifacts with AAC vs MP3. Alternatively you can use the lower speed to achieve the same results (roughly AAC 160Kbps is equivalent to MP3 220Kbps). Once again, expect more and more players incorporating AAC/MP4 format. So remember that once again, it was iPod which made this format popular. (I believe there were some Philips CD players capable of reading AAC, if you really want to be that pedantic).
years ago Bill Gate admitted that Apple is their think tank.
Apple invents and innovates – MS sells and makes money. Having said that, i am not claiming Apple is poor.
As I’ve already mentioned, compared to the other ‘all-in-one’ solutions, that isn’t really saying much, is it? I’ll take a Winamp/Audiograbber/Nero combo over iTunes anyway. Power users don’t really desire this integrated crap.
iTunes organizes and plays audio files. Has a store where they can be purchased, and lets you burn them to CD. iTunes is “integrated crap”?
Winamp plays audio AND video, and organizes both. It also allows CD burning as well as internet radio and video streams.
Nero burns CD’s AND DVD’s, as well as provide data backup, media organization, wave editor, etc.
Sounds like “integrated crap” to me.
I see the trolls with their expert analysis have crawled out from underneath the rocks they’ve been hiding.
I like the comments how Apple stole everything they have ever done yet their are no class action lawsuits related to anything of that nature. The trolls here are pure geniuses.
I also like how the comments on iTMS being a total failure and how unoriginal it is thats why its being copied by everybody.
I guess the iPod was a dumb idea too.
Then other expert comments on how poor Apple is despite being profitable.
what astonishes me is how ignorant everyone is as to what a crappy,garbage compression format mp3 is and always has been. In the beginning i could understand the hype, because mp3 was an open format with free codecs used mostly by pc users…but after several years and no one has mentioned the obvious fact…i mean this is ‘music’ (for listening right? Sound quality ‘used’ to be a big deal… ) not stuffit or zipped software.
Since the arrival of 24bit aiff (CD’s) it’s amazing the snowjob put on, and how easy it has been to convince music listeners to swallow the increasing degradation of the tonal quality of music and hype substandard stereo equipment the only performs fidelity by targeting range and not the envelope of sound, by explaining ‘hey this is DIGITAL technology!’…that happens to sound like robotic shit.
But mp3’s are really the rockbottom, even at 190 and better. Has any of you listened to a real music codec like Qsound or dsm ? Both at a third the file size sound ten times better…both retain information so they can be rescaled to aiff quality (although i’ve never been impressed with 24 bit aiff) As a music compression format mp3 is two things, 1)useless and lousy,2) inefficient and terrible sounding.
It is amazing to me that almost never the question of tonal quality and fidelity is raised…because with mp3’s it is not a big issue, it is a huge issue. Mp3’s at high bit rates approach fm stereo sound…but come no where close to true stereo fidelity. As a compression format there is only one reason it is used, because of the tsunami of idiots who need instant gratification.
a list of things Apple developed in House:
the trackpad ( I would have said the track ball except for centipede and millipede)
Everything good having to do with hand-helds (the Newton)
fire wire ( at first an independent company, but Apple bought it and developed it further eventually bringing it to market)
dockable laptops (the duo)
zero configuration networking ( AppleTalk in the 80s, rendezvous today)
pixlet ( not that anybody cares, but this is a new high quality high compression the video codaec— it may become very cool and useful once the video conferencing and wireless broadband become more widespread, 3gpp is pretty cool already though. )
Interface innovation:
Automatic truncating searches consistently implemented in a play list metaphor, (this has/will replace(d) the desktop metaphor for Apple)
<flame bait>
Microsoft’s “Task-based interface” in XP and the Longhorn demos is a joke. Reference OpenDoc or the Newton for the real deal.
</flame bait>
Double clicking, (coupled with the gesture below reduced the number of mouse buttons from three to one)
click and drag
I could go on and on but I’m too long winded already. Yes apple has brought many existing technologies to a broader market, (USB) good for them. The consistently do it in a much better way than Microsoft or Dell. I like what they do and I think you can honestly say they innovate.
>Wasn’t it postmodernism that suggested that everything that will be >invented *has* been invented?
I think that was the Book of Ecclesiastes.
“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” (Eccl 1:9)
>what astonishes me is how ignorant everyone is as to what a crappy,garbage compression format mp3 is and always has been. In the beginning i could understand the hype, because mp3 was an open format with free codecs used mostly by pc users…but after several years and no one has mentioned the obvious fact…i mean this is ‘music’ (for listening right? Sound quality ‘used’ to be a big deal… ) not stuffit or zipped software.
Since the arrival of 24bit aiff (CD’s) it’s amazing the snowjob put on, and how easy it has been to convince music listeners to swallow the increasing degradation of the tonal quality of music and hype substandard stereo equipment the only performs fidelity by targeting range and not the envelope of sound, by explaining ‘hey this is DIGITAL technology!’…that happens to sound like robotic shit.
But mp3’s are really the rockbottom, even at 190 and better. Has any of you listened to a real music codec like Qsound or dsm ? Both at a third the file size sound ten times better…both retain information so they can be rescaled to aiff quality (although i’ve never been impressed with 24 bit aiff) As a music compression format mp3 is two things, 1)useless and lousy,2) inefficient and terrible sounding.
It is amazing to me that almost never the question of tonal quality and fidelity is raised…because with mp3’s it is not a big issue, it is a huge issue. Mp3’s at high bit rates approach fm stereo sound…but come no where close to true stereo fidelity. As a compression format there is only one reason it is used, because of the tsunami of idiots who need instant gratification.
…… wtf? do we all not know that mp3 degrades audio quality? :
hardware, software as in iapps, usability, intergration everything! while the innovations might not as huge as ms .NET. Apple does innovation all the time PracticallY!
The word seems to have lost its meaning in countless discussions.
I don’t really care whether Apple innovate or not. Just as long as they do things *right*, so I can spend time being productive.
Applications are put together the right way, networking is put together in the right way, so you minimize the time spent learning and the time spent fiddling.
I’ve used Linux, FreeBSD and Windows for a long while now, because I’ve enjoyed working with them for many years, but you know what?
I don’t really get much work done, because I’ve spent much of the time compiling a kernel, fiddling with filesharing, fiddling with 100’s of window managers to find the right one, fiddling with drivers for a soundcard, hours and hours of learning the syntax of procmail, reading a ton of man-pages, studying the file structure, figuring out Win2k/XP permission system and registry, etc.
I learn a lot and it’s fun, but I can’t really get anything done with it other than I’ve learned to handle the operating system, the system on which the essential applications are used. I can’t impress the world with knowing how to operate an intricate program designed to run the essential programs. I haven’t spent enough time with the essential.
If I get no work done, but I get a customized OS that runs 20% faster than it normally would, I am not going to impress anyone but my own ass.
Many programs and OS’es are of course moving closer to getting really easy to work with, but there’s still too much hassle, because a lot of little details aren’t done right.
Just by using iTunes, I can tell, some things in that program are done just right, which many of its clones (JuK, Rhythmbox) and counterparts (WinAMP, XMMS) don’t get right yet. It’s designed in a way that allows me to minimize my time spent learning and operating the player and just play my favorite songs all the time.
A buddy of mine who is a very casual PC user had to copy a CD with home made music, but couldn’t get the specialized programs that weren’t “integrated crap” (pun!) working correctly with his CD-burner. I told him about iTunes, which I at the time had just downloaded for Windows a few days earlier.
I raced to his place, and in less than 10 minutes, I installed iTunes on his computer, ripped the CD and burnt a new one and played it on his stereo in the first try. He was amazed. I was amazed, because I hadn’t done it before.
The best part: He knew how to operate iTunes himself now, because the ripping/burning process is very easy and he started ripping his CD collection immediately.
No need for manuals, no need to set things up before they (might) work. He felt comfortable with the program immediately and wanted to explore it.
Maybe another CD-burner program could have burnt the CD twice as fast. Maybe another CD-ripping program would have given him 50 more options.
But I would bet you, he wouldn’t have been able to rip/burn that fast and make it work on the first try. We had leapt past the normally intricate learning process, and gotten the job done immediately.
Being curious, I wanted to try filesharing with my laptop with his PC. I selected “Share My Music” in the iTunes preferences on his PC and 5 seconds later, I could play his music on my laptop. Just worked.
I’ve shown iTunes to several PC users and even people who have never used a computer before (!) and they are floored, everytime they see the music store, how fast you can search for the right music, listen to a sample immediately and buy it immediately.
It made much more sense to even the computer illiterates than standing in line in a physical music store.
It just didn’t occur to the PC users that an application that do a few things, but do them right, would make such a difference compared to the normally specialized and complex solutions.
I don’t know if it’s innovative, but it’s just done right.
Imagine if cars were as hard to operate as jumbojets. Imagine if you had to go through a 300 step checklist everytime you want to drive, if you had to spend a couple of hours mixing your own gasoline at the gas station, if you had spent a month custom building the engine to exactly fit your needs. It would scare the crap out of most people.
Granted, you learn hell of a lot about cars, but you can’t the essential thing done: Driving. 🙂 Your needs go out the window…
Fortunately cars are done pretty much right. Flying isn’t made easy yet.
It’s still the dark ages of computing for most people.
blah: well, if you mean “music on line for money” then it has zero creativity.
If you mean “a usable protection system that allows purchasers to not pay a subscription and are able to own the file and by from the big names” then yes, they were creative.
They weren’t as creative as one might think. Sure, they were the first, but it doesn’t take an idiot to realize there is such an idea in the first place. In fact, especially around the time when PressPlay and MusicNet was released, the idea has be propagated by just about everyone online.
Apple was the first to come out with something using that idea. It wasn’t creativity, it was their abbility to negotiate with music companies. Napster is proof of that. Their product came rather fast after the launch of iTunes Music Store – it proves it wasn’t a reactionary thing.
blah: the fact that you LIKE pressplay and Musicnet show that you are not interested in a real app, but rather a web based app. but feature for feature, iTunes is as good or better than all the other music apps out there on windows.
At least on the Windows version, the iTunes Music Store, it is web based. You may not enter your credit card info through a web based UI, but selecting songs is web based. It is in all practice and purposes a smarter solution – it allows Apple to update their Store anytime they like. IIRC, there is a front end to Pressplay in RealOne.
blah: apple is hardly broke. they will be posting a profit for the year 2003, they did for the year 2002 and same in 2001 when all but dell were posting losses.
I don’t know about 2001, but they certainly posted profits for 2002. And anual fiscal profits are already posted for Apple before even the end of the year? Wow. How much did Apple make this year, BTW?
mini-me: I have had friends use other services with WMA rights management (which I believe the aforementioned companies use) and when they cleaned off their HD and reinstalled everything clean and put their songs back on they had problems accessing them even though they paid for the fare-and-square.
If you reformat and reinstall your Mac OS X, how many of your iTunes Music Store bought songs would still work? Considering that those songs don’t play on other Macs, I would say the changes for that is low… very low…
mini-me: The samsung device mentioned playes WMAs and MP3s. I assume that MusicMatch and Napster use the WMA format, something that is a microsoft copyright and apple would have to extra pay money for the rights to use it.
Microsoft have to pay almost twice the amount of money to use AAC and MPEG 4. Boo hoo hoo. BTW, MusicMatch doesn’t really force a music format. By default, it currently supports MP3s and WMAs.
mini-me: As for being behind Acer…come on – please give me a break. This means *nothing* to me (except if I owned apple stock which I do not). Do I want my company to be filthy rich but get bad pieces of equipment or do I want my company to be making a profit and survive but be able to use my computer for a long time without any problems?
Have you ever own an Acer? I have an Acer computer – 8 years old, never gave me any problems. Not too many 8 year old Macs can claim that.
theorz: Now it is an expensive, patent crippled standard, but it is still a standard. wma is also an expensive, pantent crippled standard. Based on sound quality I would choose aac over wma since wma sounds whistlely to me.
Must be either my ears or my sound system, but I much prefer WMA to AAC. It has slightly smaller files too. But overall, if I rip anything, it would be into Ogg – the sound quality is the best of the lot. Well, at least to my ears, most of my family can’t tell the difference.
Lars: That the IBM PC then set out to rule the computing world is one of the ironies of history.
The fact is that IBM targeted businesses that previously wouldn’t have used computers. Plus, it had Lotus 1-2-3, a killer app. In addition to that, then mega-player Apple choosed to ignore and ridicule IBM’s attempts.
frumin: Please, how stupid can you get? And the whole bias against iPod. Yes, it’s expensive, and it only plays MP3, AAC, WMA and WAV (ok, and the audible books).
It plays WMA? That’s news.
DJ Jedi Jeff: Most work builds upon other work. Other things, like Expose, are quite innovative.
Ever heard of window tilling? Expose works with the same idea in mind, only it uses Quartz to make it more professional and usable. The real innovation should be Quartz, I remember suggesting it almost the same idea (well, more or less, I wanted to make all the windows equal sized) to Berlin/Fresco developers on IRC before even Jaguar was released, no less Panther.
I’m not bashing Mac OS X for that. Like most “innovation” from any company, it just add on to existing ideas. That is not real innovation, if you follow the dictionary defination.
deb-man: I think the poster meant EASY networking, which was a true inovation with apple talk back in the day when it was useful. but now we have easy networking in the form of Zeroconf.
You never tried networking old world Macs before, have you? It is far easier on [insert UNIX type] simply because it has a terminal (You don’t have to depend on sucky UIs)
badtz: About the iPod/iTunes Music Store …. would you rather use a relatively more standard [aac] music format? or MICROSOFT’s wma [much more proprietary] format?
LOL, how is AAC more standard, whether de facto or in any other way? Go on Kazaa – compare the amount of WMA music to AAC music. You would find more WMA music.
Anonymous: Without question, Apple has been the most innovative computer and technology company in the last 25 or so years.
You mean, everything IBM, Sun, SGI, etc. have done to computing which saves billions, if not trillions of dollars, increase productivity in rapid amounts, etc. – pales in comparison with Apple?
I’m suprised.
Anounymous: I would say Apple’s surviving 25 plus years as a going concern represents some sort of success, just like Porsche is a success even thought the probably don’t sell 1/10 the number of cars that Ford does.
But Porshe makes more or less the same amount of money as Ford makes selling Fords (not including their other brands). Tell me when Apple’s profits is similar to Microsoft. Besides, Apple could have been a monopoly today, instead of a company on survival mode.
Also smaller format means better resistance to shocks, and it needs less power too.
Actually, incorrect. In fact, if you are the jogging sporting type yet you wanna have a hard disk based MP3 player, I would suggest going with Creative. It has a larger skip-protection cache.
As for battery life, I don’t notice much of a difference between, say, a Nomad Zen, with the iPod.
AAC is the most advanced audio encoding standard, surpassing MP3.
Gee, and all those audiophiles were lying about atrac… (AAC isn’t even close to the quality of atrac, and IMHO, I prefer WMA)
Everything good having to do with hand-helds (the Newton)
And Psion/Symbian contribution is… nil?
An Apple celebration in Paris-France at the Museé D’Orsay with foie-gras and tuna canapês along, champagne, Jazz on a Barroque room with art noveau furniture on the back ground…
This is real innovation on the party departement !! I mean nothing is missing for a real pain in the a[r-t]s and boring superficial party.
“If you reformat and reinstall your Mac OS X, how many of your iTunes Music Store bought songs would still work? Considering that those songs don’t play on other Macs, I would say the changes for that is low… very low… ”
4 reformats later, and everytime the music still works fine, you go to play it and iTunes asks if you want to reauthorize this computer to play your files – 2 seconds later files are playing. Why don’t you actually try it out before you go making up useless garbage.
If you reformat and reinstall your Mac OS X, how many of your iTunes Music Store bought songs would still work? Considering that those songs don’t play on other Macs, I would say the changes for that is low… very low…
Answer…All of them.
After backing up your music and transferring them to the newly installed OS X, all you have to do is authorize the computer to play your purchased music. If you try to play the purchased music w/o authorizing first, iTunes will ask you to do so. This can be done for 3 computers.
BTW, your stupid…as in ignorant, ill-informed, uneducated when it comes to Apple. Sad thing is that all you have to do to fix the problem is to go to http://www.apple.com. It’s all there.
Acti,
Thanks for the link to Magnatune, it’s amazing. I suggest that people get over there tout suite. I’m an Apple user and as far as I’m concerned the iTunes store can go to hell after this (though I actually do like browsing with iTunes rather than a browser).
http://magnatne.com
Brilliant. iTunes Music Store is innovative, but the content just doesn’t do it for me.
blah: well, if you mean “music on line for money” then it has zero creativity.
If you mean “a usable protection system that allows purchasers to not pay a subscription and are able to own the file and by from the big names” then yes, they were creative.
They weren’t as creative as one might think. Sure, they were the first, but it doesn’t take an idiot to realize there is such an idea in the first place. In fact, especially around the time when PressPlay and MusicNet was released, the idea has be propagated by just about everyone online. “
funny, since Apple was the first to do it. if it was so damn easy I wonder why no one else did it. talk about a lame comment.
blah: apple is hardly broke. they will be posting a profit for the year 2003, they did for the year 2002 and same in 2001 when all but dell were posting losses.
I don’t know about 2001, but they certainly posted profits for 2002. And anual fiscal profits are already posted for Apple before even the end of the year? Wow. How much did Apple make this year, BTW?
stop being obtuse. Apple has had a fully profitable year up to this Quarter. it is a safe assumption that they will post a profit this year as well. I think you should work on an argument rather than nit picking over irrelevant details that are taken by everyone else to be forgone conclusions.
deb-man: I think the poster meant EASY networking, which was a true inovation with apple talk back in the day when it was useful. but now we have easy networking in the form of Zeroconf.
You never tried networking old world Macs before, have you? It is far easier on [insert UNIX type] simply because it has a terminal (You don’t have to depend on sucky UIs)
again, you are being obtuse. you really think a HOME USER back in the 80’s was going to network Unix stations? let alone want to know the “cryptic” commands needed to accomplish the task? you “crappy GUIs” comment shows that you are just trying to make an argument where none exists since it is clear that the networking in question is meant for Home networking and the fact that Deb-Man neglected to included “home” in his/her comment does not leave the statement open to attack by you.
theorz: Now it is an expensive, patent crippled standard, but it is still a standard. wma is also an expensive, pantent crippled standard. Based on sound quality I would choose aac over wma since wma sounds whistlely to me.
Must be either my ears or my sound system, but I much prefer WMA to AAC. It has slightly smaller files too. But overall, if I rip anything, it would be into Ogg – the sound quality is the best of the lot. Well, at least to my ears, most of my family can’t tell the difference.
well it is just you ears then that and crappy speakers. AAC is EASILY detectable as a better codec with 50 dollar speakers. WMA is about as good as MP3Pro.
Yes, everyone go to magnatune and find the no hit wonders. WTF, where are the tunes that I heard as a youngster. How do I search for those songs from the past and present that are chartbusters?
Freakin lame.
yes, Magnatune is for people that like new and non mainstream music. if you like the main stream stuff, iTunes is about as good as it gets.
Yes, everyone go to magnatune and find the no hit wonders. WTF, where are the tunes that I heard as a youngster. How do I search for those songs from the past and present that are chartbusters? Freakin lame.
The tracks you are looking for are in the your local CD store (as well as the likes of iTunes).
Magnatune is more like eMusic.com (used to be). Also, no hit wonders? That’s ridiculous. Magnatune is a record label in its own right, not a general purpose music shop. It just happens to be distributing electronically rather than on CDS
Magnatune offers a wide variety of, for example, medieval, Renaissance and baroque music that is hard to find in CD stores. This is why it is innovative. I’m not saying that Britney Spears shouldn’t be available on iTunes, just that I don’t care if she is.
I wish Magnatuen well and hope that the expand their jazz and ‘New Music’ (i.e. Karlheinz Stockhausen etc) and there’s every chance that many great alternative and indie acts may add their back catalogues – think Pere Ubu, Einstürzende Neubauten, the Fatima Mansions, Cathal Coughlan, Carter USM and so on…
It’s initiatives like this that I think are really groundbreaking. Take eMusic for example – I grew up with Bauhaus, the Cult, Tom Waits and so on. They’re all on-line (actually, I think that the entire Beggar’s Banquet back catalogues is on). It’s just a shame that eMusic has imposed download limits, so hopefully Magnatune will overtake them.
In the meantime eMusic is offering a 50 song free trial.
The problem with iTunes for me is that it is simply too mainstream. I prefer to own CDs and rip to the iPod for when I’m out and about, so when it comes to stuff like Pink Floyd, the Sister of Mercy or whatever I’d rather go to the shop or order a CD.
Electronic music services allow me to get stuff that shop hardly ever stock like David Thomas and Two Pale Boys (eMusic). I also want to be albe to buy Scott Walker, Jacques Brel and Serge Gainsbourg without being charged €30 – €50 for so-called ‘imports’.
Just my opinion…
RE ‘No-hit wonders’, well it may not fit your particular criterion but the Duffay Collective are on Magnatune and I’ve frequently heard them on Radio 3 and their CD, Cancionero – Music for the Spanish Court (Avie Records CD and Magnatune mp3) was Grammy Nominated, won the CMA/WQXR Record Award and was chosen as a Gramophone Magazine
Disc of the Year and Critics’ Choice.
Perhaps not to be found on Radio 1, but still impressive.
On eMusic I’ve just downloaded Kenny Rogers’ I Just Dropped In (To see what condition my condition was in). This track is well before my time (I’m 25) and I first heard it on the Big Lebowski. I guess it depends on what you grew up listening to, but it may be available on the indie services. If it came down to it I’d sooner use iTunes than one with MS style DRM, but I like the alternatives even better. Horses for courses…
I’d say that the eMusic, Magnatune and iTunes services are all fairly innovative in terms of distributions, but not equally so in catalogue terms.
“Ever heard of window tilling? Expose works with the same idea in mind, only it uses Quartz to make it more professional and usable. The real innovation should be Quartz, I remember suggesting it almost the same idea (well, more or less, I wanted to make all the windows equal sized) to Berlin/Fresco developers on IRC before even Jaguar was released, no less Panther.
I’m not bashing Mac OS X for that. Like most “innovation” from any company, it just add on to existing ideas. That is not real innovation, if you follow the dictionary defination. ”
No I haven’t heard of windows “tilling” but of tiling yes. Expose is nothing close to windows tiling. Tiling makes all windows the same size and aranges them but expose maintains the relative sizes of the windows and arranges them spatialy not specifically in tiles. Also tiling destroys the state of the windows on a desktop, meaning once you tile your windows you can’t make them go back to the way they were but with expose you can.
That is innovation, coming up with a new way to solve a problem.
Innovation also means that you defiy current norms and do new things, dictionary.com. You can’t say a light bulb wasn’t an invention just because it is a source of light and so is a candle and candles have been around for longer.
“But Porshe makes more or less the same amount of money as Ford makes selling Fords (not including their other brands). Tell me when Apple’s profits is similar to Microsoft. Besides, Apple could have been a monopoly today, instead of a company on survival mode. ”
You are comparing apples and oranges here (no pun intended). Porsche and Ford are car companies. Microsoft is a software company, where as Apple is a systems company. A better comparison would be to compare HP’s, IBM’s pc business to Apple.
“Actually, incorrect. In fact, if you are the jogging sporting type yet you wanna have a hard disk based MP3 player, I would suggest going with Creative. It has a larger skip-protection cache. ”
There you go talking out of your nether regions again. Apple provides the spec for skip protection at 25 minutes but I can’t find the spec for creative’s nomad zen on either creatives site or any review sites. Care to provide a source for you info.
To add to my above post. With apple’s spec you can deduce that 25 minutes means that it has a buffer of atleast 25 MB, assuming 1 MB a minute for 128kbps mp3s. It would be safe to say that the ipod has atleast 32 MB SDRAM.
From Creative’s site the nomad zen only has 16MB SDRAM take 5-6 MB for the OS and that leaves 11-10MB for song caching, 10-11 minutes or less.
This article credits Apple with many innovative things, particularly the GUI, mouse, and color monitors. I read an article last year about the invention of the computer mouse – it was actually invented and first used at a California academic institution in the late ’60s (1969?), long before Apple computers.
It makes me wonder if Apple really had the ~very~ first GUI and color computer…
-Bob
nice try. Apple didn’t create the digital music market, and they weren’t even the first on the block by a good long shot. The only claim to fame for Apple is that they were the first to foist restricted AAC files on a bunch of Mac users. THat isn’t particularly innovative, in my book, since the market was there for years and merely needed to be tapped. The fact that people are willing to pay Walmart (or RealNetworks, or whoever your choice for digitally restricted music is) instead of Apple doesn’t bother me, either.
I rate this article a D- for unoriginality.
“This article credits Apple with many innovative things, particularly the GUI, mouse, and color monitors. I read an article last year about the invention of the computer mouse – it was actually invented and first used at a California academic institution in the late ’60s (1969?), long before Apple computers.
It makes me wonder if Apple really had the ~very~ first GUI and color computer… ”
It’s a well known fact that Apple neither invented the mouse, nor the first GUI. Ever hear of Xerox PARC? Do a search on it on Google. However, Apple was the first to bring those elements to Personal Computer, whereas previously these have just been used in research-based environments.
D-Mac: After backing up your music and transferring them to the newly installed OS X, all you have to do is authorize the computer to play your purchased music. If you try to play the purchased music w/o authorizing first, iTunes will ask you to do so. This can be done for 3 computers.
1. My mistake.
2. What happens if you reformat your computer three times, and it is your fourth time authorizing those music to play?
D-Mac: BTW, your stupid…as in ignorant, ill-informed, uneducated when it comes to Apple. Sad thing is that all you have to do to fix the problem is to go to http://www.apple.com. It’s all there.
Please. This is one of the few times I have read your comments here, but if you post comments as regularly as me, I’m very sure I would be able to call you stupid, ignorant, ill-informed, and uneducated. BTW, I’m not as ignorant in Apple as you might think. I live in Malaysia, and it would centuries before any music distributor considers opening for the Malaysian market. But in other cases, I know a pretty damn much about Apple, and in fact, if I would buy a laptop anytime soon, it is for sure a Mac.
blah: funny, since Apple was the first to do it. if it was so damn easy I wonder why no one else did it. talk about a lame comment.
What a cretin. My point was it wasn’t a new idea. Heck, it wasn’t even close to being a new idea. The only thing Apple spectacularly done was to negotiate with record companies and get a nice good contract, where just two years before RIAA wouldn’t even consider such a thing. And that, according to the dictionary, is *not* innovative.
blah: stop being obtuse. Apple has had a fully profitable year up to this Quarter. it is a safe assumption that they will post a profit this year as well. I think you should work on an argument rather than nit picking over irrelevant details that are taken by everyone else to be forgone conclusions.
Quote me when I said that we wouldn’t know whether Apple would be profitable or not. In fact, if they posted losses, I would be suprised. But my point, which you missed (and would miss again and again) is that you and I have no idea how much raw profits Apple or racked in this fiscal year.
To quote myself, “How much did Apple make this year, BTW?” Can you answer that, instead of calling be obtuse or blunt? I made that point very clearly, your rebuttal does not answer that main question.
blah: again, you are being obtuse. you really think a HOME USER back in the 80’s was going to network Unix stations? let alone want to know the “cryptic” commands needed to accomplish the task? you “crappy GUIs” comment shows that you are just trying to make an argument where none exists since it is clear that the networking in question is meant for Home networking and the fact that Deb-Man neglected to included “home” in his/her comment does not leave the statement open to attack by you.
I never said that networking on UNIX is easy. What I meant was that networking with old world Macs, especially LANs, aren’t the easiest thing. At that time, LANs is pretty much the lower end of networking.
blah: well it is just you ears then that and crappy speakers. AAC is EASILY detectable as a better codec with 50 dollar speakers. WMA is about as good as MP3Pro.
Funnily, my speakers cost far more than $50. And it couldn’t be my ears – none in my family could detect any differences, except me (the same way they can’t tell the difference between a WAV file and a MP3 file). BTW, AAC and WMA is based on the same technology. And no, I’m not routing for WMA, I never ripped into WMA except a few times. I currently only rip into Ogg Vorbis.
Oh, BTW, I’m using dBpowerAMP for ripping.
Raptor: No I haven’t heard of windows “tilling” but of tiling yes. Expose is nothing close to windows tiling. Tiling makes all windows the same size and aranges them but expose maintains the relative sizes of the windows and arranges them spatialy not specifically in tiles. Also tiling destroys the state of the windows on a desktop, meaning once you tile your windows you can’t make them go back to the way they were but with expose you can.
Quote me when I say that Expose is exactly the same as window tiling. You couldn’t find it. My point was that it is based on window tiling idea, and took it to the next level. And again, I never said that Expose is a lousy good-for-nothing feature, rather it is one of Mac OS X’s selling point. My main point is that Expose doesn’t fit the bill as completely new because it is based on an old idea, and thus isn’t innovative. A bright idea? Yes. A great feature? Yes. A selling point? Yes. Innovation? No.
Raptor: That is innovation, coming up with a new way to solve a problem.
(Webster)
Main Entry: in·no·va·tion
Pronunciation: “i-n&-‘vA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY
It says nothing about solving problems. And you can see in entry two, that Expose might qualify to be innovation. But actually, Quartz is the innovative deal – it is a new method/device that enables Expose.
Raptor: You are comparing apples and oranges here (no pun intended). Porsche and Ford are car companies. Microsoft is a software company, where as Apple is a systems company. A better comparison would be to compare HP’s, IBM’s pc business to Apple.
Why? Neither HP or IBM makes a desktop OS. Besides, nobody is forcing Apple to stick to being a systems company. In fact it could probably increase profits, lower liability and increase market by transitioning to become a software, as opposed to systems, company. And if they have done that in the early years of the PC, I doubt Microsoft would be a monopoly (or anything close, for that matter).
Raptor: To add to my above post. With apple’s spec you can deduce that 25 minutes means that it has a buffer of atleast 25 MB, assuming 1 MB a minute for 128kbps mp3s. It would be safe to say that the ipod has atleast 32 MB SDRAM.
From Creative’s site the nomad zen only has 16MB SDRAM take 5-6 MB for the OS and that leaves 11-10MB for song caching, 10-11 minutes or less.
My mistake, I was comparing with the first few iPods brought to the market which had, IIRC, 8mb of buffer cache.
Jeve, I see you came out from underneath that rock. Too bad you missed the G5. I think it would be best if you went back to staying under that rock as you really make a fool of yourself when you come out. BTW, this is written by a very rich (25K/yr) Mac user : ) Sorry but you and the rest of the ignorant fools should do your homework before you open your pieholes.
Rajan: 2. What happens if you reformat your computer three times, and it is your fourth time authorizing those music to play?
Each computer has a unique MAC address. MAC stands for Media Access Control, I’m guessing they use that info to identify the machine. I will further investigate to be sure. In any event, I did a clean a install of Panther and moved the previously backed up music library back on to the same already previously authorized computer. The first time I played a purchased track, it asked to authorize the machine. It should do the same after each new install.
Ignore Jeve Stobs. I have no idea why he isn’t banned yet, he is fragrantly flaunting the Terms and Conditions of OSNews.
*** “No I haven’t heard of windows “tilling” but of tiling yes. Expose is nothing close to windows tiling. Tiling makes all windows the same size and aranges them but expose maintains the relative sizes of the windows and arranges them spatialy not specifically in tiles.” ***
Really? From your description, it seems like there is only one difference between tiling and Expose.
*** “Also tiling destroys the state of the windows on a desktop, meaning once you tile your windows you can’t make them go back to the way they were but with expose you can.” ***
Really?!?!
Raptor, I will bet you US$50,000.00 that I can tile windows in Windows 98 and then click “undo tile”, and all of the windows will assume their original aspect ratios and placement, which they possesed prior to the tiling.
I am sick and tired of the Apple fanatics making blatantly false claims about how incredibly innovative Apple is compared to others. Raptor, if you are right, you can make an easy US$50,000, and I will admit that Apple is the inventor of everthing having to do with computers. But, if you are wrong, you lose US$50,000 and you must admit that Apple is not the great innovator it is cracked up to be.
What do you say, Raptor? WHY DON’T YOU PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS?!?!?!!!
“It says nothing about solving problems. And you can see in entry two, that Expose might qualify to be innovation. But actually, Quartz is the innovative deal – it is a new method/device that enables Expose.”
Well that’s the problem with dicitionaries and definitions they are one dimensional.
Have you ever filed a patent? You might want to know how closesly inventions are linked to problem solving.
“Brief Summary of the Invention
This section should present the substance or general idea of the claimed invention in summarized form. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention and how it solves previously existing problems, preferably those problems identified in the BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION. A statement of the object of the invention may also be included. “
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/utility/utility.htm#app
With that definition Expose is an innovation. According to the oxford dictionary innovate means 1 break new ground, pioneer, blaze a trail 2 make alterations, modernize, remodel.
I think quartz is an innovation but more so quartz extreme which uses 3D accelaration for display PDF (Quartz).
imo- iTunes is by far the best audio app available. Im not going to justify my opinion- so eat poo.
“Raptor, I will bet you US$50,000.00 that I can tile windows in Windows 98 and then click “undo tile”, and all of the windows will assume their original aspect ratios and placement, which they possesed prior to the tiling.
I was wrong on this I just tried on my win2k box, you were right.
I am sick and tired of the Apple fanatics making blatantly false claims about how incredibly innovative Apple is compared to others. Raptor, if you are right, you can make an easy US$50,000, and I will admit that Apple is the inventor of everthing having to do with computers. But, if you are wrong, you lose US$50,000 and you must admit that Apple is not the great innovator it is cracked up to be. “
I am not an apple fanatic. I just bought my first Mac 2 months ago. I like apples yes but I am not a fanatic. I use windows 2000 at home, solaris at work and also have a powerbook. I use the windows box because it is better for use as a home theater pc than my powerbook or Ultra10 at home (becuase it has all the hardware).
I will not say apple does not innovate or that apple is the only innovator in the computer world. Sun, IBM, SGI also innovate so does microsoft to some extent. But apple is one of the few companies in the PC market segment that is more innovative than the others. Take dell , microsoft and apple. Of the three apple has more innovation that endusers directly use than microsoft. Microsoft may have more application framework innovations.
Many companies innovate and thats how they survive others resell like dell, some do both.
One can not deny that apple is one of the top innovators in the field. They are by far not the only ones but quite up there.
“Really? From your description, it seems like there is only one difference between tiling and Expose. “
I left one thing out. With expose you can also just spatially arrange windows of only the current application in focus. Also with spring loaded windows I can highlight a text -> F9 ->drag it to the target application’s miniaturazied window-> hold it there for a few seconds which brings the window into focus and drop the text. It sounds complicated but it easier than select keyboard shorcut copy/paste while finding the window on the task bar, a nightmare if you have too many windows.
Expose is cool. I really wish gnome and metacity would come up with an efficient way to do this so I can do it on my Solaris box, I often have a few dozen windows/teminals open. The metacity guys have a patch to implement expose but it is horribly slow.
IMHO, there is only one feature lacking in Exposé: the hability to show hiden and minimized windows. Well, I mean it is the only one I can think about.
you know you were being sarcastic in your question about what apple’s profits this year were. I called you on it and now you are trying to back track.
well, yes. they invented the floppy drive, the word processor, the little mouse cursor, etc etc etc. they made the first truly good laser printers. palm’s handhelds were derivative and absolutely inspired by the apple newton.
that goes to say that, essentially every division of computing these days has apple’s fingerprints all over it, and you windows boozeheads only see the itunes music store. sadness.
Raptor: One can not deny that apple is one of the top innovators in the field. They are by far not the only ones but quite up there.
Actually, I would place companies like IBM and SGI that come up with really new stuff as the top innovators. Granted, Apple had certainly started a lot of trends (i.e. iMac) that eventually get copied by the Wintel crowd, but that doesn’t count as innovation. They mostly take existing ideas and make something out of it, eventually f**king themselves up for underestimating the knock-offs.
Raptor: Expose is cool. I really wish gnome and metacity would come up with an efficient way to do this so I can do it on my Solaris box, I often have a few dozen windows/teminals open. The metacity guys have a patch to implement expose but it is horribly slow.
Thus the reason why I said Quartz, not Expose, is the real innovation.
blah: you know you were being sarcastic in your question about what apple’s profits this year were. I called you on it and now you are trying to back track.
Back track? Quote me when I said Apple wouldn’t post any profits? I just said that we don’t know what Apple’s profits – or anyone else profits for this year.
To quote myself fully: “I don’t know about 2001, but they certainly posted profits for 2002. And anual fiscal profits are already posted for Apple before even the end of the year? Wow. How much did Apple make this year, BTW?”
Now, using your limited sense of comprehension, explain how did you get off with the impression that I was questioning whether Apple was profitable this year or not. I only questioned the scale of profits – how much money they have made. Nobody knows how much, for exact, they and Dell made this year. Not even you.
helsho: well, yes. they invented the floppy drive, the word processor, the little mouse cursor, etc etc etc. they made the first truly good laser printers. palm’s handhelds were derivative and absolutely inspired by the apple newton.
Uhm, since when did they invent the word processor? The certainly invent the little arrow cursor that is oh-so-common, but they invented the cursor itself? And they were the first to make “trully good laser printer” – how is that innovation, besides the point it is subjective?
Actually, I would place companies like IBM and SGI that come up with really new stuff as the top innovators. Granted, Apple had certainly started a lot of trends (i.e. iMac) that eventually get copied by the Wintel crowd, but that doesn’t count as innovation. They mostly take existing ideas and make something out of it, eventually f**king themselves up for underestimating the knock-offs.
Well SGI used to innovate, not any more and what exactly has been SGI’s greatest inniovation after OpenGL. Sun can be attributed with more than SGI. Sun gave the world NFS, NIS, Java and still continues to drive linux development take a look at the slab layer in the kernel which is a Sun design in SVR4.
Apple can be attributed to giving the world a few things 1394, the first GUI in the consumer space. I am not an ardent apple follower so I don’t know every detail about apple. But I am thoroughly impressed at how well thier products are designed. That is innovation in its own right. Apple makes products that just work. While each of my friends has reinstalled thier factory windows installations on thier dells and vaios and atleast called me once to help. My completely computer illiterate firend who has an iMac, upgraded to Jaguar on his own and is yet to call me over to rescue his iMac he has one of the pre lamp models from 2000. The powerbook I own is the closest thing I have seen to a computing appliance. I just close the lid it goes to sleep, open it use it, charge it if neeeded and close the lid again. No shutdown restart. It is ready in a few seconds and just works. I don’t think I have seen one product in the wintel land do that so far, just work.
Thus the reason why I said Quartz, not Expose, is the real innovation.
Like I said Quartz is dispaly Pdf, what you mean is Quartz Extreme which uses the GPU on the 3D graphics card to render the GUI, that is an innovation as well. Expose is no less innovative just becuase it was built on some other innovation. Take an example of automobiles, we couldn;t drive them at 80 mph if it weren’t for the windshield which is made of glass. So by you reasonning an automobile is not innovative because it relies on other innovations (glass) to work reliably?
I find it kinda funny how shrill the anti-Mac camp is sounding lately…
Apple, keep on doing what you are doing. As for the nay-sayers, well, I guess they wouldn’t recognise quality if it left-clicked them on their butt. Its better that way.
Just out of curiousity would somebody have this many windows open for. Isn’t that a little ridiculous?
IBM invented the Floppy drive. Apple was the first to package a computer (the mac) with a 3.5 in floppy.
also, Apple was the inventor of the WYSIWYG Word Processor, since they were the first computer in the business/consumer market to have a GUI, WYSIWYG was kind of hard to do in DOS (though not totally impossible)
the best thing about the article was the part about how america’s most famous snob was snubbed at his own party. too funny.
>This astonishingly imaginative company keeps getting muscled out of markets it >creates
-It has been always like this: there are the ones who innovate
and are the ones who follow.
In computing matters it’s up to the people who want to pay their
attention to. (and spend money on…)
AvS
I think a few people (mainly the guy who said he wouldn’t be surprised if Apple posted losses) will soon be eating humble pie. Perhaps they should look up the projected profits (some areas up over 50%). Don’t ask me to quote my figures, do the research yourself, as you know so much. If projections aren’t good enough for you, look for the slightly less impressive Q4 results.
All this OS bickering is pathetic, just go back in 4 months and read what you’ve all written. It’s one-upmanship, people picking others up on tiny points (missing words from definitions and erroneous letters) like highlighting that will prove their point. Grow up.
Matt
I remember building and using mine…
To even bring it up in the context it was used for this particular argument is silly.
The fact is Apple may not create all it’s technology. It might not “innovate”. BUT, it does create compelling design and technology that drives the industry.
You don’t even have to like Apple, but at least have the intellectual honesty to admit what they have done for the industry as a whole.
And as far as comments like “Apple doesn’t create everything they sell”… at least they don’t buy or crush small companies out of existance so they can’t compete.
Raptor: Sun gave the world NFS, NIS, Java and still continues to drive linux development take a look at the slab layer in the kernel which is a Sun design in SVR4.
You should know by now I have a very strict and tight defination of innovation, while I don’t know about NIS, but NFS, Java and Sun’s Linux development doesn’t count. Take for example Java – the ideas it bring out isn’t exactly new. Many languages have done that. Java itself is based on C, certainly not new in my book. Many of its core concepts aren’t new either, and same with its “write once, run anywhere”. It is a great programming language, but it doesn’t cut out, in general, as innovation.
Certainly, there is parts of it that is innovative, but it doesn’t make the entire language innovative.
And as you can see, innovation rarely happens. What happens is existing ideas being implemented differently with other existing ideas and perhaps some new ones. But overall, most so-called “innovation” aren’t. And you should have mention SPARK, which has some real innovation (though SPARK itself isn’t innovation).
Raptor: Like I said Quartz is dispaly Pdf, what you mean is Quartz Extreme which uses the GPU on the 3D graphics card to render the GUI, that is an innovation as well. Expose is no less innovative just becuase it was built on some other innovation. Take an example of automobiles, we couldn;t drive them at 80 mph if it weren’t for the windshield which is made of glass. So by you reasonning an automobile is not innovative because it relies on other innovations (glass) to work reliably?
Actually, you can’t compare the two situations. Expose main feature have been functioning with its “windshield”, as seen with window tiling for decades. Without Quartz, Expose couldn’t have existed as it is (for example, it couldn’t have shrink each spartial window). But Expose could work without Quartz. Look at Metacity, they implemented it rather quickly, and it functions. But it is dog slow.
The speed of an car doesn’t depend on the durability of the windshield. Manufacturers use the windshield to make it usable. It is pretty much like Aqua – that’s not innovation, but it allows the innovation to be used. Without Aqua (or any other GUI), Quartz would be a huge waste of code. But Aqua isn’t the innovation.
But during the design process of that engine, they couldn’t care less about the windshield.
Anyway, my point is that Expose isn’t a bright new idea. It is based on an existing idea, not dictionary defination of innovation. It isn’t new. Quartz itself isn’t innovation, at least not by Apple. Rather it was by NeXT before being bought by Apple. It is a great idea, a great implementation. I would be suprised if the next version of Windows or the one after it doesn’t copy it. But it isn’t innovation.
blah: also, Apple was the inventor of the WYSIWYG Word Processor, since they were the first computer in the business/consumer market to have a GUI, WYSIWYG was kind of hard to do in DOS (though not totally impossible)
You do know that WYSIWYG word processor doesn’t mean word processor? And BTW, IBM invented the term “word processor” in the 1960s. And also, if you knew what you were talking about, Lexitron and Vydec in the 1970s was the first to introduce wordprocessing commercially via a CRT screen, as opposed to Friden Flexowriter’s paper-tape solution. And all word processors incorporated all the ideas presented by Wang Laboratories in 1976, although it was a machine made specifically for word processing.
On the WYSIWYG side, Apple wasn’t even close to being the first – that claim can be taken by Xerox’s Bravo in 1974 and the more famous Gypsy in 1975. In fact, Microsoft released their WYSIWYG word processor, Word in 1983, a year before Apple’s MacWrite in 1984. (The first version of Word, though, only could show italics and bolds, not much WYSIWYG). So much for your “since they were the first computer in the business/consumer market to have a GUI” logic.
Software-wise, the first word processor, non-WYSIWYG, would be TJ-2 in 1963, IIRC.
You should know by now I have a very strict and tight defination of innovation, while I don’t know about NIS, but NFS, Java and Sun’s Linux development doesn’t count.
I know by now that you can not see reason. You can chose to live you life based on dictionary definitions. You will eventually learn that is not how the world works.
Take for example Java – the ideas it bring out isn’t exactly new. Many languages have done that. Java itself is based on C, certainly not new in my book.
What have you been smoking? Java based on C? don’t make me laugh, please. I would have may be given you some slack if you had said small talk or even C++. Java is based on OAK which was a language developed in Sun Labs. Java is innovation because it was the first Write Once Run anywhere language.
Many of its core concepts aren’t new either, and same with its “write once, run anywhere”. It is a great programming language, but it doesn’t cut out, in general, as innovation.
Really then what language cuts out as innovation in your book. Name it and I can come up with somethings it is based on.
. And you should have mention SPARK, which has some real innovation (though SPARK itself isn’t innovation).
What is SPARK? you are right SPARK is not an innovation. SPARC is Scalable Processor Architecture. Your ignorance amuses me.
You keep quoating dictionary definition of innovation. I have given you two dictionaries that disagree with your dictionary’s definition. American heritage and oxford agree with mine. May be you should consider getting them to all agree on one definition and then we can talk.
innovation
In`no*va”tion, n. [L. innovatio; cf. F. innovation.] 1. The act of innovating; introduction of something new, in customs, rites, etc. –Dryden.
2. A change effected by innovating; a change in customs; something new, and contrary to established customs, manners, or rites. –Bacon.
innovate
In”no*vate, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Innovated; p. pr. & vb. n. Innovating.] [L. innovatus,p. p. of innovare to revew; pref. in- in + novare to make new,fr. novus new. See New.] 1. To bring in as new; to introduce as a novelty; as, to innovate a word or an act. [Archaic]
2. To change or alter by introducing something new; to remodel; to revolutionize. [Archaic] –Burton.
Innovation is not just about inventing something new. MP3 players have been around a long time (before even the iPod). Apple have been innovative by bringing together a useful device which is simple to use (software and hardware), added a legal source of music to download as well as embrace existing media (which MS now shun); and bring it as a package to Windows and MAc users alike.
Thats innovation
I’m a died in the wool Apple guy (since 1986) that would love to bash this article. But I can’t. I can’t because there’s much truth in what the author has written. I think Apple is struggling to find a market that it can open, lead and grow within for many, many years. They must if they are to survive. They may be on the right track. Time will tell. I hope they succeed.
Let’s look at what’s not going to happen. Knock off M$? Not a chance. Set, and drive, the standard for music services for the long run? Maybe, but maybe not. Take a much bigger chuck of the corporate market? Unlikely. Out-Dell Dell (et al)? No. Stay where they are, market position-wise? No, they cannot. They absolutely MUST grow and stay healthy in one of the fastest changing, but monopolistic markets (thank you, M$, thank you Dell) ever.
What then? I certainly don’t have the answer. I do know that those that compare Apple to BMW are missing several important facts about buying a Mac (if one is a Windows owner). If one buys a Bimmer, one enjoys the ablity to use the same highways, run on the same gasoline, park in the same garages for the same fee, carry the same load, have an auto that is functionally and mechanically the near equivalent of most any other car and that is driven in much the same way as other cars. BMWs are just more scare, drive better and cost more, that’s all.
Mac doesn’t enjoy near this degree of sameness with much of the rest of the computer world. Instead, it’s greatness demands a unique operating system – an operating system that is unable to easily run the world’s dominant software. A Mac is a Mac. That’s what I like about it, but this has consigned me to being in the minority. I know that most home users (and business users, too, for that matter) could buy a Mac, would be far happier with their computing experience and never miss a beat. But most won’t. And perhaps I wouldn’t either what with the need to then replace a rather expensive library of software. I’d probably suffer through my Windows experience wishing it were more stable, wishing it were easier and more reliable, wishing M$ wasn’t constantly looking over my shoulder and doing nothing about it because I probably couldn’t afford to. Or, worse, I wouldn’t even think about switching because “everybody” uses a PC with Windows.
Can Mac succeed on the basis of innovation? Yes, they have so far, but the company, rather the Mac, is only twenty years old. Does it require innovation to succeed? Sure, but as the article states, success requires innovation in more areas than product innovation. It requires marketing innovation, distribution innovation, pricing innovation, feature innovation, customer support innovation, revenue source innovation, partnering innovating…the list goes on. Successful companies don’t live on the WOW! factor alone. A product may be the easiest to use, the fastest, the best engineered, the most advanced and it may still fail. Think Pierce Arrow autos, for example, or Sony’s beta tape, or the minidisc (another of my favorites – love it!), or the Concorde, or…ok, pick your own example.
Mac has succeeded because of customer loyalty, a great product and, yes, product innovation. The question is, how long can it keep it’s head above these shark-infested waters? I hope for a long, long time. I just wouldn’t bet on it. I wouldn’t bet on it unless the company innovates in a way that grows market share. Market share in hardware, softeware and any other endeavor Apple tackles. GE succeeds because they strive to be #1 or #2 in evey market they enter. Apple must do the same.
[i] while I don’t know about NIS, but NFS, Java and Sun’s Linux development doesn’t count./[i]
NFS isn’t innovation care to explain. It was the first stateless distributed file system that came out in 1984. DFS & DCE development just began in 1989 with thier request for technoology. AFS is a stateful file system.
http://www.networkcomputing.com/netdesign/nfs1.html
NFS is a part of every unix and unix like OS and it is impossible to have a UNIX environment without using NFS and not to mention numerous NAS devices. If anything counts as innovation NFS does.
Don’t confuse invention with innovation. While they can be used interchangably they are not the same. even with a strict definition of invention or innovation, NFS still counts as one. Read the above article.
Raptor: What have you been smoking? Java based on C? don’t make me laugh, please. I would have may be given you some slack if you had said small talk or even C++. Java is based on OAK which was a language developed in Sun Labs. Java is innovation because it was the first Write Once Run anywhere language.
Oak was first designed to replace C++, with a feature set resembling Objective C. It is based on C. So, historically and technically, it is based on C, even though it is much more high level than C.
Raptor: Really then what language cuts out as innovation in your book. Name it and I can come up with somethings it is based on.
Assembly, for one.
Raptor: What is SPARK? you are right SPARK is not an innovation. SPARC is Scalable Processor Architecture. Your ignorance amuses me.
My spell checker accidently replaced it as SPARK. I wasn’t using my computer, rather my brother’s PC with no Opera and IE with ieSpell. I thought I would try it out.
Raptor: You keep quoating dictionary definition of innovation. I have given you two dictionaries that disagree with your dictionary’s definition. American heritage and oxford agree with mine. May be you should consider getting them to all agree on one definition and then we can talk.
Where before post #95 did you post dictionary definations?
Iceman: Even Apple wasn’t the first to make that kind of MP3 player. They weren’t the first to make a hard disk player, wasn’t the first to a high speed data connection.
Raptor: NFS is a part of every unix and unix like OS and it is impossible to have a UNIX environment without using NFS and not to mention numerous NAS devices. If anything counts as innovation NFS does.
Don’t confuse invention with innovation. While they can be used interchangably they are not the same. even with a strict definition of invention or innovation, NFS still counts as one. Read the above article.
Webster:
Main Entry: in·no·va·tion
Pronunciation: “i-n&-‘vA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device
Main Entry: in·ven·tion
Pronunciation: in-‘ven(t)-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : DISCOVERY, FINDING
2 : productive imagination : INVENTIVENESS
3 a : something invented : as (1) : a product of the imagination; especially : a false conception (2) : a device, contrivance, or process originated after study and experiment b : a short keyboard composition featuring two or three part counterpoint
4 : the act or process of inventing
Hmm, nope. Unless Webster is wrong, I didn’t confuse the both.
Assembly is based directly on machine code, every machine (CPU) has an ISA which assembly is based on. There is nothing innovative about assembly. Unless you consider the Instruction set of a CPU innovation.
Oak was first designed to replace C++, with a feature set resembling Objective C. It is based on C. So, historically and technically, it is based on C, even though it is much more high level than C.
Care to post the source for this piece of information. That is the first time I have heard this. I think you are basically talking out of your ass. Oak was designed for set-top boxes by James Gosling and not to repalce C++ and is not based on objective C’s feature set.
The only thing Java has that is related to C,C++ is the lexical strcuture. If you think the lexical structure is the whole language, I think you have a very naive view of programming languages.
I Think you need to to replace your copy of webster. I have both Oxford and Websters College edition. Having refered both my understanding of innovation clearly conforms with both the dictionaries. Others have posted definitions from other dictionaries. You are struck on one definition when clearly different dictionaries have different definitions of innovation.