Apple Says No To Supporting Other Music Services

[Kent Pribbernow]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.com.com/2100-1041-5198043.html?tag=cd.top' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/2100-1041-5198043.html?tag=cd.top</a><br /><br /></div>"Speaking at Apple's annual shareholder meeting here, Jobs said there would be both an initial and ongoing cost to allowing the iPod to work with other music services.<br /><br />"To be honest, it's just not worth it," Jobs said, noting that RealNetworks has made a number of overtures to Apple and adding that Real's music service has been "less than successful." <br /><br />Oh come on now, Steve. We know you just want all the apples in the orchard (pun intended) to yourself. :lol: Seriously, this is a catch-22 proposition. If Apple opens the iPod to other services, it could cause users to migrate over to the competition, which would bleed sales from iTunes. On the flip side (another shameless pun), if Apple <b>DOES NOT</b> follow this path, other devices and services could become increasingly popular over time, ultimately marginalizing Apple. Not an easy decision to say the least.

[mrkablooey]

I think it's a good idea. Let them control everything the iPod can do and you are better off that way. Open it up to too much other stuff and you just dilute what is a great music player.

[Mojo Jojo]

I think there has been speculation about opening up the iPod for a while now. There are even rumors that the software update for iPod to play other types of music is already ready and sitting on the sidelines.

The though being that while Apple is in the lead there is no need but if the tables were to turn then presto the iPod can now play other types of music. So while at the top of the game, why make less profit? Is this a consumer friendly approach? No, but it is good business sense.

If this rumor is true or not is like all other rumors, we won't know until we see it.

Either way you have to agree, why give the cow away when your not done milking it?

[Kacey Green]

whatever happened to Apple's allience with HP? and a blue HP iPOD?

Edit note to myself:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=mediacenterguide&page=1&cookie%5Ftest=1&MSCSProfile=95385A1F52DEA1A229D5B375420544645A212DC56E27AD2AEAF986AE9ECA7ACA5A409A3AEAD452DC608504FAF8C27E0A7E2F4C71FFE8B3194621F13CBFDF479DCB47182BB6F64EA61AAF21CA29346BF7F5A3CDF495432D667643F24D530CC844E993579C0230F52E50BB751FF05590E9FAD8AB3BC013BA3E2261001905501084B4FF4EC62F547D0B

[ale_ers]

My question is: If itunes is only there to support the ipod why not open it up to other formats?

itunes is not profitable and they have said many times that they really don't care if it is, because it exists just to drive ipod sales. Well if they open it up to other formats wouldn't every other music service help drive sales.

It seems to me like the VCR vs. Betamax debate, or closer to the point the original apple vs. 'IBM compatible' debate. Apple was dominating back when the first home computers were 2c's. Then as the home computer evolved, most people moved to an IBM compatible computer or a PC because there was more software for it.

I think it would be great for the market if you were able to buy a song (say on Napster or even ituenes) be able to play it in your ipod whenever. Then you want to go jogging so you put that song on your flash based player. Later you go on a business trip and don't want to bring either of these devices (because you just don't have the room) so you put the song on your PDA. This is possible now, but you have burn, re rip and lose quality.

[Kacey Green]

good points