“Apple sold out of iPods during its 2004 first quarter, shipping 733,000 players and booking $256 million in revenue. That’s nearly 13% of Apple’s $2 billion in sales for the quarter, up more than 200% from the same period a year ago, when Apple sold $81 million worth of iPods,” Tim Beyers writes for The Motley Fool. “Interestingly, demand probably hasn’t come close to peaking. In early January, Apple inked a deal with Hewlett-Packard allowing HP to resell its own branded music player based on the iPod and to include iTunes with the nearly 16 million consumer-oriented personal computers it sells each year.”
Beyers writes, “It is difficult to overstate the importance of this announcement. Apple’s iPod and iTunes music store were doing well before HP came into the picture. In fact, Apple admits its first quarter — which was already a huge success — could have been better if it had adequately met global demand for its music players. Now, with its order backlog, the new Mini, and the new HP channel, it seems that anything less than 3 million iPods sold during fiscal ’04 would be a major disappointment. Four million seems likely. How would that translate into revenue? Let’s do the math: According to its latest earnings report, Apple averaged $349 in revenue per iPod sold. If prices remain stable,
Motley Fool is usually pretty sharp, but I disagree on this one. I don’t think Apple has plans for an iPod movie player, so porting these apps to Windows for that reason is not the answer.
If Windoze users want fine apps, come to the right platform!
I agree with Jimbo. Steve Jobs has mentioned that before….there are already portable DVD players that capture that market.
Although the sales figures on the iPods, iPod mini’s, and hPods are potential and theoretical. I can only hope that those figures are entirely possible.
iTunes may work best with the iPod but iPhoto works with any USB digital camera. Same with iMovie and DV cameras. Apple would not make that much money by selling iLife to Windows customers. Except for the iPod, there would be no hardware to complement the software.
Having said that, iChat for Windows would be very profitable if it convinces people to buy iSight cameras. Surelly there is demand for intuative video conferencing on the Windows platform.
Steve recently listed three reasons for why they don’t have a video iPod (like the ones so proudly introduced at CES).
First, there is not yet a visual equivalent to audio headphones.
Second, movies are so stinkin’ long that even with today’s broadband it takes too much time to download them. (And–my words here–who wants to see home movies of someone else’s grandkids or latest vacation reel all the time on their portable video player.)
And third, movies don’t affect us emotionally the way that music does. Then he followed all that up by saying, of course, you never know what we are working on in our labs.
I admit I was jealous that Apple didn’t introduce a toy like Microsoft’s video player, but when I read Steve’s explanation, I thought, “It’s OK, the market/technology isn’t right for a video iPod. The iPod wasn’t the first MP3 player; it was the first insanely great MP3 player. When Apple introduces their next killer device, we will all think, yeah, that’s it.”
Steve and the team at Apple are pretty smart. GarageBand, with 50% of households in the US having at least 1 current musician in their home, will make the next killer market. And everyone else went from MP3s to movies without stopping to think about the creators of music!
When we do see the video iPod, it will come with video “headphones” which we will have to be taught to use like the mouse in 1984. And how sweet it will be!
The movie player was just an example. The point is that Apple is expected to unveil more devices, and any software that significantly supports those devices will be ported to Windows to vastly increase the sales of those devices. The software titles already available in iLife may be a clue to the type of devices being planned, just as iTunes preceded iPod.
At present, there is no reason to port any more software. Personally, I’m looking for a Tivo device, which won’t require any computer to work.
While I agree that an iPod-like video player is about as likely as an Apple branded mobile phone, I think it was only an example, and not to be taken seriously, so obviously porting iLife to Windows “for that reason” is not the answer. The answer is 49 bucks a pop to millions of PC users (yes, I think it would be a strategic mistake to charge more) who would not buy a Mac otherwise, and who may possibly be tempted to do so after using Apple’s fine software. It is unreasonable to assume that people would switch in droves just to use iLife, but not at all unreasonable to assume that they would buy it for that price, and get a taste of the Apple in the bargain. Better some (potentially substantial) revenue, than little or none from the dramatically vaster market.
KennyLucius,
Well said, you beat me to it, but I still think that Apple could realize substantial revenue from iLife for Windows in and of itself. Unlike iTMS, there are no greedy record labels gobbling up license fees for the other apps.
It’s GOT to be iChat for Windows next. Apple already has the iSight built and ready to go. A huge market ripe for the picking.
I agree with all the reasons why a video iPod makes no sense. But maybe something’s being done in a different direction than people assume when they think “video iPod”? Two poinst:
1. Steve Jobs, when making his comments on portable video, added the disclaimer that he couldn’t promise Apple wasn’t working on something related.
2. Apple DID post a job a while ago for their “next generation iPod” team that required experience with video compression.
iLife for Windows is not happening, though. Apple makes money on hardware, and the other iApps would just help people stay on Windows while making work for Apple. iTunes leads to iPod sales, and from there to Macs:
http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/02/1650259&mode=thread
“First, there is not yet a visual equivalent to audio headphones.”
So, with all the chatter about Apple working on some other digital lifestyle home appliance, maybe “visual headphones” are it, or part of it.
This article sounds like wishful thinking on the part of a Windows user, but he does have a point if (1) Apple does expand its “lifestyle” hardware, (2) it makes use of iLife apps, and (3) Apple wants to sell to Windows users. Just like iTunes, whatever app the hardware interfaces with will have to be ported to Windows out of necessity. So, maybe, not all of iLife all at once — but piece by piece — we’ll see it converted for Windows….
Any of the “i” suite of applications gain a lot of their appeal from the OS they are running on. The transparent nature of OS X allows these programs to integrate seamlessly with hardware and other software to provide a solid creative platform in which to work. One that stays OUT OF YOUR WAY instead of getting IN YOUR WAY.
This kind of seamless integration of hardware and software is nothing more than a pipe dream in the Windows world.
As such, I disagree with the premise of the article. I think some things need to stay on the Mac and those who want them bad enough would be wise to purchase the superior system required to use it.
I think these Trojan Horse products from Apple are the biggest favor they could offer the Windows community. If the lemmings are too blind to see the obvious advantages to owning a Mac, show them a fantastic piece of software they can’t have on Windows instead.
Some people need more than a gentle nudge to see what they are missing. ;o)
iSight’s possible. I’m still amazed that people widely understand why iSight costs more than other web cams. Isn’t that the kind of thing some Mac folks and most Apple-ignorant press would blindly jump all over? But iSight and iChat AV got mainly good press right from the beginning, and deservedly so… while products like Panther and iLife ’04, with more obvious benefits, have price complaints parroted all over. Odd.
I’d be very surprised if Apple ported software over just for the heck of it. iLife is part of the experience the Mac offers, part of the differentiation from Windows or Linux. People don’t see the fine differences in pure OS experience, but when a new Mac let’s people get right into doing great things, they notice it. Ever noticed how many of the reviews from PC oriented mags usually point out the great software such as iMovie as an example of the improved experience? Apple would stand to lose a lot that no $49 a copy could ever make up!
Though, if they introduce a new killer gadget (which I think isn’t too likely) then I would expect an approach similar to the iTunes/iPod deal.
I forgot to mention that I think, like iTUNES, iCHAT should be made available for Windows users for obvious reasons. The rest should stay on the Mac only.
I wouldn’t want to see iLife ported to Windows.
The costs to get it reliable working with all the PC hardware and addons would be prohibitive.
As an example, iTunes on my PC is kinda cool and kinda sucks. It’s nice to be able to stream tracks from the PC through iTunes. However, iTunes rips CDs at half the speed or less than MusicMatch (which convinces me that using iTunes ripping benchmarks versus another program on a PC is not a valid test of machine speed–iTunes rips so slowly thta you are automatically crippling the Mac benchmark using it), doesn’t recognize when a CD is ejected, even after trying out autoplay every which way, and this is on a more than one year old stock Sony machine. What I usually do is rip the tracks with MusicMatch, then exit and add them to the iTunes library so they can be streamed through Rendezvous. I don’t care, but if I was a PC-only user I wouldn’t be impressed.
That is on a program Apple is using to sell iPods it profits greatly from.
Imagine how many problems there could be with a piece of software whose only revenue stream is the $49 the program itself brings in.
Putting Apple software on a PC is akin to putting a ballgown on a $3 hooker–and for iLife I have the feeling the fabric would cost more than the dress would sell for.
I don’t expect to see a “video iPod” but I could see one with a higher resolution color screen that you could view digital photos with. They may have hinted at going in that direction with the card adapter that allows you to load photos on your iPod for storage.
The video iPod just doesn’t work because with music you can do other things while you listen, but with video you have to watch & listen. I listen to my iPod while I work but I couldn’t watch a movie. Besides, in order to keep the small form factor the screen would have to remain the same size, and who would want to watch a movie on a screen that small? No, I think the Windows world jumped on this thinking that it would be the iPod killer but I think they’ll find that this will be even less popular than the Tablet PC.
I like the Motley fool guys and their opinions, but this time they haven’t thought things out. It would be ridiculous to port iPhoto, iMovie, and Garageband over to
Win$in. But it would be an absolute winner to port Safari and iChat over to Win$in, and much less difficult. Safari has to correspond to internet protocols, not Window’s protocols, and the internet is waiting for something better like Safari. Is is a moneymaker, not really, but it is mass exposure and a better solution.
iChat is a must-port in order to take off. I have my camera all geared up and ready to view and talk, yet have no one to talk to. If iChat were ported to Win$in, then it could reach another universe and truly change the world into the Jetsons. Imagine the money businesses could save in travel by simply hooking up a huge LCD to a Mac running iChat in their board rooms. A couple o’ grand and tons of businesses are all set up to communicate. The savings would be incredible…the flights…hotel rooms…restaurants. Think of the families that will stay together because the father can come home at night instead of always being away. Simply two macs, two decent cameras, two cable modems, a few cables and accessories, and two coffee makers, and you’re all set up. Win$in users can’t even fathom this.
Longhorn will make it possible for iTunes to work in all its glory on Wintel systems. iTunes for Windows will ship when Longhorn reaches critical mass in 2009 or 2010. Lets put these rumors to bed until then.
The only people asking for iLife 04 to be ported to Windows are the stubborn fools who refuse to rid themselves of Windows. So instead of changing their own setup and going to Apple, they want Apple to come to them. iLife is worth a hell of a lot more than what it retails for — reason? To drive hardware sales. The only way I could see Apple porting iLife would be to sell the Windows version for $200 (or higher). They would have nothing to gain from porting it. iTunes was ported to drive sales of iPods. Apple, inversely, would earn nothing from the sales of digital cameras or video cameras with iLife.
Umm, Al … iTunes is already available for Windows … did you mean another iApp?
Why create an iLife for Windows? Simple. Because it supports Apple’s digital music direction. You use your AAC/Fairplay music in your iMovies and iPhoto slide shows. No doubt MS is busy creating their own version of iLife to support their Media Center strategy. MS is intent on destroying Apple’s iTunes for Windows success.
I have no doubt Apple is creating iLife for Win. in case there’s a significant challenge to their iTunes dominance. And no BoogieBoy, I’m not a Windows user.
Stupid analysts – that is why they get paid to write and not run companies.
They advocate giving up the world’s most profitable computer. SO DUMB!
That’s like BMX exiting the car biz to make garage door openers.
They must have read my Spymac thread
http://www.spymac.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=58297
I want iChat for PC, so the rest of my family can get a little glimpse of great Apple tech since none of them are music people so they dont want iTunes
It reminds me of the “port OS X for intel” squad. They want everything on the cheap!
Ralph, the answer to M$ copying Apple’s strategy and trying to edge them out isn’t for Apple to compete on their turf, but to push the envelope on the Mac side without M$ constantly trying to sabotage things. If Apple were to port all the Apps over to windows they’d be slowed down a great deal by having to support Windows “quirks”, that’s the best way to let M$ take advantage!
On the Mac side they dictate which direction hard- and software goes, they can modify the OS to suit the needs of the iApps if need be. They can create the Apps to take advantage of new hardware developments before they come out. On Windows they’re at M$’ mercy, and we all know how merciful M$ can be!
“Well said, you beat me to it, but I still think that Apple could realize substantial revenue from iLife for Windows in and of itself.” – Viridian
I don’t agree. In the case of iTunes, Jobs himself said that it was to drive the sale of iPods. So, the development of iTunes was paid for by iPods revenue and music sales (even if it’s a small amount). In addition, the foundation of iTunes is QuickTime, which already exists for Windows. Contrast this with iDVD, iPhoto, iMovie (OK, iMovie has some QT foundation) and GarageBand. Apple will have to port them from scratch, probably even has to write libraries and APIs for the Windows version. Do they have to sell this for $49? Granted they may sell loads of this, but the pay off is minimal and further gives customers a reason to avoid Macs. If they sell this much more than $49, then you can bet Apple will be in hot water (again) for the price difference and still lose people to Wintel. Apple should not and doesn’t have to do anything that goes against their survival. If it includes porting iChat, so be it. If iLife minus iTunes is Mac only, that is just as great. Analysts tend to look at Apple as just another PC manufacturer: all innovation will be spread evenly to the rest of the players and the only distinction is price. They can’t be more wrong on that.
One last thing, if analysts are wrong, what are the consequences? Nothing, not even an article that says they are wrong. If Apple is wrong, what are the consequences? No more Apple.
Analysts can afford to open their mouth and bullshit their way through.
*OK, enough ranting… now everybody knows my opinion about analysts*
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />