“Despite increasing competition, Apple’s iPod still rules the digital-music world, according to new reports from market researchers,” David Becker reports for CNET News.
“Research company The NPD Group said in a report released Tuesday that various versions of the iPod accounted for 92.1 percent of the market for hard drive-based music players, up from 82.2 percent a year ago. Players from Creative Technology and Digital Networks North America’s Rio were a distant second and third, with 3.7 percent and 3.2 percent of the market, respectively,” Becker reports.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: A few more quarters of this type of performance, folks, and it’ll be game, set, match; Microsoft and all of the WMA-based music stores be damned. And this success could lead to possibilities that most of the tech world still cannot imagine. Think a major Wintel box assembler and Mac OS X don’t mix? Think different. And we’re not necessarily talking Mac OS X on x86, either. You heard it here first.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Apple: in online music ‘there is a lot of customer choice, it’s just that Microsoft doesn’t like the choices customers are making’ – October 12, 2004
iPod success opens door to Mac OS X on Intel – March 04, 2004
Excellent
“Think a major Wintel box assembler and Mac OS X don’t mix? Think different. And we’re not necessarily talking Mac OS X on x86, either. You heard it here first.”
Ummm, I don’t get it. What exactly did we hear?
Apple licenses Mac OS X to HP. HP makes the “Apple Mac by HP.” HP makes a boatload of money, as they are with the “Apple iPod by HP.” HP takes out Dell as the number one personal computer maker, by selling both operating systems. Bill Gates and Michael Dell come to blows, end up killing each other. Ballmer’s head pops straight off his bloated body. Rob Glaser chokes on a Krispy Kreme. Kim Komando’s stupid radio show goes dark. Enderle, Thurrott, and Dvorak join the circus. Best Buy and Circuit City CEOs crawl to Cupertino begging Steve Jobs for mercy…
It would seem that all WMA digital players are vying among themselves for a distant second to the iPod in market share. These devices may have to qualify their meager accomplishments by restricting comparisons among other WMA capable digital players. Direct comparisons to the iPod would only highlight their poor consumer appeal.
I think they were referring to clones.
I think that if Apple were to do cloning with a major WinTel box assembler, it would be HP. Dell and Gateway are not good enough, and the CEOs of Apple and Sony don’t appear to meet eye to eye.
Anonymous:
One thing that might also occur with Apple licensing OS X to HP is that Apple divorces itself from making Macs altogether and relegates computer design and manufacture to HP.
Apple would focus entirely on design and development of operating systems as well as iPods and other handheld consumer products for audio and video.
I hope not.
I’ve mentioned my thoughts on this at another forum…HP reselling XServes and perhaps a corporate version of the eMac, built by Apple.
Return of the Mac clones wouldn’t be unthinkable…
Apple has a bigger software library than it did years ago and could profit well from software licensing.
But all in all, I do not want Apple to drop their hardware business.
that is so cool. iPod at 92 % Eat that Dull
Anonymous, on top of just seeing Team America that was really funny. You have my vote for funniest post of 2004.
meat of moose..
YES!!!!!
This is what Cringely was talking about.. Apple focsing on Digital Media Technology and licensing the Mac OS X to hardware makers…
what they should have done AGES ago…
MDN did say “Think a major Wintel box assembler and Mac OS X don’t mix? Think different. And we’re not necessarily talking Mac OS X on x86, either.”
To me the ONLY major Wintel box assembler, that has the possiblilty of providing a NON-x86 platform is IBM! (Think PowerPC peoples!)
What sweet sweet victory it would be for Apple and IBM to partner and bury Microsoft, the company that swindled/stole and manipulated them out of their market leading positions.
IBM are left to sell OS X to corporate users that don’t want/need Apples design brilliance for their 20,000 user base. IBM also do manufacture a GOOD QUALITY wintel product – IBM Thinkpads are nice wintel laptops, I mean if you have to use Wintel.
I know IBM were the bad guys back in 84 etc, but they have made a major shift in their approach since then. Their focus is now really in services (and chip design, applied research etc), and their hardware business is really to support the services business. IBM have also already shown a commitment to pushing Linux in the corporate space, moving to OS X isn’t that much of a stretch from there (and they can still offer Linux for those that want it)
And Apple is left to do what it continues to do best – design, develop and produce the best computing experience for the PC user.
This arrangemnet woudl also mean that Apple and IBM can continue to ensure the end to end design advantage of the Mac architecture continues – ie “It just works” – only because all components etc are designed and certified by Apple
My thoughts only – would love to hear alternatives (other than OS X on Intel – I don’t see the benefit in the long term, as I see all the compatibility issues etc that plague wintel being introduced into the mac environment once every Michael, Stan and Carly can start making them)
IBM offering OS X based computers? I don’t think so. They are really only a bit player in consumer desktops and laptops now. Also, anyone notice that when the G5 chip was first introed on the PowerMac, the IBM logo was prominately displayed in advertisements. No more.
If Apple licenses its OS to other computer manufacturers can Apple keep the marriage of Mac hardware and Apple OS intact, and maintain profitability for the Mac?
If Apple licenses its OS to other computer manufacturers should Apple keep the marriage of Mac hardware and Apple OS intact?
Would the Apple OS for PC�s be identical in all respects regarding the user interface for the OS for Macs?
Would the Apple OS for PC�s be exclusively Unix-based?
Should Apple deviate at all from Unix-based OS development?
Should Apple maintain exclusive research and development allegiances with both IBM and Freescale regarding single- and dual-core processors?
Should Apple deviate at all from OS development based upon PowerPC designs from IBM and Freescale by considering single- and dual-core processors from AMD and Intel?
so where is Sony on the list, I wonder? don’t they feel stupid now for turning down Apple?
well… the only problem is IBM’s market share blows… the ideal situation would be porting Mac OS X on X486.. cuz then HP and.. er.. *cough.. Sony can play along.. and MS will have COMPETITION..
To be honest though.. it would suck for developers.. especially if it came down to a 60% share for Win and a 30% share for mac.. i mean.. now they have to produce two different versions! which means price of software will go up…
then again.. no office for windows in a ‘monopoly? no problem!’ world
This is getting scary – Apple now has a potential to grow it’s marketshare enormously!
Licence OS X to HP and watch those mac user numbers GROW!
The ‘iPod Juggernaut’ continues to roll!
I suppose that when it reaches a 95% market share, then all the whiners about “standards” will have to shut their mouths. AAC, MP3 and Apple’s Fairplay DRM will become the de facto standard because of the simple fact that no-one will be using *anything* else!! After all, iTunes software *is* available in both Mac and Windoze flavors.
Actually, we all know that the only reason that ‘some people’ are whining about Apple ‘opening up’ the iPod is so that they can continue to sell their crappy Dell, Rio, Creative, and iRiver players because, presumably, they will then work with the iTMS. Steve Jobs has already said that it won’t be opened up unless it is financially profitable for Apple to do so. At this point, it’s not.
I think Steve knows what he’s doing; he’s already shown us that the iPod would sell at $499 and that the runaway hit MiniPod would sell at $249. I remember a few people suggesting that he had possibly been smoking low-grade crack when he first announced the price for MiniPod. Apparently, many of us were wrong.
My Opinion: Apple should not license the OS. Right now there is a perfectz harmony between the hardware and software side. Also, Apple is the leading innovator in the hardware and software sectors. Just look at the engineering of the new iMac. What Apple could perhaps do, Is to give the manufacturing rights to HP for example, so that Product demand can be met. In other words, let HP put together a mac compatible, but only with the exact specifications set out by apple, and then the procing scheme should also be on par. Apple prices will come down and the image of unaffordability will be a thing of the past.
With Aplle being in such a Power-Position as it is right now, strategies have to be thought out carefully and with the future in mind.
Well, it’s a perfect Steve Jobs Market out there right now – the type he LOVES to exploit. Remember the explosive 1984 campaign?… computers existed – but they were from a grey, faceless, careless, difficult to use giant. Add to that virus’s, massive security holes, seemingly zero development progress, and you have a situation ripe for a legendary Apple entrance-to-market. Think of the same story in music – only the giant-with -problems in this case was Napster.
Apple does need partners to grow. Unlike in the past, it will have a cast iron framework for any such agreement.
BOTH HP AND IBM licensed to make the simple affordable Mac box – as Wildstrom on Businessweek suggested recently:
“With any real improvement in Windows at least two years away, I think Apple could shake the industry by offering, for $700 or less, a PC-like Mac box for which consumers would provide their own displays. The company wouldn’t have to scrimp on features or quality; the unit would lack the elegant design of the iMac G5, but it would still be a Mac.”
Apple is highly unlikely to ever give up its design excellence – where it make margins like no other PC manufacturer.
MS and Dell may yet be consigned to the dustbin of computings ‘copiers’, not ‘originators’.
afaik, when apple tried the first time going the “clone” way, they gave away the OS for a mere $15-$25 per box(license), including all of the intellectual property (as in mobo designs & stuff).
If they decide to do it now, it should be possible to charge at least $100 per box (excluding board designs etc) and make a healthy profit. — this way those beige boxes wouldn�t be too cheap AND wouldn�t take away too many sales. (especially if limited too corporate sales, as mentioned before)
my $.02
matt
I heard back in April (no, not on the first!) that IBM’s server division wanted to become an Apple reseller, but their PC division wouldn’t allow it. Maybe Apple’s deal with HP on the iPods has changed IBM’s way of thinking on that. They already produce the G5 and are very well-placed when it comes to high-end non-Windows corporate server installations. Makes more sense for IBM than for HP if you look at it that way.
Macaday, I think Wildsrom is wrong. What Apple is proving beyond doubt in a maturing PC soft/hardware market is that Quality Counts. No company will seek a partnership with Apple so it can churn out cheap beige boxes – and Apple (under Jobs) would NEVER permit anything like this. Companies will be looking for a (long-term) means of shifting their focus beyond the dead-end Windows mess and towards quality, dependability and design. Having Apple (and OSX) on board as a partner will provide a company with its only realistic exit strategy from Windows at the same time as allowing it to be reflected in Apple’s considerable glory – which is what HP is doing on a smaller scale with iPod.
Twenty Benson, you are right about that. Steve Jobs has been quoted on several times that its quality over quanity for Apple. I don’t know why every one wants to cheap out Apple like they do? I read an interesting blog a while back ago, here’s the link, http://blogsofmat.blogspot.com/ I think it makes sense, plus if you still don’t think that Apple is going to do what it wants, read the interview w/ Jobs in Businessweek.
No, no, no, it’s like this:
Introducing the ‘Apple iMac by HP’ and the ‘Apple eMac by HP.”
In tens of thousands of locations that HP is in already, where Apple isn’t.
Apple retains 100 percent of the design control, HP just rebrands, markets, and pushes Mac OS X out to the world via their distribution channels.
I can say no more at this time…