Apple’s end-to-end model and ‘thieving’ iPod owners

Posted by Dennis Sellers May 11, 2006 at 7:42pm

There’s speculation that Boot Camp, Apple’s beta software that allows Mactel systems to boot into either Mac OS X or Windows XP, is merely the first step on a road that will see Apple allow other computer vendors to put Mac OS X on their hardware. I’ve argued before that Jobs & Company won’t allow this. Why? Mainly because the CEO has long touted the benefit of the Mac as offering “the whole widget,” integrated software and hardware that’s user friendly.

I still believe this, and Wall Street Journal technology columnist, Walt Mossberg, underscores this with a new column that says Apple’s “end-to-end” model is better than Microsoft’s “component” model in our post-PC era.

The columnist says that the component model sees several companies making hardware and software that run on a standard platform, creating inexpensive commodity devices that don’t always work perfectly together, but get the job done. In the end-to-end model, one company designs both the hardware and software, which work smoothly together, but the products cost more and limit choice. Of course, the component model won out in the personal computer wars, but Mossberg doesn’t believe history will repeat itself with the iPod.

“I think the end-to-end model can prevail this time, both for Apple and other companies,” he writes. “Consumers want choice and low prices. But they also crave the kind of simplicity and integration that the end-to-end model delivers best. Sure, you can get more variety in music players and in online music services if you opt for the Microsoft-based music instead of the iPod system. But the iPod, Apple’s iTunes software, and the iTunes Music Store work so well together that users can just relax and enjoy the music. By contrast, the hodgepodge of players, software and online music stores on the Microsoft side frequently have trouble synchronizing between computers and players.”

I also think this is the reason that Apple won’t license its Mac operating system to other vendors. The beauty and elegance of the Mac is that it just works. Bringing other hardware vendors into the equation would likely result in the chaos of the Wintel world as well as eating into Mac hardware sales (still Apple’s biggest source of revenue).
So I think that Apple will keep making the “whole widget” when it comes to the Mac, the iPod and whatever other devices the company has in store. (Mossberg thinks that “Apple is working on other projects built on the same end-to-end model as the iPod: a media-playing cellphone and a home-media hub.”)

On another topic, Real Networks CEO Rob Glaser says that iPod users are stealing music. “The average number of songs sold for the iPod is 25, and there are many more songs on iPods than 25,” he told The Guardian. “About half the music on iPods is music obtained illegitimately either from an illegal peer-to-peer networks or from ripping friends’ CDs, which is illegal.”

As an iPod user, I’m insulted. First of all, I’d like to know where Glaser gets those stats. Maybe they’re true, maybe not. And if they are, shame on those who rip off artists by stealing their music. But there are plenty of us who use our iPods legally. All the songs on mine are either purchased from the iTunes Music Store or “ripped” from CDs I’ve purchased.

Is the iPod ever used for illegal activity? Certainly, but then so is most technology. In my opinion, the iPod and the iTunes Music Store (which, by the way, now sells more music than Tower Records or Borders) has made great strides in getting folks to legally download and purchase digital music.

Apple is hitting all the right notes in the digital music biz, and Real Networks isn’t. Glaser’s comments sound like sour grapes to me.

Thoughts? Write me at daseller@earthlink.net

Advanced Search

Article Information

Comment on this Article Print this Article Email this Article Digg This

Contributor

Recent Articles