How iTunes is Paving the Way For Switchers
Trojan Horse—figurative, a person or thing intended secretly to undermine or bring about the downfall of an enemy or opponent.
Ladies and gentlemen, it finally hit me during the keynote: iTunes on Windows wasn’t about selling iPods, it was about selling Macs. I know, I know, it seems counterintuitive, but it’s true. Though I must admit, at first, when iTunes came to Windows I just thought it was Apple trying to expand the iPod’s install base. And maybe that really was the initial design, but oh how times have changed. By the way, in case you missed the keynote allow me to explain. The new Finder interface is almost identical to the newest iTunes interface.
Curious…
Why would they do that, do you think? Well, one explanation is that the iTunes interface is just so good that, after almost two years, the Apple engineers couldn’t come up with anything better.
Well…maybe…
Here is another theory. What do you think is the biggest hurdle preventing wide-scale adoption of OS X? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not price! Nope, it’s experience. Almost all current computer users are familiar with some version of Windows. And even with the massive gains OS X has made in recent years, the vast majority of the public has no experience with Macs. But, because so many people have iPods, they do have plenty of experience with iTunes.
If only the iTunes interface was identical to the Find-...oh wait, now it is.
The biggest issue for Windows users, namely an alien way to access their files, has suddenly been greatly minimized. Because now using the Finder is just like using iTunes. So, let’s look at things from a Windows user’s perspective. They are used to using Quicktime, they are used to using iTunes, now thanks to iTunes they are used to using the new Finder, and if that wasn’t enough, Apple just announced that they are giving away Safari for Windows as well. Oh yeah, and GAMES, that last big reason for using Windows over Mac, just took a big step towards becoming a non-factor thanks to these recent announcements.
Apple has drastically stepped up its attempts at capturing market share and that means they are all but declaring war on Windows. There just isn’t any nicer way to say it, Apple has now become so aggressive that a conflict with Microsoft is all but guaranteed. How can anything else happen? Apple just announced that they were going to try and take a big chunk of IE’s market, then they announced that (with simultaneous releases) games will soon be a non-factor in choosing an OS; hell, the only way they could have made a more aggressive stand was to announce they are going to produce their own game console.
Microsoft has to react to all this. I haven’t a clue as to what they could realistically do to counter it, but I know they are going to have to do something because Apple is dangerously close to grabbing a lot of Microsoft’s revenue.
To say the least, this should be interesting.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
I think this keynote puts paid to the post-D5 notion that all is civil and merry between Apple and Microsoft.
I am unconvinced.
More likely Apple was experimenting with the best touch interface for the iPhone 2 years back… 1 year back… they found it was just intuitive to browse through music via coverflow.
And they put it into iTunes.
And then into the Finder itself.
(Quick Look & Stacks looks kind of natural for touch use too)
The real question is .. why the touch interface when the Mac isn’t touchscreen?
(of course… if Apple announce iWork for Windows we’ll know the fight is on…)
“The new Finder interface is almost identical to the newest iTunes interface.”
Great point, James. Very insightful article.
Likewise your comment, Ben. And as James said, it will be interesting to see MS’s response. A translucent Zune? Flower power? Ruby? Indigo? Graphite!
I’m not sure iTunes is about selling Macs - its perhaps fairer to say that it is just one of the ways Apple has to hook you into the Apple experience. iTunes is really about selling iPods, and now Apple TV, and even iPhone. But iTunes is also about selling music, at a profit - especially now with AAC tracks at a 30% premium…
You could say that iTunes is Apple’s content warrior. For some years now the IT world has been focused on content - Microsoft and others have been buying up all sorts of content providers with the view that owning the content meant owning the customer. Apple have approached this another way. They have become a retailer. iTunes is as much about retailing other people’s content as the Apple stores are about retailing Apple’s own stuff. So, instead of owning the content, Apple just delivers it. And in so doing Apple owns the market.
It will be interesting to see if Apple can hold on to this market. But the iTunes store has such a huge market share in music, and is heading that way in TV and film, that it is probably nigh on impossible for anyone else to really get a competitive system off the ground. Look at Microsoft’s problems with Zune - if Microsoft, with all that money, can’t compete with the iTunes store then who can?
In the meantime, the iPod halo effect is definitely working. I think that what most people have not realised is that consumers just don’t change their PC’s every 2-3 years. I was an early halo-effect-switcher, but it is only now that most of my friends are starting to switch to Mac. And they are - at a rate approaching 100%.
I imagine Apple realise this. Mac growth is steady, even accelerating. And for Apple, the Mac is just one element (albeit a vital element) in a strategy which integrates the whole Apple experience. It doesn’t matter how you engage with Apple - be it iPod, iTunes, Apple TV, Safari or Mac. In the end, Apple hope you will fully embrace the Apple approach.
And you probably will.
When Apple wants to sell Macs, they will. Right now they don’t want to sell a large quantity of macs, I Know it sounds dumb, but all evidence points to them not wanting to sell a large quantity of macs. The price is still relatively high or high end. They have no real plan for enterprise or corporate sales. Sales are made mainly through online or specialty retailers. Everyone can see the barriers to owning a Mac. Apples smart they see they too, They just choose to ignore them.
“When Apple wants to sell Macs, they will.”
Wow….
If I was an Apple shareholder I would be pissed off this was in fact the case. Apple want’s to sell Macs just as badly as Microsoft wants to sell Windows, and they have had only limmited success in convincing people to switch.
You give Apple way to much credit. When Apple acts dumb, it is because genuinely dumb.
This article reminds me of that scene in A Beautiful Mind where Nash finds all those secret messages in random letters in newspapers and magazines.
The iPod halo effect is a dubious enough claim, but the Cover Flow halo effect?
When Apple wants to sell Macs, they will.
In actual fact, as laboured as the point is by now, the fact is Apple simply doesn’t want to sell in the low cost computer segment. This is not “dumb”, it reflects what Apple brings to the computer industry. They sell the best computing experience they can.
If Apple wanted to sell an order of magnitude more Macs, it would involve creating low-cost, “slow” Macs. They’re not waiting for some special future time to do this*, and they’re not “dumb” for not doing it now, they know better than us what their core value is and they try to deliver on it. For all those who don’t value a premium computer experience**, or don’t realise that they might value it, cheap boxes running windows (or not) will always still exist.
*or are they?
**I don’t mean this in the sense of Macs being de facto ‘better’ than anything else, nor in the false sense that Macs are more expensive than equally equipped windows machines. The “premium computing experience” is what anyone who buys expensive hardware is buying into - it could be a high-end Sony machine as equally as a Mac, where your only option is a high-spec machine***.
***Mac Mini, inexplicably frozen in carbonite, excluded
There is an important point about this type of argument:
Apple [should]/[is dumb for not doing]/[must if it is to compete] creat cheaper, low-specced Macs for those who just want basic functions
Compare to other PC manufacturers, who sell a broader x-section of machines at any point in time. We don’t see that in general they are making an order of magnitude more money than Apple, nor in fact selling more machines. It seems that there is pretty much a direct pay-off if you convert to selling low-cost machines: you might sell more machines (debatably) but don’t make any more money because the increase in sales is offset by A. lower margins and B. parasitism of high-end machines.
Thus you can choose between trying to deliver high quality to people who care about their computing experience, or delivering a greater number of lower quality products to more people. In either case and no matter how you split your products between high and low end, you stand to make about the same amount of money.
Thus what you actually do comes down to philosophy. It is very clear that Apple’s ethos is to strive to serve the difficult, demanding environment of people who care very strongly about their computing experience. It’s kind of mad and lovable that they should relish that challenge and it’s what someone like Billy G can’t understand as it’s not a mathematical, makes-sense-to-an-MBA style preference. It comes down to what they want to do, what they’re best at, and that doesn’t make Apple “dumb”.
——————————-
There is an argument that says that Apple’s refusal to sell low cost, lower quality machines is bad for consumers because if you are only in the market for a <£500 laptop (new), you can’t get a Mac. This is often bound up with the related-by-affinity view that Macs are less good value for money purely because they offer fewer models.
The first view is generally held by people who believe that the Mac offers relatively few, or no specific advantages over Windows boxes. That is, someone who thinks that the Mac is not generally “better” than windows. However, from this viewpoint the idea that this situation is bad for the consumer is fundamentally contradictory. If the Mac does not offer a competitive advantage, then consumers with a low budget will be equally well off on a windows box. The only advantage a Mac would provide is the same as a high end Sony Vaio. (We can take it as read that someone needing to use Apple’s Pro Applications will not be in this market anyway.) Thus the equation is merely one of price: more expensive and higher quality or less expensive and low quality.
I think I’ve just shown that the opinion “Absence of low-cost macs is bad for consumer” is reliant on “Macs are better”.
Perhaps not. Anyone?
——————————
Disclaimer: I’ve had enough.
These are only my thoughts as of the time of writing and are subject to change.
Anyone replying who doesn’t have the respect to argue politely and maturely with the points themselves, and instead attacks me on a personal level, I will ignore or politely ask to rewrite or fuck off.
I don’t see how this is all that profound…
Is it so surprising that a company would want to say “well, we have proven the quality of our products in this arena (iPod/digital media), why don’t you come over and check out some of our other products (Mac, now iPhone), that are built with the same concept in mind (unity between software and hardware, the feeling that “it just works”).
This is a notion Apple has pushed hard since teh Steve made his return to the company, and one that seems to be working well for them. The congruity of experience btw iTunes and Finder is just another step along the same path - that path, of course, being that Apple designs its software in a controlled hardware environment, so turning on a macbook is like turning on a calculator - the user doesn’t have to think about the technical nerdery unless he/she wants to.
The way I’ve always looked at it is this - it’s great to have a wide selection of hardware and software options, but the thing is, eventually I’m going to purchase something, and have to live with it. I may be slightly more likely to upgrade a Dell’s video card or sound card over a Mac’s, but in the long run I just want that machine to work, because I have to live with my decision. That I made a decision and purchased something, then, immediately negates the need for a million other hardware options, since I don’t change hardware every day.
On the low-cost Mac thing - I don’t think you can necessarily make the claim that Apple is only interested in selling high-priced computers. They do have a 600 dollar-ish model. Remember, though, Apple does not have the installed/business user base (in terms of operating system usage) to sell cheap machines at a very slim margin in vast quantities, as Dell or HP does. As their model depends on hardware sales (since their software remains relatively cheap) I think it’s kind of a Catch-22 Apple finds itself in - in order to expose and win over large populations of OSX users, they need cheap machines, but in order to maintain profit margins, they need to keep hardware prices up. I think, over time, Apple will start to see increases in OSX in the business sector, and when that time comes, we’ll start seeing more inexpensive Mac models to feed increased business demands.
However, considering the position Dell finds itself in now, after years of selling sub-500 dollar machines, I think this theory could use a bit more analysis.
Anyone replying who doesn’t have the respect to argue politely and maturely with the points themselves, and instead attacks me on a personal level, I will ignore or politely ask to rewrite or fuck off.
This would be from the guy whose sole response to me in one thread was, “Idiot.” Maybe you should try living be these rules of gentry before you demand them of others.
As for the lack of Macs in the low-end space, I don’t think they have to be fundamentally superior in every way for their presence to be beneficial to consumers. For one thing, choice is always good for a variety of reasons. Not just choice in hardware, where I think Apple does excel, but also in software. Hondas may not be fundamentally better than Toyotas, but that doesn’t mean we should only be able to drive a Toyota.
For one thing, individuals have individual needs and a variety of choice means that those needs are likely to be met by one systems or another.
Second, more choice means more competition and more competition means better pricing and more bang for the buck.
Third, I think it would increase Apple’s market share, which means more development and support for both software and hardware, which will ultimately benefit Mac users at both the high end as well.
For one thing, choice is always good for a variety of reasons.
I strongly, emphatically disagree, however this point is immaterial to your argument.
Hondas may not be fundamentally better than Toyotas, but that doesn’t mean we should only be able to drive a Toyota.
Realistically, this situation would never arise. If Honda decided to price their cars at premium levels, their previous market would not be underserved because there would be a space into which other companies could step.
The point is, firstly Apple does not have an obligation to be in a specific market. A blanket statement “it would be good for consumers if X” does not mean that not doing X is actually wrong.
For one thing, individuals have individual needs and a variety of choice means that those needs are likely to be met by one systems or another.
It seems to me that only high-end consumers truly have “a variety of needs.” That is, someone in the market for a budget computer is typically someone who has a need for the basic things: internet, word processing, perhaps very casual gaming. A low-end Dell might not make any of that particularly pleasant, but it will do the job.
For the high-end consumer who either cares a lot about her computing experience or needs high performance hardware, there are a wide variety of needs. But in the high end, these different needs are catered for with Macs, PCs, Linux distros, whatever.
I think it would increase Apple’s market share, which means more development and support for both software and hardware
What I have tried to argue above is that although it might increase the marketshare, it wouldn’t benefit Apple as a business. In fact, as I see it, spreading Apple’s R&D money more thinly across a more diverse product line could only result in lower quality products across the board.
I think Apple can only obtain the type of increased ‘development and support’ by expanding the market for high quality computers. Making low cost computers won’t help them to raise the average quality of their developments. Anyway I believe consumers would be better off from every perspective if more people could be convinced to buy high quality computing products than terrible budget things.
Realistically, this situation would never arise.
In terms of software, that is exactly the situation we find ourselves. Hardware we have out the yin-yang, but they all run one OS.
The point is, firstly Apple does not have an obligation to be in a specific market.
Sure, but this isn’t about what Apple is obliged to do. Apple isn’t obliged to make an iPod or an iPhone either, but that doesn’t mean people don’t want them or that discussing the merits of having Apple in those markets is invalid.
It seems to me that only high-end consumers truly have “a variety of needs.
How grotesquely ignorant and superior of you.
I think Apple can only obtain the type of increased ‘development and support’ by expanding the market for high quality computers.
Yeah, that’s worked like a champ so far. High-end computers has kept them in the mid-single digits for eons.
If the situation were reversed, do you think EA would make a Windows version of their games and then simply wrap that code in an emulator for the Mac gamers? Do you think it would still be virtually impossible for me to find an external wireless solution for my Mac mini?
Anyway I believe consumers would be better off from every perspective if more people could be convinced to buy high quality computing products than terrible budget things.
Let them eat cake.
that path, of course, being that Apple designs its software in a controlled hardware environment, so turning on a macbook is like turning on a calculator
So in order to show them how great the hardware/software integration is on the Mac, Apple is going to release software that works great DESPITE running on a different OS with god-knows-what hardware?
As a strategy, that makes no sense at all.
iTunes on Windows is about selling iPods to Windows users. Safari on Windows is about selling iPhones to Windows users. It need be no more complicated than that.
One word: infiltration.