(Alternative title: There’s an reason the word “anal” is in “analyst”)
Apple quadruples its profit, but the stock takes a ten percent-plus dive because the company “missed” the number of iPod sales stock analysts —who are not employees of Apple, do not sit on the Board of Directors, and who are not Apple executives— said they thought the company should have sold? They sold 6.4 million iPods in a three months. How many Rios did Creative sell in the last three months? Oh, that’s right, they canned that music player.
Hold on, it gets better.
Those same analysts, who are poo-pooing Apple for failing to sell as many iPods as the analysts thought they should have sold, seem to think Delphi is a good buy. No wonder monkeys are just as good at the stock market as these guys.
[With thanks to John Gruber, and Matt Deatherage and W.R. Wing on the MacJournals-Talk list.]
Tag: iPod
I realize with a new, slimmer design, Apple would want a new moniker to grace its smallest-iPod-with-a-screen, but who came up with Nano? That word should imply something very small, as in smaller than the Shuffle, which the Nano is not. Better they had kept the Mini name for this range of iPods, or possibly gone with Micro.
This is giving me all sorts of ideas, should we have another tyke.
So while ripping CDs and loading up my wife’s Shuffle, I decided to listen to a few tunes on it. I am still amazed that music comes out of this little chunk of plastic. One of the tunes I came across was Depeche Mode’s “Just Can’t Get Enough“. I remember it was used in a commercial, but the commercial made such an impression on me that I cannot recall what or whom the commercial was for. Anyone?
See Napster’s Super Bowl ads? Think you’ll remember them three weeks from now? Right.
Ashlee Vance dissects Napster’s supposed costs, which do not take in to account the fact that most people’s songs on their iPods are not from the iTunes Music Store:
From where we sit, the math doesn’t break down terribly well in Napster’s favor.
Let’s take a look at consumer A. This consumer goes to Amazon.com and does a search for Creative – one of the Napster supported music device makers – and picks up a 20GB player for $249.99. Let’s assume he keeps the device for three years, paying Napster all the time. That’s $538 for the Napster service, bringing the three-year total to $788.19.
Consumer B types iPod into the Amazon.com search engine and finds a 20GB device for $299. Apple doesn’t offer a subscription service, so this customer has to buy songs at the 99 cent rate or at $9.99 per album. Subtracting the price of the iPod from the $788, consumer B would have $489 left over for music. That’s roughly worth 489 songs or 49 albums.
We posit that during this three-year period both Consumer A and Consumer B will actually end up with close to the same number of songs on their devices. Customers do not, as Napster suggests, pay $10,000 to fill their iPods with 10,000 songs just because the capacity is there. They take their existing music, CDs and MP3s, and put that onto the device first, then later add iTunes songs as they go along. A Napster customer would have a similar mix of old music and new downloads.
The big difference here is that after the three years are up, Consumer B has something to show for his investment. He still owns the music. If the Napster customer stops paying for the service, his music is all gone. He’s paying $179 per year to rent music. This isn’t high quality stuff either. It’s DRM (digital rights management)-laced, low bitrate slop.
You could once buy a CD and then play that music on your computer or in your car at will. Hell, you still can. You own it. You can burn an extra copy of the disc in case it gets scratched or pass along the disc to a friend to see if they like it – just like you would with a good book. Five years from now, you will still own the CD. No one can tell you where and when you can play it.
This is not the case in the Napster subscription world. After six years, you’ve tossed away $1,076 for something that barely exists. Forget to pay for a month and watch your music collection disappear. (Not to mention, you’re betting on the fact that Napster will even exist two years from now. At least you know that a year’s subscription to the Wall Street Journal will still work in 12 months time.)
I’m a CD man, myself. I like the versatility of being able to do whatever the heck I want to with the music I purchase. I know it will run aghast of some, but I still use CDs in my Pilot. Most of the time, however, the CD arrives at the phisch bowl, gets opened, ripped to MP3 format in iTunes, and is loaded in to the music library (tunaphisch) and on to the iPod (phischpod). The only tunes I’ve downloaded from the iTMS are the free ones I occasionally will like. That may change a bit with the new Pepsi-iTunes promo, but other than that, I do not see myself purchasing digital music directly from Apple, much less from Napster.
[Via DF.]
MacMinute notes a Wired article showing how despite the best efforts of management, Microsoft employees know a clear winner when they see one.
[Thanks, Lee.]
So according to Apple, one of the big reasons for bringing out the iPod Shuffle is the shuffle “phenomenon with iPod users – the ‘shuffle songs’ playback mode that randomizes either portions or the entirety of your music library.”
I’m just wondering if I’m alone in iPod-dom in that I rarely, if ever, use the shuffle songs mode. Anyone else of similar mind?
Engadget notes TheMacMind.com’s report on the supposedly forthcoming iPod flash, a tiny, flash memory-based MP3 player that will round out Apple’s music player line-up. Several things don’t jibe with the picture of the supposed iPod flash:
1. When the iPod mini was released, Steve Jobs did quite a bit of trash-talking with regard to the myriad flash-based players already on the market, did he not? Why would Apple now want to wade in to that market, when they can barely keep up with demand for the iPod mini, the company’s flash player killer?
2. Okay, let’s say Steve does an about face and wants Apple to compete in the flash-based market. I don’t see this design being it. It lacks visual feedback, and that has been the iPod’s strong suit, coupled with the physical controls’ ease of navigation, when compared to its competitors.
3. The overall design doesn’t flow with the rest of the iPod line, plain and simple. I could be drastically wrong, and if this design is real and released, it would signal a sort of departure from the iPod line.
Personally, I’m not opposed to a flash-based iPod. Such a device would be perfect for my wife, who only has need for such an audio component in rare circumstances, such as when working out. Even the iPod mini is really overkill for her needs. I just don’t believe that TheMacMind’s version is the real deal. At the least, I hope it isn’t.
[Wave of the flipper to Michael.]
As usual, Mr. Gruber does a better job than most at dissecting a topic, in this case Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer’s crude comments regarding Apple and the iPod:
I’d love to see his source for this. I have no source either, but I’d place a wager with Mr. Ballmer that the most common source of music on most iPods are unencrypted songs legally ripped from CDs. Most iPod users I know own hundreds of CDs; it’d take ages to bootleg the amount of music they already own on CD.
[…]
The point of all this seems to be that Ballmer is saying that Apple can’t lead the way here — where by “here” I’m talking about the convergence between the computer, entertainment, and consumer electronics industries — because the iPod allows for and even encourages the use of non-DRM-protected digital media.
But I would argue that Apple is already leading the way in terms of music — in large part because they don’t enforce draconian DRM measures.
Engadget is reporting that the iPod tattoos being provided by HP can leave an unpleasant aftertaste.