marclafountain.com

• This is a huge win for Amazon. There are many more iPhone and iPod Touch users than there are Kindle users. iPhone/Touch users can now consume purchased Kindle books on their devices, which will generate more e-book sales for Amazon. And, Kindle for iPhone may prove to be a gateway drug that leads to more Kindle device purchases. Again, more money for Amazon.
• Kindle for iPhone actually does a few things a Kindle device can’t. You can see images in color. You can download e-books via Wi-Fi. And, you can download e-books via the iPhone’s mobile phone network. Nice.
• Whispersync page location syncing is kinda cool.
• I haven’t personally used Stanza on iPhone/Touch, but Kindle for iPhone can’t be good news for it. Access to 50,000 free books (generally old, copyright-expired works) and 50,000 commercial books on Stanza is appealing. Access to almost 250,000 commercial books on Kindle for iPhone may be more appealing for most people. And, many people are already familiar with buying things on Amazon.
• Until today, I have thought of “Kindle” as being the physical device that Amazon sells to read e-books. Now, it appears that “Kindle” is really an e-book service. And, apparently we use things like the Kindle e-book reader, Kindle for iPhone, and presumably upcoming clients for other devices to consume books from the Kindle service.
  • I like Apple’s method of having an iTunes Store service and then having discretely named devices/applications (iPhone, iPod, iTunes, Apple TV) for accessing that service. It’s easier to talk about, write about, and get your head around.
• Areas for improvement on Kindle for iPhone:
  • Support landscape view.
  • Support e-book purchases via the iPhone/Touch. I would think this would be fairly easy to add since Amazon already has an iPhone/Touch application for buying physical items from Amazon.com.
  • Support bookmark deletion.
• I have seen people saying that Kindle for iPhone should support magazine and newspaper subscriptions. I think it should too. But, I suspect you would have to get the publication on the Kindle or on the iPhone/Touch, but not on both. I think this is a contractual issue with the content providers. I noticed that when I moved from Kindle 1 to Kindle 2, I had to also move my Newsweek and Atlantic Monthly subscriptions from one device to the other. I couldn’t have the subscription accessible on both. So, if a publication subscription can’t be on two Kindles, I doubt it can be on a Kindle and an iPhone. (I think one-off purchases of specific issues may be treated differently and syncable across Kindles.)
• I have seen people saying Kindle for iPhone should support emailed documents. I think it should too. But, keep in mind that emailed documents even on Kindles are sent to a specific device and aren’t synced across devices. So, again, I suspect you could get a single emailed document on the Kindle or on the iPhone/Touch, but not on both.
• When it comes to improving Kindle for iPhone, Amazon faces interesting choices. Improving this free application can lead to increased e-book sales and (if supported is added) increased newspaper, magazine, and emailed document sales. But, making Kindle for iPhone better could also keep a certain segment of users from buying a Kindle device from Amazon. I’ll be fascinated to see how the application evolves.

PC World’s Brennon Slattery weighed in yesterday about “Five iPod ‘Let’s Rock’ Updates That Should Have Been”. My thoughts on his thoughts:

1. Wireless iPods That Sync Directly to iTunes

I agree with Slattery here, but only to a point.

The iPhone and iPod Touch already have WiFi and already can use it to purchase music and applications from the iTunes Store. So, adding the ability to sync audio, apps, and photos via WiFi between iTunes on a Mac/PC and the iPhone/Touch wirelessly is a logical next step. I hope Apple takes it.

To protect battery life, syncs should still be manual and there should be limits on the number or size of new items that can be synced wirelessly. Given the large file sizes of videos, video syncing would likely have to still require a cable.

Where I part company with Slattery is adding wireless and wireless syncing to the Nano or the Classic.

The Nano is smaller, thinner, lighter, and cheaper than the iPhone or the Touch. Adding WiFi will increase the size of the Nano and drain its small battery much faster. Enhancing the Nano’s battery will further increase size. And, adding WiFi or an enhanced battery will increase cost.

The Nano starts at $149 and Apple would be unwise to move up from that price point. As WiFi hardware gets smaller, more energy efficient, and cheaper, maybe it can come to the Nano. But, we’re not there yet.

The iPod Classic is a relic on its way to the graveyard. Apple keeps it around because for no extra R&D they can sell the Classic to a few people who think they simply must have 120GB of digital media with them at all times. Apple shouldn’t invest any in additional R&D on the Classic and I doubt it will. As Marco noted, as soon as larger-capacity flash memory is available at a reasonable cost, the Classic will likely be retired.

2. Anything to do with the iPod Classic

Ugh. See paragraph above.

3. Radio Tuner

Meh. I’m not against having a radio tuner in iPods or the iPhone. And, it could probably be done without a lot of added weigh, thickness, or cost. But, do users really want a radio in their iPod? I’m guessing not.

Reception on small, portable radios is often poor. And, many people get an iPod so they can avoid advertising and exercise direct control of what music they listen to and when.

Those that want radio badly can already buy the external radio remote from Apple. And, there are alternatives to an actual radio on the iPod.

You can subscribe to podcasts from many radio stations, including podcasts for many NPR shows that Slattery and I love. (Admittedly, there are often time delays between a radio broadcast and the availability of a podcast of it.) And, if you have an iPhone or an iPod Touch with a wireless connection, you can use streaming audio applications that give you radio content. (Admittedly, the particular station you love may not be available in a streaming audio app.)

4. iTunes Subscription Service

Sorry to be repetitive, but meh. I’m not against having an iTunes subscription service either. But, I like to own my music content. And, I spend less on buying content of all types in an average month than other existing services would charge me for a monthly subscription. So, I probably won’t use an iTunes subscription service even if it comes.

The lack of a subscription service hasn’t seemed to hinder iPod sales or iTunes Store sales. Perhaps this just isn’t that big of a deal for most people.

5. The Beatles

Oh, please. Get over it. Steve Jobs has said Apple is ready when The Beatles are ready. It’ll happen when it happens. Haven’t you already bought the CDs and ripped them anyway? If so, what will The Beatles coming to the iTunes Store really get you? A nice digital booklet?

Random thoughts on today’s Apple Event:

• I loved how Steve handled (yet did not handle) the health question at the outset. Masterful.
• For me personally, the biggest news is that iPhone backups are getting faster and hopefully the dropped calls issue is being put to bed. Both cause ongoing pain. Can’t wait for the 2.1 release on Friday!
  
• I like revisions to the Nano and Touch a lot and they make for a compelling Christmas lineup along with iPhone. I hadn’t heard the accelerometer was coming to the Nano and am pleasantly surprised. Being able to shake in order to shuffle your songs is awesome!
• Glad HD TV shows are on iTunes and that NBC is back. This will make the Apple TV a stronger competitor against Netflix and Amazon/TiVo.
• $2.99 for one TV episode in HD feels pricey to me, but perhaps I just need to adjust.
• The iPod Classic is rapidly becoming the fruitcake that’s somehow always around at Christmas, yet few seem to want to eat. I give it one more year tops.
• I will have to play with the Genius feature in iTunes 8 before I know if I like it. Last.fm and Pandora have never been great at finding or pairing music for me.

While I will plead guilty to a long-term love affair with Apple, I’m not naive. Steve Jobs and Apple make decisions that are in the best interests of Apple first, shareholders second, and consumers third.

That said, I think Daniel Lyons (a.k.a the retired Fake Steve Jobs) is greatly exaggerating some of Apple’s actions in his “One Bad Apple” Newsweek article. Apple is far from perfect, but it doesn’t deserve many of these attacks. Let’s look at what’s accurate and what’s not so accurate.

That Vudu That Apple Does So Well?

Lyons paints Vudu as a victim targeted for termination by Apple in the market for streaming/downloadable video to home televisions. So Apple is evil for competing in this market? And, Apple is the only bad guy victimizing Vudu?

It’s not as if Vudu created this market and then Apple stole it from them. Apple has had a long-term interest in consumer digital video delivery and has done as much as anyone to create that market. (QuickTime, iTunes and iTunes Store with video, iPods with video, iPhones, Apple TV, etc.) Apple certainly didn’t make or revise the Apple TV simply because of Vudu.

I have no doubt that Apple was already focused on supporting rentals, broadening its movie catalog, and allowing direct movie downloads without a computer. Jobs said all along that Apple TV 1.0 was a “hobby” that they were working to perfect. And, lots of users and analysts were publicly calling for the features that came in Apple TV 2.0. They were not simply copied from Vudu.

Also, why don’t Netflix, Amazon/TiVo, or cable companies with On Demand get any “blame” for Vudu’s plight in Lyon’s article. If Vudu is laying off staff, I doubt that all of the blame can be laid at Apple’s door. The market for streaming/downloadable video to home TVs is a competitive place with major players.

Apple Owns Boardwalk and Park Place?

Lyons writes that:

“Apple owns popular hardware platforms (iPod, iPhone) and operates the only store that can sell music, movies and software programs for those platforms. Apple sets prices and takes 30 percent of the money. With iPhone, Apple decides which independent applications will be allowed, and it can pull the plug on any application at any time, without explanation<snip>”

Let’s break this tortured mess down:

• Apple operates the only store that can sell music for iPod/iPhone. As George Carlin would say, pure bullshit. The iPod and iPhone play numerous audio formats, including MP3s. It is a simple matter to buy music from Amazon MP3 or other online stores, put it into iTunes, and get it onto an iPod or iPhone. It is also a simple matter to purchase a CD, rip it in whatever audio format you like in iTunes, and get it onto an iPod or iPhone. Apple does not have a music monopoly on the iPod or iPhone and Lyons should be ashamed for implying it does. The fact that many iPod/iPhone users choose to use the iTunes Store to buy music doesn’t make the iTunes Store a music monopoly.
• Apple operates the only store that can sell movies for iPod/iPhone. Lyons is on firmer ground here, but just barely. No movie studio is allowing its films to be sold online without some sort of Digital Rights Management. And, there’s no standard for DRMed video. So, different stores and devices are using different DRM methods. That’s a shame, but it’s not Apple’s fault. If and when there is a standard for DRMed video, I think Apple should support it on iPods and iPhones. In fact, I’d love to see Apple show leadership in the creation of such a standard. Until then, I think it’s unfair to criticize Apple when no one else is offering a non-proprietary video store. Finally, if you are willing to use third-party software, it is already possible to get DVD video onto an iPod or iPhone.
  
• Apple operates the only store that can sell applications for iPod/iPhone. True. And, I would like to see this change. I applaud Apple for making it easy for developers to sell their applications and get payment, and for making it easy for users to purchase and install those applications. But, the App Store is a monopoly and I think it would be in the best interests of users for them to have more options for where and how they purchase apps. I won’t hold my breath.
  
• Apple sets prices and takes 30 percent of the money. This is a true statement for iPod/iPhone applications. But, it is untrue for music and video purchases and again Lyons should be ashamed for implying it. While I don’t know the specifics of the deals Apple has with record labels and movie studios, I do know that Apple is thought to only get a few pennies for each 99-cent audio track purchase. While the cut may be higher for video, I seriously doubt it’s anywhere near 30 percent. Is 30 percent too high of a cut for the iPod/iPhone App Store? I don’t know, ask a developer. Apple does help developers promote their applications, it handles all the financial transactions from sales, and it automates the downloading and installing of purchased applications. That’s certainly worth something.
  
• Apple decides which iPod/Phone apps will be allowed and it can pull an app at any time, without explanation. True. And, again, I would like to see this change. While this power can be used to ensure quality apps and to prevent fraud, it can also easily be abused. I think users who want to have this control for themselves should be able to have it. Again, I won’t hold my breath.
  

No White iPod Cases Allowed After Labor Day?

Last on his list of Apple gripes, Lyons takes the company to task for how it treats the makers of iPod and iPhone accessories. He says that Apple controls when accessory makers can announce new products, charges various fees to accessory makers, and takes large cuts on accessory sales in Apple retail stores (75 percent of the sales price in one noted case).

I have little knowledge of how Apple’s relationships with accessory vendors work. So, I don’t know whether these things are true or not.
If Apple asks a vendor to hold off on an accessory announcement because the physical design of an iPod/iPhone is changing and thus invalidating the accessory, that’s certainly reasonable. Beyond that, I don’t think a hold is reasonable.

I would have to see the specifics of the fees and sales cuts charged to have an opinion on whether they’re reasonable. Seventy-five percent is insane if true! But, I will say when it comes to sales cuts, keep in mind we live in a capitalist system. As Lyons own article somewhat notes, if you don’t like the deal the Apple Store is giving you to sell your accessory, go sell it at WAL-MART, Best Buy, Circuit City, or Target. Or, use an online store like Amazon or your own e-storefront.

Bring Back Fake Steve!

In closing, I want to say two things. First, Apple is an amazing, yet flawed company. It does many stupid and greedy things, just not all the stupid and greedy things mentioned in Lyons’ piece.

Second, I miss Fake Steve Jobs dearly. I found Lyons was more interesting, insightful, and (oddly) more accurate when he wrote about Apple as Fake Steve. Can we please, please, please have Fake Steve back?