Won’t somebody think of the children?
Today’s Macworld column looks at how Apple products are ruining our children.
Today’s Macworld column looks at how Apple products are ruining our children.
This week’s Macworld column looks at HP, Google and the dreaded slur “Apple fanboy”.
Jim Dalrymple likes the iPod nano and does the best (and maybe only) sales job for the device the Macalope’s seen from someone who doesn’t work for Apple.
The brown and furry one hasn’t laid a hoof on the new nano yet, but he’s only slightly more amenable to the device he called a “red-headed stepchild” in his column last week after reading Dalrymple’s paean.
The place where Dalyrmple and the equally hirsute one agree the most is probably what category it fills. The Macalope said it’s “less of a multitouch nano than it is a multitouch shuffle” and Dalrymple’s piece seems to back that up.
The difference is, Dalrymple thinks that’s a good thing while the Macalope thinks multitouch alone doesn’t warrant the $100 price difference. The 8 GB iPod touch is just $80 more than the 8 GB nano. Now think about the difference in utility between the nano and the touch that you get for $80 versus the difference in utility between the shuffle and nano that you get for $100.
Personally he thinks the old nano provided more utility, but reasonable people can disagree.
Thisweek’s Macworld column looks at the iPod/Apple TV announcements and whether or not the Mac is losing market share.
This week’s Macworld piece looks at the music event, why there’s no camera in the iPod touch and Apple’s not infallible?!
The Zune must really suck goat balls if it can’t compete against a device that costs $10,000.
Yesterday Paul Thurrott welcomed the news that Microsoft had sold it’s millionth Zune, proudly declaring that it’s “not doing all that horribly.”
Thurrott, who does not hesitate to rail against those who point out the Mac’s market share gains, thinks nothing of pimping this piece of Microsoft marketing tripe. Sadly for Thurrott but humorously for us, a funny thing happened on the way to writing the original piece he links to and, well, turns out it’s wrong. Microsoft is gonna probably have sold a million Zunes. Someday.
Even if it had been true, however, Thurrott’s post is an escapade in jackassery.
Of course, Apple sells several million iPods a quarter, so there’s still some ground to make up.
“Some ground.”
This, incidentally, is also what Thurrott calls the land mass between Hungary and Mongolia. We call it the Russian Steppe. He calls it “some ground”.
No one’s really sure why he does this. He just does.
Now, the Oxford American Dictionaries (better known to Mac users as “Dictionary”) defines “several” as “more than two but not many”. The Macalope will leave it up to his intelligent and fabulously sexy readers to decide if last quarter’s 10.5 million or the previous quarter’s 21 million can accurately be described as “several” million.
But still. Not too shabby.
Well, actually, no, still rather shabby.
Microsoft is a notorious channel stuffer, so that might explain why while the company can claim to have “sold” 1 million Zunes you, like the horny one, might not have seen anyone actually using one outside of a CompUSA sales associate killing time before he’s downsized.
Thurrott makes a point of noting in his retraction that Apple only sold half that number in its first six months. Indeed.
Which is amazing considering the size of the overall market at the time and and that the iPod was effectively being sold only to Mac users as it didn’t ship with software for Windows until July of 2002 (see Wikipedia’s iPod entry).
Look, it is much harder to break into the digital music player market now than it was in 2001. But this is also Microsoft we’re talking about. They can practically force retailers to take as many as they tell them to. Is 10% of the hard-drive based market really anything to crow about? Great, it looks like they’ll make their target, albeit probably by stuffing the channel. But the Zune doesn’t have “some ground” to make up. It still has to prove that it can be anything more than a distant second in a subset of the market.
The Macalope was too busy last week to give Cara Garretson’s whimsically titled piece for Network World the attention it really deserved.
Can an iPod bring down your company?
Wow! That’d be one big iPod!
You might think that having written that, Garretson would just sign off, Costanza-like, and get out of journalism on a high note. But she’s back! This week, she asks “Won’t Apple please think of the children?!”
Should Apple secure its iPods?
Well, it’s about time someone asked the difficult rhetorical questions. Network World must think iPod security is an important issue because they’ve apparently got Garretson on it full time. Hopefully Apple will soon take responsibility for all enterprise damage caused by Windows viruses and employee theft. That would be the right thing to do.*
Few corporations are likely to ban iPods in the workplace, but whether Apple and other manufacturers of MP3 players shoulder some responsibility to add security to their devices — and how effective that security would be is a growing debate.
See how this works? Network World has turned the laughable “iPod virus” story (the virus that required Linux and self-execution, remember) into a faux controversy. Check out the inset on Garretson’s story — this is their sixth piece on iPod security since the “iPod virus”. Having devoted so much time to it, they can now call it a “growing debate”.
Awesome.
While this unintended use of the iPod is not exclusive to Apple’s device – employees with malicious intent could steal data using any MP3 player, or any removable media for that matter – Apple has sold more than 100 million iPods, making it the obvious choice.
Really, one might be inclined to wonder why a thief would decide to spend $79 on a shuffle when a generic flash drive — one that doesn’t require you to load iTunes and Quicktime on the machine you’re trying to steal data from — with the same capacity can be had for $10.
But, in Garretson’s defense, this is white collar crime we’re talking about. So, it’s appropriate in such situations to ask, “What would Thomas Crown have used?”
One might also point out that sales of flash drives must surely dwarf sales of the iPod, but at this point you’re just trying to impose logic where none exists.
An extensive search of the iPod and iTunes sections of Apple’s Web site turned up no information about setting the devices for data transfer…
You mean like this (elapsed time to discovery: 45 seconds)?
…but did also not warn against the potential for misuse when iPods are set as such.
Also, nowhere on Apple’s web site does it say anything about how you should not throw a click-wheel iPod really, really hard at someone’s head or file a nano into a shiv and stab someone with it. Apple did at least put up a warning about not eating the original shuffle, though (true story).
Now, the Macalope knows a fair amount about the enterprise world. When employees are told that their personal laptops are not to be connected to the corporate network, what’s the alternative they’re given for taking work home?
Using a flash drive.
So, why is it that Garretson is focusing on the iPod and Apple’s supposed responsibility when it’s corporate IT shops that have enabled and often recommended the use of portable drives?
It’s interesting to note that all the quotes in the story largely contradict Garretson’s central thesis — that the iPod is the likely tool for someone to steal data from your company. Not that that stopped her from writing it or Network World for pimping the ridiculous notion that by shipping hard drives Apple is somehow responsible for data theft.
* Note: the Macalope is already on record as saying that Apple’s flip attitude toward shipping a Windows virus on some iPods was unacceptable. This is trying to make Apple responsible for an entire class of problem not of its own making.
Kudos to you, MacNN!
Zune leak reveals iPod nano killer?
iPod nano killer?
As pathetic as the original piece — which has all the smell of a Microsoft “viral marketing” effort — is, nowhere does it even mention the iPod by name.
InformationWeek blogger David DeJean keyed a post in which he complained about having to pay 30 cents extra for unprotected iTunes songs. In it he falsely complained that AAC is a closed format and did not mention the higher-priced songs are encoded at a higher bit rate.
When vociferously called on it, he did apologize for the error about AAC, but did that change his tune on the Apple/EMI deal? Nooooo!
All my facts were wrong, but my conclusion was still sound! And get off my lawn, you damn kids!
The iPod, iTunes on your computer, and the iTunes store are a closed system, designed to keep you captive. I see AAC and iTunes as . . . not exactly a DRM system, as I said to a couple of people in e-mails, but something nearly that restrictive.
The Macalope just typed “AAC to MP3 converter” into Google. He got over 2 million hits. One wonders if DeJean has used Microsoft Word in the past 15 years.
I still don’t love the EMI-Apple announcement, either. EMI may have seen the light on DRM, but it’s treated me like a thief instead of a customer for so long that it will take me a while to get over it.
The Macalope is at an utter loss to explain this graf. DeJean has apparently been beaten so long that he doesn’t want them to stop because they’ve been beating him so long?
Sorry. That’s the best the Macalope can come up with.
Also, DeJean is apparently so bewildered by the discount Apple’s giving on unprotected 256Kbps albums that the only way he can rationalize it is to assume it’s going to go away.
Does this mean, in fact, that album prices are going to be higher — that in a couple of months we’ll wake up and find new releases are one price and old catalog albums are another price? Probably.
And the gubbiment done put a trackin’ device in mah fillins!
If Jobs got DRM-free music and traded a price hike for it, as some of my correspondents have suggested…
The drunk ones.
…then he should ‘fess up rather than hide behind “it’s better quality.”
Oh. Dear. God.
It… it is better quality.
If Apple and EMI had offered protected 256Kbps songs for 30 cents more, these pinheads wouldn’t have said boo. But the fact that they took a huge step in the right direction is not only meaningless in their eyes, it’s somehow worse because they failed to have every member of the RIAA and the MPAA on stage apologizing for the last 70 years of recorded music and video sales and saying their entire unprotected collections would now be downloadable for free before dancing around with flowers in their hair as Leonard Nimoy sang Good Morning, Starshine.
But I want EMI and the other labels — and Apple — to work with me to make it easy to be honest. They way things are now, it’s easier to be dishonest.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
David, buddy, are you saying that you’d resort to getting an EMI song off a P2P network rather than iTunes because you can get it in MP3 instead of AAC?
What is wrong with you? You make the RIAA look sane.
Am I excited about the opportunity to pay more for music just because it’s finally starting to come in an open format the way it should have come all along? No, I am not.
It’s encoded at a higher bit rate! And if you buy the album, you’re not paying more! Just because you keep saying it’s paying more for nothing does not make it true. It just makes you a nutjob.
The Macalope isn’t sure what kind of crazy pills these people are on, but he recommends you stay far, far away from them. Even their imperious leader had great things to say about this deal, if he couldn’t bring himself to apologize to Steve Jobs for doubting his sincerity.
When did DRM become the worst thing in the world ever — so bad that it drove people insane? Was the Macalope off the planet when that happened or something?