October 18, 2005 4:00 AM PDT
Apple steps up iPod 'tax' push
- Related Stories
-
Apple seeks 'tax' on iPod accessories
March 16, 2005 -
Boom of the iPod add-ons
January 31, 2005 -
Accessory makers stranded by iMac color change
July 20, 2000
(continued from previous page)
and know that future iPods will fit into the slot. Apple has also pledged to include an adapter with its players that will let them fit into any products built around that universal well. (Apple included such an adapter with the recently introduced iPod Nano.)
"If they want to design one device that connects with many different size and shape iPods," Schiller said, "we'll take responsibility to make sure there is a standard dock connector that comes with the iPod."
Bottom's up for iPod
Since the third-generation iPod debuted in 2003, Apple has offered two ways to connect accessories to the music player: a small connector at the top of the device and the dock connector port at the bottom.
But a change in strategy has left those at the bottom on top. The latest crop of iPods has eliminated the top connector, meaning that a vast number of add-ons will no longer work with the Cupertino, Calif., company's latest creations.
In some cases, whole classes of products won't work, such as the voice recorders and remote controls that plugged into the iPod's headphone jack and accompanying port. With other add-ons, such as the transmitters that send the iPod's tunes to a car stereo, the accessory market is divided into winners and losers.
Devices like the original Griffin iTrip won't work, because they require the top port, while others, such as Monster Cable's iCarPlay, are in the clear.
Griffin and others are responding quickly though. Griffin on Monday announced a new version of its AirClick remote that connects to the bottom of the iPod, rather than the top.
Just knowing they won't be left out in the cold could be valuable to accessory makers, who typically have to build their products without any certain idea of what Apple plans to do next. Though Apple-related add-ons have long been a good market, accessory makers have also learned that they can be outflanked if Apple shifts course. Many companies first learned that lesson with the iMac, as Apple introduced models with new colors, rendering outmoded any accessories in the previous season's hues.
"We can ensure to the end user when they buy an iPod down the road that the compatibility is going to be there," said Randall Stowasser, a product manager for Compton, Calif.-based Belkin.
Avoiding obsolescence is also increasingly important to consumers, who, in some cases, are shelling out as much for iPod add-ons as for the pricey players themselves, which can cost as much as almost $400.
Both consumers and hardware makers have learned the hard way the cost of not having such guarantees. The most recent iPods--the Nano and the video-capable iPod--lack a small connector near the headphone port. That change means that a whole crop of accessories, including some popular remote controls and RF transmitters, have became outdated.
But by removing that port, Apple has made the connection to its dock connector all the more valuable.
"It's the key to the kingdom," said Andrew Green, a vice president at Digital Lifestyle Outfitters, which specializes in iPod add-ons and is part of the "Made for iPod" program. "Truly nothing can be done without it. It was one of two options yesterday; it is truly the only option today."
Green said his company has focused all of its recent development on products that connect to the bottom of the iPod.
"Now we'll see rewards from doing so," he said.
24 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
changed the shape of the market in a way that
Microsoft copied.
PC's were already prevalent and 'IBM
compatibles' were fairly standardised across
the board - Apple II's ran MS-DOS for instance.
But that was the problem, the interface was
DOS, so Apple bought the rights (and
employed the staff) from the Xerox GUI
development and created MacOS. They
needed an entirely new way to interface with
this GUI and hence the mouse became
standard issue. Unfortunately the PC-market
was (and still is) a weird divergent place
where there is no true standard hardware
configuration and Apple could see that it
would make more sense (and make their
software faster, more efficient and more
stable) if they could base it on it's own
architecture. Plus the original chipset was
entirely different (the 68K series) from the
x86... at the time it was a cutting edge chip
(see how far advanced the Amiga was around
that time based on the same chip - colour,
multiple screen resolutions on the same
screen, 4 channels of audio and you'll know
what I mean). Apple may well have been in it's
rightful place as market leader (actually it
already DOES lead, it's just not dominant) if it
hadn't been for that thieving git Bill 'I can't write
a decent line of code to save my life' Gates. ;)
changed the shape of the market in a way that
Microsoft copied.
PC's were already prevalent and 'IBM
compatibles' were fairly standardised across
the board - Apple II's ran MS-DOS for instance.
But that was the problem, the interface was
DOS, so Apple bought the rights (and
employed the staff) from the Xerox GUI
development and created MacOS. They
needed an entirely new way to interface with
this GUI and hence the mouse became
standard issue. Unfortunately the PC-market
was (and still is) a weird divergent place
where there is no true standard hardware
configuration and Apple could see that it
would make more sense (and make their
software faster, more efficient and more
stable) if they could base it on it's own
architecture. Plus the original chipset was
entirely different (the 68K series) from the
x86... at the time it was a cutting edge chip
(see how far advanced the Amiga was around
that time based on the same chip - colour,
multiple screen resolutions on the same
screen, 4 channels of audio and you'll know
what I mean). Apple may well have been in it's
rightful place as market leader (actually it
already DOES lead, it's just not dominant) if it
hadn't been for that thieving git Bill 'I can't write
a decent line of code to save my life' Gates. ;)
background, they would find this unusual to even write a story
about. This is standard practice.
B. If the authoer has little, or no, business education, there is this
thing called journalism, which requires a tad bit of research, to
determine if this is a news worthy story.
background, they would find this unusual to even write a story
about. This is standard practice.
B. If the authoer has little, or no, business education, there is this
thing called journalism, which requires a tad bit of research, to
determine if this is a news worthy story.
>accessory makers that want to display a "Made
>for iPod" logo on their products.
So let me get this straight. I create a product and a trademark for it. I take it to market, it sells well. Then others build accessories for my product, and use my trademark on their collateral.
A. It is my trademark they are profiting from.
B. They don't need to use the trademark.
C. If they do use my TM, they pay me a royalty.
What makes this an "iPod tax?" Answer, nothing. It is standard business practice.
>accessory makers that want to display a "Made
>for iPod" logo on their products.
So let me get this straight. I create a product and a trademark for it. I take it to market, it sells well. Then others build accessories for my product, and use my trademark on their collateral.
A. It is my trademark they are profiting from.
B. They don't need to use the trademark.
C. If they do use my TM, they pay me a royalty.
What makes this an "iPod tax?" Answer, nothing. It is standard business practice.
Apple has every right to ask companies to pay them 10% of the money. The companies have every right to ignore them and work out the interface for the iPod socket on their own. Reverse engineering for interoperability is perfectly ok legally, especially for consumer electronics and things like remote controls. Look at off brand ink cartridges that list which models they work with, universal remotes for tvs and garage doors, etc.
If Apple *really* wanted the iPod peripherals market to itself it could simply choose to make the peripherals itself, right? It could choose to hoard its trademark for itself exclusively, right?
What Apple wants, however, is for other companies to invest their own time and money in developing 3rd-party hardware support for the iPod so that Apple doesn't have to invest in them, but then Apple spoils it all by demanding a cut of their profits. For Apple, the phrase "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" has no meaning; at Apple it's "You scratch my back or else get the hell out."
It's just plain old short-sighted greed we're seeing here on the part of Apple--a company that doesn't know what phrases like "long term" and "market building" mean. If Apple understood the dynamics of things it would be a far larger company than it is, by at least an order of magnitude, imo.
Apple has every right to ask companies to pay them 10% of the money. The companies have every right to ignore them and work out the interface for the iPod socket on their own. Reverse engineering for interoperability is perfectly ok legally, especially for consumer electronics and things like remote controls. Look at off brand ink cartridges that list which models they work with, universal remotes for tvs and garage doors, etc.
If Apple *really* wanted the iPod peripherals market to itself it could simply choose to make the peripherals itself, right? It could choose to hoard its trademark for itself exclusively, right?
What Apple wants, however, is for other companies to invest their own time and money in developing 3rd-party hardware support for the iPod so that Apple doesn't have to invest in them, but then Apple spoils it all by demanding a cut of their profits. For Apple, the phrase "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" has no meaning; at Apple it's "You scratch my back or else get the hell out."
It's just plain old short-sighted greed we're seeing here on the part of Apple--a company that doesn't know what phrases like "long term" and "market building" mean. If Apple understood the dynamics of things it would be a far larger company than it is, by at least an order of magnitude, imo.
comes out with a "NEW AND IMROVED" product. But this
fanaticism is going too far...
If microsoft wants a piece of cake from the XBox accessory
makers, they are monopolistic vaporware (Read soft/hardware)
makers trying rip-off 90% of fools. But, when Apple Computers
surviving on the success of $200+ music player is trying to
squeez more money out of consumer, that is a standard
buisiness practice.
God... why are these folks on CNET fora if they think this article
is not newsworthy. Guys, like it are not, whether it is about
Microsoft or Apple- new is news. If you think these articles are
not news, don't waste your time posting comments. Go, to
Appleinsider.com or thincksecret.com (are wherever the hell
apple fan boys read news) and post all you want.
fanatic since I started using Macs back in '85, I
find myself agreeing with you wholeheartedly
on this issue.
I understand that Apple owns patents on it's
dock design and thus anybody replicating a
connector should possibly pay a royalty, but it
seems these days that BIG business is all
about squeezing smaller players and
consumers dry through use of patents, IP
rights and outright market dominance.
Whether this be Apple or the evil empire of
Darth Gates these business practices are
plain wrong and perhaps if more Mac-lovers
and general Apple fans made this clear to
Apple then it might stroke home harder...
Occassionally Apple try to sweeten the blow -
in this case promising to honour deals they're
striking with accessory companies by keeping
the dock connector (or an adapter) standard
for the forseeable future, yet this doesn't
change the fact that squeezing their support
market is not on.
Apple would argue that the accessory market
only exists because of the iPod, and whilst
this is true on one level, it is also true to say
that the iPod market has been expanded and
pushed to it's lofty heights by the
ever-increasing range of add-ons which make
it a much more versatile and modular device
than many of it's rivals. Apple shouldn't forget
this.
comes out with a "NEW AND IMROVED" product. But this
fanaticism is going too far...
If microsoft wants a piece of cake from the XBox accessory
makers, they are monopolistic vaporware (Read soft/hardware)
makers trying rip-off 90% of fools. But, when Apple Computers
surviving on the success of $200+ music player is trying to
squeez more money out of consumer, that is a standard
buisiness practice.
God... why are these folks on CNET fora if they think this article
is not newsworthy. Guys, like it are not, whether it is about
Microsoft or Apple- new is news. If you think these articles are
not news, don't waste your time posting comments. Go, to
Appleinsider.com or thincksecret.com (are wherever the hell
apple fan boys read news) and post all you want.
fanatic since I started using Macs back in '85, I
find myself agreeing with you wholeheartedly
on this issue.
I understand that Apple owns patents on it's
dock design and thus anybody replicating a
connector should possibly pay a royalty, but it
seems these days that BIG business is all
about squeezing smaller players and
consumers dry through use of patents, IP
rights and outright market dominance.
Whether this be Apple or the evil empire of
Darth Gates these business practices are
plain wrong and perhaps if more Mac-lovers
and general Apple fans made this clear to
Apple then it might stroke home harder...
Occassionally Apple try to sweeten the blow -
in this case promising to honour deals they're
striking with accessory companies by keeping
the dock connector (or an adapter) standard
for the forseeable future, yet this doesn't
change the fact that squeezing their support
market is not on.
Apple would argue that the accessory market
only exists because of the iPod, and whilst
this is true on one level, it is also true to say
that the iPod market has been expanded and
pushed to it's lofty heights by the
ever-increasing range of add-ons which make
it a much more versatile and modular device
than many of it's rivals. Apple shouldn't forget
this.
Just how much more attractive will the iPod be to propspective purchasers if it is surrounded by a host of reasonably priced and superbly functional 3rd-party devices? Is it beyond the pale to suggest that an abundance of 3rd-party hardware support may indeed actually help Apple sell more iPods in the first place? Gee, who'd a thunk it?
There are so many examples of how this monolithic thinking within Apple has cursed the company that I scarcely know where to begin...how about with Firewire, for starters? Apple all but ensured Firewire would never become the standard it could have been when it decided to charge manufacturers a licensing fee to use it--and when Apple finally reversed itself it was far too late and royalty-free standards like USB from Intel had already usurped it and saturated the market. I always found it supremely ironic that Apple picked USB for the iMac, no doubt because it didn't have to pay Intel for the privilege...;)
This is Apple's congenital defect, seems to me. The company is constitutionally unable to see other manufacturers within its markets as anything but leeches and parasites who are always seeking gain at Apple's expense. Such companies are never viewed as "partners" in a growing market. Apple expressed the same sentiments when it massacred the fledging Mac clone companies long before they might've helped grow the Mac market. This kind of tunnel vision and "me first" thinking is precisely why Microsoft has never had to worry about Apple as a competitor.
Just how much more attractive will the iPod be to propspective purchasers if it is surrounded by a host of reasonably priced and superbly functional 3rd-party devices? Is it beyond the pale to suggest that an abundance of 3rd-party hardware support may indeed actually help Apple sell more iPods in the first place? Gee, who'd a thunk it?
There are so many examples of how this monolithic thinking within Apple has cursed the company that I scarcely know where to begin...how about with Firewire, for starters? Apple all but ensured Firewire would never become the standard it could have been when it decided to charge manufacturers a licensing fee to use it--and when Apple finally reversed itself it was far too late and royalty-free standards like USB from Intel had already usurped it and saturated the market. I always found it supremely ironic that Apple picked USB for the iMac, no doubt because it didn't have to pay Intel for the privilege...;)
This is Apple's congenital defect, seems to me. The company is constitutionally unable to see other manufacturers within its markets as anything but leeches and parasites who are always seeking gain at Apple's expense. Such companies are never viewed as "partners" in a growing market. Apple expressed the same sentiments when it massacred the fledging Mac clone companies long before they might've helped grow the Mac market. This kind of tunnel vision and "me first" thinking is precisely why Microsoft has never had to worry about Apple as a competitor.