Week in review: Reading Apple's crystal ball

It seems lately that everyone can predict the future and knows what Apple is going to do next.

According to various sources, Apple is considering an all-you-can-eat plan in which users would receive free access to iTunes in exchange for paying a premium for its iPod and iPhone devices. If accurate, this would mark a big about-face for CEO Steve Jobs, who previously has dismissed the rental music model.

As part of the deal, Apple would have to agree to share sales revenue from the devices with the labels, a source close to the deal said. Cutting the labels in on iPod or iPhone revenue would mark a sharp turn in Apple's strategy.

The deal being discussed by the labels and Apple calls for the company to license the music and also "kick in a piece of the device sales," the source said.

The Apple device, which hasn't been determined yet, would come preprogrammed with a certain amount of music that, after a period of time--perhaps six months or a year--would roll into a subscription type of service plan, the source said.

Apple would be in for a fierce legal fight, should it ever undertake such a strategy, warns David Pakman, CEO of rival digital-music service eMusic.

"It smells like classic Sherman Antitrust Act to me," Pakman said. "I only know what I've read, but the plan sounds very similar to the tying practices Microsoft used with Windows (and) Explorer. And Microsoft is still paying the penalties for that one."

"What is really strange, as an Apple enthusiast, I find it counter to Apple in general."
-- CNET News.com reader

An Apple representative said the company does not comment on "rumor and speculation." The talks were first reported by the Financial Times.

The debate among CNET News.com readers on this topic was varied, with many baffled by the possible deal.

"This type of device is counter-culture to why people enjoy any music player, let alone an iPod," . "What is really strange, as an Apple enthusiast, I find it counter to Apple in general."

Sometimes it's more advantageous to be able to read lips rather than a crystal ball, as those following recent comments by Adobe Systems CEO Shantanu Narayen have learned. During a conference call to announce Adobe's first-quarter earnings, Narayen said Adobe "will work with Apple" to make sure that Flash applications can run on the iPhone.

"We can now start to develop the Flash player ourselves, and we think it benefits our joint customers," Narayen said. "So we want to work with Apple to bring that capability to the device."

However, apparently people read too much into that statement, and Adobe has admitted that it can't bring Flash to the iPhone just because it thinks that would be a neat idea.

Narayen's comments weren't exactly definitive, but they were judged by several media outlets to be a confirmation of Adobe and Apple's plans to put a Flash Player on the iPhone.

But Narayen also seems to have misunderstood the terms of the SDK. Flash isn't a mere third-party application, like a game or an instant-messaging client. It's a plug-in that would have to work very closely with Safari on the iPhone, and that's something Apple has declared off-limits to third-party developers at this time.

[rhsc]

I can see the headline for this day next year:

Pakman eats Apple

[Fil0403]

You're forgetting a little important detail

A headline like that will only happen in the unbiased media. :-P

[dsstroud]

Flash will be on the iphone

MacWorld 2009 Steve Jobs will stroll on stage and bring out the
flunkies from Adobe and talk about the revolutionary cooperation it
took between the companies when he announces the addition of
flash for iPhone. By that time they should have a 3G version of the
phone out and web surfers will demand flash compatibility. Like a
lot of things Jobs says, he says it won't happen or is not possible
until all of a sudden it appears.

[Fil0403]

Flash (and Java) will not be on the iPhone

MacWorld 2009, Steve Jobs will stroll on stage and bring out no one from Adobe (or Sun, for that matter) and talk about how much Flash and Java suck and how supposedly "nobody uses it anyway" when he announces the strong committment in maintaining the iPhone as the most feature-less incompatible smartphone in the world. By that time (almost 10 years after most smartphone users started using Flash and Java on their 3G-enabled smartphones and some 3 years after PSP users started using Flash on their PSPs) they should have a 0.1 mm smaller version of the iPhone in 5 colors with more memory and a non-recessed headphone jack and web surfers will continue demanding flash compatibility but Apple will continue def to what people really want and will continue to show why their products suck so much in terms of compatibility (unlike Microsoft products). Like a lot of things Jobs says, he says, he says it's a fantastic perfect piece of technology and it's better than any Microsoft product, but reality shows otherwise.

[laynemoseley]

I don't think they will do it

Steve has been very adamant about keeping the price at 99 cents a
song for a while... and it's a good strategy that works well.

However, maybe they are looking at driving more iPod sales,
because those sales are not growing very much like they have been
in the previous years.....

[Fil0403]

I think they should do it

And if they want to drive more iPod sales, starting to bundle it with decent headphones and make it have a user-replaceable battery would be a good start, that would make the best MP3 player (IMHO) even better.

[tundraboy]

A little logic applied.

If your music subscription is tied to your iPod, and you can't transfer it (for free) when you buy a new iPod, then that would cause iPod owners to slow down their iPod replacement rate. That would not be good for Apple. That's why this idea is a non-starter.

[Fil0403]

A little more logic applied.

If your music subscription is tied to your iPod, and you can transfer it (for free) when you buy a new iPod, then that wouldn't cause iPod owners to slow down their iPod replacement rate. That would not be bad for Apple. That's why this idea isn't necessarily a non-starter.
Of course we all are aware of Apple's commitment in making the user pay for anything they can, as what happens with updates (you know, the ones that Apple users always complain regarding Windows but they have to pay for many of them while we Windows users get them all for free) and with the iPhone 3rd-party applications thing ("We're not doing it for the money, we just ask money for it to donate it to charitable organizations").

[Fil0403]

Week in review: Reading Apple's boring crystal ball

Easy: basically spending more money in commercials deceiving more people into thinking that Apple products are perfect and that Macs are better than Windows PCs.