Charlie Owen - Some Thoughts About Apple Front Row

Sunday, October 23, 2005

I've been following the Apple’s Media Center PC End Around post over at http://www.applematters.com. It's sort of like watching a very loooonnnnng tennis volley. 'Apple copied Microsoft.' 'No, Microsoft copied Apple.'

Back...forth...back...forth...back...forth...ad nauseum.

Note: I've used and owned Apple products over the years, starting with the original Mac way back when (actually even before with an Apple IIe back in elementary school -- Beagle Bros, peek and poke were my middle name). I also managed a graphics art house with Macs, Windows PCs and SparcStations all living happily together on the same network. I'm not one of these 'Macs suck' kind of people. To the contrary, I believe Apple makes good products, even if I happen to work at Microsoft.

Here are a couple of thoughts I've been noodling over the last couple of weeks...

1) It was a no-brainer for Apple to port it's iPod application over to Mac operating system and hook it up to a remote control. The interface has been tried and tested on millions of iPods. It's low hanging fruit -- they probably didn't have to invest a ton of money to get the feature in their OS. Microsoft kinda / sorta did the same thing, only in reverse order with the Media Center first, Portable Media Center second.

2) Porting the iPod application over to the OS is further evidence of the iPod halo effect Apple has been hoping for whereby strong sales of iPods translate into equally strong sales of Macs. It remains to be seen if there is actually a halo effect. I don't think so. The price inequities between a Windows PC and Mac are far greater than iPod vs. any other portable player, and I'm willing to bet there are more iPods connected to Windows PCs than iPods connected to Macs.

Update: I have added a chart which is the basis for my *opinion* there is no halo effect: http://www.retrosight.com/mediacenter/Apple_iPod_and_Mac_Sales.png. Read the comments for context.

3) Steve Jobs comparing the Apple remote control with the Media Center remote control was nothing but sheer marketing brilliance. It's totally not about which remote control is better. Not at all. By making this comparison, Steve Jobs gave the illusion the two products were on equal footing EXCEPT for the remote. All things being equal, Joe Consumer will choose the remote with 6 buttons instead of 40.

Categories: Front Row | Comments [17] |

| Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:30:56 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Sunday, October 23, 2005 1:15:10 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

If you're having trouble seeing the halo effect of the iPod on Mac sales, you should look at Apple's sales numbers. There's nothing that "remains to be seen... I don't think so" about it.

It sounds like you are trying to spread misinformation, since a simple Google search would have told you:

The iPod halo enabled Apple to sell 48% more computers this year over last

vs.

17.2% growth in the general computer industry
17.8% for Dell
17.9% for HP

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20051017/bs_ibd_ibd/20051017tech01

danieleran

Sunday, October 23, 2005 4:51:49 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

I'm not trying to spread misinformation, only stating an opinion based on observable fact.

Is there a statistical correlation with iPod and Mac sales?

I don't think so.

Apple is selling *way* more iPods than Macs and seeing lots more quarter over quarter growth in iPods compared to Macs.

Here is a chart which shows pretty clearly there isn't a correlation (and thus no halo effect) between iPod and Mac sales: http://www.retrosight.com/mediacenter/Apple_iPod_and_Mac_Sales.png. (Sorry you can't click on the URL -- comments don't allow HTML.)

Again, just my opinion.

Charlie Owen

Monday, October 24, 2005 1:40:31 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Hi Charlie. Interesting post, but I think you mean "tennis rally" not "tennis volley". I know this kind of comment is really irritating, but I'm just trying to help!

Alan Skerrett

Monday, October 24, 2005 1:41:58 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Not sure why you say they "ported the iPod application". No such thing was done. Front Row is a cocoa application created specifically for Macs. And the best thing is, it doesn't *do* anything. It is just a fancy CoreImage and Quartz front end to existing applications (except for the weird trailers thing). You can clearly see this by the fact Steve Jobs has DVD Player open during the keynote before he ever launches that aspect of Front Row. This was done to hide the small lag in launching the application during the demo.

Front Row isn't competing with MCE at all except for those that use MCE only for Music and Photos.

Rosyna

Monday, October 24, 2005 2:28:48 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

i thought the halo effect led to a bunch of XBox's being sold :)

my view of FrontRow is that it allows them to enter the market, but feature parity isn't close. and without a development story ... its not compelling

but iPod is kicking PMCs butt. i think you've got the right model though, MS does the OS and multiple vendors do the hardware. now if you would just give it a dev story ... then PMC might be compelling

casey chesnut

Monday, October 24, 2005 3:28:08 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

To Charlie Owen, denial isn't just a river in Egypt:

http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/7341/

Microsoft is doomed

Monday, October 24, 2005 4:46:32 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Alan: Thanks! I wasn't sure of the correct term -- and now I do.

Rosyna: My use of 'ported the iPod application' was probably not the best choice of words. Obviously you can't just copy the binaries from the iPod to the iMac, make a few changes and 'voila' you have Front Row. What I really meant was they took a well tested application (the iPod interface) and recreated a majority of it's features on the Mac itself.

Charlie Owen

Monday, October 24, 2005 5:16:04 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

The halo effect is a concept created by financial analysts, i don't understand why my fellow Mac users feel threatened by Charlie Owen's blog post. This is just his opinion. Maybe the halo effect doesn't exist, so what? The important thing is that Macintosh sales have been increasing faster than the overall market for several quarters.

The first mention of the "halo effect" I can find was on September 27th, 2004.

Piper Jaffray: Apple Market Share in Two Year Growth (Sept 27th, 2004)

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/09/27.15.shtml

Gene Munster from Piper Jaffray: "It is important to keep in mind that the surprise of (the) last (June) quarter centered on better-than-expected results in the core Mac business, which beats our estimates by 6%. […] Also, we view last quarter's results as the first evidence that adoption of iPod has been improving underlying demand for Macs."

Potential For More Mac Converts Lifts Apple View (10.11.04)

http://www.forbes.com/markets/commodities/2004/10/11/1011automarketscan03.html

"If 2% of customers who purchase an estimated 7.5 million iPods in fiscal 2005 decide to also purchase a Mac, when otherwise they would not have purchased a Mac, that would add an additional 150,000 Mac units, or 4%, to Piper Jaffray's estimates for the year."

Charlie Owen: "Here is a chart which shows pretty clearly there isn't a correlation (and thus no halo effect) between iPod and Mac sales"

As you see, from Piper Jaffray's point of view, the halo effect is not about doubling Apple's marketshare overnight or anything, it's about increasing Mac sales, adding x hundred thousand sales per year. During fiscal 2004 Apple sold 3.29 million Macs, and 4.53 million during FY2005, that's a 37.8% increase year-over-year.

engrish

Monday, October 24, 2005 5:44:49 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Charlie,

I know what you are trying to do, but if you want to be fair, then try this exercise.

Instead of creating a chart tracking raw units sold, try creating a chart that shows year-on-year growth in terms of percentages.

The chart looks a lot different now, doesn't it?

The way your existing chart works, you might as well compare unit sales of tires to sales of automobiles. Even though automobile sales may number 17 million per year or so in the U.S., tire sales number in the billions and a direct comparison between the two is going to make any kind of growth in automobile sales look flatline (even if it's very, very strong).

You're trying to be fair, but let's be more intellectually rigorous, okay?

Paul

Monday, October 24, 2005 6:35:54 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Apple didn't have to port anything from the iPod to the Mac OS in order to make Front Row for the new iMac G5. The core of iTunes and the iPod is QuickTime and it's components, which has been around for a very long time. iTunes at it's core is QuickTime, WebKit and FairPlay2 DRM. The code iPod uses the same basic code & file format recompiled for it's hardware & software.
Now I know someone is going to jump in with 'What about Core Data, Core Image and Core Audio'? When Apple introduced Core Image, Video and Audio to recent versions of Mac OS X it moved components of QuickTime from the applications level down into the OS. Ever notice how QuickTime installs along with iTunes on a Windows PC? Without QuickTime there is no iTunes on any platform.
On the Macintosh, QuickTime and it's components (some now part of Core Audio, Core Video and Core Image in the OS) enable Garage Band, iPhoto, iTunes, DVD Player, iMovie, the Final Cut Suite of programs, Logic, or any third party app that uses , MIDI, Audio, Video or a picture file except Windows Media and Real encoded content. QuickTime related APIs are available for applications to draw on.
Front Row is nothing more than an application that draws upon APIs already in the Mac OS. 3rd party apps that draw on Apple's QuickTime related or descendant APIs can export audio and/or video ready made for the iPod. Nothing was ported-- it was already there. Anything playable on an iPod will play in the QuickTime Player app.
The 'Halo' effect is for real. It would be greater if Apple did a better job at retail outlets like Best Buy and Comp USA where the majority of staff are completely ignorant of the Mac and do a very poor job of presentation to the customer. In my experience, dissatisfaction with Windows XP secuirty and malware problems and good buzz of the iLife suite of apps is driving XP to X switching more than the iPod.

DAG

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 2:29:15 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Why does anyone think Front Row is Apple answer to MCE? The comparison of remotes was an example of Apple vs. Microsoft design philosophy. Nothing more than that. Also, in my experience Joe Consumer buys the remote with the most buttons because in their mind it equates to more features. Unfortunately for Apple most consumer equate more with better. They do not understand that a product that is simpler can be more satisfying.

ron

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:08:18 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

no comments taken anymore ?

no more

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:09:54 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

- Saying FrontRow is the answer to MCE implies the believe MCE is very important. But it isn't sofar, people only start to understand their computer is good for more than office'n'email. It further doesn't respect apple's media attitude at all. An attitude I think we all can agree with can't we.

- The Remote commander "gag" by Steve Jobs was by all means not just a such one. It is a very important one because it stands for the differences envolved in or between supporters of the respective platform. "ron" is right - many people will think the full fletched remote looks more "professional" and "powerful", yet if you have the approach of trying to make is "just work", you wouldnt need all those buttons. Still I would have liked a few more, maybe a set of 4 "F-Key"s to be programmed with Applescripts or such. Yet again building your own USB IR Receiver isnt really hard :-)

- I haven't seen FrontRow yet, but PhotoBooth. This too is just some cocoa wrapper that connects to various services already present in the system. Out of MB Programm package, the code is 240K plus a bunch of cikernel scripts (intersting btw)

Anunnaki

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:09:05 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

LOL... my favorite part of the article that shows that EVEN MICROSOFT has caught on that there is a REAL halo effect going on, is:

The halo effect enabled Apple to go after PC users and sell them Macs, Will. Come on now, you can say it: Mac-in-tosh. Try "podcasting," too, while you're at it. Microsoft's stock chart looks like a Zamboni drove over it. We're not doctors, but to us that chart says one thing: flatline. It's smoother and flatter than even Ballmer's head. Compare it to Apple's over the last three years here; it's Everest vs. the parking lot. Monkey Boy Ballmer dances while Redmond burns.

"Zamboni"... LOL! Just the name, not just the metaphor kills me! :-D

Dude-a-licious

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 9:45:19 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Funny how the Mac-fans need to state so much uninteresting things. Maybe that's how it feels like to be David...

Jason

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 7:58:43 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

As opposed to... YOU, Jason?? Pfffff... good one.

Jason's Evil Twin Brother

Sunday, October 30, 2005 6:07:38 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

"Update: I have added a chart which is the basis for my *opinion* there is no halo effect: http://www.retrosight.com/mediacenter/Apple_iPod_and_Mac_Sales.png. Read the comments for context."

Whua? How do you not see it? 0_o
OK, you see that blue line? That's Mac computers. You see how it doesn't go over 100,000 units until 2005? Well you see that pink line? That's iPods. You see how when the sales took off (when the line went up really high!) it pulled up Mac sales with it? No? What are you, blind?? 0_0

Luke

Comments are closed.