[MW Forums]

Intel applauds Apple' success with iPod, but says open standards are need to make convergence a success. more

[macwilf]

Quote:

---

At the end of the day, consumers want choice, he said.

---

If they really want that, how come they buy into the locked Microsoft system, then?
On the other hand, what is it to be? Apple are more or less forced to add their DRM because of the record companies - or because they want to lock consumers in?
/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[jmincey]

"...he also called on Japanese consumer-electronics makers to adopt open standards centered around Intels own Viiv platform for PCs running Microsofts Windows operating system."
If Intel's open technology is Windows-only then it's not open. Otherwise, and in spite of the fact Intel has its own vested interests here, its representative is right about Apple.

[warlock7]

Interesting considering that some OpenBSD developers are calling Intel an "open source fraud".

[lwdesign]

Intel seems to be saying, let's have everyone (except Apple) producing content use open source, as long as it runs on Intel proprietary Viiv standards. Anyone notice this statement is going in 3 different directions at the same time--and all to the benefit of Intel?

[giulio]

Quote:

---

Intel seems to be saying, let's have everyone (except Apple) producing content use open source, as long as it runs on Intel proprietary Viiv standards. Anyone notice this statement is going in 3 different directions at the same time--and all to the benefit of Intel?

---

HAHA, yes I did! I was shaking my head the entire time I was reading this story.

[gudin]

Well, not really. It may be true about the iPod and iTunes, but that's in large part due to the content providers requiring DRM than about Apple. Although regarding allowing content to be playable on the iPod is definately proprietary.
HOWEVER, as Apple has embraced otherwise open standards to a much greater extent than MS, it's hardly fair to say being proprietary is "letting Apple be Apple." MS Windows is far more prorietary and closed in its outlook than apple IMHO. Part of this is simply that Apple is much smaller and wants to work within the larger world, while MS would like to keep its monopoly together. Still, it means Apple is likely to use standards, while MS is likely to try and make its own technologies standard by excluding others.
Bottom line is both companies try to protect the market dominance they already have. Accepting outside standards is what you do when you want to break into a monopoly someone else has.

[jmincey]

"MS Windows is far more prorietary and closed in its outlook than apple IMHO."
I agree completely. If the topic of this thread were operating systems and we were discussing OS X and Windows, there would be no question that OS X is much more open and standards-compliant. The only thing is, that's not the topic here.

[uchuugaka]

what a bunch of knee-jerk reactions, yeah, that stuff is all obvious, and yes Intel is going 3 or more directions with one statement.
but urging Japanese electronics makers to do more convergence? Hell, have they looked at the desktops for sale here in japan? many of them already include tv tuner/recording software and inputs and outputs!
Intel just wants people to buy into Viiv, but it's a big commitment on the part of software makers and smart software and hardware comanies are loath to buy in to platforms that tie them down (.NET, and to be fair much of Cocoa, though not all)
not to mention the cost in time and money to learn new technology platforms. You can't do it over night!

[jmincey]

"what a bunch of knee-jerk reactions, yeah, that stuff is all obvious.... Intel just wants people to buy into Viiv..."
And you think that is not obvious as well, (not to mention that the point was already made above)?

[leroybrown]

Quote:

---

but urging Japanese electronics makers to do more convergence? Hell, have they looked at the desktops for sale here in japan? many of them already include tv tuner/recording software and inputs and outputs!

---

It's not hard to find desktops in the US that have tuners (and from there it's trivial to make it a dvr). It takes some determination to want to use them, however.
Until the things can control digital programming the general public isn't going to care too much about them - they'll buy what the cable company sells.

[gudin]

Well . . . The Intel spokesman made the comment about letting "Apple be Apple" and implied that Apple is totally proprietary start to finish. Then implied that their standard using Windows was not. Therefore, I disagree that the OS was not implicated.
It has been a mantra of the non-apple world forever that apple is proprietary. When it comes to computers, it is not. The iPod, yes.

[lschofield]

Quote:

---

Intel applauds Apple' success with iPod, but says open standards are need to make convergence a success. <a href="/news/2006/10/03/intel/index.php">[more]</a>

---

Or,
"We want everyone to change from Apple's standard to our standard."
The market decides who wins. So far, Apple is the only one that has given consumers what they want while satisfying the needs of the content owners.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

Intel applauds Apple' success with iPod, but says open standards are need to make convergence a success. <a href="/news/2006/10/03/intel/index.php">[more]</a>

---

I won't buy media from iTMS because of the lack of choice of hardware it will play on.
And I don't want an iTV because it's not a PVR. Why is it not a PVR? Because Apple would rather sell me TV shows individually that only play on their devices. I'm not getting into that locked-in model at all. I'm going to go with something like SageTV or TiVo (if they ever put out an OS X version of TiVo To Go) or other solution that lets me take my media to more devices. If that's Microsoft's DRM because they license, so be it. I refuse to use an inferior solution just because Apple is selling it.