What will the iPad do for musicians?

For iOS (iPhone, iPad & iPod), Android, Windows Phone, etc. App and Hardware talk
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

eduardo_b wrote:
brambos wrote:...more likely it is because they don't want to be at the mercy of Adobe for anything.
Not a reason. Like it or not, Flash is a standard now and so widely used that there are no excuses for not including support for it on the iPad. It's not like Apple isn't making money by the lorry load.
The only reasons I can think of for not including it is it's more or less a buggy POS* that is increasingly a target for exploits. It's also a environment that's completely beyond Apple's control. I know it seems a strange omission, but I can see Jobs' point. I'm sure he's done the sums already.

*YMMV of course.

Anyway, with regard to the original topic, who would need Flash on a touchscreen box that they were using as an OSC controller? :lol:

Bit of a chicken and egg scenario here. Apple apps (unlike dedicated music apps) are usually simple things that are priced cheap and stacked high. Developing a controller application to suit a wide range of users and their software of choice is undoubtedly a task, so the developer would want to be sure that there is enough of a market to make it worthwile. On the other side, musicians may be reticent about buying an iPad just as a controller until there are useful apps for it, because TBH (unlike the iPod Touch or iPhone) it's not really much use for anything else.
Last edited by jonnyG on Thu Feb 04, 2010 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"are we there yet?"

Post

eduardo_b wrote:
spaceman wrote:
eduardo_b wrote:It's not like Apple isn't making money by the lorry load.
You may be missing something fundamental about business.
I'm quite well-versed regarding business, and the numbers are what they are for the fourth quarter of 2009 (and every quarter last year):

"Apple reported revenue of $9.2 billion and a net quarterly profit of $1.67 billion, or $1.82 earnings per share (EPS), handily beating consensus estimates with the most profitable quarter ever."

They can easily afford to pay Adobe.
I think you've just confirmed that you are indeed missing something fundamental about business. Them having the money doesn't mean they would want to pay any penny they can avoid paying.
My other host is Bruce Forsyth

Post

spaceman wrote:
eduardo_b wrote:
spaceman wrote:
eduardo_b wrote:It's not like Apple isn't making money by the lorry load.
You may be missing something fundamental about business.
I'm quite well-versed regarding business, and the numbers are what they are for the fourth quarter of 2009 (and every quarter last year):

"Apple reported revenue of $9.2 billion and a net quarterly profit of $1.67 billion, or $1.82 earnings per share (EPS), handily beating consensus estimates with the most profitable quarter ever."

They can easily afford to pay Adobe.
I think you've just confirmed that you are indeed missing something fundamental about business. Them having the money doesn't mean they would want to pay any penny they can avoid paying.
You're not getting it. Licensing Flash is a cost of doing business. You don't avoid paying for what customers want and expect. That's fundamental in business.
We escape the trap of our own subjectivity by
perceiving neither black nor white but shades of grey

Post

spaceman wrote:Them having the money doesn't mean they would want to pay any penny they can avoid paying.
True.

My company in recent years has dropped Adobe, Oracle, and others because they've decided on cheaper alternatives and neither Adobe nor Oracle were willing to cut a deal. We're talking about a company of 300,000 people here, so it's not as if it was a small number of licenses.

Post

I dont get one thing about it; content creation was the single main market that kept Apple alive, for a decade or more. Now Apple dont want their devices to support the content that large numbers of business still buy Macs to create?
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."

Post

whyterabbyt wrote:I dont get one thing about it; content creation was the single main market that kept Apple alive, for a decade or more. Now Apple dont want their devices to support the content that large numbers of business still buy Macs to create?
I'm not sure that Apple cares much about a relative small group of Flash developers. Web, graphic and desktop publishing in general, yes... and even that.. I'm sure the non-developer user base is a LOT bigger than the developers user base. I don't think they have any problems screwing the smaller ones, where needed.

But clearly they don't think too highly of Flash. They must have run the numbers and Flash didn't dent the equations.

But what do we know? The next big OS update may support it.
Last edited by spaceman on Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:12 pm, edited 3 times in total.
My other host is Bruce Forsyth

Post

eduardo_b wrote: ]You're not getting it. Licensing Flash is a cost of doing business. You don't avoid paying for what customers want and expect. That's fundamental in business.
Apple clearly has different statistic about what their customers want and expect. At least for now.
My other host is Bruce Forsyth

Post

spaceman wrote: But clearly they don't think too highly of Flash. They must have run the numbers and Flash didn't dent the equations.
Well of course not. Who can tolerate Flash once they have experienced the glory that is QuickTime?

Post

It's one thing to control internal costs of doing business, quite another to not license technology essential to producing competitive products. But it's the kind of thing Apple does. Think of music file compression. Rather than license MP3 technology they invent their own format that's incompatible. It obviously didn't bother those willing to only listen to music from iTunes on Apple products, but it was an issue for everyone else.

I'm not so sure Apple listens to customers. They may be betting that the list of things appealing to buyers will be more attractive than what isn't included with iPad. This strategy has worked before...for a while.
We escape the trap of our own subjectivity by
perceiving neither black nor white but shades of grey

Post

spaceman wrote:I'm not sure that Apple cares much about a relative small group of Flash developers.
I actually said content developers, not Flash developers, for a reason. Whether you like it or not, (or just want to brush it all off as porn) Flash is a mechanism for content delivery (eg Flash video) as well as content type itself.

TBH its interesting you make a distinction from 'web developers' as its a term that I'd personally say has included Flash developers since Flash first went into browsers.
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."

Post


Post

Yea, Sony is pretty good when it comes to following in Apple's foot steps.
Wavsen.com - Professional mix delivery platform with client approval, watermarking, and portfolio page builder.

Post

djanthonyw wrote:Yea, Sony is pretty good when it comes to following in Apple's foot steps.
:lol:

Sony, 2003:

Image


Apple, 2007:

Image
Last edited by TristezaOrange on Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post

djanthonyw wrote:Yea, Sony is pretty good when it comes to following in Apple's foot steps.
Yeah, bet they wish they'd invented and popularised the portable audio playback device.
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."

Post

TristezaOrange wrote:Vaio tablet probably coming:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/04/sony ... #c25235217
Sony iBrick

Post Reply

Return to “Mobile Apps and Hardware”