Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[glynor]

OSX:
Itunes installed
75% of the features you'd want
25% go looking for something else

Windows:
Media player installed
50% of the features you'd want
50% go looking for something else
You can pay nothing and get itunes with 75% of the function or pay for something with more

These numbers are purely invented.  I'd want to see real market analysis.  What is the market penetration for iTunes in both Windows and OSX?  What versions?  What do customers want?  What to they get out of the applications that they use?  Why do they look for third party applications when they do, and in what numbers?  What percentage of those people are willing to pay for the alternative, if it is good enough?

All of these things can't be answered by making things up.  You would need to do professional research and have real, hard numbers, or you're just bloviating.

All I'm saying is that assuming that the "crossover" numbers (the number of people who would be willing to switch away from "built-in, free" solutions) are similar on the platforms, which I would actually dispute but that is neither here nor there because no one really knows, that: (a) the OSX market segment is now plenty large enough to target in a profitable way, and (b) that the OSX market segment is growing much more quickly than the home-user Windows market, so it would be a smart forward-looking investment right now, precisely because the alternatives in the OSX market are much more limited currently.

[AustinBike]

Yes, all the numbers are made up, if I had done the research I would sell it to MC

But can you agree on the following opinions:

1. Windows users are more likely to search out alternative than mac users (i.e. windows media player is less capable than itunes)
2. No more than half of the users for any platform would seek out and pay for a solution (i.e. most people are OK with "good enough")

Analysts give Apple ~7.8-8.5% share in the market.  Yes, this is growng faster than anyone else, and will probably jump to double digits in the next 2 years.  http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2325860,00.asp

The functional problem is that if 100% of apple customers all decided to pay for an alternative and only 10% of the windows market did, the windows market would still be larger (9.15% vs. 8.5%).

It's a volume issue, not a customer issue.

[JimH]

Yes, all the numbers are made up, if I had done the research I would sell it to MC

It would be interesting to see, but what people say they would do, and what they will actually do, are often different.

I think that we'll have to do a Mac version just to see if it's worth the trouble.  And because glynor says we should.

[glynor]

But can you agree on the following opinions:

1. Windows users are more likely to search out alternative than mac users (i.e. windows media player is less capable than itunes)
2. No more than half of the users for any platform would seek out and pay for a solution (i.e. most people are OK with "good enough")

No, that was my point.  I would not grant those two assumptions without seeing hard numbers.  Of those people who would choose to seek an alternative (and I would consider iTunes and WiMP roughly functionally equivalent from a "power user" perspective), I would say that the people who chose Macs have already proven that they are willing to pay a premium for a better user experience.  Otherwise, they wouldn't have bought a Mac!

Analysts give Apple ~7.8-8.5% share in the market.  Yes, this is growng faster than anyone else, and will probably jump to double digits in the next 2 years.  http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2325860,00.asp

The functional problem is that if 100% of apple customers all decided to pay for an alternative and only 10% of the windows market did, the windows market would still be larger (9.15% vs. 8.5%).

Again, that ignores the fact that a HUGE percentage of those "Windows Computers" are corporate installs.  I used to work at MBNA (a credit card lender).  In my room of my building alone, we probably had 1000 windows machines, which all count towards the Windows "market share" number, but were not AT ALL a viable "customer" for MC, iTunes, or any other media applications.  They were all "corporate clone boxes", designed to do only one thing (in this case, allow us to take calls for customer service).  If you ignore the corporate clone install base and focus only on individual users, and then focus again on customers who are interested in using their computers to "do multimedia things", the numbers game changes dramatically.

I'm not saying it automatically is a viable market, but I strongly suspect it is, and I bet if you hired someone to generate REAL numbers, they'd confirm my suspicion.

The idea that the Mac is only for people looking for "simple machines" is an old bias that never was particularly true.  Macs have ALWAYS been favored by the "creative class" of users (graphic designers, multimedia specialists, video editors, etc, etc, etc), and many of the "new Apple purchasers" are in aggregate young people who are also, incidentally, a lot more "multimedia savvy" (people who purchase music/video online, view podcasts, and so on).

And, again, in the Windows sphere, there are substantial viable "premium multimedia application" competitors in the space.  There is no application even remotely comparable available for the OSX platform.  It just plain doesn't exist.  It will in 2-3 years, for sure.  Hopefully, it will be MC that dominates the space.

But, then again, I also just want to be able to use MC on my Macs.    

[gummbah]

Yes, all the numbers are made up, if I had done the research I would sell it to MC

But can you agree on the following opinions:

1. Windows users are more likely to search out alternative than mac users (i.e. windows media player is less capable than itunes)
2. No more than half of the users for any platform would seek out and pay for a solution (i.e. most people are OK with "good enough")

Analysts give Apple ~7.8-8.5% share in the market.  Yes, this is growng faster than anyone else, and will probably jump to double digits in the next 2 years.  http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2325860,00.asp

The functional problem is that if 100% of apple customers all decided to pay for an alternative and only 10% of the windows market did, the windows market would still be larger (9.15% vs. 8.5%).

It's a volume issue, not a customer issue.

You are missing out on one important thing.
In the windows market there are many more alternatives (Winamp, another program, Foobar, etc) that target the power user. So the relative market share for MC is not the half of people that are searching an alternative, but (much?) less. 
In the apple market there are - seriously - no alternatives to itunes for the power user.
So even if you are right in your assumptions and numbers than it is still not valid to conclude that the windows market will be bigger in the future. If MC would move to the apple market now they could gain a good first-mover advantage.

[hit_ny]

1. Windows users are more likely to search out alternative than mac users (i.e. windows media player is less capable than itunes)

Here i think its the otherway around because the choices on the Mac for this type of app are more limited than on Windows.  Everyone says there is only iTunes. What ?? do you mean to say no one to date has tried to make an iTunes alternative on the Mac platform  

Why is that ?

Now I find that unless your collection is over a certain amount there seems to be no need to look for an alternative, regardless of the player or platform used.

MC is inherently a tags based organiser, upto a certain point a hierarchical file manager is all thats needed meaning you can get by quite well with just filenames but once you pass a certain threshold either in volume or amount of formats then it makes sense to go tags based if for anything that it provides a uniform and scalable inerface to interact with.

But this involves a lot of data entry and unless thats important then the switch will not happen.

I agree however with your earlier post that adding features for the Mac is more expensive currently than on windows, in terms of ROI given the share.

[BartMan01]

I am one of the many people that is moving to OSX for my primary home system.  I wanted a laptop for more portability, a new desktop to update my aging Athalon 64 X2 system, and a Mac for some programs that I want to run that are Mac only.  My answer was to just get a MacBook Pro with VMWare to run PC software and Virtual Machines from my work.

One thing to consider in the 'iTunes sucks' debate is that while on the PC iTunes is just another program there are deeper hooks to the OS on the Mac.  I have seen some pretty slick things done with apple script and automator when it comes to managing/playing media on the Mac with iTunes.

For the short term future I will still be running Vista on my desktop system that is loaded with drives and where I keep/primarily manage my media.  Long term (assuming I can get everything I need working in a pure Mac environment) I see myself eventually going 100% Mac at home - since with a Mac I can use both PC and Mac software but on the PC I am limited to PC software only.

Personally, I don't see a replacement for MC12 on either OS for media management (at this time).  My plan for now is to use a hybrid solution for audio - using MC12 (most likely just run from the Vista machine) to manage my audio library and use Stacks to keep both the original lossless copy and an MP3 version.  Then use iTunes on the Mac and loading in just the MP3 files there.  Since I use other software for managing Photos (amateur photographer) that is both Mac/Windows I have no concerns there.  Not sure what I will be doing with video yet since that is unorganized at the moment anyway.  I would love to see MC12 native on the Mac (and would pay full price for it again there), but I understand the business risks in making the software portable.

[leezer3]

Yes, all the numbers are made up, if I had done the research I would sell it to MC

But can you agree on the following opinions:

1. Windows users are more likely to search out alternative than mac users (i.e. windows media player is less capable than itunes)
2. No more than half of the users for any platform would seek out and pay for a solution (i.e. most people are OK with "good enough")

Analysts give Apple ~7.8-8.5% share in the market.  Yes, this is growng faster than anyone else, and will probably jump to double digits in the next 2 years.  http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2325860,00.asp

The functional problem is that if 100% of apple customers all decided to pay for an alternative and only 10% of the windows market did, the windows market would still be larger (9.15% vs. 8.5%).

It's a volume issue, not a customer issue.

Pulling numbers out of thin air helps no-one, please don't!

First, you're forgetting a fundamental fact- The Windows vs. Apple market share figures cover the whole of the market, this includes massive corporate offices,  universities etc. etc, all of whom are highly likely to use Windows. The home market share figures will be better, but still very hard to quantify

"No more than half of the users for any platform would seek out and pay for a solution"- I've got no idea where that number came from  This is going to be highly dependant on many factors, and IMHO most of the time will actually be far less than this figure; For example, most of the 'average' users of a Windows PC has no need of anything further than the preinstalled junk from the PC manufacturer (Which is why they put it there), and are unlikely to go in search of anything further. Power Windows users (Us) are much more likely to pay for a program, but will be much more in the minority. Apple users are actually going to be much more likely per-capita to pay for programs; Apple is actively enouraging the micro-economy with the iPhone/ iPod apps, and there is a much more established tradition of paying for small apps on the Mac.

-Leezer-

[cncb]

I think that we'll have to do a Mac version just to see if it's worth the trouble.  And because glynor says we should.

So that's a definite yes?  Cool.

[hit_ny]

The home market share figures will be better, but still very hard to quantify

Ok, then the answer to *when* a Mac version will be available is simple

The moment any of these ppl ask for it... as it seems they are nearly all catering to home users.

Any idea how soon that happens ?

[glynor]

Ok, then the answer to *when* a Mac version will be available is simple

The moment any of these ppl ask for it as it seems they are nearly all catering to home users.

Any idea how soon that happens ?

I think that is a VERY good point.  And perhaps with the addition "the minute they lose a big, potential (or existing) partner to a competitor who does offer a Mac & Windows compatible solution."

[hit_ny]

I don't think they will lose anyone, those partners are in the best postion to know whether such a move is viable or not and if they show their commitment then the decison is much easier & safer than springing from some fancy report with no downpayment.

[Peter_T]

Pretty much the only reason I don't use a Mac for my HTPC is because I couldn't imagine my living room without MC.  Put out a mac version and I'll order a new computer tomorrow.  (If only you could get a cut from Apple...)

[park]

Tell me about it. I bought a Sony TP1 "living room" PC. It only has MC and CCCP installed on it, has double the amount of standard RAM, and has been checked for virusses and spyware and was clean. Yet it still took 20mins for it to fully boot up this morning. That PC and vista have been a headache from day 01.

I already use MC inside VMWare fusion on my mac pro to do all my tagging and organizing. I'd buy a mac mini for the living room in a second if JRiver released a mac version of MC.

[p7389]

With all this talk of switching to OSX if MC was made available... I'm not in the least interested in doing that; however, if a Linux version were ever to be developed, I might switch to Ubunutu.. But I would guess that that would go hand in hand with a Mac version, if at all. Probably not at all... Ah well, I'm happy with Vista anyway.

[MrHaugen]

A problem with Mac is all the other things that might not work as one is used to.

- Would you have the best decoders, and post processing choises available?
- Region killer apps, do they exist?
- CD/DVD spin down apps, do they exist?
- Is there a good alternative to DVD Profiler for Osx?
- Is it possible to run a house with Girder, and still control it through the Osx?
- Does Netremote work in osx?
- I'm sure I've forgotten something..

If the answer is no to many of this, MC on a Mac would not be a choise for me.
Sure, it's a nice OS. Easy to use, it usually works without hazzel. The hardware looks very nice, but unfortunatly costs so much more than standard computers.

[gummbah]

I ordered one of the new Macbooks today.
Gets delivered in a week.
So I expect a Mac compatible MC by then 

[BartMan01]

A problem with Mac is all the other things that might not work as one is used to.
...
If the answer is no to many of this, MC on a Mac would not be a choise for me.
Sure, it's a nice OS. Easy to use, it usually works without hazzel. The hardware looks very nice, but unfortunatly costs so much more than standard computers.

The cost issue is really subjective:
Can you put together a PC that does what you want/need for less than a Mac?  Yes.
Can you put together a PC that matches that EXACTLY matches the Mac for less?  Possibly, but most of the time it would be close.

My next desktop will be:
Mac Pro (waiting for the new Intel processors) with as much RAM as I can afford to throw in it (aiming for 8-16GB).
One large HD with OSX.
One large HD with Vista64 that can either be run in dual boot or under VMWare inside of OSX.
An XP VM for MC12/13.
This will give me the 'best of both worlds' and the large memory footprint will allow me to simultaneusly run OSX, Vista64, and additional VMs as needed.

As it stands today, I currently have an XP VM that I run MC12 under, since it has become too dependent on it's own environment for my needs.  A big example of this is that JRiver recommends not running the latest version of QT, but that is needed for the iPhone/iPod Touch.  I will probably continue to use MC it's own private environment from this point forward.  That way I can set up the exact CODEC's and tools needed to maintain my media library and not worry about everything falling apart because I have installed a new version of Nero/Quicktime/etc.  Note that interoperability issues are due mainly to the 3rd party tools that I want/need to use that invasively try to take control of the entire media infrastructure of the machine.  It also lets me fully back up or move my MC configuration intact by just backing up or moving the VM.

I am making the switch to Mac as my primary system/OS because it gives me the ability to run any tool for any desktop platform.  No need to give up anything.

[lukecro]

After using JRiver Media Center for many years (and JRiver Jukebox before that) I switched to a Mac earlier this year . . . One of the big reasons I bought Parallels for the mac (and installed Windows XP) was so I could continue to run JRiver Media Center . . . But, while I've found Parallels to be useful, I've also found that it's not worth booting up Parallels just to run JRiver Media Center in most cases . . . I've learned to live with iTunes, iPhoto, Front Row, VLC, etc., to fill most of my media needs . . .  I do miss using JRiver Media Center -- especially as an all-in-one solution for organizing videos and tagging files (iTunes is great for playing music, but not great for video or tagging) -- but having to run it on a resource-eating Virtual Machine just makes it too inconvenient most of the time . . .  Build a  JRiver Media Center for the Mac, though, and I'm sure I'll buy it! 

[MrHaugen]

Let's say for fun that half of the unsatisfied people are willing to pay for something.

The word unsatisfied is not true in most cases. The fact is that most people are happy with what they have got, simply because they don't know any better. Many people are lazy and don't even search for a better alternative, and most of us use what we are familiar with, and have heard about. "Everyone" uses iTunes because because most people think that's their best choise. MC needs to be more out there for the potential users to see.

iTunes might be better on OSx, and I belive many people that have MAC also have some sort of iPlayer, and therefor I think many will continue to use iTunes for the support of at least the iPhone and touch models. I addition, as Ausitin says, I belive the market share of OSx vs Windows is still so small that it would not justify moving to a second platform. Because it will just slow the overall progress of the media center when developed for two operating systems.

After using JRiver Media Center for many years (and JRiver Jukebox before that) I switched to a Mac earlier this year . . . One of the big reasons I bought Parallels for the mac (and installed Windows XP) was so I could continue to run JRiver Media Center . . . But, while I've found Parallels to be useful, I've also found that it's not worth booting up Parallels just to run JRiver Media Center in most cases . . . I've learned to live with iTunes, iPhoto, Front Row, VLC, etc., to fill most of my media needs . . .  I do miss using JRiver Media Center -- especially as an all-in-one solution for organizing videos and tagging files (iTunes is great for playing music, but not great for video or tagging) -- but having to run it on a resource-eating Virtual Machine just makes it too inconvenient most of the time . . .  Build a  JRiver Media Center for the Mac, though, and I'm sure I'll buy it! 

As for people complaining this is not available on Mac or Linux. What is the big deal? Hardware is so cheap today. If you truly love MC that much, and many say that they are willing to pay alot for it, why not just invest in a cheap HTPC and use it for MC only instead? It's a one in all solution. Don't really understand why people have to combine everything to one box. Combining software and hardware for every task is hardly efficient. I my self have one comp for gaming, one for work, one as a HTPC and several servers for different tasks.
I know; it would be good to access a true MC library from OSx if you use that as a work OS (just one example from my simplified usage scenario), but would you really like so sacrifice some of the upcoming features because of OSx or Linux support? I belive most of us would say no.