[netcan]

The itunes thing is actually pretty interesting. There may be the same case as there was before for an exception.

I have a work mac, work pc, home mac, kobo, ipod & android. Sounds like a lot when I list it out. I'm not really a gadget person and some of those are pretty old. I use them all though and every one or two years I expect to add or replace a "device". Apple will be considered and sometimes chosen.

That's not unusual. Most Apple customers are not monogamous. Realistically, Apple have never been the company with so many options you never need to go anywhere else. They have been the company that's reluctantly good at bringing devices together and connecting them with a marketplace.

They don't like harmonizing elements they don't control. They would prefer the world divided nicely into Apple people and non Apple people. That's not realistic.

To improve Apple users' experience they need to support foreign devices. Mac users use android and many avoid itunes altogether (they need to think in terms of 'files' anyway). Ipod users use android and their ipod never has the podcasts they've been listening to. iPad users can't read the book they are halfway through on sony reader.

They wanted ipod users to just plug them into a mac, but that wasn't realistic so they released itunes for windows. I think its time for another compromise.

[ja27]

It's interesting that Microsoft has multiple apps on Android (11) and iOS (23), Google has 22 apps on iOS and even 1 app on Windows Phone, while Apple has 0 on any platform except iOS.

[netcan]

It's typical. Windows always seemed to have a pragmatic, simple decision making process. They're strategic too, but not dogmatic. They never tried to win with windows, for example, by not making office for mac. If the office team wants to make software for mac or android or whatnot, I don't think they'd be stopped.

Google has the thousand flowers mentality.

Apple doesn't like to develop anything that admits the existence of intelligent life outside of Apple. In fairness, they are a "do few things well" company. They don't actually make that much software. They also don't like to do things that don't directly make money. There isn't a whole lot of money to be made selling apps on Android or windows mobile.

But yeah, itunes/ipod for android would be a no brainer for any other company. Just like kindle, for ipad. At Apple it requires divine revelation.

[jdechko]

Nothing is stopping anyone from writing an iTunes syncing client though. Apple has an approved method for syncing playlists and songs (though not the DRMed videos). DoubleTwist has been doing it for years. Palm got screwed over because they weren't using the approved method, and were trying to pose as an iPod. So it might not be developed directly by Apple, but they do support it.

[nirvana]

> " They never tried to win with windows, for example, by not making office for mac."

Wow! Ok, I'm guessing you're of an age where you were probably very young at the time, but exactly this happened. Microsoft, for years, threatened to cancel office for the mac (office only exists because of the mac- word and excel started in the mac before windows existed.)

Apple used their control over office to drive Apple nearly to bankruptcy in the 1990s. It was only until Microsoft got caught red handed shipping source code stolen from Apple that they were forced to negotiate, and that produced a massive settlement where Microsoft paid Apple many billions of dollars over 5 years, both companies entered a broad patent cross licensing agreement (Which is still in effect, and which is why microsoft doesnt' ship something like android which is an iOS ripoff- but was forced to do something original with Windows Phone.)

And of course, part of that agreement was that Microsoft would continue to ship office for the mac.

> "If the office team wants to make software for mac or android or whatnot, I don't think they'd be stopped."

Not how microsoft works at all, and I know this because I worked there. Anything that is seen as a threat to the windows monopoly is killed, immediately.

Office for Microsoft's own tablets was mortally wounded because it was seen as a threat to the desktop windows empire.... which is part of the reason the tablet market was in terminal shape until the iPad came out.

> They don't actually make that much software. They also don't like to do things that don't directly make money.

Apple makes a great deal of software that it is unable to directly monetize-- iOS and Mac OS X are good examples. While Apple charges $20 for OS X, that's ancillary.... Apple also makes a great deal of software- from games like Texas Holdem Poker (which they made to help jumpstart the App Store to Final Cut Pro X which was made to make the Mac relevant for that class of creatives back in the day) almost all of Apple's software efforts are to support the platform. Hell they even make a database and Office apps so the mac can never be without good solutions in these areas.... and then they sell them for cheap.

[nivla]

>It was only until Microsoft got caught red handed shipping source code stolen from Apple that they were forced to negotiate.

Do you have any source for this or are you just making it up? Microsoft agreeing to continue making Office for mac was the settlement of a bogus patent lawsuit where Apple sued Microsoft for having a GUI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...

[netcan]

I think we're just looking at it from a different altitude.

[czr80]

That's not really surprising - Microsoft sells software, Google sells internet services and Apple sells hardware. Obviously the first two benefit from being on competing platforms, Apple doesn't.