Airlines want to offer iTunes for inflight iPod downloads

Companies that develop inflight entertainment (IFE) systems for airlines have been in discussions with Apple about integrating the iPod and iTunes into IFE systems, according to several of the companies. Proposed applications include seatback-based iPod docks with USB and charging ports, allowing passengers to charge song and video purchases to frequent-flyer miles, and adding other ecommerce applications. "Our interests are wider – not just Apple, but enabling any e-commerce on the aircraft. Music is one thing in that category we are working on," said an exec with Panasonic Avionics. However, numerous obstacles stand in the way of inflight downloads, including changing Apple's licensing, so that songs downloaded directly to an iPod in the air could later be copied back to a customer's hard drive, and the issue of licensing and payment while a plane is in international airspace. Then, there's the issue of getting Apple to participate in the first place. When asked for a comment by editors at  Flight International, the company issued what has to be one of our favorite "no comment" lines, especially for a technology company: "Apple never talks about the future." We'll keep that in mind.

[gib786 @ Apr 11th 2006 12:29PM]

sounds like a very good idea, wil depend on the price of music the though

[warrenpeace� @ Apr 11th 2006 12:33PM]

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of taking place on a plane. I'll all for technology, but excessive or unnecessary use of it drives me nuts.

Why wouldn't you buy your tunes before you get on the plane?

[warrenpeace� @ Apr 11th 2006 12:34PM]

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of taking place on a plane. I'll all for technology, but excessive or unnecessary use of it drives me nuts.

Why wouldn't you buy your tunes before you get on the plane?

I think I'd rather 'Snakes on a Plane' before having to listen to some idiot who can't get his downloads to work.

[Matt @ Apr 11th 2006 12:37PM]

Sounds good as long as its not just the ipod and itunes that they support.

Airlines could give away free songs to get customers to fly with them.

[glacia00 @ Apr 11th 2006 12:48PM]

I'm sure Apple is enjoying the near ubiquity of everything ipod but I hope they're socking some of the profits away to cover the future lawsuits.

If there is anything that the MS lawsuits have proved it's that the public is fickle. One minute they cheer you on and the next they want to string you up.

Although very unlikely now would be a perfect time for Apple and particularly Jobs to pull back. Apple has already done some questionable deals to get market penetration for the ipod and are likely headed toward the 'M' word (monopoly). The underdog gloating can sound very different when you�re suddenly the 800-pound gorilla in front of a jury.

[G. Snyder @ Apr 11th 2006 1:00PM]

#4 - and what would the lawsuit be for? I don't follow.

[push2flush @ Apr 11th 2006 1:02PM]

why start at the very bottom, just have wifi available, and then people can use their laptops or handhelds accordingly. why build up to that, when we all know it will lead there eventually?

[Gordy @ Apr 11th 2006 1:06PM]

Well, if ATI b!tch slap a few years back is any indictation, Panasonic Avionics can kiss this deal goodbye, since they chose to speak to the media about it.

[Dan Russell @ Apr 11th 2006 1:13PM]

It'll be soooo cool when I dock my iPod with the plane's iTunes and my iPod automatically updates (a setting that is stored on the iPod) to match the plane's iTunes library (which would, DRMactically, have to be empty) then I'll have a spankin' empty iPod for the length of my trip. Yay! Unless of course I buy something from the in-flight iTunes. Maybe this explains the stupid, stupid, stupid idea of buying an empty iPod from a vending machine at an airport.

[push2flush @ Apr 11th 2006 1:18PM]

"Maybe this explains the stupid, stupid, stupid idea of buying an empty iPod from a vending machine at an airport."

Please don't tell me that they actually sell blank ipods at the airport.... please....

[Mark @ Apr 11th 2006 1:18PM]

#4
He/she is talking about the monopoly that itunes will have/already has. Similar to the monopoly M$ was in trouble for having on certain software.

If I cannot use my mp3 player for d/l songs the same way people can download using itunes on a plane ppl will complain there is not fair competition.

[glacia00 @ Apr 11th 2006 1:26PM]

G. Snyder

In relation to this particular story nothing. I was simply speaking in general terms and of history. Not sure how old you are but much of Apple's 'rise of the ipod' looks very similar to 2 other historical events.

First the 10+ year lawsuit against IBM. Second the Suit against MS.

I know people are going to jump on these and claim Apple is kinder and gentler but I remember very clearly the general public being enthralled with MS when they were the underdog and even people who were outraged at the accusationas against IBM. If Apple is very lucky the Samsung flash memory deal scared them and they can avoid repeating history. Success can be a blessing as well as a curse.

[soupbun @ Apr 11th 2006 1:32PM]

I feel sorry for the cabin crew already....

[bpc @ Apr 11th 2006 1:40PM]

#8, sorry to disappoint, but it's true.

http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/21/selling-ipods-cellphones-and-digital-cameras-by-vending/

Or was a year ago, at least.

[Carlos @ Apr 11th 2006 2:06PM]

I think that Steve Jobs will acept this.
Mac is recovering the market.
Microsoft is going down, first IBM left microsoft after that Steve Jobs boots windows on Intel Macs, after Dell wants to sell Macs. And now this.

[G. Snyder @ Apr 11th 2006 3:05PM]

#9 - Mark. Pure idiocy. How does Apple have a monopoly with iTunes and the iPod? For well founded reasons or not, the general buying public has favored the Apple product. There were many before and many after. There is TONS of competition - it is just not doing well at the competing part. This is not Apple's fault. Would you have Apple punished for doing well with their product?

The MS lawsuit had to do with the unscrupulous practice of emebedding Explorer in the computer in such a way that consumers had no choice. Another suit had to do with strongarm tactic allegedly being used with vendors who also wanted to offer other OS choices (like Linux).

So, #9 and #10, I am not sure how this relates to lawsuits against MS. As you stated, the public maybe have fallen out of love with MS (evil empire, yada yada yada), but that does not constitute a lawsuit. You cannot sue someone for not likeing their product or the fact that they have a majority of the market share.

This is how the economy works folks. This is the free market.

[Torontoguy @ Apr 11th 2006 3:07PM]

I'm not sure why somebody thinks offering proprietary software suppoting proprietary hardware is some great benefit. If the iPod can download other formats than Apple's proprietary files, then why not offer a standard format like MP3. THEN the airlines can 'sell' adapters (like the 'sell' headphones for their movies) to allow iPods or other MP3 players to access the music?

[afterthought @ Apr 11th 2006 3:08PM]

Sounds like a good idea, but there'll be too much red tape and if it ever does come out it'll be crap. Can the videos play on the seat screens?

[glacia00 @ Apr 11th 2006 3:55PM]

Carlos

I think I follow what you wrote. The last bit about Dell was interesting when first mentioned. Because of how it was said. Dell expressed interest in selling "Mac OS X-based PCs". This came on the heels of Apples Intel uP announcement.

At the time Apple was quick to say, "Mac OS X will only run on Macs. Apple has no plans to sell Mac OS X software to run on PCs,"

With so much of their business model tied to integration I doubt they could survive their OS running on anything but Apple hardware. The moment the OS claimed PC compatibility Apple would quickly find themselves in the hardware compatibility morass MS faces every day faced with a nearly infinite variety of hardware configs.

[glacia00 @ Apr 11th 2006 4:36PM]

G. Snyder

It�s clear you�re in a defensive mode but there�s no fight here. The fact is Apple came very close to a courtroom with the deal it cut with Samsung. There are still unknowns about the deal but there was almost certainly a quid pro quo where Samsung was offered X in return for acquiring a majority of their flash so as to lock other players out of the market. This is very similar to what MS was accused of i.e. using its monopoly clout to cut deals that competitors are not able to get.

You�re also mischaracterizing the other part of the MS lawsuit. It was not that consumers had no choice in browsers. I have in fact never used IE and have used Windows for many years And in fact many of the vendors who claimed to have been �strong-armed� by MS were in fact just years earlier eagerly courting MS.

It often only takes the impression that consumers have no choice. The impression was that consumers will use IE since it�s already there why try other browsers? This is also the ipod model. You have to use their software to get music onto the ipod so once you�re already using itunes why try any other music download service?

I�m not attacking Apple just pointing out the ironic similarities. The one thing I do hold against Apple is duping the ignorant public. You do not need a proprietary piece of software to load something onto flash memory.

[G. Snyder @ Apr 11th 2006 5:14PM]

Actually, I am not defenseive at all about it. I could care less. I just understand the term 'Monopoly'.

The IE lawsuit was about the fact the MS basically builds IE into the OS (not ships it along side). That was the most signifigant change from Win 95 to Win 98. You could always run another browser.

This is very different from what Apple is doing. You NEED an Operating System. You don't NEED to go out and buy an iPod or use iTunes.

There is also nothing wrong with using your buying power to secure your materials at the lowest price possible. This is how a free economy works. SO WHAT if they negotiated a super low price with Samsung. SO WHAT? Why is that wrong? Samsung chose to dedicate much of its flash production to reliable manufacturer - one who is likely to move the inventory and continue orders. Now, if Creative could move that many players and negotiated a low price with Samsung, would that have been worng? Another diffence is that there is nothing proprietary about flash drives - others can make them too (it just so happens that Samsung is one of the larger vendors). Nobody can be an alternate vendor of MS operating systems.

Perhaps I am at an advantage in having sat through many classes on business law and economics. My real displeasure is in the way terms get thrown wround without an understanding.

[Jonathan Frieden @ Apr 11th 2006 6:10PM]

It was about time, really.

With the average consumer's ever increasing desire to "stay connected," one should expect e-commerce companies to expand their reach beyond customers sitting at their keyboard at home and at work. Paypal has gone mobile, so that you can pay for products from your cellular telephone or mobile device, and other e-commerce businesses are following suit. It seems natural that they try to reach customers even where the customers can't use their cells or mobile devices . . . on airplanes in flight.

[glacia00 @ Apr 11th 2006 6:38PM]

G. Snyder

First you don't NEED either an OS nor an Ipod. If your business classes allow, you can go back to my posts and see that I didn't say that Apple HAS a monopoly. And if the deal with Samsung was kosher why pull out when investigations started? That�s rhetorical by the way since no one can say for certain unless they were in on the deal.

By the way, every one of your arguments was true for and used by MS. "For well founded reasons or not, the general buying public has favored the X."
And in fact this is proved out by the fact that good, bad or indifferent after the lawsuit the majority of people still use both the MS OS and Browser. I�m not defending either and I�ve already said I�ve never used IE.

"There is TONS of competition - it is just not doing well at the competing part. This is not X's fault." There were/are many browsers and other OS's. In fact the 'Evil Empire' prior to MS had their own OS. And how can there be a better deal than a free OS?

Lastly, consumers didn't need to use IE in order to use the OS. You do need to use the itunes software to use the ipod. They're even more intimately linked than Windows & IE. Even from your posts it sounds like the only difference is that Apple doesn�t (yet) have a monopoly in the player market. Which by the way was in my first post in case you didn�t have that time to go back and read it.

[lyd @ Apr 11th 2006 7:11PM]

G.Synder -
You don't need to go out and buy Windows. If you don't like it get a linux. And it does not come with IE.

If it is OK to use your buying power on suppliers Microsoft can cut the critical supplies of Mac whenever it wants. Microsoft can just call any CPU or graphic chip manufacturer and can say Vista won't run on their chips if they don't stop selling to Apple. So what.. if Apple can move that many parts then they can do the same thing. Intel and AMD are not the only CPU manufacturers, it just so happens that yhey are the larger ones..

Why can't nobody be an alternate vendor of MS system? What is wrong with OSX or Linux. They are good enough to meet the demands of the 95% of the population I guess. Some technical programs does not run on them yet but if they can get the market share it will be a matter of months before they start running on OSX and Linux as well.

Some sectors tend to end up in monopolies for different reasons. And when you end up in a monopoly you can get stuck there for a long time..

In computer industry it is usually the network effects. When there is a monopoly it is highly likely that you will be stuck with an inferior system. So when most of the population owns ipods and buys their music from itunes music store other producers will not able to enter that market. Sony might make a mp3 player which is much better than ipod and offer an better service than Apple's music store. But beucase people have songs purchased from the music store they can't switch to sony or because they have ipods they can buy songs from sony.

Apple is using its market share in mp3 players to force people to use its music store. And the songs they sell only plays on ipods. Although they have a very high market share their penetration rate is not high enough yet. But if they become a monopoly like microsoft is today it won't be long before goverment forces them to make ipods that plays other protected songs and let other companies build products that can play their codec.

If you are still in school get a system dynamics course. There you will learn the mathematical models showing the causes of monopolies and how you can be stuck in a position just because someone has a high market share. And stop listening your ipod in law classes.

If you are an apple user you can just think like this.. Apple has the best OS but it is stuck with less than 3% share because Microsoft is a monopoly. Microsofts only advantage to Apple is more people use them and they can swithc to OSX because of the softwares they bought. Then imagine the mp3 market (both hardware and DRM music)10 years from now. Sony has the best players and music store but people are stuck with apple because their music will only play in ipod and ipod won't play songs bought from sony.

[3rdsun @ Apr 11th 2006 10:56PM]

They better dont fly to france or its free tunes for everyone

[G. Snyder @ Apr 11th 2006 10:59PM]

Lyd...you are not making a lick of sense. AAC is not apple's codec first of all, and there are other devices that use it. You have to use iTunes to load the iPod (free software) but you do not have to use the iTunes music store.

Your ruminations about MS strongarming suppliers into halting business with Apple is a really idiotic comparison and is in no way what happened with Apple in Samsung.

Lastly - just who do you think you are making an assumption that you know who I am and what my background is by telling me to stop listining to my iPod in class? I have left classes long behind - maybe you should revisit them.

I did not tell you to get back to your Unreal Xbox online championship or your blow-up love puppet. Did I?

[GadgetTV @ Apr 12th 2006 12:28AM]

Cool maybe I can purchase some overpriced junk from that skymiles magazine with itunes credits...

[gimmeadollr @ Apr 12th 2006 12:31AM]

should the planes in that picture be flying so close?

about the vending machine thing, i've seen them in a hotel once :)

this could be a good idea
could
yeah wifi would be a better solution (plus those plugs in the back of seats for the laptops)

[lyd @ Apr 12th 2006 3:41AM]

G. Synder - First I apologize for offending you with my comments. I was wrong telling you to stop listening to your ipod.

I just don't understand people defending Apple's illegal actions. The online music sale market is a very new market and Apple is clearly trying to use it dominance in mp3 player to become a monopoly. Monopolies can not use tactics that either exclude firms from the market or impair their ability to compete. By giving other player no way to play its DRM content and by not allowing its ipod to play DRM content other than its own Apple is trying to become a monopoly. And when the # of they sell reaches 10billion or so there will be no way for other companies to compete in that market. And Apple will be able to charge its consumers with inferior products and high costs. If you don't break the reinforcing loops that can cause the monopoly soon there won't be anything you can do later.

I agree that Apple - Samsung deal is not a direct comparison to strongarming suppliers. However with that deal I believe both companies are trying to create monopolies in flash memory production and players. Even if their intensions are good (to offer people with high quality low price players) because Apple is becoming a monopoly and that deal gives Apple a huge cost advantage so that other companies can not compete with it goverment intervention might be necessary to keep the competition in that market segment.

[Grid212 @ Apr 12th 2006 8:02AM]

Firstly every plane I've been on the stewards go out of their way to tell you to turn off portable devices or indeed anything that has come into close contact with a battery. Now they want to fill the plane full of people using such devices?

Secondly this had better be free, I know what these companies are like - once they see an inch they take a mile. If they can screw you for a few more dollars to 'hire' the entertainment they will. I mean, what else can you do on long-haul except consume second rate movies and repeats of tv shows you spent good time avoiding the first time.

That could just be me being a pessimist though. Oh and I agree with the guy above, those planes sure are flying close :)

[G. Snyder @ Apr 12th 2006 12:24PM]

Main Entry: mo�nop�o�ly
Pronunciation: m&-'n?&-lE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -lies
1 : exclusive control of a particular market that is marked by the power to control prices and exclude competition and that esp. is developed willfully rather than as the result of superior products or skill �see also ANTITRUST Sherman Antitrust Act in the IMPORTANT LAWS section
2 : one that has a monopoly


Nope.

[Diggler Downunder @ Apr 12th 2006 8:38PM]

This was leaked five months ago, December last year. Mobile Information, Communications and Entertainment (www.mice.tv).
It seems they have figured out a clever way of bridging the 'last meter' between iTunes and the iPod inflight, which I expect is backed by Apple, part of a wider TICE strategy emanating beyond the radar of the old school IFE providers.
According to industry insuders it's a robust solution with no hardware retrofit, no broadband wifi bottlenecks, no satellite dish strapped on top, so could become ubiquitous almost instantly.
It seems the end-goal for IFE is not PC-anywhere thinking but world-leading content on-tap for the consumer, in-home, in-car, in-lounge as well as in-flight.
Thales and Panasonic would do well to explore M&A opportunities in the wider TICE market because there's more to IFE than connectivity (and Connexion).
Once consumers have the reigns, all bets are off.