Slashdot Mirror
Dell Announces New Music Player, Download Service
gotr00t writes "It appears that Dell Computer Corp. has announced that by the end of the year, they will have released their digital audio player, known in short as the 'Dell DJ.' Along with the player, there will also be a digital music download service. Looks like Dell is also joining Apple in the consumer products category."
In more serious news, Dell will need to have Apple's marketing savvy to have Apple's success, and I don't think they do.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
What we need is a music service that doesn't impose draconian so-called copy-protection measures on its audio files. We'll just have to wait and see.
apple has a history of being "sexy".
dell has a history of being "boxy".
somehow, i see their image working against them here.
I don't know how many times people have seen this, but if it's ANYTHING like other PC companies that have tried to copy apple, they're usually quite terrible (such as www.buymusic.com).
I highly doubt that this will have any effect, if any, on the iPod.
- Sherman
Any details on how the music download service will work? Subscription with free downloads but strict DRM, subscription with paid downloads and no/light DRM, paid downloads with no subscription but strict DRM, paid downloads with no subscription and no/light DRM?
Pricing of the Dell Digital Jukebox? Less than $299? I hope so, considering how cheap it looks (compare cheap buttons and scroll wheel vs touch-sensitive buttons and wheel with no moving parts).
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
In the same way Microsoft decided they would try to be all things to all people, Dell appears to have its heart set on dominating all things electronic. An iPod wannabe, a flat-screen TV, and other home electronics? Microsoft once sold operating systems. Then came an office suite, servers, mice, games, ERP suites, and now a fabulous media center for the whole family.
I'll stick to my iPod...
Of course we torture people, we need the information --Gen. Pinochet
yeah. its called the ipod. and most likely the ipod is better considering dell always has problems with build quality. and their support sucks beyond belief... apple's support has to be better than dell's.. i own mostly pc's so its not that im a mac freak (well i am but im equally divided) but yeah i just dont trust dell
Apple squandered an insane amount of positive free press and a killer lead by initially releasing a "Mac Only" service. They could have gotten such a big headstart that people would think "Apple = Music" the same way they think "eBay = Auctions" -- that sort of mindshare is absolute *gold*.
Anyhow, Apple has a history of being "sexy". Unfortunately, they also have a history of being "stupid", at least in regards to capitalizing on their innovative triumphs.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
"Dell, you are brilliant. Running everything from the music downloads, to an integrated portable player for those, skipping the entire idea of reliance on a physical medium. I predict BIG things for this."
cough...
This wasn't a case of Apple *excluding* Windows.
If you've ever used the iTunes music store you'll know it's completely integrated with their iTunes software.
Which is Mac only.
And takes time to rewrite for Windows.
[)amien
From the article...
"We are expanding our product offerings and enhancing Dell.com, and doing it in time for the holiday buying period so important to consumers."
Who is he trying to kid? I'd venture to say that the holiday shopping season is a lot more important to retailers and manufacturers than it is to 'consumers'.
"A revolution without dancing is... a revolution not worth having"
Intelligent reasons why I'd choose a Mac over another machine? I get more done. I don't know how to explain it, but I get so much more done on this than I ever did on my PCs. And you know, there's something to be said for asthetics. I hear people make fun of this reason all the time, but why shouldn't I want to look at something pretty if I am going to be looking at it for long periods of time? What's wrong with wanting to see something asthetically pleasing when I sit down at my computer?
2) Apple's strategy has long been to survive through innovation. Just as 3M will always have copycats selling Post-It knockoffs, Apple will always be followed by the Dells of the world. Apple knows this; it's happened time after time in the past. But Apple's DNA revolves around being different. You can call it a marketing ploy, but it seems to be a part of the culture there. Dell has become successful because of its distribution model. Apple has become successful because of its continuous innovation. And just because Apple doesn't dominate the industry doesn't mean that it's not a successful company.
3) Dell is in a great position to copy Apple. But Apple has far more experience at this game, in part because of that lead time you were referring to. Apple also has connections to the music industry that Dell can't match. In the end, it comes down to which company can implement their Windows music service in a manner that entices customers. The labels have had online music sites for quite some time now, and it wasn't until the iTunes Music Store came along that suddenly the popular wisdom flipped 180 degrees and everyone started saying, "Duh! This is so easy. Why didn't someone do it before now?" Well, perhaps it wasn't done before because it wasn't really as easy as everyone now supposes.
4) I've been watching Apple get written off for the last two decades. Oddly, most of the reports of Apple's demise usually come right after they've created something new and innovative. The pundits always come out of the woodwork to declare that Apple is totally screwed now, because their competitors will surely copy them and eat their lunch. Damned if you innovate, damned if you don't.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I wonder what Dell will become if they escape from being Just Another Wintel vendor...
Dell isn't just a Wintel vendor, it's the vendor. Dell has the biggest slice of the market and is the only company besides Apple actually making money from selling consumer PCs.
So with this huge market share, what R&D has Dell contributed to the world? Absolutely nothing, except for their one invention: a tech support button on their machines which never worked properly and they longer support. Every single aspect of Dell's business is copied from other manufacturers. There is absolutely no innovation going on there.
Yeah, 'cause that's the secret of Dell's success.
(sigh) I can tell this is going to become a "Dell sux!" and "Dell is just copying Apple!" thread, but the truth is that Dell is moving in a fairly purposeful way to fill an enormous gaping hole that Apple left in the market when they didn't release iTunes for the PC right away. When Apple loses all of that potential for market share to Dell, you gotta just come clean and admit: "Apple screwed up again".
Dell has become an enormously wealthy company because they're good at taking other people's well-concieved-yet-poorly-implemented ideas and improving on them or making them easier to sell. This isn't a small deal -- hugely promising companies full of smart people have suffered from an inability to do this for ages (SGI, anyone)? From selling computers customized on the web to rebranding their own peripherals to packaging the right software, Dell's made one smart business decision after another.
Anyhow, here's the real spin here: Apple fucked up, and now they're going to pay.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I wonder if this means Apple will get a Windows version of iTunes out sooner. With this announcement, and Dell's already well established consumer base, Apple's hopes of trying to capture the PC market might be thwarted if they don't act fast...
Blake
Its cool that more of these services exist. But I can't say that any of them serves the use that I had for Napster.
Now I can't speak for everyone but I will speak for myself. I love MP3's. I listen to my MP3's far more often than my CD's. However, I have never wanted to buy MP3's. I like owning CD's, and there are alot of good reasons for this. But the main one, is that is is a high quality, lossless, patent free, universally supported format. What if I don't' want to (or am not able to) use the IP encumbered MP3 or AAC file formats? What if the mp3's that sounded fine on cheap computer speakers, are not up to par with my new system? File formats change, and transcoding sucks. That's why I insist on having CD's, because I want my music to be usable for lifetime.
I don't want to buy mp3's on the internet. I want to discover music on the internet. Five years ago, things would work like this. I would hear about a cool band from a friend in a different town, or find their website, or see them in a cdnow.com "people who bought x, also bought y." message. So I would jump on napster, download some music from them, (oh, and do some lyrics searches to make sure it was labeled propely) and if I liked them I would put them on my cdnow wishlist, which I then bought every couple months (save on shipping).
Now when I find out about some band I go to amazon.com - can't play their crappy samples in linux. Go to their website - no mp3's or just radio songs. Look for fansites with bootlegs - usually none. And with half an hour wasted, I walk away frustrated that I now know nothing more about the band than I did before. I can tell you for certain that I have bought less CD's since napster went down, just because it is harder to find out about new music. I have been temped to sign up with eMusic, as it would make this task far easier and more enjoyable, but cannot justify the cost, as I will end up buying CD's for all the artists I like, anyway.
So here is my suggestion. Create a subscription based mp3 service that also sells CD's and gives credit (say 3 weeks access, or 75 downloads) for each CD that you buy. Then people that buy enough CD's will have free access to download mp3's, and those who don't buy CD's will pay as well. Couple this with "if you like foo, try bar" info, and streaming radio shows which have the entire catalogue of music to legally draw from, and you would have one very enjoyable, and affordable venue for fans to discover new music. And the artist gets paid.
The only part of this that has potential problems at the moment is the radio station. I have seen so much contradictory information about internet streaming that I don't know what the exact legal situation is. However, one would think that if you had express permission of all the artists you were playing you should not have to pay the stupid FCC royalty license. If this is not the case the policy should be changed, and while Joe "I want to stream any music I want over the internet, without permission" Schmoe may not be able to get that change, I guarantee you that if Apple and Dell got together and pushed for this, people would listen. But suppose now that it is legal. Why should the service hire DJ's when they can get people to do it for free? That's right, let anyone who wants to run a simple radio show on your site. The costs shouldn't be high, they just put together a song list (.m3u) every week, (or month, or afternoon, or hour) and people stream the mp3's, like on mp3.com. So, the major cost is the bandwidth, which is dependant on the total number of listeners, not DJ's. If a dj becomes popular, you can offer him perks like being able to run his show like a real studio (ie, talk between songs, etc), you give him credit to support him music finding habit, and you can multicast his show to save money.
Now not only would the artist be paid for use of their music, independent labels would be on equal footing with big labels, since the big labels would not control the similar band links (they are autonomou
Some time ago I was talking to a Dell rep about a "media PC" that would be delivered with a drive filled with tracks. The customer might pay $1000 more for a huge music library on such a mahine. He said they looked into the idea, but the time it took to load the drives would have cost too much in production time.
Offering their own player allows them to use the razors/blades model. I would guess they will sell the player for a fairly low cost, certainly less than the iPod, then make a decent profit on the music service. To the extent that Dell is getting into consumer services, it is something new. But, they are also following a very old and establshed model, which is something they are good at. The key is the oppressiveness of their DRM model. If they are as flexible as Apple, then Profit!!!. If not, then I'll have my doubts.
Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
...competition. Apple's pricepoint is too high. Hopefully, competition will bring the prices down. How about a rebate if you sign up for the service, to make the hardware cheaper.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
The record labels never would have gone for a Windows service. By limiting it to Mac users they were limiting the scope of the experiment - basically just checking to see if it was a good idea.
"We are revolutionizing technology for our customers -- again." How is a new digital media player so revolutionary, if Apple already has one?
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities." -Albert Einstein
If both Dell and Microsoft are going to come up with their own "let's rip off Apple" music service, that means the two of them will be competing with each other. Oddly enough, Microsoft doesn't seem to like it when customers compete with them. And let's face it, a Dell/Microsoft split rift would be an annoyance for Microsoft, but a DISASTER for Dell.
If I weren't so convinced that both of them were going to release DRM-crippled, dead-on-arrival, inelegent and unwieldy abortions in trying to ripoff iTunes, I'd say this has the potential to be interesting. As it is, I suspect both services will be dead (and iTunes still doing very well indeed) by mid-2005 or so...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
ya, silly apple! they produce the number 1 selling mp3 player AND make a nice profit on every sale. What are they thinking?
Apple does not, and will not, price cut to become the lowend(and often low quality) computer maker. They sell you quality stuff, and they charge you for that quality.
Really? The general assumption, even among those who are defending Dell here, appears to be that Dell is reacting to Apple in this case. Apple announced the iTunes Music Store more than four months ago, and have been working on the PC version of iTunes at least since then. They thought they could get it ready by the end of the year when they announced it, which means Apple thinks it takes at least six months.
Since there are less then three months left (you can't finish it right on December 25 to make it to this Christmas shopping season), the Dell PC-side client likely has to be developed in more haste, and yet has to be deliberately somewhat different from iTunes. Dell is not known to have a proven server infrastructure for a music store ready. Dell is not known to have micropayments worked out with credit card companies. Dell hasn't announced the price, size of catalog (or even if any major labels have signed on!), battery life or capacity of the device, and you already think Apple is going to pay?
Let me ask you another question: how will the Dell device connect to the PC? If they use USB1, then it'll be significantly slower than the iPod, and "full sync" will be a real pain. If they use USB2 or Firewire, then they're limiting themselves to a much smaller set of PC customers with recent PCs (like Apple, except Apple has Mac users).
So unless you're a Dell insider and know all these details, how can you possibly pick a winner right now?
I don't need to look at your referenced chart. I'm sure that Exxon has some stratospheric numbers, like a lot of oil companies.
What I'm curious about is your idea of 'success'. The idea of 'success' in Dell's culture as well, for that matter.
I hear Michael Dell talk in interviews about the state of the industry and his predictions. What immediately strikes me is the fact that his comments are 100% economic. That is to say, all he talks about is where the money is going, essentially. He never talks about actually doing something good. You know, advancing the state of things? Never. Just money.
So whether you think Apple is successful or not entirely depends on your worldview of success. I would submit that Apple is one of the most successful companies of all time.
I base this not entirely on financial performance, but rather, a combination of fiscal prowess and the quality and impact of the things Apple has brought into the world. At the end of the day, what really matters in this kind of industry is the work you've done, right?
I mean, if you really go back to the list, the list of things they've introduced to the mainstream is just staggering. The first mainstream PC. First mainstream mouse. Laser printer. Desktop GUI. Multimedia, in large part. It goes on. Of course Apple is also the crazy artist of the industry. They produce brilliant things but can be absolutely taciturn and overly sensitive and stubborn and... well you get the point. Apple is to Peter Gabriel what Michael Dell is to Garth Brooks. Or something like that.
Dell doesn't do any meaningful work. They just box 'em up and ship 'em out. That's fine, there's a need for that, and its in a million corporate office farms. For good consumer stuff you can do much better. And when you ask Michael Dell about innovation he thinks that means branching out into areas others have been successful in already. He would, I suspect, look at you blankly if you suggested that he was copying Apple; he'd say it was just 'industry trade winds' he was following.
Success is not just how much money you make - you can't measure it that way. It's a quality thing.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.