Pocket PCs Masquerade as iPods

agwadude writes "Wired News has a story about a British software firm called StarBrite that is selling a virtual iPod that runs on Microsoft's PocketPC operating system. It mimics the iPod interface exactly, including the unique scroll wheel. It's a mere $20 but this seems right considering it's only software, and it only supports MP3. MacDailyNews has a shorter story."

Comments

Missing something?

[ArmenTanzarian]

Is the software really the selling point of the iPod?

Re:Missing something?

[geoffspear]

Besides which, it's not a copy of the iPod's software, it's a copy of the iPod's hardware interface in software. And apparently it's no longer an exact copy, according to comments on MacDailyNews (where it's also mentioned that the Serive Unavailable message was there yesterday, before the story hit slashdot). From the site updates that no one can see, it seems like they've talked to Apple and changed some things (like the name, from pPod to pBop.

Anyway, I'm fairly certain Apple's relevant patents on the iPod are for the actual hardware design, and it'd be hard to sue for a software ripoff that doesn't even have all of the iPod's features (like non-MP3 sound file compatibility)

software...

[Spytap]

Software doesn;t change the fact that storage is still a problem, especially since you need to use some of it to install this program. For the price of the software plus a memory card you can just buy a real MP3 player...

Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a mere $20 but this seems right considering it's only software, and it only supports MP3.

Well, there's where the iPod emulation starts to fall apart. It should be $60+ if they want to emulate more of the experience. ;)

Re:Difference

[Stavr0]

In order to really emulate the experience, it comes with a bottle of epoxy to glue your PDA's battery in place so you can't ever replace it.

Re:Difference

[bennomatic]

Apparently, they even had a feature that caused the virtual battery to fail after 18 months, but Apple Legal forced them to remove that... Something about a patented business model.

Too many levels of indirection...

[D-Cypell]

A piece of software mimicing an IPod running on a piece of software mimicing an operating system.

Apple's legal team already knows ...

[Greedo]

MacCentral is reporting that "pBop's resemblance to the iPod was unmistakable, especially when the product first launched: It was originally called pPod, and featured an interface that was practically identical to third-generation iPods."

it was so similar, in fact, that Apple asked them to make some changes, including the name.

Starbrite has "cooperated fully to address Apple's concerns" but, if you ask me, it is still pretty much a rip off of the iPod interface (GUI and physical). Isn't this kind of thing legally protectable?

Old News

[gh0ul]

MacSlash had this item on March 01st. See it: here.

ipod killer? hardly

[m0rphin3]

considering that 20 gb hard-drives for pocket pc's cost an arm and a leg, this is hardly an 'ipod killer'.

$20 for mp3 player software? why? just make an ipod skin for some free software.

This is so cool...

[blorg]

Now I can get an iPod mini on the cheap:

$250 PDA
$400 4gb Hitachi CF microdrive
$20 for this software

and the Apple lawsuit?

Priceless.

Re:Very Awesome

[Nebrie]

Other than adding cool but useless features that do little more than drain battery life at an awesome rate is there any other point to the ipod having a color screen?

Re:Very Awesome

[Patik]

They need to move to a color LCD version... I already pay a lot for an iPod why not trick it out?

Because it's totally unnecessarily. A color screen is useful only for graphics, and the iPod doesn't need that. Visualizations aren't necessary because you use the thing while walking so you're not looking at it, and they just waste CPU cycles (i.e., battery life). You could have pictures, but what good is it on such a little screen? The iPod is a music player. It's a bit different than with cell phones because of the lack of communication functionality.

A better use for the money would be wifi (for bluetooth-like syncing, not for uploading songs), longer battery life, and more durable parts (it's durable now, but it couldn't hurt to stiffen up some parts).

Besides, if I want my iPod to look prettier, I'd want it in the design of the case, not on the screen.

Tad expensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

And the difference between this and this with this. Or simply this.

Do people really want to pay $20 purely to get a skin for their pocketPC, that has less functionality(only mp3's) than something they can download for free.

Another Example of Apple doing things right...

[humandoing]

Not trolling or anything, but to me, this just seems to prove (again) how well Apple has been doing things these past couple years. Would companies be trying to mimic their every move if Apple was on the wrong track?

I don't really like the fact that the software is a total rip-off of Apples UI design, and that it may (potentially?) reduce iPod sales (although probably to a minimal degree, if at all), but it does seem to very much re-inforce that consumers are generally extremely pleased with Apple's products, and the carefully thought out design that goes along with them.

Mikro$haft might get a Klew eventually, but probably not, and in the meantime, I'll rejoice in my Mac OS X bliss, and never look back. (Converted Mac user since July 2002)

pictures

[penultimatepost]

pictures

Re:Sign of things to come.

[2nd Post!]

You've got it backward ^^

They make money on the hardware, not the music. Therefore the harm.

Well then it's an industrial design issue

[blorg]

it'd be hard to sue for a software ripoff that doesn't even have all of the iPod's features

I'm pretty sure you can sue for infringement on any of the claims in a patent. That said, the only thing Apple obviously mention as being patent-pending (that I can see) is their Auto-Sync technology.

In any case, the design would be covered by industrial design law - it was on this basis that Apple successfully sued Emachines over their iMac lookalike PCs.

Re:Very Awesome

[Endive4Ever]

wireless iPod to iPod syncing would be a cool thing.

Apple would be forced to prohibit it, of course. And we'd be forced (compelled, actually) to implement it.

Re:Sign of things to come.

[mrmoa]

Besides, apple wants to make money on the music, not the hardware.

Um, no. Jobs said they're breaking even on the music and are using it to sell iPods. On page 3 of this article Fred Anderson said last week:

• "So our philosophy is that traffic to the music store will lead to iPod sales and iPod sales will lead to the sale of Macs."

And the Seattle Times noted last October:

• "Apple's goal with iTunes -- which has yet to make a profit despite sales of more than 15 million songs -- is not to sell music but to sell its music player, the iPod."

Re:It's the software + the hardware

[TVC15]

> it's the UI that really makes it - the fact that you can get to
> any one of 10k songs really really quickly and easily, with one
> hand.

what are you listening to that you need one hand free? ;-) and where can I get some?

Almost right

[Jaguar777]

Posted by pudge on 13:39 09 March 2004
from the i-smell-a-lawsuit dept.

Shouldn't that be the iSmell-a-lawsuit dept.?