No $50 iPod Clone From Microsoft

dncsky1530 writes "In a previous Slashdot story, the Denver Post ran an article talking about a portable music player that would have the look and feel of an iPod. Microsoft stated that they will not be manufactoring such a device, Mehdi, "I've spent time with a bunch of hardware manufacturers who will launch hardware products when we ship our service that will look and feel as good as the iPod product. And they will undoubtedly be a little bit less expensive and so head-to-head against Apple...""

Comments

One word: Baseless.

[Faust7]

1. Ugly

Baseless.

2. Have a clunky interface with lots of glitz and glitter

Baseless. Seen the interfaces for Server 2003 and XP? They rock, plain and simple.

3. Play WMA only

MP3 is the universal digital music format right now. To not play those files is to alienate most of the market. Microsoft is not that stupid.

4. Require XP

If it runs Windows, it will be a super-stripped-down version of probably the XP kernel that will barely resemble XP itself, if at all.

Have limited hard drive capacity

Um, no. Decent hard drives are as cheap as they ever were.

6. Run Pocketwindows and crash regularly

Baseless.

7. Have its own host of viruses within half a year

8. Still sell like crazy because for some reason people seem to prefer mediocre crap

You haven't even seen the damn thing yet. How do you know it's mediocre?

Re:One word: Baseless.

[Jim_Kim]

XP is sold more than any other operating system on earth. You should rather hold your own "toque" before telling others to do so. Its UI is also heavily copied in many other systems, including Mac OS X.

Re:One word: Baseless.

[Jim_Kim]

OS X wasn't complete until Panther edition, and Apple charged 400$ for that since you weren't offered any upgrade price. Also Apple always offer things before other companies, but that's because their market is very small, so they don't have to worry a lot about support, and there are plenty of people to pay 400$ to Apple to eventually get a real OS. Car comparisons do not make sense in the software industry. If you make the best product and sell a lot, you can reinvest the money you earn back to the R&D as in Microsoft's case. For Apple, though, they have to charge more because they don't sell enough. In fact just check out the prices of shareware. For example, some of the crap out there is around 50$ or 100$. Moveable Type is charging 100$ or more for a blogging tool, but the price of Word itself is around 100$. Clearly charging more for software means that you don't sell enough, thus you have to charge more. Luckily Apple has brand recognition and many people try to make Apple look like a nice company and some people fall into that trap. Apple has to heavily advertise and make their products look cool and attractive to be able to justify their ridiculous high prices.

Re:50 for the player, but probably

[DA-MAN]

I believe Apple has the monopoly on charging $100 for minor upgrades, ala OSX.

Re:I have a distinct feeling...

[Jim_Kim]

I don't think anybody gives any shit about your "distinct feeling", except the modders who mod you up, and other slashdot idiots. Many XP users, which represent the majority of the public, do not think that slashdot users should have any say on their choice of operating system. Despite all the FUD from Slashdot idiots, like yourself, Microsoft is still number one, and clearly public approves the way microsoft makes their products. Apple once again tries to lock people up and screw, and music is important enough not to let Apple to screw you. I welcome this move from Microsoft, since they are the ones who saved us from paying thousands of dollars more to Apple for the same or lower quality computer use. Thanks to Microsoft, today Apple can not charge significantly higher for their computers, to justify their higher prices they have to make their computers and software really cool, (functionality is not important to mac users).