Slashdot Mirror
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...""
Written by Joe Wilcox of Jupiter Research it starts:
I'm a bit stunned by the press feeding frenzy set off by comments (here) Yusuf Mehdi, MSN corporate VP, made during a Wednesday speech. News report after news report claimed that Microsoft would unleash an iPod-killing music player for 50 bucks.
The problem: That's not at all what Mr. Mehdi said.
Could you please name just one player today that supports only WMA?
I can, my old RCA Lyra. In fact, WMA is the only format it supports on a straight file copy basis (unlike MP3, which you must use software to convert it into MPY format).
I'm not an Apple zealot at all, my iPod is the only Apple product I ever bought (I have an old Mac Color Classic which was a hand-me-down), but after trying out a handful of different players, I fell in love with the iPod.
Oh, and I don't miss ripping CD's to WMA format, either.
When you're not looking, this sig is in Latin.
Microsoft reiterated that they are not backing away from their original assertion that the device has the "feel and the look of an iPod"
I know it's asking way too much to read the article, and even the teaser has it wrong. What Microsoft has said is: "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."
Looking and feeling as good is a lot different then having the look and feel of an iPod. That negates all of the patent issues that everyone is complaining about.
You really need to get your fact straight before spouting off this sort of crap. In 1983 Steve Jobs began to court John Sculley, the president of Pepsi, to join Apple. By April of that year Sculley was working for Apple. Even though Sculley was a good businessman it became quite obvious he knew squat about the computer industry or computers altogether. In 1985 Jobs and Sculley were arguing like crazy. Jobs was convinced sculley was going to run Apple into the ground. He planned a boardroom coup while Sculley was on a business trip but somebody told Sculley before he left and him and Jobs got into it. The board sided unanimously with Sculley and Jobs resigned that day.
Ergo your mythical tale of Steve Jobs keeping the price of the Mac too high is far-fetched at best and outright stupid at worst. Sculley made a swath of ridiculous business descisions and was responsible for Apple's look-and-feel lawsuit loss against Microsoft. Sculley got Bill Gates to put in writing that Windows 1.0 wouldn't use any of the Mac's technologies. Gates' lawyers made sure the contract was airtight. The contract didn't mention any system besides Windows 1.0, Microsoft was contractually free to copy the Mac interface willy nilly in subsequent versions of Windows.
People love to blame Steve Jobs for all of Apple's problems but he was entirely absent from business descisions between 1985 and 1997. In the times Jobs has been present the Mac and Apple have done pretty well. Jobs has made tons of mistakes but he isn't responsible for many of Apple's problems in the past two decades.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.