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

That would still be $150

[bwoodring]

which would be a hell of a deal for a HDD based iPod clone.

I have a distinct feeling...

[InternationalCow]

That this thing will be: 1. Ugly; 2. Have a clunky interface with lots of glitz and glitter; 3. Play WMA only; 4. Require XP; 5. Have limited hard drive capacity; 6. Run Pocketwindows and crash regularly; 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 as long as it is cheap and runs windows Let's hope I'm wrong, I have an iPod and rather enjoy having something made by Apple be mainstream for a change :)

not suprised

[bach_m]

I thought my bullshit meter detected something. What could cost $50 and still be as good as the iPod??

No $50 iPod Clone From Microsoft

[Roland Piquepaille]

Other choice quotes from Microsoft:

- NT will support the SPARC risc platform
- IE4 cannot be separated fron Win98
- Palladium is for security purposes only
- SQL Server doesn't have easter eggs

In short, if Microsoft says they have no plan for an iPod clone, they may speak the truth, or they're still developing it. At any rate, they're probably trying hard to avoid looking like a monopoly.

What I don't understand...

[gatorflux]

Slashdotters are opposed to monopolies but they want Apple to have a monopoly in the mp3 player market.

Variety is good, folks. I hope someone comes out with a good quality, cheaper version of the iPod. Who cares if that company is Microsoft? It would only drive down prices for consumers in general.

Re:What I don't understand...

[Roland Piquepaille]

Who cares if that company is Microsoft? It would only drive down prices for consumers in general.

Until the point where all competition in the iPod-style music players market has been killed off, and then you'll pay whatever Microsoft decides.

Haven't you realized yet that Microsoft is a runaway monopoly that the government failed/refused to Sherman-Act? They managed to lull (and pay) the feds into thinking they play nice on the market, so they thread carefully when they enter a new market. But when they do enter a market, they end up sterilizing it.

This is why I'm glad when Microsoft keeps its hands off anything.

Re:What I don't understand...

[MoonBuggy]

Nobody said Apple should be the only company left on the market. Microsoft, however, have a history of taking over markets they enter - if MS had come in with a player priced that low and marketed it properly it could've become dominant and we know from past performance that they would raise prices and increase customer lock-ins as soon as they had the market saturated.

Re:What I don't understand...

[hng_rval]

When has Microsoft ever raised prices, compared to the price growth of the rest of the industry, after beating out competitors?

History shows us that MS has actually reduced prices in the long term.

Their biggest competitor in most of their products is actually themselves. They have to convince customers to upgrade, and that means they can't raise prices indiscriminately.

Microsoft wouldn't know look-and-feel if it bit...

[FunWithHeadlines]

...well you know the rest.

For the last couple of decades I have marvelled at how clunky Microsoft software looks. Yeah, it's slowly improving, but man, typically their stuff looks like a bunch of geeks designed it --- oh wait...

Anyway, if someone from Microsoft says he thinks competitors will be able to make someone as sexy as an iPod, well I ain't holding my breath. I've heard those promises before from Microsoft, only to be surprised at how truly oddball the final result appeared. So for my money, having someone at Microsoft talk about look-and-feel issues is like hearing a pre-schooler lecture about staying within the lines while coloring. Their heart might be in the right place, but their execution will be lacking.

Will Job's let history repeat itself

[beforewisdom]

We all know the lesson Steve Job's learned the hard way by continuing to produce more expensive Macs while other people rolled out cheaper PCs.

PCs stole the market for desktop computers away from Apple, eventhough the Apple product was technically superior and more user friendly.

However, the price wasn't right.

This looks like another iteration of the same situation.

Will Apple lower its prices to compete with the iPod clones or will they foolishly lose command of a market again on the belief that superior quality will save them?

Steve

Re:Will Job's let history repeat itself

[mrtrumbe]

Right. Because a lack of compatibility, software and market share in business had nothing to do with Apple's decline.

Price is not the only reason Apple lost marketshare. In fact, it probably wasn't even the primary reason. Your comment is a gross simplification of computing history.

Also, I find it interesting that people still equate not being as successful as MS with being a failure. Apple had some rocky times in the past. But now, they are looking pretty good. This, despite their lack of 80%+ marketshare.

Complete world dominance is not the only metric of success.

Taft

Re:Someone else will

[Graff]

"Microsoft stated that they will not be manufactoring such a device" (..) Someone else will manufacture it for them.

What's the difference?

The difference is that it won't be one device that is as small as, has the capacity of, looks better than, works as well as, and is less expensive than the iPod. What the statement actually said was that there would be a range of devices, some smaller, some less expensive, some color screen, and so on.

So there is not going to be one device to beat the iPod in all areas, rather there will be several that may beat the iPod in one or two areas each even though the iPod may or may not be better overall.

Big difference there...

In other words

[mcc]

Like with PCs, Microsoft will allow other companies to engage in the cutthroat and unprofitable business (making and selling mp3 players and operating online music stores), then sit in the background and collect licensing fees.

Certainly makes more sense than the previous story.

Re:That would still be $150

[anonicon]

"That depends on the GB you get for $150. Keep in mind that Microsoft can get insanely expensive in the realm of handhelds and tablet PCs, and this would be no different."

I'm guessing that unless they go with a hard drive solution in the 20-60gb range, they'll be hard pressed to match the price of the 4GB compact-flash iPod mini at $249 unless they feel like starting yet another loss-leader device (like their Xbox). Good point about MS tech in PDAs - except for the Dell Axim, most Pocket PCs are pretty expensive.

"Still, if they *really* want to spank Apple, I'll be glad to take one for really cheap so long as it played all formats without any stupid DRM-only type restrictions."

With Microsoft being what they are, I doubt they'll participate in any music service that doesn't have DRM, especially when you figure that the music rights holders will insist on it for fear of loss to 'theft.' Now, if I were competing with MS, I *might* shit my pants if they could get sign-off on non-DRM music from the labels since no one else is doing that besides eMusic. Combining non-DRM music with WMA would be a major selling point for people who otherwise wouldn't give a sh*t about WMA. Luckily, does anyone really see that happening?

"I have a large CD collection that I've ripped and stored and don't want to go through that all over again because they want WMA-only."

Well, besides iTunes and eMusic, all the other services have been stupid enough to go with really lame DRM formats that are a pain in the ass. If those others are dumb enough to do that, why wouldn't MS? Fortunately, going that route would designate them to the same 2nd-tier status that Apple's competitors exist in.

Otherwise, I'm springing for the iPod.

Small tip - buy Apple Care for $59 for your device, it gives you 36 months' coverage after your battery has probably died within 12-18 months. Otherwise, after your 12 months of basic coverage ends, you're looking at $99 to have Apple replace the battery. With the Apple Care, you won't have to pay to replace the battery until after 3 years expire.

Chuck

Re:50 for the player, but probably

[MesiahTaz]

Panther was a minor upgrade?
What are you talking about? Troll.

Re:I hope they bring such a product out

[JWSmythe]

Ok, I'll be happy to..

Virtually everyone buys their parts from someone else.

I really enjoy ripping apart equipment to see who builds the components. For example, Dell's have quite a bit of Intel hardware in them. We had to really dig the people at Dell to find out who makes their PowerConnect switches, but it's yet another vendor. I can't remember the company name off-hand, it wasn't anything memorable. For some reason people that buy from Dell are like a cult. They believe Dell is the best, and manufacture all of their parts. They get really upset when I crack one open, and start naming off the real manufacturers. Motherboard, processor, NIC by Intel. Hard drive by whoever. I still have no idea who makes the cases, but I'm sure it's not at the Dell manufacturing plant.

Even my pretty Alienware laptop that I carry everywhere with me is actually made by "Clevo" based out of Taiwan.