Slashdot Mirror
No $50 iPod Clone From Microsoft
dncsky1530 writes "In a previous Slashdot story, the Denver Post ran an article talking about a portable music player that would have the look and feel of an iPod. Microsoft stated that they will not be manufactoring such a device, Mehdi, "I've spent time with a bunch of hardware manufacturers who will launch hardware products when we ship our service that will look and feel as good as the iPod product. And they will undoubtedly be a little bit less expensive and so head-to-head against Apple...""
40$ one time activation fee ...
5$ monthly subscribtion fee
2$ download access fee
15$ remote assistance fee
5$ for a special software player with XP look
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 :)
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
I thought my bullshit meter detected something. What could cost $50 and still be as good as the iPod??
Microsoft reiterated that they are not backing away from their original assertion that the device has the "feel and the look of an iPod". The only notable difference is the guts are from Sony
If you think
We've found the answer to step 2, finally!
1.) Announce fantastic unbelievable product
2.) Retract announcement (formerly ???)
3.) Profit from the 2 days of free publicity
wooooo!
Imagine that!
Maybe at $25, people could afford an iPod clone. But $50 is ridiculous.
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.
Keep in mind, too, that the companies that Apple successfully sued over copying the look of the original iMac were based in Asia.
There ain't no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something.
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.
Does Clippy retrieve the playlists?
If you think
Seen the interfaces for Server 2003 and XP? They rock, plain and simple.
Ah, you must have straggled in from winsupersite.com.
Hold on to your toque, my friend, I have a feeling things are about to get rough for you.
...because they failed to account for human resources required by the team responsible for porting Clippy to an embedded device.
Microsoft co-branded hardware has always been top notch.
:)
Make sure you get your statements right.
They've licensed good equipment to put the microsoft name on. They haven't manufactured anything good themselves.
If I had a company with the budget to sell in major retail outlets, I could co-brand almost anything out there and call it my own too.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
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.
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
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...
Sapere aude!
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.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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.
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.
And in other news:
No $2500 Diablo Clone From Toyota
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Use Linux for a cheap hand held device. Use VideoLAN to play media files. Hack the interface to work on a B&W 640x480 LCD screen, with optional S-Video output jack to play on a TV set or other media device. Use buttons to control the interface, but provide USB ports to plug in mice, keyboards, etc. Use Firewire or Ethernet to communicate with a PC to transfer files. Find cheap PIM software to use it like a PDA as well. Perhaps it can be priced under the cost of an iPod?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
. . . they want Apple to have a monopoly in the mp3 player market.
Where on earth did you get the idea that Microsoft is going to be making an mp3 player?
How Microsoft competes will be interesting. Because for Microsoft, the real economics is about selling Windows. That's why Microsoft can spend $500 million developing Windows Media 9 Series technologies to be licensed cheaply or given away for free. Windows Media is a means to an end, a loss leader for selling the operating system--the way Apple's music store is in a way a loss leader for selling iPods. So, in that sense the strategies are similar. Microsoft hopes that the more devices and stores that support Windows Media, the more consumers that buy WMA DRM content, the better for selling Windows.
--Joe Wilcox: Microsoft Monitor Weblog, as linked to in a post above.
KFG
It's called the XPod, and a thorough and unbiased review is available here.
They've licensed good equipment to put the microsoft name on. They haven't manufactured anything good themselves.
You are wrong! Among the first Microsoft products of 1970's were some fine pieces of hardware. They made an expansion card for the venerable Apple II computer. It was called Microsoft Softcard and it allowed to run CP/M and all its applications on Apple II. Basically it was just a Z-80 daughterboard. They also manufactured RAM expansion card. These cards were good and they were manufactured by themselves.
O the irony - back in 1980 Apple was making the most popular personal computer, expandable like in a hacker's wet dream (lots of expansion slots with well-documented standards allowed anyone create an expansion card to do anything - and they did! and they did!) and Microsoft was just a small manufacturer of third party hardware extension for Apple computers. Plus a vendor of the popular multiplatform BASIC interpreter - and that was all about Microsoft back then. Who could have guessed...
"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