Slashdot Mirror
The Latest iPod Assassination Attempt
Insani-CTO writes "David Pogue at the New York Times reviews Samsung's new Z5, the latest attempt at an 'iPod killer' He gives it a pretty favorable review, though doesn't quite count the Nano as dead quite yet. From the piece: 'The Z5, then, will not cause any discernible dip in iPod market share. It does, however, deserve to be a hit for Samsung. For someone who wants a Nano that's not a Nano, it's a close enough match in looks, sleekness, capacity and crystal-clear software design. In fact, if iPod didn't loom over every conversation as the screamingly obvious point of comparison, the Z5 could be the next little thing.'"
Recently on German news they covered CeBit and plainly stated that the next generation phones would be iPod killers. I was thinking by myself: WTF? Then they started to enumerate the advantages of having MP3 player in your phone. The main thing seemed to be that you could download songs on a whim. Essentially iTMS but over wireless. I fell over laughing. (I know that the device in the article is not a phone, but I just wanted to mention it)
So, I first am going to shell out money to get the song, then pay UMTS packets? Are you *insane*? How expensive will be a 3Meg song that way? Waaaaay beyond the current prices in iTMS.
The iPod is successful because it is simple and later on the seamless integration with iTMS was the big winner. Any competing product must at least match this and make it less expensive.
None of these so-called iPod-killers will fly. At least that is MHO.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Oh come on. The ipod (like this device) was an incremental improvement over other mp3 players from the time, not revolutionary.
This device (whilst it will almost certainly be no ipod killer in the ipod's major markets) looks & sounds pretty nice. Frankly I hope that Apple copies this feature back to the ipod:That's one thing thats really irritated me about the ipod...
My pics.
And the iPod can play files from all of those other places, PLUS the most popular paid download service ever -- the iTunes Music Store.
See how that sounds different? That's spin. Let's use math to avoid any spin.
The Z5 can play files from X download services. The iPod can play files from X + 1 download services. iPod > Z5.
Mike van Lammeren
It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.
Companies are always trying to get some extra press by talking up their next line of music players and how they are going to be "iPod Killers" (what ever happened to Microsofts iPod killer?) Then they release a music player like the Z5 that tries to mimic all the great features of the iPod but inevitably they fall short because all they are doing is mimicing to the edge of blatently copying.
The Z5 adds nothing to the table (no, extended battery life does not an iPod killer make). It is twice as thick as the Nano yet has the same capacity and most importantly, the same price point.
Why does everything have to be a Something-Killer? Why can't companies just make a good product and sell it without all the "Yeah!! iPod, you're going down!!!" wrestling-match garbage? It's entirely possible for the marketplace to have two really good MP3 players, without one having to totally "kill" the other one... and both companies make a ton of money. I think it probably already is like that. There are a number of good portable MP3 players. I understand about stock prices and shareholders, but this kind of stuff just gets old after a while, and actually makes me less excited about some of these new products...
I think that a lot of Apple's success comes from the marketing of the iPod. Pre-iPod it was considered "geeky" to have an mp3 player (in all fairness, mp3 players where horrible when they first came, buttons everywhere). Today, people think its "cool" to have their white headphones on and an iPod hanging at their side.
Although it may not be considered geeky to have another mp3 player today, the iPod is almost seen as a fashion accessory, whereas any other mp3 player is just that, an mp3 player.
To beat the iPod, I believe that the mainstream has to consider it "cool", and you have to have tons of accessories so your mp3 player can be cooler than the other 10million people who also have one.
Just my thoughts on a point I think was missed in the article...
At Samsung's suggestion, I tested the Z5 with Rhapsody's store, which is available directly from the copy of Windows Media Player provided by the Z5's installer. After banging my head on the keyboard for an hour, unable to get it to work, a Rhapsody rep finally let me know that, in fact, Rhapsody's subscription store doesn't work in Media Player -- only with Rhapsody's own software jukebox. (So much for the Microsoft "Plays for Sure" logo. Try "Plays for Some People.")
I don't want that experience.
It's always much harder to overturn an entrenched leader in a field than to jump ahead of the pack - and the iPod has massive marketshare. The article has this really important observation:
That's the problem for other manufacturers. That's a damn near insurmountable hill to climb. Sony had some solid electronics but terrible software. The players that use PlaysForSure are doomed with the horrendous WMP system, terrible DRM, and electronics that are crappily designed. Even if you get nicely designed hardware and nicely designed software, you're stuck in a world where you can get iPod accessories everywhere, but nobody's going to carry accessories for your particular product unless you can get a credible amount of marketshare - which is hard when you don't have the accessories to spur sales.
The only way the iPod can be beaten is if Apple screws it up (which is unlikely, but possible) or someone manages to buy their way into market. The only company that could compete with Apple is Microsoft, doing what they did to the gaming market with the XBox. If Microsoft wanted to create a product that would be a severe loss-leader (priced well under the iPod) and could totally redesign WMP to be halfway usable, they might have a shot at unseating the iPod - but not a good one. Microsoft won't do that because the XBox division is currently hemmorhaging money as it is and Microsoft's bottom line would be adversely affected by trying to go toe-to-toe with the most popular piece of consumer electronics on the planet.
The iPod didn't get it first, but it got it right, and unless the cachet wears off (which may happen, but not for a while), trying to beat the iPod is not a particularly sound business strategy.
The ipod (like this device) was an incremental improvement over other mp3 players from the time, not revolutionary.
:-)
To a certain degree, yes. It actually had fewer features than many of its direct competitors. However, the iPod "won" on the total package as opposed to feature bloat. Its total package was smooth, easy to use, pleasant, rich in features that mattered to consumers, and decidedly unconfusing. Everything the average joe with a blinking VCR wanted in a device.
Even then, however, the iPod was only a leader in the market rather than the uncontested champion. It was the introduction of iTunes that took the total package experience of the iPod to the levels it's at today.
This is a feature that other players have trouble replicating. If they take Microsoft's DRM route (not that they have much choice), they must take the path of interfacing with third party software rather than attaining the vertical integration that Apple has. This convinces consumers that the device should work across many different music packages, thus causing frustration when the device is incompatible. (As the author of the story related about his experience with Rhapsody.)
The best positioned company to beat the iPod at the moment is Sony. They have a music store, a hardware business, and a record label. If they vertically integrate these, they might pose a challenge. Unfortunately, Sony seems to have been having difficulties in getting their act together.
This device (whilst it will almost certainly be no ipod killer in the ipod's major markets) looks & sounds pretty nice.
Agreed. My only point is that the only way to beat the iPod is to be better than the iPod rather than a psuedo-iPod.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I think rental services is a more accurate term as it makes clear exactly what is happening. When you rent, you don't get to keep the product unless you keep forking over the dough.
> How is it that a quiet company from Korea can produce great products that actually work
Gross mischaracterization. Samsung is huge, has huge resources. They've set their sights on taking a lead in consumer products manufacturing and they're exectuting well. Not suprising. How long has Sony been dominant now? Eventually inertia takes over, stagnation sets in. Oh, and lets not forget the pleasure a Korean business will take in popping off a Japanese business. Extra motivation right there.
Samsung is nicely positioned to provide high quality at lower costs due to the tremendous manufacturing capital they own. If they're smart enough to win on customer service (as you suggest) and design (or at least design replication), they will be at the top of the heap for many, many years.
BTW, I ended up with a Toshiba, but I agree with you on the quality of their TVs. I was very torn and my folks have a Samsung that's very nice for the price.
Yeah, the big difference is that the iPod has no "Apple Tax". this Samsung Z5 costs exactly the same amount as an iPod, but it isn't the real thing. Very few customers are going to select something other than the defacto standard if the alternatives all cost just as much and don't offer some amazingly compelling feature.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Actually, this last one makes Sony less likely compete. If you were another record label, how willing would you be to help a direct competitor become entrenched in product creation and distribution to the end consumer? Sony's music store faces problems cauesd by its record arm, just like Sony's portable music devices suffer from its content divisions (see the Minidisc fiasco as well as the more recent ATRAC software debacle). If anything, Sony should focus on making the best technical products instead of worrying about what their tech might do to their content business.
Anyway, I agree with the bulk of your post and do see Sony as a logical competitor for Apple, but I can't see how they disregard the content albatross that holds them back.
Why stop there? Throw in a pony, make it even better.
There is absolutely no technical issue whatsoever involved in getting, say, two iPods to talk directly each other (especially older firewire models). But politically, that is currently verboeten. No label in the world will allow it. No music industry lobbyist in the world will currently let something like that go unanswered. Its not a technical problem at all, it has everything to do with the old guard holding the keys.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Much obliged. Your argument sucks. Win3.1's success was only peripherally (at best) related to its actual quality. It had everything to do with market economies and Apple's bad decisions.
Just because the iPod looks pretty and its DRM is the least evil, doesn't mean it will always be that way. Just like with the Mac vs Windows, a lot of people will stop paying the Apple tax if something cheaper comes along that as good a job.
So you are agreeing with me (see original post).
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Tech toys are completely different from this guy was talking about, which was hardcore technical fetishism. "Joe Sixpack" (the most condescending term I've ever heard) may like an XBox 360 and an HDTV, but only on Slashdot will you have people express concern over whether or not they can hack Linux onto the XBox 360 and use the HDTV to construct an Open Source PVR center. See the difference? Joe Sixpack just wanted to play good-looking games.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Since you need it spelt out... my point is that Windows 3.1 was arguably a look-a-like of MacOS in many respects and Microsoft still kicked Apple's ass all over the shop.
That's because of their leverage of monopoly position to illegally coerce the market. Did you miss the antitrust trial? Windows 3.1 didn't win on merits. Go use it for 10 minutes and then go to a Mac from the same time period and you'll realize that immediately.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Yes, but what you're missing is that the iPod Nano 4GB weight almost HALF (1.5oz vs 2.8) what the gmini does. Again, it's not hard to build a device that weighs more and is larger than a particular ipod model for less money, but there is nobody making a device that is as light and small as an iPod selling them for any less. Other companies do make devices the same size and weight, and they charge EXACTLY the same amount as the iPod model they're gunning for. The only difference at retail is that Apple doesn't encourage discounting, so sometimes you'll see a flash player of the same size, capacity, weight for $15 less from someone else because it's on sale, while if you bought the iPod device you'd get a $15 cable or something for free but pay the full MSRP.
Apple desktops have a price premium, apple laptops less so. Apple iPods don't. They just don't -- they sell as cheaply as anyone else can manufacture them, the only difference being that because of Apple's volume they can make profit at the same price point their competitors merely break even.
Even ignoring all that, what every "computer" company (and you) seems to be missing is that the iPod is NOT a computer device. It isn't a geek toy where people buy the cheapest available device with a good spec sheet. This is a consumer electronic device, where consumers are more than happy to pay a premium for a reliable name. Sony is a company that has been charging a premium for their name in the consumer electronics biz for decades, and they continue to be one of the most popular brands. At a technical level, their stuff is no better than anyone else's, but consumers don't spend hours/days/weeks researching every purchase the way we do. So no, Apple is not going to be knocked off the pedestal by some cheap korean knock-off that happens to be $50 less, you're thinking like these are commodity network cards rather than adjusting to the idea that the market is totally different and looks for different things.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
How us that competition if they offer the same music at the same prices with the same restrictive DRM? Oh and they also require WMP and windows.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.