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)
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...
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
> 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.
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.