Will The iPhone Kill The iPod?

Edward Sinovian writes "According to Cnet.co.uk, the days of MP3 players, digital cameras and satellite navigation systems are numbered with cell phones about to take center stage. "PDAs have already been crushed by smart phones and the same thing looks to be happening with standalone MP3 players, particularly the smaller flash ones — a theory supported by Apple's recent entry into the world of music phones. If you then take into consideration the convergence of camera, GPS, TV and laptop-like functionality into mobile phones, it raises the question of how long it's going to take before all you need is a mobile phone." With that in mind, do you think that the iPhone will kill the iPod?"

Comments

4 ipods / 1 blackberry

[DrRobert]

I have four ipods (80g) I want most of my music library nearby. I think my blackberry is the perfect phone. Unless those two can converge into something will all the same capabilities at the same size, I only see a converged product as a loss. Besides I want an ipod with me all the time, I don't like being attached to the blackberry all the time.

convenience

[TheSHAD0W]

My big bugaboo with portable devices is keeping them recharged; it's annoying to have to plug in one device every night, much less multiple ones. Having a single unit that does everything I want it to would be a lot more convenient. This would be true even if "plugging it in" involved laying it on a mat.

No

[nhz]

Not if Apple understands basic market economics. To maximize product profits, you want to have several levels of functionality/pricing options to capture as much of the market as possible. Functionality in this case can and should include ability to make phone calls, use SMS, browse online, etc. For example, Apple could have a premium portable unit with phone capabilities, and a value-based version with those features turned off in software (with the option to upgrade later, of course).

A more interesting question

[antifoidulus]

is whether not Apple will introduce iPods(hd or not hd based, possibly depends on the size/cost of flash) that have a subset of the iPhone features and a similar screen. If they do would that end up cannibalizing the iPhone market?

This is just my personal preference, and anything in it that applies to anyone else or the market as a whole is probably a coincidence, but I LIKE having my iPod and phone seperate. That way I can enter into situations in which my phone could be stolen(in tourist areas when travelling, at parties, anywhere were copious amounts of alcohol are consumed really) without having to worry about my phone getting stolen(it's worth maybe $20 at most) and since I have a phone i can call help/call people to meet up with etc. Not to mention a cheap phone tends to have longer battery life than most smart phones and can be abused without much repricussion. I won't get an iPhone, but an iPod with similar capabilities would rock!

Phone, maybe -- not the iAnything.

[FlyByPC]

I really don't like Apple's method of tying everything into iTunes. Other mp3 players I've seen have a very simple way of organizing things. When you connect it to your computer, it's a *drive*. You then copy mp3s across (generally, folders and all) and then navigate these on the device. Quick, easy, and no clunky, proprietary software needed.

If I have to choose between a solution that all but requires iTunes (or any other such interface), and one that uses open standards like mp3 and USB drive connectivity, I'll go for the generic mp3 option. Even if it costs more, isn't integrated with a phone, and/or is only available in retro 1970s Harvest Gold color.

It's not because I'm a pirate or anything -- the kind of music I like is readily available for a very reasonable price (eMusic, Magnatune etc). Having to go through iTunes and put up with its interface and invasive practices is a PITA. If I buy an mp3 player, I want to load my songs into it, disconnect it, and not have to bother with buying into anybody's "better" way of doing things.

Space

[Nerdfest]

For me it depends on when they have one out with a decent amount of space. Right now, I consider my 30Gb player much too small.

As for phones, I use a Treo, and appreciate the third party development efforts. Opening up the iPhone for 3rd part dev would go a long way in my books ...

My Music Deserves Its Own Device

[moore.dustin]

First off, the iPhone does not even come close to being able to replace any non shuffle, mini, or nano iPod. Anyone with over 8gigs of music already on their devise is not going to be able to live under that ceiling easily. I have well over 40gigs of music on my iPod and I certainly do not see that number going down ever either.

Second, the iPhone cannot be what my iPod is. I use my iPod at the gym, when I jog, as my car stereo, and I am never without it. The same goes for my phone, it is, more or less, never to far away from me. Now it would be nice to have both together just for the fact of keeping track of one thing is easier than two, but the cons are just as bad.

My battery life is shot now. Using one device for two functions I use often would suck the battery life from the devise very quickly. If something breaks on either the phone or the music part, I lose the other function while it is fixed. If you dont have an Apple Store in your hood, you are screwed. If you rely on your smart phone to be productive, which you should if you are spending that much, then you are screwed if you need to fix something. Not enough room, not even close to being an acceptable alternative. Functionality - Can that iPhone do everything my current phone/iPod does? Nope.

Re:Why would it?

[LWATCDR]

But my IPod has 80. Not only that but my Cell only has around 3 hours of talk time. That is the problem, battery life.

Re:Why would it?

[monopole]

Amen, I won't touch a smartphone due to the contracts and the insane data policies of cell companies. I carry a Palm TX and a basic prepaid virgin phone. On the other hand, the TX has killed my mp3 players, It gives me the features of an iPhone (same resolution video playback) etc. without the software lock-in or dealing with the evil incarnate which is Cingular (the new ATT!).

No. Too expensive for something so delicate

[demiurgency]

My story. Just earlier this year, I bought a Motorola E15 Phone. $150 with 2 year contract. It's a cellphone, mediocre MP3 player, camera, web browser, etc. It does a lot, but nothing very well. Its biggest boon is it has expandable memo, as it has an open slot for a microSD card. I bought it, figuring I could expand it to a 1 gig card and forgo the 'need' of having an iPod. The very day I bought the phone, I brought it home, and my roommate spilled some water on the counter-top where my phone was sitting, charging. A few drops of water in the back, and the phone was instantly fried. I tried to return it on warranty, but the shop was obstinate that it was water-damaged and 'not their problem'. They tried to sell me a new phone for $300 because I was still stuck in a 2 year contract. Before that experience, I was very much on board with the 'one gadget, many uses' mindset. After this experience, $150-200 is absolutely the limit to how much money I will consider spending on a portable, electronic device that can very easily become a paperweight. A larger device like a desktop computer or a stereo is generally fixable with a few replacement parts (unless maybe you throw it in a swimming pool). With portable electronics, it's always more expensive to fix them then it is to buy a new one.

Precident

[wytcld]

When I was a kid in the early 60s my dad got a console stereo. It was pretty amazing: radio, record changer, amplifier and speakers all in one device, encased in a solid-wood cabinet, and with true hi-fidelity (better than your iPods, kids). The separate components of the hi-fi systems of the years before had been merged into one convenient device! What a technological advance!

And then, what? By the early 70s most of the console stereos were in the junk yards. Every audiophile wanted - gasp - a system built of separate components.

History may repeat: The all-in-one device will be perfected, and enjoy a brief domination of the market based in part on its cool factor. Then everyone will revert to the natural preference for individual flexibility and control, which favors separate but combinable devices. There's no reason your music player, for instance, won't be able to connect to whatever local network access is available at the moment - including your cell phone in the other pocket - without any necessity to combine them it the same case.

Re:Precident

[sikandril]

Also one must not forget that people like to express their individuality with stuff (ipod toting masses notwithstanding) and an "all in one" really limits that.

Part of the cool factor of the component audio system is that you create your own sound with selection of components. So too you create a "style" with the selection of small dedicated gadgets you assemble.

Re:Price

[mihalis]

Just one button.

It dials a random number from your phonebook.

Or how about no buttons at all? Bring it close to your face, speak the name of the person you want to talk to. That's it...

Re:No

[Sassinak]

I would have to second your "NO". The iphone targets a different market segment, not to mention that the ipod (in the traditional sense) is a very different device than the iphone.

It would be better to ask, would the iphone kill the nano/shuffle. That is a likely senario. But again, different market demographics.

If I am sporting a blackberry, I am not going to drop it to get the iphone just because its has a music abilities. I will pick up a shuffle/nano (or the big 'pod if I want capacity) and keep moving.

If I am in the market for a new phone, I don't have any corporate email requirements that stipulate a specific device (blackberry server, activesync, etc...) then sure, I might combine the two. But people in this group usually do not DEPEND on their email.

So no, the iphone will not kill the 'pod. It will extend apple's reach into a market segment that is looking for convergence, but that's about it.

I will say that the iphone for myself is a great travel device when I don't need my big phone (when I am on vacation) but I want to stay in touch and keep my number of devices down to the minimum. And if it can use activesuck (excuse me, that's activesync) even better.

Re:Price

[rainman_bc]

(GPS maybe?)

This is the third or fourth comment referring to GPS in a cell phone.

No fucking goddamn way I would carry a phone with a GPS in it... I can see the /. articles about that now... FBI wants to search your GPS records without a warrant, followed by a bunch of ignorant responses saying "i've done nothing wrong so why should I care? "

No fucking way is any govt going to track my constant whereabouts TYVM. No, the govt cannot be trusted. They serve their own interest, and that's not necessarily the interest of the greater good.

Re:No

[Alt321]

Actually is there an equivalent usage law to Moore's Law? I mean, it's easy to bet that we will create more and more needs for 'ludicrous' storage needs ... and so, high end iPods could cater for those needs ... 80GB? GTFOH!

Re:Price

[LS]

Sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but they can already get a pretty accurate location reading just based off of the tower signals. In fact it's already being used to determine highway traffic in some areas.

LS