Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Especially since the iPhone *is* essentially the new iPod.
Not as long as smart phones are as expensive as they are now. I can't justify spending 500 bucks on a phone, even thou it can be the only device I carry.
Plus, a button less phone seems counter-intuitive to me.
-- 4 8 15 16 23 42
Hmm, let me think, I want an MP3 player Option 1: Buy the iPhone for 600 dollars or whatever it costs Option 2: Buy an ipod for a lot cheaper You're right, I would go with Option 1 - so long iPods!
It costs significantly more money, has significantly less storage space, and inherits the messiness and unpleasantness of cellphone contracts. This doesn't appeal to people who just want to play their mp3s.
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.
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, of course not. Did the MacBook Pro kill the MacBook? Did the PowerMac kill off the iMac? WIll a $500 iPhone kill the $99 iPod shuffle? No, but it may eat into the sales of the lower-end model.
Sheesh, this is a no-brainer.
... There isn't a cat in hells chance of the iPhone touching the iPods market.
Why?
Price for one. For $499 (with contract), you can get yourself a 4GB iPhone. For $349 you can get an 80GB iPod. That is a least expensive vs most expensive comparison.
The iPod (well, portable digital music player) market is huge; the numbers speak for themselves. People will happily pay a few hundred dollars for a portable player that'll last a few years. But $499 for a phone, plus contract? That is out of most peoples leagues for something that is completely unproven, if you ask me.
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).
And for one very good reason: The iPhone is supposed to be around $600. You can buy iPod Nanos for less than a third of that. iPods were a success, but not an unbelievable hit, until they managed to get the costs down to something your average person can afford as a Christmas or Birthday gift. Not to mention something someone could buy without having to work it in their budget for the next 3 months. The iPhone is just plain too expensive to kill the iPod yet. Maybe if iPhone v.3 or v.4 brings the price down to the point where it's not much more than a regular phone I'll entertain thoughts about it being an iPod killer, but right now I have to say no way.
I read the internet for the articles.
Current 'rich' mobile devices won't replace mobile phones until fuel cell or battery revolution occurs.
Because I don't need a phone that can't live through the day on a single charge. No matter how rich it is.
Eventually a single device combining cell phone, camera, pda, mp3 player, GPS, ... will replace stand-alone devices. The transition has already started with devices such as the iPhone. Due to high prices, which is common with new types of devices, global adaptation will not happen instantly. People who have one or more seperate devices will not trade them in right away for a single device. If the seperate devices still work properly people will keep using them. But gradually as prices drop people will start buying the single device.
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63
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!
Monstar L
Let's discuss Apple and their product line, behind the thin veil of a "tech discussion".
I know I'm going to throw away all my iPods when the iPhone comes out. I've already thrown away my Tivo, VCR, DVD Player, Xbox, PS2, cable box, and 40" LCD screen, because Apple has their own TV now!
Now that Apple has a phone that can play an mp3 - AN IMPRESSIVE TECHNOLOGICAL ACCOMPLISHMENT! I mean, my god - a phone playing mp3s? What will they think of next!
You are all asshats. If vcast/treo/etc (every fucking phone plays mp3s) didn't kill the market for a standalone player, why would iPhone? There's an enormous market of people who like music, and dont want a new cell phone. Most people just take the phone thats free with the service.
Who the fuck would rent an iPod?
Apple would love it, though, as you can force phones into obsolescense, while the iPod can do its thing until the shitty build quality rears its head.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Great, so you've got all the functions on your phone but they all suck.
Apple has actually done a pretty excellent job at positioning different choices for people:
1) Pure music player with a very large storage space for people hwho have to have everything with them (iPod 80GB video)
2) Phone with music playing and PDA abilities with a medium amount of storage (iPhone)
3) Devices that are small enough you can use them anywhere discreetly or while in action (iPod mini and nano).
There are really valid reasons to own all of them. For some people there are valid reasons to own more than one, because they each meet a different need. I could see keeping the 80GB model in a car, while still having the iPhone for roaming use, with a nano for the gym or jogging.
In general though phones are where the market for many music playing devices is headed, Apple realized that too and is getting ahead of the game with the iPhone. In time we'll probably see other versions to replace at least the mini.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
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
forgot that the original iPod came down in price too - what was it originally? $4-500?
In several iterations, if the iPhone is sucessful enough, I see a diversification of the product line just like the iPod, with the price coming down.
Yes - next question please...
0100111001100101011100100110010000100001
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.
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
The main problem with the all-in-one device is the risk associated with having "all your eggs in one basket" if you will.
I don't know about the rest of you, but the thought of having a $600 device with me all the time makes me cringe.
While I have a $400 digital camera, $200 phone and $250 iPod, I don't take them all with me wherever I go. There is some satisfaction with being able to protect some of the devices by not bringing them along. Also, I leave my cell phone at home sometimes when I don't want to be bothered.
How long would it take to realize that Apple is going for the Tri-corder killer?
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.
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.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
The PDA and smartphones were targeted to the same segments. The people who need PDA are same people who need smartphone and smartphones provides virtually all the functionality of PDA. The price of smartphones with subsidies from phone company was competitive with that of standalone PDA. Hence they killed PDA.
With iPod and iPhone, the target market is not same. People who want iPod does not necessarily want a cell phone. Yes, there is some overlap, but not enough (at least not yet), to kill the iPod. At high end, iPods provide more storage and at low end, iPods are cheaper.
However, if the price of iPhone reduces too much, it is likely, people would start buying iPhone as a replacement of iPod. In fact, I already do something similar. When my contract with Cingular expired and I got a new phone, I converted my old phone into an MP3 player (with 2GB miniSD, AM/FM radio, voice recorder and tiny photo/video camera, it is a great gadget to keep in the car all the time).
I'd rather be able to access it from a mobile device along with other documents.
The biggest factor in folding all of these devices into a single device, is battery life. With an ipod you have a seperate battery that isnt always on, where as your phone is going to be running all the time. Lets say you've been listening to tunes all day on your phone, how long will the battery last on that important call you have to take on the run? The more functions you put into a single device, the more usage that device gets, which places more demands on the single powersource inside of it. With seperate units, you have seperate batteries which of course means longer run time.
The iphone also does not have an 80gig hard drive and it wont for some time.
I suspect the vast majority of people using PDAs also use cell phones and typically pay a fair amount for them (business users, primarily), so combining the two is a natural fit (except for form-factor issues). I don't think the same can be said for MP3 players, digital cameras, etc. My phone is reasonably small, but it's still 3 times the size of my MP3 player. That makes a big difference when I'm working out. And cell phones (at least reasonably priced ones) are a long long way from being even decent compared to a dedicated camera.
Just because those features are there doesn't necessarily make them good enough to replace a dedicated device. Having GPS in a phone might be a cool feature to some people, but to others it's just a useless extra-cost item. MS Word has every feature imaginable, but how many of them do you use? Wouldn't you like a version that had just what you use at half the cost (in dollars, memory, cpu cycles, UI complexity,
you can't win with flight attendants - if they aren't with "the phone is off"; "it's inflight mode" etc.
if "Faith" could be proved with facts - would it still be faith? So why does "Faith" try to present beliefs as fact? -
Then I took a good look at my listening habits, and realized I never actually _need_ that kind of capacity.
You don't need an MP3 player, period.
The only question is whether the benefits outweigh the costs. In your case, a 4GB nano and ~1,000 songs is plenty and the benefits your listening patterns gain from adding the extra ~6,500 songs of a 30GB or ~19,000 songs of an 80GB player are much smaller than the cost/bulk benefits you get from a smaller player.
I, on the other hand, gain a lot of my self definition from my love and knowledge of music. For me, the 80GB player is as small as I want my fat fingers to deal with in the first place so size isn't an issue. Cost would certainly be nice to drop. Getting to have discussions about what Punk-Country sounds like in the form of the Meat Puppets, have cheesy Roxette/Erasure 80's flashbacks with my wife on a Monday morning drive AND be able to listen to the core 1,000 songs in my main playlists is worth a fortune to me - way in excess of the $200 extra price.
Now add in the ~20 movies that can run picture in picture on my monitor while I code, the ability to figure out what certain lyrics are because I ran an app to grab them from the net, the ability to keep samples of my photography handy... For me it's a no brainer.
The capacity is a HUGE issue for the retarded (meant in the true sense of the word) iPhone. For my 320x240 iPod, I tend to rip movies at around the 400MB point (granted I go slightly over 320 wide so I can either zoom in on the center at 1:1 or zoom out and letterbox on a square screen). 4GB for the great new "widescreen movie capable" iPhone lets me put maybe 7-8 movies on there so long as I put no music on and minimal extra apps. That's barely enough for an intercontinental flight and back and now my iPhone's useless for music. Sure there's an 8GB version... giving maybe that small set of movies and a very limited music library.
For users like yourself, the iPhone will be the latest and greatest new gadget, able to do all kinds of quirky things that you can't do on other phones and save space in your pocket for your willingly limited music library - albeit for a very high price. For a user like myself, the biggest feature is the great new touch sensitive screen. Finally getting a movie big enough to be worth watching is huge and the same goes for easy navigation of bigger playlists - both of which are massively hampered by too little capacity to store much.
So, it's all about personal definitions. At its simplest, no one needs a cool movie and MP3 playing phone. At the other extreme, people who're excited by those features and have the libraries to really use them are massively hampered by the tiny storage in the first generation. In the middle, there are people like yourself - though the cheaper price argument falls flat on its face there.
Fortunately for Apple, they only ever aimed for 1% market saturation and, whilst tying it to signup with a provider could have dropped the price and a bigger drive could have upped the appeal to maybe 20-30% market saturation, Apple are evidently more than happy with 1% on their own terms rather than 20-30% on other people's terms with smaller margins. Going for that 1%, they can dictate whatever they like and accept that most of us won't take it but enough will.
Apart from the Monks of Cool, who's going to fork out that kind of money for a locked down device?