| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
What would it take for Microsoft to Kill the iPod? | |
|
||
| Time: 00:38 EST/05:38 GMT | News Source: *Linked Within Post* | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
There are a lot of rumors this week about Microsoft’s anticipated iPod Killer. This is a product built by Microsoft that utilizes WiFi as the syncing link and is tied to a new iTunes-like service that could be easily accessed anyplace the iPod Killer could connect to a WiFi hot spot. This would allow the device to store music and video—much like the iPod does—and to stream it, which is something the iPod can’t do. It would also allow you to actually buy music right from the device—much like you can with the cell phone —and not require a PC as part of the process. At least, that is the rumor, but we don’t have specifics beyond that. So, could this device take out the iPod? If it could, it would create an interesting event where, on the Operating System front, Apple may have beat Microsoft to market with Leopard, while on the MP3 front, Microsoft has hit Apple equally hard. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 312 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:28:44 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3384 (24.22.75.254) at 7/10/2006 2:39:28 AM |
|
It's simply not going to happen, unless MS gives away one with every copy of Windows, which they obviously won't. What are the odds more than a tiny number of people would actually buy one over an iPod, even if by some miracle it was halfway decent?
The battle is over. Too many new products MS has released and/or announced in the last couple years have been me-too products. A day hardly goes by without word of some new MS product or service on the horizon that's a clone of someone else's, usually Google's of late. Those are almost all doomed as well. Google is an official VERB now in the OED, and MS still won't give up the "race" for search, as if they don't have two competitors -- one particularly -- so far ahead of them as to be hopeless. MS needs to stop me-tooing in the worst way. |
| #2 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 7/10/2006 7:52:36 AM |
|
Let's face it, most of Googles offerings are clones as well. The more Yahoo, Google, and MS fight it out, the more stuff we get for free.
With respect to the iPod killer: whats wrong with more healthy competition in this arena as well? The only thing iPOD has over the competition is marketing. The software iTunes works, but I find it kludgy. Apple has also had problems with the screen getting scatched. And if I remember properly there were problems replacing those screens. If MS really wanted an iPOD killer, they should just build their device into a Heely. |
| #3 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 7/10/2006 11:36:49 AM |
| Remember the Walkman? It too "owned" the market. It too ended up in the dictionary. It too eventually lost out to cheaper, better competitors. As will the iPod. |
| #4 By 3384 (24.22.75.254) at 7/10/2006 12:57:50 PM |
|
The Walkman gave way to the portable CD player (different media), which gave way to the MP3 player (different media again). Each of those were revolutionary steps.
MS is not talking about releasing a revolutionary product that stands a chance of opening a whole new market (they follow, don't lead); it's just another rendition of an MP3 player in a market that's completely dominated by one brand. I don't think the iPod will give way until the next format comes along, and it seems that digital flash is going to be it for a long, LONG time. Why would the iPod be going anywhere anytime soon given that? Maybe if they had some serious flaw, but Apple's problems have really been pretty minor. A few battery issues. Some scratched screens on a couple models. The big stuff: coolness, great looks, great simplicity, they have covered. |
| #5 By 21705 (142.213.176.140) at 7/10/2006 1:28:40 PM |
| I heard of the GPX2 that is open.. so maybe it's a good start. Of course WiFi is welcome. |
| #6 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 7/10/2006 3:31:33 PM |
|
#4 Revolutionary? Nope. Evolutionary. An evolution that Sony should have been able to navigate. But they blew it.
In the same way that Apple Computers embraced proprietary solutions for a 3% market share, iPods proprietariness will destory any chance of keeping up their current market share. The clones are better. I like my 6GB Sansa e270. The 8GB is on the way, and I hear Apple has postponed their larger Nano's. "Apple shares hovered near six-month lows today after another analyst stated said that the company's new iPod nano could see delays of up to two months. Research analyst Tristan Gerra of Baird equity in a note to clients said spot pricing for 8GB NAND flash memory dropped 31 percent since last week, which he attributes entirely to delays in Apple's launch of the next iPod nano, according to a report from AppleInsider. "Our checks indicate this pricing decline was induced by a 2-month pushout in iPod nano-related orders, from June to August," Gerra wrote. "This suggests Apple's upcoming 6GB-8GB Nano will be on the shelves in November rather than September." Gerra also believes second quarter sales for a major NAND flash supplier fell below target, which suggests an inventory dump along with continued pricing pressures in the coming month. In late June American Technology Research analyst Shaw Wu voiced concerns that new versions of Apple's video iPod and iPod nano could be delayed by up to six months." http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/07/07/ipod.delay.worries.expand/ |
| #7 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 7/10/2006 3:32:42 PM |
|
#6 Why should the flash makers allow Apple to profit more from flash than they? Why don't they make flash players and keep the profits to themselves? And I think Sandisk is doing that.
Why not partner up with Microsoft and splits the profits between them? Or keep them themselves? This post was edited by NotParker on Monday, July 10, 2006 at 15:33. |
| #8 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/10/2006 4:38:29 PM |
|
#6: "iPods proprietariness will destory any chance of keeping up their current market share."
Pretty funny coming from someone who defends MS (and their proprietariness) at all costs. Or did you fall on your head and suddenly realize the value of open standards? #7: "Why not partner up with Microsoft and splits the profits between them?" Perhaps because partnering with MS tends to get you screwed over? |
| #9 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 7/10/2006 5:33:26 PM |
|
#8 coffee boy, windows runs on the most unproprietary and open hardware platform ever developed. Apple chose to lock its OS to proprietary hardware and watched its market share plunge to 3%.
Apple, repeating history, locks itself to proprietary hardware, instead of licensings its software to run on all music players. |
| #10 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 7/10/2006 5:34:22 PM |
| "Competitive Parity" - anything subject to it is doomed. NotParkker's Walkman analogy is dead on... for about three years it dominated - within three years following its peak "Walkman" like devices were given away for free with rolls of paper towels at the grocery store - just like the digital watch was before that. Apple better ride the iPod while it can, because it will not last. iTunes, while it may have extended the period by another two years will die even more quickly as far more choices become available via Plays for Sure and really good DRM - the kind that protects legally acquired content - I do suspect that MS and its partners will get it right sooner than later and they have the determination to do it. |
| #11 By 28801 (68.45.209.133) at 7/10/2006 8:45:12 PM |
|
As long as it is chic to own an iPod, Apple will be successful. As adults, we know that most players are equal. But our kids want what cool and what their friends have - right now its an iPod.
MS has to overcome this by producing a cool product and embracing creative marketing (to kids). |
| #12 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 7/11/2006 12:47:48 PM |
|
The biggest selling feature of the iPod is that it is the only player that plays the songs downloaded from the iTunes Music Store, which is immensely popular. And Apple will fight tooth and nail to keep anyone else from being able to play iTunes DRMed songs. One of the other media player companies figured out the iTunes DRM scheme at one time (RealMedia I think), and Apple quickly changed the DRM scheme, and issued a new version of iTunes and a patch for the iPod firmware to work with the new DRM changes.
Apple can be just as anti-competitive with the iTunes/iPod as Microsoft can be with operating systems. This behaviour will eventually cost Apple the portable media player market, once a player comes along that is stylish, easy to use, and is less restrictive on how and where you can play the music you purchase. Ultimately, the winner of the portable music player wars will be determined by the RIAA, not any particular hardware company. Whomever the RIAA decides to back and allow access to the most song catalogues will win. The iPod is the current front-runner because the RIAA has been coerced into grudgingly backing the iTunes music store with 99 cent songs. No one else gets the same pricing from the RIAA. If everyone got the same tiered pricing model from the RIAA, things might change in the portable media player market. |
| #13 By 3384 (24.22.75.254) at 7/11/2006 1:30:13 PM |
| #6: Just curious. If the movement from cassette tape players to CD players, and from there to digital media players, are not revolutionary steps in the context of handheld music players, what would be revolutionary exactly? Would they have to be holographic? Or foldable into the size of a postage stamp? Maybe serve as a time-travel device? |
| #14 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 7/11/2006 1:52:21 PM |
| Revolutionary advancement would likely have to be something to the effect of an implantable player that is wireless, and hooked to your brain, so that all you have to do is think of a song or album, and it will automatically download it and play it directly to your inner ear, bypassing the while eardrum thing altogether. Anything less would simply be evolutionary, according to Parker. |
| #15 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 7/11/2006 2:12:26 PM |
|
#12 Pricing Model my ass!
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,120711,00.asp Thr RIAA may not like 99 cent songs but they'll take over nothing (pirated). That's why more and more 99 cent sites are opening up. As for playing iTunes songs on something else: can't you just burn your iTunes songs on cd then rip them in another format? |
| #16 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 7/11/2006 6:47:57 PM |
|
#15 Low quality mp3s are cheaper elsewhere.
I also think the RIAA isn't going to be happy with the way iTunes demolishes the "album model" that sells you a 20$ CD with 1 or 2 decent songs and replaces it with a model that sells you 1 or 2 songs for 99 cents. But then again, that may a winning option for the consumer. Stats are mixed on that one. |
| #17 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 7/12/2006 7:47:09 AM |
| Back in the day we could buy a vinyl single for 99 cents with a throw-away tune on the flip side. Seems like these sites are bringing back the good old days without the garbage. |
| #18 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 7/12/2006 8:50:35 AM |
| #17: Even more recently than the 45, there was the CD single. Anyone remember those? Buy the good song for a couple of dollars, instead of a whole album for $20 just to get that song? The RIAA quickly put an end to that concept, too. As Parker correctly stated (imagine that!), the RIAA wants you to buy a complete album, not just the good songs. They make more money that way. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 312 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:28:44 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
