shamino said:
If you're just comparing features, Apple has never had a clear advantage of anybody else. When they started out, they played MP3s, just like all the rest. They added AAC support with the introduction of iTMS, when others added WMA support. Their prices have never been particularly low - they charge about the same as the rest for a similar-size hard-drive player.
So iTunes connectivity, removable harddrive, iSync capabilities, the now defunct iPod Home features were not an advantage? Mind pointing me to other players that did this all at about the same time as the iPod did?
shamino said:
IMO, the iPod's success is almost entirely due to the user interface. The integration with iTunes and the click-wheel device.
Sure it made a large impact, but to say almost all is rather out there. Apple had two things going for it when it was the first generation. Three if you count the Mac crowd. First would be brand recognition, Apple is known all over as been stylish, well crafted, and cool. The second was the competition was bungling itself. The third was the Mac users, it was a great way to get the word out, I remember the first time people saw them. They thought they were awesome compared to the competition.
Look at discussions that take place here and elsewhere whenever someone compares a third-party player to an iPod. The third-party supporters all say things like "it supports
{insert favorite file-format}" and the iPod supporters say "everybody else's UI sucks".
shamino said:
Unless someone violates Apple's patent and releases their own click-wheel device, with seamless integration to a well-written desktop-based media player, I don't think the iPod is going to be displaced.
Same argument as before. These companies are always releasing new models. And every time one comes out, a flock of people say "Apple is doomed if they don't do what I say". And when the dust settles, the third-party player falls by the wayside and the iPod market share is even larger.
Who? Besides you? Apple sees the same numbers as everybody else. There are several portable video players on the market. Nobody is buying them.
A bit arrogant to act as if you can see into the definite future. Microsoft and other people haven't just been sitting there watching Apple. In case you haven't noticed, the latest batch of portable players have been making bigger strides to catch up and improve. And, again, its rather arrogant to say they'll fall like the rest and not even consider them competition.
As to the no one is buying the video players, thats not very accurate as well. Have you tried to go out and buy one of thos e "VideoNow"s or an iRiver lately? They are harder to come by. Recently during Thanksgiving, while I was on the plane a lot of people had video players and were watching those things over the inflight movie. The GBA video players are also seeming to grow in popularity as well.
Have you walked around and asked people which they'd prefer to view while on the go or away from home? Ask them which they'd prefer, photos or movies.
shamino said:
If you want to go posting a wish-list of new features, go for it. But I think you're being silly if you think that they are stupid if they decide to not give you what you're wishing for.
I wouldn't call them stupid, I'd call them a bit foolish for ignoring the competitons advances.
shamino said:
Every new feature has a cost - development costs, manufacturing costs and support costs. If the feature doesn't serve to increase sales enough to cover those costs, then implementing the feature is a bad idea.
Thats totally agreeable. But a lot of it would make the iPod more appealing. Nowadays, people want more things in less devices. Case in point, SmartPhones. SmartPhones have taken a huge chunk out of the PDA business. If someone lists a products functions; one player plays music and photos. The other player plays music (more formats), video, photos, plays FM radio, and etc. Which sounds better to the average consumer?
shamino said:
You may want to watch feature films on a 2" screen. Most people don't want to - which is why nobody has been successful selling portable video players. And porting the QuickTime stack (including all of its media protocols) to the iPod's architecture is not going to be a free or cheap proposition.
So is there much difference in looking at photos in 2" and watching video? Apple seems to think so. But then again the dock could be utilized and have the video played through the TV. Personally I find that would be cool to take movies with me and not have to hook it up to a computer. I doubt Apple would have much trouble supporting MPEG-4 as a format.
shamino said:
Ditto for alternative file formats. OGG and FLAC might be great and wonderful, but what's the advantage over AAC and Apple Lossless? There are a lot of drawbacks (including development/support costs), but very few benefits, because the formats are not and have never been very popular. The fact that you personally want them doesn't mean much unless there are thousands of others that agree with you.
People like options, people like things that are free and unrestricted. OGG and FLAC are growing in popularity because they are free, easy to implement, open, and have a lot of support. If you don't think so, I think you should see some of the discussions on Slashdot.org over the iPod. I don't know where you came up with the idea that they are not popular or ever going to be. I see plenty of benefits of increased reason to buy iPods outside of ease of use and coolness factor.
