Originally posted by zellin
dv8godd-
To teens it is significantly cheaper
Then I'd say those teens need better math skills...
🙂 or they should at least consider the concept of "value" instead of just "cost"... something I
thought Mac users considered second nature. $50: 16% cheaper... for 60% less storage space. The difference between $250 and $300 is not significant enough, if you ask me.
Now... if they had done a 2gb version for, say, $100 or even $150... then I'd agree with you.
But, as is... it simply lacks the value for the $$... something even the 10gb version lacks compared to it's biggest brother.
I don't like the fact that the MOST significant difference is in storage. Doesn't roll off the tongue as a "benefit", if you know what I mean.
Have you seen one in person?
Yes.
IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER.
You think so? I don't... but perception is a big part of that. It's 1/2 inch shorter and less than 1/2 inch narrower... and the same depth. I don't call 4.1" going to 3.6" very significant.
I agree... it IS smaller... but it's still bigger than what a lot of joggers wanted... and it's still bigger than many of the players in the market segment Steve is claiming to approach.
In both cases... you've got something that fits nicely in a pocket. It's not like you can stick the mini in your wallet or wear it like a watch.
It definitely does fill the market segment Steve said it did.
I disagree. Ugh! you'd swear the sun shines out Jobs' a**... like every time he says something it just HAS to be true.
🙄 That segment is VERY small players that cannot be skipped, and thus are ideal for people who work out.
I've heard people say that the iPod seems so great... but you can't jog with it... and so people buy one of the smaller Flash players.
How does doing the same thing but smaller change the market?
You could even see it on the chart... quoth Steve "here's the hard-drive player market... here's the Flash player market.
Did anyone ever consider WHY people use Flash players? You think people necessarily WANT less songs? No... they want something that doesn't skip... and on that ground there is certainly no difference between the two.
Both claim 25 minutes skip protection... but I've seen FAR less in actual application... especially when the exerted effort is beyond the norm.
The interface is exactly the same.
No... it's got that a tilt wheel instead of play/pause/ff/rw buttons. Not fond of the feel of it, myself. And the screen is smaller, displaying less info. In general, I find it more difficult to use than even the 3rd Gen iPod. Personally, I think 1st Gen was better... buttons that you could feel. Hell... half the time on 3rd Gen you can't tell if you hit a button or not... it can be frustrating.
It does not have fewer features, save third-party peripherals.
Well... yes... true enough... I should have been more clear.
And one could say that even standard iPod updates ruin backward compatibility with those.
Yes, it does have a lot less storage space, I can't refute that, but most people I know (and I know a lot) don't even have 1 GB of music. 4 GB is more than enough.
Well, everyone I know has significantly more than 1gb. Even my mother has more than 18 cds.
When I bought my first iPod... I thought 10gb was more than enough too... I'd just switch songs in and out and everything would be fine... and I do realize that I, personally, am out on the edge with over 6000cds... but I don't think that changes the fact that the the actual value of the device does not compete with a 10gb.
And plus (and I don't mean to make this a political debate), Bush as president is not what most people wanted. A war is not what most people wanted. Most people would want to be a millionaire, but the money has to come from somewhere. Apple can't afford to make a hardware loss leader.
Yes... I want an iPod that holds a terabyte and plays & records video with bluetooth earbuds that I can wear as a watch and costs $200. I agree that is beside the point.
No one is asking Apple to take a loss...
I was referring to the fact that there was a quote saying that "most people wanted smaller iPods"... and making the conclusion that because "A" (wanting smaller iPods) then "B" (buying a Mini) is automatically a given.
There's more to it than that.
If there are 50 people behind the 10 people who want an iPod mini, and the 50 like it as it is, then there must be 200 that agree with the 10 that are in front of the 50.
I think you're missing the point of what I said. I was speaking of the concept of a vocal minority.
I'd hardly consider the original "poll" an accurate assessment in the first place... and your assumption that people who aren't happy just "keep quiet" means you've certainly never worked retail. LOL.
😀
I deal with this day in and day out with clients. They get an email from 10 people who say "x" is hard to use... and they insist that it change... so you do... and another 500 scream that "x" was fine the way it was.
People who are content with the way things are don't usually have to run to polls to voice the need for change.
I mean... how many people here go to the OSX Feedback page to say... "Gee... I really like the way 'x' works now."?!?
And besides, Apple is still selling iPods, so the 50 of you who can't see the sexiness in putting 1,000 songs in a frickin business card can sit over in that corner and sulk.
Anyone who says that the Mini is a business card is obviously still feeling the effects of the reality distortion field.
🙄
I don't have ANY business cards that are a 1/2 inch thick.
😛
That said... if it REALLY WERE the size of a business card... I'd agree that it were sexy... hell... I DO think the Mini is cool... just not "cool enough to kill the iPod"... you're going totally out of context...
I simply said that it was NOT the iPod killer unc32 claimed it was.
