C|NET: "Micrsoft's iPod Killer?"

[Kent Pribbernow]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5183692.html?tag=nefd_lede' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5183692.html?tag=nefd_lede</a><br /><br /></div>"Microsoft is expected to unveil copy-protection software this summer that will for the first time give portable digital music players access to tunes rented via all-you-can-eat subscription services--a development that some industry executives believe will shake up the online music business."<br /><br />Hmm. I'm happy to see Microsoft take initiative, but I don't believe music subscription services are going to rival online music stores like iTunes or Napster. Generally speaking, I think most consumers would rather <b>buy</b> music as apposed to <b>renting</b>. I don't see how this technology will "kill" the iPod.<br /><br />On the other hand, Microsoft and it's growing list of partners are set to unleash what could indeed become a <i>very</i> formidable threat to Apple: <b>Portable Media Centers</b>. These digital devices are wholly integrated hard drive-based media players capable of both video/audio playback, featuring large color LCD screens. PMC devices can serve the role of digital audio player, video player, even digital photo album. I truly hope Apple is prepared to meet this challenge, or PMC could become the next device(s) of choice among serious audiophiles.

[James Fee]

I agree. Everything in the past 2 years has been an "iPod killer", but none have changed anything.

[humor]

I don't think you realize the potential that this small piece of technology brings to the industry. An example would be Napster's 9.95/mo all you can download or stream (for older titles) portably cacheable on a 20gb portable player at your disposal. Pretty cool stuff! I believe time controlled security is going to make music management in portable and more specifically wi-fi enabled car receivers (coming soon) very seamless.

This will also enable new uses in video on demand services cached to local video players (similar to dvr), so I’ll be able to subscribe to hbo and have all the sopranos download right from the web site of hbo. In a year or two, my average HD size for $200 bucks will be a terabyte.

IMHO, technology like this, even though it will be hackable when determined to steal, will give a fair balance between producer/consumer interests.

[Russell]

Cnet just wants to find another story where they can mention the word "iPod." It is rediculous how much they write about that thing. Every single MP3 hard drive article from CNET says "iPod Killer" or How does it fare with the iPod. It is getting a little out of hand.

[Phoenix]

I'm so tired of hearing about "Ipod Killers". (I don't mean I'm tired of you, Kent!) I just mean all these articles out there floating around about the next device that's gonna beat the Ipod. :roll:

Do these companies and article writers understand that Apple continues to innovate? They act as if Apple is finished or just sitting around waiting for everyone else to catch up or pass them up. By the time anyone could come out with something that would actually and truly rival the current Ipod, Apple will introduce some 50-100GB digital music/video/photo storage device with a color screen, a built in multi-card reader, built in wireless and whatever other new fangled technology they dream up stuffed in there.

Companies should just admit, they missed the mark and Apple beat them to it. The scroll wheel and simple GUI is the best design for that sort of device, and now that Apple has patented everything (or is, anyway), what else are these companies going to come up with to compete? A mind control interface? Even when they resort to just using buttons or some stupid wide scroll wheel, their MP3 players still look butt freakin' ugly. Ugly enough that I'd rather use their players than toilet paper to wipe my own butt. :lol: None of these companies know how to design things. Their design teams or the decision makers consist of nerds with no taste.

Out of all of the current players, the only thing that looks half way decent is the new Archos AV500, and I don't even care for it all that much. But the Ipod offers the nicest design, period. Don't believe me? Then ask yourself why the Ipod is the most popular player out there after all this time. (And please don't try to counter my point with some stupid Mac vs. PC analogy - it's not the same thing by a long shot).

************************************************

To Any Company That Thinks That Renting Music Is A Great Idea:


As far as subscription services are concerned??? DUMB! DUMB!!!

NO ONE is going to rent their music.
People rent movies. Not music.


I bring movies into a comparison with music because it's my belief that companies that think the masses will want to rent music, are thinking this because people rent movies.

Movies and music are not the same thing.

Example #1: People pop in CD's to listen to a track or two, then migrate to another CD, or they download only their favorite tracks from an album. No one pops in a DVD to listen to a track or two only to migrate to another movie a few minutes later, and if movies were downloadable, no one would pay only to download a couple of segments from a movie; they would download the whole movie.

Example #2: People have been going to theatres to watch movies for years. People don't go to theatres to listen to albums/CD's. They go to concerts, but that isn't the same thing as a bunch of people sitting down in theatre chairs and eating popcorn while they listen to the same CD.

Get it?

People have been buying music for years.
People have been renting movies for years.

Because people interface with movies so differently than they do music, expect the same thing when it comes down to what people expect in exchange for their hard earned dollars.

Still don't get it? Read on.

People will buy movies, but people will never rent music, because ownership (providing it's affordable, which in the case of movies and music, it is) is ultimately the best option rather than simply renting, not to mention, it's also about control. But that's the way it is with anything in life. Providing ownership is affordable, it's better to own a home than to simply rent one. It's better to own a car than to lease one. It's better to own your furniture than to rent it. That is why it's natural that people would migrate to buying movies, but they will never backtrack to renting music, especially considering that nobody has ever rented music, and music ownership is so affordable.

I hope that helps clarify a few things to the "music subscription" companies.

Renting music? Don't waste your time.

[humor]

Phoenix , I don't think other competitors missed the mark either because it was tried before unsuccessfully. But I do I think the iPod needed a bunch of Mac fans to start a huge trend of buying overpriced (albeit well engineered) music players, so that the pc makers can come in and half the price when they saw the potential :)

Also, I think 9.95/mo for 400,000+ songs (ala Napster on demand service) is what most consumers want. This technology allows that to happen by allowing you to store up to 5,000 songs onto a local device seamlessly. Proof of 9.95 rented price point is the explosion of XM radio which doesn't have close to the features of Napster. Sorry, you're wrong.

The past is not the future. Human nature does not compel one form of acquiring music over another…so it becomes a value proposition for a year:

$120 x 400,000 songs > $120 x 120 songs

humor

[James Fee]

More people buy from iTunes than Napster by a HUGE margin. Time has passed Napster by. Microsoft will crush all these little sites leaving it an iTunes/MS fight.

[Phoenix]

Phoenix , I don't think other competitors missed the mark either because it was tried before unsuccessfully. But I do I think the iPod needed a bunch of Mac fans to start a huge trend of buying overpriced (albeit well engineered) music players, so that the pc makers can come in and half the price when they saw the potential :)

Also, I think 9.95/mo for 400,000+ songs (ala Napster on demand service) is what most consumers want. This technology allows that to happen by allowing you to store up to 5,000 songs onto a local device seamlessly. Proof of 9.95 rented price point is the explosion of XM radio which doesn't have close to the features of Napster. Sorry, you're wrong.

The past is not the future. Human nature does not compel one form of acquiring music over another…so it becomes a value proposition for a year:

$120 x 400,000 songs > $120 x 120 songs

humor

I'm sorry, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe this interface was tried before. Tell me what device was designed just like the Ipod (and I'm not just referring to the GUI). Also, I am a Windows user, and I didn't buy an Ipod because of some Mac militant movement. Nice try. Windows users did not cry out for Ipods because of some Mac devotees. If that were the case, then we'd all be using Macs, too. Windows users saw how great Ipods were from a pure technological standpoint. The Ipod is just superior, period. Anyone can create a market frenzy, but after awhile, if the product doesn't live up to its expectations, people won't keep buying it. No technology is absolutely perfect, but the Ipod has met expectations, which is why so many people have bought them over the years.



As far as the subscription issue is concerned, I understand what you're saying. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you and I might be talking about two slightly different things. Or perhaps I don't understand what Microsoft is trying to do here. If they're simply trying a different method of allowing people to buy and OWN their music, then great. If I could pay $9.95/mo. and I had to pay that every month for a year on maybe a one year contract, just as an example, to download and OWN all of the music that I wanted - well, that would be a no brainer, without a doubt.

And the past isn't always the future, true, but past behaviors can and often times do dictate what people will and won't do. If $9.95/mo. only allows me to merely rent music meaning that I can listen to or stream as much as I want but only for a given time before it no longer plays, and I don't end up owning it, that might work for a short while until people realize how stupid it is. That just won't work. XM is different because although you have a lot of variety, you listen to whatever they happen to be playing when they play it; it's not on demand like a download service. I know of no one that decided that because they have XM, they're never going to buy another CD or single again.

I will say, if there are people who want to pay for on demand streaming music at home without ownership (kind of like paying each and every month to own every album imaginable at your fingertips at home), this to me would not be in direct competition with pay and own downloadable services. Perhaps there might be room for this type of market, but this would then be a niche market, IMO. It won't replace peoples' desire for ownership. If Microsoft had its way, we'd all be paying for everything every month for the rest of our lives with no end in sight.

I believe most people want to own their music, not just simply rent it, because there is more long term flexibility that way in terms of how you listen to your music, whether it's in the home, the car, or on a portable device of some sort, not to mention, it's not exactly a tremendous expense to buy and own music. This is the same reason why more and more people are buying movies. Download services need to allow people to ultimately own the music they download, otherwise most people, I believe, won't go for it in the long run. Maybe in the short run, but not the long run. You could end up spending $9.95/mo. for the rest of your life and not own a thing. That's what I call humor.

[humor]

You bought the iPod because it was well marketed, sexy, and cool. It's a friggen portable mp3 player for gosh sakes, they had them 4 years before the iPod. If Apple didn't market it, I think it would have been a nominal player in a crowded market. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the iPod in terms of features, just value (it's overpriced).

The subscription (in the context of Napster) would allow you to download (cache can be an easier term to understand) drm protected files that expire at pre-determined time. As long as you’re still a member, it could just keep updating the license on the file to keep it active +30 days from now. Cancel your subscription and after 30 days have passed, the files won't work.

Napster also has $.99 cent downloads just like the itunes that you own forever...and the Samsung player integrates nicely and crams more features than the iPod.

[James Fee]

You bought the iPod because it was well marketed, sexy, and cool. It's a friggen portable mp3 player for gosh sakes, they had them 4 years before the iPod. If Apple didn't market it, I think it would have been a nominal player in a crowded market. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the iPod in terms of features, just value (it's overpriced).

The subscription (in the context of Napster) would allow you to download (cache can be an easier term to understand) drm protected files that expire at pre-determined time. As long as you’re still a member, it could just keep updating the license on the file to keep it active +30 days from now. Cancel your subscription and after 30 days have passed, the files won't work.

Napster also has $.99 cent downloads just like the itunes that you own forever...and the Samsung player integrates nicely and crams more features than the iPod.
Overpriced or not, it is driving the industry right now. Every MP3 player is compared against the iPod much like years ago they were compared to the Diamond Rios.

[Phoenix]

You bought the iPod because it was well marketed, sexy, and cool. It's a friggen portable mp3 player for gosh sakes, they had them 4 years before the iPod. If Apple didn't market it, I think it would have been a nominal player in a crowded market. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the iPod in terms of features, just value (it's overpriced).

I will agree that I bought it in part because it was a great looking device. But I did not buy it because of marketing or a cool factor. I don't buy things because of what everyone else thinks. For myself, I buy things because I like what something is, popular or not, well marketed or not. That's me.

And when I was talking about the Ipod's interface not being done before, I was not referring to the general idea of an MP3 player that existed before the Ipod arrived on the scene. I was referring to the specific integration of a scroll wheel/ring as well as the specific layout of the OS. That was never done before. Apple just managed to hit on the best combination of things to make an MP3 player a true personal commodity while making it easy and fun to use. Other players, aside from marketing, failed to do that.

I hear what you're saying, but I have to disagree that the Ipod would have been nominal if not marketed by Apple. Good marketing certainly will allow any product to succeed, but marketing only amplifies what's already great - marketing will only work if your product is already a winner. Marketing won't sell crap. Reference the "Microsoft Bob" OS. Microsoft had unlimited funds, but if something's crap, you can market the grunt out of it, and it won't move off the shelves. If Apple had marketed any of the other crap that's out there, it never would have enjoyed the success that the Ipod has. Likewise, Apple wouldn't have had to market the Ipod to make it a success. Word of mouth does that. A great piece of hardware like the Ipod doesn't come around too often, but when it does, it can practically speak for itself.