SanDisk is Number Two in US MP3 Player Market

[Chris Gohlke]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.i4u.com/article5074.html' target='_blank'>http://www.i4u.com/article5074.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"SanDisk rose to the number two spot in the MP3 player market during the holiday season in the United States. SanDisk sold 1 million of their low cost flash based mp3 players. We reported recently that Creative is the number two in the mp3 player market with 2.6 million players sold. I think that number is global. That means SanDisk is the distant number two in the US and Creative is the distant number two world-wide in the MP3 player market. Nobody is able to touch Apple right now; they sold 14 million players in the same time frame."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/sandisk_mp3_player_market_share.jpg" /><br /><br />I knew the other manufacturers were pretty far behind, but it is not even close. But frankly, I don't know if there is anything they can do to catch up.

[jeffd]

Need better advertising to edjumucate the masses. ^^ Oh, and lower prices. As much as I like my vision:M, being no cheaper then the ipod it competes directly with helps its cause none. If AMD and ATI learned this, why can't MP3 players?

[Kacey Green]

yes, we need to dethrone the inferior iPod and get some sort of standard for attachments so devices may compete on their own merits

[Philip Colmer]

With that big a gap between Apple and the rest, isn't there the possibility that this could be called a monopoly, and for Apple to be taken to court just like Microsoft has been?

Now, if the iPod was more open and played other formats like ... I don't know ... WMA? :wink:

--Philip

[Jason Eaton]

Hrm, the gut reaction is that a Monopoly is bad... however it is just a description and completely legal to be a monopoly.

What isn't legal is if Apple were to abuse its monopoly status to further retard other businesses by some practice. Say... forcing bundles of software or price setting they would be bad.

If Apple said, hey if you want our product you also HAVE to install our other software and no one elses on your machines... then yeah.

Otherwise the label is bestowed on them as a term for having a successful business, which is legal. They also have the right to refuse placing anything they don't want on their product. Like WMA. As they are not forcing people to buy their product it is the customers choice to accept the product as Apple offers it. (shrugs).

[sojourner753]

Hrm, the gut reaction is that a Monopoly is bad... however it is just a description and completely legal to be a monopoly.

What isn't legal is if Apple were to abuse its monopoly status to further retard other businesses by some practice. Say... forcing bundles of software or price setting they would be bad.

If Apple said, hey if you want our product you also HAVE to install our other software and no one elses on your machines... then yeah.


Agreed. Legally I don't think a monopoly is defined by marketshare, as opposed to "predatory business practices".

A quick way for Apple to be declared a monopoly would be to suddenly remove MP3 support from their devices and software. That may not do it, but its certainly enough to argue in court.