Rivals challenge iPod’s success

Monday, May. 17 2004 | Author: Scrivs

Here is a short article describing another article in a magazine that I do not have in front of me. Anyways, it talks about how there are challengers to the iPod simply based on how much better technologically they are in comparison. Nail. Miss. Head.

The iPod’s success is only partly related to its technology. When thinking of a competitor to the iPod and mini-iPod you have to take several factors into account and this is what I think many technology mags/journals/sites are missing.

Status Symbol

The iPod has become a status symbol to many technology and non-technology people. If you show a friend a mp3 player, lots of times the reaction you will get is, “why didn’t you get an iPod?” If you are seen walking the streets or in the mall with your iPod you are the cool one.

This is one obstacle that companies must overcome to get their mp3 players to reach mass appeal.

The Look Says It All

Its easy. You mp3 player has to look better than the iPod. Good luck.

iTunes

You gotta offer something better than Napster. Again. Good luck.

So yeah

If companies can get passed those hurdles then they have no problem becoming as successful as Apple has become with the iPod.

Category: Uncategorized

4 Responses for "Rivals challenge iPod’s success"

Al

May 17th, 2004 at 2:34 pm
1

They compare MP3 players, penalize iPod for low battery life but don’t take into account size and weight. They compare MP3 players but penalize iPod for not being a voice recorder or FM radio or CD player or being unable able to rip tunes (iTunes does). They also falsely accuse iPod of not being able to use legacy WMA files when iTunes can convert them all painlessly to AAC. It is a BS article from a Magazine that lives and dies on the amount of Microsoft adverts it gets. As usual, more FUD.
DarkBlue

May 17th, 2004 at 3:05 pm
2

I have that copy of PCPro in front of me. While the review of iPod does point out the obvious flaws in that divine machine, it doesn’t damage the iPod’s reputation.

I quote, “The iPod is wonderfully designed - a triumph of engineering - and has truly become a cultural icon. Sound quality is good, and navigation and uploading are based on ID3 tags. The library is managed by the excellent iTunes application. Transfer speed is excellent over Firewire and there are some fantastic (if pricey) accessories.”

Now I challenge anyone to read that article and come away feeling that iPod isn’t a premium MP3 player.

The winner of the group test is the equally stunning iRiver iHP-100 series. Again, I can’t fault PCPro’s review.

The ratings are based on three principles: performance, features & design and value for money. The first two are where the iPod just loses out.

Unfortunately the magazine doesn’t quantify street cred, desirablity, mass market appeal or strength of brand. If it did, we all know there would be two very clear winners (both of them from Apple) and a cluster of also-rans.

I found the PCPro comparisons to be subjective, well argued and informative but, and it’s a big “but”, the iRiver could be £200 cheaper and I would still buy an iPod - the sheer beauty, elegance and appeal of the device is beyond price.

Says Al, “a magazine that lives and dies on the amount of Microsoft adverts it gets.” That’s a sweeping generalisation - this month’s issue has 286 pages (including cover space), of which only two contain Microsoft adverts!

“As usual, more FUD.” Where? There’s no FUD, just a good, unbiased comparison test.
michael

May 17th, 2004 at 3:52 pm
3

interesting how the first comment pointed out exactly the things that so many other reviews miss: the dedication of the iPod as a music device. It’s so small because it doesn’t try to do too much. Performance, features & design say nothing about how easy it is to navigate through thousands of songs, organize them, buy them, and listen to them, or how easy the device fits into your pocket.

DarkBlue: if you think the article is not biased, you’re really being vulnerable to the FUD. Why? Because people don’t buy a brick that does everything! That’s why the iPod is successful, and for what it does, should win on both performance AND features/design. Lumping features and design together was just a way to marginalize iPod’s obviously superior design. I’ve read so many hilarious reviews that tally up “features”, forgetting that every added feature is added weight, and every hour of extra life is added weight. If I wanted 20 hours of battery life, I’d carry a battery! But no, I just recharge at the end of the day, every day. Big deal.

It should also be a big hint to you that the iPod did not lose on value. After all, it’s the premium unit. Now, the iHP-100 is trying to claim the “preminum” spot since their low cost attempts failed earlier.

If low doesn’t work, try to go higher! Yeah, but how to make higher? Oh, I know, cram everything you can think of into it, despite its marketability, and “out iPod the iPod.”

Why do so many people miss it? People are not just buying the iPod because of street cred. It’s got street cred, and mom cred, because it’s a dedicated device that does its job beautifully. It doesn’t pretend to be anything else, or if it does, it doesn’t get in your way. Four button and scroll for all the controls. That’s something, no? iHP-100 requires a separate display because the main unit is so big you’ll never get it out of your backpack to look at the display.

Lastly, how can you compare iTunes? They work together, and it’s intentional, and all the better for us. Until someone comes up with a viable competitor to iTunes, forget trying to beat the iPod.
deepkid

May 17th, 2004 at 5:49 pm
4

I took a look at the iRiver. Whoever wrote that must’ve had quite a bit to drink before penning that laughable review! The thing is hideous and and would only be considered nice looking if it was outted in 1987. Thank gawd for my pods.