Live data from Hacker News

Why an 'iPod killer' will never kill the iPod

37signals.com

11–20 of 23 posts

Re: Why an 'iPod killer' will never kill the iPod

#11

They have a good point, but seriously beating iTunes isn't exactly hard. QuickTime has been the most pain in the ass media player on the PC for a long time, it was even worse than Real for a long time. I mean Real is full of crap that slows down your computer, but QuickTime used to be outright slow. Apple has certainly improved, but I don't see iTunes as much more than a well written library program with an MP3 playe…

"I don't see iTunes as much more than a well written library program with an MP3 player tacked on."

What else do you want from a MP3 player?

Re: Why an 'iPod killer' will never kill the iPod

#12

They have a good point, but seriously beating iTunes isn't exactly hard. QuickTime has been the most pain in the ass media player on the PC for a long time, it was even worse than Real for a long time. I mean Real is full of crap that slows down your computer, but QuickTime used to be outright slow. Apple has certainly improved, but I don't see iTunes as much more than a well written library program with an MP3 playe…

Quicktime is worse than slow--its not even standards compliant, and most ordinary H.264 video will not play back on it properly (and that subset seems to change on every release). From an actually-working standpoint, its even worse. I had to install Quicktime a while back on Windows to convert some weird-format Quicktime YUV files to something usable--it instacrashed upon trying to convert it. After reinstalling a fe…

My brother switched to Mac a while ago, and pretty much the first thing he commented on as the major difference was that he could actually use quicktime.

Re: Why an 'iPod killer' will never kill the iPod

#14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quicktime is worse than slow--its not even standards compliant, and most ordinary H.264 video will not play back on it properly (and that subset seems to change on every release). From an actually-working standpoint, its even worse. I had to install Quicktime a while back on Windows to convert some weird-format Quicktime YUV files to something usable--it instacrashed upon trying to convert it. After reinstalling a fe…

My brother switched to Mac a while ago, and pretty much the first thing he commented on as the major difference was that he could actually use quicktime.

I'm on a Mac right now, and this is absolutely correct. QuickTime handles nearly everything once you have Perian installed. It means that suddenly you have a capable mini-player for watching nearly anything. And it's very smooth, too: it has a bunch of nifty little features that I'm sure the Windows version doesn't have.

Re: Why an 'iPod killer' will never kill the iPod

#15

They have a good point, but seriously beating iTunes isn't exactly hard. QuickTime has been the most pain in the ass media player on the PC for a long time, it was even worse than Real for a long time. I mean Real is full of crap that slows down your computer, but QuickTime used to be outright slow. Apple has certainly improved, but I don't see iTunes as much more than a well written library program with an MP3 playe…

Apple has certainly improved, but I don't see iTunes as much more than a well written library program with an MP3 player tacked on. I'm a long time Mac user, but that pretty much nails what iTunes really is. Ever since Apple bought out SoundJam and turned it into iTunes, the app's focus has been less about song playback and more about being the "showcase" or demonstration for what QuickTime is supposed to be used for…

Yeah, but isn't that a good thing? iTunes doesn't waste time on unnecessary features. It's extremely focused and it does what it ought to - store songs - extremely well.

Most users really only need to store songs, make playlists, and - possibly - sync to an iPod. Apple does that all quite well, and keeps adding new ways to sort music. They're doing a pretty good job so far.

Re: Why an 'iPod killer' will never kill the iPod

#16

They have a good point, but seriously beating iTunes isn't exactly hard. QuickTime has been the most pain in the ass media player on the PC for a long time, it was even worse than Real for a long time. I mean Real is full of crap that slows down your computer, but QuickTime used to be outright slow. Apple has certainly improved, but I don't see iTunes as much more than a well written library program with an MP3 playe…

They have a good point, but seriously beating iTunes isn't exactly hard. QuickTime has been the most pain in the ass media player on the PC for a long time, it was even worse than Real for a long time. I mean Real is full of crap that slows down your computer, but QuickTime used to be outright slow.

But iTunes isn't about just the software. You can't forget the Music Store, which is the largest music retailer in the country. iPods, the best-selling brand of MP3 player, and arguably the best, require it to run. To beat Apple, you need to compete on all 3 fronts at once, and chances are you have to be breakthrough in all three fields.

Apple has certainly improved, but I don't see iTunes as much more than a well written library program with an MP3 player tacked on.

If I had the money I could easily build and design a better, sleeker MP3 player than Apple. It's just the fact that all the companies who are coming to compete in the MP3 player market don't have a history in it.

Because Apple did have history in MP3 players? And, theoretically speaking, say you have a ton of money. Who exactly are you going to make design it? Because you're competing against Jony Ive and his team, which is regarded as the finest industrial design team on the planet. No, they don't have the battery, but they have better-looking hardware and they have better-looking software, things don't break, and not only do they have a set of gorgeous products (for the record, most Apple products win Red Dot awards in every iteration, which is unheard of in consumer products), but they have an incredible ad firm working to promote their products. You're competing against all that, and all of the best minds are at Apple right now.

I could easily use the iPod's example and build a better MP3 player. It's quite simple; use a slightly wider LCD screen and display in widescreen, which should all blend together in a deep black so that you can't see the difference between the LCD and plain black when it's off

So... the iPhone? Or the iPod touch?

The front plate should be a single piece of unbroken electrically conductive glass so that you can operate the controls (similar to how the iPod works) but without it ever, ever being able to get dirt stuck between the cracks. The back plate should obviously be scratch resistant aluminum.

iPhone/touch? It sounds like you're just parroting what Apple's already had out in the market for a year and a half.

You seem to think that Microsoft and Sony aren't already launching the absolute finest minds they can at this. Make no mistake: Microsoft and Sony have some brilliant people working on this problem. And they're throwing money like Apple couldn't have afforded to do. And yet, Apple's still wiping the floor with the competition. Now every cell phone company is losing market share to the iPhone, and it's the same thing over again. A lot of big, smart companies are trying to beat Apple, and they're all failing. And you think you could do better by throwing money at it?

Re: Why an 'iPod killer' will never kill the iPod

#17
post #4

Weird .. people actually LIKE using iTunes? I mean its pretty decent .. but nothing special.

I love it, mainly because it has the two things I really like.

First off, I can quickly make playlists that work well together, thanks to Genius.

Second, I can use a keyboard shortcut to get to the search bar, to quickly find music.

iTunes has the fastest search of any music player I've ever used. I love it for that alone. And what else should a music player do? I've used Amarok. It has too many features. It's a beast. iTunes is a background application, absolutely, but it's easy to use. And if you really need it, they've got the best visualizer I've ever seen.

Re: Why an 'iPod killer' will never kill the iPod

#18

>If you’re going to be an iPod killer — and not just a great new music player — you have to first out-Apple Apple at all the things that makes the iPod special. That means superior industrial design, an iTMS-beating catalogue of content, and a better desktop experience than iTunes. My understanding is Apple makes $100 dollars' margin on every Ipod. You could gain some market share in the mp3-player space by undercutt…

But if you try to undercut Apple, and they're making a ridiculous margin, then if you've actually got a good player worth buying they can just drop prices. Look at the iPhone situation. They killed nearly all their competition with the price drop. Nobody can touch it right now.

Re: Why an 'iPod killer' will never kill the iPod

#19
post #13

It seems to me that the company most well-positioned to create a successor to the iPod (other than Apple), is Amazon. A mini-Kindle with audio and video - and downloads everywhere 3G reaches could be a smash hit.

You know, you've got a good point! The Kindle is an excellent product: Amazon's proven that they have a good design team. The only problem is that its screen can't support video, ever. (It already has an MP3 player built in.)

It would be lower on the market, but Amazon is actually in a prime position to be making hardware. Don't know how much they'd make by entering competitive territory, though. I don't know if it would be worth it for them.

Re: Why an 'iPod killer' will never kill the iPod

#20

The article headline is correct, but the explanation given in the article is incorrect. Our frame of reference for the successor to the iPod won't be the iPod itself because, like the Walkman, it will be completely different from its predecessor.

Exactly. And I think that's what the article is saying: nobody IS making anything new.

I wonder, though: what else is there to do? After you can fit your entire music library onto an iPod, and navigate it incredibly easy, what's left to add on? Beyond new features, like the iPhone's doing, and - eventually, once there's enough space - lossless audio formats.

Post reply on HN