Forums | MacLife

Idiot commentary from idiot commentators. Someday the iPod will no longer be the most popular personal music player and this guy will point to this column and say, "See, I was right!" and ignore that he was factually wrong on many points.

it was an interesting article, I'll give him that.  He did make some interesting points about how technology grows up but his concept of the technology ecosystem, while interesting, has some problems here.  for one, he assumes that all innovation is welcome.  just because yahoo CAN offer unlimited music rentals for $60, who says that that is a better model than the 99

I will die someday, somehow, somewhere. It is the obvious thing, now stop trying to be a sage, and let it go.

Why are other players given credit for being able to play .wma files but not .aac, yet Apple gets raked for playing .aac and not .wma? That seems to be a double standard to me. I guess i should file that under Redmond's 'reality distortion field', aka the Microsoft solution is always the best solution.

As for the iPod being stale after four years, one can see the evolution of the product line by looking at the original and iPod Photo. An iPod 'Video' seems to be the next logical step.

Oh, and for that whole ecosystem bit... The previously mentioned third-party products fit well in to the iPod ecosystem. So do Podcasts. They are emerging as another avenue to disseminate information. Podcasts, especially since their introduction into iTunes 4.9, have changed the way i use my iPod and the way that i gather information. My iPod is less of an entertainment device and more of a conduit with the outside world. Less of a toy and more of a tool i guess i should say. Anyway...

The iPod, like most Apple products, is decidedly "closed." Your Yahoo music subscription won't work with your iPod because Apple does not support Microsoft's WMA file format. (Too bad, because Yahoo's $60-a-year Music Unlimited is terrific. Just try approximating its "give me like artists" feature on iTunes.)

An ecosystem beats a product because its collective of competitors can explore and invest in many more ideas than any single company can muster. For example, RCA might link a portable music device to satellite radio. If it fails, RCA bears the cost. If it succeeds, others will copy it. Simultaneously, Sony may push the option of adding more memory to its flash memory players. The bet may or may not pay off. But in either case, Apple on its own cannot match this capacity of the group to experiment.

"Ask yourself: How can we make it easier for others to add innovations that will make our product more valuable?"

These "points" are hilarious.

Last edited by Mr~Mac (2005-07-25 2:34 pm)

Ehh, we'll see, if Apple market share starts slipping, they'd probably quickly start selling satellite iPods and offing iTunes subscriptions. But they're not doing that now, and Apple's market share seems to be increasing.

Moreover, what about the iTunes phone? It combines a phone, an MP3 player, a still camera, and a crappy video camera.

One big thing that has the chance of killing the iPod is if a music store came out that was awesome, was WMA playback compatible, and had a really cool device that goes with it. If it has a good interface like the iPod, it will start to get good press, and the commentators will not how it works with more music stores than the iPod, and it would then be easier to spin the iPod in a negative way for consumers.

I don't think the iPod is in immediate danger of dying out, esp. considering the recently all-color line up, but I don't think it's self-sustaining either, and it won't be able to power Apple for ever (I would guess that without some major new feature to keep it on top, the iPod has maybe 5 more years of carrying Apple). Apple could easily change a lot in that time too though, with the witch to Intel being a big factor in it all.

Notice how he fails to mention the enormous user base that the ipod has gained since the advent of the 3rd generation.  Steve Jobs created almost an ideal razor/razorblade scenario.  Eventually users will feel compelled to get a new mp3 player for one reason or another (storage issues, ipod breaks...) 
     When that time comes, the ipod users that do shop at the itunes store (500,000,000 songs sold!) will need another ipod in order to play AAC files.  That is, unless some other company releases a device that can play them, which will not happen any time soon, because the existing companies are trying to imitate apple's marketing by using their own proprietary formats (sony anyone?) 
     Regardless of that ever happening, the ipod has the interface that is EASIEST TO USE.  The only other decent competitors for the ipod have cryptic menus and such.  Those mostly appeal to those avoiding the most popular product, which is unfortunate, because in this case there is no better alternative.  It does make more sense to me to get something that even a chimp could use as opposed to settling for something less to avoid a fad (and trying to pretend it is superior!)
     As long as apple continues to hold on to their user base with itunes, no other company will be anle to touch them.  Hoping that they can pull the same marketing theory in the movie side of things, perhaps by combining the two (movie ipod?) the ipod will not be in any danger for some time.

Last edited by Tvan (2005-07-25 4:39 pm)

analogy: these folks remind me of the kids in high school who didn't get invited to the "cool party", showed up late (and uninvited), and when no one talked to them started raising a stink about how much the party sucks.  then they went to one of their houses and proceeded to evangelize how much everyone at the part sucked.  and through their vast underground of similarly uncool people .... they hatch a slur campaign to avenge their not getting invited to the "Cool Party".  but the joke is .... since no one likes these kids (because all they do is bitch and moan), they go largely ignored.  or completely ignored.  its been a long time since high school.  and i'm not sure that was technically an analogy either.  that may have been an example.  but ...

dude.. what high school did you go to and in what generation?

The term "economic ecosystem" is not correct at all, in fact, it's just plain wrong. An ecosystem and an economic system are two completely different things, even if the writer was trying to come up with his own metaphor, it still just does not make since. The alliteration alone...just kills me. An economic ecosystem? My English teacher must be turning over in her grave.

some may want to read ...

http://www.macaddict.com/forums/topic/66363

you know ... a couple of years ago , apple was posting huge profits  and beating expectations and STILL somehow their stock price was relatively unaffected.  it wasn't until the iPod became the new must have item that people started to think that apple was really in the game.  Wall Street didn't understand Apple.  Investors didn't understand Apple.  All they knew was that Apple had 3% of "the market" or whatever.  what they didn't realize was that Apple was / is redefining the market by moving away from "checking email/surfing the web" computer use to "making movies/digital photography/music creation/surfing the web SECURELY/checking email SECURELY/etc."  the people who "don't get things" are stuck in the box.  they like the box cause that's all they know.

b

The consultant who wrote that story has to be an idiot.

The whole concept is ludicrous from the beginning. The collective has had the same opportunities as Apple over the same time. Apple vs. Everybody Else started on a level playing field.

In the beginning, there were only illegal downloads and a few third-party mp3 players. Apple brought legal downloads via the iTunes music store. Apple presented the iPod. In a nationally syndicated crossword today, there was a clue: "digital jukebox." The answer: "iPod."

The collective brought the shotgun approach and dozens of players and stores. The collective includes some of the biggest names in the world of music, entertainment, ones and zeroes: Microsoft, Yahoo, Sony to name a few.

The collective's superior innovation can be measured in the market right now. By the time the collective gets it, Apple will be off to the next superior innovation.

At the very end of the article, he says one company cannot out-innovate the market. Interesting observation, considering Apple has done precisely that. If virtually owning the market for digital music, and having the product that is the crossword puzzle answer for "digital jukebox" isn't out innovating the market, what is?

Apple owns the digital music market. Apple has kicked the collective's ass up and down the level playing field for several years while the collective still hasn't made a real dent in Apple's preeminence.

These are good days to be an Apple stockholder.

This FUD is getting old. Even if Apple seriously drops the ball and its competitors get their act together, it's still going to be the dominant player in the digital music market for years to come. You don't go from 80% to "doomed" in a short time.