Apple to introduce flash-based music player?
Apple may be on the verge of introducing low-cost iPods that are based around flash memory rather than hard drives.
According to CBS Marketwatch, analyst firm Thomas Weisel has issued a research note, saying it thinks Apple Computer has plans to launch a flash memory-based MP3 player in time for Christmas and that its checks indicate that a company called SigmaTel will provide the controller chips for the player.
Unlike Apple's hugely popular iPod and iPod Mini players, the purported player would use solid-state flash memory, which will hold fewer tunes but make for a lighter, cheaper player.
The firm estimates a deal with Apple would generate between $2 million and $4 million for SigmaTel in its first full quarter. Earlier today, SigmaTel also announced a supplier pact with Rio, which produces a competitive player to the Apple iPod.
SigmaTel's D-Major portable audio system-on-a-chip (SoC) currently ranks atop the flash-based MP3 player market segment with over nine million units shipped last year. The chipmaker claims battery life in excess of 50 hours with high-speed USB 2.0 capability.
Apple CEO Steve Jobs has stated that he believes the cost of Apple's iPod remains too high for the average consumer. During an exclusive interview at June's Wall Street Journal's
All Things Digital conference, Jobs said Apple was working very hard at reducing the price of the iPod. When asked when to expected a price-drop, Jobs just smiled.
According to CBS Marketwatch, analyst firm Thomas Weisel has issued a research note, saying it thinks Apple Computer has plans to launch a flash memory-based MP3 player in time for Christmas and that its checks indicate that a company called SigmaTel will provide the controller chips for the player.
Unlike Apple's hugely popular iPod and iPod Mini players, the purported player would use solid-state flash memory, which will hold fewer tunes but make for a lighter, cheaper player.
The firm estimates a deal with Apple would generate between $2 million and $4 million for SigmaTel in its first full quarter. Earlier today, SigmaTel also announced a supplier pact with Rio, which produces a competitive player to the Apple iPod.
SigmaTel's D-Major portable audio system-on-a-chip (SoC) currently ranks atop the flash-based MP3 player market segment with over nine million units shipped last year. The chipmaker claims battery life in excess of 50 hours with high-speed USB 2.0 capability.
Apple CEO Steve Jobs has stated that he believes the cost of Apple's iPod remains too high for the average consumer. During an exclusive interview at June's Wall Street Journal's
All Things Digital conference, Jobs said Apple was working very hard at reducing the price of the iPod. When asked when to expected a price-drop, Jobs just smiled.
Comments
But.. can Apple sell one cheap enough? Maybe $199 for 2GB? I suppose if Apple takes lower margins and sells enough to buy parts in massive bulk, then probably so.
I've always thought flash iPods were a matter of time, when cost and capacity made sense. Maybe even with 2x1 GB or 4x512.
Originally posted by nagromme
I'd say 2 GB is the minum to meet Apple's standard of "useful" vs. "throw in a drawer and forget" for most people.
Why does it matter if they make a "throw in a drawer and forget" iPod? A sale is a sale if I use it or keep it stashed in a drawer.
[hijack]This is the same problem Apple has with their computers. They won't enter the low-end market with small HDs, shared VRAM/System RAM, and straight CD ROM drives. Again, selling this type of computer would be a sale for Apple. Once a customer gets Mac-centric hardware and software, plus a taste of the hassle-free, no virus advantages of Mac OS X they would soon be an iMac purchaser or even a PowerMac purchaser.[/hijack]
It would be relatively cheap ($129), very sleek and compact (credit-card sized), with modest packaging, extras, and capcaity. Hey, you get what you pay for.
It'll be interesting to see just how "different" Apple will be willing to think, i.e. how different from their Mac strategies -- now that they're leading in a new market.
Couldn't they replace the HD in the mini with 4G of flash and sell it for $200? Same battery life == cheaper battery, flash cheaper than HD, voila, low cost mini.
Interestingly, this will put pressure on Hitachi and Toshiba to reduce their drive prices to remain competitive with flash memory prices.
Originally posted by kiwi-in-dc
Who says that just because it's flash it has to have lower capacity.
Couldn't they replace the HD in the mini with 4G of flash and sell it for $200? Same battery life == cheaper battery, flash cheaper than HD, voila, low cost mini.
I believe a 4GB flash still is more expensive than a 4GB HD.
Originally posted by fahlman
Why does it matter if they make a "throw in a drawer and forget" iPod? A sale is a sale if I use it or keep it stashed in a drawer.
[hijack]This is the same problem Apple has with their computers. They won't enter the low-end market with small HDs, shared VRAM/System RAM, and straight CD ROM drives. Again, selling this type of computer would be a sale for Apple. Once a customer gets Mac-centric hardware and software, plus a taste of the hassle-free, no virus advantages of Mac OS X they would soon be an iMac purchaser or even a PowerMac purchaser.[/hijack]
With regards to shared VRAM, the new educational iMac has shared VRAM (the cheapy model w/no optical drive). And students/teachers/staff/etc (end users, not just institutions) can get iBooks configured with CD-ROMs for $949 (not eligble for cram-n-jam, of course).
The current flash-based MP3 player market is pretty fragmented, and many of the companies shipping units are pretty much unheard of (comparatively speaking). Apple currently possesses a pretty damn dominant/successful brand image with the iPods, and would likely destroy any competition in the flash-based market if they choose to pursue it.
My only concern with this is that it may cannibalize a portion of iPod sales. For example, I'm going to be in the market for an MP3 player shortly, currently considering the iPod mini, but if Apple launches, say, a 512MB flash-based player, I would be pretty likely to purchase that instead. It all comes down to margins...
Originally posted by fahlman
[B]Why does it matter if they make a "throw in a drawer and forget" iPod? A sale is a sale if I use it or keep it stashed in a drawer.
I use my iPod almost always for less than an hour at a time. I would love to have a 'gym iPod' or a 'I don't care that much if it's stolen iPod' in addition to my current bigger and more expensive iPod. A lot like keeping an old car around that you don't car who bangs up in the parking lot.
Originally posted by fahlman
Why does it matter if they make a "throw in a drawer and forget" iPod? A sale is a sale if I use it or keep it stashed in a drawer.
Because that's one sale. A sale of a "can't live without it" iPod generates more sales and better word-of-mouth, which means more sales.
If the "throw in a drawer" market was profitable, Palm would be rolling in dough right now. Instead, a little while ago they commissioned a study to find out how long their customers used their products (less than a year) and what they could do to get them to keep using them. Otherwise, if you've bought an iPod and thrown it in a drawer, you'll see newer, later iPods (or even Macs) and think "... nah."
That's where iPod is now. Un-freaking-believable.
Brand value, cheap flash-based iPod, sells millions, end of story.
8GB, Eight Gigabytes! From Sandisk, will be available for under $1000 before Christmas. In a year's time CF is going to be even cheaper.
I'd ask for an iPod mini with no memory and an open CF slot. Then you can make any iPod you want! Such an iPod would be remarkably cheap to make. It doesn't need any internal storage, and only minimal internal memory -- no buffer, just enough for the OS and any firmware updates.
Make LOTS of COLORS and FINISHES, alu, plastic, a clear version, logos, designer versions, seasonal, limited editions... They ought to proliferate like swatches...
Price 99-199 depending on the edition/collectability.
Originally posted by Matsu
CF prices are dropping incredibly fast.
8GB, Eight Gigabytes! From Sandisk, will be available for under $1000 before Christmas. In a year's time CF is going to be even cheaper.
I'd ask for an iPod mini with no memory and an open CF slot. Then you can make any iPod you want! Such an iPod would be remarkably cheap to make. It doesn't need any internal storage, and only minimal internal memory -- no buffer, just enough for the OS and any firmware updates.
Make LOTS of COLORS and FINISHES, alu, plastic, a clear version, logos, designer versions, seasonal, limited editions... They ought to proliferate like swatches...
Price 99-199 depending on the edition/collectability.
I'm with you Matsu, and I'd use CF cards as well. They have higher volumes, and have been around a long time.
The idea isn't an original one though. Sony Ericsson has a Bluetooth Handsfree Music Player that connects to some of their phones. It uses Sony's Memory Stick technology, as does Sony Ericsson's S700i and S710a (soon to be released) phones, that have an MP3 player S/W. Sorry if I sound all enthused, but I've been "eye'n" the S710A for a bit and like the concepts involved in it (it's just a little big though).
I think Apple would have the best chance at success in the flash based music player arena using the removable media concept. Hopefully they'll use CF cards.
Originally posted by Stoo
It doesn't look like shared VRAM (NVIDIA GeForce4 MX w/32MB video memory). AFAIK, no recent Mac has used shared VRAM.
According to MacCentral:
"But it also includes a significantly lower-powered video card (the Nvidia GeForce4 MX with 32MB of virtual RAM, as opposed to the Nvidia GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB)"
http://www.macworld.com/news/2004/09...macs/index.php
Originally posted by Uberspleef
According to MacCentral:
"But it also includes a significantly lower-powered video card (the Nvidia GeForce4 MX with 32MB of virtual RAM, as opposed to the Nvidia GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB)"
http://www.macworld.com/news/2004/09...macs/index.php
And Ive got a bridge to sell you.
Just 'cos some moron expands VRAM to virtual RAM doesnt mean anything. Ill take Apples use of standard industry acronyms at face value ( vram => video ram ) any day.