Quote:
Originally Posted by
lamewing 
1. The Sony X1050/X1060 was a fantastic player compared to the iPod as well, but didn't sell well in the U.S. Sales in the U.S. alone doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the device, but instead the PERCEPTION of the device. People only thought "iPod iPod iPod" just like they used to only think "Walkman Walkman Walkman"
It seems to have become popular to believe that marketing is the primary force behind Apple's products.* Apple does have a strong marketing element. Their products are aesthetically pleasing and they advertise brilliantly. But this is only a small part of what led to the iPod's success. For example, it doesn't matter how much Microsoft marketed the Zune, or how high quality the Zune was in terms of hardware. It would not have defeated the iPod because that alone does not address user interface, media management, and ecosystem. It does the iPod (and this issue) an injustice to reduce it so.
*Most of the marketing behind Apple's products is word-of-mouth, and that has been bought through consistently releasing high quality products which people enjoy using. At Apple's level of sales, attributing this to 'brainwashing', or whatever people like to say, is naïve, if not delusional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lamewing 
2. The Sony and Zune sounded better do to the internals being of better quality. The DAC in the Zune and Sony were simply better. Just like the DAC in the ORIGINAL iPod Shuffle outperform ANY of the subsequent iPod DACs.
I do not have first-hand experience with the Sony product you've described, but I have used a few generations of Zunes under various circumstances and I've used them with the same high-quality headphones I have used with my iPhones and other Apple devices. Whatever quality difference you describe is not one which has identified itself to me in a particularly meaningful way. Forgive me for taking these things with a grain of salt, by the way. Audiophiles take things too far and it can be difficult to differentiate between legitimate concerns and silly differences (e.g. lossless vs. 256 AAC).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lamewing 
3. The Zune hardware was able to compete with the iPod, both HDD and flash, but ONLY as players. The iTunes ecosystem was too much of a match for the Zune ecosystem. The Zune had features that Apple supporters panned...such as wireless syncing. Funny how now Apple is adding it to their devices.

I guess a feature is only good if Apple uses it. :P
By 'too much of a match' are you suggesting that the Zune ecosystem was comparable in some way to the iPhone ecosystem? That would be a lie, but I think I may have misunderstood you. Wireless Syncing would be a nice feature to add and I'm honestly not sure why something like that hasn't already been added to Apple devices (probably because they want to make sure it is integrated carefully and smoothly), but truth of the matter is that features such as this aren't game changers or the sort of thing that will sway consumers in meaningful numbers. And on that note, having a feature is not so important as having an elegantly implemented feature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lamewing 
4. There will ALWAYS be people who want high capacity music players. The idea that "the Cloud" is the ultimate solution is a silly thought. It is very convenient, but I don't want to rely on it 100% of the time. I have had MANY occasions to curse Apple's new Apple TV when either Netflix stopped working (often...but only on the Apple TV...PCs, phones and Xbbox worked fine) and even when the streaming of Movies and TV from Apple would drop out. Some of us want to have all of our music with us locally and not reliant on a wireless data collection. Not everybody, but enough of us to continue selling the Classic.
Absolutely. But the problem you may or may not have considered is that people who want this level of control, and understand it well enough to care it in the first place, are in minority. You're a drop in the market for these devices. Eventually as flash capacity and pricing allows for more storage, the old iPod Classic will well and truly die, and it will happen as companies decide that the old device has become obsolete (relative to sales and features of current devices). Apple will probably lead the pack on this one and leave the dwindling market to niche devices—if anything they're usually ahead of the curve.
This sort of thing can be done too early, though. For example, I have a very large amount of music myself, but I've been able to make it work comfortably on, say, a 32 GB device (with plenty of other data) using the likes of ratings and smart playlists. You only need so much music with you to enjoy it. I don't really care about the iPod Classic anymore because it serves no real purpose for me (and I'm definitely in the top tiers of digital music users as far as consumers go). On the flip-side, I [sympathize] regarding the Apple TV. I have a classic Apple TV and a new Apple TV and I would like very much to combine various features from the two—especially storage. I don't want to have a dedicated media server running in my home to stream video. It is a pain to sync and use the classic Apple TV too, though, so there's much left to be desired all around when it comes to this device category. I think you're being overly negative about streaming, though. When done well it works nicely, and iCloud, at least as far as music is concerned,
sounds like it will work great, as it is a) optional, and b) you can still store whatever media you wish locally. It adds and takes nothing away.