or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Creative introduces iPod video knockoff
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Creative introduces iPod video knockoff - Page 2

post #41 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by CREB
It is interesting to see the Apple zealots...Apple now and forever! I was once there (I've owned a Mac since 1984), but the realities of the marketplace supersede all. People act if Jobs has never made a condescending statement about another competitor or product.

Here's my prediction: Apple will lose the vast market-share of the digital content delivery as others infiltrate and reduce the costs. Internationally, Apple is up against players who are not that interested in playing by the game rules and hence have an advantage. For some reason people think music is only made in America. There is unequivocally no question that Apple's approach to design, and product execution is among the finest in the world and hence I support them through purchasing many of their products, but there is a very small percentage of the world populace who thinks this way. Most buyers are enamored with the iPod and what it has come to mean, but its meaning can be enjoyed though other brands as well. The iPod is very popular now, but...

You know...we're going on 5 years with these predications. Apple's share just keeps increasing.
post #42 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by sjk
Was it really necessary to quote the entire article just to say that?

uhh... yes.

haha i just thought it was funny that way... but seriously i really think creative is a sleezy company. they are one of those companies that will claim a 5GB player can fit 10,000 songs (fine print: at 32 bitrate) and can go 20 hours (fine print: in ideal situations, like sleep mode) and will also insult the ipod at shows claiming the click wheel "leads you around in circles" and then turn around and copy it and try to sue apple for stealing their technology. They are scumbags.

They are on the list with Real, Gator, Mcafee etc...

to CREATIVE: youve lost the mp3 "war", go back to making sound cards and shut the hell up (btw im now boycotting their cards). Your players are heavy, expensive, akward and have crappy software, and no ones gonna buy a more expensive than the original knock-off. You cant be "creative" and "invent" (pun intended) so cut your loses and get out of the market.
post #43 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by CREB
It is interesting to see the Apple zealots...Apple now and forever! I was once there (I've owned a Mac since 1984), but the realities of the marketplace supersede all. People act if Jobs has never made a condescending statement about another competitor or product.

Here's my prediction: Apple will lose the vast market-share of the digital content delivery as others infiltrate and reduce the costs. Internationally, Apple is up against players who are not that interested in playing by the game rules and hence have an advantage. For some reason people think music is only made in America. There is unequivocally no question that Apple's approach to design, and product execution is among the finest in the world and hence I support them through purchasing many of their products, but there is a very small percentage of the world populace who thinks this way. Most buyers are enamored with the iPod and what it has come to mean, but its meaning can be enjoyed though other brands as well. The iPod is very popular now, but...

I tend to agree with your statement here, and someone could make a cheaper player. However I doubt it since they would have to compete in the same market place as Apple does for all the piece parts and maunufacturing.

Considering we already know that apple has tide up capacity and everyone complaining they are not getting the same deal there is no way they can compete by making a cheaper product. Apples margins on the player are already in the 20% range and to go below that means you are losing money. And base on having 70% of the market Apples buying power is so great no is able to get the same deal.

Now a company like M$ could make one sell it below cost like they do on their XBOX and make up the lose with other businesses or services. I doubt very much of creative is in this position. Plus if they do then Apple can sue them for dumping on the market since they could prove easily they are selling below costs.

The other big missing piece and why Apple is successful, They control the entire product experience. The make the hardware, they make the software, and the control the portal in which you get the content. As we all know if any of those 3 are not working well people will not buy.

Creative only controls the hardware, at any time M$ can change something that makes their product not work right. Then there is the content providers, at any time they can change thier selection of DMR and things will not work right.

Apple has alway been about the entire experience and with that they have been successful, even if their price is a bit higher then competing products. Think about it, there were MP3 players before Apple that cost less and Apple blew them out of the water.

Apple has proven people are willing to pay more for the whole experience. There is alway be someone on your door step willing to take your lunch if you let them and in this case it will take some providing all 3 in a seamless way.
post #44 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleInsider
At the launch of the Zen Vision:M, Hoo reportedly told the BBC he plans to "aggressively" pursue a US patent that Creative owns on a system used to navigate music on digital players.

The report follows speculation that the company would seek royalties from Apple after it said it had won a patent in the US for "the way music tracks are organized and navigated on a player through a hierarchical system using three or more screens."

I gotta ask - isn't our iPod navigation identical to "column view" on the mac finder screen? Is the only difference that it's on a music device and accesses music files?
post #45 of 100
Short of industrial espionage, I don't understand how Creative can release a knock-off of a competing product in only six weeks. It may be possible that they were trying to outdo the iPod at its own game but got beat to the market.

I hope that Creative's patent is axed, my understanding is that there is nothing legally patentable about heirarchical organization of menus in anything, portable device or not. I think the USPTO is possibly flouting US law by approving that patent, if not the letter of the law, then at least the spirit. The patent has to be a non-obvious and novel solution to a problem and without prior art, and that doesn't satisfy any of those requirements.
post #46 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
The patent has to be a non-obvious and novel solution to a problem and without prior art, and that doesn't satisfy any of those requirements.

Then again, amazon got "single click purchasing" patented. Everyone else has to confirm first (apple licensed it from amazon!). Rather obvious?
post #47 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by WhiteRabbit
You'd have to go and download each episode separately or with a separated application as WMP does not do that. [/B]

Big deal, I don't think it's necessary for a single program to do everything. iTunes and iPod still need work with regard to podcasts.

I used a separate app to handle podcasts until iTunes 5. I didn't like how iTunes 4.9 enforced the boundaries, podcasts couldn't be included in smart playlists. I think the Podcasts category is kind of a pain to navigate and manage, I prefer Juice's system of showing individual recordings within a subscription rather than the triangle drop-down, which gets messy or annoying. I don't like how the iPod completely stops playing once a particular podcast is done, so the user has to fuss with the menu to find the next one. Heck, the 4G mono iPods won't always wake up properly when it has been paused in the middle of a podcast, Inside Mac Radio's Saturday shows, among other shows, consistently had this problem.

I think iPodder (now Juice) probably co-exists well with just about any music management program.
post #48 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by Maestro64
Now a company like M$ could make one sell it below cost like they do on their XBOX and make up the lose with other businesses or services. I doubt very much of creative is in this position. Plus if they do then Apple can sue them for dumping on the market since they could prove easily they are selling below costs.

The other point here with MS is that MS is going to make $ somewhere. Now with XBox it is with games/game-licensing. So losing $ on the box to get a gagillion games sold is the play.

With online music market it appears a little different. MS wants to make $ on license-fees for every MP3 player sold that uses their software. So, if they start making one and selling it at a loss, no $ made...just losing $. If they want a tithe for every song sold, the story is the same. They cannot sell below cost and make $.

Apple has triangulated this whole thing fairly well.

So what do we have?

1. Online music stores:
a. Cannot make a profit on the music (except with subscriptions, which the music companies haven't yet authorized and could shut down at any time) because of the market price Apple set ($0.99/song).
b. Music selection is basically the same as Apple's so no way to effectively differentiate offerings.
c. Always a risk that (on subscriptions) Apple could just "turn on the subscription switch" and then "game over".
d. As Apple sells more songs, their opportunity to get better pricing from the music companies increases ("volume discounts") further enabling Apple to make profit on the music sold or sell at a lower cost squeezing competitors even further.
e. Doomed.

2. Hardware vendors:
a. Because of Apple's dominant position, unable to get the best prices (or even get the supply!) on component parts...must settle for lower profit margins than Apple or higher prices...always living in fear that Apple could just lower its margins and squeeze you.
b. Doesn't work with the dominant music store/format.
c. Not providing any features that Apple, if it found they were in demand, couldn't add in a heartbeat.
d. Doomed but perhaps less so than #1.

Finally, Fairplay licensing...Apple hasn't played this card yet (Motorola test-case excepted)...mostly I suspect because they don't need to. But they do have it to play and I think they will eventually. But it will play out like this...as Apple begins to get pressure on per unit profit margins on their iPods, they'll watch as those margins approach what they could make on a per unit basis for Fairplay licensing to hardware vendors, and possibly slowly open the door to it. Maybe Sony first. Only 3-4 to begin. Once it begins to happen then Apple will be making $ on every digital music player sold whether they make/sell it or not.
post #49 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
The difference being that the iPod is an extremely good product whereas US cars were terrible and mostly still are terrible compared to Japanese and European cars. Apple isn't the US car industry.

I don't think your analogy holds water.

The absolute worst cars were made by the English. A friend of mine paid somebody to steal his English built Ford, it was that bad.
post #50 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by CREB
It is interesting to see the Apple zealots...Apple now and forever! I was once there (I've owned a Mac since 1984), but the realities of the marketplace supersede all. People act if Jobs has never made a condescending statement about another competitor or product.

I'm trying to think of any direct statements about a competitor actually, other than the light hearted ribbing Longhorn got a year or so ago. But that's low hanging fruit really.

He'll knock a generic category of product (eg. flash mp3 players) or mention 'the other guys' when doing a comparison between the Apple way and competitors but I can't think of any statement where he's said Microsoft sucks or Creative are nob-heads.

Certainly nothing as shameful as Real or Creative's CEO.

Quote:
Originally posted by CREB
Here's my prediction: Apple will lose the vast market-share of the digital content delivery as others infiltrate and reduce the costs. Internationally, Apple is up against players who are not that interested in playing by the game rules and hence have an advantage.

I'm not so sure. Unless something comes along to dethrone the iPod from it's 80% share then every content provider that has any sense will want to get their content available to that market.

I think Apple are only at the beginning of a strategy here. For the last few years they've been working at getting Quicktime ready for backend work. They've moved to open standards based codecs that the media industry want to use, as opposed to the computer industries Windows media dominated closed codecs. They've made inroads into the phone industry which is almost entirely h.264 based. They've been building on their media creation business.

However, at the moment, with the iPod they have mass appeal and mass manufacturing. Creative's CEO was complaining a while back that they can't compete with Apple at buying Flash RAM in bulk. Apple, because of the size of it's order, will always be able to beat others on price. Whether it chooses to, or build something of quality is up to them.


Quote:
Originally posted by CREB
For some reason people think music is only made in America.

Huh? That doesn't make sense. Do you mean 'some people', 'all people' or perhaps some or all people in America? Either way you know it's nonsense.

Quote:
Originally posted by CREB
There is unequivocally no question that Apple's approach to design, and product execution is among the finest in the world and hence I support them through purchasing many of their products, but there is a very small percentage of the world populace who thinks this way. Most buyers are enamored with the iPod and what it has come to mean, but its meaning can be enjoyed though other brands as well. The iPod is very popular now, but...

I'd say the figures so far say the opposite. Sony might get there as they seem to be advertising like hell just now but so far they seem to be doing well at shooting themselves in the foot with bad software and bad DRM. Creative? No chance. They don't have the media industry backing or the money to get it.
post #51 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by GregAlexander
I gotta ask - isn't our iPod navigation identical to "column view" on the mac finder screen? Is the only difference that it's on a music device and accesses music files?

Yep. It's one of those reasons why the US Patent system is plainly stupid. There are other examples of navigating a heirarchy of folders and files that predate even column view. PCTools and XTree on the PC from about 1987 spring immediately to mind.
post #52 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
Short of industrial espionage, I don't understand how Creative can release a knock-off of a competing product in only six weeks. It may be possible that they were trying to outdo the iPod at its own game but got beat to the market.

There's nothing complex about either the iPod or the Zen. They both use off the shelf chips, screens and drives. All that needs doing then is the software and the packaging (ie. the casing not the box it comes in)

Apple's colour interface hasn't changed since the iPod Photo so they've had plenty of time to rip that off.

Apart from that, it seems a logical step from the old Zen to this. ie. Add Video.
post #53 of 100
I have to admit the damn thing looks pretty nice. Makes me wish the entire apple music product like came more than 2 colours.

Are they allowed however to have an interface that looks EXACTLY like the ipod's? And I don't mean menu style because Creative for some reason thinks they invented the column and the list but I mean the screen colour and the font. I'm looking at the it's photo interface on it's website and it looks exactly like an ipod. Isn't that infringing on likeness?

On a side note I'd like for an ipod to have fm radio and a built in mic for a long time, I'm not a fan of ad-on's.

Random question: I don't have a video ipo yet. Can any video file and I mean any (including the type used for bit torrented tv shows) be turned into the video format the ipod takes? Because I'd love to take Arrested Development season 3 anywhere with me until the dvd's come out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #54 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by Psychic Shopper
The absolute worst cars were made by the English. A friend of mine paid somebody to steal his English built Ford, it was that bad.

And Ford are.... ;-)

Ford and GM were building sh1t cars here for quite some time too before Japanese cars got so much better. Then again, Austin Rover weren't exactly brilliant either.

I have to chuckle though when Apple get compared to BMW as a brand. Here in the UK, BMW outsells Ford in the same middle of the road sales rep mobiles. Common as muck. The Ford arguably is the better car too even though both are interminably dull. Apart from that BMW's have a reputation of being driven by inconsiderate idiots.
post #55 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by ecking
On a side note I'd like for an ipod to have fm radio and a built in mic for a long time, I'm not a fan of ad-on's.

Random question: I don't have a video ipo yet. Can any video file and I mean any (including the type used for bit torrented tv shows) be turned into the video format the ipod takes? Because I'd love to take Arrested Development season 3 anywhere with me until the dvd's come out.

The iPod, since about the 3rd Gen has had built in voice recording using the headphones as a Mic. In the Video Ipod, they removed the restriction limiting the recording to 8Khz or whatever it was - low anyway.

If you want decent recordings though you need an addon from Griffin or Belkin and some good mics.

There are loads of free tools to convert most video formats to ipod format. Things like ffmpex and handbrake have specific settings to output iPod compatible video. You can even rip a DVD straight to ipod format.
post #56 of 100
How do I use that voice recording feature?
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #57 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by ecking
How do I use that voice recording feature?

It's not for the faint of heart...

http://ipodlinux.org/
post #58 of 100
lol thanks. Once I get an ipod other than my shuffle I will understake this daunting task!
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #59 of 100
Why do no other players support AAC?

Most of my library is encoded in AAC, and nothing out there is cool enough to make me go to the effort of re-encoding my music (from original source - AAC to MP3 is hardly ideal)
post #60 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by starwxrwx
Why do no other players support AAC?

Most of my library is encoded in AAC, and nothing out there is cool enough to make me go to the effort of re-encoding my music (from original source - AAC to MP3 is hardly ideal)

Many do, it's just creative that don't support it as far as I know. Even my Nokia and Sony Ericsson cell phone support AAC files (and play them really well). Unfortunately my Nokia phone has to be used with special Nokia earphones, which sucks as they aren't great quality.
post #61 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by GregAlexander
Then again, amazon got "single click purchasing" patented. Everyone else has to confirm first (apple licensed it from amazon!). Rather obvious?

My brother works at the US Patent Office as an examiner (focusing mostly on computer hardware...specific to memory and related products). I'll ask him what he thinks of the whole thing.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #62 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The other point here with MS is that MS is going to make $ somewhere. Now with XBox it is with games/game-licensing. So losing $ on the box to get a gagillion games sold is the play.

With online music market it appears a little different. MS wants to make $ on license-fees for every MP3 player sold that uses their software. So, if they start making one and selling it at a loss, no $ made...just losing $. If they want a tithe for every song sold, the story is the same. They cannot sell below cost and make $.

Apple has triangulated this whole thing fairly well.

So what do we have?

1. Online music stores:
a. Cannot make a profit on the music (except with subscriptions, which the music companies haven't yet authorized and could shut down at any time) because of the market price Apple set ($0.99/song).
b. Music selection is basically the same as Apple's so no way to effectively differentiate offerings.
c. Always a risk that (on subscriptions) Apple could just "turn on the subscription switch" and then "game over".
d. As Apple sells more songs, their opportunity to get better pricing from the music companies increases ("volume discounts") further enabling Apple to make profit on the music sold or sell at a lower cost squeezing competitors even further.
e. Doomed.

2. Hardware vendors:
a. Because of Apple's dominant position, unable to get the best prices (or even get the supply!) on component parts...must settle for lower profit margins than Apple or higher prices...always living in fear that Apple could just lower its margins and squeeze you.
b. Doesn't work with the dominant music store/format.
c. Not providing any features that Apple, if it found they were in demand, couldn't add in a heartbeat.
d. Doomed but perhaps less so than #1.

Finally, Fairplay licensing...Apple hasn't played this card yet (Motorola test-case excepted)...mostly I suspect because they don't need to. But they do have it to play and I think they will eventually. But it will play out like this...as Apple begins to get pressure on per unit profit margins on their iPods, they'll watch as those margins approach what they could make on a per unit basis for Fairplay licensing to hardware vendors, and possibly slowly open the door to it. Maybe Sony first. Only 3-4 to begin. Once it begins to happen then Apple will be making $ on every digital music player sold whether they make/sell it or not.


I agree with your thinking. While it's impossible to predict how long Apple's dominance will last, I think they're in a very good position.

However, it is interesting to take notice of the parallels between Apple now and the Apple of the mid eighties. Apple was dominating the PC market then too, and refusing to open up their system or liscense the Mac OS. I cannot believe that Jobs would not see this, which is why I have to agree with your comments on Apple's plan to pretty much own the entire digital music market.

As of now, no Mp3 player can match Apple's in terms of desirability. Others can talk about specs and features but people don't care because they want the total iPod experience. iPod has now become a household name. Ask a kid or even an adult what they want for Christmas, and if they mention anything MP3 player related...they're going to say "I want an iPod." They're not going to ask for a "video-capable MP3 player".

Those predicting Apple's loss of marketshare might have a point...eventually. But, it won't happen until the market is saturated. Right now, Apple is on track to sell at least 25 million iPods per year. PER YEAR! It could get to the point where iPod becomes as ubiquitous as "Coke"...or in other words it would become so much of a household name that it wouldn't matter what brand an iPod like device was...it would still be called an iPod.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #63 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
However, it is interesting to take notice of the parallels between Apple now and the Apple of the mid eighties. Apple was dominating the PC market then too, and refusing to open up their system or liscense the Mac OS.

Many people like to make this comparison, but it is a faulty one.

In the mid-eighties Apple was not dominating the PC market at all. In fact quite the opposite. The Apple II was on the decline, the Apple III never amounted to much, nor did Lisa. Macintosh was the last great hope. While it was technologically superior in some ways (at least from a user-interface perspective), it was considered under-powered and over-priced, and thought to be a "toy" by many business people ("only kids play with mice"...funny huh?) and did not sell very well as a result.

The bottom line is that Apple never had anywhere near the market share with the Macintosh (or Apple II) as they currently do with iPod. Apple's peak market share for the Macintosh was 12% in 1992. Even the Apple II market share never got above 16%.

Finally, the markets (personal computers vs. consumer electronics) are totally different beasts. One is far more business-oriented, the other consumer-oriented. One plays very well to Apple's strengths...the other played well to IBM's (and now Microsoft's) strengths.
post #64 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by Denmaru
Hmm.. Looking at my 3rd Gen iPod, I´m quite tempted. And *gasp*, the Design looks pretts good, too.
If it plays Xvid, then the better - I´d love to watch my Anime on the go :3


I watch anime on my 5G iPod. On some fansubs the subtitles can be a little small, but the screen is so sharp they're rarely hard to read.

Every now and again I just batch up a load of xVids in Videora, then import them into iTunes and onto the iPod the next morning.

Works great, and looks great on the little iPod screen.
post #65 of 100
btw, of relevance to this thread today...

DivX v6 for Mac announced. Supports Quicktime7. That should make transcoding easier.

http://www.divx.com/divx/mac/
post #66 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by stustanley
ok, thiought id line up the specs of the Zen Vision M and the 30gb iPod side by side.

1. Capacity
Zen: 30gb
iPod: 30gb

2. Physical Size
Zen: 104 x 62 x 18.6 mm
iPod: 104 x 61 x 11 mm

3. Weight
Zen: 163g
iPod: 136g

4. Screen
Zen: 2.5" LCD, 320 x 240
iPod: 2.5" LCD, 320 x 240

5. Battery Life
Zen: up to 14 hours (MP3, 128kbps, 4mins/song)
up to 8 hours (WMA, 64kbps, 4mins/song)
up to 14 hours (FM radio)
up to 4 hours (Video, MPEG 4, 500kbps)
iPod: up to 14 hours (AAC, 128kbps, 4mins/song)
up to 2 hours (Video, h.264 750kbps with 128kbps audio)

6. Supported audio formats:
Zen: MP3, WMA, WAV
iPod: AAC, MP3, AIFF, WAV, Apple Lossless

7. Supported Video Formats:
Zen: DivX 4 & 5, XviD5, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG4-SP, WMV9, Motion-JPEG (May not play all Divx 4 & 5 files)
iPod: H.264, MPEG4

8. Additional Features
Zen: FM Radio, Built in microphone, contacts, calendar
iPod: contacts, calendar, world clock, screen lock, games

ok, think i got everything, anything else let us know!!

stu

They have nothing to compete with the scroll wheel, or the iTunes/iPod combo. Their controller has been knocked many times already.

This is interesting:

http://www.forbes.com/2005/12/09/ipo..._1209ipod.html
post #67 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by rdas7
hThe build quality on these things is horrible and they're priced the same as a real iPod. Why not just get an iPod?


oh please, and it isn't on the iPod? Everyone I know, me included, who has an ipod has had some trouble with at some point along the way (you seem to also be forgetting 2 class action suits specifically complaining about poor build quality for the ipod? How many class action suits have been brought against creative?). Im not against Ipod, I own one and love it, but lets be honest, assuming these specs live up to what they claim, Creative has a better product out there on the market. It doesn't have the syncability that Apple does but then again its not up against the mac market, its mainly for windows users who dont give a rats a*s about iTunes and are willing to take on other syncability options.


Stop blindly sticking up for a company with equal amounts of faults as the next guy. And to answer your question, you can't go just by price, they are the same price but Creative offers more with their product then iPod does (or at least more to certain people who deem it to be more).


However, I really must say they REALLY lost the mark by coming in sooo late in the christmas season. Im aware SIngapore is not a christian country, but don't they have any advisors? Doesn't this Hoo guy know that this product should have been delivered to store shelves a month ago at least?
post #68 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by reykjavik
oh please, and it isn't on the iPod? Everyone I know, me included, who has an ipod has had some trouble with at some point along the way (you seem to also be forgetting 2 class action suits specifically complaining about poor build quality for the ipod? How many class action suits have been brought against creative?). Im not against Ipod, I own one and love it, but lets be honest, assuming these specs live up to what they claim, Creative has a better product out there on the market. It doesn't have the syncability that Apple does but then again its not up against the mac market, its mainly for windows users who dont give a rats a*s about iTunes and are willing to take on other syncability options.


Stop blindly sticking up for a company with equal amounts of faults as the next guy. And to answer your question, you can't go just by price, they are the same price but Creative offers more with their product then iPod does (or at least more to certain people who deem it to be more).

You aren't totally correct either.

Apple has had no suits about "build quality". They have had a suit about battery life, which they are appealing, and should never have lost.

They have a suit about scratches, which may or may not be viable.

They may, in the past, have had some other minor suit that I don't remember, but not about Build quality.

Besides, the Creative does copy slavishly from Apple's desighn. That's obvious to everyone, and was no doubt intended.

they are also priced $30 higher than Apple's product.

But they still don't have a scrollwheel, which has been lauded as being, by far, the best navigation method of any device. Creative's has been less than sucessful with theirs, according to the reviews.

As to the "extras". Who really cares about them except for a very small minority? If Creative picks up a couple percent of the market because of them, great. But it doesn't pay for Apple to bother.

The big problen I've been reading about now is the lack of product. Apparently, this lack is increasing demand for other manufacturers players.

So, ironically, Creative might enjoy some sales simply because Apple can't make enough.
post #69 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
You aren't totally correct either.

Apple has had no suits about "build quality". They have had a suit about battery life, which they are appealing, and should never have lost.

They have a suit about scratches, which may or may not be viable.

But they still don't have a scrollwheel, which has been lauded as being, by far, the best navigation method of any device. Creative's has been less than sucessful with theirs, according to the reviews.

ehh, call it what you will, a product that doesn't work exactly as claimed (and exessive scratches to me is the same thing) is poor quality. I dont care what the technical definition of "build quality" is but as an end consumer all I know is that Apple "built" it and it had problems.

Anyway, who cares....

As for the scroll wheel, you should visit their site, they have a cool approach to the scroll wheel which I must say looks kind of cool. I think it entails a bit more finger usage, which may or may not be irritating (Ive never used one) but the approach looks nice.
post #70 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by reykjavik
ehh, call it what you will, a product that doesn't work exactly as claimed (and exessive scratches to me is the same thing) is poor quality. I dont care what the technical definition of "build quality" is but as an end consumer all I know is that Apple "built" it and it had problems.

Anyway, who cares....

As for the scroll wheel, you should visit their site, they have a cool approach to the scroll wheel which I must say looks kind of cool. I think it entails a bit more finger usage, which may or may not be irritating (Ive never used one) but the approach looks nice.

You may make up your own definition, and that's fine for you, but built quality means more than scratches. If you read the ARs test on the Nano, you'll see what build quality means.

I know a lot of people with iPods, and while some have had a problem, most haven't. When my friends daughter and I went to the Apple store here in NYC, because she DID have a problem, the "Genius" took a minute to verify the problem, gave her a form to sign that she was having it replaced, and gave her another one. Will Creative do that?

As for the Creative control bar, it's been rated as a poor substitute for the scrollwheel.

Instead of guessing, read some reviews.
post #71 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Finally, Fairplay licensing...Apple hasn't played this card yet (Motorola test-case excepted)...

Apple never licensed Fairplay to Motorola, they just wrote a version of iTunes that works on Motorola phones and made an agreement to include it with them.
post #72 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by reykjavik
lets be honest, assuming these specs live up to what they claim, Creative has a better product out there on the market.

It's almost twice as thick, has an inferior user interface, has terrible button arrangement with incredibly stupid icons, is heavier, has better video playback but worse audio playback battery life, plays some more codecs but doesn't play AAC nor Ogg Vorbis and has features that appeal to a small minority and are available as an option for the iPod. It's also slightly more expensive.

Yes, certainly a better product.
post #73 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Many people like to make this comparison, but it is a faulty one.

In the mid-eighties Apple was not dominating the PC market at all. In fact quite the opposite. The Apple II was on the decline, the Apple III never amounted to much, nor did Lisa. Macintosh was the last great hope. While it was technologically superior in some ways (at least from a user-interface perspective), it was considered under-powered and over-priced, and thought to be a "toy" by many business people ("only kids play with mice"...funny huh?) and did not sell very well as a result.

The bottom line is that Apple never had anywhere near the market share with the Macintosh (or Apple II) as they currently do with iPod. Apple's peak market share for the Macintosh was 12% in 1992. Even the Apple II market share never got above 16%.

Finally, the markets (personal computers vs. consumer electronics) are totally different beasts. One is far more business-oriented, the other consumer-oriented. One plays very well to Apple's strengths...the other played well to IBM's (and now Microsoft's) strengths.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying the numbers are all that similar. It's the principle that's similar. As for the markets being different, I disagree. They are similar enough. Apple lost its battles in the consumer marketplace, not just the business world.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #74 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
You're missing the point. I'm not saying the numbers are all that similar. It's the principle that's similar. As for the markets being different, I disagree. They are similar enough. Apple lost its battles in the consumer marketplace, not just the business world.

No, the markets are very different.

If you talk about software vs songs and video, you can see that.

What does the iPod have to be compatable with that it can't play? Any song can be ripped (legally) to an iPod. The jury is still out with video because it's too new, but even there, Apple has already sold more 5G's than all video player manufacturers have sold in the past two years. So that is looking good as well.

A computer is simply not comparable. It's much more expensive, much more complex, needs different, often expensive software that has to be upgraded, etc.
post #75 of 100
I don't understand why anyone would think that this creative product in any way 'looks good'. It is quite a bit ugly. This always get simple. Fridges use to look wacky and they sold but eventually they all started to look the same and the ones that sell the best are the ones that are simple to match things to. The same with TV's and also with Cars. They all start looking the same. The reality is Apple already has simplicity down pat. As for the user interface patient issue. I am imagining that there will be a new interface soon enough, thanks to the new colour screens. Think ************************************************** *************. I was going to give a suggestion here but think I will go patient it instead.
post #76 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by mike518
to CREATIVE: youve lost the mp3 "war", go back to making sound cards and shut the hell up (btw im now boycotting their cards). Your players are heavy, expensive, akward and have crappy software, and no ones gonna buy a more expensive than the original knock-off. You cant be "creative" and "invent" (pun intended) so cut your loses and get out of the market. [/B]

That sounds like the arrogance that would help lose the next battle. As long as Creative is still making money they still have a running chance. If Apple took the same attitude that you do then it would mean that the iPod would be sunk in the next cycle. In the market place you always have to act as if you might lose the next battle and do everything to try to win it.
post #77 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by ajmas
That sounds like the arrogance that would help lose the next battle. As long as Creative is still making money they still have a running chance. If Apple took the same attitude that you do then it would mean that the iPod would be sunk in the next cycle. In the market place you always have to act as if you might lose the next battle and do everything to try to win it.

Right now, they aren't making money. They're in the position of seeing their sales go up, and having their losses follow. This quarter will be a very important one for them.
post #78 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
You're missing the point. I'm not saying the numbers are all that similar. It's the principle that's similar. As for the markets being different, I disagree. They are similar enough. Apple lost its battles in the consumer marketplace, not just the business world.

First the numbers are so vastly different as to be signficant in the analysis. Second, the principle may or may not apply based on the analysis. Finally, Apple's success in the consumer or business market was never above 15% share.

I think we're dealing with a very different scenario. We're also dealign with a very different Apple. I actually suspect that Apple has (and will continue to do) the "algebra" on licensing, etc. And when/if it makes sense, will do it.
post #79 of 100
Quote:
Originally posted by ajmas
That sounds like the arrogance that would help lose the next battle. As long as Creative is still making money they still have a running chance. If Apple took the same attitude that you do then it would mean that the iPod would be sunk in the next cycle. In the market place you always have to act as if you might lose the next battle and do everything to try to win it.

I don't think that Apple is being arrogant (at least privately). You'll notice that every time someone just about gets close, they reshuffle (pardon any puns) the product mix, features, pricing to regain an advantage. Furthermore they have a lot of options they haven't yet excercised:

- additional media formats...easy to do

- subscription service...I'll bet Apple can easily do it when the recording companies actually approve it...did you know that the subscription services are currently operating without official contracts?

- licensing Fairplay

- Radio features

What else?

Note, Apple also has cost advantages over their competitors. So they can exercise "pricing options" too.
post #80 of 100
Lol, since Creative boasted so much about their product, Apple can beat it with ease when they release their next iPod. Creative should have waited until Apple releases their next product, and then launch their own at the same time.
Jimmy-HK
Reply
Jimmy-HK
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Creative introduces iPod video knockoff