The nano looks too much like the minis. I feel like they did a step backward in design. Features are ok but not the design. For me at least...
I couldn't agree more. I played with the new iPod nano and it was cool enough in features, but I couldn't help asking myself, "Why didn't Apple just release this nano model as the iPod mini last year?"
Because, if you think about it, the new nano is exactly what the iPod mini would've looked like if it weren't discontinued: Thinner and with a color screen.
I couldn't agree more. I played with the new iPod nano and it was cool enough in features, but I couldn't help asking myself, "Why didn't Apple just release this nano model as the iPod mini last year?"
Because, if you think about it, the new nano is exactly what the iPod mini would've looked like if it weren't discontinued: Thinner and with a color screen.
well, the reality is that the 2nd gen nano is just an uninspired ipod made by apple "just to get by" because there is really no good competition out there in the flash player arena. what is the second best flash mp3 player out there? the sansa? i think the second best flash player in the market could be the shuffle!
i think people who bought ipod mini's werw idiots. they had a quater of the capacity, not that much smaller that the white ipod and they costed about the same.
If you cared about durability, then buying a white iPod would have been dumb. Those things scratch and nick very easily, but the minis generally didn't have this problem and the new nanos probably won't either.
You know, the original release, yes, it didn't look like a very good deal. It might have had a 20% drop in spacial volume and not enough cheaper if you cared about capacity. But you have to keep in mind that not everyone wants to carry their entire library around at any given instant, heck, I have iTunes rotate songs automatically based on play count. A lot of people don't have 4GB in music files.
Personally I think this is just a "seasonality" effect, but Apple could help sales by releasing black across the line... I agree that for males, 99% will want silver or black (probably mostly black)... black only in the 8GB limits choice.... not that males are the only people buying Nano's of course.
Oh, and everything but the Black model needs a HUGE design tweak... make the click wheel a matte color of the body, not white. It really stands out... and not in a good way.
i think people who bought ipod mini's werw idiots. they had a quater of the capacity, not that much smaller that the white ipod and they costed about the same.
Because I keep my music collection on my file server, not my portable player, where it's protected by a RAID, cheaper to add more storage space to if necessary, and accessible from everywhere.
Why do I need to carry around 20,000 songs and then spend all my time looking through them? Or skipping song after song when it's on random play?
I set up a few 2-3 hour playlists at home based on common listening situations and what I'm into at the moment, then throw a few extra goodies in there to impress friends with, and that's it. Fits in 4Gb no problem.
I still consider the white iPod to look ugly, and be too bulky when compared to my mini. I'd get a nano, but it isn't offering much more than the mini I have. I like the idea of no hard drive, but I haven't had any problems with my hard-drive based player because I haven't dropped it yet. If/when that happens, I'll probably consider a nano.
Apple addressed the scratch-ability of the nano by giving it a new skin. It's the best selling music player in the world. What else would you have them do? Oh, except add FM? If you don't like colors, you have a choice of silver or black. How exactly would you upgrade it to be more "inspired?"
Apple I think is getting a little too greedy putting the Black into the most expensive category. I would have bought one for sure if it was one of the cheaper 2 models.
Look at the reason for having the different sized iPods.
The large iPods can hold a person's entire music collection. When a new one comes out with an extra 20-30 gigs, many people upgrade so they can fit all their new music on which didn't fit after they filled up their last one.
The nano and mini, and most other small-capacity players are the kind of thing where you change the albums every few days. 2 Gig or 4 or 8 is no big deal, because people shift around the music every week or so anyways. My 1 gig iRiver was about half the price of a 2 gig nano and serves the same purpose fine (going to the gym, riding public transit, in between classes at school), however I ordered the 80 gig iPod to expand my music collection (i use my 40 gig ipod on vacation, car trips, DJing at friends' parties, etc.). I don't think many people will upgrade their small-capacity players unless their existing ones die, because there's functionally no reason to, only cosmetics.
...I don't think many people will upgrade their small-capacity players unless their existing ones die, because there's functionally no reason to, only cosmetics.
That's somewhat true. It sounds like you're looking for reasons to agree with the analysts quoted at the beginning of the thread. You and they may be right.
However, I don't think the market for small-capacity players in anywhere near saturated. I, for one, downgraded finally from two higher capacity iPods that are kind of clunky to carry when I go walking or running. I know several people who haven't yet bought their first music player. They're the ones who will probably buy a nano and not a full-sized iPod, when they take the plunge. And, nanos are so much more "giftable" since they don't cost as much.
If any market is saturated, I think it would be the one for the high capacity players. People like myself come to realize they don't need their entire music collection on an iPod since it's already on their computer (assuming they have another way of backing up). I'm very tired of at least half of the music I own so I don't want it cluttering my iPod, making artist, album and song lists excessively long.
yeah, the nano and mini ipods have never been about storage room. they are bad deals if you're thinking about the gigabytes you're getting for the price you pay.
these are fashion ipods. people buy them because of how they look and because they don't want to exercise with a bulky player.
for example, the black 8GB nano costs the same as the 30GB ipod.
In terms of the BOM costs, the margins on the 8GB models is considerably less than the other models. I think your suggestion might offend the pink owners because the people that buy that color generally (though not always) don't care about having huge capacity.
People who happily found the nano's screen broken in their pocket, maybe?
Apple addressed the scratch-ability of the nano by giving it a new skin. It's the best selling music player in the world. What else would you have them do? Oh, except add FM? If you don't like colors, you have a choice of silver or black. How exactly would you upgrade it to be more "inspired?"
As I wrote before (page1), it's hard to be happy....
If they had put a radio in the Nano, it would be the hottest ticket item right now... but Apple didn't, and i'm reminded of how Apple ALWAYS does these things to hurt themselves, out of some sort of masochist neurosis; like the single button mouse, not letting developers have more source code (which took Apple from 80+ market share to 4). Then limiting the Airport Express to only work with iTunes... no wonder if flopped).
I was talking to a a few sales people at Future shop, and they said the number 1 request for MP3 players, is radio. And those who buy iPod's, are hesitant because of the no radio feature.
Which speaks to me that the market share Apple is not getting, is largly due to not having radio.
If you look, almost all of the other players on the market have radio.
The radio add-on is BS. People want it all in one easy to use package.
You couldn't be further from the truth. If radio was a must-have feature, Apple would not continue to dominate with a %75 marketshare. Radio is a dying technology.
And BTW, Apple's radio tuner gets better reception than any of the competitions "built-in" tuners... Why? Because most people keep their player hidden away in pockets, purses, and back-paks where fm reception is obstructed and often very weak. Having the tuner as an external add-on keeps the fm signal free from obstruction and in-turn results in much stronger and clearer reception.
And BTW, Apple's radio tuner gets better reception than any of the competitions "built-in" tuners... Why? Because most people keep their player hidden away in pockets, purses, and back-paks where fm reception is often very weak. Having the tuner as an add on keeps the signal much stronger and clearer.
I don't know if you are right about Apple's radio add-on being higher-quality, but you are definitely wrong about why. All portable radios use the earphone cable as the aerial (apart from ones that have a dedicated telescopic aerial).
Also, you seem to have missed the bit where rain said that the lack of radio was probably responsible for "the share that Apple is missing", i.e., if Apple had a radio, their share would be even higher.
Lastly, the number you quoted for Apple's market share is a U.S. number. Worldwide, the iPod has a much lower market share. It's still number 1, but the potential for the iPod to achieve more market share outside the U.S. is high. I'm sure having an FM radio in the flash models would help here.
Radio is a mature technology, and its prominence may be fading, but things like portable audio file players have a long way to catch up. For one, radio audience is fading by about one percent per year or less, and it's probably still at 90% that listen at least occasionally. It looks like a majority of people listen to some radio every day.
I don't know if you are right about Apple's radio add-on being higher-quality, but you are definitely wrong about why. All portable radios use the earphone cable as the aerial (apart from ones that have a dedicated telescopic aerial).
Well I can't speak for all players, but I do know that on a Creative zen vision m player the receiver is in the unit itself.. When the Zen is put inside a back-pak or pocket you begin to lose the signal. The optimal signal reception for the player is when you hold it in your hand, which is not very practical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Also, you seem to have missed the bit where rain said that the lack of radio was probably responsible for "the share that Apple is missing", i.e., if Apple had a radio, their share would be even higher.
Um... no... I didn't miss anything... In order for any product to have a %75 market-share it has to have the "most desired" price/feature set for any product in it's class. Portable FM handsets have been around since the 70's... There were even many portable mp3 players with fm tuners before the iPod was introduced, yet they never struck a chord with the masses as the iPod has..
There is no such thing as a perfect product to all users, but having a %75 market-share means you are pretty darn close to meeting the needs of most users..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Lastly, the number you quoted for Apple's market share is a U.S. number. Worldwide, the iPod has a much lower market share. It's still number 1, but the potential for the iPod to achieve more market share outside the U.S. is high. I'm sure having an FM radio in the flash models would help here.
Comments
The nano looks too much like the minis. I feel like they did a step backward in design. Features are ok but not the design. For me at least...
I couldn't agree more. I played with the new iPod nano and it was cool enough in features, but I couldn't help asking myself, "Why didn't Apple just release this nano model as the iPod mini last year?"
Because, if you think about it, the new nano is exactly what the iPod mini would've looked like if it weren't discontinued: Thinner and with a color screen.
I couldn't agree more. I played with the new iPod nano and it was cool enough in features, but I couldn't help asking myself, "Why didn't Apple just release this nano model as the iPod mini last year?"
Because, if you think about it, the new nano is exactly what the iPod mini would've looked like if it weren't discontinued: Thinner and with a color screen.
well, the reality is that the 2nd gen nano is just an uninspired ipod made by apple "just to get by" because there is really no good competition out there in the flash player arena. what is the second best flash mp3 player out there? the sansa? i think the second best flash player in the market could be the shuffle!
i think people who bought ipod mini's werw idiots. they had a quater of the capacity, not that much smaller that the white ipod and they costed about the same.
If you cared about durability, then buying a white iPod would have been dumb. Those things scratch and nick very easily, but the minis generally didn't have this problem and the new nanos probably won't either.
You know, the original release, yes, it didn't look like a very good deal. It might have had a 20% drop in spacial volume and not enough cheaper if you cared about capacity. But you have to keep in mind that not everyone wants to carry their entire library around at any given instant, heck, I have iTunes rotate songs automatically based on play count. A lot of people don't have 4GB in music files.
Oh, and everything but the Black model needs a HUGE design tweak... make the click wheel a matte color of the body, not white. It really stands out... and not in a good way.
i think people who bought ipod mini's werw idiots. they had a quater of the capacity, not that much smaller that the white ipod and they costed about the same.
Because I keep my music collection on my file server, not my portable player, where it's protected by a RAID, cheaper to add more storage space to if necessary, and accessible from everywhere.
Why do I need to carry around 20,000 songs and then spend all my time looking through them? Or skipping song after song when it's on random play?
I set up a few 2-3 hour playlists at home based on common listening situations and what I'm into at the moment, then throw a few extra goodies in there to impress friends with, and that's it. Fits in 4Gb no problem.
I still consider the white iPod to look ugly, and be too bulky when compared to my mini. I'd get a nano, but it isn't offering much more than the mini I have. I like the idea of no hard drive, but I haven't had any problems with my hard-drive based player because I haven't dropped it yet. If/when that happens, I'll probably consider a nano.
The large iPods can hold a person's entire music collection. When a new one comes out with an extra 20-30 gigs, many people upgrade so they can fit all their new music on which didn't fit after they filled up their last one.
The nano and mini, and most other small-capacity players are the kind of thing where you change the albums every few days. 2 Gig or 4 or 8 is no big deal, because people shift around the music every week or so anyways. My 1 gig iRiver was about half the price of a 2 gig nano and serves the same purpose fine (going to the gym, riding public transit, in between classes at school), however I ordered the 80 gig iPod to expand my music collection (i use my 40 gig ipod on vacation, car trips, DJing at friends' parties, etc.). I don't think many people will upgrade their small-capacity players unless their existing ones die, because there's functionally no reason to, only cosmetics.
...I don't think many people will upgrade their small-capacity players unless their existing ones die, because there's functionally no reason to, only cosmetics.
That's somewhat true. It sounds like you're looking for reasons to agree with the analysts quoted at the beginning of the thread. You and they may be right.
However, I don't think the market for small-capacity players in anywhere near saturated. I, for one, downgraded finally from two higher capacity iPods that are kind of clunky to carry when I go walking or running. I know several people who haven't yet bought their first music player. They're the ones who will probably buy a nano and not a full-sized iPod, when they take the plunge. And, nanos are so much more "giftable" since they don't cost as much.
If any market is saturated, I think it would be the one for the high capacity players. People like myself come to realize they don't need their entire music collection on an iPod since it's already on their computer (assuming they have another way of backing up). I'm very tired of at least half of the music I own so I don't want it cluttering my iPod, making artist, album and song lists excessively long.
these are fashion ipods. people buy them because of how they look and because they don't want to exercise with a bulky player.
for example, the black 8GB nano costs the same as the 30GB ipod.
these are fashion ipods. people buy them because of how they look and because they don't want to exercise with a bulky player.
for example, the black 8GB nano costs the same as the 30GB ipod.
Way to totally ignore the several posts that have outlined how much more usable a flash-based device can be vs. an HDD one.
(I've got an 80 gig HDD iPod, in case you're wondering)
Who said the enclosure was weak?
In terms of the BOM costs, the margins on the 8GB models is considerably less than the other models. I think your suggestion might offend the pink owners because the people that buy that color generally (though not always) don't care about having huge capacity.
People who happily found the nano's screen broken in their pocket, maybe?
Apple addressed the scratch-ability of the nano by giving it a new skin. It's the best selling music player in the world. What else would you have them do? Oh, except add FM? If you don't like colors, you have a choice of silver or black. How exactly would you upgrade it to be more "inspired?"
As I wrote before (page1), it's hard to be happy....
for example, the black 8GB nano costs the same as the 30GB ipod.
Yes, but the flash memory used in the nano is considerably more expensive than the hard-drive memory in the 30gb iPod.
You are paying for form factor and non-moving parts..
People who happily found the nano's screen broken in their pocket, maybe?
That was a manufacturing fault in some of the screens, not a durability problem.
If they had put a radio in the Nano, it would be the hottest ticket item right now... but Apple didn't, and i'm reminded of how Apple ALWAYS does these things to hurt themselves, out of some sort of masochist neurosis; like the single button mouse, not letting developers have more source code (which took Apple from 80+ market share to 4). Then limiting the Airport Express to only work with iTunes... no wonder if flopped).
I was talking to a a few sales people at Future shop, and they said the number 1 request for MP3 players, is radio. And those who buy iPod's, are hesitant because of the no radio feature.
Which speaks to me that the market share Apple is not getting, is largly due to not having radio.
If you look, almost all of the other players on the market have radio.
The radio add-on is BS. People want it all in one easy to use package.
You couldn't be further from the truth. If radio was a must-have feature, Apple would not continue to dominate with a %75 marketshare. Radio is a dying technology.
And BTW, Apple's radio tuner gets better reception than any of the competitions "built-in" tuners... Why? Because most people keep their player hidden away in pockets, purses, and back-paks where fm reception is obstructed and often very weak. Having the tuner as an external add-on keeps the fm signal free from obstruction and in-turn results in much stronger and clearer reception.
And BTW, Apple's radio tuner gets better reception than any of the competitions "built-in" tuners... Why? Because most people keep their player hidden away in pockets, purses, and back-paks where fm reception is often very weak. Having the tuner as an add on keeps the signal much stronger and clearer.
I don't know if you are right about Apple's radio add-on being higher-quality, but you are definitely wrong about why. All portable radios use the earphone cable as the aerial (apart from ones that have a dedicated telescopic aerial).
Also, you seem to have missed the bit where rain said that the lack of radio was probably responsible for "the share that Apple is missing", i.e., if Apple had a radio, their share would be even higher.
Lastly, the number you quoted for Apple's market share is a U.S. number. Worldwide, the iPod has a much lower market share. It's still number 1, but the potential for the iPod to achieve more market share outside the U.S. is high. I'm sure having an FM radio in the flash models would help here.
Radio is a dying technology.
Radio is a mature technology, and its prominence may be fading, but things like portable audio file players have a long way to catch up. For one, radio audience is fading by about one percent per year or less, and it's probably still at 90% that listen at least occasionally. It looks like a majority of people listen to some radio every day.
I don't know if you are right about Apple's radio add-on being higher-quality, but you are definitely wrong about why. All portable radios use the earphone cable as the aerial (apart from ones that have a dedicated telescopic aerial).
Well I can't speak for all players, but I do know that on a Creative zen vision m player the receiver is in the unit itself.. When the Zen is put inside a back-pak or pocket you begin to lose the signal. The optimal signal reception for the player is when you hold it in your hand, which is not very practical.
Also, you seem to have missed the bit where rain said that the lack of radio was probably responsible for "the share that Apple is missing", i.e., if Apple had a radio, their share would be even higher.
Um... no... I didn't miss anything... In order for any product to have a %75 market-share it has to have the "most desired" price/feature set for any product in it's class. Portable FM handsets have been around since the 70's... There were even many portable mp3 players with fm tuners before the iPod was introduced, yet they never struck a chord with the masses as the iPod has..
There is no such thing as a perfect product to all users, but having a %75 market-share means you are pretty darn close to meeting the needs of most users..
Lastly, the number you quoted for Apple's market share is a U.S. number. Worldwide, the iPod has a much lower market share. It's still number 1, but the potential for the iPod to achieve more market share outside the U.S. is high. I'm sure having an FM radio in the flash models would help here.
Pure speculation. Got any data to support it?