Microsoft has the cash to throw around. They are trying to buy mind share. They understand that it is unbelievably hard to compete with the iPod - just as they realized that XBox had a tough road up against the PS2. However, in a few short years, the line of people waiting to get an XBox 360 was unreal...and Nintendo isn't the #2 player in the home console market anymore (in the US). People would clearly say that the leaders now are Sony and Microsoft (although look for a strong comeback from Nintendo with the Wii).
Microsoft isn't dumb. They know that their first cut of the Zune will not take over the iPod, but if they can supplant the #2 player in this iteration, then they've accomplished a lot. From the #2 spot, they can start to exert a lot more pressure on Apple.
It seems that people here are thinking too short term.
8)
--DotComCTO
The problem is the #2 spot they will overtake is one of their partners. What I want to know is what is Sony thinking? They are the only one's in my opinion who could have the ability to compete against the iPod in the long term too, but they can't trust MS now anymore.
What I think is behind this is the various Windows Media formats, and the associated DRM.
My theory is that Microsoft is going after a monopoly position on all media -- software, video, music, games, electronic documents -- all electronic media of all kinds. They want anything that anyone does anywhere with any form of electronic media to be ultimately dependent on a Microsoft-owned operating system, Microsoft-controlled licensing, Microsoft-designed formats, and Microsoft-held DRM keys.
That is definitely the war with the Zune v. iPod as one of the battles.
MS doesn't need the Zune to beat the iPod, it needs Vista and XBox and its other contracts with content providers to keep Apple on the defense and the Zune will be the slowly evolving mp3 player to take the iPod's place when the war is over.
Now the war is not just with Apple and I would hope the Justice Dept. or a new administration that actually cares about monopolies and corporate controls of media, will find ways to keep this from happening, but MS doesn't have to win every battle in order to maintain dominance. It just needs to keep all of the little battles going and keep enough consumers on edge enough that they eventually choose the one company that they think will be around the longest = the beast.
These tactics work in business all of the time. Bluechips do best in chaotic markets. Police states do best in chaotic societies.
Hey that works, kinda like, "Wasssup" updated for the Zune generation. So the phone is like 'Zup as in Wazz 'zup dude? Reply: 'Zup.... Word y'all. I can see an incredibly horrible and annoying ad(s) based on this 'Zup concept (for several more million dollars thrown at ad agencies by Microsuft).
If for the sake of a large screen, Apple ever implements a touch-screen on the iPod in place of the click-wheel, I will not buy it.
Those of you who've used PDAs or the 3rd G iPod know how GARBAGE those digital buttons are.
Apple should keep the current general iPod layout for its iPod, but if (when) the company introduces a portable video player, then the product should carry a different name and have an entirely new design (large, high-res LCD, 100Gb+ storage, etc.) that is primarily designed for video.
I doubt that Apple will every introduce an iPod Video with a larger screen.
In this (and in most areas), Apple appears to have done their homework. Remember when the first iPod with Video came out. The immediate reaction from the nay-sayers was that it wouldn't sell. The screen was so ridiculously small that nobody would buy it. So, what happen, sales went through the roof. But, before that happened, a dozen or so equally ignorant manufacturers began to dump their garbage solutions on the susceptible with the announcements, 'our screens are bigger!"
But Apple continued to sell their iPods with Video, movies, TV shows, etc., at a devil of a pace. Meanwhile the so-called answer to the visually impaired began to flounder like fish in a drying up pond. And taking their investors with them.
So, Apple did discover during their predevelopment research that, yes people, many people, would in fact be more than satisfied with their pre-determined screen size. Actually, Apple admittedly under forecasted. Oh to be this wrong.
Thus my prediction that there will be no bigger screened iPod.
Whoops. Unless you consider Apples 'iTV. Now that is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. But as we will see, it will sell in the millions, just like the iPod. And in fact Apple will most likely sell more iPod Videos. Remember, if you buy a movie DVD, you can only play it on one machine at a time. However, buying a move via iTunes, well?
Thank goodness Steve for being so 'stupid'. It makes us Mac'rs look ridiculously brilliant.
MS doesn't need the Zune to beat the iPod, it needs Vista and XBox and its other contracts with content providers to keep Apple on the defense and the Zune will be the slowly evolving mp3 player to take the iPod's place when the war is over.
Now the war is not just with Apple and I would hope the Justice Dept. or a new administration that actually cares about monopolies and corporate controls of media, will find ways to keep this from happening, but MS doesn't have to win every battle in order to maintain dominance.
But Microsoft doesn't have anything like dominance in the media or mp3 player fields. That's why they've had to (desperately) introduce the Zune. \
Just curious, in the past I heard something about Microsoft offering replace all of the iTunes purchases at no cost for anyone switching to Zune from an iPod . Was I dreaming this or was it just a rumour?
Just curious, in the past I heard something about Microsoft offering replace all of the iTunes purchases at no cost for anyone switching to Zune from an iPod . Was I dreaming this or was it just a rumour?
Seems unlikely. Say I've got 1,000 songs (and many people have many more). Record companies want royalties on those that are in neighborhood of 70 cents a song (MS does NOT own the music). So... MS is gonna buy me $700 of music (that I already have) in order to switch me to their $249 mp3 player?? Somehow I don't think so. How about the guys who have 10,000 songs? MS gonna shell out $7,000 a head to help them switch? lol
But the record companies would love it, that's for sure.
i'm excited about the zune. and my favorite model is the brown one.
i love ipods and gadgets. i've owned 5 ipods to date and about 3 palm pilots, and i think zune will be a good device that will enjoy moderate success on its first iteration.
of course, at first units will be plagued with bugs, just like every new thing that comes out, but people will buy these things. not at the same pace people buy ipods, but they won't sit on store shelves.
i am planning on buying my 6th ipod sometime next year, maybe january after MWSF. but i will consider the zune for a number of reasons that are valuable to ME.
* integrated fm tuner. mainly i want to use my ipod to listen to news but i refuse to buy a silly, pricey add-on radio that may or may not be compatible with the next ipod.
* larger screen (remember these aren't mp3 players only. people do use them for video)
* wmv support. i'm sorry but i get a lot of e-mail attachments with funny clips in wmv. it's a popular format that the ipod can't read right out of the box.
* it's different.
i own pcs and macs so i could really use any of the two players. and with the new macs being able to boot windows, any mac user with windows could use a zune too if they wanted.
Seems unlikely. Say I've got 1,000 songs (and many people have many more). Record companies want royalties on those that are in neighborhood of 70 cents a song (MS does NOT own the music). So... MS is gonna buy me $700 of music (that I already have) in order to switch me to their $249 mp3 player?? Somehow I don't think so. How about the guys who have 10,000 songs? MS gonna shell out $7,000 a head to help them switch? lol
But the record companies would love it, that's for sure.
I agree. I really don't understand why a reasonable person can expect that rumor to be true. In order to do it, Microsoft would have to negotiate a means to transfer the rights for a much-reduced fee, and they probably would have to have a program that would delete the old tracks, which doesn't delete backups. Then there's the cost of bandwidth too. If they did offer it, I would be very afraid they would really screw it up.
Microsoft Corp said Thursday its Zune digital media player will be sold at relatively the same price as Apple Computer's new 30GB video-enabled iPod and admitted that it will lose money on each sale as a result.
The Zune, which also comes with 30GB of storage, will retail for $249.99 (about 99 cents more than the iPod) when it goes on sale Nov. 14. Songs available for download at the Zune Marketplace service will cost about 99 cents a song, on par with prices at Apple's iTunes, Microsoft told Reuters.
The Redmond, Wash.-based software maker also told the media outlet that it needed to put a comparable price on Zune, even if it meant suffering a loss from the device's sales this holiday season.
"We had to look at what was in the market and offer a competitive price," said Scott Erickson, Microsoft's senior director of product marketing for Zune. "We're not going to be profitable this holiday but the Zune project is a multiyear strategy."
Microsoft has said it plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of the next several years in a bid to catch Apple's iPod.
The Zune player is the first step in creating a new brand of portable devices, the company has said, adding that a Zune phone is also in the works.
Selling below cost.
One has to wonder who initiated the Zune Project. Was it Microsoft or was it Toshiba?
A. Did Microsoft go to Toshiba with the design and had Toshiba manufacture it for them?
B. Or did Microsoft go to Toshiba and purchased one of Toshiba's products and named it Zune?
C. Or did Toshiba go to Microsoft and said, "Have we got a deal for you?
So what may be the difference? Two of those possibilities may constitute DUMPING particularly if the intent is to drive out of the U.S. competition. Which there is a law against foreign companies to sell products in the United States at a price lower than cost!
Of course, anybody with the whereforall could have known that and made provisions to circumvent it. But since the iPod may not be affected as it is manufactured outside the U.S.
In any case, B or C could raise questions. And it is Friday afternoon. Just trying to raise some crap.
P.S. Before I get CRAPPED on, recognize that the verbs are in conditional tense.
I doubt that Apple will every introduce an iPod Video with a larger screen.
In this (and in most areas), Apple appears to have done their homework. Remember when the first iPod with Video came out. The immediate reaction from the nay-sayers was that it wouldn't sell. The screen was so ridiculously small that nobody would buy it. So, what happen, sales went through the roof. But, before that happened, a dozen or so equally ignorant manufacturers began to dump their garbage solutions on the susceptible with the announcements, 'our screens are bigger!"
But Apple continued to sell their iPods with Video, movies, TV shows, etc., at a devil of a pace. Meanwhile the so-called answer to the visually impaired began to flounder like fish in a drying up pond. And taking their investors with them.
So, Apple did discover during their predevelopment research that, yes people, many people, would in fact be more than satisfied with their pre-determined screen size. Actually, Apple admittedly under forecasted. Oh to be this wrong.
Thus my prediction that there will be no bigger screened iPod.
I don't agree. iPods with video sell pretty well, but nobody really expected otherwise since the video feature was just an extra tacked on at no additional cost. I think there's still a potential market for a video player with a bigger screen, and I think apple is just waiting until their design is just right, and the marketplace is ready for it.
Failure of other video players just means they are crappy players, and not compatible with the already established iPod. It doesn't mean that nobody wants a video player.
I agree with the idea that apple will probably introduce a video player as an additional model instead of having it replace the current iPod.
Reading the arguments by both sides, I am beginning to wonder why now. Sure it takes some time to develop a product but the writing is already on the wall for a few years already. The iPod is a runaway success, and has been for a few years. It doesn?t seem plausible that M$ would just OEM a product and rush it to market. The playbook is always buy a company and re-brand their product under the M$ label. My glut feeling is that M$ has become very very worried over something. And this would be the reason why they want to launch now instead of later. My guess based on what I know and heard would be that Apple has out fox M$ and has products on every market that M$ is in or would be releasing them soon. I suspect that this seems to be reaction to incoming products that Apple is making. The ?Zune? is there as a plug in a hole in a race for the information lifestyle. Looking at the product ranges of both companies, you would be able to see why and I wonder if anyone has done a recent product line to product line comparison between the 2.
The top 2 products that M$ produces is Windows and Office. Which are not very good products. Apple has Mac OS and iWork+iLife. On the Server OS, Windows Server and Mac OS Server. The software development side, Visual Studio and X-Code. The web browser Internet Explorer and Safari. The Instant Messenger, MSN Messenger and iChat. Calendaring and PIM, Exchange+Outlook and iCal+Address Book. We can go on and on. (Someone should anyway)
The interesting thing comes in the places where one has a product but the one has not. The first which this discussion is all about the portable music player, score 1 for Apple. The second would be the mobile phone, score 1 for M$. Games and consoles score 1 more for M$. But based on the trend, it seems that these spaces would be filled quickly by both sides. With what we have heard whisper around, it seems that both sides are trying to plug any gaps in their product lines.
I know some people will point out that Apple sells hardware and computers. This I know would be the critical difference. But who can tell if suddenly Apple decides to exit the hardware business or allow clones. (Which they have done in the past) My current 2 cents is that M$ is running scared looking at what Apple is doing or is going to release over the next 18 months. Seems to me that Apple has become a very direct threat especially with news like the Google tie up.
Well enough speculation for the time being. Just one more thing, a few weeks ago, there was a discussion on the payout by Apple to Creative. There was a suggestion that Creative was not on the list of high end audio cards for the professional market. I would like to point out that on that list, E-Mu Systems is a wholly owned company by Creative. Hate to get the last word on that.
So what may be the difference? Two of those possibilities may constitute DUMPING particularly if the intent is to drive out of the U.S. competition. Which there is a law against foreign companies to sell products in the United States at a price lower than cost!
It depends on what the law means by cost. The cost of parts may only be 60% of the device price, but it might cost another 45% of the device cost for other business expenses, so there is a loss. Losing money on something a product or service to get initial entry into a market doesn't seem to be prosecuted very often, I don't know if it is because some of it is legal, or if it is overlooked or ignored. Consumer printers, game consoles and other products are often sold at no profit or even a loss in order to make money on another part of the product's "ecosystem". It appears to be common enough practice that I don't think it's illegal.
Meanwhile the so-called answer to the visually impaired
Visually impaired? What the hell? With that reasoning, you might say that nobody needs a TV that's bigger than 13", that only visually impaired people would want a decent sized TV.
Really, there is more to picture quality than screen size, but screen size is the most obvious thing one sees. I think the iPod's screen generally has nicer color than the competitors. Competitors generally use lower quality screens, some models even tip them on their side even if the screen's colors go bonkers if you do that. I've seen too many where the viewing angle severely changes the black level, it's nearly psychedelic. Apple's iPod screen doesn't have that problem, thankfully.
I don't see iPod sales as proving that there's no point in a larger screen for video. It's mainly a music player that happens to play videos too. The video menus are still fairly crude compared to the audio track menus.
With billions of songs being placed in the market as AAC format, it's just a matter of time before they begin to saturate the marketplace to a point where having AAC playback is a must. M$ will not let this happen. And therefore it won't.
This is a bloody brilliant observation. It is not solely about the hardware and its coolness factor.
If Apple doesn't wise up about AAC and start to build in better interoperability (as well as greater ease of movement between MP3 and AAC, including with iTunes downloads), its market share 5 years from now could very well end up where that of OS 8/9/10 progressively did vis-a-vis Windows.
"iPods with video sell pretty well, but nobody really expected otherwise since the video feature was just an extra tacked on at no additional cost."
Not exactly true. Apple themselves admitted that they did not foresee the success being currently enjoyed by the introduction of the iPod with Video. In fact, Steve was quite convinced that it wouldn't sell at all at one time. What is important here is the sales of the videos themselves, proving that despite the smallness of the iPod screen, it did or is not detrimentally affecting its progress.
"I think there's still a potential market for a video player with a bigger screen…" I have no argument here. In fact there are. However, they are not as successful as the iPod.
"… I think apple is just waiting until their design is just right, and the marketplace is ready for it." I can't disagree with you on the first point, because Apple has a tendency to develop significantly more 'rights' then wrongs. And business sense would support the latter. However, Apple has a history of not waiting for the market to be 'ready for it.' It often does the opposite, i.e., creating the market!
"Failure of other video players just means they are crappy players, and not compatible with the already established iPod. It doesn't mean that nobody wants a video player." I didn't and wouldn't have said, "nobody wants a video player." And neither would Apple.
"…apple will probably introduce a video player as an additional model instead of having it replace the current iPod." I also agree that if Apple did produce a 'larger' video player it would not be to replace the iPod. However, I predict that they won't. Besides the obvious, i.e. the success of the current iterations, I would be surprised that Steve would do so, considering that in this mobile world, he has a tendency to create smaller, simpler solutions. Things that become ubiquitous but out of sight.
For a moment consider music, video and possibly a phone…between the size of a package of gum and a business card. But, at the same time, enjoying it as well on a big screen…computer or TV. Thereby, bypassing the middle 'boonbox' market. Much like 'MacArthurs' strategy in the Pacific, which I am sure Steve is very familiar with.
I'm not sure why AAC matters. iTunes does mp3 just like it does AAC. Other devices won't be able to play back AAC with Apple's copy-protection anyway.
I think you are missing rain's main point. You argument basically runs as follows: "I am not sure why OS X matters. Macs do Windows just as they do OS X. Other devices won't be able to boot up with OS X with Apple's non-licensing anyway."
"Visually impaired!" Yikes. I do apologize for any implication that it was in reference to a physical handicap. Especially, considering that my dad was blind. And my own eyes have had to have assistance for most of my life.
My statement was directed towards those nay-sayers who were so adamant the iPod with Video would fail because of the smallness of the screen.
Re your comment, "I don't see iPod sales as proving that there's no point in a larger screen for video," I totally agree. As Apple has given evidence to that with the introduction to the larger screen iMacs, particularly the 24" and the pre-intoduction of iTV. Notice that Apple's screen are always slightly larger than the norm.
What I am saying is that Apple hands out an appetizer and turns it into a gourmet meal, with desert. Meanwhile letting the competition try to feed the masses with leftovers.
Comments
zune phone.
lol.
Let's call it the Z'one.
Microsoft has the cash to throw around. They are trying to buy mind share. They understand that it is unbelievably hard to compete with the iPod - just as they realized that XBox had a tough road up against the PS2. However, in a few short years, the line of people waiting to get an XBox 360 was unreal...and Nintendo isn't the #2 player in the home console market anymore (in the US). People would clearly say that the leaders now are Sony and Microsoft (although look for a strong comeback from Nintendo with the Wii).
Microsoft isn't dumb. They know that their first cut of the Zune will not take over the iPod, but if they can supplant the #2 player in this iteration, then they've accomplished a lot. From the #2 spot, they can start to exert a lot more pressure on Apple.
It seems that people here are thinking too short term.
8)
--DotComCTO
The problem is the #2 spot they will overtake is one of their partners. What I want to know is what is Sony thinking? They are the only one's in my opinion who could have the ability to compete against the iPod in the long term too, but they can't trust MS now anymore.
What I think is behind this is the various Windows Media formats, and the associated DRM.
My theory is that Microsoft is going after a monopoly position on all media -- software, video, music, games, electronic documents -- all electronic media of all kinds. They want anything that anyone does anywhere with any form of electronic media to be ultimately dependent on a Microsoft-owned operating system, Microsoft-controlled licensing, Microsoft-designed formats, and Microsoft-held DRM keys.
That is definitely the war with the Zune v. iPod as one of the battles.
MS doesn't need the Zune to beat the iPod, it needs Vista and XBox and its other contracts with content providers to keep Apple on the defense and the Zune will be the slowly evolving mp3 player to take the iPod's place when the war is over.
Now the war is not just with Apple and I would hope the Justice Dept. or a new administration that actually cares about monopolies and corporate controls of media, will find ways to keep this from happening, but MS doesn't have to win every battle in order to maintain dominance. It just needs to keep all of the little battles going and keep enough consumers on edge enough that they eventually choose the one company that they think will be around the longest = the beast.
These tactics work in business all of the time. Bluechips do best in chaotic markets. Police states do best in chaotic societies.
zune phone....
hEH. We ran through some names, anyone care add?
Phune
Zuone
Zuphne
Zuphe
Zupe
Zupohne
Zuphone
Zup
'Zup
....
Hey that works, kinda like, "Wasssup" updated for the Zune generation. So the phone is like 'Zup as in Wazz 'zup dude? Reply: 'Zup.... Word y'all. I can see an incredibly horrible and annoying ad(s) based on this 'Zup concept (for several more million dollars thrown at ad agencies by Microsuft).
If for the sake of a large screen, Apple ever implements a touch-screen on the iPod in place of the click-wheel, I will not buy it.
Those of you who've used PDAs or the 3rd G iPod know how GARBAGE those digital buttons are.
Apple should keep the current general iPod layout for its iPod, but if (when) the company introduces a portable video player, then the product should carry a different name and have an entirely new design (large, high-res LCD, 100Gb+ storage, etc.) that is primarily designed for video.
I doubt that Apple will every introduce an iPod Video with a larger screen.
In this (and in most areas), Apple appears to have done their homework. Remember when the first iPod with Video came out. The immediate reaction from the nay-sayers was that it wouldn't sell. The screen was so ridiculously small that nobody would buy it. So, what happen, sales went through the roof. But, before that happened, a dozen or so equally ignorant manufacturers began to dump their garbage solutions on the susceptible with the announcements, 'our screens are bigger!"
But Apple continued to sell their iPods with Video, movies, TV shows, etc., at a devil of a pace. Meanwhile the so-called answer to the visually impaired began to flounder like fish in a drying up pond. And taking their investors with them.
So, Apple did discover during their predevelopment research that, yes people, many people, would in fact be more than satisfied with their pre-determined screen size. Actually, Apple admittedly under forecasted. Oh to be this wrong.
Thus my prediction that there will be no bigger screened iPod.
Whoops. Unless you consider Apples 'iTV. Now that is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. But as we will see, it will sell in the millions, just like the iPod. And in fact Apple will most likely sell more iPod Videos. Remember, if you buy a movie DVD, you can only play it on one machine at a time. However, buying a move via iTunes, well?
Thank goodness Steve for being so 'stupid'. It makes us Mac'rs look ridiculously brilliant.
MS doesn't need the Zune to beat the iPod, it needs Vista and XBox and its other contracts with content providers to keep Apple on the defense and the Zune will be the slowly evolving mp3 player to take the iPod's place when the war is over.
Now the war is not just with Apple and I would hope the Justice Dept. or a new administration that actually cares about monopolies and corporate controls of media, will find ways to keep this from happening, but MS doesn't have to win every battle in order to maintain dominance.
But Microsoft doesn't have anything like dominance in the media or mp3 player fields. That's why they've had to (desperately) introduce the Zune.
Just curious, in the past I heard something about Microsoft offering replace all of the iTunes purchases at no cost for anyone switching to Zune from an iPod . Was I dreaming this or was it just a rumour?
Seems unlikely. Say I've got 1,000 songs (and many people have many more). Record companies want royalties on those that are in neighborhood of 70 cents a song (MS does NOT own the music). So... MS is gonna buy me $700 of music (that I already have) in order to switch me to their $249 mp3 player?? Somehow I don't think so. How about the guys who have 10,000 songs? MS gonna shell out $7,000 a head to help them switch? lol
But the record companies would love it, that's for sure.
Let's call it the Z'one.
lol
i love ipods and gadgets. i've owned 5 ipods to date and about 3 palm pilots, and i think zune will be a good device that will enjoy moderate success on its first iteration.
of course, at first units will be plagued with bugs, just like every new thing that comes out, but people will buy these things. not at the same pace people buy ipods, but they won't sit on store shelves.
i am planning on buying my 6th ipod sometime next year, maybe january after MWSF. but i will consider the zune for a number of reasons that are valuable to ME.
* integrated fm tuner. mainly i want to use my ipod to listen to news but i refuse to buy a silly, pricey add-on radio that may or may not be compatible with the next ipod.
* larger screen (remember these aren't mp3 players only. people do use them for video)
* wmv support. i'm sorry but i get a lot of e-mail attachments with funny clips in wmv. it's a popular format that the ipod can't read right out of the box.
* it's different.
i own pcs and macs so i could really use any of the two players. and with the new macs being able to boot windows, any mac user with windows could use a zune too if they wanted.
Seems unlikely. Say I've got 1,000 songs (and many people have many more). Record companies want royalties on those that are in neighborhood of 70 cents a song (MS does NOT own the music). So... MS is gonna buy me $700 of music (that I already have) in order to switch me to their $249 mp3 player?? Somehow I don't think so. How about the guys who have 10,000 songs? MS gonna shell out $7,000 a head to help them switch? lol
But the record companies would love it, that's for sure.
I agree. I really don't understand why a reasonable person can expect that rumor to be true. In order to do it, Microsoft would have to negotiate a means to transfer the rights for a much-reduced fee, and they probably would have to have a program that would delete the old tracks, which doesn't delete backups. Then there's the cost of bandwidth too. If they did offer it, I would be very afraid they would really screw it up.
So no, I just don't see it as worth doing.
Microsoft Corp said Thursday its Zune digital media player will be sold at relatively the same price as Apple Computer's new 30GB video-enabled iPod and admitted that it will lose money on each sale as a result.
The Zune, which also comes with 30GB of storage, will retail for $249.99 (about 99 cents more than the iPod) when it goes on sale Nov. 14. Songs available for download at the Zune Marketplace service will cost about 99 cents a song, on par with prices at Apple's iTunes, Microsoft told Reuters.
The Redmond, Wash.-based software maker also told the media outlet that it needed to put a comparable price on Zune, even if it meant suffering a loss from the device's sales this holiday season.
"We had to look at what was in the market and offer a competitive price," said Scott Erickson, Microsoft's senior director of product marketing for Zune. "We're not going to be profitable this holiday but the Zune project is a multiyear strategy."
Microsoft has said it plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of the next several years in a bid to catch Apple's iPod.
The Zune player is the first step in creating a new brand of portable devices, the company has said, adding that a Zune phone is also in the works.
Selling below cost.
One has to wonder who initiated the Zune Project. Was it Microsoft or was it Toshiba?
A. Did Microsoft go to Toshiba with the design and had Toshiba manufacture it for them?
B. Or did Microsoft go to Toshiba and purchased one of Toshiba's products and named it Zune?
C. Or did Toshiba go to Microsoft and said, "Have we got a deal for you?
So what may be the difference? Two of those possibilities may constitute DUMPING particularly if the intent is to drive out of the U.S. competition. Which there is a law against foreign companies to sell products in the United States at a price lower than cost!
Of course, anybody with the whereforall could have known that and made provisions to circumvent it. But since the iPod may not be affected as it is manufactured outside the U.S.
In any case, B or C could raise questions. And it is Friday afternoon. Just trying to raise some crap.
P.S. Before I get CRAPPED on, recognize that the verbs are in conditional tense.
I doubt that Apple will every introduce an iPod Video with a larger screen.
In this (and in most areas), Apple appears to have done their homework. Remember when the first iPod with Video came out. The immediate reaction from the nay-sayers was that it wouldn't sell. The screen was so ridiculously small that nobody would buy it. So, what happen, sales went through the roof. But, before that happened, a dozen or so equally ignorant manufacturers began to dump their garbage solutions on the susceptible with the announcements, 'our screens are bigger!"
But Apple continued to sell their iPods with Video, movies, TV shows, etc., at a devil of a pace. Meanwhile the so-called answer to the visually impaired began to flounder like fish in a drying up pond. And taking their investors with them.
So, Apple did discover during their predevelopment research that, yes people, many people, would in fact be more than satisfied with their pre-determined screen size. Actually, Apple admittedly under forecasted. Oh to be this wrong.
Thus my prediction that there will be no bigger screened iPod.
I don't agree. iPods with video sell pretty well, but nobody really expected otherwise since the video feature was just an extra tacked on at no additional cost. I think there's still a potential market for a video player with a bigger screen, and I think apple is just waiting until their design is just right, and the marketplace is ready for it.
Failure of other video players just means they are crappy players, and not compatible with the already established iPod. It doesn't mean that nobody wants a video player.
I agree with the idea that apple will probably introduce a video player as an additional model instead of having it replace the current iPod.
The top 2 products that M$ produces is Windows and Office. Which are not very good products. Apple has Mac OS and iWork+iLife. On the Server OS, Windows Server and Mac OS Server. The software development side, Visual Studio and X-Code. The web browser Internet Explorer and Safari. The Instant Messenger, MSN Messenger and iChat. Calendaring and PIM, Exchange+Outlook and iCal+Address Book. We can go on and on. (Someone should anyway)
The interesting thing comes in the places where one has a product but the one has not. The first which this discussion is all about the portable music player, score 1 for Apple. The second would be the mobile phone, score 1 for M$. Games and consoles score 1 more for M$. But based on the trend, it seems that these spaces would be filled quickly by both sides. With what we have heard whisper around, it seems that both sides are trying to plug any gaps in their product lines.
I know some people will point out that Apple sells hardware and computers. This I know would be the critical difference. But who can tell if suddenly Apple decides to exit the hardware business or allow clones. (Which they have done in the past) My current 2 cents is that M$ is running scared looking at what Apple is doing or is going to release over the next 18 months. Seems to me that Apple has become a very direct threat especially with news like the Google tie up.
Well enough speculation for the time being. Just one more thing, a few weeks ago, there was a discussion on the payout by Apple to Creative. There was a suggestion that Creative was not on the list of high end audio cards for the professional market. I would like to point out that on that list, E-Mu Systems is a wholly owned company by Creative. Hate to get the last word on that.
So what may be the difference? Two of those possibilities may constitute DUMPING particularly if the intent is to drive out of the U.S. competition. Which there is a law against foreign companies to sell products in the United States at a price lower than cost!
It depends on what the law means by cost. The cost of parts may only be 60% of the device price, but it might cost another 45% of the device cost for other business expenses, so there is a loss. Losing money on something a product or service to get initial entry into a market doesn't seem to be prosecuted very often, I don't know if it is because some of it is legal, or if it is overlooked or ignored. Consumer printers, game consoles and other products are often sold at no profit or even a loss in order to make money on another part of the product's "ecosystem". It appears to be common enough practice that I don't think it's illegal.
Meanwhile the so-called answer to the visually impaired
Visually impaired? What the hell? With that reasoning, you might say that nobody needs a TV that's bigger than 13", that only visually impaired people would want a decent sized TV.
Really, there is more to picture quality than screen size, but screen size is the most obvious thing one sees. I think the iPod's screen generally has nicer color than the competitors. Competitors generally use lower quality screens, some models even tip them on their side even if the screen's colors go bonkers if you do that. I've seen too many where the viewing angle severely changes the black level, it's nearly psychedelic. Apple's iPod screen doesn't have that problem, thankfully.
I don't see iPod sales as proving that there's no point in a larger screen for video. It's mainly a music player that happens to play videos too. The video menus are still fairly crude compared to the audio track menus.
With billions of songs being placed in the market as AAC format, it's just a matter of time before they begin to saturate the marketplace to a point where having AAC playback is a must. M$ will not let this happen. And therefore it won't.
This is a bloody brilliant observation. It is not solely about the hardware and its coolness factor.
If Apple doesn't wise up about AAC and start to build in better interoperability (as well as greater ease of movement between MP3 and AAC, including with iTunes downloads), its market share 5 years from now could very well end up where that of OS 8/9/10 progressively did vis-a-vis Windows.
Not exactly true. Apple themselves admitted that they did not foresee the success being currently enjoyed by the introduction of the iPod with Video. In fact, Steve was quite convinced that it wouldn't sell at all at one time. What is important here is the sales of the videos themselves, proving that despite the smallness of the iPod screen, it did or is not detrimentally affecting its progress.
"I think there's still a potential market for a video player with a bigger screen…" I have no argument here. In fact there are. However, they are not as successful as the iPod.
"… I think apple is just waiting until their design is just right, and the marketplace is ready for it." I can't disagree with you on the first point, because Apple has a tendency to develop significantly more 'rights' then wrongs. And business sense would support the latter. However, Apple has a history of not waiting for the market to be 'ready for it.' It often does the opposite, i.e., creating the market!
"Failure of other video players just means they are crappy players, and not compatible with the already established iPod. It doesn't mean that nobody wants a video player." I didn't and wouldn't have said, "nobody wants a video player." And neither would Apple.
"…apple will probably introduce a video player as an additional model instead of having it replace the current iPod." I also agree that if Apple did produce a 'larger' video player it would not be to replace the iPod. However, I predict that they won't. Besides the obvious, i.e. the success of the current iterations, I would be surprised that Steve would do so, considering that in this mobile world, he has a tendency to create smaller, simpler solutions. Things that become ubiquitous but out of sight.
For a moment consider music, video and possibly a phone…between the size of a package of gum and a business card. But, at the same time, enjoying it as well on a big screen…computer or TV. Thereby, bypassing the middle 'boonbox' market. Much like 'MacArthurs' strategy in the Pacific, which I am sure Steve is very familiar with.
I'm not sure why AAC matters. iTunes does mp3 just like it does AAC. Other devices won't be able to play back AAC with Apple's copy-protection anyway.
I think you are missing rain's main point. You argument basically runs as follows: "I am not sure why OS X matters. Macs do Windows just as they do OS X. Other devices won't be able to boot up with OS X with Apple's non-licensing anyway."
'Nuff said.
My statement was directed towards those nay-sayers who were so adamant the iPod with Video would fail because of the smallness of the screen.
Re your comment, "I don't see iPod sales as proving that there's no point in a larger screen for video," I totally agree. As Apple has given evidence to that with the introduction to the larger screen iMacs, particularly the 24" and the pre-intoduction of iTV. Notice that Apple's screen are always slightly larger than the norm.
What I am saying is that Apple hands out an appetizer and turns it into a gourmet meal, with desert. Meanwhile letting the competition try to feed the masses with leftovers.