Osnabrueck

I have to strongly disagree with you here Gene. The iPod gained it's popularity through very authentic means.

The iPod was born as something of a low-key curiosity, aimed strictly at the hardcore Mac base. At the time, most folks greeted the thing with skepticism. It was expensive, it was only for the Mac platform and it didn't really anywhere in Apple's old product range. If you could go back in time, you'd find lots of pundits lambasting Job's strange vanity project.

It's easy to look at the 10,000Lb. gorilla the iPod and iTunes has become and think that this whole system was shoved down our thoughts. In reality, Apple dominates because their player and store has been adopted by consumers.

Curb Zone

 

Gene

I would love to agree with you, but truth be told we live in a world where the success of devices isn't based on which is 'better', but which one is marketed better. If we lived in a world where the 'better' device would succeed, the iRiver would dominate, simply because reviewer/users have lauded most iRiver's as better than their equivalent Ipod. But sadly, because iRiver is a smaller company with a far smaller marketing budget than Apple it simply can't compete with the ipod in sales.

Its here I strongly disagree with you too. Truth be told, the success of the ipod has simply come through the fact that it has become a fashion accessory, and has been marketed as such. For example, when the ipod became successful, the first thing a 10 year kid wanted for christmas was an ipod. Not because they knew that the iPod and iTunes were the best and they always wanted an MP3 player, but because everyone else had one.

Sadly I also think that iTunes has been shoved down our throats, primarily due to the popularity of the ipod and the limited knowledge of 'everyday' people with MP3 devices. Reality is most people simply know nothing about MP3 devices, and compatible MP3 software. Therefore the standard consumer is led to believe by Apple that iTunes is the only real way to interface the iPod on your computer. You don't see Apple openly saying on their user manual: "Here is a list of other software applications are completely compatible with the iPod", oh and we've also included a CD with open-source software that can do the job the same or better than iTunes.

In saying all of this, your previous post speculated that the Microsoft Zune player will succeed only through marketing. Bit unfair and premature to judge the player considering that we haven't even given the chance to see if it will succeed through 'authentic' means as the ipod supposedly did?

Osnabrueck

C'mon man. If you did, you would.

The iPod became a fashion accessory because of its intrinsic appeal, not because of slick marketing. Do you recall a massive marketing blitz when the iPod came about in 2001? There wan't one. It was quietly released a sort of fetish toy for Apple fans with money to blow.

You want to imply that the iPod became the defacto Mp3 player of choice because people are duff and want to keep up with the Jonses. What really happened is that people loved the interface, the design and tactile experience. It was cool.

Gene, ovbious that Zune will only find footing through a gargantuan markeing budget. Time and time again another player and music store, be it Napster, Wal-Mart or Rhapsody have stepped up to the plate with an "iPod killer" business plan and fell flat on their asses. It's a simple chicken/egg problem combined with the street clout of the iPod device.

I'm not an apologist for Apple. I use their computers because I'm a designer. If I wasn't I probably would be writing this on a PC. I think their 128kb downloads are sub-par and I think their movie store is crap.

I have to ask you Gene - were the shoe on the other foot, do you belive that Microsoft would behave any differently, barring legal action of course?

Germaniac

I have strong doubts as to whether your assertion that the iRiver is 'better' than the ipod is the case, especially since Apple just dropped the prices of the ipod after releasing the 80gb and the new Nano line... here are some quick comparisons

ipod 30gb / iRiver H10 20gb

$380.00AUD / $470.00AUD
2.36" display / 1.8” display
14-hour battery life / 16-hour battery life
Music, photos, videos / Music, photos, built-in FM tuner and recorder

So really you're paying the best part of a hundred dollars more for what I can see to be an FM tuner and built-in recorder, and in doing so you're sacrificing a bigger screen, 10 gigabites of storage, video playability, plus a slimmer and in my mind better looking body (and of course the ipod 'cool' factor).

Am I missing something?

BMW_Dude

I wouldn't say the iRiver was better than the ipod, but would say the Creative Zen Vision:M was, it has far better video playing features, and looks ok, maybe not up to ipod standards though!

I think the ipod will slowly sell less, as the Sony Walkman did! Seeing as MS has loads of money, I believe it's player will beat the ipod! I mean seeing as MS sells so many OSs, it could have the software built in and that will be what people use. Also it could have great compatibility with the Xbox and a huge marketing push

ipod, your days are numbered! Personally I have never liked the ipod because there has always been a better player on the market!

Gene

Would be a rather boring world if we all agreed on the same thing wouldn't it. But at least we'd achieve world peace

My argument doesn't revolve around what the iPod was or how it was introduced, but how it came to be successful. And I reaffirm that the success of the iPod was primarily due to it being a fashion accessory and marketed as such. I concede that the first 10% of buyers would probably had purchased the ipod on merit, but the bulk of the ipod sales have been made through marketing.

My evidence is the generic little kid that lives next door who keeps asking his parents for an iPod (doesn't matter which one, as long as it is an iPod) for his birthday, because everyone has one and the ad on TV says so. Truth be told, the ads (those here in NZ anyway) don't even market the iPod on its merits - they use U2 or other singers to endorse it and promote it.

My question to you is, do you really think the little kid (or 80% of ipod buyers for that matter) want the iPod because "the interface, the design and tactile experience". In fact do you think the 80% of ipod buyers know what makes a good UI or know what a good 'tactile experience' really is? Come on Osnabrueck, I would love to say that the iPod made it on its own only on its merits, but the truth is it hasn't. If this world was such that a company would be successful because it provided the better product, it would be iRiver (or equivalent) that would be the dominant player. But its not, because iRiver don't have the marketing budget and experience to market their product.

Might I add, my experience with iPods hasn't been anything outstanding. In fact, the much lauded interface isn't intuitive at all - A good UI is one that someone can come up to and instantly use - When I first used the ipod, I didn't have a clue that the circular touchpad thing was actually a touchpad. It took me 5-10 minutes to work it out. I would go as far as saying the touchpad is gimmicky, buttons are far easier to use and instantly recognizable. On the other hand iRiver's interfaces started out as impossible to use, but I used an iRiver interface yesterday, it was a breeze. In fact it was very windows like, which isn't a bad thing given that 90% of the world's users understand the Windows interface.

Agreed, in a market dominated by Apple, it'll be hard to market if you were a small company, and Microsoft will have to use it marketing muscle as its prime method to break into the market. I concede this, and you are definitely correct here. But in saying this, marketing can take you only so far, then you actually have to produce a good product and this means the product needs to work on its own merits.

Haha, just as you are not a Apple apologist I'm definitely not a pro-Microsoft supporter. I have to use Microsoft products because I'm a System Administrator that must support a *NIX/Windows Software Development firm, but I know (and am still learning) the intricacies that make Microsoft good and bad. I know Microsoft are far from being an angel of a software firm, all I'm simply saying is Apple isn't any better, to a point where I say they are one in the same.

Gene

When I say the iRiver is better, I'm talking better in terms of the device, such as sound quality and functionality. I concede price is a major part, but price is dependent on economies of scale i.e. A big company with more sales can sell more at a cheaper price, whereas a small company cannot. Therefore you cannot compare price in this argument: Remember this argument is about iPod marketing. i.e. the iPod is successful not because its a better device, but because Apple markets the device better than other companies.

Let me also state that when I say iRiver, I mean all companies that are not Apple, but are also in the MP3 market. e.g. iRiver/Creative etc. Its just the iRiver Clix was the last MP3 player that really made an impression on me when I used it.

Evidence of the ipod being a fashion accessory in our society. The device itself isn't 'cool', but society has made is such that the iPod is considered 'cool'. This coolness is driven through marketing, not through merit. I rest my case.

Osnabrueck

Back in 2000, I was first guy in the universe to purchase an Mp3 player. If I recall it was a Diamond Rio 500. The thing cost me about $250.00, had 64mb of storage, and had a battery life roughly the length of a feature film.

By the time the iPod arrived in 2001, the early-adopter Mp3 market was already well established. I think Creative Labs was the market leader.

iPod arrived as a curious tie-in with Apple's iTunes application which was around for several months and made the idea of ripping/stealing music pretty simple and elegent.

I guess I'm being too long-winded about this. Here's my point. The iPod's competitors at the time had gobs of marketing just like the next guy, so why did the iPod become so damn popular? Come think, how could it become so popular when the damn thing was only available for the Mac platform in it's 1st year?

The explanation is that people came to it. It looked cool, and it held a crapload of songs. The iTunes store didn't lock people in until mid 2003.

It's easy to look the iron grip Apple has now and forget that, back in 2001, they weren't such a monolithic company. In fact, they were perpetually on shaky ground until late 2003, when iPod sales started taking off like wildfire.

Gene

There's only so much we can say before we start going in circles I'm not saying that the iPod isn't good as an MP3 player, because on the grand scale of things it is very good as a mass-produced MP3 player.

What I'm saying is that the iPod no longer purchased based on merit of being a really good MP3 player anymore. It is purchased based on the 'coolness' factor that Germaniac quite rightly said in his post. i.e it is sold based on fashion. The iPod sales took of like wildfire in 2003 because it became the thing to have to be cool.

In your original post you said that MS will force their way into the market due to their marketing muscle, and it inplied it in a anti-microsoft way. But Apple did the same thing back in the day. Quite rightly you stated that the MP3 players were already established when the iPod first came out. In which case Apple muscled their way into the market like MS will do.

Either way the argument has strayed from my original point. Really all I wanted to point out was this statement was rather anti-microsoft provided you already knew that Mac indeed do 'lock people in' with their MP3's, and do indeed have special rules or surprises:

Just aiming to add a counterbalance and to the discussion . All too often I hear from Apple fans that MS is indeed the devil, and Apple are the MS counterbalance, i.e. the 'good'. But to be fair, Apple, just like Microsoft, rely on monopolies and marketing. To me they are one in the same. I fear we've lost the plot with this argument though.

Germaniac

I think you're incredibly mistaken in again your unfounded assertion that the 'device itself isn't cool' - it simply is. There is absolutely no way the product would have enjoyed so much success if it in itself wasn't a decent product, if only 'clever marketing' or 'the sheep factor' was driving it. Marketing for sure may have played some role in creating an image, as with all products, but for example myself - I wanted and subsequently got an ipod not because everyone else had one but because it was what I considered to be the most appealing player on the market - while the rest looked like an ordinary electronic device the ipod actually had style - on top of that it was cheaper, had the features I wanted (to be honest, my phone has a radio and recorder and I never used it - why would I want one on my mp3 player as well?) and I knew I would be (and am) happier with it than if I had purchased any myriad of its competition.

Again, I didn't buy it as a fashion accessory or because everyone else had one, I bought it because I liked it more than its competition due to the overall soundness of its product, end of story - and I have a niggling feeling I'm not alone in that position.


Err, no, the point of yours I picked up on ('If we lived in a world where the 'better' device would succeed, the iRiver would dominate, simply because reviewer/users have lauded most iRiver's as better than their equivalent Ipod.') was not to do with ipod's marketing, it was directly comparing the ipod and iRiver as products and therefore pricing most certainly enters the equation.

Of course I understand this but I think it's quite obvious that the ipod's pricing has virtually nothing to do with the actual manufacturing cost but instead its marketing and where its makers intend it to sit in the marketplace - for example when the ipod video came out the 30GB was priced at $449AUS, now as mentioned it's $380AUS - obviously manufacturing costs wouldn't have come down a great deal, it's simply Apple wanting the ipod to maintain an edge over its competitors, and also the fact they make a ridiculous profit on it anyway...

Curb Zone