[PookJP]

Behind the hype that promised a new product of mythical proportions, there is a reality: it's the iPod. It's sleek, small, and cool, but is it revolutionary? Let's take a closer look.

A 5gig hard drive encased in a package "the size of a deck of cards" is tremendously impressive. The UI appears to be elegant and simple. iTunes 2 looks to be a leap from 1.1. And who can ever doubt Apple's industrial design?

So why am I not jumping for joy?

I think the first answer that will pop into everybody's head is that the thing costs $400. If you cross compare with other products, this isn't out of the range of prices at all. In fact, it's quite comparable. The Panasonic product (http://shop3.outpost.com/product/T8412) is the same price, this Kaser one (http://shop3.outpost.com/product/72159) costs $120 and only has 32 MB, and this one is $379 with only 380 MB (http://shop3.outpost.com/product/69663). In this light, isn't Apple's offering a bit more attractive?

As with everything... the anser is yes and no. Yes, we have now established it is comparably prices, but I don't think this means competitive in the market. That's because Apple is coming into this game with some huge handicaps. Thus, this product may be comparable, but that doesn't put it in the race.

What are these handicaps? First- it's made by Apple. The general public is still scared of our dear company. We are the "others," and people are not 100% willing to embrace Apple products. Second- this the first MP3 player made by Apple. They have absolutely no repuation in this arena, where other companies (Sonic Blue [Rio], Creative Labs [Nomad], and even Nike) have srong track records. Apple needs to woo potential customers away from these established brands, and since many think with their wallets, a lower-than-average price would have been the most effective way to do it.

What this also means is Apple should have introduced a low/mid/high version of the iPod. This would have allowed those who are are looking for 64 meg players to have gotten it for around $150 with probably around 200 megs, and those interested in more able to have it as well. As is, the iPod offering is equivilant to if Apple were only to offer the top of each line (DP 800 G4s, 667 Powerbooks, Combo 600 iBooks...)- they are offering the best, but at a price.

The next objection to the iPod is that it is only Mac compatable. It sure doesn't look to be PC-friendly from the tech specs:

Requirements
Apple computer with built-in FireWire port

Mac OS 9.2.1 (or later) or Mac OS X v10.1 (or later)

iTunes 2 software (included)

Apple only has 5% market share. If this 5% of computer owners are the only potential customers for the iPod, then it will do very poorly. After all, I bet Apple will only get as much as 10% of their 5% market share to purchase an iPod. And you better believe it isn't sufficiently ground breaking to convert PCers to the Mac platform. Thus, if the iPod is only Mac compatable, we will only see it on the market for the next 10 months or so.

The iPod excludes older Mac users. I am typing to you from an iBook SE 366, in other words, a 2 year old computer that does not have Firewire ports. The iPod is apparently not for me, not for many of the original iMac buyers, and not for anyone who does not have a Firewire enabled computer. Furthermore, many PC users do not have computers that have Firewire. If (see above objection) the iPod does work with PCs, this still excludes a large number of them. I understand the benefit of Firewire, everyone does. It's fast! But Apple needs to get as many of these iPods out in the world as possible. All that means is offering both Firewire and USB on the same device. I don't think that's too much to ask for a product billed as "groundbreaking."

Apple's marketing might prohibit the iPod from widespread adoption. Lets assume the iPod is PC compatable (even though this appears unlikely). Many PCers may never hear about the iPod if Apple continues its retail strategy. People looking for MP3 players are going to be at large, general purpose electronic stores. That means Circuit City, CompUSA, Sears, Target, and so on. Many of shoppers won't even know what brand they are going in there looking for. They'll just want the coolest MP3 player out there. The iPod needs to be sitting next to all the rest of the brands in everyday stores, not hiding out in the Apple store and on Outpost.com.

Durability. That the iPod is small is undeniable. What can be questioned is whether its size limits its durability. There is a tiny 5GB drive sitting within a tiny metal box with an inlayed LCD screen. Can iPod stand up to the rigous of a long run? What about being dropped by kids taking it to school? How about being crushed under books? A portable product needs to withstand a lot of abuse, especially one that is only 4 inches long by 2.5 wide. It will get stepped on, dropped, and crushed. $400 is a lot of money for a crushed metal tissue wrapper.

It's decidedly unMac-like. As a Mac user, I would have liked to see a UI that has some resemblance to the OS I know and love. An Aqua theme would have been ideal. I could understand this choice if Apple were planning on making iPod available to PC users as well, but as has already been said, that does not look to be the case. Thus, Mac users are confronted with a boring, b+w display that is functional, but impersonal. Then again, a color display may have pushed the price up too high.

It's a good offering, but one that needs to be rethought. Not to get too "Steve" on you, but music is universal. There is no reason in the world to limit the iPod to Mac users. The iPod is neat, but it sure isn't going to bring PC users en masse to the Mac platform as the iMac did. This is a great product, but it's not for everybody. That being said, marketing it to 5% of the computer using world is a very bad idea. And of that 5%, only the ones lucky enough to have a Firewire enabled computer can use it. I'm sorry, but unless some changes are made, this cool little gadget is going to flop... hard.

- Pook

[satchmo]

Good points but it's obvious why it's not PC friendly.

To spur the other 95% to consider buying a Mac with Firewire. While I'm not sure this is the "groundbreaking" product that will do that, it might at least turn a few heads.

If Apple were to make it and iTunes PC compatible, users would not necessarily move to a Mac but they might pick up an iPod (some PC now have Firewire as standard). And that's half the equation.

[Proxi]

This is really a breakthrough:

The first overpriced digital device that nobody needs.

The perfect product for the post-napster era.

Who has 1000 mp3 songs ? Who needs fire wire with a mp3 player ? Who has 400 bucks to waste ?

Listen to your customers Steve - what people really want is Newton 2. Just take a look at this forum.

[dtriska]

Originally posted by Proxi:
<STRONG>This is really a breakthrough:

The first overpriced digital device that nobody needs.

The perfect product for the post-napster era.

Who has 1000 mp3 songs ? Who needs fire wire with a mp3 player ? Who has 400 bucks to waste ?

Listen to your customers Steve - what people really want is Newton 2. Just take a look at this forum.</STRONG>

Wow, more bitching from former Newton users. Don't you guys ever get tired?

I was going to buy the Rio 800 Extreme (384 MB) for $460 US, but now I can get a 5 GB MP3 Player/FireWire hard drive for $400 US. A breakthrough? I think so.

[ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: dtriska ]

[Proxi]

I´m not only a former Newton user, I´m a shareholder as well and afraid to loose much more than 400 $ because of this "revolutionary device"

Well sell your stock then and buy MSFT ASAP!

[dzhim]

Then what if Apple had released an iPod with a USB port instead of the Firewire port?

Okay - great, people with old Macs can use it. But then it takes them just as long to copy a load of tunes as any other mp3 player. And all it becomes is yet another mp3 player. And it still costs $400.

So what if they release an iPod with USB port and Firewire port?

Well - great, it's still fast, for those with Macs that can handle it. But for the rest -- the people who couldn't buy an iPod in the first place -- it's just another mp3 player. And because it's got the extra port, it's a little bigger, a little heavier, and -- you got it, it costs fifty bucks more.

That leaves everyone complaining that it costs $450 -- especially those with no Firewire port, to whom it's just another mp3 player.

[doctre]

I have a Rio 800 Extreme and I'm replacing it with an iPod.

Why?

1) I can still sell my 800 and break even.
2) the iPod holds a lot more than the 800.
3) the iPod looks sexier than the 800.
4) copying songs to the 800 takes for-freakin-ever.

I look at the iPod and the technology behind it and think "Wow, now there is something new and neat and I've gotta have one.".

Speaking of the technology it appears from Toshiba's press release on that drive that the smallest drive was a 2 gig model. Also pricing on these drives from Toshiba's website shows why the iPod is $400 (and Apple is close to taking a bath on these depending on the discount they got from Toshiba). Its not a standard size drive. Its a 1.8" drive thats .2" thick, and Apple (as far as I know) is the first company to use it in a consumer level device. Sounds pretty ground breaking to me.

Here is the link to the press release:
http://www.toshiba.com/taecdpd/news/press37.shtml

Here are links to the drive information themselves notice the pricing (mind you thats retail on a per drive basis but still):
http://www.toshiba.com/taecdpd/produ...001-Over.shtml
2 - gig: $299.00
http://www.toshiba.com/taecdpd/produ...mpl-Over.shtml
5 - gig: $399.00

Here is the low consumption 5 gig version listed to but there is no price associated with it.
http://www.toshiba.com/taecdpd/produ...002-Over.shtml

So I think by looking at that that the iPod is priced about where it should be.

[ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: doctre ]

[Zeno C]

An Aqua theme would have been idea

PookJP, please, stop bullshitting

[ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: Zeno C ]

[PookJP]

Not quite following, Zeno C. Had I said "the iPod is a failure due ot its lack of an Aqua interface," I'd understand you. I believe I said "would have been a nice idea." See the difference?