[Spad]

Here's Salon Magazine's article on the Nano. Obviously they don't get it either. (You'll have to watch a very short movie promo if you aren't a subscriber.) Why do so many miss the point that it's not about capacity?

 

[tennisets]

I didn't get the impression that the writer was miffed about the capacity at all. In fact, I got the impression that although he doesn't see why the Nano is such a big deal (and he also laid it out on the table that he does not like Apple, albeit not quite so bluntly), he understands that it probably IS a big deal, and that the thing will probably be Apple's most popular product yet. After all, even though it doesn't hold much, and it doesn't have tons of features, it's TINY. And in the modern technological world, tiny is nearly always a guarantee to success if well implemented, and it is cerainly guaranteed success with the iPod line.

The write says that many people say the iPod Mini sold so well because people liked the way it looked; I think it's because it was so small and so far ahead of the other players available. Now you've got players like the Creative Zen Micro, the iRiver H10, and the Rio Carbon, and Apple wanted to once again take a leap ahead of the market. Other companies are going to have to create a product like the Nano if they want to stay afloat. That's why Apple controls the MP3 market, and why they have by far the largest market share. The iPod was a revolution, the best player ever produced. Most people think the iPod is still top of the heap. As such, most people buy iPods when they buy an MP3 player. And why not? I don't want one, but I certainly can't argue that it's a damn fine machine.

Plus, the Nano looks bitchin'.

 

[Jmmmmm]

Yeah, the mini and nano are going to sell because they're small. The biggest draw of the nano for me is its size. You would think someone who reviews mp3 players should have a better handle on the market.

 

[Sweet Spot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spad Here's Salon Magazine's article on the Nano. Obviously they don't get it either. (You'll have to watch a very short movie promo if you aren't a subscriber.) Why do so many miss the point that it's not about capacity?

I guess I don't get it either then. But really, I don't think that he was saying anything that anyone else hasn't already noticed. And to quote the article, here's something note worthy: Quote:

There is, of course, something to be abhorred about incrementalism. One of my office mates says she wishes Apple would stop making devices that are each just 5 percent better than the last one, all while pretending that each new thing will change life on earth as we know it. After all, the iPod Mini, the Shuffle, and now the Nano are just all variations on the same theme -- they play music.

This just so happens to be the truth. The Nano is smaller and thinner than its predecessors, but in no way shape or form is it any different than an iPod photo, which in its self is only different from an iPod in that it's got a color screen and does jpgs etc... An iPod video player would at least have been a TAD more exciting (still not "revolutionary" though, as vid/DAPs already exist.)

Aside from the Nanos' sleek looks, it still only has the same features (or lack thereof) as the rest of the family, so what's so exciting I'm wondering, other than it's really, really, really, really ....Pretty ?

The fan/consumer base will remain the same, as will the consumers who did NOT buy iPods for the same reasons they still won't. So in essence, not much has really changed other than Steve releasing yet another iPod incarnation for the masses to fawn over. I think he's very smart though... Keep trying with a product till' you get it exactly where you want it. Wait to see which one of your products is the best seller, then, keep changing the look of it, while keeping costs down and rake in all the moolah.

Nice.

 

[bangraman]

It might all have been so different if they gave him the shwag

You can tell he's not in touch with design, style or the zeitgeist. He's a tech bod... no vision.

 

[Wodgy]

If there was a significant demand for all kinds of extra features (radio, OGG/WMA support, optical out, voice recording, line in, etc.), Apple would be offering those features. The thing is: Apple is aiming for the mass market, and the mass market seems to prize simplicity over endless feature lists. Nothing about the iPod screams "geek toy," whereas so many of the competitors really do seem like geek Swiss Army knives. Wouldn't a couple of bulbous ports (line in, optical out, etc.) on the side of the Nano look great? Well, maybe to us, but for most people, not really.

The difference between Apple's success and the competitors' failure is that Apple has a product that appeals to non-technical, ordinary people. I had a lawyer in his late 50's tell me the other day how much he loves his iPod. You see suburban, middle-aged mothers with them. These people don't find geeky features and complexity appealing, which is why Creative, iRiver, etc. have not successfully penetrated the market beyond young, technically-savvy males.

That's not to say I think the iPod could use some more features. The biggest omission for me personally is a lack of FM radio, but I understand that I'm in the minority there. Plus, when I think about it, if I had one, I'd use a DAP more in the car (where there is already a radio) and in the gym (where I can't get radio reception) than anywhere else anyway. I can understand the tradeoff Apple chose to make (size and simplicity) by omitting the radio.

 

[rsaavedra]

Speaking of geeky looks among Ipod competitors:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050908/...ony_players_dc

 

[raisin]

But THE reason i got my ipod is because radio is SO bad. For me FM would be a detriment.

Now, weather radars would really come in handy... yeah- first mp3 player with radar gets my purchase!

 

[cerbie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spad Here's Salon Magazine's article on the Nano. Obviously they don't get it either. (You'll have to watch a very short movie promo if you aren't a subscriber.) Why do so many miss the point that it's not about capacity?

4GB at $250 (just over the cost of competitors' 2GB models), and it's not about capacity? I don't buy that for a second. If it weren't about capacity, it would not be the cheapest solid-state player out there, at $62.50/GB.

Nothing else on the market can touch the cost for 4GB w/o moving parts. On top of that, it has a nice screen and other features.

The author of the linked article just seems to have a grudge against Apple. Let us see, shall we?

Quote:

It's true that at $249, the 4 GB model is, on the face of it, not that great a value. A full-size iPod -- a 20 GB model that holds five times as many songs -- can be had for only $50 more.

First, it is an insane value. I paid $180 for a 1GB player not long ago, and I paid extra for it not to be an Ipod!
Quote:

In addition to the phone -- which looks like a fine though not spectacular thing -- many Mac fans had also been looking forward to something else. Something surpassingly cool. Something life-altering. Something that would, as Apple had promised, change everything. Something like, say, a video-iPod. Or an Apple-branded TiVo.

...and anyone who believed that crap is stupid. It's called hype; see "hyperbola" (well, also from hypodermic, but why split hairs?

).
Quote:

Do looks matter? They seem to matter to Apple's customers.

Hello, brain surgeon. Apple is mostly about looks. Their stuff is sleek, stylish, cold and clinical. The poor little Asians, despite their best efforts, and ability to put out fine players, just can't compete in looks. For many of us, a DAP is a tool. For others, it's a fashion accessory.

I have a IBM Model M, a couple spares, and broken one for spare parts (keys and keycaps, mostly). If they all fail, I'll buy a new old stock one. But it's a keyboard! Who the hell cares? It's not important. But it is to me. However, I'm not stupid enough to think that my gadgetry priorities should be others'.

Quote:

When Jobs first promised, four years ago, to alter the way we experience music, I didn't listen, and I got schooled.

Yet here, what happened? Where's the ownage? The original brick discmans changed the way we listened to music. All that has happened since then is that it has become harder to find good quality portable sound, while devices have been getting smaller and smaller. The Ipod was a player with Apple's finesse attached--not a revolution.

Note: I do not own an Ipod, and unless someone manages a way to get one working in such a way that I can use it as easily as my I5, I won't touch one with my own money. However, like the current Walkmans, it is hard to deny that they are good products for what they do (and both Apple and Sony definitely have the uniqueness thing down), and that many people don't mind artificially proprietary technology.

 

[blessingx]

The Regency TR-1 transistor radio changed the way we listen to music: portably. The Walkman cassettes changed the way we listen to music: we chose the portable music. The Discmans were just an extension to a new format. Same could be said for MD and early MP3 flash players. The iPod (and a lesser extent the NJB) were the next major popular steps as they also changed the way we listen to music: they were jukeboxs. These are the big ones to me.

Anyway to this review, it's so self-critical how could anyone be alarmed? Pretty much: I blew it on the iPod, and I'm blowing it again.

 

[Sinbios]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx The iPod (and a lesser extent the NJB) were the next major popular steps as they also changed the way we listen to music: they were jukeboxs.

How did iPods introduce jukeboxes into the way we listen to music? Creative piloted that aspect. If anything, iPod has changed the way we listen to music in that people now want their players to be, as mentioned above, a fashion accessory.

 

[cerbie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinbios How did iPods introduce jukeboxes into the way we listen to music? Creative piloted that aspect. If anything, iPod has changed the way we listen to music in that people now want their players to be, as mentioned above, a fashion accessory.

...and Diamond before Creative (and the Rio wasn't the first one, though I can't think of what it was off the top of my head).

No normal person in their right mind would want to be seen with an early Archos or a Rio. The Ipod took good technology (the market was ready, and they were not the only company readying such players, nor was it even the first HDD player of its kind), and polished it for those people who now think Centrino is a processor, a case is a hard drive, and Internet Explorer is the internet (and their kids and geeky friends, who know better, but are pitiful teachers

).

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinbios How did iPods introduce jukeboxes into the way we listen to music? Creative piloted that aspect. If anything, iPod has changed the way we listen to music in that people now want their players to be, as mentioned above, a fashion accessory.

Well I used 'popular' for a reason. There were several HD players before the NJB (so neither piloted it), but the NJB was the first to reach some market saturation, get some press coverage and get things reasonably useable. I enjoyed my first gen NJB, but when the first gen iPod came out it was obvious that things moved to another level. Since we're talking portability here, the first gen iPod really pushed it and its success shouldn't be dismissed 'cause it also looked pretty. The was nothing like it at the time way back in 2001. It made waves far outside its Mac only selling base. It was the first jukebox that was the size of a cassette Walkman, small transistor radio, deck of cards or your pocket. It was the first that really sold to the public. It created the market for most of what has followed in the DAP world. You decide if people have been [loosely] copying the Hango/Remote Solutions Jukebox, the Creative NJB, or Apple iPod since.

Besides, there were movable radio and cassette players before the ones that made the difference. The model T wasn't the first 'car', etc.

But I will agree with (if I replace 'fashion accessory' with 'service'), Apple realized this needed to be an appliance, not a computer gadget. Thus iTunes. Many here still don't seem to understand why the majority of users out there prefer iTunes over manual/OTGUSB handling and cataloging of their music.

 

[Spad]

So some of you agree that the real story here is that the Nano replaced the "superior" Mini by reducing the maximum capacity from six to four gigs? The physical size, higher-res color screen and elimination of the Achilles heel hard drive aren't really significant? Just incrementalism, uh?

Well, they do both play music, so to an extent I suppose this is true.

Of course by extension, the F-16 is just an incremental change to my namesake, the Spad.

 

[sno1man]

Apple was the first company in only one area. They were the first one to get all the elements right in to a package that people wanted to buy.

People forget, even then the ipod did not really start selling at high level and only hit critical mass with the mini which to date is by far the best selling ipod. I wish I could remember where I saw this, but apple supposedly sold about 30,000 1st gen and 2nd gen, and 100,000 or so 3rd gen models. The first million seller was the mini.

I remember the mini debate here since that was when I first found headfi. It was pretty heated then too though the shuffle discussion blew it out of the water. One difference between then and now: then the ipod was the young ape in ascent and in the now the shuffle is from the 800 lb gorilla many love to hate