Microsoft To Release 'iPod Killer' at Christmas? 614
ShellFish writes "According to a report from Engadget, Microsoft is poised to finally take on the Apple iPod this holiday season. Tired of uninspiring offerings from its hardware partners, Microsoft is getting into the ring itself. The new media player from Microsoft will feature a bigger screen than the iPod Video, have built-in WiFi for downloading music without a PC, and Microsoft will work with music and TV content providers to build an iTunes Music Store competitor. In what may be the crucial competitive stroke, Microsoft will also allow you to download from its store any song that you've purchased from Apple, unlocking users from iPod's vendor lock-in."
Closed codec's and DRM I'm sure (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not only that... (Score:1, Insightful)
(proud ipod mini owner, but hate trolls)
One jailer for another (Score:5, Insightful)
Next, I hope they'll let me "upgrade" all my paperbacks to MSReader encrypted format too!
Re:Woah (Score:5, Insightful)
Smart move from Microsoft? (Score:2, Insightful)
Translation: (Score:2, Insightful)
Translation: The Microsoft device will be bigger than the iPod, and have signifigantly lower battery life.
Of course, given that it's from Microsoft, I'm sure they'll take a cue from every other product they make, and give it a worst-in-class user interface to top things off.
Re:Woah (Score:4, Insightful)
Forget that, how will they enforce it?
Violate the DMCA and try decrypting the songs?
Hack Apple's servers for information?
If I had a dollar for every "iPod killer"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple and RIAA are laughing softly (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is laughing because Microsoft seems to have no profit foothold anywhere in the business plan. As new entrants their players will most likely have to compete on price, reducing the profit margin there. And by re-paying labels for music already purchases, they are in essence subsidizing their customers' libraries--a huge expense. Compare to Apple who commands a healthy profit on the players AND a small profit on every song sold. The only thing better than beating a competitor is making them lose a lot money and STILL get beaten.
Re:Not only that... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Insightful)
fools (Score:5, Insightful)
The iPod is a) simple, b) reliable, c) user-friendly, d) cool, e) well designed and f) ties in well with iTunes. That's what sells it, not bigger screens or WiFi. Nobody who owns an iPod wants to fiddle around for 5 minutes to get the WiFi to work.
It's funny to see..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Apple and RIAA are laughing softly (Score:3, Insightful)
Also Vista will come with Surge which is MTV's video/audio store with WM11. So its likely the RIAA already has a deal with Microsoft and they are sick of Apple telling them to screw themselves with price controls. With more competition it gives the RIAA leveredge because they can sell their music to Microsoft and ignore Apple if the terms are not favorable enough.
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Woah (Score:3, Insightful)
Music Store Lock-in Exaggerated (Score:4, Insightful)
The iTunes Music Store (iTMS) lock-in is exaggerated. I think Jobs mentioned that the average iTMS customer purchased US$70 worth of music. That's not much of a lock-in, especially given that we're talking about folks with the resources to buy an iPod - a digital player at the expensive end of the spectrum.
Now if only Microsoft would expand the policy to include music I purchased on LPs, 8 tracks, and casettes.
Re:Not only that... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which will increase the size.
AAC isn't a proprietary vendor lock-in format, it's the successor to MP3, as in MP4. It's amazing how many people think AAC is an Apple thing. They've obviously never even looked into the format. AAC is the standard audio format for next-gen movies (HD-DVD and Blu-Ray).
Right, people have found no uses for the port at the bottom of the iPod.
This is another money-sinking venture into locking you into WMA and getting you reliant on Windows tech. The device will be bulky (bigger screen? What, you think Apple won't be introducing new iPods this Christmas either? Probably those huge widescreen touchscreen iPods we've been hearing about for a year) and will only work with Windows and Window Media Player. Yuck.
As for free downloads of iTunes purchases, does Microsoft think people use iPods because of the iTunes Music Store?
The Long Game (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, that's no guarantee of success. But it would be dangerous to write off a product from someone with their cash reserves, determination, ruthlessness, and failure to understand the meaning of anti-trust legislation...
My gut feeling is that if it has to stand or fall on its own merits, it's doomed. But they'll find some way to tie it in with Windows, make it easier to use that and harder to use an iPod or other device, and they'll dig in and keep pouring in cash, and in a year or two's time people might be wondering why anyone ever doubted it :(
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Insightful)
They already have most of the store (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Closed codec's and DRM I'm sure (Score:3, Insightful)
I've got about 500 CD's and 2,865 ripped mp3 tracks on my iPod that say otherwise. And they work just fine with iTunes as well (in fact, about half of them were ripped using it).
Presumably MS's player will do the same. If you're encumbered by DRM at this point, you've got nobody to blame but yourself. You do still have choices as to where and how to buy your music. You're the one who chose DRM.
If you don't want the industry to use DRM, why not try buying music on a format that does not include it? The industry is going to continue supporting DRM as long as people like you keep buying it.
(I know some CD's have it as well, but most don't, and you may as well at least make the effort to check.)
Re:Closed codec's and DRM I'm sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Closed codec's and DRM I'm sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's DRM is not more lenient. It is much more strict than Fair Play. I predict you will not love it.
Re:Apple and RIAA are laughing softly (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummm...
In terms of music players and software, Apple has access to more like 99% of desktops in the world (discounting Linux and Unix desktops). Or have you forgotten that iTunes for Windows exists? If you're going to throw meaningless numbers like that around, Apple actually comes out on top.
Apple also is starting this "war" with around 80% market share in hard drive players. MS is starting with 0%.
I know who I'd put my money on.
How about Zen Vision killer? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple will do fine. They have dominated the mp3 business far in excess of anyone's expectations, and for far longer. Even if they fall back to a 40% market share; that will still be a large and successful business.
Re:Not only that... (Score:2, Insightful)
Two of my close friends - gamers both - use MS keyboards (A year old Natural and some new media offering) and mice (One with the new side-scrolling thing, one an InteliMouse of some sort) and love them deeply.
I have a Mac friend, but for years has been using MS mice because the Apple offerings were so dire.
I have a GameVoice, it's a brilliant piece of gear (admittedly, thay may be due to plantronics, but still...) and although the plantronics headset that comes with it broke on me a few months ago (but damn, that thing lasted for a good couple of years) the switch box I still use.
I own a modified Xbox, and I love it. I'll buy a 360 when I can both afford it and Halo3 is out.
At the moment I'm using a particularly lovely Logitec MX510 and a Cherry CyBo@rd keyboard - awful name, absolutely great keyboard that's so good, when I spilled tea all over my first one I scoured as many online shops as I could to find somewhere that still stocked the years old design - rather than MS offerings, but I have used MS previous to my current gear.
MS may be lacking behind Apple when it comes to software, but it's Keyboards and Mice offerings have generally been superior to apple offerings for years - the only area they're in the same market, afaik. Still are, if you ask me. Don't count them out quite so soon...
Re:Not only that... (Score:2, Insightful)
Out of the snake pit and into the lion's den.
MS: "Hey man don't let Apple jerk you around like that...let US do it!"
Re:Woah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not only that... (Score:2, Insightful)
When the fact is, every single song you buy from iTMS, you can remove the copy protection just by burning the song to disc (even to a virtual disc if you're the clever type.)
Apple had the majority of the music player market long before their music store was successful.
Additionally, I find the "renting" business model from other music "stores" ridiculous.
Think about it: No burning cds(you can with iTMS),
No sharing with others (you can share your music with up to 4 others with iTMS, just as if they paid for the song themselves),
The worst point of all if you stop paying the $14.95 a month, all your music will stop working. I have music from the 80's that I still enjoy playing here and there, that was almost 30 years ago now. Without a price rise, it'd cost $5000 USD to have the luxury of playing just one song from the 80s under the 'renting' business model. Plus this isn't a bank loan where they'll let you keep your house if you stuff up your payments for a month here and there.
Plus who wants to rely on the variable that this company and service actually are around in many years time? There is a very good chance you'll still require the same old dodgey player which you had all those years ago, you might even require the same music program on the same OS and best of all the company might go bankrupt possibly invalidating all your music anyway.
Now that I have addressed the common fears of the renting business model, why do people think 99c is a lock in? When time passes, I'll still be able to find my 99c song, whether it's on a CD that I burnt and gave to my friends who copied it a million times or in my own iTunes collection and play it, invisibly knowing it has DRM. (iTunes already supports their past drm formats, as they have tinkered it quite a bit already.)
My point is that, if you want to beat apple at this game, you need to give the consumers more, and to give consumers more here, you need to be selling files without DRM. (notice that while all the other music stores and vendors have failed, only allofmp3'd business model works with apples.)
Re:Not only that... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because now they've started - and this is just the start; expect more to come - to tie the the negative term "vendor lock-in" to Apple. And in the mind of the average punter, because Microsoft are the ones who exposed it, they can't be guilty of the same thing - can they? If they were, that just wouldn't make sense...
Re:Survey of High Schoolers: iPod not built to las (Score:2, Insightful)
Forgive me if I don't take a secondhand version of a college project where students interviewed students as a reliable report on what the general consumer wants in a Mp3 player.
You fail to mention the players the iPod was compared to. Am I to take from this that the iPod is the least reliable on the market? Is there something better? I'd tend to believe that all players are assembled from cheap parts in Asia and all have more chance than they should of falling apart. The best you can do is get one with a good warranty program, which Apple seems to have (in most cases they'll just hand you a new one, though it does sometimes require raising a stink.) Apple's not alone in that by any means, of course, but they're better than many (*cough* Sony.)
You say lack of AM/FM is seen as a negative. But is it a missing feature that would influence a significant amount of people's buying decisions? If you present a person with the feature list of two products and one is longer than the other, they'll say the one without is lacking. But that doesn't mean it's going to affect their decision-- There are lots of electronic products (from cell phones to cars) with less that sell better than those with more. A ton of features don't do you much good if the product is difficult to use or has other flaws.
(By the way, almost no players have AM. I only say "almost" because someone might dredge up an obscure Vietnamese model if I say "none".)
You fail to mention the iTunes factor. It's not all about the hardware. How did that figure into this survey?
I can't stress enough that I do not own an iPod, or care to. The fact that the battery can't be easily switched is a definite turn off for me. I'm not sticking up for my brand. I just hate to see know-it-alls throw around pointless and and arbitrary surveys like this as data we should all respect.
Oh, and...
(*) I expect Apple has similar research of their own and it probably inspired the Radio Remote. I'd wager future models will have it built in.
I'll take that bet. I don't think those things are flying off the shelves. Seems more like a specialty add-on for the small minority who want it to me.
Radio? (Score:4, Insightful)
re: exactly! (Score:4, Insightful)
I use mine pretty much every day, since it's normally attached to a Pioneer adapter on my car stereo.
I'm not denying *some* people have had problems with theirs, of course. But my experience is, this is a device that feels quite "solid" compared to most of the competitors. (The buttons feel like they could fall out of some of the other models I've used!) Sure - they're easy to scratch up, but that's just a cosmetic issue. In some respects, I actually like the way they show poor/rough handling like they do. It gives second-hand purchasers immediate knowledge of whether the previous owner was the type to take care of his/her electronics, or just throw them about.
Re:Not only that... (Score:3, Insightful)
For now.. the fact is that Apple has removed rights with every version of iTunes since the iTMS launched and they've never granted extra rights.
It's only a matter of time before Apple removes your ability to burn those songs to CD.. that's what we mean when we say "vendor lockin". Apple retains *full* control over your music and can (and does) change the usage policy of that music at any time.
Re:Survey of High Schoolers: iPod not built to las (Score:3, Insightful)
When I was in high school, we listened to AM, not for music, but for sports. For example, it was very nice to have a radio broadcasting a big-league baseball game on AM, while playing softball, or at a picnic, or at the swimming pool, or whatever.
STOP! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Closed codec's and DRM I'm sure (Score:3, Insightful)
Drm sucks.
So I guess I wont show the RIAA that you can make a good model selling music over the internet.
Re: exactly! (Score:3, Insightful)
I will be looking very hard at MS's offering. The only thing I don't need, however, is video playback. I wish that was an option I could dump for a lower cost. I just want to listen to music.
Re:Not only that... (Score:2, Insightful)
Msft is not considered hip enough to sell iPods (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider the age group that is the target market. High school, and college students just don't consider msft cool anymore (did they ever?).
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Closed codec's and DRM I'm sure (Score:4, Insightful)
Not true and a common misconception. Microsoft's DRM can be as flexible and as inflexible as the provider of the music service would like. It is perfectly possible to set the restrictions to be better than those of fairplay, but it is also perfectly possible to do the opposite.
Microsoft does not define how these are set - it is down to the music service and the agreements they have with labels.
Given previous experience, you're probably right on that one.
Re:Radio? (Score:3, Insightful)
What I'd like to see is some diversity in pop culture for a change. Literally radio is ALWAYS just more of the same. Some new band comes out... and they clearly have nothing special going on, other than some big record contract and media image... no message... no originality. A lot of times they don't even write their own songs or music. It's all fabricated.
I blame the local tv morning news program hosts, pubescent girls that scream and cry, MTV, American Idol, President Bush, NSYNC, Eminem, Red States, make-up artists, Fox News, wardrobe specialists, and ClearChannel for not letting actual creativity exist in a way that people might have the chance to check it out.
*** (Don't bother with those FM tuners that sound like crap, or cassette adapters... I have a Sony CD deck that has auxiliary inputs in the back, just needed a cheap cable from radioshack with RCA plugs on one end and a mini headphone plug on the other)
Re:Not only that... (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft has a record of being utter failures at EVERYTHING they put out to be a "killer" of anything else.
Hell their pinnacles, Tablet PC and XP Media Center both suck horribly. Media Center is buggy crap that is 1/2 of what the open source windows based projects that do the same thing. They keep trying to market the tablet to the masses and the tablet is not ready for the masses.
You mean that colossal cash sink the XBox, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft makes money in the Windows division. MS has lost around $7 Billion in the last four years on divisions like the XBox and MSN. They've got their essential monopoly in the PC market, and they're using it for forays into other areas -- none of which has been that successful.
Given that, this supposed plan to pay for licenses to everything you've bought on iTunes does fit MS's established M.O.... which is to lose reams of money trying to gain market share, just as you say. Xbox/360 market share today is something like 34 percent. Bought at ruinous cost.
The difference between MS and Apple here couldn't be clearer. The iPod has been out since October 2001. Five years of incredible profitability for Apple later, MS has figured out how to lose scads of money in order to attempt to catch up? Gee, can they purchase 30% of the market this way? How ambitious!
I'm not a particular fanboy of Generallissimo Steve Jobs, but he's had his own "iPod killers" more than once since 2001; the mini was their best-selling model when he replaced it...
Re:BS (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes - if you tell iTunes to move the files around, iTunes will (gasp) move the files around! However, it's most certainly not the default - by default, iTunes does nothing with the original files. (Well, except add ID3 tags if they're missing, and update ID3 tags if you edit them via iTunes.) It doesn't move or copy any files. It just points to them. You can set options (which are initially off) to tell iTunes to copy all media into a central directory and to manage the files. But it's not the default, and it's fairly clear what it'll do when you select those options.
The "Keep my iTunes Folder Organized" option contains the following text right under it and isn't checked by default:
Not exactly a confusing option (although the font used to display the description is a little on the small size).
Wifi? audio player? OMG! (Score:3, Insightful)
* MSFT negotiates one-time flat fee to music industry to let I-tunes customers use the content they already bought on the new player/service.
* Similar to X-box, product is priced at a discount to build market share and hopefully capture revenue on content distribution
* Product is locked-down against non-MS software, to ensure the revenue stream is not disrupted by rogue software
* Lock-down is less than perfect. Hey, it's an MS product.
* Hackers buy the players, and run Linux on it. Just like they did with Ipod.
* Wifi hardware means a whole new frontier of peer-to-peer filesharing, after the MS DRM is vaporized.
* People buy LOTS of MS music players when they realize what is possible with a nifty download
* Music industry angry with MSFT for enabling a massive, untrackable, unstoppable, wireless P2P network.
The one missing piece of the puzzle is a wifi music player. Hackers can't create hardware and put in the hands of millions of people. Along comes the unlikely hero... Microsoft!
And I thought they would never create a product that customers would really want. HA!
The market is becoming queasy about MS (Score:3, Insightful)
The purpose is to gain as much marketshare as possible as quickly as possible at whatever cost necessary.
Oh yeah, that couldn't be more clear. The question I have is:
Steps 3 and 4 don't quite seem to be getting off the ground, here, whatever they are. They aren't "Now that we've got businesses locked into Office Suites, we'll make them upgrade." I "got" that. Apparently we'll see in the next five years -- over which time MS plans to blow another cool few billion trying to win over fickle gamers?
Apple's approach has been different with the iPod and iTunes. The business model is profitable, and the iTunes music store was a loss leader driving iPod sales. The gains came right up front, and they got their market share by shaping an emerging market because they'd shown they understood it better than the competition. Seems like an actual viable business strategy, not dot-com logic with a monopoly keeping it alive.
Let me get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now they're going to go into direct competition with their licensees. This should go over well...
I'm sure the licensees all understand that they were really just preparing a market for Microsoft, and will quietly close up shop. Certainly, none of these companies such as Creative Labs has ever shown any tendency to cause trouble or litigate. I'm sure they can all simply rely on the US Justice Department's oversight and Microsoft's honoring the DOJ settlement and consent decree to ensure that Microsoft won't try to extend it's monopoly here.
Right...
Another group of companies are about to learn what happens when one 'partners' with Microsoft. Have a nice day, fellas.