iPod Killers For the Holidays

An anonymous reader writes, "MP3 Newswire has an excellent rundown of 29 new digital portables for the upcoming season. From the article: 'We have run the iPod Killers for Christmas/Summer series since 2004. In that time we [have] reported on 149 portable players and NOT one iPod killer from the bunch. That said, [this time] we may actually have a couple of genuine challengers to Apple. This holiday season will see Microsoft pump tens-of-millions of dollars to hawk their new Zune portable, and SanDisk's 8GB e280 flash unit is compelling high-end users. Both can realistically grab double-digit market share from the iPod... Whether they do or not waits to be seen.' The article also makes a good case as to why the Sony PSP should be included in market figures for digital media portables."

The Archos 504

[CUatTHEFINISH]

It looks like an amazing product compared to the video ipod of today. The battery life alone is enough to make me want to toss my ipod down the stairs. I wish I had known more about it before purchasing the apple brand. Oh well, I suppose I'll have to deal with my awesome 6 hour battery life for audio and 1.5 hour life for video. At least I have my video ipod running linux? If only that counted for something.

Archos 604 WiFi/Touchscreen is Perfect!

[Vr6dub]

I can't wait for this one to come out! I feel it's a great bridge between your home computer and your portable life. I was initially interested in a UMPC but I realized I didn't need all the features and added cost...>$1000. The only reason I considered a UMPC over a video iPod was for occasional internet access. With the 604 Wifi I get everything I wanted in a smaller, lighter, more power efficient product. I just wish they would announce a release date and offer it with a larger hard drive.

I do like the iPod's size but my primary use would be in the car or visiting a friends house, or my bedroom for that matter (much lighter than a laptop). I guess if you were walking around a campus or just plain need something that will comfortably fit in your pocket the iPod or similar product is for you.

Easy + Accessories + Everybody's got one + Cool

[superkpt]

Anyone been to a Walmart/Target/Best Buy/Circuit City/Fry's/Apple Store lately? Notice the insane amount of accessories available for the iPod? Anyone notice that more and more car manufacturers are including ports or docks for iPods in their cars?

I'm not sure what the 'average' consumer is thinking about when purchasing a digital music player, but to know that there are a gazillion after-market items I can get for an iPod is somewhat comforting. Plus, the ubiquitity of the iPod means millions of websites devoted to tips, info, hacks, etc. for the iPod. And don't forget the 'cool' factor (which is hard to put into words).

Do not get me wrong. I have a couple of issues with the iPod. I used to own a Minidisc player (EXCELLENT hardware, TERRIBLE software). It had swappable, rechargeable, gumstick batteries. Plus, the exterior didn't scratch easily. And the battery life was incredible.

But come on, iPods are INSANELY easy to dump music to. I don't even use iTunes and it's still insanely easy. Drag and drop will always be the best way for us geeks to get our music on these things, but the ease of use, the ubiquitity of accessories and information, and, finally, the cool factor will make it very hard for any other player to make strong inroads into the market.

Re:Let's make a rule

[adisakp]

Or until they can be on the front page of every newssite when Oprah and Bono go out shopping for one together.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/10/13/AR2006101300161.html [washingtonpost.com]

Nothing will be an iPod killer unless they grab the mindshare. Kids aren't asking their parents for MP3 Players for XMas. They're asking for iPods - specifically and by name. An iPod killer can't just be as good as an iPod. It has to be way better and have people know what it is for it to be a success.

SanDisk fails immediately

[AaronLawrence]

Calling a product an "e280" is completely uninteresting and stumbles at the first step of competing with iPod. "I bought an MP3 player." "Oh, which ipod?" "Not an ipod, an ... er... e280" "a what?"
Of course you can't have brand product recognition immediately, but you can't build it with just another anonymous product number, swimming in a sea of technology with similar numbers.

Why exactly is the Ipod cool????

[lordperditor]

I'll say up front I don't know the Ipod but I have to date not got one because (as I understand it - please enlighten me if I have this all wrong)

- battery issues (can't I change the battery myself?)
- Have to use Itunes?!
- Why does it do that stupid conversion each time you try and put a file onto it (see next question)
- Why can't I just drag mp3 files onto it in my computer
- And I don't think it looks so cool either (I don't see what the fuss is all about)

Please enlighten me, why should I get a music player with battery issues that locks me into using Itunes, does a funky conversion to a special format each time you try to put a file onto it, doesn't let you copy files off onto other machines and won't let you just drag mp3's onto it?

Why would anyone get this player other than the "ohhh look at me I have an Ipod, I'm soo cool" crowd?

Stop with the "iPod killer" crap!

[SeaFox]

I am so sick of seeing that phrase attached to devices that never make any sizable impact on iPod marketshare and many times cease to exist themselves first.

There needs to be some kind of rule that until a new media player has been shown to effect the marketshare of the iPod at least 20% (I know it sounds high but we are using the term "killer" here) it cannot be mentioned in any press release or news story that contains the phrase "iPod killer" unless the sentence is "iPod killer strikes again, slaughtering another competitor!"

When you're right 52% of the time...

[astrosmash]

We've reported on 149 portable players since 2004, all duds.

So, is there any non-emotional reason why I should bother to listen to these guys?

Back in 2004, after extensive research, I finally moved my large MP3 collection off of my linux server and on to my first MP3 player, an iPod, and it was a slam dunk. For me and my music collection it's all about iTunes, and back in 2004 the only alternative was WMP 9, which I'm sure we can all agree is complete junk, so the choice then was obvious. And since then Apple has continually updated and improved both the desktop and client software, while adding new features such as podcasts. As I said, for 2004 it was an absolute slam dunk.

Since then there have been lots of attempts to entice me to upgrade my old iPod; features like Photos, Video, FM Tuners, etc., from either Apple, 3rd parties, and other MP3 manufacturers, all of which have meant nothing to me. I've been quite determined to keep the old iPod until its hard drive dies. With all of the new competition on the market, including Microsoft's Zune, it's ironic that the only new product I've seen that has made me even consider upgrading is iTunes 7, with its gapless playback and additional playlist fields (Skip Count, Last Skipped, etc.) which aren't available on the old 3G iPod.

The other MP3 manufacturers have added lots of technical features to complete against the iPod, but in my opinion Apple still does the best job of addressing the needs of the real music fan.

Re:High Quality

[badasscat]

The reason most portable players have bad sound quality is that they desperately need a headphone amp.

The iPod's headphone amp has a nearly flat frequency response - which is what audiophiles want. It doesn't get much better than what the iPod offers.

The iPod also has a 100db s/n ratio, higher than its competitors, and it supports lossless. What more do you want?

Yeah, I own an iPod so you could call me something of a fanboy. But a lot of people seem to be looking for alternatives when what they want is right there in front of them. It's like watching a Hitchcock film and saying "man, I wish I'd rented something more suspenseful."

Re:Nothing can kill the iPod

[sakusha]

You're right about the moving target. Apple is constantly expanding the iPod in unpredictable directions, the competitors are left eating dust. Case in point: the article describes a Sony player with a pedometer, this is obviously designed to compete with the Nike+ gadget. But the Sony device is just a pedometer, not an accelerometer like the Nike+, so it couldn't possibly be as accurate. Apple has all the best patents on the accelerometer anyway, so nobody can compete.
I showed my Nike+ to my podiatrist, he runs marathons, and you should have seen his eyes bug out. I described how it records your speed continuously throughout your run and you can review it on the computer, and how it's accurate to about 1% once you calibrate it by running a measured distance. He said, "holy crap, I already have a nano, and I can add a gadget that does ALL THAT for only $29?!? That sounds better than my Garmin ForeRunner GPS that cost $250, and it weighs a ton, and if I run underneath trees it loses the satellite signal and my running distance gets corrupted, it totally sucks!" I've tried running with a GPS, and he's right, they totally suck, the Nike+ is everything a runner could ever want except for a heart rate monitor (and those are only for fanatics). But I expect that within a year or so, Apple will have a Nike+ + that has a heart rate monitor or something equally revolutionary.
The point is, nobody saw the Nike+ coming at all, and now everyone has to race to get similar features. I am equally sure that Apple has other surprises up their sleeve. Even if they DON'T have any surprises coming Real Soon Now, there's always a chance they MIGHT, and you'll lose out if you don't have an iPod. Nobody can compete with that.

Re:iPod killer: Mobile phones with MP3 players

[drakken33]

I certainly wouldn't discount the idea and even think you're right. I think one factor though is how many people there are like me who currently use a standalone portable music device.

I don't want a combined phone/music player because:

1. There are times when I want to turn my phone off, or leave it at home because I'm not going to be out for long, but still listen to music i.e. on the bus home after a really tough day or a walk to the shops and back. If I could turn the phone function off but still have the music player then fair enough but would that happen? It is a phone first and music player second I imagine.
2. Most important for me is battery usage. At the moment I can forget to charge my phone when it reaches one bar remaining and still get a whole day's usage if I only make a couple of calls and send a couple of text messages. If, as often happens, I'm on a late running train I'm going to need my phone to call home to say I'll be late. I also need my iPod to help take my mind off of the late train. If I only have a single device I may have to choose whether I want to listen to music more than use the phone more if the battery's running low. I can forget to charge both my phone and iPod of course and end up in the late train scenario with neither device being usable but I feel that that's less likely with two devices.
3. I'm still a believer in the one device to do one thing will do that one thing better than a single device that does many things philosophy. I've used PDA and camera functions on phones and neither has been as good as a dedicated PDA or digital camera. This will change no doubt and I imagine it would be easier to build in a good music player but I'd have to test a device to be sure.
4. Lose one device and you've lost both. This can happen anyway if your phone and music player in in the same bag, jacket or whatever and it gets lost or stolen but there's still a chance that if I lose one device I won't lose both.

I don't mind carrying two devices and I like having nearly 4GB of music available to me. For a music playing phone to work for me it'll have to offer at least 4GB storage, be as easy to use as my iPod nano and have good battery life. My nano can get me to work and back once the battery indicator turns red. If it was a phone it'd have to be able to get me to and from work as a music player and still let me make a couple of calls and send a couple of text messages. That's quite a tough one and probably not practical in the foreseeable future but I can get that with two separate devices and won't compromise just because I have a two in one device.

I doubt that I'm very typical which is why I think that the mobile phone as iPod killer idea is likely. I just won't buy into it until it's a mature market offering me exactly what I want though.

When tested

[SuperKendall]

You actually think the battery lasts as long as the manufacturers claim?

Normally no. That's why so many people are a fan of Apple, because when tested the battery life is actually in line with published figures. It's refreshing to see honesty in tech specs.