Will the iPod die?

[Texsox]

I was noticing all the new manufacturers offering portable, hard drive, media players. It appears the market is shaping up like the PC vs. Mac game. Apple continues to keep the iPod as a proprietary device versus the rest of the world. I see the iPod market share dropping into the teens within 3-4 years, if not sooner. With dozens, even hundreds of companies working on MP3 players and accessories Apple faces a major battle despite inventing the market.

[Kyyle23]

I was noticing all the new manufacturers offering portable, hard drive, media players. It appears the market is shaping up like the PC vs. Mac game. Apple continues to keep the iPod as a proprietary device versus the rest of the world. I see the iPod market share dropping into the teens within 3-4 years, if not sooner. With dozens, even hundreds of companies working on MP3 players and accessories Apple faces a major battle despite inventing the market.

 

I love my Ipod, I will continue to stay with Apple until they start adding features that piss me off I guess. Apple has the distinction of setting the pace and the market for portable HD media players, and the name is everywhere. Of course with competition the market share will drop, but I dont know if it will be too much.

[Texsox]

When there are dozens or hundreds of content sites vs. one (iTunes), will that change your opinion?

[Texsox]

Interesting read, which happens to support my opinion ;-)

[greasywheels121]

I read earlier this week that Microsoft beat Apple to patent the wheel that's been on the iPod.

[Goldmember]

Apple, Microsoft Duel Over IPod Patent

By GREG SANDOVAL, AP Technology Writer

Tue Aug 16, 9:04 PM ET

 

SAN FRANCISCO - Given the intense rivalry between Apple Computer Inc. and Microsoft Corp., this recent revelation had a comedic tinge: Apple took too long to file a patent on part of its blockbuster iPod music players, so Microsoft beat Apple to it.

 

Bloggers and other tech pundits snickered at the prospect of  Steve Jobs having to pay  Bill Gates royalties on the beloved iPods, which account for more than one-third of Apple's revenue. One Web columnist even dubbed the patent office the "iPod killer."

 

But that scenario is unlikely.

 

To be sure, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office last month did reject a request that Apple filed in October 2002 to patent technologies that support the iPod's rotational wheel interface. The reason for the rejection: Microsoft had apparently outraced Apple to the patent office with a similar request by five months.

 

Sounds bad, but that setback is hardly a knockout blow.

 

"It's still very early in the process," said John Ferrell, co-founder of Carr & Ferrell LLP and a leading Silicon Valley patent attorney. "Apple still has a lot of options. This is not like a Supreme Court decision."

 

Apple could file a declaration stating that it invented the technology before Microsoft filed its patent request — as evidenced by all the iPods already on the market at the time. In such cases, a company can ask the patent office to launch an investigation to determine the inventor.

 

Apple also could alter its patent claims so they don't overlap with Microsoft's. As a result, a final answer on who owns the patent for iPod's interface may not be answered for at least another six months, Ferrell estimated.

 

Apple did not explain why the patent applications took so long. The Cupertino, Calif.-based company said in a statement that it "has received many patents for inventions related to iPod, and has many more patents pending."

 

Microsoft released a statement saying only that it has a long-standing policy of licensing its patents to others.

 

At stake are the 21 million iPods that Apple has shipped — that amounts to 75 percent of all MP3 players sold in the United States — since launching the device in 2001. Coupled with revenue generated from the iTunes Web music store, iPod sales accounted for 38 percent of Apple's revenue last quarter.

 

Tim Bajarin, principal analyst for Creative Strategies, pointed out that Apple and Microsoft signed a five-year agreement in 1997 to share technology. When the deal expired in 2002, the music-player patents in question may have been covered, he said.

 

"If someone were taking bets," he said, "I would wager that Apple never pays Microsoft a cent."

[Kyyle23]

When there are dozens or hundreds of content sites vs. one (iTunes), will that change your opinion?

 

Im not worried about content sites. I use limewire, or I buy cds and rip my own cds. And if I need to take something off my Ipod, I just use my copypod program. Its all preference, people make a big deal out of the proprietary software, but it isnt an inconvenience for me.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Apple didn't invent the portable mp3 player market. Rio, Archos, and several other brands were earlier names in the market – and I have a coupel of those expensive dnosaurs in my bleeding edge hardware dustbin to prove it.

 

iPod did revolutionize the market, however.

 

I don't think this is the Apple/Microsoft battle all over again and I don't think the iPod will be knocked off top spot any time soon, if ever.

 

The clickwheel patenting snafu aside, iPod is so ergonomically superior to anything, and a lot of those look and feel elements ARE patented.

 

They also continue to add innovations (all in one clickwheel, color display and digital photo shoebox capabilities etc. They have a virtual monopoly on the third party manufacturers like Belkin and Monster that churn out all those nifty accessories. If those manufacturers decide they don't want to go back to the drawing board to produce a dozen new lines of peripherals, any iPod wanna-be is going to be a one trick pony compared to teh versitility of the iPod.

 

A huge minus for any of the contenders is that few of them will likely see the utility in going with a firewire capable design. USB 2 is fast, but firewire and successive iteration of same are likely going to remain superior.

 

The proprietary AAC music codec is tits compared to mp3 aor other codecs in around the 128 kbps range, and Apple lossless is even better, if less used.

 

I don't think the fate of iTunes and the iPod are completely intertwined, although with a half-billion legal downloads they have to be doing something right. iPod users are in no way exclusively tied to that service either, that is just a misconception. Any provider that delivers mp3s is compatable with the iPod. But for shear beauty of integration, you cannot beat the ipod/iTunes marriage. i personally ragely use iTunes, unless someone gives me a gift certificate or my Pepsi bottle or Slurpee cup is giving me free downloads.

 

Hard drive sizes of other players will catch up no doubt, but currently how many other units are out there in the 60 GB range?

 

Finally, iPods are... Dead Sexy! [/Fat Bastard]. Apple absolutely nailed the branding effort on this one, just as they should have been able to do with the mac all those years ago. Slanguage (I may have made that word up) is evolving around the iPod, including the current Podcast revolution.

 

Plus, as Balta's avatar indicates, iPod's rock because Stewie uses one!

[Texsox]

Interesting CNN article

[FlaSoxxJim]

Interesting CNN article

The first step to chipping away at Apple's dominance is for a competitor to introduce a device that can capture the public's imagination as the iPod has.

 

Ah, there's the rub. That is much easier said than done. I'm sure Sony, Samsung and others will eat at some of the market share, but only internal Apple blunders can kill the iPod. So far, they have had almost a Midas touch with iPod technology AND branding, something they sadly never had with the branding of their computers.

[Rex Kickass]

They do have the branding with the computers. But the compatibility issue and price point was the big difference.

[southsideirish71]

They do have the branding with the computers. But the compatibility issue and price point was the big difference.

 

 

Well hopefully for their sake that should change when they move to Intel technology for their PC base. Panther is pretty good, and as a bsd/linux user its a nice alternative in the long run. Plus if Microsoft keeps their track record of coding flaws and security holes it could make a run once it gets on standard hardware.

 

I dont think the same issues that killed the mac's market share will do the same for the Ipod.

 

I have an Archos and an Ipod. My Archos has all of my video content for my long international flights, and my Ipod is my down and dirty for my day to day music listening. I like the Archos but the ease of use and slick interface brings me back to the ipod for music listening.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Well hopefully for their sake that should change when they move to Intel technology for their PC base.

 

They should have used a standard chip set from the get-go, but that was Jobs screwing Woz around and withholding money on the Atari Breakout development deal. Since he had no money, Woz couldn't afford an 8080 processor when he was cobbling together the mac in his garage and had to go with something cheaper. Possible the single biggest f***-up in personal computer history. :headshake

[southsideirish71]

They should have used a standard chip set from the get-go, but that was Jobs screwing Woz around and withholding money on the Atari Breakout development deal.  Since he had no money, Woz couldn't afford an 8080 processor when he was cobbling together the mac in his garage and had to go with something cheaper.  Possible the single biggest f***-up in personal computer history.  :headshake

 

 

They had plenty of time to correct that decision. The next logical time would of been to move to it when they moved to the powerpc architecture, and then again when they moved to OSX. But Jobs likes to keep things internal and didnt want to risk his "valuable" MAC business by opening it up to hardware competition.

 

Biggest f*** up in personal computing was Xerox and PARC. How many technologies came out of there and Xerox didnt see any real money? How many billions of dollars would be stuffed in their pockets right now if they had just kept these ideas in house.

Edited August 23, 2005 by southsideirish71

[FlaSoxxJim]

They had plenty of time to correct that decision.  The next logical time would of been to move to it when they moved to the powerpc architecture, and then again when they moved to OSX.  But Jobs likes to keep things internal and didnt want to risk his "valuable" MAC business by opening it up to hardware competition. 

 

Biggest f*** up in personal computing was Xerox and PARC.  How many technologies came out of there and Xerox didnt see any real money?  How many billions of dollars would be stuffed in their pockets right now if they had just kept these ideas in house.

Agreed on PARC's missed opportunities for financial gain, but being the Apple devote' I am, i can't complain.

 

As for the processors, I think the .030 and .040 were certainly technically superior to the Intel offerings at the time, and rather it comes down to them being stuck without a large volume source of a universal chip. I think the risc-based PowerPC chips were again really advanced technologically, but the problems involved with ramping up production of those were monumental.

[southsideirish71]

Agreed on PARC's missed opportunities for financial gain, but being the Apple devote' I am, i can't complain.

 

As for the processors, I think the .030 and .040 were certainly technically superior to the Intel offerings at the time, and rather it comes down to them being stuck without a large volume source of a universal chip.  I think the risc-based PowerPC chips were again really advanced technologically, but the problems involved with ramping up production of those were monumental.

 

 

Well again its a decision of technology over marketing. RISC architecture was more powerful in the mid to late 90's based on certain types of processing. But the Intel chips had the market by then, and this was before the Next technology made its way back into Apple. Next ran on an x86 platform as well as the motorolla 6800 architecture. This was the core of what became OsX. Hell Darwin to this day can run on an x86. I had a vmware session running it to see what it could do. It will be interesting to see how multi cored chipsets compare to the big Iron type chipmakers. We are going to test a multicore cluster early next year running Oracle on linux vs a Sun E10K.

[Heads22]

It seems iPod's are a must around here. Today I saw at least 20 different people with earbuds walking to class. I have mine, and I'm a big Apple guy, but I think I only listen to my iPod when I'm in bed so as not to disturb my roomie. I just think I'd get hit with a car if I walked around distracted like that.