The Latest iPod Assassination Attempt

Insani-CTO writes "David Pogue at the New York Times reviews Samsung's new Z5, the latest attempt at an 'iPod killer' He gives it a pretty favorable review, though doesn't quite count the Nano as dead quite yet. From the piece: 'The Z5, then, will not cause any discernible dip in iPod market share. It does, however, deserve to be a hit for Samsung. For someone who wants a Nano that's not a Nano, it's a close enough match in looks, sleekness, capacity and crystal-clear software design. In fact, if iPod didn't loom over every conversation as the screamingly obvious point of comparison, the Z5 could be the next little thing.'"

I love Samsung?

I guess I'm a Samsung fanboi, but it was without realizing it. I used to be a big Sony guy, but over the past decade I've lost all faith in the company. Now I slowly replace all my products with what I consider the best (through a lot of research and actual testing of customer service and warranty support).

Last year my Sony television finally died. I replaced it with a Samsung unit, and couldn't be happier. My cell phone needed replacement, and my Samsung t809 has to be the best cell phone I've ever used (I believe it earns me at least $300 a month more just through added efficiency in my life). The Samsung Origami unit is very promising. My next fridge will be a Samsung (based on my recent experience in India with the units I used there). Same thing with the microwave.

How is it that a quiet company from Korea can produce great products that actually work, and back it up with great customer service? When my cell phone gave me a few minor problems, Samsung replied within 6 hours. They offered to compensate me for my problems (I declined as most were just features I needed that weren't available).

The lady of the house has 2 iPods and she loves them. I know they're saving me time and money because we don't have to store CDs anymore, and the square footage savings alone reduces the clutter in my life. I personally don't like the iPod -- the interface is nice, but it isn't easy enough or fast enough.

I don't see the need to change things, yet, but as consumer goods go, for me it is more about time saved and my life made easier. I doubt there is anything they can offer to make me sell the iPods and buy the Z5. I wonder if there are enough happy iPod users out there to make the market ever-declining for the competition. Considering Samsung picked up the iPod brainstormer, it's possible they'll actually find ways to trump the iPod, but the momentum of sales so far will make it a very difficult path to take. It amazes me how much money is being spent by the competition for obviously sub-par products. What can Samsung do differently to attract the attention of the mass public who already is familiar with Apple's product?

Nonetheless, Samsung does have my attention -- here and in everything else they make. For those not familiar with their products, I highly recommend taking a look the next time you need a consumer appliance or product. I'm amazed at the pricing, features and overall service.

You thought you loved Samsung before...

Now Samsung will love you back...

Samsung Means To Come [yhchang.com]

(Warning: Flash-based and requires sound for full effect; content is all text but not necessarily safe for work)

Re:I love Samsung?

The lady of the house has 2 iPods and she loves them.

You should ask to borrow one of your mom's iPods. :)

Another Samsung fan

You mentioned the fridge - about two years ago I was looking for a refridgerator, and after careful examination of all the fridges the Samsung really looked the best in a number of aspects. It was the only one that had an ice maker I could tolerate, I didn't want one really but she who must be obeyed did (as a sidenote it really is better to have one as then you can drink more water and less of other beverages, much healthier).

After many years of use, the report is that it is fantastic. I have never had an issue with it, the inside is well organized, and I actually like the ice maker/water dispenser. In fact this turns out to be one of the great things about the fridge. One thing you can't usually try in a store is the water/ice dispenser, and I have been to many people's houses over the interviening years and found all other kinds really inferior. Either they combine ice and water in one spout making you have to switch all the time between them (which mode is it in now?) or the spouts simply suck and deliver ice/water all over your feet and the floor.

So even a feature I didn't want just works without fuss. The Samsung fridge is truly the iPod of refidgerators.

We also bought a Samsung LCD TV for someone recently and that has been well received! It was a TV/monitor combo for someone with limited space and the Samsung unit was just might nicer than other comparible units.

With all that said, I agree with you on the iPods, we have two as well and the Z5 doesn't even sound close (the finicky scrolling control and lack of variabilty make it a no-show for me, not to mention lack of Mac support).

Re:I love Samsung?

I have to echo your sentiments, Samsung rules.

When does Samsung roll out a gaming console? They've been thinking about it. We've been waiting for it. What's the holdup?

However, I really don't dig the idea of being wrapped in music while I'm out in public. I like to be aware of my surroundings since I usually have a good time when I am. Here's some Vonnegut:

(talking about when he tells his wife he's going out to buy an envelope) Oh, she says well, you're not a poor man. You know, why don't you go online and buy a hundred envelopes and put them in the closet? And so I pretend not to hear her. And go out to get an envelope because I'm going to have a hell of a good time in the process of buying one envelope. I meet a lot of people. And, see some great looking babes. And a fire engine goes by. And I give them the thumbs up. And, and ask a woman what kind of dog that is. And, and I don't know. The moral of the story is, is we're here on Earth to fart around. And, of course, the computers will do us out of that. And, what the computer people don't realize, or they don't care, is we're dancing animals. You know, we love to move around. And, we're not supposed to dance at all anymore.

Re:I love Samsung?

> How is it that a quiet company from Korea can produce great products that actually work

Gross mischaracterization. Samsung is huge, has huge resources. They've set their sights on taking a lead in consumer products manufacturing and they're exectuting well. Not suprising. How long has Sony been dominant now? Eventually inertia takes over, stagnation sets in. Oh, and lets not forget the pleasure a Korean business will take in popping off a Japanese business. Extra motivation right there.

Samsung is nicely positioned to provide high quality at lower costs due to the tremendous manufacturing capital they own. If they're smart enough to win on customer service (as you suggest) and design (or at least design replication), they will be at the top of the heap for many, many years.

BTW, I ended up with a Toshiba, but I agree with you on the quality of their TVs. I was very torn and my folks have a Samsung that's very nice for the price.

Dinosaur Killer?

In fact, if iPod didn't loom over every conversation as the screamingly obvious point of comparison, the Z5 could be the next little thing.

Of course, that would have required that Samsung independently invent the Z5 rather than hiring away the people that produced the iPod. Thus, without the iPod, there would be no Z5.

If Samsung wants to beat Apple at their own game, they're going to have to do better than hang on their coattails. Unfortunately, every new revision of the iPod and iTunes from Apple raises the barrier to entry [wikipedia.org] that much higher.

Re:Dinosaur Killer?

The ipod (like this device) was an incremental improvement over other mp3 players from the time, not revolutionary.

To a certain degree, yes. It actually had fewer features than many of its direct competitors. However, the iPod "won" on the total package as opposed to feature bloat. Its total package was smooth, easy to use, pleasant, rich in features that mattered to consumers, and decidedly unconfusing. Everything the average joe with a blinking VCR wanted in a device.

Even then, however, the iPod was only a leader in the market rather than the uncontested champion. It was the introduction of iTunes that took the total package experience of the iPod to the levels it's at today.

This is a feature that other players have trouble replicating. If they take Microsoft's DRM route (not that they have much choice), they must take the path of interfacing with third party software rather than attaining the vertical integration that Apple has. This convinces consumers that the device should work across many different music packages, thus causing frustration when the device is incompatible. (As the author of the story related about his experience with Rhapsody.)

The best positioned company to beat the iPod at the moment is Sony. They have a music store, a hardware business, and a record label. If they vertically integrate these, they might pose a challenge. Unfortunately, Sony seems to have been having difficulties in getting their act together.

This device (whilst it will almost certainly be no ipod killer in the ipod's major markets) looks & sounds pretty nice.

Agreed. My only point is that the only way to beat the iPod is to be better than the iPod rather than a psuedo-iPod. :-)

Re:Dinosaur Killer?

The ipod (like this device) was an incremental improvement over other mp3 players from the time, not revolutionary.

Actually, the iPod was an enormous improvement over the mp3 players which came before, because it combined three features which had not yet come together: form factor, storage capacity and ease of use. There were small players, but they had limited storage capacity. There were players with lots of storage, but they were large and heavy. An no other player had an easy-to-use interface. From my limited experience (i.e., I have played around with other mp3 players but have not undertaken a serious study of them) no other manufacturer has yet produced as elegant an interface as has Apple.

I think the comment above points out one of Slashdot's enduring biases and explains one of the reasons Slashdot as a whole has such a terrible track record in predicting success of failure of things like the iPod. The focus here is on technology and techno-fetishism, something the vast majority of the buying public doesn't care about. To that end, saying that the iPod was only an incremental improvement over previous players is pedantic. One may only say that if one only takes into account the hard tech itself. To do that one must ignore the very important things which often mark the difference between successful and unsuccessful products, namely the ability to take techology and make it availble to Joe and Jane Computer User. This is the genius of iTunes and the iPod: it makes the process of buying, burning and managing digital music and an mp3 player easy for even the most technologically ignorant person.

Such an ability often gets short shrift in the Slashdot and wider geek world, which has its own macho posturing built around how deep one can get into a command line or a kernel. But, while doing that, one must remember that, like any subculture, the values of that subculture are not the values of the wider society. The fact that the iPod doesn't play Ogg Vorbis files, while cause for concern here, is of absolutely no value in the wider consumer world. The fact that the iPod's tech wasn't very different from pervious mp3 players is equally unimportant: the iPod packaged what was there, along with a few improvements, in such a way that it was now easy for anyone to have an mp3 player. That is Apple's huge achievement, and that is what Apple understands better than almost any other computer or consumer electronics manufacturer.

If someone wants to beat Apple at this game, they are going to have to offer a better complete package than Apple, and I do not see that happening any time soon. Microsoft can't do it, because it isn't their focus: they've almost become a technology services company which happens to sell an operating system. The Sony of twenty years ago could do it, but that is very definitely not the Sony of today. Samsung can't do it, because they only offer, at most, one third of the player/store/software combination. if anyone is to knock the iPod off its throne, I think it will be Apple, when they introduce the next generation of iPod/video iPod/whatever they're planning.

Re:Itunes=Feature?

I know what tunes I like, I don't need software to recommend a playlist.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

During a long drive your friend/gf asks you: "What do you want to listen to?"
Do you say:
"I really like band ______?"
or
"Itunes says I like band _______?"

What in the world are you talking about? You say, "I really like band _____", then use the search area in iTunes to find it quickly. If you are using your iPod at the moment, thumb through the categories and find what you want to hear.

All I want is something that can play and shuffle music with easily accessible volume buttons.

iPod shuffle? iTunes randomly downloads you new music when you plug it in, then it plays through those tracks. The controls are: Volume Up, Volume Down, Play/Pause, Skip Forward, Skip Back. They're arranged in a circle, so they look like this:

--^--
<<P>>
--V--

Where "P" is play, and '-' is filler so my chart looks good. :D

You can clearly see the controls here [amazon.com]. A regular iPod can be told to do the same thing, except that it can hold your entire music library at once.

Why is Apple pretending that your Ipod isnt just a hard drive/flash memory, a PCB and a battery? Why doesn't it work as a normal drive without Itunes?

They don't, and it does. When you plug in your iPod to a PC, you can see it as a new drive. (It used to show up on Macs too, but I haven't paid enough attention lately to note if this is still the case.) Many people use their iPods as portable hard drives in addition to music players. A practice, I might add, that Apple actively encourages. (I learned about it when I overheard one of the seminars they were giving at the local Apple Store.)

But I don't own a Ipod though

Well, that explains why your post is so confusing. I think you have the wrong impression about the iPod. You might want to take another look. :-)

And soon follows...

...the ZWeb for everyone's busy ZLife, they can download ZTunes from the ZStore.

iPod for Squares

So they stole the guy who made the iPod and made him *not* make an iPod. I like the touch pad. Now I can stroke the music. :p

MMS-MMS

From the article:

And while the Z5 can't play songs from Apple's iTunes Music Store, it can play songs from Rhapsody, Napster, Musicmatch, MSN Music, Wal-Mart, AOL Music Now, Yahoo Music and other members of the "MMS-MMS" consortium (Microsoft-based Music Stores with Minuscule Market Share).

Yes, iPod killers...

Disclaimer: I do not own an full blown iPod
Recently on German news they covered CeBit and plainly stated that the next generation phones would be iPod killers. I was thinking by myself: WTF? Then they started to enumerate the advantages of having MP3 player in your phone. The main thing seemed to be that you could download songs on a whim. Essentially iTMS but over wireless. I fell over laughing. (I know that the device in the article is not a phone, but I just wanted to mention it)

So, I first am going to shell out money to get the song, then pay UMTS packets? Are you *insane*? How expensive will be a 3Meg song that way? Waaaaay beyond the current prices in iTMS.

The iPod is successful because it is simple and later on the seamless integration with iTMS was the big winner. Any competing product must at least match this and make it less expensive.

None of these so-called iPod-killers will fly. At least that is MHO.

iPod killer

None of these so-called iPod-killers will fly. At least that is MHO.

Chuck Norris can fly, he just hasn't gotten around to killing the iPod yet.

You can't beat the iPod head-to-head

These competitors sniping ineffectually at Apple's heels in the digital music player space need to realize that they will always be playing second fiddle (ha ha) as long as their players look remotely like iPods.

People know instinctively that this is an iPod-wannabe. That (nicely anthropomorphic) form factor is burned into the public consciousness (such as it is).

The thing that will erode Apple's domination is the inclusion of iPod-like abilities in other devices. The only thing in the world that is more popular than an iPod is a mobile phone. Its interesting, because of the wrinkle that is the ROKR. Remember the hype around that phone? Everybody knew this could be a killer combination but something happened and it rolled out the door totally crippled; so people wrote off the phone-as-iPod idea in a sense.

Go look at the latest batch of Sony Ericsson phones, extrapolate the direction of the hardware +1.5 years and each one of those phones will be at least as capable as a Nano. And while you don't strictly have to have an iPod, there are many who would agree that a mobile phone these days is strictly necessary... like the PS2 with DVD -playing, people will rationalize the fancy phone as a "junior iPod" over an iPod + Phone separately most of the time. And the fanciest Bluetooth gadget in the world will never integrate the phone with the iPod in the way that they are when shipped in one device (receiving calls and handing off, etc).

All this applies to point-and-shoot digital cameras, as well.

Re:You can't beat the iPod head-to-head

These competitors sniping ineffectually at Apple's heels in the digital music player space need to realize that they will always be playing second fiddle (ha ha) as long as their players look remotely like iPods.

And I'm sure that if I were to dig into Google Groups that Mac zealots were saying the same thing about Windows 3.1 when it first appeared.

Seriously though, I want a music player that plays MP3, AAC, WMA and (for completeness) OGG out of the box, looks pretty, where DRM is supported for each favorite music format and where the software that doesn't suck and lets you choose which format is right for the user. Can it be that hard to do?

Re:You can't beat the iPod head-to-head

Yeah, the big difference is that the iPod has no "Apple Tax". this Samsung Z5 costs exactly the same amount as an iPod, but it isn't the real thing. Very few customers are going to select something other than the defacto standard if the alternatives all cost just as much and don't offer some amazingly compelling feature.

Re:That's not true...it can be done

Simply allow people to transfer files from mp3 player to mp3 player...That just requires a little engineering and a little software. Especially with usb 2.0.... The RIAA and music industry would flip, but you'd outsell the ipod. Make a decent price point don't make it look like crap, a relatively easy to use interface, and you have a goldmine.

Why stop there? Throw in a pony, make it even better.

There is absolutely no technical issue whatsoever involved in getting, say, two iPods to talk directly each other (especially older firewire models). But politically, that is currently verboeten. No label in the world will allow it. No music industry lobbyist in the world will currently let something like that go unanswered. Its not a technical problem at all, it has everything to do with the old guard holding the keys.

Navigation Component

The thumb naturally makes a ciruclar motion, lending itself best to the click wheel design. When I am forced to use a directional navigation system, its as if my fingers are forced to hold positions that don't feel natural. Anyone else get this feeling? If the device were $100 cheaper, and all things else comparable, I could probably be uncomfortable. Anything less though, why bother? -- Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/ [runfatboy.net]

Yeah, but does it support Ogg Vorbis?

Looks cool, but does it support Ogg Vorbis...?

Some quick googling [google.com] says it does [cnet.com]!!! Woo Hoo!!!! I know what I'm getting for my birthday.

Re:Yeah, but does it support Ogg Vorbis?

Careful ... the spec sheet [samsung.com] says it only supports MTP under windowsXP with mediaplayer 10. So you may have a very exciting time getting it to hook up to your linux box. Then again, you may be one of the XP users out there who use ogg. Why do they do this? At least Apple had the sense to support their iPod stuff under non-apple OS's.

Move along, nothing to see here

Companies are always trying to get some extra press by talking up their next line of music players and how they are going to be "iPod Killers" (what ever happened to Microsofts iPod killer?) Then they release a music player like the Z5 that tries to mimic all the great features of the iPod but inevitably they fall short because all they are doing is mimicing to the edge of blatently copying.

The Z5 adds nothing to the table (no, extended battery life does not an iPod killer make). It is twice as thick as the Nano yet has the same capacity and most importantly, the same price point.

tired of the "killer" thing

Why does everything have to be a Something-Killer? Why can't companies just make a good product and sell it without all the "Yeah!! iPod, you're going down!!!" wrestling-match garbage? It's entirely possible for the marketplace to have two really good MP3 players, without one having to totally "kill" the other one... and both companies make a ton of money. I think it probably already is like that. There are a number of good portable MP3 players. I understand about stock prices and shareholders, but this kind of stuff just gets old after a while, and actually makes me less excited about some of these new products...

Fashion

I think that a lot of Apple's success comes from the marketing of the iPod. Pre-iPod it was considered "geeky" to have an mp3 player (in all fairness, mp3 players where horrible when they first came, buttons everywhere). Today, people think its "cool" to have their white headphones on and an iPod hanging at their side.

Although it may not be considered geeky to have another mp3 player today, the iPod is almost seen as a fashion accessory, whereas any other mp3 player is just that, an mp3 player.

To beat the iPod, I believe that the mainstream has to consider it "cool", and you have to have tons of accessories so your mp3 player can be cooler than the other 10million people who also have one.

Just my thoughts on a point I think was missed in the article...

I don't get it

This thing is basically a Nano, except that it's uglier, doesn't work with iTunes, and doesn't support Apple accessories (the fancy ones, not stuff like headphones that work on anything). Why would anyone choose it over the Nano itself? It's not cheaper and has no significant features to offer that the iPod doesn't (i guess battery life sort of counts, but once you're way up to 20+ hours it's not a huge difference. also, ask Sony how their ipod killer with great battery life did).

Re:I don't get it

The Samsung device supports Ogg Vorbis. It also has an aluminum case that avoids scratching. Battery life is 24 hours, which does matter because not everyone recharges their electronics once a day.

Head bang

At Samsung's suggestion, I tested the Z5 with Rhapsody's store, which is available directly from the copy of Windows Media Player provided by the Z5's installer. After banging my head on the keyboard for an hour, unable to get it to work, a Rhapsody rep finally let me know that, in fact, Rhapsody's subscription store doesn't work in Media Player -- only with Rhapsody's own software jukebox. (So much for the Microsoft "Plays for Sure" logo. Try "Plays for Some People.")

I don't want that experience.

Increasing Apple's market share

Why is it that every time I read about an 'iPod-killer' the comparisons just make me want to go out and buy an iPod, even when the reviews are pro-'killer' (not this article is)?

Why Beating The iPod Won't Work

It's always much harder to overturn an entrenched leader in a field than to jump ahead of the pack - and the iPod has massive marketshare. The article has this really important observation:

In fact, at least six factors make the iPod such a hit: cool-looking hardware; a fun-to-use, variable-speed scroll wheel; an ultrasimple software menu; effortless song synchronization with Mac or Windows; seamless, rock-solid integration with an online music store (iTunes); and a universe of accessories. Mess up any aspect of the formula, and your iPod killer is doomed to market-share crumbs.

That's the problem for other manufacturers. That's a damn near insurmountable hill to climb. Sony had some solid electronics but terrible software. The players that use PlaysForSure are doomed with the horrendous WMP system, terrible DRM, and electronics that are crappily designed. Even if you get nicely designed hardware and nicely designed software, you're stuck in a world where you can get iPod accessories everywhere, but nobody's going to carry accessories for your particular product unless you can get a credible amount of marketshare - which is hard when you don't have the accessories to spur sales.

The only way the iPod can be beaten is if Apple screws it up (which is unlikely, but possible) or someone manages to buy their way into market. The only company that could compete with Apple is Microsoft, doing what they did to the gaming market with the XBox. If Microsoft wanted to create a product that would be a severe loss-leader (priced well under the iPod) and could totally redesign WMP to be halfway usable, they might have a shot at unseating the iPod - but not a good one. Microsoft won't do that because the XBox division is currently hemmorhaging money as it is and Microsoft's bottom line would be adversely affected by trying to go toe-to-toe with the most popular piece of consumer electronics on the planet.

The iPod didn't get it first, but it got it right, and unless the cachet wears off (which may happen, but not for a while), trying to beat the iPod is not a particularly sound business strategy.

What about the integration?

The thing that kills all the "iPod killers" for me is the lack of integration with your music library, as compared with the iTunes/iPod combo. Nothing else comes close. Smart playlists, automatic sync when you plug in, two-way sync of metadata like play count and last played time (the iPod updates that data in iTunes after you've played songs on the go), etc. I use smart playlists in particular to give myself a level of control over my music listening experience that isn't remotely possible with albums and songs, or simple static playlists. I couldn't imagine doing back to that.

Every competitor I've looked at is sort of hit and miss, and none provides all of these features with such seamless integration. Many present only the simplest interface to the computer - drag and drop music files to the device as a hard drive. That's probably great for many people here, and before I used iTunes, I would have joined in saying it's all anyone could ever need. But the fact is that iTunes provides so much more to enhance the listening experience. I guess it's all in the bundled software, and who provides anything approaching the iTunes functionality?

The article says "Like almost all non-iPod music players, the Z5 is based on Microsoft's music-player software. That is, it doesn't work with the Macintosh." Well, that probably means it's definitely out for me. But out of curiosity, does anyone know how Microsoft's software stacks up against iTunes in the features I've listed? I've been on the lookout for a non-Apple alternative for a long time due to the ridiculous lack of gapless playback in the iPod. I know Apple has no intention of fixing it because their customer base doesn't care (and isn't even aware of the problem). I can find gapless alternatives, but none that give me the overall experience that iPod/iTunes does. How close is this one?

What's with the bloat?

I am always amazed that people really think they can compete with iPod when they create GUIs that are that cluttered. What are they thinking?

Song Rental vs. Subscription

Did anyone else watching the video notice that he referred to Rhapsody and Napster as song rental services and not subscription services?

nice product

Kudo's to Samsung! This looks like a very nice product and a possible replacement for my iPod Shuffle. :-)

I've spent too much on iTunes

Any player that doesn't support Fairplay and AAC is out for me. I've owned 2 generations of iPod and have way too much purchased music to change. No I don't want to convert all those songs to Ogg or mp3 unless someone knows a way to do it in a batch job with no loss of quality.

Good luck using this on non-XP systems

It requires MTP which comes with Media Player 10. Can't find any information that says it's a drag-and-drop deal.

Assassins...

Why did I get a mental picture of Ballmer throwing chairs at a big iPod...

Jaysyn

The title implies that.....

..... We should be adding the iPod to this list on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_ assassinations [wikipedia.org]

It's all about the wheel!

I've 5000 songs on my iPod, split into 200 or so albums, and 300 artists. Click, or holding a button to navigate a list that long is unacceptable. Hell, I used to get bored scrolling though the menu on my old Nokia phone, a dial is the perfect interface.

I'm suprised Sony didn't include a jogwheel into their walkman. Seems like that would have made it more of a competitor (rather than the hideous phone like menu that they used).