Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft To Release 'iPod Killer' at Christmas?

Posted by Zonk on Thu Jul 06, 2006 03:31 PM
from the happy-holidays dept.
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Microsoft Developing iPod, iTMS Competitor 304 comments
Software writes "Reuters reports that Microsoft is developing an iPod and iTunes Music Store competitor. Few details are available, but it's known that Robbie Bach (the man behind the Xbox) is heading up the project." From the article: "Most iTunes rivals charge monthly fees to access a catalog of entertainment, but some allow consumers to buy individual songs for about $1 each. Microsoft's service will emphasize the pay-per-download, or a la carte, model, the sources said. A subscription component will also be offered, according to early accounts of the planned service. One source, who has seen a demonstration of the service, said it was an improvement over iTunes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:32PM (#15670364)
    It'll be built with the reliability and simplicity you've come to expect from Microsoft.
    • by ScottLindner (954299) on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:38PM (#15670417)
      When they say by Christmas, do they mean RC1, RC2, SP1, SP2? :-)
    • by MarkByers (770551) on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:41PM (#15670460) Homepage Journal
      Obligatory link to Microsoft designs the iPod package [google.com].
      • by NiceGeek (126629) on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:47PM (#15670537)
        Since when is mp3 a lock-in format? (the bulk of what is on my Pod is ripped from my own collection). Nothing is stopping you from from doing that or buying from online vendors that sell albums in mp3 format. Don't be dense.
      • by AuMatar (183847) on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:48PM (#15670541)
        YOu may be right on points 1 and 3, but not 2. It will be using a proprieatary vendor lock in format called WMA, just as chock full of DRM as the ipod.
      • Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Informative)

        by steveo777 (183629) on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:53PM (#15670606) Homepage Journal
        Well, you've got a few good points there. Except for the vendor lock-in format. What do you think WMA, WMV are? Think MS is going to let you use MP3's right on there? (I read TFA, I didn't see anything about it). And Apple learned from its mistakes, now you can use USB 2.0 or FireWire.

        Proud owner of iPod Nano. But when it's time for replacement, I'll give this product a look-see.

        • Re:Not only that... (Score:4, Informative)

          by Triv (181010) on Thursday July 06 2006, @05:06PM (#15671247) Journal

          And Apple learned from its mistakes, now you can use USB 2.0 or FireWire.

          Not anymore, you can't. iPod videos ship with a USB(2.0) cable only and are unsynchable through firewire, even with the proper cabling. I believe the Nanos are the same way, but am fuzzy on the details. And lemme tell ya, coming from a guy with four Macs, being forced to sync with the only one with USB2.0 on it (which ain't where my music lives) is supremely fucking annoying.

          Triv

      • by bcat24 (914105) on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:59PM (#15670670) Homepage Journal
        Good point about the battery, but 1) AAC is not proprietary and 2) the iPod also plays MP3s, WAVs and AIFFs (IIRC).
      • by Overly Critical Guy (663429) on Thursday July 06 2006, @04:22PM (#15670877)
        Meaning it will allow for easy replacement of the rechargeable battery


        Which will increase the size.

        not require proprietary vendor lock-in formats (ACC)


        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).

        and use generic cables/interfaces/devices to extend the use of the product? SIGN ME UP!


        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?
      • "It'll be built with the reliability and simplicity you've come to expect from Microsoft."

        If you want something that's built to last, get an iPod. ;)


        Business Students at a local university surveyed a bunch of local high schools. They found that Apple scored low on reliability. Apple also scored low on features, the kids really thought the lack of AM/FM was a negative(*). However, iPod was the most common player. Apple did win on ease of use. Many iPod owners admitted they traded functionality/reliability for "status symbol"/fashion. The kids were fairly well informed since there was a lot of comparing and contrasting of the various players they had.

        (*) 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.
        • Radio? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by vistic (556838) <corbyz@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Thursday July 06 2006, @06:18PM (#15671697)
          Hah... I own an iPod because I don't LIKE anything on AM/FM.
          • 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.

            These were part-tme MBA students (ie worknig professionals by day) who had taken statistics and maketing and were working under the supervision of a professor who has been hired by large corporation to do just such studies. Now this was a class project, not a corporate sponsord project, so it was small scale and regional (southern California) compared to an Apple sponsored study but it included interviews, questionaires, and focus groups. The results are not so easily dismissed. The sample size was significant, distributions, p-values, and other sanity checks on the data were good.

            You object to students being the segment studied? Have you seen Apple's commercials? This is Apple's target market.

            You fail to mention the players the iPod was compared to.

            The survey covered needs, wants, perceptions, and customer satisfaction for whatever portable digital player were used. It was not an iPod study per se, iPod was just the most common player.

            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?

            It was a recurring missing "want". As stated in the original posts, the respondents said that they traded this want for the "status symbol" nature of the iPod.

            "(*) 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.

            The fact that Apple introduced such a product undermines your argument. If Apple's research showed it to be such a niche product they would have left it to third parties.

            You fail to mention the iTunes factor. It's not all about the hardware. How did that figure into this survey?

            They did not like being unable to transfer the files, a general DRM problem. MP3s were the preferred format.

            [sidebar] iTune isn't really much of a factor anyways. I believe Jobs once stated that the average customer spent US$70. Not much of a lock-in, but that's a different thread (literally). [/sidebar]

            I can't stress enough that I do not own an iPod, or care to.

            I own one, 2nd generation, the first that were available for PCs. I happy with it.

            I just hate to see know-it-alls throw around pointless and and arbitrary surveys like this as data we should all respect.

            Really, from reading your post it seemed that you disliked the results and made many erroneous assumptions to rationalize why you should reject the data. As I pointed out it seems consistent with Apple's behavior with respect to radio. It's small scale and regional, but it was done by knowledgeable people under the supervision of experts.
        • by buswolley (591500) on Thursday July 06 2006, @04:04PM (#15670714) Journal
          Quick! Get this man a beer! His sarcastic recognition and storage buffer is failing!
        • by Traiklin (901982) on Thursday July 06 2006, @04:28PM (#15670923) Homepage
          Have you ever owned one? I've owned four and between click wheels that fail, batteries that drop down to 30mins of play time, failed headphone jacks, firmware/softwar bugs etc. - I've never owned bigger pieces of electronic crap.
          so wait, you call the iPod a peice of crap yet you bought 4 of them? Why? after 2 most people would move on to something more reliable.
          • Re:Not only that... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by linuxpng (314861) on Thursday July 06 2006, @05:13PM (#15671301)
            honestly out of the 8 macs I've bought over the last 5 years (I'm married to a geek, we don't buy one of anything)4 of those macs had major problems. I've never had an ipod have a hardware issue. I'm about as cynical as it gets over Apple hardware quality control too.
          • re: exactly! (Score:4, Insightful)

            by King_TJ (85913) on Thursday July 06 2006, @06:35PM (#15671791) Homepage Journal
            I've owned 2 iPods so far, and only got rid of the first one because I wanted to upgrade to a "bigger and better" 60GB video iPod model. I've had zero problems with either of them, unless you count one time I had to do a soft-reset on the 60GB video after it froze up trying to play some corrupted MP3 files I accidently put on it.

            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.
  • by walt-sjc (145127) on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:34PM (#15670381)
    I'll take a wait and see attitude before totally slamming it, but if history is a judge, ...

      • by djrogers (153854) on Thursday July 06 2006, @04:37PM (#15670996)
        The last time I tried to change the user I ended up losing all my music and Itunes deleted everything. Apple was nice and let me redownload everything with a warning not to do it again
        Ok, so you screwed up and Apple fixed it for you...

        Anyway if I didn't have work/school I could research everything and fix it and be carefull to get my music back so I dont lose anything.
        You mean the arduous task of *copying* the protected AAC files to another computer and *gasp* typing in a username/password combo? Ack - I can see why you must take a sabbatical to research such a thing..

        Yes I know Itunes lets you share music on up to 5 computers but still I have to do it right incase I accidently delete the drm for the music.
        Errrm, I assume by this you think that the DRM is somehow fragile and will self destruct the songs if you somehow handl it wrong? Nope, not gonna happen. I have protected AAC files all over my network, all I have to do to use them on a new PC is press Play then enter my ITMS login credentials. Oh yeah - only once. For every song. ONCE. How is that fragile?
      • by soft_guy (534437) on Thursday July 06 2006, @04:37PM (#15671002)
        If Microsoft offers more lenient DRM then I am all for it!

        Microsoft's DRM is not more lenient. It is much more strict than Fair Play. I predict you will not love it.
        • by Mr_Silver (213637) on Friday July 07 2006, @03:13AM (#15673802)

          Microsoft's DRM is not more lenient. It is much more strict than Fair Play.

          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.

          I predict you will not love it.

          Given previous experience, you're probably right on that one.

  • Woah (Score:5, Interesting)

    by voice_of_all_reason (926702) on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:35PM (#15670389)
    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."

    I'll assume the summary leaves out the crucial word "free" in there. If so, that's pretty damn clever. I just wonder how/if MS will get the music cartels to agree to it, other than wholescale bombing of their headquarters' into submission by the Windows Air Force.
    • Re:Woah (Score:5, Insightful)

      by davecrusoe (861547) on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:38PM (#15670416) Homepage
      Easy: they'll do the same thing they've done with the x-box (subsidize the music at their cost, to win market share)....
    • Re:Woah (Score:4, Insightful)

      by profet (263203) on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:39PM (#15670432)
      I'll assume the summary leaves out the crucial word "free" in there. If so, that's pretty damn clever. I just wonder how/if MS will get the music cartels to agree to it, other than wholescale bombing of their headquarters' into submission by the Windows Air Force.

      Forget that, how will they enforce it?
      Violate the DMCA and try decrypting the songs?
      Hack Apple's servers for information?
    • Re:Woah (Score:4, Informative)

      by DerGeist (956018) on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:39PM (#15670442)
      Actually, as reported here [engadget.com] the songs will be free to the user, with royalties being paid by Microsoft. In other words, you as the user get to move your songs over while MS re-buys them for you.

      Albeit ostensibly benevolent, keep in mind Microsoft has a habit of trying to dump loads of money to gain initial market share. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out.

    • Re:Woah (Score:5, Informative)

      by RealSurreal (620564) * on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:40PM (#15670453)
      From TFA : "They'll actually scan iTunes for purchased tracks and then automatically add those to your account. Microsoft will still have to pay the rights-holders for the songs, but they believe it'll be worth it to acquire converts to their new player."

      Personally I don't see how this will work. I can't imagine Apple being too keen on it.
      • Re:Woah (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Sentry21 (8183) on Thursday July 06 2006, @04:38PM (#15671011) Journal
        How long until someone figures out how to script a system whereby users can go to a website, input their iTunes user/pass, and force Microsoft's service to re-sync its library (at great expense to Microsoft)? Think of it - an automated way to screw Microsoft, just by putting in your user/pass!

        Personally, I'm going to be encouraging everyone I know to sign up for the service and download the Microsoft versions of their iTunes libraries - and then cancel their subscription.
    • Re:Woah (Score:5, Funny)

      by Jtheletter (686279) on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:48PM (#15670542)
      I just wonder how/if MS will get the music cartels to agree to it, other than wholescale bombing of their headquarters' into submission by the Windows Air Force.

      "Why those are some real nice computers you got there at the RIAA, running some fancy Windows OS too. Sure would be a shame if WGA suddenly listed them all as pirated...."
  • by SoCalChris (573049) on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:36PM (#15670401) Homepage Journal
    Not unless it has wireless, and more space than a Nomad. Otherwise it's just lame.
    • by Thrudheim (910314) on Thursday July 06 2006, @04:43PM (#15671051)
      Seriously, the companies that have to be the most concerned about this announcement today have names like these: Creative, Sony, Napster, Yahoo!, MTV and Real Networks. These are all Microsoft "partners" whose business ventures are now going to have to be in direct competition with Microsoft's own player/store. Some of them have been losing money trying to compete with the iPod/iTMS, such as Creative and Napster. What are their future prospects now?

      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.
  • by CrazyJim1 (809850) on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:36PM (#15670402) Journal
    Can I point it at someone dancing around like an idiot in public, and it explodes their ipod? I'll take two for dual wield.
  • also.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by solidtransient (883338) on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:37PM (#15670403) Homepage
    But wait, there's more! Microsoft's iPod killer will also: - double as a powered beard trimmer (small fees apply per trim) - provide a conveneint space to store change (small fees apply per coin) - allow you to pause time and move really fast (small fees apply per pause) - allow you to transport from one place to another (small fees apply per transport) - melt competitor iPods within 30 feet of the device (free of charge!)
  • by Mister_IQ (517505) on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:38PM (#15670414)
    unlocking users from iPod's vendor lock-in

    ... and locking them right back in again in to Micrsoft's vendor lock-in. Brilliant.

    Next, I hope they'll let me "upgrade" all my paperbacks to MSReader encrypted format too!
  • ...I'd have enough money to buy a newer iPod.
  • by snowwrestler (896305) on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:46PM (#15670521)
    There's no guarantee that Microsoft will be able to negotiate the same rates with the recording labels that Apple has. In fact from previous stories we know that the labels are aching to raise online prices and introduce differentiation, but were overpowered by Apple's market share. Microsoft will have a market share of 0% as they negotiate their deals--expect them to pay more per song than Apple for recent "hit" music. So the RIAA is laughing because not only are they going to get paid twice for one consumer purchase, but the second payment might actually be bigger than the first.

    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.
  • by cyfer2000 (548592) on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:51PM (#15670580) Journal
    Do I need to input password every time I
    • play a song
    • change volume
    • display lyrics
    • rank a song
    • display a piece of artwork related to the song
    • upload a song to the player
    • ...
  • by CherniyVolk (513591) on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:51PM (#15670583)

    You know how you can order an iPod from Apple with a custom etching on the back?

    Microsoft just placed an order for a few thousand blue iPods with "Microsoft" etched on the back. Internal reports suggest they won't even bother opening up the boxes as they come in the mail, instead just redirect them to their "customers".
  • fools (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tom (822) on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:52PM (#15670594) Homepage Journal
    Nothing on that list is what iPod owners care about, so this'll be another money bleeding mistake, not an "iPod killer" (besides, didn't we already have an iPod killer this week? I thought they're scheduled every two weeks).

    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.
  • by AHumbleOpinion (546848) on Thursday July 06 2006, @04:11PM (#15670779) Homepage
    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.

    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. ;-)
  • Already Exists? (Score:4, Informative)

    by jwilhelm (238084) on Thursday July 06 2006, @04:26PM (#15670900) Homepage Journal
    Looks kind of like this...

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile/media/gigab eat.mspx [microsoft.com]
  • OGG? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bakes (87194) on Thursday July 06 2006, @06:56PM (#15671924) Journal

    Yes, that's all very well, but will it play my OGG files?

  • STOP! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Killshot (724273) on Thursday July 06 2006, @07:04PM (#15671976) Homepage
    I am so sick of reading news every 6 months about some new "iPod Killer" We can talk about who killed the ipod when it is dead. Until then... Stop pointing fingers.
  • by walterbyrd (182728) on Thursday July 06 2006, @09:17PM (#15672699)
    Msft has said themselves: a big part of the ipod craze is the trendy fashion statement. It's like wearing the right name-brand running shoes, as opposed to some cheap knock-off.

    Consider the age group that is the target market. High school, and college students just don't consider msft cool anymore (did they ever?).

    • by voice_of_all_reason (926702) on Thursday July 06 2006, @03:39PM (#15670437)
      Personally, what sold me on the ipod compared to generics was the 60gb of space. I've already taken up half of that with my "favorite" music directory from PC and could probably fill up the rest easily if i sat down for a few days and cherry-picked some more stuff.

      A wide library was extremely important to me. I like being able to go weeks without hearing a song again, and none of the other players I saw even came close in capacity. They need more jiggawatts.
    • by Awptimus Prime (695459) on Thursday July 06 2006, @04:20PM (#15670864)
      I have no interest in a video or audio ipod, nor do I have interest in this. Why should i? If I want an MP3 player I'll get a much cheaper generic one that is less likely to be stolen and doesn't involve brand name price inflation. If I want a portable video player I'll get a PSP and hack it.

      If by 'hacking', you mean: insert a memory card with a movie on it and click 'play', then by all means, hack away mr. hacker!
    • Re:In other news... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Thrudheim (910314) on Thursday July 06 2006, @04:10PM (#15670773)
      Actually, this is precisely what Steve Jobs predicted in January in an interview with Newsweek.

      "The problem is, the PC model doesn't work in the consumer electronics industry, where you've got all these companies and some does one thing and another does another thing. It just doesn't work. What's going to happen is that Microsoft is going to have to get into the hardware business of making MP3 players. This year. X-player, or whatever."

      The link is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10853916/site/newsweek / [msn.com]