Will the iPod Ever Die?

Azhar writes "Will we always prefer the iPod's glossy slim design over all the others? Or at one point of time will the iPod revolution actually fade? Lets have a look at what could happen and why."

'Ever' seems a bit optimistic

[celardore (844933)]

Granted, there have been some fantastic inventions in the history of man. Like the wheel, that's still going pretty strong and with a massive distribution even now. Will the iPod follow in its footsteps? Unlikely that it's not going to 'ever die'. So yes, it will. Might take five years, might take twenty; but yes it will die.

Article Text

[celardore (844933)]

Seeing as the article was still in my browser, and is now slashdotted I copied the text here.

The iPod has dominated the MP3 player (and portable video player) market so far. It began the ultimate revolution in how we listen to our music. Competitors have come and gone, while the iPod stood strong, but really, will the iPod ever die? Well there are a few points that say NO and some that say YES.

NO! It will not die! (at the bottom of the article we look at the possibility of it actually dying, but for no

TFA

[ColdWetDog (752185)]

was pointless and annoying the firsttime. We really didn't need to see it again. Sometimes slashdotting is a good thing.

Really

Re:TFA

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'm trying to figure out why the DRM is an issue. My iPod has exactly 0 DRM encumbered songs on it. How did I escape the wrath of Apple? Maybe it is because I don't use the iTunes Music Store. It's not a requirement for an iPod, but a choice.

If you don't like the iPod because it's too popular and has white ear-buds, just say so. Don't try to spread mis-information for some pathetic anti-iPod agenda.

Re:TFA

[nessus42 (230320)]

I want my music player to do playback and recording in a format unencumbered by any DRM so I can create and share as I see fit. Apple doesn't give me that,

This is patently false. iPods and iTunes will both play unencumbered mp3s, and iTunes is perfectly happy to rip CDs to unencumbered mp3s.

I have many gigabytes of music on my computer that I ripped from my own CDs. There's not a single DRM-encumbered track on my computer, and I play them all with iTunes, iPods, and mp3 CD-ROMs made with single click burning from iTunes. (My car stereo plays mp3 CD-ROMs.)

Furthermore, iTunes' restriction that it won't copy mp3s off of an iPod and onto a computer is merely proforma to mollify the recording industry. There is nothing built into the iPod to prevent you from copying mp3s off of it and onto your computer. In fact, there are a number of free programs out there that let you do precisely this.

|>oug

DRM and iTMS aren't mandatory.

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

There are a lot of legitimate criticisms of the iPod, but the DRM one I don't particularly understand. Okay, so the iPod supports DRM. It doesn't require it. There is nothing about owning an iPod which requires you to purchase music from the iTMS. You can own an iPod and just ignore the iTMS completely, and use it just like you would an iRiver or a Creative or whatever.

The whole "I hate the iPod because I don't want to pay $0.99 a song" is silly. Nothing about the iPod requires that you buy your music that way. In fact, I'd argue that if you want to get your music from a CD, the iPod is probably still the best player, because iTunes is the easiest ripping/syncing/library-management software around -- naturally that's debatable, of course.

Your points about the lack of a microphone and a line input are well taken, because they're actual capabilities of other devices which the iPod does not have. But the DRM thing is a rather silly point and it gets brought up a lot. If you're buying another player as a sort of "protest vote" against DRM, that's your choice, but it's not really a limitation of the device. Apple isn't Sony, and you can use an iPod just fine without ever paying a cent into the iTMS or buying a single DRMed song.

plenty of DRM in iPod

[oohshiny (998054)]

There are a lot of legitimate criticisms of the iPod, but the DRM one I don't particularly understand. Okay, so the iPod supports DRM. It doesn't require it.

DRM probably has driven some key aspects of the design of iPod. For example, the fact that the iPod doesn't present its contents as a file system, like many other MP3 players do, is probably due to DRM. The fact that it's hard to get music off the device is also driven by DRM concerns. Likewise, the fact that the iPod does not support syncing to multiple machines well is probably influenced by DRM. Lack of iTunes support for third party MP3 players, and lack of third party support for iPod is another consequence.

Getting MP3 files off an iPod is not hard

[LKM (227954)]

The fact that it's hard to get music off the device is also driven by DRM concerns

That may sound a bit harsh, but it's only hard if you're a moron. Seriously, if you know a small bit about the Terminal, you don't even need any kind of third-party app to copy MP3 files from an iPod. It's all there as plain old files, just inside invisible (to the Finder, that is) folders. It's not hard at all.

Yeah, it's not as easy as it should be, although it has got nothing to do with DRM - in fact, you can copy DRM'd

Re:

[ncc74656 (45571)]

DRM probably has driven some key aspects of the design of iPod. For example, the fact that the iPod doesn't present its contents as a file system, like many other MP3 players do, is probably due to DRM.

FUD. The iPod shows up as a mass-storage device. All of the files on it can be read out of it with normal file-manipulation tools. The names of music files are obfuscated, but if they were tagged with the appropriate type of metadata before they were put there, it's not much work to throw together some

Re:plenty of DRM in iPod

[2nd Post! (213333)]

Actually, no. If you know anything about Computer Science, you will recognize the iPod's file storage mechanism is a hash table in which all the songs are evenly distributed amongst a file tree; it reduces file seeks/searches. Then there is the other aspect, that the entire filesystem is stored in an index file to make searches and browsing of content instantaneous; instead of looking through the harddrive, the iPod merely looks through a file loaded into memory and when it needs to access the song uses the afore mentioned hash table to access the song.

Also if you didn't know, Apple just added in the latest revision of iTunes the ability to synch to multiple machines, and iTunes has existed for longer than the iPod. The very first versions of iTunes has (and still may, I don't see why they wouldn't) supported Rio, Diamond, and Creative MP3 players.

So in that respect all your assertions are off base.

Re:

[alienw (585907)]

Well, not unless you use gtkpod or anapod or about half a million other programs.

Re:

[John Miles (108215)]

There is a utility called "Tag and Rename" that addresses the problem of "Help, I have 15,000 MP3 files with accurate, consistent filenames but no ID3 tags." You can create a batch job that parses the metadata in your .MP3 filenames and turns it into ID3 tags. It's a real lifesaver when using iTunes.

Re:

[dangitman (862676)]

And furthermore, what are you going to do with your mashups that have more than one primary artist but for whatever reason you want it classified with a particular artist so you leave it in that folder though you want the filename and id3 tag to represent both artist's names. So when you play your music by artist, you won't hear your mashups and remixes with the artists you normally associate them with. That's just a clusterfuck.

You simply add the original artist to "Composer" or "notes," or whatever other

Re:DRM and iTMS aren't mandatory.

[Yvan256 (722131)]

[...] I should have the CHOICE whether I want to tag my files or not. [...] So-called smart playlists is the dumbest idea I have ever seen. I don't need Jobs and cos. iTMS crapware algorithmically mis-predicting what I want to listen to. A person that primarily listens on shuffle will find smart playlists to be quite "dumb" to say the least.

Personnal attacks aside, it seems you don't even know what you're talking about. Your hatred of anything from Apple probably makes you blind to reality.

The fact is, that's the way iTunes works. Any music player worthy of that name should also work that way in 2006. Music, by its nature, already has metadata associated with it, wether you want it or not. Year, type of music, artist, composer. album, track number, disc number, etc. The fact that you don't put the metadata in your files is your problem, not mine.

When you decide to put a track in a single directory, it limits you to a single metadata field (ex: artist directory, album sub-directory). You can't, however, make a "Best of the 1980's" from those files afterward. With smart playlists and metadata, it's done with a simple rule. Want a "Best Rock Tunes of the 80's"? Two rules. No need to handle files and directories. That's what metadata and smart playlists are all about. You make the smart playlists and define which fields to use and which parameters you want to apply to fiter those fields.

How do you handle tracks that should be in multiple directories? Aliases? I don't think your iRiver handles aliases... (and if it does, then fine for you).

Once you let go of the "I have to manage my files myself" syndrome and let iTunes do it, you'll be making your computer work for you. Until then, do your directories thing if you think it's good enough, and do the work your computer should be doing.

Nope, never

[0racle (667029)]

No one will ever create something people like better then the iPod, and no one will ever want a computer in their home.

Next up

[tkdog (889567)]

Will the automobile ever die, will toasters ever die, will stupid pointless articles written just to make ad money ever die? Stupid, stupid article.

Re:Next up

[gmby (205626)]

"Service Temporarily Unavailable
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems.
Please try again later."

Ask and you shall recieve. /. Justice Strikes again!

Short answer: No, long answer: Maybe

[LiquidCoooled (634315)]

But only if we Nuke 'em from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

Who's "we"?

[nurhussein (864532)]

In Malaysia, the ipod isn't terribly popular. Sure some folks have them, but it's rare. A lot of people do own an mp3 player, but it's usually of varied brands. The reason is that ipods are just too expensive for the average youth to own, and there is no iTunes service to download music from over in this part of the world.

Not even worth a mention.

[Jartan (219704)]

The article is just some blogger listing a bunch of reasons why the iPod is better than the Zune. Maybe if it were someone who's an authority on the subject it might be worth reading but after wasting my time I got the distinct impression that it's probably just a mac fan. Now that doesn't make his argument incorrect but it's not really worth a discussion.

Can that be true?

[tkrotchko (124118)]

"What it *doesn't* let you play is older DRM-protected WMA files such as those downloaded from Yahoo Music Unlimited or Rhapsody."

Isn't this a huge mistake? Isn't the biggest drawback of DRM that you are locked into a specific implementation? That people are worried that the songs they've "purchased" will turn out to be useless next year? This seems to confirm people's worst fears that MS will obsolete their entire song collection just because it's more profitable to do so.

I can't imagine anyone dumb eno

Will the iPod ever die...

[bbh (210459)]

It's battery does... :(

Battery Replacement Service

[jdbartlett (941012)]

Fortunately, Apple offers a battery replacement service [apple.com] for out of warranty iPods.

Out of curiosity, which other brands offer a similar service? I have a feeling the brand I stick with will be the one to offer the best post-purchase support. For one thing, it shows confidence in their product.

Re:Battery Replacement Service

[thebigbluecheez (1010821)]

The thing about saying that other brands don't have a similar service is that it's true. I can't send my Iriver h10 to Iriver and have them put a battery in it. The bastards require me to push a little button, slide it off, and order another one for..hang on... $39.99USD. And they won't even let me ship it in so they can install it! I have to keep my player while they send me the new battery!

Why oh why won't they just let me pay them to do it!?

Excuse me, I've got a letter writing campaign to start.

Re:Battery Replacement Service

[RexRhino (769423)]

Other brands offer batteries that can be replaced by the user!

Re:Battery Replacement Service

[jdbartlett (941012)]

On the contrary: the most expensive iPod, the 80 GB 20 hour model, costs $350. The battery replacement service is $65 or free if your iPod is within warranty period (one year).

Most other manufacturers of comparably sized digital music players have only a 90 day warranty period and a $30-$50 cost for battery replacement. For $15 more per battery replacement (a rare occurrence), I could get my preferred product.

I do indeed rock.

Battery Life

[cyberkahn (398201)]

If I were average Joe who didn't want to take apart my iPod to replace the battery then yes. It's the only thing I hate about iPod. I am sure they designed it this way to. After all, by the time the battery dies, the mindless consumer will just want the latest iPod that is out.

Re:

[jdbartlett (941012)]

Unfortunately, many manufacturers have switched to the iPod battery style without offering the battery replacement plan Apple does. For example, iriver.

Re:Battery Life

[thelost (808451)]

Most products are designed with a certain lifespan in mind. Companies realized that while people will moan and grumble they will still go and fork out for that new washing machine because they need it. That's why TVs and microwaves from the 80's still work, but more recent ones will only have lifespans of 3-4 years.

The moment companies start to design products without a limited lifespan the sky will *actually* fall.

Re:

[BalanceOfJudgement (962905)]

That's why TVs and microwaves from the 80's still work, but more recent ones will only have lifespans of 3-4 years.

The moment companies start to design products without a limited lifespan the sky will *actually* fall.

This is sick.

Not pointing fingers or anything, not intending to flame or troll, but it's just.. sick.

Stuff from the 80s still works?

[freeweed (309734)]

That's very funny, because as someone who was actually alive over 20 years ago, I can tell you that people said the very same thing back then.

Notice the pattern:

In the 2000s, everything built in the 1980s lasted forever; things made in the 2000s break after a few years.
In the 1980s, everything built in the 1960s lasted forever; things made in the 1980s break after a few years.
In the 1960s, everything built in the 1940s lasted forever; things made in the 1960s break after a few years.
In the 1940s, everything built in the 1920s lasted forever; things made in the 1940s break after a few years.
In the 1920s, everything built in the 19th century lasted forever; things made in the 1920s break after a few years.

And yes, I've done research on this. My grandparents are over 90 and swear that everything made since the Great Depression is crap and never lasts. I've found early newspaper op-ed pieces from the 1910s that claim the very same thing, just pushing back the date a little.

(The secret, of course, is that the things made in year X that only last a few years are long since discarded, and we only remember the things that last any decent length of time)

Repeated post from a while back. I can't believe people still believe the "stuff made today is shit, while everything made in the past lasted forever" meme.

Re:

[Dynedain (141758)]

But there is some truth to it as well. I inherited my great grandparents' microwave (I know they used it daily). It was built in 1972, before I was born. It finally died three years ago. I have gone through 2 microwaves since then, and I did my researcy and intentionally avoided cheap easy-break microwaves. I remember when my parents bought their first microwave in the mid 80's. It lasted a good 15 years. Since it died they have had several replacements. My grandmother is using the same microwave that she b

"Will this server ever die?" "Yeup, /.ed"

[nweaver (113078)]

"Will this server ever die?"

Well, lets slashdot it and find out.

Yeup.

The pithy answer: Only when the customers do

[BeeBeard (999187)]

It keeps getting mildly upgraded and resold to the same people time after time. It will die when they do.

Will the Walkman ever die?

[dschl (57168)]

July, 1983 - The Sony Walkman has dominated the portable cassette player market so far. It began the ultimate revolution in how we listen to our music......

Back to the present, the Walkman ceased to dominate the industry 15 years ago or more. The iPod will someday share it's fate. TFA is a lame blog article written by some fanboy who thinks he is creative, insightful, and discerning.

You know Taco, if it is a slow news day, it's better to leave the front page alone than to post "stories" like this just for the sake of filling space.

My Walkman broke earlier this year

[istartedi (132515)]

My Walkman broke earlier this year. Will I get an iPod? No. I use Yahoo Music Unlimited on my laptop now. Listening to local FM on the walk to work was my only reason to have a mobile player of any kind. If I get another mobile player, it'll have to support Yahoo's DRM and it'll have to have recording off FM. I've been looking at some of the Sandisk players. As far as I'm concerned, the iPod never lived. It just doesn't interest me. I like the PC platform and things associated with it, simply becau

of course it could happen.

[abrotman (323016)]

There have been other companies we thought we never see a decline. For a recent example, look at the problems that Sony is facing with the PS3.

If Apple forsakes their loyal customers, and abuses said loyalty, they will lose their biggest cheerleaders.

Well

[Sv-Manowar (772313)]

The iPod is a revolutionary device, although maybe not techinically, it has entered the conciousness of the public and it will be extremely hard for anyone to even try and match it's market dominance. The one thing Microsoft could have done with the Zune was to make sharing music unrestricted, but once again red tape has stopped it and the DRM will limit the function that could have made the Zune the better choice (along with Apple cutting the price, a move Microsoft didn't expect). I think the only thing to match the iPod now will be a device that is a mix of genres, much like the phone that is rumoured to be in development from Apple, if they can successfully merge the best features of an iPod (plus storage) with the good functions of a phone and make it stylish (not a hard job for Apple right now) then they may just have a chance of beating one of the devices of the decade. For other companies, it will be very hard to beat the iPod in the long run, and the only front I think they will have is pricing - which will only hurt their bottom line, as people will pay a premium to have the iPod. Congratulations to Apple on their market domination with this one, it's well deserved.

Re:Well

[EricBoyd (532608)]

You've hinted at the real reason that the iPod is maintaining it's dominance - it's the DRM rules that the labels are imposing on everyone. Because everyone has to lock down their devices and music, nobody can play with an open strategy - and thus nobody can make an offering that is much better than Apple. Unless and until the labels agree to a DRM-less music store, Apple will maintain it's crushing market share.

DRM and Open Markets
http://digitalcrusader.ca/archives/2006/10/drm_and _open_ma.html [digitalcrusader.ca]

All fads eventually die

[DaRat (678130)]

iPod is a fad. All fads eventually die. Some have longer legs than others, but they all eventually fade into a sort of background commodity basis if they don't outright die. Usually, you can tell when a fad is about to die when you see the fad and products for it everywhere...

iPod is a fad?

[jdbartlett (941012)]

More accurately, the rate at which iPods are sold will level off. That doesn't mean iPod itself is a fad, just that consumers are approaching it with a "fad" mindset.

iPod itself may become the Sony walkman: ubiquitous, until CD comes around.

What will ultimately kill the iPod

[bbzzdd (769894)]

The day you can walk into Walmart and buy a 4 - 8GB flash player for $39.99 is the day the iPod will die. The iPod will eventually meet the same fate as the Sony Walkman did in the 90s once cheap Japanese knock-offs can be manufactured for cheap enough.

Sure, the iPod will die.

[dpbsmith (263124)]

The Osborne 1 computer died. The IBM Stretch 7030 computer died. The Sony Walkman died. The Studebaker died... and so did the Oldsmobile and the Plymouth. Eleven of the twelve corporations in the original Dow Jones Index died. Elvis Presley died. The Soviet Union died. The United Society of Believers (Shakers) died. The Roman Empire died. Kepler's supernova died.

The iPod will die. So will Windows. So will the Toyota Prius. So will Toyota. So will GE, the sole surviving original Dow Jones Index company. So will the United States of America. So will life on earth. So will the sun. Even Jack LaLanne will eventually die (oh, wait...)

And your point is?

Will the ipod never die? No!

[MMC Monster (602931)]

No. It will never die. It will survive the heat-death of the universe, as all other protons dissolve in the uncountable trillions of years in the future. They will be all that is left in The End.

Next question?

Not necessarily

[iamacat (583406)]

• Will automatic transmission ever die?
  
• Will burger and fries ever die?
  
• Will basic camera shape/controls ever die?
  
• ... Will music ever die?
  

Even though more advanced gadgets/control methods will come, people may still prefer the familiar click wheel interface of the Nano for basic music listening. Perhaps it will not be made by Apple, will have much higher quality/capacity or be a part of a multi-function gadget, but I think the design itself has made a lasting impact.

Oh come on...

[multimediavt (965608)]

The iPod has only been around for five years! Even in technological time (accounting for Moore's Law, etc.) that's not an overly long time for a product to dominate a market. Market forces always swarm early in a new product's life cycle, especially for dominant products that do what the iPod did to the portable digital music player market. The dominance of the product will level off and it will either become a commodity (i.e., a useful or valuable thing, such as water or time) or be toppled by a better product, or replaced by a newer technology and outmoded. Only time will tell. Most of the points in the article about why the iPod *WON'T* die are a bit shallow. "It's cool" Yeah, so was the Sony Walkman....GONE! Basically, everything said about the iPod is almost EXACTLY what people said about the Sony Walkman in the 1980s; well, except for price. Those bitches were WAY more expensive per inflation adjusted dollar. They also raised almost the same copyright stinks as the iPod and music swapping are doing now. I remember the guy in the car stereo shop telling my Dad about not copying music to tape to play in the car because it was "illegal". This was late 1970s, early 1980s.

Slashdot like Apple in mid 90s ?

[nv5 (697631)]

This isn't a new observation, but it's the first time that I'm writing about it. Probably because I'm sensing the end of my time here at Slashdot. I have not journaled worth mentioning, and not commented worth mentioning - but I was an avid reader and meta-moderator (and yes, I read many of the articles I meta-modded and their responses, to make sure that I would get non obvious situations right).

The news business, even in it's blog form is a tough business indeed. When the mother of all blogs (i.e Slashdot itself) needs to go trolling for clicks with a front page link to a teenage fanboy's blog related to iPods, it's a sad day indeed.

This article is neither "news for nerds", nor "stuff that matters".

But it's a predictable click gatherer - and it's been promoted to the front page by the Cmdr himself, not a junior apprentice editor.

The Cmdr hasn't lost his marbles - quite the opposite, he has a business to run - and this business is desperately competing with the shrill upstarts with editorial models solely around popularity, rather than quality.

The unwashed masses supply more clicks than even moderately intelligent and critical thinkers.

Populism at work, because populism pays. So now we have editorial control trying to emulate populism. Not the first and not the last time that will happen.

I understand that, but I see a fatal disconnect with Slashdot doing it. Slashdot doesn't do populism best. Slashdot's strength is (was) in quality control (editorial control , followed by discussion with moderation and meta moderation).

However, when the first input (editorial control) to the process isn't even remotely attempting quality control, all other quality control processes are becoming rather irrelevant.

Or to put it more bluntly, if the whole story is a troll, the comments, moderations and meta-moderations can't untroll it.

So I think Slashdot is losing it's way in this battle and like all good things will slowly fade away.

Reminds me a bit of apple in the early to mid 90s. They tried to emulate the populists of their day in their industry, when that's not what they did best.

Why am I mentioning apple?

Because against all odds, apple found its way again and came back - and found that their original essence could get them back into their highly respected and quite nicely profitable niche and they even could become the number one popular choice in another field.

Here's to hoping that Slashdot can do the same, because I miss Slashdot without its original essence.

Re:Forgive the troll..

[Trillan (597339)]

Actually, all five of those points are wrong. The only one that's even debatable is the battery one - and I'm still using the battery that came with my iPod when I bought it in April 2003. But if by "MP3 only" you really mean "lots of formats, but no OGG" you'd be right.

Interfaces are entirely subjective, though. If you like your iRiver, that's great. :)

Re:

[Doytch (950946)]

Like someone said, all five points are wrong, and especially the battery one, somewhat.

The batteries themselves are great, I'm using an iPod 1G battery in my iRiver HP-120, but the iPod's OS and the continuous transcoding of MP3 -> AAC kills the batteries. My iRiver runs for nearly 30 hours on the 1G batteries.

Re:

[Chucker23N (661210)]

Uh, what? I'm going to assume that:
1) you deleted files from your iTunes library
2) you set your iPod to sync automatically
3) you connected your iPod, the sync occurred, and the change (deleted files) was reflected.

How is this not what you expected? You already *got* alerts that you were about to delete something.