Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Media (Apple) Media Communications Handhelds Hardware

Will The iPhone Kill The iPod? 338

Edward Sinovian writes "According to, the days of MP3 players, digital cameras and satellite navigation systems are numbered with cell phones about to take center stage. "PDAs have already been crushed by smart phones and the same thing looks to be happening with standalone MP3 players, particularly the smaller flash ones — a theory supported by Apple's recent entry into the world of music phones. If you then take into consideration the convergence of camera, GPS, TV and laptop-like functionality into mobile phones, it raises the question of how long it's going to take before all you need is a mobile phone." With that in mind, do you think that the iPhone will kill the iPod?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will The iPhone Kill The iPod?

Comments Filter:
  • Yes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AsmCoder8088 ( 745645 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:09PM (#18488765)
    Especially since the iPhone *is* essentially the new iPod.
    • And it is better for Apple to strike before another company does it for them (I know there are phones that play music but none of them got it correct enough to hit critical mass).
    • Space (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Nerdfest ( 867930 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:26PM (#18489051)
      For me it depends on when they have one out with a decent amount of space. Right now, I consider my 30Gb player much too small.

      As for phones, I use a Treo, and appreciate the third party development efforts. Opening up the iPhone for 3rd part dev would go a long way in my books ...
      • Re:Space (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MotorMachineMercenar ( 124135 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @01:22PM (#18489893)
        "For me it depends on when they have one out with a decent amount of space. Right now, I consider my 30Gb player much too small."

        I was in the same boat a few years back. I thought I couldn't live without my 30GB iPod. I was obsessed with keeping as much of my music with me as possible. Then I took a good look at my listening habits, and realized I never actually _need_ that kind of capacity. I moved to a 4GB Nano, and it's much better with cheaper price and much smaller size. And it holds enough music for an across-the-country road trip. I'm much happier with the Nano than the clunky and heavy "normal" iPod.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by oneiron ( 716313 )
          Exactly... I arrived at the same size preference by a different road. The old war-torn CD case that I used to carry around in my car had a rotating repertoire of music that fe.l within the 4-6gb range. When I thought about the possibility of carrying more music than that around, I didn't like the idea...

          With a lower capacity player, I get to force myself to listen to parts of my vast music collection that don't get very much attention while I'm at home. It's easy to ignore the daimond-in-the-rough ar
        • by nick_davison ( 217681 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @05:29PM (#18493419)
          Then I took a good look at my listening habits, and realized I never actually _need_ that kind of capacity.

          You don't need an MP3 player, period.

          The only question is whether the benefits outweigh the costs. In your case, a 4GB nano and ~1,000 songs is plenty and the benefits your listening patterns gain from adding the extra ~6,500 songs of a 30GB or ~19,000 songs of an 80GB player are much smaller than the cost/bulk benefits you get from a smaller player.

          I, on the other hand, gain a lot of my self definition from my love and knowledge of music. For me, the 80GB player is as small as I want my fat fingers to deal with in the first place so size isn't an issue. Cost would certainly be nice to drop. Getting to have discussions about what Punk-Country sounds like in the form of the Meat Puppets, have cheesy Roxette/Erasure 80's flashbacks with my wife on a Monday morning drive AND be able to listen to the core 1,000 songs in my main playlists is worth a fortune to me - way in excess of the $200 extra price.

          Now add in the ~20 movies that can run picture in picture on my monitor while I code, the ability to figure out what certain lyrics are because I ran an app to grab them from the net, the ability to keep samples of my photography handy... For me it's a no brainer.

          The capacity is a HUGE issue for the retarded (meant in the true sense of the word) iPhone. For my 320x240 iPod, I tend to rip movies at around the 400MB point (granted I go slightly over 320 wide so I can either zoom in on the center at 1:1 or zoom out and letterbox on a square screen). 4GB for the great new "widescreen movie capable" iPhone lets me put maybe 7-8 movies on there so long as I put no music on and minimal extra apps. That's barely enough for an intercontinental flight and back and now my iPhone's useless for music. Sure there's an 8GB version... giving maybe that small set of movies and a very limited music library.

          For users like yourself, the iPhone will be the latest and greatest new gadget, able to do all kinds of quirky things that you can't do on other phones and save space in your pocket for your willingly limited music library - albeit for a very high price. For a user like myself, the biggest feature is the great new touch sensitive screen. Finally getting a movie big enough to be worth watching is huge and the same goes for easy navigation of bigger playlists - both of which are massively hampered by too little capacity to store much.

          So, it's all about personal definitions. At its simplest, no one needs a cool movie and MP3 playing phone. At the other extreme, people who're excited by those features and have the libraries to really use them are massively hampered by the tiny storage in the first generation. In the middle, there are people like yourself - though the cheaper price argument falls flat on its face there.

          Fortunately for Apple, they only ever aimed for 1% market saturation and, whilst tying it to signup with a provider could have dropped the price and a bigger drive could have upped the appeal to maybe 20-30% market saturation, Apple are evidently more than happy with 1% on their own terms rather than 20-30% on other people's terms with smaller margins. Going for that 1%, they can dictate whatever they like and accept that most of us won't take it but enough will.
    • Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BBandCMKRNL ( 1061768 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:27PM (#18489059)
      My MP3 player fits in the palm of my hand or in my pocket and has a 15 hour playing time. My cell phone has a 2 hour talk time and several day stand-by time, which in my case translates to about 2 days between charging. Why would I risk missing/losing an important phone call to listen to music?

      Let's also not forget that all battery powered devices have a limited number of recharge cycles. Why would I want to shorten the usefull life of my cell phone battery to listen to music?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by chrysrobyn ( 106763 )

        My MP3 player fits in the palm of my hand or in my pocket and has a 15 hour playing time. My cell phone has a 2 hour talk time and several day stand-by time, which in my case translates to about 2 days between charging. Why would I risk missing/losing an important phone call to listen to music?

        I think they're shooting for the kind of person who will be able to plug the device in wherever they like. For example, someone listens to music on the way to a destination, then docks it there (work, school, etc)

    • Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Achoi77 ( 669484 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:27PM (#18489079)

      besides the fact that it holds less and costs more (compared to the ipod that is)?

      It's a different target audience. I wouldn't necessarily say it will cannibalize sales, it will fragment the demographic and at the same time provide apple with more fine grained detail about the statistical purchasing power their consumers have. Maybe some will buy just the iphone. Maybe others will just get the ipod. Maybe a few will get both. Maybe the price will deter sales. These factors will provide apple with a basic divining rod to find out where to take their future products next.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pkulak ( 815640 )
      You don't think Apple is going to come up with a non-phone iPod? You think their strategy is to completely abandon their entire market of people who are happy with their current phone and service and not sell any portable music player for under $500 and with a 2-year contract? There is a market for a $500 kick-ass iPhone, but it's probably not the people who currently own $79 shuffles.
    • My story. Just earlier this year, I bought a Motorola E15 Phone. $150 with 2 year contract. It's a cellphone, mediocre MP3 player, camera, web browser, etc. It does a lot, but nothing very well. Its biggest boon is it has expandable memo, as it has an open slot for a microSD card. I bought it, figuring I could expand it to a 1 gig card and forgo the 'need' of having an iPod. The very day I bought the phone, I brought it home, and my roommate spilled some water on the counter-top where my phone was s
  • Price (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bytor4232 ( 304582 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:11PM (#18488779) Homepage Journal
    Not as long as smart phones are as expensive as they are now. I can't justify spending 500 bucks on a phone, even thou it can be the only device I carry.

    Plus, a button less phone seems counter-intuitive to me.
    • Re:Price (Score:5, Funny)

      by soft_guy ( 534437 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:13PM (#18488829)
      Don't worry. They will eventually ship the iPhone Shuffle for cheapos like you.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by durdur ( 252098 )
      Right. Cost is an issue. Plus if I am going to shell out that amount of $$, I don't want to carry the device around everywhere. I prefer to carry a cheap phone that I can drop or lose and not worry much about. The cheap phone goes with me, the expensive iPod stays in a bag when I'm not using it. If the iPod/iPhone was a sub-$100 item, though, I might tote it around.
    • Re:Price (Score:5, Funny)

      by alcmaeon ( 684971 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:21PM (#18488973)

      Plus, a button less phone seems counter-intuitive to me.

      Back in the day, no phones had buttons. They had this perforated wheel thing called a dial. In fact, when we push the buttons on a phone today, we still say we are "dialing" the number. There was even a time before there were dials.

    • well, i have recently bought a htc universal for 380 euros (used). it is about $500, quite a lot of money for a phone, but it was worth it.
      won't ever buy an iphone, though - why should i pay such an amount of money for a crippled device?
    • by gsn ( 989808 )
      When price is a concern look to knockoffs []

      I'm with you on the buttons and I like phones that have replaceable batteries. These uber converged devices also come with another worry - theft or damage of a single device will mean losing a lot more of your data. A lot of my friends have ended up with busted iPods and had to restore their music from their HDD - however if your iPod is also your camera and you have a bunch of photos that aren't backed up yet then those are just gone. Companies are really going to h
    • They won't be. When the Razr first came out it was $499 ($799 w/o a contract). 18 months later they were going for...FREE with a contract. All the iPhone has to do is sell as well as the Razr and it can be just as big a success and recieve the same subsidy.

      With the power of the new AT&T, the iPhone can easily replace the iPod. I won't be surprised in the least if a year after it's released, the iPhone is so subsidized by AT&T that it's $249 with a 2yr contract. Hell, they could sell them for $99 a p
    • by AusIV ( 950840 )
      I agree. I can get a 4 GB iPhone for $499, or I could get a 4 GB iPod nano for $199 and a motorola Q for $199, and get about the same functionality for $101 less. Alternatively, I could get a 30 GB iPod with video for $249, still saving $51 from the iPhone but getting much more storage.

      I might consider an iPhone if they release a 20-30GB version without adding much cost. My music library is about 11 GB, and I'm not going to pay out the nose to consolidate two devices, then have to leave three quarters of

  • Ummm, no (Score:2, Insightful)

    by CF4L ( 1072112 )
    Hmm, let me think, I want an MP3 player Option 1: Buy the iPhone for 600 dollars or whatever it costs Option 2: Buy an ipod for a lot cheaper You're right, I would go with Option 1 - so long iPods!
    • Okay, now look at what an MP3 Player AND a phone would cost you.

      Now factor in the extra functionality that the iPhone will have.

      I think you oversimplify things quite a bit. They are different products with some overlap.
  • Why would it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MooseMuffin ( 799896 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:13PM (#18488819)
    It costs significantly more money, has significantly less storage space, and inherits the messiness and unpleasantness of cellphone contracts. This doesn't appeal to people who just want to play their mp3s.
    • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
      Not only that but I don't carry my Ipod with me everyday I do carry my phone.
      If they can make a phone that is as small as my current phone but will play music for hours, has Gigs of storage, and still will give me 3 hours of talk time I am all for it.
      • SD cards are up to 8GB and there are phones that take SD. Not sure what the smallest one is, but you can get gigs in a cellphone. My phone only takes microSD, which AFAIK only goes up to 1GB so far. I think MiniSD goes up to 2GB, and there's phones that take that, too.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
          But my IPod has 80. Not only that but my Cell only has around 3 hours of talk time. That is the problem, battery life.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

            That is the problem, battery life.

            Unlike the iPod, you can switch out the battery.

            I suspect though that mp3 player and cellphone convergence will only become more popular, and with them will come longer-life batteries. People will accept a larger cellphone if it eliminates their need to carry an even larger device.

            Also most people just don't need to carry 80GB of music around with them. They can connect their player to their computer once a day or even a week and make 8GB (or less!) work for them just fi

      • I don't know how small your current phone is BUT the iPhone does have gigs of storage (4 or 8) and will have battery life that meets your expectations. That is if Jobs was telling the truth in his Macworld speech.
    • This doesn't appeal to people who just want to play their mp3s.

      True, but I've always found that I am lugging my cell phone and iPod nano around everywhere I go. If they were one device then it would save me the hassle of two devices in my pockets.

      However, I'm not going to pay $500 for it.
    • It costs significantly more money, has significantly less storage space, and inherits the messiness and unpleasantness of cellphone contracts. This doesn't appeal to people who just want to play their mp3s.
      Or M4As, lets not prejudge.

      I tend to agree, except for the storage capacity. Sales of the lower capacity iPods are insane, going back to the cost factor.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by monopole ( 44023 )
      Amen, I won't touch a smartphone due to the contracts and the insane data policies of cell companies. I carry a Palm TX and a basic prepaid virgin phone. On the other hand, the TX has killed my mp3 players, It gives me the features of an iPhone (same resolution video playback) etc. without the software lock-in or dealing with the evil incarnate which is Cingular (the new ATT!).
    • Re:Why would it? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Phat_Tony ( 661117 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @01:08PM (#18489671)
      Costing more money and having less storage space are technical disadvantages that will disappear over the next few years. As for cell phone contracts, the vast majority of people already have those, so sticking all this other stuff in their cellphone doesn't add much complexity to their existing cellphone contract.

      There will be a market for stand-alone MP3 players for a long time, just like you can still buy a Walkman at Walmart. But the combined devices will soon dominate the market. The only thing holding them back is technology. Once they can put a phone, internet appliance, PDA, camera, camcorder, GPS/navigation system, and high-capacity MP3 player into a sleek, light, cheap package, they're going to be everywhere, and will eviscerate the markets for the stand-alone units. Yes, there will be demand for each type of stand-alone unit, but it'll fall precipitously.

      The ones that will fall the least are cameras and camcorders, because there are huge constraints on the quality of camera you can pack into anything that small, and there's no technological solution on the horizon. They'll be handy for snapshots, but the significant portion of consumers who like to take nice, clear pictures or video that look at least as good as film from the 50's are going to want a real camera too. Sure, they can cram lots of megapixels into a camera phone sensor, but megapixels != good pixtures. The chip will be so small each pixel division on the sensor can't gather much light, yielding crappy ISO's and grainy pictures. The lens is so small it can't resolve as many megapixels as the sensor, meaning you're just throwing away storage space storing image information that was never clear. The tiny lenses have tiny apertures that don't let through enough light, especially for the tiny, low-ISO chip. And forget about a decent zoom. Some day, maybe they'll be able to put the equivalent of a decent consumer camera, or maybe even a good SLR, into a tiny phone. But barring a total revolution in camera technology, those days area long way off. The crappy cameras in phones will be good enough for some people, but I don't think Canon and Nikon need to worry about them eating into any of their medium to high-end camera lines anytime soon.

      Technological constraints apply much less to the other functions these devices will subsume- for most purposes, the MP3 Player, GPS, etc in the phones will be as good as the stand alone devices.
  • by DrRobert ( 179090 ) * <> on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:13PM (#18488821) Homepage
    I have four ipods (80g) I want most of my music library nearby. I think my blackberry is the perfect phone. Unless those two can converge into something will all the same capabilities at the same size, I only see a converged product as a loss. Besides I want an ipod with me all the time, I don't like being attached to the blackberry all the time.
    • by carpe_noctem ( 457178 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:27PM (#18489065) Homepage Journal
      Besides I want an ipod with me all the time, I don't like being attached to the blackberry all the time.

      Just be careful next time you walk through airport security with four ipods strapped to your belt, ok?
      • The customs guys do frequently think I'm trying to bring in pods for the black market. I just have to explain. One is for jazz, one is for metal, one is for other, and one is for video and audio books.... THe scary thing is that the TSA guys never ask about all the gear in my carryons.
  • convenience (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:13PM (#18488825) Homepage
    My big bugaboo with portable devices is keeping them recharged; it's annoying to have to plug in one device every night, much less multiple ones. Having a single unit that does everything I want it to would be a lot more convenient. This would be true even if "plugging it in" involved laying it on a mat.
    • Re:convenience (Score:5, Insightful)

      by arminw ( 717974 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:30PM (#18489119)
      ......Having a single unit that does everything I want it to would be a lot more convenient.......

      But when the battery on your iPod dies, your entertainment ceases for a while. However, when your phone battery goes dead, it can be a matter of life and death. My iPod either sits by my bed to provide music to fall asleep by or in a dock in the car. Battery life is therefore not all that critical. The phone is always in my pocket and when its battery fails, it is a much bigger problem. A swiss army knife is useful, but a dedicated tool for its various functions is usually much better. If the entertainment use impacts the working of the phone, then having two distinct devices is much better.
  • No (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mr100percent ( 57156 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:14PM (#18488841) Homepage Journal
    No, of course not. Did the MacBook Pro kill the MacBook? Did the PowerMac kill off the iMac? WIll a $500 iPhone kill the $99 iPod shuffle? No, but it may eat into the sales of the lower-end model.

    Sheesh, this is a no-brainer.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by digitalunity ( 19107 )
      I doubt Apple will complain if you purchase a new $500 phone instead of a lower margin shuffle. First, because the phone is newer, Apple needs to amortize the development cost over a large number of models. Also, the iPhone is just naturally more profitable due to it's higher price, despite it's much higher development and manufacturing cost.

      Really, I doubt Apple cares so long as you buy Apple. I also think the story is bunk. There's a lot of downsides to integrating your MP3 player and cell phone. Just to
  • by nbannerman ( 974715 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:15PM (#18488857)
    ... There isn't a cat in hells chance of the iPhone touching the iPods market.


    Price for one. For $499 (with contract), you can get yourself a 4GB iPhone. For $349 you can get an 80GB iPod. That is a least expensive vs most expensive comparison.

    The iPod (well, portable digital music player) market is huge; the numbers speak for themselves. People will happily pay a few hundred dollars for a portable player that'll last a few years. But $499 for a phone, plus contract? That is out of most peoples leagues for something that is completely unproven, if you ask me.
    • It seems everybody (Score:4, Informative)

      by rolfwind ( 528248 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:27PM (#18489063)
      forgot that the original iPod came down in price too - what was it originally? $4-500?

      In several iterations, if the iPhone is sucessful enough, I see a diversification of the product line just like the iPod, with the price coming down.
    • that's on launch. the ipod was pretty expensive when it first came out too.

      almost all phones do mp3 playback already. went shopping for a new phone for my girl just yesterday, and the entry level pay as you go one that cost £10 (yes, £10!) did it. probably badly, but it did it.

      when they're shifting tons of these things, the costs will come down significantly. it doesn't cost much for the phone electronics, as the above example shows. i suspect it will be absorbed into the price and size of
    • I don't expect the price to remain there for long. Apple has sold the original large iPod photo at $600 and now the current equivelent is $350 for a much better device.

      There are other problems I have with the announced device, I do expect them to be resolved in a later iteration as well.

      Besides, I don't think buying the first iteration of a new product is a good idea.
      • by IANAAC ( 692242 )

        I don't expect the price to remain there for long.

        I do, or at least not lowered very much. Look at the pricing of other smartphones. They're all around 400-500 bucks without a contract. And if my past experience with Cingular is any indication, they're not going to give you much of a price break if you're in the middle of a contract. Whether you're signing a new contract, renewing or buying a phone in the middle of your current contract, I don't think there will be that much of a price difference.

  • No (Score:2, Interesting)

    by nhz ( 992573 )
    Not if Apple understands basic market economics. To maximize product profits, you want to have several levels of functionality/pricing options to capture as much of the market as possible. Functionality in this case can and should include ability to make phone calls, use SMS, browse online, etc. For example, Apple could have a premium portable unit with phone capabilities, and a value-based version with those features turned off in software (with the option to upgrade later, of course).
  • Sure, the iPhone may eventually replace the iPod, but not in the short run; its initial price (even with the contract subsidy) is going to be in the neighborhood of the higher end video iPod, but its capacity as a media player will be more like the lower end iPods.

    As long as you get a decent basic phone and a high-end iPod for about the same as a phone that also acts as a low-end iPod, the iPhone won't replace the iPod.
  • No (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jandrese ( 485 ) <> on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:16PM (#18488875) Homepage Journal
    And for one very good reason: The iPhone is supposed to be around $600. You can buy iPod Nanos for less than a third of that. iPods were a success, but not an unbelievable hit, until they managed to get the costs down to something your average person can afford as a Christmas or Birthday gift. Not to mention something someone could buy without having to work it in their budget for the next 3 months. The iPhone is just plain too expensive to kill the iPod yet. Maybe if iPhone v.3 or v.4 brings the price down to the point where it's not much more than a regular phone I'll entertain thoughts about it being an iPod killer, but right now I have to say no way.
  • by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:17PM (#18488891)
    Current 'rich' mobile devices won't replace mobile phones until fuel cell or battery revolution occurs.

    Because I don't need a phone that can't live through the day on a single charge. No matter how rich it is.
  • All you really need is a cell phone. I have Verizon, with the navigational aide and the music capability, it has a crude calendar appointment tool, and a decent camera which can shoot 1Megapixel shots and shoot video. I think the time is now. My only complaint is that the GPS software requires a subscription, except for those times when there is a free demo period. Also, the music player on my phone only plays .wma files, unless you go into the "secret" menus, but that is a pain in the ass. I know a lo
  • Eventually (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FredDC ( 1048502 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:18PM (#18488909)
    Eventually a single device combining cell phone, camera, pda, mp3 player, GPS, ... will replace stand-alone devices. The transition has already started with devices such as the iPhone. Due to high prices, which is common with new types of devices, global adaptation will not happen instantly. People who have one or more seperate devices will not trade them in right away for a single device. If the seperate devices still work properly people will keep using them. But gradually as prices drop people will start buying the single device.
  • by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:19PM (#18488923) Homepage Journal
    is whether not Apple will introduce iPods(hd or not hd based, possibly depends on the size/cost of flash) that have a subset of the iPhone features and a similar screen. If they do would that end up cannibalizing the iPhone market?

    This is just my personal preference, and anything in it that applies to anyone else or the market as a whole is probably a coincidence, but I LIKE having my iPod and phone seperate. That way I can enter into situations in which my phone could be stolen(in tourist areas when travelling, at parties, anywhere were copious amounts of alcohol are consumed really) without having to worry about my phone getting stolen(it's worth maybe $20 at most) and since I have a phone i can call help/call people to meet up with etc. Not to mention a cheap phone tends to have longer battery life than most smart phones and can be abused without much repricussion. I won't get an iPhone, but an iPod with similar capabilities would rock!
  • Hey guys (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:19PM (#18488931) Journal
    Let's discuss Apple and their product line, behind the thin veil of a "tech discussion".

    I know I'm going to throw away all my iPods when the iPhone comes out. I've already thrown away my Tivo, VCR, DVD Player, Xbox, PS2, cable box, and 40" LCD screen, because Apple has their own TV now!

    Now that Apple has a phone that can play an mp3 - AN IMPRESSIVE TECHNOLOGICAL ACCOMPLISHMENT! I mean, my god - a phone playing mp3s? What will they think of next!

    You are all asshats. If vcast/treo/etc (every fucking phone plays mp3s) didn't kill the market for a standalone player, why would iPhone? There's an enormous market of people who like music, and dont want a new cell phone. Most people just take the phone thats free with the service.

    Who the fuck would rent an iPod?

    Apple would love it, though, as you can force phones into obsolescense, while the iPod can do its thing until the shitty build quality rears its head.
    • Here's why (Score:2, Insightful)

      by NDPTAL85 ( 260093 )
      "If vcast/treo/etc (every fucking phone plays mp3s) didn't kill the market for a standalone player, why would iPhone?"

      Because the VCast and Treo aren't made by Apple. The iPhone is. You see, Apple "gets" simplicity. Its something a geek couldn't understand if it pulled down a geek's pants and blew em.

      This is why the iPod dominated the already present MP3 player market, and why the iPhone will do the same to the Smartphone market.
  • Will the iPhone kill the iPod in America?

    Not as long as I am only able to get it via Cingular. When it is ubiquitous with all the major carriers...possibly, but that depends on how much storage can be stuffed in at a reasonable price. The flash crowd will by happy with 6 or 8gb, but many folk want the larger music libraries at hand.

    • agreed, especially to the point that it'll only be available to cingular customers. their service isn't as good as verizon.

      nevermind the fact that it's $500.
  • At least the iPhone commercials are SLIGHTLY less annoying than the iPod commercials.
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:24PM (#18489019)
    Apple has actually done a pretty excellent job at positioning different choices for people:

    1) Pure music player with a very large storage space for people hwho have to have everything with them (iPod 80GB video)

    2) Phone with music playing and PDA abilities with a medium amount of storage (iPhone)

    3) Devices that are small enough you can use them anywhere discreetly or while in action (iPod mini and nano).

    There are really valid reasons to own all of them. For some people there are valid reasons to own more than one, because they each meet a different need. I could see keeping the 80GB model in a car, while still having the iPhone for roaming use, with a nano for the gym or jogging.

    In general though phones are where the market for many music playing devices is headed, Apple realized that too and is getting ahead of the game with the iPhone. In time we'll probably see other versions to replace at least the mini.
    • How long would it take to realize that Apple is going for the Tri-corder killer?
    • Four or Five years from now, the latest incarnations of the iPhone could potentially replace the high-end ipods, as the phone increases its onboard storage, and provides everything that the ipod does plus the phone stuff. Battery life might still be an issue, but I'm going to pretend like that'll get figured out because it'd make the world of gadgets so much better.

      But like you said, the nano/shuffles has two major advantages, price and physical size. A phone can only get so small before it's not useable to
  • by FlyByPC ( 841016 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:26PM (#18489043) Homepage
    I really don't like Apple's method of tying everything into iTunes. Other mp3 players I've seen have a very simple way of organizing things. When you connect it to your computer, it's a *drive*. You then copy mp3s across (generally, folders and all) and then navigate these on the device. Quick, easy, and no clunky, proprietary software needed.

    If I have to choose between a solution that all but requires iTunes (or any other such interface), and one that uses open standards like mp3 and USB drive connectivity, I'll go for the generic mp3 option. Even if it costs more, isn't integrated with a phone, and/or is only available in retro 1970s Harvest Gold color.

    It's not because I'm a pirate or anything -- the kind of music I like is readily available for a very reasonable price (eMusic, Magnatune etc). Having to go through iTunes and put up with its interface and invasive practices is a PITA. If I buy an mp3 player, I want to load my songs into it, disconnect it, and not have to bother with buying into anybody's "better" way of doing things.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      You then copy mp3s across (generally, folders and all) and then navigate these on the device. Quick, easy, and no clunky, proprietary software needed.

      The reason for Apple's "clunky" interface becomes clear when you have a lot of music. I have close to 6000 songs and I'd be hard pressed to remember where I put 'em if I had to keep track of them by organizing them into folders.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 2nd Post! ( 213333 )
      1) When you mount an iPod, it too is a drive.
      2) How do you generate the folders with MP3s? iTunes does it for you
      3) iTunes copies these folders with MP3s for you so you don't have to.
      4) Quicker and easier than your proposed method because you don't have to do any of the following:

      A) Import music
      B) Organize music
      C) synchronize music

      iTunes does all of the above without any user interaction.

      I understand you may find comfort in organizing and sorting your music, but really, computers are good at that. Why don't
  • 1) Will it run or at least synch with Linux ? That is a serious question for once. My iPod runs quite nicely with all of my machines. I wouldn't even consider replacing it with something I couldn't use just as easily.

    2) Will the iPhone support ogg vorbis and ogg theora, or will Apple continue paying lip service to the open source community, whose software their entire business depends on ?

  • In Japan, people are already doing this. Here, we have iPods, cell phones, computers, PSPs, all kinds of toys. In Japan, I remember hearing years ago -- basically, your typical teenage girl there just needs a cell phone, and she'll pretty much just use it for text messaging -- but if she needs music, photos, whatever, it's all in there. In fact, she'll use it for just about anything except a phone (since talking on a cell phone is considered rude).
  • the iKitchen Sink to be included in the iPhone

    did you think our latest i(tm) line of products wasn't comprehensive enough? utilizing the latest advances in flash memory and art school student interface design, the iKitchen Sink function on our iPhones will enable you to enjoy a refreshing glass of water (iBrita Filter sold separately) or wash the dishes, all from the minimalist interface of the iPhone
  • Which is to say: unless and until all phone networks are interoperable, the iPhone is not going to penetrate very far. Even if I wanted one, and even if it were cheap, I wouldn't switch cellular providers just for an iPhone.
  • I have an ipod Mini and Treo 650. Both are starting to show their age and I want to upgrade them this year if possible. I am going to take a serious look at the iPhone when it comes out (I already have cingular). It would be very convenient for me to replace my ipod and treo with a single device.
  • Yes - next question please...
  • It may not be perfect, but my iPod doesn't have a monthly service charge. And it's a helluva lot cheaper.

  • by Slipgrid ( 938571 )
    No, phones come and go, but a simple music device that can hold all your songs is immortal. For example, I wouldn't want my mp3 player and music collection to become dated when the address book software on the phone is no longer updated.
  • wrong network, and there's too much demand on the battery. too much stuff in there.
  • iPod per month: $0.

    iPhone per month $80 or more.

    So no, the iPhone will NOT kill the iPod. For the people that own an iPhone, maybe they will use it as their music/video player; but for most people. the iPod is still the best choice.

    The iPod Nano also has huge advantages over the iPhone - much smaller, much more reliable, much longer battery life, and much more rugged. I've dropped my Nano into the spokes of my bike wheel while riding along at 20 MPH - the Nano is fine, only one tiny scratch. Try that with y

  • Price & use differences, & device use conflicts will keep a thriving market for all the different models.

    The orginal article is just another piece designed to get the author a writing credit and meager income check, as the publisher doesn't have enough substantial pieces to put up for readers, coupled with the fact other authors have already speculated the same earlier than this article.
  • by moore.dustin ( 942289 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:44PM (#18489323) Homepage
    First off, the iPhone does not even come close to being able to replace any non shuffle, mini, or nano iPod. Anyone with over 8gigs of music already on their devise is not going to be able to live under that ceiling easily. I have well over 40gigs of music on my iPod and I certainly do not see that number going down ever either.

    Second, the iPhone cannot be what my iPod is. I use my iPod at the gym, when I jog, as my car stereo, and I am never without it. The same goes for my phone, it is, more or less, never to far away from me. Now it would be nice to have both together just for the fact of keeping track of one thing is easier than two, but the cons are just as bad.

    My battery life is shot now. Using one device for two functions I use often would suck the battery life from the devise very quickly. If something breaks on either the phone or the music part, I lose the other function while it is fixed. If you dont have an Apple Store in your hood, you are screwed. If you rely on your smart phone to be productive, which you should if you are spending that much, then you are screwed if you need to fix something. Not enough room, not even close to being an acceptable alternative. Functionality - Can that iPhone do everything my current phone/iPod does? Nope.
  • Even my 7-year-old Casio 3000EX runs circles around a built-in camera phone in features. How is a phone going to replace that? And my MP3 player (a Mobiblu 1GB cube) take up almost no space, while a camera is huge in comparison and contains a lot of functionality I have absolutely no need for.

    Convergence? I don't think so...
  • Yes, the stand-alone music player's days are the thousands. We all know that convergence is happening every year, and that the low-end market for most personal electronics is turning into one market for do-it-all gadgets, there's no serious disagreement there. It is just the headline that's sensationalist.
  • Maybe. I bet we'll be able to answer this question when it all actually happens.

    Until then this is all just so much Superman vs Batman.

  • According to an earlier Slashdot story, Apple is forbidding Cingular from subsidizing the iPhone with service contracts because they are concerned about the iPhone cutting into iPod sales. Seems to me that Apple is already considering this and is attempting to limit it as much as possible. We'll just have to wait and see how this plays out.
  • I realized this weekend that my Palm Zire 72 has only been used as a MP3 player for the past six months, since my employer gave me a Blackberry. The BB does web, email, phone, and the all-important games for those really long meetings.

    I saw a billboard for a store on the way to work this morning which read, "iPods and Cell Phones," and thought how the two will soon probably be combined at that location. Since the technology has changed, and phones are now an extension - the way ghetto blasters and walkman p
  • by mitchell_pgh ( 536538 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:50PM (#18489423)
    The main problem with the all-in-one device is the risk associated with having "all your eggs in one basket" if you will.

    I don't know about the rest of you, but the thought of having a $600 device with me all the time makes me cringe.

    While I have a $400 digital camera, $200 phone and $250 iPod, I don't take them all with me wherever I go. There is some satisfaction with being able to protect some of the devices by not bringing them along. Also, I leave my cell phone at home sometimes when I don't want to be bothered.
  • I know I'm not sold on convergence, anyway, and I don't see the reasoning (from the consumer side) for keeping my music and photographs on my phone. I trade out my phone every couple of years. Cameras don't improve that significantly from year-to-year. Hell, neither do MP3 players.

    Gimme a phone with black-and-white display, a simple addressbook, Bluetooth, speaker phone and good sound quality. A couple time-related apps would be nice, but I really don't need much else. I don't need color everything with Int
  • Precident (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wytcld ( 179112 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @01:01PM (#18489583) Homepage
    When I was a kid in the early 60s my dad got a console stereo []. It was pretty amazing: radio, record changer, amplifier and speakers all in one device, encased in a solid-wood cabinet, and with true hi-fidelity (better than your iPods, kids). The separate components of the hi-fi systems of the years before had been merged into one convenient device! What a technological advance!

    And then, what? By the early 70s most of the console stereos were in the junk yards. Every audiophile wanted - gasp - a system built of separate components.

    History may repeat: The all-in-one device will be perfected, and enjoy a brief domination of the market based in part on its cool factor. Then everyone will revert to the natural preference for individual flexibility and control, which favors separate but combinable devices. There's no reason your music player, for instance, won't be able to connect to whatever local network access is available at the moment - including your cell phone in the other pocket - without any necessity to combine them it the same case.
  • different segments (Score:3, Insightful)

    by u19925 ( 613350 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @01:05PM (#18489629)
    The PDA and smartphones were targeted to the same segments. The people who need PDA are same people who need smartphone and smartphones provides virtually all the functionality of PDA. The price of smartphones with subsidies from phone company was competitive with that of standalone PDA. Hence they killed PDA.

    With iPod and iPhone, the target market is not same. People who want iPod does not necessarily want a cell phone. Yes, there is some overlap, but not enough (at least not yet), to kill the iPod. At high end, iPods provide more storage and at low end, iPods are cheaper.

    However, if the price of iPhone reduces too much, it is likely, people would start buying iPhone as a replacement of iPod. In fact, I already do something similar. When my contract with Cingular expired and I got a new phone, I converted my old phone into an MP3 player (with 2GB miniSD, AM/FM radio, voice recorder and tiny photo/video camera, it is a great gadget to keep in the car all the time).

  • by trailerparkcassanova ( 469342 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @01:49PM (#18490355)
    I'd rather be able to access it from a mobile device along with other documents.
  • by Jackie_Chan_Fan ( 730745 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @02:00PM (#18490509)
    The biggest factor in folding all of these devices into a single device, is battery life. With an ipod you have a seperate battery that isnt always on, where as your phone is going to be running all the time. Lets say you've been listening to tunes all day on your phone, how long will the battery last on that important call you have to take on the run? The more functions you put into a single device, the more usage that device gets, which places more demands on the single powersource inside of it. With seperate units, you have seperate batteries which of course means longer run time.

    The iphone also does not have an 80gig hard drive and it wont for some time.
  • Apart from the Monks of Cool, who's going to fork out that kind of money for a locked down device?

I THINK MAN INVENTED THE CAR by instinct. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.