Will The iPhone Kill The iPod? 338
Edward Sinovian writes "According to Cnet.co.uk, 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?"
Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Space (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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)
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
Definitions of "need" (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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:4, Informative)
No, you can buy a new battery dirt cheap from newertech.com, sonnettech.com, or any other of many iPod replacement battery vendors. They even give you the tools to disassemble the case damage-free. And if anyone can't handle replacing the battery themselves like this (or doesn't have a friend that can do it for them), they deserve to pay big bucks for the service.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
No. Too expensive for something so delicate (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The only thing unlocking your phone is good for is accessing all the built-in features and functionality (camera, MP3 playing, file transfer with USB cable, adding your own ringtones and games, etc.) without having to pay the provide
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, the high end Video iPods have an 80GB capacity (as of today), whereas the iPhone goes up to 8GB. The iPhone will eventually replace the high-end Video iPod, but not until flash memory gets cheaper and increases to that sort of capacity. That won't happen any time soon (where "soon" is defined to be in technology terms).
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
The _real_ killer 'device' would be an advancement in body area networking so I could have a central storage unit in my pocket, a display on my wrist and a variation of camera, phone and various other useful attachments (again, that are actually good at what they do) with me when I need them. Heck, with the right programming I might want to have multiple 'phone' devices that could switch data and voice traffic over whatever carrier was best/cheapest for the moment. Single-purpose devices that are good at what they do, rather than several devices that all replicate functionality like input, output and storage, costing more to manufacture and drawing more power and still end up more or less sucking at most of what they do.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Example - I have a little tiny shuffle (2nd gen). I use it extensively at the gym, in the car, and when I'm running or cycling (one ear only, of course).
I have an iPaq, and a cell phone which I carry almost everywhere.
The iPhone (which I'm almost certainly buying) will completely replace both the iPaq and the cell phone. However, I still won't carry it anywhere it might get lost/damaged. The shuffle will continue to be used for those situations, just like it is now.
Price (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus, a button less phone seems counter-intuitive to me.
Re:Price (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Price (Score:5, Funny)
It dials a random number from your phonebook.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just one button.
It dials a random number from your phonebook.
Or how about no buttons at all? Bring it close to your face, speak the name of the person you want to talk to. That's it...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Price (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Price (Score:4, Informative)
Later on, you 'rang' someone on the shared bus. I still have a wooden hanger with the instructions to "ring 52" printed on it to get the cleaners.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
won't ever buy an iphone, though - why should i pay such an amount of money for a crippled device?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.etronics.com/product.asp?stk_code=palt
Re:Price (Score:4, Interesting)
LS
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummm, no (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re:Why would it? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
4 ipods / 1 blackberry (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:4 ipods / 1 blackberry (Score:5, Funny)
Just be careful next time you walk through airport security with four ipods strapped to your belt, ok?
Re: (Score:2)
convenience (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:convenience (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Sheesh, this is a no-brainer.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Not At That Price... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why?
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)
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.
Yes, at that price. (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Eventually, but... (Score:2)
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)
Only after fuel cell revolution (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I don't need a phone that can't live through the day on a single charge. No matter how rich it is.
How long is it going to take? (Score:2)
Re:How long is it going to take? (Score:4, Insightful)
Eventually (Score:3, Insightful)
A more interesting question (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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)
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.
Cingular (Score:2)
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.
Dave
Re: (Score:2)
nevermind the fact that it's $500.
I hope it does (Score:2)
Not the iPods apple sells... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Couldn't resist (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Phone, maybe -- not the iAnything. (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
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
iPhone questions (Score:2)
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 ?
Already (Score:2)
just in from apple: (Score:2)
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
NO -- just what network are you on? (Score:2)
Possibly for me (Score:2)
Yes it will replace it (Score:2, Informative)
Not likely (Score:2)
No (Score:2)
not here (Score:2)
Monthly fee (Score:2)
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
Different Strokes, Phones, Poddies (Score:2)
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.
My Music Deserves Its Own Device (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Uh... Phones are large and come with a toy camera (Score:2)
Convergence? I don't think so...
Days are numbered... (Score:2)
Answer: (Score:2)
Until then this is all just so much Superman vs Batman.
Maybe but Apple is already cautious (Score:2)
I've been thinking about this. (Score:2)
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
The all-in-one problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 really doubt it. (Score:2)
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)
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)
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).
I don't want my music stored in a mobile device (Score:3, Insightful)
Biggest factor is Battery life (Score:3, Insightful)
The iphone also does not have an 80gig hard drive and it wont for some time.
The iPhone will kill the iPhone. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Orange (in the UK) are well known for branding their phones and removing features. Now I don't think we'll see this with the iPhone as Apple are unlikely to let telcos 'brand' the OS, but hooking directly into certain media streams is quite likely. It won't bother Joe Consumer, but I will certainly avoid anything that
Re: (Score:2)