Sucks, since the iPod has been such a revolutionary tool. But, I'm not hating on Microsoft. Bill Gates is god. EBGE 4 EVER!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8926123/

Bastards

It's funny because Apple got denied the patent first, then MS just threw money away and got the patent. Damn you MS!!!!

Well, if they change the interface to something that sucks, I'll simply not update my iPod.

Revolutionary? New, certainly, but not quite outsourced. I think it's funny, seeing as how I don't care one way or the other. Hopefully this gives other players a chance to enter the market, seeing as how Apple has a veritable monopoly. And before anyone starts with "LOL THEY HAVE TEH BEST PLAYERS EVAR"--After using an iPod, I found the creative players to be better, so it's all opinion. Unfortunately, the masses aren't exposed enough to other players to be able to have an opinion :\

Traditional iPod argument coming up!

I got one myself because it was damn cheap and... yeah, that's probably the only reason. I'm not nerd enough to be an audiophile. :]

Also, what's revolutionary with it's menu's... they're menus. They can't be revolutionary anymore.

From what I've read, this doesn't really affect Apple or Microsoft in the way most people are thinking of it.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]...so it's all opinion. Unfortunately, the masses aren't exposed enough to other players to be able to have an opinion :\[/QUOTE]

If it's all opinion, why are you calling iPod users ignorant?

Sorry, but the lack of ads for Creative and iRiver is not Apple's fault. Both companies have well enough business to make commercials, and put in ads, but they aren't, that's the problem.

iPod / iTunes ads are catchy, with hit songs, and somewhat cool graphics. I think they have totalled up to around 50 or 60 ads altogether. I have NEVER seen a Creative or iRiver commercial on TV. In New York, I think I saw about 25 iPod billboards scattered around, and only one iRiver one.

Apple/iPod is in no way preventing other companies from entering the market, or does not have a 100% market share of mp3 players, therefore, they are in no way a monopoly. I don't know if it's just those weird Best Buy's, Circuit City's, CompUSA's, Target's, Walmart's, or Office Max's out in Wisconsin, but I can go in there anytime and have my choice of a Creative or iRiver or Rio or Samsung player. If anything, it's the other companies faults for not even trying to advertise their damn products.

Wait. Let me get this chronologically:

Apple creates the iPod.
Microsoft says "WORSHIP THE DARK LORD SATAN" and patents the iPod.
Apple is denied a patent for the iPod.
Microsoft wants money.


...........What happened here? What about prior art? Does this mean I can invent something brilliant, sell millions of units, and then some uppity supercorporation can patent an object I've been manufacturing for years? Bull****. Americans need to seriously re-examine their patent laws.

With the way our goverment is, Jon'C, let's just say I'm not too worried about patent laws.

If they're not going to make any more income, how can they fund the advertising? Also, they do lots of advertising, but most people associate MP3 player with iPod. When they see iRivers they have to think a minute on what that might be. If they see an iPod, guaranteed they'll know what it is right off the bat. It's just luck of the draw that Apple got in there fast.

It IS preventing other companies from entering the market by controlling the market (they sell, iirc, over 75% of all mp3 players, I know they have 58% of the flash based market this last quarter. I actually THINK it's 90%, but I don't want to say that without conclusive backup, 75% is a much safer figure).

I don't think you quite get how economics works, buck.

Mr. Attitude as always, eh?

Shut it, finnboy. >:|

Z:)

What kind of hairdo is that? O_o

The amazing N eyebrows of course

Finnish people have that amazing ability to make N eyebrows.

I strongly dislike ipods.

It strongly dislikes you.

I strongly dislike people who dislike technology just because they're above trendy trend trends.

And my sister has a Creative player and I HATE the button layout. The iPod's menu/buttons are more intuitive, at least to me. Seriously though, who really gives a **** as long as you're listening to your music?

I can't understand the last part of Schming's post. But I want a mobiblu cube.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]

It IS preventing other companies from entering the market by controlling the market (they sell, iirc, over 75% of all mp3 players, I know they have 58% of the flash based market this last quarter. I actually THINK it's 90%, but I don't want to say that without conclusive backup, 75% is a much safer figure).

I don't think you quite get how economics works, buck.[/QUOTE]

Is iRiver still making products? Are they selling at least one?
Is Creative still makign products, and are they selling one?
That mCube or whatever just was released, entering into the digital media market, and have they sold at least one?

So no, not a monopoly. Until every other piece of competition is elminated, it is not a monopoly. The only monopoly that has ever existed is the US Treasury.

I agree with you that Apple has one hella' large advantage over the other competition, but they have never even come close to a monopoly.

Your forgetting about that other 25%. They do exist you know, they do sell products.

Even MS isn't a monopoly, they just use monopolistic tactics (which Apple really hasn't, since they haven't bought out iRiver or Creative to tell them to stop making products. Apple doesnt' need to because they have the strong grasp on the masses, so they have no need to tell everyone to stay out, because they will just fail anyway.)

The only thing they DO have a monopoly on is their iTunes DRM.

For a more professional way of putting this, http://www.osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=4320

Last post on this thread because, I'm wrong, you're wrong, I'm right, you're right, etc. I'll never convince you anyways, since you seem to be keen on believing that only holding 3/4's market share is the same as holding 100% of a market share.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]If they're not going to make any more income, how can they fund the advertising? Also, they do lots of advertising, but most people associate MP3 player with iPod. When they see iRivers they have to think a minute on what that might be. If they see an iPod, guaranteed they'll know what it is right off the bat. It's just luck of the draw that Apple got in there fast.

It IS preventing other companies from entering the market by controlling the market (they sell, iirc, over 75% of all mp3 players, I know they have 58% of the flash based market this last quarter. I actually THINK it's 90%, but I don't want to say that without conclusive backup, 75% is a much safer figure).

I don't think you quite get how economics works, buck.[/QUOTE]



Yoshi, this is all you need to know.

mo·nop·o·ly P Pronunciation Key (m-np-l)
n. pl. mo·nop·o·lies
Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: “Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals” (Milton Friedman).
Law. A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.
A commodity or service so controlled.
Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.


What's the key word there?
EXCLUSIVE!!!! The iPod is not the only mp3 player out there, which therefore means they do not have a monopoly. For god's sake break down the word, "mono" is one. Just because the public now associates the iPod with mp3 players does not mean that they have a monopoly.

Oligopoly, fools, oligopoly.

In fact Apple are part of an oligopoly, where a few dominant players control the lion's share of the market - namely themselves, Creative, MS and the like.

I think oligopoly is a marvellous sounding word.

INSTAPOSTED!

GRRRR!

:p

You know what I meant by monopoly. I didn't mean literally. Hell, if I did, I even contradicted myself in my own post (saying they only controlled a certain part of the market).

But they have a humongous advantage either way, and it's going to take many years, and some changes (like this) for other players to be recognized by the masses.

And your gripe is?......

...Did we just read the same article?

Sorry, as a consumer, I want the best bang for buck. With the iPod pretty much dominating prices, I can't get that. God forbid I not wanna pay out the *** for something?

Apple just needs to put a mohawk and wheelchair on the iPod and it will be legal again.

Being serious, I doubt this will change much if anything for the next versions of iPods, *or* who knows? Maybe it will backfire on Microsoft and cause Apple to make something new and innovative and take even more market share.

Earlier I said I strongly disliked iPods, and that had nothing to do with them being trendy, or being the 'coke' of MP3 players, which they are. I have a flash based player and won't go into comparing the two types, but iPods include all of the things I don't prefer, and seem to have problems. I always say the less moving parts the better.

I will say they are fun to play with though and the iPod photo's are very impressive to look at.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Sorry, as a consumer, I want the best bang for buck. With the iPod pretty much dominating prices, I can't get that. God forbid I not wanna pay out the *** for something?[/QUOTE]


I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. I know I said last post, but this is a fundamental rule of economics, which you claim I don't understand well.

If you have one company that has a strong influence in it's market, then that makes other companies trying to compete with it lower their prices in order to draw more people. This is great for people like you who want a player other than the iPod. It's absoulty great! For people who BUY iPods, they don't realize that they are spending more money. But for people like you who buy iRivers, Creative, etc (which i have no problem with whatsoever), then this is perfect because their prices are lower because of their need for customers as a result of Apple's domination.

I swear to god, last post

But that's just it--I wouldn't be adverse to buying the iPod if it weren't so damn expensive. From your many conversations with me, you should know that best of anyone. That and the proprietary software are my two main gripes.

But that's nothing towards the argument. I forgot about that to an extent, and it does ring true, but if Apple actually had competition the prices would be driven down even further to where the players had to be mass produced and released to make any money off of them. That's where the consumer gets it best, and really the producer as well since more people are willing to buy them more often.

pppht.

Mass produced? I don't think you realize how difficult it has been for Apple to keep up with demand. Have you seen how many iPods have been sold? The article says "Apple has shipped 21.8 million iPods since Jobs introduced the player in October 2001, with 18.1 million units sold in the last four quarters alone." If producing 18 million units in a year isn't mass production then i don't know what is.

By lowering the price of their iPods, it would mean that they would be selling iPods for less per unit. It isn't really any more economically friendly for the producer to chop off a bunch of money from the price, especially given the fact that Apple offers so many different mp3 players which cover so much different range (Shuffle for 99/149, Mini for 199/249 and Pod for 299/399) that people who think they can't afford a 20 gig iPod will just get a Mini if they really want to get an apple product.

The fact is, 18.1 million people don't find it "so damn expensive". Therefore, as far as the market is concerned, it isn't overpriced.

Ipods arent all that popular in Asia. They are simply too damn big and heavy compared to what is avaible in the Asian market.

Yes, and it sounds to me like Apple produced the iPod, Apple was denied a patent for some of the technologies in the iPod, Microsoft patented said technologies and was immediately approved for it.

The article read, to me, like Microsoft filed the patent after BillyG bought himself one and said "HURR THIS IS A GOOD IDEA". Correct me if I'm wrong.

18.1 million people don't know better. They sell 20gig iPods for 300. Well Creative sells 20 gig Zen Touch's for 200. I mean, a 100 gig price drop, the zen Touch actually I think now BEATING the iPod in battery life (the regular iPod, not the mini) which is the only category it lagged behind in. Now you're just paying an extra 100 dollars for an interface and a look? Excuse me if I go "Screw that"

I have looked at all the other MP3 players on the market, and I still think the iPod is the best player out there. It's number one for a reason folks (and not because of trends).

well, to each his own
I'll stick with the iRiver
it fits my personal need perfectly

well, the H300 and H100 series do at least... the new H10, not so much

Yeah, my iPod is the best £200 I ever spent. It fits perfectly in my pocket - small enough to be convenient, not too small to be fiddly of flimsy. I like the interface - the look? Who cares? It spends 90% of its time in my pocket, or on the passenger seat of my car!

When I have it 'on display' it's kept in a scabby little bag meant for sunglasses that keeps the scratches off it, so nobody really sees it!

Propietary software? You mean you don't like iTunes? (Not sarcy, just not quite getting your point) You can get a plugin for winamp if that's your beef (aside from the price).

Anyway, I've had nothing but good service from apple, and zero problems with my iPod - I've looked after the battery and still get my full 10 hours after 18 months of use. Hence why I'm investing in a mac when I get paid

Unfortunately, as far as sound quality and bass response goes, it's one of the worst. One of the few things I dislike about it (the others being the price and the battery stuff (it being not irreplaceable unless you send it in to Apple)).