Ipod Nano
Your thoughts
-
Clodius Albinus
- Smile for the camera
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: Blackacre
The iPod line has been promoted almost flawlessly, and new products in the line, though perhaps not always logical to "outsiders," seem to have been designed to fill every niche in the market.
The classic iPod sold shockingly well, and contrary to Samwise's assessment, I do not think that one could find a better mp3 player on the market. There are some with more built-in memory, but 60 gig is quite a bit, and for ease of control, ergonomic design and interface, data displayed, features (many, but not obtrusively so), quality of sound, etc., no other manufacturer has come close to beating the iPod.
This does not mean it's the best product for everyone. Not everyone has the same set of preferences, and there are good players cheaper than the classic iPod. Still, objectively speaking, the average consumer, even stripping away brand loyalty, the cult following these players have generated and whatever band-wagoning/popularity factor there may be, I think most consumers, given a choice, would go with the iPod.
However, you can't dismiss those other things I mentioned. Apple has managed to make people think iPod when they hear mp3s. The XML feeds that stream mp3 files are Podcasts, not generic mp3 player broadcasts. The word "iPod" has become a verb in some circles. These things have been marketed and promoted almost flawlessly.
Every time they've branched out, they've achieved success: the mini, the shuffle, the models that broke away from monochrome, etc. When they came out with the mini, some wondered why people would pay almost as much for a player that held significantly less. They forgot that style points matter, and size is a major factor; the Mini sold almost as many units as the original iPod has. The iPod Shuffle hasn't done that well, and the company never expected it to do so, but it has sold quite well, despite barely being an iPod at all. An entry-level iPod, in a way, it was targeted at an entirely new market. Some people who already owned every iPod out bought it, of course, and I don't think Apple is complaining about that, but the player was meant to fill a niche that the more expensive, bulkier players could never fill. It worked.
Now, the Nano. No, it doesn't hold nearly as many songs, Apple has already saturated the market with players designed for people with playlists of 15,000 songs in mind. This new iPod isn't for them -- although due to the cult following and some of the upsides of the Nano, I am quite confident that many existing iPod users will get one anyway to compliment, not replace, their other iPod(s).
This new iPod is made for people whose collections are "normal" in size, who were on the fence about whether or not to purchase an mp3 player and were put off by the higher prices of the traditional iPods. It's designed for people who want to use the player on the go -- on a lanyard, in their breast pocket, strapped to their wrist. I'm sure it sounds like ad copy, but there's no questioning the fact that the new design is sleek and lightweight.
I suspect that it will sell exceptionally well.
I don't own an iPod; I don't even listen to music, and what few spoken word mp3s I occasionally listen to generally fit on my rather old Rio 600 mp3 player, complete with all of 64 MB of internal storage space, so I don't write the above to defend my own purchases or anything like that. It is simply clear to me that the iPod line is the best on the market for most users and that the Nano will help them expand their client base even further.
It's no wonder that Apple controls 75% of the mp3 player market.
The classic iPod sold shockingly well, and contrary to Samwise's assessment, I do not think that one could find a better mp3 player on the market. There are some with more built-in memory, but 60 gig is quite a bit, and for ease of control, ergonomic design and interface, data displayed, features (many, but not obtrusively so), quality of sound, etc., no other manufacturer has come close to beating the iPod.
This does not mean it's the best product for everyone. Not everyone has the same set of preferences, and there are good players cheaper than the classic iPod. Still, objectively speaking, the average consumer, even stripping away brand loyalty, the cult following these players have generated and whatever band-wagoning/popularity factor there may be, I think most consumers, given a choice, would go with the iPod.
However, you can't dismiss those other things I mentioned. Apple has managed to make people think iPod when they hear mp3s. The XML feeds that stream mp3 files are Podcasts, not generic mp3 player broadcasts. The word "iPod" has become a verb in some circles. These things have been marketed and promoted almost flawlessly.
Every time they've branched out, they've achieved success: the mini, the shuffle, the models that broke away from monochrome, etc. When they came out with the mini, some wondered why people would pay almost as much for a player that held significantly less. They forgot that style points matter, and size is a major factor; the Mini sold almost as many units as the original iPod has. The iPod Shuffle hasn't done that well, and the company never expected it to do so, but it has sold quite well, despite barely being an iPod at all. An entry-level iPod, in a way, it was targeted at an entirely new market. Some people who already owned every iPod out bought it, of course, and I don't think Apple is complaining about that, but the player was meant to fill a niche that the more expensive, bulkier players could never fill. It worked.
Now, the Nano. No, it doesn't hold nearly as many songs, Apple has already saturated the market with players designed for people with playlists of 15,000 songs in mind. This new iPod isn't for them -- although due to the cult following and some of the upsides of the Nano, I am quite confident that many existing iPod users will get one anyway to compliment, not replace, their other iPod(s).
This new iPod is made for people whose collections are "normal" in size, who were on the fence about whether or not to purchase an mp3 player and were put off by the higher prices of the traditional iPods. It's designed for people who want to use the player on the go -- on a lanyard, in their breast pocket, strapped to their wrist. I'm sure it sounds like ad copy, but there's no questioning the fact that the new design is sleek and lightweight.
I suspect that it will sell exceptionally well.
I don't own an iPod; I don't even listen to music, and what few spoken word mp3s I occasionally listen to generally fit on my rather old Rio 600 mp3 player, complete with all of 64 MB of internal storage space, so I don't write the above to defend my own purchases or anything like that. It is simply clear to me that the iPod line is the best on the market for most users and that the Nano will help them expand their client base even further.
It's no wonder that Apple controls 75% of the mp3 player market.
My brother went out and bought 3 nanos, 2 for himself and 1 for a friend of his. He seems very pleased with his. I looked at his and while it is very cute and I am very amazed at how thin and small it is, I probably will not buy one. I have a 40 GB 10,000 song iPod that my brother gave me for Christmas 2 years ago and I have never filled it completely. An iPod that only holds 1,000 songs is not practical for me since what I use mine for is AIO, Down Gilead Lane and Radio Theatre etc. I really wish Apple still made the 40 GB models. I would rather have the larger storage capability.
If this system had mod points, I would give you some Zedekiah. That's an excellent assessment of the iPod's current status in American culture.
I won't personally be buying one for a while, because I don't see how I would really need the benefits of such an expensive toy. My money would be better spent. Two years ago, I got a 128mb MPIO for $40. It stores two CDs worth of stuff, and suits my needs. Admittedly, it can get a little inconvenient at times, but after comparing prices, sizes, and wieghts, I can't complain. No sir, I will be buying another chip of ram for my laptop, a few tanks of gas, and probably a Dance Dance revolution pad or two before I consider spending money on more mp3 technology. Besides, I'd rather listen to muzak on my 450 watt Behringer Truths... Ah, they are so nice.
Dwon with the system! Buy an iPod!
I won't personally be buying one for a while, because I don't see how I would really need the benefits of such an expensive toy. My money would be better spent. Two years ago, I got a 128mb MPIO for $40. It stores two CDs worth of stuff, and suits my needs. Admittedly, it can get a little inconvenient at times, but after comparing prices, sizes, and wieghts, I can't complain. No sir, I will be buying another chip of ram for my laptop, a few tanks of gas, and probably a Dance Dance revolution pad or two before I consider spending money on more mp3 technology. Besides, I'd rather listen to muzak on my 450 watt Behringer Truths... Ah, they are so nice.
Dwon with the system! Buy an iPod!
Not dead yet.
-
Clodius Albinus
- Smile for the camera
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: Blackacre
That's a coin pocket, and while few people use it as such these days, it would not be accurate to term it useless. It does mostly eliminate the jangling coins make if placed in the larger hip pocket.Eugene Kendall wrote:The iPod nano will fit in that useless little pocket in your jeans that is above the actual pocket.
Yes, but in my experience, I can never get the change out again.Zedekiah wrote:That's a coin pocket, and while few people use it as such these days, it would not be accurate to term it useless. It does mostly eliminate the jangling coins make if placed in the larger hip pocket.Eugene Kendall wrote:The iPod nano will fit in that useless little pocket in your jeans that is above the actual pocket.
My Iriver mp3 player works fine for me. Plus it has more features.
-
dancer02248
- I've been working out
- Posts: 3273
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: New York
