Sony takes on iPod Shuffle 501
Ben writes "It seems that Sony has decided to take on Apple with a low cost flash based player that will go up against the Shuffle.
Pocket-lint has
the low down on some of the stats,
as does the BBC and Engadget." The major improvement in my eyes is that some models have an FM tuner.
Can I be the first to say, Yuk. (Score:5, Insightful)
The other comment is - what on earth are Sony smoking - they really need to learn about branding - the models are the NW-E103, NW-E105, NW-E107, NW-E405, NW-E407, NW-E505, NW-E507. Apart from 'bigger numbers are better' (which is a guess), what does that tell me ? What are the distinctions between them ? both in-range and between the ranges (presuming the E1xx, E4xx and E5xx are 3 distinct ranges).
Even I get this, and I write s/w for a living. You'd have thought someone in the highly-paid 'marketing director' position would have a clue too.
Simon
FM Radio (Score:4, Insightful)
If they want to include a radio at least include a DAB one (the digital radio service in the UK).
does fm tuner really add value to these? (Score:4, Insightful)
I want AM (Score:5, Insightful)
they don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Sort out the software.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It conforms to NO Human Interface Guidelines at all, it has huge amounts of extremely choppy and pointless animations and is such a CPU hog that it doesn't respond even when the only application open on a 2.6GHz P4 laptop. Quite unbelievable.
Now if I could sync it with iTunes, that would be another matter.
Nice (Score:4, Insightful)
However, as we all know, Sony are a music company too which means that however great this is, they'll crippled or fudge it up in some spectacular way meaning that, yet again, it'll be a flop.
My guess is that it'll be the required usage of SonicStage.
Ipod competitors (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple understands style, SONY only understands style sometimes.
There have been other MP3/flash players that have better stats than the Ipod or the Ipod Flash. People buy these things cause it's "cool" to have an Ipod.
Kudo to Apple... (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually comparable? (Score:2, Insightful)
The major drawback (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple has simply done with the music industry what they've already done with their computers. They've made software that's so good that it's almost (and is, in my case) worth it to pay more for hardware that will work with said software.
Re:FM Radio (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not anti-convergence as long as the device can do the job well or not add anything to the cost. My experience with FM reception on small devices is the quality is not worth it. I actually listen to the radio a lot in the car because the quality is fine but I've never wanted to listen to it through my phone.
If they can say the radio doesn't add anything to the cost and doesn't make the device more complicated to use then fine - add it. Otherwise why bother to add something that hardly anyone would use?
Why The iPod Reigns Supreme... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm convinced that every time some product is touted as the "iPod Killer" it's destined to be a flop. This Sony design won't be any different.
Why do people buy a flash music player like the Shuffle? To listen to music. The problem with competing with the Shuffle is that it serves one purpose and does it well. Trying to compete with it on features can easily raise the price so that it's no longer price competitive.
The other big reason is that the Shuffle is being driven by the success of the iTunes Music Store. Any other player doesn't work with the most popular online music store. Any player that wants to compete with the iPod has to either play iTMS songs (which Apple won't do for obvious reasons) or have a music store that's better than the iTMS. So far none of the competition even comes close. They either have horrible interfaces, bloated prices, or draconian DRM -- and most of the time they have all three.
Unless Sony can not only create a flash player that's cheaper, but a music store that's better, they're not going to put much of a dent in the iPod's sales figures. Personally, I don't see Sony doing either of these things.
The iPod Shuffle works because it's small, cheap, stylish, has the benefit of iTunes' excellent UI, and works with the iTunes Music Store. The Sony player is Yet Another Flash Player, and it won't sell necessarily better than an iRiver, Rio, etc. would.
Re:FM Radio (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, well, but then you also have to carry another pair of headphones because cell phones never seem to have a standard 3.5 mm plug. It seems strange to me that Nokia and SE don't include such a connector a phone nowadays with built in MP3 players in their phones (in addition to the FM radio which has been present in most models the last few years).
> If they want to include a radio at least include a DAB one (the digital radio service in the UK).
There are many reasons to be opposed to DAB as a whole (take a look at http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/ [digitalradiotech.co.uk]), but I also believe receiving DAB is much more power hungry than receiving standard FM radio. Can anyone confirm this?
Re:FM Radio (Score:2, Insightful)
The whole reason that I have an iPod is so I don't have to listen to FM radio.
I suspect the majority of people who buy portable players do so because they don't like the selections that radio offers them. Why include another battery sucking feature that most people won't use?
Of course this is a generalization, but somehow I have a hunch it's true.
They still don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that iTunes integration is something only Apple can do, but if you can get the ease-of-use going, then you can at least sport Microsoft integration. And somehow, nobody gets the ease-of-use thing working. They keep thinking that they can beat Apple on price, which isn't really relevant now that Apple has a $100 iPod. Sure, you can make another MP3 player for $50 or $75, but it doesn't take long to compare features and decide the extra $25 or $50 is worth it.
Get it right, manufacturers -- your target is ease-of-use, not price or size. The iPod has proved that there are enough people who will pay for quality (and fashion, I'll admit it) to make it worth catering to them.
NO! Here's their REAL shuffle competition (Score:5, Insightful)
clicky [sonystyle.com]
Just my opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see this as an improvement, if radio had any quality programming we wouldn't need iPods.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:they don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
No. People want iPods for iPods, because their sleek sexy and trendy. Every *single* person I know only started using iTunes to listen to music *after* they got an ipod, not before. iPod sales drive iTunes usage, not the other way around.
Re:Every month (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah cycling through 100+ songs(512 version) trying to find a song is really enjoyable.
Re:Can I be the first to say, Yuk. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The shuffle won't stay the way is it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has always shied away from features it doesn't want enabled in their product but which are supported by the hardware. For example, all iPods since 3rd gen have been able to play WMA! But Apple never enabled it. The original iPod OS can control FireWire CD Burners - Apple never enabled that feature. It would be trivial (and cost nearly nothing) to add an FM Tuner to the entire iPod range, but Apple thinks (right IMO) that people buy Music players, not radios, and complicating a product with extra unused features is not a good thing.
In fact, looking at the original iPod to the Click Wheel iPod, apart from the Click Wheel itself, what has changed about the way you interact and use the player? Actually very little, when you think about it.
Re:does fm tuner really add value to these? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ipod competitors (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus. Not everybody is a slave to fashion. I hate when people say that they're bought because they're cool. They BECAME cool because they work better than anything else out there for the majority of people's use.
Re:FM Radio (Score:5, Insightful)
If "convergence" means a phone/mp3/radio/camera/pda/gps device in which:
The phone doesn't connect reliably or sound good
The MP3 player runs down the battery in an hour
The radio barely tunes in broadcast towers from standing across the street
The PDA is clumsy and slow
The camera is extremely low-res with no flash
The GPS can be used to track my location by Big Brother...
Personally I have a good phone in one front pocket of my jeans, and an iPod in one back pocket. I don't really need any of that other stuff with me, so why would I want a "convergence" type device which has them permanently built in?
FM Radio built into a flash media player? That at least I can kind of see making sense. I hate the radio, so it's not for me, but I could see where some people would prefer this gadget over the iPod Shuffle.
An MP3 player which takes pictures? Nah. I'm sure Apple is probably working on a camera enhancement for the iPod photo, but it seems like a foolish bolt-on idea to me.
Then again, like George Carlin once said about American commerce, "if nail together two things that have never been nailed together before, some schmuck with buy it from you."
IIRC, he said that back in the 60's. Way ahead of his time, that guy.
Back to the future? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm still trying to figure out what the shuffle has over my iFP-190T [iriveramerica.com] aside from a little memory and lack of tuner.
Re:Sony may actually have something here (Score:3, Insightful)
Equally important is that the batteries are replaceable and generic. It's easy to carry an extra one with you (if being musicless is going to be a crisis for you, that is), and you can buy them anywhere.
Re:FM Radio (Score:1, Insightful)
If "convergence" means a phone/mp3/radio/camera/pda/gps device in which:
[long list of poor quality crap]
No. By "convergence", I mean consolidating two or more devices into one. Not consolidating two or more crap devices into one.
Obviously I don't mean "crap + crap == good", what kind of ridiculous straw-man argument is that? If you were trying to claim "you can't get convergence without sacrificing quality", then why didn't you say that? I don't think it's true, and you've offered no reason to believe that. Of course, when you hide your point behind straw-men, it's a lot less obvious that you haven't backed up that claim.
Is the software free? (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone spends a lot of time living with a certain piece of music management software, when the time comes to choose a player, they're going to lean towards the one that integrates best with what they have. If they can't see or use the software without buying the player, that will impact the decision in a negative way.
Re:they don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
People might get it because other have told them they should, but WHY are people saying that? Because they've used it and realized yes, this is how it should be - simple, elegant, and It Just Works.
Re:does fm tuner really add value to these? (Score:3, Insightful)
In the past, this has been my primary objection to the iPod (lack of FM), however, I'm starting to think I can get along without it, now that I've started to use Audio Hijack [rogueamoeba.com] from Rogue Amoeba. I can programmatically capture the broadcasts I want, similar to how Tivo works, as long as there's a station that does an internet broadcast, and copy the MP3s to listen to later. Granted, I hear things a day late, but I"m not usually listening for breaking news.
Branding (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FM Radio (Score:4, Insightful)
The kind which recognizes the reality that multi-purpose devices almost never do all purposes well.
Prove me wrong. Show me a device which:
1. Plays MP3's with the ease, capacity, and battery life of an iPod
2. Takes pictures as well as a Sony CyberShot 5.1 MP
3. Has a good-quality GSM phone built in to it
4.
Re:Can I be the first to say, Yuk. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FM Radio (Score:3, Insightful)
I carry a phone with me wherever I go. I feel naked without it. It's always with me.
I also carry a driver's license, a bank card and a credit card, and a little bit of cash.
If I'm driving, I carry a car key.
That's it. That's the total contents of my pockets at any given time.
If I'm going someplace where I want to listen to music, I carry an iPod. If I'm on the train commuting, say, I like to have my iPod for listening to music or podcasts. Ditto if I'm driving in the car, although that doesn't really count because the iPod stays in the car when I park it.
I'm not interested in carrying a PDA. My phone has all my phone numbers in it, plus it acts as my alarm clock. A camera? No, thanks. I don't just spontaneously decide in the middle of the day that I'm going to take a picture. If I wanted to take pictures, I'd have brought my Nikon with me. I think my phone has a camera in it, but I've never actually used it, so I can't say for sure.
A radio? Not interested. If I'm listening to anything, I'm listening to my iPod, either in the car or on the train.
And as for a GPS device
I think there comes a point in every man's life when he realizes that gadgets qua gadgets just aren't very interesting, and that it's better to simplify.
Creative already has apple beat with their Muvo (Score:2, Insightful)
They can't be beat for flexability, or size.
Why buy a player from a media company (apple or sony)? Creative is motivated to have their player as flexable as possible.
Sony's only plus is name recognition... they haven't got the features or the size benfits anymore.
Re:Why The iPod Reigns Supreme... (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, whenever things are touted as an "[anything]-killer", it's probably going to fail. When people use the language of "[whatever]-killer", they're aready operating in a situation where:
A) They're stipulating that [whatever] is "king of the mountain"
-and-
B) [whatever] is somehow bad, and therefore needs "killing".
Now, very often, if [whatever] is, in fact, king of the mountain, it's because people like [whatever], which therefore opposes the idea that [whatever] is bad. At the very least, the idea that it needs "killing" seems to assume that it's entrenched as "king of the hill", and has some power to maintain and enforce it's position. So already, your "killer" is in a bad situation.
But further, whenever something is labeled a "killer", it always seems to be that they've merely reproduced the [whatever], perhaps with a new feature or two, perhaps a slightly lower price point. So basically, they're hoping to overthrow an entrenched product with negligible (and often arguable) "improvements".
When someone does actually produce a product that's just obviously superior, cheaper, or generally improved in non-negligible ways, people never ask "is this a [whatever]-killer?" They never say, "This company is planning on releasing a [whatever]-killer." People just say, "Oh, boy! I want one of those!" That's because significantly superior, improved, or innovative products tend to put themselves in a class of their own, and labeling it simply as a [whatever]-killer seems insufficient.
Re:The shuffle won't stay the way is it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about mobile phones. Practically every mobile phone today has a camera in it. If you want a decent mobile phone, you have to buy one with a camera.
I don't want a camera. So when I buy a $120 phone with a camera, I feel ripped off. How much less could they have sold the phone for if they didn't put the stupid camera in it?
Apple knows that most people don't want a portable radio. They know that for two reasons. First, they know that historically portable FM radios have not sold like wildfire. Second, they know because they asked. Apple does tons of market research, which is one reason why they hardly ever ship products that flop. They have a good idea of what people want before they ship the first unit.
So if Apple added a radio just because they can, they know right up front that most people won't actually want it. Sure, it might only add a couple of bucks to the cost of the iPod, but the perception on the part of the customer is that he's being sold something he doesn't want. How much cheaper could the iPod have been if it didn't have that stupid radio in it?
Plus what about Itunes (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, there are tools to decrypt these files, but many of the average ipod users don't have a clue about that stuff. If they consider an IPod competitor, they'll be informed that their music won't carry over and they'll get another IPod.
It's the same game Microsoft plays if on a different scale. Everybody needs windows to run the software they bought and it's too expensive to change to a different operating system because you have to get all new software.
Re:FM Radio (Score:1, Insightful)
and everyone (except that one dork nobody likes) has an ipod.
Of course they are reading the subtitles - they're using ipod's which have no FM tuner. I use my crappy Ultra MP3 player [ultraproducts.com] at the gym, because it has 256mb onboard memory, a SD card slot for extra mem, and an FM tuner, so if I want to watch TV without squinting at the subtitles I can, and if I want to hear my own music instead, it's there. IMO it's the fact that I have a choice that counts - a choice that Apple has left out.
Notice not all the Sony players have FM - so if you want one, but have no need for FM, you can get one without it - but at least you have the choice. Apple comes off to me as a company who considers style more important than functionality, and sells more ipods based on hype than they do based on hardware.
For the non-marketing sheep: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm well aware that some consumers are obsessed with the iPod "cool factor", but I expect more out of the clear thinkers among us. Why buy a flash-based player that won't let you upgrade the flash memory when a HUGE component of the price is the memory itself, and when you'll be able to upgrade the capacity to iPod Mini size within 2 years for less than $100? It's a vehicle to deliver music, not an expression of who you are.
Re:Kudo to Apple... (Score:3, Insightful)
I felt the same way about iTunes for a long time. I used the standard artist/album/track layout for my mp3 folder. Who wants to use crappy software just to transfer music to a player? The trouble starts when you have some unfiled music, or forget the artist or title in compilations. Winamp, Quintessential and the like have good playerlike interfaces - but those interfaces are copies of your old CD player.
iTunes does best what I need it to do - manage playlists. The search functions of your entire library (title, artist, year, whatever) and other playlist management functions make iTunes the best player I've used on the PC. The only thing that comes close is JuK for KDE (Linux.) Sure, it's not that hard to keep a Windows Explorer window open and drag files around a tiny Winamp playlist, but once I tried iTunes for a week I never looked back. (This doesn't apply to the iTunes store or ripping.)
The non-shuffle ipods duplicate this playlist management interface in hardware. I haven't seen a drag 'n drop player that doesn't require that I remember exactly in which folder I happened to file a song.
Re:Plus what about Itunes (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, this is a lame arguement. You should add "... and I am anal about not introducing artifacts into my purchased music..." or "... and I don't want to use Hymn [hymn-project.org] to remove the protection". You see, you can always convert your AAC tracks into a CD/loseless and recompress the music into mp3/ogg/whatever, or just rip out the Fairplay protection and keep the music.
However, the argument that you're supportting still stands: iTMS really has no serious competitors... I wonder why no other players will team up their (good) player with a (good) site and at least make a good run at being 2nd in this market? I mean, almost all other pay-for-music services totally suck (except maybe allofmp3.com, but that's a whole 'nother story [google.com]). Is there simply NOONE else out there with the guts and innovation enough to take on Apple? Jeez, it's not like they're Microsoft...
These players are competively priced. (Score:3, Insightful)
The EW-104(512MB) is $99 and EW-105(1GB) is $150. Atop that, these players offer a display and can use interchangable batteries (AAA).
The 512MB EW-405($130) and 1GB EW-505 ($180), cost $30 more than a comparative iPod Shuffle but offers OLED and better battery life (the FM cost $20 extra on each version).
Slashdot's Apple-bias approaches the illogical, these new players offer more key features for a comparable price. Imagine if Sony made the iPod Shuffle, people would be bashing them for not being able to know what song you're playing, and locking them into a single DRM-ridden service. People can show their product devotion without bashing other products (be it Sony, iRiver, or any other flash player); especially if the product offers healthy competition to the market segment.
Re:FM Radio (Score:2, Insightful)
Sony cybershot 5.1 DSC-T1/M1 > $500
Razr v3 (popular classy phone?) $600
Convergence device including the 3 = $400 + $500 + $600 = $1500?
Would you be willing to pay that much if it were technically possible? The issue is people primarily want one device and are willing to pay a specific amount for it, say 500 bucks for a great phone, some manufacturers will distinguish their offering by adding on a crappy camera (50 bucks?) as technology improves their will come a point where the crappy camera will be good (cheap) enough for general use, ditto on the mp3 player etc. Until the incremental cost for a great add-on is more then what the market will bear of course they'll put in crappy stuff. For me the new 2 MP cameras seem to be at the point where it could actually be fun having one around, check out the K750i by Sony [infosyncworld.com]