Mobiles vs iPods: in time you will listen to your MP3s on one device…
And after some consideration, I think that the phones are going to have it. Not immediately, but in time.
More over at The Register. And did you know that on average people have just 375 digitised songs?
Plus Nokia is not only the biggest maker of mobile phones, and by proxy cameras - it’s also the biggest seller of MP3 players, something I was told this morning by an interesting person (on whom more anon) - who was also talking about MP3 players, but of the hi-fi kind.
- These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
- DRM? MP3? From the 2001 catalogues: Windows XP won't be able to create high-quality MP3s (5 November 2010; score: 56.06%)
- An iPod quirk: you haven't played a song until you've played it all (7 December 2005; score: 38.02%)
- Hmm, seems iRiver H320 isn't going to replace the iPod Photo anytime soon... (5 March 2005; score: 34.54%)
![[Valid RSS]](wp-includes/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
September 30th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
Is that an average of ALL people, or just those who have at least 1 digitised song?
September 30th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Ignore me - I just clicked the links and found out myself…
September 30th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
Not to start another flame war or anything, but for some reason I can’t stop myself from saying that the iTunes Music Store and the iPod were pretty big successes even before porting to Windows: didn’t the iTMS break all download records in its first week, when it was still Mac-only? And I seem to remember Apple sold 200,000 iPods within the first couple of months - which, for a £400, 5GB Mac-only product, was pretty good.
But generally, of course, quite right: the iPod didn’t start selling millions per quarter until it went Windows, iTMS would never have sold 500 million tracks to Mac users, and iTunes on a billion phones might even end up making Apple some profit from the iTMS :)
September 30th, 2005 at 11:43 pm
I don’t think so. Sure some people will use their cell phone for their music player but I don’t think everyone will and I doubt it will even be the majority. There are a few reasons for this.
First, your cell phone can be a fairly critical communication conduit. Something that you really can’t afford to be without. Now mix in battery eating music playing and you could have a problem. I really don’t want to have to decide between keeping battery life for my phone v. listening to music. Music is usually going to lose out.
Second is the cell phone companies. They will make cell phone users life difficult because they want a cut of the money. They are worse than the copyright cartels. We put up with them for cell phones because we have little choice. But when it comes to music, we have many more choices. I just don’t believe that the phone companies will become enlightened at some point in the future.
The last issue is really just convenience. My iPod nano is small enough that it really is no burden to bring everywhere. The headphones are much more of a problem but the headphones have to come along with a cell phone music player too so that doesn’t change. The real issue that I see with the cell phone v. music player is that users would probably like some integration between the two. I can see that with a future follow on to Bluetooth (bluetooth 2?) How about a wireless headset that plays CD quality music and integrates with both your cell phone and your iPod. You cell phone rings, your iPod stops playing and you use your phone. Neither the phone nor the iPod need to be taken out of your pocket or holster to work. Of course with yet another device, more batteries but the phone could still be used without the headset.
October 1st, 2005 at 6:36 pm
If you glue a nano to the back of a Razr it is still smaller than the iTunes phone…..
I think James has it right - the headphone integration would be excellent too.
October 3rd, 2005 at 6:34 pm
Charles
Do I detect a turnaround in your views on this topic? I thought you were down on the convergence idea primarily about usability as much as anything else. I think James makes some very good points in his comment above.
As this is a topic that interests me and as I don’t inted to bore the pants off people here, I’ve written my own view of this over on my blog. In summary, while I do think it will eventually happen, I think it will take longer than predicted because it’s not about the technology being capable - it’s about the different ways people use each device within their lifestyle. When you consider what you CAN’T do with a phone that’s a music player, I wouldn’t bet on the iPod’s demise anytime soon.
October 3rd, 2005 at 9:02 pm
The headphones are a BIG usability thing against having separate items. Ever tried swapping headphones in a hurry to catch a phone call when you’re listening to your music player? A key question is “but won’t it use up the battery?” Answer: flash memory. Hmm, I wonder if anyone is using that for anything in long-life MP3 players..
Wireless headset is a nice idea, but you can’t pair a Btooth headset simultaneously to two output/inputs. Won’t happen.
Yes, cell carriers might try to make it hard to download music, but I think people will take the simpler route, and transfer it from a computer - the school PC if they don’t have one at home.
October 4th, 2005 at 9:35 am
I don’t buy the “can’t pair headphones” argument. Currently there are very few bluetooth headsets siotable for listening to music, so they would have to bedeveloped, and part of that could easily be fixing the pairing problem, which I can’t really see as a problem anyway : I can think of several fairly easy ways to resolve it. It’s all software….
October 4th, 2005 at 10:44 am
I’m with Lindsay. For me, convergence in the ear is the obvious and best place for this (and while they’re at it, allow 3 or more modes - phone, music player and outside mode so we don’t have to take our in-ear phones out to converse! This has to be a solvable problem?
We think that convergence in the device itself is logical, but it’s really about the competition between devices (and outside world) for our aural channel.
On the device front, I’d rather see convergence for things like GPS etc. There are clear advantages in the phone knowing positional information. I’m surprised the telcos aren’t pushing for things like this so that they could deliver valuable applications down that big 3G pipe they paid so much for.
October 10th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
I think James and Lindsay’s ideal solution is already with us (though perhaps the price is not yet right, and the extra bulk unwelcome)
Interestingly, if such devices take off (and add a feature to allow us to listen in to our environment without removing ear piece), will there be a day when we spend much/most of our time with a headset on? It becomes easier to see how aural implants themselves might happen, and it also becomes easier to understand how this might also happen to vision. And if we all augment our aural and visual senses this way, then will this lead to much easier acceptance for many blind and deaf into society as we will ALL look like Geordi LaForge from Star Trek (google: Star Trek blind character)?
Ok, so it’s just a bluetooth headset! But have you noticed how many people you now see walking around and driving wearing these?