The real reason Dell might get back into MP3 players

Dell gave up on MP3 players in 2006, after three years of fighting the iPod juggernaut. Initially, Dell's players relied on Musicmatch software for library organization, content syncing, and online music purchases, although they synced with the Windows Media Player as well in case of problems with Musicmatch (which CNET reviewer John Frederick Moore encountered back in 2005 with the flash-based Dell DJ Ditty). The reviews were middling at best, and the players never got much above 3 percent market share.

The Dell DJ Ditty, discontinued in 2006.

(Credit: CNET reviews)

According to a report in today's Wall Street Journal, Dell is considering re-entering the MP3 player market later this year. This time, the company is considering building its own software based on technology it gained in its acquisition of Zing, as well as a modified version of somebody else's subscription music service, most likely Rhapsody's.

Let's leave aside the question of whether the world needs yet another end-to-end hardware-software-services play in the MP3 player space. (Ask Microsoft how that's going with Zune.)

This is about something much bigger and more interesting: the shift of power in the PC market away from Microsoft and toward the hardware manufacturers. The process has been going on since the Department of Justice's antitrust settlement with Microsoft back in 2001--a lot of onlookers derided that settlement as toothless, but it actually made a difference with regard to Microsoft's relationships with OEMs (original equipment manufacturers--Microsoft parlance for the big PC makers like Dell and HP). Instead of being allowed to push them to include whatever software Microsoft bundled with Windows, the OEMs were free to choose their own bundling strategies. If Microsoft wanted placement, it would have to pay like everybody else.

Fast forward a few years. Vista launches to mostly bad reviews. Apple launches a series of brilliant advertisements slamming Vista. These advertisements, combined with the popularity of the iPod and a generally smoother experience on the Mac (even Ballmer admitted it last week) create a big spike in Macintosh sales. That hurts Microsoft a little bit, as Windows still has more than 90 percent of the market for personal computing operating systems. But it hurts the PC makers more: even the biggest ones, Dell and HP, have only about 30 percent share.

Instead of relying on Microsoft to fight back against Apple, Dell's taking matters into its own hands. The company's been focusing on better design for some time now--that's phase one, since Apple consistently wins praise for its hardware design. Phase two: create a differentiated consumer experience for digital media and entertainment, and make it available only on a Dell. The MP3 player's just a side note.

Which raises the question: how much marketing should Microsoft do for Windows anyway? Rumors have been flying about a $300 million rehabilitation campaign for Vista. Why bother if OEMs like Dell are going their own way anyway? Instead, Microsoft should focus on building the most reliable, secure, multipurpose operating system it can, one that the OEMs will be happy to put on their PCs and that end users will be happy to adopt. Forget the user interface bells and whistles. Scale back on the included apps, which Microsoft now has to pay OEMs to place anyway. Just build a great OS, let the OEMs figure out how to use it, then leave the sales, marketing, and user experience details to them.

[lmasanti]

The problem that I see with that initiative as with many other is that they are trying to "copy Apple".
For some extrange reason (at least to me) Apple appears to be the only company with a "copy-and-success" history.

They "copy" the GUI from Xerox PARC and "ignited the revolution" (ok, pun intended).
They "copy" Creative and got the iPod.
They "copy" MusicMatch and got iTunes.
They "copy" BlackBerry and got the iPhone.
They "copy" Gateway's stores and got the Apple Stores.
They "copy" Handango and got the App Store.

What companies must look for is "why Apple is a copy-and-success" company. And then, copy Apple in "that way"!

[The_Decider]

It is simple.

Everyone copies someone else. Nothing is original nor does development happen in a vacuum.

Apple takes the best ideas of others and improves on them.

That is a far cry from the crappy copy job that is Vista.

[Perry_Clease]

We all learned by copying others, speech, walking, and so on.

[rcardona2k]

You don't copy success, you earn it. Dell "copied" Apple with the DJ Ditty but not the success. But that won't stop them from pushing COPY again.

[Kev Orng]

Looking at the list of Apple's copy success provided by lmasanti above, I'd say that the major common theme of them is that they don't focus on copying the features or the specs, they focus on the usability. In my opinion, the Zune got a lukewarm response because it was basically an exercise in matching and/or beating technical specs.The user interface was neither revolutionary nor "more" intuitive than the iPod, so it was met with a collective "who cares"

If Dell can make a music player with a more intuitive user interface (hardware and software) than the iPod, they'll find success.

It's just my opinion, so I invite the angry people to tell me that I'm "wrong" but it won't change my opinion. Some reasonable examples/arguments to the contrary might, though.

[SlimGem]

If Apple truly copied all of those things, they wouldn't have gotten anywhere.
Apple takes an idea and implements it in a way that makes people want to own it. They don't load a product down with every possible feature, most of which many people never use.

"If Dell can make a music player with a more intuitive user interface (hardware and software) than the iPod, they'll find success. "

If they find a way to accomplish that, they will at least have a fighting chance.