The Best of Both Phone, and TabletSeptember 17, 2005 6:00 AM PDT
Sony says new Walkman is an iPod killer
- Related Stories
-
Rokr iTunes phone, iPod Nano unveiled
September 7, 2005 -
Sony looks for musical magic from Walkman Beans
August 18, 2005 -
Can Sony reinvent itself as cool?
January 20, 2005 -
Sony launches music players with MP3 support
October 25, 2004
Can the Walkman make a comeback against the explosively popular iPod? The Walkman's maker, Sony, is betting that it can.
The New York Times
The story "Sony says new Walkman is an iPod killer" published September 17, 2005 at 6:00 AM is no longer available on CNET News.
Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.
74 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
a much better format than VHS, but Sony didn't see the truck
coming until it was too late. And then they jumped the wrong
way.
Strike One.....
Walkman was a winner for a while, but cassettes suck, and Sony
never really grasped the merits of the CD. Instead . they came up
with a mini-disk format that was totally ignored by the
consumers. Later, grudgingly, Sony began to market CD players,
but the designs were always much less than inspiring.
Strike Two....
And now, Sony has finally awakened to realize that digital music
does work, but that Apple has past them with at least one sonic
boom. So, lacking anything better, Sony tries to come up with
their version of the iPod and iTunes. Not new, not novel, not
exciting, just the Sony version, trying to capitalize on the
existing momentum in the market.
Maybe Strike Thee???????
It's a fair and legal move. But Sony has definitely lost the luster it
had when the Sony name meant serious consumer technologies.
All in all, I don't see a real threat to the iPod and iTunes. Sony is
a day late, a dollar short, and thus falls into the 'also ran'
category. It could be a profitable position, but not by much.
But I agree that they are probably too late to the digital music party to make as much as an impact as they would like. They do still have some brand cachet as well as owning one of the largest music catalogs (though the media and electronics divisions rarely seem to be on the same page), so you never know.
a much better format than VHS, but Sony didn't see the truck
coming until it was too late. And then they jumped the wrong
way.
Strike One.....
Walkman was a winner for a while, but cassettes suck, and Sony
never really grasped the merits of the CD. Instead . they came up
with a mini-disk format that was totally ignored by the
consumers. Later, grudgingly, Sony began to market CD players,
but the designs were always much less than inspiring.
Strike Two....
And now, Sony has finally awakened to realize that digital music
does work, but that Apple has past them with at least one sonic
boom. So, lacking anything better, Sony tries to come up with
their version of the iPod and iTunes. Not new, not novel, not
exciting, just the Sony version, trying to capitalize on the
existing momentum in the market.
Maybe Strike Thee???????
It's a fair and legal move. But Sony has definitely lost the luster it
had when the Sony name meant serious consumer technologies.
All in all, I don't see a real threat to the iPod and iTunes. Sony is
a day late, a dollar short, and thus falls into the 'also ran'
category. It could be a profitable position, but not by much.
But I agree that they are probably too late to the digital music party to make as much as an impact as they would like. They do still have some brand cachet as well as owning one of the largest music catalogs (though the media and electronics divisions rarely seem to be on the same page), so you never know.
attractive are mortal weaknesses when competing against the
ipod. this is very obvious. I'm surprised at the denial or
ignorance or worse yet, stupidity of sony in this.
sony is barking up the wrong tree - sadly. there are other areas
that sony could check ipod in. will they listen??????????????
But I agree... you want to kill the iPod, but you're charging more for similar features? How on earth does that make sense?
In college, most of what I and most of the people I knew owned predominantly Sony equipment. I remember a fellow student commenting "Sony is Japanese for 'crap.'" We agreed, but it offered the best choice for the money.
Granted, now we're out of school and have less disposable income, but why are all of these things so stinkin' expensive? And how can Sony even think it will compete by charging more? Makes no sense whatsoever.
attractive are mortal weaknesses when competing against the
ipod. this is very obvious. I'm surprised at the denial or
ignorance or worse yet, stupidity of sony in this.
sony is barking up the wrong tree - sadly. there are other areas
that sony could check ipod in. will they listen??????????????
But I agree... you want to kill the iPod, but you're charging more for similar features? How on earth does that make sense?
In college, most of what I and most of the people I knew owned predominantly Sony equipment. I remember a fellow student commenting "Sony is Japanese for 'crap.'" We agreed, but it offered the best choice for the money.
Granted, now we're out of school and have less disposable income, but why are all of these things so stinkin' expensive? And how can Sony even think it will compete by charging more? Makes no sense whatsoever.
You don't become number 1 in a market by just duplicating the
efforts of the leader. Apple made several key decisions that the
competitors haven't figured out yet:
1. Keep it simple -- the interface for iPod is simple and it is
common. iPod, iPod mini, iPod nano, iPod shuffle -- the basic
interface is the same (even the shuffle without a screen is easy
enough to understand). 4 years later and the interface hasn't
had to change dramatically
2. Keep it simple -- MP3 player competitors think if they add
recording, AM/FM tuner, camera, whatever to the device it will
make it better (the belief that more is ALWAYS better). Apple has
expanded a bit on this, but the primary purpose of iPods is to
play music/audio. And the interface remains simple a a result of
that.
3. Keep it simple -- Rather than relying on a 3rd party MP3
player to bundle and sync with your MP3 player, Apple bought
and built its own. iTunes does all the heavy lifting to once again
keep the interface on the device simple.
Is anyone noticing a theme?
[Style is also a key component, but style cannot succeed alone. I
believe it is style + easy of use that makes iPod successful ]
My thoughts exactly. That is why Windows is the greatest OS of them all.
You don't become number 1 in a market by just duplicating the
efforts of the leader. Apple made several key decisions that the
competitors haven't figured out yet:
1. Keep it simple -- the interface for iPod is simple and it is
common. iPod, iPod mini, iPod nano, iPod shuffle -- the basic
interface is the same (even the shuffle without a screen is easy
enough to understand). 4 years later and the interface hasn't
had to change dramatically
2. Keep it simple -- MP3 player competitors think if they add
recording, AM/FM tuner, camera, whatever to the device it will
make it better (the belief that more is ALWAYS better). Apple has
expanded a bit on this, but the primary purpose of iPods is to
play music/audio. And the interface remains simple a a result of
that.
3. Keep it simple -- Rather than relying on a 3rd party MP3
player to bundle and sync with your MP3 player, Apple bought
and built its own. iTunes does all the heavy lifting to once again
keep the interface on the device simple.
Is anyone noticing a theme?
[Style is also a key component, but style cannot succeed alone. I
believe it is style + easy of use that makes iPod successful ]
My thoughts exactly. That is why Windows is the greatest OS of them all.
What am I missing? Do they think they can charge more for the sony brand?
IPOD is a brand for digital music. I look sexy if I have an ipod around my neck in the subway. It looks just ok to have a sony. So why should I pay more for the SONY?
IPOD is simple and works great. Why should I pay more for Sony???
Those idiots need to realize that they have to price compete, not just come out with something that has sony/walkman as its name.
Maybe 30 and 40 year olds will think SONY is a better brand. But todays 12 to 18 year olds only KNOW Ipods.
It is IPOD IPOD IPOD IPOD. There is no such thing as IPOD killer, unless they offer it for a discount. And I am not talking about 10% or 15%.
Teenagers would stil pay $20 more to get the sexy ipod. But if sony's version is $149 and ipod is 199. I will think about it.
What am I missing? Do they think they can charge more for the sony brand?
IPOD is a brand for digital music. I look sexy if I have an ipod around my neck in the subway. It looks just ok to have a sony. So why should I pay more for the SONY?
IPOD is simple and works great. Why should I pay more for Sony???
Those idiots need to realize that they have to price compete, not just come out with something that has sony/walkman as its name.
Maybe 30 and 40 year olds will think SONY is a better brand. But todays 12 to 18 year olds only KNOW Ipods.
It is IPOD IPOD IPOD IPOD. There is no such thing as IPOD killer, unless they offer it for a discount. And I am not talking about 10% or 15%.
Teenagers would stil pay $20 more to get the sexy ipod. But if sony's version is $149 and ipod is 199. I will think about it.
no business releasing this gadget until it can compete in those
areas.
no business releasing this gadget until it can compete in those
areas.
Unfortunately for Sony and their out of touch marketing and executive staff, the time when Sony was a cool company that made *good* products was a long time ago. Now, their name carries no clout at all and is seen as overpriced and underfeatured.
Where is Sony in the current portable mp3 market in the US? That's right - probably tied in last place with Sandisk. Before being so bold as to attempt to compete with Apple and the iPod, they should target lesser players such as Samsung, iRiver, Creative and other companies that like them, don't have any presence in the market.
It's all about baby steps, Sony - baby steps.
Unfortunately for Sony and their out of touch marketing and executive staff, the time when Sony was a cool company that made *good* products was a long time ago. Now, their name carries no clout at all and is seen as overpriced and underfeatured.
Where is Sony in the current portable mp3 market in the US? That's right - probably tied in last place with Sandisk. Before being so bold as to attempt to compete with Apple and the iPod, they should target lesser players such as Samsung, iRiver, Creative and other companies that like them, don't have any presence in the market.
It's all about baby steps, Sony - baby steps.
products to fill a closet or two. But that was then, and this is
now, and Sony has lost it. They are no longer leaders in audio or
video products, their parochial audio format is essentially
ignored by the consumer. When Morita retired from Sony, Sony
lost control of it's 'universe'. And it has never recovered.
Sony WAS late in recognizing the MP3 format, based upon the
evidence of Sony MP3 products (or lack thereof) in the US. Maybe
Sony showed greater corporate intelligence in Australia, but I
really doubt it.
The Walkman isn't all that venerable. It was a good idea, but far
too often copied and undercut in price. At best, the Walkman is
obsolete and a small paragraph in history.
I'm not sure where you found the attitude that a company had to
do everything itself to have a worthwhile product. Makes one
think that in the Glina kitchen, there isn't a single package of
any kind of prepared food - like dinner preparation starts with
chasing down a kangaroo... ;-) By the way, are those things
really edible???
Anyhow, I give credit to companies which develop advanced
concepts into products which ever way it works best. Sony gets
no points because they melt the sand to make their own
transistors. Apple takes no penalties for adapting whatever
component sources are needed to bring OS X, the iPod, the G5,
etc. to market.
Both get credit for what they come up with. And lately, Sony has
come up empty handed.
products to fill a closet or two. But that was then, and this is
now, and Sony has lost it. They are no longer leaders in audio or
video products, their parochial audio format is essentially
ignored by the consumer. When Morita retired from Sony, Sony
lost control of it's 'universe'. And it has never recovered.
Sony WAS late in recognizing the MP3 format, based upon the
evidence of Sony MP3 products (or lack thereof) in the US. Maybe
Sony showed greater corporate intelligence in Australia, but I
really doubt it.
The Walkman isn't all that venerable. It was a good idea, but far
too often copied and undercut in price. At best, the Walkman is
obsolete and a small paragraph in history.
I'm not sure where you found the attitude that a company had to
do everything itself to have a worthwhile product. Makes one
think that in the Glina kitchen, there isn't a single package of
any kind of prepared food - like dinner preparation starts with
chasing down a kangaroo... ;-) By the way, are those things
really edible???
Anyhow, I give credit to companies which develop advanced
concepts into products which ever way it works best. Sony gets
no points because they melt the sand to make their own
transistors. Apple takes no penalties for adapting whatever
component sources are needed to bring OS X, the iPod, the G5,
etc. to market.
Both get credit for what they come up with. And lately, Sony has
come up empty handed.
products to fill a closet or two. But that was then, and this is
now, and Sony has lost it. They are no longer leaders in audio or
video products, their parochial audio format is essentially
ignored by the consumer. When Morita retired from Sony, Sony
lost control of it's 'universe'. And it has never recovered.
Sony WAS late in recognizing the MP3 format, based upon the
evidence of Sony MP3 products (or lack thereof) in the US. Maybe
Sony showed greater corporate intelligence in Australia, but I
really doubt it.
The Walkman isn't all that venerable. It was a good idea, but far
too often copied and undercut in price. At best, the Walkman is
obsolete and a small paragraph in history.
I'm not sure where you found the attitude that a company had to
do everything itself to have a worthwhile product. Makes one
think that in the Glina kitchen, there isn't a single package of
any kind of prepared food - like dinner preparation starts with
chasing down a kangaroo... ;-) By the way, are those things
really edible???
Anyhow, I give credit to companies which develop advanced
concepts into products which ever way it works best. Sony gets
no points because they melt the sand to make their own
transistors. Apple takes no penalties for adapting whatever
component sources are needed to bring OS X, the iPod, the G5,
etc. to market.
Both get credit for what they come up with. And lately, Sony has
come up empty handed.
products to fill a closet or two. But that was then, and this is
now, and Sony has lost it. They are no longer leaders in audio or
video products, their parochial audio format is essentially
ignored by the consumer. When Morita retired from Sony, Sony
lost control of it's 'universe'. And it has never recovered.
Sony WAS late in recognizing the MP3 format, based upon the
evidence of Sony MP3 products (or lack thereof) in the US. Maybe
Sony showed greater corporate intelligence in Australia, but I
really doubt it.
The Walkman isn't all that venerable. It was a good idea, but far
too often copied and undercut in price. At best, the Walkman is
obsolete and a small paragraph in history.
I'm not sure where you found the attitude that a company had to
do everything itself to have a worthwhile product. Makes one
think that in the Glina kitchen, there isn't a single package of
any kind of prepared food - like dinner preparation starts with
chasing down a kangaroo... ;-) By the way, are those things
really edible???
Anyhow, I give credit to companies which develop advanced
concepts into products which ever way it works best. Sony gets
no points because they melt the sand to make their own
transistors. Apple takes no penalties for adapting whatever
component sources are needed to bring OS X, the iPod, the G5,
etc. to market.
Both get credit for what they come up with. And lately, Sony has
come up empty handed.
The moral of the story is that if you do not innovate or try to force old technology onto people without moving with the times, then it is game over.
Same with Open Source, it is the next wave of software and services. Those who ignore it, do it to their own peril.
The moral of the story is that if you do not innovate or try to force old technology onto people without moving with the times, then it is game over.
Same with Open Source, it is the next wave of software and services. Those who ignore it, do it to their own peril.
"While Apple's lead makes it hard to catch, analysts point out that Sony brings deep pockets, excellent research and development, and one of the best names in consumer electronics. In a sign of early success, a flash-memory version of the Walkman released in April briefly outsold its cheaper iPod counterpart."
While Apple is a good company, their only reason for success is because they took advantage of a nacent market that nobody else even looked twice at until Jobs became interested. Yes they enhanced the market, but in the end, just like with their PCs, there's only so many iPods their dedicated fans can buy.
I personally have an iRiver H340 and love it. The cost to feature ratio blows the iPod away and in my opinion made it a non-contender.
Frankly when it comes to the iPod I think PT Barnum was right, "There's a sucker born every minute"
But that's just my opinion I could be wrong... :-)
"While Apple's lead makes it hard to catch, analysts point out that Sony brings deep pockets, excellent research and development, and one of the best names in consumer electronics. In a sign of early success, a flash-memory version of the Walkman released in April briefly outsold its cheaper iPod counterpart."
While Apple is a good company, their only reason for success is because they took advantage of a nacent market that nobody else even looked twice at until Jobs became interested. Yes they enhanced the market, but in the end, just like with their PCs, there's only so many iPods their dedicated fans can buy.
I personally have an iRiver H340 and love it. The cost to feature ratio blows the iPod away and in my opinion made it a non-contender.
Frankly when it comes to the iPod I think PT Barnum was right, "There's a sucker born every minute"
But that's just my opinion I could be wrong... :-)
Now as for the iRiver and it's features, while it has a lot (like a 15 second bootup time, "slow" buttons that make it hard to navigate and questionable reliability) consumers have shown that a massive feature set is not necessarily what they want. For example:
1. The Palm PDAs. For years, Microsoft and friends would tout their features and compare them side by side to the Palms, but they were getting killed for years by Palm. As it stands now, even with Palm split into two companies, Microsoft and friends still have not beaten Palm despite having so many more features and selling to the enterprise market where margins generally are higher, unless specific deals are brokered.
2. the iPod. Again, the massive success of the iPod shows that a huge feature list does not necessarily equate with success. If you want numbers, you can easily search here on News.com.com.com.com.
Anyhow, here is the biggest reason alone while Sony will fail to compete with the iPod: in the consumer portable digital audio player market, Sony has no brand, no market presence and absolutely no mindshare within the general populous.
What will kill the iPod? In my opinion, it's own success will be it's undoing. At some point, a device can be overmarketed, seen too much and people will get bored of it. At that time, some player will jump in and hope to take over, but no one knows what that is going to happen and most certainly, as it stands now, Sony certainly will not be the company to take away the crown from Apple. They are a has-been company, I'm sorry to say with only one real successful product at the moment (for example, check out the PSP vs Nintendo DS numbers for further proof).
Besides, how many successes have Apple had, ever? Isn't the Apple II their only other one?
Now as for the iRiver and it's features, while it has a lot (like a 15 second bootup time, "slow" buttons that make it hard to navigate and questionable reliability) consumers have shown that a massive feature set is not necessarily what they want. For example:
1. The Palm PDAs. For years, Microsoft and friends would tout their features and compare them side by side to the Palms, but they were getting killed for years by Palm. As it stands now, even with Palm split into two companies, Microsoft and friends still have not beaten Palm despite having so many more features and selling to the enterprise market where margins generally are higher, unless specific deals are brokered.
2. the iPod. Again, the massive success of the iPod shows that a huge feature list does not necessarily equate with success. If you want numbers, you can easily search here on News.com.com.com.com.
Anyhow, here is the biggest reason alone while Sony will fail to compete with the iPod: in the consumer portable digital audio player market, Sony has no brand, no market presence and absolutely no mindshare within the general populous.
What will kill the iPod? In my opinion, it's own success will be it's undoing. At some point, a device can be overmarketed, seen too much and people will get bored of it. At that time, some player will jump in and hope to take over, but no one knows what that is going to happen and most certainly, as it stands now, Sony certainly will not be the company to take away the crown from Apple. They are a has-been company, I'm sorry to say with only one real successful product at the moment (for example, check out the PSP vs Nintendo DS numbers for further proof).
Besides, how many successes have Apple had, ever? Isn't the Apple II their only other one?