Entelligence: Understanding the success of the iPod and iPod mini

Every Thursday Michael Gartenberg of Jupiter Research contributes an interesting item of gadget-related research data. Last week he focused on whether or not there was a market for portable video players, this week he examines the success of the iPod and iPod mini:

With reports coming in from all over about iPod shortages and the success of the iPod family and in particular the mini, it's time to look at the reasons that Apple was so successful in the marketplace. First, it's important to note that Apple was not the first to market with an MP3 player or even first to market with a hard drive based one. It was first, however, to factor in three areas that were of most importance to consumers - battery life, form factor and connectivity back to a PC (in terms of sync as well as support for MP3s natively). Apple also carefully balanced these factors so that none of these came at the expense of another. The iPod isn't the smallest device, have the largest capacity or best battery life but it crosses the usability threshold on all three areas and doesn't compromise on any of them

As for the success of the mini, we knew from day one that it was going to be a success. By focusing on the three core attributes and actually improving on form factor, Apple was going to have a hit on their hands. Capacity was not going to be an issue for most consumers, despite what others predicted. Based on a JupiterResearch survey, we pointed out that 90% of consumers who maintain a music collection on their PC have no more than 1,000 songs in their collection and that 77% of consumers interested in purchasing a media player want one with a capacity of 1,000 songs. That translates roughly into the 4 gigabytes of storage that the mini has on board. Mainstream consumers have different needs than technology enthusiasts and Apple understood that.

While the iPod is no doubt a major hit for the holiday season, it�s hardly game over. The market is still relatively un-tapped with fairly small penetration rates. Adding features will help some vendors drive sales, but they will remain niche for the most part. The real action will come as these devices edge closer to mass market price point of $99. It will be interesting to see how Apple plans to drive further into the mainstream, while still protecting their brand and high end lines.

---

Michael Gartenberg is vice president and research director for the Personal Technology & Access and Custom Research groups at Jupiter Research in New York. Contact him at [e-mail]. His weblog and RSS feed are at http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/gartenberg.

[Greg @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

I think the success of the iPod can be more directly attributed to marketing, and zealotry.

No doubt, the iPod is a good product, but none of Apples competitors in this market have the army of Apple Faithful to give their new product a kickstart.

I've seen it here - the Mac people that I know all rushed out and bought a first generation iPod, and loved them, warts and all. That resulted in them evangelizing them to other people, and eventually I get the 60 year old grandfathers in the office asking me what this "iPod" thing is anyway.

If these same people had purchased a hard drive based MP3 player from Creative that was exactly the same as the first generation iPod, the mp3 player market would be much smaller today than it is, because they were willing to overlook the massive problems simply because it was another step in the revitalization of Apple.

Good marketing is what made the iPod a success, nothing more, nothing less. (And I'll freely admit that the new iPods are a decent piece of equipment - just don't forget how poor/unreliable the first generation ones really were.)

[yomama @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

There was almost no substance to this article. What little there was, was not entirely accurate. The author states battery life was one of three areas "factor(ed) in." From Day 1 the iPod has been criticized for poor battery performance. The lack of replacement batteries or a reasonable service policy back in the day caused a minor riot among iPod owners. It remains a contentious issue.
The author also mentions "connectivity back to a PC" in terms of synching and native mp3 support. These are two separate issues that have little to nothing to do with each other. Remember when iPods needed to be hacked to work with anything non-Mac? And since when is native mp3 support a big deal? It's not an issue now nor was it an issue when the iPod originally came out. Was the author trying to compare Apple to Sony?
No mention of marketing or user interface(hardware/software) - two of the MAIN factors for the iPod's success.
At least he got form factor right.

Can we get some high school kids to write a blurb next time?
(not joking, btw - it would be great experience for the students and we'd get better gadget news)

[Slaven @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

Greg, I don't know if you actually tried to compare the first iPod with Nomad, Creative's first attempt. Only an Apple-hater (couldn't resist, sorry) would say that they were comparable devices. Nomad seemed to have been aimed at music professionals, it had more features than iPod (like recording), but at the same time was huge and heavy. The consumers who were looking to buy a device for music on the go looked at Creative and passed (I was one of them). Nomad would NOT fit in my pants, I don't do cargo pockets.

I was a great iPod basher when they were first announced. It didn't do as much as the competition and I expected more for such a hyped entry into the market. It also has to be said that I'm no Apple fan. The first time I saw an iPod in person I literally bought it on the spot, even though I had thousands of dollars invested into MiniDiscs, with 3 (yes, three) portable MD devices, and I wasn't planning to switch any time soon. Apple made all the right decisions/compromises when designing iPod, Michael's editorial is spot on. Also, I think you give waaaay too much credit to Apple zealots. In the case of iPod, it is the product that did all the selling, with its design, portability and functionality.

[Steve @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

I agree with you guys about the lack of substance in this article. I took some time out and wrote a long winded rebuttal to this over on my site's discussion forum (mostly because I didn't scroll down far enough at first to see I could write my own comments).

Check it out if you want to. I put the direct link to it in my URL field. (just click my name)

[Jim Woodgett @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

This article is spot on. The Apple zealots are not the reason for the success of the iPod. It's been on the market for 3 years and the competition just DOES NOT get it. Sure, they've been trying hard, but they add features that many people do not want which complicates the operation of the device and are stuck with WMA for paid downloads. WMA is OK but it is not connected to the iTMS. While the iPod was not the first HD player to market, that is not true for the multiple record company-backed iTMS. That was a breakthrough product and the other stores are plain awful to use compared to it. Apple is simply playing off the two aces in its hand.

Personally, I wish Apple would license out the store (to the likes of HMV, Virgin, etc) since that would provide additional variety and expand awareness and accessibility even further.

[blau @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

yomama wrote: From Day 1 the iPod has been criticized for poor battery performance.

Not true. The battery performance of the 1G iPod was quite good at the time and lasting about 2 hours longer than the 8 hours stated by Apple. People started criticising the battery live when the 3rd generation popped up. 8 hours were only medicore then and the 3G iPod barely reached 8 hours.

Greg wrote: I think the success of the iPod can be more directly attributed to marketing, and ZEALOTRY.

ROTFL! LMAO!!!

[Dave @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

This is hilarious. If you walk down the street of any big city, you'll see zillions of people, young and not-so-young, carrying iPods. Those who think that the Maczealots are in fact responsible for this cannot possibly explain the chachet that iPods have developed. These are the same people who predicted that the iPod Mini would be a flop because it (a) was too expensive; (b) was too cute; (c) had insufficient capacity; (d) only worked with iTunes; etc., etc., etc.

Why do people by Mercedes? Why do people buy diamonds? Why do people buy things that look nice, feel nice, and sound nice? Those who ascibe any aspect of the iPod success to Maczealots fail to understand that there is something called "cool", and that iPods have it. This may not sit well with technogeeks or stock analysts, but it's the fact of the situation: just look at all the iPods everywhere.

Whatever Apple's successes and failures in the past, it's undeniable that they did it right on this one. Foolish (jealous?) explanations don't subtract from their success.

[md @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

Many of the comments here are simply factually incorrect. Plus many people just don't get it. This article may have been simplistic, and it completely ignores the interface factor -- which is where the iPod clearly trounces all competitors, even today -- but it's spot-on that the iPod was the first (and still the only) player that combines good implementations of the things that MOST PEOPLE really want.

Greg, if your entire argument ("marketing and Apple fanaticism") had any merit, Macs would have more than 3% of the computer market. And the first models "poor/unreliable"? On what planet? That's simply incorrect. Most are still running strong today -- even the "reports" of dead batteries are largely ficticious, exaggerated by a few whiny people who don't understand the simple physics of batteries. Very few iPods actually had battery problems, and Apple replaced most of those under warranty.

On that topic, 'yomama' is also incorrect. "From Day 1 the iPod has been criticized for poor battery performance. The lack of replacement batteries or a reasonable service policy back in the day caused a minor riot among iPod owners." The only "minor riot" was among the technology press, who trampled each other trying to give exposure to the fictitious "iPod's Dirty Secret" movie. The fact of the matter is that the video and its assertions were flat-out wrong. A few people had battery problems, but most did not. And Apple had already developed a battery replacement program before that movie was even made, contrary to the claims of its creators.

Steve, your reponse on your website is full of misconceptions and generalizations based on personal opinion. Does the iPod have a radio or built-in mic? No, and the fact is that the vast majority of people DON'T CARE. That's what so many iPod critics just don't get: adding such features adds complexity that most people don't want. The iPod is as popular as it is mostly because of its interface and ease of use. Start adding lots of features that most people will never use and you lose that ease of use. Need a built-in recorder? Then an iPod isn't for you. But you're not most people. You also claim that you can't see the iPod as a drive on your computer. Actually, you can. If you mean that you can't manage music by drag and drop, that's true, but again, for MOST people, that's a good thing. iTunes is the easiest music management tool on any platform, and another part of what makes the iPod so popular. What you see as "limiting" MOST consumers see as easy to use and convenient. (Not to mention that most "drag-and-drop" proponents have never really learned to take advantage of iTunes' advanced features -- I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why "drag-and-drop" MP3 management is better.) You say it plays fewer formats, but it plays all the files people rip from their CDs, plays everything from the most popular music download service in the world, and even plays WMA files that aren't DRM'd -- as the market has shown, that's enough to satisfy 92% of people who buy hard drive players. You also make the same tired "for the same price I get more features" argument that all iPod haters make. But as they all do, you neglect to mention all the features the iPod has that they don't, you neglect the value of having 100x as many available accessories, and you neglect the value of having the best user experience, by far, of any player. Most consumers value these things, which is the REAL reason the iPod is so successful, not because "it's cuter." (Your comments about marketing towards women are simply ignorant, as iPod purchasers are overwhelmingly male; even if you dropped all female purchasers from the numbers, the iPod would still be the dominant player by a wide, wide margin. Your comments about Apple making more money off accessories are also completely uninformed, as Apple doesn't sell many of its own accessories -- most iPod accessories are from third-party vendors.)

What the comments to this article really show is to what extend some people will go to bash the iPod and Apple, and how poorly most of these people really understand the consumer electronics and computing markets.

[Mark Allerton @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

Hell, you could argue Nomad wasn't even the best HD-based player on the market _before_ the iPod came out. The Hango PJB100, which was to my knowledge the first HD based player on the market had at least double the Nomad's battery life while being roughly the same size and weight. No-one could have called it cool though.
I was one of the early adopters who bought the first Hango units, and while that thing was a major leap forward - it rocked my world for sure - the iPod took things to a whole new level. In particular the iPod was a quarter of the size and weight of the competition, while being no worse than the best on the market in terms of capacity (Hango, Nomad) and battery life (Hango.) Plus they made it look cool, very, very cool. Probably the only reason Creative managed to sell any Nomads at all was that the iPod didn't work with Windows boxes at first.

[Jason @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

"..just don't forget how poor/unreliable the first generation ones really were."

Greg, exactly what was so poor/unreliable about the 1st gen iPod? I'm curious to know. I have one, and to this day, it still works flawlessly.

[Mark @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

woah! those are some of the longest comments that i've ever seen!

i just have one thing to say: i just got an iPod mini and i love it. i'm an avid appleHATER and i won't touch an apple computer ... but my iPod... I LOVE IT!

[Jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

Yeah, I am hardly an Apple fan - I own four Windows PC's, and would probably never buy a Mac - but I think it's foolish to look at the iPod and do anything but tip your hat to Apple. They get it. Their competitors (and a lot of the people here, apparently) don't. It's just not about who's got the most features, who's got the best price, whose player is smaller. It's really the total user experience; that includes the look, the interface, the syncing between the iPod and the PC/Mac, the software on the computer side, the music store (which I'd never use, but some people do), and everything else. There's absolutely nothing the iPod does poorly and lots of things it does really well. (Battery life may be mediocre, but battery life is only a part of the total user experience, and it's not like it's really all that bad.) And on the things the iPod does really well, nobody else even comes close - interface, ergonomic and aesthetic appeal, software, etc.

iPod haters always pick out one or at most two things that some competitor does better and then they conveniently ignore everything else that that competitor doesn't do nearly as well. There is still no mp3 player that approaches the complete experience of using an iPod.

[Digital M4 (from Songzilla) @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

I'm not sure this article takes a terribly in-depth view of how the iPod came to dominance on a new market, but does anyone doubt the iPod did/has?

My personal view is that this is a passing state - as I tell anyone with a teenager - buy them an iPod, but don't buy Apple stock.

Why? Because the iPod has achieved that rare and fleeting quality of coolness. It's "in".

If you look at the interface, the design, it is noticeably slicker than its competition. However, I believe, as a one time owner of an Apple IIe, and a Mac, features, functionality, performance, and price will eventually be the criteria for sales dominance, and I suspect the iPod will not rule that roost.

Hard drives are a commodity, and there isn;t that much Apple has put atop a HD, and some of it (e.g. DRM) is not a positive for the consumer.

Right now a one-gig flash drive for is looking like a good present to give, but I wonder... will it be uncool?

/Eric

[Digital M4 (from Songzilla) @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

I'm not sure this article takes a terribly in-depth view of how the iPod came to dominance on a new market, but does anyone doubt the iPod did/has?

My personal view is that this is a passing state - as I tell anyone with a teenager - buy them an iPod, but don't buy Apple stock.

Why? Because the iPod has achieved that rare and fleeting quality of coolness. It's "in".

If you look at the interface, the design, it is noticeably slicker than its competition. However, I believe, as a one time owner of an Apple IIe, and a Mac, features, functionality, performance, and price will eventually be the criteria for sales dominance, and I suspect the iPod will not rule that roost.

Hard drives are a commodity, and there isn;t that much Apple has put atop a HD, and some of it (e.g. DRM) is not a positive for the consumer.

Right now a one-gig flash drive for is looking like a good present to give, but I wonder... will it be uncool?

/Eric

[Steve @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

MD,

first of all, thanks for reading my pseudo article. It was off-the-cuff, so there were some generalizations and assumptions in there (all of which I believe I acknowledged).

Your rebuttal is 'spot-on' (to borrow a recurring phrase here) with Apple's "For the rest of us" slogan. If you think people want a product with fewer features that does less you're insane. People want the most features with the most ease of use. I clearly state that the iPod is nice to use in my post. It's also clear in my post that Apple in conjunction with many 3rd party licensees are making a great deal of accessories...not just Apple. I feel I was complimentary toward them for their marketing angle. They clearly do a superior job aesthetically and the player 'for what it does' does it well.

I don't think it's rocket science to know that it is marketed toward women too. My remark about it being "cuter" was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but it holds truth. Who do you think is going to buy a pink iPod mini? Of course more men own iPods...consumer electronics is pretty much a sausage factory (there's one of those funny remarks again), but Apple is smartly gearing a product toward women too. Even using U2 as a sponsor is pretty unisex, as they have a relatively even following.

In regard to seeing the iPod as a drive, thank you for setting me straght on that. I had been told otherwise. However, I still don't like not being able to manage my music that way, but I'll resign that to 'to each their own.' I do have a question though, can you use the iPod as a storage device at that point? Meaning, if I have files other than music, pictures etc, that I want to store (documents, programs), could I do that and retrieve them when connecting to another PC later?

In closing, I went back and re-read my post again and re-read yours and I see a whole lot more generalizations based on personal opinion in yours.

[JChan @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

The iPod is damn sexy and pleasing to use, that's what led to its popularity. Even me, someone that's always hated audio-on-the-go carry it around everywhere. I got one last year at a steep discount with the full intention of selling it on eBay. I've had another MP3 player from 1999 and don't care for them. I decided to open it and take a peek, I was instantly hooked and have it filled with podcasts and audio books and NPR bits for the commute.

How can anyone hate the Mac anyway? Don't like it, don't buy it.

[JChan @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

Ste said: "can you use the iPod as a storage device at that point? Meaning, if I have files other than music, pictures etc, that I want to store (documents, programs), could I do that and retrieve them when connecting to another PC later?"

Steve, yeah you can do that. That's one of the reasons why I decided to keep and use my iPod, I basically have a backup of the important files/apps in my hard drive everywhere I go. It's helped me many times, particularly helpful since I'm not such a high level computer user to be carrying around a portable hard drive/flash drive.

Also, regarding its lack of features, there comes a point when something does too much and loses its elegance. A minimalist Mies Van Der Rohe building will become a strip mall structure if it attempted to include every feature available.

[Steve @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

Thanks for the info JChan!

I see your point about elegance, but I don't think architecture and mp3 players have that much in common. This is branching away from the iPod discussion here, but I'd much rather have one device to carry around than a cell phone, pda, mp3 player etc. So, the more it does (and to be fair, the more elegantly it does it), the better.

[jbelkin800 @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

Anyone who thinks the success of the ipod is all marketing basis is clearly wrong - even if you count PR but PR is like good service at a resturant, it's nice but not the core reasons.

When anything from Apple is a success, it's marketing - when it's not - what is it then? You're like the marketing department at a movie studio, When LORD OF THE RINGS is a hit, it's all us - the marketing that made you go see a movie about hobbits and wizards - nevermind that crap about quality ... and when the movie bombs, it's nOT the marketing, it's the directing, it's the bad acting or the favorite, it was released at the wrong time.

So, for people who don't understand why the ipod is a success to a huge success, here it is:

In the beginning, only huge music fans who had computers were interested in mp3 players but the crucial difference is that these devices were designed by engineers who were designing this as handed by marketing. It fulfilled the minimal requirements of: plays MP3, WMA, hooks to a computer and has a screen. And of course, design it as CHEAPLY as possible - this is EXACTLY the design of every other Mp3 player except the ipod.

Players truncated title names, required you to navigate to weird menu choices to put the controls on hold, it was hard to navigate, everything is viewable only ain "tree" view, you needed IE to load songs, the battery tended to fall out, you needed 3 hours to load the machine, etc ...

And players with "extra" featurees were all clearly just thrown in like the Dell DJ that could record but there was no way to get the file out.

The ipod was simple. It was designed by music lovers who ACTUALLY listened to a lot of music.

The other players had interfaces that might work okay when you had a 64 MB memory card and could load 10 songs but they never changed anything when they moved to 256 MB or to 5 GB. Because these companies built their sales selling solely on specs - frame rate for graphic cards, platter speed on a replacement HDD, pixels for plasma, etc ... and in some cases - who cares if the interface for setting up your TV is bad - you're only to do it once and then you can enjoy the 1,900 x 1,024 pixels for years to come ... but the ipod is DIFFERENT. You have to fiddle with it EVERYDAY and EVERY TIME you want to launch something.

It takes you 2 MINUTES to learn how to naviagate to EVERY feature on an ipod just like your walkman. True for every other mp3 player out there? No.

Again, the ipod was designed by music lovers who actually listened to music.

That's the main key. The rest of the ipod is built upon that basis. That's 90% of the ballgame.

Every other player so far is still designed as a portable HDD that happens to play music files.

That's not to say there aren't companies trying like Creative who might be able to match the ipod in the interface and as an actual music player (versus just a portable HDD) but they are not ready to compete with the ipod on more than 2 or 3 of the other 7 reasons for its success.

The other 7 reasons?

itunes
Syncing
itunes music store
accessories
design
must-have factor
marketing & PR

Sure, it's nice to accept MS' money and design to their specs but honestly, how many even diehard PC users believes 'plays4sure" is an absolute guarantee? In every review I've read so far (even recommendations), they all point out some downloading problem. Most personal computer geeks (myself included) don't mind fiddling with settings and our machines but for a music player? No. That's like a cassette not always playing in our Walkman 20 years ago. We would've tossed it.

So far, none of the competitors have really come close - they still talk about specs like the size of HDD or things like battery life (honestly, after 8 to 15 hours, how far away from electricity are you?) or even COST. So far - ZERO effect on the popularity of ipod.

Why are they still harping on that? Because that's ALL they understand. They sold millions of sound cards not on looks or ease of use or ease of software - they sold them on specs ... they are essentially 2-dimensional trying to compete in the 3-dimensional world - pretty hard if NOT impossible.

So until someone comes up with a better user interface than the ipod scroll wheel, they cannot really compete.

PLAIN & SIMPLE as that.

It's not a secret and it's not marketing. Certainly Apple gets more free PR than the next 50 companies put together but just free PR does not sell you anything (TiVo - perhaps even greater PR than the ipod - less than 2 million actually sold in a country with over 110 MILLION TV households).

Marketing does NOT sell you a product that's not right for most people - like the CUBE from three years ago.

The ipod is the first great consumer product of the 21st century - you can sneer at it because it's popular or because it's from Apple. You can dismiss it because you think anything remotely attractive can't be good or you only buy according to specs - it would be like choosing a motorcycle over a BMW because it can go zero-to-60 in 4 seconds while the BMW can't - you might want to focus on the big picture.

[Steve @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

In response to jbelkin800:
The other 7 reasons?

itunes - I don't see the benefit in using a program to manage my music 'copy & paste'. It's designed to thwart sharing of music between iPod users, so I don't see it as a benefit to the consumer.

Syncing - Isn't this really the same thing as above. I guess it's cool if you get a whole bunch of new stuff and can't keep track of it, but I go back to the whole anti-sharing thing.

itunes music store - Didn't you already say iTunes? The store is a decent service. I used it once to buy an Allman Brothers Track. It worked well, but I got pissed when I couldn't play the file in winamp, so I burned it to CD and ripped the CD to mp3, worked fine ever since.

accessories - Yes, they clearly have done very well in the accessories department. Other makers (iRiver & Creative especially) should really try to follow suit.

design - They were smart to make it such a unique looking player. The whole chrome and black look was in and they come out with a shiny white plastic thing. Granted the look is ripped off every which way now, but the fact is, they did a great job aesthetically.

must-have factor - What does this even mean? It's cool, so I have to have it? Doesn't that fall into marketing? I saw Bono on TV with one...I'd better get one too.

marketing & PR - Clearly the key to their success. The iPod is a 'good' product with or without marketing. The reason they've had success is their marketing to the average consumer. It's not just a product for computer savvy people anymore.

[tallfella @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

Steve,

You can drag-n-drop onto iPod via iTunes (a great organiser with a GREAT searchability built-in), why not ask someone show you how it's done (Manual Update, aka, drag n' drop in the iPod Preference) than sounding like a ignorant fool? Sometimes the best way to avoid being sounding like one is keep your mouth shut and do some research.

Just sick of ignorant personalities on this topic.

[mike @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

Steve.. holy shit..

iTunes is slick.. with great Smart Playlists and Awesome Searching abilities..

Syncing is useful.. I... don't know why you would just write it off.. You plug in the iPod and it gets updated.. Pretty nice..

The iTMS is decent!? Okaaaaaay.. it's has a 70% market share and all other stores are imitating it for a reason. It's well-designed and Apple's got the best exclusives in the world.. as well as the biggest legal library. You write it off..? Okay..

Accessories.. Yea, you're right.. the 'other guys' would be wise to copy Apple again here.. but they can't.. Why? Because Apple has stuck with one device, one form factor (Well, technically two) for the iPod.. and that's what makes the accessories possible. What's the point of designing for the Yepp, or the Rio.. when they all have different product form factors.. it's hard to build several different 'holders' for products that have such low marketshare and justify it.. The iPod Stereo Systems out there are S-L-I-C-K...

Rio and Creative can't copy Apple unless they stick to a single form factor...

And if you look at the Zen Touch.. they seem to like what Apple's doing..

Design.. Yeah.. This came out in 2001 and people thought it was slick.. we're in 2005(almost) now, so it's important to acknowledge that Apple was really ahead of the curve here... You, of course, make it sound like they were just following polls like politicians.. look at the PowerBooks... the Alu look is everywhere because of Apple.. This isn't a new phenomenon..

Must-have factor..? Yeah.. kinda weird way to put it.. basically Apple has become Status-Quo with the iPod. It has a dominant marketshare, and people know they have a vast network of users to tap for questions/advice.They also know that with all those choices out there, sticking with iPod is a safe bet.. 6 million (make that 10 million) happy customers can't be wrong?

Marketing and PR- Well.. Creative was there first and they did nothing. Apple didn't really start pushing until they came out with the Music Store, which one aspect of the iTunes Music Player/Organizer program....

This is really ingenious actually.. you have a 99 cent price point for hte songs.. you buy the songs you're locked into the iPod at 249-599.. if you get an iPod.. you might think of getting a Mac which will go from 799-2999, and if you love Macs you might look at their Xserve offerings 2999-7500...

Extreme example of course, but I want to emphasize why Apple places so much importance on iTMS success... It pulls people into their entire product line by advertising the entry-level price 99 cents. The iPod is the perfect gadget for music, something everyone, it seems, likes(music, not the iPod).

To suggest that you can throw money at a bad product and have this kind of buzz is, excuse me, cynical bullshit. People talk about the iPod and they love it; if people spoke badly about it, Apple wouldn't have 1/10th the sales and it wouldn't be a story. That simple. Great companies don't pay their best salesmen... great companies have salesmen as customers.

Buzz is more believable and convincing than any multicolored dance video.

[poi @ Dec 19th 2005 12:08AM]

i avoid Apple products because i don't want to be associated with Apple fanatics, who, as the above comments prove, are often pompous arses. ^_^m