The real difference in Samsung and Apple: dollars in ads

You gotta love the twinges of hubris that seem to overtake some of the big media device manufacturers in the face of their continued setbacks against the iPod army (Sim Wong Hoo's bombastic Apple holy-war statements, of course, being the most notable). And we must admit to getting a bit of a chuckle out of Samsung, whose Northa American SVP of Marketing Peter Weedfald (the same gentleman attributed with stating Samsung's officially put the kibosh on a dual-mode HD DVD / Blu-ray player for now), who seemed to try and write off Samsung's lukewarm US digital audio player marketshare to dollars in ads: "What's the difference between how they have gone to market and how we have gone to market? It's real simple. They spent $165 million last year to advertise Apple MP3 products. We spent $1 million." Sure, advertising dollars do help -- and we do think very highly of Samsung's portable audio offerings, that's for sure -- but we've got a sneaking suspicion Samsung's going to have to do a bit more to muscle in on Apple's territory than capture ad space in 2006. After all, look at how much money Creative dumped in advertising in 2005 -- that'd be $100m -- and where that got them. No, we definitely think Samsung has it in 'em to beat out Apple, but in order to do so they're gonna have to really bring it back home and stick to their core: creating excellently designed, quality devices that outclass and outperform Apple's iPod line. A winner wins, right?

[Paulo @ Jan 11th 2006 12:12PM]

I agree, for the most part.. "A winner wins right?"

Not always true. Betamax v VHS for example. Betamax was first to market, of a higher quality and still failed when hit by JVC's marketing campaign and opening up content - just like Apple.

[Guy Via @ Jan 11th 2006 12:19PM]

Perhaps, had Samsung wanted to win the market, they shouldn't have tried to give it to Apple with illegally low flash prices.

[Jay @ Jan 11th 2006 12:21PM]

Samsung win? IN your dreams.



None of these competitors stand a chance against the ipod and the reason is more than technical. The iPod is part of a hub, part of something designed to work together, something that 99% find easy to use and more importantly love to use.



You can create the best hardware (pretty hard to beat Apple though), but if its a single thing, part of nothing, its doomed to fail except for that 0.05% that insist to spend hours wasted trying to find rational for these products.



What saddens me is seeing all these companies trying to win market share away from Apple instead of creating a new novel idea and creating a new market for it. Apple is the perfect example that 99% of tech companies are worth nothing really and contribute ZERO to society.

[Ben G @ Jan 11th 2006 12:21PM]

Getting rid of that SAMSUNG logo on everything would work for me. I just dislike their brand.

[brandon @ Jan 11th 2006 12:28PM]

Most products nowadays are pretty similiar in features and price. When it comes down to it, whoever markets their product better will win over the consumer.

[Dave @ Jan 11th 2006 12:31PM]

Don't forget that VHS had the most important backer a new technology can have:



The Porn Industry.

[L. M. Lloyd @ Jan 11th 2006 12:36PM]

You know, I love how win it comes to the iPod, Apple fans are really quick to say things like "a winner wins" or "it is obviously the best product, otherwise it wouldn't dominate the market like it does." Start talking about OSs though, and suddenly marketshare is meaningless, because most people just are to stupid to know good from bad.

[Glifford @ Jan 11th 2006 12:37PM]

Too Late for Samsung. It has already missed the bus.



Unless they don't do anything radically different they cannot expect to get the customers' mind share let alone market share!

[mike @ Jan 11th 2006 12:48PM]

Samsung's lukewarm US digital audio player marketshare to dollars in ads: "What's the difference between how they have gone to market and how we have gone to market? It's real simple. They spent $165 million last year to advertise Apple MP3 products. We spent $1 million." Sure, advertising dollars do help -- and we do think very highly of Samsung's portable audio offerings



-------



I'm sorry, I had no idea Samsung was a SOFTWARE maker..



Since when do they have anything to compete with Apple's end-to-end solution?



They're strapped to the Titanic of music players, WMP.. so why should they expect anything more than mediocrity?



Oh yeah, and they have almost no access to legal online music, since you need an iPod to play 85% of legal online music..

[ricefarmer @ Jan 11th 2006 12:50PM]

@Jay, #3



So you are in favor of one company having an entire monopoly? Your arguement is kind of hypocritical considering Creative had a mp3 player on the market long before Apple jumped in. I don't see you praising their contribution to society.

[Mardo @ Jan 11th 2006 12:52PM]

Jay.



I think you hit it on the head. It's really about the integration that apple has done with other products. I will get a Ipod because it integrates into my car stereo. That is important to me. Other people will get them because they have all the cool accessories that thousands of companies are building for it.



I also agree that they are fighting the wrong battle.



DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, YOU LOST!

[Matt @ Jan 11th 2006 12:55PM]

Missed the bus is right. I can't believe people are still talking about 'iPod killers'.



Its over.



There are *42 MILLION* iPods out there. By the end of this year there will be close to 80 million. All of those people have:



1. Songs catlogued and playlisted in iTunes

2. Crap loads of music encoded in AAC

3. Crap loads of music with Apple DRM

4. Some combination of the above



Whether you like Apple or not, the argument is moot for the forseeable future. Its like Windows...Apple's position in digital music is unasailable for the near-term (3-5 years) and maybe longer if Apple plays it right.



Look how long Windows has maintained its position. And *most* people dislike Windows. Most people, at this point, still love their iPods.



Bigfoot. Loch Ness Monster. iPod killer.



They don't exist.

[ZingZippedy @ Jan 11th 2006 1:02PM]

"You can create the best hardware (pretty hard to beat Apple though)"



You obviously don't get out much do you?.



iPods are great but their audio quality sucks compared to sompeting models.



Samsung?, let's see.. They have unlimited access to cheap memory if they want it, they hae come from nowhere in a short space of time to building phones that most US offerings to shame and they have an experienced marketing team that have whipped Sony's ass.



If they offered a 6GB phone with a 4MB camera at a decent price, they would clean up. Sure some people wouldn't buy it because it's not part of a hub but they are the ones who can't think for themselves anyway. Do you know what other products Samsung actually produces?



They have more pieces of the jigsaw in place than any other company globally. If they can get the software right, they can integrate everything from PCs to TVs, TO DVRs etc. I think it's a long shot to overtake Apple but they can give them a serious run for their money

[Mosquito Control @ Jan 11th 2006 1:14PM]

"None of these competitors stand a chance against the ipod and the reason is more than technical. The iPod is part of a hub, part of something designed to work together, something that 99% find easy to use and more importantly love to use."



A hub? What hub? The Mac hub? Macs have what, 5-8% of the market? iPods have 10-20 times that?

The hub has NOTHING to do with it. Very few people buy an iPod because it works with something they already have. People buy an iPod because their friends have one, the brand name has become the product name, and the white earbuds.



iPods are a status symbol. People want one because they know it. Everything else is viewed as a cheap iPod ripoff (to the non-technically inclined.)



How do you beat the iPod? Make something very distinguishable and release it with a price ABOVE the iPod. It worked for Grey Goose to upseat Absolut, it would work for someone to upseat Apple.

[cdiggy @ Jan 11th 2006 1:19PM]

Can you imagine being at the helm of the 'mp3 player division' at one of these companies? Picture the board meeting... "Well, we sold a few players.. er, last month.. umm, we're putting the final touches on an exciting new model that will bring Apple to it's kneeeeeees. This is the new iPod Killer folks. it has WiFi for transfering your mp3's wirelessly, Bluetooth for your wireless headphones, and Infrared so you can even use it as a remote control. It even has RFID so we'll know where and when every device is being used at all times.. only tinfoil can block it! it also can be mounted to your mug to warm your coffee! It is THAT amazing. Watch out Apple, cuz here we come" :P

[Andrew @ Jan 11th 2006 1:24PM]

It wasn't too long ago when the iPod first came out and everyone was saying that was the worst effing idea ever and look how far Apple has gone. Samsung has increased its profits profoundly the past few years, beating out Sony. Forbes did a big article on this in December. Watch out on the horizon electronics companies, Samsung is well on its way to heaveyweight stardom.

[Javaflash @ Jan 11th 2006 1:38PM]

Apple lagged behind in term of technical specification. Apple leaps beyond in term of user experience.



Consumers favor the later because we buy gadgets to use, not to engineer.

[Brian K @ Jan 11th 2006 1:41PM]

It's the software stupid!



It's this simple. iPod+iTunes = victory



if it was just about being a cool mp3 player the iPod would lose to cheaper mp3 players. However, it's not about being an mp3 player anymore. Apple changed that. Apple has the sexy hardware, the good software, and the music selection that people want all in an easy to use package. People don't want infinite choices that don't work well together. Look at PlaysForSure. It's a cool technology, but it slows down the process and it just doesn't work quite as slick as the FairPlay stuff from Apple. Ironically Sony's ATRAC format strategy isn't a bad one, the only problem is that at this point everyone would be better off licensing Fairplay from apple to be compatable with the iTunes service.



Also, never underestimate the marketing power of the accessory market. Apple isn't the only company marketing the iPod. Accessory sellers are marking the crap out of the iPod to sell accessories with high margins. No other portable audio player has that.



The battle is long since over. Companies need to work on smarter-cheap phones. Not $400 PDA phones. Like $100-$300 iPodesque phones that are sexy, but not overpriced. Those could be a real iPod killer and I guarantee Apple is working on that as well.

[K @ Jan 11th 2006 1:43PM]

Creative spent $100 mill on advertising? Doesn't seem like it.

[Andrew Stone @ Jan 11th 2006 1:49PM]

As a college student who sees a thousand of the things a day on campus, i can tell you this... nothing is gonna beat out the iPod untill they develop something VERY different that everyone can latch on to as "cool". The ipod isn't about being the best anymore... it was the best for a while, long enough to become the thing the cool kids carry around, but now is just plain "cool" and better features aren't gonna convince the average mp3 player buying public to go against their peers.



Think white headphones, scroll wheel... come up with something we havne't seen before, not feature wise, but looks wise. Then you'll have our attention.



(And i agree with a comment above... i have the samsung i730 from verizon, and use it as my mp3 player also, with a 1 gig sd card. If samsung could nail down a good phone with and easy to use mp3 player, a camera, whatever else, and somehow innovate the whole thing to make it cool, iPods would be GONE. Carrying around one device is sweet.)

[Fudgelips @ Jan 11th 2006 1:58PM]

Well, Samsung may be lagging in the MP3 category, but their LCDs totally kick ass and always have. For all I know they produce the screens for Apple displays, b/c apparently they produce the screens for some huge percentage of the flatscreen manufacturers (cue informed additon by another poster...)

[Michael @ Jan 11th 2006 2:17PM]

First rule of marketing: It's better to be first than to be better.

[Kory @ Jan 11th 2006 2:21PM]

Cool? What are you people, 12? Sheesh! The iPod is the best because the device is simple and elegant, not too expensive, and easy to use on the Mac/PC with iTunes.

[trentblase @ Jan 11th 2006 2:39PM]

Samsung spent $1 million on Apple ads last year? No wonder they aren't gaining any marketshare!

[Carson @ Jan 11th 2006 2:46PM]

Another thing to keep in mind is this, If samsung or whoever dropped a wifi or bluetooth enabled mp3 player, apple would just drop a new ipod with those features right back. I guarantee you that whatever these tech companies think is going to knock the ipod off its pedestal, Apple has already thought of it. Hundreds of millions of those ipod dollars are being spent to secure their position. That is a fact. They're not JUST sitting around making ipod remote fm modules. That was just something to lead them into some ipod talk. I think very soon we'll see a iPodWorld. Industry people have been talking about that alot this year.



Recognize,

Carson

[Shape @ Jan 11th 2006 2:47PM]

The last time I used itunes on my PC, back in September 2004, it used a whopping 38MB(!) of RAM on my XP laptop and it took 23 seconds to load up. Does itunes actually have boot up OSX on an XP machine before it can run? There is no excuse for it to have to take up all that memory.



Windows Media Player 10 used 16.7MB of RAM, which is still ridiculous, but at least it is less than half of what the Apple bloatware used. It also came up immediately.



After that, I uninstalled itunes. Why is it so great, again?



Of course, when installing Quicktime recently, I saw that Apple wanted to force itunes onto my computer at the same time. Its almost as bad as those persistent AOL icons.

[Tom Karches @ Jan 11th 2006 2:56PM]

It's all about the user experience. If Samsung concentrates on that, they may have a chance. Otherwise, they are wasting their time.

[no3rdw @ Jan 11th 2006 2:57PM]

Samsung needs to remove the almost all mentions of the 'Samsung brand' from their players and come up with a creative trendy name to market all their portable media players.



Samsung makes some great products, but I don't really want the Samsung MP0-281a-x9 (kidding) in my pocket, and I'm sure not going to remember it from an ad.

[no3rdw @ Jan 11th 2006 2:59PM]

But no iSams or SamPods, please.

[Carson @ Jan 11th 2006 3:23PM]

#27 Get some ram and quit your bitchin, I hate people who complain about ram and hard drive space when it costs so little. Windows XP itself is bloatware and so is Office so I hope you dont have those on your computer. If your going to complain about something like that you better be consistent.

[DAN @ Jan 11th 2006 3:31PM]

I don't get it. They want to beat Apple in the DAP market, but in the meantime they sell them all their flash memory... WTF?

[Jason @ Jan 11th 2006 3:52PM]

I know quite a few people with PHDs and Doctorates who have purchased the iPod because it's easy for them to use.



You pop an a CD and iTunes will auto-rip and tag that sucker and purchasing music (and now TV shows) from iTunes store is so simple and straightforward.



There are literally TONS of accessories for the iPod that are designed specifically for it and are easy to setup and use. Speaker and alarm clock docks, home stereo receiver integration, car radio integration, etc, etc, etc.



And yes, they look chic, but everyone I know purchased them for other reasons.



I've owned 5 different brands of MP3 player in as many years and guess what I'm rocking these days? An iPod Video. It's extremely compact, sounds great and gets the job done. The "gimmicky" video feature has proven it's worth on several occassions when watching a TV show while on a long flight or in a waiting area didn't require firing up a laptop or pulling out a media player the size of a paperback book.

[James @ Jan 11th 2006 4:39PM]

Creative tried to do the "more spending than Apple" approach in 2004, with predictable results. Plus they went for total satuarion in everything but TV which is probably where you ahve the best chance of making people remember your brand.

[Ben @ Jan 11th 2006 5:23PM]

The iPod, like most Apple products, is good, but grossly overpriced. Once someone is able to make something comparable, it will beat out iPod with a little bit of marketing.



Samsung's original Yepp was pretty damn cool when it came out in Korea. Unfortunately, I was stuck with a Diamond Rio in the US. I would not be at all surprised if Samsung went head-to-head and beat out Apple.

[rip @ Jan 11th 2006 5:36PM]

blah blah blah. The iPod wins for these reasons...



1) anyone with half a brain can figure out how to use it just by looking at it. I have a friend who hates all things Apple... we went to a store to look at mp3 players. We looked at all of them, and the only one we could figure out how to use(without looking at a manual) was the iPod. He bought the iPod. Its called ease of use and intuitive design.



2) its the hub stupid. And that doesn't mean Bill Gates digital hub of convergence. It means that BMW, Toyota, Chrysler etc. provide iPod connectivity. It means Bose, Sonos, and a million Chinese manufacturers have products specifically designed for the iPod. It means Burton and Levi's makes clothing specifically for the iPod.



The fact is the iPod is no slouch. There might be players out there that are better at one thing or another. But NOTHING that is clearly better. Nothing that would convince a normal buyer from not choosing an iPod. Its not like your sacrificing by buying an iPod. Unlike say, windows ;) I know a lot of people that were forced to use windows even though they hated it. And at the time windows was clearly inferior. I really don't think that is the case with the iPod. Most people love their iPod. The worst I've heard is that it is just "ok."



Maybe in 2-3 years, the other devices will be clearly superior and Apple will be coasting on marketshare, like windows. But right now, that is not the case.

[Dave @ Jan 11th 2006 5:38PM]

Wow, Shape, a whole 38 megabytes of RAM? Golly gee, that must have brought the whole machine to its knees!



Here's the deal, buddy: iTunes sounds great. And yeah, I know YOU probably can't tell the difference. I've got it running through an EMU 0404 and a dedicated headphone amp with a pair of Beyerdynamic DT 880s though... it's a great player. Apple Lossless is a fantastic filetype, and iTunes encodes to most types very well.

[Techaman @ Jan 11th 2006 6:05PM]

I hate apple so darn much. I think they have to die sometime, right? Then Samsung will take over.



I have a Samsung player and I LOVE IT. its a better Mp3 player with more features for a lower price.

[Techaman @ Jan 11th 2006 6:14PM]

I hate apple so darn much. I think they have to die sometime, right? Then Samsung will take over.



I have a Samsung player and I LOVE IT. its a better Mp3 player with more features for a lower price.

[Ben @ Jan 11th 2006 6:26PM]

Would the Apple defenders care to explain with the HP iPod failed?

[thomas_h @ Jan 11th 2006 7:55PM]

maybe because its silly for an ipod to bear the HP logo. i would never buy an ipod with an HP logo just because i dont like HP.



all i got to say is, i bought my ipod mini 6GB and i love it, its easy to use, looks good, has an aluminium casing, nice size, very decent battery time ( ~ 20 hours ) and its very easy to transfer songs to it. it just works. if a better player becomes available later then ill probably buy that, but for now im sticking with my mini.

[mike @ Jan 11th 2006 8:29PM]

Would the Apple defenders care to explain with the HP iPod failed?



----



If by failure you mean they had the #2 mp3 player on the market.. sure.. they had about 10% of the market, and Apple had .. oh.. 65%..



HP was bitter because they wanted to control more.. Fiorina was very smart to spot Apple as the leader.. and it was a good deal for everyone involved.



HP cut that thing short when Fiorina was booted, and now they have NO mp3 player. They have nothing. They just wanted out of the market entirely.



They basically walked away from easy money (i repeat, they had the #2 player with 10% of the market)... because they didn't wanna be in the market..

[Shape @ Jan 11th 2006 9:18PM]

Dave,



At the time (2004), I was using a 1.1GHz Pentium III laptop with 256MB of RAM that was at the end of its life cycle. So yeah, the 38MB of RAM itunes took did make a difference.



Please tell me why a music player with much less functionality (it didn't even play video back then) than WMP10 needed more than twice the RAM. God (Steve?) only knows why the Apple programmers can't create a more memory efficient piece of code than the Microsoft programmers. Remember when entire operating systems fit in 512kB?



As for music formats, I prefer to use more portable and completely open formats that don't utilize any DRM.

[Steve @ Jan 11th 2006 9:35PM]

iTunes is bloatware, being at least twice the size of competing players.



iTunes is spyware, reporting back what you listen to to Apple.



iPods have inferiour audio quality to other competing players.



iPods have less features than other players.



Apple didn't present anything new or interesting for iTunes or iPods at their recent dreadfully overhyped fanboi-fest other than their spyware update to iTunes, and an expensive plug on FM transmitter that everyone else has had built in forever.



Apple... the great innovator... :c)

[sunystory @ Jan 11th 2006 11:27PM]

I think it is faster if samsung group purchase Apple. Samsung group is capable of purchasing companies like Apple. Just the way samsung dominates Renault's stock market and indirectly Nissan.

[The ZeroCorpse @ Jan 12th 2006 3:09AM]

1. iTunes is not bloatware. I have it running all the time on my PowerBook. It's never off, and it barely uses any memory... Of course, I'm using OS X, which is UNIX and it knows how to manage memory. Perhaps the problem isn't iTunes, but WINDOWS and its half-arsed memory management.



Either way, it's the best software of its kind. I've paid for Media Jukebox (back when I used a PC) and for MusicMatch, and neither of them had the ease of use, organizing abilities, and conversion abilities of iTunes. The latest version of iTunes even converts video for use on the new iPod.



2. iTunes is not "spyware" but it is "consumerware" in that it does keep track of what you listen to so Apple can make suggestions based on your preferences. It's actually kind of nice, because I've discovered quite a few bands through their suggestions. Anyway, it's no different that ANY OTHER JUKEBOX SOFTWARE. MusicMatch, Windows Media Player, Napster, Realplayer/Rhapsody, Media Jukebox, and even Winamp all report what you're listening to the company that makes them. Don't be naive.



3. Inferior audio? Like hell. It supports 20Hz to 20,000Hz, and despite what some insane audiophiles say, humans can't hear outside that range. The EQ is decent, and it supports AIFF/WAV and Apple Lossless, which is FAR better than the lossy, 11-year-old MP3 format, and the nearly-as-lossy OGG and WMA formats. AAC is MP4, which is considered a new industry standard by the MPEG group; They created it to replace MP3, and it does a great job.



Or to sum it up: DJs use iPods in professional situations because they have excellent audio quality. If you hear anything negative in iPod sound, it's because you're a freak who hears in the range of dogs.



4. Less features? Well, lets see: My iPod plays video, stores my entire CD collection plus a few DVDs, stores all my contacts and calendars, all my photos, and lets me sort them however I wish. It outputs to an external monitor if I want to watch my videos or photos on a bigger screen. It automatically bookmarks podcasts and audiobooks. It automatically syncs and updates everything as soon as it's docked with my computer. iTunes automatically gets all my subscribed podcasts and puts them on the iPod. It's smaller than half a deck of cards, and allows me to store my files on the hard drive for transport to other computers, or for backup purposes. It lasts about 14 hours on a single charge, doesn't burn through batteries (and the battery CAN be replaced after it dies (though it has a HUGE estimated lifespan) for about $25 if I install it myself).



What's missing? FM radio? Not really, as I have an iPod to avoid radio. Asking for a radio built into a digital audio player is like asking for a standard oven built into your microwave oven. Why bother? You can pick up a mini FM radio at a dollar store for around a buck, so why waste the space in a compact digital player?



Voice recorder? Again, it's a music player, not a microrecorder. There are ways to make an iPod record, but why bother? I don't really need to record a lot of voice memos and lectures, so it's pointless.



You just don't get it. It's the software, the hub, the ease of use, the great customer service, and the size of it.



But I'm not swaying you, because you used the keywords "Apple fanboi" [sic] and you clearly hate the iPod because you're one of those PC weenies who refuses to like anything from Apple because you think it will make you gay, liberal, or whatever. We call that the "12-year-old's mentality."



Or perhaps you're one of those guys who hates the iPod because you're EDGY and you think it makes you trendy and hip to hate something that a lot of people like.



I don't have an iPod because it looks cool. When I'm using my iPod, it's actually buried in my pocket and I'm using KOSS PortaPro headphones, so there's ZERO product recognition by anyone looking at me.



I have an iPod because it GETS THE JOB DONE RIGHT. My Rio couldn't do it. My Creative players couldn't do it. My Dell player couldn't do it. My iRiver couldn't do it. They all failed in one way or another (usually the software support, but quite often the customer support was terrible) and I ultimately grabbed an iPod because I tried it, found out what a damn good digital music device it was, and saw how well-supported it is.



Hey- when that Samsung player has integrated controls in your car, you let me know. When that Samsung player has an installed base of 40 million, we'll chat again. Until then, you're just being a whiny wannabe hipster who is desperately trying to look cool by bashing a product you've clearly NEVER USED.

[Steve @ Jan 12th 2006 4:30AM]

LOL. It's funny to watch an iPod fanboi bleat away like an upset sheep when a few poignant facts are presented to them.



1. It's already been mentioned that competing players on Windows are half the size. iTunes is bloated by comparison. Bleeting about how much you hate Windows is irrelevant to that fact that Apple's programmers have produced bloatware in comparison.



2. Where is your proof something like Winamp returns information about what you are listening without having asked for your permission? Do you think blatantly lying is going to help your argument?



3. iPods are notorious for having inferiour sound, and poor support for other music formats.



4. Tip: lots of players let you listen to music, store contacts, watch videos, watch podcasts and listen to audible files... I can't believe you think these are unique to the iPod. Apple has trailed (read blatantly copied) other players in all these categories. They havn't innovated any of them.



You bring up better life as a supposed 'feature' of the iPod. Hilarious given iPod are notorious for having attrocious battery life and have had to settle with disgruntled Apple customers because of it.



*snip* lots of lame personal attacks not worth responding to. *snip*



"When that Samsung player has an installed base of 40 million, we'll chat again."



...And finally. I am supposed to like the iPod just because lots of people have bought one.



We'll never be chatting again matie... All you can do is bleat.



Bleat like the other 40 million dumb sheep. ;c)

[Brand Name @ Jan 12th 2006 5:05AM]

To the people who posted about removing the Samsung logo:

YOU HIT THE NAIL IN THE HEAD.



Among other things, I think Samsung needs to create a distinctive and "cool" brand name for their MP3 players. A Samsung logo in my mp3 player? You may as well put a White Westinghouse logo as well. Seriously, there's no distinction. The Samsung brand name is too diluted. It stands for LCD TVs, phones, camcorders, etc.



In other words, TOO COMMON.



And please. YEPP? what kinda brand name is that?!



Friend: Is that your new mp3 player?

Me: Yepp. Hyuk hyuk. Get it? Yepp? Ha. ha. ha. Uhm... goodbye.



Gawd.

[Paul @ Jan 12th 2006 8:31AM]

Samsung thinking:

product + advertising = success



It's impossible to defeat iPod in this way.

[Ronanbear @ Jan 12th 2006 9:53AM]

Apple will continue to flourish with the iPod until MP3 playing phones take over the market. Whether they will adapt for this marktet is not clear yet.



It should be perfectly obvious to any observer that Apple have found a market where user experience is all important. For everything from picking the right mp3 player etc. Apple is streets ahead. Their website is more detailed and picking the best iPod as a gift is very simple and easy.



No iPod rival will seriously erode Apple's market share while they have a number for a product name. Its not the reason its just another symptom of how out of touch Sony, Samsung etc are.

[Shape @ Jan 12th 2006 10:59AM]

For kicks, I installed the latest itunes today. It still took forever to "boot up." Even on my new centrino laptop. And once the new version loaded, it took up 56MB of RAM! 56MB! To play music! No wonder it takes so long to load.



Microsoft Word 2003, on the other hand only takes 25MB of RAM. That is with two documents open.



Windows Media Player 10 still only takes about 17MB of RAM, and it starts up instantly. After I go into the music library, the amount of RAM it uses actually drops to 8MB! That's more like it.



What exactly is itunes doing that needs so much RAM?