The amount of apps in the Windows Phone Marketplace
Microsoft's Windows Phone Marketplace has now reported to have passed 25,000 apps by one site tracking comings and goings within it. (source: WindowsPhoneAppslist, July 2011)
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I really don't get how/why Creative expects to compete on price so aggressively. Apple is the volume player in the market, meaning they are the ones who can afford to be a loss leader. (this also runs counter to their design philosophy, and so they don't do it.).
The stone may look like a decent shuffle alternative at a glance, but at that price point they are cutting corners somewhere. It may be in the firmware support, customer support, or the quality of plastics and molding they are using, or the physical button connectors, the manufacturing tolerances, etc. etc. Really, its a combination of these effects.
These are the details that [when compromised] make a product feel cheap, and these are the same details that Apple scrutinizes, and obsesses over until their product gleams by comparison.
When you analyze the minutia of each player side by side, you can see the attention to detail that Apple puts in their products. How do the various materials interface? What finish have they used? How do the button switches feel? How is the weight distributed? How do the ports work? How tight are the manufacturing tolerances? Apple agonizes over these details while the competition contracts the stuff out.
Consumers may be fat, stupid, ugly, whatever, but they pick up on these details instantly. When they have a Stone and a Shuffle sitting next to each other at Best Buy, they can see and feel the differences between the products, and that also has an effect on their buying decisions.
Apple spends a ton of money/time/resources on their design. Their products cost a lot more to manufacture. But, they also charge high prices and have nice fat margins on their iPods. It is clearly a winning strategy, and one that the competition either can't, or refuses to emulate.
Having worked with and around thousands of iPods, I was literally stunned the first time I held a Zune. I had no idea it was put together so poorly; you can't really tell from the pictures.
*stands and claps* bravo, bravo.
You say that Creative must be cutting corners by selling so cheap, but then mention Apple's fat margins on iPods. You've just given a great reason why this player may not in fact be skimping.
Apple have not only convinced the public it's ok to pay that much for a device, but also that something that costs less *must* be inferior. My Creative player has totally solid construction, a removable battery, and superior sound quality to any iPod I've ever heard (given the same headphones).
I have no reason to believe that a $40 player would be of the same quality, but the price ratio between mine and its competitor (Mini/Nano) is the same as that of the Stone to the Shuffle, so I have no reason *not* to believe that it'll be quality either.