Why an 'iPod killer' will never kill the iPod

Anyway, the only reason why I keep coming back to the iPod rather than any other player in the market is because of its usability, not because of the hardware and generally not because of the design. It may not have all the bells and whistles, but it is drop dead simple to figure out how to use, partially since it doesn't have a dozen buttons just to control playback.

I feel that maybe the rest of the competitors (after all, there is also iriver, cowon etc. that are willing to spend the R&D money on new designs since they are in a market (south korea) where iPods and Apple do not dominate as much) just overthink things, and underestimate the now fairly significant tie-in most people encounter if they purchased significant amounts of DRM'd media from the iTunes store. Hopefully the latter will decrease as there's growing demand for unlocked music, but the former...I have a neighbor who insisted on buying a portable CD player, and you have no idea how complicated it can get. I about wanted to give up after staring at a recent Sony one that had, like I said, a dozen buttons just for playback. She eventually caved in and got an iPod nano, which she was able to figure out without reading any manual.

From an actually-working standpoint, its even worse. I had to install Quicktime a while back on Windows to convert some weird-format Quicktime YUV files to something usable--it instacrashed upon trying to convert it. After reinstalling a few times it worked, but it took over 2 hours to start the conversion. This was a conversion from raw YUV to raw BMP. Oh, and then it took about 2 days to do the conversion for a single film. Seriously, folks.

I've constantly heard its much better under OS X; but at least my experience on Windows says its not merely bad, but the single worst media player I have ever used (yes, worse than Real.)

I'm a long time Mac user, but that pretty much nails what iTunes really is. Ever since Apple bought out SoundJam and turned it into iTunes, the app's focus has been less about song playback and more about being the "showcase" or demonstration for what QuickTime is supposed to be used for. QuickTime was little too far ahead of its time for its architecture to be compatible with modern systems; though, at least on the Mac platform, its been able to survive as a respectable, if creaky, media API. (QT really was a child of the multimedia CD-ROM era. The media model it uses isn't really a good fit for streaming Internet data.)

What else do you want from a MP3 player?

But iTunes isn't about just the software. You can't forget the Music Store, which is the largest music retailer in the country. iPods, the best-selling brand of MP3 player, and arguably the best, require it to run. To beat Apple, you need to compete on all 3 fronts at once, and chances are you have to be breakthrough in all three fields.

Apple has certainly improved, but I don't see iTunes as much more than a well written library program with an MP3 player tacked on.

If I had the money I could easily build and design a better, sleeker MP3 player than Apple. It's just the fact that all the companies who are coming to compete in the MP3 player market don't have a history in it.

Because Apple did have history in MP3 players? And, theoretically speaking, say you have a ton of money. Who exactly are you going to make design it? Because you're competing against Jony Ive and his team, which is regarded as the finest industrial design team on the planet. No, they don't have the battery, but they have better-looking hardware and they have better-looking software, things don't break, and not only do they have a set of gorgeous products (for the record, most Apple products win Red Dot awards in every iteration, which is unheard of in consumer products), but they have an incredible ad firm working to promote their products. You're competing against all that, and all of the best minds are at Apple right now.

I could easily use the iPod's example and build a better MP3 player. It's quite simple; use a slightly wider LCD screen and display in widescreen, which should all blend together in a deep black so that you can't see the difference between the LCD and plain black when it's off

So... the iPhone? Or the iPod touch?

The front plate should be a single piece of unbroken electrically conductive glass so that you can operate the controls (similar to how the iPod works) but without it ever, ever being able to get dirt stuck between the cracks. The back plate should obviously be scratch resistant aluminum.

iPhone/touch? It sounds like you're just parroting what Apple's already had out in the market for a year and a half.

You seem to think that Microsoft and Sony aren't already launching the absolute finest minds they can at this. Make no mistake: Microsoft and Sony have some brilliant people working on this problem. And they're throwing money like Apple couldn't have afforded to do. And yet, Apple's still wiping the floor with the competition. Now every cell phone company is losing market share to the iPhone, and it's the same thing over again. A lot of big, smart companies are trying to beat Apple, and they're all failing. And you think you could do better by throwing money at it?

Let me just pick off one statement, since I don't have hours..

'If I had the money I could easily build and design a better, sleeker MP3 player than Apple'.

Wow. Amazing that the market has misjudged your value to such a high degree. What is a fellow like yourself doing wasting his time saying 'I could' on HN, when you could be fending off starry-eyed investors held in thrall by your unblemished track record for leading the development of jewel-like portable electronics?

Sarcasm aside, have you ever designed a consumer electronics device? I doubt it.

But perhaps I've misjudged. Feel free to prove me wrong with:

Detailed renderings of your design. And by design, I don't mean an Apple fanboy rumor mockup - it should be something than can be manufactured in a price-competitive way.

A UI design that works better than the iPod.

Your design for an iTunes equivalent.

Schematic for the embedded electronics, providing better battery life in a small package. Provide plots for battery characterization (charging, discharging) for your prototype.

The user input device should be more intuitive than Apples', and not infringe on existing patents.

Demonstrable ability to hire, build and manage a team that can engineer the above.

Build the back end for the music distribution service. Make sure it scales to the zillions of users you'll surely attract.

Negotiate good pricing with various labels.

Build a payment system for music.

Select and manage contract manufacturing, negotiate the contracts, and keep breathing down their necks.

Predict demand and order accordingly. Make sure to corner the market on FLASH chips so that you wield a price advantage.

Last, but certainly not even close to least, market it.

I've probably missed a bunch of stuff (shock testing for one).

Perhaps you'll respond with: 'I was just talking about the device itself, not all that other stuff'. To which I would say, the 'other stuff' is just as important as the device. Unless you define market success as having a single prototype of a shiny piece of hardware that no one wants.

Even that takes a lot of skill, talent and hard work.

First off, I can quickly make playlists that work well together, thanks to Genius.

Second, I can use a keyboard shortcut to get to the search bar, to quickly find music.

iTunes has the fastest search of any music player I've ever used. I love it for that alone. And what else should a music player do? I've used Amarok. It has too many features. It's a beast. iTunes is a background application, absolutely, but it's easy to use. And if you really need it, they've got the best visualizer I've ever seen.

It would be lower on the market, but Amazon is actually in a prime position to be making hardware. Don't know how much they'd make by entering competitive territory, though. I don't know if it would be worth it for them.

I wonder, though: what else is there to do? After you can fit your entire music library onto an iPod, and navigate it incredibly easy, what's left to add on? Beyond new features, like the iPhone's doing, and - eventually, once there's enough space - lossless audio formats.