Heh heh heh. I'm sure it is. But I like my computer and I'll stick with it for a long time. My biggest issue with sticking with the PC when I bought my last computer was the incredible price difference. With the Dell I bought, I basicall get all the programs I had on my old computer for free cause I already owned them and could just put the disc in and I was good to go on the new computer. I wasn't about to go out and buy thousands of dollars worth of software that I already owned once just because I wanted to get a mac.
Ever heard of TIVO? The Archos AV500 does the same thing, but you can take it with you. Ever heard of TIVO? You are a marketing professional's dream. Um, this is a new technology on the software and hardware level. The Archos machine is a portable DVR (TIVO in layman speak). Considering the popularity of TIVO, this is a piece of technology that people (if they know about it) will love. iPod "Video" won't even be offering that. Actually, it's because they don't want to take the extra 5-10 minutes to learn a new thing or two about something that, in the end, might be better. Most people can't handle change, that's the issue. Heaven forbid people take their fat asses off the couch and learn something, right?
After doing literally 8 months or research on MP3 players I still haven't found one that knocks my socks off. Several come close, but are missing features or lacking in a certain aspect of performance. The point is, that after all that time of reading and trying some out, the iPod series is superior in only one respect: simplicity. That being said, it is the biggest thing a certain segment of their target market looks for. The sad thing, is there are a lot of MP3 players out there that a damn near as good, but aren't even considered. What it all boils down to is marketing. edit: also, the key is that Archos isn't necessarily trying to appeal to the iPod market. They're selling a premium product at a premium price, and your average iPod user doesn't necessarily fit into such a market. Some do, but not all.
Well, it's too late now. I already have the computer now. I'll let you know once it's time to get a new one in a few years, though. I'll need Photoshop, AutoCad, and MicroStation to begin with.
See, this is why you guys don't get it. You get mad at the people for not wanting to change their lazy way. What good does that do? Apple recognized what people wanted and gave it to them in the iPod. People like simple and easy to understand when they first see it. So they're fat and lazy. So what? Recognizing that they are and getting mad about it doesn't do you any good in selling your product. What does is adapting to what the people desire. Insulting the masses and telling them that they just need to learn what is better is the exact way to doom your product. You call me a marketing person's dream. Why, because I think like a marketing person? Because I can put aside my personal feelings for what I believe is best in order to give people what they want in a manner of how they want it?
Part of what makes something good, though, is its ease of use. I first bought an Airport Express so I could wirelessly stream music to my stereo from my XP pc. It was very easy to use iTunes and the Airport Exp. Then since I had all my music on my computer, my wife bought me an iPod for the holidays. I plugged it in and immediately had all my music and playlists on it. The simplicity was astounding. Then I bought a Powerbook. Then I bought a shuffle for my wife - she loved it. So then we got an iBook to replace our desktop machine for my wife to work on from home. Then I bought a Nano because it was so sleek. Ease of use is VERY valuable.
And to add to that is an almost as important, yet often overlooked key selling point is the the look of ease of use. People can tell you that their product is easy to use till they're blue in the face, but if it doesn't look easy to use, then people won't even get to the point of trying it out. When you look at the machine pictured earlier, there are buttons all over the place and a screen that has a million things going on. Now that's fine and dandy to the tech savvy, but that's not gonna cut it for the average consumer. You have to make your product look easy and attractive at first glance. Looking easy to use goes a hell of a lot further in this world then having someone try to convince you it's easy.
Adaptation. Situational. Two words that people on BigSoccer are completely incapable of grasping the concept of. See, the thing is that just because one example has one outcome doesn't automatically mean that all situations that can be in any way related, will come out the exact same way. What exactly does the television have to do with this? We're not talking about televisions here. We're talking about personal audio/video machines. They're two completely different products created in two completely different times and marketed to different groups. They have nothing to do with each other. The simple fact that you guys REFUSE to understand is that the vast majority of people in this country like things that are pretty and easy and nice and popular. It doesn't matter how upset you get about it, it doesn't matter how easy you say your products are, it doesn't matter how many functions you can jam in your product - the result is the same: People like the iPod cause it's easy. Getting mad at them because they are lazy and fat and stubborn doesn't change the fact that they are lazy and fat and stubborn. The difference is that Apple is not afraid to embrace the lazy, the fat, and the stubborn and give them a pretty product that's easy to use, while you make something that makes great sense to a smaller percentage of people then get pissed because the vast majority doesn't see things your way.
If I was in coma for 15 years, woke up today and you tell me that ipod nano was released in the early 90's while archos av400 just got out a week ago I would completely believe you. I mean here is a product that is pretty much handicapped to playing music and the latest feature addition to the brand is .... viewing pictures. Archos is miles ahead with it's technology where it not only can play video files from pc but also record directly from tv dvd, vcr etc. It also has an optional camcorder, all in that little gadget. I doubt people know such a thing exists. In few years Apple will release video player and I bet many teenagers will think they are the first to invent such a thing (unless they count sony psp which can't do everything). Many people I talk to on other message boards thought Apple was the first to have photo features in an MP3 player until I corrected them. All Archos needs is some 30 seconds ads that show how much more people can do with their players compared to ipods and how easy it is to use ("if you can open a folder on your pc and play an mp3 or mpeg file there you can use this video player" or "if you can record a tv show on your vcr you can use this"). Show a picture of ipod with a vintage tv set or phone for good measures. Lots of people would give it a go and popularity would snowball from there.
Something to consider about the two different tv's. The remote makes it easier for people to be lazy. Not to mention that the great majority of people only know what a few buttons on the remotes does. Most people will say, allI want to know is how to turn it on/off, change the channels and the volume. They don't care that they can program their tv to turn on like an alarm.
This will all work if they make the machine prettier. And they used actual television shows and movies in their commercails as the things people are viewing on these machines. Actually, if they did that alone in their commercials, it would sell a lot better.
You lost me right here. And I'm extemely tech savvy having worked in technology and tech PR for many years. If something takes longer to figure out than my toaster, I'm not intersted. I have more important things to do with my life than push buttons and run cables. That's my biggest beef with the iPod.. having to find that cable to hook it up to my computer. I wish it were Wi-Fi enabled, so I could just add songs on the fly. Sachin
Actually I get it 100%. I am in marketing and sell ideas to people every day. I just try and avoid letting others do the same thing to me. Someone's mad? It sure as **** isn't me. Is it that guy over there? And they did it well. Personally, I find it annoying when people tell me how great the iPod is when they don't have any decent understanding of the technology to begin with. You like the ease of use? Cool. You like the simplicity? Cool. You like the color white? Cool. But don't start trying to explain how the soon-to-be released video iPod is superior to another product without understaning the technology behind it, it's just not helping your case. Again, you're mistaking anger for a simple desire to further educate people on technology. The better you understand something, the better decisions you can make. Has someone done this? Is there an Archos marketing campaign out there I'm not aware of? No, you think like a consumer. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's kind of a marketing person's target market. Um...how would you describe the television? Is it not a customized audio/video machine? Actually, the "complicated" TV at the bottom was created probably around the same time as the iPod. The point that Fleetwood Mac is trying to make is that the longer television was around, the more complicated it got. It was a slow evolution to be sure, but we went from having no remote to a remote with so many buttons that some actually open your garage door...and people have learned to buy it and understand how such things work. He picked a damn fine example. Again, the Achos product isn't supposed to appeal to the iPod user. It's for a different market.
But you need to take into account that the iPod Nano is a niche product meant to reach people who want a small, portable, music-only device. Don't confuse the target market's of the two products. iPods appeal to one segment, and Archos to another. You can actually find print ads for Archos products in many technology magazines, including Wired. Also I've seen a couple in the high-end magazine the Robb Report. Archos is marketed to people who want a high-end product, but are willing to spend some time to learn about it. They then rely on word-of-mouth for information to be spread further, the same way that Mozilla has carved out a niche in the browser market, Archos is carving out a niche in the portable media market. They're not trying to take iPod's users (not all anyway), they have a demographic they're pursuing, and from what I understand, they're doing just fine.
This sentence right here sums up perfectly why the machines that aren't the iPod aren't doing nearly as well in spite of having more memory at a cheaper price and having more options and whatever else makes them better. You guys just don't get that people don't want to have the understanding of how things work and why your ideas are better. They want simplicity. They want easy. They want pretty. You said you're in marketing. How the hell can you be in marketing if you refuse to listen to the people telling you why your product isn't selling as well? This entire conversation started because someone said that that Arthos or whatever it's called is better yet people aren't buying in spite of it being good looking and having more options. What some of us are trying to tell you is that's not all there is to it. You have to listen to the people purchasing the product. There is a reason why the iPod is dominating the market - and it's not completely due to advertising, as some seem to think. Nobody at all said that the video iPod would be better. I don't even know where you got that idea. It wasn't even implied. What was said were some suggestions to make the current machines better. Of course when those suggestions were tossed out there, instead of accepting what were give, we were told that teh current offerings were good enough. They're not. And you're confusing the average consumer for someone that actually gives a rat's ass about understanding something. What, exactly, are you doing in marketing? Sweet lord is that an ass-backwards way to sell something to people. Honestly, if you want to sell a gadget to the masses on the scale that the iPods are selling, you have to give them what they want, not try to teach them why you believe your product is technologically better. Right, and how can you, a person that makes a living doing marketing, not understand how people think? How can you refuse to listen to the people purchasing and instead feel the need to educate them? No. It's not. So the time span it took for the iPod to come out to where the Althos came out is the same time period as the first television and the remote controled televisions? I think that's not at all acurate. And finally we agree. If it were for the same market, it would be marketed as such - it would be pretty, look easier to use, and quite frankly, have less functions. But I'm starting to get the impression that you think that I and others were saying that the iPod is a better product. We never said nor implied that at all. If you reread this thread, you'll see that this entire conversation was about telling thoise that are advocates for the alternative mp3 machines and the video machines why they are not as popular as the iPod and how they can make them such.
I'm not disagreeing with you. The point I was making isn't about what is selling, but what is the superior product, they are not synonymous. I'm in marketing because I understand that Archos is doing pretty damn well for their market. As I said before, they aren't trying to appeal to all iPod users, they're trying to appeal to a smaller niche market. Archos isn't moving the name numbers as iPod, but that isn't their goal. You can't base performance on sales numbers alone when they're not in the same market. I believe that was you. I've been trying to clear up the misconceptions made since then. iPod is as successful as it is for two reasons: 1) marketing 2) simplicity in their prodcut, and the former is based almost completely on the latter. You don't see iPod trying to sell superior sound, because they can't claim it. But that doesn't matter, because they're not trying to sell sound, they're trying to sell an image. Making suggestions that the product change to look more like an iPod design is missing the target market of the product, which isn't most iPod users. Not. The. Same. Target. Market. Marketing is tailored to individual target markets, you appeal to different ones in different ways. I wouldn't try to sell a piece of Archos technology using iPod techniques or vice versa. You and I are looking at this example in different ways, which is why we don't agree on it's accuracy. Never thought you were saying it was better, but your suggestions were to tailor it to fit the iPod mold (or get closer to it), and that would be a mistake considering who Archos is selling to. They're not trying to be Apple, replace the iPod, or dominate the market that Apple is selling to. Their market is users like myself, FM1, and others who are willing to take extra time to understand a technology. iPod users aren't, for the most part, this kind of person.
I think we're basically agreeing here. The entire reason for the conversation was in response to FM#1 saying that it's a shame it's not more popular. I was explaining to him why people that buy the iPod aren't interested in the Archos. He argued my reasons by saying that the Archos had more stuff and a better screen cause it had more on it. I was trying to explain to him that, to the iPod buyer, that stuff does not equal better.