Linked by robojerk on Thu 30th Dec 2010 00:09 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless I have often wondered why there wasn't a flood of Android portable media players - now the WSJ Reports: "With the move, Samsung will round out a series of Galaxy-named gadgets that matches product for product with Apple Inc.'s line of iPods, iPad and iPhone. Samsung will have the Galaxy Player, Galaxy Tab and Galaxy smartphone. All use a variation of Google Inc.'s Android operating system and work with apps developed for it."
Thread beginning with comment 455094
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Thu 30th Dec 2010 00:38 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't want to sound like a cynic but every time I hear about an iPod competitor I'm always let down because of three factors:

1) Its Windows only with MSC when it available is entirely useless when you have a large collection thus the indexing with each reboot taking ages.

2) Fails to support AAC audio -its an open standard for goodness sake!

3) The size and price is always, in every case, uncompetitive with the iPod; every time I see a competitor to the iPod they're the same price but with less space.

PS. Don't mention Archos because I'll throttle you one; if there was ever an example of a company who makes a product only to abandon it after a few moths they would be it. If there was ever a company who make it impossible to replace the hard disk (in the case of their tablet device) then they would be it. Archos is like Apple on steroids when it comes to providing products that they fail to support for the long term and lock down so it is next to impossible to use their device for anything other than they deem as 'acceptable'.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by dakohli on Thu 30th Dec 2010 04:33 in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
dakohli Member since:
2010-12-30

As it happens I used to own an iPhone, and have a touch, but now use a Galaxy Phone, and while I agree about Archos, I have to say that some of your critical points may be a little off here:

1. Mass Storage Class - I'm not completely familiar with this one. I use drag and drop to put media on the phone. I use winamp, which I understand will sync over wifi/usb without any issues. Also Double Twist is available. So there are lots of choices here.

2. AAC - supported along with:

Media support

The Galaxy S comes with support for many multimedia file formats, including audio codecs (FLAC, WAV, Vorbis, MP3, AAC, AAC+, eAAC+, WMA, AMR-NB, AMR-WB, MID, AC3, XMF), video codecs (mpeg4, H.264, H.263, Sorenson codec, DivX HD/ XviD, VC-1) and video formats (3GP (MPEG-4), WMV (Advanced Systems Format), AVI (divx), MKV, FLV).<P>
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S#Media_support



3. Size and Price - This will be the killer. Although, we know that the Galaxy device will be expandable through micro-SD cards. The 16 Gb Phone is listed at $550 (no Term) from Rogers.ca Considering that the 16G iPhone 4 runs at $660 (apple.ca), and the 32G iTouch is $310, I think we would be estimating a cost of about $300 give or take.

So, I think we would see something very close to the Apple price point. The key here is that with android, the sky is the limit. You don't like the core functionality of the OS, you just change it. The real question here is, can Samsung get out of the box approval to run the Google Android Market. If this is the case, then I think Apple will have a fight on its hands.

For your consideration.

Dave

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Thu 30th Dec 2010 06:34 in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

As it happens I used to own an iPhone, and have a touch, but now use a Galaxy Phone, and while I agree about Archos, I have to say that some of your critical points may be a little off here:

1. Mass Storage Class - I'm not completely familiar with this one. I use drag and drop to put media on the phone. I use winamp, which I understand will sync over wifi/usb without any issues. Also Double Twist is available. So there are lots of choices here.


MSC means dragging and dropping like you do - as soon as you transfer more than say around 20gb worth of music the reboot and subsequent indexing takes for ages and due to the inefficient way the indexing managed the whole device slows to a crawl because the whole thing is loaded into the physical memory. I've yet to see a company develop a device that doesn't have all the draw backs of MSC - it is simple but it is only useful for people who quite frankly have bugger all music and stuff to sync with it.

Now if they said, "ok lets go MTP" then I'll be happy, as long as they work with the libmtp and Songbird developers to make synchronisation happen both on Mac OS X and Windows without any problems.

2. AAC - supported along with:

Media support

The Galaxy S comes with support for many multimedia file formats, including audio codecs (FLAC, WAV, Vorbis, MP3, AAC, AAC+, eAAC+, WMA, AMR-NB, AMR-WB, MID, AC3, XMF), video codecs (mpeg4, H.264, H.263, Sorenson codec, DivX HD/ XviD, VC-1) and video formats (3GP (MPEG-4), WMV (Advanced Systems Format), AVI (divx), MKV, FLV).
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S#Media_support


Good to see they support AAC, so that is already putting them in a good position as a replacement for my iPod Classic.

3. Size and Price - This will be the killer. Although, we know that the Galaxy device will be expandable through micro-SD cards. The 16 Gb Phone is listed at $550 (no Term) from Rogers.ca Considering that the 16G iPhone 4 runs at $660 (apple.ca), and the 32G iTouch is $310, I think we would be estimating a cost of about $300 give or take.

So, I think we would see something very close to the Apple price point. The key here is that with android, the sky is the limit. You don't like the core functionality of the OS, you just change it. The real question here is, can Samsung get out of the box approval to run the Google Android Market. If this is the case, then I think Apple will have a fight on its hands.


But will it be abandoned within 6 months? Android 2.3 is released and no update provided only to be told you've got to upgrade your hardware, then 3.0 is just around the corner, will Galaxy sit in obscurity as Samsung tells its customers of a few months that they should throw away their old devices because they can't be bothered providing firmware upgrades? We've already seen the racket being run by phone vendors who refuse to provide updates even though they can well and truly run Android 2.2. Sorry but when you compare the situation in the Android market on phones to the Apple world - at least when you purchase an Apple i-device 1 year ago you're at least assured you're going to receive a iOS update compared to all the Android vendors who have told their customers to go fuck themselves when it comes to Android 2.2/2.3 upgrades.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by viton on Fri 31st Dec 2010 15:24 in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

You don't like the core functionality of the OS, you just change it.
What is the point of buying the OS you didn't like?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by Neolander on Thu 30th Dec 2010 08:45 in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

1) Its Windows only with MSC when it available is entirely useless when you have a large collection thus the indexing with each reboot taking ages.

I agree, though if they're wishing to clone the iPod they must not work properly with alternative operating systems other than that of their manufacturer ;)

2) Fails to support AAC audio -its an open standard for goodness sake!

Open standard, you say ?
Like everything coming from MPEG, AAC is a patented format. Implementing AAC requires a license fee.
http://www.vialicensing.com/licensing/aac-fees.aspx
This is why media players vendors won't support it : unlike MP3 and WMA, it's not even a de facto standard, so it's not worth the cost.

Now, if only they could support Vorbis, which is a *true* open standard...

3) The size and price is always, in every case, uncompetitive with the iPod; every time I see a competitor to the iPod they're the same price but with less space.

That's logical. Apple manufactures large amounts of iPods, so they can pay less. Newcomers don't have this chance.

This is why, in my opinion, trying to clone the iPod without introducing some major innovation is pointless. But some keep trying...

Edited 2010-12-30 08:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 31st Dec 2010 07:07 in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree, though if they're wishing to clone the iPod they must not work properly with alternative operating systems other than that of their manufacturer ;)


I don't want the iPod to be cloned, I want a better player - something Apples competitors seem to be inept at doing.

Open standard, you say ?
Like everything coming from MPEG, AAC is a patented format. Implementing AAC requires a license fee.
http://www.vialicensing.com/licensing/aac-fees.aspx
This is why media players vendors won't support it : unlike MP3 and WMA, it's not even a de facto standard, so it's not worth the cost.

Now, if only they could support Vorbis, which is a *true* open standard...


Open standard does not automatically lead to royalty and patent free.

That's logical. Apple manufactures large amounts of iPods, so they can pay less. Newcomers don't have this chance.

This is why, in my opinion, trying to clone the iPod without introducing some major innovation is pointless. But some keep trying...


Why the heck should I there for buy an inferior product at a higher price simply to 'stick it to the man'?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by JAlexoid on Thu 30th Dec 2010 10:15 in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

The size and price is always, in every case, uncompetitive with the iPod; every time I see a competitor to the iPod they're the same price but with less space.


Really? The only reason I bought a Grundig MP3 player 2gb was because the damn thing is exactly 2 times cheaper than iPod shuffle 2gb.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Thu 30th Dec 2010 12:42 in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Really? The only reason I bought a Grundig MP3 player 2gb was because the damn thing is exactly 2 times cheaper than iPod shuffle 2gb.


Too bad you can't purchase it where I live - 2GB though would be entirely useless for me anyway given that I compress mind in 'true VBR' which ~320K which means I need the space.

I've yet for someone to show me where I can get a 160GB mp3 player that is the same or cheaper price than the iPod Classic. Ok, lets take the Cowon J3 for example which I can pick up NZ for NZ$462 for the 32GB model, or I can pay $38 more and get a mp3 player that has an operating system with access to a huge array of applications can be easily purchased from any high street retail store plus up to 3 years of operating system updates when compared to the 'lets abandon our customers after 6 months' mentality that Archos and Cowon seem to be happy to do.

Edited 2010-12-30 12:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by sc3252 on Fri 31st Dec 2010 10:26 in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
sc3252 Member since:
2005-09-06

iriver was the best from what I remember, at least while I used it. It was freaking sweat, it was hard drive based 20GB and had OGG support, yeah that free shit we like. Of course I have no clue if it supported anything like acc, but I remember really liking its ogg support. That was back in 2003 when there were lots of ipod competitors and most offered crap software to go along with their crap players, while irvier used drag and drop(like a removable hard drive).

Reply Parent Score: 3