Mobile Phones Take On The iPod


Music 4 Life can no longer keep quiet on the issue of mobile phones vs. the iPod (or any other dedicated portable music player). Today's Columbus Dispatch, and many other publications and media outlets, reports that wireless phone carriers and manufacturers are pushing their way into the online music market looking to dethrone the iPod. Bill Gates concurs, saying mobile phones powered by Windows Mobile 5.0 will surpass the iPod. Many experts see multimedia convergence in all-in-one portable phones allowing subscribers to listen to music, watch video, access email and make calls.

"Everyone wants to carry around something small, but they want to get as much bang for their bucks as they can, And they want to get as much into it as they can," says Verizon Wireless' John Kimmett in the Dispatch article.

Music 4 Life believes, for a variety of reasons, this Swiss Army knife approach will not work.

Why?

1) Poor audio quality of mobile phones.
2) Lack of built-in memory on mobile phones.
3) iPod's ease-of-use when compared to that of mobile phones.
4) Poor battery life of mobile phones.

Click "read more" to see full explanations of the above points.

First of all the audio quality of cell phones is not great when compared to dedicated music players such as the iPod. Sure, some phones have improved fidelity and may eventually equal the iPod. But not yet. And gimmicks such as ringtones and ringbacks are just that - gimmicks. The novelty of having Bono shout "Hello, hello, there's a place called Vertigo" every time I received a call wore thin - especially in staff meetings.

The next downfall of the cellphone is its built-in memory. Most have 128MB or less of built-in memory. Of course this can bumped up with additional memory cards but still does not come close to equaling my 20GB iPod. And its a hell of a long way from the 60GB iPod photo now available from Apple or the iRiver H300. One advantage the cellphone has is on-the-go downloading and streaming capabilities. Could this eventually be included in the iPod?

Third is the degree of difficulty in operating the all-in-one cellphone and the iPod. I consider myself to be fairly proficient with electronic gadgets and rarely resort to manuals and instructions. However, I'm yet to pick up a cellphone (I've owned five or six) that didn't have some degree of a learning curve. I've had my current phone for two weeks and still can't figure out how to operate the voice command functions. By contrast, the iPod was so intuitive that even my 80-year-old grandmother can use it. Cellphone manufacturers must certainly realize that we're still a a couple of decades away from having a core demographic that has grown up with computers and advanced electronic gadgetry that have the know-how and desire to use such complicated gizmos.

Fourth is the battery life issue. Do you remember a year or so ago when the Neistat Brothers got international attention with their film that brought the iPod's battery life issues into the spotlight? Well, it got Apple's attention and battery life on subsequent iPods has improved. Other portable music players have even better battery life. However, even the best cellphone can last only a few hours under constant use. I use my iPod as much as 10 hours a day and I'm not always near an outlet. If I were using my cellphone as my portable music player, I'd not only be out of tune, but also out of touch.

Finally, think about the replacement issues of a cellphone versus an iPod. If Apple introduces a bigger, better iPod that I can't live without, I sell my old one on eBay or to a friend and upgrade. If I lose my iPod, I cry for a bit and then shell out $99 to $349 for a new one. Its not so easy with a cellphone. There's all those nasty contracts and insurance claims to deal with. If I didn't have cellphone replacement insurance, I'd have to buy a new phone at cost and many times extend my cell carrier service agreement (better known as a long-term commitment contract).

The truth is cellphones do many things, but not many things do they do well. In theory Annie Leibovitz wouldn't use a camera phone to capture a priceless moment for Rolling Stone and Tom Clancy could hammer out a novel on a BlackBerry. But they won't. Why, then, should a music fan listen to a limited amount of music with limited fidelity on a bulky gadget with a completely different primary function than delivering tunes?

http://www.dispatch.com/default.php?sec=business&subsec=connect
(subscription required)

http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/12/technology/personaltech/gates_cellphones.reut/

Posted: Mon - May 23, 2005 at 10:16 PM      

©