02 Feb 2005 | Darrel said...

Apple has remained succesful because it puts usefulness before coolness.

I agree with you, it's a usefulness wave moreso than a coolness one.

02 Feb 2005 | stp said...

The Walkman managed to stay the king of the hill for quite awhile.... I don't think Apple has much to worry about any time soon.

02 Feb 2005 | Benjy said...

I think that the iPod will remain popular because it's useful and well designed. Good products will always have their market, whether they're trendy or not.

While there may be many out there who bought BMW's simply because they wanted the status that went along with owning the hot car at the time, there are others who bought them for the performance, build quality, etc. And there will always be that market as long as they continue to live up to that reputation.

The iPod should be no different.

02 Feb 2005 | h said...

U2 ipod. the shark has jumped. oh yes.

02 Feb 2005 | Blake Scarbrough said...

Once the iPod makes it to Walmart Stores (looks like they are getting closer) that is when it becomes less cool. Nothing against Walmart, but flooding the market so much that everyone can easily get one makes it less cool.

Apple won't complain, more units sold is good.

The solution would be to keep innovating and staying ahead of the crowd, that is how you create buzz.

02 Feb 2005 | Emily Petrick said...

Nobody ever tires of BMWs do they? Or Barcelona chairs? (Fill in the blank)

But yes, if they sold them at Wal-Mart, that would be the undoing for me.

02 Feb 2005 | Rob said...

I don't think iPods will lose their popularity in the market, because its well designed and useful. I agree with others, that Apple puts usefulness before coolnes factor in their products. Good Design has longevity..(i.e. Architecture, etc..it stands the test of time. And iPods are here to stay.

Trends, like those in the fashion industry tend to loose their coolness, because of the exclusivity. And nothing more than that. A great example, Trucker Hats.. ala Von Dutch. Its not useful, just trendy/cool.

-R

02 Feb 2005 | Craig said...

2nd the U2 iPod comment.

I agree that the iPod+iTunes is probably the most usefull music app out there, and probably won't be seriously challenged for some time. However Apple has been letting usefullness take a backseat to coolness for sometime.

The classic starting point of this trend is when the Apple logo on the back of every powerbook was flipped so it displayed right-side-up for everyone except the person using it. Orginally, when a powerbook was closed the logo oriented the owner as to which way was forward (a feature needed even more on current laptops).

Sadly, you make more money when your cool.

02 Feb 2005 | SU said...

The classic starting point of this trend is when the Apple logo on the back of every powerbook was flipped so it displayed right-side-up for everyone except the person using it. Orginally, when a powerbook was closed the logo oriented the owner as to which way was forward (a feature needed even more on current laptops).

However, the Apple logo is not symmetrical and once you realize it's flipped, it's just as easy to orient -- it doesn't have to be "up," it just needs to be directional. I really haven't seen a single iBook/Powerbook user confused about the location of the latch.

02 Feb 2005 | matt said...

Yes! The iPod jumped the 'cool' shark with the Black/Red U2 model,. I think we're building a consensus here.

02 Feb 2005 | daveg said...

They need to put out a chewbacca edition and they'll be fine.

02 Feb 2005 | Bob H. said...

Wired has it listed as 'Tired' but Apple can keep it hot by adding new functionality to it like coming out with the iPod photo and combining stuff into one machine. Perhaps the height will be a full PDA.

02 Feb 2005 | Geoff said...

iPods are going to die as soon as your cellphone can play as many (or enough) mp3s as the ipod... You'll be able to download music directly to your phone - imagine if you could connect to the itunes store right now with your iPod.

it's only a matter of time...

02 Feb 2005 | Jamie said...

They are selling iPods at Wal Mart. Well, the Shuffle at least. But I think the key is usefulness rather than "cool". iPod + iTunes is just a really great combo that no other companies can offer. IMHO, the Sony PSP is way cooler than the iPod ... but that doesn't mean I would buy it just for the "cool factor".

02 Feb 2005 | Bob H. said...

Then let's have a iPod cell phone.

02 Feb 2005 | Christopher Baus said...

Personally I think the days of hipness are numbered. Now everybody on the Muni is SF has an iPod. The cool kids aren't going to like that. They'll start deriding the iPod as overpriced and start going for more hackable boxes and such.

iPod is turning into the Gap. The cool kids don't shop at the gap.

02 Feb 2005 | Jacob Rask said...

I already know lots of people who replace their white earphones, some just not to feel like they're bragging (at least before), and some probably because they feel the retro 80's headphones are more hip.

02 Feb 2005 | neilio said...

Then let's have a iPod cell phone.

Dear lord, please no. If there's anything that could kill this useful wave, it's the seemingly unstoppable urge of tech companies to combine seemingly disparate objects into one ubertool.

Maybe it's just the Luddite in me, but on some days I can barely figure out my cell phone, never mind a cell phone with calendar, phone book, alarm, calculator, digital camera, etc. The iPod is good because it's so straightforward, and because the other bits (the calendar, contacts, games) have not taken over its main reason for existing: play my music.

Adding a cell phone in there is just asking for complexity, in my opinion.

02 Feb 2005 | Dan said...

Until the Shuffle came out, I was sure that Apple had jumped the shark when they debuted the iPod Photo. I guess I just don't see the big deal about a really expensive iPod that lets you look at tiny versions of real pictures.

At any rate, the Shuffle rounds out a pretty solid suite of devices (and that includes the Photo). But once you start mentioning phrases like "rounds out," that definitely puts Apple in the precarious position of having maxed out the iPod's initial potential.

The next wave of iPods needs to have one of two things -- wireless iTMS integration (not likely) or built-in Bluetooth (more likely considering its gaining popularity). But even added Bluetooth compatibility isn't terribly groundbreaking... here's hoping the geniuses at Apple can come with better ideas than mine.

02 Feb 2005 | ek said...

Re: the iPod cellphone, Apple announced a partnership with Motorola some months back to develop just that, and Moto demoed a prototype at the CES show a week before Macworld, so it's coming sooner than you think.

Still, I don't think the iPod phone is going to supplant the single-purpose iPod, not for a good long while at least.

On a different note, does anyone know where this "jump the shark" expression came from?

02 Feb 2005 | Doug said...

I've wondered this same thing, but on the flip side of the scale. If things were reversed, and Apple were in Microsoft's position, dominating the PC market, would we still love Apple as much? Obviously Apple is a different kind of company -- one which places high priority on design, simplicity, quality, and utility. So that sets them apart. But I wonder if people like to cheer for them more simply because they're the underdog.

The music player market has been an interesting one to watch, because of how well the iPod has done. I still think my iPod is one of the coolest devices I've owned, because of the use *I* get out of it -- I don't care if there are $99 versions of Shuffle selling at Walmart. The iPod is personal to me, dead simple to use, and feels great. The fact that sales of iPods as a whole might quadruple in a year because of the Shuffle doesn't phase me one bit.

And the U2 iPod? C'mon. Yeah, it's stupid (and ugly). But Apple has made other mistakes like that in the past too, and they didn't suffer much for them. Just look at the patterned flavors of the iMac that were out several years ago.

On a more micro level, I've also wondered about the coolness of white headphone cords, and how long they'll stay that way. In San Francisco, you see them everywhere, so you assume everyone has an iPod. But I saw someone with white cords pull out what I thought would be an iPod the other day, and to my surprise, it was some other foreign player I didn't recognize. Let the knockoffs begin.

02 Feb 2005 | 8500 said...

The iPod has jumped but not landed.

I see people using the iPod on Chicago public transit everyday. Too bad they are all boring yuppie clones. The punk rock kids are carrying small flash based players with screens...

02 Feb 2005 | Craig said...

eK: "jumped the shark" comes from a Happy Days episode where the ever cool Fonz did just that. The show was widely believed to have sunk in quality after that.

Twenty (or so) years later, a Web site popped up with that name, and listed other TV shows started to suck. The site pretty much pushed the phrase into the mainstream.

02 Feb 2005 | ek said...

Hey Craig, thanks a lot for the info!

Re: the iPod phone, you can read more about the Apple/Moto deal at PC Magazine's Web site. Here's a snippet:

Speaking during a keynote at the International Consumer Electronics Show here, the executive [a Motorola exec] demonstrated a phone that in many ways mimics the iPod.

The phone syncs with a computer and the iTunes Music Store like an iPod does, and incorporates an iPod-like interface for navigating and playing digital music, said Ron Garriques, a Motorola executive vice president.

But a Motorola representative clarified on Friday that the phone shown during the keynote was not the actual iTunes phone that is slated for release this year. Instead, it was a Motorola E398 equipped with the iTunes functionality for the demonstration.

The upcoming phone is the first of many Motorola devices that will support iTunes this year, said Garriques, also president of Motorola's personal devices business. He didn't provide product details for the phone or say when it would be available.

02 Feb 2005 | Darrel said...

"iPods are going to die as soon as your cellphone can play as many (or enough) mp3s as the ipod."

I can hardly make a phone call with the horrendous interface on my Cellphone. I don't think cellphones will pose anythreat anytime soon. ;o)

Besides, it looks like Apple has that covered already.

The iPod is, in many ways, like the Walkman (as was mentioned) or even a boom box. It's now an every day object that will be useful for some time to come.

I want to know when the phrase 'jumping the shark' will jump the shark.

02 Feb 2005 | Dan said...

8500: Stereotyping is lame. My wife and I live and work in Chicago, own iPods and certainly don't consider ourselves to be "yuppie clones." Besides, punk rock kids have never been the ones to drive market share.

Darrel, et al: The cell phone idea just reeks of brand dilution.

Doug: That's a good point about Apple supporters and their motivation for that support. Conversely, I've noticed that whenever Apple does something right with the masses, the detractors come out in force, and boy, are they vicious. Essentially, they insult iPod users as though they're a slave in some sort of weird cult. And it always makes me wonder... these are the same people that have welcomed a neocapitalist scoundrel like Bill Gates into their daily lives.

02 Feb 2005 | One of several Steves said...

Products are like people: you are cool, or you're not. You can't be cool. You just are.

As soon as you start trying to be cool, you are the exact polar opposite of cool. If Apple ever starts trying to be cool with the iPod, we'll know it's jumped the shark. (I'll leave people to surmise on their own where the U2 iPod fits into that scheme.)

On a somewhat side note, I'm continually baffled by people who think the iPod would be even cooler if it crammed every possible function into it. The iPod works because it's simple. You cannot have a phone/PDA/MP3 player/camera/toaster/hand warmer/shield against evil spirits and have it be simple. Most of those tools currently have a hard time being simple just performing their core function, let alone with a whole bunch of "convergence" thrown in.

02 Feb 2005 | One of several Steves said...

I want to know when the phrase 'jumping the shark' will jump the shark.

About two years ago: Esquire: Has Jump the Shark Jumped the Shark?

02 Feb 2005 | ek said...

Most of those tools currently have a hard time being simple just performing their core function, let alone with a whole bunch of "convergence" thrown in.

Man, One of several Steves, I could not agree more.

...these are the same people that have welcomed a neocapitalist scoundrel like Bill Gates into their daily lives.

Neo-capitalist? Gates seems like an old-school capitalist to me. And before bashing Bill Gates, I think you should take a second to recognize that he's done a whole hell of a lot more to improve the world than you or Steve Jobs for that matter. He has every right to keep every cent he's earned, but, instead, he's donated billions to fund life saving and educational initiatives the world over.

And it's funny that your comment should come within the same post in which you wrote: "stereotyping is lame."

02 Feb 2005 | Rimantas said...

Why not to ask another question -- why is iPod so popular?
That's because it succeeds on all three layers our brain operates:
visceral (it is nice), behavioral (it is easy to operate) and reflective (we understand its coolness and we admire some nice concepts).
Product that hits the nail on those cannot help but be successful.

03 Feb 2005 | Dan O said...

This is the second post Jason has made in the last month or two questioning the end of Apple's popularity in the products they offer...

Sounds like somebody is a little jealous. :)

03 Feb 2005 | 8500 said...

"Dan said...8500: Stereotyping is lame."

Just think of it as "building personas". It's an everyday practice in marketing and information architecture. We are talking trends here and the younger, hipper crowd (in my direct, daily observations) are not using the iPod. The older 30+ crowd seems to be the ones snapping up the pods and they are not the target market for most music.

Of course that is purely aenecdotal but isn't this entire thread?

03 Feb 2005 | Dan said...

8500: I see people of all kinds in Chicago using iPods. So I guess we'll agree to disagree.

EK: 1) My opinions of Bill Gates have absolutely nothing to do with the concept of stereotyping, I have no idea where you could have made that connection. 2) Did you really have to get personal in your attack of my opinions? Of course I haven't enriched the world as a singular person in any meaningful fashion. Who the hell am I? Who the hell are any of us? To go there really isn't necessary. 3) I understand that Bill Gates has donated ridiculous amounts of money. But to say that his philanthropy excuses Microsoft's predatory and unethical behavior is akin to excusing mob-controlled city governments (heh, like that of Chicago) for their own corruption just because Fat Paulie makes sure that hospitals, schools and theatres get built. 4) Good point, Gates is definitely an old school capitalist in his beliefs. It's his tactics that are new school.

03 Feb 2005 | tex said...

When was it ever cool?

03 Feb 2005 | Darrel said...

he's done a whole hell of a lot more to improve the world than you or Steve Jobs for that matter

Huh?

he's donated billions to fund life saving and educational initiatives the world over.

Oh, yes. Of course. Once billionaires donate to a cause, they are given that free ticket to heaven. Sorry...I forgot about that clause in the mega-capitalist handbook. ;o)

Really, Gates isn't evil...he's just opportunistic, and has done a fine job at it. I'm sure he's a nice guy, too. That said, his company has rarely been one to produce anything resembling innovation or quality when compared to the competition...and they haven't always been the bastions of corporate ethics (then again, who HAS these days, right? ;o)

Granted, I'll take a billionaire that donates to causes and *isn't* a fan of 'reforming' the 'death tax' over most other options. So I'll concede that point. ;o)

03 Feb 2005 | kageki said...

anyone who makes commentary on "the coolness of white ear phones" is definitely not cool.

Really, who gives a rat-crap what color your earbuds are. Cool people don't care, that's the very essence of cool: dettachment. You do your thing, rest of the world be damned.

Less noise, more music!

03 Feb 2005 | Don Schenck said...

When Jack Nicholson says it's cool ... it's cool. Or Samuel L. Jackson.

:-)

Chill, folks, with the ad hominem attacks. It's a frickin' music player for crying out loud! Sheesh.

03 Feb 2005 | 8500 said...

Don, did you see Samuel Jackson on the Sports Center hot seat several weaks ago? They asked him if he were the coolest guy in hollywood (or something that effect). He replied that Morgan Freeman is actually cooler so I'd add MF to that list.

03 Feb 2005 | Don Schenck said...

He's so cool, he's even modest! Brilliant!

03 Feb 2005 | ek said...

Dan, sorry about that, didn't mean to get personal, but I have to say that your message riled me.

I mean, no stereotyping? Look at what you wrote about people who don't like iPod users — when you say they've all welcomed the scoundrel Bill Gates into their lives aren't you stereotyping? You make it sound as if they all have an agenda and that they're all fans of Microsoft.

And what exactly is it other than his "neocaptialism" that makes Bill Gates a scoundrel? You think Steve Jobs sits down and sings kumbaya with his competitors and suppliers? You should go ask the Konfabulator guy how "ethical" he thinks Apple is.

Did you really have to get personal in your attack of my opinions? Of course I haven't enriched the world as a singular person in any meaningful fashion. Who the hell am I? Who the hell are any of us? To go there really isn't necessary.

Nice of you to say that now, after calling an individual a "scoundrel." Why is that okay — because he's not here to defend himself? If you don't like being called out yourself, why are you doing it to someONE else?

But to say that his philanthropy excuses Microsoft's predatory and unethical behavior is akin to excusing mob-controlled city governments (heh, like that of Chicago) for their own corruption just because Fat Paulie makes sure that hospitals, schools and theatres get built.

Who said that? I said you have no right to call Bill Gates, the individual, a scoundrel. You are creating a linkage where none exists.

Microsoft, the company, is subject to the laws of the countries in which it operates and, when it exceeds the legal boundaries of those countries, it should be punished accordingly — you'll get no argument from me on that.

Darrel, as "just good enough" as Microsoft's products are, if it weren't for the company, personal computers would be far less accessible than they are today. MS, more than any other company, deserves credit for bringing computing to the masses. Maybe that's not an innovation per se, but they certainly have changed the way millions upon millions of individuals and businesses work.

Granted, I'll take a billionaire that donates to causes and *isn't* a fan of 'reforming' the 'death tax' over most other options. So I'll concede that point. ;o)

Doesn't it seem like most of the super rich are against a repeal of the "death tax?" Such is the wonder of the modern-day Republican party — they've shown a remarkable ability to get Joe and Jane America to vote against his and her own economic interests.

03 Feb 2005 | Dan said...

EK: Just drop it already, geez.

03 Feb 2005 | Darrel said...

they've shown a remarkable ability to get Joe and Jane America to vote against his and her own economic interests.

EK, a must read:

Don't Think Of An Elphant

It talks about that very myth...that people vote for their best interests.

03 Feb 2005 | ek said...

Hey Darrel, thanks for that link — the description makes it sound like an interesting read indeed.

It is baffling to me that the left has taken so long to understand the importance of language in framing the debate around these critical issues. How can the Democratic leadership be so dumb as to allow the Republicans to own the term "Pro Life?" The Dems should all run out and let the world know that they're "Pro Life" as well, but also believe in a women's fundamental right to choose what happens to her own body. They can't run away from that expression, they need to subsume it (or, in other words, take a page from Bill Gates and "embrace and extend" ;-).

It doesn't take a genius to see this. Perhaps Howard Dean's seeming realization of this problem and his push for increased influence within the DNC will start to turn the tide, but I still don't see the Dems doing anything to alter the language landscape.

04 Feb 2005 | Darrel said...

I'm only half way throught he book but it's made me see this much more clearly myself. It'd definitely a war of words.

04 Feb 2005 | Randy said...

It doesn't take a genius to see this. Perhaps Howard Dean's seeming realization of this problem and his push for increased influence within the DNC will start to turn the tide, but I still don't see the Dems doing anything to alter the language landscape.

Yup, I men did you see Reid's response after the State of the Union? Was that the weakest crap you've ever heard or what? No wonder the Dems keep slipping. They have nothing to say. No real positions to offer. No change besides "it's time for a change."

04 Feb 2005 | Dan said...

No wonder the Dems keep slipping. They have nothing to say. No real positions to offer. No change besides "it's time for a change."

Randy, you're absolutely right. I forget which pundit show it was, but one of the regulars said that the election proved that "a plan with no vision beats vision with no plan." And that's where the Dems find themselves, having enough vision to talk about change but no ideas on how to accomplish change. It seems these days that the Democrats' main strategy is to react to whatever the Bush Administration is doing.

What annoys me are the people who continue to raise a huge stink over everything that Bush does. Yeah, he sucks, we get it. But the fact of the matter is that we had a chance to vote him out of office and we blew it. Did I feel like I just got punched in the stomach on election night? Yes. But what's done is done, get over it and just hope that in four years, someone better than that dope Kerry will represent the jackass emblem.

04 Feb 2005 | ek said...

Yes. But what's done is done, get over it and just hope that in four years, someone better than that dope Kerry will represent the jackass emblem.

LOL! Exactly!

Or better yet, people who were disappointed with the outcome of the election should get involved and work towards effecting change ourselves. We have a long four years before the next election and the advantage of not having to go against a sitting President or VP. It's time to let go of the "Bush sucks" mantra and come up with ideas that have relevance for regular folks.

05 Feb 2005 | Jop said...

It has jumped the shark for me already. I sold mine. First off, I am not alone enough to listen to these amounts of music on a headphone, then I am not into music enough to carry my whole collection with me all the time. Okay the last points were personal. Now, I can tell something has jumped the shark once people not only "own it", but start wearing it outside their clothes. Like mobile phones. The item then enters the status symbol zone. For instance, there is this gym I go to in this pretty lower-middle class part of the city, you know, where those guys go to work out who have a deep tan on 365 days of the year, wear really tight pants, are always clean shaven and drive fancy cars (well, as fancy as they can afford them). They were the ones who first sported the "moon wash" and "ice wash" jeans, the "t-shirt made from towel" t-shirts, the mullet, the blonde streaks on top with shaved sides haircut, etc, etc.
It seems that the iPod is really popular with those guys right now, everyone has one and proudly "wears" it. I once saw a guy who had this strap around his impressive biceps, and there was an iPod strapped to his upper arm!!! I wondered what he was listening to on the iPod. Then I thought I probably shouldn't care.

Anyway, it's a sure sign that the iPod is not a cool item now, we'll have to wait a few years until it's normal to have one.

05 Feb 2005 | jbelkin said...

A lot of competitors and many analysts who don't understand this new market and consumer paradigm cloud the issue with FUD and plain outright lies or perhaps they are just idiots.

What analysts fail to see because they while they follow tech companies, they are not really tech savvy or tech interested themselves.

Or in the case of jump the shark, they want to sneer at the masses with the only-I-saw-it-coming scenario except in this case, like the Walkman; they have another several hundred million units and years to wait.

The key component is that CONSUMERS have overwhelmingly chosen Mp3 - not any company nor any standards group. CONSUMERS. That's the key. Mp3 captured about 99% of the digital audio format without any major software or hardware manufacturers involved. The first rippers/converters were all minor players or shareware fanboys who created them. Same with the first hardware players.

Microsoft has been selling and pushing WMA for nearly 10 years. Real came along a little later, Liquid Audio, Sony ATRAC, et al. All REJECTED by the majority of CONSUMERS. And unlike other formats that manufacturers or software sellers could decide on in the old days consumers looked, listened and went with Mp3. Microsoft did include Mp3 playback with their audio player but like their strategy from the last war figured they could entice people and then switch them over because WMA sounded superior.

Even if WMA did sound superior, it was an incremental increase for more work why bother when 99% of their friends and internet friends all have mp3s?

IPOD WILL NOT JUMP THE SHARK

Thats the key why iPods will NOT jump the shark. IPods are designed as music players by people who actually listen to music. That seems to be an obvious and dumb point but just go and test out 4 other players tell me they were designed for music listening or by engineers working on a limited budget to get all the features in?

Microsoft is more interested in selling the DRM than they are the music. Like with every other business venture nowadays, they are interested in turning everything into a monthly revenue stream like their software maintenance contracts hence the $5 watch OS to the $10 Xbox online charge to the music subscription service. They are not interested in trying to sell you and then having to re-sell you, they just want a monthly contract from you and this extends out to everything they are trying from to get involved with cable companies to cell phone companies to perhaps the latest, the anti-virus subscription.

So, analysts think when consumers pick AAC M4p over WMA, its the MS versus Apple battle of yore NO, IT IS NOT. Consumers do NOT care as long as the Mp3 plays. If Apple sold WMA tracks instead of AAC m4p tracks that loaded just as easily consumers would buy those. Its NOT Coke vs. Pepsi. Its - do you want your drink in a glass or paper cup? Consumers have already decided what they are drinking (mp3s) all theyve decided on is the cup here because they want to carry it outside the store. If you want the convenience of taking the drink outside, do you really care how the cup is designed? NO. If they ask you, you might pick but as long as it doesnt spill who cares what color the cup is same with AAC versus WMA.

FASHION FADES?

Yes, its fashionable but its not a fad. Listening to portable music is only a fad to people who do not listen to that much music. More people have been listening to music longer than the number of people who can read until recently is reading a fad to you also? So, if you dont get it dont try and impose what you dont get on others.

But the key component here and Im sure to Apples surprise is the mass number of third-party add-ons. The person with an ipod tattoo is not the same as the ipod in a Gucci or the ipod in leather or even the mini or now the shuffle. You can add on recorders, $500 headphones and the ability to read the Bill of Rights. You can listen to classical, hip-hop, a book or a guy talking about cars on NPR. Its simply NOT the same product to everyone.

The ipod is functional and customizable so even though its a mass-market product, hardly any of them look the same and since it changes from year to year you even have the addition of old school ipod versus newbie.

But the most important thing is its functionality. If it was a purely fashion then youre right, eventually it would fall out of fashion but as long as Apple maintains its usefulness and best-of-class features, why switch?

Yes, everyone wants to be the cool-one who was first to say something jump the shark, but in this case, they are 200 million units and years away from that day.

Just like the ipod (with the help of mp3 pioneers and manufacturers who didnt get it right) was a quantum leap over a mix CD/cassette Walkman (having to carry discs still limited to whats on that disc subject to skipping not much track info) to being able to carry 10,000 tracks, move them around at will rapidly in a container about the size of a deck of cards whats next? Provided that Apple lets others take the lead, thats when the iPod will jump the shark.

05 Feb 2005 | milo said...

That's not what jump the shark means!! The iPod may become uncool at some point, but that doesn't mean it will have jumped the shark. Jumping the shark is something Happy Days DID that was stupid, and that characterized the low quality of the rest of its life.

So When Apple DOES something really stupid, thinking the iPod's popularity will cause people to by the new stupid product anyway, then it will have jumped the shark. Note that this can't be predicted, it's always seen in hindsight. So looking forward, the people might have expected that selling an iPod with no screen would fit the bill. But in hindsight we see that iPod Shuffle is extremely popular. Maybe if the 5G iPod abandons the clickwheel or something it will jump the shark. Bt the point is that it involves more than just slipping popularity. It's gotta be a design choice on the part of Apple that does it.

07 Feb 2005 | Michiel said...

Maybe I'm a total freak, but I usually don't go around thinking the gadgets I use are less cool because everyone has one. (well, I did once but I was 12 at the time)

07 Feb 2005 | 8500 said...

"So When Apple DOES something really stupid..."

Like releasing a flash based music player with no screen?

07 Feb 2005 | Franny said...

Hello?

Didn't anyone else think to themselves when the iPod came out that the name was wierd?

If it was supposed to be an MP3 player, they would have said as much. Photos are just the beginning (stop thinking Palm, Windows CE, cellphone).

Think of a simple tool, that every human would need. It could act as a remote for your house, a language translator, a payment method, etc.

The iPod is not an MP3 player, they just started there because selling digital purses would've been lame.

*(The shuffle is indeed ONLY an MP3 player, and was created simply because the franchise is just too big to not try to get that last third of the marketshare, it's kind of an EFF YOU to Gates/Dell too, basically saying, you're not going to squeeze the profit out of this product sector too like you've done with everything else (PCs, laptops, servers, printers, PDAs, etc.)).

08 Feb 2005 | beto said...

I find all these comments about the iPod becoming uncool because of its current "ubiquity" and "everybody havinf one". In the big, hip, cosmopolitan cities of America? Maybe. Not so "south of the border", beg your pardon. Here, iPods are still quite rare, and youngsters still cling to their Walkmans and Discmans. Even with the iPod Shuffle at $99, that sum of money is no chump change for the average Latin American youngster. Add to it the fact that the iPod shuffle without a computer is essentially useless, and you can see how it isn't just a fact of a "$99 MP3 player".

No intention to poop on anyone's parade - just some third world reality check. iPods will probably become more frequent in the future, but it will take some more time to see that.

10 Feb 2005 | kristoff said...

Guess I'm a little late to the party, but isn't the coolness factor of the iPod largely dictated by the same people who own/prefer other Apple products, and hence (forgive me) tend to be a little over-protective of it? The mac-users I know all think their computer is the best thing since sliced bread (though what does that say about the people I know eh) and will not accept any alternative. In fact, it occurs to me that many of them seem to overlook the fact that PC/Windows/Insert your alternative brand here-users seem to get things done as well.

Regardless of the above observation, here the iPod does not seem to be any more or less cool than any other player. Probably just a more expensive one.

11 Feb 2005 | Mike D. said...

I just wrote a long rambling essay about this a few weeks ago. See The iPod End Game.