And tied to Sony's stupid atrac format (okay, and mp3). Losers again.

Stay focused Apple. Play it smart, think ahead. You have a good thing going, don't blow it and learn from your past mistakes.

The article didn't say what music formats these players support.

I think Sony did a nice job. If these had an Apple logo on them, we might be singing a different tune. Too bad their interface still looks complex next to the uber-easy iPod's.

Still, the FM tuner option, 3 min charge for 3 hrs of play, is a nice touch. Don't care for the round one, or the price increase that comes with offering LCD. Finally, why even offer a 256 version?

Nice battery life. You can buy 4 re-chargeable AAA batteries for about 6 bucks. Ok, and let's say a charger costs $25 or so.

In other words, for an extra $30 you can get 280 hours of play-time from these things?

I can see that appealing to a lot of people.

It's still not an iPod and that's why it won't sell. No one wants a knock off.

Does it realy support MP3 or does it convert the tracks to Atrac before loading them to the player?

first reaction: they look really nice. It's not Apple, it's not iTMS compatible, maybe not even mac compatible, but it's a form factor with definite appeal to me. Since I'm mostly mac, I won't buy one, but this is something I could buy for a hardcore PC fan.

I do happen to like Sony and Philips, who I always put in the same boat as Apple as far as usability goes (consumer electronics, not PC's)...

Sony's big thing is that they've got the possibility to integrate these players properly with their other entertainment products: if they can provide proper dock support for these in their car-audio products I can see it being a big seller. Select your playlist from the steering-wheel controls while the portable-player is recharging.

*that* would be a big seller - and Sony would "own the experience" in a way which Apple never can. Ah, if only Apple would partner with the likes of Harman-Kardon or Kenwood and offer full iPod-to-car-audio integration.

Is it just me, or do the NW-E4xx series (which, by the way, sure rolls off the tongue) look like little perfume bottles?

Speaking of stinky, let's bring back the old comments format. This one is much more difficult to read.

Quote

jimothy wrote:
Is it just me, or do the NW-E4xx series (which, by the way, sure rolls off the tongue) look like little perfume bottles?

Speaking of stinky, let's bring back the old comments format. This one is much more difficult to read.

I concur. Manufacturers come up with gawd awful names for their products. xyz-99900. What the #@!$ is that? Enterprise serial number? I like apple's naming scheme. Real names, not a serial number.

Perfume bottles? Looks like a Tamagotchi!

Agreed - Unless you're a car company, the letters/numbers don't make for much of a product name. People remember the Walkman name, but not the "Network Walkman (NW) E-100" The E-100 means nothing to the consumer.

Here's your consumer reactions:

iPod shuffle = "Oh, I get it, it's called a shuffle because it shuffle's songs!"
iPod mini = "Oh, look, it's a little mini iPod!"

NW-E1000 = "So, is this thing like an iPod?"

[quote="Guest"]The article didn't say what music formats these players support.

Read it again!

Next to last paragraph..."The new Sony players also support the generic MP3 audio format, as well as its proprietary Atrac format."

Are those condoms and stop-watch mini-dildos or do mine eyes deceive me?

When are companies like Sony and Microsoft going to stop using proprietary media file formats? MPEG4 AAC is an ISO standard file format. Microsoft owns wma and wmv. Sony owns Atrac. I don't want to have to purchase a license from either Sony or Microsoft for anything. Period.

Here's why I think Sony still doesn't get it:

1. Unless they have some way to dramatically improve the Connect store, ATRAC is dead, and it's the only protected format on it. They don't even support WMA (protected or not).

2. Over at The Register, it says that the 50 hours is for power-saving mode and using 105Kbps ATRAC. Although I'm sure it's more than 12 hours, why won't Sony just be up-front and tell me how much battery life is needed for 160kbps MP3? This deception is a loser, especially when Sony is a clear-cut leader in battery life (I have a Sony camcorder and its battery kicks ass.) Sony, show me how great you are in an oranges-to-oranges comparison?

3. The display is nice, but does it help with navigation? Doesn't look like it. So you're paying 30-50% more (for the 512MB) to get longer battery life, display, and pretty design/colors. Sony is still acting like it can charge a premium, but until they have a semblance of quality in the other two components - music store and jukebox, it's hard to see how these will be "killers".

4. The names! Why didn't they call them Network Walkman Rechargeable, Network Walkman AAA, and Network Walkman FM Rechargeable, instead of all those numbers? Even these silly names are better than the numbers. When will they learn?

It's another portable flash player. Neato, but I still don't exactly see how it delivers a key reason that I bought a shuffle, integration with my existing jukebox software and mp3 library.

Before the Shuffle came out, I bought a Mpio flash player for myself, and while I thought it looked okay and played just fine - there were three major issues I had with it that drove me to also purchase an iPod Shuffle:

1.) UI was lacking. Not bad, but confusing - it took a while to figure out, and it requires me to really peer at it to make sure I'm adjusting volume/track/EQ properly.

2.) Didn't integrate with iTunes at all. I had to create a random, smart playlist for it, and then manually refresh it myself (I also had to make sure the playlist didn't include any file types that it didn't like)

3.) Didn't account for the Macintosh resource fork files when copying over to its filesystem - I needed to write an Applescript to strip all the resource files off it before unplugging it from my system.

That said, the Mpio isn't too bad of a player, and it still gets quite a bit of use since I use it for podcasts. The Shuffle gets used for music files since that is really what it does best.

However, I really feel that this new Sony product will suffer from the exact same problems. Now maybe with a PC, these issues won't exist, but I didn't see anything in the description that states that it plays nice with the Windows DRM (We already know it won't play nice with Apple's). If this is the case, sorry, but it's a loser since it won't play music you've bought online from anybody. I might be a neat little mp3 player, but it won't tempt me because I'm a Mac user, and I doubt it will tempt all the PC users if it doesn't cover the Microsoft DRM.

...and I totally agree that Sony's name for it just has no style. I know that not every company is into the 'branding' thing with their products, but these mp3 players stand out because of their design and style as much as their functionality. Maybe I'm more sensitive to this sort of thing because of the platform I use, but I can't help thinking that Apple's system of giving their products distinct names has helped bond their users to the products.

NW-whatever... do these guys have a marketing department?

And they still dont understand that people dont want to press a fwd button until the song they want appears on the tiiiiny little display.
And without iTunes shuffling makes no sense - the most excellent feature of all iPods is iTunes, and nobody can copy that.

I likle the E-400/500 (WHY, oh WHY can't they give these things decent names?!)

If they were Mac-conmpatible, I'd give it a shot. I was initially intrigued by the shuffle not having a display, but it's seeming more and more a mistake to me.

(3G and shuffle owner)

You mean they're BIGGER AND MORE EXPENSIVE? Where do I sign up?

Anyone else notice that these don't look like they'll be too useful as USB flash drives. I guess you could use the included cable, but the design doesn't look like it includes the usb male port, and who knows about the software.

So,

Sony will not get the techie "I needed a flash drive anyway" purchase. Coupled with Apple's lower prices, Apple attacks a bigger segment than Sony does, right off the bat.

Sony looks to be going after the highend, "fashionable" flash player segment. Who knows maybe this segment is big in markets like Japan, but I doubt it is bigger than Apple's lowcost and utility segment (not too mention iPod branding and software reputation)

Also, if you want high end fashionable, Sony isn't competing against the Shuffle, but competes against the iPod mini at $199 (except the mini isn't wearable, I guess)

Anyway, at some point iPod share has to go down, and some people will probably want to buy something else to stand out. Sony will probably just have to wait for that day, and with these flash models they're in a good position.

Quote

Billy K wrote:
I likle the E-400/500 (WHY, oh WHY can't they give these things decent names?!)

Because Sony makes so many thousands of products that if they named them all the entire vocabulary of the world would be used up and we could no longer speak.

This is great!

First the iPod killers went after the iPod at $399. Then Apple introduced the mini, and the iPod killers went after the mini at $249. Now Apple introduces the shuffle, and the iPod killers are going after the shuffle at $99.

From $399 to $99, Apple has them moving on down to the low-end, while Apple is busily creating the next great thing at the more profitable end!

Time to go get more Apple stock...

why can apple only squeeze 12 hours with a mp3 player with no screen when sony can get 50 with a screen?

When I read "cigarette lighter size I envisioned a Zippo not a Bic, I guess I am dating myself. Anyway the colors remind me of the G3 gumdrop iMacs and they are nice, I am getting a little tired of the "snow" color.

jimothy mentioned that the cigarette lighter size looks like a perfume bottle. that could be a big selling point for certain demographic.

Are they a threat? Time will tell, but the iPod is certainly entrenched.

Yeah right. Buying a Sony 1GB mp3 player for $300+ bux is like saying "Let's go to the airport and drink!"

H. Michael Karshis

I think they look nice, although in a totally different syle than an iPod. And they're priced right. They could probably be Apple's only real competitor in the market.

Which would force out WMA.

Butt ugly.

These are legacy of Nobuyuki Idei/Kunitake Ando's era.

With Howard Stringer as the new Chairman cum CEO, content is king and gadget is second. It is likely that Sony will sacrifice its own propriety format & gadget for the sake of pushing content.

So, we might see Sony supporting AAC/FairPlay fairly soon.

...that's what they look like to me. Does the yo-yo light up when you pull the string?

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Yeah right. Buying a Sony 1GB mp3 player for $300+ bux is like saying "Let's go to the airport and drink!"

H. Michael Karshis

You got that right


The more the competition improves, and this is an improvement, stylistically speaking, the more I think Apple was right to keep iTunes, iPods, and fairplay a closed standard for now.

They don't need to maintain their stranglehold to keep this profitable - even a slide back to 50% marketshare is acceptable, because none of the competition will be making much money with wma, atrac, or whatever the hell they're peddling. Sony steals sales from Creative steals sales from Dull steals sales from Rio steals sales from Yahoo, etc. MS steals sales from Walmart steals sales from Napster steals sales from Real steals sales from Virgin, etc. They are in direct competiton with one another, whereas Apple's whole widget approach just keeps growing and getting better with every million ipods sold and the daily million+ downloaded songs. Soon there will be enough iPods out there to achieve critical mass, where the whole system will remain profitable even if growth slows to a crawl.

Nice enough players Sony, but the Shuffle is still cheaper and more elegant... gonna go that way.

Btw, why is Sony announcing these 1-2 months ahead of availability? Are they hoping that everyone considering a Shuffle will hold off for the sake of one of these? If so, I think they're gonna be disappointed.

It will only be a matter of time when the competition hits the sweet spot. And you know the rest of the story.

Quote

Guest wrote:
It will only be a matter of time when the competition hits the sweet spot. And you know the rest of the story.

You're living in the past. Apple's updates to their iPod lineup and aggressive pricing show an Apple that isn't going to let anyone take the market away from them. So dream on.

Quote

Guest wrote:
why can apple only squeeze 12 hours with a mp3 player with no screen when sony can get 50 with a screen?

Quote

Guest wrote:
2. Over at The Register, it says that the 50 hours is for power-saving mode and using 105Kbps ATRAC. Although I'm sure it's more than 12 hours, why won't Sony just be up-front and tell me how much battery life is needed for 160kbps MP3? This deception is a loser, especially when Sony is a clear-cut leader in battery life (I have a Sony camcorder and its battery kicks ass.) Sony, show me how great you are in an oranges-to-oranges comparison?

I'm really curious to see how many people would 'need' their portable music player to run for 50 hours.

Yes, I can see the convenience of it not needing to be plugged in every night or two, but still, I personally feel that once you've gotten past the 8-12 hour mark, you're actually running beyond any capacity I would really demand. Especially since the point of the smaller flash-drive mp3 players is the ability to create a smaller, partial playlist from your larger library. You'd want to refresh the list every couple of days to keep the music new, yes?

Maybe I'm wrong here, but does anyone really 'need' their player to run for fifty hours without being charged.

Or am I falling into the old Mac-user mindset of "If Apple didn't offer it to me, it really isn't necesary."

... and I really would like to know what the battery life is when you run it at the 128 kps/no display level that the Shuffle delivers.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I'm really curious to see how many people would 'need' their portable music player to run for 50 hours.

Yes, I can see the convenience of it not needing to be plugged in every night or two, but still, I personally feel that once you've gotten past the 8-12 hour mark, you're actually running beyond any capacity I would really demand. Especially since the point of the smaller flash-drive mp3 players is the ability to create a smaller, partial playlist from your larger library. You'd want to refresh the list every couple of days to keep the music new, yes?

Maybe I'm wrong here, but does anyone really 'need' their player to run for fifty hours without being charged.

Or am I falling into the old Mac-user mindset of "If Apple didn't offer it to me, it really isn't necesary."

... and I really would like to know what the battery life is when you run it at the 128 kps/no display level that the Shuffle delivers.

I dunno... at least 18 hours, like what the new iPod Mini does, would be great. I don't like it if I have to recharge my player more than once every week or two or so... more than that and its a bit of an annoyance.

Remember when the Sony head joined Steve Jobs onstage in San Francisco? This was a signal that these Sony players are less an attack on Shuffle than a product too little too late. The Sony players will sell okay if kids figure out how big "poker chips" and "cigarette lighters" are. The momentum of ipod is no longer driven by Apple alone, but also by the companies that make the hundreds of ipod accessory products (including extended batteries) that let one personalize the experience. I don't think the Sony products have the personality for this. Nor do they have iTunes.

You can always purchase one of those flashy Silicone covers in a rainbow of choices!


Calgary, AB Canada

The cheap, replaceable AAA batteries alone would make me more likely to buy a Sony than an iPod. The main (some say only) weakness of the iPod is that once the battery reaches the end of its ability to be recharged, your only option is to buy another iPod. Sorry, Apple, but nothing that costs more than $300 should be considered disposable.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
The cheap, replaceable AAA batteries alone would make me more likely to buy a Sony than an iPod. The main (some say only) weakness of the iPod is that once the battery reaches the end of its ability to be recharged, your only option is to buy another iPod. Sorry, Apple, but nothing that costs more than $300 should be considered disposable.

Actually, this is not true - you can have your iPod battery replaced. Apple charges (IMO) too much for the service - at $99 - but there are other businesses that do it for less (or you could do it yourself if you are brave and search the web a bit - there are instructions out there).

I believe it says $180 not $300.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Yeah right. Buying a Sony 1GB mp3 player for $300+ bux is like saying "Let's go to the airport and drink!"

H. Michael Karshis

Screw these mp3 players, including ipod. I still have 3 year old mp3 player. My next purchase is cell/camera/mp3 player all in one…it believe that’s where the real market is heading!

Re: iPod batteries: While this used to be true, several new replacement battery products are starting to appear, as expected, that are both relatively inexpensive and "do it yourself". The technology and market have clearly advanced in this area, and most people, I think, prefer a built-in rechargable over a handful of AA or AAA batteries anytime.

Poster 1 said "weird". I agree. Like the silly designer phones and radios from the 70's. If you want weird, study a Dali, Klee or Ernst for ideas on shapes to try. Maybe even a crescent moon. Something that looks good as a neck pendant. These look like yard sale ready.

I want to see how Sony expects to deliver content. For some reason corporate types think I want access to music when I really want to collect it. This fee based idea is something Larry Ellison started squawking about 4 or 5 years ago and the pc crowd seems to like this idea of becoming a music or software utility (centralized processing) The Idea that all your music disappears if you don't pay your music bill on time creeps me out. Sony I assume wants to find a way to sell its music library. I do not believe that these executives who primarily want to have there cake and eat it too will ever loosen up on the rights management aspect enough to make it easy to get and keep and play where ever you want music (no itrip here) the pod people will win i believe because its just so darn easy to use and you don't get the hassle of a huge unlock code on every song and a gazillion restrictions (burn a disk from your i store selections and you can petty much do what you want with the files) the napster and Microsoft approach just sucks the fun out of the experience. that said i did buy some Sony stock this morning but because I think the new exec will shake things up a bit. Remember Disney objecting to showing fantasia on TV because they did not know exactly how many eyeballs would be watching the movie. They were stuck in a theater ticket model then. Today the movers and shakers have not quite gotten the idea that most of the I tunes sales have been to micro audiences that it would not pay to produce and stock a disk for. The library archives are making big numbers out of small sales to niche markets with no delivery cost to speak of. Apple stock might take a beating till the next profit statement but then watch out world