Just a Thought - iPod Killer?

by

You know, one thing that irks me to no end is when news people, when writing about a new technology that could compete with existing technology, call the new technology 'a _____-Killer'.

A while back every new word processor was labeled a Microsoft Word-Killer, every new OS (especially Linux) a Windows-Killer, every PDA a Palm-Killer, every non-Microsoft based computer a PC-Killer, and now, every digital music player an iPod-Killer and every music service an iTunes Music Store-Killer. I'm just wondering why it's got to be that way. Why can't products exist and survive on their own merits?

I think it is another unfortunate legacy of the OS and office product wars. You remember, back when Microsoft was striving to become the non-monopolistic gentle giant it is today. It was the 80's and early 90's and the only battles being fought were those in the corporate trenches. People weren't dying, but products by the hundreds where invaded, overrun, conquered, destroyed or otherwise killed. Change is hard, and it's tough for media types to change their lexicons, besides, headlines that read, "New Product is Well Designed" probably won't catch most people's eyes like ones that hint at death and destruction.

Product don't even have to resemble an existing product, it just needs to sport one feature that is similar for it to be labeled a killer. Look at the iPod/PSP comparison for example; at the time when the PSP was introduced the iPod could not play videos, had rudimentary games, and had a grey scale screen (except for the color iPod, of course). The PSP could do all the above. The only thing the iPod and PSP did similarly was play music, but comparing the two was like comparing a formula one racer to an SUV, both have wheels and you can drive them, but one takes driving to the extreme while the other is extremely useful for hauling stuff.

So, why bother killing this or that or the other? Companies aiming to 'dispose' of another product often fail, just talk to Sony and Rio. Products that aren't created to deep-six one another, but instead are created to attract customers because it has something interesting to offer are the ones that survive.

Take the latest "iPod Killer"; the Clix music player from iRiver, Microsoft's Windows Media Player 11, and the Urge media store from MTV/Microsoft. By published accounts, this combination of service and players is good enough for consumer to take a serious look. I've seen the Clix player and I have to admit, iRiver appears to have done their homework, the player is pretty nice. If the Urge service is as good as reviewers say it is, then it will survive and earn a profit where others have failed.

Will iRiver player and Urge become more popular than the iPod and the iTunes Music Store? It's possible, but, realistically, do you care?

If you own an iPod and enjoy the service iTMS provides, would you switch? It's likely that, as long as Apple provides comparable service at a competitive price, you wouldn't bother jumping ship.

Potential iPod owners, on the other hand, would have a real choice, which, in my humble estimation, is always a good thing. If Apple has to share its growth with another, so what? As long as Apple keeps making a good product and offer solid service, they have little to worry about.

Also, we're talking about Apple here. These guys know how to create products, not just to compete, but products that define a genre. The iPod is a prime example; it was not the first music player, but it defined what a music player should be like. And that definition keeps changing, keeps getting better with each iteration.

So, enough with the _____-killers, already. There's enough market out there for anyone with a good product or service to sell.

In the immortal words of Rodney King, "Can't we all... just... get along?"